1 Monday, 12 January 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.05 p.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Call the matter, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-01-42-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Pavle Strugar.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any special matter that should be raised
9 at this time?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, during the break we were
13 informed on several occasions by our client of his health problems which
14 he has had over the past 20 days or so. The doctors provided by the
15 Detention Unit examined him. He had blood tests and urine tests several
16 times. He is now receiving medication which is quite strong. As we heard
17 from him -- could we please go into closed session or private session.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, we will go into closed session, Mr. Rodic.
19 [Private session]
12 Page 492 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 493 – redacted – private session.
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We are now in open session.
20 My recollection is that there had been a conclusion of your
21 examination of the witness that is presently before the Chamber. Is that
22 so, Mr. Kaufman?
23 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: So if we could have the witness then.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 WITNESS: JOHN ALLCOCK [Resumed]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Welcome back. If I could remind you that you are
3 under affirmation to tell the truth in these proceedings.
4 THE WITNESS: I do remember that.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, we will commence your
6 cross-examination. It's to be Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Allcock. I hope you can hear me.
10 A. Yes, I can.
11 Q. I am attorney Vladimir Petrovic, and I will put a few questions to
12 you on behalf of the accused Strugar in relation to your expert report and
13 your oral testimony before this Tribunal at the end of last year.
14 First of all, I would like to ask you to tell us again what your
15 formal education is.
16 A. I've been trained as a sociologist. I graduated in sociology from
17 the University of Leicester and went on to do a master's degree in
18 sociology at Carlton University in Canada and then returned to Britain
19 where I began to teach sociology.
20 Q. Thank you. I hope you won't mind my asking you the following
21 question. I have to ask it in view of the contents and range of your
22 report. Your report also deals to a large extent with matters of
23 geography, history, and architecture. These are specific areas which, in
24 my opinion, are not closely connected to your profession. Could you
25 please explain to us how and in what way you feel that you can testify
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 equally competently about matters of history or geography or tourism as
2 competently as you can about matters of sociology?
3 A. I'll try to answer briefly. My response would run along two
4 lines. The first of these is the brief that I was given by prosecuting
5 counsel in that I understand my -- the function of my report is to provide
6 a broad background information relating to the Old Town of Dubrovnik and
7 its -- its localities, environment and its economic circumstances. In
8 that respect, the skills that I was required to deploy involved really
9 summarising a great deal of uncontentious material.
10 In the past, I've done a training course at Bradford on the work
11 of expert witnesses, and one of the things which was instilled in us is
12 that our function is to assist the Court, and I simply saw my function on
13 this occasion as assisting the Court by assembling uncontentious material
14 which would provide anybody who is not familiar with the Dubrovnik area
15 with the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the main aspects of
16 the situation.
17 In that respect, I suppose, what was more relevant to my role as
18 an expert on that -- within this specific context was not so much my work
19 as a sociologist but the fact that I had been working over a period of ten
20 years in the area of Dubrovnik and, therefore, my direct familiarity with
21 the region was appropriate.
22 The second line along which my response would go is as follows:
23 That this is a problem that I've encountered before, particularly talking
24 with lawyers, and I think there is a tendency to project onto the social
25 science -- scientists certain assumptions about the nature of the social
1 sciences as disciplines which are drawn in fact from the expense of law.
2 I believe there's a much greater degree of specialisation in law than
3 there is in the social sciences. I have neighbours and friends who are
4 lawyers dealing with either the conveyancing of property, commercial law,
5 or family law, and none of them would be seen dead in court defending the
6 work in another specialism, and all of them would be terrified to take
7 your place.
8 This degree of extreme specialisation is not the case in the
9 social sciences, particularly in relation to two disciplines. All social
10 phenomena are located in time and space, and therefore, if one is
11 embarking on a career in any area of social science it's important that
12 one retains an openness towards two disciplines in particular which
13 specialise in time and space; namely, history and geography. As an
14 illustration of this, I think it's probably the case that I can't remember
15 when I last published anything of any significance which did not contain
17 Also, what's particularly important for me is the dimension of
18 time, of history. I do not believe it is possible to understand any
19 social phenomenon without giving a great deal of attention to its
20 historical background, and in this respect my view is not idiosyncratic in
21 any sense but I stand in what I would regard as the core tradition of
22 sociology in which sociology as a discipline has grown up in very close
23 association with history figures such as Max Faber, Emile Dukan [phoen],
24 the person who was my own mentor as an undergraduate, Norbert Elesse
25 [phoen], the person who was my mentor as a master's student in Canada,
1 John Porter. All took very strongly this view that it is essential in
2 attempting to understand anything in society to view that phenomenon, that
3 problem within its historical context. And therefore, I don't believe
4 that in attempting to provide the background, the kind of background
5 information with which I've been dealing in my report on Dubrovnik, that
6 I've been committing any kind of crime of extreme pretension in straying
7 at least marginally into the territory of the historian and the
9 You particularly also in your question mention the business of
10 architecture. My response in that respect would be slightly different in
11 that I believe that no civilised human being can count themselves as such
12 if they do not have some awareness of their built environment. I claim no
13 special expertise in this area, and indeed what I have done in commenting
14 very briefly on architecture in my report is simply, once again, to
15 summarise what I understand to be a taken-for-granted consensus about
16 those factors.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Allcock. Keeping in mind our time constraints,
18 please reply as concisely as possible to my questions. I do appreciate
19 your reply, but I would like to ask you to continue answering very
21 Am I right in saying, then, when you say that you are more expert
22 in the field of sociology than you are in the field of architecture?
23 Would that be a correct conclusion?
24 A. That is certainly the case, yes.
25 Q. Does this also -- does this also have to do with geography and
2 A. Yes, although I return to the point that I've already made, that
3 what I have been trying to do in my report is not to advance the borders
4 of historical and geographical knowledge but simply to provide the
5 taken-for-granted consensus among scholars about the nature of the region
6 which is the subject of my report.
7 Q. Very well, then. Am I correct in saying that your viewpoints on
8 non-sociological areas are standpoints that have been taken over from the
9 fund of knowledge that a person of broad general culture would know, or do
10 you have any specific knowledge that would make you more qualified in this
11 area than in other areas?
12 A. I think there are two things in that respect I would reply. First
13 of all, if I have more than an average layability in these areas, it rests
14 upon my familiarity with the area and the fact that I lived and worked
15 intermittently in and around Dubrovnik over some substantial period of
16 time and therefore what I have to say is based on judgements with the --
17 based on familiarity with the area and not simply on things that I've
18 picked up in books.
19 The second point I would make in replying is not intended to be
20 aggressive but perhaps might come across a little bit more so, and that is
21 that because I believe that what I have offered here is -- is an
22 uncontentious consensus, I think it's open to -- to counsel to produce
23 some kind of evidence that what I have offered is less than acceptable.
24 Q. I will give you some matters later on. Now I'm only focusing on
25 the general background. For example, I'm interested in the historical
1 context of the early Middle Ages, the Middle Ages, the eighteenth and
2 nineteenth centuries. Is this a result of your study of these historical
3 periods or just the result of a more or less detailed summary of something
4 in a historical textbook or tourist guide or similar publication?
5 A. Well, I assure counsel that I was not present in Dubrovnik during
6 the Middle Ages, but as it should be evident from my report, I've given
7 footnotes on several occasions to the scholarly works on which I've relied
8 in putting together this report. I remind counsel that in that respect
9 I've relied heavily on the work of the late Frank Carter, whose study of
10 Dubrovnik is probably unrivaled by anything else produced in Britain, the
11 various works of John Fine, who is an American historian of very high
12 reputation, and the work of Yugoslav historians as well, such as Barisa
13 Krekic and others. So that I -- in setting out to write this report, I
14 didn't sit down and rely on tourist guides, I took the trouble to acquaint
15 myself with substantial works of scholarship.
16 Q. This study of history, is it something that you have engaged in
17 before or is this something that you have done now for the first time for
18 the purposes of this expert report?
19 A. As I've already indicated in my response to your earlier question,
20 I have seen it as appropriate in my work as a sociologist always to
21 involve myself in the study of the historical background of whatever it is
22 I'm working on.
23 My first scholarly acquaintance with Yugoslavia began in, I think,
24 1967, and in the variety of projects which I've pursued since then, I've
25 invariably attempted to place the work that I've been doing within its
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 historical context, and I continued this when I began in 1981 to work on
2 the questions of tourism. And so that the -- my venture into history on
3 this occasion, which counsel is attempting to suggest, I think, is somehow
4 capricious on my part, is an indication of a consistent stance which I
5 have taken from my position as a scholar in the area, and this is by no
6 means -- this is the first occasion on which I've indeed looked at the
7 history of Dubrovnik. I published much earlier than this a paper on the
8 history of tourism, which is included in my CV, I believe.
9 Q. If I may ask you, have you published any works in, for example,
10 the field of architecture or the field of geography, or exclusively in the
11 field of history or is everything that you have done in the context of
12 your study of tourism and other sociological research?
13 A. I think that I'll remind you of the answer that I've already given
14 about the relatively open boundaries of sociology. One of the first
15 scholarly works that I published was at the invitation of Professor Frank
16 Carter, which was a contribution to a work which has become a major
17 standard in its field, The Historical Geography of the Balkans. Professor
18 Carter was a geographer and yet invited me as a sociologist, because of my
19 familiarity with the material with which I was dealing, to contribute in
20 that area. And there have been a number of other occasions on which,
21 similarly, the work that I have done has extended across disciplinary
22 boundaries, not only history, geography, but also political science. Some
23 of the more recent work which I've done since the unfortunate process of
24 the disintegration of Yugoslavia began was conducted in association and
25 collaboration with political scientists. And perhaps one minor point of
1 detail would be relevant here, in that in 1973 I moved into the humanities
2 department in Bradford which was expressly a department of
3 interdisciplinary human studies. The tradition of that department was to
4 emphasise to students and to foster among staff an awareness of the
5 importance of interdisciplinary collaboration.
6 The questions that counsel is asking indicate a certain surprise
7 that these things might be possible, but I assure him that these things
8 are relatively normal within the academic field.
9 Q. I would like to assure you that I am familiar with this, but I
10 would also like to say that I can conclude only one thing from what you
11 have said: Your profession -- your professional field is sociology and
12 everything else is auxiliary to that, something that helps you in
13 conducting your research in your professional field. Every job is
14 multi-disciplinary. What we are doing here is multi-disciplinary, but
15 although I will put questions to you in the field of history, I will not
16 for a second call myself an expert on history or on geography, and that is
17 the crux of my question.
18 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I am loath to interject because I
19 understand that the Court is not minded to hear too many objections in
20 this matter, but I feel that counsel for the Defence gave a speech rather
21 than request a question there. Perhaps counsel for the Defence would like
22 to phrase a question.
23 JUDGE PARKER: I think there is substance in what you say,
24 Mr. Kaufman, but I don't think there is reason for us to be too technical
25 at this preliminary stage of the questioning. There is, as I understand
1 it, a general exploration by Mr. Petrovic of the qualifications and
2 experience of the witness in this general field, and while a lengthy
3 speech-like question is not terribly helpful for us, it is one way of
4 helping Mr. Petrovic get the points that he wishes to make across on this
5 general topic before he moves on, as I'm sure he will shortly, to -- to
6 more direct issues that he wishes to raise. Thank you.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you please just give me an answer, then.
