1 Monday, 26 May 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, you've got this session for your
7 cross-examination. We'll have in mind we'll starting rather late, and of
8 course that time will be added to it.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.
10 WITNESS: RENAUD DE LA BROSSE [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. De la Brosse, in paragraph 61, page 60,
14 paragraph 2 of your report, speaking about reporting from Vukovar and the
15 testimony of civilians, you criticise the fact that the testimony was
16 never firsthand. And I'm quoting you there.
17 In paragraph 59, page 57, at the end of the first paragraph, you
18 say that contrary to professional ethics, the reporters show as witnesses
19 people who were either too close to the events -- were persons who were
20 either too close to the events they were reporting on or too far away from
22 And in paragraph 5 on page 187, speaking about the possibility of
23 foreign journalists reporting from Kosovo and Metohija there was only
24 secondhand information to be had which included the risk of error and
1 My question to you is this: You, therefore, indirect
2 informing -- you considered this to be unreliable, isn't that so? You
3 consider that that should not be something that should be resorted to
4 because there's always the risk of error. Isn't that correct?
5 A. In -- generally speaking, a journalist reporting looks for direct
6 witnesses of events, firsthand witnesses, whatever the case.
7 Q. Very well. So not only the fact that you don't speak Serbian, but
8 from the entire contents of your report, it would emerge that you base
9 your analyses on other people's text, other people's articles and books
10 which speak about the state of affairs of media -- of the media in
11 Yugoslavia and Serbia, and you state that in your footnotes and not with a
12 direct access to the situation. So how come something you criticise in
13 others, that is to say, indirect information, you consider to be allowed
14 when you yourself are in question. Why are you an exception to that rule?
15 A. The work that I based my report on is to go to the source, source
16 information, of course. And let me go back to that in a minute. And
17 these were established on the basis of academic articles, press articles,
18 and reports by people who were in the field, on the ground. And also I
19 met a -- I had a number of meetings with research journalists who were on
20 the spot. So I think that the scope is fairly broad. The samples that I
21 took were very broad from my point of view.
22 Q. As you're talking about sources, I asked you towards the end of
23 the last session what your sources were, in fact, and you indicated tab 3
24 to me. And that is a fairly short document. It is three pages long, and
25 you have academic works, books and articles, in fact, and then again you
1 have analytical books and articles, and then you have some other articles
2 and agencies and reports by different organisations, and finally,
3 interviews with different journalists, conversations with them and so on.
4 So am I right if I conclude that you did not report on the state
5 of the media because you weren't able to follow the media yourself, but
6 you speak about that on the basis of what your sources think about those
7 media, and in that regard it is quite obviously that this was done on a
8 selective basis; isn't that right?
9 A. An impression as to the goal that my report had, as I said last
10 week, the object of my report was to describe the mechanisms of propaganda
11 in play in the Serbian press. And this work was based on the sources, the
12 sources that I quoted. Of course, these are not all the sources that I
13 used. This is not an exhaustive list in document number 3. But on the
14 other hand, this work of mine is also based on questionnaires and sounding
15 performed together with the team that I work with in Belgrade. And for
16 its part, the team used -- made use not only of the press but also a good
17 knowledge of the situation on the ground.
18 Q. All right. In order to round off this subject matter, we can see
19 that you used, on a selective basis, certain sources which you considered
20 in one way or another can serve your purpose to construe your findings.
21 However, there is no doubt that you did not conduct an analysis, perform
22 an analysis of the press in Yugoslavia and Serbia at all; isn't that
24 A. The sources that were used to accomplish this work and compile
25 this report, which is my work, is the fruit of my own personal work, and
1 as I said, the team on the spot in Belgrade. The selection of sources
2 that was made was made on the basis of the representative samples that we
3 were able to find at the time quoted by the Serbian press. So they were
4 extracts from the Serbian press. And this was the core of the knowledge.
5 It is not exhaustive, but nevertheless, it helps us in representing the
6 type of situation that we found when we went to Belgrade to study the
7 press and television as well.
8 Q. All right, Mr. De la Brosse. Now, on the basis of what criteria
9 were you able to conclude that this was a representative sample at all?
10 How do you come to that conclusion? Because we noted that you weren't
11 able to read through the press clippings yourself or analyse them
12 yourself. You used intermediaries and intermediary sources. So why is
13 this a representative sample except for you want to represent it being as
15 A. The bulk of the subject matter that was studied, as I said last
16 week, represents about 20 million documents that were examined and
17 processed - 20.000 documents, I'm sorry - which were examined and research
18 by journalists from Belgrade. Of course, these 20.000 pages were not the
19 total of everything that the press in Belgrade put out, but at least the
20 researchers and journalists that studied those texts were able to select a
21 number of them, a number of articles in which we could see effects of
23 Q. Well, all right, Mr. de la Brosse. From this vast bulk of
24 material, and you say that they made the selection and
25 everything -- everybody can select what they like according to their
1 motives, so this body of material, you have just shown certain extracts of
2 my speeches here, one speech in which I say that there is terrorism in
3 Kosovo and the right to self-defence, which I state now -- here and now
4 again. There is terrorism in Kosovo, and people do have the right to
5 defend themselves.
6 So is that all that you were able to extract from that whole body
7 of material as some kind of illustration to bear out your assertion that
8 the press was motivated by this and diffused negative sentiments?
9 A. Could you be more specific in your question, please?
10 Q. I said from this whole body of material that you say you looked
11 through, and we just saw a brief excerpt from my speech to the Assembly
12 where I say that there is terrorism over Kosovo, and I speak of the right
13 to self-defence and self-protection which is what I say today. So I don't
14 see that anything should be changed. Where do you see propaganda here in
15 the impassioned press? Perhaps there wasn't -- Do you want to say that
16 there was no terrorism in Kosovo and I just invented it, or somebody
17 challenged the right to defence from terrorism?
18 A. Well, I don't want to take up a position with respect to the bases
19 and foundations of that alone, but what I would like to say in quoting the
20 excerpt, you yourself in your speech used terminology which could be
21 qualified as being terminology used by the media wishing to present in a
22 pejorative way and stigmatising one specific community. In this
23 particular case it was the Albanians of Kosovo and by the same token the
24 Croatian community as well.
25 Q. All right. I thoughts we cleared that up. No mention is made of
1 the either of the Croatian or Albanian community anywhere but what I was
2 talking about was Albanian terrorists and extremists, extremists in
3 Croatia who committed crimes, who had already committed crimes at the time
4 against Serbs in Croatia. So why do you equate extremists all the time
5 and the nationalities that those extremists belong to? Terrorism knows no
6 national ethnic boundaries. A killer is a killer, regardless of the
7 ethnic group or nation he belongs to. So why do you keep saying that
8 we're stigmatising a national community, an ethnic community because
9 certain terrorists are by virtue of their ethnicity, something that they
10 are intrinsically. You won't be able to find that anywhere. Find me an
11 example, if you can, where I or anybody speaks about Croats or Albanians
12 as criminals? On the contrary, we're just talking about extremists. Is
13 that quite clear or not from what you were able to read?
14 A. What I tried to explain through my report, as I said last week
15 with respect to the -- is that the media used terminology or a vocabulary
16 with a view to stigmatising or creating stereotypes with respect to one or
17 another community, one or another ethnic group, and what I wanted to say,
18 with respect to the example to what you've just quoted, is that throughout
19 the speech in question, you yourself took part in disseminating these
21 Now, if we wish to know whether the Albanians in Kosovo ran any
22 risk or not, I can't really say because it's not the subject of my report.
23 And let me remind you that I was describing the propaganda mechanism, and
24 also that there was part of the report concerning the results of the
25 collective research and sources of the Belgrade team. So this report was
1 compiled - how shall I put this? - in the space of one month. That was
2 the time span given the object and time that I had at my disposal as I
3 underlined last time. It was impossible for me and that the three-member
4 team that I had in Belgrade to look at the entire body of material that
5 existed. And ideally, this would -- should have been analysed, all of it,
6 in an exhaustive fashion. So the part of the media in the diffusion of
8 Now I think that I can say, looking at the material I had access
9 to and by analysing the propaganda mechanisms in the Serbian press, I
10 think I'll be -- can say although I'm aware of the facts that it is not an
11 exhaustive source matter, that they did take part in diffusing
12 stereotypes, in putting out stereotypes, in propagating messages,
13 ethnically coloured, of hatred. And this was true manipulation in actual
14 fact, and the instrumentalisation of the political times.
15 Q. Well, that would be correct if what you said a moment ago were
16 correct, that it is claimed that the Albanians from Kosovo represent a
17 terrorist movement. And that was never stated anywhere. What was stated
18 was that they were terrorists, not Albanians. Mention was not made of
19 Albanians. The reference was to terrorists, not the ethnic Albanian
20 community at all, which you in fact should know full well. This is
21 reversal of thesis as it's called. Do you really think that as a
22 scientist you have the right to reverse the thesis in this way?
23 JUDGE MAY: I think you've made this point and we cannot go any
24 further into it. The witness has given the answer which he has. It will
25 be a matter for us to judge. Shall we move on to a different point?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Now, in compiling your expert report as an expert, let me ask you
4 this: Do you -- I don't suppose you think that you should use sources
5 that are not characterised by neutrality, or rather, let me put it in this
6 way: Do you think that sources should be used which are neutral sources,
7 that is to say, sources which are objective and not coloured and
8 impassioned in any way?
9 A. Well, one has to know what the purpose is and to see whether it's
10 objective or not.
11 Q. Well, the purpose of objectivity is to ascertain the truth, as far
12 as I'm able to understand it.
13 Do you consider that for an expert report a relevant sources texts
14 from the titles of which one would see hatred on the part of their
15 authors, hatred towards the Serb people, towards myself personally, and so
16 on? Let me read out a few titles of the texts you used by way of example,
17 and you quote them in your footnotes. For example, footnote 87 on page
18 42: Jean-Paul Collette is the author of the article and it is titled
19 "Opportunistic Monster" in the daily, Le Soir. And part of the article
20 says that Slobodan Milosevic, according to much testimony, himself
21 provided inspiration for propaganda messages on television through which
22 he disseminating his nationalistic hysteria. Do you have any
23 illustrations of the dissemination of nationalistic hysteria from my
24 speeches at all? And this very biased text, can it be the basis for any
25 kind of expert report at all along your lines?
1 A. Could you tell me exactly where that is.
2 Q. I've already told you.
3 JUDGE KWON: It's paragraph 45.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Footnote 87.
6 JUDGE KWON: Paragraph 45.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there in fact I did base
8 myself on an article by a journalist from Le Soir. It's one of the main
9 newspapers in Belgium, that is in French-speaking Belgium.
10 This is the testimony of a journalist who was on site. The
11 testimony talks about the -- Milosevic's control over the contents of the
12 press, and it is confirmed, and I quote the Borisav Jovic, one of his
13 closest collaborators, Borisav Jovic, that is, and every day he would
14 write, as of 1990 that Slobodan Milosevic inspired or, rather, put out
15 three articles that -- that he was asked to write in Politika and in which
16 he attacks directly the Federal Prime Minister, Mr. Ante Markovic.
17 What I'm saying is that I relied both on the journalists from
18 Le Soir, Jean-Paul Collette, but also on Borisav Jovic's testimony. And I
19 could also quote the excerpt that we saw already, the clip, the -- from
20 Dusan Mitevic who was the director of RTS and who emphasised that
21 Milosevic had direct responsibility as regards distribution of false
22 information and reporting.
23 Q. I just don't know which false report he mentioned, because you
24 keep confusing things. But let me give you a few more examples. I asked
25 you a question of principle, a general question. Is it possible to use
1 articles and consider them to be objective when at first glance already
2 they're inflammatory and biased?
3 On page 82, you refer to a text from the Internet, also Benedicte
4 Chesnelong, and the title is "Serbia, the Black Hole of the Balkans." And
5 the author obviously had a fine opinion of Serbia. That title in itself
6 surely disqualifies the text as a source of information for what should be
7 a scientific study.
8 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you. You characterise the witness's
9 response as not being an answer to the question. His response was that he
10 relied on the matter you quoted, but he also relied on other matter. So
11 in fact, it was a response.
12 Now, moving on to this question. Page 82. We'll see if we can
13 find the reference. I certainly remember the reference. I don't remember
14 it being on page 82.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's footnote 208, "Serbia, the
16 Black Hole of the Balkans" is the title. The very title disqualifies such
17 an article as a source of information for a scientific study.
18 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Surely you would agree with that, Mr. de la Brosse.
21 JUDGE MAY: Let's deal with that. It is in fact page 84 of ours,
22 but it is footnote 208.
23 Yes, Mr. de la Brosse, if you've found that.
24 JUDGE KWON: It's at the end of the paragraph 90.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The source in question here is a
1 mission report from the International Human Rights Federation which went
2 on site from the 19th to the 22nd of September, 1997. The report was
3 prepared by a member of the International Human Rights Federation, and
4 this is a source which in my mind was objective. Was I right? Was I
5 wrong? I allow the Judges to come to that decision.
6 Q. That is the whole point, yes.
7 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One clarification about the title of
9 an article or a report. The operating internal mechanisms for the press
10 mean that the newspapers in particular were accustomed to choose headlines
11 that would catch people's attention and which did not really reflect the
12 contents. That is the idea that was being put forward by the headlines.
13 So I don't think one should only base oneself on the headline or the title
14 of an article in order to judge its content and then to disqualify it.
15 The article -- the article has to be judged on its own merit and the facts
16 it contains.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Very well. Very well, Mr. de la Brosse. Now, please look at
19 footnote 81. Here you have Ms. Florence Hartmann who is an employee here
20 in this illegal Tribunal who wrote a book, "Milosevic, a Diagonal of a
21 Madman". Isn't such hatred sufficient basis to doubt the objectivity of
22 such a source? If the other side doesn't believe that one who openly
23 expresses hatred towards me and the Serbian people could be exempted from
24 any participation in legal proceedings.
25 You see, the things you use. You're using senseless propaganda
1 that for a whole decade demonised the Serb people.
2 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer on the specific point, and
3 we'll have a translation, if we may, from the French of footnote 81,
4 "Milosevic, la diagonale du fou".
5 THE INTERPRETER: This is the diagonal of the fou, of the madman.
6 It also refers to the chess player, to the bishop that goes diagonally.
7 JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, very well.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do you feel that is rather inflammatory and full of hatred to be
11 able to be used as an objective source for any judgement on your part?
