1 Wednesday, 8 October 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
6 MR. NICE: The Prosecution application, Your Honour, is that the
7 next two witnesses may give their evidence in chief substantially by way
8 of acknowledging in testimony the accuracy of signed, written witness
10 The written application in respect of these two witnesses was
11 confidential because one of them was protected by pseudonym until the
12 moment he gives evidence. It's now clear, the accused being here and the
13 witness being about to come in, that his name will be revealed. So these
14 two witnesses are, respectively, Milan Milanovic first, and General Sir
15 Rupert Smith second. The first witness to be taken by my learned friend
16 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and the second witness by me, that witness, the second
17 witness being available tomorrow and really not present beyond tomorrow.
18 JUDGE MAY: Let me just stop you there. Our preparation has
19 extended to the first of those witnesses. We have not yet had a chance to
20 consider the second.
21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, no. A draft-- I'll come to that. A draft
22 summary will be provided immediately or before the end of the morning
24 As the application was confidential, three sentences to explain
25 the value of the proposal which follows a decision of the Appeals Chamber
1 of the 30th of September, which ruled that such a procedure may be
2 acceptable subject to the Trial Chamber's determination of the interests
3 of justice.
4 First, such a procedure reflects the ability of professional
5 Judges to deal with, to consume written material and is in accordance with
6 modern practice in various jurisdictions where trials are dealt with by
7 professional Judges.
8 Second, it would enable a great deal more of the evidence the
9 Prosecution wishes to lead to be presented within the necessarily limited
10 time available to it.
11 Third, something that the accused might regard as of great value
12 to himself, it brings the accused, by his cross-examination, much more
13 rapidly to the process of identifying matters that are in issue between
14 the accused and the Prosecution.
15 In any case, this or any other case before the Tribunal, it will
16 give focus for the accused and his case to a much greater extent during
17 the Prosecution case, and indeed he will have the floor, as it were in the
18 vernacular, have air time for a far larger percentage of the time than
19 would otherwise be the case in identifying issues for the Trial Chamber's
20 consideration, and it may be thought that with an accused who has a good
21 case to advance, he or she would benefit by that focus of attention.
22 So far as the two witnesses are concerned, there are additional
23 problems that I may be able to overcome for future witnesses. In each
24 case, the witnesses have made witness statements which are to be
25 supplemented in part, in reality substituted by witness summaries of the
1 type with which we are familiar. However, in the time available -- the
2 decision to attempt to call the evidence following the 30th of September
3 decision, in the time available for different reasons it hasn't been
4 possible for those witness summaries to be translated into B/C/S. We
5 recognise, of course, that the accused does in fact speak English, but the
6 case has proceeded on the basis thus far that documents must be presented
7 to him on the basis that the language is his language of -- his first
8 language, and I don't at the moment seek to get round that unless the
9 Chamber takes a different view.
10 And for these two witnesses, the proofing summaries are in
11 English. In each case, they identify paragraph by paragraph what is
12 already covered in the witness statement that the witness has signed and
13 will adopt, and for these witnesses, I would ask that the Chamber allow
14 only those matters not covered -- I beg your pardon. To allow all matters
15 to be dealt with by way of the signed witness statement save where they
16 are revealed as additional or explanatory in the summary.
17 For future witnesses, and I have yet to be sure of this, it may be
18 possible for witness summaries to be prepared simultaneously in B/C/S and
19 English so that those witness summaries, whether they cover all the
20 evidence a witness is to give or act as supplements to existing witness
21 statements, may be available immediately the proofing session of a witness
22 is concluded in B/C/S as well as in English. But not for these two
23 witnesses for different reasons, unfortunately.
24 JUDGE MAY: So let me just see if I understand that. What you're
25 asking us to do is to admit the signed witness statement and also the
1 additional matter in the summary? I'm not sure --
2 MR. NICE: Sorry. My mistake. For these witnesses to go through
3 the witness summary and to give live evidence of the passages not covered
4 in the witness statement simply because they haven't yet been served on
5 the accused in B/C/S.
6 JUDGE MAY: Do you want the witness statement admitted?
7 MR. NICE: Yes.
8 JUDGE MAY: -- there is no basis for the evidence.
9 MR. NICE: Yes.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. So the additional material would be given live.
11 We'll just deal with these two witnesses now. We can come to any new
12 witnesses in due course.
13 MR. NICE: Yes.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
15 JUDGE KWON: And in your observation, you think that the accused
16 has enough time to prepare his defence based on the proof summary, which
17 is -- which should be disclosed how long before?
18 MR. NICE: We always attempt to disclose proofing summaries at the
19 earliest opportunity, and I think that the one -- I can't remember when
20 the one for Milanovic was disclosed. We disclosed the proofing summary
21 for Sir Rupert Smith in draft, I think, yesterday, and we've got another
22 one for service today. They're always served at the earliest opportunity.
23 They vary in the degree to which they add to material in the witness
24 statements that the accused will have had for a considerable period of
25 time, and as we know, the accused always come to court well-armed with
1 questions to ask of these witnesses.
2 JUDGE KWON: And what's the position of the Prosecution as to the
3 documents or exhibits? So you are dealing -- you are going to deal with
4 it live or you will leave it up to also the witness statements.
5 MR. NICE: With these two witnesses, I think they will all have to
6 be dealt with live. With subsequent witnesses, it will probably depend
7 whether the exhibits have already been produced through the witness
8 statement to the accused when the witness statement is served on him,
9 because if they have been and if they don't need any further explanation
10 by live evidence or by supplementary comment in a proofing summary, then
11 they can be produced as simply as that by the witness statement. But it
12 will have to be done on a case-by-case basis.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm not very clear about the status
14 that you're seeking to have us give to the summary. Prior to this, we
15 have not attached an evidential status to summaries. I mean, summaries,
16 as they have developed in this Chamber, have been but a kind of
17 administrative guide, administrative aid. Now we're going to give an
18 evidential status to a summary, albeit one that is signed by the witness.
19 But it is a summary. It's not a statement.
20 MR. NICE: For these two witnesses, the position will not change
21 if my proposal is accepted. For subsequent witnesses, although the
22 document may be called a witness summary, once it becomes signed and
23 attested as to its accuracy, it's in reality a supplementary statement and
24 it can be re-titled as such.
25 JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient if we deal with these two now
1 without -- which means we don't have to consider the summary.
2 MR. NICE: Yes.
3 JUDGE MAY: It will go on being, as Judge Robinson says, an
4 administrative tool to assist us and others, but it has no evidential
5 value. We will have to consider in future cases whether it should be
6 admissible or not, but it is a separate issue.
7 MR. NICE: And it may then be appropriate to rename it
8 supplementary statement to mark a change in practice.
9 JUDGE MAY: Just one thing so we can be thinking about it, we're
10 not going to rule on it, will you be seeking in those cases to admit the
11 statement too?
12 MR. NICE: That would all depend. For example, if you had a
13 really massive, a large statement only part of which was relevant to this
14 trial, and if we then had a supplementary statement or summary which was
15 much more focused, it would be an unnecessary burden on you, the accused
16 and the amici to invite you to wade through the long statement if only the
17 shorter statement was required. The longer statement would have been
18 served for the usual purposes on the accused so that it would be available
19 to him, but we would try and tailor our presentation to that which is
20 efficient and making the best use of everybody's limited time.
21 JUDGE MAY: The other point, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but while
22 we have it in mind, the other point we have to consider is that part
23 dealing with the acts and conduct of the accused and whether it's in the
24 interests of justice that that party, the evidence should be given live or
25 not, but you can deal with that in due course.
1 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. And our position is that we would
2 start with, as it were, the clean slate. We'd say it's possible for
3 everything to be given in this way subject to the rulings that you make.
4 So far as General Sir Rupert Smith is concerned, he's been very
5 cooperative in dealing with the draft proofing summary by some facts,
6 amendments, but he's only flying in today, so the draft version that will
7 be coming your way in the course of this morning may be subject to further
8 qualifications when he is seen this afternoon.
9 JUDGE MAY: The ruling, Mr. Kay and Mr. Milosevic can hear what we
10 say. The ruling of the Appeals Chamber which, as I said yesterday, we
11 were bound, that is the decision on the interlocutory appeal of the 30th
12 of September, provides, and I summarise the effect so that it can be heard
13 publicly and also any argument addressed to it, the ruling provides that
14 the rules under Rule 89(F) allow for the admission of a written statement,
15 a witness statement when the witness is available in court for
16 cross-examination and attests that the statement accurately reflects the
18 The Trial Chamber must consider the admission of evidence in
19 accordance with this decision. The Trial Chamber must also make a
20 determination of the interests of justice in relation to the witness in
21 the light of the surrounding circumstances and the witness's evidence,
22 that is, whether to allow the evidence to be given in written form.
23 The factors which the Trial Chamber may take into account include
24 the evidence going to the acts and conduct of the accused and the fact
25 that the Trial Chamber is not able to assess the credibility of -- or may
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 not be able to assess the credibility of a particular witness if the
2 evidence is not given in chief, and also that there is a principle of a
3 fair and public hearing.
4 But that is the ruling, summarised, of the Appeals Chamber by
5 which, as I say, we're bound. We now have to establish a procedure - it
6 may be that of course it will vary from witness to witness - to admit
7 evidence within that decision.
8 Yes. Mr. Kay, do you want to go first or shall we hear from
9 Mr. Milosevic?
10 MR. KAY: I'm entirely in the Court's hands on this. I thought
11 you were explaining the order to the accused at that stage.
12 JUDGE MAY: I was. I was.
13 MR. KAY: It's just that you mentioned me.
14 JUDGE MAY: I was.
15 MR. KAY: Yes.
16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard the legal position and the
17 fact that we are, for the moment, considering in particular the evidence
18 of Milan Milanovic, and also we will in due course deal with that of
19 General Smith.
20 Yes. If there's anything you want to say about this, now is your
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, it is my position that you
23 should reject this request, and I categorically oppose this procedure,
24 because practically this can be reduced to the abolition of an
25 examination-in-chief. I have seen Mr. Nice's submission, and it says
1 "Confidential motion concerning the admission under Rule 89(F)."
2 Rule 89(F), and I have it here, I have your Rules here in front of
3 me, and it says that "The Chamber may receive the evidence of a witness
4 orally or, where the interests of justice allow, in written form."
5 I believe that the interests of justice do not allow the
6 examination-in-chief to be carried out in this way, that is in written
7 form, because it would then appear that Mr. Nice or, rather, his party
8 proceeds from the assumption that they are claiming in advance that the
9 witness will be testifying in the way he did so in his statement. But
10 nobody knows how the witness will testify until he's examined in chief,
11 because after all, we have had a whole host of testimonies by witnesses
12 who in the examination-in-chief denied some of the allegations that they
13 themselves allegedly made in their statements. Therefore, the interests
14 of justice and fairness requires an examination-in-chief to be done. And
15 if we proceed from the fiction that they know in advance how the witness
16 will testify, then why would we have the institution of an
17 examination-in-chief at all?
18 Furthermore, I assume that it is the elementary right for the
19 evidence and testimony to be presented in my presence and in public, not
20 in Mr. Nice's office after which it is presented here, but rather here in
21 this courtroom in public in the presence of everyone, so that then in the
22 cross-examination, certain elements of that examination may be referred to
23 which is in the interest of justice and fairness.
24 Pursuant to Rule 92 bis, we have had written statements, but Rule
25 92 bis in the way that you have explained and is elaborated here in the
1 Rules, implies a certain narrower framework of circumstances to which this
2 witness is testifying, and those 92 bis witnesses have no concrete links
3 with anything that is being -- the accused is being charged with. They
4 refer to general circumstances.
5 However, this witness apparently speaks about meetings with me,
6 about the role of the JNA, the police, et cetera, a whole series of
7 questions for which an examination-in-chief is absolutely unavoidable. We
8 need to hear him about these matters, and only then is it possible to
9 proceed with the cross-examination. A series of issues are raised.
10 Also, I've seen in this pile of material, please look at these two
11 binders, some intercepts are being produced which the witness needs to
12 confirm, and he should do so here in front of us. He's commenting on
13 conversations between various people. We don't even know if he ever met
14 those people or not. Conversations between third parties, what it is all
15 about, because really, I cannot even imagine that you could accept, with
16 reference to this Rule 89(F), and Mr. Nice himself said in his submission
17 that this could be done when it is in the interests of justice, and this
18 is absolutely against the interests of justice, that is, not to have an
19 examination-in-chief and to just skip through these various documents and
20 no one knows everything they contain because there are pages and pages
21 that an attempt is being made to produce through various witnesses.
22 And I don't need to dwell any further on this. I think that my
23 categorical objection is absolutely reasonable.
24 I received the summary in English last night, which is signed.
25 And then I really wonder. I ask myself, how can a witness sign a summary
1 in English when he doesn't speak English? Secondly, a summary is written
2 by Mr. Nice and not by the witness. So what does it mean to sign a piece
3 of paper which is not written by the witness himself?
4 It was my understanding, too, that a summary was an aid to
5 facilitate the proceedings.
6 JUDGE MAY: I think you will find that a great number of the
7 statements are not written by the witnesses themselves. They're taken
8 down by the investigators. But let that pass.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did find that, and I mentioned a
10 moment ago that you had endless examples of witnesses saying, as one of
11 them said, that he wouldn't have written what is in this statement even if
12 he were drunk, even though the statement was his. So there's no
13 examination-in-chief, then there's no risk for the side opposite, that
14 whatever they write down as alleged testimony of the witness should be
15 considered the truth. So what Mr. Nice says is absolutely contrary to the
16 interests of justice and fairness.