9 A. I'm slightly puzzled as to what the question was, but I think the
10 most appropriate response that I can make is to say well, the best test of
11 my knowledge of the area and the capacity to -- my capacity to write the
12 report that I have given is in specific areas rather than at the level of
13 extreme generality that was discussed in the speech at the moment.
14 Q. Please, Mr. Allcock, could you tell me -- I mean, if I followed
15 this very carefully, what are the exact materials that the Prosecutor gave
16 you while you were preparing this expert opinion that we've been
17 discussing, if any, that is?
18 A. I don't recall being given any materials by the Prosecutor. I had
19 a letter in which the purpose of the report was outlined. That was
20 subsequently reduced somewhat in its scope because, as counsel will know,
21 the range of issues covered in the indictment were reduced at one point in
22 the period leading up to this case, and you will recall that at the
23 beginning of my first appearance in front of the Court a number of
24 photographs were also -- and maps were also put before the Court, and the
25 evening before I appeared in the Court, Mr. Kaufman asked me if I would
1 mind if he used my presence as an opportunity to introduce those materials
2 to the Court as evidence, and I replied I had no objection whatsoever to
3 that. But apart from that, the -- I don't believe that the Prosecutor's
4 office have given me any instructions as to -- they certainly offered me
5 no material which ought to appear or that I ought to use in the
6 preparation of my report.
7 Q. Thank you. All right. Now I'd like to move on to something else
8 and then perhaps later during the course of the day we will be able to go
9 back to some of the things that we've been discussing just now.
10 I would like to move on to some concrete questions related to your
11 paper. First of all, I would like to ask you: What Yugoslav scholars did
12 you cite, or, rather, scholars from the territory of the former
13 Yugoslavia, to be precise, in your expert opinion?
14 A. In the preparation of this report, I recall using -- well, I've
15 already mentioned the work of Barisa Krekic. There is a work by somebody
16 called Peric on the history of Dubrovnik, specifically on that topic. I
17 used that. I used a number of public reference materials, atlases,
18 statistical yearbooks, and so on. I was sent, at my request, from the
19 library of the faculty for tourism and foreign trade in Dubrovnik a couple
20 of articles which are also cited in the footnotes of my paper, in
21 particular one by the head of the faculty, Professor Kovacic.
22 What else? Oh, yes, in relation to the political area, I've also
23 had the opportunity to look in particular at some work by Professor
24 Kasapovic from University of Zagreb, and also a couple of historians,
25 Mr. Goldstein's History of Croatia.
1 I think those -- those are the only ones that come to mind
2 immediately, but the works that I've used in general are listed in the
3 footnotes of my report.
4 Q. Thank you. So could you please give me brief answers, because I'm
5 not expecting any long answers. Could you briefly tell me when the
6 Dubrovnik Republic was established, on that basis, and give me some
7 general elements related to the history of the Dubrovnik Republic as an
8 independent entity. Very briefly, please.
9 A. Well, if you want something very brief, then this is outlined in
10 my report. The republic really emerges as such in the thirteenth century.
11 Its existence is based upon trade, and its political organisation was
12 based on the status and wealth, indeed, of a few powerful families within
13 the republic. It persisted as an independent republic under the patronage
14 and toleration of surrounding powers, particularly Venice and the Ottoman
15 Empire, up until the beginning of the nineteenth century when the republic
16 was finally extinguished by the activities of Napoleon.
17 I hope that is sufficiently brief for you, but if not, we can --
18 Q. That will do, thank you. In your report on page 5 there is
19 something I found to be of interest. So could you please have a look at
20 the report?
21 A. I have it.
22 Q. Just a moment, please. Could I compare the B/C/S version to the
23 English version for a moment, please.
24 So in the English version it is page 3, actually. Paragraph 1.
25 Paragraph 1 on page 3 of the English version.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. So it is the paragraph that starts with the Empire of Stefan Dusan
3 Nemanjic, and then you refer to the complexity and relations between
4 Dubrovnik and the Venetian overlords and the Slav states and its
5 hinterland. So could you tell me briefly what their relations were like?
6 A. Well, you're -- I'm aware of your requirement for a brief answer.
7 I think the way -- the best way in which to frame this briefly is that the
8 dominant power in the Adriatic Sea was the Venetian republic. The
9 dominant power from the end of the fourteenth century in the Balkan
10 hinterland was the Ottoman Empire, and the republic of Dubrovnik found
11 itself at the awkward conjunction of these two important forces. Also, of
12 course, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had a significant presence in the
13 region so that the -- the political future of the republic of Dubrovnik
14 throughout that entire period of its existence as an independent republic
15 depended upon either the skill of its leaders or their good fortune in
16 steering some kind of acceptable course between these three powerful
18 Q. I'm perplexed now. It is not clear to me on the basis of your
19 answer what the time frame is, so my question is: When did the
20 Austro-Hungarian Empire come into being? Or, rather, I'm sorry, when did
21 the Austrian Empire become the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
22 A. I would have to check the date of that. I can't give you a
23 spontaneous answer.
24 Q. Can you tell me the century?
25 A. Well, if you're talking about the Empire -- see, this is actually
1 a more complex question than counsel indicates --
2 Q. Excuse me. Just a second, please. I'm putting a very formal
3 question to you. There is an exact year when the Austrian Empire became
4 the Austro-Hungarian Empire. When did this happen, and in which century
5 did this happen? It's quite simple, isn't it?
6 A. I'm aware of a complex transition between the ownership of an
7 extensive array of feudal lands by the Habsburgs and evolution into an
8 Empire. I wouldn't be able to give you a precise date at which one would
9 say -- it could be declared to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Is there not a generally accepted date for that
11 historical transition?
12 THE WITNESS: There may well be, Your Honour, but I'm not aware of
13 it at the moment. I would need to check it.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Do you know the century when this occurred? So in which century
16 did the Austrian Empire formally become the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
17 A. I would think this is probably the sixteenth century.
18 Q. I will have to disappoint you and tell you that it happened three
19 centuries later.
20 So now in that context - this actually happened in 1867. This is
21 the year when the Austrian Empire became the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
22 That is to say, when this Empire came into being consisting of Austria and
23 Hungary. So now I'm asking you about the relations between Austro-Hungary
24 and the independent republic of Dubrovnik.
25 Could you tell me how is this possible, if we know that
1 Austro-Hungary came into being in the second half of the nineteenth
2 century, by then the independent republic of Dubrovnik was no longer in
3 existence. It was actually part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire for a long
4 time by then.
5 A. I think the nature of the confusion here arises from my allusion
6 of two facts. One is of course that the -- I have used the phrase the
7 Austro-Hungarian Empire to cover the development of Habsburg possessions
8 in the area. I'm sure counsel is correct in citing 1867 as the date at
9 which this -- this entity actually adopted the title Austro-Hungarian
10 Empire, but the Habsburg dynasty in that area are of much greater
11 antiquity than this, going back into the Middle Ages, and I apologise if
12 the looseness of my phraseology has elided that transition.
13 Your puzzlement about the role of Austria in the area is cleared
14 up when I point out that what I had in mind was the role of the house of
15 Habsburg and its various possessions and not the entity which you have
16 correctly pointed out didn't take that title until later on. But I should
17 say incidentally that the -- much more important than Habsburg possessions
18 in the evolution of the Republic of Ragusa was the point that I've already
19 made about the need to -- the position of Ragusa --
20 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt. Please, there is no need to elaborate in
21 such detail. Could you please just give specific answers to my questions.
22 You have already said what you wished to say, and my colleagues are going
23 to put questions to you if they deem it necessary. So could you please
24 answer my questions if the Trial Chamber allows them to be put the way I'm
25 putting them.
1 So let us deal with the nineteenth century briefly. The beginning
2 of the nineteenth century, the first half of the nineteenth century, the
3 second half of the nineteenth century. What are the neighbouring states
4 of the Dubrovnik Republic and what is their status?
5 A. Well, during the first half of the nineteenth century Venice was
6 still the dominant power in the northern part of the Adriatic. The
7 Ottoman Empire controlled the area which is now Bosnia and a substantial
8 part of the Balkan Peninsula inland. Actually, Croatia which lay to the
9 north of Dubrovnik in the late -- was attached to the Hungarian crown, and
10 although a number of people have often said, well, what about Montenegro,
11 Montenegro didn't have at that time any kind of adjacent border with
12 Dubrovnik, and indeed was an extremely small entity indeed so I shall
13 discount Montenegro.
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Mr. Allcock, I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt you yet again.
17 And, again, I need to point out some major shortcomings in your report. I
18 asked you about the first half of the nineteenth century. The first fact
19 that is wrong is that in the first half of the nineteenth century, the
20 republic of Venice was no longer in existence. It had been abolished by
21 Napoleon considerably before that in the eighteenth century?
22 A. That is correct. I was concentrating on your earlier question at
23 that point. Yes.
24 Q. Secondly, the second mistake you made was the fact that you spoke
25 about Croatia as part of the Hungarian crown. That is also not correct.
1 This took place only in 1868, after the agreement reached between Croatia
2 and Hungary. So that is considerably later.
3 A. That is a matter of considerable historical dispute. The -- the
4 crown of Croatia passed to Hungary in the twelfth century. I'm puzzled.
5 Certainly there was a change of its status in 1868 but the relationship
6 between Croatia and Hungary is of considerably greater antiquity than
8 Q. What kind of document was made in 1868 between Croatia and
9 Hungary? Do you know anything about that?
10 A. Again, there's disagreement about the status of that among
11 historians. The eminent historian C. A. MacCartney said that the --
12 Q. I'm sorry for interrupting you yet again. That document, what is
13 the name of that document --
14 A. And -- sorry?
15 Q. -- and what is included in this document? What are its contents?
16 A. I haven't read the document, I've only read secondary accounts of
17 it, but I understand that it does spell out the relationship, among other
18 things, between the Croatian lands and the Hungarian crown.
19 Q. How were these regulations regulated?
20 A. Well, the -- Croatia continued to have its own -- its own
21 assembly, its own Sabor. Croatia continued to be governed by a governor,
22 a ban, and there were -- it was possible for representatives of the
23 Croatian nobility in particular to be represented within the Hungarian
24 parliament, within the Hungarian Assembly.
25 Q. And what was the state and legal relationship between Croatia and
1 Hungary or, rather, between Croatia and Austro-Hungary later?
2 A. This is the matter of the most extreme --
3 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I do apologise for interjecting. Once
4 again questions have been asked on the expertise of this witness in
5 matters of geography and history. I would, however, strongly object to
6 questions being asked on legal matters since later this week Your Honours
7 will hear from a witness who will testify as to the legal status of
8 Croatia at certain times relevant to the indictment.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Mr. Kaufman.
11 Mr. Petrovic.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, I'm not
13 asking the witness to give a legal opinion or legal assessment. I'm
14 asking a man who claims to be familiar with the history of a region to
15 give me relevant historic facts. I'm not asking for any legal
16 qualifications or any other such thing. I'm simply interested in the
17 historical relationship between Croatia and Hungary. So please do allow
18 this question.
