1 Thursday, 10 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we have considered your request for
7 further time. Having regard to the evidence which the witness has given
8 and the amount of time which we think you should have available for
9 cross-examination, we'll give you an hour this morning, which is some
10 extra time, although not a great deal. So you have one hour from now.
11 WITNESS: NIKOLA SAMARDZIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
14 Q. Mr. Samardzic, yesterday you said that it was not true, or rather,
15 that what you said was not correct, what you said and published by
16 Pobjeda, the Pobjeda newspaper on the 3rd of October, 1991. I have here -
17 I received this this morning - a photocopy of the issue of Pobjeda, dated
18 the 3rd of October, and I'll hand it in once I receive the original of
19 that issue of the 3rd of October by post. But there's a large photograph
20 in the article. It was taken on the 2nd or 3rd. And it says, "The
21 commemoration paid to the heroes who were killed," and you can see this
22 commemorative meeting taking place on the photograph. And this is what it
23 says in the article, the passage where you yourself are quoted. So I'd
24 like to hear your comments and answer my questions later on:
25 "Nikola Samardzic," it says, "the Foreign Minister, in his speech
1 spoke about the expectations of the forthcoming Hague conference. He
2 spoke of the previous conference and Samardzic reminded us that the
3 Montenegrin delegation had assumed as far as was possible a flexible in
4 order to arrive at a settlement for the Yugoslav crisis and the cease of
5 hostilities. However, the events that took place along the border towards
6 Croatia, and especially what has taken place at the Ravno-Slano line today
7 shows that our casualties of our units were perpetrated on territory that
8 did not belong to Croatia and that the MUP from Croatia had come and
9 attacked our units from an ambush. All this testifies to the fact that
10 Montenegro was attacked by the Croatian MUP and that this was done on
11 purpose. It was an attack, in fact, on the JNA, and Montenegrin guys who
12 were doing their best to serve the JNA." And so on and so forth. I don't
13 want to take up more time with reading out the whole article.
14 Then we also have a quotation by you which was highlighted in the
15 middle of the article, as particularly important, where you say:
16 "I think that the meeting at The Hague will be fairly difficult on
17 the 5th, and I presented this fact because the foreign media are well
18 organised against us. And yesterday, in Dubrovnik, observers demonstrated
19 how Dubrovnik had been attacked by the army and Montenegro at the same
20 time our young men were being killed in Herzegovina. Perhaps this
21 language is somewhat different, but the object is to show that we are
22 being attacked and that we are performing our duty and standing up in
23 defence of our country.
24 "With the issue of Prevlaka, we have to keep proving that
25 Prevlaka is part of our territory, that is to say, is part of Montenegro,
1 and that it was never Croatia. So what right do they now have to take
2 this and attack it? I am experiencing all this as a great tragedy and as
3 being very unfortunate. As things are as they stand, we have to go ahead
4 and fight and defend ourselves. Nikola Samardzic."
5 So yesterday I read out a quotation, and today I read out another
6 quotation. This was a statement given from the report and minutes of a
7 meeting. You questioned that, denied you had ever said it, denied you had
8 ever said that Prevlaka was never Croatian, that it was always -- that it
9 always belonged to Montenegro, whereas this is what the newspapers in 1991
10 said. So tell me now, please, Mr. Samardzic, why is it that you --
11 JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Milosevic, you can't go on in this way,
12 talking all the time. Let the witness see the publication which you have.
13 He should have the chance to comment on it.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 JUDGE MAY: I've cut the microphone off. Let the witness see it.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The article was printed as it
18 stands, the top half and then the bottom half. The photocopy machine only
19 takes an A-4 format, so I had to copy it in that way. But I will be
20 getting the newspapers, the original issue and edition, so I don't think
21 that will be a problem.
22 Mr. May, so as not to waste time, I think that this is --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, give me a chance to read
24 through what you've just given me.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Well, I read it all out to you.
2 A. You didn't read it out properly.
3 Q. Oh, come on. Let's give it to the interpreters to read, then.
4 A. The newspaper Pobjeda quite obviously published what I said, but
5 not what I really said. At that time, the editor of Pobjeda was a man
6 named Konatar, a ultranationalist, who was famed for writings of all kind,
7 articles of all kind in Pobjeda, and the newspaper was even called
8 Konatar's newspaper Pobjeda. He seems to have planted this on me and
9 alleges that I said that, especially that Prevlaka belonged to Montenegro.
10 That's not correct, because everybody else I said that Prevlaka was part
11 of Croatian territory but that we should win it in negotiations with
12 Croatia. That is what I said.
13 And what Milosevic is trying to supplant is just not true, and
14 Konatar as well. This was all within the frameworks of the policy that
15 was waged at the time, in which everybody could say what they wanted as
16 they saw it. So Mr. Milosevic, this means absolutely nothing. The
17 newspaper Pobjeda wrote all sorts of things at that time, and I stand by
18 the fact that I always stated things publicly and said that at that time I
19 acted as I did.
20 I should like to repeat that prior to that and after that, I
21 always claimed that we could win Prevlaka over only in negotiations with
22 Croatia. And secondly, I don't understand what you wish to prove with
23 this article. What is it? What do you want to show?
24 JUDGE MAY: What it's being produced for is to contradict your
25 evidence. What the accused says is that this is what you were saying at
1 the time, and it, of course, is different to what you're saying now.
2 That's the point, so you understand it. Now, do I understand this to be
3 your position: That the paper has misquoted what you said at that meeting?
4 Is that right?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely so. That's quite
6 right, Your Honour. The newspaper did not print what I actually said, and
7 at that time, I spoke in the Assembly and at the government session that
8 was held and always said publicly that we should win Prevlaka over in
9 negotiations with Croatia. That is the well-known stance that I took.
10 And this small trick that is being tried here doesn't mean a thing.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Well, Mr. Samardzic, is Pobjeda, or was Pobjeda the leading state
13 newspaper of Montenegro at that time? And I'm talking about 1991. Let's
14 say in 1991.
15 A. In 1991, Pobjeda was in the hands of the ultranationalists, who
16 advocated fighting and aggression to take over Dubrovnik.
17 JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with this. Is there any further question
18 you want to ask about the article? Because if so, the usher should be
19 able to sit down and the Prosecution can have a look at it. Is there
20 anything else you want to ask about the actual article?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want to ask whether Pobjeda
22 was the leading Montenegrin daily at that time, and it still is, I
23 believe, the principal newspaper and official newspaper of the Republic of
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Is that so or not?
2 A. It is the main newspaper in Montenegro, but that does not prove
3 that I actually said those words. I never authorised the article. I
4 never authorised what he wrote.
5 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you know that all important government sessions and
6 meetings of the Presidency are attended by journalists. They are not
7 closed to the gentlemen of the press. The newspapers report on them. So
8 you were -- this was a leading, official Montenegrin paper, and it is
9 quoting the Foreign Minister of Montenegro. Now you're claiming that they
10 were misquoting you. Did you ever deny what Pobjeda had printed? If you
11 were so flagrantly misquoted, as you now claim, did you ever deny having
12 said that? You were the minister and Pobjeda was the paper.
13 A. The truth is that I did not deny it, and at the time I did not
14 have the time to do so, nor was the situation such that I could enter into
15 a quarrel of any kind or take issue with the publication.
16 There are other points made here that I don't understand. You say
17 that this appeared on the 3rd of October. Yesterday you claimed that on
18 the 1st of October the commemorative meeting was held. So you can't have
19 the meeting held on the 1st of October with Pobjeda reporting on it only
20 on the 3rd of October.
21 Q. There is no date on that particular copy because it is a copy.
22 But I will get the newspaper, and you'll see that everybody is standing up
23 in the -- to observe the commemorative meeting, and that's what the
24 article is about. It speaks about that commemorative meeting. But let's
25 not waste time there.
1 Mr. Samardzic, I have another question for you now, and it's
2 this --
3 JUDGE MAY: If you're moving on to something else, then --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender this as an
5 exhibit, please.
6 JUDGE MAY: Just for a moment --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- this photocopy.
8 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... and then we'll
9 make a decision about it.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I will be producing, once I
11 receive it through the post, the original issue and copy of the newspaper,
12 so that you can see that it is authentic.
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I was not present according with this
14 photo here. This commemoration. [Interpretation] Quite certainly, this
15 is a forgery, and there's been some mix-up, because I can't see myself on
16 the picture.
17 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. Yes.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he's finished.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Twelve years have elapsed since the
20 meeting, so I have to do my best to recall those days. Your questions are
21 very fast. I can see the photograph. It is a photograph I don't
22 recognise. I wasn't at that meeting and I know that I was -- did not
23 attend any commemorative meeting held in the government.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. As it's a forgery in the
1 newspapers, in 1991, when you were a minister, you can just stand by that
2 claim. I don't mind.
3 JUDGE MAY: Let the Prosecution have that.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] It doesn't bother me.
5 Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you know the name Zoran Kovacevic, a captain
6 from the 7th Battalion, perhaps, at that time, of the JNA? Zoran
7 Kovacevic is the name. Do you know him from the days of the conflicts
8 that took place along the Montenegrin-Croatian border and that tripod of
9 Montenegro, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. I don't know any Zoran Kovacevic, and as you're asking me now, I
11 can't link it up with anything. I don't know what you're getting at.
12 Q. All right. Then comment this, please, his statement, and this is
13 today's issue of Pobjeda. It is his statement here that I have, and he
14 was a witness to the events that you're testifying about. I'm going to
15 skip over certain portions where he says that everybody was absolutely
16 revolted, but he said that: "Zoran Kovacevic, captain of the 7th
17 Battalion, came to our offices and says that Samardzic asked him and his
18 fellow fighters to steal on the Dubrovnik theatre of war. 'Samardzic came
19 up to us in front of the Plaza Hotel in the town of Herceg-Novi while we
20 were washing our hands, washing the blood off our hands from our injured
21 comrade. We didn't know who he was, but when he introduced himself as the
22 Foreign Minister, we accepted his invitation to have a drink with him.
23 All our talks about politics and what was going on at the Dubrovnik
24 battlefront, he said, Well, Dubrovnik is going to be ours. There will be
25 happy days for us.' The captain of the 7th Battalion also recounted that
1 Samardzic told them that they had to go back to Debeli Brijeg and The
2 Hague witness today, the Foreign Minister of Montenegro at the time, asked
3 them that if they could, he would appreciate to have a little camper sent
4 to him and that he would give them 300 Deutschmarks in return. 'In other
5 words, Samardzic asked us to steal for him, and he even suggested that we
6 could do the job in the town of Slano, where he said there were a lot of
7 campers that holiday makers used. And he asked that the camper be as big
8 and as long as possible. We were absolutely astounded. We couldn't
9 believe that he was actually asking us to do something like that. And
10 this coming from the Foreign Minister of Montenegro.' And a message to
11 The Hague witness from Captain Kovacevic: "I am not a thief, and that is
12 why I did not want to have the army lose face. That is why I didn't
13 fulfil your expectations, and I'm very sorry that you were left without
14 this big and long trailer, camper.' That is what Captain Kovacevic has to
15 say. And he also adds and says that Nikola Samardzic told him --"
16 JUDGE MAY: It is quite impossible for the witness to follow all
17 of this. The witness must have a chance -- he must have a chance to
18 answer you making these allegations.
19 Do you know anything about this, Mr. Samardzic, this Captain
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, first and foremost, I
22 don't know that man. I never saw him in my life. This is nonsense, and
23 it's lies, organised lies, that are intended to disqualify me, discredit
24 me as a witness. And they are being forged in Podgorica today, and there
25 is no trace of the truth. I never asked for a trailer. I could have
1 bought one many times in my life. I didn't need to steal one from the
2 Dubrovnik front line. So this is an absolute pure trick and lie. What
3 they resort to is something that I'm astounded by, also by the volume of
4 lies that the accused Milosevic is presenting against me.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I have to tell you that all of Montenegro is astonished --
7 JUDGE MAY: Remember you're in a court, please, and here he is
8 "Mr. Milosevic."
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. He claims that you particularly said --
12 JUDGE MAY: You're reading out from a statement. Is this some
13 statement which has been supplied to you --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just finish, Mr. May.
15 JUDGE MAY: No. I'm asking you a question. Would you kindly
16 answer. Is this a statement? We ought to know what it is that you've
17 got. Is this a statement which has been supplied to you or is it some
18 other document?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll give this to you immediately,
20 gentlemen. I just want to ask the witness whether --
21 JUDGE MAY: Is it a statement -- it's a very simple question: Is
22 it a statement which has been provided to you? Is that what it is?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this was published in this
24 morning's newspaper in Podgorica, and it's not a statement that was made
25 to me; it was addressed to the entire public, if you read the newspapers.
1 JUDGE MAY: That is the answer to the question that I was asking
2 you: Yes, it was in the newspaper this morning.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Samardzic, please, this is nothing that I got. It's not a
5 statement that I got. This is from the newspapers. Did you talk about
6 the house of Tereza Kesovija, the well-known Croat pop singer? And you
7 said that the house was more than rich and there were plenty of things
8 that could be taken from there.
9 A. Mr. Milosevic, why are you saying all these crazy things? You are
10 fantasising. Today, Pobjeda is in the hands of Chetniks and they write
11 this way. They are writing this way because they want to smear the name
12 of people from that time, of honest people.
13 Q. All right. But here is a reaction of a man you mentioned here. I
14 personally don't recall his name, but he watched you on television. You
15 mentioned him, and he says, "Samardzic either cannot control himself or
16 has been paid to lie." And this is what he says --
17 JUDGE MAY: That's of no use. That's of no use to us. The
18 comment of somebody reprinted in a newspaper about the evidence is of no
19 assistance to the Court.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the man accused by
21 Mr. Samardzic here is reacting, through the newspaper, to these false
22 accusations. I'm asking Mr. Samardzic what he's been doing.
23 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... to give evidence
24 in due course, if you want, but merely writing something in a newspaper
25 isn't evidence.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. All right. This is the reaction of Predrag Popovic, who you
3 mentioned as some participant from the People's Party, a nationalist,
4 whatever. Mr. Samardzic, what is your reaction to the following: The
5 fact that the Association of Veterans of Montenegro published this. It's
6 right here on the same page of this morning's paper. Today is the 10th.
7 This is again the Pobjeda newspaper that is published in Podgorica, and it
8 says: "The Association expresses its sorrow and its shame before the
9 public that the testimony of Mr. Samardzic is primarily based on --"
10 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. The opinion of the veterans
11 is neither here nor there. It is of no assistance to this Court. Now,
12 you can put, as you did, an allegation that this witness was involved, as
13 you allege, in the looting. You can put that if you have allegations of
14 that sort to put, but mere comments and abuse is of no assistance to us.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm just quoting today's
16 newspaper that is published in the capital of Montenegro. That is the
17 principal newspaper there.
18 JUDGE MAY: You know our opinion about those matters and whether
19 such questions are admissible. They are only admissible if they are
20 allegations which ought to be put, allegations of alleged fact.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Let's move on. Let's
22 try to be as effective as possible.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Samardzic, what was the number of employees at the foreign
25 ministry of Montenegro when you were minister?
1 A. I don't recall the exact number. I guess it was about 15.
2 Q. So your ministry had a total of 15 employees?
3 A. I guess so. I can't remember the exact number.
4 Q. Yesterday you said that you personally did not take part in
5 drafting these questions for Momir Bulatovic, and you were a member of the
6 delegation when that delegation, headed by Momir Bulatovic, went to the
7 United States; is that right?
8 A. Yes. I was a member of the delegation, that's right.
9 Q. So you, as minister accompanying his president, and you head a
10 ministry of a total of 15 employees, have nothing to do with this paper
11 provided by the Foreign Ministry. Do you consider that to be probable,
12 credible to anyone?
13 A. Yes, because at the same time I was director, manager, of
14 Jugooceanija, and I spent most of my time in Kotor, not Titograd, and I
15 only came to the ministry when there was something urgent going on. So I
16 was not a paid minister. It is quite possible that somebody at the
17 ministry wrote that while I was in Kotor, just before we left. So there's
18 nothing more to it. These are primarily things that you are trying to
19 bring forth in a deceitful manner. I wrote many times about President
20 Wilson, and this could have been used for writing a pro memoria for
21 President Bulatovic. I don't see anything bad about that except for this
22 trick, trying to say that I said that what was going on in Croatia at that
23 time was genocide. So that is really up to Bulatovic and the employee
25 But I am truly astounded by what Pobjeda wrote this morning.
1 These are such terrible deceits, like what they wrote about Tereza
2 Kesovija. Whoever knows me in Montenegro will understand, and it will be
3 quite clear to them, how great these lies published by Pobjeda this
4 morning are. It is quite impossible that I said any of these things, that
5 I encountered this man, and that any of that happened. In all these
6 tricks and lies, I am truly astonished, but thank God --
7 Q. Why are you going back to that question? We've already dealt with
8 that. I see that you are truly affected by it, upset by it.
9 A. No, I'm not, but --
10 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to cut the microphone for a moment. Now,
11 don't both speak at the same time.
12 Now, Mr. Milosevic, I think we've gone over this very fully, so
13 perhaps move on to another topic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Since you claim that out of this total number of 15 employees you
17 did not know who did what, you were on the delegation with Bulatovic, and
18 somebody else from the ministry, then, prepared these possible questions
19 and answers for him. Who could have done that, Mr. Samardzic?
20 A. I'm not going to go into all of that, but I do know that sometimes
21 when I was in Kotor, that Bulatovic would call in one of my employees to
22 write something for him. That happened not once, but several times. So
23 there is nothing awful about this. And why are you trying to compromise
24 me in this way? This kind of thing actually happened. I remember how
25 things were done at the ministry. When I was not there, and I was not
1 there often because also director of Jugooceanija, then President
2 Bulatovic would call someone from the ministry, an employee, to write
3 something for him. So this could have easily taken place then as well.
4 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. But these documents that I've presented
5 to you - there are several documents - some you could not deny, and I see
6 that you're denying this one, this speaks of the political and diplomatic
7 position of the government and its activities, that you were a member of.
8 So that includes you too. Isn't that quite clear -- isn't it quite clear
9 that you are saying something quite different today, 11 years later?