17 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Kay, is there anything you want to add
18 to that? That summarises the argument, doesn't it?
19 MR. KAY: Yes. It's worth pointing out that the Appeals Chamber
20 were not saying that as a matter of law every witness statement for every
21 witness could be introduced in this way.
22 JUDGE MAY: No. I hope my summary made that clear. It has to be
23 considered in each case. An application could be made and then we have to
25 MR. KAY: Yes. And the point that needs to be made here is, of
1 course, the Prosecution approach to this has been a blanket intention to
2 apply that ruling to every witness regardless of any definition of the
3 interests of justice, and that is quite clear in their motion that they
4 have signalled that intention. So the Court has to be pretty vigilant
5 accordingly in relation to every witness and every statement as to where
6 it believes the interests of justice are.
7 Quite plainly in this case there is evidence that goes throughout
8 the statement to the acts and conduct of the accused. There is evidence
9 relating to other members of the joint criminal enterprise. There is
10 evidence that is proximate to the accused in accordance with the Galic
11 definition. There are statements by the witness relating to the
12 involvement of the JNA and police which are areas over which it is alleged
13 that this accused had criminal responsibility.
14 The point the accused was making over the summary was, of course,
15 there's been no attestation of a translation of this summary to the
16 accused -- to this particular witness, but he still signed the summary in
17 English, and he's pointing out the dangers that there could be in relation
18 to the adoption of statements in this form, which is a matter that the
19 Court is obviously aware of.
20 In our submission, this is not an appropriate case for the
21 admission of this evidence in this form because of the important nature of
22 the statement and its contents in relation to the charges against the
23 accused. The interests of justice issue, we submit, fall plainly on the
24 side of the accused's argument to hear this witness viva voce in full.
25 There is no point separating out odd paragraphs where he doesn't mention
1 the accused or material matters because they are just background matters
2 within the statement. This statement is firmly in the heart of the
3 Croatia indictment alleging criminal responsibility against the accused
4 for those acts alleged in the indictment.
5 I don't know if I can assist the Court any further.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, what kind of statement do you think
7 might be appropriate for admission following the Appeals Chamber's ruling?
8 MR. KAY: We come to those 92 bis style statements where the
9 Prosecution concede that there are issues for cross-examination where
10 there is mention of the JNA or other features of the evidence that are
11 relevant matters within the indictment. The Appeals Chamber is plainly
12 saying that 92 bis should be applied in circumstances where witnesses are
13 not present at court, but the Rule 89(F), it's not a procedure that means
14 of admission of evidence is appropriate as a way of hearing a combination
15 of oral as well as written testimony.
16 As they say, this Rule is quite limited in its scope and the
17 examples that the Appeals Chamber gave, the impeachment in prior
18 inconsistent statements. If one looks at the examples that the amici
19 cited and which they cited in their own judgement of the 30th of
20 September, 2002, paragraph 14 of this decision, they use very limited
21 examples rather than the wholesale reception of evidence in this form,
22 which would be quite a significant departure from the procedures hitherto
23 adopted in all the trials throughout this Tribunal.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't think it would be appropriate or --
25 appropriate in this case to have part of the statement done live and part
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 MR. KAY: In relation to this statement, the entirety of it
3 concerns the heart of affairs that were happening in the Krajina and the
4 involvement of this accused and the other politicians as well as military
5 leaders in the events that were taking place.
6 There are paragraphs there that you can say are not relevant or
7 not central, but they really add nothing to what's happening. They
8 perhaps require a sentence of linking from one moment that is being
9 testified about to another. And when you look at the statement, little
10 would be served by having a paragraph here and a paragraph there taken out
11 in this form.
12 If you go through the summary, you can see the reason for that is
13 it goes quite clearly all the way through, involvement of the JNA,
14 involvement of politicians.
15 JUDGE MAY: If one took out the acts and conducts of the accused,
16 that would remove a part, an identifiable part. The fact is that this
17 ruling involves a departure from the previous practice. Plainly that is
18 what the Appeals Chamber intended, otherwise they would have simply
19 confirmed our ruling, but they did not. They have opened the door to a
20 change in practice which the Prosecutor has invited us to follow. Now, to
21 what extent we should try and -- we should try and reverse that, which
22 you're inviting us to do, to go back to the old procedure, I don't know.
23 I mean, the fact is, of course, in every case we have to consider the
24 interests of justice. But why it should not be possible as we've done in
25 other cases not to divide some of the evidence, and have some of it in the
1 statement and some of it given orally, that I do not follow.
2 MR. KAY: Your Honour's really mentioning this specific case here
3 as well as the wider issue. Shall I deal with the specifics first of all?
4 The paragraphs that mention Mr. Milosevic are easily identifiable.
5 There are other paragraphs that mention other members of the joint
6 criminal enterprise which is evidence that is proximate to the accused.
7 There's Babic, there's Martic, there's Stojicic. There are so many of
8 them that are -- Mladic. There are so many of them mentioned that the
9 entire narrative of this statement is really that of a witness who should
10 be heard by this Court live.
11 The involvement of the JNA and the police from Serbia, the Serbian
12 secret service, all those issues run throughout this statement. You can
13 pick out ones that are just background and material, but as I said, no
14 real purpose is being served here in doing that exercise.
15 On the wider issue -- I'm not attempting to argue against a
16 decision of the Appeals Chamber. What I'm pointing out is that in that
17 decision, it was not stated that this is a complete departure of the
18 procedures within previous trials held within this building. It is saying
19 quite clearly, in my view, that this is back to looking at the word and
20 language of Rule 89(F), which plainly allows in oral or written evidence
21 if the interests of justice allow, and that's something that the Trial
22 Chamber has to weigh up taking into account all the issues in a particular
23 trial before it.
24 It may have been very different if we'd had that decision at the
25 start of Mr. Milosevic's trial. One could imagine vast tracts of Kosovo
1 evidence where this could have been employed. We're at the stage now,
2 however, where we are dealing perhaps with the very important central
3 witnesses against him that we were advised from the start of the trial by
4 the Prosecutor was to be his technique and strategy. And whilst it may be
5 inconvenient for their timing or not as expeditious as they would
6 otherwise like, these witnesses are big witnesses that this Tribunal
7 should hear, we submit, in the interests of justice if it is looking into
8 the heart of this case.
9 A very one-sided picture may well emerge if you do not hear a
10 witness properly in direct examination if you're hearing the accused
11 merely start straight out of the blocks in cross-examination with no
12 foundation having been set. The issues that the Prosecutor relies upon
13 not having been put in any concrete form before the Tribunal in a viva
14 voce testimony. And with witnesses of that size and importance to the
15 trial, our submission is that it's important that this evidence be handled
17 As I say, it's difficult for this Tribunal dealing with this
18 decision at this stage when it -- if it had come earlier in the trials, it
19 may well have had a different effect, and it may have a different effect
20 on other trials if it is to be a more widespread application.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why do you say it would have been more
22 appropriate in the Kosovo part of the case?
23 MR. KAY: I'm allowing the translation to catch up.
24 That is because we heard many crime base witnesses. We had five
25 weeks of the Racak witnesses. We had a whole spread of witnesses from
1 municipalities, a lot of them giving cumulative testimony.
2 JUDGE KWON: So -- please go on. Please go on, yes.
3 MR. KAY: I was allowing the translation to catch up.
4 Which was not proximate to the accused or evidence that went to
5 the acts and conduct of the accused. And one could see there that the
6 Appeals Chamber ruling could have had an application and speeded matters
7 up if that was a judgement that had to be taken in the interests of
8 justice to provide an overall fair trial. But that has happened. That
9 time has gone, and the Prosecutor employed a very deliberate strategy in
10 relation to the Kosovo part of the indictment, although there were warning
11 signals coming from the Trial Chamber that they'd probably heard enough
12 about particular incidents and were exhorting the Prosecution to proceed.
13 One could see there that that evidence may have been more suitable
14 for an application of the Appeals Chamber's decision. There may be such
15 witnesses still to arrive in this trial, but looking at the witness list
16 as I have so far as it is concrete at the moment, that doesn't appear to
17 be the case. And this was a decision where the Appeals Chamber were not
18 applying a judgement in relation to this particular trial. They were
19 applying a wider judgement over the interpretation of the Rules.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. But the effect of that was to say that the
21 arguments which you're putting forward was to say that Rule 92 bis, which
22 used to govern these matters, is not the governing factor. They've
23 accepted the Prosecution argument that this other rule, 89(F), is the
24 governing Rule, in effect. We therefore have to look at things from a
25 different point of view. In particular, we have to get away from the
1 common law notion that all the evidence has to be given orally. You know,
2 behind this there is a very fundamental point which will face this
3 Tribunal and any other Tribunals dealing with these very large cases, and
4 that is the amount of evidence which can be given orally, and it may be
5 that the way forward is pointed by this decision, which is to allow
6 evidence in chief to be given in this written form with the safeguard, of
7 course, of cross-examination. That's the important safeguard which the
8 Rules still build in. And the question really is are we bound by the old
9 rule that everything has to be given orally because you never know what
10 people are saying to say when they give evidence orally, or are we to move
11 to a new consideration whereby much of the evidence should be given in
12 written form in chief, if not all of it, and that a witness should simply
13 be cross-examined.
14 There is -- the point you mention, which is the expeditiousness of
15 the trial, which you mentioned purely in relation to the Prosecution but
16 it affects the trial as a whole, how is this trial to be expedited in a
17 fair way, and this may be one way of securing a balance.
18 MR. KAY: I perfectly agree with Your Honour's observation that it
19 may represent a sea change in relation to trials like this and of this
20 magnitude in the future. It may not make a difference in relation to a
21 camp guard trial where most of the witnesses tend to be identification
22 witnesses and all the evidence is more proximate in relation to that type
23 of defendant, because one must realise that these cases have a hierarchial
24 nature, and they have a different breadth in their scope and in the type
25 of evidence that is received.
1 But to answer Your Honour's question about where do we go from
2 here, this is new, the answer is simple: It's the interests of justice.
3 And that is written within this Rule. And that is the governing factor in
4 relation to the decision that Your Honours have to take.
5 At this stage, to be more conscious of the wider implications of
6 the ruling and its future application in perhaps other trials or
7 particular types of witnesses may not serve the interests of justice in
8 this case. It may do in relation to some witnesses, as I say, but in
9 relation to big witnesses, that is a determination that still has to be
10 brought to bear on the particular witness before the Court.
11 JUDGE KWON: So can I take a suggestion like this: So your
12 interpretation of the Appeals Chamber decision is that that decision is
13 nothing more than removing some procedural requirements from 92 bis while
14 retaining the basic regime as to the admissibility of written statements.
15 So, for example, you need not -- you don't need a legal officer to attest
16 written statements to fly to the ground, on the ground, and those
17 procedural -- what is not necessary is only those procedural requirements
18 in the practical sense.
19 MR. KAY: Quite so, Your Honour. Rule 92 bis is being hived off
20 from the mainstream to fit a particular category of evidence and witness.
21 The Appeals Chamber is saying that essentially this should be evidence in
22 lieu of oral testimony, and when you get the witness here in court and
23 he's cross-examined or gives a summary or confirms the statement, that
24 immediately moves that witness into the oral category and that Rule 92 bis
25 should be seen as being a very distinct package.
1 But the rules of evidence that govern generally the admissibility
2 of evidence require the interests of justice and the usual general rules
3 to be applied, because the Appeals Chamber did not make any startling
4 advice or give any startling guidance to Trial Chambers to say, "This is a
5 new procedure and in future, trials should be run this way." It has left
6 it up to the judgement in the interests of justice of each Trial Chamber,
7 fitting the circumstances, the nature of the case, the particular evidence
8 before it, a kind of indictment as to whether such a use of a procedure
9 that is possible, whether it is in fact applied.
10 In many cases, they have gone through this procedure. If one
11 looks through the transcripts, I know Your Honours have sat on these cases
12 where they've gone into the witness box and adopted their statement, and
13 that has been a procedure that Defence and Prosecution have agreed to.
14 And this ruling affirms that practice that has been current in many of the
15 cases in the Tribunal if the parties have agreed, and the Appeals Chamber
16 have made the particular point that there are circumstances when written
17 statements are admissible, and that is when the parties agree to it,
18 firstly; secondly, when a statement is used in cross-examination and comes
19 into the evidence as a result of the questioning. And there may be other
20 situations and circumstances, including written documents by a witness
21 which form part of a statement.
22 JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether you have answered to the question of
23 Learned Judge Robinson's when he asked about the half -- some part in
24 written statements and some parts live, not in relation to these two
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. KAY: On the wider issue, yes. I must apologise. I thought
2 Your Honour was referring to this particular witness that we're dealing
3 with, the first witness where I don't think it really is practicable. But
4 on other witnesses, one can see that that procedure, according to this
5 decision, could be applied if it made sense to do it.
6 What the Court has to be aware of, of course, is the kind of
7 situation where Mr. Nice has already referred to it quite sensible, is
8 that you get a massive statement, most of which is nothing to do with this
9 trial, but it just gets put in, and the witness is, in fact, only dealing
10 with a small area of relevance within that statement to this trial. There
11 is a danger in that, because that can open up all sorts of unnecessary
12 avenues and be burdensome on the trial and those involved in it.