19 JUDGE PARKER: I propose to allow the questions to continue,
20 Mr. Kaufman, for much the same reason as I indicated a little time ago.
21 I'm understanding these questions to be put in an historical context
22 rather than a legal, but the point is being reached, can I indicate,
23 Mr. Petrovic, where I might ask you what is the relevance of all this. I
24 won't ask it yet, because you go on for a little while, but nothing --
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
1 JUDGE PARKER: -- nothing has yet been said that would indicate to
2 me what might be the relevance.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, even before you put
4 the question, I will take the liberty of explaining why I'm putting this
5 question. By your leave, of course. I am putting these questions for a
6 simple reason. Notwithstanding the deep respect I have for this witness,
7 I am trying to show, and I believe that I have succeeded in doing so
8 considerably so far, that the gentleman who is an expert witness in this
9 case simply does not have the knowledge that is required of an expert
10 witness in this area. Believe me, anybody who completed elementary school
11 or secondary school in the countries of the former Yugoslavia knows the
12 answers to these questions.
13 I must say, regrettably, that your expert witness who is a
14 knowledgeable man in the field of tourism is not a proper expert in the
15 subject matter involved here. I do not wish to offend anyone, but that is
16 the core of the matter. Believe me, I am no expert in history either, but
17 the questions I am putting have to do with things I learned in secondary
19 So by your leave --
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, you may continue for a little time.
21 I would suggest that if you are wanting to put matters of historical fact
22 as you understand them to the witness, matters which you believe the
23 witness has wrongly understood or which are relevant to his report or
24 which you suggest would demonstrate that he has not an adequate
25 familiarity with the history of the region, that you might put those
1 matters shortly and simply and then move on to matters that are more
2 relevant directly to the circumstances of this case. Is that clear enough
3 for you?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course, of course I
5 shall do that. However, I am bound by the report that I have here in
6 front of me. Four or five pages in the B/C/S version deal with the
7 historical context. I share your view that this is not of key importance
8 for this case, but this is part of the report that was submitted by the
9 other side, and it was admitted, so I have to deal with it. And of course
10 I fully share your views that your ruling with regard to this particular
11 legal matter will not hinge on what this report contains, but I will just
12 put a few more questions in this regard and then I'm going to move on to
13 another area which may be of greater interest, another area contained in
14 this report.
15 Q. So, Mr. Allcock, we were talking about the state and legal
16 relationship between Hungary and Croatia. Can you tell us what this
17 relationship was like?
18 A. There's a problem here in satisfying your demand for brevity and
19 the demand for completeness. The entire domestic political history of
20 Croatia in the nineteenth century, to my mind, seems to have revolved
21 around the difference of interpretation of exactly what was contained
22 within that -- within that document. Croatian nationalists have always
23 maintained that the Nagodba set them up as acknowledging their
24 independence as a state and acknowledging the continuous existence of a
25 Croatian state from much earlier times, and Hungarian experts, on the
1 other hand, always maintained that Croatia had been simply, in one form or
2 another, assimilated into the Hungarian state, and there were long and
3 bitter disagreements between both sides which do in some respect continue
4 to shape Croatian politics today about precisely that issue. And I do
5 think that I cannot satisfy your request for brevity in answering that
6 question any more completely.
7 Q. Thank you. We were talking about the troubled relationship with
8 the hinterland and with other neighbours. Let us deal with the hinterland
10 Can you tell me about the hinterland? What countries existed
11 there, and to be more precise, I'm interested in the eighteenth,
12 nineteenth, and twentieth centuries specifically, the continental
13 hinterland of Dubrovnik. Could you tell me what states existed there and
14 how they came into being and how they eventually disappeared?
15 A. Well, the Ottoman Empire was established from the middle to the
16 late fourteenth century in the Balkans. I'm not certain exactly at what
17 date it acquired a common frontier with the Republic of Ragusa. Then
18 during the nineteenth century, of course, the status of Bosnia as part or
19 as a component of the Ottoman Empire came into question. There was an
20 important rebellion in 1874 which continued for a couple of years which
21 resulted in the end, in the granting of Bosnia and Herzegovina to
22 Austro-Hungary under the status of protectorate. This was subsequent in
23 1908 turned into a direct annexation.
24 Montenegro, further south, began as a -- having virtually no
25 international legal recognition, although it did sustain a -- a relatively
1 independent, a relatively independent existence for a long time, first of
2 all as an independent ecclesiastical institution under prince bishops. I
3 am -- I think I'm right in saying that the first international recognition
4 of Montenegro as a state did not occur until 1878.
5 Is that a sufficiently complete answer to the question or do you
6 want to go on into the twentieth century?
7 Q. Yes, yes, yes. I'd just like to ask you about the year. In which
8 year was Bosnia-Herzegovina occupied?
9 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina occupied under the terms of the -- the Congress
10 of Berlin, 1878.
11 Q. Now I would like to ask you to move on to somebody else. Just a
12 moment, please.
13 I would just like to deal with history very briefly a bit more, if
14 it's all right with you. Tell me, please, when the Austro-Hungarian
15 monarchy disintegrated, what happened to Dubrovnik in those years after
16 that, before the First World War and after the Second World War. Go
18 A. The crucial change took place in the First World War when the
19 previous different states, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, were brought into
20 a common south Slav state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, at
21 the end of 1919. Dubrovnik at that stage, of course, had already been
22 incorporated into Croatia prior to that. Its independent existence had
23 ceased as counsel has already correctly pointed out and as indeed I
24 acknowledge in my report with the activities of Napoleon. It was not a
25 separate state then and simply was taken into the Kingdom of Serbs,
1 Croats, and Slovenes along with the unification of the other south Slav
2 lands in 1918.
3 Q. Have you heard about the state of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs?
4 Do you know what that is?
5 A. Yes. The unification process was a complex process, and indeed in
6 the later months of the First World War it became evident that it was
7 going to have to be necessary to find some kind of alternative to the
8 previous Austro-Hungarian dominion in the Balkans, and to cut a long story
9 short, two focuses appeared initially.
10 The -- there was the -- in early -- earlier in 1918, there was an
11 attempt based on -- around the activities of Slovene representatives in
12 the Reichstag to organise some kind of state, but this was then
13 subordinated later on because the -- that was intended to involve simply
14 the south Slav peoples which had previously been part of the
15 Austro-Hungarian Empire, and that is a different entity from the entity
16 which was subsequently created by bringing in the Serbian and Montenegrin
17 states and -- which produced the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes by
18 which the state was eventually known.
19 Q. When did the Austro-Hungarian monarchy fall apart?
20 A. Again we're talking about -- about process here. I'm not quite
21 sure what date you've give to the actual termination of it, but --
22 Q. Please. That is also part of general knowledge, when the
23 Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved. Everybody knows that. When? What
24 year? At what time? What events led to this?
25 A. Are we being technical here? It certainly would have been 1918,
1 but I can't give a precise date to that.
2 Q. In your previous response to my previous question you say earlier
3 in 1918 there was an attempt based around the activities of Slovene
4 representatives. Is that when the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian
5 monarchy happened?
6 A. I think the -- in effect the disintegration of the
7 Austro-Hungarian Empire happened before then, but when its actual legal
8 termination was, again I'm talking legally here, I don't know. There was
9 a period of a few months between the creation of the state to which you've
10 referred and the eventual unification of Yugoslavia.
11 Q. As someone with pretensions to deal with historical issues, do you
12 know the day of -- the date of the armistice in World War I?
13 A. This is the eleventh of the eleventh, isn't it, 1918. 11th of
15 Q. I must tell you that that is not so. Do you know?
16 A. That's the date it's celebrated in Britain.
17 Q. In your opinion -- I withdraw this. Tell me, please, what was the
18 sequence of internationally recognised state entities, I'm talking about
19 the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and ending with Yugoslavia, so I'm
20 interested particularly in Dubrovnik. These are very precise matters. We
21 don't need to go into any wider explanations here.
22 A. I'm afraid I haven't understood your question.
23 Q. I will try to clarify it. What government authorities changed in
24 Dubrovnik between 1914 and 1920? Who ruled Dubrovnik?
25 A. If I had thought this was --
1 Q. In the formal legal state sense. I'm talking about
2 internationally recognised states and their sequence in that area. So
3 what happened after the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
4 A. If I had thought that this sort of information was relevant to my
5 report, I would have investigated it in greater detail. I didn't think
6 that those events had very much bearing on the situation in question and,
7 therefore, I did not take the trouble to investigate that matter.
8 Q. Mr. Allcock, a third of your report is history, the history of
9 Dubrovnik. You even mention this. Look at page 5 of your report,
10 paragraph 1. You speak of the disintegration of the Empire, the end of
11 World War I and the states that arose. Look on page 5 of the English
12 version, paragraph 1. So you deal with this. I don't see how you can
13 then be surprised by my questions, because you dealt with this in your
15 A. The only surprise is in the nature of detail which counsel
16 considers to be relevant.
17 Q. I don't want to enter into an argument with you, but I think these
18 are elementary questions. However, I will not go any further with this
19 line of questioning.
20 You mentioned the French General Marmont in one place -- and this
21 is my last question to do with history. Rather, I have two more
22 historical questions. I hope you don't mind.
23 Could you please tell me, very briefly, in Dubrovnik, Marmont,
24 1806, could you just give us a brief sequence of events?
25 A. Yes. The situation again is complex. A lot -- there is a lot of
1 confusion among historians, and I understand the nature of your question
2 here because there is a great deal of confusion among historians about the
3 precise date which the Republic of Dubrovnik ceased to exist. A number of
4 historians cite 1805 as that date and the confusion -- I investigated this
5 in particular because contradictory dates are given.
6 Often -- I believe historians take the -- the Treaty of Presburg
7 in December 1805 when Venice was -- the power of Venice in the area was
8 extinguished, as indicating that Dubrovnik also ceased to exist as a state
9 in 1805. This is not actually correct. The French troops didn't actually
10 enter Dubrovnik until May - I think it was the 27th of May - 1806. And
11 even at that point Napoleon declared that this did not affect the
12 independence of the Republic of Dubrovnik, and he did not actually declare
13 that Dubrovnik had ceased to exist until 1808, however I think it's fairly
14 clear that the 27th of May, 1806, when French troops actually occupied the
15 town, is a pretty convincing date of which we can say that the
16 independence of the Republic of Ragusa ceased.
17 Q. I will put forward a conclusion and then I will say that your
18 knowledge of history is extremely fragmentary. You know details such as
19 the 27th of May, 1806, and yet you are not aware of the sequence of
20 governments or states on the territory of Dubrovnik.
21 Tell me, with regard to the Russian fleet at that time, briefly,
22 if you can in one sentence, if not, then I will withdraw my question:
23 Where did the Russian fleet appear and when?
24 A. I know the Russian fleet was active in the area at that time
25 because they were supporting the Montenegrins, but exactly where they were
1 at that time, I do not know.
