1 Friday, 15 September 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon. Mr. Macura, I remind you once

7 again that the declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony to

8 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth is still

9 binding on your conscience and you are expected to tell the truth as

10 undertaken. Thank you so much.

11 Judge.

12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. Thank you very much.

13 WITNESS: LAZAR MACURA [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]

16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Before I proceed to my questioning of Mr.

17 Macura, I would like to place a correction on the record. At page 51, line

18 24, I inadvertently used the word "contravene" when the word properly ought

19 to have been "controvert" in speaking to Mr. Milovancevic concerning an

20 issue that arose. And if I may now proceed with my questions to the

21 witness.

22 I'd like you to tell me that you were a reserve officer in 1990

23 with the JNA. What sort of reserve uniforms did the reserves wear?

24 A. I said that I had been a reserve officer but then and there I was

25 not in the capacity of a reserve officer. I wasn't wearing a uniform. I

1 had participated in some drills earlier. I was wearing the uniform of the

2 Yugoslav army. I was not a reserve officer in 1990. I was nominally a

3 reserve officer, but I was not playing the role of a reserve officer. I

4 was a teacher in a high school.

5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. That being so, can you speak to the

6 matter of the uniform that would be worn by a reserve of the JNA at the

7 time because that is what I'm trying to get from you.

8 A. Oh, all right. The reserve uniforms of the JNA were olive-drab,

9 and the caps had a five-pointed star on them.

10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Would that --

11 A. That was the basic emblem.

12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Okay. No other emblem? No other patch or

13 anything?

14 A. There were shoulder patches to denote rank, but privates, regular

15 soldiers, did not have a rank.

16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. Thank you. And for how long would

17 this uniform have continued being the uniform?

18 A. At the outset, many people did not have any sort of uniform, and

19 that uniform continued to be worn by many soldiers and some of them later

20 moved on to camouflage uniforms.

21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, I want to ask you another question. You

22 mentioned: Initially we wanted cultural autonomy and a referendum on it.

23 What precisely is cultural autonomy and what would it have entailed?

24 Please tell the Trial Chamber.

25 A. Cultural autonomy would have meant that tuition is conducted in

1 the Serbian language, that the Cyrillic script is used, and that local

2 authorities would be made up of local residents not outsiders. Even that

3 was important, although cultural autonomy implies first and foremost the

4 educational system.

5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Microphone not activated].

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Microphone not activated].

8 I'm going to take you back to the matter of the barricades and

9 your unofficial position concerning the barricades, which Judge Hoepfel

10 touched on with you. And you had said previously in evidence that the

11 situation got out of control and that you put control back in place. But

12 you've stopped short of stating fully precisely what was done to put

13 control in place. So I want you to be more explicit for me and to tell me

14 what was done in terms of, as you say, controlling the situation.

15 A. We organised people and tasked certain people in villages.

16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues]...

17 A. With -- with -- actually, we tasked people from the Serbian

18 Democratic Party with controlling the situation at every barricade, every

19 roadblock. Every barricade was manned by four or five men, and one of them

20 was in charge of taking care that nothing happened, no incident happened.

21 We called them SDS activists.

22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. So when you say "nothing happened,"

23 what was happening before that you wanted to put under control and stop

24 happening. You have to give the details to me; that is what I want from

25 you.

1 A. I personally intervened to have one car belonging to foreign

2 tourists released and let go. They had been going around in circles unable

3 to find their way out.

4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues]... before.

5 Was there anything else or is the extent of it only what you told us before

6 and what you told Judge Hoepfel? Because I thought there was more in

7 putting under control. So this is what I wanted to get from you. You're

8 going to repeat evidence given before --

9 A. All right, all right. But such situations did not happen

10 frequently. We just reckoned that something like that might happen again,

11 and so that it should not happen again, we had to give appropriate

12 instructions.

13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, I'm going to ask you this next question.

14 Why did you not remove the barricades and order the people not to interfere

15 in any way whatsoever? Take down the barricades now. Why didn't you adopt

16 that position?

17 A. We could not because we were afraid that Croat police forces

18 might try to enter the area of the Krajina, the Knin Krajina.

19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: But were you not still within the confines of

20 Croatia?

21 A. Yes, we were within the framework of Croatia, but Croatia had

22 been in the framework of Yugoslavia and still it did not honour that.

23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Macura --

24 [Microphone not activated].

25 Did the Federation of Yugoslavia have a constitution?

1 A. It had its constitution.

2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Did that constitution provide for the mechanism

3 under which a municipality or an area that was under a particular republic

4 could attach itself to another republic?

5 A. Such organisation was possible and we decided to connect Banja

6 Luka and Knin --

7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No, no --

8 A. It was possible to create a community of municipalities at a

9 certain level.

10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please, Mr. Macura, try and assist me and work

11 with me. I think I'm trying to be clear. You have told me, you have told

12 the Trial Chamber effectively, that there was a constitution. Now, I'm

13 asking you to look within the confines of the provisions of that

14 constitution and advise me whether within that constitution there was the

15 mechanism for a municipality of one republic to attach itself to another

16 republic. Address that very specifically and don't go around the --

17 A. I don't think so. I don't think that existed. But there was a

18 union of municipalities, a community of municipalities, within Croatia that

19 they had not allowed us to establish.

20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Let's look -- would each republic have a

21 constitution? And Croatia --

22 A. Yes, certainly.

23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues]...

24 A. Yes, Croatia, too, had its own constitution.

25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. So did the constitution of Croatia

1 provide for a municipality or area of Croatia attaching itself to another

2 republic? Very well.

3 A. No, no.

4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Microphone not activated].

5 By the time you got to 1992/1993, there existed an army known as

6 the JNA still. Do you agree with that?

7 A. I think so.

8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Based on the composition of the JNA, was it in

9 reality still the Army of Yugoslavia de facto?

10 A. I think many Croats and Muslims had left the army, and most of

11 the members of the army and most of the conscripts in the army at that time

12 were Serbs because the Croats and the Muslims had abandoned it.

13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And it was essentially, and properly speaking,

14 an army for which republics of Yugoslavia?

15 A. It was the Yugoslav People's Army and formally it still had that

16 name, but Slovenes were practically not there anymore and Croatia was not

17 there anymore.

18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Do you think it's fair to comment that in

19 essence it was a Serbian army? Or would you not consider it a fair

20 comment. If yes, if no, say why.

21 A. Yes, yes. I've said that it consisted mostly of Serbs.

22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry. One moment, please. Okay.

23 [Microphone not activated].

24 I'm sorry. You mentioned your relationship with Milan Babic, and

25 you mentioned his trust of you. And you were his translator and you were

1 close to him because he knew that you would not stab him in the back. Do

2 you recall having given that evidence?

3 A. Yes, I've said that.

4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Who were the persons who he thought would stab

5 him in the back?

6 A. Well, he had many other people around him which he couldn't trust

7 that much, and that's what later turned out to be his undoing.

8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You thought it turned out to be his undoing.

9 So what I want you is to name the persons who he felt he could not trust,

10 that you were the sole or one of the sole persons who wouldn't stab him in

11 the back.

12 A. Well, I cannot enumerate all of them, but there was Marko

13 Dobrijevic close to him, Dusa Vjestica, Drago Kovacevic, and they

14 socialised with him a lot. I never went to any parties with them at night;

15 I only did my job.

16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So you're not referring to members of the

17 government or anything like that?

18 A. No. They were not members of the government. They were just the

19 people who were usually around him, his usual company. But at any rate

20 they were members of the SDS.

21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Macura. Thank you.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Macura. Let's start with this

23 topic that seems to be very popular with all of us here: The barricades.