10 A. It is not contrary at all. I have proven this before the Court,
11 and I have original notes from the meetings of the Assembly. And what I
12 advocated in Vienna and also on the 17th and 18th of October, when I said
13 clearly that I condemn the policy that you pursued then, both in Serbia
14 and in Montenegro and towards Croatia. I condemned it. So you cannot
15 deceive anyone here by saying that that's what I did. There are many
16 documents from that period. I could also put questions to you: What is
17 this? What is that? Where do you get all these things that you're trying
18 to trick me with? You are trying to say --
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, the accused is entitled to ask his
20 questions, and try and answer them, if you would, as shortly as possible.
21 Now, Mr. Milosevic, in your part, don't repeat questions which
22 you've asked before.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no intention of repeating
24 them. All of this is quite sufficient.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Please, Mr. Samardzic, on page 15, towards the end of the second
2 paragraph - I'm speaking about your statement now, the 30-page statement
3 or whatever the number of pages - you speak about your decision to resign
4 from your post as Foreign Minister, and then you say that you were
5 prevented from doing so by Hrvoje Kacic, a Croatian official and your
6 friend, chairman of the foreign policy committee of the parliament of
7 Croatia. You acted on his suggestions, as you explained this now; you did
8 not resign. From then on, you represented the interests of Croatia and
9 the government of Montenegro. Is that correct, Mr. Samardzic?
10 A. That is an absolute lie. This is deceitful. I never represented
11 the interests of Croatia and the government of Montenegro. I represented
12 the interests of the Montenegrin people in this grave tragedy that was
13 taking place then.
14 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. Very well.
15 Tell me, please: Give me an answer to the following question. I
16 have to deal with quite a few areas now, because I see that time is
17 running out. Why are you untruthfully representing the role of the
18 Serbian Orthodox church and Amfilohije Radovic, the archbishop of
19 Montenegro? On page 22 of your statement, you slandered the church. You
20 said that they were proponents of hatred, killing, and all kinds of
21 crimes. At the same time, you did not offer any proof of that. Of
22 course, that doesn't surprise me that you've offered no proof, because it
23 is a well-known thing that high --
24 JUDGE MAY: Don't comment. Don't comment. Just ask a question.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you give me any proof for such accusations levelled at the
3 Serbian Orthodox church and Amfilohije Radovic, the archbishop of
5 A. That's not exactly the way I had put it, the way you read it out.
6 I did mention in the statements two years back, I did mention Amfilohije
7 Radovic, and I repeat today that Amfilohije Radovic, who is head of the
8 Serbian Orthodox church in Montenegro, is a proponent of hatred towards
9 anyone who is not a Serb. That is true.
10 During the war at the Dubrovnik front line, he went there instead
11 of carrying out his duty as a man of the cloth. He was chanting combat
12 songs there, encouraging the army to fight. And his newspaper -
13 Svetigora, I think is the name of the newspaper - during those days,
14 incited hatred and a further struggle with Croatia. It is sufficient to
15 look at his newspaper from those days and to conclude who Amfilohije
16 Radovic is. That does not mean that I have accused all the clergymen of
17 the Serbian Orthodox church. I mentioned Amfilohije Radovic there and I
18 had him in mind primarily. Very many people in Montenegro consider him to
19 be exactly the kind of person that I've described just now.
20 Q. Well, it's a bit more complex than that. This is what it says in
21 your statement:
22 "The anti-Catholic nature of the Dubrovnik offensive should not be
23 underestimated. Both Bulatovic and Djukanovic were violent
24 anti-Catholics, like all pro-Serb extremists were. This position was
25 articulated in the official media, notably by the Serbian Orthodox
2 And it is only then that you say the archbishop of the Serbian
3 Orthodox church in Montenegro, Amfilohije Radovic, was professing the most
4 horrible hatred. He also spoke in favour of torturing Croats, and then
5 Muslims later. You are saying that, that he instigated people to kill and
6 torture Croats and Muslims and he personally sang, chanted, along with the
7 gusle, about the glory of Serbia and Montenegro. As a Montenegrin, Mr.
8 Samardzic, I'm sure you know --
9 JUDGE MAY: The witness should have the chance to deal with the
10 passage which has been referred to in the statement.
11 Is there anything you want to say about that, Mr. Samardzic?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there is something I want to
13 say. I don't think that he is properly reading my statement, if he is
14 actually reading, and then that's not what I said. I condemned Amfilohije
15 then. I mean, I condemned his behaviour. I did not agree with that kind
16 of behaviour, especially not for someone who is supposed to be God's
17 shepherd in Montenegro. And that is the point of the criticism that I
18 raised. I said that he participated in the war at the front line with his
19 gusle, and I don't think that that is proper for a man of the cloth.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. You also talked about instigating killings and torture.
22 A. No, no, no. I did not say that.
23 Q. Oh, again they tricked you into giving this kind of statement.
24 Did they plant that into your statement, so your statement is incorrect?
25 A. My statement is correct. What I said now is what I meant, and
1 that's what I said, and I condemn the behaviour of Amfilohije in those
2 days. If that is not sufficient, I really don't know what you want.
3 Q. Everything that you have been saying is quite sufficient for me,
4 Mr. Samardzic. I was quoting your statement; I wasn't claiming anything
5 myself. And then on page 22, you go on to say that "Amfilohije, who
6 strove for killings, both in his sermons as well as in his
7 publications ..." So he spoke out in favour of killings, that's what you
8 said. You accuse him of doing this. And your proof is that he was
9 chanting epic poems to the accompaniment of the gusle instrument. That is
10 what every Montenegrin does, old and young. They all sing songs
11 accompanied by the gusle.
12 A. Yes, they do, but not a church dignitary. He doesn't follow an
13 army, singing to the tune of the gusle.
14 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. I have understood you -- I always
15 understood that the church was with the people, so that it follows the
16 people where they go. And you said that Branko Kostic went to see the
17 people who had been victims and casualties in attacks and you criticise
18 him for doing that. And you criticise Amfilohije Radovic for going to
19 visit his flock.
20 JUDGE MAY: No need to respond.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. You furthermore explain that your positions were very quickly
23 contrary to those held by Bulatovic and Djukanovic, because, as you
24 yourself state, Djukanovic's interests were geared towards Russia, Greece,
25 and the former Soviet republics, whereas you preferred contacts with the
1 West, and that is why you tried to persuade him to change his views. Is
2 that another pure fabrication on your part? It says so on page 5 of your
3 statement. So perhaps you're going to deny it once again and say that
4 your statement is not correct. You are between a rock and a hard place.
5 You don't know what to do. You don't want to say anything against the
6 opposite side and yet you --
7 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer.
8 Now, it's been put to you that in your statement you say - and I
9 haven't found it yet --
10 MR. KAY: Page 6.
11 JUDGE MAY: Page 6. Thank you. It's been put that there was a
12 difference between you and Bulatovic about orientation to other countries.
13 Is there anything you want to say about that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's how it was written, along
15 those lines, as far as I recall, two years ago. But I want to stress that
16 what I stated here and not two years ago, that is what is relevant. But
17 if he wants me to talk about that and if he's asking me about that, the
18 truth is that in my work at the ministry at that time, the first trips we
19 had was to the East, and I don't think it was a terrible thing if I
20 advised the president, which I suppose I did, that we should orient
21 ourselves towards the West. I made no accusations, because I think that
22 we should cooperate both with the East and with the West. And at that
23 time, Montenegro needed to turn towards the West more than it did towards
24 the East.
25 And we did have meetings in Russia and Kazakhstan and all that was
1 quite in order, quite fine. So I don't see why you're trying to trip me
2 up and why you're saying something quite different.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I think that you're trying to trip yourself up.
5 All I'm doing is asking you to explain your statement, because you say on
6 page 5, the penultimate paragraph:
7 "I tried to prevail upon Djukanovic to go to Western Europe, Great
8 Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. But he had no desire to
9 go to these places and was actually quite contemptuous of them."
10 A. I did not say that. Whatever is written there, I did not put it
11 that way. I am presenting here before the Tribunal matters as I recall
12 them. Now, if this was put into my mouth, I don't think that is in order.
13 Q. All right. Very well, Mr. Samardzic.
14 A. Quite simply, I presented what we did, how we worked in the
15 ministry, and I don't see that I can be accused of anything. I do not
16 accuse Djukanovic of anything, nor should this be discussed here and now.
17 We are discussing your crimes here and not how the Ministry of Foreign
18 Affairs of Montenegro functioned.
19 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm going to ask you whatever I feel like asking
20 you, and not what you want me to ask you, of course within the limitations
21 put on me here. And I am sorry that you cannot get out of the well you've
22 fallen into, the pit you've fallen into, but you can scratch along its
23 walls. You won't be able to get out of it.
24 JUDGE MAY: Now, is there any more cross-examination which is
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Mr. May. I do have
2 quite a few more questions. I don't think I'll have time to ask them all,
3 so I'd like to ask you to extend my time, if you would. I don't think
4 I'll get through all my questions in the ten minutes I have left.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now, although your speech denies you - and I showed the October
7 speech to you - you explained that there was no reason for concern on the
8 part of Montenegro with respect to any aspirations on the part of Croatia,
9 and that Croatia's conduct in that regard was quite civilised, without any
10 territorial pretensions. Now I'm asking you this: Do you recall - and
11 you were minister at that time - do you recall, for example, that on the
12 23rd of January, 1991, in Zagreb, a meeting was held of the
13 representatives of Croatia and Montenegro? So the date is the 23rd of
14 January, 1991. At that meeting, the then president of the Croatian Sabor
15 or parliament, Zarko Domljan, stated that Croatia considers the area of
16 Boka Kotorska, the Bay of Kotor, to be its own territory, and the Assembly
17 of Montenegro and the whole Yugoslav public was informed of this through
18 the debate that was held at the Montenegrin parliamentary debate on
19 February of that same year. And it was televised directly via Television
20 Montenegro, so this was no propaganda. It was publicly stated, and many
21 times asserted facts and direct coverage from the meetings and sessions of
22 the Montenegrin Assembly. Do you remember that, and do you consider that
23 to be worrying for Montenegro, that it gave rise for concern? And do you
24 consider it justified for it to defend that territory that belonged to it?
25 A. I don't remember that at all, and once again, I think that you
1 have made a forgery.
2 Q. All right. All right. You don't remember. Let me go on. We
3 haven't got time. You say you don't remember.
4 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish. You've put something to him. Let him
6 A. I did not attend that meeting in Zagreb, the one you claim to have
7 taken place, nor can I remember that anybody in Croatia put it that way,
8 said that. Now, you can bring in newspapers, like Konatar's newspaper or
9 today's Pobjeda issue, or whatever you like --
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, you must let the accused ask the
11 questions and give him time. Just restrict your answers, if you would, to
12 dealing with the questions.
13 Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You've got slightly over ten minutes left.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't hear you. How much more?
15 Ten minutes?
16 JUDGE MAY: Slightly over ten minutes, yes.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That means until 20 to 11.00; is
18 that right?
19 JUDGE MAY: Not the clock I'm looking at. It means 25 to.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Perhaps you're looking
21 at it from a different angle of vision.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Samardzic, let me ask you this, something that you uttered
24 into the microphone and not something you wrote into your statement. You
25 said that in Montenegro, a nationalist putsch had been effected, which
1 brought Djukanovic and Bulatovic into power, or rather, Bulatovic and
2 Djukanovic, in that order. Is that what you said? Is that what you
3 uttered into this microphone here?
4 A. I said that a nationalistic putsch did take place. I don't recall
5 having mentioned Bulatovic and Djukanovic in that context, because they
6 didn't come into power straight away. They were elected at the end of the
7 year. The putsch took place at the beginning of the year and they were
8 elected at the end of the year, after the elections. That is what I said,
9 and you're trying to trip me up again. So I'm not here either to attack
10 Djukanovic or Bulatovic, but you seem to be going round and round in
11 circles and trying to trip me up.
12 Q. Well, I'm asking you what I feel like asking you, what I want to
14 Tell me, then: Who took over power in Montenegro with the advent
15 of that nationalist putsch?
16 A. You did, Mr. Milosevic.
17 Q. So I took over power and authority in Montenegro; is that what
18 you're saying?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. So who was at the head of Montenegro at that time in my name, on
21 my behalf? Because I wasn't there. So please tell me: Who executed
22 power in Montenegro?
23 A. Well, a certain group of people acting in your name. And the
24 group that came in power was working for you. Then Milo Djukanovic turned
25 this about and changed the power and authority. He did that for a full
1 five years. And you keep saying that I'm attacking Milo Djukanovic;
2 because he stands in opposition to you, I'm not going to attack him.
3 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm not linking you with any attacks on Milo
4 Djukanovic. All I'm doing is asking you something. And as you said that
5 he was against me, I don't need to defend him. I have no reason to defend
6 him. I'm just defending the truth, and what you're saying here is
7 untruths. You have written 30 pages here against him and against his
8 brother, accusing him and his brother, and of course I feel duty-bound to
9 defend the truth.
10 A. No, I did not write anything against him or his brother. What was
11 written about his brother I said was a mistake, an error, and that I said
12 that Jezda the boss knew about the weapons, not him. You tried to trip me
13 up and you're doing it again.
14 Q. All right. Whether -- I don't try to trip anybody up. But would
15 you tell me through whom it was that I was managing Montenegro when the
16 nationalistic putsch took place?
17 A. Through the people who had effected the putsch; the army and the
19 Q. Now, please, what did the army and the police have to do in the
20 demonstration that took place in Montenegro? Not a single flower was
21 trampled on. Not a single window was shattered, so what does the army and
22 the police have to do with it? What are you talking about, Mr. Samardzic?
23 A. Nobody did say that any windows were shattered or flowers trampled
24 on. The army was there under your control and the police was there under
25 your control, and they had taken over power and authority, so it is quite
1 certain that you were the initiator of what took place in Montenegro, the
2 so-called Anti-Bureaucratic revolution. That is your act. And I stand by
3 that. What more do you want?
4 Q. And who, then, assumed power in Montenegro except me? Because you
5 say I did. I don't know that I was in power in Montenegro, but if you say
6 so, if you claim so, well, then. So tell me now: Who was in power in my
8 A. After the elections, it was Milo and Momir. What more do you
10 Q. Well, just wait a minute. Aren't you contradicting yourself?
11 Were they legally elected at the topmost party elections in Montenegro?
12 A. Yes, they were.
13 Q. So what's the putsch you're talking about?
14 A. The putsch took place before that. They wouldn't have come to
15 power had there not been the putsch, and that is quite certain.
16 Q. Ah, so the people would not have voted for them had the putsch not
17 taken place; is that it?
18 A. Well, those are your conclusions. Let's leave that, whether they
19 would or would not vote. Up until then, they were not people that held
20 such high functions, high offices. They were not in the top echelons of
21 power. And at the time, they were people who you trusted, and that is
22 nothing terrible. This is common knowledge in Montenegro. You yourself
23 are aware of it and know it full well. And Milo Djukanovic came to
24 realise the policy you were implementing and turned against you, and you
25 can't make me attack him here today. And even if you are trying to trip
1 me up, this has nothing to do with that.
2 Q. Well, I didn't force you to write your statement.
3 A. Well, the statements were the ones I gave two years ago. They are
4 not relevant now. Quite a lot of errors were made in that statement, and
5 you're trying to compromise me by bringing that up. And wait a minute.
6 It is I who am speaking now.
7 Q. You compromise yourself.
8 A. No, I'm not.
9 JUDGE MAY: It's time for a moment to cool now. Now,
10 Mr. Samardzic, the accused is entitled to ask you questions about your
11 statement. We hear your responses about it.
12 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You explained that Branko Kostic was a Greater Serbian
15 nationalist. Was he elected under my influence, Mr. Samardzic, or was it
16 you in Montenegro who elected him?
17 A. I was not one of those who elected him, you can be sure of that.
18 Q. No. When I say "you," I mean the citizens of Montenegro,
19 democratic institutions, the parliament that elected him. I certainly
20 don't think that you are the person who elected him or did he care about
21 that. Was he freely elected in Montenegro by the Assembly of Montenegro?
22 A. Which position are you referring to?
23 Q. I am referring to his position in the Presidency of Yugoslavia.
24 A. Yes, it is the Assembly of Montenegro that nominated him instead
25 of Bucin. That is true. But that does not mean that because he was
1 nominated by the Assembly of Montenegro that he is not a nationalist, an
2 ultranationalist, as I have said.
3 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. You said that in Montenegro,
4 paramilitary units were organised and that that can be seen. You said
5 that into that same microphone there. That can be seen in the order
6 issued by the two Bulatovics. It so happened that the president of
7 Montenegro and the Minister of the Interior shared the same last name;
8 Bulatovic. This is an exhibit that you presented here. So now I'm asking
9 you: Where can that be seen in that particular exhibit, especially as
10 concerns the order to carry out mobilisation of the special unit of the
11 police? I'm quoting what it says here:
12 "As strong as a reinforced infantry company. Only in the war
13 conflict on the border between the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic
14 of Croatia..."
15 That's what Momir Bulatovic signed. And now you say that, on the
16 basis of this, one can see that a paramilitary formation was established.
17 There is this one company of policemen at the border. Now --
18 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. The accused is referring to
19 Exhibit 338, tabs 2 and 3.
20 Mr. Samardzic, do you remember the documents to which the accused
21 is referring or would you like to see copies of them?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to look at
23 that document. I've already seen it. Mr. Milosevic is tricking me. He
24 said that I presented this to the Court. That is not true. I did not
25 present this document to the Court, or the other one either.
1 JUDGE MAY: To be fair to him, he's not tricking you. The
2 document was presented during your evidence, and he is entitled to ask you
3 some questions about it. Can you help us at all about what is described
4 as these mobilisation orders or not?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, I don't
6 know how this was interpreted to you, but he said that I presented this to
7 the Court. Again, I'm saying I'm not the one who presented this. This
8 was presented to me in court so that I could see it.
9 And now in response to your question, I would like to say the
10 following: It is clear from the documents I saw here that both Bulatovics
11 issued an order to establish special units. To be precise, from the
12 police force and from the Territorial Defence. To the best of my
13 understanding, these units are not purely military units. They are
14 similar to military units, so that's why they're called paramilitary
15 units. At least, that's the way I understand it. And they were placed
16 under the command of the Yugoslav army that was then engaged in war. And
17 that's all. I don't see anything controversial about this. I don't see
18 why I should be tricked in this way.