13 But those statements where it is appropriate according to that
14 witness and in the interests of justice and it could be properly achieved,
15 one could see the purpose of that. What I was saying was, though, that
16 this particular first witness, Milanovic, in my submission to the Court,
17 doesn't fit the category at all.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Appeals Chamber, while not defining the
19 interests of justice, in my view, did identify some factors that would be
20 relevant in considering whether the interests of justice are met. The
21 fact that the Trial Chamber would not be able to assess the credibility of
22 witnesses in examination-in-chief, that Prosecution evidence would be
23 accepted at face value only to be tested in cross-examination and that the
24 adoption of evidence by written statement is contrary to the principle of
25 a fair and public hearing. The Chamber -- Appeals Chamber did go on to
1 say that these factors may be relevant when determining whether admitting
2 such statements is in the interests of justice under 89(F).
3 I've been trying to extract from what -- from your submissions a
4 principle, Mr. Kay, and you seem to be saying that this particular
5 statement is so important, is so central to the Croatian part of the
6 indictment, is so critical that the evidence should be given live.
7 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour, in relation to this particular
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you also say that it is not susceptible to
10 the kind of severance that we have done in the past.
11 MR. KAY: It would really carry no purpose to do that because
12 there are link paragraphs. The focus of this witness's statement is on
13 those involved with the SAO Krajina, the influence of Belgrade, the role
14 of the JNA, the police, the political developments from 1991 when he
15 became involved through to, in fact, Kosovo, and his statement is a --
16 almost like a narrative of that period involving the Krajina.
17 The principles involved are really those the amici have always
18 cited in their appeal document and in their original opposition to it, but
19 one can see that the Appeals Chamber wish this to be applied on a
20 case-by-case basis and have not been specific in the kind of areas to
21 which it should be applied.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: As a wholly practical matter, the time spent in
23 hearing argument might have been used in examination-in-chief. I'm
24 grateful for your arguments, Mr. Kay.
25 MR. KAY: Can I assist the Court any further?
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
2 MR. NICE: A number of matters. I'll deal with them shortly. I
3 don't think as to sort of criticism that we raised in the Kosovo section,
4 I don't think I can be criticised for not having sought procedural reforms
5 throughout this case to deal with the problem of cases of this scale. I
6 suspect sometimes the Trial Chamber's thought "Will he ever give up?" but
7 there it is. And of course, the Kosovo case actually in its evidence in
8 chief only took a very short space of time, I have sometimes equated it,
9 and I think accurately, to five weeks in the evidence in chief, five weeks
10 of a domestic court. Not bad for the proof of a war. And time was taken
11 for cross-examination. Enough of that. We've taken a blanket approach
12 without ourselves identifying any parts of evidence we would typically
13 want to take in chief because we realise this is an important decision and
14 it sets the sail not only for this case but arguably for the Tribunal as a
15 whole. And in the same way as I regret to remind my learned friend, I
16 don't think any of my procedural reforms, to my recollection, have met
17 with the response from the amici that they're a good idea because they get
18 more evidence in or because they save time. I don't think either my
19 learned friend or the accused in their response deal with the interests of
20 justice advantages that I identified, namely of getting more evidence
21 before sophisticated, literate, professional Judges in these difficult
22 cases, of concluding cases earlier, and that would particularly apply here
23 if the accused was to take advantage of this method of evidence adduction.
24 Therefore the advantage for the Tribunal as a whole that will come
25 from that in either its completion strategy or in the number of cases it
1 can properly dispose of. And there is, of course, in this particular case
2 an interests of justice issue, a slight one but worth consideration, where
3 we are working three day weeks with four days off. It's going to be very
4 difficult for us to have witnesses who conclude within a three-day period.
5 It's asking a great deal of witnesses to stay on for four days in order
6 that their evidence can be concluded, and it would be that with more
7 flexible use of witness statements, we might be better able to meet that
8 as a problem.
9 Dealing briefly with His Honour Judge Robinson's point drawn from
10 the Appeals Chamber judgement about the value of evidence in chief because
11 it deals with credibility of witnesses, if I may respectfully say so, yes,
12 but also no. There is an obligation on parties, including this accused,
13 to put his case to witnesses. Therefore, if a witness's statement is
14 unchallenged because it's accurate, there is really no need to spend time
15 assessing his credibility, because by concession of the parties it's
16 accurate on those passages. It's only on the issues where the accused
17 doesn't accept what's in the witness statement that the witness should be
18 cross-examined or where the accused has a positive case to put to a
19 witness and credibility can and typically is revealed at that stage and
20 more at that stage or sometimes indeed exclusively at that stage rather
21 than elsewhere.
22 Turning to the accused's concern generally about the statements
23 going in, he may have missed the point slightly. I make no criticism of
24 him for that. As the Appeals Chamber makes clear, what will happen with a
25 witness statement put into evidence is that the witness comes to the
1 witness chair and says, "I have read the statement line by line. It is
2 true." That exposes him immediately to a sanction if he is saying
3 something that's untrue, because he's adopting it as a true statement,
4 different and stronger in its effect on him than the 92 bis procedure
5 taken out of court.
6 So that it's not a question of putting, as the Trial Chamber, it's
7 not a question of putting in written material. It is actually viva voce
8 evidence simply adopting because he has reviewed line by line the
9 statement. The accused says there were witnesses who revealed by their
10 evidence in chief that things in the statement were untrue. Those
11 witnesses, no doubt in elaborate proofing sessions or less elaborate,
12 hadn't through the witness statements line by line because the exercise
13 had been conducted apart from it. There's not always time to do that.
14 One of the witnesses, in particular, plainly had not done that, otherwise
15 he wouldn't have felt able to say the things he did about his statement.
16 So it's a very good corrective and it's an exposure to sanction on
17 the witness that he adopts his witness statement line by line.
18 As to the immediate witnesses, it happens that Milanovic's
19 original statement was in B/C/S. He's one of the witnesses who made the
20 decision that it had to be and it happens to be in B/C/S, although as Your
21 Honour says, many statements are in fact taken in English and read back in
22 B/C/S to the witness and that's a perfectly proper and satisfactory way of
23 dealing with things and part of the practice of this Tribunal.
24 So far as that -- this particular witness is concerned and just so
25 that the -- those viewing who don't have the documents can understand it
1 better, each paragraph, and I'm looking simply now at page 9 because
2 that's where it fell open, each paragraph of the witness summary
3 identifies the paragraph either as coming in part from a paragraph of the
4 written statement together with what was revealed in proofing. That
5 applies to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this particular page. Alternatively,
6 identifies a paragraph as coming entirely from a -- the witness summary
7 or, over the page, entirely coming from proofing.
8 And as Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff reminds me, in this particular case, the
9 witness is able to deal, and almost certainly would by dealing with
10 matters revealed or expanded on in proofing, is able to deal viva voce
11 with all the encounters he had, for example, with the accused should the
12 Chamber decide independently of the fact that they are covered in proofing
13 and not in the statement, then that is what would be appropriate for him.
14 So in our respectful submission and following the ruling of the
15 Appeals Chamber, this procedure adapted on a witness-by-witness basis and
16 to which we can be responsive in the documents we prepare in future to
17 help the process will save time, will get more material before you for you
18 to consider, and will enable the accused to present his case with greater
19 focus, which will again help the Trial Chamber.
20 JUDGE MAY: Deal with Mr. Kay's argument that the common law
21 method should be followed if the evidence is important to the case. That
22 is centrally what's saying, and it so happens that every single paragraph,
23 he says, in this particular statement is important.
24 MR. NICE: Your Honour, that would, in our respectful submission,
25 be a very unfortunate path along which we should start by this ruling
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 here. Evidence against accused persons is, by the reason that it's
2 evidence, important. If it wasn't important, you wouldn't be calling it.
3 It happens that in some of these cases there can be a fairly clear line
4 drawn between evidence of crimes, evidence of background, and evidence
5 that more particularly and clearly links an accused, but all evidence is
6 important. And attempting to draw the line drawn I think by His Honour
7 Judge Hunt of acts and conduct of the accused incorporating those
8 proximate to the accused is an exercise again that may be far too
9 limiting, because it will drive courts ever to say that evermore has to be
10 given viva voce.
11 In principle, there is no reason why all evidence should not be
12 given in a written statement and adopted for the very reason that I've
13 recently given. One, that by adopting it, the witness is not just putting
14 a statement in. He is saying, "Look, I've read this statement, I've had
15 it read to me," if it is in another language and is translated, "and line
16 by line I agree with it." The accused, knowing what has to be -- the
17 accused or his or her representative, knowing what has to be challenged,
18 then explores the issues with the witness.
19 Now, that is what happens in large litigation where juries are not
20 involved, around the world, and is a satisfactory procedure. The common
21 law system is, as we know, rooted in different scales of trials where
22 juries were used, jurors who might regularly not be literate and whose
23 literacy was not something one could assume.
24 Examination-in-chief, it may even be thought, is a somewhat
25 unusual exercise, and the Appeals Chamber rather picks on this point,
1 because examination-in-chief has one person, counsel, getting another
2 person, the witness, to tell his story to a third person, the trier of
3 fact. As the Appeals Chamber said, one thing that a witness could do
4 would simply be to read his statement out line by line, and that might, in
5 certain circumstances, be a sensible thing to do although it actually
6 takes quite a lot of time.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, when did Judge Hunt speak of acts and
8 conduct of the accused, incorporating those proximate to the accused?
9 MR. NICE: It's Galic.
10 JUDGE MAY: The Galic decision.
11 MR. NICE: But the line -- the defining line is always difficult
12 to be sure about, although he's given a definition. We would -- sorry.
13 In our submission and in theory, everything can, and quite safely, be
14 given in writing because there are those double protections. The witness
15 adopts it, so it becomes actually live evidence. He knows perfectly well
16 that he's under sanction if he lies, and issues can be joined by and must
17 be joined by the accused or his or her representative.
18 The consequence of this procedure is quite simply that
19 professional Judges can deal with in an active way the material much more
20 swiftly because they read it in advance and they immediately know what the
21 issues are. Now, having said that --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, surely to say that the evidence becomes
23 live merely because the witness adopts it in court is a technicality.
24 MR. NICE: I don't think the Appeals Chamber expresses it in that
25 way, and I respectfully adopt and urge as sensible and appropriate their
1 view. If I come -- if the solemn declaration means anything and a witness
2 comes to the witness chair, takes the solemn declaration, and says, "I
3 have read this statement, it is true," that is a significant piece of
4 evidence that he or she gives, and it is not a technicality.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: There is absent the opportunity which you have in
6 examination-in-chief for discrepancies between the evidence given in chief
7 and the statement.
8 MR. NICE: The opportunity -- some Judges, I've heard, say that
9 when these issues arise, well, these exercises shouldn't be memory games
10 and witnesses should have their statements available to read and refer to.
11 And that happens not infrequently I think, in these cases.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. But some of
13 the discrepancies may be substantial and may affect credibility.
14 MR. NICE: It may happen, but I would respectfully suggest that
15 it's not that common, and when it happens would have been remedied if in
16 fact the witnesses had gone line by line through their statements in
17 advance, which of course they now will have to do.
18 I'm not suggesting that in the interests of justice the Chamber
19 will be not identifying passages it wants to be given live. Of course,
20 and it's a matter for the Chamber, which is why, I repeat, we make the
21 application in the way that we do. But it would be, in our respectful
22 submission, unhelpful to be over restrictive at this stage, and
23 identifying or seeking to identify by way of too general a ruling what
24 should be given in chief may not serve the interests of justice that will
25 be served, and very substantially served, by the general application of
1 this new approach.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, this is of some different issue, but when
3 you said the new regime, if adopted, would get us -- get more material
4 before us --
5 MR. NICE: Yes.
6 JUDGE KWON: -- your implication is that you're going to add more
7 witnesses to the current list?
8 MR. NICE: No, not at all. No. Again so that it can be
9 absolutely -- well, so that it can be absolutely clearly understood, we're
10 under a duty to provide our final list by the week after next. That's
11 very nearly in final preparation. There are some witnesses for whom there
12 are applications to add, but they've already nearly all been signalled in
13 advance on earlier versions of the list. It's clear to us that we will
14 not get all our witnesses in before you by the time limit imposed on us,
15 under this regime or I think any other regime. We will get more material
16 before you under a system that allows the use of witness statements than
17 one that requires slavishly everything to be given in
19 I should have said, by the way, in answer to the accused's
20 concern, one of the passages that would be dealt with, I think, viva voce
21 is the identification of the intercepts because they would have to be.
22 Unless I can help further.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. As I understand it, you will be making these
24 sort of applications in the case of every witness from now on; is that
1 MR. NICE: In principle, yes. And the reason I -- perhaps I
2 should also make this point, because it may be being -- the impression may
3 be being given that we are serving only our own interests in doing this.
4 We would much prefer, as advocates presenting evidence, of course, to have
5 the advantage of the best bits of evidence or all evidence given live by
6 all witnesses. We as Prosecutors, or we as a party, obviously lose the
7 impact that can be drawn publicly from evidence being given that is
8 particularly powerful or significant. We don't seek that sort of narrow
9 advantage, and the only way we can make it clear that we are not seeking
10 that advantage is by saying, well, let the Rule -- let the application
11 apply for all witnesses so that even a witness producing spectacular
12 insider information or an insider of huge international profile, we would
13 -- we would not say in principle, ah, because this is an especially good
14 witness we will ask to have this one live just on impact. Not at all.
15 We'll say the same principles apply, we'll try and put the evidence in in
16 writing and, subject to the rulings of the Court as to what must be given
17 live, we will follow that practice with all witnesses.