24 You just said to Judge Nosworthy now as she was asking you questions that

25 you used the following terms: We organised people, tasked people from the

1 Serbian Democratic Party with chronological the situation at every

2 barricade. And later you said these were SDS activists. Do you remember

3 saying that?

4 A. Well, that's the same thing.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm asking you if you remember saying that. I'm

6 not asking you --

7 A. I remember.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, you also said: We had to give appropriate

9 instructions.

10 Now, I want to find out from you who are the "we" you are

11 referring to in those sentences?

12 A. I mean us who were members of the Crisis Staff in Knin

13 municipality, that means the president of the Executive Council the

14 president of the Council of Associated Labour, president of the

15 municipality, vice-president of the municipality, people who under the

16 statute of the municipality formed the Crisis Staff whenever there is a

17 crisis.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But these people were also instructing SDS

19 activists, is that correct, as you said?

20 A. Of course.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Am I right to say that the barricades were mounted

22 by the Executive Council of the associated -- what shall we call it --

23 A. No, no.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me finish. You have just told me now. Us who

25 were members of the crisis in Knin municipality, that means the president

1 of the Executive Council, the president of the Council of Associated

2 Labour, the president of the municipality, that's what you say, the vice-

3 president. Now, I'm saying, I'm asking you - just listen to my question -

4 these barricades were mounted by the municipality of Knin in conjunction

5 with members of the SDS. Is that correct?

6 A. No, that's not correct.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the correct position?

8 A. I've already explained. Villagers mounted those roadblocks or

9 barricades around villages and then we decided we have to put some order

10 into it.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know -- let me remind you what you said on

12 this --

13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, did you say "villages" or "villagers"?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just said "villagers," people

15 from villages.

16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So it was villages not villagers. May I ask to

17 correct that?

18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think he said "villagers."

19 THE WITNESS: It's wrong here -- villagers, yes, okay, it's

20 villagers, that's right.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You said on the 12th of September, and I'm

22 quoting you: "I led the work on the barricades from the centre for

23 information and alert." That was at page 40 of that day, lines 15 to 16.

24 "We had to establish some sort of order. I told our people ... " do you

25 remember that? You led the work on the barricades from the centre for

1 information and alert. Do you remember saying so on the 12th of September.

2 A. Yes, I remember saying so.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is did you mean by you led the work on

4 the barricades?

5 A. Your Honour, I was vice-president of the municipality, and since

6 the president of the Assembly was not present in Knin then, I, as his vice-

7 president, had to preside over the Crisis Staff under the Statute of the

8 municipality. And in that capacity, I was also ex officio commander of the

9 barricades because I took over that part of the job to see to it there

10 should be no shooting.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would it be correct to characterise your activity

12 as that you initiated the mounting of the barricades in the Knin

13 municipality?

14 A. No. No, Your Honour. They were already mounted. They were

15 already installed, and we wanted to put some order into it. They were

16 already erected, and we had to react to that.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Let me ask you this perhaps last question

18 on this point. It would then be correct to say officialdom in the Knin

19 municipality identified and associated itself with the activities of the

20 people who had already mounted barricades. Would it be a fair assessment?

21 A. Your Honour, we did not identify with them. We wanted to have

22 control over them. We wanted to carry out the referendum peacefully and

23 then remove the barricades.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: But these barricades I thought you said -- you

25 didn't say they were mounted for the purpose of carrying out the

1 referendum. I thought you said they were mounted for the purpose of

2 blocking Croat soldiers who were coming to attack.

3 A. Yes, I said that.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right. And -- but then you wanted them to be

5 there; that's why you went and made sure that they are there and they are

6 done in an orderly fashion according to your judgement?

7 A. Yes, sir. We wanted to conduct that referendum, and we reckoned

8 that the police forces of Croatia wanted to remove the weapons from the

9 police and the reserve force of the army to prevent the referendum. So we

10 intended to remove the barricades after the referendum is finished.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you officiated them and you identified with

12 them?

13 A. I don't think so. Of course you can phrase it that way. We only

14 wanted to conduct the referendum and then remove the barricades.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. At page 43 on the same day of the 12th at

16 line 21 you also said: "Only later did the police take over. The

17 barricades were removed and check-points were set up in several places."

18 Do you remember saying that?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question to you is: When did the police take

21 over?

22 A. Your Honour, what I said is that I was replaced on the third day,

23 and I no longer was associated with the barricades in any way whatsoever.

24 But I do have to repeat that I have a problem with dates. I cannot

25 remember the day when the police took over.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You do have a problem with dates?

2 A. [In English] Of course because it's a long time, you know.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: To your knowledge, how long did the barricades

4 stay on after the police had taken over?

5 A. [Interpretation] I don't think that that lasted for a very long

6 time but I cannot specify the exact number of days. The referendum also

7 lasted some 15 days. I cannot remember the exact duration, but I cannot

8 recall when it was that police check-points were set up instead of the

9 barricades.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to approximate like you have been

11 approximating, the referendum took about 15 days you have just told us. Is

12 it fair to say -- allow me to finish --

13 A. Approximately 10 to 15 days.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it fair to say that they stayed for as long as

15 it took to take -- to undertake the referendum, plus/minus 15 days?

16 A. Maybe, possibly.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: What kind of check-points did the police set up?

18 A. The police had their teams who were on duty at specific points,

19 and controlled the traffic, entry, exits.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but what did they do? When you say they

21 controlled traffic, why was there a need to control traffic? What were

22 they doing on these check-points?

23 A. Well, simply they were on duty there, controlling who was

24 entering and who was leaving, nothing more. To prevent someone undesirable

25 from going in.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: So undesirables would be stopped from coming into

2 the -- into Knin?

3 A. They would be stopped.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And who are undesirables?

5 A. I don't know whether there were any, but we thought that there

6 was a possibility for some members of the Croatian police to want to enter.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was the difference between the police check-

8 points and the prior barricades?

9 A. Well, there were no more logs on the road, there were no more

10 trees, but there were normal police teams set up who were on duty at

11 certain points and controlled those points.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Now, you testified on the 13th of September

13 about - I don't know whether I'm remembering this correctly - the Posavina

14 corridor. Is that correct? Is that what it's called?

15 A. Yes, I said so in a -- in answering a question posed to me by the

16 Prosecutor.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And the purpose of this corridor, as I understand

18 it, was to join all the Krajinas in Slovenia and in Croatia with Serbia?

19 A. No, not in Slovenia.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, okay. The SAO Krajina with Serbia?

21 A. That is right, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So as to form this SAO Krajina as one block of

23 land with Serbia?

24 A. Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why specifically with Serbia? Why, for argument's

1 sake, not with Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was nearer?

2 A. It was not only with Serbia but also with the Bosnian Krajina,

3 because to be linked up with Serbia we would have to also have the Bosnian

4 Krajina. But now it is under the control of the Croats who, as a matter of

5 fact - let me also tell you that - never lived there before.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Bosnian Krajina is the same thing -- was in

7 the same situation as the SAO Krajina in Croatia, isn't it? You also want

8 that Bosnian Krajina to be part of one block of land with Serb, don't you?

9 A. Yes.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]... why

11 specifically with Serbia?

12 A. Well, Your Honour, if a country is being dismembered and is

13 stopping -- ceases to exist, we are seeking for a way to preserve

14 ourselves, otherwise we would be exterminated. In the Krajina -- there are

15 no more children born in the Krajina, Your Honour. We sought an ally

16 within the same country, a country that was being brought down.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: So Serbia was the ally?

18 A. It should have been an ally. I'm not sure that it was one.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's how you viewed it. That's why you

20 wanted to make a contact with it.

