Page 11230
1 Wednesday, 9 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
7 WITNESS: NIKOLA SAMARDZIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]
10 Q. In the summary, we're at paragraph 36, and it's time to look at
11 Exhibit 338, tab 8, please. This document is the conclusions of the
12 Assembly meeting held on the 24th and 25th of October of 1991, and you've
13 made some passing reference to this yesterday, but if we can just look at
14 it briefly.
15 It reads: "Conclusions. The Assembly of the Republic of
16 Montenegro supports the participation of the Delegation of the Republic of
17 Montenegro in the plenary session of the Conference ... in The Hague...
18 notes that the Delegation acted in keeping with the power it received
19 during the debate ... of the last session of the Republic of Montenegro
20 Assembly and the conclusions and positions adopted thus far by the
21 Assembly to resolve the Yugoslav crisis in a peaceful and democratic
22 manner."
23 It's suggested that there was a need to continue in participation
24 in The Hague Conference, taking account of the interests of the citizens
25 of Montenegro, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Montenegrin peoples.
Page 11231
1 And then the next paragraph, 2, just the first part of it: "The
2 Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro concludes that the Yugoslav crisis
3 must be solved peacefully and democratically. The basic principles
4 supported by the Assembly are the equality of citizens and nations, their
5 inalienable right to decide final questions directly, and the respect for
6 their interests and desires of all nations to decide independently about
7 their fate, and especially those nations which oppose the unilateral
8 abolition of Yugoslavia and have expressed an interest in its
9 preservation."
10 JUDGE KWON: I note the ELMO is not working for the moment.
11 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I wondered if it was our screen. I see
12 now there's no light on the overhead projector. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MAY: It's apparently not working today. The technician is
14 coming in to have a look. Perhaps we can keep going.
15 MR. NICE: Certainly.
16 Q. I've read out or summarised the material parts of that document,
17 Mr. Samardzic. Any observations you want to make apart from those made by
18 the document itself?
19 A. The document clearly says that the Assembly of Montenegro adopted
20 and approved of the position taken by the Montenegrin delegation in The
21 Hague and the position of President Bulatovic to accept the Carrington
22 Plan. So this was drafted and a session was held when Bulatovic had to
23 withdraw from his position in The Hague under pressure. The Assembly of
24 Montenegro expressed itself clearly, and this needs no further comment.
25 However, this was never implemented, including the last conclusion
Page 11232
1 which says that efforts must be made for continuing implementation of
2 these conclusions, and that was never done, regrettably.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, if in the Court's papers following the
5 English version of the document there's a two-page document with the
6 number 0305627 on the top right, headed Vecernji List, then it probably
7 shouldn't be there and I think can be removed.
8 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll remove that together with the
9 original. It's a newspaper report.
10 MR. NICE: Yes.
11 JUDGE MAY: We will remove it. Yes. Do you want the usher to
12 remain by the ELMO?
13 MR. NICE: No. I think we're done for the time being.
14 Q. A few other topics, then, please, Mr. Samardzic, before we turn to
15 another substantive item, the Vienna conference. But just dealing with
16 the contacts of which you were aware between the President and Prime
17 Minister of Montenegro, Bulatovic and Djukanovic, and the military
18 leadership, in particular amongst others, Miodrag Jokic, are you able to
19 help us with the degree to which there was contact between those parties?
20 If so, what's your source of information?
21 A. No. I don't have much to say about this. I can't say anything
22 specific because at the time when there was a war around Dubrovnik, Jokic
23 was not in Titograd around the Podgorica most of the time, he was on the
24 front line. Djukanovic, for his part, was in Titograd. So I can't say
25 anything about the extent of their contacts. They must have had some
Page 11233
1 contact, but I can't say anything specific. I know the Montenegrin
2 political leadership was in contact with the senior officers, but to what
3 extent, especially for Djukanovic, I can't say.
4 Q. Can you help at all with the chain of command so far as the
5 military were concerned, how clear it was, what sort of reporting
6 structure it had, and again tell the Chamber how you would know these
7 things.
8 A. Most of what I know is from Bulatovic, from speaking to him,
9 usually in his office, and the conversations we had on the plane when we
10 travelled to The Hague. It was clear to me that military operations were
11 led by officers, that is generals of the Yugoslav army, who were on the
12 front line. And as far as the navy is concerned, which was also attacking
13 Dubrovnik, I know that they were under the command of Admiral Jokic.
14 I don't think that politicians were directly involved in military
15 operations, although they had mutual contact and there was reporting among
16 them. That's the way I believe it was.
17 Q. Did there come a time when the possibility of crimes or the
18 certainty of crimes being committed in the course of this fighting was
19 discussed? And if so, was it ever discussed or talked about between you
20 and any or either of the major political leaders?
21 A. There was no discussion of that at official sessions, but I did
22 speak about it to President Bulatovic. I must say that he, too, was
23 horrified by the news that reached us from the Dubrovnik front, but
24 nothing was officially done about it at the time.
25 Q. Was --
Page 11234
1 A. I must add one more thing. In addition to conversations and
2 discussions I heard in the government about plundering and looting, I
3 heard stories from individual citizens. I saw yachts from Dubrovnik in
4 Budva. Obviously stolen. And I saw many other things that must have been
5 stolen. They were called war trophies although they couldn't have been
6 war trophies.
7 I visited this centre located in the Vinogradi Motel on the border
8 with Croatia - it was guarded by the army - where various items were kept
9 that were looted. I know that from citizens and also from officials, from
10 President Bulatovic. I know that various items from the Cilipi airport of
11 Dubrovnik were moved to Montenegro. Equipment and even cattle were also
12 stolen and taken to Montenegro.
13 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment, Mr. Samardzic.
14 Is this in the indictment? Looting? I don't recollect.
15 MR. NICE: I'm not sure but it's nevertheless part of the
16 widespread. And it's also a question of notice. I'll just find it. I
17 may be wrong. My indictment's currently supporting my lectern.
18 JUDGE MAY: If you can deal with that in due course. If you can
19 move on.
20 MR. NICE: Yes. The topic we're going to come to, in any event,
21 at paragraph 44.
22 Q. But I want to go back to what I was asking you about initially,
23 which is conversations with Mr. Bulatovic about crimes. Apart from crimes
24 in Dubrovnik, did he speak of any other notorious events happening on the
25 territory of the former Yugoslavia other than at Dubrovnik?
Page 11235
1 A. Yes. Before the battle of Dubrovnik, crimes were perpetrated in
2 the north of Montenegro when certain members of paramilitary formations
3 massacred a number of Muslim families in the north of Montenegro. And
4 similarly, somewhere around Zvornik. This became public. The press
5 started writing about it, and President Bulatovic was very much taken
6 aback. He thought that President Milosevic would be forced to resign over
7 this. It is my personal opinion, of course, but I may be naive, but I
8 believe that's what President Bulatovic himself would have done.
9 Later on, people in Montenegro somehow learned to live with it and the
10 attention was less than that first instance.
11 Q. While these things were happening, did you learn of, directly,
12 some who had deserted from a front line in Western Slavonia?
13 A. Yes. More precisely, men deserted from Banija. Some units from
14 Montenegro had been sent there. I believe it was only one unit. And one
15 day, about 25 soldiers burst into my office. They looked drained from the
16 long journey. They told me they had run away from the front line, and
17 they asked me to help them avoid the consequences. They were scared that
18 military authorities would arrest them and try them as deserters. They
19 told me about the course of fighting in Banija, and on that occasion I did
20 whatever I could. I went to see President Bulatovic, I told him about the
21 case and asked him to do all in his power to save these young men.
22 Bulatovic told me there wasn't much he could do, but he advised these
23 young men to keep a low profile and hide in their homes, hoping that
24 nobody would come for them. And that's what actually happened.
25 After this event, Bulatovic ordered that Montenegrin soldiers
Page 11236
1 withdraw from Banija and return to Montenegro, which again was contrary to
2 the policy of the military leadership and Slobodan Milosevic himself, but
3 that was what was eventually done.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. Was there a camp at Morinje in Montenegro?
5 A. Yes. There was a camp there for captured Croatian soldiers,
6 although some of the detainees were not soldiers, they were just captured
7 somewhere near Dubrovnik and taken to Morinje.
8 Q. Did you learn something of what happened at that camp from
9 somebody who'd been an employee of yours when you ran the Jugooceanija
10 company?
11 A. Yes, I did. There was an employee of mine who later became a
12 manager, a director, himself. He was a reserve officer of the KOS, the
13 counter-intelligence service, and when he was appointed in the course of
14 mobilisation to be a guard there, to be on the security staff of the
15 Morinje prison, and much later he arrived in Malta and told me about
16 Morinje and what went on there. According to what he told me, the
17 situation was not good at all and the treatment of Croatian prisoners was
18 not merciful at all.
19 Q. Did he give you specific examples of what happened to detainees
20 either at his own hand or from what he saw himself?
21 A. Well, yes. People were slapped about, yelled at, but there were
22 no killings, unlike in Bosnia and in other places. From what I heard,
23 nobody was killed in Morinje, although the regime was strict, obviously.
24 Q. Was there any incident involving a man named Ante Prlenda?
25 A. Since there were guards from Kotor there, there was one prisoner
Page 11237
1 from Dubrovnik, Ante Prlenda. They hail from somewhere in Dalmatia. And
2 we had in Jugooceanija company a captain by the name of Prlenda. And this
3 prisoner Prlenda was actually slapped in the face only because he had the
4 same family name as this man who wasn't really well liked.
5 Q. Very well. We'll move on to a couple more documents, one that we
6 can look at, Exhibit 338, tab 9, the date of which is not clear from the
7 document. You may be able to help us with it. Perhaps we could place the
8 original of this one on the overhead projector first briefly so you can
9 see it. It's a typed document in Cyrillic.
10 The headline word being translated in the English version which
11 will now be laid on the overhead projector meaning, I think, "Stands."
12 And, Mr. Samardzic, this document, a document you've seen before?
13 A. Yes. I received it as soon as it was drafted or, rather, brought
14 from Belgrade. I believe Kostic himself brought this document after the
15 events in The Hague. And this document represents a draft for the future
16 shaping of Serbia and Montenegro. These stands were formulated here and
17 later distributed in Serbia and Montenegro.
18 Q. And so the draft reads: "Considering the current situation ...
19 bearing in mind that both Assemblies adopted the Belgrade Initiative and
20 the Fundamentals for the Regulation of Relations...
21 "Stands:
22 "1. ... we decided that the resolution of the Yugoslav crisis must
23 be made on the legality and continuity of Yugoslavia as a state rather
24 than on its discontinuation because some of its constituent nations do not
25 wish to live in Yugoslavia any longer.
Page 11238
1 "2. We express our full respect of the right to
2 self-determination for each Yugoslav constituent nation that does not wish
3 to live in Yugoslavia any longer. However, we demand full respect of the
4 will of the Serbian and Montenegrin people and the citizens of the
5 Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, as expressed, to preserve Yugoslavia as
6 a common state.
7 "Within this common state, the Serbian and Montenegrin people and
8 the citizens of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro,
9 together with other Yugoslav nations that so wish, must be equal and must
10 be provided with all conditions to express and protect their interests and
11 develop successfully.
12 "3. Proceeding from the fact that the Assemblies of the Republic
13 of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro adopted the Belgrade Initiative
14 and the Fundamentals for the Regulation of Relations in Yugoslavia, they
15 will establish an expert commission together based on the principle of
16 equality for the purposes of further constitutional and legal elaboration
17 of documents..." and so on.
18 Well, there's the draft that was brought from Belgrade. What
19 progress was there with that approach, please?
20 A. There was no progress. There was regression. What Lord
21 Carrington proposed was annulled, to be annulled, and all six republics
22 would no longer constitute Yugoslavia but, rather, Serbia and Montenegro
23 should form a new state of Yugoslavia, which was actually done on the 27th
24 of April, 1992. The parliament of Montenegro declared that the position
25 of the Montenegrin delegation in The Hague was right.
Page 11239
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11240
1 But despite all that, work continued in the opposite direction,
2 geared at establishing a state of Serbia and Montenegro only.
3 These are initial starting positions that were later expressed in
4 the referendum of Montenegro, which was carried out in an illegal way, in
5 an improper way, in which allegedly the people of Montenegro declared
6 themselves in favour of living in a common state with Serbia.
7 Immediately after -- immediately after that, a session of the
8 Montenegrin parliament was held, on the 23rd of April, where the new
9 constitution, hastily written and botched really, was summarily adopted,
10 and that constitution was soon afterwards promulgated, and in Belgrade the
11 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed on the 27th of April,
12 1992 --
13 Q. Very well.
14 A. -- by --
15 Q. Bringing you to a conclusion there --
16 A. -- helped by the votes of lame duck MPs from Montenegro.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.
18 MR. NICE:
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Samardzic. We're moving through things
20 chronologically. With a broadly chronological approach in mind and
21 dealing with the degree to which Mr. Bulatovic was on notice of various
22 views, can we look, please, at Exhibit 338, tab 10, which is an open
23 letter sent to him. And we can -- actually, this can go on the overhead
24 projector generally because it's side by side. Put the first sheet on the
25 overhead projector, please. Thank you.
Page 11241
1 And if you'd be good enough on this occasion, Mr. Samardzic, to
2 follow it on the screen, because this provides the best for those viewing.
3 This is an open letter from the parliament of the Republic of
4 Croatia's committee for external affairs, the letter going to Momir
5 Bulatovic. And six lines down, just picking up parts of it, it reads: "I
6 am writing to warn you that you are much too late in your attempt to
7 deceive Montenegrins about what has been happening in Dubrovnik." Four
8 lines after that: "Too much blood has been shed. Croatia has been
9 incredibly plundered and devastated in the areas near neighbouring
10 Montenegro. In silence, you watch as Milosevic, through the words of his
11 Minister Jovanovic, shames you before the world, denying that Serbia is
12 mixed up in this dirty war when he says that the Yugoslav army and
13 Montenegro are at war with Dubrovnik."
14 Perhaps go over the page. Starting at the top, having referred to
15 the obligations of a man of high office, it says: "The higher a man's
16 office, the less his scope and time to keep silent in these dramatic
17 days." And then a few lines further down, seven lines down: "Stop the
18 spreading of lies and the fanning of hatred against Dubrovnik and
19 Croatia." And then just to draw a little more from this open letter, the
20 next paragraph but one: "Your responsibility is not only political. Stop
21 the Montenegrins from coming into other people's villages and homes as
22 aggressors, occupiers, and plunderers and exposing themselves to the guns
23 of Dubrovnik's defenders."
24 Then right at the end, a quote from Njegos: "He who seeks
25 strength in the club has a trail reeking of inhumanity." This is signed
Page 11242
1 by the president, Dr. Kacic.
2 JUDGE MAY: Could we have the date, please.
3 MR. NICE: Yes. It's given -- the 11th of, I'm afraid I can't
4 remember what the month "Prosinca" is. It's December, I think. Perhaps
5 the interpreters could help us. Or indeed, Mr. Samardzic, what month was
6 this?
7 A. It says the date right here; the 11th of December, 1991.
8 Q. Well, this open letter speaks for itself, does it not,
9 Mr. Samardzic?
10 A. Absolutely right. It is self-explanatory. Let me just highlight
11 one thing. It was written after the most ferocious attack on Dubrovnik on
12 the 6th of December when Dubrovnik was attacked both from land and sea.
13 So this was written a few days after that attack on Dubrovnik on the 6th
14 of December.
15 MR. NICE: Thank you. On the same topic of notice of events being
16 available to those with authority, we go to tab 11 of Exhibit 338. Thank
17 you very much, Usher, Mr. Usher. If you'd be good enough to just lay the
18 original on the overhead projector, to see what it is. And this is a
19 publication of a later date. If we then go to the English version --
20 JUDGE MAY: We have in fact been stopping the accused
21 cross-examining on these sort of documents. How is this in any way to be
22 distinguished from what we've stopped him asking about?
23 MR. NICE: If you go on page 3 of the English, notice to
24 Mr. Bulatovic. Public notification in documents of this kind.
25 JUDGE MAY: You're not producing it -- this better be clear:
Page 11243
1 You're not producing it as evidence of what's contained in it.
2 MR. NICE: No. It's the notice issue.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE MAY: Is there anything you want to say about that?
5 Distinction is being made, of course, between the contents. It may be a
6 fine distinction but it is one between the contents and the fact that
7 something is brought to the attention of Mr. Bulatovic.
8 MR. KAY: It's not within the period of the indictment. It's a
9 great deal of time thereafter. In relation to material such as this which
10 one cannot say anyone in particular saw, it's just a publication, it's
11 linkage to facts within the indictment is -- is not made out.
12 Just on the other matter Your Honour mentioned about looting,
13 counts 28 to 32 --
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't know if I can, just before you
16 announce a decision, draw your attention just to the format of the
17 document, which is a collection of the expression of views of authors and
18 intellectuals, and indeed you'll see at the first line of the second
19 paragraph there's a historic reference, or reference to an interview on
20 the 1st of November of 1991, and I think that this witness will be able to
21 say of material in this exhibit, of the which I was only going to go to
22 one part in detail, he will be able to say whether such material was being
23 sent to those in office at the time.
24 JUDGE MAY: That is a distinct point, but the fact is this: That
25 we have rightly excluded, in the hands of the accused when
Page 11244
1 cross-examining, the opinions and writings of journalists and academics
2 and the like, and we think the same should apply here. It is of very
3 limited value. It is, of course, hearsay and hearsay of a kind which we
4 do not think should be admitted. The distinction between admitting it
5 simply to show that such things were published as opposed to admitting it
6 for the truth of what's in it is too fine for us to allow it to be
7 admitted.
8 Accordingly, that tab 11 will be excluded, and perhaps I can hand
9 to the registrar my copy of that, plus the other one which didn't come in.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. NICE:
12 Q. I now turn to complete what the witness has already dealt with
13 substantially about plunder. I'm grateful to Mr. Kay for dealing with
14 what I was going to return to, counts 28 and 31. You will find references
15 in the indictment at paragraphs 77 and 81. The witness has already dealt
16 with a great deal of the evidence I wanted him to cover. There was one
17 exhibit which he will have to look at which won't take very long.
18 I'm not sure, Mr. Samardzic, whether you've said anything about
19 your knowledge of which units, if you can say, were involved in plunder of
20 the kind you've described happening in and around Dubrovnik and how the
21 plunder was brought back to Montenegro.
22 A. I do not know specifically the names of these units, because all
23 units have their names, and I don't know which one specifically did
24 plunder and which one did not. What was plundered was taken from various
25 individuals. I cannot say from here, from this witness stand, that the
Page 11245
1 entire army was engaged in the plunder. It was only individuals and
2 certain units.
3 Obviously, for the most part they were organised by the military
4 command, and all of this was collected at the Vinogradi Motel, as I
5 already mentioned, and the rest was taken further on into Montenegro.
6 Who did this specifically, I cannot say. I cannot name any names,
7 but I'm quite sure that this was done and had been done.
8 Q. In which case, let's look, in light of that, at the next exhibit,
9 tab 12.
10 THE WITNESS: Some more light, is that possible? Because I cannot
11 read it.