18 JUDGE MAY: And so we can get the position, we will obviously have
19 to consider this application now. You will be applying to start with
20 Mr. Milanovic in whatever form.
21 MR. NICE: Yes.
22 JUDGE MAY: But you will also be applying to interpose the
23 general; is that right?
24 MR. NICE: I am afraid I will. His proofing summary in draft form
25 is now available and can be distributed. A final version will be
1 available later this afternoon, assuming he arrives on time and we can get
2 it tidied up by the end of the afternoon; otherwise, tomorrow.
3 JUDGE MAY: He is only available, is this right, tomorrow?
4 MR. NICE: At the moment, yes.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 THE ACCUSED: Mr. May.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Very briefly, please.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly. First of all, just
10 the observation that up until now, a pile of written documents have been
11 produced which it was not even possible to read through, so that what
12 Mr. Nice says, that this will allow him to produce written documents,
13 doesn't stand.
14 Secondly, Mr. May, you personally indicated that this question now
15 relates to Rule 89(F). So as you say, it is binding on you to pay
16 attention to it and to implement Rule 89(F). But the key words in that
17 Rule 89(F) is that the Chamber may receive testimony orally or, when the
18 interests of justice allow, the Chamber - which means you - may, which
19 means that you are free to decide whether it is in the interests of
20 justice to produce a pile of papers here or to have oral testimony. There
21 is no automatic obligation on you not to decide what is in the interests
22 of justice with respect to this announced change in practice to produce
23 here piles and piles of so-called alleged evidence in writing and then I
24 would allegedly be allowed to react to them through the cross-examination.
25 That is what it boils down to. But it is up to you to judge, and you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 cannot rely on someone else's decision in order to ignore what is the
2 elementary interest of justice regarding the examination-in-chief of any
3 witness. I am not interested in any particular witness, but I am saying
4 all witnesses.
5 This is just an effort to change the procedure and for these piles
6 of documents to become even greater. And you are yourself aware that
7 there's no physical possibility of reviewing all those pages of documents.
8 So to simply say "all that has been disclosed to you" doesn't mean
9 anything. I can say to you the Congress library is there for you, it's
10 been disclosed to you, and it's your duty to know everything it contains.
11 You have to respect at least the rules of physics, if nothing else. And
12 this is just an attempt for piles and piles of new documents and produced
13 and fabricated evidence to be exhibited without them being exposed to the
14 judgement of the public, because what is not stated in public, the public
15 is not able to see or hear.
16 JUDGE MAY: We will need to consider these submissions. We will
17 adjourn accordingly for slightly longer than usual, for half an hour, and
18 we will give our ruling on returning.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
21 JUDGE MAY: We have heard, as we acknowledge, some able
22 submissions on all sides on this by no means straightforward matter, and
23 we're grateful for them.
24 The decision of the Trial Chamber is as follows: On the basis of
25 the Appeals Chamber decision of the 30th of September, it is for the Trial
1 Chamber in each case to determine whether it is in the interests of
2 justice for a witness to give evidence in the way which is now proposed by
3 the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber, by a majority, Judge Robinson
4 dissenting, will admit the witness statement of Mr. Milanovic in the
5 interests of justice because it will be subject to safeguards. Firstly,
6 the witness will state under solemn declaration and verify that the
7 contents of his statement are true and do so in court; and secondly, he
8 will be subject to cross-examination. However, the majority are also of
9 the view that the evidence of the acts and conduct of the accused himself
10 relates to such a central issue in the case that it should be given
11 orally, and so those parts of the statement must be subject to oral
13 That's the ruling of the majority.
14 MR. NICE: We're grateful. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff -- I'm so sorry.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Appeals Chamber has left it to the Trial
16 Chamber to determine when it is in the interests of justice to admit a
17 written statement under Rule 89(F). The statement of this witness is of
18 critical importance to the central issues in this case. Where a statement
19 is of this significance, going to not only the acts and conduct of the
20 accused but also of some of the principal actors in the joint criminal
21 enterprise, the interests of justice would not be served by admitting it
22 under 89(F), since the opportunity of assessing the credibility of the
23 witness in examination-in-chief would be lost and the adoption of this
24 evidence by written statement would be contrary to the principle of a fair
25 and public hearing.
1 MR. NICE: Please accept my apologies for having interrupted. I
2 didn't realise that His Honour Judge Robinson was about to deliver his
4 Your Honour, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff will call the next witness. There
5 is, at the moment, the issue of the interposition of another witness
6 tomorrow. Can we revert to that at the break.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. How long do you anticipate? It may be difficult
8 now because of the new ruling. How long do you anticipate he might be in
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would anticipate it will be about one and a
11 half to two hours because we have to deal with a lot of exhibits, and we
12 said in the beginning that the exhibits will be viva voce.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we'll consider the matter in the next
14 break. Yes. Can we have the witness, please.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, and just in relation to the
16 exhibits before the witness arrives, I can already say that you will have
17 three different sets of exhibits. The first set are the new exhibits.
18 These are the documents that will be tendered with this witness, and
19 they're basically provided also by him during his interviews. The second
20 group of statements are the intercepts and his declaration in relation to
21 this. And thirdly, we have the third batch which includes a map produced
22 by the witness and also the exhibits that were already tendered during
23 other testimony, but the witness will elaborate on them because he has
24 sometimes signed them or dealt with them in another context.
25 JUDGE MAY: Could we give an exhibit number to the first of these
1 binders, which is entitled "Exhibits tendered through witness."
2 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 549.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. If you would like to take a seat.
8 WITNESS: MILAN MILANOVIC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
12 Q. Witness, please state your name.
13 A. Milan Milanovic.
14 Q. Mr. Milanovic, you have given a statement in May, July 2002, and
15 in June 2003 to investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor. The
16 original statement, was it taken in your language, that is in the Serbian
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you have opportunity to review your statement?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. Did you find it correct and to be the truth?
22 A. The truth.
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to
24 tender this statement into evidence, and it would need to have a separate
25 exhibit number.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 550.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
4 Q. Witness -- Mr. Milanovic, you also signed a proofing summary
5 yesterday. Was this proofing summary read to you?
6 A. It was.
7 Q. And did you actually make three minor corrections within that
9 A. I did.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, in the signed version, we are
11 not going to tender it, but you can see that the witness read it and made
13 Q. Witness, the Trial Chamber has allowed you to give part of your
14 evidence in form of the written statement, so we do not have to address
15 the whole events that you took part in but address only those matters that
16 are not part of the statement and also those events that relate to the
17 actions of Mr. Milosevic personally.
18 In paragraph 1 of your statement, you spoke about your personal
19 career, and my question is: Did you stop going to work in May 1991; and
20 if so, why?
21 A. It is correct that I stopped working in May 1991 because of what
22 happened in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. As everyone knows,
23 there was unrest, the war began and war operations in part, and I thought
24 that it was not a good thing for me to go to work any longer.
25 Q. In paragraph 2 of your statement and also in the proofing summary,
1 you described the arming of the Serbs and the Croats in the region and
2 also your position. When the inter-ethnic tensions started in 1990 and
3 1991, did both the local Serbs and the Croats start to arm themselves or
4 just one side?
5 A. Both.
6 Q. And did the villagers also put up night guards in the region?
7 A. Yes, they did, with their personal weapons, either sports weapons
8 or firearms for which people had permits.
9 Q. In paragraph 3 of the proofing summary and the statement, you
10 refer to the situation in your village. What was the ethnic composition
11 of Palaca?
12 A. Well, about 90 per cent were Serbs.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the region we are talking about
14 is actually on page 23 of the atlas on the road Osijek to Vinkovci. You
15 can see there the villages Laslovo and Korog, but not Palaca itself, but
16 it's between the two, on page 23.
17 Q. Those neighbouring villages, Laslovo and Korog, what was their
18 ethnic composition?
19 A. In Laslovo, about 80 per cent were Hungarians, 20 per cent Croats,
20 whereas in Korog about 90 or 95 per cent were Hungarians and the rest was
21 accounted for by others.
22 Q. On the 2nd of May, 1991, when the JNA came to Palaca, had there
23 been any clashes between those three villages, Palaca, Laslovo, and Korog
24 at that time?
25 A. There weren't any clashes, but there was night guard duty on both
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 Q. After the fall of Vukovar, did the -- did the JNA take over the
3 entire region, including Laslovo and Korog?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In paragraph 5 of your statement and paragraph 4 and the following
6 in the proofing summary, you have described the founding of the Serbian
7 National Council and how it developed into the government of the SAO
8 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. I have only a very few questions,
9 and the first relates to Exhibit -- tab 1 of the -- of the Exhibit 549.
10 Tab 1.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's -- and I propose, to make it faster,
12 that the witness also gets the binder so that he can look at it, and I
13 also would like the witness to have his statement so that he can orient
14 himself as well.
15 Q. Mr. Milanovic, in the binder you see always these tab numbers, and
16 the first is a list of people that you produced, the list of the members
17 of the Serbian National Council. Is that a list that you produced with
18 the help of the Prosecutor?
19 A. Yes, that's the list.
20 Q. What was the purpose to form the SNC?
21 A. Well, the purpose of forming the SNC was quite simply to rally the
22 people together around some kind of leadership, and the SNC constituted
23 that leadership.
24 Q. And when you speak of "people," does that refer to Serbs?
25 A. Serbs.
1 Q. What was the overall goal of the SNC and later the SAO government
2 in relation to Yugoslavia?
3 A. Well, the goal was for Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem to
4 remain within Yugoslavia.
5 Q. What was your understanding of the consequences of this goal for
6 the Croats and Hungarians that preferred to live in an independent Croatia
7 and not Yugoslavia?
8 A. Well, my understanding was that just like a portion of the Serb
9 people who were not included, for example, in Slavonia, Baranja, and
10 Western Srem, would have to decide whether they wanted to go on living in
11 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, whether they would go on living in
12 Yugoslavia in this way or whether they would leave that area if they
13 wanted to live elsewhere. For example, like some Serbs from Zagreb, they
14 went to territories where government was organised by the Serbs.
15 Q. Did the Croats in your village leave at some point in time, and if
16 so, when was that?
17 A. Croats left at a point in time when more active war operations
18 started. I think it was around the 25th or 26th of June 1991.
19 Q. Did you have a meeting in the village before they left?
20 A. Yes. I myself had a meeting with them.
21 Q. Did you discuss the safety of the Croat villagers at that meeting?
22 A. Yes, we did.
23 Q. At that time, had you got information that the Croat villagers had
24 been killed elsewhere?
25 A. Well, I had some sort of information and also information that
1 Croats would not be in the area when reservists would come in. And on the
2 basis of that, I said to them that I thought that they should decide
3 involving their own responsibility whether they would stay with us or
5 Q. Were you in a position to protect the Croats against the
6 reservists, as you mentioned here?
7 A. I could not guarantee their safety.
8 Q. Did the JNA protect the Croats against the reservists?
9 A. The JNA could not have guaranteed any such thing either.
10 Q. After this meeting with you, did the Croats leave and, if so, why?
11 A. They listened to what I had to say. They made some brief
12 comments, and they decided to leave, almost all of them.
13 Q. Did they leave because they were afraid or for other reason?
14 A. Well, because they were afraid, because of their own safety.
15 Q. Did the Croats in the neighbouring villages also leave for the
16 same reason?
17 A. The same reason.
18 Q. Did you observe the attack on Ernestinovo on the 21st of November,
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was that a Croatian village or a mixed village?
22 A. Predominantly Croat.
23 Q. Was a corridor left for the civilians or was the -- this place
25 A. A corridor was left.
1 Q. Who left the corridor and for what reason?
2 A. Well, the practice was for the army of Yugoslavia, when they had
3 combat activity, they would always leave a corridor for the civilians to
5 Q. Was that done without any exception in your region or was there an
6 exception to that?
7 A. Well, as far as I can remember, without any exceptions.
8 Q. In relation to Vukovar, how was it -- how was the attack done
10 A. Well, I cannot say with 100 per cent certainty, but I think that a
11 small corridor was left there too where the Croats withdrew from the
13 Q. Were Croats and other non-Serbs expelled from their homes and, if
14 so, at what times?
15 A. Well, the for the most part, this happened during combat
16 operations, either a day or two prior to them or during the attack itself.
17 Q. Did expulsion occur also in the later years, in particular, when
18 Serb refugees arrived from Western Slavonia or the southern part of the
20 A. Yes. It happened precisely then, after refugees came from Western
21 Slavonia and from the lower part of the Krajina. These refugees of Serb
22 ethnicity came to Eastern Slavonia and then there were such cases. Not
23 often, but the government tried to stop this. However, on some occasions
24 they didn't manage to stop this.
25 Q. And you are talking about what years?
1 A. This happened during 1991, at a point in time when a smaller part
2 of Western Slavonia had fallen, but for the most part it happened in 1995
3 when the lower part of Krajina fell.
4 Q. Mr. Milanovic, during the -- we will now turn to the exhibits,
5 327, tab 2, and 327, tab 3. During the proofing sessions, did you have
6 opportunity to review the two documents of the SNC of the 28th of May,
7 1991, and the 4th of August, 1991; and if so, are they authentic?
8 A. I reviewed these documents, and they are authentic.
9 Q. In these documents, there are references to the defence -- the
10 defenseless Serbs who objected to the state terror of the Croatian
11 government. There are actually references to the hunt for Serbs, a list
12 of Serbs to be arrested or killed.