12 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. The translation we got was
13 that it was the diagonal of the madman and also a reference to the bishop
14 in chess, which moves diagonally, of course.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. That is the
16 interpretation that I made of the book which directly refers to chess.
17 A few words about the source that you're criticising me for having
18 quoted. The journalist who wrote the book was a journalist from Le Monde,
19 the daily newspaper Le Monde and was who was a correspondent in Belgrade
20 for several years for that newspaper. She is -- she's a journalist who
21 speaks Serbo-Croat, and she heard and she saw many things which happened
22 at the time in Serbia. I didn't make any value judgement on the work.
23 What I simply say is that she is a journalist who is respected for her
25 The book on which I partially based myself contains some
1 information which was collected, which was gleaned in Serbia throughout
2 the first half of the decade of the 1990s -- decade of the 1990s. It
3 appeared in 1999, and it is the work of -- former work, work that she had
4 been doing before.
5 If that journalist changed her activities, that change happened
6 subsequent to the book, and I used it as the testimony of the journalist
7 who was in Belgrade in Serbia until, I think, 1995 or 1996, if I'm not
8 mistaken. It has to be checked, but I believe that she -- that the work
9 that you're referring to came -- that she does now, the work she's doing
10 now is after the book was published.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Very well, Mr. de la Brosse. You are clearly selectively using
13 your sources. And, of course, they are indirect sources.
14 Tell me, on page 18 --
15 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with that assertion, you see. If
16 you make assertions like that, the witness must have the chance to deal
17 with it.
18 The point has been made before but you can give us your answer now
19 it's made so plainly. The accusation is that you were purely selective in
20 the sources you chose to support your thesis, and it must follow from that
21 that you ignored sources which might have been to the contrary. Now, that
22 is the characterisation which is made of your evidence and your report.
23 You should have the opportunity to deal with it and tell us whether it's
24 an accurate characterisation or not.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I worked on sources which I believed
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 were objective, sources which from my point of view varied. This is in my
2 own point of view. I worked on many reports from very different types of
3 organisations. They might be French-speaking organisations or
4 English-speaking organisations or other languages. Any way, organisations
5 whose objective in general was to protect human rights and the freedom of
6 the press. I worked on official reports from the United Nations, from the
7 Council of Europe, and so I think that I had access to different types of
8 sources which were objective.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. But obviously you did not analyse at all the contents of the
11 Serbian and Yugoslav media, but you are now yourself confirming that you
12 used selectively a certain number of books which fitted into this order
13 that you had received from the opposing side as you wrote on the cover
14 page of your work at the request of the Prosecution, as you yourself said.
15 Is that right or not?
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness answer that.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sources with which I worked, let
18 me repeat, were in part provided by the Belgrade team. I'm referring
19 particularly to the press articles. The sources on which I worked in the
20 report are ones which I found myself. Let me remind you, I began to
21 become interested in the issue of propaganda spread by the media of the
22 former Yugoslavia as of 1994, and in the work that I worked for a report
23 is without [no translation] -- Clips, television clips. How should I say
25 The sources are not only sources that I got from the Belgrade
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Yes, I understand. They are the fruit of the work of this entire
4 machinery and propaganda that I would call global propaganda that has been
5 satanising the Serbs for more than a decade. Are you aware of that or
6 not? Demonising the Serbs.
7 A. I can't answer that question.
8 Q. You can't answer that question. Did you perhaps watch the CNN
9 last night, for instance? There's an example how low such propaganda can
10 fall. They were interviewing a journalist who never interviewed me and
11 who ranks me among some sort of dictators, even though we had free
12 elections in Serbia every two years. And who, among various arguments
13 mentions --
14 JUDGE MAY: Let's see if the witness saw the programme. Were you
15 watching CNN last night, Mr. de la Brosse?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I wasn't watching -- I didn't
17 watch television last night.
18 JUDGE MAY: Now, let's move on.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. And among all the different arguments that he chose as this was
21 just an excerpt --
22 JUDGE MAY: No. It's no good asking him about television last
23 night. Now, move on.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I was saying that when
25 arguments are so thin and untenable, then people are prone to resort to
1 such very base propaganda which reveals that you're having a lot of
2 problems with the real facts.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, the witness has answered the question on
4 these matters. Have you got anything more specific to ask? And I have in
5 mind that the witness should have the opportunity to deal with the various
6 documents which you produced. When we find a convenient time, he can deal
7 with those.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know when we'll find any
9 convenient time, Mr. May. As far as I'm concerned, it suits me that he
10 referred to whatever you like if there is enough time.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. But among the various things attributed to me, the one mentioned
13 yesterday, the only one mentioned yesterday was that my wife said I was
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. Talking about
16 my wife.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Nice placed under the ELMO here a specific paragraph from tab
19 number 6. This is the last paragraph, and it relates to verbal attacks on
20 the so-called independent media, and in brackets, quotations. And I've
21 highlighted that paragraph in the same way as it was highlighted on the
22 screen here, and it says as follows: [In English] "Published by political
23 on 29th of March, 1996, Mira Markovic," - that is my wife --
24 JUDGE MAY: What number is it? What number paragraph?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is -- I don't have the number of
1 the paragraph here. It is tab 6 and on page 1 of that document in tab 6
2 and at the bottom of the page.
3 We all saw this on the screen. It was selected as something meant
4 to be extremely important. Have you found it?
5 [In English] "In an interview published by Politika on 29th of
6 March, 1996, Mira Markovic," [Interpretation] that is my wife, [In
7 English] "referred to the independent media as," [Interpretation] and then
8 she is quoted as saying, [In English] "Stirring up political and
9 nationalistic hatred, defeatism and physical violence directed against
10 men." End of quotation. And it says that it was quoted by Reporters
11 Without Borders in "La liberte de la presse," Le Monde, 1997, et cetera.
12 And since I have found the original text, all of them having been
13 published by her, this paragraph from which this was extracted relates to
14 something quite different, and I will read to you the paragraph since it
15 says here, speaking about the independent media which is not true, and the
16 paragraph reads as follows: "Such politically profiled, morally and
17 intellectually intoned rightists," she's talking about the right wing,
18 "can hardly become a political subject in the changes which are
19 historically justified by their method and content and outcome. By their
20 current political, moral and intellectual being, the right wing in Serbia,
21 judging at least by the press that supports it, can only be the vehicle of
22 cheap nihilism, very rudeness, extreme rudeness, national, religious and
23 political hatred, destructive defeatism, physical and political violence
24 over people, the product of a new Balkan Fascism."
25 So this is a pure forgery because it doesn't relate to any
1 independent media at all. Secondly, it is taken out of context and quoted
2 only half of the sentence. And number three, Mr. de la Brosse, when
3 Mr. le Pen won a large percentage of votes in the elections, the whole of
4 France got on its feet to demand and to wonder what such support to the
5 right wing meant. So this is a text written by her about the right wing,
6 not about the media.
7 JUDGE MAY: Well, let the witness have a chance to answer -- wait
8 a moment. Wait a moment. Let the witness -- let him answer.
9 What is said about this passage, Mr. De la Brosse, is that it is a
10 passage which is taken out of context and that the writer was referring
11 essentially to something else.
12 Now, can you help us about that or not? Can you say anything more
13 about it than what's written on the exhibit which we have?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I say in the footnote, that
15 quotation that I relied on comes from Reporters Without Borders, about
16 freedom in press in the field -- in the world.
17 I used in good faith the information which is found in the report.
18 Obviously wrongly so. I think it's an error that was made by the team
19 that was -- that was responsible for drafting that part of the report in
20 the former Yugoslavia. But I replaced that comment into the context of
21 other statements in respect of the report in question, that is the
22 preceding report or those that are found on page 2, which is not a direct
23 quotation of Mrs. Markovic but is a resolution of the party that she was
24 leader of, and they are attacks on the independent press which is
25 characterised as mercenary, as people who denounce others as traitors. So
1 if that quotation comes -- is taken out of context and is incorrect, I
2 apologise, but it has to be put back into a context of other statements by
3 Mira Markovic.
4 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In newspapers like Duga or quoted in
6 the report of the International Committee for Independent Press in the
7 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is on page -- from 2 to 7 of the
8 list. Page 2, that is.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well. Let us not waste any more time. Luckily Mira
11 Markovic -- whatever Mira Markovic wrote has been published and published
12 at the time she wrote it, so that forgeries are impossible, regardless of
13 the intentions of those behind it. But let us move on to the next point.
14 In -- I have to leave out some things because time is flying. In
15 footnote 44, page 22, in the second paragraph of that footnote or, rather,
16 in the third, you mention the following: "On a second occasion, for
17 instance, when the Serb reservists took Zvornik in Bosnia, the Serb media
18 announced the liberation of the town, not mentioning in a word the several
19 thousands corpses lying in the streets."
20 Tell me, please, where did you get that information from about
21 several thousand bodies in the streets of Zvornik, which is certainly
22 untrue and which you again take as being some sort of undisputed fact.
23 "The Serbian media are not reporting on thousands of bodies in the
24 streets of Zvornik".
25 You know, people are listening to you in Zvornik now, and you can
1 imagine how astonished they will be when they hear that you're claiming
2 there were several thousand bodies in the streets of Zvornik that Serb
3 media did not report about. How could they write about something that
4 didn't happen?
5 JUDGE MAY: Just keep your questions shorter and we'll get on more
7 Mr. de la Brosse, can you find the reference to this?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to page 44. That is
9 do you -- are you referring to page 44? Is that what you mean?
10 JUDGE MAY: We haven't got the reference. Give us the reference
11 again so the witness can see it.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Footnote 44, and I was quoting from
13 it. It is on page 22, where it says: "They announced the liberation of
14 the town without saying a word about several thousand bodies lying in the
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And now you're criticising the Serbian press for not writing about
18 something that didn't happen.
19 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness find the passage.
20 Have you found the passage?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found it. It's footnote 44.
22 The source, as indicated, referring to that event was Florence Hartmann's
23 book, "Milosevic, the diagonal of the madman".
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Therefore, you're relying on this as if it were the Bible, and
1 that is an absolutely gross lie which you are using to explain that
2 allegedly Serbian propaganda refuses to report about crimes involving
3 several thousand corpses in the streets of Zvornik. This is what your
4 Florence Hartmann found.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. What's the question? The witness has dealt with
6 it. He's given his answer as best he can.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you believe that this answer is
8 acceptable -- well, no, it's a good answer, in fact. He took it from
9 Florence Hartmann's book. You can find even worse things from other
10 propaganda. But this is an absolutely blatant lie. Even the other side
11 knows that. There were no thousands of bodies in the streets of Zvornik.
12 JUDGE MAY: What's your next question?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have to hurry, Mr. May.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You spoke about the contents of the news published about the
16 killing of Serb children by Croats in Eastern Slavonia. Do you claim that
17 that is not a correct piece of news, the fact that children were killed
19 A. Could you be more specific, please?
20 Q. Well, you spoke here orally, you testified orally that some news
21 was put out about the killing of Serb children in Eastern Slavonia, and
22 I'm asking you now, are you saying that it didn't happen and that this was
23 invented by the media, this news item?
24 A. Are you referring to Vukovar?
25 JUDGE MAY: If you would look at -- just a moment. Just a moment.
1 Let's find the references. Tab 26 are the references, and there are
2 references in clip 9 of the killing of a child as alleged.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. All right. Do you start out from the fact that all the crimes
5 that the press wrote about were in fact fabricated, invented? Is that
6 what you're saying?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE MAY: Deal, if you would, with the allegations with regard
9 to children. I've referred you to one at clip 9. There's the reference
10 from "What the Friar Said". I'm also looking for a reference, which at
11 the moment I cannot find, to the allegation that over 40 children were
12 killed. It may be it's in a different -- it may be that it's in a
13 different section.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
15 JUDGE MAY: You were raising these matters, and they must be dealt
16 with, and the witness must have a chance to answer them.
17 There is the reference to the, yes, clip 1 to Serb children being
18 thrown to the lions in the zoo. So it's clip 1, clip 9. And also you may
19 remember there is the reference to the killing of, I think, 41 children.
20 No, I see. It's clip 13. "In Vukovar, more than a thousand Serbs are
21 feared to have been butchered, including several dozen Serbian children
22 who have fallen victim to the Ustasha knives."
23 So those are the three clips which you were -- you referred to.
24 What's being put to you is that, as I understand it, are these
25 facts -- were these facts fabricated or were they true as alleged?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the news that 41 Serbian
2 children were murdered by the Ustasha, that information was published and
3 turned out to be false. It was not found, and that's why Reuters press
4 agency itself published a disavowal of that having happened.
5 I think perhaps you were referring to the three examples that I
6 gave. I found the passage. In paragraph 59 of the report where I try to
7 show that through the presentation of individual tragedies, in this case
8 children, allegedly victims of crimes -- that is, Serbian children who
9 were victims of crime committed by other combatants, all of this was to
10 show that, using these three examples, it was -- well, I'm not coming to
11 any conclusions about whether or not this happened.
12 I think that as regards the third example, this is a proven fact.
13 The second refers to the death of the parents of a boy, and the first
14 refers to the death of a boy allegedly killed by Croatian fighters.
15 As regards the first example, I don't know whether the information
16 is correct, but what I wanted to demonstrate through this example is that
17 by showing individual tragedies involving children, the objective was to
18 play on the emotional side of the public by speaking of facts that the
19 viewer would have to have sympathy for, facts for which every protective
20 mechanism on the part of the television viewer would not play. That is
21 when he was talking about the most fragile people, that is children.
22 I'm not saying that the facts alleged or even verified in the
23 three examples didn't -- didn't happen. What I am interested in is the
24 interpretation of the facts.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, Mr. de la Brosse, we seem to be losing a lot of
2 time here, but this is an example that cannot serve to anybody's credit.
3 What it says here is this: It says that that killing of children was,
4 first of all, televised by the British television station ITV, and then
5 the media in Serbia televised what went through Reuters. But first, that
6 is to say Reuters, published a denial, a disavowal, and this was cared
7 too, the denial. So the news goes from Reuters. It is transmitted by the
8 media, carried by the media, not only Belgrade but others, and then
9 Reuters publishes a disclaimer. The media carry this, and where do you
10 see Serbian propaganda there? Or perhaps I'd been manipulating with
12 You yourself describe what happened, and this is a blatant example
13 of how you in your function of let's call it expertise, of expert
14 testimony, are abusing this kind of material.