19 JUDGE MAY: You're not being tricked. You're not being tricked.
20 You are simply being asked a question about the document, and you have now
22 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Again you said here, Mr. Samardzic, paramilitaries, Territorial
25 Defence, et cetera. In this order, show me any mention of anything except
1 a company of the police that is supposed to guard the border between
2 Montenegro and Croatia, where conflicts had broken out. Is any other unit
3 referred to, or any other mobilisation in these two orders? One is a
4 general order issued by the president of the Republic, and the other one
5 that spells it out in more concrete terms, because it's the minister,
6 because he says between such-and-such and such-and-such hours --
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the time, it was
8 too fast.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Did you see anything except for this one unit of one company of
11 the police force? I'm asking you about this order. And you say it is
12 obvious that paramilitary units are being established.
13 A. Didn't Bulatovic issue an order on general mobilisation, not to
14 mobilise one company only?
15 Q. I'm asking you about that one and the other one. Where is this
16 other order that you're talking about?
17 A. I'm talking about the general order that was signed by Bulatovic
18 and that they presented to me.
19 Q. Where is this order?
20 A. Give it to me and --
21 Q. I haven't got it.
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic -- Mr. Milosevic, you have one final
23 question, because your time is up.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wanted to ask him about
25 these few documents that he interpreted in a freakish way, but
1 unfortunately, you won't let me.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you know the Serbian saying that people who lie
4 have short legs?
5 JUDGE MAY: You needn't bother to answer that.
6 Mr. Kay, have you any questions, or Mr. Tapuskovic?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the first
8 time that I'm asking you this. I am really going to try to finish by
9 11.00 with my questions, but if I do not finish, perhaps could you give me
10 just a few minutes more, if possible? If it is not possible, I'll really
11 try to finish by 11.00.
12 JUDGE MAY: Could you try and finish, because we need to hear
13 another witness today.
14 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Samardzic, could you please just give me yes
16 or no answers, because these are very well-known things that I'm going to
17 ask you about. Were you born in 1935? That's not being contested, right?
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 Q. Does that mean that in 1990 you were 55 years old and at that time
20 more than half of the population of Yugoslavia was that age?
21 A. Yes, right.
22 Q. Does that mean that what happened in the First World War is
23 something that everybody had actually lived through; it was not only
25 A. The First World War?
1 Q. Oh, no the Second World War.
2 A. Yes, I experienced it.
3 Q. And at that time, were there very many people who had lived both
4 through the First and Second World Wars?
5 A. Yes. At that time, there were still people alive who had lived
6 through the First World War too.
7 Q. Thank you. I'm actually interested in a few things that happened
8 between 1950 -- or rather, in 1945 and 1953, because you mentioned that at
9 that time your father was in deep trouble. And in 1953, you were 18 years
10 old; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Could you tell me why your father was in prison? Because you said
13 this in your written statement, that between 1948 and 1953, he was in
14 prison. So for five years. He must have done something really terrible.
15 A. I didn't say that he was in 'til 1953, and it was until 1952. And
16 he didn't do a thing. He was tricked. He was set up. He was a member of
17 the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Montenegro. He was a
18 holder of the 1941 Partizan memorial medal. He was supposed to get the
19 highest decoration, to be declared a national hero of Yugoslavia; however,
20 it was the state security service that had set him up and detained him in
21 Goli Otok. And he was quite innocent, quite innocent. And this is
22 obvious from documents.
23 Q. Does that mean that he got into trouble during Com Inform only
24 because of his opinion?
25 A. He did get in trouble during the Com Inform times, yes, but his
1 opinion was correct. He was not in favour of Stalin. He was not. He was
2 in favour of the line carried by his party then. But Sava Joksimovic,
3 chief of police in Montenegro, set him up and that is why he was detained.
4 Q. Why are you so upset? I'm just asking you.
5 A. I'm not being upset, but it is really hard. I'm talking about the
6 memory of my father, who was an innocent man and who suffered, and you are
7 setting up these traps.
8 Q. I am not setting up traps.
9 A. Why is the fate of my father important for this trial?
10 JUDGE MAY: The question is really this: How is this assisting
11 the Trial Chamber? Clearly it's an important matter for the witness, but
12 is it -- I don't at the moment see the relevance of this.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] You will see this very soon, Your
15 Q. That's what I'm trying to say, Mr. Samardzic, that your father got
16 into trouble --
17 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would explain what the relevance is so we
18 can understand.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance of this question
20 lies in the following: In that year -- during those years, rather, about
21 50.000 people were imprisoned. Out of these 50.000 people, the majority
22 were Serbs and Montenegrins, and they were all imprisoned in gaols on
23 small islands. And this was because, again, this idea of a Greater Serbia
24 was being bandied about. So it was 16.000 people who were imprisoned in
25 these islands, including his father. And they suffered only because they
1 were Serbs and Montenegrins and because they thought that there was a
2 certain opinion that was right. But they were not declared guilty by a
3 court of law. No judgement was passed against them. And that is the core
4 of the matter. And then you can see some well-known things that happened
5 in the aftermath. So I'm really asking you to let me explain this,
6 because it is highly relevant, and you will see.
7 JUDGE MAY: We will see, but meanwhile, you've put the matter, and
8 the witness can answer.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Is this the way things were, the way I put it?
11 A. The figures on the number of prisoners could be right. There were
12 far more than 16.000. That's right, but I totally disagree with you that
13 they were detained because of this idea of a Greater Serbia. The veterans
14 of Sutjeska and Neretva who were detained in Goli Otok were not fighting
15 for a Greater Serbia but for the brotherhood of the people of Yugoslavia,
16 of the Slovenians, Croats, and everybody else, so don't try to plant this
17 on them.
18 Q. We're going to get to that. But you said in your statement that
19 Aleksandar Rankovic, Tito's Minister of the Interior, shamelessly promoted
20 the Serbian cause in Montenegro. He cleansed those who were not
21 militarily prepared to accept Serb domination. Is that what you said in
22 your statement, that this was a pogrom and that Com Inform was, inter
23 alia, a pogrom for that?
24 A. Common form was a pogrom against the Montenegrin nation, because
25 you did not give the exact number of detainees. You should separate the
1 Serb detainees from the Montenegrin detainees. 80 per cent of the
2 detainees, the prisoners in Goli Otok, were from Montenegro, and
3 Montenegro has only 1.6 per cent of Yugoslavia's population.
4 Let me repeat this, Your Honour. Let me try to repeat it slowly:
5 90 per cent of the people who were imprisoned then in Yugoslavia were not
6 in favour of Stalin. They were innocent, and they were imprisoned. Out
7 of the 20 or so thousand who were in Goli Otok, who were imprisoned there,
8 80 per cent were Montenegrin, whereas Montenegro accounts only for 1.6 per
9 cent of Yugoslavia's total population. The chief of police was from
10 Serbia, Rankovic, and he was trying to take this out against the
12 Q. Where was your father in prison? In Rab or Goli Otok?
13 A. In Goli Otok.
14 Q. Where is Goli Otok?
15 A. It is correct that Goli Otok is in Croatia, but the power of
16 Rankovic was the same in Montenegro and in Croatia. Then the situation
17 was not the same as it is today.
18 Q. That is quite sufficient, Mr. Samardzic. I have other things to
19 deal with as well. Is it correct that immediately after the end of the
20 Second World War -- you talked yesterday about the civil war that lasted
21 until 1945, and you remember that. And is it correct that immediately
22 after the end of the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons were
23 killed, either because they were rich or they belonged to some political
24 parties before the war that advocated parliamentary democracy, that were
25 prominent persons, artists, and that this primarily took place in Serbia
1 and Montenegro?
2 A. No, not the way you're putting it. Perhaps there were a few
3 killings. That's probable. But that this was general practice to kill
4 rich people after the war, and prominent people, that simply is not true.
5 Allow me to say this --
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
7 MR. NICE: I must protest. The amici are supposed to be doing a
8 service to the Court and then they ask for an excess of time when we are
9 extremely limited as to time. There must come a limit to the amount --
10 JUDGE MAY: I agree. We will discuss the matter on the Bench.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we are having great difficulty in
13 determining the relevance of the questions that you are asking. Will you
14 explain the relevance. And in any event, I think we'd like you to direct
15 your cross-examination to matters that are more up-to-date and leave the
16 historical matters aside.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Robinson, I
18 highly appreciate your remarks, but you know that from day one we have
19 been dealing with the problem of Greater Serbia because of the indictment,
20 and all three indictments are brought together by that. Now I have
21 perhaps come to the point. Everything that I've been asking the witness
22 is directed at showing that this idea that a Greater Serbia should exist
23 has been propounded for the past 50 years or so, and this is contained in
24 the statement of this witness, so that you would see that at all difficult
25 points in time throughout history over the past 50 years, from 1945
1 onwards, it is always the question of a Greater Serbia that was raised
2 time and again, that this Greater Serbia could jeopardise other nations.
3 During this trial -- I don't know how long I'll be dealing with this case
4 any more, but --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... have been
6 around for some time; is that it? We'll proceed, but I think you'll have
7 to finish by 11.00.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, Mr. May.
9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, very briefly, what is the point?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that what Mr. Tapuskovic was
11 saying was completely misunderstood. It is not the idea of a Greater
12 Serbia, but these are accusations concerning an alleged idea to set up a
13 Greater Serbia. A Greater Serbia is a -- is something that was concocted
14 by Austro-Hungary two centuries ago, never by Serbia, and I explained that
15 very well. So this was a pogrom of the Serbs really.
16 JUDGE MAY: Let Mr. Tapuskovic conduct his own examination.
17 Yes, now, Mr. Tapuskovic, you've got until 11.00, so perhaps you
18 would just deal with the matters in that time.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then I'm going to hurry up. But
20 I think it would be useful for you, at any rate. But all right. Of
21 course I'm going to act upon your instructions.
22 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you said yesterday that this idea of a Greater
23 Serbia was created only in the late 1980s and that the creators of this
24 idea were the memoranda, Dobrica Cosic, and then Slobodan Milosevic.
25 That's what you said yesterday.
1 A. I said that was the leader. I never said it was the beginning.
2 The beginning was at the time of Garasanin, of Ilija Garasanin. The idea
3 of a Greater Serbia has been in existence since the times of Ilija
4 Garasanin. It was not invented by Austro-Hungary but by this Serbian
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Please, Your
7 Honours, I would like to draw your attention to page 8 of the Serbian
8 version, or rather, page 9, last paragraph, of the English version, where
9 it says that Mr. Samardzic stated, after the first sentence:
10 "... particularly in the north-east of the Republic, they always
11 supported the idea of a Greater Serbia ... After the war, Aleksandar
12 Rankovic, Tito's Minister of the Interior, shamelessly promoted the Serb
13 cause in Montenegro. After World War II, he purged many people in
14 Montenegro who were not willing to totally endorse Serb domination. Many
15 people who had fought with the Partizans were imprisoned as Stalinists,
16 royalists, fascists, or just plain nationalists. He replaced them with
17 persons who subscribed to his view of Serbian primacy."
18 So that was the idea that always existed amongst the Montenegrins.
19 That's what you say, this idea of a Greater Serbia. And then Serbian
20 supremacy, in the actions of Aleksandar Rankovic, as you had put it. Is
21 it the way you put it here, that Greater Serbia was being referred to even
23 A. What do you mean?
24 Q. Well, something that was always being ascribed to the Serbian
1 A. In Montenegro, after 1948, propaganda began for Greater Serbism,
2 and that is true, in schools, and it exists to the present day as well.
3 So everything from the educational system; schools, cadres, policy - I
4 mention this - everything was implemented in this way to make Montenegro
5 just a part of a Greater Serbia or close to a Greater Serbia. That was
6 what was done.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Samardzic. So in 1965, was Rankovic arrested,
8 along with lots of other people, for that same alleged existence of the
9 idea of Greater Serbia?
10 A. He was replaced at that time because of the idea of a Greater
11 Serbia. That is true. But none of his policemen were arrested with him.
12 A portion of them were just pensioned off.
13 Q. Thank you. The constitution of 1974 -- and in 1974 you were a
14 member of parliament, of the federal parliament, a deputy there, and you
15 know everything connected to how the constitution was enacted, what
16 happened up until 1974 and afterwards. Now, the 1974 constitution, was it
17 passed precisely because of this fear of a Greater Serbia, and was not
18 that 1974 constitution a preparation in fact for all the subsequent
19 republics that were later set up, the six republics and two autonomous
20 provinces for the economic and political breaking off of these republics
21 and provinces?
22 A. I cannot define the 1970 [as interpreted] constitution in that
23 way. The constitution did, without doubt, have as its intentions to clip
24 Greater Serbia and the idea about that, but the constitution did not
25 provide for the possibility of secession.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, was there a special provision in the constitution
2 with respect total national defence, that all the people should be armed?
3 Now, who did Yugoslavia have to defend itself from when there was peace in
4 Europe? There was no intimation of war at all.
5 A. I apologise. Yugoslavia had to have an army of its own and its
6 organised system of defence.
7 Q. Yes, I agree there with you.
8 A. But after that, the danger always lurked of an attack from the
9 Soviet Union and its bloc.
10 Q. But why should we arm the people? To defend our borders, that's
11 okay, but why did we arm the people?
12 A. Well, if Yugoslavia were to be attacked, were to have been
13 attacked at that time by the Soviet bloc, for instance, the sole defence
14 was what we referred to as total peoples defence, and that is in the
15 traditions of our peoples, that along with the army, all military-able men
16 could also assist in the defence of the country. That was nothing bad.
17 Q. Now, if this constitution provided for secession, does any -- let
18 me ask you: Does any constitution in any other country allow for
19 separation up until a secession even?
20 A. Tito's Yugoslavia had five constitutions, if I may be allowed to
21 state. From the first to the last, they all contained the provision on
22 the right of peoples to self-determination, and I see nothing bad if
23 peoples in a federal state enjoyed the right to step down and separate.
24 Q. But this constitutional provision, did it not come into force when
25 Slovenia took the action it did?
1 A. What do you mean?
2 Q. When it attacked the army.
3 A. Oh, you're talking about 1990 and 1991; is that it?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. I don't want to go into Slovenia did. There was a conflict
6 created there. But you can't blame the provision of the 1974 constitution
7 for that. The provision did exist. That is exact.
8 Q. When the 1974 constitution was adopted and passed, was there
9 mention made of autonomy for Serbs in Croatia? Was there any mention of
11 A. Well, that idea always did exist that the Serbs ought to be given
12 their autonomy in Croatia. I can't speak about 1974, but there were
13 always advocates of this. During World War II, Mosa Pijade asked Tito
14 that Serbs in Croatia be given autonomy. And what did Tito say? He
15 didn't allow it. He didn't permit it.
16 Q. Well, you say that Mosa Pijade told Tito that and Tito answered
17 that there can be no question of autonomy for that portion of Croatia.
18 That was Tito's answer to Mosa Pijade. Is that true? Is it correct?
19 A. Yes. That took place at Mount Glamoc. I think they met there,
20 and Mosa Pijade did advocate this idea. Tito, on the other hand,
21 considered that there was no need for autonomy because he was an advocate
22 of setting up a state of nations living under the spirit of brotherhood
23 and equality. And at this point in time, don't ask me whether I agree
24 with Mosa Pijade or whether I agree with Tito. That event did come to
25 pass, and I don't know what your conclusions are.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see that my time
2 is up. May I be allowed to ask some more questions, please?
3 JUDGE MAY: You can ask until 5 past. We'll sit until 5 past to
4 allow you to do so.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then I will be as brief as
7 Q. Take a look at the 1974 constitution. It enabled complete
8 autonomy, even including the right to secession.
9 A. That was the same in 1946, Mr. Tapuskovic. That was the 1946
10 constitution too.
11 Q. Yes, yes, I know. Now, tell me: Did the right of veto exist
12 before 1974?
13 A. The veto was not in force in 1974 in all areas either.
14 Q. Could Serbia have tried to have a law passed at federal level, for
15 example, if Vojvodina did not -- the people of Vojvodina did not live
16 within Serbia?
17 A. Well, it depends what law you're referring to.
18 Q. You were in the Federal Assembly in 1978. Was there a complete
19 paralysis in the work of the federal organs? Nothing could be done at
20 federal level; wasn't that true? There was complete paralysis.
21 A. No, there wasn't complete paralysis. There were very serious
22 difficulties, yes, there were, but it was not a completely paralysed
24 Q. Now, had the Serbs been given autonomy in Vojvodina, in Serbia,
25 and not Serbs in Croatia, how do you explain this?
1 A. I explain this by saying that the autonomy of Vojvodina and the
2 autonomy of Kosovo was not allowed in 1974, but 1945, and the decisions
3 made at the second session of the anti-fascist council, known as Avnoj.
4 Q. Why was this not given in 1945?
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours.
6 That is my temperament, my natural temperament. I tend to flare up. So I
7 do agree that I am going a little too fast, but it's in my nature, and I
8 don't seem to be able to do otherwise.
9 JUDGE MAY: Try and curb it, if you would. Now, let's move on.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me answer you straight away.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. So Tito didn't permit this in 1945; he didn't allow the Serbs to
13 have autonomy in Croatia in 1945. Is that right?
14 A. Yes, that's right. But Lord Carrington proposed that Serbs be
15 given the greatest possible degree of autonomy, and Milosevic refuted it.
16 That is also true. And then, when they were going to be accorded this,
17 Slobodan Milosevic threw this chance away. If we in Yugoslavia were not
18 able to settle this matter - and I permit that we could have been
19 criticised - that if Lord Carrington, a British aristocrat, was willing to
20 give the Serbs complete autonomy, or a large measure of autonomy, in
21 Croatia, why did Mr. Milosevic throw that chance away?
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you must interrupt very briefly.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In my speech, which we have
24 in its entirety here, I make mention of the facts that Mr. Samardzic is
25 bringing up now, and what I said was quite contrary to what he is claiming
2 JUDGE MAY: You will have the chance to read the speech, and you
3 can make any point about it, but now Mr. Tapuskovic is examining. Let him
4 finish and don't interrupt.
5 Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I'm going to skip over quite a number of matters here, but you
8 were in Australia; right?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. And you were in contact with emigres there, Serb emigres and Croat
11 emigres, and we heard from you that they talked about the fact that
12 Croatia would gain independence very soon.
13 A. A large number of emigres from Croatia, a certain number of them,
14 did have their organisations and did advocate an independent Croatia.