21 A. Yes, at that moment, at that moment.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, my question is: Wasn't it simpler and less

23 torturous to just move over to Serbia and leave Croatia?

24 A. That is exactly what we did, but that was under the pressure of

25 might, of force. Why should we leave the Krajina where we had been and

1 have been living for over a thousand years, Your Honour?

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Because, according to you, the Croats don't want

3 you. They've made you a minority, if I understand your interpretation of

4 their constitution. They have -- they have --

5 A. That is true.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]... of your

7 nation's status. Why don't you go where you are recognised as a nation in

8 Serbia, then there's less trauma for everybody, for yourself, the Croats,

9 everybody.

10 A. Your Honour, the trauma is still horrendous. Even now I am still

11 unable to visit the grave of my parents.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that, and it is in sympathy with this

13 trauma that I'm asking you this question, that if you probably had done

14 what I'm suggesting, this trauma wouldn't have been suffered on either

15 side. It's just a question.

16 A. Well, Your Honour, if you're asking me personally, in 1997 [as

17 interpreted] I was offered a job and an apartment in Belgrade, but it never

18 even remotely occurred to me to leave Knin. Your Honour, perhaps you

19 cannot perceive this properly. We are beholders to our turf and to our

20 ancestors and to our history. We couldn't just very well get up and leave.

21 But you are right, it could have been easier in the way that you have said.

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, in said in 1997 you were offered this

23 job in Belgrade. Did you mean 1987?

24 A. 1977, actually. [In English] 30 years ago.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand being beholden to your land and I

1 understand your emotions to ancestry and all that. I'm just trying to put

2 things on a scale -- or perhaps before I even do so. Let me just ask you

3 where you live now.

4 A. [Interpretation] I live in Belgrade now, and I have sold my house

5 which was in Beograd Nemoru [phoen].

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are now in Belgrade. What I'm saying is you

7 are no more in Knin?

8 A. No, I'm not.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: But after this suffering -- and I'm suggesting to

10 you that if right from the beginning you had just gone to Belgrade, that as

11 a people, you would be in Belgrade but the suffering would have been

12 avoided.

13 A. You're right there, but we couldn't have thought about things in

14 that way.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That's fine. You testified also -- I'm

16 moving to another point now.

17 Mr. Milovancevic, may I ask that you talk softly because

18 otherwise we cross one another.

19 You also testified that Croats in Croatia could not legally,

20 politically, or even morally secede because the Serbs held a veto on

21 secession. Do you remember that testimony?

22 A. Yes.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, is it equally so that therefore the Croats

24 should hold a veto on the formation of the SAO Krajina? These are two

25 equal national peoples.

1 A. Your Honour --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Da," did you say "yes"?

3 A. We were playing chess with a black pawns. We were only reacting

4 to Croatia's actions because it wanted to secede from Yugoslavia and we on

5 our part wanted to secede from Croatia because we had been a constituent

6 people in the constitution of Croatia. We actually made the -- made

7 Croatia victorious in the two past world wars.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you to be saying an eye for an

9 eye? Are you saying two wrongs make a right?

10 A. I'm not sure that that is so, but we had to defend ourselves with

11 something and we were constitutionally entitled to do so.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand what you claim, but just answer my

13 question. Are you saying: An eye for an eye?

14 A. Well, sir, Your Honour, if you ask me I would never wage war.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, but if war is waged against you, you'll wage

16 it back?

17 A. Yes, yes.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]...

19 A. [In English] Okay, if you say so, okay.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, I'm not saying so. I'm asking you to say.

21 And if you differ, by all means, say you differ. Don't say if you say so.

22 I'm not testifying; I'm asking questions.

23 A. [Interpretation] No, I don't agree because I think that everyone

24 is entitled to defence, to self-defence.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, you are saying - and you have said this

1 on more than one occasion - you are saying the Serbs had a veto on the

2 secession of the Croatian. Now, I'm asking you if the Croats should also

3 have a veto on the formation of the Krajina. Now -- and you have now

4 saying: No, they shouldn't have it. Is that what you are now saying?

5 They shouldn't have a veto on the formation of the Krajina, but the Serbs

6 should have a veto on the secession from Yugoslavia? Because --

7 A. Your Honour, we're talking about Yugoslavia. We did not want

8 Yugoslavia to be dissolved as a state, but it was dissolved in

9 contravention of international law and international treaties. According

10 to the Helsinki Accords, external borders are inviolable and in this case

11 internal borders were decided inviolable, which is in contravention of

12 international law.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that argument of international law.

14 All I'm asking is what the Serbs and the Croats, as constituent nations in

15 Croatia, are entitled to do and can do.

16 A. They had the right to self-determination. If the Croats had that

17 right, so did the Serbs have that right.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Allow me to put the question. All I'm asking you

19 is if Serbs have a right of veto so too do Croats have a right of veto. Am

20 I right?

21 A. You are right.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So they were perfectly -- would they -- would we

23 then say they were perfectly within their right to stop the formation of

24 the Krajina?

25 A. This is a problem of secession. This is about secession, Your

1 Honour.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. If you will just give me a moment.

3 Now, you told me a little earlier that you're not very good with

4 dates. In fact, you have been saying this right through your testimony.

5 Do you remember that and that --

6 A. Yes, and I never expected to be asked such questions.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. I accept that. There is something that I

8 don't understand, though. What makes you so sure of the date of the 17th

9 of August, 1990, that you actually want to contradict -- can I finish my

10 question, please?

11 A. [In English] Yes, yes, all right.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That you actually want to contradict a statement

13 by Mr. Martic where he says he himself took over -- personally took over

14 control of the barricades on the 17th of August, 1990. And you with your

15 poor memory on dates, having not remembered a single date so far, how do

16 you remember this one?

17 A. [Interpretation] It is not that I did not remember a single date;

18 and secondly, the referendum was scheduled for the 19th of August, that it

19 was posted all over the Krajina. And therefore, I remember that date very

20 well because we were working on the organisation of the referendum. And it

21 was two days prior to the referendum that we had the raid into Benkovac and

22 then attempted incursion into Obrovac. That is why I remember the date,

23 and Mr. Martic could not have been in charge of the barricades at the same

24 time as I was. Only after I had been replaced could he have taken control

25 of the barricades.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, Mr. Macura.

2 A. [In English] Yes.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: All these events we have been asking you about and

4 these dates that you are not able to remember all happened in the context

5 of other things happening around them, but you still don't remember them.

6 A. [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was a historic date, and we

7 considered it to be a historic date for the Krajina because the SAO Krajina

8 was at that time practically a church in which we prayed to a god of ours.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: How do you know that it was two days before this

10 historic date and not three days, and not four days, and not ten days, and

11 not one day? That it was a historic date, all these events are momentous

12 and historic that we are talking about here. How do you remember this one

13 date and you are so firm on it when every other date you have been --

14 A. Your Honour, Your Honour, on the 19th people turned out to vote

15 at the referendum, of course. And it is only normal that I remember it

16 very well. People filed in columns, turned out to vote. And there were

17 many journalists there from the world over, and I had to give a press

18 conference for a host of journalists.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: But what -- your memory is completely against this

20 specific statement by Mr. Martic, which was not made now in court like

21 yours, it was made then when the events were fresh in his memory. And --

22 and he clearly says in the tape he took command on the 17th of August,

23 1990.

24 A. Your Honour, I submit that that is not true because we could not

25 have been in charge of that at the same time. But we Serbs are much given

1 to ascribing some credit that does not belong to us, but I am not among

2 those.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think it was yesterday when you said that --

4 yes, right, that you were being asked a question I think by the Prosecution

5 that Serbia gave assistance amongst others, economic, to the SAO Krajina

6 and the RSK. Do you remember that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you remember all -- you say: Yes, but the

9 Krajina also gave assistance -- economic assistance to Serbia?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: What assistance did the Krajina give to Serbia?