15 A. Well, you're going back to the example of the master of 41 Serbian
16 children by the Croatian fighters which did not take place. I think we
17 agree on that point.
18 What I said is that the -- the news about that event, which turned
19 out to be incorrect, was widely distributed and used by the Serbian media.
20 The Serb media, once the information had been denied, the Serbian media
21 did not even take the trouble to go and check on it and I put it into the
22 footnote. I say that that information was also denied by the Serbian
23 media except when -- when information is broadcast, information of this
24 type, any disavowal of that information does not set aside the effects
25 that the news originally had created.
1 This can be checked not only in this case in the former Yugoslavia
2 but also with other phenomena of that sort in other countries.
3 So this very strong media coverage of the death of these 41
4 children supported in the eyes of the public, Serbian public opinion
5 because it was a very broad coverage of that event which was not based on
6 the truth, that strong media -- that very important media coverage
7 supported the image that was cultivated in the Serbian media of a Croatian
8 people which was genocidal and criminal just as that information was used
9 by the media in order to make those opposed to the war be silenced.
10 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, Mr. de la Brosse, I hope it's not being
11 challenged that the media in Serbia carried Reuters reporting and the
12 reporting of ITV. Did Reuters published a disclaimer after that and the
13 media in Serbia disclaimed it too. So they followed these reports put out
14 by Reuters, because the Serbian -- did the Serb media disseminate
15 nationalism because they were carrying a Reuters news item? How can you
16 say such nonsensical things?
17 A. Clarification. This information was spread in the newspapers by
18 those journalists who were there in the former Yugoslavia at the time.
19 The information was distributed by Reuters without having any real on-site
20 checks being made. Other media who were there on the ground did not
21 distribute that information because there were questions about it.
22 Q. All right, Mr. de la Brosse. Let's not waste more time on this
23 matter, but I think that this is -- it is illustrative in itself. The
24 facts that you mentioned, information came from Reuters the Serb media
25 carried it, Reuters disclaimed it, the Serbian media disclaimed it and you
1 accuse the Serb media of some sort of propaganda. And to make things
2 quite clear to you, gentlemen, or to make it even more complicated, I have
3 here one of the next witness's --
4 A. I haven't finished answering the question you asked me about. You
5 asked me whether the Serb media had denied that information or disclaimed
6 it. Let me give you an example from Politika which did in fact deny the
7 information through a few lines that were at the back of the newspaper.
8 So it doesn't have the same position in the newspaper as the news had when
9 it was originally put out. And that way it does not erase the effect that
10 had been produced.
11 Q. Disclaimers never deny the effects that the first information has
12 when it's put out. That's a general rule in the media, and I'm sure you
13 ought to know that much better than me. Once you put out a lie,
14 disclaimers never cover that. And for ten years, an enormous mass of lies
15 was put out against Serbia.
16 JUDGE MAY: Now, let's move on, Mr. Milosevic.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Especially --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I have a witness here, he
20 is a Prosecution witness and I have been supplied with this statement. He
21 was on the list and then disappeared from the list but this seems to be
22 common practice with them. Other people seem to crop up all the time.
23 And it doesn't say here that this particular witness is an a protected one
24 but I'm if the going to read out his name because I'm not sure whether
25 he's a protected witness or not. He is a Serb anyway and he is testifying
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 against me, or will be, against me here in this courtroom. And on page 3
2 and for your purposes, this is 039392, that is the number of the witness
3 statement which was disclosed to me by the other side over there in order
4 to prepare for his testimony.
5 On page 3 of that statement this witness towards the end of
6 paragraph 2 or, rather, this should be paragraph 3, but it's densely
7 typed, says the following: 'On one occasion we found 80 dead Serb
8 children lined up in the hospital. Each of them had a -- three wounds in
9 his back from a bullet shot. I personally saw them, 100 to 150 metres
10 away from the Vukovar Hospital in a ditch. I know they were Serb children
11 because they were identified by the surviving parents," and so on.
12 JUDGE MAY: You can ask the witness if he's seen that report or
13 anything like that.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not speaking about -- this is a
15 statement by --
16 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... As far as this
17 witness's evidence is concerned is whether he's seen such a report and
18 he's indicating he hasn't. Whether the witness is called or not, we'll
19 find out. We'll be able to hear his evidence on the point. Yes, let's
20 move on.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Now, please, on page 11 and 12, you claim that propaganda becomes
24 detrimental when it is used in a totalitarian fashion, and that is not
25 challenged at all. And when it promotes goals contrary to human and
1 international law. However, what is challenged is the fact that you wish
2 to link this up with the state of affairs in Serbia. My question to you
3 is this: How can you talk about any kind of totalitarianism at that time,
4 not now in Serbia, of course, but at that time in a Serbia in which a
5 multi-party system was in existence, which at that time was introduced,
6 not before but precisely during that period of time a democratically
7 adopted constitution proclaiming guaranteed rights on the basis of
8 international pacts and covenants including secret ballot elections which
9 had a very vociferous and loud opposition, in fact. And every two years
10 there were different extraordinary elections that were held.
11 So how can you, and on the basis of what criteria, can this kind
12 of society be ranked among what you wish to rank Serbia among?
13 A. Could you indicate the paragraphs that you're referring to,
14 please? You said pages 11, 10 -- 11.
15 Q. It's on pages 11, 12. Propaganda --
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, can I be of assistance? It's
17 actually paragraph 12, and it is the last sentence of this paragraph.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I am referring to in this
19 paragraph through footnote 25 is the message regarding stereotypes whose
20 purpose is to stigmatise other communities. We reviewed the examples last
21 week. I am referring to the distribution of a -- messages fomenting
22 hatred through the regime-controlled media. And in that sense I have
23 based myself on several texts including the covenant on civil and
24 political rights which was ratified by Yugoslavia in 1966 and which
25 requires the Yugoslav state and Serbia to prohibit and to fight against
1 any messages of hatred. And so I note, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I
2 didn't find any traces anywhere whether it be in reports prepared by NGOs
3 or international organisations. I have noted that no activity -- no case
4 was ever brought to a court by the Yugoslav or Serbian authorities against
5 public media which carried out that type of practice.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. All right. Tell me this, Mr. de la Brosse, please, how can you
8 claim -- actually, you're quoting Serbian scientists, for example, with
9 respect to the thesis on creating an unified state in which all Serbs
10 would be living, and you quote the quotations and statements made of Serb
11 scientists, academicians and so on who make no mention of that at all.
12 And the example of this is a quotation from academician Mihajlo Markovic
13 on page 21 and he writes about the tragedy of Serbs under Croatian
14 authority which is ongoing and which in future could even be greater as
15 well as the position of the Serb people in Croatia which is worse than the
16 position of any national minority anywhere, and that is quite right, quite
18 Do you know that according to the constitution, pursuant to the
19 Croatian constitution, up until 1990, Croatia was defined as a state of
20 the Serbian people --
21 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Let the witness deal with this. The
22 reference, as I understand it, is in paragraph 22 to what Mr. Markovic
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. de la Brosse, have you got the
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reference from the Duga excerpt,
3 is that what your are referring to?
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. What's the question, Mr. Milosevic, about this?
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I am referring to the quotation by academician Mihajlo Markovic,
7 and Mr. de la Brosse links this up to with the thesis to create a unified
8 state that would house all the Serbs. Markovic doesn't mention that at
9 all. On page 21 what he does mention is this: He speaks about the
10 tragedy of the Croatian Serbs under Croatian authority which is ongoing
11 and in the future could reach tragic proportions, which unfortunately is
12 quite true. And my question is to you: When you read that, did you know
13 that precisely up until the year 1991 or, rather, in the year 1990 and
14 1991 the Serb people were thrown out of the Croatian constitution. Up
15 until then Croatia was defined as the Croatian people, the Serb people,
16 and all the peoples living within it. Do you know anything about that at
18 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment? What's this got to do with anything?
19 What's the point that you're making, Mr. Milosevic?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point I'm making, Mr. May, is in
21 the essence, your own expert, through various quotations, is trying to
22 prove something which does not exist in those quotations.
23 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For example --
25 JUDGE MAY: We will take this -- we will take this stage by stage.
1 Just a moment. What is it, first of all, that he's trying to
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He wishes to prove that propaganda
4 and that the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences worked along the lines
5 of the title of his project that we saw here on the overhead projector,
6 the project of having all Serbs living in one state, state for all Serbs,
7 which isn't written anywhere, which isn't contained in any of the
8 quotations he uses in his text or his footnotes. So it is a complete
10 JUDGE MAY: Let's the witness answer that.
11 Your proposition is unsupported, it's said, by the quotations from
12 the academicians and others.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Quite the contrary, in fact. In the
14 quotations which are contained in the footnotes --
15 JUDGE MAY: Let him answer one thing at a time.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The quotation you're referring to
17 supports paragraph 22 of the report which indicates one of the mechanisms
18 used by the propaganda, that is to put -- to project on others the -- your
19 own fault or your own faults. So the quotation here -- the quotation here
20 is by Mr. Markovic is used as an example. I'm not speaking -- I'm not
21 using the quotation here or relying on it for the purposes that you're
22 alluding to.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, your whole work is used for the purposes for which you wrote
25 the report, propaganda as a function of the plan to create a state for all
1 Serbs. Now, how can you separate that and say you're not using it for
2 that purpose? Use a bit of elementary logic, Mr. de la Brosse, please.
3 A. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question.
4 Q. Very well.
5 A. [Previous translation continues]... Been asked.
6 Q. This then, please. Do you consider that contrary to the charter
7 on human rights and international law the affirmation of the identity of
8 one's own nation for which you accuse academician Dobrica Cosic, for
9 example, who you claim assumes a special place in the instrumentalisation
10 of Serbian frustrations and the burgeoning of nationalism and that he is
11 directly responsible for the growth of international hatred. That is on
12 page 34, the footnote there.
13 A. Let me go back to what I was saying a little while ago about the
14 international text that I used and that I quoted talking about unlawful
15 propaganda. I repeat, I based myself on those texts in order to state
16 that at the time, the propaganda of hatred and stigmatisation of a
17 community fell within those international documents that Serbia and
18 Yugoslavia had prescribed to, which had delivered that type of message,
19 that type of hateful message. I'm not saying anything else when I refer
20 to those texts. That's what I mean when I refer to them.
21 Q. All right, then. Please go ahead and quote from those texts, the
22 ones you mention, what you consider to be a message of hatred, because I
23 keep claiming that you are mentioning people and you're quoting quotes in
24 which there is none of what you're claiming. Then there is no message of
25 hate within those quotations. Go ahead, quote. Quote from your text.
1 A. I return to the terminology used in the media which was one of
2 stigmatisation, of denigrating a community or several communities, and in
3 that way I think that I can say - I'm not a legal specialist - but in any
4 case, it seems to me that that type of message of stigmatisation,
5 demonisation of other communities are messages putting forward hatred
6 against a community, and in that way they are covered by international law
7 which Serbia subscribed to. I'm not saying anything more than that.
8 Q. Well, you've just falsified that, because you cannot quote a
9 single quotation from your footnotes, what you yourself qualify as being a
10 speech of hatred. Otherwise, those listening to this in the Serbian
11 language, let me translate the word stigmatisation. Stigmatisation means
12 to blacken someone, because I keep listening to the word stigmatisation
13 coming from the interpretation. It is to blacken somebody, to demonise
14 them. So please find me an example where somebody is doing that, the Serb
15 media is doing that, that is to say blackening or demonising some other
16 ethnic community.
17 JUDGE MAY: Do that over the adjournment. We're going to adjourn
18 now for 20 minutes. When you come back, Mr. de la Brosse, you can answer
19 that question with a passage.
20 Yes, 20 minutes. Before we call the next witness, there are
21 matters under Rule 92 bis on which rulings are required. Perhaps I could
22 give everybody warning that we will discuss these. They relate to the
23 statements of witnesses B-1455, 1775, and also the transcripts of
24 Mr. Selak.
25 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. I only received 1455 and 1775, I
1 think it is, on Friday. I've been able to consider 1455 but not 1775 yet.
2 JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps we can have a discussion about it
4 MR. KAY: Yes. Thank you.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now, 20 minutes.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. de la Brosse, you were asked before the
9 adjournment about any speech which might be described as a speech of
10 hatred, and it was put to you that you couldn't yourself quote from your
11 footnotes any such speech.
12 Now, you should have the opportunity of answering that. Perhaps
13 you could do so briefly. But if there is any particular speech you have
14 in mind you can, of course, refer us to it.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would recall that in some of the
16 clips that were shown last week, I referred to footnote 147 and 146.
17 There we can see that through the terminology used, speaking about
18 Ustasha, what is shown is a group through the use of terminology which
19 will stigmatise it.
20 As regards the quotations in the report and on which I based
21 myself, I should refer you to footnote 85 in my report. In footnote 85,
22 and you see all of the quotations which refer to the mechanism which would
23 be used against the Croats who are presented as the heirs of those
24 responsible for the crimes committed against other populations, including
25 the Serbs, during the Second World War.
1 Through the quotations which I use to support myself, we see a
2 historical amalgamation whose purpose is to use different types of
3 quotations with terms that are used. Perhaps we could look at the various
4 quotations which come from Politika in which one describes a direct link
5 between the Croatian government in 1990 and the-- rather, the Croatian
6 community and the Croatian government of the Second World War. And so
7 what connection is drawn between the crimes committed by the Second World
8 War Croatian government and the crimes and activities of the
9 Franjo Tudjman government.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I think we've got 85 in front of us, and we can
11 see what's set out there.
12 Now, Mr. Milosevic, you've got ten minutes left for questioning of
13 this witness.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not sufficient for me,
15 Mr. May, ten minutes. Would you please consider the possibility of giving
16 me a little more time with this witness?
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE MAY: You can have another half hour starting from now. So
19 you can have until half past eleven.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Would you be kind enough, as you say that you mention certain
23 quotations, in any of those quotations is a nation being stigmatised or
24 denigrated. You mention authorities committing crimes against the Serbs,
25 who have thrown the Serbs from the constitution, who have fired the Serbs
1 from all public services, who are persecuting the Serbs in an organised
2 manner. Find me a single quotation in which the nation as such is being
3 denigrated, be it the Croats or the Albanians where the Croats are being
4 stigmatised or the Albanians being stigmatised as a national minority.