2 Q. Do you know that the Russian fleet sailed into the Boka Kotorska
3 bay and the clashes between Boka and the Dubrovnik territory, do you know
4 something about this?
5 A. Yes, I understand there was some fighting of that kind. I didn't
6 think it was sufficiently relevant to the general flow of events for me to
7 investigate it further and to write it up in my report. One has to make
8 some sort of decisions about relevance and my understanding, as I said at
9 the beginning of this questioning, was to provide some sense of the
10 general shape of the history of the area, and in that sense perhaps I have
11 conveyed the impression of fragmentariness, but -- okay.
12 Q. I must ask you why you agreed to provide general information about
13 something that you obviously have not mastered, because I am sure that
14 you're an eminent expert in your own field, but why did you agree to write
15 about something that is evidently not your field?
16 A. I think the answer to this is possibly more simple than you think
17 it is. A general introductory report of the kind that I've prepared
18 touches on a number of issues, not only history but also economics and
19 politics as well as specific issues relating to tourism. It would have
20 been considerably more time-consuming for this Court, and indeed
21 expensive, had the Prosecution commissioned four different witnesses to
22 put together the background material that they did. They made a
23 judgement, based on earlier contact on my part with the Prosecutor's
24 office, that I could provide the range of information which they needed
25 with the succinctness that they required, and I -- bearing in mind the
1 fact that I was not appearing as a professional historian but as a social
2 scientist with a broad familiarity with the area, its economics,
3 historical and political background, under those terms, I agreed.
4 If I had been engaged specifically as a historian or invited to be
5 engaged as a historian specifically in order to provide an extremely
6 detailed defensible account of the history of the area, I would have
7 declined that invitation. I received, however, a different invitation.
8 Q. If I understand you correctly, the reason you deal with history
9 here is the fact that there was an effort to save money on the preparation
10 of the report. Is that your standpoint?
11 A. I think you better ask the Prosecutor's office about that. I
12 simply received an invitation to which I responded in the terms in which
13 it was presented to me.
14 Q. I'm putting this to you because you yourself said that it was more
15 economical and simple for all this to be done by you rather than engaging
16 a historian, a geographer, and so on. So those are your words. You say
17 that you were invited because it was cheaper than having a historian as
18 well. Maybe I misunderstood you.
19 A. That's my surmise, not a point which was put to me by the
20 Prosecutor's office.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you. My last historical question: The organisation
22 of the newly formed Yugoslav state, how was it organised in 1918?
23 A. In 1918. Well, there was a long period in which its organisation
24 was under discussion. The constitutional commission didn't --
25 constitutional assembly didn't deliver its conclusions until, I think,
1 1920, 1921. So there was a long period then in which Yugoslavia was under
2 some kind of provisional arrangement.
3 In effect, the -- as I understand it, various people who took
4 responsibility for ministries, if this is what you're getting at, was
5 provided by a more or less informal selection among the various interest
6 groups who had been present in the formulation of Yugoslavia, from the
7 Yugoslav committee, the government of Serbia, former members of the
8 various state assemblies from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and so on. It
9 wasn't -- it didn't acquire a proper constitutional standing until the
10 Vidovdan constitution.
11 Q. What was the territorial organisation of the first Yugoslav state?
12 A. Well, it was a unified state. It didn't have at that stage either
13 the federal structure which it acquired in the post Second World War
14 period or even the organisation --
15 Q. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Do you know -- have you heard of the term "banovina"?
18 A. Yes, of course. This is the organisation which was imposed by
19 King Aleksandar after he took control of the country under the
20 dictatorship. He divided the country into a number regions which
21 expressly cut across historical linguistic boundaries.
22 Q. Do you know -- do you know what unit Dubrovnik was a part of at
23 that time?
24 A. I believe it's Primorska, but I might be wrong about that. I
25 think it's Primorska. No, it was Zetska. I knew I'd get that wrong.
1 Q. Have you ever heard of the banovina of Croatia?
2 A. Yes. This was the attempt to modify that structure which was
3 introduced, I believe, in 1938 when, after a prolonged period in which
4 various Croatian parties had expressed their dissatisfaction with the
5 situation in Croatia within Yugoslavia, an agreement was reached between
6 the Prime Minister Cvetkovic and the head of the Croatian peasant party
7 Vlado Macek, and it was agreed that some of the former territories, not
8 only historical Croatia, but also parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, should
9 be joined together into a single governorship, banovina Hrvatska.
10 Q. Dubrovnik?
11 A. I don't believe that was part of it at the time.
12 Q. I think you're wrong again. It was.
13 A. Okay.
14 MR. PETROVIC: Now I will move on. My second topic will be
15 shorter, but perhaps the Chamber feels this is a convenient time?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic, it is. I see
17 that from your client, and we will have periods of a little less than an
18 hour and a half for the balance of the day. You will, of course, remember
19 that you need to finish in time for re-examination to conclude the
20 evidence today.
21 We will adjourn now.
22 --- Recess taken at 4.23 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 4.47 p.m.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Allcock, if you don't mind, I would now like to deal with some
2 geographical aspects of your report which I believe are simpler than the
3 ones we dealt with before the break.
4 Would you please tell me the length of the territory of the
5 municipality of Dubrovnik. How long is it, approximately, from the far
6 south to the far north-west points?
7 A. I referred in my report to an approximate figure of 120
8 kilometres. This is an approximate figure. And I think since you've
9 raised the question, it would be useful to point out that this is an
10 informal estimate as the crow flies for directly and not the length of the
11 coastline, which is much longer.
12 Q. Can you tell me something about the depth of the territory of
13 Dubrovnik municipality, the 20 kilometres or so, how does it vary and how
14 deep is the territory at various points?
15 A. Well, it varies extremely. I gather at one point it's down to
16 about 50 metres, but the figure you've already mentioned, I thought it was
17 a little less than that at its widest point, a little less than 20
18 kilometres and more like 15, but that's the general order of things.
19 Q. I do apologise. Either I made a mistake in my question or it was
20 misinterpreted. I don't remember having mentioned 20 kilometres, but --
21 there was a misunderstanding. I was referring to the total length of 120
22 kilometres. So what is the narrowest point of this territory and the
23 broadest point of this territory? Maybe it's clearer now.
24 A. I won't alter the answer I gave before which is that I believe the
25 extreme southern limit down near Prevlaka gets down to about 50 metres,
1 but the -- I think the widest point is about 15 kilometres. Again, this
2 has been an informal measure across the map on my part rather than a
3 scientific measurement.
4 Q. Yes. Thank you. We will agree, then, that there are quite a few
5 places then where the width of the territory is a kilometre -- up to a
6 kilometre, a few hundred metres, and so on?
7 A. That is correct, yes.
8 Q. Can you tell me, in the hinterland behind the narrowest parts of
9 the territory, what other geographical entities are there; Montenegro,
10 Bosnia? Do you know something about this?
11 A. Well, at its most southern point, the territory of the
12 municipality abuts onto the Republic of Montenegro, but for the greater
13 part of the hinterland there is a common border between Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina and in particular the area known as Herzegovina. Is this
15 sufficiently precise for your needs?
16 Q. Yes, yes, thank you. Can you tell me what there is at the extreme
17 south of the Dubrovnik municipality? What geographical phenomenon exists
18 on the far south of Dubrovnik municipality?
19 A. Well, I suppose the -- the only geographical feature of any major
20 significance I figure was the Bay of Kotor. Is this not what you had in
22 Q. Yes, that's what I had in mind. But to be more precise, what is
23 there -- what part of the territory is at the very entrance to the Boka
24 Kotorska bay, which is at the same time is the southernmost point of
25 Dubrovnik municipality?
1 A. I presume you're referring to the Prevlaka peninsula.
2 Q. Yes. Can you describe very briefly the geographical
3 characteristics of that part of the territory of Dubrovnik municipality.
4 A. Of the Prevlaka peninsula?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. I've never actually visited it, but I understand from
7 illustrations I've seen, descriptions of it, it's a very low-lying and
8 thin promontory that projects across the entrance to the Bay of Kotor.
9 Q. Do you know the borderline between the municipality of Dubrovnik
10 and the neighbouring municipality in Montenegro? How does it run?
11 A. I can't answer -- I can't answer that with specific detail, no.
12 Q. The southernmost part of Dubrovnik municipality, with what
13 municipality in Montenegro does it border?
14 A. Again, I can't answer that. I know what the -- I know what the
15 settlements around the bay, there are places like Resan and so on, but I
16 don't know which municipality.
17 Q. Do you know what the nearest town is?
18 A. It's probably Herceg Novi.
19 Q. And the municipality is also called Herceg Novi.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. At the southernmost point, do you know what the border is between
22 Herceg Novi municipality and Dubrovnik municipality? So I'm discussing
23 the municipalities of Dubrovnik and Herceg Novi. Does the border run
24 along the edge or does it run across the sea? Do you know how the border
1 A. I believe it runs roughly at right angles to the sea, but again, I
2 haven't looked at this with any care.
3 Q. This means, if I understand you correctly, that as far as you
4 know, the territory of Dubrovnik municipality does not protrude into the
5 Boka Kotorska bay if the border runs at right angles to the sea or,
6 rather, through the coastline.
7 A. I've already indicated the territory of Dubrovnik runs into the
8 Prevlaka peninsula. I'm slightly puzzled about what the nature of the
9 question is here.
10 Q. The question is perhaps slightly complex, but believe me, it's
11 very important.
12 A. That would help, wouldn't it.
13 Q. Yes, it would. But before I show you the map, I just want to ask
14 you about something that you might very well know. I will try to be as
15 simple -- put it as simply as possible.
16 Does even a foot of Dubrovnik municipality protrude into the Boka
17 Kotorska bay or does the border run directly towards the sea? I don't
18 know if I can put it any clearer than that?
19 A. I understand your question, and I can't answer it precisely. I
20 don't know the answer to that question.
21 Q. Do you know that the key factor among the reasons that pertain to
22 the essence of the conflicts -- conflict in this area is precisely this
23 fact? Does even a foot of the territory of Dubrovnik municipality touch
24 the sea or not? Have you heard of this dispute, this issue?
25 A. Yes, I am aware there has been a protracted international dispute
1 between the Republic of Croatia and subsequently the Federal Republic of
2 Yugoslavia about exactly where the border should run in that area, but
3 it's not an area, it's not a topic which I've felt that I wanted to
4 research in any -- with any care. I've not needed to look into that.
5 Q. So you don't know anything about the nature of this dispute?
6 A. Not with care. A colleague of mine, Malcolm Milivojevic, has been
7 working on this and has written something about it, but precisely because
8 he's been attending to it, I have not thought it appropriate to take up
9 this topic for myself.
10 Q. I do apologise. Would you say who this gentleman is and what he
11 has to do with you and your testimony here, or maybe he has no connection
12 and I misunderstood?
13 A. The only reason for mentioning his name is that he is a colleague
14 of mine at Bradford. He has a honourary research fellowship and he has
15 done a number of projects concerning military and intelligence affairs.