15 Q. That's what you heard two years after Tito's death, and you heard
16 it in Australia; is that right?
17 A. Yes. They advocated an independent Croatia. These Croatian
18 emigrants, not all of them, but certain emigres did come out in favour of
20 Q. In your statement here, you said -- and I think that it would be
21 in order, because brotherhood and unity was forged. We were all equal.
22 But in your statement, you differentiated and said that the Croats were
23 closer to the Montenegrins than the Serbs were.
24 A. Yes, I did write that. Where did I write that? Let me ask you.
25 Q. Well, I'll find it for you.
1 A. Well, I don't remember having said that. I was brought up along
2 those lines in that way, and I think that is quite true. The Montenegrins
3 are very close to both the Serbs and the Croats.
4 Q. What does "Serbisation" mean? Did anybody try to make you change
5 your ethnic affiliation?
6 A. Not me personally, but this trend did exist, that a certain number
7 of Montenegrins say they're Serbs and not Montenegrins. That is something
8 that is quite prevalent.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to
10 abuse your patience. Your Honours, I do not wish to abuse your patience,
11 as I said, but rest assured that I had a lot of other things that would
12 have been of great assistance to you in having an overview of all these
13 questions. But I thank you for the time that you have accorded me and I
14 will end there.
15 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
16 MR. NICE: Before we adjourn, can I raise one administrative
18 JUDGE MAY: Do you have re-examination of this witness?
19 MR. NICE: Yes.
20 We have identified, in light of the cross-examination, some
21 further transcripts of sessions of the parliament. Now, you can see them.
22 They're very substantial in size and they're all in Cyrillic. I suspect
23 they're documents that the accused has already had access to in one form
24 or another, but it occurs to me, before the decision is made to release
25 the witness, that we probably should disclose them, whether under Rule 68
1 or otherwise. And I can tell the accused, in case he's interested, that
2 there are I think about five or six pages that we've identified as having
3 contributions from this witness recorded in the stenographic notes. And
4 I'll just read out those pages so that he can write them down if he wants
5 to and I'll make them available to him now before the break, and if
6 anything arises we can deal with it after the break.
7 The page numbers for the accused to write down, if he wants to, if
8 he hasn't had them already from another source, are: 101, 102, 104, 147,
9 149, 193 to 196. I'll make a copy available to Mr. Tapuskovic as well.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We need to finish this witness as rapidly as we
12 MR. NICE: And one other thing: When we sit again, I would ask
13 for a short private session, again on administrative matters, but I think
14 important that I deal with it at that stage and before I re-examine.
15 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn for half an hour.
16 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.37 a.m.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
19 MR. NICE: Your Honour, three short matters, the first one
20 different from the other two in the sense that it's something that arose
21 from the cross-examination. As the Chamber knows, I am conducting this
22 case with the absolute minimum of intervention. I hope that's what the
23 Chamber wants. But -- and also I pursue a policy of never putting the
24 Chamber in a position where it would have to agree with something without
25 having a chance to consider it, as it were, in advance. But we have to
1 say that the closing question of the accused hit, in our judgement, depths
2 of bad taste, given the physical condition of this man, this witness. And
3 bearing in mind that that observation by the accused is frequently
4 understood, as I understand it, as a threat, it reached depths of bad
5 taste, on which we would invite the Chamber to make public comment.
6 JUDGE MAY: I recollect it now. It was vulgar abuse.
7 MR. NICE: It causes enormous upset to native speakers and to
8 those from the region who know exactly what is afoot, because it's both,
9 of course, extraordinarily offensive to a man who's lost --
10 JUDGE MAY: Why don't you make this point in open session so
11 everybody can hear it.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
13 JUDGE MAY: We are in open session. So you made the point, but
14 not in the presence of the witness, unfortunately.
15 MR. NICE: No. I'll repeat it when he comes in. May I have
16 private session for two matters?
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
18 [Private session]
12 Pages 11418-11424 – redacted – private session
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
3 MR. NICE: Your Honour, while the witness is coming into court,
4 there were some stenographic notes that I provided before the shortest --
5 latest short adjournment. They cover the following dates of the
6 Montenegrin Assembly: The 4th, 7th, 17th, 24th, and 25th of October; I
7 think the 23rd of December; the 16th, 17th, maybe the 18th, 21st, and 22nd
8 of January of 1992. They are only in Cyrillic at the moment, and rather
9 than burden the translation department with an enormous additional task,
10 we may return to the Chamber in due course with a request to meet our
11 obligations to translate selectively.
12 May they be given an exhibit number?
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Prosecutor's Exhibit
16 MR. NICE: And Your Honour, before I may return to questions of
17 this witness on the substance of the evidence, may I record the
18 condemnation by all on the Prosecution side of the very last question of
19 the accused, which, in our respectful submission, descended to depths of
20 poor taste, and it may be worse, where he used a phrase about legs to a
21 man who is injured -- not injured, suffers in the way that the Chamber
22 knows this man does. It was an astonishing and, in our respectful
23 submission, absolutely inexcusable thing to do.
24 I turn to the re-examination --
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, I shall make it plain that the Trial Chamber
1 takes no notice of that sort of question, and in its view, was no more
2 than vulgar abuse, and the witness should hear that. Yes.
3 Re-examined by Mr. Nice:
4 Q. Mr. Samardzic, a few more questions. You made one observation,
5 quite recently --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
7 JUDGE MAY: No. Just be quiet for a moment, Mr. Milosevic. Let
8 Mr. Nice finish.
9 MR. NICE:
10 Q. You made an observation that Djukanovic stands in opposition to
11 the accused and that you are not going to attack him. You made that
12 observation in relation to certain passages of your statement where you
13 had apparently said things about Djukanovic. Is it your position, as you
14 said then, that you're not going to attack him because he stands in
15 opposition to the accused? Just yes or no, if that will adequately answer
16 the question.
17 A. Yes, that's it, but it's not only that. There were also some
18 small errors in that statement that I made two years ago. But the essence
19 is what you asked me about now. I do not wish to attack Milo Djukanovic
20 before this Court.
21 Q. And again, as a matter of record so that the Chamber can have it
22 on the record, something that it might also have in mind when it looks at
23 the newspaper articles that are being produced: There is indeed an
24 election under way at the moment; is that correct, and is Djukanovic a
25 candidate standing for an independent Montenegro?
1 A. Mr. Djukanovic advocates an independent Montenegro. I think that
2 that's the way it is. However, today a new state is being created, Serbia
3 and Montenegro, and in that state, Montenegro is probably going to obtain
4 confederal status.
5 Q. One passage was put to you from your statement about the
6 anti-Catholic nature of the Dubrovnik offensive. Most of the paragraph,
7 on page 16 of the English version, was put, but I'd like to read you the
8 last sentence, where you spoke of the Serb Orthodox church and its
9 archbishop. And you said in the statement:
10 "They never spoke out for reconciliation or for tolerance, but
11 instead they consistently advocated the most radical course, with absolute
12 disregard for anyone who was not a Serb."
13 Was that your position when you made your statement? Is that your
14 position and view now? And again, if the question is capable of being
15 answered by yes or no, please do so.
16 A. Yes. The Serbian Orthodox church, especially its representative
17 in Montenegro, acted precisely in that manner, yes.
18 Q. You were asked a number of questions by the accused about
19 self-determination or about Serbs remaining in one state, matters to that
20 general effect, and whether this was a position that you had yourself
21 adopted and espoused. You remember looking, on the map, at the
22 Karlobag-Virovitica line. Tell us, please, this: Would a composite
23 state, defined by a border along that line, be one where it was just a
24 question of Serbs remaining in one state, or not?
25 A. If that line were to be reached, Karlobag-Virovitica, most of the
1 Serbs would, for the most part, be in one state. But in that same state,
2 there would be quite a few Croats and Muslims as well, and the other
3 ethnic groups which make up Yugoslavia.
4 Q. Let's turn to the --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a moment.
6 Mr. Samardzic, you referred as the base of your assertion that the
7 accused was pursuing the idea of Greater Serbia to the accused's speech in
8 which he said that the Serbs should live in one state, as making assertion
9 for the Greater Serbia. However, given that the accused is saying now
10 that the meaning of the one country in saying that the Serbs should live
11 in one country was nothing but the federal Yugoslavia.
12 That being the case, could you draw a distinction between your
13 position, that is, that you still abide by -- you said you still abide by
14 your words that the Serb people in Croatia should remain in Yugoslavia.
15 Then could you draw a distinction between your position and that of Mr.
16 Milosevic, as you understand it now.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic advocated a Greater
18 Serbia, not a Federal Yugoslavia, if we exclude his concept of federation
19 between a small Montenegro and a Greater Serbia. As far as the Serb
20 people in Croatia are concerned, his clear-cut stand is that once
21 Yugoslavia does not exist, that they should be in a Greater Serbia.
22 My position in the matter was quite clear: Croatia should remain
23 within its own borders and the Serbs should be given self-government in
24 that territory, as proposed by Lord Carrington. And there's an enormous
25 difference between the two.
1 His candidate for the president of Serbia, Vojvoda "Duke" Seselj,
2 whom, as I say, Mr. Milosevic puts forward as president of Serbia, has,
3 without cessation for the past 12 years right up to the present day, been
4 advocating a Greater Serbia and says very specifically that, "Karlobag is
5 ours and so is the territory up to Virovitica." Recently he made mention
6 of the port of Rijeka which is further to the west, and he said that it
7 should be a Serb port.
8 So that is the understanding that Mr. Milosevic has of a Greater
9 Serbia. And not only him; the whole movement aspires to that. Perhaps he
10 made less frequent mention of Virovitica, et cetera, but his followers,
11 such as Seselj, a case in point, and many others, they strove for a
12 Greater Serbia. Mr. Milosevic, before the crisis became full-fledged,
13 rejected the initiative by the Gligorov and Izetbegovic, the president of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, this one, and they proposed that Federal Yugoslavia be
15 composed of four republics, if Croatia and Slovenia secede. Milosevic
16 blatantly rejected that initiative of theirs because his intention was
17 other; that of creating a Greater Serbia.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
19 MR. NICE: The accused, I think, spoke.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness is now saying that I
22 made less frequent mention of this border, Karlovac-Virovitica-Karlobag,
23 which means that he implies that I mentioned it very rarely. Now, as I
24 never, ever mentioned it, I ask that the witness find any of my
25 statements, private or public, to bear his point out. And when he says
1 that I rejected the Izetbegovic-Gligorov plan --
2 JUDGE MAY: You've had your chance to cross-examine, and you can't
3 interrupt continually what anybody else says. And in addition to that,
4 you will have the chance to comment in due course on what the witness has
5 said, and we will hear it.
7 MR. NICE:
8 Q. Can I turn to the meeting of the 1st of October? The Defence
9 produced, but without copies, a newspaper article contained a photograph.
10 Mr. Samardzic, just so that I can understand it -- I don't know what the
11 exhibit number is.
12 JUDGE MAY: We'll give it an exhibit number, a Defence one.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be Defence Exhibit 53.
14 MR. NICE:
15 Q. Mr. Samardzic, as to Defence Exhibit 63 [sic], you had a short
16 time to review it, and to review it in difficult circumstances of being in
17 the witness chair. But first of all, are you shown in the photograph at
19 A. No, I'm not shown at all. I can't recognise myself there, nor can
20 I see myself. And I wasn't at any kind of commemorative meeting during
21 those days there. At least I can't remember. No commemoration at all.
22 Q. Very well. I think the article says -- we'll have a translation,
23 no doubt, in due course, that the ceremony was at the beginning of a
24 meeting, without necessarily specifying the date of the meeting. I think
25 that's what it may say. Were you familiar at all with formal meetings
1 being preceded by short ceremonies of the kind revealed in the photograph,
2 with people standing to attention and in apparent silence?
3 A. I did not attend any such commemoration. It might have been held
4 -- it could have been held, but not on the 1st of October. It could
5 have been held, if we see what the Pobjeda article says of the 3rd of
6 October, it might have been held on the 2nd of October, but that has
7 nothing to do with my statement and claims that the government session in
8 the presence of the generals was held, in fact, on the 1st of October.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, sorry to interrupt you; I'd just like
10 to see the exhibit.
11 Yes, please proceed.
12 MR. NICE: Returning to the same issue of the document, can the
13 witness just have another look, or can we lay on the overhead projector,
14 perhaps, the English versions of Exhibit 338, tabs 2 and 3, I think. If
15 we can just lay the English version on the overhead projector, I think,
16 because Mr. Samardzic speaks English.
17 Incidentally, Your Honour, my recollection is from my brief look
18 at the photograph - I'm sorry, cutting through - I think that the
19 photograph doesn't have uniforms in it, but I'm not sure.
20 Q. If we look at the English version, the top of it, please. That's
21 fine. We see that -- a bit further up, actually. Right. We see that
22 it's dated, with a strictly confidential number of 14, the 1st of October.
23 We then see that this is an order pursuant to certain provisions, and we
24 then see that the order is effective on the 2nd of October. And we see
25 that this was the order that contained the reference to performing
1 specific military tasks on the Dubrovnik front.
2 If we then turn, please, to look at Exhibit 3 - and I'll ask you
3 about the exhibits in a second, please. Exhibit 3, again top part. Again
4 we see it's dated the 1st of October, and with a strictly confidential
5 number 01-14/2, pursuant to an order by the president of the Presidency of
6 the Republic. And an order is made by Minister Bulatovic, again relating
7 to the Dubrovnik theatre of war, as it's described on this occasion at the
8 foot of the page, in the translation.
9 Now, the question I want to ask you is this: Can you help us with
10 the sequence of events? Either, one, were these orders made after the
11 meeting you referred to; and two, could they have been made without that
12 meeting having taken place?
13 A. Documents of this kind -- and I'm looking at this one for the
14 first time here and now in the courtroom. Documents of this kind could
15 not have been compiled and written during the session itself. Quite
16 obviously, they were compiled after the session, in precise terms, the one
17 held on the 1st of October, the one that I talked about with the presence
18 of the generals, which is when the decision was taken about the war
19 efforts vis-a-vis Croatia. As this was written on the 1st of October, as
20 I can see from the text, it was to have been executed -- that is to say,
21 mobilisation was to take place, not only just one unit, as Mr. Milosevic
22 mentioned, but, to all intents and purposes, general mobilisation,
23 according to what Mr. Bulatovic signed here, and that began on the 2nd of
24 October. The session of the 1st of October was not a commemorative
25 session, it was a working meeting.
1 Q. And you've been shown no other document by the accused or anybody
2 else consistent with the institution of mobilisation, have you?
3 A. No. No, I haven't. I haven't looked at any documents concerning
4 mobilisation. All I can see is what stands before me now.
5 Q. Can you help us with Strugar's approach at this meeting? What was
6 his attitude at this meeting?
7 A. I came quite late, but I heard Strugar, who confirmed what Mr.
8 Bulatovic had been saying, that the Ustashas had attacked us and that he
9 confirmed the figure of 30.000 mentioned by Bulatovic, and that it was up
10 to us to defend ourselves. He didn't speak for long. He said more or
11 less what I have just stated. And I cannot recall anything else that he
12 said at present. He said it's up to us to defend ourselves, and that was
13 his position.
14 Otherwise, let me say that I don't know Mr. Strugar personally.
15 That was the first time that I had seen him. And I had a brief
16 conversation with Jokic, and I also testified about that. And that's all.
17 Q. Before we turn from this topic generally, and the institution of
18 military action in the area of Dubrovnik, just answer this question,
19 please, yes or no: Have you yourself heard directly, whether on
20 television, radio, or by being present, what passed between President
21 Djukanovic and President Mesic at their first public or publicised meeting
22 in recent years? I think it was in Cavtat, but it may have been in
23 Dubrovnik. Did you -- it was in Cavtat. Did you hear what Djukanovic
24 said to Mesic about the Dubrovnik campaign?
25 A. Yes. It was publicised, stated in public, that President
1 Djukanovic apologised to Croatia for the difficulties that they were
2 having and for the deaths that occurred in Dubrovnik. He apologised in
3 the name of the people of Montenegro.
4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, we may get more detail of that, from one
5 source or another, later.
6 Q. I want to turn now to the decision taken in the Carrington
7 conference, but before I deal with that, the history of it having been
8 challenged by the accused: Were you aware of any telephone calls being
9 made before the vote was dealt with by Lord Carrington? And if so,
10 between who?
11 A. Do you mean the telephone conversation in Podgorica or somewhere
12 else? In The Hague, perhaps?
13 Q. Involving Mr. Bulatovic, if any, of which you are aware, and
14 before the --
15 A. Yes. During the meeting of the Montenegrin Assembly, from about
16 7.00 in the evening until 7.00 in the morning - and this was televised by
17 Television Titograd - Momir was mostly in his office and watching on the
18 screen there, the monitor. And he was frequently in communication that
19 evening with Mr. Milosevic. He told me that himself. And for the
20 situation at that time and relations at that time, I considered that to be
21 quite normal.
22 Q. Thank you very much. A number of questions were put to you on
23 this topic, coming from a statement made by Mr. Bulatovic, so it is said.
24 If the video booth would be good enough now, please, to play a short video
25 for us.
1 [Videotape played]
2 REPORTER: The Serbs leaders spent the flight home plotting.
3 MR. JOVIC: [Voiceover] For us, the only favourable version was
4 that Montenegro withdraw its stand.
5 MR. BULATOVIC: [Voiceover] And then my telephone began ringing.
6 Important political personages over there asked, Is it possible that you
7 have become a traitor of the Serbian people? The conversation lasted all
8 night. The phone constantly rang. There were even threats.
9 SPEAKER: [Voiceover] Of course, the Montenegrin People's Party
10 called for an extraordinary parliamentary session because Momir Bulatovic
11 wrote this hard declaration. And Momir Bulatovic's signature on that
12 document is considered to be a separatist --
13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the clip that we've just seen is one of a
14 number of exhibits that will be produced by a later witness, and of course
15 is possibly familiar to the Chamber if it's seen the film "The Death of
16 Yugoslavia." But I'm happy to produce it now as a clip now or to defer
17 its production until the witness produces material generally.