5 That was my question to you.
6 A. In footnote 85, the second quotation, an express connection is
7 made here. Should I read it in English? [In English] "Democratic
8 community is proud of Ante Starcevic according to folk saying" -- "is
9 proud of Ante Starcevic, according to folk saying, the words, shy away
10 from places where the fools treat -- treat. Croatia is proud of so-called
11 independent state and is covertly and stealthily priming the new slaughter
12 of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina."
13 [Interpretation] So what is described here is Croatia as a whole,
14 something that includes all of the population.
15 Q. Mr. de la Brosse --
16 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish. Yes, Mr. de la Brosse, is there
17 something you want to add?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A generalisation is made about the
19 entire Croatian people.
20 I would also like to quote or, rather, to recall the video clip.
21 I don't remember the number, but the transcript of the Jovan Raskovic's
22 statement is found in footnote 117, in paragraph 54. It follows a
23 statement of Dobrica Cosic which was -- we've also had the opportunity to
24 see at the beginning of my testimony. Through those two examples a
25 constant reminder is made in respect of the atrocities committed by the
1 independent Croatian state under the Ustasha and the attentions ascribed
2 to Franjo Tudjman's regime.
3 If I read the excerpt which appeared -- the excerpt from Jovan
4 Raskovic which appeared in Serbian television, I would remind you that he
5 is speaking about the fact that genocide has begun and it depends on the
6 Serbs in Croatia and in Serbia and the international factor, Europe and
7 the world whether their movement [In English] "open its concentration
8 camps, pits used as collective tombs. But one thing is for sure, Serbs
9 will never again be led to the pits by just the Ustasha. Serbs have to
10 put up a great resistance and the genocidal idea will collapse along with
11 the genocidal Croatian state."
12 [Interpretation] I would recall that Jovan Raskovic, who was the
13 promoter of this idea according to which the Croatian people had a -- has
14 a genocidal character.
15 I would also like to quote another example of this type of
16 amalgamation which was made by certain Serbian intellectuals. The example
17 is in a -- is in a statement by Jovan Raskovic that you can find on the
18 25th of March, 1990, in Politika. This is an example that I didn't use in
19 the report. It isn't quoted as such, but I can give you the quotation
20 which is in English.
21 "[In English] That that which disrupts relations between Serbs and
22 Croats now is connected to the genocide which was perpetrated against the
23 Serbian people by the Croatian Ustasha regime. We can conclude that this
24 hiding of genocide, this hiding of genocide represents an appeal for -- to
25 history -- for history," excuse me, "for a repeat."
1 [Interpretation] The second quotation that I'd like to give to you
2 in order to replace things in their proper context is also an excerpt from
3 Politika of the 7th of August, 1992, in which Radovan Samardzic states
4 that: "[Previous translation continues]... [In English] Who are
5 constantly exposed to genocide. The Serbs are the people that."
6 Through these various examples of historical amalgamation between
7 two situations which are not the same, what is shown is the Croatian
8 regime and the Croatian people at the beginning of the 1990s as the heirs
9 of the Croatian government of the Second World War. And as such, I might
10 be wrong but I think that a stereotype is being presented and what is
11 sought is the demonisation of a community by relying on historic
12 amalgamations which remain to be proved.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, you give very lengthy answers so that half an
15 hour will really not be sufficient if you continue in that way. So would
16 you please be kind enough to bear in mind what you yourself said.
17 You said that the expression is that the Croatian Democratic Union
18 and then you come to the conclusion that the reference is to the whole
19 people. The HDZ, the Croatian Democratic Union, was the party which in
20 restarted the persecution of the Serbs 50 years later, not the Croatian
21 people. The HDZ is not the Croatian people.
22 Therefore, in what you yourself have said, you say the
23 authorities, then you make a comma, and then you add the Croatian people
24 yourself, which no one has referred to. So you're making -- you're
25 construing something that could be described as a forgery.
1 Now, did you perhaps have occasion to see -- I have shown here a
2 film, though very briefly as my time is extremely limited, an extract of
3 what Simon Wiesenthal said in connection with those crimes? Can you
4 imagine that Simon Wiesenthal was also in the service of the national list
5 objectives that the Serbian leadership led by me was implementing.
6 JUDGE MAY: What is the question? There's one about the HDZ which
7 we will allow the witness to answer, but what's the second question?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The second question which is linked
9 to what I just mentioned:
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In your second paragraph on page 43, paragraph 47, you describe as
12 a manipulation the fact that in the media there was reference to the
13 genocide committed by the NDH against the Serbian people during the Second
14 World War. The word "genocide" in your text is in quotation marks, and
15 you're suggesting by doing so that it never took place, the NDH being the
16 Independent State of Croatia.
17 On pages 52 and 53 again, you are criticising reference to the
18 crimes of the NDH suggesting that they were exaggerating.
19 Do you know that according to official data of the former
20 Yugoslavia that was headed by Tito, who was a Croat, about 700.000 Serbs,
21 Romanies and Jews were killed in the Jasenovac concentration camps?
22 JUDGE MAY: That's another question. So there are two questions
23 there for you, Mr. de la Brosse.
24 Just a moment. Just a moment, please. Let him answer.
25 The first question is you are -- let him answer what you're
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 The first question is that you are conflating in some way the HDZ
3 with the Croatian people and ascribing to the Croatian people what was
4 purely ascribed to the HDZ. What would your answer be to that? If you
5 could briefly answer that, please.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I quoted Mr. Jovan Raskovic on
7 several occasions. What he says has to be related to the way that
8 he -- that he writes and speaks. Let me remind you that in work that I do
9 quote in a footnote, Jovan Raskovic describes the Croatian people as
10 having a genocidal nature.
11 The fact that through statements that he made in the press and to
12 which I have just given -- which I've just read out to you, one should
13 recall that Jovan Raskovic was invited to all the television programmes on
14 Serbian television at the time wherever he was able to put forward, to
15 explain his theory according to which the Croatian people had a genocidal
17 Therefore, in the public's eyes, the connection was made.
18 The example which I read out a little while ago I believe makes
19 use of that conflation.
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well. I think really we must move on. The
21 second question or the second point which is made is that you have been
22 playing down the genocide, as it's put, during the Second World War. Is
23 that right or not? Have you been playing that down?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Absolutely not. I want to
25 be very clear about that. If I put it into quotation marks, the word
1 "genocide" in quotation marks, because even historians raise that
2 question, because there is not an agreement about the extent of the number
3 of the victims of that genocide. So to -- using the word "genocide" was
4 referring to that historical uncertainty, not the fact that the massacre
5 took place but what the extent of the massacre was. It's in no way a
6 denial of the genocide.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Very well. Since you're doing the same thing as the new Croatian
9 regime did after the elections, that is minimising the genocide, here is
10 what the Wiesenthal centre says. In the Wiesenthal centre, and you can
11 find this, you can take the Internet and search for it. "Jasenovac was
12 the largest camp in Croatia [In English] between 1941 and 1945 under
13 department 3 of the Croatian security police. About 600.000 people were
14 murdered here, Serbs, Jewish, [Interpretation] In brackets 30.000 of them,
15 Gypsies and opponents of the Ustasha regime."
16 So you are claiming that the figures don't match and that this is
17 something in dispute in your opinion, but for the Wiesenthal centre, it is
18 not in dispute. You will also be able to find his definition of the
19 concept of Ustasha and the Wiesenthal centre says and I quote again:
20 "Created in 1930 [In English] Was a Croatian national terrorist
21 organisation. Its members [Interpretation] Ustasha was a Croatian
22 terrorist organisation. Its member's hatred of the Jews was only rivalled
23 by their hatred of the Serbs. [In English] Power of the Hitler created a
24 Croatian puppet state. In 1941 Ustasha terrorists killed 500.000 Serbs,
25 expelled 250.000 and forced 250.000 to convert to Catholicism. They
1 murdered thousands of Jewish and Gypsies."
2 [Interpretation] Are you aware of these facts? Can't you see
3 that --
4 JUDGE MAY: Let him answer. Let him answer.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be very clear, I'm not denying
6 that hundreds of thousands of Serbs and other peoples were massacred,
7 massacred in the camps. What I'm simply trying to say is that since I'm
8 not an historian, I saw the various estimates in respect of the various
9 numbers of deaths which would -- and they weren't the same in all the
10 different articles, but there was a spread from 500 to 900.000.
11 Since I'm not an historian, since I see there is no absolute
12 consensus on the specific number of deaths in those Croatian camps, I
13 thought that it would be more prudent to put in the quotations around the
14 word "genocide." If that was understood differently, I am sorry, but that
15 was my intention as a person who is not an historian. I wanted to show
16 caution in this area.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. de la Brosse, perhaps your report would have
18 been strengthened in this respect if the explanation that you just gave
19 had been inserted either as a footnote or indeed in the text, the
20 explanation, that is, as to why you have "genocide" in quotation marks.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I move on?
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I'd like the witness to comment on that.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I should have indicated that in
24 a footnote. It is true that when I prepared the report my objective was
25 to describe the propaganda mechanisms, and it is true that I was not aware
1 of the need or of the significance there would be in dealing with certain
2 historical facts about which I did not feel qualified, and for that
3 reason, that might have been something clumsy on my part. If I were to
4 redo this work, I would include a footnote that I was led by caution,
5 perhaps in a clumsy way, to explain why I put quotations around that word
6 and not being an historian, and I could not come to a specific decision
7 about a factual issue that -- an issue dealing with facts that had
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well. And I will prove to you now that this reference to
11 your lack of qualifications is not correct and that, in fact, it testifies
12 to your lack of objectivity.
13 In footnote 119, you quote the sorrowful comments by
14 Florence Hartmann because the parallel showing of Franjo Tudjman and
15 Ante Pavelic's speeches - and Ante Pavelic headed this puppet state in
16 1941 - in a TV programme on the 27th of July 1991. So my question to you
17 is: Are you aware that Tudjman in those quoted speeches said something
18 that Pavelic also said, namely do you know that at the rally of the HDZ
19 held on the 24th and 25th of February, 1990 in Zagreb, the then-elected
20 president of that newly formed party, Tudjman, said among other things and
21 I quote: "The Independent State of Croatia," and he's referring to the
22 Pavelic state, "was not only a quisling entity and a fascist crime but
23 also an expression of the historic aspirations of the Croatian people."
24 End of quotation.
25 Therefore, you say that you are uninformed, that you are not an
1 historian, but the lament of Florence Hartmann regarding the link between
2 Tudjman and Pavelic you find necessary to quote. But as you see, the link
3 is quite obvious and quite clear.
4 What would be your comment to that, Mr. de la Brosse?
5 A. If I quoted that excerpt from a work by Florence Hartmann, it has
6 to do with the fact that she also shows, with examples, what the
7 amalgamation was that was made between those responsible for the genocide
8 and massacres committed by the Croats during the Second World War and what
9 Franjo Tudjman was prepared -- was preparing to do allegedly. I didn't
10 read the work that you're referring to by Franjo Tudjman. If I used this
11 quotation, it is because the constant recalling of the past - constant -
12 and the comparison made between the Croatian government of 1990 and that
13 in the Second World War, in the readers' minds and the television viewer's
14 mind, what is created is a type of confusion, because what -- what
15 is-- message is that as the regime is on the point of -- of repeating the
16 massacres, the massacres that were committed by the Ustashas during the
17 Second World War. And the quotation which I gave you a little while ago
18 by Jovan Raskovic in Politika, the 25th of March, 1990, is, in my opinion,
19 something which sheds light on what we're talking about.
20 Q. So you find that is the justification for this. But the link, as
21 you can see from the quotation, was made by Tudjman himself, because he
22 says that that entity was the historic expression of the aspirations of
23 the Croatian people. So it was not the Belgrade press that made this link
24 but he himself. Isn't that right or not?
25 A. I didn't read that work by Tudjman that you're referring to.
1 Q. I said it was his speech at a Congress of the HDZ which you should
2 have read if you're denying this link with -- which he himself made in
3 that same speech.
4 JUDGE MAY: We have it. We have the point, Mr. Milosevic, insofar
5 as there is one. You said Tudjman referred in a speech in 1990 to the NDH
6 government and said it represented the aspirations of the people of
7 Croatia. The witness is saying to you that the constant repetition of
8 these wrongs in the 1990s, the constant repetition of this was a way of
9 building up hatred and a way of justifying the use of force and violence.
10 That's his evidence. What the significance is of it will be a matter for
12 Now, there is not much point going on arguing about what
13 Mr. Tudjman may or may not have said.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe he didn't say it. Very well.
15 He may not have said it. And maybe he did not make this link. Then we're
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. But tell me, please, how do you, as a media expert, because you
19 keep referring to this amalgamation, and obviously there's an amalgamation
20 between you and Florence Hartmann, between you and this illegal OTP and
21 not the way you put it. How can you, as an expert for the media, who
22 doesn't know the language which the media use, in paragraph 52, second
23 paragraph on page 49, when the TV was the only source of information for
24 more than 90 per cent of the Serbs in confirmation of that in footnote
25 107, you quote from an article by Nicole du Roy, who with a very moderate
1 title, "Serbia Paranoiac Television," et cetera, you have the references
2 there, and the quotation is: In this country Serbia where 46 per cent of
3 the people are illiterate, which would mean every other inhabitant, the
4 only form of media information which covers the whole territory are
5 information broadcast by state television."
6 It seems to me, Mr. de la Brosse, that even you who upon the
7 instructions of the opposite side prepared this report, this is going a
8 little too far in saying that in Serbia 46 per cent of the people are
9 illiterate. People are watching in Serbia and probably they can't believe
10 their own ears, but --
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this will be your last question,
12 because you've now gone on for half an hour. Yes. But you can finish it.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. But those are your sources, Mr. de la Brosse. Forty-six per cent
15 of the people in Serbia are illiterate.
16 A. I think that you're confusing illiteracy and people who haven't
17 studied. Here we are speaking of people whose only diploma would be from
18 primary school. We're not talking about people who can't read and write
19 at all. Reading -- that's not the same thing. People who have limited
20 education and those who are illiterate.
21 Q. That is a very lame excuse. A little later in the report, you say
22 that state television, at the end of page 90, 91, paragraph 110, you say
23 that state television and I quote now: "For 30 per cent of the population
24 who have not completed elementary school was the only and exclusive source
25 of information."