13 Did you share this view? Was the situation like that?
14 A. Well, from this point of view, it is partly correct. That is what
15 most Serbs thought. Now I'm sure that on the other side that is what the
16 Croats thought too. They were also unarmed.
17 Q. Were events exploited by propaganda at that time in the region?
18 A. Yes, on both sides.
19 Q. And what effect did it have, if any, on the population, both the
20 Croats and the Serbs?
21 A. A great effect.
22 Q. You have described in your statement, in paragraph 5, the most
23 influential politicians in the region, and you have, in particular,
24 highlighted the role of Goran Hadzic.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's in paragraph 5, and, Your Honours, we're
1 now in paragraph 10 of the proofing summary.
2 What was -- I'll lead this live because it relates to
3 Mr. Milosevic.
4 Q. What was the basis of his being so important?
5 A. Well, Mr. Goran Hadzic was important because he was in the Serbian
6 National Council, and he was president of the SNC, if that's what it was
7 called then. And at one point in time, the Croats arrested him in the
8 area of Lika -- or Plitvice, rather. Soon he was released, and this gave
9 him political weight, so to speak.
10 According to what Hadzic himself said, he was very close to
11 Mr. Milosevic.
12 Q. Was that important, for a politician to get into high ranks, this
13 latter fact?
14 A. This fact was important.
15 Q. Did Mr. Hadzic have consultations and meetings with Milosevic? Do
16 you know that?
17 A. According to what Hadzic himself said, yes.
18 Q. What did he say about that, and when?
19 A. Well, I can speak specifically about the end of 1991 and the
20 beginning of 1992 and onwards. Hadzic said that he often went to see
21 Mr. Milosevic and often spoke to him and discussed things with him.
22 Q. Did Goran Hadzic have the skills to be president of the SAO
23 government or the RSK?
24 A. Well, I think he did not have the necessary skills.
25 Q. Did he actually fulfil his role as president of those entities?
1 A. I think he did not.
2 Q. Did he spend much time in the region or was he elsewhere?
3 A. He spent little time in the region. For the most part, he was
5 Q. How, then, could he get and maintain such high position as
6 president of -- of these entities?
7 A. Well, in my very own opinion, because of his links with Belgrade.
8 That is how he managed to stay in power.
9 Q. When the war started, did the SAO civilian authorities have power
10 in the region?
11 A. When the war started, I don't think that they had true power in
12 the region.
13 Q. Who, then, had the power?
14 A. Well, when military operations started, active military
15 operations, it was the then Yugoslav People's Army that had power.
16 Q. Mr. Milanovic, you have actually listed in your statement the
17 members of the government of the SAO, and we do not need to go into the
18 details of that. And you have also -- do you recall that you reviewed an
19 Official Gazette --
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's Exhibit 327, tab 6.
21 Q. -- and find those names correct?
22 A. I have read this Official Gazette, and the names are correctly
23 referred to.
24 Q. You have also described in your statement your role as first
25 acting -- Assistant Minister for Transport and later Acting Minister of
1 Defence. In these capacities, did you participate in government meetings
2 and also have meetings with military and police officials?
3 A. As for government meetings I attended them sometimes as deputy
4 minister. As for military and police officials, I did have meetings and
5 discussions with them.
6 Q. Will you please have a look at now into the binder, tab 2, and
7 there is a document, minutes of a meeting of the 28th November 1991, and
8 we have here in the row of people attending, we have here yourself and
9 Radovan Stojicic. Did you provide this document?
10 A. Yes, I provided this.
11 Q. And we have tab 3 in that same binder. We have a meeting from the
12 18th February 1992, and we have you here again as being present, and there
13 is then mentioned Zivko Trajkovic.
14 Zivko Trajkovic, in which capacity was he present?
15 A. Zivko Trajkovic attended the meeting as the commander of the
16 Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem by then.
17 Q. Does that mean he replaced Badza by then?
18 A. Yes, that's what it means.
19 Q. In the next two documents, that's tab 4 and tab 5, it's actually
20 an invitation, the same invitations from the 18 February 1992, and on the
21 document, tab 5, there is a handwritten note saying, "Mrgud, come along."
22 "Mrgud," is that your nickname or was that your nickname?
23 A. Yes, that was my nickname.
24 Q. The next exhibit, tab 6 in that same binder, is your appointment
25 as Assistant Minister of Defence, dated 19 December 1991. Did you provide
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 this document as well?
2 A. Yes, I provided it.
3 Q. The next document, tab 7 in that binder, is a specification of
4 requirements for the work of the Serbian National Security Service, signed
5 by Stevo Bogic, and subsequently also a different signature underneath.
6 What was Bogic's nickname? Do you know that?
7 A. I think that Bogic's nickname was Jajo.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, it's not indicated in the
9 proofing summary, but Mr. Mrgud has mentioned this person and his role and
10 also the role of this Serbian National Security Service in paragraph 37,
11 so I will not ask any more questions in relation to that.
12 Q. In -- you mentioned in your statement, in paragraph 103, that in
13 relation to the southern part of the Krajina, the connections -- the close
14 connections of Mr. Milosevic were Milan Babic and Milan Martic. How do
15 you know that, and -- yes, how do you know that?
16 A. Well, there were connections between the people you mentioned. I
17 mean, they are generally known through the media and from time to time, I
18 would hear from Martic or Babic themselves that they were meeting with
19 Mr. Milosevic.
20 Q. The next -- the next chapter in your statement is the forming of
21 the RSK. You have described in the statement the formation of the RSK,
22 and we need not go into details. You have actually listed in the
23 statement the members of the RSK government.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, it's tab 8.
25 Q. When you look -- Mr. Milanovic, if you look at your binder with
1 the exhibits, you will find there tab 8. Is that the list that you
2 actually made about the ministers?
3 A. Yes, that's the list.
4 Q. And you mentioned in your statement, in paragraph 92 and 93, you
5 mentioned the meeting in Borovo Selo on the 26th of February, 1992, and
6 you listed those from the Serbian government being present there. Did
7 they influence the decisions being taken on that day? Do you know that?
8 A. I think they did not influence the decision-making on that day,
9 but their presence meant something as support to that Assembly meeting
10 being held in Borovo Selo on that date.
11 Q. Turning now to the next three tabs in that binder. It's tab 9,
12 tab 10, and tab 11.
13 These three documents deal with your position as Assistant
14 Minister of Defence of the SAO. What were your duties in this function?
15 A. My duties in this function were the duties that any ministry in
16 any country has, and especially that particular Ministry of Defence.
17 Under wartime conditions or conditions of imminent threat of war, the
18 ministry had to take care of the army, its rear, supplies, logistics, and
19 the safety of the civilian population.
20 Q. In tab 9, that's the first decision on your appointment signed by
21 Stojan Spanovic, there is a reference made to an approval by the General
22 Staff of the VJ. Can you explain why such an approval was needed?
23 A. I think that it was needed because at the time in the former
24 Yugoslavia, the Ministry of Defence mostly consisted of military men who
25 were employed in the General Staff or in the Ministry of Defence of the
1 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So that in my opinion, that is why this
2 was needed.
3 Q. And in tab 11 - that's the decision from the 30th of October,
4 1995 - there is again the reference to the VJ, and actually, it says here
5 that you were a civilian member of the VJ. Can you explain that?
6 A. Yes. As I was not an active-duty officer of the army of
7 Yugoslavia, I was admitted as a civilian employed by the army of
9 Q. But you are actually in the RSK and now, according to this
10 document and to what you say, you become a civilian employee of the VJ.
11 Can you explain that?
12 A. It is well known that officers of the army of the Republic of
13 Serbian Krajina were active-duty officers of the army of Yugoslavia and
14 that they were deployed and assigned to work in the Republic of Serbian
15 Krajina, or they went there voluntarily, and they received their salaries
16 from the army of Yugoslavia. Since the Ministry of Defence is a specific
17 body that is closely linked to the army, the decision was taken that all
18 the people in the Defence Ministry of the Republic of Serbian Krajina
19 should be employees of the army of Yugoslavia.
20 Q. In tab 11, in this document we're talking about, there is mention
21 of a military post number 4001. What kind of post was that? Where was
23 A. It is a military post that concerned itself with these officers
24 and civilians in the army of Yugoslavia who were located in the territory
25 of the former Republic of Serbian Krajina, and it was located in Belgrade.
1 Q. While you maintained the position of Assistant Minister of Defence
2 of the RSK through those years, were you always employed by the VJ under
3 the said post?
4 A. Yes, that is true, right up until about the end of 1995 or the
5 beginning of 1996.
6 Q. Were you always paid by the VJ? Did you get a salary?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Was there a similar post as you had in relation to the southern
9 part of the Krajina? That's Knin area.
10 A. I think there was. I think there was another one or two
12 Q. Do you know whether they were also employed and paid by the VJ,
13 like you?
14 A. As far as I can remember, I think they were. One of them was also
15 a civilian like me, and the other one was an active-duty officer of the
16 army of Yugoslavia.
17 Q. And do you know their names?
18 A. The active military officer was Lieutenant Colonel Dusko Babic,
19 and the civilian person was Milan Potusa.
20 Q. Mr. Milanovic, you also provided a document, this tab 12 in the
21 binder, an invitation to a meeting in Knin on the 30th of May, 1994. Are
22 you actually -- your position and you in person, are you actually
23 addressed under position number 15, saying, "Heads of the Ministry of
24 Defence Departments of Baranja, Eastern Slavonia, and Western Srem"? Is
25 that addressed to you, this position?
1 A. One could say that.
2 Q. You described the TO and its structure and the cooperation with
3 the JNA in your statement, and it's in various paragraphs mentioned, in
4 particular in the paragraphs 17 and 21. We do not need to repeat that,
5 but my question to you is: Was the TO subordinated to the JNA during
6 military actions?
7 A. Always.
8 Q. Did you, you not only in person but the Ministry of Defence or
9 Stojicic Badza, did you have meetings before military activities with the
10 JNA officers?
11 A. At the time, I didn't have a position, but I do know that Badza
12 held meetings with the command of the army of Yugoslavia.
13 Q. Where were such meetings held?
14 A. That depended, but mostly in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja,
15 and Western Srem. Perhaps sometimes also within the territory of the
16 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
17 Q. You mentioned in your statement also that the TO of Serbia was
18 somehow involved, and you mention in particular the Generals Mandaric and
19 Geza Farkas. Why were they involved in the military activities in Eastern
20 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem? What was their role?
21 A. Their role was simple: Wherever the army of Yugoslavia is
22 participating, it is normal for the TO to participate as well as it is, in
23 a sense, within the army of Yugoslavia.
24 Q. Does that mean that the TO -- TO units from Serbia participated in
25 your region, or what do you mean?
1 A. Yes, that is what it means, they participated.
2 Q. In your statement, in paragraph 50, you have addressed the
3 strength of the troops of the JNA being present in your region, and you
4 mention the Novi Sad Corps and later the Guards Brigade. When did the
5 Guards Brigade arrive? Can you say?
6 A. I can't say exactly, but I think that the Guards Brigade came to
7 the area of Srem sometime around August 1991.
8 Q. Did you prepare a map indicating the zones of responsibility of
9 the Guards Brigade and the -- and the Novi Sad Corps?
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's now a map, and it would be
11 Exhibit 326. That's the map binder of Croatia. And the next tab number
12 would be 30. I'm just told it's 30.
13 Q. Did you actually produce this map and --
14 JUDGE KWON: I should correct; it should be 31.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 31. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE KWON: 30 is, I wrote it, related to that Agotic.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. You have indicated in this map the ethnic composition in the
19 villages of the region, and it explains itself. We do not need to go into
20 details, but could you show us on the ELMO where the different units, JNA
21 units were, and what was the line?
22 A. In the territory of Baranja, one or two brigades were involved of
23 the Novi Sad Corps, who also came sometime in August to Baranja.
24 In the territory of Slavonia, the Novi Sad Corps participated with
25 several brigades, and they also arrived sometime in August in the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 territory of Vukovar, but it must be noted that a part of the army of
2 Yugoslavia that were in Vukovar, a smaller unit, joined them, joined the
3 Novi Sad Corps.
4 And in the territory of Srem, the Guards Brigade was active, which
5 in a later stage grew into a corps. Now, whether it was called the
6 Belgrade or Guards Corps, I don't know, but at first it was just a
8 Q. And if I understand your drawing correctly, the border between the
9 Novi Sad Corps region and the Guards Brigade, that's the blue line, the
10 blue line following a river?
11 A. Yes. It is the blue line, and the river is Vuka, which divided
12 the town of Vukovar into two.
13 Q. Yes.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's -- that should be enough with the map.
15 Your Honour, just to clarify this, I'm just told that you have actually
16 two maps. The one is -- the bigger -- the map showing the bigger region
17 shows the entire SAO, while the map showing the smaller region is more
18 precise and shows Eastern Slavonia and Srem while the other one includes
19 also Baranja, and in the Baranja region the witness has not indicated the
20 ethnic composition of the villages because it didn't really matter for
21 this case. That's the distinction.
22 JUDGE KWON: The next number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 326, tab 32.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have in tab 30 or tab 31 any
2 map, and I see that there's quite a number of them here. So could you
3 please give me one.
4 JUDGE MAY: The accused should have the maps.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Yes. I apologise. I didn't -- I
6 wasn't aware.
7 JUDGE KWON: I remember that I asked you to update the index of
8 the map binder and its table of contents.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We will take care of this.
10 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 326, 343.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
12 Q. Mr. Milanovic, you have mentioned the role of the JNA as being one
13 of a buffer between the two parties in the region. Did the JNA mission
14 change in August 1991?