18 JUDGE MAY: Better dealt with generally than, I think, in a clip.
19 MR. NICE:
20 Q. Was that Mr. Bulatovic you saw on that clip?
21 A. Of course. That was Momir Bulatovic personally.
22 Q. [Previous translation continues]... then about what happened the
23 night before and the day, in accordance with your experience?
24 A. In complete conformity, in complete accordance. He spoke about
25 the telephone calls, the fact that he was called a traitor, and he had to
1 change his standpoint because of the pressures exerted on him that I
3 Q. Just a couple more questions and I shall be done.
4 Was the phrase "liberation of Dubrovnik" something that you
5 overheard? You've been challenged about what was happening at Dubrovnik,
6 and I'll come to that in a second, but was the phrase "liberation of
7 Dubrovnik" ever referred to?
8 A. Yes, of course I did mention that. That was what was said.
9 Dubrovnik had to be freed, liberated. And that was present in their
10 consciousness, to defend it from the -- to defend ourselves from the
11 Ustashas and then to carry on with the liberation of Dubrovnik.
12 Q. Do you remember any occasion when this alleged liberation was said
13 to have been completed or imminent?
14 A. Could you please repeat the question and tell me what you mean.
15 How do you mean, completed or imminent?
16 Q. [Previous translation continues]... in any meeting at which you
17 attended, that Dubrovnik was soon to be liberated? If you can't remember,
18 we'll move on, but if you can, help us.
19 A. I can't remember for the moment --
20 Q. Very well.
21 A. -- about this being completed or imminent, but that Dubrovnik
22 would be liberated, that was something that was bandied about, at least in
23 the coastal regions of Montenegro.
24 Q. You've had various things put to you said by you or said to have
25 been said about you by Prevlaka, and we've seen the documentation showing
1 your negotiations with Croatia over Prevlaka. So far as you were
2 concerned, were you pursuing a consistent line in relation to negotiating
3 Prevlaka, both in your private dealings by correspondence with Croatia and
4 in your public statements, or were you for any reason obliged to say
5 slightly different things or much different things in public?
6 A. From the very beginning, at any kind of discussion about the
7 Prevlaka, I always held the same position and always strove in favour of
8 it; that is to say, we can win the Prevlaka only in negotiations with
9 friendly Croatia and not to go to war with it. And there was no other way
10 for us to obtain Prevlaka from Croatia. The sole way was to negotiate and
11 not to go to war. I said this on television, at the government sessions,
12 in the government; from start to finish, that was what I advocated, and I
13 feel the same way today.
14 Q. Finally, then --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.
16 MR. NICE: My apologies.
17 Q. Finally, then, please, Mr. Samardzic, the actual heart of -- core
18 of your evidence and what it's all about, the attack -- or a lot of it is
19 about, and that is the attack on Dubrovnik. The accused has said that he
20 condemned it, that he -- or condemned the shelling of Dubrovnik. When
21 pressed by the Chamber for an explanation, he said something to this
22 effect: That he understood that the army was being attacked because it
23 wanted to limit the action of National Guard Corps. Is that an
24 explanation for the involvement of the army at Dubrovnik that you've heard
1 A. No. What he said in The Hague or in Brussels - Mr. Milosevic, I
2 mean - does not correspond, absolutely does not correspond to the truth.
3 He probably said it, but there was fighting over Dubrovnik. The whole
4 army was ready, and its equipment and the reservists of Montenegro
5 attacked Dubrovnik. That's what they were doing. At that time, there
6 were none of the ZNGs or National Guard Corps, as the president of the
7 Serbian government, Zelenovic -- the Prime Minister of the government,
8 Zelenovic, writes.
9 Q. And in the meetings of the Montenegrin Assembly, particularly on
10 the 1st of October and subsequent ones, was this explanation or excuse
11 being advanced or not?
12 A. Let me say that it wasn't an Assembly meeting, that one on the 1st
13 of October. It was a government session with the generals I mentioned.
14 And I attended that meeting in part, and the principal issue was that the
15 Croats were attacking us and that it was up to us to defend ourselves.
16 And of course, within that context, the subject of the incidents came up,
17 the incidents perpetrated by the Croatian side along our borders. And
18 there was even a document presented about it. I didn't protest on the
19 occasion, but I wasn't quite sure that that was in order. So what I
20 remember most vividly from that meeting was that we had to defend
21 ourselves against Croatia. That was on the 1st of October. And already
22 the following day it was quite evident that our units had entered into
23 Croatia and that there was no trace of the 30.000 who were attacking
25 Q. You explained yesterday that when you were first presented -- not
1 yesterday, the day before, I think. Whenever. That when you were first
2 presented with this explanation of the 30.000 attacking Croatians, you
3 accepted it because it came from the mouths of the generals. Can you just
4 finally tell us roughly when, or precisely when, you first realised that
5 that account was false and that you first started to detach yourself from
7 A. That evening, that is to say, on the 1st of October, in the
8 evening, I said the following: If they have indeed attacked us, then it
9 is up to us to defend ourselves. Because I believed, I had the impression
10 that the generals were there in full battle dress --
11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that what you were told was
12 not true. We've had the evidence before. Just roughly when you first
13 realised that what you were told was false.
14 A. Already the following day or days. It wasn't easy for me. It
15 wasn't easy to see that -- I always believed that the army would defend
16 Yugoslavia, and I always remembered it as the army I had remembered when I
17 was a child. So it took a few days for me to become accustomed to this
18 new idea.
19 Q. That's all I need.
20 MR. NICE: That's my re-examination.
21 JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Mr. Samardzic, for coming to the
22 International Tribunal to give your evidence. It's concluded. You're
23 free to go.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, can I not put some
25 questions in relation to this?
1 JUDGE MAY: No. You've had your go at cross-examination, and we
2 really must conclude this witness's evidence.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, but this would pertain to --
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What about the stenographic notes?
6 The ones that --
7 JUDGE MAY: They're going to be exhibited and you can comment on
8 them in due course, once we have them translated.
9 Yes, let's have the next witness.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, I'm going to use the time while we're
12 waiting for this witness to come to give a ruling.
13 Mr. Kay, this involves Mr. Wladimiroff, and it's the ruling of the
14 Trial Chamber in relation to his position.
15 MR. KAY: Thank you.
16 JUDGE MAY: The Chamber has considered this matter very carefully
17 and has concluded that the statements made by Mr. Wladimiroff, even with
18 the explanations accepted, raise serious questions about the
19 appropriateness of his continuing as amicus curiae.
20 The Chamber observes that not only did he comment on parts of the
21 case in respect of which evidence has been given, but that he has also
22 made an assessment of parts in respect of which evidence has not yet been
23 adduced, and that in both instances he appears to have formed a view of
24 the case unfavourable to the accused. Of particular concern is the view
25 expressed that the accused must be convicted of at least some of the
2 The statements, taken as a whole, would, in the Chamber's view,
3 give rise to a reasonable perception of bias on the part of the amicus
4 curiae. Implicit in the concept of an amicus curiae is the trust that the
5 Court reposes in the friend to act fairly in the performance of his
6 duties. In the circumstances, the Chamber cannot be confident that the
7 amicus curiae will discharge his duties, which include bringing to its
8 attention any defences open to the accused, with the required
10 Accordingly, the Chamber will instruct the Registrar to revoke
11 Mr. Wladimiroff's appointment as an amicus curiae. This is a decision
12 which the Chamber has arrived at with much regret, since Mr. Wladimiroff
13 has, like the other amici, provided useful assistance to the Court. More
14 detailed reasons will be given in writing.
16 MR. NICE: I imagine the witness is at the door, but ...
17 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps someone could go and have a look.
18 MR. NICE: Yes.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
21 WITNESS: DEJAN ANASTASIJEVIC
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
24 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 Examined by Mr. Nice:
1 Q. Your full name, please.
2 A. My name is Dejan Anastasijevic.
3 Q. Mr. Anastasijevic, are you by ethnicity a Serb, born in Belgrade
4 in 1962, and did you study at the University of Belgrade, in the
5 department of molecular biology, not graduate; you served in the national
6 service with the JNA between 1980 and 1981; correct?
7 A. All this information is correct.
8 Q. Had you become a journalist and become a war reporter since the
9 early autumn of 1991, first working in Belgrade, I think, for Radio B92,
10 the independent radio station, and then for United Press International?
11 Did you work during the war in Croatia as a journalist for various
12 individuals, including -- bodies, including the CNN, BBC, and the New York
14 A. Yes, all of that is correct.
15 Q. Since 1993, have you worked for Vreme, the independent
16 Belgrade-based weekly newspaper, and have you been a freelance reporter
17 for Time magazine since 1996?
18 A. Yes, all of that is correct.
19 Q. Did you visit and make reports from several battle fronts,
20 including Vukovar, immediately after its fall into the hands of Serb and
21 Yugoslav forces? Have you also been in Eastern Bosnia in 1992?
22 A. All of that is correct.
23 Q. Finally, so far as background is concerned, have you recently just
24 returned from spending one academic year, year 2001 to 2002, at Harvard
25 University, on a fellowship for working journalists?
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. First, then, some observations of your own on the ground.
3 Vukovar, November 1991. When did you first go to Eastern Slovenia in
4 relation to the fall of Vukovar?
5 A. This was a few days, approximately seven days, before the town
6 fell into the hands of the Serb forces.
7 Q. In order to get there, what formalities did you have to go
9 A. It was necessary to get a permit from the information service of
10 the Yugoslav People's Army, as it was then. This permit was obtained in
11 Belgrade and it was valid up to the village of Negoslavci, which is near
12 Vukovar. And over there, at the press service of the JNA, it was
13 necessary to obtain a new permit, which made it possible to get closer to
15 Q. That permit being issued by what authority?
16 A. The permit was issued by the information service of the Yugoslav
17 People's Army.
18 Q. As you went into Vukovar, what, if any, checkpoints did you have
19 to pass through?
20 A. There were several checkpoints that one had to pass through. The
21 first one was at the very administrative border with Croatia, and then,
22 depending on the situation, there were a few checkpoints up to Negoslavci,
23 and then another few between Negoslavci and Vukovar.
24 Q. By the time you reached Vukovar, had you heard anything from Serb
25 media, television, and radio about what was happening there?
1 A. Of course, there were many news that were broadcast from the area
2 at the time. For the most part, the news indicated that what was going on
3 was that well-trained and armed forces of the so-called ZNGs, that is to
4 say, the Croatian National Guard Corps, were attacking poorly defended
5 Serb villages around Vukovar and that the Serbs, the bare-armed peoples,
6 it was said then, could hardly manage to defend themselves. And the
7 forces of the Yugoslav People's Army that were there were described as
8 forces that were trying to separate the warring parties and that they were
9 there exclusively to oppose the Croatian extremists, if necessary.
10 Q. How did those reports match with or contrast to what you found
11 when you got to Vukovar?
12 A. The difference was drastic and shocking. First of all, the Serb
13 forces, or rather, the Serb paramilitary units in the region, were
14 excellently armed. Actually, the town was under siege and an offensive
15 was under way in order to capture the town. Also, it was quite obvious
16 that the JNA was not neutral at all. As a matter of fact, that it was
17 giving logistic and materiel support to the Serb forces.
18 Q. When you say it wasn't acting in a neutral way, was there
19 potential that you could see for the separation of the two sides, or two
20 sides on the ground? If so, what was the JNA apparently doing when such
21 potential existed?
22 A. The propaganda changed during the conflict. The story of
23 neutrality existed only during the first part of the siege of Vukovar.
24 Later on, it was claimed that this was a clash between the JNA and
25 Croatian extremists. However, practically throughout the siege, and after
1 it, the JNA quite obviously gave active assistance to the units of the
2 so-called Territorial Defence in the area that was held by Serbs around
3 Vukovar; and also it actively assisted the paramilitary units that were
4 sent from Serbia, which primarily consisted of volunteers. They also
5 operated in the region.
6 Q. I think I'll come back -- or we will come back to paragraph 6 a
7 little later, Your Honour. Let's go to paragraph 7.
8 As you passed through Croatian villages in Eastern Slavonia, did
9 you notice certain things at about this time, particularly in the village
10 of Tovarnik?
11 A. Yes. I remember the village of Tovarnik quite clearly, the
12 village that's on the road to Vukovar, and I remember clearly that it
13 struck me then that some houses were damaged or burned and others were
14 intact. Although I knew there was heavy fighting in that village and
15 around that village, I found it strange. How had this happened? However,
16 I realised that all the houses that were intact had inscriptions saying
17 that, "This is a Serb house, do not touch it," or a national symbol which
18 showed that the -- the house was in Serb possession.
19 Q. The other houses, how badly were they damaged, typically?
20 A. The other houses were badly damaged. Some of them were obviously
21 damaged by artillery, that is to say, mortar or tank or cannon fire.
22 Other houses looked as if they had been torched intentionally, that is to
23 say that the external walls were practically intact, but inside,
24 everything had burned down, and therefore the roof had fallen as a result
25 of all of that.
1 Q. Turning from that particular village and its internal composition,
2 were you able to see a difference as between villages that had a
3 predominantly Serb as opposed to Croat composition, generally?
4 A. The difference was quite obvious. The villages that were
5 predominantly Croat were practically levelled to the Croat, at least those
6 houses that did not have any Serb inscriptions on them. But the
7 predominantly Serb villages, like Borovo Selo, for example, were
8 practically intact. I was surprised because of the many reports that came
9 in on the heavy fighting around Borovo Selo - these were broadcast on Serb
10 television - when I first entered Borovo Selo and when I saw that there
11 was hardly any damage there.
12 Q. When you got into Vukovar itself, as you went into Vukovar, did
13 you notice anything by way of a change in the comparative presence on the
14 ground of one type of force from another?
15 A. Yes. What struck me even then was that it looked as if the
16 presence of the Yugoslav People's Army, especially of its active members,
17 was on the decline as we were getting closer to town, that is to say, I
18 and other journalists. There were less and less active members of the
19 army and more and more members of paramilitary units.
20 MR. NICE: Your Honour, before I turn to the detail of that, and
21 as we start to familiarise ourselves, as we are going to, with Exhibit
22 336, the atlas, Vukovar is on page 23 and Borovo is a short distance
23 north, along the banks of the Danube. I'm grateful to Mr. McKeon;
24 Tovarnik, which we've just had referred to, is south and east of Vukovar.
25 The grid references on this atlas aren't particularly easy to follow, but
1 it's south and west of Backa Palanka.
2 Q. Very well, then. Let's turn to the sightings you made of
3 paramilitary groups. To what degree were they apparent on the ground?
4 A. There were very many of them the closer we got to town. And
5 basically, there were three categories of them: One were the reservists
6 of the JNA that, in nominal terms, were supposed to be under the control
7 of the army, but they operated more or less as independent units. And
8 very often they were left to their own resources. And many of them
9 complained to me that no active-duty officers were with them. Then the
10 other category were the members of the Territorial Defence, that is to
11 say, for the most part, people from that area who were ethnic Serbs. And
12 the third category were the so-called volunteers from Serbia. There were
13 many of them, and they were within different groups.
14 Q. Were you able to identify any of the groups by name or by leader?
15 A. It was rather easy to distinguish the reservists because they wore
16 the old uniforms of the Yugoslav People's Army, the woolen uniforms,
17 whereas the volunteers had diverse uniforms and diverse insignia. Many
18 bore the names of various animals, like Tigers, Lions, Panthers. However,
19 the group led by Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, figured most prominently and
20 they could be easily discerned. They were the Tigers belonging to Arkan's
21 guard. And they had special weapons and they were readily discernible,
22 more readily than all the rest.
23 Q. Within Vukovar, you were able to make some observations. Before
24 we come to those, tell us how it was you were to move around, whether it
25 was dangerous for you, what news organisation you were working for on this
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 11448 to 11459.
2 A. At that time, I was a freelance journalist. For the most part, I
3 worked for B92 and for the weekly Vreme as a freelance reporter. I was
4 mainly in the company of my colleagues, correspondents from abroad. For a
5 while, I was with the CNN crew and then the BBC crew, but there were
6 others as well. This is an answer to the question as to who I worked for
8 Can you please repeat the first part of the question for me,
10 Q. Certainly. I wanted to know how it was that it was safe, if it
11 was safe, to move around. You've probably answered it by explaining that
12 you were with a lot of other journalists, but give us your own answer,
14 A. The rule is that, in principle, in war zones, journalists should
15 move about in groups, and it is very rare for people to move about on
16 their own. For various reasons, there were still pockets of resistance
17 from the Croatian side. In Vukovar, there were snipers, that is. Also,
18 there was mortar fire, also there were booby traps, and also there were
19 mortar mines that had not exploded along the road. And there were a lot
20 of drunk men with weapons, and that is also a great factor of danger.
21 Q. Did you see any crimes being committed? Did you see any evidence
22 consistent with crimes having been committed?
23 A. Nobody was killed before my very own eyes. However, I saw, on
24 many occasions, members of the Territorial Defence or volunteers taking
25 someone away for whom they had claimed that he was a prisoner or a member
1 of the Croatian National Guard Corps. They would take such a person
2 behind a house and then a burst of gunfire would be heard.
3 Also I saw many cases of looting. I remember a unit that were
4 carrying caps and other things that they had stolen from a shop selling
5 Fred Perry goods, so they called themselves the Fred Perry unit because
6 they had those caps. I remember that absolutely no one tried to prevent
7 the looting, and it was obvious that the paramilitaries decided rather
8 arbitrarily and at random as to who was a suspect, that is, suspected of
9 being a member of the Croatian forces.
10 Q. Was there any evidence of JNA oversight, by their officers or
11 otherwise, of what was going on?
12 A. During the first three days after the fall of Vukovar, I do not
13 remember having seen a single active-duty officer in town itself. There
14 were only paramilitaries there. They were drunk, they were disorderly,
15 and it looked as if there had been tacit agreement, or at least a tacit
16 decision made by the JNA, that they would leave these three or four days
17 after entering town to them so that they could do whatever they wanted.
18 Q. In the course of this, you witnessed a confrontation between a JNA
19 officer and a paramilitary. Tell us about that, please.