1 So now you are referring to those who not completed eight years of
2 elementary school. Earlier on it was four years, and it was increased to
3 eight years. So the number of people who do not have elementary school
4 education is 30 per cent. So you haven't even bothered to be consistent
5 in your own report so as not to repeat different pieces of information and
6 figures in different places.
7 What does this mean then, that 30 per cent of the population have
8 not completed elementary school? A moment ago you said 46 per cent were
9 illiterate, and neither of those figures are correct.
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. de la Brosse, answer that question it you would,
11 and that will conclude the cross-examination. Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I relied on several sources,
13 including Nicole du Roy. I also used -- for numbers which would show the
14 importance and weight of television and its impact on the population which
15 was not familiar -- was not used to reading a great deal, I relied on
16 several figures. Specifically as regards the weight of television, since
17 it was the main medium covering Serbian territory and therefore the
18 principal information or news medium for most of the population, I would
19 refer to a report prepared in about -- which was about the elections in
20 Serbia in 1990 through 2000 that were prepared by two fellows from the
21 University of Belgrade called: "Television Elections and -- Elections in
22 Serbia, 1990 to 2000, TV images in government and opposition".
23 The study was done by Jovanka Matic. Jovanka Matic. And by
24 Snezana Milojevic, and it is based on figures provided by RTS television
25 at the time.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, just a couple of questions
2 more. You told me I had another two or -- you didn't say I had two or
3 three questions left.
4 JUDGE MAY: I think we've really had sufficient time on this.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MAY: I've consulted. My colleagues think you should have
8 two more questions, and literally that, otherwise we shall never finish
9 this witness.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here is one question, please. To
11 make it clear to you, I have taken out of the binder that you have
12 provided me for Mr. Kristan, this is Borba, a federal newspaper, dated of
13 the 17th of March. The opposing side, in its opening statement, said that
14 on that occasion I said that Yugoslavia was dead, and the sentence that is
15 clearly quoted here says: "The Presidency of SFRY has not been
16 functioning for a long time, and the illusion of the efforts of the
17 Presidency of Yugoslavia and the efforts which in fact are lacking as of
18 tonight are definitely dead."
19 So I'm saying that the illusion regarding the efforts of the
20 Presidency are dead because it fell apart, whereas the opposing side said
21 that I had said that Yugoslavia was dead.
22 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. As you're an expert for the media, the question is: Do you
25 consider this to be a manipulation if I say that an illusion that there
1 are efforts which are -- do not exist are dead, is it a manipulation if I
2 am alleged to have said that Yugoslavia was dead?
3 JUDGE MAY: That's not a question for the witness. You can -- you
4 can ask one more question.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I gave you a hundred pages of various different
8 non-Yugoslav articles, articles that were not published in Serbia, and I
9 have another one of the 31st of December, 1999, referring to the witness
10 Barani who testified here, saying that his allegations were investigated,
11 that it was established that they were not true, and it ends with the
12 quotation: "Mr. Barani doesn't completely stand by his story. 'I told
13 everybody that was a supposition. It was not confirmed information,' he
14 says, [In English] 'But he says for the Serbs everything is possible.'"
15 So these fabricated falsehoods and everything that you read in
16 those 100 pages, would you have made somewhat different conclusions if you
17 had consulted all those sources instead of your own selective sources
18 which show that you did not make a study of the contents of the media
20 JUDGE MAY: The witness need not answer because it's totally
21 irrelevant, a report about Mr. Barani. It's nothing to do with the
22 witness at all. Just a moment, please.
23 But, Mr. de la Brosse, you should have the opportunity of
24 commenting on the articles we invited you to look at which the accused
25 produced to you on the last occasion you were here. So if you have any
1 comments on them, this is the time to make them.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I consulted -- well, I went through
3 all of these press excerpts, mostly from the international press, and I
4 had several problems in respect of the nature and status of the excerpts
5 from the various newspapers because there is no information about the
6 author's status. We don't know whether it's an article by one person or
7 some of the texts are in quotation marks, others are not. So I would
8 simply like to point out the difficulty I would have in reacting to this
9 type of text by giving you one example, the one of page 13, which is an
10 article by Thomas Fleiner that was published in a Swiss newspaper in
11 German, the Die Welt Woche, and the name of it has to do with demonisation
12 of a people in 1994.
13 The article is in quotations. Nothing is known about the author,
14 and so I took the initiative and I did some research into the author, and
15 I tried to find the article. It turns out that I was able to find a
16 document by Thomas Fleiner which can be found on a Serbian site. I could
17 give you the Internet address if we put the document on the -- the ELMO.
18 And the text which is published by an academician in Switzerland
19 and it's about ten pages long, the excerpt that it was suggested I comment
20 on is presented as an ordinary speech which in fact does not correspond
21 with reality, because in the text which you see on the Internet site which
22 has the entire speech, when you -- I was asked to comment on the first
23 part. The beginning of the text comes from the second page of the work of
24 this academician. And then the -- I was also asked to look at something
25 which appears on page 5, and it goes on to page 6 and then goes on to page
1 8 and further yet to page 10.
2 In the article that I was asked to comment on, nothing is said
3 about the fact that the article, about the pieces of the article come from
4 different passage of a text that was prepared by an academician which in
5 itself is problematical because I'm not sure that by working that way we
6 are respecting the author's thoughts, and it seems to me they were rather
7 distorting the intention and the demonstration made by that author.
8 In particular when we're dealing with an article whose purpose was
9 to see to what extent the multi-ethnic experience in Switzerland can be
10 used to investigate matters in the Balkans. There are certain positions
11 taken by the author particularly in favour of pluralism in the media
12 within Yugoslavia, and that leaves doubts with me in respect of the
13 meaning to be given to the author's text if I compare what I was asked to
14 compare with the entire text, and so I would have difficulty in commenting
15 on that type of text.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, plainly if we are to introduce these --
17 No. You've been on long enough.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm --
19 JUDGE MAY: You can address us at the end.
20 If we are going to admit any of these articles, plainly we should
21 not admit excerpts, we should admit the whole article because otherwise
22 the meaning can be distorted. But we'll consider that in a moment.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
24 JUDGE MAY: No. You can address that at the end.
25 THE ACCUSED: I have an objection, Mr. May.
1 JUDGE MAY: No. You can make it at the end. You've gone on long
2 enough today. Let Mr. Tapuskovic cross-examine.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I really
4 did do my best to select a topic from the vast subjects that could be
5 discussed here, so I have selected three or four which I consider to be of
6 importance for your -- the Judges' deliberation was respect to all the
7 problems before you, Your Honours. So I really would ask you to allot me
8 some time to go through them. I'll be as quick as possible. And if
9 Mr. de la Brosse gives me yes or no answers wherever possible, that would
10 be a great help. I think I will be able to get through my questions very
12 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. de la Brosse, let me start off from paragraph
14 111, if I may, and that is towards the end of your report, in fact.
15 Perhaps I won't have time to yet through everything I wish to get through,
16 but it is a paragraph which is titled or, rather, first of all, it was
17 entitled "The impossibility of a democratic political alternative." That
18 was the first title. And then we received a correction to this effect:
19 It now reads as follows: "Impossibility of a democratic change over
20 political power." That's right, isn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In the first sentence of that report of yours and paragraph, you
23 say that the monopoly over information, the state television monopoly over
24 information and to a lesser degree the national radio monopoly was a
25 guarantee that Slobodan Milosevic would cash in on extraordinary political
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 royalties. Is that right? Is that what you say?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then you conclude by saying that this media supremacy and how
4 this -- this will pay off many -- many-fold prior to the elections, and
5 the same would be repeated at the December 1992 elections. Is that right?
6 A. 1990.
7 Q. Yes, 1990 and 1992, that this will be repeated in December 1992 as
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, my questions are as follows: In response to a question from
11 Mr. Nice during your examination-in-chief, you said that in Yugoslavia,
12 that is to say in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, you arrived
13 there in 1994 and that you dealt in journalism. And prior to the war in
14 Kosovo, you published an article linked to propaganda. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes. I said that in 1994 I directed a work on the media and
16 hatred than I wrote an article on the impossibility of covering the war in
18 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I'm going to try and present you with facts. In
19 view of the fact that you lived and worked in the former Yugoslavia for
20 the period of time you did, were you aware of a notorious fact at the
21 time, namely that the Albanians in Kosovo did not go out to the elections
22 to vote for a whole decade, and quite certainly they did not in 1990 and
23 1992. Did you know about this undisputed fact, the fact that the
24 Albanians did not go to the polls?
25 A. No.
1 Q. You didn't know about that, something like that, and you spent so
2 much time there? Can you compare, for example, the propaganda you
3 discussed in your report with the propaganda that was used, utilised in
4 order to have people not go to the elections at all, not go to vote? And
5 it is a fact that the Albanians did not go to vote for ten years. But the
6 important years for me that I'd like to focus on is 1990 and 1992. So did
7 you hear about the propaganda that lead out to the fact that the Albanians
8 took no part in Serbia's political life at all.
9 A. Let me make a clarification. I began to work in 1994. I
10 made -- prepared a comparative study on the use of propaganda and the
11 propagation of ethnic hatred. I worked on that from 1994 to 1995. And
12 then in 1996 I published another article. I never said that I spent
13 a -- many years in the former Yugoslavia.
14 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I have to hurry this up a little. Now, why I'm
15 asking you this is because you conclude, you observe in paragraph 111
16 titled "Impossibility of a democratic changeover of a political power,"
17 you make a conclusion there. Now, let me take you through 1992. You
18 mentioned Milan Panic, for example, who in 1992 was a counter-candidate to
19 Slobodan Milosevic. Slobodan Milosevic, as far as I recall, got a few
20 more votes, although ten years -- that was ten years ago.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a million. A million more.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Right, a million more. So quite
23 a substantial difference.
24 Q. Now, do you know that the democratic opposition in Serbia in 1992
25 already had solid foundations, it had a good response among the people?
1 What it did came across a good response from the population. Are you
2 aware of that?
3 A. You referred to two elections, 1990 and 1992. I would like to go
4 back to the purpose of the paragraph 111. Here I am referring to the
5 media coverage of the December 1990 elections during which the opposition
6 did not have a fair access to the audio-visual media of the state. I
7 remind you that television is the main news medium for the vast majority
8 of the Serbian people, and so there was an inequality, and I'm referring
9 to the study that was prepared, "Television and elections in Serbia" --
10 Q. You've explained all that. Mr. De la Brosse, you've explained all
11 that in your report. I'm not asking you to repeat what you've explained
12 in the report.
13 You spoke about the influence of the authorities on the elections
14 and you don't know the notorious facts that the Albanians in 1990 did not
15 go to the polls. But I'm not interested in that either. What I'm
16 interested in is this: Had the Albanians gone out to the elections in
17 1992 would the authorities have remained in power? Would
18 Slobodan Milosevic himself have remained in power? Can you answer that
19 question for me, please?
20 A. Apparently not.
21 Q. The Albanians gone out to vote, there would have been a million
22 votes added to Milan Panic's vote. Pure arithmetic would have shown that
23 had they wanted to have a parliamentary struggle, Slobodan Milosevic and
24 the authorities would not have been able to stay if power?
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, let's move on.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I will move on to another
2 subject, but I think this is quite obvious and self-evident, but it is up
3 to you to assess, of course. I have just broached the question.
4 Q. Now, something else. What you state in paragraph 68. And we
5 dealt at length on the issue. It is as you said the paranoia of
6 conspiracy, I think you called it. And in you first statement, you say:
7 "However, what set Serbian nationalism far apart was its paranoia."
8 That's right, isn't it? That's what you say?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then in the next paragraph, paragraph 69, and you've already
11 spoken about that too, you mentioned Dobrica Cosic and say that when he
12 was the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and you quote his
13 words, "it is a question of a total war being waged against our nation,"
14 and you wind up by invoking the influence of the mass media. Are you
15 referring to the mass media with respect to the world information media?
16 A. Could you indicate the passage again, please?
17 A. It is paragraph 69, the last sentence. Just before paragraph 70.
18 A. Yes. I think that he's speaking about the international media.
19 Q. Very well, yes. Now take a look at paragraph 75, if you would,
20 the beginning of paragraph 75. And you say: "When despite everything
21 certain information directly implicating Serbian responsibility for the
22 perpetuation of atrocities managed to filter through, it was distorted.
23 On the 27th of May, 1992, 17 inhabitants of Sarajevo were killed by a
24 Serbian shell, and 150 wounded as they were queueing for bread. The
25 picture of the massacre would be broadcast by RTS only with the Serb's
1 official version of events later on, which accused the Sarajevo government
2 of having organised it to cause the West to intercede."
3 Is that correct?
4 A. What I say is that on Serbian television, the only thing shown was
5 one version.
6 Q. Don't you know that the whole of Serbia was watching this on that
7 day and that the citizens of Serbia watched with horror these images that
8 were broadcast? You don't know about that, that they were horrified?
9 A. Let me reread this, please. So what was your question?
10 Q. Well, I don't want to go back to the question. If you didn't
11 understand it, I have to move on.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like at
13 this point to open up several questions dealt with by Mr. de la Brosse
14 which in the future work related to Bosnia -- actually, he analysed what
15 happened in Vasa Miskin Street. I think this will be of great importance
16 to Your Honours. That is my opinion, at least.
17 Q. So I would like to ask the witness before that. Before I go on to
18 Vasa Miskin Street and the event there, does he know at all, he can just
19 give me a yes or no answer, whether he knows of the existence of the
20 American agency for relations with the public Norton Hill, and Ruder and
21 Fin. Has he heard of those two agencies? If he deals in propaganda and
22 is testifying before us in court here --
23 A. You are allude to go an American agency which Mr. Parenti talks
24 about in his book?
25 Q. No. I'm just asking you whether you know of the existence of
1 those two agencies, Norton Hill and Ruder and Fin, and that they lobbied
2 for the Bosnian and Croatian side. Are you aware of that? Do you know
3 about that? Do you have knowledge of that? Give me a yes or no answer,
5 A. No.
6 Q. And on French television in 1993 given the fact that you deal in
7 propaganda, did you hear a statement made by James Harf and I'm just going
8 to read several sentences, just give me a yes or no answer once again
9 please. "It is not up to us to check out the truthfulness of information.