15 A. Yes. In August 1991, its role changed, the role of the JNA.
16 Q. In which way?
17 A. Roughly at that time, the JNA from the buffer zone crossed over to
18 the Serb side, but I must clarify that briefly, because in those days,
19 Croats were fleeing and leaving the JNA and other ethnic groups as well,
20 and the JNA was replenished with Serbs so that it de facto crossed to the
21 Serb side, because it was virtually of the same ethnic composition.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness's microphone be switched on.
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
24 Q. Did JNA units from then onwards conduct joint operations with the
25 TO brigade -- brigades?
1 A. Yes, they did act together.
2 Q. Did volunteers from Serbia participate in these joint actions?
3 A. There weren't many volunteers, but they did participate.
4 Q. Were there any volunteers from Montenegro, to your knowledge?
5 A. I can't really guarantee that there were some from Montenegro.
6 They were mostly from Serbia in my area, according to the best of my
7 knowledge. Maybe in some other part of Krajina or Bosnia.
8 Q. How were these volunteers integrated into the troops? Under which
9 subordination were they?
10 A. In most cases the volunteers were under the command of the
11 Territorial Defence, and the Territorial Defence was under the command of
12 the JNA.
13 Q. You mentioned in your statement that Arkan's Tigers also
14 participated in joint operations. How were they subordinated within the
16 A. The Tigers were subordinated to the TO, and the TO, as I have
17 said, to the JNA.
18 Q. Did police units from the RS -- from the region participate in the
19 joint military actions?
20 A. They did, yes. They participated in joint actions, again under
21 the command of the TO and the JNA.
22 Q. Did police units from Serbia, from the MUP Serbia participate?
23 A. I can't say units. There were individuals, but units did not
24 participate in active combat.
25 Q. In paragraph 17 and 21 of your statement, and it's also 21 in the
1 proofing summary, you have described military actions in Nova Tenja, and
2 we need not address that, you mentioned that Radovan Stojicic Badza
3 planned and commanded the operation jointly, and I wonder what exactly
4 does that mean? What did he do in relation to Nova Tenja?
5 A. Well, Radovan Stojicic Badza as the commander of the Territorial
6 Defence, it was normal that he should participate in the planning and
7 commanding in the liberation of Nova Tenja together with the JNA.
8 Q. Who was then the commander on the ground who actually directed the
9 troops during the military action?
10 A. When you say the army, you mean the JNA?
11 Q. All troops. All troops involved. Who directed then the actions
12 in the field? Was Badza then in the field or who was there in charge?
13 A. I think that Badza and General Bijorcevic were in command of that
14 operation, and they were at the forward command post.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, do I need to lead all evidence
16 in relation to Badza which is now coming in the paragraphs 23 and the
17 following live or can I restrict on additional evidence given by the
18 witness during the proofing?
19 JUDGE MAY: If it relates to the accused and it's evidence about
20 his acts and conduct, then you must call it live.
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Then I just simply make the distinction
22 between Badza's action in the field and his relationship with
23 Mr. Milosevic, I think. I'll make the distinction here.
24 Q. You have described Radovan Stojicic's arrival in the region in
25 your statement, and you have also described him as being the commander of
1 the TO in the region. My question is: Did he come as a volunteer to the
2 region or was he there as an official from Serbia?
3 A. I think that he did not come as a volunteer.
4 Q. Why do you think that? What are your observations to that effect?
5 A. He never said that he had come as a volunteer, and on the ground,
6 our understanding was that he had been sent there by the official
7 authorities of the Republic of Serbia.
8 Q. You described how he arrived with personnel from the MUP Serbia
9 and also with MUP Serbia equipment. Did he continue to receive equipment
10 from Serbia?
11 A. Partially, yes.
12 Q. Did he continue to receive his salary from MUP Serbia? Do you
13 know that?
14 A. As far as I know, yes.
15 Q. You have mentioned in paragraphs 19 and 24 also Zivko Trajkovic
16 and Miodrag Zavisic. How long did Zivko Trajkovic stay in the region?
17 A. I think that Zivko Trajkovic stayed in the area up until the time
18 when the blue helmets arrived in the area of Baranja and Srem and
20 Q. And Miodrag Zavisic, how long did he stay?
21 A. For as long as Trajkovic did.
22 Q. In paragraph 28 of your statement, and it's 25 in the summary, you
23 mention also inspector Veljko Bogunovic who came with about 100 men, Serb
24 policemen employed by the MUP. For how long did they stay in the region?
25 A. Also until the blue helmets arrived in the region.
1 Q. Given Badza's role and responsibility, does that mean he and his
2 followers or successors were in charge of both the TO and the police in
3 the entire region?
4 A. In a sense and pursuant to the law on the imminent threat of war
5 and in a state of war, the police as an armed force comes under the
6 Territorial Defence so that de facto Badza was the commander of the police
7 as well. Only Zavisic was in charge of the professional activities of the
9 Q. After Badza's and Trajkovic's return to Serbia, who then took over
10 the role as the TO commander?
11 A. The role of the TV commander was taken over by Colonel Bogdan
12 Sladojevic, but through the Vance Plan and the arrival of the Blue
13 Helmets, the Territorial Defence was partially or almost entirely
14 disbanded and the equipment and weapons went under the system of a double
15 lock, double key.
16 Q. Colonel Sladojevic, was he a JNA officer, and did he continue to
17 be an officer in the VJ?
18 A. Yes. Sladojevic was an officer of the army of Yugoslavia, and he
20 Q. The next exhibit is one that we have already had in the courtroom.
21 It's tab -- it's Exhibit 466, tab 12, and I just would like you to have a
22 look at it. Is that an authentic document, and do you know the signature
23 of Mr. Stojicic?
24 A. I think that the document is authentic and that that is the
25 signature of Radovan Stojicic.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Yes. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, in tab 12, I have a
3 document which was signed by -- or, rather, it's an invitation to a
4 meeting. It was signed by a certain Kuzet. I can't find this.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, it is in a separate binder which was
6 already introduced, which is together with the maps. The last document.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's Exhibit 466 --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just got this with the maps now.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's a device, Your Honours, it's a device
10 just for everyone in the courtroom to find the exhibits easier. It's in
11 Exhibit 466, tab 12, already known.
12 Q. Mr. Milanovic, you said that the civilian authorities were more or
13 less powerless at the -- when the war started and that the JNA was the
14 main power in the region. In your statement, in paragraph 17, you,
15 however, mentioned that the TO was put on a more equal footage when Badza
16 arrived. Can you say when the TO was on a more equal footage, at what
18 A. The Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem was
19 brought into a somewhat more equitable position when Radovan Stojicic
20 Badza arrived. In some areas this happened in the month of October, and
21 in other areas it happened towards the end of November too.
22 Q. When this equal footage or somewhat equal footage, was that also
23 achieved in the Vukovar region; and if so, when?
24 A. Well, as far as the Vukovar region is concerned, it involved the
25 month of November, the end of November, because one could not get from
1 Slavonia to Vukovar by land because Vukovar was still under Croatian
2 authority. So as for the lower part of Srem where the town of Vukovar is
3 for the most part, on the right bank of the Vuka river, this was under the
4 command of the then JNA.
5 Q. And when you say the end of November, does that mean after the
6 fall of Vukovar?
7 A. That's what I mean.
8 Q. Did Stojicic and the TO become even more powerful than the JNA at
9 any point in time?
10 A. I think so. After the Vukovar operations were completed, the
11 Territorial Defence gained in importance, like the civilian authorities a
13 Q. You have described in your statement how you met Badza Stojicic
14 and your dealings with him. When did you meet him for the first time, and
15 did you ask -- did he ask anything of you at that time?
16 A. Well, I think that I met him sometime during the first part of the
17 month of October 1991, and yes, he did ask me, because he had come from
18 the area of Serbia. He was not familiar with this area, and he had heard
19 from other people that I was familiar with the area, so he wanted me to
20 come along with him when he was carrying out his duties. He wanted me to
21 be in the same car with him so that I would show him the way, because this
22 was not a good time, it was a time of war.
23 Q. Did he ask you information regarding the villages and their ethnic
25 A. Yes, he did. That among other things.
1 Q. Did you become friends with him?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. And did you continue to be close to him even after he left the
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You mentioned Badza's activities and that he also took part in
7 government session. What -- was his word -- what he said, did this count
8 in the region?
9 A. Yes, it did. It did carry weight.
10 Q. Was he well-informed about what was going on in the region?
11 A. I think he was well-informed.
12 Q. Why do you think that?
13 A. Well, I think that because I spent quite a bit of time with him.
14 I think he had all information as to what was going on in the field,
15 particularly because he was commander of the Territorial Defence, and he
16 had meetings every day with his co-workers who were throughout the area.
17 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Stojicic reported back to Belgrade; and if
18 so, to whom?
19 A. I think that he sent reports to Belgrade, but I don't know who to.
20 Q. We have now an exhibit, and it's tab 13 in the binder, in the
21 first binder, Exhibit 549, and is that a document that you provided? It's
22 a decision dealing with a pistol. Is that what you provided?
23 A. I'm not -- I'm not quite sure that I'm the person who provided
25 Q. If you have a look at this document, you see there a number on top
1 of it, MM-VD-07. Do you recall that documents that you provided were
2 marked like this during the interview?
3 A. Yes. This document is a proper one.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's not mentioned in the
5 proofing summary, but the witness speaks about this document at paragraph
6 27 of his statement.
7 Q. Was Radovan Stojicic close to Mr. Milosevic?
8 A. Well, according to my information, he was.
9 Q. Did he communicate -- did Stojicic communicate directly with
11 A. As far as I know, after 1992, yes. As for 1991 and 1992, I cannot
12 say that.
13 Q. In the transcript it says as your answer: "As far as I know after
14 1992, yes." That means not in 1992? You're not sure about 1992? You
15 can't say for 1992?
16 A. I cannot say anything about 1992.
17 Q. How do you know that -- what information did you have that he was
18 close to Mr. Milosevic?
19 A. Well, that is information from Radovan Stojicic, Badza.
20 Q. Did you actually hear -- overhear conversations that he had with
21 Mr. Milosevic?
22 A. Well, yes, I did. As I've already said, I heard a few
24 Q. How would Badza address Mr. Milosevic in these conversations?
25 A. Badza addressed him with respect.
1 Q. And what -- how would he -- would he address him by name, by
3 A. Always by his title.
4 Q. And how would in turn Mr. Milosevic address Stojicic?
5 A. I think he called him Badza.
6 Q. In 1993, did the VJ withdraw elements from their positions at the
7 border with the -- with Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And noticing that, what did you do?
10 A. I informed Badza that that is what the army of Yugoslavia -- no,
11 the JNA -- no, actually by then the army of Yugoslavia did.
12 Q. And what did Badza do about this?
13 A. Well, Badza called Mr. Milosevic right there in front of me, and
14 he informed him about the situation. Mr. Milosevic called Momcilo Perisic
15 and told him to revert the situation to the way it was before that.
16 Q. Could you hear what Mr. Milosevic was saying to Badza and
17 subsequently to Mr. Perisic?
18 A. I did hear it.
19 Q. How was that possible?
20 A. Well, quite simply Badza had the speaker phone on, so I heard
21 Mr. Milosevic's voice. And Mr. Milosevic said to Badza to wait, that he
22 would call Momcilo now, meaning Perisic. He did call him, and he told him
23 to return the troops where they had been before. I heard that too,
24 because the speaker phone was still on, and the army was indeed returned.
25 Q. Did you also have an occasion --
1 JUDGE MAY: I think it's about time for the break.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milanovic, we're going to have a break now for 20
4 minutes. During this adjournment and any others there may be in your
5 evidence, please don't speak to anybody about it until it's over, and that
6 does include the members of the Prosecution team.
7 We will adjourn.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Witness, you just described to us the conversation in which
14 Mr. Milosevic reversed the order by Momcilo Perisic. Do you recall what
15 exactly he said?
16 A. Mr. Milosevic said to General Perisic, "Momcilo, it's not for you
17 to think. Just return the troops to where they had been."
18 Q. You also described a conversation between Mr. Stojicic and
19 Milosevic in relation to a demonstration in Serbia. Can you tell the
20 Court what you heard on this occasion?
21 A. During the demonstrations in Serbia, Radovan Stojicic Badza was in
22 my apartment. He called Mr. Milosevic, and they spoke about the current
23 situation regarding the demonstrations.
24 Q. Mr. Milanovic, you described the role of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan
25 in the region, and we do not need to repeat all this. My question is:
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 When Badza left the region, to whom was Arkan then subordinated?
2 A. Legally, he was subordinated to the commander of the Territorial
3 Defence, which soon after that or, rather, after the Vance Plan, was
4 transformed into the blue brigades of the police, the Milicija. Like the
5 other territorials, the Tigers fell under the command of the blue brigades
6 or the police, rather.
7 Q. You say legally he was subordinated to the TO commander. And de
8 facto? Is there a difference?
9 A. That is difference, because the Territorial Defence withered away.
10 According to the Vance Plan, it was only the command of the Territorial
11 Defence that could have stayed on, and they were to coordinate with UN
12 headquarters because all the heavy weapons were under the double-key
13 provision, and the UN guarded all heavy weapons. And Bozo Kosutic took
14 over the command of the brigade.
15 Q. What was Arkan's role after the fighting had ceased, if any?
16 A. His role was the following: He had a unit that he commanded, and
17 he was present in case there were attack of the Croatian army. Then he
18 would defend the area.