12 A. Sir, from the airfield in Udbina, a plane often took off taking

13 meat, veal, beef, mutton, from our lands because we are a diligent people

14 and we have a lot of cattle. That is one thing. Secondly, there is a lot

15 of forests so that timber was also taken there. In addition to that, some

16 oil was also taken to Serbia. So there were quite a number of things, Your

17 Honour.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was this in the normal course of trade or was it

19 as a gift?

20 A. Your Honour, well many people amassed fortunes in the process; I

21 didn't. It wasn't normal. There was a bit of the Mafia there -- of the

22 Mafia-type dealings there.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me remove the word "normal." Was this in

24 trade relations or was this in donation form?

25 A. I don't know that precisely, but in any case it was done, I'm not

1 sure in what form, but it was on a regular basis.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you can't then say Serbia gave economic

3 assistance to Serbia, can you?

4 A. You mean the Krajina?

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Krajina. Thank you for the correction. You

6 can't then say the Krajina gave economic assistance, underline the word

7 assistance, to Serbia because you don't know what form these --

8 A. Well, it was not assistance but these products were delivered to

9 Serbia.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. No, that's all I wanted to know. I just

11 wanted to be satisfied that you would tell us clearly what you know about

12 the assistance, if any, given by the Krajina to Serb. Now, the record is

13 clear, you don't -- there's no assistance that you can say was given by

14 Krajina to Serbia.

15 A. There is something more, if I can add by your leave, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I'm not eliciting any new evidence; I'm

17 just clarifying evidence that's already on the record.

18 For my elucidation can I just ask this question. It doesn't turn

19 on anything. You mentioned yesterday the various nations of former

20 Yugoslavia as it then was. I noticed that in the list you gave you didn't

21 mention - or maybe I missed it - what the people of Vojvodina would have

22 been. Are you able to tell us, are they -- were they also a constituent

23 part of nation or what are they and what are they called?

24 A. Your Honour, in Vojvodina there lives 70 per cent of Serbs, but

25 Vojvodina did have autonomy within Serbia. But now the population is

1 mostly Serbs, 70 per cent, but there are also Hungarians, there are

2 Slovaks, Ruthinians, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of someone one

3 day or so making or inventing the Vojvodinian nationality or nation also.

4 Anything is possible.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's not concern ourself what happen in the

6 future, let's --

7 A. [In English] I am worried, Mr. Moloto.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately it's not part of the brief of this

9 Chamber.

10 A. Okay.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yesterday you were asked a question by Judge

12 Hoepfel to which you ended up not giving an answer and I would like to get

13 an answer to that question. He asked you what role did Dr. Raskovic play

14 at the time of the barricades?

15 A. [Interpretation] Dr. Raskovic was not in Knin at the time of the

16 barricades. Therefore, he had no role to play.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That completes my questions.

18 Thank you so much, Mr. Macura.

19 Any questions arising from the Bench's questions, Mr.

20 Milovancevic -- I beg your pardon. Maybe it would be a convenient time if

21 -- it's not. I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. Yes. You may proceed, Mr.

22 Milovancevic.

23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Further examination by Mr. Milovancevic:

25 Q. [Interpretation] Further to the questions asked of you by the

1 Chamber, Mr. Macura, could you tell us what is the main reason why the

2 barricades appeared in the first place?

3 A. I've said that a number of times already. It's that the Croat

4 side threatened that they would prevent the referendum by all means

5 possible. And on the eve of the referendum, there was a seizure of weapons

6 in Benkovac and an attempt to seize the weapons in Obrovac where the people

7 stopped it. And after that, barricades were erected spontaneously, and we

8 later placed them under control.

9 Q. Why did the people erect the barricade, what is the main reason?

10 A. The main reason is that they wanted the referendum to be held in

11 peace without having Croatian authorities come in and prevent -- the

12 Croatian police come in and prevent the referendum from taking place.

13 Q. Where did the barricades appear first?

14 A. In Ocislov, Padjeni, villages around Knin and later around some

15 other places farther away from Knin, even in my own village Macure, which

16 was 30 kilometres away from Knin.

17 Q. Did the then municipality authorities have a role to play in the

18 erection of barricades in the area they controlled?

19 A. Not at the beginning. They just established control over the

20 barricades later.

21 Q. One of the questions you were asked had to do with the JNA. Did

22 the JNA exist in 1992 and 1993? And in that connection I'd like to ask you

23 this: Do you recall when the JNA withdraw from Croatia?

24 A. After the Vance Plan was adopted, but I don't know again when

25 that was.

1 Q. That will do. Do you know when Bosnia and Herzegovina seceded

2 from Yugoslavia?

3 A. I think it was sometime in mid-1992.

4 Q. Thank you. That will do. Did the JNA have to withdraw from

5 Bosnia and Herzegovina as well?

6 A. Yes, it did.

7 Q. Before all that happened, before Bosnia and Herzegovina and

8 before Croatia, did the JNA withdraw from Slovenia?

9 A. It had withdrawn from Slovenia much earlier.

10 Q. When was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia created, do you know

11 at least roughly?

12 A. I know that it was created in Zabljak in Montenegro. It was the

13 so-called Zabljak constitution, but I don't know when.

14 Q. If I say end of April 1992, would that sound plausible to you?

15 A. Yes, possibly.

16 Q. What was the name of the army of the Federal Republic of

17 Yugoslavia?

18 A. I believe it was called the Army of Yugoslavia.

19 Q. Was it called the Yugoslav People's Army or the Army of

20 Yugoslavia?

21 A. I believe they were renamed later. I'm not sure.

22 Q. If the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was founded on the ruins of

23 the former Yugoslavia in mid-1992, could we say, as you did in responding

24 to a question asked by Judge Nosworthy, could we say that the JNA existed

25 in 1993?

1 A. Not in 1993, but in 1992 it did.

2 Q. What was the JNA while the Yugoslavia -- the former Yugoslavia

3 existed?

4 A. It was the regular army within the whole state, the whole

5 country.

6 Q. Was the JNA in Yugoslavia a Serb army?

7 A. No.

8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: He's already answered that question, Mr.

9 Milovancevic. I'm sorry to intrude, but my recollection of his response to

10 me is that he answered in the affirmative to that question. The record

11 could be checked in all fairness to you if it transpires that I'm wrong.

12 [Microphone not activated].

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I believe, in fact, he did answer in the

15 affirmative and he said it was effectively a Serbian --

16 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, if it's any assistance I think your

17 question and answer are on page 6 of the transcript. It may come down to

18 the time-frame that's being referred to.

19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well.

20 Did you hear that response -- sorry, that contribution from Mr.

21 Black, Mr. Milovancevic? What period are you referring to because I had

22 put to him 1992 to 1993, I believe, which you had mentioned earlier and he

23 had indeed answered in the affirmative. So --

24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's precisely in

25 relation with that period that I asked these additional questions eliciting

1 those additional answers. So the answer is that from the moment the

2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created, the Army of Yugoslavia came

3 into being after the JNA withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina. So from May

4 1992, the Yugoslav People's Army no longer existed.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you testify, Mr. Milovancevic?

6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Because I was talking to Her

7 Honour Judge Nosworthy, explaining why I am asking the questions I am

8 asking.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're saying things that are supposed to be

10 explained by a witness, if anything at all, and things that he hasn't

11 really said expressly in the form in which you are putting them. There's

12 nothing we can do about it. Go on.