10 We are not capacitated to do so. What is our task is to disseminate
11 useful information as soon as possible. Independently of that, the
12 Croatian and Muslim past were such that they were coloured by strong
13 anti-Semitism. Dozens of thousands of Jews were killed in concentration
14 camps and everything spoke in favour of the fact that intellectuals and
15 the Jewish organisations would be hostilely disposed towards the Croats
16 and Bosnians. For us this was a challenge to have this position changed
17 at its very roots. For us, this was a great success, magnificent success.
18 When the Jewish organisations stood on the side of Bosnian organisations,
19 we were able to equate the Serbs straight away in public" --
20 JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Tapuskovic --
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] -- "The Nazis."
22 JUDGE MAY: What do you see in your control as amicus the purpose
23 of this question? How is it of assistance or how are you trying to assist
24 the Court?
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said that I would
1 use concrete examples to link all this up, because Mr. de la Brosse spoke
2 about Vasa Miskin Street, the incident there, and how that fact, what
3 happened there was assessed in Serbia. And these will be things that you
4 will be dealing with many times in times to come. And let me tell you
5 why. He doesn't know about this statement. All right. I'm satisfied the
6 answer and it will be useful to you. But do you know --
7 JUDGE MAY: Are you going to put -- very simply, is this the point
8 of it all, that there was manipulation of propaganda by Bosnians or
9 Croats? Is that the point that you're making?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, no. I stated the quotation
11 by Mr. de la Brosse that Dobrica Cosic said there was a conspiracy afoot
12 against the Serbs than the world media were used for that purpose,
13 harnessed for that purpose, and it is along those lines that I am
14 examining the witness.
15 JUDGE MAY: Isn't that really a matter for Mr. Milosevic to put
16 forward? Is it really a matter for the amicus to get into this kind of
18 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I may be of assistance.
20 Mr. Milosevic actually put forward these arguments when he referred to a
21 person, Merlinot who appeared and made such allegations, and he actually
22 quoted quite lengthy the same things that Mr. Tapuskovic puts now.
23 JUDGE MAY: I seem to remember the quotation attributed to
24 Mr. Harf. Yes. Just one moment.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, we must ask you to move on. These are
2 matters which Mr. Milosevic has already raised. We are familiar with the
3 argument, and it's not going to assist us to have it reiterated. And time
4 is short. We really have a limit on the time available.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I won't go back to
6 that issue, no, but the three events that he mentions in his report I
7 would have to put forward to you here and also to hear his comments.
8 Q. Is it true that on the 27th of May, 1992, in the bread line a
9 shell killed all these people and 150 were wounded, 150 wounded and 17
10 inhabitants killed? Is that correct? And that's what you say in your
11 report, don't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And is it also true and correct that all the world agencies
14 carried this news item that day and on the following days, that they
15 repeated this many times? Is that true as well?
16 A. The fact that the media and the international agencies gave
17 information about the massacre, reported on the massacre, yes.
18 Q. And is it also true and correct that on that same day in Lisbon,
19 negotiations were interrupted between the three national delegations which
20 were discussing the constitutional order to come? They began on the 21st
21 of May, the Portuguese Ambassador, Cutileiro, the presiding officer
22 interrupted the conference on that very day; is that correct?
23 A. I believe so.
24 Q. Is it also true and correct that on the 30th of May, a Security
25 Council decision was taken on 757 Resolution introducing sanctions against
1 the FRY, Serbia and Montenegro. Is that true? Did the United Nations
2 Security Council make that decision without previously ascertaining who
3 was responsible for the incident in the first place?
4 JUDGE MAY: What is the point of reiterating all this,
5 Mr. Tapuskovic? I want to know what the point is and I have not got it.
6 What are you going to put to the witness?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you will be able to
8 ascertain the truth here about Racak, for instance. You are going to
9 decide on what happened in Racak, whether it was civilians who were killed
10 or something else. Here before public opinion, international public
11 opinion, the news was put forward that the crime was committed by the
13 Now, Mr. de la Brosse is here. Was it ever established who used
14 and deployed the shell? Whereas what followed the incident was sanctions
15 imposed against Serbia. So that is the point of my question.
16 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We've heard this argument before. You're
17 suggesting that it was the Bosnians who were responsible. This witness
18 isn't to deal with that. He's merely dealing with propaganda. And we've
19 heard all these arguments. We hear them from the accused all the time.
20 Now, you must consider your role as amicus and consider that
21 you're not putting forward a positive case on behalf of anybody. And I
22 must ask you to finish this -- just a moment.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
24 JUDGE MAY: I must ask you to finish this in the next ten minutes,
25 by quarter past.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will finish
2 whenever you want me to, but I must say quite seriously that I'm
3 constantly under time constraints, and it is very difficult for me to
4 perform my role as amicus curiae. So I ask myself whether I am necessary
5 to the Trial Chamber in this case at all. I cannot work under pressure of
6 this kind. And let me say also -- I have to say this although maybe it's
7 not the right place, but I am the oldest person here and I can't be under
8 stress constantly as to be given instruction when and what to ask. If I
9 can't raise issues of this kind, then my services serve no purpose here.
10 It has nothing to do with Mr. Milosevic here, but it has to do with
11 questions that you will have to deliberate about and make a ruling on.
12 If I'm superfluous here, then I no longer wish to perform this
14 JUDGE MAY: Go on to your next point, provided it's not going over
15 old ground which we've covered already.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have the occurrence of the 5th
17 of February, 1994, the Markale incident. Sixty-eight dead in that
18 incident in Sarajevo. On that particular day, the truth is disseminated
19 for Markale, the first Markale incident. In 1996, it was established that
20 this was really perpetrated by the Muslim side.
21 JUDGE MAY: These points are all made by Mr. Milosevic. It's not
22 helpful to have them reiterated with this witness. No doubt we'll have to
23 make a decision about it. This witness can't help.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, let me really shorten what
25 I wanted to say. I wanted to raise a topic here, and that is this: It
1 was stated that Cosic and the Academy of Arts and Sciences, that they were
2 constantly putting out certain information as to a Serb conspiracy or,
3 rather, an international conspiracy. That's what de la Brosse speaks
4 about. I just wanted to raise this question, that before anything was
5 established, certain steps were taken against certain states. I, of
6 course, know that you can not establish that at this point in time.
7 You'll clear it up at the end. But before the truth was known about
8 anything, certain actions were taken on the part of the international
9 state against -- community against that state. And that's the question I
10 wanted to raise. And this was done on three occasion up until the
11 bombings, which did not wait for a decision as to what had happened at the
12 Markale 3 incident, but I don't want to go back to that.
13 I want to end by raising a question we had here already and which
14 refers to propaganda. You will recall, I'm sure, that with witness Jeri
15 Laber, for example, I broached a particular question which had to do with
16 propaganda precisely because in December 1992, the Muslim leaders in
17 Bosnia accused the Bosnian Serbs of raping 50.000 Muslim women in camps
18 where they held them as detainees, as prisoners.
19 Q. Do you know about that? Do you know about that incident?
20 A. Are you referring to a witness who appeared at this Tribunal?
21 Q. I'm referring to a testimony. But I'm asking you whether you know
22 about this, these facts and figures. And they are contained in a document
23 that was already raised here in court, and it has been tendered into
24 evidence, admitted into evidence.
25 A. I had access to that testimony.
1 Q. Do you know about that piece of information or not? Did you read
2 in Newsweek that 30 to 50.000 rapes this had been committed by Serb
3 soldiers, that this was put out before the sanctions were imposed?
4 A. I wasn't aware of that at the time. I learnt it from
5 Mr. Parenti's book.
6 Q. But it was one of the arguments before the sanctions were imposed
7 against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
8 JUDGE MAY: That's nothing to do with this witness why sanctions
9 were imposed.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's true.
11 Q. But do you know that there was even a report by the Council of
12 Europe that was put out which speaks about the rape of 20.000 Muslim
13 women. And after that, the International Red Cross made a statement by
14 Philippe Miserez which said there was no evidence that camps of that kind
15 of existed or ever existed. He stresses that the greatest part of
16 prisoners of war were held in Bosnia by all sides and there were 10.000 in
17 July 1992 and the accusations were exaggerated. Do you know about that?
18 Have you heard about that?
19 A. I learned it in Mr. Parenti's book.
20 Q. Can I refer to another topic? But I don't know whether I'll be
21 able to complete it within the space of three or four minutes. Can I
22 start my third topic or shall I give up on it?
23 JUDGE MAY: You can start it now.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. In paragraph 96, you speak about the fact that the Serbs or,
1 rather, the Serbia authorities via radio and television Serbia played the
2 nationalistic card as it says here and the air raids were considered to be
3 an international conspiracy against Serbia. That's what you state here.
4 And a little further on you go on to say the following, that even the
5 least collateral damage for which responsibility was taken over by the
6 allied aviation, air force, was exploited by the media, and the target was
7 inside and outside to strengthen the idea that it really was a war against
8 the civilian population. That is what you write in your report.
9 A. In paragraph 96, I can find it, but I don't see the second part.
10 Q. Paragraph 97, that is, the middle of the paragraph. No, 98. I'm
11 sorry, it's paragraph 98 that I'm referring to and they mostly said that a
12 F170 American aeroplane was shot down and that this was exaggerated and
13 exploited, the slightest collateral damage caused by NATO aircraft was
14 exploited for external and internal consumption, et cetera.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, what is the question, Mr. Tapuskovic?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Well, my question with reference to this is: Is it exaggeration
18 or were bridges and refineries and hydro electric power plants destroyed,
19 and to take the lowest figure, 502 civilians were killed? Is that
20 correct, to take a conservative figure?
21 Did you have information of that kind working on your report,
22 compiling it?
23 A. What figure are you alluding to?
24 JUDGE MAY: Look, again, what counsel is putting, and it really is
25 a Defence point is that again this is an exaggeration because there were
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 indeed -- there was damage and there were casualties on the Serb side.
2 Could you briefly deal with it, please, Mr. de la Brosse.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I quote the example of the American
4 aircraft, the 11 -- the F170. It's not sure that it was shot down by
5 the -- whether it was shot down or whether it was an accident, that
6 American F170 stealth bomber. And this was presented as a victorious
7 exploit by the Serbian army. I'm asking for a little bit of time here
8 because I feel that the -- I'm -- the amicus curiae is a bit stressed. So
9 am I, in fact. It's hard to answer just yes or no.
10 JUDGE MAY: Let's adjourn. Now you, you must bring this to an
11 end, Mr. Tapuskovic as quickly as possible, because time is limited and in
12 my judgement these are all Defence points and I don't think --
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I need two more
14 minutes. Two more minutes and I'll be finished. I'll give up all the
15 other questions. I just want to clarify this point otherwise there's no
16 sense in working.
17 JUDGE MAY: I don't want people to be stressed though. You can
18 ask two minutes more then.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. This is what I would want to ask you, Mr. de la Brosse. Is the
21 principle -- is it the principle of every democratic country to have the
22 freedom of the press, the freedom of the media and for the media to be
23 able to freely express themselves and put forward things to the public
24 even if they are not always correct or the truth? Is that a principle
25 that prevails in all countries throughout the world?
1 A. Freedom of the press is put forward as the cornerstone of freedom
2 in a democratic society.
3 Q. That's how I understand it too. Now, do you know this, that in
4 Yugoslavia, the director of the television was convicted to a prison term
5 of ten years because he failed to liberate the -- failed to evacuate the
6 television building when the television building and station was bombed?
7 Now, I'm not going into that matter. He got ten years of a prison
8 sentence for that. Now, what could have justified, this is what I'm
9 interested in, that the symbol of democracy, a television station in any
10 country should be hit by a NATO shell and that 17 civilians were killed in
11 the process. That is my question to you. If freedom of the media is a
12 democratic principle, how is that possible then?
13 JUDGE MAY: No. That's not a matter for the witness to answer.
14 Yes. Now, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it may be in the particular
15 circumstances you could forego any re-examination and the witness can be
16 allowed to go.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour -- Your Honour, I actually have a
18 few points that need to be clarified, and it's -- because it relates to
19 the articles that the witness was supposed to read. It relates to one
20 item with the 41 children, and one point in relation to his methodology.
21 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn. Twenty minutes.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Re-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
2 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, in the cross-examination, both the accused and
3 Mr. Tapuskovic put to you various events and classifications of
4 personalities or groups, suggesting that these were true, these facts were
5 true, and challenging your findings that this was propaganda.
6 My question to you is: Effective propaganda, is that simply
7 spreading lies or can the reporting of true facts be even more effective
8 as a propaganda tool?
9 A. The fact that one is reporting facts that actually happened can be
10 very -- can also be a very effective means of propaganda.
11 Q. During the cross-examination, the accused challenged the validity
12 of your expertise as such given your working methods, and you yourself
13 actually addressed limitations, particularly the lack of knowledge of the
14 Serbian language and details of historical facts. You said in this regard
15 that this did not allow you to see all facets of that propaganda at work
16 and that, therefore, you could not reconstitute the entire scope of the
18 This fact that you could not see all facets, would that work in
19 favour of the accused or would it be his disadvantage, your limitations?
20 A. I think that would be disadvantageous to him.
21 Q. In which way?
22 A. Because of the material itself, the body of material used. As I
23 said, I limited myself to -- to using certain newspapers like Politika,
24 material which basically was used to analyse the media and television
25 coverage, especially the major Serbian television news programme. As I
1 was saying on Monday, there were many other areas which are used in order
2 to get propaganda across which were not studied.
3 Q. Mr. de la Brosse, I was actually referring to the knowledge of the
4 Serbian language and the lack of all the details of all the history.
5 Would that -- that therefore you could not see all facets in propaganda.
6 Would that disadvantage him or would that even work in favour of him?
7 A. The fact that I do not know the Serbian language, I know a little
8 bit about history but I'm not an historian, as I've said, all of that
9 meant that I was unable to study the use that might have been made of
10 certain symbols or certain emblems, and that, therefore, is a limitation
11 on the study of the propaganda.
12 Q. You have read, I understood, the articles that were given to you
13 by the accused, and you have already mentioned that you had difficulties
14 to comment on these articles and even found that they were incorrect in
15 relation to an article in the German language or, rather, the Swiss
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, I have to inform and
18 everybody should know that here in court, that the source of this document
19 is actually a document provided to the US embassy by Momcilo Krajisnik on
20 the 14th of April, 1997, in Pale. Mr. Milosevic did not know that, so he
21 should also know that.