16 I'm not introducing his paper on the topic as evidence into this Court at
17 all. What I'm simply saying is that because there has to be a division of
18 labour between people in a very small research unit. If somebody is
19 looking at a topic, I don't feel obliged to follow their tracks, but
20 simply let them get on with it.
21 Q. Can you tell me what Mr. Milivojevic's contribution was to the
22 report you drafted, if any?
23 A. None whatsoever.
24 Q. Do you refer to Mr. Milivojevic in your paper, in your report?
25 A. I don't think I do, no.
1 Q. Just a moment, please.
2 A. It is possible I might have cited one of his papers, but I don't
3 remember doing so.
4 Q. I suggest we move on. In your report, you also mention the
5 architectural heritage of Dubrovnik, and I am inclined to conclude that we
6 have the same -- the same problems with this part of your report that we
7 had when you dealt with history, and that is that you reported on
8 something that is not your professional field, but I will not burden you
9 or the Chamber with this. I will move on to what I believe really is your
10 professional field in which I do not doubt that you are an eminent expert,
11 and that is the issue of tourism. And I will try to put a few questions
12 to you which I deem to be important.
13 Would you please tell us something in general explaining the
14 influence and mutual connection between the armed conflict which occurs in
15 an area, any area, and the consequences for tourism in the area. For
16 example, there is conflict on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
17 What are the repercussions of this, for example, on tourism in northern
18 Greece, if any?
19 A. Tourism is notoriously sensitive to disturbances of any kind.
20 Tourists will not go to areas not only where there is an armed conflict
21 but where there is risk of disease or even a serious inconvenience. It
22 was notable during the two armed conflicts relating to Iraq over recent
23 years that there's been a dramatic drop in trans-Atlantic tourism
24 associated with both of those events even though the chances of
25 trans-Atlantic passengers being involved in armed conflict are virtually
2 There was an occasion a few years ago, I forget exactly when it
3 was now the mid 1980s when several stories about the hygiene of Yugoslav
4 resorts appeared in the German press and there was a short-term but
5 dramatic drop in the number of German tourists coming to Yugoslavia.
6 Therefore, any disturbance in an area has an adverse consequence
7 for the flow of tourists. And if you look at my report, I've tried to
8 convey this in certainly one of the figures towards the end. I think it's
9 figure 1. Yes, figure 1 on page 17, where you can see there that the
10 decline in the numbers of tourists and the number of nights they spent in
11 Croatia began to decline as early as 1988 but certainly conspicuously so
12 in 1989. Obviously this was before any armed conflict was present in the
13 area but certainly this was already a time at which political instability
14 was evident. And therefore, I think it's important to realise that the
15 presence of armed conflict in Yugoslavia only extends and intensifies this
16 effect which you can see very clearly from that table that by the time we
17 get to 1991, there is indeed a catastrophic drop in the number of tourists
18 who come to the area and the time they spend there.
19 Q. Thank you. I'll go back to that subject a bit later, but you just
20 referred to some figures, so could you please explain them to me. Just a
21 moment, please. Let me find it in the English version. Just a moment,
22 please. I would like to indicate exactly where it is. Yes. It is
23 page 12 of your report. Please, would you look at the top of page 12.
24 A. I am there, yes.
25 Q. If I understand your report correctly, the most dramatic fall in
1 the number of tourists took place in Dubrovnik before the armed conflict
2 broke out. That's right. That's what you say here. Eight hundred
3 ninety-two -- 892.579 visitors in the city in 1987 had declined to 33.489
4 in 1990. Have I quoted your report properly? That's the end of
5 page 12 -- the end of page 11, rather, and the beginning of page 12. The
6 first sentence on page 12.
7 A. Yes, that is correct. And as you can see from -- the course of
8 events in Dubrovnik followed the general shape of the graph that I've
9 given on page 17, although the figures on page 17 refer to the situation
10 in Croatia as a whole and not to Dubrovnik in particular, but you'd see
11 exactly the same shape of the curve, I think, if you looked at figures
12 confined to Dubrovnik.
13 Q. So if I understand things correctly, the number of tourists
14 declined about 30 times in 1990 in relation to 1987, approximately, from
15 892.000 to 33.000, approximately. So it is roughly about 30 times less;
17 A. It's a catastrophic decline, yes.
18 Q. And this happened in 1990.
19 A. Well, the process began earlier than this, as the graph shows,
20 because as I've already mentioned, tourists were aware of the increasing
21 instability of Yugoslavia over the years previous to the outbreak of any
22 actual fighting.
23 Q. So you will agree with me in the following assessment, that the
24 most dramatic decline, that is to say of 3.000 per cent in bed/nights in
25 Dubrovnik occurred before the conflict; from 1987 to 1990. Am I right?
1 A. The response was a general response to the instability in
2 Yugoslavia and to events happening more generally in the former Yugoslavia
3 and not specifically to events happening in Dubrovnik. That is correct if
4 that's what you're saying.
5 Q. Perhaps you've given me an answer already, but I want to be quite
6 sure that this is what your answer is. So the most dramatic decline, one
7 of 30 times, happened before a single bullet was fired in Dubrovnik and in
8 the surrounding area. Just yes or no, please.
9 A. That is correct, yes, and my understanding is that fighting broke
10 out in October of that year, which would be after the end of the tourist
12 Q. Could you just repeat the year? What was the year when this
13 happened? When did the fighting start?
14 A. Are you talking just about Dubrovnik or about Croatia in general?
15 Q. Yes, yes, yes.
16 A. My understanding is that toward the end of 1991.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. Yes. Perhaps the interpretation I was listening to into B/C/S
20 went wrong, but anyway. Not only in Dubrovnik but in the entire area of
21 the former Yugoslavia there was no armed conflict practically in the
22 territory of the entire former Yugoslavia in 1990. Well, not practically
23 but completely.
24 A. There were disturbances. I remember when I drove down the
25 Dalmatian coast in the May of that year, during the period of the
1 referendum on independence of Croatia, there were a whole succession of
2 military and police roadblocks down that area because of disturbances
3 which were happening inland. This was not, you know, formal armed
4 conflict in the sense of a war, but sporadic outbreaks of violence of a
5 more localised nature at that stage.
6 Q. Mr. Allcock, I have to correct you. I have to draw your attention
7 to a mistake that you keep making. I believe it's unintentional. I don't
8 wish to believe that you are doing this on purpose.
9 In which year did the referendum take place in Croatia? According
10 to what you said in your previous answer, it seems that the referendum
11 took place in 1990. Do you stand by that?
12 A. No, no. If I've conveyed that impression, that is an inadvertent
13 slip of the tongue. 1991.
14 Q. That's right. That's right, yes. But in response to my question,
15 you were saying that your impression of 1990 actually referred to 1991.
16 So I'm going back to the very beginning.
17 A. No, I'm sorry about that. 1991 is the -- I'm not sure where 1990
18 came from.
19 Q. In 1990, nothing happened. Perhaps there are certain political
20 processes that are taking place but not processes that would mean an armed
21 conflict of any kind.
22 A. That is correct. But as I've indicated in my answer to earlier
23 questions, tourism is extremely sensitive with respect to the anticipation
24 of disturbances of all kinds. So the speculation that was taking place --
25 I mean, in Britain this began, I suppose, in about 1989, following the
1 fall of the Berlin Wall as to what the future of Yugoslavia would now be,
2 and I think that the response of tourists to that kind of instability, you
3 know, is not something which you just see in Britain. It's something that
4 extends across Europe and the United States.
5 Q. Thank you. I would now like to go back to the period that
6 followed the period of conflicts in the area of Dubrovnik, as we call it.
7 I would like to emphasise that I am not asking you about what happened in
8 the area of the municipality of Dubrovnik, because you were not there.
9 I'm asking you about tourism and Dubrovnik after the conflict in
10 Dubrovnik. So please do not deal with what happened in Dubrovnik. Just
11 give me the following answer: In 1993 and in 1994, the armed conflict was
12 in full sway [sic] in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's only a couple of hundred
13 metres away from Dubrovnik in some parts, and then there are conflicts in
14 eastern Slavonia, western Slavonia, in Krajina, but in the area
15 surrounding Dubrovnik, there are no conflicts.
16 So the conflicts that took place 500 metres or a kilometre away
17 from Dubrovnik, did that crucially affect the tourism situation in
18 Dubrovnik? We're not talking about Dubrovnik itself now, but the fact
19 that there is a war is taking place 500 metres away from Dubrovnik, does
20 this crucially affect the arrival or non-arrival of tourists in Dubrovnik?
21 A. Indeed, the continuing difficulties, armed conflicts throughout
22 the whole of the region for several years afterwards will have slowed the
23 rate of recovery of tourism. I refer you once again to the graph I've
24 given on page 17, and you can see from the figures that are given there
25 for the years 1992, 3, 4, there's a very slow return of tourists to the
1 Dalmatian coast, even after Croatia is no longer directly involved in the
2 war, and indeed I ceased to do direct research on this area at around this
3 time, but my understanding is that certainly in a number of areas of the
4 Dalmatian coast, if not the entire area, we've barely got back to those
5 1987, 1988 years in terms of the volume of international tourism. It
6 takes a very long time to recover in an area which is so internationally
8 Q. So you will agree with me when I say that had there not been a
9 conflict at all in the Dalmatian coast, the vicinity of Bosnia-Herzegovina
10 would have affected tourism in such a way in the Dalmatian region that it
11 would -- the number of tourists would have been dramatically smaller in
12 this entire period that we're discussing; is that right?
13 A. I believe that is so, yes. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask you -- just a moment, please.
15 I'm sorry.
16 It was my understanding that you are very familiar with Dubrovnik,
17 that you spent a considerable part of your life there so that I can put
18 some questions to you that pertain to the town itself and that you refer
19 to in your report. Believe me, I think you will find this easier, and I
20 think it will be easier to deal with these questions. So with your
21 permission, do you know -- or, rather, you mention in your report, and I
22 believe that you have been there several times, where is Babin Kuk?
23 A. It's on the end of a peninsula which lies to the north-west of the
24 city itself which juts out into the Adriatic. Again, this would be much
25 easier if I could just point to a map.
1 Q. I'm satisfied with the answer. I seek no more. Do you know where
2 park Gradac is, the park of Gradac?
3 A. Yes. That's quite close to the city walls, on the side with
4 the -- this would be the north-east side, I suppose.
5 Q. Thank you. Do you know where Bogisica park is?
6 A. No, I don't know that, actually. The name is familiar, but I
7 can't immediately put a finger on it.
8 Q. Just a moment, please. Do you know where Lapad is approximately?
9 A. Yes. Again, if we start from the Gruz inlet, Lapad is the
10 peninsula that lies to the west of that, so the seaward side of the bay of
11 Gruz or the inlet of Gruz.
12 Q. As regards all these localities that I refer to, Babin Kuk and
13 Lapad, for instance, is there a large number of hotels there or, rather,
14 was there a large number of hotels there in 1991? Do you know about the
15 hotels in Babin Kuk, Lapad, the hotels of Lapad?