12 MR. NICE: If the witness can be provided with the original, now
13 that it's been displayed, and we place the English translation on the
14 overhead projector. The witness and we are now viewing a document dated
15 the 28th of December, 1991, from the command of the 9th Naval Sector and,
16 we will see in due course, signed by Vice Admiral Jokic. And it says it's
17 in keeping with the memorandum of the 26th of December, and the order is
18 that in the motel, the Vinogradi Motel in Sutorinsko Polje sector, there
19 is to be set up a collection centre for collecting material captured and
20 confiscated as spoils of war.
21 The document goes on -- it goes on in paragraph 2 to deal
22 particularly with the appointment of a director, providing of motor
23 vehicles which shall be kept in the parking lot while other weapons and
24 military equipment shall be kept in its hall.
25 "The physical security of the Collection Centre ..." paragraph 3,
Page 11246
1 "... five military policemen from among the conscripts of the 9th
2 Military Police Battalion."
3 Paragraph 4: "The issue of any material from the Collection
4 Centre to military units and institutions ... without permission from the
5 ... Administration ... is prohibited.
6 "5. The 9th Naval Sector Command shall conclude a contract with
7 the ..." body whose expansion from initials is unknown "...
8 socially-owned enterprise on the rent of three bungalows for the
9 accommodation of personnel and a space for the storage of materiel in the
10 Vinogradi Motel..." And then meals for the personnel.
11 We see over the page Colonel Dragicevic, Commander, unclear,
12 responsible for the operation of the centre, signed by Jokic.
13 Does that fit entirely, Mr. Samardzic, with what you understood to
14 be going on so far as plunder was concerned?
15 A. Yes. It fully coincides. However, I have to point out that this
16 was done only on the 28th of December. That is to say, the war had been
17 going on, the war around Dubrovnik had been going on for almost three
18 months; all of October, November, and most of December. And there had
19 been plundering until then, too, but no order was established, if I can
20 use that phrase at all. This is considered to be some kind of military
21 booty and that that should be stored at the Vinogradi Motel. Until then,
22 there had been no such centre. It pertained to various sides. Some
23 people brought this in on an organised basis into Montenegro, and many did
24 this on a private basis, so to speak. Soldiers and officers took things
25 from Konavle, from the areas surrounding Dubrovnik, and simply took them
Page 11247
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11248
1 to Montenegro.
2 Q. Very well. Let's -- thank you very much. Let's move on.
3 JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.
4 MR. NICE: Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Samardzic, just a moment ago you said that you
6 cannot say from here, from the witness stand, that the entire army was
7 engaged in the plunder; it was only individuals and certain units. Could
8 you make any observation in relation to that comment regarding this
9 document?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Although this document does exist
11 and was written by the commander, I still think that the entire army was
12 not engaged in plundering simply because I trust my Montenegrin people,
13 that not everybody is a thief. What Admiral Jokic wrote shows that he is
14 an admiral and is a military commander on the front line, gives orders to
15 plunder. You're quite right on that.
16 However, in spite of that, not all the soldiers who were there
17 were plunderers. However, a certain number of them, certain groups
18 involving Admiral Jokic as well, were indeed plunderers.
19 JUDGE KWON: What do you think Mr. Jokic referred to at that time
20 as "spoils of war"?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Jokic or, rather, Admiral Jokic,
22 when he referred to the spoils of war, for him it is everything that he
23 could collect and bring to motel Vinogradi. It is quite sure that most of
24 this was not of the nature of goods that were required by the military.
25 They took things from privately owned houses and also equipment from
Page 11249
1 various companies. So all of that was stored there or taken further into
2 Montenegro.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 MR. NICE:
5 Q. Can you help with whether any of the political or military high
6 post holders benefited directly from any of this looting? If so, which
7 ones?
8 A. [In English] Are you asking me?
9 Q. Yes. So sorry. Yes.
10 A. [Interpretation] I cannot indicate any person specifically, that I
11 know that this person took something for himself. When we're speaking of
12 the military leaders, there were rumours going about, but we are in a
13 court of law so we're not going to take rumours into account. I could not
14 say that specifically Admiral Jokic took anything for himself or did not
15 take something for himself, although there were some kind of rumours going
16 round. But I personally cannot confirm that. I cannot say that. I can
17 just confirm that there was plundering and property was destroyed in
18 Dubrovnik.
19 Q. Very well. A couple -- three more shortish topics and we're done,
20 apart from sweeping up issues left over from yesterday.
21 Paragraph 50. What if anything can you help us with about the
22 involvement of the accused in the appointment of the first or second
23 president of the FRY, as it became?
24 A. I can say the following: I travelled with Bulatovic only once, on
25 the same plane with the accused Milosevic. We had a plane of our own, but
Page 11250
1 after we spoke up in The Hague and after we expressed all the positions
2 that were contrary to his policies, he asked that we travel together.
3 On that plane, he talked to Bulatovic, he consulted Bulatovic,
4 discussing who should be appointed president of Yugoslavia. This was a
5 few days before this ceremony was held in Belgrade on the 27th of April.
6 Of course, Bulatovic agreed with his proposal, and his proposal was to
7 appoint Dobrica Cosic, a writer with a nationalist orientation who is one
8 of the authors of the memorandum and the idea of a Greater Serbia up to
9 Karlobag and Virovitica.
10 I said then, perhaps the accused Milosevic may remember, although
11 I did not take part in this conversation - he wasn't really paying any
12 attention to me and, truth to tell, I wasn't really paying any attention
13 to him either - I said to him, "Comrade President, before or later, that
14 man will stab you in the back." I must admit that the accused Milosevic
15 did not say anything, he just looked at me, and that's indeed what
16 happened to him. Dobrica Cosic abandoned him and indeed stabbed him in
17 the back. That's an expression we have in our language. So he did leave
18 him.
19 As for Lilic, he is a nobody, a non-entity. He also appointed
20 him --
21 JUDGE MAY: You will have to deal with the relevance of this. Do
22 I understand this conversation to have taken place on the aeroplane on the
23 way back from The Hague? Is that the position?
24 MR. NICE: Yes.
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
Page 11251
1 MR. NICE: Lilic was appointed later.
2 Q. Just yes or no. Do you have any knowledge of the accused's
3 involvement in the appointment or why he chose this man? Don't comment
4 about Mr. Lilic himself, it's just the decision-making process of the
5 accused, if you can help with that, or the involvement of the accused in
6 the decision-making process itself.
7 A. He proposed him. Not publicly, but as things were going on in
8 those days, he was the man he chose, nobody else, because he was the one
9 who was making the choice. The conversation took place during the flight
10 from Belgrade to The Hague. I want to correct that. So it was on the
11 plane from Belgrade to The Hague that this conversation about Cosic was
12 taking place.
13 Q. Very well. And finally, on the involvement of the accused and the
14 position of those holding ministerial office: The federal Minister of the
15 Interior for a time was Pavle Bulatovic. Can you just tell us from your
16 own knowledge what happened when he lost office and whether the accused
17 had any role in that.
18 A. Please, what do you mean? What do you mean? The late Pavle
19 Bulatovic held several different offices, so I'm not sure which particular
20 office or post you're referring to.
21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not going to pursue this. It's
22 tangential.
23 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I remember now but it's irrelevant.
24 [Interpretation] Pavle Bulatovic was appointed federal Minister of the
25 Interior after he held the same office in Montenegro. Namely, he was
Page 11252
1 Minister of the Interior of Montenegro as well. He was appointed the
2 first Minister of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
3 Immediately after that, a funny, strange putsch took place. The Ministry
4 of the Interior of Serbia came one day to the big building in Knez
5 Mihajlova Street and kicked out all the employees of the federal ministry,
6 and the Serbian ministry took over the building and all the equipment in
7 the ministry, and all the employees were practically kicked into the
8 street. So Pavle Bulatovic was not replaced, he was simply expelled from
9 his office into the street and the ministry was taken over by the Serbian
10 ministry. So then the Serbian ministry acted on behalf of the federal
11 ministry. The federal ministry was only there pro forma and it had
12 nothing, it just had a minister, and that's the kind of federation it was.
13 Q. One detail before we come to the Vienna conference. Paragraph 52.
14 Was there, to your knowledge, any flow of arms or supplies from Montenegro
15 to Republika Srpska before and/or after the blockade?
16 A. There was a flow of weapons, but I cannot testify about that
17 specifically.
18 Q. Your source of information --
19 A. When --
20 Q. Your source of information being?
21 A. Well, the sources of my information are certain friends who knew
22 that weapons were being transported to Bosnia. I heard about that while I
23 was in government as well, but then I heard about it also in Malta. I
24 went to Malta when sanctions were imposed, when I was relieved of duty,
25 but then I also resigned as well. Then I moved to Malta. So I could not
Page 11253
1 exactly know how many weapons were going to Bosnia, but I was informed
2 through various conversations that arms were certainly going to Bosnia, to
3 Herzegovina, and that this was being done, yes.
4 Q. Very well. Let's then go to the Vienna conference and then just a
5 couple more questions and I shall be done. You've already taken us, in
6 your evidence, to April 1992, but the Vienna conference was on the 12th to
7 the 15th. Can you just give very shortly a summary of what happened there
8 so far as the accused is concerned?
9 A. The round table of Europe was held at that time at the initiative
10 of a certain number of politicians from Europe and also the Austrian
11 government. There was an imposing number of people, and it was devoted to
12 the aggression of Serbia against Bosnia. Six days earlier, on the 6th of
13 April, the war in Bosnia started, and Bosnia was recognised
14 internationally during those days.
15 This round table of Europe brought in a resolution in which it
16 condemned the aggression against Bosnia and called upon Serbia and the
17 Yugoslav army to leave Bosnia. I joined in the spirit of that resolution,
18 although it was not the official policy either of Serbia or Montenegro,
19 and I also confirmed this when I gave a television interview in Vienna and
20 publicly called for peace in Bosnia, and for that to be able to be
21 achieved that the Yugoslav army should pull out of Bosnia, because Bosnia
22 had become an internationally recognised state and, therefore, the
23 Yugoslav army should leave as soon as possible from that territory.
24 So I was criticised for doing this, and I must say that neither
25 Bulatovic nor Djukanovic said a word to me, although I learnt later on
Page 11254
1 that I was to be arrested and that this was considered a faux pas by the
2 policy pursued at the time by President Milosevic and that it was
3 completely unacceptable to him at the time.
4 Q. Thank you very much. Last tab in the exhibit bundle, tab 13 of
5 Exhibit 338. It's only in English because it's an original English. And
6 I think we can just lay it on the overhead projector, and Mr. Samardzic,
7 you could read it with us or follow it with us from the video.
8 This is a resolution of the round table of Europe dated the 14th
9 of April, condemning the brutal military aggression in violation of
10 international law and human rights committed in Croatia and
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina by the formerly Yugoslav federal army and by Serbian
12 guerilla commandos who are attempting to change the borders of sovereign
13 states by violent means and are thus causing immeasurable suffering from
14 the innocent -- for the innocent population, and appeals to the UN
15 Security Council to take all the measures necessary to restore peace in
16 the successor states of the former Yugoslavia.
17 "Moreover, we demand that all refugees be placed under the custody
18 of the European family of peoples, which means in concrete terms that we
19 bear the responsibility for their accommodation and care as well as the
20 personal protection of each individual. The European Community, as well
21 as other states and institutions of Europe, are called upon to ensure the
22 fulfillment of this obligation in a manner compatible with human dignity,
23 with the assistance of humanitarian organisations such as the Red Cross,
24 et cetera.
25 "We condemn the attitude of Serbia, which is demanding guarantees
Page 11255
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11256
1 for the Serbian minorities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina while
2 severely violating the rights of minorities and nationalities in the
3 autonomous regions of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and therefore demand the
4 immediate restitution of all their rights to the Albanian nation in Kosovo
5 and the ethnic minorities in Vojvodina and Serbia."
6 So that's the resolution following this meeting at which you spoke
7 in the way you've described, and I think probably speaks for itself. Is
8 that right, Mr. Samardzic?
9 A. Yes. Not after the meeting. That was the conclusion from that
10 particular meeting and it speaks for itself, yes. Although this is not
11 the text in its entirety, it is just a part of the entire text.
12 MR. NICE: Thank you. Your Honour, I've reviewed the matters that
13 were outstanding and I think although you will have identified them
14 probably on the summary, I don't think I need to take time dealing with
15 them now. The witness has covered everything in one way or another. But
16 there's one other question I want him to just deal with. If he could have
17 back this map which is Exhibit 326 tab 3.
18 Q. And just briefly, and I mean briefly because you've explained it
19 in various ways already, but it may help the Judges if you deal with this.
20 Do you speak of the formation of Croatia in some way as having two
21 wings, I think? And if so, do you draw a connection in relation to the
22 overall plan of what was happening between what was happening in the area
23 of Dubrovnik, said to be coming from Montenegro, and what was happening in
24 the north? And if so, just explain it briefly to the Judges, please.
25 A. Croatia has the same borders as it did in socialist Yugoslavia.
Page 11257
1 Today, too, as an independent state. And if you look at the map, you will
2 see that it does indeed have two wings, or it looks like a crescent moon.
3 In the war that ensued, the Dubrovnik theatre of war, and this is
4 my personal assessment, had as its goal not only to conquer Dubrovnik but
5 to reach Karlobag, because at the same time, there were attacks launched
6 on all the major towns and cities along the Adriatic coast up to Karlobag
7 and not beyond it. In the north, before the battle of Dubrovnik began,
8 there was the battle for Vukovar. And the rest of the parts of the --
9 what were called self-management regions of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem
10 and so on had not yet been taken over. And the goal was to reach
11 Virovitica, which is far closer than Vukovar. From Vukovar to Virovitica
12 than from Dubrovnik to Karlobag, it's a shorter distance. Therefore, the
13 military operations had as their objective the creation of --
14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we must
15 deal with your evidence with respect to what you saw and heard yourself
16 and what you know of. It will be a matter for us to decide what the
17 purpose of this attack was in Dubrovnik.
18 MR. NICE: Very well. In which case, that's all I ask of this
19 witness. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, may we just determine the
22 time that I'm going to have at my disposal? Yesterday the
23 examination-in-chief lasted exactly three hours, plus an hour and ten
24 minutes today, as you can see for yourself, which is a total of four hours
25 and ten minutes. So could you please bear that in mind in view of the
Page 11258
1 fact that until the end of work today, and day has been extended, there is
2 far less time than the four hours and ten minutes which I consider you are
3 duty-bound to ensure for me as well.
4 JUDGE MAY: Since we are time keeping, the time yesterday was two
5 hours 40 minutes, today was one hour five minutes; three hours 45 minutes.
6 Three hours and a half I would have thought would be sufficient, but I'll
7 consult.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, we'd like you to finish, if you
10 can, today. You've got two and a bit sessions, but you can have the same
11 as the Prosecution, three hours, 45 minutes. But try and finish earlier,
12 if you can.
13 Let me just add this to assist you: There is no need to
14 cross-examine this witness about his theories about what happened because
15 his theories, as I've just pointed out, are not matters of evidence. So
16 you needn't trouble about them, but you can concentrate on the evidence
17 which he gave.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, as you can see yourself if
19 you look at the clock, we have only three hours 15 minutes remaining for
20 the work in hand, and your time keeping doesn't seem to be correct,
21 because yesterday, in the second break, 1 hour and 45 minutes in the last
22 session and, before that, it was one hour and 15 minutes, from 15 to
23 twelve to one, and from half past two to 4.15, which makes it three hours
24 plus one hour ten minutes today. However -- and so as I say, this is ten
25 -- four hours and ten minutes. I don't know how this time seems to be
Page 11259
1 reduced by so much, but I'm sure there are notes and records about the
2 time and we can compare them. But at any rate, the time you have given me
3 is insufficient for the cross-examination even if you were right with
4 regard to time keeping.
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that's the time you've got. Rather
6 than arguing about it, let's get on and try and finish this, if we can, as
7 soon as possible.
8 Mr. Samardzic, may I just say something to you: Of course you
9 will need to give explanations to answers. The time will be limited, as
10 I've said, in the way which we've ordered, so it would be of assistance if
11 you could keep your answers as short as you can. Try and, if you can,
12 follow the question and answer it. If you find it impossible to answer
13 the question because it's not comprehensible, just say so.
14 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] You said you were a pensioner, retired.
17 A. Yes, I am retired. I am a pensioner for Yugoslavia, but in
18 [redacted] I still work. I have a small firm based at home, so that is it.
19 Q. Do you receive your pension in Montenegro and do you live in fact
20 in Montenegro?
21 A. Yes, I do receive my pension in Montenegro, but I do not live in
22 Montenegro.
23 Q. And is it true that you fled to [redacted]after unauthorised --
24 you took from the bank account where the Jugooceanija had $400.000 on its
25 account, on the official company account, that you took those funds and
Page 11260
1 fled?
2 A. That is absolutely not true. Those are information from your
3 secret police. I never took any funds from Jugooceanija.
4 Q. Well, was the money from the Jugooceanija firm on your private
5 account?
6 A. The funds of the company were not on my private account. That is
7 a flagrant lie.
8 Q. My secret police does not exist. It never did exist, and if you
9 mean the secret police of Serbia, I assume you know that it wasn't -- that
10 its competence didn't stretch to Montenegro.
11 A. Yes, it was in charge of Montenegro as well, but we can discuss
12 that matter on some other occasion.
13 Q. Mr. Samardzic, as this statement of yours is completely
14 untruthful, and I'm going, of course, to show you that here, and it is in
15 fact quite contrary to everything that you did as the Minister of the --
16 the Foreign Minister of Montenegro and as the director of the Jugooceanija
17 company. Now, can you tell me, what was promised you? What promises were
18 made to you to utter such a mass of untruths? That's putting it mildly.
19 Are you buying a domo vnica, a residence permit, in Croatia or anything
20 else? What is it that you are getting?
21 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Have any promises been made to
22 you? I take it to be in return for giving evidence. That's what's being
23 suggested.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is nonsense. What
25 the accused is saying is complete nonsense. No promises were made to me.
Page 11261
1 What he's saying is the product of his imagination and I never asked for a
2 domo vnica or a residence permit in Croatia, neither do I have a passport
3 of his own SR Yugoslavia, nor did I ever take out a passport of that kind.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Well, then, which passport did you use to go to [redacted]?
6 A. The red passport of socialist Yugoslavia, Mr. Milosevic, not your
7 one with the hen on it.
8 Q. Tell me, you were minister in the government of Montenegro and a
9 person in whom great confidence was placed. You were in the peaks of
10 power in the government of Montenegro, whereas you are representing
11 yourself as a sort of dissident here, a sort of anti-communist. You are
12 painting that image although you had a very nice career in the system in
13 which you lived in. You achieved a very high position and lived very well
14 on the proceeds. So how come you suddenly made this salto mortale or this
15 about turn in your image and options?
16 A. It is not true that I'm a dissident, nor is it true that I left
17 the ideas of the League of Communists. That is something you are just
18 making up yourself here and now. Those ideas and ideals of the League of
19 Communists of Yugoslavia and the ideals of Yugoslavhood, you were the one
20 who abandoned them and did what you did. Your state -- and you understand
21 this full well what I'm going to tell you now; your state was -- it is
22 difficult to interpret what I'm now going to say, but it was just one
23 descent into an abyss.