20 A. Yes. I was interviewing an active captain of the JNA. I can no
21 longer recall his name. It was about 10.00 in the morning, when a
22 reservist who was obviously very drunk walked up and tried to interrupt
23 our conversation. The captain rather politely asked him to let us talk
24 and to go away, whereas the reservist cocked his automatic rifle, pointed
25 it at the captain, started insulting him and then walked away only a few
1 minutes later. After that, I asked this captain how he could allow that
2 kind of chaos and such a lack of discipline, but he answered me that the
3 JNA did not have enough people under arms around Vukovar and that
4 therefore they were prepared to accept anyone who was prepared to carry a
5 rifle. This is more or less a direct quotation.
6 Q. You were there for several days, as is clear. We only have a very
7 simple map showing the scale of Vukovar and its size before us at the
8 moment. Were you, in those few days, confined to a very small part of
9 Vukovar, a few hundred metres one way or another, or were you able to look
10 over most of the town?
11 A. Like other journalists, I could move about rather freely within
12 the perimeter of a few kilometres. Practically all the way up to the line
13 of demarcation with Croatia, or rather, with the Croatian forces. The
14 only constraints were things like minefields and other places that were
15 obviously inaccessible. But practically, there were no restrictions of
17 Q. And what --
18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, it is 1.00.
19 MR. NICE: Very well.
20 JUDGE MAY: If that's a convenient moment.
21 MR. NICE: If I may put the last question that follows on from
22 what I've been preparing.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 MR. NICE:
25 Q. The behaviour that you've described seeing - presence of
1 paramilitaries, absence of JNA, and so on - was that consistent over the
2 whole territory of Vukovar that you can see or was it isolated, patchy?
3 Tell us.
4 A. The situation that I described practically pertains to the entire
5 broader centre of Vukovar, that is to say, almost the entire town.
6 MR. NICE: Your Honour, if we can adjourn there. As the court
7 knows, through no disrespect to the Court or certainly to the witness, I
8 can't be here this afternoon, but Mr. McKeon will conclude the
9 examination-in-chief for this witness.
10 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn now.
11 Mr. Anastasijevic, you've started giving your evidence. Would you
12 remember, in this and any other adjournments there are in it, not to speak
13 about it to anybody until it's over, and that does include the members of
14 the Prosecution team. Could you be back here at half past 2.00, please.
15 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.02 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.32 p.m.
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. McKeon.
3 MR. McKEON: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Sir, during the time that you were in the Vukovar area, did you
5 ever have an opportunity to talk to members of the volunteers or
6 paramilitaries about what they did before they came to the war?
7 A. Yes, I did. I had quite a lot of opportunities to talk to them,
8 and I did talk to many of them, and I asked each of them, as part of
9 procedure, what they did before the war. And I was surprised how many of
10 them said in response that they had worked in the MUP, that is to say, the
11 Ministry of the Interior of Serbia. On the other hand, some of them tried
12 to avoid giving me an answer, which was also indicative. And also I based
13 my opinions of them, about how they looked, that they were actually
15 Q. Now, when you were in the Vukovar area, did you hear stories about
16 Arkan's troops from other paramilitaries and others in the area?
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
18 MR. KAY: Shall I raise matters here?
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
20 MR. KAY: I think implicit in the question: "Did you hear stories
21 about..." probably isn't helpful to the Trial Chamber in relation to
22 considering the evidence in this case. I mean, it is hearsay. We don't
23 know how many stages removed of hearsay.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps, Mr. McKeon, you're able to be a little
25 more specific.
1 MR. McKEON: Yes, Your Honour.
2 Q. Sir, was there pervasive talk among the volunteers that you were
3 encountering about Mr. Arkan and the things that he was engaged in the
5 MR. KAY: I'm not sure it gets any better, if my learned friend
6 will forgive me, as I was trying to work the question out, and I
7 appreciate his difficulty. But really, the Trial Chamber has said on
8 several occasions it's concerned to be focused really on the issues in the
9 case and on evidence that's reliable.
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. McKeon, yes.
11 MR. McKEON: Yes, Your Honour. The only thing that we are
12 attempting to show the Court is that at least stories about Mr. Arkan's
13 activities were widespread in the area and that this witness in fact, on a
14 later occasion, shortly after this, had the opportunity to ask Mr. Arkan
15 about those stories.
16 JUDGE MAY: I don't think, I'm afraid, that it assists us. I see
17 we're now going on to the next paragraph, which is 13, and you wanted to
18 raise an objection about that, Mr. Kay.
19 MR. KAY: Yes. I previously notified the Trial Chamber in closed
20 session about this. We all have a summary of this witness's evidence, and
21 we'll note that in paragraph 13, there is mention there that the content
22 of that statement is based on an interview by this witness with a
23 particular person. And then we'll also note in paragraphs 15 to 18 that
24 that is all substantially based again on another interview by this witness
25 with another person involved in events. And these -- there's a further
1 matter from paragraph 19 onwards as well.
2 And it really comes to this: That the Prosecution here is calling
3 a witness who is a journalist who has interviewed people at various times
4 over events that took place. And that in itself is so far removed as
5 evidence in this case that, in our submission, it's not helpful to the
6 Trial Chamber to deal with the more essential parts of its task.
7 You'll notice in paragraph 15 that in fact that was an interview
8 that took place in 1994, and we're dealing here with events in 1991. So
9 three years after the event, he interviews this particular person, who
10 tells him all about, as he says, events that took place some time before.
11 The same criticism can be made in paragraph 19, where you note the
12 dates of the interviews are during 1994 and 1995.
13 JUDGE MAY: I think 19 isn't going to be led.
14 Is that right?
15 MR. McKEON: That's correct, Your Honour. We won't be asking any
16 questions from paragraphs 19 or 20.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: When was the interview with Goran Hadzic
19 MR. McKEON: Your Honour, my understanding is that that was in
21 JUDGE MAY: A week after.
22 MR. McKEON: Yes, shortly after the fall of Vukovar.
23 JUDGE MAY: There is also, while you're dealing with it, paragraph
24 21, interview with Seselj. Do you object to that too?
25 MR. KAY: Yes. I'm not sure about 22 to 24. It's not a heading
1 in bold type. I'm not sure -- it looks to me that that reads as a
2 distinct subject rather than newspaper interviews.
3 MR. McKEON: That is correct.
4 MR. KAY: Right.
5 JUDGE MAY: What do you say about 21? And what do you say about
6 the general point? We do admit hearsay. We've said it often enough and
7 we've ruled often enough to admit hearsay.
8 MR. KAY: We understand that, and that's accepted at this
9 Tribunal, but there are degrees of hearsay that the Trial Chambers find
10 unacceptable, and we've heard several occasions during this trial about
11 newspaper interviews and reports. Now I appreciate we've got the
12 particular journalist who is having the interview, but all he can tell the
13 Trial Chamber is that this man told him this and this man told him that.
14 He won't be able to deal with any of the questions of the accused in
15 cross-examination, which will probably deny the content of what was being
16 said. And then it's simply unhelpful to the Trial Chamber to have this
17 kind of evidence mounting up and not really form any substantial part of
18 the evidence that is required in relation to the indictment.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you make a distinction between the
20 interview conducted - what is it? - one week after Vukovar fell and the
21 other one conducted some three, four years after?
22 MR. KAY: Obviously, those conducted three, four years after are
23 in a distinct category and the criticism to them is apparent. A newspaper
24 interview one week afterwards with a particular person again falls upon
25 this problem: That questions asked about it, he will only be able to say,
1 "This is what this man told me," when really this Court should be
2 receiving evidence of what this man saw happen. This happened, that
3 happened, rather than, "I was told this and I was told that," which is
4 simply really unhelpful in the task of weighing up evidence and deciding
5 on how useful it is in proving an indictment. It carries with it grave,
6 grave dangers, in our submission.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, is there anything you want to say about
9 this before we hear from the Prosecution?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I've already said -- I've
11 already said that I don't understand at all the sense of testimony by
12 anyone who was not a participant in the actual events, who didn't see
13 something himself personally, and who is merely recounting what others
14 said to him, told him, without any binding factor. Because a newspaper
15 interview is not an examination of any kind. Many speakers wish to
16 represent things the way they want them to appear sometimes, and not even
17 the way they saw them for themselves. And on many occasions -- [In
18 English] That is not with my stuff here.
19 [Interpretation] As I was saying, on many occasions you rejected
20 quotations, for example, even from very prominent world figures, with
21 respect to the events. And now you're bringing a journalist forth to
22 testify, and all he knows and is testifying about is secondhand, tenth
23 hand, 20th hand, et cetera. And on the other hand, he has his own
24 political orientations of the kind that he is in fact working for the OTP,
25 for the Prosecution. So I think that from the aspects of any kind of
1 legal court, testimony of this kind would be completely worthless, and I
2 doubt that for these reasons and the reasons mentioned by Mr. Kay a moment
3 ago, that any legal court would accept the testimony of such a witness.
4 JUDGE MAY: We don't accept that he's working for the OTP. It's
5 not the case at all. But we'll bear in mind what you say.
6 Yes, Mr. McKeon.
7 MR. McKEON: Thank you, Your Honour. I think the arguments that
8 counsel has raised are arguments that can be raised against any hearsay,
9 and as the Tribunal has noted, hearsay can be admitted in these
10 proceedings if there are indicia of reliability.
11 In this particular case, this witness, through the course of his
12 work as a journalist, interviewed many people, did many investigations,
13 came upon much information, but we have not chosen to ask him about all of
14 that. We've only picked the -- actually, I think, two areas that we think
15 is most important for this Tribunal to hear. One witness that he might be
16 able to talk about that may be testifying later in these proceedings,
17 we're not going to ask him the questions that we had proposed, and those
18 are in paragraphs 19 and 20. But as for the others, the witness
19 identified in paragraph 13, and also the witness identified in paragraph
20 21 are identified in the indictment as members of the joint criminal
21 enterprise. These are people, all of these, witnesses that the
22 Prosecution would be unable or unlikely to be able to bring for this Court
23 to hear what they have to say. And this is the only way that we can put
24 before the Court what these witnesses have to say.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. McKeon, would the remoteness in time from the
1 incident in relation to paragraph 15 affect reliability?
2 MR. McKEON: Your Honour, I would suggest that it wouldn't affect
3 reliability. It's obviously a factor the Court can take into account in
4 weighing the persuasiveness of the testimony, particularly when weighed
5 against whatever other evidence the Tribunal may have before it at the end
6 of the day. But that it shouldn't affect the admissibility of the
7 evidence. The question is whether the evidence is reliable, not whether
8 it is near in time or remote in time.
9 In this particular case, we will be able to adduce from this
10 witness many indicators of reliability on each of these statements,
11 including the manner in which it was taken, the fact that they were
12 conducted in a professional manner by a professional journalist whose job
13 it is to conduct these sorts of interviews and be accurate; the fact that
14 after these interviews were conducted, in some cases articles were
15 published - we have one of the articles relating to the witness identified
16 in paragraph 15 - that after this, there was no comment from the person
17 interviewed that his opinions were misrepresented in the interview in any
18 way. And finally, the experience of this witness as a journalist, that
19 after these interviews were conducted and through his continuing work in
20 journalism, he was able to corroborate things that he was told by these
21 witnesses and gained some confidence in their truthfulness.
22 Also, Your Honour, I would note that in paragraph 21, I expect
23 this witness will say that the things that was told to him by this witness
24 in these interviews are things that he also saw this witness -- this
25 person say on other occasions to other people in other forums. So that it
1 wasn't -- he's not just reporting that this was just told to him in one
2 interview, but it's something that he heard repeated, which would give an
3 indication of its reliability.
4 So I think that the Tribunal does accept hearsay evidence if there
5 are indicia of reliability, and in this case there are those indicators.
6 To the extent that the accused may have issues with that, those can be
7 raised in cross-examination and can go to the weight of the evidence.
8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Mr. McKeon. We'll consider the position.
9 The legal officer, please.
10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE MAY: We've considered this objection. There is an
13 important point of principle here. Paragraph 89 -- I'm sorry, Rule 89
14 permits the Chamber to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have
15 probative value, but allows the Chamber to exclude evidence if its
16 probative value is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair
18 The evidence which is proposed to be given is in three parts:
19 Paragraphs 13, 21, and 15 to 18. All of it is hearsay evidence, what
20 various people told this witness. As Mr. McKeon rightly points out,
21 hearsay is admissible in this Tribunal. He also points out the
22 distinction between paragraph 13 and 21, where the people involved are
23 members of the criminal enterprise, as alleged, and therefore not people
24 from whom the Prosecution, it may be assumed, can obtain evidence. And
25 paragraphs 15 to 18, which does not -- which do not involve somebody from
1 the enterprise itself.
2 There is a further distinction in that paragraph 13 involves a
3 conversation, a contemporaneous, virtually, conversation with the events,
4 and therefore more likely to be reliable than the conversation referred to
5 in paragraphs 15 to 18, which was some three years after the events.
6 Although it's right that we do admit hearsay, there are limits on
7 which we'll -- as to which we will admit evidence, and we consider that
8 whereas the evidence in paragraphs 13 to 21, which deals with statements
9 of those involved in the criminal enterprise should be admissible; on the
10 other hand, the statements of another person three years after the event,
11 about which there is or could be other evidence, is not sufficiently
12 probative to be admissible in the particular circumstances of this case.
13 It would be impossible to cross-examine the witness properly about them.
14 So we will admit paragraph 13. We will exclude 15 to 18. We will
15 admit 21.
16 Yes, Mr. McKeon.
17 MR. McKEON: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Sir, during the time that you were in the Vukovar area, did you
19 have the opportunity to interview Mr. Goran Hadzic?
20 A. Yes, I did have the opportunity of interviewing Mr. Goran Hadzic,
21 as well as several other members of the so-called government of the SAO
22 Baranja, Eastern Slavonia and Western Srem.
23 Q. Could you tell us, sir, the circumstances around that interview:
24 Where it took place, when it took place, who was present; basically the
25 details of that interview.
1 A. The interview was held several days - I can't remember exactly,
2 five or six days perhaps - after Vukovar having been taken over by the
3 Serb forces, in a village called Dalj, near the town of Vukovar, which is
4 where the government had been established of what was called, or what the
5 government, alleged government, of the autonomous region of Slavonia,
6 Baranja and Western Srem. And at the head of that government was Mr.
7 Goran Hadzic. And they called in journalists once they had established a
8 government in Dalj to interview them, and that interview was held under
9 those circumstances.
10 Q. Who else was present during this interview, sir?
11 A. There were quite a few people, ten or fifteen other journalists,
12 in fact. I can't remember from which papers they came, who they were
13 exactly. And also there were several government members present, as I
14 said a moment ago, including the Minister for Tourism.
15 Q. Now, sir, during the course of this interview, did Mr. Hadzic make
16 a comment about prisoners who were being held by the JNA? And if so,
17 could you tell us what that comment was.
18 A. Mr. Hadzic responded, talking about the role of the Yugoslav
19 People's Army in the events, and he was very critical towards the Yugoslav
20 People's Army, which he claimed, like many other members of the
21 Territorial Defence of the day, had not done enough in what they termed
22 the defence of the Serb people, that they didn't lend enough support to
23 them. And they insisted especially upon the fact that the JNA did not
24 permit the government to assume control over the prisoners who were
25 allegedly members of the ZNG, the Croatian National Guard Corps. Mr.
1 Goran Hadzic said at the time that the government of Eastern Slavonia,
2 Baranja, and Western Srem did have its judicial system and its courts and
3 that those prisoners would be tried for war crimes, and he was sorry that
4 the army would not let him take over these people for that purpose.
5 Q. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 MR. McKEON: And in the atlas, which is Exhibit 336, the town of
7 Dalj that the witness is referring to appears on page 23, due north of
8 Vukovar, at coordinate -- it looks like it's 45 degrees north, 30 minutes,
9 and about 19 degrees in the other direction, just on the river of the
11 Your Honour, I'm not sure -- the objection to the questions in
12 this area was actually raised before I was getting into paragraph 12, and
13 I'm not sure if there was a ruling from the Court on whether we could go
14 into those matters.
15 JUDGE MAY: No.
16 MR. McKEON: No.
17 Q. Without telling us what Mr. Arkan may have said to you or you said
18 to him, at some point did you have a meeting -- a time when you met Mr.
20 A. Yes. At that time, I did meet with Mr. Arkan and members of his
21 guard, at the headquarters in Erdut that they had just established.
22 Q. Could you describe for the Tribunal what those headquarters looked
24 A. The headquarters were in a biggish house. I think that before the
25 war there was also a wine distillery there nearby. So there were some
1 offices where they had been put up. And around there were other houses
2 where his soldiers slept. Zeljko Raznjatovic received me and a few other
3 journalists in a meeting room that was in that house. So that was a
4 biggish room, with a big table, and that's where he talked to us.
5 Q. And when did this take place?
6 A. This happened relatively soon after Vukovar was taken over by the
7 Serb forces, so it was perhaps seven or ten days later.
8 Q. Would you describe how Mr. Arkan was dressed for this meeting,
9 what his clothing looked like, any particular insignia that may have been
10 on that clothing.
11 A. Yes. Arkan was dressed the same way his other commanding officers
12 were dressed in: Overalls, olive-green/grey. They were quite
13 characteristic. They were different from the usual camouflage uniform
14 that was worn by members of the Yugoslav People's Army or other
15 paramilitary units. Later on, I found out that these uniforms were
16 actually paratrooper's uniforms. He carried an automatic rifle, Heckler
17 and Koch MP-5, with a silencer, and he also had Motorola communications
18 equipment that was rather sophisticated. His right hand was a bit
19 injured. I noticed that as we were shaking hands. And generally
20 speaking, one got the impression that Zeljko Raznjatovic and the members
21 of his guard were much better armed, not only than other volunteer units,
22 but also better than the units belonging to the active force of the
23 Yugoslav People's Army.
24 Q. Approximately how many other members of Arkan's guard unit did you
25 see when you were at that meeting with Mr. Arkan?
1 A. In honour of the journalists that came then, I know that the
2 troops were lined up, and I remember that there were 150 members of
3 Arkan's unit.
4 I just remembered I forgot to mention the insignia. I didn't
5 respond to that part of the question. They had insignia with a tiger's
6 face depicted on it, and it said "The Serb Volunteers' Guard, The Tigers."
7 MR. McKEON: Your Honour, Erdut, which the witness has identified
8 as where this meeting took place, appears on page 23 of the atlas. It's
9 on the -- about in the middle of the page, due east of Osijek.