16 A. Yes. The hotels tend naturally to be built on the coast and as
17 far as Babin Kuk is concerned, there was a -- there was an earlier hotel
18 there, the Neptun, which was built up quite early in the development of
19 Dubrovnik, but the greater development of Babin Kuk as a hotel area took
20 place quite late. I've forgotten the exact date. I know it was as a
21 result of a world bank study. And a group of luxury hotels was built
22 there out at the end of a rather unattractive, if I may say so, by
23 Dalmatian standards a scrubby peninsula sticking out in the sea. This
24 included places like the -- The President was, I suppose, the most
25 expensive of them.
1 The Lapad hotels were gathered around the -- for the most part, if
2 not on the coast very close to the coast, around the -- the bay of Lapad,
3 the little inlet that runs alongside Lapad, the other side of the Gruz
5 Q. Do you know where the Libertas Hotel is?
6 A. Yes, yes. That looks directly across to -- to the Old Town. I've
7 forgot what the name of that particular little bay is, but yes, I know
8 where it is.
9 Q. I'm going to put a question to you, fully aware of the fact that
10 you were not in Dubrovnik in 1991 and I do not expect you to say anything
11 about what happened in October, November, December 1991 and the beginning
12 of 1992. I shall proceed from the following assumption: For example, had
13 the Hotel Libertas been a legitimate military target - I'm not asking you
14 to say whether it was or it wasn't, but let us assume that it was - would
15 you be afraid that this hotel could be damaged as a result of the fact
16 that it was a legitimate military target?
17 A. If it were a legitimate military target it would be damaged,
18 certainly. I mean, I'm puzzled as to the direction of your question. And
19 indeed it was seriously damaged.
20 Q. Thank you. For instance, if the hotels in Lapad were a legitimate
21 military target - I'm not saying they were, and I'm not saying that you
22 could know, but had they been an objective military target, would there
23 have been a great danger of having these hotels damaged to a considerable
24 extent had they been legitimate military targets?
25 A. I am aware that we're entering a legal minefield here, if you'll
1 pardon the simile, that, you know, what constitutes a military target
2 might include all kinds of things which I'm not competent to comment on,
3 such as I'm aware that there might be an issue as to whether there were
4 civilians in the area or not. So on that aspect of the thing, I cannot
6 Q. Mr. Allcock, I'm not asking you for a comment in this respect, and
7 I'm not implying that that's the way it was. I'm just asking whether you
8 as an expert for tourism can tell me whether it would be logical to have a
9 particular tourist facility damaged if it had been used by any party as a
10 military facility, and then this military facility in turn would have been
11 a legitimate military target. I'm not asking for a qualification. I'm
12 not asking for facts. This is the only thing I'm asking you about.
13 A. I'm puzzled, even so, as to how to answer your question. I'm not
14 sure how a hotel could become a military target. But assuming we've
15 answered the extremely difficult hypothetical question as to whether it
16 could be or not, then I assume that if an object is a military target it
17 is a military target, but I'm mystified as to the direction in which we're
18 going here.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.
20 MR. KAUFMAN: I think that the very fact that the question is
21 struggling to give an answer to a question to which I would object on the
22 grounds of relevance insofar as the expertise of this witness is
23 concerned, I think it founds the objection that I'm now making to this
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I? Thank you. I
2 would like to explain.
3 I'm not speculating in any way. I know that Mr. Allcock doesn't
4 know anything about this. I just want to ask someone who is an expert in
5 tourism whether, if a particular facility is used for military purposes or
6 is close to a facility that was used for military purposes and then if
7 this hotel was damaged, for example, if a cannon had been placed on it,
8 does this fact have any influence over the fact that due to that, the
9 conflict would be damaged [as interpreted], and can this in turn affect
10 the volume of tourist trade in the area? Perhaps I could repeat this if
11 it's not clear enough.
12 I'm just asking him as an expert to say --
13 JUDGE PARKER: I think I've got the drift of what you're asking,
14 Mr. Petrovic, which I think it has not come out clearly yet, and certainly
15 Mr. Kaufman's concern about the former questions were well-founded. The
16 essence of your concern is whether the targeting of an object, a building
17 or a facility which is a matter of tourist worth, tourist interest,
18 whether its targeting would affect its use and value as a tourist
19 facility. Is that the point you're making? And perhaps Mr. Allcock might
20 be able to answer that.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, I've been floundering in the past because
22 we've been in the area of counter-factuals. We now seem to have escaped
23 from that. And one can point to specific examples that in the hotels that
24 I've seen in Dubrovnik which did become military targets, some of them are
25 still out of action as tourist objects. So I don't know whether that's an
1 answer to your question or not, but --
2 JUDGE PARKER: I think your answer is yes.
3 THE WITNESS: I think that's as far as I can go in this area.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Then I'm going to move
5 on to my next set of questions.
6 Q. In your report, you also refer to the population, the population
7 pattern of the municipality of Dubrovnik. You talk about immigration
8 during the second half of the twentieth century. I would like to ask you
9 to explain to us in which period this immigration was the most intensive,
10 and could you tell us specifically from where most of the immigrants came?
11 They came from different areas, but where did most of them come from?
12 A. Yes. The -- the expansion of population in the Dubrovnik area
13 really begins after about 1965. The biggest stimulation to this was the
14 completion down as far as Dubrovnik of the Adriatic Highway which made it
15 possible for tourists to arrive in the area by road. Once you get then -
16 and this is a bit after this period - you then get the maximum period of
17 the building of tourist accommodation and related facilities. So that in
18 the second half of the 1960s onwards you get the most rapid expansion of
20 The Yugoslav economy began to run into difficulties during the --
21 well, even the late 1970s but certainly during the 1980s, and indeed the
22 steady expansion of tourism which had been experienced before then began
23 to tail off at around that period, so that the maximum -- you know, to be
24 fairly general about this, the maximum period of expansion I suppose
25 detecting this statistically would be between the 1971 and 1981 censuses.
1 That's probably when you'd find the largest expansion of population.
2 The greatest influx of tourism -- sorry, of population. I haven't
3 investigated this in detail so that my reply to this part of your question
4 would have to be largely hearsay. The -- and -- and to some extent
5 deduction. It's interesting that the -- the ethnic composition of
6 Dubrovnik remains roughly constant over the post-war period with a very
7 substantial majority of people declaring themselves in the census to be
8 ethnic Croats. Therefore, one assumes that the influx of people would be
9 either from other areas of Croatia or -- and this is the hearsay part of
10 it, what I have been told by people active in the -- in the tourist
11 industry in -- in Yugoslavia, a substantial proportion of them would have
12 been drawn from western Herzegovina, but I haven't analysed in detail the
13 question of the origins of that population.
14 Q. All right. You refer to that in your report, but this is
15 precisely what I wanted to hear from you.
16 So in view of what you say in your text about the change of the
17 cultural identity of the city and about what you referred to just now,
18 that this largest increase in the number of inhabitants took place between
19 1971 and 1981 and that most of these people came from Croatia, notably
20 from west Herzegovina, will you agree with me that the change in the
21 cultural identity of the city that you refer to in your paper actually
22 took place already then or at least started already then in the period
23 between 1971 and 1981?
24 A. I think we're talking about two different processes of change
25 here. The assumption which lies behind your question is well-founded,
1 that the process of demographic change in the area has been a
2 long-standing one, and in that respect, yes, there has been a sense of --
3 that the local culture of Dubrovnik has been under fairly constant
4 pressure since the Second World War.
5 Can I draw your attention, however to an important part of my
6 report which is relevant to this that you may not have picked up on. That
7 one of the important differentiating functions of local culture, as I try
8 to suggest in my report, is a sense of modernity. So that you have an
9 interesting process taking place here whereby people who are recruited
10 into the population, if I can put it that way, of Dubrovnik with the rise
11 of tourism during the 1960s and 1970s then become assimilated to the area.
12 They acquire this commitment to a modern way of life and so on. And then
13 you have a kind of shock that's familiar from other parts of the world as
14 well, when the outsiders become the established and a new wave of
15 outsiders comes in, and their response to the new wave of outsiders who've
16 come in since the disturbances of the early 1990s has been precisely the
17 same as the response of the original locals were to the arrival of this
18 earlier generation. It's a very common phenomenon sociologically.
19 Q. I agree with that. However, I think that this doesn't quite fit
20 into what you said in your report, namely in your report -- in your
21 report, on page -- I'll tell you the page number. Just a second, please.
22 Page 12.
23 On page 12, in the last paragraph on page 12, this is what you
24 said. You said: "... before 1991, there was a keen sense of
25 distinctiveness on the part of those who regarded themselves as 'really'
1 belonging to Dubrovnik (pravi dubrovcani) in relation to more recent
3 I believe there is a discrepancy between what you said just now
4 and what you wrote here, in view of the fact that from the point of view
5 of percentage points, the largest number of immigrants came in between
6 1971 and 1981.
7 A. I don't think these comments are necessarily contradictory. The
8 comment here which I've written I would stand by, that long-standing
9 inhabitants of Dubrovnik, who would consider themselves to be real people
10 from Dubrovnik, antedate the expansion of tourism. We talk about two
11 separate processes here.
12 Sorry, is my explanation not clear?
13 Q. Your explanation is clear, but what I'm interested in now is the
14 following, if I've understood you correctly: The people who moved in in
15 1971 already consider themselves to be real citizens of Dubrovnik by 1991,
16 or is there a contradiction here?
17 A. I don't think they can consider or would consider themselves to be
18 real citizens of Dubrovnik, but having a better entitlement to that claim
19 than some of us. It's -- it's a phenomenon I'm familiar with from the
20 area of West Yorkshire in which I live. I've lived there since 1966 and
21 if that's where my home is, where I come from, I refer to West Yorkshire,
22 but on the part of my neighbours, I certainly wouldn't be considered to be
23 a real Yorkshireman. There are degrees of assimilation that can sometimes
24 take some time.
25 Q. We will agree then that the change in the cultural identity of the
1 town is not something that happened in 1991, 1992, or 1993 but that it's a
2 process going through different stages which began in 1965 and then
3 continued. So it's not something that is peculiar to the events of 1991;
4 it's something that you also discovered in at least two decades before the
5 time that we are talking about now.
6 A. It's not something that's peculiar to the period since 1991. I do
7 find it interesting, however, that when I have been back to Dubrovnik
8 since the end of the conflict, this is something which long-term residents
9 of the city have commented on quite forcibly to me, and that is the -- the
10 lack of civilisation of people who have come in in the post-1991 period.
11 It's -- I find that interesting.
12 Q. Just as in 1971 they talked about those who came from 1965 to
14 A. It's highly likely. I wasn't there at the time, but it's highly
16 Q. Yes, of course. You are familiar with the former Yugoslavia.
17 Tell me, you said that the majority of people who came to Dubrovnik were
18 from Western Herzegovina. Are there any specific characteristics of this
19 population, the population of Western Herzegovina, that you're aware of or
20 not? What population profile is this? What are their convictions, their
21 assumptions? Do you know something about this?