24 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I understand what you're doing, but let's move on
25 and look at the observations that you made and we'll arrive at answers to
Page 11262
1 many questions that were raised by you. But in this regard, let me say
2 that you said that there was no place under the sun for you in Montenegro,
3 that you weren't treated properly in terms of cadres, that they treated
4 you as a traitor and that that was because your father had spent a term in
5 prison, et cetera, et cetera. And then you go on to say something quite
6 contradictory and say that you did hold high offices, and then you go on
7 to enumerate the high offices you held. So it is not me that fabricated
8 all this, it is precisely what you say in your statement; isn't that so,
9 Mr. Samardzic?
10 A. No, it is not true. You're turning things about, topsy-turvy. A
11 long time after my father, who was in the liberation army, I went to the
12 Goli Otok island and -- he, my father did, and it took me a long time to
13 go forward in my career, and I was able to do so in the firm of
14 Jugooceanija and later on in the government. I was elected minister, I
15 was elected to the Yugoslav Assembly. So that has nothing to do with what
16 you're saying. I have made a career for myself, and I'm proud of it, but
17 I will never agree, nor did I ever agree, to be a dissident. I can never
18 be called a dissident, although I was against your criminal policy of
19 destroying Yugoslavia and the crimes that were committed under your
20 command and in your name.
21 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. Very well. Please just try and answer
22 my questions and don't get so excited.
23 A. I'm not excited.
24 Q. You will have quite enough time to get excited in due course.
25 A. I'm not excited at all.
Page 11263
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11264
1 JUDGE MAY: No. Just a moment. Remember, both of you, that the
2 interpreters have to be able to interpret. Let us keep the temperature
3 down.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. In your statement, you say that you went to The Hague with
6 Bulatovic but that you took a route via Prague so as not to be shot at by
7 the army. Could you explain this lie to me, this circuitous route that
8 you took and the expectations of your plane being toppled? And what do
9 you mean by this circuitous route? I assume that airspace between
10 Yugoslavia is the same when you fly to Prague and you fly to The Hague as
11 well, and both times the same.
12 And also, do you remember that when you flew, you didn't have your
13 own plane, you were lent a plane by the army. How, then, can you imagine
14 the army giving you a plane and then shooting down that plane? Why did
15 you just think this up? Can you tell us that? Why all these fabrications
16 in addition to all the hundreds of other --
17 JUDGE MAY: Let's get to the question. You're being asked,
18 Mr. Samardzic, about this route that you took to The Hague. Can you
19 explain that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Instead of The Hague, we diverted
21 our route and came to Prague. It is a well known fact, common knowledge,
22 that that is not the direct flight route to Hague, because Prague is more
23 northerly rather than the Belgrade to The Hague route. So what he just
24 said is nonsense and quite incorrect. And the fact that the army was
25 supposed to shoot us down, I didn't actually see the order but I did hear
Page 11265
1 the rumour that the possibility existed, that this might be done, they
2 might shoot the plane down because of our attitude and positions. And
3 that would have taken place following your orders. The army wouldn't have
4 done this himself.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. And who did you hear that from?
7 A. Well, Bulatovic spoke about that possibility.
8 Q. Right. Bulatovic again. You seem to refer to Bulatovic all the
9 time. You've mentioned him goodness knows how many times and you've heard
10 everything from Bulatovic. Now, tell me this: Is it true and correct
11 that that particular plane, for technical reasons, had to make a short
12 stay-over in Prague and then flew on to The Hague? But at any rate,
13 Prague and the Hague are to the north of Yugoslavia and from Podgorica you
14 would fly across the same corridor and flight route across Yugoslavia as
15 every other plane; isn't that true, Mr. Samardzic?
16 A. Of course it isn't true. Look at the map of Europe and you'll see
17 where The Hague is and where Prague is. What are you talking about? Why
18 would we have to go to Prague, fly to Prague? If you can't fly across
19 Croatia because of the war there, you can fly via Budapest and Vienna and
20 then come to The Hague that way.
21 Q. Well, when you go to The Hague, do you fly across Budapest using
22 the flight route via Budapest and that corridor or do you perhaps fly via
23 Italy?
24 A. What you're saying is just funny. It's ludicrous. No plane flies
25 to Prague if it is flying to The Hague. Just take a look at the map of
Page 11266
1 Europe.
2 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. We're not going to quibble and quabble
3 [sic] over these minute details. It's just comic. But tell me this: You
4 are talking about a conference chaired by Carrington, and you claim that
5 Milosevic didn't like Bulatovic's statement, that he jumped up from his
6 chair, that he was furious and threatened you with his finger and verbally
7 too when he went up to you. All that, of course, is not true, but it is
8 interesting to note because, in fact, it demonstrates just how far you are
9 willing to think up diplomatic scandalous behaviour. How come nobody else
10 noticed that except you yourself? And how can you delve in these - what
11 shall I call them? How shall I put this? - in these very base
12 speculations, Mr. Samardzic?
13 A. Kiro Gligorov is still alive and he was next to us, and so is his
14 minister and so it Momir Bulatovic. They are all still alive and they all
15 heard what you did. You jumped up, out of your seat. You didn't run. I
16 didn't say you ran. I'm -- and I don't suppose you can run either. But
17 you came up, and this is what you said: "I'll give you what for. I'll
18 give you a sovereign and independent Montenegro." That is the threat you
19 made which meant that you could do any ill you thought up, and that is the
20 whole truth.
21 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. You have referred yet again to Mr.
22 Bulatovic, as you did at least 50 times yesterday. And that is what Momir
23 Bulatovic himself had to say, so would you please answer me -- answer my
24 question once I read out what he said. "With respect to the testimony of
25 Nikola Samardzic, the former Foreign Minister before the International
Page 11267
1 Tribunal in The Hague, I make the following statement: In the testimony
2 of Nikola Samardzic, there are many incorrect and --"
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
4 MR. NICE: [microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.
6 MR. NICE: -- and there it is.
7 JUDGE MAY: When was this statement made, Mr. Milosevic, by
8 Mr. Bulatovic?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This morning, Mr. May.
10 Mr. Bulatovic listened. He was astounded, just as the whole of Montenegro
11 was astounded, with the lies.
12 JUDGE MAY: Very well. There's an objection to the question.
13 We'll consider it.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE MAY: We shall allow the question. The witness -- just a
16 moment. The witness can be asked what it is alleged that Mr. Bulatovic
17 said, but of course what Mr. Bulatovic said is not evidence unless he
18 comes here and says it. It's what the witness has said which is evidence,
19 but you can put what Mr. Bulatovic said in order to test what the witness
20 himself has said.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will be sufficient. That will
22 be quite sufficient, yes.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. But to continue, these were not founded in any realistic events
25 dating back to the time that he is testifying to, and this can be proved
Page 11268
1 and borne out by a simple insight into the documents and the newspaper
2 reports that attended the events.
3 "Mr. Samardzic is testifying about a government meeting of
4 Montenegro of the 1st of October, 1991, at which some generals were
5 present, some JNA generals, representing -- he represented this meeting as
6 a manipulation of Montenegrin public opinion by the JNA and the start of
7 the creation of a plan, the nucleus of a plan of some sort of takeover of
8 Dubrovnik, conquest of Dubrovnik. In fact, it was a joint session of the
9 Presidency of the Republic of the Montenegro, the government of
10 Montenegro, and high-ranking functionaries from the security section.
11 "The meeting had a commemorative character because it was on that
12 day that, on the border, eight members of the JNA were killed from a
13 mortar that had been shot from the -- by the Croatian paramilitary units.
14 And among the dead soldiers, two of them were Albanians from Kosovo and
15 Metohija, one solder was from Macedonia, and one from Tuzla in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina."
17 It is from this meeting that the daily paper Pobjeda published the
18 statement by Minister Samardzic in a separate column, as it says here.
19 JUDGE MAY: Right. Now, pause there. The purpose of this is to
20 put these matters to the witness.
21 What is being suggested, Mr. Samardzic, is that this meeting on
22 the 1st of October was not to prepare for military action but to -- was of
23 a commemorative nature in relation to the eight members of the JNA who had
24 been killed. Now, what -- you can react to that. You can give us your
25 answer to that. Is that right or not?
Page 11269
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is an absolute untruth, what
2 the accused Milosevic has just said. It was no commemorative meeting. It
3 was a meeting of the military leaders ...
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Go on, Mr. Samardzic.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a meeting of the military
6 leaders who had come in their uniforms, uniforms ready to do battle,
7 battle dress, to denote the beginning the war that had actually begun on
8 that particular day, the war against Dubrovnik. And what he -- the
9 accused Milosevic is saying just now I'm hearing for the first time, that
10 anybody was killed on that first day. That was when the move towards
11 Dubrovnik was made, and my testimony was quite correct. I came to the
12 second half of that meeting because I was sent by President Bulatovic to
13 visit Cetinje and to show the person the museums there, and I didn't know
14 that the war had already begun.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue? This is not what I
16 am saying; I'm reading the statement by Momir Bulatovic.
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. He goes on to say the following: "The Assembly of Montenegro
20 devoted to the conflicts along the Croatian/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Montenegrin
21 borders because this is tripartite zone, for those who don't know, a
22 three-pronged zone, was held on the 4th of October, and Mr. Samardzic took
23 part in it. The introductory address was made by General Bozidar Babic,
24 the Defence Minister of the day, and he informed the Assembly and the
25 public at large that the -- and the meeting was televised via the national
Page 11270
1 television station, and he said that in the first three days of the
2 fighting, 28 members of the JNA were killed, of which 12 from the
3 territory of Montenegro. In that same period, 100 were wounded --"
4 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with what you've
5 put and then we must have the break.
6 Now, can you help us to this meeting of the Assembly,
7 Mr. Samardzic?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with the 1st
9 of October, and he himself has just said that this was on the 4th of
10 October. Yes, that meeting was held on the 4th of October. And as to the
11 particulars, apart from the fact that the initiative was taken for
12 negotiations with Croatia, I did not testify about anything else, how many
13 people were killed, how many people were wounded. Nowhere did I testify
14 about that up until now. And what the accused has just said is quite
15 unfounded and untruthful.
16 I spoke about the 4th and 7th of October when the government and
17 Assembly had their session and took the initiative and tabled documents,
18 and not what the combat operations were like on the theatre of war. I
19 knew that people were killed, and that's what I do know, and they were
20 killed without any need, and this was a crime against Montenegro.
21 JUDGE MAY: No. We're going to adjourn now. We're a bit past the
22 time. Mr. Samardzic, we'll adjourn for half an hour. Could you be back
23 then, please.
24 MR. NICE: Your Honour, at some stage today, preferably before the
25 lunch break, may I have five minutes of closed session administrative
Page 11271
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11272
1 matters?
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just before the lunch break.
3 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I want to finish what I've started when you interrupted. The
8 sentence I didn't read from that item said, "Units of the JNA were then
9 composed of members from four Yugoslav republics. All this fighting and
10 losses were incurred before the JNA ever approached the town of
11 Dubrovnik."
12 Next: "The statement by Nikola Samardzic concerning the weapons
13 arsenal in the Port of Bar is completely untruthful. Although he doesn't
14 have any information about it himself, he says it is contrabanded into the
15 area then involved in the conflict, and Milo Djukanovic and his brother
16 Aco were involved in the contraband.
17 "This was actually a warehouse owned by a private businessman with
18 a partner from one of the Middle East countries. The official taxes and
19 levies were not paid as due so the warehouse was taken over by the police
20 and customs officials. All of this is on record in the competent
21 authorities and you can see from it that the weapons were not really
22 legally brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
23 JUDGE MAY: You can't go on reading like this. You're supposed to
24 be cross-examining this witness, not reading out statements.
25 Now, Mr. Samardzic, what is said is your statement about the Port
Page 11273
1 of Bar is completely untruthful. Now, you can deal with that, but I'll
2 put the other point which is being made, and that is that this was a
3 warehouse owned by a private businessman and the weapons were not really
4 legally brought into the territory of the FRY. Perhaps you'd like to deal
5 with those two matters.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing to add to what I have
7 said. I never accused Djukanovic or his brother. What was written in the
8 previous record is a mistake, and here before the Court I never said a
9 word about it.
10 The essence is this: I know that ships were right at the entrance
11 to the Port of Bar. They were full of weapons. And I stated, as I will
12 repeat now, I don't know where these weapons finally ended up. I don't
13 see anything bad about what I said in my testimony, nor do I admit that I
14 uttered an untruth.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Can I continue? "It is a complete misrepresentation of the role
17 of Branko Kostic, member of the Presidency from Montenegro. He is
18 presenting Branko Kostic as a yes-man of Slobodan Milosevic. Nikola
19 Samardzic testifies that Branko Kostic did not participate in the
20 decision-making of the authorities of Montenegro or obey their decisions
21 but, rather, just conveyed decisions from Belgrade. In the press coverage
22 of the work of the parliament of Montenegro, this statement of Nikola
23 Samardzic is gainsaid. Branko Kostic in fact participated in all
24 important debates and decision making, just as Nikola Samardzic, and never
25 presented in the Presidency of the SFRY positions which would run counter
Page 11274
1 to the conclusions of the parliament of Montenegro. In many photographs
2 of parliament sessions published in the press, you can see both Kostic and
3 Samardzic on the benches of MPs."
4 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. My question is, why did you lie, Mr. Samardzic, as far as Branko
7 Kostic is concerned?
8 A. I didn't lie. I stand by what I said. He was your servant whose
9 task was to discipline Montenegro. That was his role. But I just want to
10 add, since you're asking: In The Hague, when Lord Carrington took the
11 floor away from him and he rose angrily to leave the session, your three
12 other members of the Presidency followed although Lord Carrington had said
13 nothing to them. All four of them left the session because you told them
14 to. That was my testimony. I stand by it and there is no lying
15 involved.
16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you are describing events when Lord Carrington took
17 the floor away from Branko Kostic and he rose and left the session. You
18 are saying that it was me who told him to do that when Lord Carrington
19 took the floor away from him?
20 A. No. You're making this up now. I said that the four of them
21 worked in sync, according to your wishes and your policies. They were
22 your yes-men, and Nikola Samardzic is not the only one who knows that.
23 All Serbia and Montenegro know it.
24 Q. All this that you are saying to discredit these people, members of
25 the Presidency, the collective body ruling the country, are not founded in
Page 11275
1 fact. That is just your statement.
2 A. That's not true. Facts are there. It was their political
3 activity at that time which demonstrates this abundantly clearly.
4 Q. I'm quoting Bulatovic, actually. He says: "An important part of
5 Mr. Samardzic's testimony is based on information that I allegedly passed
6 on to him in private conversations. I am astounded by his motivation
7 which led him to completely misrepresent the events of the time. However,
8 I'm willing to state that I never told Mr. Nikola Samardzic that his life
9 was in danger or that I am being threatened for my political decisions,
10 nor did I ever tell him that Slobodan Milosevic should resign. And the
11 same is true of many other things that he is interpreting so liberally and
12 casually."
13 JUDGE MAY: Pause there. The comments of Mr. Bulatovic are
14 neither here nor there, but the witness can respond to his allegation that
15 -- the one matter which I think was given in evidence, you mentioned this
16 morning, I think, that Bulatovic was of the view that Mr. Milosevic should
17 resign owing to some of the crimes committed in Montenegro. Is that
18 right, Mr. Samardzic? Is there anything else you want to say?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just want to reiterate Momir
20 Bulatovic told me this. He was horrified by the crimes perpetrated
21 against the Muslims which were reported by the press. People started to
22 talk about it, and he thought, naively, of course, at the time, that
23 Slobodan Milosevic should resign.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Okay. Let's dwell on this a little. These crimes, were they
Page 11276
1 perpetrated in Montenegro?
2 A. Some of them were perpetrated in Montenegro. Others, some were in
3 Bosnia.
4 Q. Well, as you know, I was President of Serbia then. What had
5 Serbia to do with crimes in Montenegro? Did someone from Serbia come to
6 commit crimes in Montenegro? Is that what you're saying?
7 A. No, that's not what I'm saying. Those crimes were perpetrated in
8 the name of the idea of Greater Serbia. The killing of Muslims and ethnic
9 cleansing of Muslims from Bosnia, Montenegro, and other areas which were
10 supposed to become part of Greater Serbia. That is a fact. It was done
11 in your name. You were the leader.
12 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of Serbs --
14 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. Samardzic, would you just
15 concentrate, please, on answering the questions. They may be provoking,
16 but just deal with them as best you can.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Samardzic, are you aware of any event at all when crimes were
19 perpetrated against Muslims in Serbia? In all these past ten years,
20 throughout the war.
21 A. I know about the event on the railroad Belgrade-Bar, in the place
22 called Strpci, when 20 Muslims and one Croat were taken off the train,
23 killed, and thrown into a river.
24 Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you know that the Strpci railway station is not
25 in Serbia, it is in Bosnia-Herzegovina? It is for nine kilometres that
Page 11277
1 this railway passes through Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you know that?
2 A. I do. But this railroad of Serbia and Montenegro, if it passes
3 through one single settlement, which is not even an official station and
4 not on the official railway timetable, as far as I'm concerned, it's a
5 crime committed in Serbia.
6 Q. It is not a crime committed in Serbia because it is not the
7 territory of Serbia. And if you remember, I personally flew through
8 Prijepolje that very day - because the people involved were from
9 Prijepolje, and the ethnic make-up of that place is half and half, Serbs
10 and Muslims - to talk about the need for peaceful life and cooperation.
11 And I told them that that had been done, that must have been done to
12 inflame people and to spread the fire from Bosnia and Herzegovina; that
13 everything had to be done, including proper investigation, which was in
14 fact done, as I informed Mr. Stoltenberg later. I asked for one unit of
15 our police to enter that territory to guard the Strpci railway station
16 precisely from the formations that were roaming the area. Do you know
17 that?
18 A. No, I don't, and that has nothing to do with it, anyway. It was
19 the inhabitants of Serbia and Montenegro who were killed on that occasion,
20 and you did actually nothing in practice about it, whereas you had the
21 means, you had the power, both in Serbia and Montenegro. The only thing
22 that was done was done in Montenegro, which condemned one single man. I
23 believe only one man, Ranisavljevic, was convicted only ten years later.
24 Q. This man was convicted in 1994, not recently. I even have the
25 judgement here. If I have enough time, I'll somehow it to you, but let's
Page 11278
1 move on.
2 A. That's not true. He was tried and he was in custody, but he was
3 convicted only three months ago.
4 Q. If he was arrested in 1994 and sentenced to 20 years, which is the
5 maximum sentence in Yugoslavia, you can't say that nothing had been done.
6 And second, you didn't answer my question. Was there, on the
7 territory of Serbia, a single killing committed by any paramilitary
8 formation, any killing of a Muslim in all this time?
9 A. I never said anything of the kind. I never said anything about
10 Serbia except this place of Strpci. And you can't get away with it just
11 because this is a small place and a small area involved. It is a
12 disgrace, a shame on Serbian leadership, to which you belong.
13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, could you please just answer the
14 questions and stick to that. And don't -- it may be provoking, but try
15 not to argue with the accused, and he will be told not to argue with you.
16 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, my questions are not
18 provocative at all. I am just quoting the statement of Momir Bulatovic.