19 Q. You mentioned in your statement that Arkan became the commander of
20 the training camp in Erdut and that it was Hadzic who appointed him to
21 this position. Who made the decision to this effect? Who decided that?
22 A. Well, that decision was made by Goran Hadzic.
23 Q. This training centre, what purpose did it have before Arkan moved
25 A. Well, that centre was the centre for training the Territorial
1 Defence of the former Yugoslavia. Right after the war operations started,
2 sometime in the month of August, that is where the government of Slavonia,
3 Baranja, and Western Srem moved into. For a while, Radovan Stojicic Badza
4 was staying there as well. When Arkan came, the TO command moved to
5 another building in Erdut which was called the Saponija rest house. The
6 government moved to the castle, as it was called. Others called it the
7 yellow house. This centre remained the training centre for the TO, and
8 that is where Arkan was accommodated. Afterwards, it was only Arkan's
10 Q. Was the Arkan training centre financed by the DP Dalj company?
11 A. Well, at that time in these uncertain, unstable times, the TO and
12 the police were financed in different ways until proper government was
13 established, when taxes were paid and when there was a budget once again.
14 In the meantime, individual companies assisted the TO and the police.
15 Q. So the answer, did DP Dalj finance the -- Arkan's training centre?
16 You didn't --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you review during the proofing several exhibits dealing with
19 the financing of the training centre, and did you find these documents
21 A. I think that the documents are authentic.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, it's tab 14 of the Exhibit 549,
23 the legal foundation for this financing. Tab 15 equally, a decree related
24 to the legal foundation. Tab 16, a certificate related to the position of
25 Milan Panisic as a director of the Dalj company. Then we have a document,
1 tab 427 -- Exhibit 427, tab 44, which is in that separate bundle, and it
2 is an approval that the expenses of the TO training centre be -- will be
3 reimbursed by the Dalj enterprise, and that's you who signs it? Is that
4 your signature?
5 A. Yes, that is correct.
6 Q. And this document doesn't have a date on it. Do you recall when
7 you approved this practice?
8 A. This document doesn't have a date, but in the top left-hand corner
9 there appears to be written when this company, DP Dalj, received the
10 document, and it says in 1992. So I think this was sometime at the
11 beginning of 1992.
12 Q. And we have the tabs again from Exhibit 427, tab 47 and 45.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May. Mr. May.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have two binders for this witness.
16 One -- in one, the last tab is 31, and in the other, the last tab is
17 number 27. I don't have anywhere tabs 44, unless there is a third binder
18 which I haven't seen.
19 JUDGE KWON: No. It's in this bundle, which is together with the
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With the maps. This bundle says the
22 Presidency of Yugoslavia, and then --
23 JUDGE KWON: You noticed the number, exhibit number, on the left
24 top of the document. These are exhibits which were already introduced.
25 The exhibit we are dealing with now is Exhibit 427, which was introduced
1 at the time that Mr. Torkildsen gave evidence.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
3 Q. So we have the two invoices, one from January 1992 signed by
4 Arkan, and then the other one from January -- January -- the 22nd of
5 January, 1992. Are they authentic?
6 A. They are.
7 Q. Then we have three documents, that's tab 45, again in the Exhibit
8 549. Tab 45, tab 17, tab 18, and tab 19 related to the payment of
9 specific invoices. And I don't think we need to go into details to this
11 And finally, we have tab 20, and it relates to -- again to the
12 payment, and my question to you would be: Were payments facilitated
13 through accounts in Serbia, to your knowledge?
14 A. With the beginning of the war operations and the fact that Croatia
15 failed to recognise the country and the abolition of the system of
16 payments transactions that used to apply in the former Republic of
17 Croatia, there were quite a number of work organisations or companies
18 working in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and they
19 opened their accounts in banks in Serbia.
20 Q. And the government as such, the SAO government as such, we have
21 here also indicated on page 4 in the English translation that there is an
22 account for the budget of the Serbian district of Slavonia, Baranja, and
23 Western Srem with Mr. Hadzic as the person who is able to make
24 transactions. Were you aware of that?
25 A. I remember that document and that decision, and it is pursuant to
1 that decision that companies in the region of Srem and Baranja opened
2 accounts in Serbia.
3 Q. Turning now to tab 21 of the Exhibit 549, there is a photo,
4 Mr. Milanovic. Who is seen on the photo, and can you say where this photo
5 was made?
6 A. On the photograph is Radovan Stojicic Badza, and Zeljko
7 Raznjatovic Arkan. I think it was taken sometime in the autumn of 1991.
8 Q. And where? Can you see from the background what it may be?
9 A. You can't see it on this photograph, but I saw a better copy of
10 the photograph, and on it one can see that it was taken in the centre of
12 Q. Mr. Milanovic, did you review some videotapes during the proofing
13 sessions and subsequently some stills from the videos?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. And did you also indicate then on a separate sheet whom you
17 A. I did.
18 Q. The first video, did it relate to a news conference on the 25th of
19 November, 1991?
20 A. Correct.
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's Exhibit -- tab 22 and 23 in
22 Exhibit 549, and we do not like to play the video because it simply shows
23 who is present, but the witness has indicated on a document that he signed
24 and also dated, he has indicated the people that he saw in the video. We
25 have the stills here and also his comments on who is who, and it's at the
1 moment on Sanction.
2 Q. Witness, it's tab 23. If you look into your binder, it's tab 23.
3 And is that what you actually found from the video?
4 A. Yes, that's it.
5 Q. And the next video that you actually saw was related to a footage
6 from a meeting on the 20th of November, 1991, in Velepromet in Vukovar.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, in this case it is Exhibit
8 458, tabs 19.2 and 19.3.
9 Q. And did you also -- if you now look at the screen, did you produce
10 also a document indicating again which persons you recognised?
11 A. Yes, that is the video. On the first photograph I recognised --
12 Q. We can all see it. You do not need to repeat it. But that is
13 document that's signed by you and produced by you together with assistance
14 from the office here; is that correct?
15 A. That is that document, yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't understand what
17 this is about. Madam Uertz-Retzlaff said that this was a meeting that
18 took place on the 20th of November in Vukovar, and here some men can be
19 seen who are standing there to have their photograph taken. Is that the
20 photograph she was referring to? Who was attending this meeting in
21 Vukovar? I simply cannot decipher it from this examination. What is the
22 witness claiming? Who attended that meeting in Vukovar on the 20th of
24 JUDGE MAY: All this witness is doing is identifying these people
25 in the photographs. If there is anything more that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 wants to ask him or you want to ask him in due course, you can both do so.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I'm not going to ask any questions in
3 relation to this meeting. I just wanted him to identify the people that
4 he saw on the video when he reviewed it.
5 Q. And the next video, it's tab 24 and tab 25 of the Exhibit 549, and
6 it relates to a parade and press conference in Baranja in January 1992.
7 Mr. Milanovic, did you review that video in which
8 General Bijorcevic gave a speech?
9 A. Yes, I did review the video.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we do not want to play the
11 speech of Mr. Bijorcevic. What we have done is we have provided a page
12 with a transcript of what he said, and it was given to the registrar.
13 JUDGE MAY: Where is that now? We've got the photographs, 24, and
14 the -- I'm sorry, 25.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 25 are the photographs, and 24 is the video.
16 And we have actually provided also a sheet --
17 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- with the speech of Bijorcevic, which is
19 actually also cited in the statement and in the proofing summary.
20 JUDGE MAY: It can go in at 24.
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And we therefore do not want to play
22 the video.
23 Q. But you reviewed the -- you reviewed the tape, and you produced
24 again a document in relation to the people that you recognised; is that
1 A. Correct.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, and you can also see that the
3 witness has indicated himself as well as a participant on 51.07. It's
4 just here in Sanction. He has indicated himself being present there.
5 That should be enough for this. Thank you.
6 Q. Witness, you have described in your statement, and I have to say
7 here that it is and is forgotten in the proofing summary at paragraph 77
8 and 78 of the statement, you have described how you participated in a
9 session of the extended Presidency on the 1st of February, 1992, and my
10 question is: Do you recall what General Adzic said to promote the Vance
11 Plan, to make it acceptable to the people in the region, in your region?
12 A. I remember that meeting in the palace of the Federation. I don't
13 need to enumerate all those present because it's written here. Among
14 others, General Adzic spoke, and I think at the time he was Chief of Staff
15 of the Main Staff of the army of Yugoslavia or the Yugoslav People's Army,
16 and he was trying to assure and persuade those of us present to accept the
17 Vance Owen Plan and that the army stood behind it, and should the Croats
18 should attack us, they would help us.
19 Q. You have already mentioned and it's also described in your
20 statement the arrival of the UN forces and what was done to prepare for
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, it's in the -- it's the
23 paragraphs 57, 79, and 80 of the statements.
24 Q. You have mentioned the officers, Colonel Bozo Kosutic, and Colonel
25 Rajko Kovacevic being in charge of the blue brigades, and my question is:
1 These officers, were they JNA officers and did they continue to be
2 employed with the VJ and paid by them?
3 A. Yes, they were officers of the army of Yugoslavia, and they
4 received a salary.
5 Q. You have also mentioned that the JNA left behind vehicles and
6 weapons under this double-key system and how they were repainted? Who
7 made these decisions?
8 A. I didn't understand the question. What decisions?
9 Q. You mentioned in your statement that the JNA left behind vehicles
10 and weapons under this double-key systems. You said that military
11 vehicles were repainted blue, that parts of the TO now became police
12 staff, and my question was: Who made these decisions to do that?
13 A. On the basis of the Vance Owen Plan, the Territorial Defence and
14 the army needed to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes.
15 Only the command of the TO could remain active, incomplete, but they had
16 to be in plain clothes. According to the Vance Owen Plan, it was
17 permitted for two police brigades to be formed which would wear blue
18 uniforms. In our country the police wear blue uniforms. And that they
19 should be in the area. I also said the exact number of men, and as there
20 was a shortage of men, then from the army and the TO some people
21 transferred to special police units, and the permitted weapons were
22 painted over in blue.
23 Q. You mentioned a meeting in Karadjordjevo on the 24th of February,
24 1992, in your -- in your statement. Those steps to be taken, were they
25 all discussed there on that meeting?
1 A. Yes, they were discussed at the meeting as to how this should be
2 technically carried out and how the blue brigade should be prepared so
3 that they would guarantee the safety of the people in the area of
4 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, because the army of Yugoslavia was
5 withdrawing. The TO was being disbanded, and it was important that the
6 people should have confidence in the two brigades that would be in that
7 area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.
8 Q. Would you please have a look at tab 26 in the binder Exhibit 549.
9 That's a plan for the demilitarisation and transforming of the 11th Corps
10 of the army of the RSK. That is not now related to the arrival of the UN
11 forces but to the Erdut agreement. Can you say to which -- when this
12 document was actually compiled, because it has no date on it?
13 A. This document was most probably compiled in the second half of
14 November 1995, after the signing of the Erdut agreement, because it is in
15 the spirit of that agreement according to which the 11th Corps of the SBO
16 needed to be demilitarised.
17 Q. And when you look at the second page of this document, at item
18 number 8, there is a reference to 300 policemen from the Serbian MUP.
19 What kind of unit is that?
20 A. It was a unit, PJM, a special unit from the MUP of Serbia which
21 was in the area and guaranteed safety to the people of Slavonia, Baranja,
22 and Western Srem.
23 Q. And when did they come to the region and who commanded them? Do
24 you know that?
25 A. I can't tell you the exact date, but it must have been after the
1 5th of August, 1995. The commander was Major General Obrad Stevanovic.
2 Q. In your statement and also already today, you mentioned the
3 weapons that were left behind by the JNA and placed under the double-key
4 system. You also gave the details of the amount of weapons and what kind
5 they were. Who had the two keys?
6 A. The one key was in the TO command or headquarters, and the other
7 key was in the hands of the commander of the sector for the UN forces.
8 Q. Did the RSK TO regain control over these weapons at some point in
10 A. Yes. After the attack of the Croatian army on Western Slavonia in
11 May 1995, Croatia violated the Vance Owen Plan. It attacked the area, and
12 in agreement with the UN forces, the weapons and artillery was taken over
13 by the TO and an army was formed in the territory of the region of
14 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.
15 Q. You also mentioned in your statement that despite the Vance Owen
16 Plan, five TO brigades continued to exist in the region, and they were
17 commanded by Colonel Sladojevic. To whom did Colonel Sladojevic answer?
18 To whom did he report?
19 A. Which period are you referring to?
20 Q. I'm referring to the period when there was the RSK. That's in
21 1992 through to his replacement.
22 A. If we're talking about the taking over of weapons and artillery
23 from the double-key system, the brigade and command existed, as I said, in
24 civilian clothes. When the weapons were taken, they put on uniforms. And
25 he was subordinated to the TO command in Knin.
1 Q. Did he also report to someone in Serbia or coordinate his actions
2 with someone in Serbia, with the VJ? Do you know?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
4 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness answer the question.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My objection has to do with the
6 question, because the question is leading. He's being asked whether he
7 coordinated his activities with anyone else. At that time, there were no
8 actions over there, so he couldn't be coordinating. There were no
9 operations in the Srem-Baranja region.
10 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would like to rephrase the question,
11 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
13 Q. In the time period that Colonel Sladojevic was in charge of the
14 TO, that is starting from 1992, did he coordinate with anyone in Serbia?
15 A. When Colonel Sladojevic became TO commander, up until to his
16 replacement almost in 1995, there were no operations. His commander was
17 in Knin. But he was on good terms with the Novi Sad Corps, and this, in
18 my view, out of logical reasons, because the SBO was not physically linked
19 to the lower part of Krajina, but it leaned on the area of responsibility
20 of the Novi Sad Corps. It was adjacent to it.