22 A. Yes. First of all, I'm not able to say precisely what proportion
23 of incomers in this period to Dubrovnik came from that particular
24 locality. This is impressionistic evidence and I don't know that a study
25 has been done which has identified with any scientific precision exactly
1 where people come from. But one of the things about which I have written
2 in the past and which has been commented on repeatedly by social
3 scientists looking at the former Yugoslavia is that one of the most
4 important cultural differences between populations from different parts of
5 the area is the rural/urban difference; the culture of people who live and
6 are brought up in towns is very different from that of people who come
7 from the countryside. And that generalisation would be true of people,
8 you know, coming out of the Pokorija [phoen] to move into Ljubljana as it
9 would be people coming from Galicica to move into Skopje as people moving
10 from Herzegovina into the larger towns of the coast. So it would be this
11 contrast, I believe, between rural and urban ways of life and expectation
12 which would be the things which would figure largely in people's
13 perceptions of the locals.
14 Incidentally, we're talking about population movements here. The
15 assumption that you have been making throughout your questions, we're
16 talking about people who move and settle permanently. One of the most
17 significant and the largest aspects of population movement in a tourist
18 area like Dubrovnik is seasonal migration, and that sometimes has a
19 different character.
20 Q. Mr. Allcock, I tried to get from you a clarification as to whether
21 there are some specific characteristics that are peculiar to incomers from
22 Western Herzegovina to Dubrovnik. How would a real person from Dubrovnik
23 comment on an incomer from Western Herzegovina? What would they say about
24 them, if anything?
25 A. I'm trying to -- to think of specific illustrations here, and the
1 sorts -- sorts of vocabulary that would be used. The word that
2 immediately comes to mind is prost. People who are relatively coarse.
3 Yes, and -- right. Also another -- another comment which -- which figures
4 very regularly is their overestimation of monetary value. And on people
5 who regard themselves as long-term citizens, you know, real -- real
6 citizens of Dubrovnik, things have a value independently of their market
7 value. There's a fair -- a saying in English, and I've forgotten about
8 whom it was made originally, but he's somebody who knows the price of
9 everything and the value of nothing. This would be a comment that would
10 be made by many long-term citizens of Dubrovnik about people who come in
11 from the hinterland. They know the price of everything but the value of
13 Q. How would a real person from Dubrovnik view their cultural and
14 religious identity as opposed to someone coming in from Western
15 Herzegovina? Could you draw that distinction from the sociological point
16 of view.
17 A. Again I'm having to answer you with a process almost of immediate
18 free association, the sorts of things that come to mind. And that -- that
19 would be varied. One of the things that was often pointed out to me with
20 great pride, and I think this is an occasion on which you see this, you
21 know, very clearly is the festival that I referred to, the paternal
22 festival of Sveti Vlaho that I mentioned in my report, the patron saint of
23 the city of Dubrovnik, and I think that's a good point from which to begin
24 to answer you. There is an awareness of tradition surrounding Sveti Vlaho
25 and this kind of thing, a sense of participation in common traditions.
1 That festival is an occasion on which --
2 Q. I must interrupt you. I do apologise because we have read about
3 this in your report.
4 A. Okay. I'm not sure where we're going in that case.
5 Q. I will put my question again. I think it's quite simple. Is
6 there a difference in the perception of the importance of national and
7 religious identity among people from -- old time citizens of Dubrovnik and
8 people coming in from Western Herzegovina?
9 A. One of the things that I think is -- has changed as a result of
10 the conflict is an increasing salience of awareness of ethnic identity,
11 something which you've mentioned there. Just to illustrate the -- the
12 relative lack -- lack of -- the way in which ethnic identity in the past
13 did not figure explicitly and obviously in people's relations was
14 something which in retrospect I'm aware of. And I am aware of the
15 importance of time here so I won't multiply the anecdotes in this respect,
16 but just to mention the fact that although the group of people I was
17 working with at the faculty and the people I was meeting in the process of
18 my interviewing were a variety of different ethnicities this was not
19 characteristically pointed out to me or commented on to me. I can
20 elaborate on that point further if you need -- if you need additional
22 One of the consequences of not simply the events of the winter
23 which concern us here but the whole process of the disintegration of
24 Yugoslavia has been an increasing salience of a sense of ethnic identity,
25 so that people are much more alert to, much more aware of that factor
1 these days than they used to be. And this is not surprising particularly
2 since your earlier questioning related to people who were coming from --
3 from Western Herzegovina, because these are people who had a very strongly
4 developed sense of Croat identity. So that would be one of the things
5 which would have changed in recent years.
6 Q. Do you see the same tolerance and the same spirit in relation to
7 people of other religion or ethnic affiliation among old time citizens of
8 Dubrovnik as opposed to the incomers?
9 A. The comments that I've -- I ought to -- to preface my remarks by
10 saying although while I was studying tourism I had relatively long periods
11 of stay in Dubrovnik and therefore was able to develop a relatively clear
12 familiarity with the way people looked at life in that period, since the
13 conflict my return to Dubrovnik has been rare and for short periods of
14 time so I'm not able to comment with the same kind of assurance about the
15 way in which people look at things since then. However, I think the --
16 once again, the thing which has been commented on to me most forcefully by
17 people in the area has been this sense of the new arrival of people. Not
18 focusing so much on their ethnic identity but on the fact that they are
19 people who have come, like vultures, to pick on the bones of Dubrovnik, to
20 make their money out of Dubrovnik rather than people who really appreciate
21 the value of the place and who know what it means. That's the kind of
22 tone in which people have remarked to me about the place since the
24 Q. As I've put my question three times in different ways, I will not
25 repeat it yet again although I have not got a reply to it. I will ask you
1 instead why on page 13, second paragraph of your report, why you draw
2 attention to the fact that an independent candidate to the socio-political
3 chamber won clear victory in the elections for the Sabor, why was this
4 important and why did you include this fact in your report?
5 A. It's important to place that remark in the content of the entire
6 argument of this section which is that there is a relative distinctiveness
7 about the culture of the Dubrovnik region which is not confined to classic
8 things like folk costume and this kind of thing but extends -- there are
9 indications of this sense of distinctiveness in a very wide range of
10 aspects of life. And if you look at the results of the election which I
11 refer to there, the victory of independent candidates was really quite
12 unusual, and it struck me, looking through that material, that here was
13 yet another sense in which Dubrovnik bucked the trend. It didn't simply
14 fit into the sorts of patterns that you saw elsewhere in Croatia. That's
15 the reason for my mentioning it.
16 Q. What sort of pattern was it that Dubrovnik differed from? Who won
17 in other areas? What sorts of people won the elections in other areas,
18 and what is the difference that you were trying to draw attention to, if
20 A. Well, the -- the significance of an independent candidate, I
21 think, is -- is specifically the detachment from party machines, you know,
22 somebody who is -- who is -- I haven't actually checked up to find out
23 what the name is of the individual who won there, I've simply been able to
24 look at a general discussion of -- of the area. But if you look at the
25 electoral results for the rest of Croatia, it's quite clear that the
1 people who -- who were most successful in the polls were the people with
2 large party -- effective party machines, particularly, of course, the HDZ,
3 Croatian Democratic Union, and the -- the former -- former Communist
4 Party. And they were the people who had the resources to get out to
5 communicate with the electorate and therefore to -- to win. And I suppose
6 the nearest similarity with Dubrovnik is the area of Istria where you also
7 had a number of candidates, when -- they were actually organised in
8 political parties, the Istrian Democratic Party. But there are a number
9 of areas down the Dalmatian coast where this strong sense of locality
10 showed itself in the electoral results.
11 Q. Could you explain the following, please: It's normal for
12 candidates to be either members of political parties or independent
13 candidates. In other areas, for the most part candidates of the HDZ won.
14 Do you wish to say that because an independent candidate won in Dubrovnik,
15 are you trying to imply something specific about the Dubrovnik area?
16 A. All I'm -- it would be interesting to investigate that question
17 much further. All I'm trying to do, and it's a very limited point on this
18 occasion, all I'm trying to do by making that point is looking at the
19 pattern of electoral results of that time across Croatia, it -- it's
20 evident that there is something different about Dubrovnik. It stands out
21 as performing electorally in a different -- according to some kind of
22 different pattern. It would be interesting to go on and investigate
23 exactly what the basis of that was further, but I came to this point
24 relatively late in the writing of my report and haven't had the
25 opportunity, if the resources even exist, to probe more deeply into that.
1 Q. But we are now in a field which is your professional field of
2 work, the motivation of a particular group of people. What motivates them
3 to act in one way rather than another. And what is the difference between
4 the sources of these ways of acting? So what is the difference between
5 the kind of candidate they voted for and the kind of candidate who was
6 elected in the neighbouring municipalities sociologically? What motivated
7 their actions and what are the consequences of this?
8 A. I think one of the disadvantages of being an expert is that you
9 realise more the dangers of straying into areas where you haven't got
10 complete knowledge. What I am doing here is I'm not reporting the results
11 of my own research, I'm reporting the results of the research done by
12 Professor Kasapovic. This is not a question which she and her colleagues
13 explore as to what is the basis of this difference. All that they do in
14 their published work is to report that difference.
15 Now, I can -- I have picked up this difference and on my own
16 initiative say, well, there is something interesting going on here. This
17 stands out as being an exceptional result which indicates there is
18 something unusual about the area of Dubrovnik. But without being able to
19 go into that research further, indeed to do supplementary research I would
20 not be able to say why that result came about, other than it is locally
22 Q. Can we assume that an independent candidate in their profile and
23 political standpoint would correspond to the views of a real citizen of
24 Dubrovnik or to the perception of an incomer or am I on the wrong track?
25 A. That's an astute question and I can't answer it. No. It -- all I
1 know is that regionally the result is anomalous but I do not know what
2 lies behind the anomaly. The evidence is not available to us to determine
4 Q. Tell me, then, the following, please: If you didn't go into this
5 and if you can't explain what I'm asking you, why then on page 12 of your
6 report do you say in this sense -- in that respect, more conventionally
7 noted marks of difference such as ethnicity were perhaps less important in
8 Dubrovnik than the boundary between those who belong prime orderly and
9 those who could not support that claim. If you were not investigating the
10 political motivation of citizens of Dubrovnik, whether they were real
11 citizens or incomers.
12 A. I think the -- you're dealing with an area of some considerable
13 complexity here and indeed as I understand your question you're raising
14 two quite separate lines of inquiry.
15 The first of these is the -- is the question about whether the
16 phrase that you've -- you've correctly cited from my report here about
17 conventional marks of difference such as ethnicity were perhaps less
18 important in Dubrovnik, et cetera, et cetera, and that is a conclusion to
19 which I have come which is not specifically based on this material about
20 electoral returns. This is my attempt to summarise my impressions through
21 familiarity with the area over a long period of time as well as the social
22 scientific work of colleagues in the area, which I've mentioned in some of
23 the footnotes.