19 JUDGE MAY: They may be provocative to him. Just move on.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, maybe it's provocative in
21 terms of content to this witness who is testifying falsely. But if you
22 remember, Momir Bulatovic is a person whom he invokes all the time in his
23 testimony as the main source of his information.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Furthermore, Bulatovic says, "I am especially surprised by the
Page 11279
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11280
1 interpretation of his testimony concerning the peace conference in The
2 Hague. There are two completely untruthful things there. First, that
3 after I made my position clear concerning the proposal of Lord Carrington
4 on the 18th of October, 1991, he said that Slobodan Milosevic crossed the
5 entire hall and threatened him loud and clear. That sort of scandal was
6 simply impossible at such an international conference, and --"
7 JUDGE MAY: The witness has already answered questions about that
8 and he's described what happened, so let's move on to another point.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. But Momir Bulatovic says: "So that is absolutely untrue. Second,
11 another untruth regarding this statement was that later, under pressure
12 and threat, I reversed my position and withdrew my approval of Lord
13 Carrington's plan. Facts speak to something entirely different."
14 I have just a few more words to say about this statement. First,
15 Lord Carrington's plan would --
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, go on.
17 MR. NICE: It appears that the accused is cross-examining from a
18 statement, not from a published statement that's been published in a
19 newspaper. Some jurisdictions, of course, say that where a document is
20 being cross-examined from, the witness should have the right to look at
21 the document himself, and that might be a sensible precaution in this case
22 to ensure that things are being put in context. I'm not suggesting that
23 the document from which the accused is cross-examining should be produced
24 as an exhibit. I know nothing about it. But I suspect that, in fairness,
25 it should be available in its full form for the witness to look at and
Page 11281
1 insofar as I have the advantage of language speakers to assist me, it
2 might be desirable for me to have sight of it as well.
3 JUDGE MAY: If it's a document that he's got, he's entitled to use
4 it, to put it to the witness. He doesn't have to show it to you, it seems
5 to me. I don't see why he should.
6 MR. NICE: There are rules and very frequently it's the case that
7 documents are put to witnesses so they can see what's really being said
8 from the document. Otherwise, we don't know whether it's context or not.
9 JUDGE MAY: I've already made it plain. It doesn't matter what's
10 in the statement. It is only the accused's response which is evidence --
11 I mean the witness's response which is evidence. It doesn't matter what
12 the statement says. I assumed it was either something sent to the accused
13 or it's something that's been published in the press. It doesn't seem to
14 me to make much difference.
15 MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases, but --
16 JUDGE MAY: I'll certainly consult on that.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we think he's entitled to use it. He doesn't
19 have to disclose it.
20 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. So the second untruth is related to this subject, and that is the
23 statement that, "Under pressure and threat, I later reversed my position
24 and withdrew my approval of Lord Carrington's plan. Facts speak
25 differently." There are only five items, each one consisting of two
Page 11282
1 lines. Very briefly: "First, Lord Carrington's plan would be affected
2 only if accepted by all six Yugoslav republics. Second, the fact that the
3 President of Serbia had reservations about one part of the plan did not
4 mean discontinuation of the negotiating process but only its continuation
5 until it is acceptable to all. Third, my position in The Hague was
6 supported by the parliament of Montenegro. I was criticised
7 but there was no pressure. Four, for the following session of the
8 conference --"
9 JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot possibly follow all this. Perhaps
10 you could have a look, if you would, at the screen, if you can read the
11 English there, Mr. Samardzic. Let's deal with the matters which already
12 -- the first point is that he claims, or it's being claimed that Bulatovic
13 never reversed his position on Lord Carrington's plan. Now, is that true
14 or not?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He changed his position as soon as
16 he arrived in Podgorica, and that became known one or two days later, this
17 reversal.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. All right. The next item. He says -- he says that he didn't.
20 "Four, for the following session of the Conference on Yugoslavia,
21 Slobodan Milosevic and I approved a joint draft amendment to the document.
22 These amendments were supported by the Presidency of the SFRY and the
23 parliament of Montenegro and Serbia. The Presidency of the Conference on
24 Yugoslavia included our draft amendments in the documentation prepared for
25 the next session on 5 November 1991. This was a new spiral in the
Page 11283
1 conference, making it closer to final solution.
2 "Six, under the leadership of Lord Carrington, the conference did
3 not succeed. But this did not happen due to the categoric position of any
4 individual but, as Lord Carrington said, due to the announcement of the
5 European Union that they would recognise Croatia and Slovenia, which made
6 these two republics lose interest in the --"
7 JUDGE MAY: You seem to be going a long way from the point, and
8 we're now dealing with Mr. Bulatovic's views, which I've said are
9 irrelevant. Now, have you a question for this witness?
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. All right. Let me just add the last item in this statement that
12 he signed.
13 JUDGE MAY: No. No. I'm going to stop you. You've been dealing
14 with total irrelevances. Now, have you got a question for this witness?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm just going to take up
16 ten seconds of your time to read the last sentence, which reads as
17 follows: "As for this question and all other questions where I can
18 contribute to establishing the full truth and the real truth, I am
19 prepared to testify at the request of the defence of Slobodan Milosevic."
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can call him and we'll hear what he's
21 got to say, and these matters can be put to him. The account which this
22 witness gives can be put to him. Now, let's move on.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So Mr. Samardzic, as I've read to you at the very beginning, he
25 refers to your testimony and says that there are many falsehoods and many
Page 11284
1 misrepresented facts that are not based on a single real event from the
2 period that you are testifying about. Is that correct, Mr. Samardzic?
3 A. That is not correct. What you just read now, this statement of
4 Momir Bulatovic, shows that he changed his mind, and this so-called
5 process after The Hague is proof of the fact that, together with you, he
6 agreed not to follow what Lord Carrington had proposed. So he changed his
7 mind. Everything that you have been reading out shows that he no longer
8 accepted Lord Carrington's plan but that other ways and means were to be
9 taken in order to resolve the Yugoslav crisis. So precisely by reading
10 what you've been reading, you have been disputing what you have claimed.
11 Q. That's not my conclusion. I can only conclude that Bulatovic is
12 fully refuting everything that you said when you invoked his name.
13 As for what I did in The Hague on that day, I'm going to leave
14 aside insinuations like the one that I usurped the microphone, I guess,
15 and that Lord Carrington did not give me the floor, and Lord Carrington
16 was chairing the meeting and that would have been highly improper. But I
17 am going to read one paragraph to you, a paragraph that is in question,
18 and that also fully denies what you have been saying. I am quoting my own
19 speech and I am going to exhibit the speech, the speech in its entirety,
20 that is.
21 "The proposed arrangements for the general framework agreement on
22 the Yugoslav crisis suspend the valid constitutional and legal order in
23 Yugoslavia. In this way, it is not only internal constitutional
24 continuity of Yugoslavia that is being interrupted but Yugoslavia as such
25 is being abolished as a state which has continuously existed for over 70
Page 11285
1 years now. A decision on the abolition of a state cannot be passed by an
2 international forum or even by the top constitution-making authority of
3 the country. Such a decision can only be passed by the entities that
4 founded the state at a given point in time. This state came into being
5 through a decision reached by the Yugoslav peoples, and they are the only
6 ones who can decide to abolish it at a referendum. Not a single
7 participant in this conference has the mandate to do this, nor does this
8 conference as a forum have that kind of mandate."
9 So do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that after that and in my
10 speech, I said Yugoslavia could not be abolished by a stroke of the pen.
11 I said there at that conference, I asked for the peace process to
12 continue, to find solutions, fair solutions, solutions that would be fair
13 to all the peoples of Yugoslavia, and so on.
14 I'm not going to read the entire speech because it would take up
15 too much of my time.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, you've been reading for about five minutes
17 -- or two minutes, anyway. Now, the witness should answer.
18 Do you remember this speech? Do you remember what the accused
19 said? Does what's been read out accord with your recollection,
20 Mr. Samardzic?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That is part of his speech.
22 However, he is not reading the rest. Nevertheless, this shows his
23 hypocrisy, his political hypocrisy, because Yugoslavia had already been
24 abolished through his deeds and what his political party did.
25 Allow me to finish. A lot had already been done for Yugoslavia to
Page 11286
1 disappear. In The Hague, he could not call for the continuation of
2 Yugoslavia because there was no more Yugoslavia.
3 Nevertheless, I have to add another thing. I did not say during
4 my testimony that he had usurped the floor. Lord Carrington gave him the
5 floor. But this was not in accordance with the rules of procedure or,
6 rather, the order in which we were supposed to speak and that was given to
7 us beforehand. It was Bosnia that was supposed to speak first. Mr.
8 Milosevic took the floor first, and in this way he effectively did away
9 with Lord Carrington's proposal. That's what I said and I stand by that.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Well, you see that Bulatovic, as head of your delegation, is
12 saying the contrary.
13 JUDGE MAY: No. It doesn't matter about that. You've heard what
14 the witness said.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. As opposed to many others,
16 I do dare to make public every one of my speeches, and I'm not ashamed of
17 a single word I said. Could you please take this copy of my speech. I
18 see that Mr. Samardzic has been saying that I did not read all of it. I
19 cannot read all of it because it would take up a lot of my time. It has
20 five and a half or six pages. This is the speech I made on the 18th of
21 October.
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will exhibit that if it's given the next
23 exhibit number when it's translated.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit D44.
25 JUDGE MAY: Let the Prosecution see it.
Page 11287
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11288
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Samardzic, yesterday you said that after this, what followed
3 was the Belgrade initiative on the basis of which the constitution of the
4 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted, and as you had put it, on the
5 27th of April, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established.
6 I wish to remind you precisely in this connection and also in
7 connection with what you said a few minutes ago, that Yugoslavia had been
8 abolished, that from the point of view of international law, what you are
9 saying is not correct.
10 I have my speech here, the one I delivered on the 6th of May,
11 1992, in Brussels. So that is only ten days after the Federal Republic of
12 Yugoslavia was established or, rather, after the constitution of the
13 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted. In this speech, I say, first
14 of all, that the delegations of Serbia and Montenegro shall from that
15 point in time be considered to be the delegation of the Federal Republic
16 of Yugoslavia, that the adoption of the constitution was a step forward
17 towards the stabilisation of the situation in Yugoslavia, that Yugoslavia
18 is not a new state but a rearranged form of the state of Yugoslavia that
19 had existed until then. And I particularly point out a declaration that
20 was adopted along with the constitution which contains the objectives and
21 the principles of guiding the policy that would govern the relations
22 between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former republics of the
23 former Yugoslavia. There are only four points, and I'm going to read them
24 out to you. They're contained in the declaration:
25 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is prepared to observe the
Page 11289
1 interests of the former republics and it expects that its interests will
2 also be respected and observed at the same time on a footing of equality.
3 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is prepared to give its
4 contribution to all interrupted ties on the territory of the former
5 Yugoslavia.
6 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not have any territorial
7 aspirations vis-a-vis anyone in its neighbourhood.
8 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will strictly observe the
9 objectives and principles of the UN charter, documents of the CSE and
10 particularly the principle of not using force in resolving international
11 disputes, and we hope that threats, blackmail will not be applied towards
12 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to bring out an unraveling of
13 the crisis."
14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to interrupt you. Now, you
15 have in fact been speaking for three or four minutes and I haven't stopped
16 you. You should be able to put your defence. But we must really come to
17 a point at which we understand what is the point that you're trying to
18 make and what is the question for this witness?
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The question for this witness is: How can he claim that
21 Yugoslavia had been abolished? Because Slovenia and Croatia had left. I
22 hope that not even he can deny what I also said in that speech and what
23 I'd like to read out to him. So let him challenge it then.
24 Just one paragraph.
25 JUDGE MAY: Deal with the first which you've made. Dealing with
Page 11290
1 the first point:
2 The point is made that you're wrong to claim that Yugoslavia had
3 been abolished. Do you think you could deal with that or is there
4 anything you want to add to what you've said before, Mr. Samardzic?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. I will be very glad to
6 answer this question. The word "Yugoslavia" means The Land of the
7 Southern Slavs. Yugoslavia without Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and
8 Bosnia is not Yugoslavia. It is not The Land of the Southern Slavs.
9 Yugoslavia without the other peoples. If there are only two people in
10 Yugoslavia out of all the seven southern Slavic peoples is no longer
11 Yugoslavia. It cannot be Yugoslavia if its population consists of
12 Southern Slavs only to the extent of 20 per cent.
13 What Slobodan Milosevic declared about continuity are his
14 positions, and that has nothing to do with reality. It is true that he
15 did advocate the state continuity of Yugoslavia, but the world did not
16 recognise that. The international community did not recognise that
17 continuity. And in fact, this ceased when he was replaced by the people
18 of Serbia.
19 Yugoslavia itself today is changing its international status, and
20 it accepts that what remains of that Yugoslavia, these are only the
21 remains, that is to say Serbia and Montenegro is no longer Yugoslavia and
22 the name has been abolished. Now it is Serbia and Montenegro. Now they
23 are creating a state. Because what Slobodan Milosevic did on the 27th of
24 April - and that's when he completed the job - that was not Yugoslavia.
25 Although I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Member of
Page 11291
1 Parliament, I publicly refused to attend the promulgation, the alleged
2 promulgation of that Yugoslavia of his. And I did that publicly, because
3 that was not the country that my forefathers fought for and that his
4 forefathers fought for. Again, it was a fiction only aimed at retaining
5 power the way he did retain power until he was replaced by the people.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. At that time, I was President of
8 Serbia. And as you know full well, I was not a candidate for the
9 Presidency of Yugoslavia. But let me read out this paragraph and later on
10 I'm going to refute what you said just now.
11 "The idea of dissociation --" this is the speech I made on the 6th
12 of May, in Brussels: "The idea of dissociation was launched in order to
13 conceal and indirectly legalise the one-sided secession. Such an
14 inversion of the truth cannot be accepted, even more so because we always
15 emphasised that we are not a hindrance in the path of those who want to
16 leave Yugoslavia and who want to create states of their own. Let them do
17 this in a peaceful and legal way. But by their secession, we do not cease
18 to exist, for a simple reason; because they could pass decisions on
19 secession that would relate only to themselves, that would not pertain to
20 us and to our destiny. We point out today, as we have pointed out, that
21 the right to secession cannot be stronger than the right to allegiance to
22 one's own state, one's existing state, and we remain convinced that this
23 is a position of principle. Rewarding secession on the one side and
24 punishment for allegience to one's homeland on the other side and denying
25 people the right to guard their homeland cannot lead to fair and just
Page 11292
1 solutions."
2 And then I say that we want to have cooperation with the countries
3 of the European Community, and I refer to a great many other things; the
4 situation in Bosnia, our principled position that this should be resolved
5 by the three constituent peoples, et cetera, et cetera. So I would like
6 to have this exhibited as well, please.
7 The fact remains -- or perhaps you are challenging that fact as
8 well, Mr. Samardzic --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I am normally a very patient
10 person, but I must say that the manner in which you cross-examine does
11 test one's patience. You read passages from speeches, but you do not ask
12 questions. The Chamber has been very, very liberal with you because you
13 are defending yourself. I think in most jurisdictions, you would not be
14 allowed to cross-examine in this way.
15 You just read out a passage which is about 12 lines. What is the
16 question? The trial here has a specific purpose. We are to determine
17 facts, and we cannot do that if you read passages of that length without
18 asking questions, because by the time you have finished, the witness would
19 have forgotten the first part of the passage.
20 What you must do is formulate a question. You know the passage.
21 You don't need to read it out. You have the gist of it. Formulate a
22 question based on the passage and put it to the witness, and we can save a
23 lot of time that way.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this witness invoked
25 my positions at the peace conference, and I thought that I can use the
Page 11293
1 authentic text. And after all, that is what Mr. May indicated yesterday,
2 that I could show that to him in order to fully refute the statements he
3 made.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. So my question, Mr. Samardzic, is: Is it correct that the
6 citizens of Montenegro carried out a referendum concerning the Federal
7 Republic of Yugoslavia and that it was on the basis of this referendum
8 that Montenegro became a constituent element of the Federal Republic of
9 Yugoslavia together with the Republic of Serbia?
10 A. In my statement, I did say that a referendum was held, but I
11 repeat yet again that that referendum was not carried out in a legal way,
12 that the right question had not been put and that the rules governing
13 referendums were not applied, so it is totally invalid and nobody in the
14 world accepted it then as a valid document. The entire international
15 community then condemned this referendum.
16 However, I have to say something about what you read out just now.
17 Your speeches, the speeches that you made in Brussels and The Hague, you
18 did read them but that is absolute hypocrisy. How can you say that you
19 are giving other republics and other peoples the right to secede and at
20 that time you already held a third of Croatia under your occupation? And
21 you had created the Serb Krajinas with the ultimate objective of
22 separating these territories from Croatia. And also at that time, before
23 the war in Bosnia had started, you had counted on all of Bosnia to be
24 Serbian.
25 This was a camouflage Yugoslavia. It was camouflage for the idea
Page 11294
1 of a Greater Serbia, to create some kind of state, since you had already
2 been defeated in 1992. So what remained was to create a small Greater
3 Serbia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro. Can you imagine what kind of
4 a constituent element that could be, what kind of equal rights we could
5 talk about then?
6 Q. Please, Mr. Samardzic. We don't have time to go into all those
7 details. What you're here to do is to answer my questions.
8 You said that the referendum was held, you just question its
9 legality. But at that time, nobody questioned its legality. And let me
10 add this: Do you recall --
11 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with that,
12 because you're making an assertion.
13 Did anybody at the time question the legality of the referendum,
14 Mr. Samardzic?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they did. The European
16 Community did. The representatives of the European Community, and I have
17 a document in my possession to bear that out, where they stated that the
18 referendum was not conducted in a legal manner. And I don't think it is
19 necessary to prove this any further. The documents will speak for
20 themselves, the ones that individual European countries and the European
21 Community as a whole, when the -- a meeting of it was held and
22 Mr. Van den Broek was there. Those documents record that the referendum
23 in Montenegro was not a valid one and organised in a valid fashion. That
24 it prevailed in Serbia, that was another matter, because there were
25 different authorities there. And if the proclamation of Yugoslavia on the
Page 11295
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11296
1 27th of April, which emerged from that, was accepted, none of the
2 ambassadors who were in Belgrade, except perhaps Iraq and Libya, attended
3 or accepted this new Yugoslavia of his. Nobody. Yugoslavia was not
4 recognised at that time. The policy was reverted towards Montenegro and
5 Serbia afterwards, but at that time, the international community insisted
6 upon the fact that --
7 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. This is once again an untruth, because apart from the ambassadors
10 of the United States and the European Union, all the other ambassadors
11 accredited in Yugoslavia attended the promulgation and proclamation.
12 There are minutes and records about this. There was a videotape and
13 footage about this and a television programme. So once again, you are
14 speaking an untruth.
15 But do you remember this, Mr. Samardzic, because you say that
16 nobody wanted to recognise it, that in fact even, if you will recall, in
17 August 1996, I signed, I myself signed, together with Tudjman, a document
18 on the normalisation of relations in which Croatia recognised the
19 continuity of Yugoslavia. And that same year -- this took place in
20 Athens, and the hosts were Greek Prime Minister Simitis of the day and the
21 present one too and representatives of the Greek government. That
22 document is in existence and it did accept and recognise Yugoslavia's
23 continuity.
24 In October of that same year, the host was Jacques Chirac this
25 time, to me and Mr. Izetbegovic, and we normalised relations during that
Page 11297
1 meeting between the SRY and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the provisions were
2 contained therein which recognised the continuity of Yugoslavia.