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I

14 have no further questions on this topic. Thank you.

15 Q. Do you remember that His Honour Judge Moloto asked you something

16 about options that were easier or harder on the Serb people in Krajina? Do

17 you remember that?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. He asked you: Wouldn't it have been easier for Serbs to leave

20 Krajina? Now, in that regard, what in your opinion was the harder option

21 out of the two proposed by His Honour Judge Moloto?

22 A. I don't know. It's easy to discuss that from this perspective

23 nowadays, especially for His Honour Judge Moloto, but the -- in those times

24 the people who lived there did not find it easy at all to abandon

25 everything they had.

1 Q. Did they want to stay on where they lived?

2 A. Of course, at any rate they wanted to stay on on the land where

3 they had lived for centuries.

4 Q. Were they prepared to stay and fight for that right?

5 A. The people of Krajina was prepared to fight for their rights and

6 made many sacrifices for that.

7 Q. Did the people of Krajina have a choice in the situation they

8 were in in 1992?

9 A. I don't think so. The war was practically imposed on them.

10 Q. If we have a people who don't have a choice and are in a

11 situation where a war is imposed on them and they have to leave to another

12 country, what is that called?

13 A. It's a crime.

14 Q. Would that be ethnic cleansing?

15 A. Ethnic cleansing is a very mild term; this is much worse than

16 ethnic cleansing.

17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.

19 Mr. Black.

20 MR. BLACK: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour, Your Honour. Very,

21 very briefly.

22 Further cross-examination by Mr. Black:

23 Q. Mr. Macura, you were asked questions by the Judges about

24 barricade. The barricades or the check-points, as you called them later,

25 those remained through the rest of 1990 and indeed well into 1991, didn't

1 they?

2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, that's correct, but I have nothing to do with it.

3 I personally have nothing to do with it.

4 Q. That's fine, thank you. There was reference to the Bosnian

5 Krajina. That's the -- the Serb-inhabited part of Bosnia, correct, or one

6 of the Serb-inhabited parts of Bosnia?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. And just very briefly, in 1992 the Yugoslav People's Army, the

9 JNA, became the Army of Yugoslavia; which was called the VJ, right, do I

10 have -- do I understand that correctly?

11 A. Correct.

12 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much.

13 That's all, Your Honour. No further questions.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're done?

15 MR. BLACK: Yes, thank you.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was quick.

17 Yes, Judge Nosworthy, you had some questions.

18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Before the witness leaves, I would just like to

19 look at the record at page 18 of the transcript, lines 11 and line 12, the

20 record should read inviolable and not inviable, and that is an important

21 correction. Thank you. Page 18, lines 11 to 12. In respect of the breach

22 of international laws concerning the internal and external borders. In

23 that context.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].

25 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you very much.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second. The Chamber wants to express its

2 thanks to you for coming to testify at the Tribunal. We understand that

3 you must be a busy person and taking time off from your busy schedule is a

4 real sacrifice. For that we want to show the appreciation of the Chamber.

5 This brings us now to the end of your testimony. You are now excused, and

6 you may stand down. Once again, thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 [The witness withdrew]

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

10 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we call the next witness, I'd like us to

13 deal with some housekeeping problems here.

14 Mr. Milovancevic, the Chamber would like to talk to you in a very

15 calm and collected manner and would like to appeal to you to please listen

16 very carefully to what the Chamber says. And I'll probably speak for some

17 time and I'd like you to please give me a chance to do so before you try to

18 respond, if you want to respond.

19 The Chamber is seriously concerned, Mr. Milovancevic, about the

20 way the proceedings are unfolding. There have been a number of occasions

21 which I don't wish to list, unless it's called for, where the Defence has

22 not kept to either its promises or any deadlines that are given by the

23 Bench or kept its obligations under the Rules, and this has a very serious

24 effect on the conduct of the proceedings. We would like to address these

25 problems today, and I hope it is the very last time that we are going to be

1 addressing these problems.

2 Now, you will -- I'm sure you do know those occasions when we

3 have made rulings and made deadlines and the Defence has made promises and

4 has not kept them. But I must say what precipitates today's discussion is

5 what happened following the last 73 ter decision that was handed down by

6 the Chamber. In that decision, the Defence was ordered to submit by

7 Monday, the 11th of September, 2006, a breakdown of hours of testimony in

8 light of the decision. The Defence did not file that breakdown. And on

9 the 11th of September in court in the middle of a discussion of a

10 completely different topic, you, Mr. Milovancevic, said: "We saw the

11 decision of the Trial Chamber regarding the schedule, and I wish to say

12 that we reviewed this matter, took into account all the forthcoming

13 witnesses, and I wish to say that we do not see how we can deviate a lot

14 from the schedule - I beg your pardon - from the schedule given previously.

15 All we can do is do our best to comply with the Trial Chamber's order and

16 the limitations imposed on us."

17 Now, that is not the way to deal with Court orders. A Court

18 order is to be obeyed. If you feel aggrieved by the order of the Court,

19 there are options open to you - and I think I've mentioned them several

20 times to you - and none of the options includes just doing your best to

21 comply and -- with the limitations imposed on you. You either do comply or

22 you appeal the order.

23 Now, having said that, I find it important to explain to you

24 why these orders are made and why rules are made and why laws are made.

25 Laws are made to regulate human behaviour and so also the rules and also

1 the orders. If all of us in this court disobey orders and disobey rules

2 and disobey laws, there would be chaos. There would be chaos in this

3 court. Things would not take place the way they're supposed to, and there

4 would be chaos in society if people do not obey orders.

5 Now, the Tribunal has promulgated rules here of procedure and

6 evidence, and these Rules are supposed to facilitate the conduct of

7 proceedings. And each rule has a purpose, and these rules are

8 interrelated. Now, the specific interrelationship between the rules that

9 are relevant to what we're talking about are -- is that any list or summary

10 of evidence or estimation of time that a party - and in this case the

11 Defence - gives in terms of 65 ter, in terms of Rule 65 ter, is

12 subordinated to any decision following upon that summary or that list that

13 is handed down in terms of Rule 73 ter. You cannot say: Yes, I filed my

14 65 ter list. I gave my estimation at 300 hours. You decided to come up

15 with your own 73 ter ruling which says it must be 260 hours. And later I

16 cut down some witnesses, which obviously must, of necessity, reduce the

17 number of hours you are entitled to. And I was called upon to give a new

18 65 ter list. I gave that 65 ter list, and then you decided to come up with

19 another 73 ter list of your own which you say 158 hours are now the hours

20 allotted to me. But despite all those lists and decisions, I'm going to go

21 my own way and work according to my original list, which is something that

22 you indicated when you said to me yesterday, when I asked you how long you

23 intended to take with this witness who has just finished, you said to me:

24 No, you don't know, you had allocated ten hours in the original 65 ter and

25 you hadn't done ten hours yet, therefore you are still perfectly entitled

1 to go on. It doesn't go that way. That time has been cut down by the two

2 subsequent 73 ter decisions. And the effect of the 73 ter decisions is

3 that the Defence must now re-organisation its work such that it fits into

4 the 73 ter decision, not into our original 65 ter list. That's how these

5 two rules relate to each other, or at least that's how I understand them to

6 relate to each other.

7 Now, let me say when you disregard these rules and these

8 decisions, you put the Chamber into a very egregious position because then

9 the Chamber must look at remedial action and the Rules again do provide for

10 this remedial action which can be taken up by the Chamber. But the

11 question is if you take some of the remedial action that is prescribed in

12 the Rules, what effect is that having on the proceedings? What effect is

13 that having on the rights of the very client you are representing, whose

14 rights you would like to protect? And such remedial action includes Rule

15 46, which deals with professional misconduct, Rule 77, which deals with

16 contempt.