22 Q. And I would like to put to the witness another. The Prosecution
23 has tried to find the underlying articles, and I would like to put to
24 Mr. de la Brosse another example of the underlying article, and it's again
25 in the German language because that was the easiest to do over the
1 weekend. On and -- yes, please.
2 I have provided the underlying article from Mr. Tuman in Die Zeit,
3 and one of our German colleagues, I have to say it wasn't me, has found
4 these quotes which are highlighted in this article and has translated
5 these quotes.
6 The first quote as Mr. Milosevic read from this document that he
7 had at hand was that "out of 30.000 of the Serbs that used to live in
8 Mostar, there are only 400 left." And the complete quote is actually
9 reread. Author is referring to other articles that in 1992 and 1993,
10 "Serbs expelled more than 50.000 Muslims and Croats from the Bosnian
11 Prijedor at the same time out of 30.000 Serbs that used to live in Mostar,
12 there are only 400 today."
13 And the next quote that Mr. Milosevic did in relation to the
14 refugees in Serbia, the complete quote is: "The Croatian -- in Croatia
15 today live 550.000 refugees, expelled victims of ethnic cleansing, but
16 also Serbs give home to 450.000 refugees victims of ethnic cleansing.
17 Both are true."
18 Then there is also the reference that Mr. Milosevic read here in
19 relation to the warmongering journalism and is actually a quote referring
20 to a dispute in the media, and it starts with "The reproach of the
21 revisionists is," and then comes the quote.
22 Did you yourself also find this article or find similar
23 incorrect -- incorrect matters in these examples?
24 A. I was a bit uncomfortable about the type of excerpts that I was
25 asked to comment on. I did some research on one article, and I didn't do
1 any research for the other so I can't answer yes.
2 Q. Did you do any research on Alfred Sherman who also had a quote in
3 this group of documents referring to the Germans wanting control over the
4 Danube basin in the Balkans? Were you aware that in summer 1993
5 Alfred Sherman was residing in Pale next to Radovan Karadzic and actually
6 was his advisor?
7 A. No, I didn't know that.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that should be enough. I could
9 continue with more examples from this, but I think that's enough.
10 And the only other thing that I actually want to address is the 41
11 children killed, allegedly killed, in Vukovar.
12 Q. And you have actually in paragraph 5 of your report commented the
13 entire story with all the details, and I just want to refer you to this
14 paragraph. And in the context -- in this context, the accused spoke about
15 the disclaimer done by the Serbian television, and you have actually in
16 footnote 13 given a quote -- you've quoted this disclaimer. And I just
17 want to draw your attention to the following sentence: "Assuming the news
18 story was not authentic, now we can't say whether it is or it is not
19 because we have no convincing proof, and it's always easy to apologise,"
20 and so forth and so on.
21 Is this a clear denial that the event didn't happen, or is there
22 an underlying message in there to the contrary when you read this
24 Haven't you found it? It's footnote 13.
25 A. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but in the television
1 excerpt that I'm referring to in footnote 13, the journalist says that
2 "Assuming the news story was not authentic, [In English] ... Say whether
3 it is or it is not."
4 [Interpretation] The news was denied by the Reuters press agency.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, no more questions.
6 JUDGE MAY: We'll come back to the report. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had an objection earlier on,
8 namely, you said that you could not accept these 100 pages which I
9 provided on the previous day because the texts were not integral, that is
10 the 100 pages were just extracts. But the witness explained that he
11 looked for one article out of all those contained in those 100 pages. So
12 I have two objections.
13 The first is that I received all of those 100 pages from the side
14 opposite. It was not I that found them. I received them, and I showed
15 you the references of the opposite side regarding all of those 100 pages.
16 If you don't accept that, then it means that the opposite side is
17 giving me unacceptable documents which cannot be of any use. So this is a
18 question that should be addressed, why they're doing it.
19 And another argument in favour of what I'm saying is that the
20 quotations of the witness contained in his would-be expert report are also
21 incomplete or even in many cases they are parts of sentences taken out of
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Let us save time -- let us save time on
24 this. We will consider what the status of these documents is going to be,
25 but meanwhile, let the witness retire. He shouldn't have to remain any
1 longer for this kind of debate.
2 Mr. de la Brosse, thank you for coming, and thank you for coming
3 back to the Tribunal to continue your evidence. It is now finished, and
4 you are free to go.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will consider what the status of these
8 documents is.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE MAY: We will admit the various articles. So that is the
11 first seven items in the index which I have in front of me. They will all
12 be admitted. They are, of course, not evidence, but since the witness was
13 dealing with what was in the press, on the same basis this can be
15 We will not admit the book by Michael Parenti. It is not our
16 practice, as we made plain during the course of the trial, to admit such
17 document into evidence.
18 Accordingly, numbers 1 to 7 admitted, the book not. But we can
19 have exhibit number for those seven.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 141, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can I raise two short administrative matters
25 because I think everybody in the courtroom should know so that nobody
1 prepares something in vain.
2 The first thing is in light of the recent decision in relation to
3 Professor Kristan, the witness will not appear this week, and we will
4 reconsider whether he needs to be called.
5 And in relation to the witness order, we would like to make one
6 change, and that relates to the witness 47 and the witness B-1775, given
7 the change in the court schedule and the practical reasons for travelling
8 and so forth, we would like to have B-1775 before the Witness C-047. We
9 believe that C-047 would then testify next Monday.
10 JUDGE MAY: Very well. There was one -- there was one witness who
11 you weren't going to call. I can't remember who it was. It was announced
12 last week. Perhaps you could at some stage let us have the number and
13 pseudonym again.
14 I have it. The registry, as usual, has it. Thank you.
15 The next matter we need to consider are the various Rule 92 bis
16 issues. I'll just get my papers into order.
17 The witnesses were 1455, 1725, and Osman Selak. The first two
18 were -- are cumulative in the sense they both deal with the takeover of
19 Zvornik and, therefore, potentially admissible under Rule 92 bis, with
20 cross-examination, of course.
21 One matter of concern, though, Mr. Groome, is the fact that these
22 statements are coming in late and requiring a variation of the Rule.
23 That's not a practice which the Trial Chamber would encourage at all, if
24 you can help us about it.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, these were witnesses originally
1 scheduled to testify viva voce and it was a decision by the Prosecution,
2 who wanted to expedite matters here, wherever appropriate here we would
3 seek wherever to 92 bis (B) the statements of such witnesses. We are
4 making efforts to now complete all of the necessary paperwork and comply
5 with all time limits of viva voce witnesses that will be called later in
6 the case which we will attempt to do at least in part by 92 bis (D) but
7 apologise for the short notice on these particular ones. It was
8 inevitable in these particular situations.
9 JUDGE MAY: I don't know if you've had an opportunity of --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MAY: Sorry. I don't know if you've had the opportunity,
12 Mr. Groome, of reading the objections the amici about Osman Selak.
13 MR. GROOME: I have, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would like to deal with them.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it's the Prosecution's intention to only
16 rely on approximately or less than half of the transcript, less than 400
17 pages. The Prosecution felt it was in fairness, just basic principles of
18 fairness required that we seek to submit the entire transcript including
19 the cross-examination rather than just the examination-in-chief that we
20 would seek to rely upon. It's our position that even if the testimony of
21 Mr. Selak were to be taken entirely viva voce, that it still would be
22 necessary for the accused to read that 800-page transcript.
23 So it's the Prosecution's position that we take no position on
24 the -- on how much time is allotted the accused to -- that the Court
25 determines is a reasonable period of time to cross-examine Mr. Selak, but
1 in the interests of saving some time, it seems entirely appropriate to
2 seek to introduce his prior court testimony before the Trial Chamber under
3 92 bis (D).
4 JUDGE MAY: One point which is made by the amici relates to
5 evidence concerning the relationship between the military and political
6 wings of the government which it says is -- which is said is pivotal
7 evidence and relates to the accused. Will that evidence be given live?
8 MR. GROOME: It was our intention to do some very small portion of
9 that live but to again rely on the prior testimony simply in the interests
10 of saving time. The Prosecution would not object to leading that evidence
11 if that is the determination by the Chamber.
12 JUDGE MAY: So what parts of his evidence do you propose to give
13 live so we have some idea of the position?
14 MR. GROOME: Portions of the testimony related to that pivotal
15 relationship as well as some additional documents that are more relevant
16 to the Court's consideration of this matter than the Chamber that's
17 hearing the Brdjanin case. We anticipate that his testimony, if his prior
18 testimony is accepted under 92 bis (D), that his viva voce testimony, that
19 component of his evidence would be less than an hour of
21 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Well, Mr. Kay, you hear what's suggested
22 for Mr. Selak if we take him first, that evidence about the acts and
23 conduct or anything which remotely could be said to be the acts and
24 conduct will be given live.
25 MR. KAY: One of the problems in dealing with his testimony in
1 this way is that the two transcripts amount to a very dense quantity of
2 material, 800 pages. And it's very difficult going through that material
3 to have a clear understanding of all the detail of his evidence. It is
4 possible to have an understanding of the generality, but the concern for
5 my part was that this could be opening a door for future problems in the
6 trial if the accused has not dealt with something that remains within
7 those papers that is crucial to the Prosecution or becomes crucial at a
8 later stage.
9 If his evidence was given not in 92 bis form but in a simple and
10 concise way so that the accused was able to understand the nature of the
11 case against him, in my submission the stated objectives of the
12 Prosecution could be readily achieved, avoiding a great morass of detail
13 within those transcripts that it is difficult to get to grips with in
14 relation to this case because, for instance, that evidence concerned the
15 trial of General Talic. And we are being cautious about this matter
16 because at first sight it seems the transcript is just being produced,
17 albeit now cut in half to 400 pages, that in the end there will not be a
18 very great saving of time if one has avoided taking these issues in a
19 precise form viva voce before the Trial Chamber.
20 JUDGE MAY: Well, that's a matter, isn't it, for the Prosecution?
21 The point is that the evidence could all be repeated. The only thing of a
22 transcript is that it is the evidence which was given live earlier. So if
23 it's all repeated again, we'll be in the same position. And it's a matter
24 for the Prosecution how they present their case, surely, not for you.
25 MR. KAY: Well, it is a matter for us because it deals with the
1 ability of the other party to be able to comprehend the issues that are
2 being put in the courtroom, which is a fair trial issue, and I would
3 submit for the Judges themselves.
4 Looking at that transcript, the meandering way of the evidence and
5 questioning makes the points very difficult to follow, and I would urge
6 the Trial Chamber, if they have not been in a position to do so yet, to
7 spend a little time going through the transcript to have a look at that
8 intelligibility issue.
9 JUDGE MAY: In an ideal world, no doubt all the evidence could be
10 given live in the way that you recommend, concentrating purely on the
11 issues in a case. The problems that we are having in this Tribunal is the
12 length of these cases.
13 Now, I know that this is not your responsibility at all or indeed
14 the responsibility of the accused. Of course not. It's the
15 responsibility of the Prosecution, and they have to grapple with this.
16 But at the same time, the Tribunal must do something to ensure that
17 material is put in an expeditious and fair way, and this particular Rule
18 is one of the ways of doing it.
19 Here is a man who has given evidence twice, given his evidence in
20 chief, and this is a way of getting that evidence in front of this Trial
21 Chamber without going over it all again but making sure, from the point of
22 view of a fair trial, that the accused has the opportunity to
24 It's the scale and complexity of these trials which require the
25 one forms new forms of thinking in the ways of conducting trials, away
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 from the old common law oral model but, of course, ensuring that fairness
2 is maintained.
3 MR. KAY: I don't disagree with that. And we are an international
4 court here applying international rules of evidence. But the point I'm
5 making is that in an ideal world, the original questioning would have been
6 clear in its direction and the issues able to be comprehended. But the
7 massive detail and the repetition of issues with slight developments at
8 one stage from a stage that was given previously, relying upon various
9 documents, do not make this evidence clear to understand, and that has
10 been my concern on behalf of this accused.
11 I appreciate the statement by the Trial Chamber then concerning
12 the nature of these trials and the time taken upon them, but it does seem
13 to me that the proceedings are helped better if there is concise and clear
14 questioning that puts us directly into the issues, which can't take too
15 long a period of time. But if one considers the approach we've had in
16 relation to this submission, I appreciate the Prosecution are under
17 pressure of work and time, but 800 pages turns up with a supporting
18 application saying admit this into evidence and a general description of
19 what is within those pages. We would have been far better served if we
20 could have gone to that document, looked at certain pages and passages
21 which perhaps encompass ten pages in one part, five in another, one in
22 another, drawn red lines down the side and been able to say, "This is the
23 issue within this testimony from this witness on that occasion and it is
24 summed up in this form as being an issue that goes to structure and
25 command responsibility." But that hasn't happened.
1 So forgive me for being a Luddite on this matter, because we have
2 to face what has been -- what has been done through the means presented,
3 what has been attempted by the means presented. And that's where clarity
4 of issues, in our submission, not only serve the accused but they also
5 serve the Trial Chamber. And if we are to have a practice of vast pages
6 of transcripts being produced under a Rule which is to help precious court
7 time, it's going to cause great difficulties in isolating the issues in
8 this case because we lose the focus in the case against this accused.
9 Those are my submissions on the Selak transcript unless I can
10 assist the Court any further on that particular one.
11 JUDGE MAY: The other two.
12 MR. KAY: Yes. Dealing first with 1455. Cumulative crime base,
13 Zvornik, and not acts and conduct of the accused, I'm able to paraphrase
14 it in that way because we know the territory that we're dealing with.
15 The one extra issue I would raise on this evidence is that it
16 deals with a particular distinct village called Drinjaca that I don't
17 believe that we have had evidence about to date in this trial, and so in
18 that sense, there is a fresh introduction of evidence on a particular
20 I had been setting out an oral document --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, are you saying that goes to the
22 cumulative character of the evidence?
23 MR. KAY: The fact that it is a new village is a fresh place, so
24 it could be said to be a distinct issue and is, therefore, not cumulative
25 of evidence relating to the place.
1 In the context of Zvornik as a whole, that is a different matter.
2 But I raise that point for the Trial Chamber's consideration. I'm
3 conscious of the fact that in the Croatia phase of the trial when we
4 looked at this and we considered the Rule 92 bis applications that were
5 cumulative of the Babic testimony, the Trial Chamber was happy to rule in
6 those statements on the basis of generality of area rather than distinctly
7 looking at particular villages.