3 Yugoslavia, throughout that time, had its representative in the United
4 Nations, and the fact that the new quisling government threw all that
5 away --
6 JUDGE MAY: You're making --
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. -- rejected all that is not an argument, sir.
9 JUDGE MAY: You're making a speech again. Now, what is the
10 question for the witness?
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Do you recall, do you remember those documents signed in 1996 in
13 August and in October with Tudjman and Izetbegovic and the question and
14 issue of continuity? Do you remember that?
15 A. Allow me to answer your question. I am talking about 1992 and not
16 1996. I said a moment ago that in 1992, when your so-called Yugoslavia
17 was proclaimed, none of the large civilised countries of the world
18 recognised that state at that time, and I remember very well that the US
19 administration insisted upon it being called Serbia and Montenegro and not
20 Yugoslavia.
21 And what happened in 1996 that this policy towards Yugoslavia
22 underwent a change, I cannot deny that either. I'm sorry that that
23 happened, and that is why we see complications there today. But that is
24 the year 1996. And, Mr. Milosevic, I did not testify about 1996, I am
25 testifying about 1992 when it was a deformed, completely deformed country
Page 11298
1 in the views of the international community.
2 Q. Mr. Samardzic, all right. In 1992, as you were the Foreign
3 Minister when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established, do you
4 remember how many tens of ambassadors representing foreign countries were
5 present in that particular Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992 right up
6 until 1996? If you discount China, Russia, India, and the other big
7 countries, if you don't consider these to be big countries, if you only
8 consider the countries of the European Union and NATO pact countries to be
9 big countries, that's your affair.
10 A. No. You're trying to trick me. I don't think that the big
11 countries are only countries which belong to NATO. That's not true. I
12 was not present because I refused to go to a meeting of that kind. If
13 this was a demonstration of my part, I did not want to see this
14 proclamation of Yugoslavia that did not have its Assembly to elect it but
15 had delegates, MPs, whose mandate had expired. And these were MPs from
16 two republics and not six. So it was your proclamation of Yugoslavia that
17 was completely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the law, and I
18 didn't want to go there, in protest.
19 Now, what you're asking about, how many ambassadors were there, I
20 really can't say. I heard that there were just a handful, such as the
21 representative of Cuba, of Iraq, Fidel Castro's representative, Libya's
22 representative, and so on and so forth, their envoys. Whether India and
23 China had their envoys there, I don't know. If they were, I withdraw what
24 I said, that only two or three were present. But I was not there, I did
25 not attend. All I did see was the representative of Libya. He was there.
Page 11299
1 He could be seen on television, on the television screens. What I'm
2 saying is it doesn't matter how many of them were actually there.
3 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's cool down.
4 Now, Mr. Milosevic, I think we've exhausted this topic. Now,
5 let's move on to something else.
6 Yes. You wanted a speech exhibited, and we will give it the next
7 exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the speech made on the 6th of May in
9 Brussels will be Defence Exhibit 45.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Before I move on, I just want to prove to you that you weren't
12 speaking the truth here with respect to the government meeting that took
13 place on the 1st of October and that it was precisely Bulatovic who was
14 telling the truth.
15 I have here the minutes from the 46th session of the government of
16 Montenegro held on the 26th of September, 1991, and under point 14, we see
17 Bozidar Babic, minister who informed the government on the present
18 security situation along the borders of Montenegro with the Republic of
19 Croatia and the measures being undertaken to protect the frontiers and the
20 citizens and what the government concluded in this regard. So that was
21 the 46th session held on the 26th of September.
22 Do you remember, as you were the minister at the time, that at
23 each subsequent session, the minutes from the previous meeting are first
24 of all adopted as the first point on the agenda? Is that so, Mr.
25 Samardzic?
Page 11300
1 A. Well, I don't know what your question is, whether I remember --
2 Q. My question is, as this is the minutes from the meeting of the
3 26th of September, and that was the 46th session that was held -- just let
4 me finish. You have the minutes from the 47th session of the government
5 of Montenegro that was held on the 3rd of October, for example, and this
6 confirms and bears out the fact that the session that you mentioned of the
7 1st of October with the generals, Bulatovic, et cetera, was not a
8 government session but a commemorative meeting about which Momir Bulatovic
9 speaks in his own statement. So it was the 46th session and the 47th
10 session.
11 JUDGE MAY: What is your point? Are you saying that there weren't
12 any minutes of the meeting so therefore it shows that it was something
13 other than a normal session? Is that the point?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is that the witness spoke
15 untruths on this subject as well, and that Bulatovic in his statement
16 published the fact that this was not a government meeting that we -- was
17 held.
18 JUDGE MAY: What is it that you're putting to the witness to
19 refute what he says? He says he's told you the truth about it. Now, what
20 is it you're putting to him to refute it?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am putting to him that I wish him
22 to confirm that that infamous session of the 4th of October, along with
23 the presence of Bulatovic, the eight officers of which four generals, was
24 no government meeting at all but that it was a commemorative meeting, as
25 Bulatovic says.
Page 11301
1 JUDGE MAY: Very well. He's already, I think, dealt with that.
2 Was it a government -- a formal government meeting that day or not?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On that day, an official government
4 meeting was held, and I stand by that. That is the whole truth. What he
5 is putting forward now, that is to say Mr. Milosevic, are falsifications,
6 and it is quite untrue that it was a commemorative meeting. It was a
7 session, I repeat once again, to discuss the defence of the country in the
8 face of the aggression by Croatia on Boka Kotorska, Montenegro.
9 They did not come to express their commiseration but they came in full
10 battle dress and not in their ceremonial dress for a commemorative
11 meeting. So this was a meeting to discipline Montenegro in an unjust,
12 unfair war against Croatia, a war which took so many young lives with it,
13 young lives from Montenegro. And what you're saying now, this is living
14 falsification, and I assume that that's what you want.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm very sorry that you are speaking so many
17 untruths, but what I have here are the minutes of your own government's
18 sessions. I didn't claim that there was a commemorative meeting, but I
19 claimed what Momir Bulatovic said and read out. And we can see that the
20 46th government meeting was held on the 26th of September, and the 47th
21 government session was held on the 3rd of October. Therefore, that
22 session that you mention of the 1st of October was no government session
23 at all. It was some other kind of meeting. But let's move on. It is
24 precisely in the minutes --
25 JUDGE MAY: No. You must let the witness deal with it.
Page 11302
1 What the accused is saying, apparently, is that there were no
2 official minutes, or that the official minutes don't contain a reference
3 to this meeting and, therefore, it was not a government meeting. Now, can
4 you -- is there anything you'd like to say about that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. At this point in time,
6 after the passage of ten years, I cannot remember what is said in what
7 minutes but I think that this is another provocation and I'm sure that the
8 minutes do exist but I can't say with any certainty. What I have said I
9 stand by. It was a government session. Whether the minutes were recorded
10 or not, I can't say with any certainty but I do believe they were. That
11 the generals were present, they were. My memory has not let me down on
12 that score. And so were the other Montenegrin leaders. And the session
13 was devoted not to the commemoration but to the war efforts against
14 Croatia, and that is the sole truth. Everything else is an attempt to
15 bypass the issue and to seek ways of proving that this was not done. It
16 was done. It was a session to involve the war in -- to involve Montenegro
17 in the war with Croatia, to show that the two were at war whereas Serbia
18 was standing by. That was the object.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Please don't take up too much of my time. I am presenting the
21 bare facts here and no assertions or anything else. So I have presented
22 the facts pertaining to the government sessions.
23 Did you attend the 26th of September government session?
24 A. Probably I did. I didn't testify at all about that session.
25 Q. And did you attend the session on the 3rd of October, the
Page 11303
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11304
1 government session?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Let me then read out to you -- read out to you the minutes from
4 that session that was held. Just let me see. Let me take a moment to
5 find the 3rd of October and the minutes thereof, the government meeting
6 held. Presiding was Mr. Djukanovic, and the stenograms are held of all
7 this. Absent was Zoran Lilic, Vice-Premier, Predrag Goranovic, Vojan
8 Djukanovic [as interpreted], Pavle Bulatovic, and Ilija Lakosic [phoen],
9 and Nikola Samardzic, members of the government. You did not attend that
10 meeting.
11 At the meeting of the 26th, the following were absent, among
12 others, Nikola Samardzic, et cetera, et cetera, members of the government.
13 Now I want to ask you this: You said that it was after that
14 meeting of the 18th of October, at the conference which was chaired by
15 Lord Carrington, that the Belgrade initiative followed. Let me just tell
16 you that in this -- these minutes dated the 3rd of October, that is to say
17 15 days before the meeting was held under the chairmanship of Lord
18 Carrington, under point 2, it says that -- and you can look for the
19 original minutes, they will -- the government apparently will give you,
20 looked at the foundations for setting up Yugoslavia and, in brackets, it
21 says, "The Belgrade initiative which was sent to the government by the
22 Montenegrin Assembly for discussion."
23 So you were telling an untruth there too, Mr. Samardzic. Fifteen
24 days before that, the government presents its views and states its
25 position pertaining to the Belgrade initiative sent by the Montenegrin
Page 11305
1 Assembly. So that means even prior to that. So you are reversing the
2 facts here and times, and quite blatantly telling untruths. Let me remind
3 you what it says here.
4 JUDGE MAY: No. Let the witness deal with what you've read out so
5 far.
6 Mr. Samardzic, it's said that you're not dealing the truth. It's
7 your opportunity now to deal with what the accused has put to you, should
8 you wish to do so.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that after The Hague, the
10 Belgrade initiative received the force and strength to replace what was
11 proposed by Lord Carrington. I did not refer to the rumours and stories
12 put out pertaining to the Belgrade initiative. Probably what Mr.
13 Milosevic just read out was on the agenda of that government meeting, as
14 can be seen from the minutes, because it says that I myself was not
15 present. I was absent from the meeting. As I was the director of the
16 Jugooceanija company, I was very often late to meetings and the minutes
17 probably recorded my absence at these two meetings. However, so far, I
18 have not made any statements with respect to them, nor did I take into
19 account the conclusions made at those meetings. On the 4th of October, I
20 did arrive, but I arrived late.
21 Now, whether I was present at the 27th meeting, perhaps -- so much
22 time has gone by, perhaps I wasn't. I don't remember, because -- but
23 nothing important on the 27th of September was discussed because the war
24 hadn't begun yet.
25 Now, what I testified about, and I stand by this, is what happened
Page 11306
1 on the 1st of October. On the 1st of October, that was the date when the
2 meeting of the generals took place and the members of the Montenegrin
3 government, when they met members of the Presidency of Montenegro, and I
4 stand by that. There is absolutely no possible lie there or any
5 fabrications or untruths. All that I said was the truth.
6 Q. You are testifying to a government meeting that did not take place
7 but not the one that did take place. Now, please present your views with
8 respect to what I'm now going to read to you from the minutes, and it has
9 to do with the opinions of the government about the Belgrade initiative,
10 and this was a joint initiative of Serbia and Montenegro, not only
11 Belgrade, and I quote, and I will also tender it into evidence:
12 "With this regard, the government gives the following views: The
13 groundwork for relations within Yugoslavia assert that Yugoslavia is a
14 community of equal peoples, republics and citizens. In accordance with
15 the principles of the broadest freedoms and rights of citizens based on
16 parliamentary democracy, market economy, and equality of all types of
17 property and ownership, as well as common interests of republics and
18 citizens, respect for human rights, unified market, monetary system,
19 foreign affairs, security, and unified armed forces as a sovereign country
20 within the borders of its constitution-determined competencies with the
21 republics within its composition as a community where every possibility of
22 national, ethnic, republic, religious and other domination is ruled out.
23 The basis for the future structure of Yugoslavia should express to the
24 greatest possible extent the interests of its citizens to live together in
25 a state following the loftiest standards of modern civilisation. This
Page 11307
1 document, after being approved by the respective parliaments, should serve
2 as the basis for developing new ideas," et cetera, et cetera.
3 Mr. Samardzic, as you can see, the main qualities emphasised in
4 this document are equality of republics, equality of peoples, independence
5 of republics, a unified state. Where do you see Greater Serbia in this
6 under the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? How
7 can you see it here where the keyword is "independence and equality"?
8 Year 1991, may I remind you.
9 A. In September 1991, which you're talking about, Greater Serbia, if
10 there is only 95 per cent of the population of the Greater Serbia and only
11 5 per cent of the population of Montenegro, that amounts to Greater
12 Serbia. There is no equality to speak of, and nobody could make it. And
13 what you are reading is sheer words.
14 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm reading you what your own government, of which
15 you were a member, noted. And what you are considering to be a deficiency
16 I believe to be a virtue. It is true that Serbia is 18 times larger than
17 Montenegro, but it is also true that, despite that, republics are equal in
18 every respect in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or are you going to
19 gainsay this as well? Are you perhaps asking that your qualification of
20 this constitution which you qualified as botched should be accepted and
21 the opinion of the government of Montenegro dismissed? Because the
22 government of Montenegro says completely the opposite, and you supported
23 it at the time.
24 A. No, I never supported it, even at the time. I never was in favour
25 of that state. I did not attend the proclamation ceremony. And as for
Page 11308
1 equality between Serbia and Montenegro, it was impossible in all these
2 past ten or 11 years, as it was founded. Therefore, what you are reading
3 may be written in those declarations, and it is not only the position of
4 the Montenegrin government but after ten or 15 days in The Hague, Momir
5 Bulatovic, president of the Presidency of Montenegro, assumed a completely
6 different position, opposite to the Belgrade initiative, regarding Lord
7 Carrington's proposal. He was the first one to refuse it.
8 Q. Since that is completely contrary to what Bulatovic is saying, I
9 would only ask --
10 JUDGE MAY: No. We cannot go over these positions again. We've
11 been over your position. You've heard what the witness has says. We've
12 been over The Hague conference. Now, let us move to something else.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. All right. I have to hurry this up. I have many questions, and I
15 expect this witness to say that he didn't say even what he actually said.
16 You see here in your statement, since you've mentioned it, you
17 said yesterday that you had met with leaders from Republika Srpska, with
18 the mediation of Milo Djukanovic, in Bar. And then for reasons of your
19 own, which I cannot even guess at but they must have to do with your
20 personal interests and this false indictment which can only be proved by
21 lies, not by truth --
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, come to a question instead of this sort
23 of abuse.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Well, here, I'll read out to you from your own statement, page 8,
Page 11309
1 paragraph 1. First full paragraph, I mean:
2 "Much more than Bulatovic, Djukanovic contacted with other leaders
3 in Yugoslavia. He kept trying to gain influential friends. For example,
4 I know that he brought the Bosnian Serb leadership to his house in Bar for
5 meetings. I had a home in Budva, and on one occasion I ran into
6 Djukanovic in town. It was unusual, but he invited me to accompany him to
7 Bar where he was entertaining some friends from Republika Srpska. I went
8 with him, and when we arrived, I met Momcilo Krajisnik, Biljana Plavsic,
9 and Nikola Koljevic, who were all there. They were all talking about how
10 they were going to build this new Serbian state in Bosnia. I didn't stay
11 long with them, though, and instead went to visit some friends who live in
12 Bar." That's the end of it.
13 MR. NICE: He missed a line out. If he's going to quote, would he
14 quote in full, please.
15 JUDGE MAY: The point that's made, would you use the full
16 quotation.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. I read out the entire quotation. "This new Serbian state in
19 Bosnia." And then, "I remember also that every time they referred to
20 Muslims, they called them Turks. I didn't stay long with them and instead
21 went to visit some friends who lived in Bar." I don't see that I had
22 skipped anything of essence. I'm trying to say that this witness is
23 lying, because yesterday he said he had found himself in a public place -
24 a tavern, a cafe or something - and he was trying to accuse Djukanovic of
25 something that Djukanovic cannot possibly be guilty of.
Page 11310
1 A. That's not true I was trying to blame Djukanovic or accuse him.
2 What you have just read is a misrepresentation of my previous statement.
3 I only said that I went to Bar with Djukanovic and that I had met them.
4 Djukanovic has no house in Bar. He didn't have it then, and I don't
5 believe he has it today, so we couldn't have been in his home. I couldn't
6 have said it.
7 What I did say and what is relevant is what I said yesterday. I
8 see nothing bad about the fact that I met up with some people in casual --
9 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Let us make this clear.
12 A. You are trying to trick me now as you've been trying to trick me
13 all along. Nobody accused President Djukanovic of anything. We just met
14 by chance in Budva and went to Bar. I met these Bosnians in a cafe. I
15 recognised them from television. They started talking about Republika
16 Srpska. They mentioned Turks. That much is true because that's how they
17 called Muslims in Bosnia. And then I left. I don't see anything that
18 accuses Djukanovic in what I said, nor does it matter at all. And what
19 you are trying to put to me is completely untrue.
20 Q. Another quotation has to do with this: "During the summer of
21 1991, I was aware of at least five ships that docked in Montenegro
22 carrying weapons. Milo Djukanovic's brother, Aleksandar - Aco -
23 Djukanovic, facilitated these shipments with the police military. I do
24 not know from where the shipments originated, but after they arrived in
25 Bar, the arms were transported in military vehicles onto the Serbs in the
Page 11311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11312
1 Krajina and in Bosnia for distribution. During the same period, the
2 Montenegrin Ministry of Interior began distributing weapons to people in
3 Montenegro who were known to have a Chetnik orientation and those were
4 supportive of the designs for a Greater Serbia. This was coordinated by
5 Deputy Interior Minister Nikola Pejakovic."
6 I am quoting your statement, the witness statement that you
7 signed, Mr. Samardzic, and you are now claiming that this is a
8 misrepresentation on my part.
9 A. Of course it is. What I said about Pejakovic is true. He did
10 distribute weapons to Chetnik elements. And that Djukanovic was involved
11 with the weapons, that is something that must have been misunderstood,
12 because when I was giving my statement, I meant Jasmir Vasiljevic
13 [phoen]. And all these are assumptions, anyway. And these were all the
14 dealings involving weapons. That's all I know. I know these dealings
15 existed, I know about these ships. I am a naval man, I know that these
16 ships were berthed there and I gave my statement about it.
17 Q. Mr. Samardzic, please take your witness statement and tell me,
18 because all I read out is here on the transcript. What did I misquote? I
19 read your statement, signed by you, word-for-word. Are you saying that I
20 did not read it correctly?
21 A. No, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that it's not a real
22 statement of mine. It may have been misunderstood, because I didn't
23 accuse Djukanovic or his brother ever of having anything to do with these
24 weapons.
25 Q. Do you still say that this part of your statement is made up?
Page 11313
1 A. No, I'm saying it's in error.
2 Q. How do you think they can make an error introducing new names in
3 the statement?
4 A. Well, it is an error. If you want, I made it, but I wasn't lying.
5 I said all I know about the weapons. I know that the weapons arrived on
6 ships and that suddenly it disappeared. Where, I don't know.
7 Q. Do you mean to say that what you said in your written statement
8 you signed and said by mistake?
9 A. No. There's no mistake except that I didn't include Djukanovic's
10 brother in all this because that's not true.
11 Q. Is it written in your statement?
12 A. It probably is.
13 Q. Does it mean it's falsified, forged?
14 A. No, it isn't forged. It may be an error. I didn't repeat this
15 mistake here in court, nor will I accept it.
16 Q. All right. Shall I read out to you one more --
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
19 help the Chamber. It's on page 9, paragraph 2 of his witness statement
20 given to investigators.