17 Let me say, Mr. Milovancevic, without trying to be -- without

18 trying to be harsh but just to state it as a fact. Disobeying an order of

19 the Court is tantamount to contempt. It's a contemptuous behaviour.

20 Now, imagine if any one of those rules, either Rule 46 or Rule

21 77, were to be resorted to by the Chamber in dealing with the way you

22 conduct the proceedings. Obviously this might result if Rule 46

23 proceedings are undertaken, the possible result could be, it's one of the

24 results that could come up, that you are removed from the trial and new

25 counsel must come. And that counsel must now start all over again to

1 inform himself of the proceedings thus far before he can start. The very

2 rights you are trying to protect are prejudiced. The proceedings don't go

3 as expeditiously as they ought to.

4 Similarly, if we take Rule 77, then we must stop these

5 proceedings and prosecute you. I don't want to do this. I don't think the

6 Chamber wants to do this. We would like to work together as smoothly as we

7 possibly can, and the Chamber has tried in its first 70 ter decision to

8 suggest to the Defence that based on the summaries that the Defence itself

9 had filed, the kind of witnesses who could come by way of 92 bis or 89(F).

10 Now, let me pause here to explain how I understand Rule 92 bis

11 and 89(F) to operate. If you find statements in terms of those two rules,

12 it's not as if your witness has not testified; your witness has testified.

13 The Chamber will read those statements and will take into account those

14 statements. And in particular, if that witness has come here for cross-

15 examination and the Chamber has seen him under cross-examination, the

16 Chamber will see -- I beg your pardon, the Chamber will attach appropriate

17 weight to that evidence. So it's not as if when you are being asked to

18 file a 92 bis statement for a particular witness that you are being denied

19 the right to put evidence in support of your case. The whole purpose is to

20 expedite the proceedings rather than sit here and listen to a witness who

21 is either corroborating another witness or is telling us background

22 information which deals with history and doesn't deal with the acts and

23 conduct of the accused. We can just read those documents, those

24 statements, and save the time in court to deal with people who are

25 testifying on disputed facts.

1 Now, so far every witness that the Defence has called has spoken

2 about background information, and what is meant by background information?

3 My understanding of background information is that if you're talking about

4 issues that are not directly related with the charges as formulated in the

5 indictment but you are telling us about what happened in 1630, what

6 happened in 1918, what happened in 1941 and 1945 and 1971, all that is

7 background information. All that is information that is not directly

8 related to the charges. It is information that gives context. Now, that

9 kind of information can definitely be given by way of written statements

10 instead of viva voce.

11 And I want to say to you, because of that I want to ask the

12 Defence to reconsider its position and reconsider the remaining witnesses

13 to be called and also look at the proposals that were made in the first 75

14 ter decision, the annex to the 73 ter decision, I beg your pardon, where a

15 proposal is made on the kind of witnesses that could be 92 bis witnesses or

16 89(F) witnesses. Because that will save us the time. Because if you don't

17 do so, we're finding ourselves unable to control the time that we can

18 allocate to a particular witness who is here. Each one of the Defence

19 witnesses that has been called has taken more time than was originally

20 allocated, even by you in your original list, which has been brought down

21 by the 73 ter decisions, each one of them. And I have consistently been

22 asking you to please tell us how you hope to recoup this lost time when you

23 say: We'll do our best to stay within the decisions imposed on you. How

24 do you propose to do that? I can't let you go on beyond the time limit --

25 time stipulated if you don't tell me how you are going to recoup that time.

1 You're leaving the Chamber with no alternative but to say: Fine, we will

2 leave Mr. Milovancevic to take as much time as he pleases. Come the 158th

3 hour, we'll stop you. And by that time you might still be having 5, 10, 20

4 witnesses to call. And if we stop you, then you have not been able to put

5 that evidence in. But if you use a 92 bis and 89(F) route, come the 158th

6 hour, if you are stopped, the evidence is in. It's in by way of a

7 statement, a written statement. So your client is not prejudiced.

8 I hope you can appreciate that benefit. I'm asking you to please

9 not drive the Chamber to taking drastic measures because this Chamber is

10 not inclined to doing so, at least not at this stage.

11 Mr. Milovancevic, I think I've said enough for now. Do you have

12 anything to say?

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We

14 understood you fully. We fully understand and accept what you are saying.

15 Both Mr. Perovic and I are people who observe the law and order and the

16 rules. Mr. Perovic has in his 20-year legal practice worked as a judge and

17 I worked as a judge for 14 years before becoming a lawyer. I'm just saying

18 this so that you understand that we have an in-built respect for the Court,

19 it is part of us. And I wish to assure you most sincerely that not for a

20 moment, not for a second, neither my colleague Mr. Perovic or I would not

21 respect the Court. That is by way of a general remark. Now let me deal

22 with your comments.

23 Since you have very reasonably and in great detail pointed out

24 the problems we are facing, we just wish to put forward an explanation that

25 might assist the Trial Chamber in understanding the position we're in. We

1 have read the order of the Trial Chamber, and when I previously said what I

2 said regarding that 73 ter decision it was not my intention to display

3 anything remotely resembling contempt of the Court. Let me say briefly

4 that we invested enormous efforts in reviewing the list of witnesses and

5 the schedule we have submitted with a view to streamlining it. The point

6 is that simply we don't know how to. The problem is maybe - and I wish to

7 bring this to the notice of the Trial Chamber - that -- and this hasn't

8 appeared in our case before. Our colleagues from the Prosecution gave an

9 estimate of 298 hours and asked then for an extension of three days because

10 of some new witnesses. The Trial Chamber accepted that. The Trial Chamber

11 never asked the Prosecution to revise their schedule. So the estimates of

12 the Prosecution many times turned out to be wrong, and their examination of

13 certain witnesses lasted longer than envisaged bit schedules. On many

14 occasions examination took less time. But because the Prosecution wrongly

15 estimated cross-examination to last a longer time than it actually did.

16 Just 11 days before the end of the Prosecution on the 9th of June, the

17 Prosecution exercised their right to notify when their Prosecution case

18 would be over. They finally ended with 267 hours, and that is a result of

19 many circumstances, the death of Mr. Babic, who was supposed to testify for

20 many days; the fact that they renounced on calling many witnesses. Out of

21 44 viva voce witnesses, cross-examination lasted longer than scheduled only

22 with 18 witnesses.

23 Why am I saying this? In contrast to their position, we on the

24 Defence team are constantly faced with deadlines, very strict deadlines,

25 limitations and orders to keep revising the time of examination and the

1 manner in which evidence is introduced. What matters to us is, Your

2 Honour, that the Prosecution had all the time in the world to prepare their

3 case, unlike us. We are under unbelievable pressure. Of course we are all

4 under the pressure of our jobs; I don't mean that kind of pressure. But we

5 are under the pressure of deadlines, the deadlines set on us were those by

6 the Prosecution and approved by the Trial Chamber. Many times we were in a

7 position to be totally at a loss what to do with the deadlines, not because

8 we don't wish to respect the Court. We wish to represent Mr. Martic, that

9 is our wish, our obligation, and we cannot do that unless we abide by the

10 Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

11 But all this we are facing now indicates that there is no

12 equality of arms between the Prosecution and the Defence, regrettably. So

13 the -- that begs the question: What happens to the principle of fair trial

14 if there was not a single similar deadline and order imposed on the

15 Prosecution. And they're constantly being imposed on us. What happens

16 with Article 21 of the Statute?