10 Q. Now, sir, at some point did you have the opportunity to interview
11 Mr. Seselj?
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, this is a typical example
14 that we don't actually know what this is all about. Questions are being
15 put as to where this happened when the witness encountered Arkan. He
16 explains that this is at the wine distillery. And when? It was ten days
17 later. And what did he look like? Well, this is what he looked like.
18 And was anybody else present? Well, yes, there were I don't know how many
19 of them. Except we don't know what the meeting was all about, what the --
20 JUDGE MAY: You can ask him. You can ask him about that if you
21 want. The Prosecution -- just a moment. The Prosecution are entitled to
22 ask questions about what this witness saw and did, and that's what he's
23 given evidence about. Now, what the weight of it is is something we'll
24 have to decide, but if you want to ask about the circumstances, you can.
25 Yes, Mr. McKeon. You were going on to deal with the next
2 MR. McKEON: Yes, sir.
3 Q. When did this -- when did you first begin interviewing Mr. Seselj?
4 A. I first had an interview with Mr. Seselj in 1994. I don't
5 remember exactly what the month was. This happened when Mr. Seselj,
6 though in opposition, was liked by the government, but then all of a
7 sudden they came to dislike him. So the big media, like national TV,
8 banned him. And Mr. Seselj then decided to talk to hostile newspapers,
9 including the one that I worked for, and he became far more friendly
10 towards us and he started giving us interviews. So it's approximately the
11 summer of 1994.
12 Q. And what was the newspaper that you were working for at the time?
13 A. I did then, as I do now, for the Vreme weekly.
14 Q. And before 1994, was Mr. Seselj willing to give interviews to your
15 news magazine?
16 A. No. Mr. Seselj had a very firm view regarding journalists who he
17 called insufficient patriots, traitors, or whatever, enemies of Serbia,
18 and this category practically included all journalists from the media that
19 the regime did not have under its control at the time. He even threatened
20 many of them. However, this position abruptly changed in 1994, when there
21 was a political conflict between Mr. Seselj and the accused. At that
22 point in time, he all of a sudden became far more open to the independent
24 Q. Was there a change in 1994 in the amount of coverage that Mr.
25 Seselj was getting in the non-independent media?
1 A. Yes. In the media that were under direct or indirect state
2 control, Mr. Seselj had a very privileged status from 1991 to 1994.
3 Practically a person couldn't turn on the TV set without seeing him, as
4 opposed to all other opposition leaders who very rarely appeared on
5 national television. However, in 1994, this changed abruptly and Mr.
6 Seselj practically could not appear any longer.
7 MR. McKEON: Just so the Tribunal can follow along, at this point
8 we're returning to paragraph 6, which was skipped over earlier in this
9 witness's examination.
10 Q. How many times were you able to interview Mr. Seselj?
11 A. Five or six times between 1994 and 1996.
12 Q. And did your access to Mr. Seselj for these interviews change
13 again in 1996?
14 A. His accessibility considerably changed at the beginning of 1997,
15 when he was in the government, and then again, the very same moment, he
16 stopped dealing with the journalists, he said that they were traitors,
17 that they would be tried, that all sorts of things would happen to them,
18 and he was making all these references to journalists of the independent
20 Q. Now, you used the phrase "independent media." Could you describe
21 for us what you mean by "the independent media" and what sort of control
22 the accused had over the print and broadcast media in Serbia in 1991 that
23 was not the independent media.
24 A. The question is rather complicated, and I'll try to be as brief as
25 possible. When I say "independent media," I'm referring to media that are
1 not directly or indirectly dependent on a political party or a particular
2 state agency. As for the other media, I mean those who are under direct
3 or indirect state control, like the state television or the national
4 newspapers, like Politika or Vecernje Novosti, or those that were under
5 the control of the party of the accused, meaning that the editors-in-chief
6 and journalists were activists or active members of the ruling party or
7 affiliate parties.
8 Q. Are you familiar with a situation in March of 1991 when Milorad
9 Vucelic replaced Dusan Mitevic in a high position in the media? And if
10 you do recall that, could you tell us about that and tell us what that
11 shows about the accused's control over the print and broadcast media.
12 A. This is also a broad subject, but again I'll try to deal with it
13 briefly. Dissatisfied by what was then called the media blockade, that is
14 to say, the fact that they could not present their views in the media, the
15 opposition leaders, led by Vuk Draskovic, on the 9th of March, 1991,
16 called people to demonstrate in Belgrade. During these demonstrations,
17 tear gas was used all around against the demonstrators, they were attacked
18 by the police, there was violence, there was general chaos. Two people
19 lost their lives. And tanks of the Yugoslav People's Army were brought
20 out into the streets, and this dispersed the masses.
21 After that, strong pressure was brought to bear by the opposition
22 against Mr. Milosevic's government to replace the Minister of Police and
23 to replace the director of national television. At that time, that was Mr.
24 Dusan Mitevic. The Minister of Police was indeed replaced, Radmilo
25 Bogdanovic and Dusan Mitevic was too, and he was replaced by Milorad
1 Vucelic, a person close to Mr. Milosevic, vice-president of the Socialist
2 Party of Serbia, and - this may also be interesting - at that time he was
3 member of the government of another Serb district, a member of the
4 government of the SAO Herzegovina, which was under the control of Bozidar
6 It so turned out that after Mr. Vucelic came to this position, the
7 television became even harsher in its attacks against the opposition, and
8 they even more relentlessly pursued the positions supported by Mr.
9 Milosevic and the satellite nationalists like Vojislav Seselj.
10 Q. I'd like to return now to your interviews of Mr. Seselj. That's
11 in paragraph 21 of our summary. Did the things that Mr. Seselj told you
12 in your interviews of him, were those statements consistent with other
13 public statements that you had heard Mr. Seselj make over time?
14 A. Yes. What Seselj said in his interviews to me highly coincided
15 with what he said to other journalists as well.
16 Q. And what did Mr. Seselj tell you about his role to the Serbian
17 regime during the early -- or during the late 1991 period to 1992?
18 A. Mr. Seselj said that in 1991 and 1992 he had a very close
19 relationship with Mr. Jovica Stanisic, who at that time held the duty of
20 head of the state security service of Serbia, practically the secret
21 police, and with Stanisic's co-workers. Their cooperation largely
22 amounted to the following: That Mr. Stanisic and his co-workers, who,
23 according to Mr. Seselj, had a very important role in organising the
24 paramilitary forces in Croatia and in Bosnia and also arming the local
25 Serbs in these republics, they asked Mr. Seselj for volunteers, so Mr.
1 Seselj said that Mr. Stanisic would contact him and ask, for example, 120
2 volunteers for Vukovar. And then Seselj, through his party machinery,
3 which was very well-developed in Serbia then, he organised the taking in
4 of these volunteers to training centres in Serbia or directly to the front
5 line in Croatia or in Bosnia.
6 Q. And did you publish articles based upon these things that Mr.
7 Seselj told you?
8 A. Yes. His assertions were indeed published not only in my paper
9 but also in quite a few of the other media.
10 Q. And after you printed these things, did Mr. Seselj ever call you
11 up and tell you, "No, no. You got it all wrong. That didn't really
12 happen and that's not what I said"?
13 A. No. At any rate, definitely as far as the relationship between
14 Mr. Seselj and Mr. Stanisic is concerned, there was no reaction from Mr.
15 Seselj, but there was a reaction from Mr. Stanisic to these assertions.
16 Q. And what was that reaction?
17 A. I said there was absolutely no reaction.
18 Q. Oh, absolutely no reaction. Sorry. Thank you.
19 In late 1991/mid-1992, did you observe anything in Belgrade
20 yourself that supported what Mr. Seselj was later telling you about what
21 was happening during that period of time?
22 A. I assume that you are referring to the volunteers of the Serbian
23 radical party and their going to the front line.
24 Q. Yes. Did you observe any buses or any people signing up or going
25 onto buses to go off to the front lines?
1 A. Yes. In front of St. Mark's church in Belgrade, which is in the
2 centre of Belgrade and which is where I happen to live, that's where
3 volunteers were assembled every day. That's where buses were waiting for
4 them, and they went either to Bubanj Potok to a training centre near
5 Belgrade, or directly to the front line. Flags were there, and also
6 emblems of the Serbian radical party.
7 Q. And did you learn from your interviews of Mr. Seselj what sort of
8 units these men were going to? Were they JNA units or other types of
10 A. These were not JNA units. These were other units. These were
11 units of the army of Republika Srpska, in case of Bosnia, because the
12 units of the Territorial Defence - let me explain this - existed in Bosnia
13 only at the very beginning of the war. Later on, they were replaced by
14 the police and army of Republika Srpska. Also there were similar units in
15 Croatia, like the army of the Serb Krajina or the police of the Republic
16 of the Srpska Krajina. However, it is important to point out that Mr.
17 Seselj insisted that he only sent these volunteers to the front line but
18 that he did not exercise any control over them, that they were under the
19 control of the authorities that were in that territory at the time, whose
20 area of responsibility that was. So if it was the army of Republika
21 Srpska, they went there, and so on.
22 Q. I'd like to turn now to your experiences in Bosnia. Were you
23 present in Bosnia during the Bosnia war?
24 A. Yes, to a great deal, and often.
25 Q. Where were you in Bosnia, and at what period of time were you
2 A. Since the war conflict in Bosnia went on for three years, it is
3 hard to mention all of it. At the beginning of the war, I was in Foca, in
4 Eastern Bosnia, at the time when that town was taken over by the Serb
5 forces. I was around Sarajevo and in Sarajevo itself in June 1992. I was
6 in Tuzla. After the front lines were stabilised in 1992, I was in
7 Republika Srpska very often, from time to time in the area that is
8 nowadays called the Muslim-Croat Federation as well.
9 Q. Now, in your time in Bosnia, did you encounter officers or
10 soldiers who worked for the VRS who earlier had been soldiers or officers
11 with the JNA or the VJ?
12 A. Almost all officers in the army of Republika Srpska were soldiers
13 of the JNA before they came that. Their supreme commander -- or no, not
14 their supreme commander, but the commander of that army, Ratko Mladic, was
15 a case in point, and then everybody else. Practically all of them were
16 taken over from the Yugoslav People's Army.
17 Q. And did you learn from your work as a journalist how these
18 officers and soldiers came to be in the VRS in Bosnia rather than in the
19 JNA or the VJ?
20 A. In May 1992, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed
21 instead of the until then Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and
22 after the JNA changed its name into the army of Yugoslavia, practically
23 all officers who were ethnic Serbs - and at that time, of course, a vast
24 majority of the officers were ethnic Serbs, because the rest had either
25 fled or were expelled - so all ethnic Serbs who were born either in
1 Croatia or in Bosnia were practically put before a choice; either to be
2 transferred to the army of Republika Srpska or the army of the Republic of
3 Srpska Krajina or to be dismissed from the army altogether. So most
4 career officers, of course, opted for the first possibility and they
5 became members of the army of the Srpska Krajina or the army of Republika
7 Q. Did you learn from these officers that had gone over to the VRS
8 who paid them once they switched over?
9 A. It is generally known that the salaries and the pensions for the
10 army of Republika Srpska, until recently, went through the army of
11 Yugoslavia, and that they were practically paid from the budget of the
12 Republic of Yugoslavia.
13 Q. Now, in addition to payment for the officers, did you also notice
14 whether or not there was any military or logistical support being given to
15 the VRS during military operations in Bosnia by the VJ?
16 A. Yes. Assistance to the army of Republika Srpska in equipment,
17 ammunition, and manpower was practically a non-stop process. This was
18 obvious in any border town or village along the boundary between
19 Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska. However, during a certain period of
20 time, because of the presence of international monitors, these convoys had
21 to be sent in a more discreet fashion. But according to the claims made
22 by many officers of Republika Srpska, this never stopped, not even after
23 the relations between the accused and Radovan Karadzic became chilled and
24 Republika Srpska was placed under an economic blockade by Yugoslavia.
25 Military transports, though, were excluded from this blockade.
1 Q. Did you ever actually see VJ vehicles crossing the borders from
2 Serbia into Bosnia?
3 A. Yes, I did see vehicles with licence plates of the army of
4 Yugoslavia crossing the border many times, and I also saw vehicles with
5 plates of either the army of Republika Srpska or Republika Srpska crossing
6 the border into Yugoslavia.
7 Q. Now, could you tell the Tribunal what happened in August of 1994
8 that affected the general ability of people to go back and forth between
9 Bosnia and Serbia.
10 A. What happened was that there was practically a political conflict
11 between the accused and Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs.
12 The conflict occurred with regard to signing the peace plan that Mr.
13 Milosevic wanted to see signed, but Radovan Karadzic refused to do it.
14 What followed after that were economic sanctions. Economic sanctions were
15 imposed by Yugoslavia against Republika Srpska. What is also quite
16 interesting was that the presence of international monitors was allowed
17 along these borders. However, according to claims made by many officers
18 of the army of Republika Srpska and also officers of the army of
19 Yugoslavia, these economic sanctions did not pertain to the military and
20 their transports. However, as for the people who lived in Republika
21 Srpska, who often bought food supplies and other consumer goods in Serbia,
22 things became very difficult because they could practically not carry a
23 bread loaf across the border, whereas, on the other hand, I personally saw
24 trucks that did not have any military insignia that were crossing the
25 border. However, for ordinary people on both sides of the border, notably
1 in Republika Srpska, it was very difficult indeed.
2 Q. Sir, the translation that we have has you saying that you saw
3 trucks that did not have military insignia crossing the border. Is that
4 what you meant to say, and did you in fact ever see trucks with military
5 insignia crossing the border after August 1994?
6 A. No, I did not see any vehicles crossing the border that had
7 military insignia, which is quite logical, because after August 1994 there
8 were international monitors. However, I heard from many sources, on both
9 sides of the border, that military transports continued nevertheless,
10 without any problem whatsoever.
11 Q. Did you observe that at the border some trucks would be let over
12 the border and other trucks would be held back?
13 A. Yes, I did notice that.
14 Q. At any point, sir, did you notice or learn about shelling from the
15 Serbian side of the border into Bosnia, particularly in 1994?
16 A. Both in 1992 and in 1994 - April 1994, in fact - the Serb forces
17 launched an offensive on Gorazde, a town in Eastern Bosnia, and I remember
18 very well that at that time, passing by on the Serbian side, that is to
19 say, going along the eastern bank of the Drina River, I noticed artillery
20 positions of the Yugoslav army that were entrenched by the roadway. When
21 I passed by that way, the artillery pieces were quiet, but I heard from
22 many of the locals that they were unable to sleep because the guns would
23 fire throughout the night.
24 Q. When you say "the locals," are you referring to people on the
25 Serbian side of the border or on the Bosnian side of the border?
1 A. I'm talking about the people on the Serbian side of the border.
2 Q. Can you tell us, sir, what you learned when you were in Bosnia
3 about Serbian police going from Serbia to work in Bosnia during the time
4 of this conflict?
5 A. What I learnt was the following, from many policemen, on both
6 sides of the border: That it was quite customary for policemen from
7 Serbia to go and take up their duties from time to time in the police
8 force in Bosnia, and their shifts would last three or four weeks as a
9 rule. And they would be receiving additional per diems for that. It was
10 also customary that this was a two-way flow of traffic and that police
11 from Republika Srpska would also spend some time assisting the police of
12 Serbia, especially when they had to break down the demonstrators and
13 demonstrations against the accused.
14 Q. Did you learn how long these police would go to Bosnia for, for
15 what period of time?
16 A. Depending on the situation that prevailed, three to six weeks.
17 Q. And were these police officers engaged in combat operations when
18 they went to Bosnia?
19 A. For the most part, they did not engage in combat operations, at
20 least according to what they said; they usually took part in the regular
21 duties of a policeman in order to free the resources for people who took
22 part in the combat operations themselves.
23 Q. From whom did you learn this about the police working from Serbia
24 in Bosnia?
25 A. Well, what happened was when I was travelling through Republika
1 Srpska, I would happen to meet a policeman who quite obviously spoke the
2 Belgrade dialect, and I would ask him where he was from. He would say he
3 was from Belgrade and that he was only there temporarily and that he would
4 be going back home soon. Or perhaps he might have been from some other
5 town in Serbia. This was common knowledge. I didn't really pay much
6 attention or attach any great importance to that at the time.
7 Q. Can you tell us, sir, what you know about the activities of the
8 Red Berets in Bosnia during the war.
9 A. The Red Berets were the colloquial term used to denote the unit
10 which exists today and is called the special purposes unit. And during
11 the war in Bosnia, it was under the control of the state security
12 department of the Republic of Serbia, and this was at the -- at the head
13 of that was Jovica Stanisic throughout the war. This was an elite combat
14 unit and the members operated in practically all the areas where fighting
15 went on in Croatia and Bosnia, these special operation units. And for a
16 long time it was rather mysterious because the only way in which the
17 members were able to differentiate among themselves were the red berets
18 they had and an insignia on their sleeves with a wild animal on it. But
19 there was no -- nothing in writing, in letters. This unit was very well
20 known and people would talk about it, always with quite a bit of fear,
21 even people who were veterans in the field and had had a great deal of
22 experience. Its members were ruthless, and people said that where they
23 appeared, the grass never grew again.
24 Q. Did you ever actually see any of these Red Berets yourself in the
25 Bosnia area?
1 A. No, I did not see them with my own eyes, either in Bosnia or in
3 MR. McKEON: If I could, Your Honour, I'd just like to return
4 briefly to a matter that we already covered. I just had a couple of
5 additional questions about paragraph 12, following up on the accused's
6 comment that we hadn't asked information about the purpose of this meeting
7 or what happened at the meeting, what was said.
8 Q. Could you tell us, this meeting that you had with Arkan in
9 November 1991, what the purpose of this meeting was.
10 A. The late Zeljko Raznjatovic had at that time set up his
11 headquarters in Erdut, and I felt that it was his wish to see -- for
12 journalists to see those headquarters and to see his own unit and to hear
13 what he had to tell them.
14 Q. Did he give you a tour of the facilities?
15 A. At that time, as his headquarters in Erdut, or the training
16 centre, as it was called later on, had just been established, there wasn't
17 much to see, actually, so apart from the unit lined up for review, there
18 wasn't any terrible need to tour the area.