8 I was writing something over the weekend for the Trial Chamber on
9 this, and I haven't had time to print it out and hand it in. If I can
10 just check and see I've covered all the points.
11 No. That's all I need to raise on 1455.
12 1775, I've had an opportunity to consider today. Again this is
13 Zvornik crime base, cumulative of Zvornik events within Zvornik itself,
14 not acts and conduct of the accused but deals with the mass burial of
15 peoples around the area, and as yet, we have had no witness on evidence
16 such as this. We have had pathologist evidence, but I think I'm right in
17 saying that we have had no specific witness dealing with transportation of
18 bodies from places and their burial.
19 A factor that he does deal with that is important within the case,
20 he mentions a Belgrade pathologist and his evidence concerning that
21 particular matter and its relevance to issues outside Bosnia-Herzegovina
22 are obviously relevant in the case against this accused.
23 Now, the Trial Chamber, I anticipate, would permit
24 cross-examination on this particular witness following the guidance that's
25 been given from previous decisions. Outside what happens in Zvornik, it
1 may well be that the Court, in exercising its discretion, would want to
2 hear the live evidence concerning the shipment of the bodies and their
3 disposal in various places, which is an important and distinct feature of
4 this witness's testimony.
5 Can I assist the Court any further?
6 JUDGE MAY: No, thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In connection with the witness
8 Mr. Selak and the proposal by the opposite side over there to accept 800
9 pages of transcript, the question is, in fact, whether or not what is
10 being presented here in the courtroom before the public should be
11 presented clearly or unclearly.
12 As I understand it, the opposite side considers that this should
13 be expressed in an unclear way, that is to say, to make it as confusing as
14 possible that absolutely nobody can actually establish what it's all
15 about. The transcripts from some kind of other trial, case, which has
16 nothing to do with either the authorities of Serbia or myself personally,
17 or indeed with the aspect from which we should view these events.
18 So it does not provide any possibility of clarifying matters.
19 There is some sort of cross-examination accorded here which is very
20 suspect, of doubtful value, not only because I could, for example, claim
21 that it was done in an incompetent way. I'm far from making any
22 judgements as to anybody's capabilities or competence. That's something I
23 don't want to do. But if it targets a specific act, trial, or behaviour
24 on the part of an individual, somebody that we're dealing with here, then
25 it did not have as its focus a whole scale of general questions which
1 relate to the events that took place in Bosnia and a context -- the
2 context in which those events took place, the circumstances which from the
3 aspect of a rational-minded and may I say honest and reasonable approach
4 to these events must be clarified, because we're dealing here with an
5 individual case, the transcript of which for the examination in chief and
6 cross-examination is to be introduced without any - how shall I put this?
7 - physical possibility of delving into the contents of it before the
8 individual appears, before the witness appears at all.
9 I, therefore, consider that this option to use lack of clarity in
10 presenting this whole case, the whole case that the witness is to testify
11 about, in my opinion is something that is quite contrary to the basic
12 principles of behaviour in courts throughout the world, courts which are
13 legal courts.
14 And as for these two other individuals, Mr. Kay has already
15 indicated that with 1455 there are new facts to be disclosed and 1725, or
16 1755, I don't remember the number exactly. I didn't jot the number down,
17 but once again that we have new facts coming to light there too. So I
18 don't know how you're going to go about this, how this written testimony
19 is going to be in order to make the trial an expeditious one are going to
20 be accepted without having a necessary, if I can put it that way, a
21 necessary explanation, one that is required if you do indeed feel that
22 this is testimony that should be heard, that merits being heard from the
23 person who has come here to testify.
24 Therefore, I think that we are going to infringe upon the general
25 principles in both cases, and I categorically oppose having this
1 introduced under Rule 92 bis. And as Mr. Kay has said here, these are new
2 facts coming to light and not cumulative testimony and cumulative
3 evidence. And I think that with Selak I have put forward sufficient
4 arguments to prove my point.
5 Now, whether it is cumulative or not, that is once again a
6 relative concept, because for you anything can become cumulative. You are
7 accusing Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia here, myself
8 personally for the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the war in Croatia as
9 well. So from that standpoint, all the testimonies are cumulative. And
10 from that point of view, all of them could come under 92 bis rulings
11 because none of them have direct contacts and links to me or the
12 authorities in Serbia. So they fully succumb under your rules, fall under
13 your rules. Then we ask ourselves the question for what you need your
14 witnesses anyway, and why you need these individual cases at all which
15 prove the existence of something that does not in fact exist.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just briefly. It is the Prosecution's
18 desire and intention to present the evidence quite clearly and it is our
19 position that it is no less clear because it is in written form or from a
20 previous trial.
21 With respect to shortcomings of earlier cross-examiners, the
22 Prosecution as I said earlier is not opposing the accused being given a
23 full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the
24 Prosecution's producing the witness here for that purpose.
25 Finally or -- not finally, but with respect to cumulative -- issue
1 of cumulativeness, 92 bis (A)(i)(a) describes cumulative as one of the
2 factors the chamber should consider. It is the Prosecution's position
3 that although it is a very important factor it is not dispositive of the
4 issue. Furthermore, the importance of whether an issue -- evidence is
5 cumulative is less important in cases where the witness will be here to
6 testify and -- or will be here to be cross-examined and can answer any
7 question regarding written assertions made in the written statement.
8 And finally, Your Honour, I asked a colleague of mine who was
9 working on the Selak transcript earlier today to examine the transcript
10 and -- with a view towards identifying those sections of the transcript
11 which we will not be placing great importance on and those sections which
12 are of critical importance. I have some notes here before me. I would
13 propose that the Prosecution turn this into a letter sent to the accused
14 and the amici via the registrar, and it would identify those portions of
15 the transcript on which are -- we would seek to focus on those which we
16 would not.
17 The Prosecution is also willing to provide a draft summary of the
18 anticipated live testimony to assist both the amici and the accused in
19 their preparation for this important witness.
20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. The Trial Chamber will consider these
22 Yes. Have you got your witness here? We might as well use what
23 time we have.
24 MR. GROOME: The Prosecution recalls Witness B-024.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE MAY: Witness B-024, if you'd like to take a seat. I'm
2 sorry that we haven't been able to get to your evidence earlier and also
3 because the courtroom is required, we shall only be able to have a short
4 period of your evidence today, and we'll have to ask you to come back
6 Perhaps, Mr. Groome, you can take a quarter of an hour.
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 WITNESS: WITNESS B-024 [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Examined by Mr. Groome: [Continued]
11 Q. B-024, at the end of last week you were describing a visit, the
12 second visit of Mrs. Biljana Plavsic to the Zvornik municipality. I have
13 a few more questions I would like to ask you about that visit.
14 The first question is how long altogether was she present in the
15 Zvornik municipality on the second visit?
16 A. I think that altogether she was there for three to four hours.
17 Q. And can you describe for us all of the places in Zvornik
18 municipality that you know she visited on that day?
19 A. Well, as far as I know, she just visited Zvornik, and that was
20 under Serb control already, and Mali Zvornik where the Serbs were too.
21 Q. Can you describe with any greater particularity the places that
22 she visited in Zvornik? You've told us she was at the Alhos centre. Can
23 you tell us any we are places she may have gone that day that you're aware
25 A. Well, I was there with her when she was in Mali Zvornik and in the
1 Alhos building. However, afterwards, she was escorted by the police and
2 she toured Zvornik, which was already under the control of the Serb
3 forces. So I don't know exactly what individual places in the town of
4 Zvornik she visited, but I think she went to the hospital, among others.
5 Q. Do you know if she had any meetings with any members of the
6 Yugoslav People's Army on this second visit?
7 A. I don't know that.
8 Q. I want to now draw your attention to the end of May 1992, the time
9 after the Yugoslav People's Army officially withdrew from Bosnia, and my
10 question to you is: After their official withdrawal from Bosnia, were you
11 aware of any involvement of the now renamed Yugoslav army in Bosnia after
12 May 1992?
13 A. After May 1992, it is common knowledge that in 1993 in an
14 operation that a unit from Valjevo under the command of a certain officer
15 named Solaja took part in an operation in Zvornik itself.
16 Q. Can you please describe what type of unit Colonel Solaja
18 A. Well, I think it was a tank unit from the Valjevo garrison.
19 Q. And approximately how many tanks were in this unit that fought in
21 A. I don't know those details, but it was general knowledge that the
22 unit, in 1993, did take part in a battle near Zvornik.
23 Q. Do you know a person by the name of Vinko Pandurevic?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did there come a time when you came to know who was paying
1 Vinko Pandurevic's salary?
2 A. Well, for a time, I was the president of the Executive Board, and
3 I know that at the time he received his salary from the TO, the
4 Territorial Defence. And he told me that he also received a salary from
5 the Yugoslav army.
6 Q. At the time he told you that he received a salary from the
7 Yugoslav army, what organisation or what formation did he belong to?
8 A. I don't know details like that, which unit he belonged to, but I
9 think it was common knowledge that the active officers were on the salary
10 lists of the Yugoslav army.
11 Q. Vinko Pandurevic was an officer in what army?
12 A. He was an officer in the Army of Republika Srpska. But before
13 that, he had been a member of the Yugoslav People's Army, some unit which
14 withdrew from Slovenia.
15 Q. After the official withdrawal of the Yugoslav People's Army, did
16 there come a time when you became aware that military supplies from the
17 Yugoslav army, as it was then called, were being brought into Zvornik from
19 A. I didn't have any concrete evidence of this, but I know that
20 trucks from my company were engaged for the Defence Ministry's
21 requirements, and I know that the drivers went to the territory of
22 Yugoslavia to bring in logistical equipment for the army. However, I
23 don't know what kind of material this was and what the quantities involved
25 Q. For what period of time were these trucks that you've referred to
1 being used to transport logistical equipment in for the army?
2 A. They were used throughout the whole war. As there was a state of
3 war generally, the Defence Ministry always had the priority in requisition
4 or using these trucks as compared to their use for commercial purposes.
5 Q. When you say for the entire war, are you saying for the time
6 period between 1992 and the implementation of the Dayton Accord in 1995?
7 A. Yes, that's precisely it.
8 Q. You've just testified that these trucks were requisitions by the
9 Defence Ministry. The Defence Ministry of what country?
10 A. Yes, the Defence Ministry of Republika Srpska.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. May. The witness
12 said that the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska had priority in the
13 use of transport, the means of transport, and Mr. Groome says when did the
14 ministry of -- when the Ministry of Defence requisitioned trucks. So
15 that's quite contrary to what the witness was saying. The trucks belong
16 to the company that he mentioned, and the purpose -- defence purposes were
17 given the priority. The trucks were not requisitioned by the Defence
18 Ministry, as far as I understood it. So the question is a leading one.
19 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness clarify it.
20 MR. GROOME:
21 Q. Sir, can you clarify exactly what happened to the trucks? What
22 was the relationship between the Defence Ministry of Republika Srpska and
23 these trucks?
24 A. Well, I was in a company which was in Republika Srpska, and during
25 the war situation, we -- the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska had
1 the priority to engage those trucks for logistical needs of the army.
2 Q. And with what frequency did the Republika Srpska Defence Ministry
3 engage these trucks for the purposes you've described?
4 A. In the period I worked in the transport company, very frequently.
5 And in fact, there were always two or three vehicles which were at the
6 disposal of the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.
7 Q. Can you give us some sense of the capacity of the type of truck
8 that you're talking about?
9 A. They were the classical type of truck with about 20
10 kilogrammes -- 20 tons of bearing capacity.
11 Q. And just to ask you a more particular question regarding the
12 frequency, could you estimate in times per week or times per month these
13 trucks were used by the RS Ministry of Defence?
14 A. I said that it was roughly at least almost every day two or three
15 trucks were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Defence of
16 Republika Srpska.
17 Q. Are you aware of how these trucks would cross from Zvornik into
19 A. Well, from the very beginning of the war, there was always a
20 procedure at the border. So they probably applied the regular procedure.
21 I didn't drive the trucks. I was the manager of that enterprise.
22 Q. Can you describe the procedure that was employed?
23 A. A classical customs procedure. There were customs records that
24 were kept already at that time and goods coming from Yugoslavia going to
25 Republika Srpska and vice versa as far as I can remember didn't have to
1 pay customs duty but there were customs records kept because of taxation
3 Q. Is it your testimony that for the trucks that you've described
4 here that there should be records existing for every time they crossed the
5 border between Serbia and Zvornik?
6 A. I really don't know that, but I think that as soon as the drivers
7 were mobilised by the Ministry of Defence they were treated as soldiers
8 from then on. So they didn't bring in any documents to their original
9 company, so that those documents are probably with the Ministry of
11 Q. Sir, can I now ask you to turn your attention to the relationship
12 between the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Interior beyond and the Serbian
13 Republic Ministry of Interior. Can I ask you to describe what you know
14 about the relationship between those two entities?
15 A. Well, when I was in the police at the very beginning of the
16 conflict in Zvornik, we had good and friendly relations with the Ministry
17 of Internal Affairs of Serbia, and we had logistic support to the extent
18 which those police stations on the border between Mali Zvornik and Zvornik
19 could assist us. And as a citizen, I do know that throughout the duration
20 of the war, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska had good
21 relations with the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.
22 Q. Drawing your attention to the start of the conflict. Can you
23 please describe in greater detail the logistical support that you and
24 members of the Ministry of Interior of Republika Srpska received from
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes. Since according to plan B as a minority municipality we had
2 a local police station in Karakaj in the Alhos building, we didn't have
3 the technical equipment, I mean, the uniforms, the clothing that in those
4 days were the same as in Yugoslavia, as in Serbia. So we received aid in
5 the form of uniforms, some communications equipment from police stations
6 in Mali Zvornik and Loznica.
7 Q. During the latter party of the conflict, did you receive any
8 logistical support from the Serbian Ministry of Interior?
9 A. At the beginning of April, I left the police, so I don't know how
10 that cooperation developed later on.
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome, I think the time now is up. We must
12 vacate the court. We will sit again tomorrow at 9:00.
13 Witness B-024, could you be back please, at 9:00 tomorrow morning.
14 If you would just wait a moment, we will adjourn.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of May,
17 2003, at 9.00 a.m.