21 JUDGE MAY: We haven't got the statement, but thank you for that
22 information.
23 MR. NICE: It's available.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We better have it exhibited. We'll have it
25 after the adjournment.
Page 11314
1 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Speaking of - and I'm quoting your statement again - as to why
4 Bulatovic and Djukanovic --
5 JUDGE MAY: I'm reminded that the Prosecution wanted to raise
6 something, and I said they could raise it before the adjournment.
7 We'll continue -- Mr. Milosevic, we'll continue with your
8 examination after the adjournment.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I only want you to bear in
10 mind that we started this session with a five-minute delay and you are
11 taking away five more minutes plus ten minutes you owe me for tomorrow.
12 JUDGE MAY: It will be recorded, Mr. Milosevic, don't worry. You
13 won't lose any time.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fine. Fine.
15 JUDGE MAY: Can the witness withdraw or --
16 MR. NICE: Indeed he should withdraw. It's a private session that
17 I want to deal with.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Samardzic, we're going to adjourn now for
19 lunch. Could you be back, please, at half past two.
20 [The witness stood down]
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Private session.
22 [Private session]
23 [redacted]
24 [redacted]
25 [redacted]
Page 11315
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 11315 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11316
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 11316 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11317
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Page 11317 – redacted – private session
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11318
1 [redacted]
2 [redacted]
3 [redacted]
4 [redacted]
5 [redacted]
6 [redacted]
7 [redacted]
8 [redacted]
9 [redacted]
10 [redacted]
11 [redacted]
12 [redacted]
13 [redacted]
14 [redacted]
15 [redacted]
16 [redacted]
17 [redacted]
18 [redacted]
19 [redacted]
20 [redacted]
21 [redacted]
22 [redacted]
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now. 2.35.
24 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.04 p.m.
25
Page 11319
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11320
1 --- On resuming at 2.37 p.m.— - [Open Session]
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
3 MR. NICE: Witness statements of the witness, with attachments,
4 statements, I think being in both English and B/C/S, have now been
5 provided.
6 JUDGE MAY: What are the attachments?
7 MR. NICE: They're simply part of the original statement, exhibits
8 to which he then referred. To some degree they are repeated here, to some
9 degree they are separate.
10 JUDGE MAY: Well, we don't need to exhibit the attachments, simply
11 the statement, but we'll take it as it is now and it can be given an
12 exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be marked Prosecutor's
14 Exhibit 339.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that you have established
17 that it is twenty minutes to three now.
18 Secondly, before I continue, I asked for these minutes of the
19 meetings of the government of Montenegro that are official records of the
20 government of Montenegro and that refer to many of the points that the
21 witness made here, namely that what he was saying was quite false. I
22 wanted them to be exhibited. I think that these are official transcripts
23 and that therefore you can include them.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now we can go on.
Page 11321
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In your statement --
3 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We'll get a number for that.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 46.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In your statement, you say -- this is page 8, the paragraph one
8 before last: "As for why Bulatovic and Djukanovic embraced Milosevic's
9 plans so enthusiastically, I think there are several reasons. Bulatovic
10 liked being the president of Montenegro. He wanted to hold on to that and
11 that meant slavishly supporting Milosevic no matter what. Djukanovic, on
12 the other hand, wanted to advance even further. He was extremely
13 ambitious and saw himself perhaps becoming Milosevic's top deputy and one
14 day successor or possibly becoming ruler of some expanded territories in
15 the new Greater Serbia."
16 Tell me, please, did you ever hear either me or Bulatovic or
17 Djukanovic say anything about any kind of Greater Serbia on any occasion?
18 Just say yes or no.
19 A. Yes, I heard you talking about a Greater Serbia.
20 Q. Tell me, please, because this is absolutely untrue, what did you
21 hear me say? Where did I say it and what did I say?
22 A. At the conference in The Hague, you were advocating a Greater
23 Serbia, for the Serb Krajina to remain within some new state. Also, you
24 spoke about all the Serbs living in the same state. And that you did not
25 refer to that once, you referred to it several times. Wait a minute, let
Page 11322
1 me finish now. You said several times that all Serbs should live in one
2 state. You created a Greater Serbia as you created a Serb Krajina
3 practically all the way up to Karlobag.
4 Secondly, your candidate for the president of Serbia, the current
5 one, Vojvoda Seselj, is talking about a Greater Serbia to Karlobag and
6 Igalo non-stop. That is the candidate for the president of Serbia that
7 you have supported. This is your candidate. He has always asked for a
8 Greater Serbia, and he goes even further than that.
9 JUDGE MAY: We cannot deal with the current political situation,
10 Mr. Samardzic. We are dealing with events ten years ago, as you know.
11 Was Mr. Seselj saying things like that at the time?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. He talked about that the
13 most then and now. That is my statement, that he did not change any of
14 it. As a matter of fact, he said that Rijeka was the main Serbian port
15 and Rijeka is even further away.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Samardzic, please save my time. You know full well that my
18 position regarding Yugoslavia was that it should be preserved and that
19 that is in the interest of all the Yugoslav peoples and that the Serb
20 people have an additional interest because in that Yugoslavia, Serbs live
21 in one state. That state in which the Serbs lived was Yugoslavia, not any
22 kind of Greater Serbia. So did you ever hear me speaking about a Greater
23 Serbia?
24 A. What you said, that the Serbs should live in one state, that was
25 greater Serbia, and Yugoslavia had fallen apart. It no longer existed.
Page 11323
1 For me, Yugoslavia --
2 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. So Yugoslavia was actually
3 a Greater Serbia.
4 A. No, no.
5 Q. Let me ask you something else. Did you ever hear Bulatovic or
6 Djukanovic advocating the idea of a Greater Serbia?
7 A. I never said that I -- that they advocated that. This is nowhere
8 in my statement.
9 Q. I've just quoted your statement. That's why I'm asking you why
10 you could have -- why you said something like that about the two of them.
11 A. This statement is the way it is, but I never said that they were
12 in favour of a Greater Serbia.
13 Q. Also you say in the statement you should also understand that both
14 of them -- I'm continuing that paragraph: "They were both anti-Catholic,
15 extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Croatian. Djukanovic's grandfather Blaze
16 was a Chetnik commander killed during World War II. Djukanovic revered
17 him and in fact named his son after him.
18 "Bulatovic's mother was from Herzegovina and her father was
19 killed by the Ustasha during the Second World War. She raised him with
20 this intense hatred for the Croats and for Roman Catholics in general. So
21 because of this combination of personal ambition and just pure hatred
22 towards anyone and anything non-Orthodox, Bulatovic and Djukanovic dragged
23 Montenegro down Milosevic's path to disaster."
24 You say here that they have great hatred for anything
25 non-Orthodox, as if they were some kind of Orthodox fanatics. How can you
Page 11324
1 say that when you know that's not true?
2 A. That's not what I meant to say, that they were Orthodox fanatics.
3 But at that time, that's what this euphoria was like when the war against
4 Croatia started, that everything that is Croatian is Ustasha and that it
5 should be fought against. That is what I said, in that sense, something
6 similar to that, but I don't see that exactly the way you read it.
7 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I did not say anything. I just read your
8 statement, your signed statement. So it's not my words, it's your words.
9 A. I did not sign that. I gave statements that were similar to that,
10 but there is no signature of mine there, and obviously you are adding
11 things to this. I am telling you what I am saying to you now and what I
12 said in front of the Court. That is what I'm saying and that is what is
13 true.
14 Q. Please. That's what it says here. Here it says: "Witness
15 certification: I have read this statement that consists of 34 pages and
16 it contains everything that I said to the best of my recollection and
17 knowledge. I give this statement voluntarily, and I am aware that it can
18 be used in court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal
19 for Violations of International Law Committed in the Territory of the
20 Former Yugoslavia and also that I can be called to give evidence in
21 court." And the date is there when the statement was given, that is to
22 say the 23rd of October, 2000, and now saying that that is not your
23 statement is -- well, let me not use too harsh a word. I don't think this
24 is serious.
25 Also, what do you have to say with respect to a paragraph on page
Page 11325
1 22? You say, as I mentioned before -- this the penultimate paragraph on
2 page 22: "Djukanovic maintained close contacts with the leadership of
3 Republika Srpska, RS. Large quantities of fuel and weapons were given to
4 the Serbs across the Drina and Milo's brother, Aco Djukanovic, is to be
5 credited with that. Even when Milosevic imposed the blockade on the
6 Drina, even after they rejected the Vance Plan, this equipment still
7 continued to flow into Republika Srpska across the border with Montenegro.
8 As far as I know, international observers were only at Scepan Polje, a
9 single border crossing. So this smuggling went on unhindered."
10 How can you say that when you don't know about that? Why are you
11 accusing people without having any arguments for that?
12 A. I'm not accusing people there. It was quite well known that
13 weapons did go through Montenegro to Bosnia and that the government of
14 Montenegro knew about that. When this was going on, this was during the
15 war in Bosnia, I was no longer a minister, but I did find out from various
16 people that weapons were getting through and they were.
17 Q. You don't have any firsthand knowledge about this. You are
18 involved in hearsay, in rumours.
19 A. This is not hearsay or rumours. These were generally known things
20 in Montenegro. At that time, I was no longer minister. And it is in that
21 sense that I meant it. That's how I said it.
22 Q. You also say: "Paramilitary groups that operated first in Croatia
23 and then in Bosnia had training and support facilities in Montenegro. I
24 was aware of at least two large training facilities that were in operation
25 in late 1991 and into 1992. One was at Lukovo, near Niksic, and the other
Page 11326
1 was in Golobovci at the military airport in Podgorica. These clearly were
2 known to be Babic, Bulatovic, Pavle Bulatovic, Pejakovic and Djukanovic."
3 And then, in brackets, "Niksic is Djukanovic's hometown." This is the
4 only argument you have in order to confirm this that you have been
5 accusing him of?
6 A. I am not accusing him at all and it has nothing to do with
7 anything that Niksic is his hometown. I probably said this in a different
8 context.
9 Q. I'm reading your own statement.
10 A. And I'm giving you an answer, and let me answer. There were
11 centres in Montenegro, and that is correct. However, I wanted to avoid
12 mentioning that now, what I said two years ago but now you're insisting.
13 Yes, it is true. There were training centres in Montenegro.
14 Q. You say: "There is no way that they could have operated without
15 their acquiescence and their support. These paramilitary groups were
16 responsible for the cleansing of Muslim families from their homes in the
17 Bukovica area. This had been the last remnant of a rural Muslim
18 population in Montenegro left after the 1924 ethnic cleansing of Muslims
19 from Montenegro. The work of the paramilitaries was common knowledge and
20 was clearly done with the knowledge of the police and military."
21 That is your assertion.
22 A. I assert that at that time, Muslim families in Bukovica, many of
23 them, were massacred. That's a well-known fact, and that occurred in
24 Montenegro.
25 Q. You say further on: "At the very beginning of the war in Bosnia,
Page 11327
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11328
1 I remember Djukanovic saying at a meeting of the government that, 'We
2 (Montenegrins) had to stop the Muslims from killing our Serb brothers.'
3 However, once Milosevic made the decision to 'withdraw' the JNA from
4 Bosnia, though, very little was ever said about Bosnia any more in open
5 meetings. Since Serbia was officially out of Bosnia, so was Montenegro."
6 Well, do you know?
7 A. What do you mean?
8 Q. Without any quotation marks, when the Federal Republic of
9 Yugoslavia was proclaimed, all the citizens of the Federal Republic of
10 Yugoslavia were supposed to withdraw into Yugoslavia. That is to say both
11 from Serbia and from Montenegro.
12 A. Please repeat your question. What are you asking me? What do you
13 want me to say?
14 Q. I want you to tell me why are you accusing Djukanovic yet again
15 that he explained at a government meeting that you were supposed to
16 struggle against Muslims and that you were supposed to stop them from
17 killing our Serb brothers, et cetera? I did not see this in any of the
18 minutes of the Montenegrin government.
19 A. Two years have gone by. I don't really remember that that's what
20 I stated. To tell you the truth, I can hardly believe that I put it
21 exactly that way, but if that's the way it's been transcribed --
22 Q. Mr. Samardzic, in 2000 you remember what happened in 1991, and in
23 2002 you don't remember what happened in 2000.
24 A. Yes, it's possible that I don't remember what happened yesterday.
25 That's quite possible.
Page 11329
1 Q. And also, you say a certain number of Muslims from Foca were
2 thrown into the Piva Lake, and so on and so forth. Is that what you
3 claim?
4 A. Yes. A family of Muslims was thrown into the Lake Piva, but I
5 never accused Djukanovic of having done that. That's what you are adding,
6 what you are inventing.
7 Q. I'm not inventing anything.
8 A. Yes, you are. Does it say that anywhere? Is that written
9 anywhere?
10 Q. Please give me an answer to the following question: You say --
11 you attack Cosic, the president of the FRY at the time, otherwise, he is
12 no doubt the greatest living Serbian author. You say that in Herceg-Novi
13 -- you say this in the penultimate paragraph on page 24, that: "Soon
14 after he became head of state, he made a speech and he said that
15 Yugoslavia would never give up on Prevlaka and that the struggle for
16 Prevlaka is not only the struggle of the people of Herceg-Novi and Kotor
17 but also of Serbs from Kragujevac -- Serbs in Kragujevac and Pancevo. One
18 week later, though, Milosevic told him to sign the agreement for the JNA
19 to withdraw from Prevlaka and for it to be turned over to Croatia albeit
20 under UN supervision."
21 How can you say that? Cosic was older than me. How can I give
22 orders to him? And secondly, wasn't his -- the step he took a step
23 towards peace, to have UN monitors there until a final settlement? You
24 could have known that at least, Mr. Samardzic. Isn't that the way it was?
25 A. No. It was the way you read it out, the way I said it.
Page 11330
1 Q. All right.
2 A. Let me answer. That's precisely the speech he made in
3 Herceg-Novi, and he was watching Prevlaka. Seven days later, on your
4 orders, he signed or, rather, he agreed with Tudjman to return Prevlaka to
5 Croatia. What is so surprising about that? He did not return Prevlaka on
6 his own. He wouldn't have done it without you.
7 Q. All right. All right. Since you say in this statement, and I'm
8 sure you're not going to challenge that because you are now speaking in
9 this way, nobody brought into question the fact that Prevlaka was part of
10 Croatian territory and always had been. That's at the end of page 24.
11 And now I'm asking you the following: Since this story of yours
12 concerning Prevlaka is particularly interesting, you say that Prevlaka was
13 invented as a pretext in order to attack Dubrovnik, and that nobody
14 brought that into question, that it was always Croatian territory. And
15 now I'm asking you, because you are the first person to bring that into
16 question, in the newspapers dated the 3rd of October, 1991, that is to say
17 the time when you say that you were the staunchest critic of the war, and
18 now I'm quoting what you said, this is the Pobjeda newspaper, the leading
19 newspaper in Montenegro, and I'm quoting you: "As for the question of
20 Prevlaka, we have to prove that Prevlaka is part of our territory and that
21 it was never Croatian. With what right are they taking it now and
22 attacking because of that? Since it is so, we have to fight because we
23 are defending ourselves."
24 This is what Pobjeda published and you stated --
25 JUDGE MAY: I'm stopping this. It's right that the witness should
Page 11331
1 be able to deal with this. First of all, do you remember what's ascribed
2 to you as being said on the 3rd of October 1991? Does it sound as though
3 you might have said that? Can you help us?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This is absolutely made up. I
5 don't think so. If it is in Pobjeda, then it is a forgery or, rather, it
6 was invented by Konatar who was then editor of Pobjeda and who was a major
7 advocate of the war with Croatia. That is why it is called Konatar's
8 Pobjeda. I never could have stated anything like that, nor did I.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. It is sufficient to say
11 that that is not correct, and that is even what you stated at an
12 extraordinary session of the Presidency of the government of Montenegro
13 that was held on that day; is that right?
14 A. You mean what Pobjeda wrote? No way, no. It is certain that I
15 never said that, never. Definitely not.
16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, on the 12th of September at the plenary session of
17 the conference in The Hague -- as regards Pobjeda, it would be easy to
18 find. But in The Hague, you said that Montenegro advocated the
19 preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Federation. Now here you are
20 saying that Montenegro advocated a Greater Serbia. I shall remind you.
21 I'm quoting you now. This is the statement made by Nikola Samardzic,
22 Minister of Foreign Affairs in Montenegro at the plenary session of the
23 conference in The Hague on the 12th of September, 1991:
24 "It is generally known that from the very outset, Montenegro
25 advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav federation but
Page 11332
1 that changes were supposed to be carried out between the republican and
2 federal authorities so that the new federation would be better than the
3 one until now."
4 So what, you advocated -- what did you advocate, actually? Did
5 Montenegro advocate a Greater Serbia or the preservation of Yugoslavia?
6 A. I did say that Montenegro -- where did I say that Montenegro
7 advocated Greater Serbia? Why are you trying to trick me into saying
8 that? I say that that's what you advocated.
9 Q. You are saying here that in Montenegro, there was a feeling in
10 favour of --
11 JUDGE MAY: Wait a minute. One at a --
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. -- there was a feeling in favour of a Greater Serbia and that is
14 what is present throughout your testimony.
15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, what is suggested is that you made a
16 statement in The Hague on the 12th of September of that year, and the
17 statement attributed to you is -- well, as the accused has read out,
18 "Montenegro advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav
19 federation." Did you make a statement to that effect or anything like it?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I did. That's the
21 statement I made, and that can be proven by these documents from this
22 session at the beginning of October. And then the leadership of
23 Montenegro advocated peace so that Yugoslavia could be maintained in a
24 way. At that time, there was sill no Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of
25 Slobodan Milosevic. I don't see anything bad in that, in what the accused
Page 11333
1 Milosevic is trying to put into my mouth.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I see nothing bad there too because I always strove
4 to preserve Yugoslavia. What I see that is bad is that you're saying
5 something quite different to what you were saying at the time, and that's
6 the point, not that you advocated the wrong thing.
7 Let me also quote the next sentence from that same speech yours at
8 the conference in The Hague, and it is contained in official documents.
9 At that same session you said the following quite literally: "Montenegro
10 in respecting the rights of Croatia and Slovenia to self-determination,
11 always stressed that the Serbs living in Croatia have the right to remain
12 within Yugoslavia." That is the exact quotation from that same speech of
13 yours. "Fully respecting the rights of the peoples of Croatia and
14 Slovenia to self-determination and to secession from Yugoslavia,
15 Montenegro has always emphasised that the same rights should be enjoyed by
16 the Serb people living in Croatia, that is to say that they may be allowed
17 to opt and live and remain in Yugoslavia. We are convinced that this is
18 the rightful democratic and peaceful solution for the position of the Serb
19 people in Croatia and that is one of the basic factors for the overall
20 solution to the Yugoslav crisis."
21 I agree with that quotation of yours, Mr. Samardzic.
22 JUDGE MAY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Why are you now saying --
25 JUDGE MAY: Wait. Let's first of all check that the witness
Page 11334
1 agrees that he said this lengthy quotation you're reading out again.
2 Mr. Samardzic, you can see it on the monitor. Do you agree that
3 you said this or something like it at the meeting?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Eleven years have elapsed since that
5 time. I quite certainly did say something very similar. I did not say
6 that the Serb people in Croatia should break away from Croatia and leave
7 but that a settlement should be found for the Serb people in Croatia. I
8 said something along those lines on that occasion.