17 I am just trying to explain why we find it impossible to comply

18 with the orders. We are not reckless people bent on demonstrating contempt

19 for the Tribunal. Please, I have many -- less years in front of me than

20 behind me. I don't want to be in a position where I'm threatened with

21 being removed from the case, but we are facing a situation where the

22 accused under Article 21 of the Statute has the right to examine his

23 witnesses under the same conditions that the Prosecution had. What kind of

24 deadlines and conditions was the Prosecution subjected to? None. They

25 were never asked to revise their list of witnesses, never asked to revise

1 their schedule.

2 Let me emphasise once again. We had to because we have to comply

3 with the orders of the Trial Chamber to accept the rhythm that has been

4 imposed on us. I am not complaining about the order that the in the power

5 of the Trial Chamber to impose deadlines, but we are pointing to our

6 objective difficulties, whereas the Prosecution had a -- had free rein.

7 That is the only reason why we are in difficulty. We are bound by our

8 obligation to assist the Trial Chamber and the accused in establishing the

9 truth. We cannot believe that the principle of equality of arms and the

10 principle of a fair trial is less important than expeditiousness.

11 Expeditiousness cannot be the only criterion that applies to proceedings of

12 this kind, Your Honour. We will appeal this decision of the Trial Chamber.

13 We estimated our time in the revised schedule to 211 hours and a half, and

14 the order of the Trial Chamber asks for 158 hours. We don't know how to do

15 this, because of the charges and the matters that witnesses have to testify

16 on. Of course we cannot say we are going to examine the witnesses any way

17 we see fit and the Trial Chamber has nothing to do with it. But the

18 charges leveled against Mr. Martic involve joint criminal enterprise. And

19 everything that appears to be background is, in fact, the substance of

20 those charges. And the Prosecution does not have to prove the existence of

21 a joint criminal enterprise, that is even the position of the Trial

22 Chamber. The Prosecution only has to show the widespread nature of the

23 crimes. What are we then supposed to prove? That there was no plan? That

24 the Prosecution doesn't even say where it existed, when or why? By

25 demonstrating the background, we are in fact responding to the charges

1 involving joint criminal enterprise which encompasses every conduct in the

2 territory of Krajina and large parts of Bosnia over a period of five years,

3 including organisation, instigation, aiding and abetting, financing. That

4 is what we are trying to prove through examining our witnesses, and we are

5 doing the best we can.

6 When I said in an oral submission to the Trial Chamber, which may

7 have been clumsy, although that was not my impression, what I said -- my

8 meaning was that we were aware of the deadline and that we want to comply

9 with it. Our position is that the orders of the Court, be they good or bad

10 for a certain party, have to be honoured and respected. But the question

11 arises: Can the Defence comply with an impossible requirement? And if the

12 decision of the Trial Chamber invokes Rule 73 ter, has to also be in

13 conformity of the Statute and its provisions about the rights of the

14 accused. Thank you.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic, for what

16 you have said.

17 Is Mr. Whiting looking? You --

18 MR. WHITING: It's hard for me to stay silent for too long, Your

19 Honour. If I may just jump in briefly. And I don't mean to pre-empt Your

20 Honour. If Your Honour would prefer to take it on, I'm happy to go that

21 way, too, but obviously there was some things that were addressed that we

22 would -- we would dispute, most vigorously, and I'm ready to do that.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I ask you to just take a seat for a moment,

24 Mr. --

25 MR. WHITING: That's fine.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm trying to handle this particular exercise not

2 in a confrontational manner. So it's -- I'm trying to stay away from

3 dispute or not dispute. But once I've spoken, if you want to add, I'll

4 give you an opportunity.

5 Mr. Milovancevic, thank you for letting us know -- now I know

6 that you've been a judge for 14 years and Mr. Perovic has been a judge for

7 20 years. And get me clear, when I talked of contempt and I talked of

8 professional misconduct, I was not suggesting that this is what you are

9 doing deliberately and intentionally. I was saying that failure to obey a

10 Court order has that effect. It may not have been what we intended -- what

11 you intended, but that is the effect. The effect is that you failed to

12 obey a Court order, and unless there is justification for that failure,

13 then one could be held in contempt or be brought under disciplinary

14 proceedings in terms of Rule 46.

15 Now, you have mentioned the fact that the Prosecution took longer

16 at times with their witnesses at times shorter time, and then finally asked

17 for an extension of time. And I'm grateful to you for mentioning that

18 because the question of the extension of time I should have mentioned when

19 I first spoke, and I -- it just slipped my mind. The Rules do provide

20 notwithstanding a 65 -- I beg your pardon, a 73 ter decision, the Rules do

21 provide for an application to be made for extension of time. And that is

22 the procedure that should be followed if one finds oneself in a position

23 that he's not able to fit into the 65 ter time allocated. Therefore, when

24 the Prosecution made that application, they were doing what the Rules

25 allowed them, and then of course they motivate their case to say we are not

1 able to fit into this time because of A, B, C, D, E, and we ask for an

2 extension of time and an extension time will be given if the Court so

3 considers.

4 Now, that route is equally open to the Defence if later in the

5 proceedings it becomes quite obvious that the Defence is not able to fit

6 into the 158 hours to bring up an application and say: We would like a

7 review because we've got these problems. At least that is the -- but

8 having that rule in terms of which you can apply for an extension of time,

9 you are still trying to keep within the time allocated by the Chamber.

10 Now, it may be so that the Prosecution may have gone beyond their allocated

11 time in some witnesses. And I want to believe it is so. But if you look

12 at the times by which the Defence has gone beyond their own allocated --

13 their own estimated time let alone that 73 ter allocation, their own

14 estimated time, it far surpasses the time by which the Prosecution went

15 beyond their individual witness times.

16 So -- and that is what creates the problem, that if each one of

17 the Defence witnesses is going to exceed his time and exceed it by such a

18 huge margin and we don't see savings of time in certain other witnesses,

19 how do we hope to catch up on this lost time? Now, you said it yourself,

20 that some of the witnesses of the Prosecution were shorter than they --

21 they had been estimated. And it is when -- and all these are estimates, we

22 understand. Even the Chamber estimates. And obviously, if you had

23 estimated six hours for a witness and you go for seven hours, the Chamber

24 is not going to jump on to your in the case. But if you had estimated six

25 hours and then you go for 12, like the witness here whom you had estimated

1 at eight hours in your own original 65 ter list, and then when you started

2 leading him you said you wanted 16 hours. Now, that is a huge difference.

3 Eight hours is a whole day -- actually, two days. Now, that's a huge

4 difference. And that explains why you find the Chamber on your neck all

5 the time, as you say, when the Chamber, according to you, was not on the

6 neck of the Prosecution. That the deviations were within reason in the

7 understanding that these times are estimates, they are not finite. That's

8 why some are shorter, some are longer, but by -- within reason.

9 You're talking of time to prepare. Now, I understand that the

10 Defence came into the case -- in any case, in any case anywhere in the

11 world, the Defence will always come into the case later than the

12 Prosecution because once a suspect is arrested, it is taken to the

13 Prosecution. The Prosecution starts putting things in motion long before

14 the accused gives instructions for Defence. Now, I understand that. But

15 all I'm saying to you is the drawing up of lists and summaries and

16 estimating times and staying or trying as best you can to stay within them

17 and then complain later to say: Look, we're having difficulties, that's

18 the route to go.