19 Q. And what was said at this meeting?
20 A. The late Raznjatovic said quite a lot of things which had to do
21 with current affairs. They seemed rather improbable, such as the fact
22 that the Croatian side had planes of the Tornado type, which allegedly
23 they had been given by Germany, and that it has the state of the art NATO
24 tanks as well. He even said that his men had taken several of those
25 tanks, had seized several of those tanks, and that he would show them to
1 us, but he never did this. He also claimed that his men had toppled
2 several of these Tornado planes, shot them down, but he wasn't able to
3 show them to us either. And he had a lot of criticisms to make with
4 respect to the Yugoslav People's Army. He said that it wasn't
5 sufficiently patriotic and was not being involved enough in the defence of
6 the Serbs. And apart from that, he resolutely denied a question from many
7 journalists, including myself, which related to the stories being bandied
8 about to the effect that his fighters were involved in war crimes. He
9 said that things of that kind were absolutely not true. And that was how
10 the talk went.
11 Q. Did you ever see any evidence, either before or after this
12 meeting, that what Mr. Arkan was telling you about tanks and planes being
13 shot down was actually true?
14 A. No.
15 MR. McKEON: That's all I have, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
17 Mr. Milosevic.
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Anastasijevic, do you consider that it is a
20 basic rule of the profession of journalists to be objective and to inform
21 about events objectively?
22 A. Yes, that is an important rule.
23 Q. And it should also be an important rule that they be honest in
24 doing their job?
25 A. Yes, I agree.
1 Q. Can you say for yourself that you are unprejudiced and unbiased
2 when you describe the events in our areas, whereas you are testifying
3 against me?
4 A. In all my texts and articles, I always sought to be impartial.
5 How far I was successful in that, I will leave it to the readers to
7 Q. All right. Tell me now: Are you a member of a society called
8 Povezano Drustvo, Associated Society?
9 A. I don't know what you're talking about, what you mean.
10 Q. Well, as far as I know, it is a non-governmental organisation, for
11 example, Selba 1999 [phoen], migrations, they were represented before the
12 Hungarian public, if I recall correctly. And I have a list here. You are
13 the only person, the only Yugoslav journalist, as far as I can see, within
14 that project of non-governmental organisations, entitled "Selba 1999" or
15 "Migrations 1999," and this society generally called the Associated
16 Society. Do you know about that?
17 A. Quite frankly, I just cannot remember that I had any political
18 activities in Hungary, although I passed through Hungary several times.
19 This is the first time that I hear of that society called Povezano
21 Q. Would you have a look at this list of media, and they say, "We
22 were in." So take a look at this list.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the usher to
24 come up and take this document to show it to you. It can be placed on the
25 overhead projector.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Take a look at it, please, and then you can respond. Perhaps
3 that's a forgery too. Have a look. Go ahead. Feel free to have look.
4 You can even have a look at it in your own hands before it's placed on the
5 overhead projector. Perhaps you'll find it easier that way.
6 A. This -- the name of this organisation is still unfamiliar to me,
7 this connected society.
8 Q. Now go ahead and take a look at the list of participants,
9 especially the media, and they say they were part of that, and your name
10 is among those on that list.
11 Have you found your name?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. How come your name figures there?
14 A. I have no explanation for that, although I do recognise on that
15 same list the name of Andrew Purvis, who was the head of the Time
16 department for Central and Eastern Europe, Time magazine. Mr. Purvis is
17 my boss, my immediate boss, in Time magazine. And I also know that it is
18 quite improbable for a magazine of the type that Time is, with Mr. Purvis
19 and all its other employees, that they should engage in any activities of
20 this type. So that it is my assumption that, quite simply, some of the
21 people who at that time were trying to collect some funds and monies for
22 their own projects introduced my name and Mr. Purvis's name on the list,
23 probably wishing to impress the sponsors. But I can say quite definitely
24 that I have never heard of the existence of an organisation with that
1 Q. When you look at that entire list, would you say it was a forgery
2 then, or what?
3 A. I can't say that. I can't make that assessment.
4 Q. Do you know the other participants? Have you heard of them?
5 A. I think I recognise another name, that is of Dragan Galic. I
6 don't know anything about him, although the name rings a bell. As to the
7 other names, I can't say I recognise them, not even remotely. I see a
8 Veronique Mistiaen that appears several times. I don't know who that
9 could be. Actually, it means nothing to me. None of this rings a bell.
10 Q. All right, Mr. Anastasijevic. Very well. Now, were you involved
11 in an arrangement of any kind of the Niemann Foundation?
12 A. Oh, I see, a foundation that is called the Niemann Fellowship for
13 Journalists. I assume you mean that.
14 Q. Perhaps I didn't read it out properly, the way it's spelled.
15 JUDGE MAY: It's an objection.
16 MR. McKEON: Your Honour, we would like to see this document that
17 he has placed before the witness.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, absolutely.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. You can include it in
20 your documents and exhibits. Niemann. That's right. I read it the way
21 the Germans would read it. But yes, it says US International Fellowship,
22 that's quite right. Niemann is the name. Would you like to take a look
23 at that perhaps?
24 A. I have heard of that particular foundation, fellowship, and you
25 can go ahead and ask me your questions in that regard.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you receive a fellowship from the Niemann Foundation?
3 A. I was a fellow of the Niemann Foundation. I did have a fellowship
4 from the year 2001 to 2002, as it says in my introduction. The foundation
5 is part of Harvard University.
6 Q. All right. So you were financed by the Niemann Foundation, you
7 received a grant from them to further your education or to become
8 professionally trained and capacitated in the course of one year; is that
10 A. Yes, in the academic year of 2001/2002. I myself and 24 other
11 journalists from all over the world, we received these grants by that
13 Q. Would you have a look at this list and tell me if that's the list
14 you mean.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher again to show
16 the witness the list.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Is that the list that you're talking about, just to clarify that
19 particular point?
20 A. Yes, that's right. That's the list.
21 Q. Well, as far as I understand it, Amnesty International assisted
22 their connections from Germany and other organisations which -- who took
23 part in the financing of Niemann? How was the foundation or fellowship
24 established in the first place?
25 A. This fellowship was founded in 1939 and has been in existence for
1 a long time. It is one of the elite grants or scholarships granted. If
2 you are a recipient of a Niemann grant, it is tantamount to a Pulitzer
3 Prize. I don't know who they collect their resources and funds from, but
4 I know that the founder's name was Alfred Niemann, I believe, in 1939. He
5 left the sum of, I think, $1 million at that time and this serves as the
6 basic capital to fund the organisation. I also know that Harvard
7 University, which is one of the largest in the USA, has several billion
8 dollars to its credit, and I think that the bulk of the resources are
9 obtained from there. Now, which non-governmental organisations and others
10 who have contributed to the fund, I really can't say. That's not my job.
11 The only thing that was interesting for me when I was granted the
12 fellowship is that it was a highly distinguished grant.
13 Q. And do you know that, as you say, the people financing it are the
14 same people financing this Tribunal? I mean this institution that calls
15 itself --
16 JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic. That's totally irrelevant. If the
17 usher would like to give that document to the Prosecution.
18 Now, your next question, Mr. Milosevic.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right. All right.
20 Q. Do you think, since you are being financed from these sources, and
21 I claim that they are the same forces that finance this illegal court,
22 that one can speak of your impartiality with regard to your giving
23 evidence here and generally speaking with regard to your activities that
24 you are testifying about here and those that you are not testifying about
1 A. I receive a salary as a journalist on the desk of Vreme. As for
2 Time magazine, I get fees for the articles I write according to the
3 contract I have with that company. Regardless of whether it concerns my
4 texts written for Time or for Vreme, I believe that they observe the
5 highest professional standards, and until now I never had any serious
6 objections to my professionalism except once.
7 Q. All right. Since you're talking about the magazine Vreme, I don't
8 expect you to confirm what I'm going to say now, but do you know that in
9 Serbia, in Yugoslavia, not in any very narrow circles but quite widely,
10 people know very well that this magazine Vreme has throughout been an
11 outpost of the services that worked on the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and
12 that it was involved in the media war against Yugoslavia for all these
13 years, and you, as its journalist, as well?
14 A. I'm not sure I really understand this question. Do I know that
15 other circles know ...? I've really lost the thread of the argument.
16 Q. All right. Do you know that the Vreme news magazine has a
17 reputation for being an outpost of the services that broke up Yugoslavia?
18 A. I know that Vreme was attacked by your supporters because of its
19 insufficiently patriotic stand, and yes, we have been accused of working
20 for a wide range of enemies of Serbia, starting with Freemasons all the
21 way up to Islamic fundamentalists. These accusations are really nothing
23 Q. All right. I'm glad you know about that. So you have been
24 working for Vreme, also for Time magazine; is that right?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. You also worked for United Press International; is that right?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. I think you also worked for an American publishing house; is that
5 A. I don't know about any publishing houses really. I did write --
6 rather, I edited a book, but I don't really think that that is of any
7 consequence now.
8 Q. Tell me: Which publishing house was the publisher of this book
9 that you had edited?
10 A. It was published jointly by the Institute for War and Peace
11 Reporting in London - perhaps it's better to give their official name in
12 the original - and Press Now, an organisation that assists freedom of the
13 media, and it is based here in Holland.
14 Q. Do you know who the founders are of that organisation, I mean this
15 organisation based in Holland?
16 A. I don't know who the founders are, because I only communicated
17 with the editor or the coordinator. At any rate, only with Paul Staal,
18 the man who heads this firm. I don't know what the actual organisational
19 set-up is and who established them, but I know that it enjoys a good
21 Q. All right. So you work for at least three institutions, or four.
22 So that's Time magazine, United Press International, these two
23 organisations that gave you work, that is, that asked you to edit a book,
24 then also you received a Niemann fellowship. So when you put all of that
25 together, you consider yourself to be an impartial author as far as the
1 Yugoslav crisis is concerned?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Very well. Since a short while ago I think you spoke about -- let
4 me just have a look at this. You spoke about your stay in Bosnia. You
5 now mentioned Foca, Sarajevo, Tuzla. After that, you said that you were
6 also in the territory of what is nowadays called the Croat-Muslim
7 Federation. I assume that Tuzla was called the Muslim-Croat Federation or
8 the Croat-Muslim Federation throughout. Isn't that right?
9 A. During the war in Bosnia, Tuzla, as far as I'm concerned, was
10 Tuzla. As far as I know, the Croat-Muslim Federation was established as
11 such just before the Dayton Accords, that is to say, in 1995.
12 Q. Tell me: Is it correct that in the summer of 1992 you were in
14 A. It is correct that I spent one day in Tuzla, yes.
15 Q. Did an incident happen to you then when you were there in Tuzla in
16 the summer of 1992?
17 A. There were a few incidents involved.
18 Q. What is this incident that happened to you in Tuzla in summer
20 A. I would really like you to be more specific, if possible, in your
21 question. After this day, I wrote quite a long report about everything
22 that happened, but I don't really want to waste the time of this Court by
23 telling this entire story.
24 Q. I'm not asking you to tell the entire story. Just tell me: What
25 are these incidents that happened to you in Tuzla in the summer of 1992?
1 A. I was travelling, accompanied by a UN convoy that was going from
2 Belgrade to Sarajevo, and we had to stop in Tuzla because there was a
3 problem at the checkpoint. So instead of just passing through the
4 checkpoint, we were practically there all day and all night. The two
5 things I can remember now is that at one point in time I was threatened by
6 members of the BH army, when they realised that they had a Serb, a man
7 from Belgrade, in front of them, but that ended rather quickly. After we
8 exchanged a few words, we could actually communicate quite normally. That
9 is one thing that could be called an incident, perhaps.
10 Another thing was that after the convoy was already getting out of
11 Tuzla, and my vehicle was the last one in the convoy, so that is to say a
12 few gunshots were fired in our direction but they did not hit the vehicle,
13 so that was that.
14 That's what I can remember. I assume that that's what you mean.
15 Q. How much time did you spend in Bosnia?
16 A. Well, look, I went to Bosnia practically every week. I mean, I
17 really cannot give you the exact number of days I spent in Bosnia during
18 the war. What do you mean, actually?
19 Q. Which is the period that you spent in Bosnia? From when until
20 when, when you say temporarily you went there, once a week or whatever.
21 A. Sometimes I went there for two or three days, sometimes I went
22 there for two or three weeks. It depended on the assignment, the
23 journalistic assignment I got.
24 Q. In which period?
25 A. Throughout the war, and after the war, of course.
1 Q. That means that you were there from 1992 until 1995, until Dayton;
2 is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Permanently? For a week, for two weeks, three weeks, a day or two
5 or three; and how long were the breaks?
6 A. I did not say I was there permanently. This is a very
7 contradictory question. I was there often, in two- -- for two- or
8 three-day periods or two- or three-day weeks. And sometimes there were a
9 few months in between.
10 Q. Tell me: Who did you send this information that you obtained in
11 Bosnia to?
12 A. When I worked for the UPI, the United Press International, I sent
13 them in - and this was until October 1993 - I sent them to UPI. And also
14 at that time from time to time I had my articles published in Vreme, as a
15 journalist, and then I would send them.
16 Q. Tell me quite specifically: Then in Bosnia, did you receive any
17 money from a foreign service?
18 A. I did not ever receive any money from any service, as you call it;
19 either local service, national service, or foreign service.
20 Q. All right. Where do you live now? Yugoslavia or abroad?
21 A. I live in Belgrade.
22 Q. Since when have you been living in Belgrade?
23 A. I've lived in Belgrade practically all my life, with two
24 interruptions that were a bit longer, the first one was from the 31st of
25 April 1999, until the 20th of September 2000. And the other interruption
1 was from the second half of August 2000 -- I'm sorry, 2001, until June
2 2002, when I had the Niemann fellowship.
3 Q. All right. So from April 1999 until June 2000, you lived abroad,
4 practically incessantly, only with short breaks.
5 A. I did not say that it was only with short breaks. Just a minute.
6 What are you trying to say? Oh, yes, now I understand the question. Yes.
7 I'm sorry. After less than a year -- well, during those three years, I
8 spent less than one year in Belgrade. That's it.
9 Q. You say in your statement, on page 2, that you were involved in
10 research that had to do with police and intelligence work and that you
11 monitored the situation in Yugoslavia, state security, military security.
12 A. I don't know whether that was the exact wording, but within my
13 work as a journalist, yes, there was a lot of research that went in that
14 direction, in view of the importance that the secret services and the
15 police, first and foremost, had in the system that you headed.
16 Q. You say, and I'm quoting you now, on page 2 of your statement:
17 "This included research on police and intelligence matters and thus kept
18 abreast of events within the Serbian and Yugoslav police forces, the state
19 security and military intelligence agencies, and governmental connections
20 to or support for paramilitary organisations."
21 And so on and so forth.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So you followed all these services and you researched them. So
24 tell me: What is the methodology that you applied during your research of
25 the state security, the military, intelligence service?
1 A. Interviews, texts that are accessible to the public, so that is to
2 say the usual compiling of information within journalistic research.
3 Q. However, you are giving evidence about everything, about the
4 psychological profile of various persons, about political activities of
5 parties, about my political activity. Then the affairs of state that I
6 conducted and other people who were in government, about the
7 counter-intelligence service, the intelligence service, the state security
8 service. So practically you are covering a wide range of topics. And
9 then I saw in this statement of yours you also testify about war events in
10 Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia. There is practically not a single field that you
11 have not testified about. Is that right?
12 A. As a witness here, I answered the questions that were put to me.
13 Q. Oh, you mean when your written statement was taken and now, as you
14 were here?
15 A. Yes, just like I'm answering your questions now.
16 Q. All right. If you were in Bosnia-Herzegovina practically
17 throughout the war, from 1991, as you said a short while ago, until 1995,
18 apart from what you said here during the examination-in-chief, that you
19 were in Vukovar after the events there and the fall of Vukovar, when were
20 you in Croatia? When were you in Kosovo? Since you were in Bosnia all
21 the time, when did you research the work of all these agencies and the
22 political events in Yugoslavia, and so on and so forth? How were you in
23 all these places at the same time?
24 A. Until now, I've never managed to be in more than one place at a
25 time, although I would have liked that.
1 Q. This is witty, but it's no answer to my question. How come you
2 are testifying about events that were evolving along parallel lines,
3 although you say yourself that you did not manage to be at more than one
4 place at one time?
5 A. Could you give me a more specific question related to more
6 specific events? And I'm going to tell you where I was in specific
8 Q. As for specific events, we're going to get to that. But do you
9 allow for the following possibility: That some other journalist, let us
10 assume, say, that some journalist who is just as capable as you consider
11 yourself to be, who followed these events, would some other journalist
12 draw some other conclusions from the events that you followed, or would he
13 or she have to draw the same conclusions?
14 A. I could not really say what some other person would have done in
15 my place.
16 Q. I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm asking you whether you allow
17 for a different possibility, that some journalist, for example, even a
18 better journalist than you, would have drawn some other conclusions from
19 the events that you are describing.
20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, he's answered that. He can't put
21 himself in somebody else's shoes.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. On page 2 of your statement, in the last paragraph, you say that I
25 started doing some things in order to consolidate my own power. Why do
1 you use this word "consolidation"? Had I lost power before that and did I
2 try to consolidate it afterwards? What does that mean?
3 A. As far as I know, consolidation means strengthening. I'm not
4 trying to say that you had lost power and that you were trying to regain
5 it now, I was saying that you were trying to consolidate, strengthen,
6 control over political life that you had then.
7 Q. All right. You move on then to say that I was taking away the
8 autonomy of provincial and republican governments in Serbia. How did
9 municipal authorities lose their autonomy, as you had put it?
10 A. I wish I could see the whole sentence before I answer this
11 question, because I don't know exactly. I gave this statement more than
12 two years ago. I would really like to know what you are specifically
13 referring to.
14 JUDGE MAY: We are going, in fact, to adjourn now. It's 10 past
16 Mr. Milosevic, I guess there's more that you want to ask this
17 witness. You can have a further hour when we next convene, which will be
18 next Tuesday.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are you trying to say that you are
20 only giving me one more hour on the next day we meet, Mr. May?
21 JUDGE MAY: That's absolutely right, Mr. Milosevic.
22 Now, Mr. Anastasijevic, would you be back, please, at 9.00 on
23 Tuesday. Thank you.
24 We'll adjourn now.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.10
1 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of
2 October 2002, at 9.00 a.m.