9 So the first part of the quotation is correct. The second one is
10 an approximation, and I see nothing bad or terrible in what I said at that
11 time at that meeting in defending the interests of Montenegro.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I see nothing terrible or bad either. What I do see as terrible
14 and bad is that you're saying quite the opposite now.
15 A. What is it that I'm saying that is contrary to what I said then?
16 Tell me. When I said that Montenegro pursued different lines. I kept
17 stressing that the Montenegro leadership wanted to get out from under your
18 influence, at least as far as it was possible.
19 Q. This has nothing to do with my question. You spoke something
20 quite different then to what you're saying now. You now -- you said that
21 the same rights should be enjoyed by the Serbian people living in Croatia,
22 namely that they could opt to live in Yugoslavia, to continue to live in
23 Yugoslavia. Why are you saying something quite different now,
24 Mr. Samardzic?
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, did you ever say --
Page 11335
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11336
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Judge.
2 JUDGE MAY: Did you ever say that the Serbs in Croatia could opt
3 to live in Yugoslavia?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. I remember that. I
5 have just recalled those meetings, and I do remember having said that at
6 one of them.
7 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. What is your point?
8 What is the point you're trying to make with this witness in these lengthy
9 quotations?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is precisely in the fact
11 that the witness who at the time said things that were very reasonable,
12 rational, and quite proper and correct, now calls all of that a crime and
13 refers to it as being Greater Serbian expansionism, et cetera.
14 JUDGE MAY: What are you challenging in particular?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am challenging the verisimilitude
16 of that, because this witness, Mr. May, is lying. That is what we're
17 dealing with here. As he says in his statement --
18 JUDGE MAY: I don't understand why you put these points. You make
19 these lengthy quotations; the witness agrees with you. Now, what is the
20 point you want us to take since we're going to have to judge the
21 truthfulness of this evidence?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he claims that Serbia and
23 Montenegro and all of that together under my leadership had taken up
24 positions along the border of Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica, whereas now he
25 says that the Serb people living in Krajina, if they wished to remain
Page 11337
1 within Yugoslavia, have the right to do so, to remain within Yugoslavia.
2 That is something he advocated and strove for, whereas in his statement
3 and testimony, he refers to that ten years later, here, as Greater Serbian
4 expansionism and a crime. That's what I'm saying. I think that's quite
5 obvious.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you are simply not making yourself
7 plain, but we'll allow the witness to deal with this. It may be said,
8 this point may be said: Did you at the time - and perhaps you can help
9 with us this - complain about Serb -- what you now say about Serb
10 expansionism and the plans for a Greater Serbia? Can you help us with
11 that?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
13 JUDGE MAY: Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. I'm asking the
14 witness a question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, I did speak about the
16 expansion and about Greater Serbia and taking over territory by force,
17 territory of Croatia as far as I knew at the time, and I knew less about
18 it then than I do now, and taking territories from Croatia by force. This
19 is expansionism, and I condemned it then and condemn it now. And that was
20 borne out by Mr. Kacic and Mr. Wejnaendts as well in their books. I
21 condemned violence, the violence that was directed against Croatia and its
22 territory, and that nothing to do with the right of the Serb people to
23 self-determination, what he is criticising me for now.
24 So I presented this view at the meeting, and I stand by it now,
25 and I stood by it then, and I condemn what was done in Croatia by the
Page 11338
1 so-called Yugoslav army under your leadership. That is what I condemn,
2 what was done and perpetrated in Croatia by force.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. So you call one and the same concept, the right of Serbs to live
5 in and remain in Yugoslavia, that same concept now ten years later you are
6 referring to and calling Greater Serbian expansionism; is that it?
7 A. This once again is a trick, because that is not how things stand.
8 It is a complete trick on your part. I still think that the Serb people
9 have the right to self-determination. That means that the Serb people in
10 Croatia have the right to have their own autonomy, as was proposed by Lord
11 Carrington himself, and you should have proposed this and not sent an army
12 against Croatia.
13 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you know nothing about all that because you
14 wouldn't be saying what you're saying now if you did, but let me be more
15 specific. In that same speech of yours at the plenary session in The
16 Hague - so this is no newspaper article, it is your speech - in that, you
17 say the following: "Montenegro always strove and is still striving for
18 the fact that the existing borders between the Yugoslav republics should
19 remain unchanged on condition that Yugoslavia remains as a state and an
20 international legal subject."
21 Do you remember having said that?
22 A. Yes, I do. What's bad in that?
23 Q. That means that if Yugoslavia is preserved, that the boundaries
24 and borders should be not changed. Now, who called for a change in the
25 borders? Was it the Serbs in Croatia if Yugoslavia was preserved? Do you
Page 11339
1 remember that they voted in favour of preserving Yugoslavia? Isn't that
2 right?
3 A. Well, Yugoslavia had already almost disappeared by that time, and
4 Croatia had proclaimed itself an independent state, so it's no use talking
5 about preserving Yugoslavia at that time because Yugoslavia had already
6 ceased to exist.
7 Q. How can you then say that Yugoslavia -- that Montenegro strove and
8 is still striving? Why were you striving for that then when you say that
9 Yugoslavia no longer existed, had already disappeared?
10 A. Well, it was still recognised officially but it had actually
11 disappeared, whereas Montenegro did strive to preserve Yugoslavia. That's
12 it. What do you want?
13 Q. Yes. But you used the past tense and the present tense.
14 A. Well, maybe that's a mistake but I used the past tense.
15 Q. You used both the present and the past tense.
16 A. Well, don't hold me to just one single word.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, as this is the statement of
18 your esteemed witness Mr. Samardzic and it is the speech he made in The
19 Hague, I would like to tender this into evidence.
20 Now I can move on to the next question.
21 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Defence Exhibit
23 47.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I have a document here which you tabled, Nikola J.
Page 11340
1 Samardzic, Foreign Minister, and Momo Knezevic, Minister of Justice,
2 Titograd. The 15th of September 1991 is the date and you submitted a
3 report on the work to the Ministerial Conference on Yugoslavia.
4 Now, tell me this, please: You state in that report -- the report
5 is a written one, you submitted it. "At a separate meeting with Lord
6 Carrington, we presented a number of details to substantiate the positions
7 put forward at the plenary conference, and they are as follows: The
8 conflicts in Croatia emanated through the fact that the Serb people living
9 in that republic were in jeopardy." Isn't that right, Mr. Samardzic?
10 That is what it says in your own report, that the conflicts in Croatia
11 followed on from the fact that the Serbs were threatened there. And now
12 you say that they were threatened because Milosevic went to -- waged a
13 conquest for the borders up until Karlobag.
14 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with it, please.
15 Yes. That's what's alleged that you reported at the time.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What we did was to write a report.
17 I recognise that we did write this. We presented it, and we told Lord
18 Carrington that we would do so, to justify what was going on at the time
19 in Croatia so that we could in a way protect that party at that time, and
20 I recognise that I did not say all things quite exactly and precisely in
21 my talk with Lord Carrington.
22 Q. Well, all right. In the report, you go on to write the following,
23 Mr. Samardzic, as well, that you told Carrington, that is to say at that
24 separate meeting with him, and you and the Minister of Justice state this
25 in the report, and I quote you: "Collective consciousness and
Page 11341
1 recollections of Serbs in Croatia about the genocide which took place 50
2 years previously by the quisling Croatian authorities against the Serbs is
3 still very much present and strong in the psychology of the Serb
4 population living in Croatia."
5 Isn't that so, Mr. Samardzic?
6 A. Yes, and I can confirm that today. That idea is -- is -- does
7 exist in the consciousness of the Serbs living in Croatia because there
8 was a genocide that was committed during World War II. All that is true.
9 But what is the point there? The point is that instead of you, faced with
10 a Yugoslav crisis, assume a different position --
11 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the answer to my question is
13 just this, Mr. May; I don't have time to listen to him go on and on --
14 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.
15 Yes, Mr. Samardzic.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Momo Knezevic and myself set out the
17 truth there. Yes, it is true that the Serbian people in Croatia feared
18 that they would see a repeat of what had happened to them in 1941, and
19 that is why this had to be treated, this symptom had to be treated,
20 because Croatia in 1941 was not the same Croatia that existed later on,
21 and instead of treating this ailment, you supported this fear that the
22 Serb population had.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. But you yourself, Mr. Samardzic, wrote down the following here:
Page 11342
1 "The Serb people in Croatia see the new Croatian authorities as the
2 revamping of fascism and the recollections of the fascist state which was
3 the greatest ally of fascist Germany which declared war on Great Britain,
4 the United States and the USSR." That is something that you yourself
5 wrote down here. Is that what you thought? And if you did think that,
6 why are you saying something quite different here and now?
7 A. Well, I'm not saying anything different and I'm going to confirm
8 that the Ante Pavlovic Independent State was a quisling creation. There
9 is nothing to be challenged on that score.
10 Q. But I'm asking you about the first part of your sentence when you
11 say that the Serbian people in Croatia saw the new Croatian authorities as
12 the revival of that type of fascism, and you were very eloquent in
13 explaining it at that time. Are you suffering from dementia of some kind
14 now that you can't explain it away now?
15 A. These Serb people in Croatia thought that this is what was going
16 to happen to them again, but this did not happen to them because the
17 Croatia that was created in 1991, let me repeat again, was not the same
18 Croatia that existed in 1941, and this is where you should have helped and
19 not to make use of this fear that the Serbs felt to organise bloodshed and
20 everything else you did in Croatia. So that is the accusation made
21 against you. You should have taken steps to prevent this from happening,
22 and --
23 JUDGE MAY: Now, just a moment. Just a moment. Just pause.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I am precisely proving here that you are not speaking the truth.
Page 11343
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11344
1 And in that same text, in the very next sentence, this is what you say:
2 In the elements that you laid forth before Lord Carrington you say
3 everything that is quite right. You're saying quite the opposite now,
4 that's what I'm saying. What you say is that: "The bloodshed in Croatia
5 would have been far greater, incomparably greater had the army not
6 prevented even greater clashes and conflicts from breaking out." That's
7 what you said then. And now you accuse the army of having gone there to
8 incite a conflict and clash.
9 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Isn't that right, Mr. Samardzic? Isn't that what you were doing?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 JUDGE MAY: I've turned the microphone off because everybody is
14 trying to speak at the same time. Now we'll pause.
15 Now, the question is put to you that you said then that the
16 bloodshed would have been worse had the army not been there, or words to
17 that effect; had the army not prevented even greater clashes. Now, did
18 you say that? And if so, what did you mean by it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that, Your Honour.
20 That was on the 12th of September. And at that time, I still believed in
21 the Yugoslav army, the kind that I had remembered from my childhood, and I
22 thought that it would defend the heritage of the Yugoslav liberation
23 movement from World War II. I believed that, and I thought that.
24 However, later on, after the 1st of October and beyond, as things
25 developed, I came to realise that it was no longer the kind of army that I
Page 11345
1 loved and respected. So that is where the difference lies, and that is
2 what the accused Milosevic wants to say.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. Will you look at one more thing, one
5 more explanation from this report. "In response to a question by Lord
6 Carrington, 'Why is the army destroying cities?' We replied that the army
7 was trying to deblock their besieged and surrounded barracks in certain
8 towns of Croatia. These barracks were deprived of electricity and water
9 and their food supply was cut off. The army, we said, had to break
10 through to reach their own units."
11 These things that were correct as you put them then, why are you
12 denying them now? Why are you saying completely the opposite in your
13 testimony?
14 And there is one more sentence here. You said: "We had no
15 information that the army was destroying cities, so we thought that the
16 European Community should have sent their observers to garrisons as well."
17 Why are you now saying something entirely different to what you
18 said then?
19 A. I have to say again that you are trying to make a fool of me
20 again. What I said on the 12th of the September was what I believed and
21 what I thought correct. Later, when you attacked Dubrovnik and when you
22 were trying to destroy it, I took the stance that it was an unjust war, an
23 aggression, and acted accordingly. There is no contradiction involved.
24 It is true, as far as I heard then, that there were certain garrisons that
25 were encircled and had to be freed, as the one in Rijeka was indeed freed
Page 11346
1 and got out. There is no contradiction between this quotation and my
2 subsequent condemnation which -- which followed receipt of information
3 about things that were going on in Vukovar and elsewhere. I realise that
4 the army was not exactly what I thought it was. On the 12th of September,
5 I still believed that the army was defending Yugoslavia and that it would
6 succeed.
7 However, let me finish. You were pursuing a completely different
8 policy, the policy of Greater Serbia. You took over the army. You turned
9 it practically into a Serb army, and that's how it was after the 1st of
10 October when you attacked Dubrovnik. There is absolutely no
11 contradiction.
12 And I'm not lying. I did write that report. I did say these
13 things to Lord Carrington. However, when I saw or, rather, when I learned
14 what was going on around Vukovar, around Dubrovnik, then it's quite normal
15 that I condemned it. And other people also confirmed this in their books.
16 Dr. Kacic and Mr. Wejnaendts.
17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, we must try and conserve time.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You don't have to try so hard to justify yourself. You were
20 telling the truth then and you are now retelling the indictment. And what
21 you said then was the truth.
22 I would like to know, however, how do you imagine this: You said,
23 "We attacked Dubrovnik." What did Serbia have to do with attacks on
24 Dubrovnik? Did Serbia attack Dubrovnik? Why did you call this letter of
25 the Prime Minister cynical, as if Serbia had attacked Dubrovnik?
Page 11347
1 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. There's a series of questions
2 going on. Let the witness answer.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Yugoslav army was the one that
4 attacked Dubrovnik, and at the time when it was done, the Yugoslav army
5 had already been in -- turned over into your hands. It is true that
6 Montenegrin reservists were involved, reservists who were conscripted into
7 the Yugoslav army, but what was done around Dubrovnik could not have been
8 done without the involvement and leadership of Serbia. Zelenovic himself
9 says in his letter the Territorial Defence and the Yugoslav army will do
10 this and that. They will chase away the Black Legions from Dubrovnik.
11 The Black Legions didn't even exist at the time, by the way.
12 So the Prime Minister is telling what the Territorial Defence and
13 the army would do, meaning the Territorial Defence of Montenegro, and he's
14 using the imperative mode. You should read that letter.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. That's not true at all and that's not what Zelenovic's letter
17 says, but I'll come back to that tomorrow if I have enough time. The
18 letter, in fact, says quite the opposite, but I don't want to dwell on it
19 because it has already been exhibited.
20 Will you please take this report of the Justice Minister Samardzic
21 and --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Justice Minister Momo
23 Knezevic and Foreign Minister Samardzic.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. In this report you explained that the army was trying to deblock
Page 11348
1 their own barracks and --
2 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let me take a look at this. Wait a
3 moment.
4 Do you want to exhibit this?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. That is the report of his
6 own Minister of Justice from which I quoted. He was then giving a correct
7 account of the events and now he's saying completely the opposite.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you remember --
10 JUDGE MAY: Let it be exhibited and we'll have an exhibit number
11 before we go on.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 48.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that it was I who, when the news
15 arrived that Dubrovnik was being shelled, condemned all attacks on
16 Dubrovnik in the presence of Lord Carrington and Tudjman and said that
17 Dubrovnik is a Croatian town and that it was insane to bomb or attack
18 Dubrovnik, a town which is a jewel not only for that region for but the
19 whole of Yugoslavia? Do you remember that?
20 A. You may have said that, but that was part of your politics. The
21 army that you commanded was destroying Dubrovnik at the time. There is no
22 doubt about that. And of course you could have been telling sweet stories
23 to Lord Carrington.
24 Q. We'll come back to that later. Tell me, what is the basis for
25 your claim that Serbia in some way was involved? Was there anyone ever
Page 11349
1 from Serbia, and I mean from the official level because I'm not interested
2 in anything else, was there anyone who ever mentioned Serbian claims on
3 Dubrovnik based on something that happened in the Middle Ages?
4 A. Let me say that this campaign against Dubrovnik was led by
5 Yugoslav army officers who were under your command, Serb officers.
6 Furthermore, Dr. Kacic in his book, and I don't know if you've read it,
7 says --
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, we can't be -- we can't be dealing with
9 somebody else's book. That's secondhand at best.
10 Mr. Milosevic, just help us -- just -- Mr. Milosevic, will you
11 help us with this: You say that you condemned this attack on Dubrovnik.
12 Now, what is your case about this? I mean, who do you say attacked
13 Dubrovnik? So the witness can deal with it.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We worked together with Lord
15 Carrington at this conference when the news arrived that somebody was
16 firing shells at Dubrovnik, and I said, This is madness, I don't believe
17 it, but if anything of the kind is really happening, that deserves
18 condemnation. Dubrovnik is a Croatian town and this cannot be tolerated.
19 There was no doubt at any level in the government of both
20 Yugoslavia and Serbia that this was a Croatian town. And these stories
21 about the Dubrovnik Republic was totally silly.
22 JUDGE MAY: But who was -- who do you say was responsible for
23 attacking it?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will come back to that later. At
25 the time when I returned --
Page 11350
1 JUDGE MAY: Can you tell us now? You don't have to, of course,
2 but if you can tell us who you suggest was responsible --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. The explanation that I got
4 was that the army was being attacked. And it was absolutely not true that
5 the army was attacking Dubrovnik, because if it had wanted to take it, it
6 would have taken it. The army, instead, only wanted to limit the actions
7 of the National Guard Corps. That's the information I got.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Samardzic, as you know well, none of the presidents of
10 Yugoslav republics was able to command the Yugoslav army. That was not
11 within their purview.
12 Mr. Samardzic, you submitted a report to the president of the
13 Republic, Momir Bulatovic, on the 13th of December, and you said in that
14 report that the status of Croatia are hard line, categoric, and the new
15 minister, Separovic, misses absolutely no opportunity to accuse the army
16 and Serbia. You had a critical attitude to the Croatian authorities then
17 and you are saying something quite different now.
18 I will quote item 5, where it says, "Nikola J. Samardzic, Momo
19 Knezevic" - with your signatures underneath - addressed to "Momir
20 Bulatovic, President of the Presidency of Montenegro, brief report on the
21 work of the conference." Item 5: "The stances of Croatia are the most
22 intractable and the new Minister Separovic missed no opportunity to accuse
23 and blame the JNA. He held the only press conference after the work was
24 completed, in addition to one held by Lord Carrington."
25 And then you go on to say where the next meeting should be held,
Page 11351
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11352
1 and you mention Igalo. I will exhibit this as well. Can you explain
2 this?
3 A. It will be very easy. That report was from the session in
4 September, and as I've already said, at that time, I still believed that
5 the Yugoslav army would prevent conflict in Yugoslavia, not create it.
6 That's what I believed and that's when I wrote. I wrote the truth. The
7 aggressive minister of Croatia at the time was Separovic who was indeed
8 very aggressive, very hard-line in all his opinions, and I didn't invent
9 any of this. When Croatia was attacked in the way it was attacked around
10 Dubrovnik, I condemned it. I condemned the attack on Dubrovnik. I
11 condemned the way it was handled.
12 What you are saying now about the ZNG moving on Montenegro and the
13 reports you got about it, it's absolutely untrue. I don't know what kind
14 of reports you got, but it was the Yugoslav army which moved out of
15 Montenegro at the time and spread devastation and plundering around
16 Dubrovnik. There is absolutely no contradiction involved.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... condemned
18 both by Mr. Milosevic and the witness.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Samardzic, it is certain that nobody justified either
21 plundering or the killing of innocent people, of soldiers or anyone else.