21 Q. In relation to funding and equipment of the TO, beginning actually
22 in 1991, during 1991, did -- who financed and equipped the TO in 1991?
23 A. I can't testify about the very beginning of 1991, but for the very
24 end of it I can, as well as the beginning of 1992 until the Republic of
25 Srpska Krajina was formed. It was financed in various ways. Partly by
1 the economy of the region, the SBO, and aid did come from the army of
2 Yugoslavia as well.
3 Q. Did the TO continue to receive funding from the JNA or VJ later?
4 A. It did receive it later, but since the formation of the Republic
5 of Serbian Krajina, that is the 22nd of February, 1992, all this was done
6 via Knin and then Knin would pass it on.
7 Q. Did you review a variety of documents related to financing,
8 equipping, and training of either TO or police of the RSK during the
9 proofing session?
10 A. I did review those documents.
11 Q. We will now -- did you find them to be authentic?
12 A. Yes, they are authentic.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we will now address some of
14 these documents.
15 Q. First of all, Exhibit 327, tab 9. It's now all exhibits from the
16 special bundle with the map on top of it, and it is here an Official Note
17 on a meeting with Mr. Milosevic and others on the 12th of November, 1992.
18 Did you know that such a meeting took place?
19 A. I remember that Colonel Stojan Spanovic was then Minister of
20 Defence and that he said to me that a meeting had been held, but I did not
21 know who had been present. And he also said that the mode of financing
22 had been agreed upon.
23 Q. And looking at the document as such, is it -- when you look at the
24 signature and the stamp and the format, is it authentic?
25 A. It is correct. I know the stamp, and I personally know
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. Spanovic's signature.
2 Q. And the mode of financing that is discussed here, partly through
3 the VJ and partly through the Ministry of Defence, was that actually done
4 in that way, to your knowledge?
5 A. I think that it was being carried through.
6 Q. The next exhibit is 327, tab 14. It relates to the funding of the
7 police. Do you know whether this was done in the way described from the
8 -- through the Republic of Serbia, and is it an authentic document?
9 A. According to its letterhead, stamp, and signature, the document is
10 a correct one.
11 Q. The next one is tab -- is 327, tab 17, and it's a document of the
12 28th of August, 1993, and refers to a sum of $60.000 US. First of all,
13 the person Milan Tepavcevic receiving this document, who was he? What was
14 his position?
15 A. I think that at that time Tepavcevic was assistant head or deputy
16 head of the state security service of Serbia. As for the document, I
17 think that it is correct in terms of its letterhead and stamp. However,
18 it was not signed by Martic himself; it was signed by someone else on his
20 Q. Do you know anything about the background of this matter here
21 described in the letter?
22 A. I remember an Assembly when Martic attacked the mentioned Dusan
23 Orlovic, and this money went missing, that what was intended to be bought
24 was not actually bought.
25 Q. The next document is Exhibit 352, tab 14, and it relates to a
1 request for a unified credit and monetary system. Were you aware of the
2 request for such a unified system?
3 A. I remember that request because in 1992 it was a topical matter.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is what we looked at awhile
5 ago, Martic's letter, when he says, "Within your possibilities, please
6 give us help." Is there another tab 14 perhaps? This is the only tab 14
7 I have here. This is what it says here. Exhibit 327, tab 14.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's Exhibit 352, tab 14. That's a different
10 JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I don't want to stop you going
11 through these, of course it's matter for you, but I just wonder, when
12 they've already been produced, if we need go through them again. They may
13 speak for themselves.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, but --
15 JUDGE MAY: In the interests of speeding things up.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can do that, but --
17 JUDGE KWON: Were they marked for identification?
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, I think they were admitted, but the
19 witness is actually closer, that's why I thought it may be necessary to
20 repeat this exercise. So if not, then we simply --
21 JUDGE MAY: If there are any matters arising, you can ask them --
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
23 JUDGE MAY: -- but for the moment, I suggest we move on.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But I want to ask him in relation to this
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
3 Q. This document is directed to the Republics of Serbia and
4 Montenegro, and not -- except for the bank, not to the federal organs.
5 Why that? Why was that?
6 A. I think that at that time, that was the 12th of May, 1992, the
7 federal authorities did not function for reasons that are well known,
8 because republics had seceded, and the entire monetary system and the
9 budget was reduced to the government of Serbia and the government of
10 Montenegro, and the government of Srpska Krajina addresses them directly,
11 as well as the governor of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this is a typical example
13 of a question that is quite wrong and totally leading. This document
14 pertains to the monetary system, and it is addressed, as you can see, to
15 the governor of the National Bank of Yugoslavia. That is an institution.
16 It is the central bank which is responsible precisely for such matters.
17 And of course it is also addressed to the government of the Republic of
18 Serbia and the government of the Republic of Montenegro, but it is
19 addressed to the federal authorities. The only federal authority in
20 charge of this particular matter, the monetary system, the central bank.
21 How can this question be put why it was not addressed to the federal
22 authorities? But it was. It was addressed to the central bank, and it
23 pertains to monetary matters.
24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let the Prosecution put their
25 questions; you can put yours. But as we say, I'm not quite sure the value
1 of this exercise now.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, just one more --
3 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Just one more --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It is on.
7 Q. One more question: Was the money of the RSK printed by the
8 National Bank of Yugoslavia later on?
9 A. Yes, it was printed at the mint, or I don't know the name of this
10 institution but this is an institution of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
11 Q. And was cash money transported from Yugoslavia to the RSK?
12 A. Yes.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I -- but I would like to turn
14 to one exhibit, and that's Exhibit 352, tab 15 -- 152. This document was
15 discussed, but I think the witness can tell us the background of the
16 proceedings here. It's an order by Zivota Panic in relation to the
17 accepting and initiating conscript soldiers into the army of the RSK from
19 Q. Do you know to which practice this document relates?
20 A. The document shows that this happened in January 1993. I cannot
21 say exactly, but I think that's when the Croats attacked the lower part of
22 the Republic of Srpska Krajina. Was it the Miljevac plateau or was it the
23 Medak pocket, I cannot remember exactly, but it is for sure that that is
24 when the Republic of Srpska Krajina proclaimed a state of general
25 mobilisation and sent a request to Yugoslavia for its military conscripts
1 to be returned to the area of the Krajina.
2 Q. Were refugees from the RSK, were they falsely recruited in Serbia?
3 Do you know that?
4 A. Well, there were such cases.
5 Q. You have also reviewed a document that asked -- it was a letter of
6 Goran Hadzic.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's 352, tab 156, but we do not
8 need to look at it.
9 Q. In this document, there was a reference to staff for the military
10 justice system. Was -- did staff from the VJ, military prosecutors and
11 legal staff, come to the RSK, to your knowledge?
12 A. They did. They certainly did.
13 Q. And was a military justice system established?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was any war crime ever -- any war crime trial ever conducted in
16 these courts?
17 A. I cannot remember for all of the Republic of Srpska Krajina, but
18 in the SBO, no, but civilian courts were trying war crimes.
19 Q. And do you know how many convictions were achieved and -- in
20 relation to war crimes?
21 A. I cannot recall exactly. I remember one particular case in
22 Baranja, one that I have truly remembered, but I couldn't remember
23 anything else.
24 Q. You have described the -- in your statement, and we're now at
25 paragraph 50 in the proofing summary, Your Honours, in the statement it's
1 paragraphs 91, you have described the cooperation between the -- with the
2 JNA Novi Sad Corps and how it developed in the time. My question to you
3 is: Did you also have direct access to the chief of staff of the VJ, in
4 particular General Zivota Panic?
5 A. As I said, cooperation was good, and I did have contact with the
6 chief of the General Staff.
7 Q. How did this start, actually, this direct contact with Zivota
8 Panic? When did it start and how?
9 A. First of all, they weren't really frequent contacts, and they
10 started -- I can't remember. One occasion when we met at a gathering, we
11 exchanged telephone numbers, and occasionally we would talk to each other
12 and see one another.
13 Q. What would be the issues of the -- that you discussed? Can you
14 give examples?
15 A. I can't remember exactly, but it was always in the service of the
16 defence of the territory of the SBO.
17 Q. You have described in your statement a contact with General
18 Perisic in relation to 50 tanks that you requested and actually received.
19 Did you ask for tanks only or also for the crews to man the tanks?
20 A. I can't remember the exact date now when I made the request for
21 the tanks and when I received them, but I didn't ask for crews.
22 Q. And the tanks when they arrived, how did they get into the RSK
23 without being noticed, and where were they deployed?
24 A. Well -- well, normally we did this secretly. They were deployed
25 in the territory of SBO, but all this was in the interests of defending
1 the area.
2 Q. You have also described a conversation or, rather, a visit of
3 General Perisic to the 11th Corps in July 1995.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honours, it's omitted in the
5 proofing summary. It's at page -- at paragraph 121 of the witness
7 Q. You have described -- you have already described an event in which
8 you rejected the -- rejected 21 -- 20 VJ officers that arrived in the
9 region, but I think that's something we have to lead live.
10 In 1995, did you make a request for commanding officers to the VJ?
11 A. This was in August 1995, but certainly after the fall of the lower
12 part of Krajina, we requested officers from General Perisic, and he sent
13 to us some 20 or so officers but not with the speciality we had requested.
14 He sent those we didn't need. So we turned them back. We sent them back.
15 Q. Did you make an order to this effect?
16 A. Yes, I did give the order.
17 Q. Did Badza call you in this context?
18 A. Yes, he called me.
19 Q. And can you describe what happened? What did he say, and what
20 happened afterwards?
21 A. After that, when I had written the order for them to be returned,
22 Badza called me up, saying that I should come to a meeting in Belgrade,
23 and I did go to the meeting. And I arrived at the meeting, and Badza sent
24 me to see Mr. Milosevic, and we had a brief meeting there. Mr. Milosevic
25 asked me to the effect that Momcilo Perisic was complaining about me, that
1 I had written an order about the officers. I explained what it was all
2 about, and Mr. Milosevic said that he would talk to Perisic, that it
3 wasn't quite the way he had put it as he had heard my side of the story,
4 what the request was, what kind of officers had arrived, and why they had
6 Q. Did Mr. Milosevic actually know your order or did he have it?
7 A. I remember that he had it, had this order. Perisic probably gave
8 it to him.
9 Q. Was your order reversed or was it upheld?
10 A. No, no. My order was carried out, and it was only once it had
11 been carried out that Perisic complained about it.
12 Q. Yes. That's understood. But after your conversation with
13 Mr. Milosevic, was your order reversed or was it upheld?
14 A. I really can't remember exactly whether it was upheld or carried
15 out, but anyway, officers would come and go from our area.
16 Q. You have described in your statement your communication with the
17 Serbian MUP and other Serbian officials to special telephone lines. Who
18 established these lines?
19 A. I can't remember exactly, but I think that men came from Serbia.
20 Whether they used to work in the post office or in the MUP, I can't
21 remember exactly.
22 Q. Were the telephone lines occasionally cut off, and if so, who did
23 that and why?
24 A. Yes, they were frequently cut off. When I would make a "error,"
25 relations would cool, and as soon as the line would break, I knew what it
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 was about.
2 Q. Were you the only one in the region with such a special telephone
3 that you mentioned?
4 A. I'm not quite sure about that. Mr. Ilija Kojic may have had it,
5 but I'm not quite sure. And he was Assistant Minister of Internal
7 Q. Would others come to your office to use that telephone line,
8 calling officials in Serbia?
9 A. Occasionally.
10 Q. You have mentioned the Serbian state security people being present
11 in the -- in the region, and in relation to Branko Glusica, I would like
12 to know -- where did he have his office?
13 A. I didn't quite understand. The office in the SBO or in Serbia?
14 Q. In the region, in your region.
15 JUDGE MAY: I wonder if in fact that would be a convenient moment,
16 since we're going on to a different topic. It is time to adjourn.
17 Mr. Nice, as I understand it, you want to interpose another
18 witness, which means that this witness would have to come back for the
19 rest of his evidence next week.
20 MR. NICE: Can I address you about that in private session for a
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
23 [Private session]
13 Page 27289 – redacted – private session
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE MAY: Tomorrow, then, Mr. Milosevic, it may be that the
22 evidence of General Smith will be interposed, but as you've heard, you are
23 to hear within the hour. And I want, Mr. Nice, to make sure that if you
24 would make sure this evidence, this note gets through, information gets
25 through to the accused as to which of the two witnesses he has to prepare,
1 either this witness or General Smith.
2 Now, I should also say this, that tomorrow Judge Robinson has to
3 be away from the Tribunal on urgent personal business and cannot,
4 therefore, be present here, but he will have had the opportunity, and we
5 will consider together the appropriate order in relation of General Smith.
6 We've got the material, I think I'm right in saying. You're not asking
7 for the summary to go in but the statement.
8 MR. NICE: We're asking for the statement. The summary is a
9 draft, but the general has already worked on it, very helpfully by
10 electronic means with us, and so I don't think there are going to be too
11 many further amendments, but there may be some.
12 JUDGE MAY: And he's only available tomorrow, you say.
13 MR. NICE: As I understand it. It was difficult to get a day, but
14 of course we'll see what he'll do, given the problems that this witness
16 JUDGE MAY: That we face. Very well. We will adjourn now.
17 Tomorrow morning.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of
20 October, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.