24 The -- the -- this is a different question. I'm not -- I can see
25 that there could possibly be a link between that and the -- the fact that
1 in a particular election the citizens of Dubrovnik vote in -- in this way,
2 but it would be a surmise, it would be a guess to say there was a
3 connection between those events. All I was doing in this particular
4 section was making the very straightforward point that if you look across
5 a wide range of indicators, political, cultural, et cetera, et cetera, it
6 is possible to say that Dubrovnik has some kind of distinctive local
7 culture. It has its own way of experiencing itself in the world. It's
8 going beyond that, however, to then start directing theories about how
9 those various differences might interact with each other.
10 Q. Since we're in the field of sociology, as I understand it, for
11 this very reason I'm asking you that if you found that a difference
12 exists, to tell me what the difference consists in?
13 A. If you're -- if you're talking about this electoral issue again,
14 one can only speculate. I can run out at the moment speculative. Two
15 separate quite distinctive explanations as to why that electoral result
16 might have come about, but in the absence of research I am not able to go
17 beyond that. One of these might be the point which you've already
18 suggested in your own remarks that that sense, that different electoral
19 performance might come about because people who regarded themselves as
20 established old Dubrovnik citizens were voting for one of themselves.
21 That could be -- that could be one possible reason. Another possible
22 reason might come from the presence of tourism as a modernising factor in
23 the area, and I do know that one of the criticisms that was often made of
24 the HDZ was that they were in many respects a very traditionalist party
25 which tended to turn their back on values of modernisation, and it could
1 be that that is reflected in that particular result. But without pursuing
2 the evidence further, all I can do is generate hypotheses.
3 I come back again to the point that I already made, that I had a
4 very limited -- I had a very limited ambition in this section of my report
5 which is simply to say that, you know, we can see that Dubrovnik does
6 have -- there is some evidence that Dubrovnik, the Dubrovnik area is
7 culturally different in certain ways.
8 Q. I understood you to say in December that the last time you were in
9 Dubrovnik before the war you travelled all over the former Yugoslavia and
10 that you did politicological research on the attitudes and perceptions of
11 people on what was happening in the area of politics and how they
12 articulated their political standpoints. Is this so or did I
13 misunderstand you?
14 A. No, that's correct. I did a contribution to a volume on the new
15 political parties in the new Yugoslavia and then a revised version of that
16 subsequently. That is correct, yes.
17 Q. Although you worked on this you cannot respond to my questions
18 without further and more detailed research?
19 A. I think it's important to look at the nature of those two volumes
20 to which I contributed. They were broad surveys in which I was required
21 to summarise and cover a great deal of information about all of the
22 republics of the former Yugoslavia, and in that respect, although there
23 were a number of -- of local or regional anomalies that emerged in
24 people's political activity, the opportunity was not there, and very often
25 the -- very often the research has not been done that would enable you to
1 follow all of your interests and say why one area is different from
2 others. What I had to do was to provide a broad survey based on the
3 available evidence drawing on the work of -- of Yugoslav colleagues,
4 published work and so on. I was not on that -- on that occasion able to
5 commission and conduct my own survey research depending on my own
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, would this be a convenient time to
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I believe so, Your Honour. Please,
10 Your Honour, could you tell us whether we are to continue today or whether
11 we will finish for the day, in view of our client's health? What is your
12 ruling on this?
13 JUDGE PARKER: Our expectation, Mr. Petrovic, is that we will have
14 now a break, that I understand you may be near the end of your
15 cross-examination. Is that correct?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I expected the
17 cross-examination to be much shorter, but numerous issues opened up which
18 I could not have foreseen so that the time I anticipated, unfortunately,
19 will not be sufficient for me. There are other important issues I wish to
20 discuss with this witness, by your leave, of course.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Of course, but you realise that the witness will
22 finish tonight, so that you've just got to move along more quickly if you
23 want to get through those matters. If you can remember, this witness
24 needed to be away for tomorrow, so that we will conclude the evidence of
25 the witness tonight, and that must allow some time for re-examination.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try, but it is
2 possible that I may not get to some areas which are important to me. Of
3 course I will abide by your decision, but I am afraid that some areas will
4 remain untouched.
5 JUDGE PARKER: You must determine your own priorities,
6 Mr. Petrovic, as to which areas are important and which are not, but the
7 time commitment of this witness is important. So we will finish the
8 witness tonight.
9 We will adjourn now for a quarter of an hour.
10 --- Recess taken at 6.02 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 6.20 p.m.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to
14 ask for a private session for a minute.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. We will move into private session.
16 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, you're not compelled by the court to
21 any course. If you choose to take that course, that will be your
22 decision. We have been observing your client because his health is of
23 concern to us as it is to you. Our ruling is in light of our observations
24 during the day. If you wish to bring your cross-examination to a close
25 now, that will be your decision. If there are other matters you wish to
1 pursue, there is time for you to do that. That is a matter now for you to
2 make a decision about.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for this
4 clarification, but what I have to say is that the decision is based on the
5 inability of my client to follow what is going on here. Since his
6 situation is such that he is no longer following or listening to what we
7 are saying here tonight, my action is motivated by that fact primarily.
8 So I shall give up on the rest of the questions that I had for this
9 witness. I'm going to put only one more question to him, and in this way
10 I will bring to a close the cross-examination by the Defence in this
11 particular case.
12 Q. Mr. Allcock, the last thing I'm going to ask you is related to
13 your conclusions contained on -- contained in your report on page 16.
14 In the second paragraph, you say that the demilitarisation of the
15 city was a condition for the grant of the status of a World Heritage Site
16 by UNESCO to Dubrovnik in 1979.
17 Now, my question for you is the following: Do you agree with me
18 that any militarisation of the city of Dubrovnik constitutes a violation
19 of this condition that was put forth by UNESCO? Very briefly, yes or no.
20 A. It's important to make one distinction before I give you the yes
21 or no. My report has related to the Old Town of Dubrovnik. My
22 understanding is that it is the Old Town of Dubrovnik which is designated
23 World Heritage site status and not the entire municipality of Dubrovnik.
24 So I think the Court ought to be clear about that distinction, as I'm sure
25 you already are.
1 But yes, I presume that if there was some militarisation of the
2 Old Town of Dubrovnik, that this would constitute some infraction of the
3 original terms. But that is presumably a legal question which I'm not
4 competent to answer.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. No further questions.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
7 Mr. Kaufman.
8 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honours. I have two substantive questions
9 in re-examination.
10 Re-examined by Mr. Kaufman:
11 Q. I would like to ask you, Dr. Allcock, first of all concerning the
12 effect of historical particulars in assessing the effect of the conflict
13 on tourism. Now, the reason why I ask this question is that you were
14 asked numerous questions in cross-examination on the Austro-Hungarian
15 Empire, whatever.
16 So my question is: To what extent do you feel it necessary to
17 delve into the recesses of history in assessing the impact of a conflict
18 on tourism?
19 A. My understanding is that it's not particularly relevant to that.
20 My reason for presenting the material I did about the history of the
21 region was in order to place that conflict into some kind of intelligible
22 framework, but I don't think it would have the impact you suggested.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, the second substantive issue I'd like to bring to
24 your attention is to be found in reference to page 44 of the transcript.
25 You won't have it in front of you, sir. This is for the benefit of the
1 protocol. At line 11. You were asked about the effect of the conflict in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and you were -- it was put to you that were it just
3 for that conflict alone, then the effect on tourism would have been
4 drastic or dramatic, sorry. Those were the words that were used.
5 My question to you is: Nevertheless, what was the additional
6 effect of the conflict in Dubrovnik on those figures and the table that
7 you referred to in your evidence?
8 A. It's hard to measure this precisely, but one can point
9 incidentally to some important considerations. The most important --
10 well, one of the most important of which would be cessation of civilian
11 air services to the area which would make it extremely difficult, if it
12 not impossible, for tourists to get there and the increasing obstacles
13 placed in the way of road transport down the Adriatic coast by various
14 stages of that conflict. I -- I can't put a figure in terms of numbers of
15 tourists lost, but it is quite clear that the fact that there was a
16 conflict in Dubrovnik itself has a very substantial impact on the
17 possibilities that there could have been a continuing tourist trade.
18 Q. Thank you. We remain to see whether or not the Defence will bring
19 an expert witness to contradict what you've said, Dr. Allcock, but you
20 were very heavily cross-examined, if I may say, on the nature of your
21 expertise. Now, I would want like to give you an opportunity to redress
22 the balance and to inform the court, first of all, as regards the
23 circulation of your work, if I may say the dissemination of your work in
24 academia in general, perhaps you can elaborate on that?
25 A. Are you referring particularly to my work on tourism or to my work
1 in general?
2 Q. In general and in tourism.
3 A. Certainly in general, I found it rather disturbing in recent years
4 to find out just how much my work has circulated, particularly the book
5 that I wrote explaining Yugoslavia, which has produced a succession of
6 very flattering reviews and provoked some extremely gratifying
7 correspondence with different scholars in various parts of the world.
8 As a result of that book and indeed as a result of my work in
9 general, I've received two very complimentary invitations recently, one of
10 these to head up a large research programme under the auspices of the
11 United Nations development programme, and the other invitation to join a
12 panel of scholars organised by Professor Charles Ingram at Purdue
13 University in the United States which is investigating the questions of
14 scholarly disagreement and consensus in the interpretation of the break-up
15 of Yugoslavia. I think it's quite flattering to receive both of those
17 Q. Sir, I particularly note that on page 22 of the English
18 translation of your expert report you have engaged in a number of
19 consultancy activities. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on that.
20 A. Well, the most recent of these came from the foreign office.
21 Q. That's the British foreign office?
22 A. The British foreign office, sorry, yes. Occasional lapses into
23 ethnocentres even as a sociologist.
24 A new ambassador has recently taken up his post in Belgrade and
25 the foreign office organised a briefing seminar for him and I was invited
1 to take part with a small number of -- in fact, I -- I think only one
2 other British scholar took part in that briefing. The others were flown
3 over from -- from Serbia.
4 So that -- that's the most recent of these consultancy requests.
5 Q. Sir, my final question: As you said in examination-in-chief, and
6 this is once again to give you an opportunity to deal with the matter of
7 expertise, especially in front of the ICTY, you have given evidence in
8 other proceedings in this Tribunal, namely the Kordic case.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Are you aware how many times you've been cited in the judgement of
11 that case?
12 A. I was told that I was cited on several occasions but unfortunately
13 I haven't had time to -- and I glanced at the report on the -- the ICTY
14 website but I haven't read the entire report, no, so I don't know the
15 answer to that question.
16 Q. Thank you, Dr. Allcock.
17 Does the Bench have any questions for this witness?
18 JUDGE PARKER: No, there are none. Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
19 Dr. Allcock, may I thank you very much for your attendance here,
20 including your return for today. We recall your need to be back in
21 Britain tomorrow, so you are now free to go if you wish.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE PARKER: We had thought that we might press on this evening
24 with the next witness, but in view of Mr. Petrovic's concern for his
25 client, we think it would be appropriate to break at this point, and we
1 will then resume tomorrow.
2 I believe counsel has been informed that the members of the Court
3 are unable to sit as programmed on Wednesday. Sorry about that, but it's
4 a matter of significance to the host country.
5 We will adjourn for the evening.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.36 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of
8 January, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.