22 I'm saying something quite different, namely you are now telling something
23 quite opposite to your words at the time.
24 A. I'm not. I'm saying the same thing.
25 Q. Mr. Samardzic, let's not waste any more time. Give me a direct
Page 11353
1 answer. Here is your speech at the peace conference in The Hague held on
2 the 19th September. I will skip everything up to the very end where you
3 say: "The tragedy of the Serb people in Croatia and Bosnia in both world
4 wars, and I emphasise, and the current bloodshed in Croatia are the main
5 causes of the tragedy and crisis in Yugoslavia from its conception to
6 date. Without resolving the Serb issue in Croatia, there can be no
7 resolution of the Yugoslav crisis." These are your words, again, at the
8 plenary session.
9 Why are you saying something entirely different now as to the
10 cause of the war, something entirely different to what you described as
11 the cause of the war when you were minister?
12 A. Well, that's simply not the case. I am prepared to say that
13 today, that the Serb people in Croatia and Bosnia, through the fault of
14 their then-leadership because you were not even alive then, was victim of
15 a great tragedy in both world wars. But it is equally true that the Serb
16 people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia suffered great misfortune
17 also through your policies and your actions.
18 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you keep repeating, despite all my arguments which
19 completely refute all you say, that it is my policy that is to blame,
20 whereas in the quotations I have read out, you describe the cause of the
21 Yugoslav crisis quite differently.
22 I want both of these reports exhibited. Let's not waste time.
23 On the 20th of September, 1990, at the press conference in The
24 Hague -- 1991 -- you said, Mr. -- you said: "The Yugoslav People's Army
25 continues the tradition of the heroic resistance to fascism and the
Page 11354
1 national liberation war. That is why the Yugoslav delegation repels all
2 attacks and attempts to blame the Yugoslav People's Army and slander.
3 "We have many facts that indicate that the Yugoslav People's
4 Army's actions helped prevent much broader conflict and bloodshed among
5 warring parties in Yugoslavia. Until now, the JNA did not respond to
6 attacks in order to avoid greater casualties. The JNA is not destroying
7 Yugoslav towns. If the Croatian troops put -- put a machine-gun nest on a
8 bell tower, then it is a military facility and not a religious temple."
9 JUDGE MAY: Now, we're going to stop this reading. The witness
10 can't deal with all this.
11 Mr. Samardzic, you can see what's suggested here that you said at
12 a press conference in The Hague on the 20th of September. You said that
13 the -- just a moment. Let me just go through this. "The Yugoslav
14 delegation repels all attacks and attempts to blame the JNA." You said,
15 as alleged, that it helped prevent much broader conflict and bloodshed.
16 It didn't respond to attacks in order to avoid greater casualties. It
17 isn't destroying Yugoslav towns. And then there is an allegation about
18 the Croatian troops putting a machine-gun on a bell tower, it being a
19 military facility.
20 Did you say words to that effect or not? And if so, if you want
21 to explain them, you can.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say words to that effect
23 because I deeply believed then that the Yugoslav army would not do what it
24 actually did and what it started doing ten days after that, that is the
25 20th of September. The war for Dubrovnik had not started yet.
Page 11355
1 As for the happenings around Vukovar at the time, I did not know
2 about it. I repeat for the third time to the accused Milosevic that at
3 that time, I still believed that the Yugoslav army would prevent bloodshed
4 in Yugoslavia. I deeply believed in that. I was disillusioned when I saw
5 what was going on around Dubrovnik.
6 I repeat to you once again: I come from a partisan family. I was
7 a child then, but I remember this national liberation army, the national
8 liberation struggle, and I had deep trust in our army. And when I saw
9 around Dubrovnik that the unit of the 5th Montenegrin Brigade that follows
10 its tradition, that you sent Vojvoda Seselj, a Chetnik, to review that
11 brigade, when you sent him with cockades --
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, if you could just deal with the point
13 shortly.
14 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, why are you saying such falsehoods? The Yugoslav
17 army, any official authorities of Serbia, the police of Serbia on its
18 territory never wore any different kind of insignia but the official
19 insignia. Everything that you are saying about different political
20 parties and in Montenegro the People's Party and in Serbia various parties
21 that you refer to, you know full well that they were in opposition both in
22 Serbia and in Montenegro and that therefore they could not have nor did
23 they have any role in the functioning of the Yugoslav army or the
24 Montenegrin police or the police of Serbia or any official authorities.
25 Therefore, this is false.
Page 11356
1 Why did you make this up? Did you see Seselj inspecting this
2 military unit?
3 A. I saw Seselj on television, and that was in the newspapers, and
4 I'm astounded by that until the present day. And today he is your
5 candidate for the President of Serbia, and he is still a Chetnik vojvoda.
6 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I don't think that Serbia is threatened by
7 Chetniks. It is threatened by Ustashas, those who forge elections and
8 work for aggressors.
9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're not going into the current
10 politics.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. May, I believe that
12 we have heard very well that in terms of everything he established quite
13 correctly at the time, Mr. Samardzic has said that that's the way it was
14 until he saw the units of the JNA, and I don't know who else, attack
15 Dubrovnik, which is not true, because Dubrovnik was not destroyed. And
16 since he found these explanations in September, I'm going to move him on
17 to December.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Now, this is your text, Mr. Samardzic. It was written in New York
20 on the 6th of December the same year, and it says here -- this is the
21 historical aspect of the alliance between Serbia and Montenegro, and it
22 says: "Montenegro is not denying but highlighting its alliance with
23 Serbia in respect of the protection of interests and the survival of the
24 Serb people in Croatia."
25 So that's what you wrote in December. And then: "The present-day
Page 11357
1 Croatian government is carrying out a genocide over the Serb people in
2 Croatia, and in this century only this is the third genocide against the
3 remnants of these people." And that is correct, what you wrote then, Mr.
4 Samardzic, but now you're saying something completely different and --
5 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. You're being asked -- let him
6 deal with it.
7 You're being asked about a statement it's alleged you made in New
8 York on 6th of December when you were highlighting -- just a moment --
9 highlighting the alliance with Serbia, referred to the protection and
10 survival of the Serb people in Croatia. Can you help us about that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is a forgery. I did not
12 make any statements in New York. I was in New York in a delegation
13 together with President Bulatovic, and if anybody was making statements,
14 it was him, not me.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I am talking about a text of yours in the capacity
17 of a minister who is accompanying a president and who is writing him an
18 official pro memoria. This is your text. It says the 6th of December,
19 1991, New York, Nikola J. Samardzic. It is your text.
20 JUDGE MAY: Let him see the text. Put it to him. Let him see it.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No problem, as you know, to prove
22 this. And you can go on denying whatever you don't like, but please go
23 ahead. Just have it admitted into evidence and it is no problem for me
24 to --
25 JUDGE MAY: We will not admit it into evidence until we've heard
Page 11358
1 what the witness says about it. If he accepts it, we may.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not my text. However, I
3 have to give an explanation.
4 I presented facts to President Bulatovic, and he wrote down these
5 facts about the First World War, about the Second World War, facts that
6 are important for the relations between Serbia and Croatia and in terms of
7 overall relations in the Balkans. I presented him facts about the
8 14-point plan of President Wilson.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. It's included there.
11 A. It is included there and I told him about it and he wrote it down.
12 I did not write this. Again I'm -- an attempt is being made to trick me
13 into something. I did not say that the current authorities in Croatia
14 were genocidal. I said that in 1941 Croatia had a genocidal government.
15 This was the government of Ante Pavlovic, this was a puppet state of
16 Hitler, of Nazi Germany. That's what I said.
17 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Help us with this: What is the
18 document that you're looking at? It's described as a text but what does
19 it purport to be?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it doesn't really represent
21 anything. There are just some historical facts here that I presented to
22 Bulatovic and that he wrote down. I did not write this. And now he has
23 this text, including these historical facts from World War I and World War
24 II. In addition to that, there is the statement that the new Croatian
25 government in the early 1990s was genocidal and that is something I deny.
Page 11359
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11360
1 I did not say that. But I did give Bulatovic historical facts as we were
2 flying to America, and I insisted or, rather, I proposed to him that he
3 take advantage of this --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... signature?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Nobody signed it. Nothing. It
6 was just written. I assume that at the embassy or somewhere Momir wrote
7 this and prepared this so that he could speak about this somewhere, so
8 that he could speak about these historical facts that I told him about. I
9 never wrote this for him in December 1991, that the then-Croatian
10 government in 1991 was genocidal. This is a trick.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you claim that Momir Bulatovic, on the last page
13 of that text, at the bottom of the page, put the date of the 6th of
14 December, 1991, New York, and then he put Nikola J. Samardzic, your very
15 own name and surname down there? So it was Bulatovic who was taking notes
16 while you were talking to him on the plane, and then he wrote this down
17 and then he put your name on these notes regarding what you had told him
18 verbally. Do you know that the entire delegation can testify to the fact
19 that you gave him this paper as a pro memoria?
20 JUDGE MAY: No. It didn't matter about the entire delegation.
21 Mr. Samardzic, does your name appear at the bottom?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's printed, Nikola
23 Samardzic.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, I did not sign it. Again,
Page 11361
1 I repeat that I presented historical facts to Momir Bulatovic, historical
2 facts related to the First World War and the Second World War. If
3 necessary, I'm going to present these facts now again, and I presented
4 these facts often, not only then on the plane, and I presented these facts
5 in public very often.
6 JUDGE MAY: Can you help us as to how your name may have gotten on
7 the bottom?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to tell you the truth, I can't
9 really help you how this text was written. I don't remember who actually
10 wrote it and when. I remember the historical facts that I presented to
11 Momir Bulatovic, and I remember these very same historical facts that I
12 myself presented at various places. I do advocate an independent
13 Montenegro, and I said often that the President of the United States of
14 America, President Wilson, supported the independence of Montenegro under
15 point 11 within his 14 points, and it says quite clearly that Montenegro
16 should be independent.
17 Your Honour, let me say one more thing now that this has come up.
18 The 14 points of President Wilson is a programme of the democratic world
19 which was presented to the US Congress on the 8th of January, 1918, so
20 three months after the communist October revolution broke out in Russia.
21 JUDGE MAY: I must stop you. We can't go into this history.
22 Can we have a look at the document, please.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All these facts that Mr. Samardzic
24 is mentioning are there.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
Page 11362
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a reminder, an outline for
2 his president that he accompanied to New York.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Samardzic, are you saying that your name,
4 which appears on page 4 of this text at the bottom, was written by
5 somebody else, was typed in by somebody?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. I did not write that
7 text, nor did I accept it. I repeat once again that the historical facts
8 that are presented there do come from me. I presented them at several
9 places, and I also presented them to President Bulatovic during the flight
10 to New York and before that. I stand by the historical facts, but do I
11 not stand by the claim that I said that the Croatian authorities at the
12 time were genocidal.
13 Quite simply, I presented historical facts. And who wrote this
14 text, it was probably one of the civil servants who wrote this out for
15 President Bulatovic on the basis of what I had been saying, because there
16 were several people on the delegation, and there is not a single person
17 who is going to confirm that I wrote that. It is true that I talked about
18 the First World War and I talked about the Second World War.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... translated.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll mark that for identification. And while
21 that is being done, Mr. Milosevic, there was another document you wanted
22 exhibited. I think it was the statement of the 20th of September.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters cannot hear anything from the
24 courtroom.
25 THE ACCUSED: Please, separately.
Page 11363
1 JUDGE MAY: Let us -- just a moment. Let us get these exhibited
2 in order, see what we've got.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document dated the 30th of the
4 September, 1991, will be Defence Exhibit 49.
5 The document dated 19th of September, 1991, will be Defence
6 Exhibit 50.
7 The document marked the 12th and 13th of September, 1991, will be
8 Defence Exhibit 51.
9 And then the last document, which is dated 6 December, 1991, will
10 be marked for identification as D52.
11 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
12 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. So in addition to that document, Mr. Samardzic, that you
15 personally gave to your president as a reminder for his official
16 meetings --
17 JUDGE MAY: He's given his explanation about it. There's no point
18 in arguing about it.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that you also gave him a text
22 entitled, "Questions that may be put to President Bulatovic during his
23 visit to the USA, a brief outline of possible answers"? Do you remember
24 that, Mr. Samardzic, since you accompanied your president and then you
25 gave him this brief outline regarding possible questions and answers?
Page 11364
1 A. Let me see this document.
2 Q. First I'm going to put a few questions to you and then I'm going
3 to give you that document just like I gave you the other document. It's
4 also authentic. The Republic of Montenegro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
5 Questions that may be put to President Bulatovic during his visit, brief
6 outline of possible answers, Titograd 1991." You are preparing your
7 president's visit and the president for this visit.
8 I can't read all of this now but one is: "What is the reason for
9 the Yugoslav crisis?" And now what follows is: "The new authorities in
10 Croatia are carrying out a genocide against the Serb people in Croatia."
11 Next: "The collective memory of the Serb people concerning the
12 genocide that was carried out against it in 1941 is still fresh in
13 people's memories."
14 Further on: "Due to the current genocide and the memory of the
15 genocide from 1941, the Serb people in Croatia will not at any cost remain
16 in Croatia and live in Croatia."
17 And then further on: "If the Croatian people has the right to step
18 out of Yugoslavia, so does the Serb people; they have the right to remain
19 within Yugoslavia."
20 So those then are four points for the cause of the Yugoslav crisis
21 that you prepared for your president, and you're now saying something that
22 is quite the opposite, whereas at that time you claim what he claimed and
23 the whole of official policy.
24 Now, the next question: "Are there any differences between
25 Montenegro and Serbia in their attitudes to the settlement of the Yugoslav
Page 11365
1 crisis?" And your thesis and outline for the answers are that: "The
2 basic stands and viewpoints are identical. There are differences in the
3 ways in which to settle certain concrete questions. Montenegro is an
4 equal party in the Yugoslav federation and therefore it is normal for it
5 to have its own positions and stands."
6 Is that so, Mr. Samardzic? Were they indeed -- was this indeed
7 your outline? Were they your outlines prepared for your president, the
8 president of the Republic of Montenegro?
9 A. Your Honour, I'd like to be able to have a look at the document
10 for me to be able to answer --
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and respond.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have just a few more questions to
14 ask from this document and then I'll let him have a look at it
15 afterwards.
16 JUDGE MAY: Just let him look at it.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. "Why do Montenegrin reservists --" "Why are Montenegrin reservists
19 the only ones that are fighting around Dubrovnik?" "Now there is relative
20 peace around Dubrovnik. We are dealing with December 1991 in this theatre
21 of war. The truce is being respected. The historical part of the City of
22 Dubrovnik has not been destroyed or damaged."
23 And then: "Do you consider that the siege of Dubrovnik is
24 necessary and rational from a military and humanitarian aspect?" And you
25 say: "Yes, it is true that there are no military barracks in Dubrovnik.
Page 11366
1 The military operations over Dubrovnik started with the onslaughts on the
2 basis of Prevlaka and this was implemented within the frameworks of the
3 basic strategy of the paramilitaries in Croatia to expel all the JNA
4 barracks from the territory of Croatia. The continued operations around
5 Dubrovnik probably have as their objective and have their military logic
6 that the siege at Dubrovnik would reduce the pressure of paramilitary
7 units on the rest of the barracks of the JNA in other parts of Croatia.
8 The JNA is doing everything in its power not to inflict any damage to the
9 historical part of the City of Dubrovnik as endeavouring to normalise life
10 in the Dubrovnik region and there is a lot of proof to bear both these
11 stances out."
12 JUDGE MAY: This is long enough.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. That is the outline.
15 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm turning your microphone off.
19 You've been asking long enough questions. Let the witness see it and make
20 his comment. We have only five minutes left before we have to adjourn.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have taken a look at the
22 document. I did not write the document, nor do I have anything to do with
23 it. It is possible that somebody from the ministry compiled it. There
24 were associates of that kind who would work directly with President
25 Bulatovic on documents of this kind, and it was they that -- who probably
Page 11367
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11368
1 wrote the document. I did not sign it. It doesn't say that it was
2 written by Nikola J. Samardzic, and I wouldn't have said anything of this
3 kind. Some of these stands put forward here can stand, but not all of
4 them, and I did not take any part in writing this.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Samardzic --
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Give it back to the accused, please.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Samardzic, is that an authentic document of the Ministry of
10 Foreign Affairs of Montenegro?
11 A. I don't know. I cannot confirm that. It's not mine, that's all I
12 can say. I'm no longer a minister, but I do know that I didn't write it.
13 And if I may be allowed to say this: You quite obviously are dealing with
14 large scale forgeries.
15 And let me also mention the matter of the minutes of the
16 government session on the 1st of October. You say -- you deny that that
17 session took place at all on the basis of the minutes, and I say that the
18 whole of the records that were kept from the government meeting and the
19 stenogram, including the 1st of October, was published in the journal
20 Monitor. Do you think that I am lying and that the Monitor is lying? You
21 are also claiming that that session never took place, on the basis of the
22 documents that you have before you, and you have before you forgeries, as
23 far as I'm concerned.
24 Q. Do you want to say that the minutes from the Montenegrin
25 government sessions that I had in my hands were forgeries?
Page 11369
1 A. If somebody claims - and you are claiming precisely that - that
2 the government session did not take place on the 1st of October with the
3 generals, then, yes, it is a forgery because the session did take place,
4 and any other assertion with any other document would be a forgery. Look
5 at the Monitor magazine issues. They published the entire proceedings
6 from that government meeting.
7 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I didn't follow the Montenegrin government meetings
8 at all, and I'm sure that everybody will believe me when I say that. All
9 I did was to collect the minutes, and they are the official documents of
10 the government of Montenegro, and I read out the statement of the then
11 president of the Republic, Momir Bulatovic, who refers to the meeting that
12 you talked about, and you say you were late in arriving to the meeting.
13 And I also read that two consecutive government sessions --
14 JUDGE MAY: We've been over these minutes now.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I just want to make one more point. Do you claim, Mr. Samardzic,
17 having had in your hands a moment ago - and don't forget that you are a
18 witness under the solemn declaration here and responsible for what you say
19 - you had the document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro
20 in your hands. Do you state that this is not an authentic document of the
21 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro? Just give me a yes or no
22 answer and then we can move on.
23 A. I state once again that I do not stand behind that document. I
24 didn't then, I don't now. Now, whether anybody wrote it from the
25 ministry, I really can't say.
Page 11370
1 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you cannot deny this, you say. Were you the
2 Foreign Minister at the time?
3 A. Yes, I was.
4 Q. Were you --
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, he's given his answer. He's given his
6 answer. He doesn't know anything about it. Now, that's not taking us any
7 further. If in due course you want to prove the document, you can do so.
8 He simply says he doesn't know anything about it.
9 No. We've got to adjourn now because we've got to leave the court
10 at ten past. You've got -- tomorrow you have three-quarters of an hour
11 more. You've had just over three hours already. Three-quarters of an
12 hour more with this witness.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to have my time
14 extended. I insist that I be given more time.
15 JUDGE MAY: We'll see about that. We're going to adjourn -- we're
16 going to adjourn now until tomorrow morning, half past nine.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.10 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of
19 October, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.
20
21
22
23
24
25