19 The question of equality of arms and fairness of the trial, I'm

20 not quite sure -- well, I must confess that I come across this concept of

21 equality of arms in the International Tribunal here. And I wonder just how

22 equal arms can be. I don't think there's anywhere where arms can ever be

23 equal, Mr. Milovancevic. The Prosecution, even in the national courts, has

24 got the might of the resources from the state behind it. The accused, on

25 the other hand, looks to his own pocket in the national courts and he can

1 never have as much resources as the state has. And therefore, whatever

2 resources the accused with marshal to put up what we call a virilis

3 defensio here, those resources can never be equal to the resources of the

4 state. But having said that, I'm mindful of the fact that an attempt must

5 be made to reduce the imbalance in the distribution of arms. And I do not

6 think, therefore, that with respect to the issue on the table, the issue

7 being that the Defence must try to stay within the time allocated by a 73

8 ter decision, that that has anything to do with equality of arms. I do not

9 think so.

10 Now, I'll tell you why at the expense of repetition. Precisely

11 because the 73 ter decision suggested a number of witnesses that could come

12 by way of 92 bis, and I'm sure you'll agree on this point, while I'm on it,

13 that the Prosecution had a lot of 92 bis witnesses, a lot, and that is why

14 they could cut that time down. Now -- and I want to say, when the Court

15 suggests that a particular witness could come by way of 92 bis, the Court

16 doesn't make that suggestion arbitrarily; the Court makes that suggestion

17 having looked at the summary of the testimony of that witness has provided

18 by you. And the Court then says: Well, on this summary it seems as if

19 this witness is talking on background information. Therefore, he is not

20 talking about the conduct -- the acts and conduct of the accused. He can

21 come in.

22 I know you are saying, sir, that the accused is facing joint

23 criminal enterprise count and that insofar as you are concerned this

24 background information is to fight against the joint criminal enterprise.

25 Now, you can still do that by way of 92 bis. If the evidence of that

1 particular witness does not tell us what the accused personally did. Let's

2 take this witness who's just come off the stand as an example while we

3 remember what has been -- every time he was asked anything about Mr. Martic

4 he said: No, no, no, Mr. Martic was not part of it. He was the other

5 side. I never really had contact with him. He could never tell us. But

6 he talked about this background information, which you say touches on joint

7 criminal enterprise. Fine. He could have jolly well have given that on 92

8 bis because he says he doesn't know what Mr. Martic did. He can't tell us

9 anything that Mr. Martic did, but he can tell us about the joint criminal

10 enterprise and he can do so through a 92 bis or an 89(F). So when we do

11 suggest that, it's based on that kind of consideration. It's not just an

12 arbitrary kind of ruling that this one must go on 92 and that one can come

13 viva voce.

14 You talked about contempt of court. I'm not quite sure what you

15 said about it and I just wrote the word "contempt." I guess that's what --

16 where I began when I said to you -- when I talked about contempt, I was not

17 suggesting that you did this deliberately, but I'm saying the failure to

18 obey an order has the effect that -- the result that that act of failure is

19 contemptuous of court. And question of intention is a question that will

20 go on whether or not there should or should not be a conviction. But the

21 fact of the -- the objective fact is that failure to obey an order of court

22 is prima facie contemptuous.

23 Now, I think I've touched the main issues you have raised. Many

24 people are itching to talk. I see the Judge on my right wants to talk.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Judge Nosworthy.

2 Mr. Milovancevic --

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, my attention is being drawn to

5 something that you said. If you look at page 40, line 2 to 3, you were

6 saying there that: "And the Prosecution does not have to prove the

7 existence of a joint criminal enterprise. That is even the position of the

8 Trial Chamber." I think you are misstating the facts there, Mr.

9 Milovancevic, with respect. The Trial Chamber -- I'm not aware of the

10 Trial Chamber having expressed a position on that. The Prosecution is the

11 dominus litus in this matter. It's going to conduct its trial in the best

12 way it sees. And if it decides that it does not have to prove the

13 existence of a joint criminal enterprise, that's their choice. But the

14 position of the Trial Chamber has definitely not been expressed at this

15 point in time. I can tell you that if the -- it must be expressed, it will

16 definitely be expressed in the judgement, not now. So I would like to

17 correct that.

18 Having done so, I think it's only fair that Mr. Whiting says what

19 he wants to say. Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.

20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. I can -- I can tell you

21 that I crossed off. I --

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, Mr. Martic is gesticulating at

23 the back. He probably also wants to say something. I don't know. Maybe

24 if you can try to get a conferring with him -- just try to deal with the

25 situation.

1 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.

3 Yes, Mr. Whiting.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Martic is

5 not going to ask for the floor. He just wanted to draw my attention to the

6 fact that he heard the comment of the interpreters about the work of the

7 Trial Chamber, which is quite inappropriate. And I'm not going to quote

8 it, and this is what he wanted to draw our attention to. I just want to

9 point to that problem.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Is there anything that we can correct or is

11 it best left --

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I

13 just wanted to communicate this on behalf of Mr. Martic. I have no need to

14 speak further. Thank you very much.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.

16 Yes, Mr. Whiting.

17 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour, and I can assure Your

18 Honour that I crossed off about half of the things that I was going to say.

19 The first thing is, though, I would kind of like to correct the record, and

20 that is that in my -- in our view the Prosecution did not ask for an

21 extension of time at any time. In -- I think two things are kind of

22 getting confused here. In November of last year of 2005, the Prosecution

23 provided an estimate of the length of the Prosecution case in a filing

24 which -- and the estimate was 298 hours. As the Prosecution case unfolded,

25 at certain points the Prosecution tried to inform the parties and the Bench

1 when we thought the case would finish. And so we made estimates about the

2 time when it would finish. And that estimate, for various reasons,

3 including at one point the illness of the accused, but also because of

4 other reasons that we misestimated by a couple of days how long it would

5 take to finish, that estimate changed a little bit. And I think when Mr.

6 Milovancevic referred to us asking for an extension of time, I think what

7 he was referring to is we extended -- we asked to adjust our own estimate.

8 But at the end of the day, the Prosecution case came in well under - and I

9 emphasise well under - 260 hours. And that -- the 260 hours was a very

10 roughly calculation. We've never gone back and actually seen where days

11 weren't completely filled, how many hours were used, we just kind of looked

12 at the number of days and multiplied it. So that's why I say it's well

13 under 260 hours. So we never sought an extension of time from our original

14 estimated time, which had been allowed and granted by the Trial Chamber in

15 its orders at the beginning of the case. I just wanted to clarify that.

16 Now, obviously that doesn't change in any way the right of the

17 Defence to seek more time, to seek an extension, but I just wanted sort of

18 the history to be clear.

19 Secondly, with respect -- there's been a suggestion that there's

20 been disparate treatment of the Prosecution and the Defence. I don't want

21 to go on at length about this because I think the Trial Chamber has

22 addressed it. But we would dispute the premises of that assertion, which

23 is that disparate treatment supposed that similar cases being treated

24 differently, and in our view the situations, for a whole host of reasons,

25 are not similar. And if there was any difference in treatment that's

1 perceived, it's justified by the differences in the -- the types of

2 evidence -- types of witnesses we brought, the summaries that were

3 presented to the Trial Chamber, the use by the Prosecution of Rule 92 bis,

4 and also the burdens on the Prosecution. The Prosecution, of course, has a

5 very different burden, a very different job in the courtroom than the

6 Defence does. We have to prove our entire case beyond a reasonable doubt,

7 and that is a different burden than the Defence has.

8 The third point is that with respect to the Trial Chamber's

9 suggestion that the Defence consider Rule 89(F) and Rule 92 bis, we from

10 the Prosecution would just underline the urgency of moving forward on that.

11 Because of course that has to be done by motion, which the Prosecution has

12 a right to respond to and take a position on. And I would anticipate that

13 while there are areas of background which are appropriate under Rule 92

14 bis, there are other areas of witnesses' testimony which either would, in

15 our view, have to be led viva voce or have to be cross-examined. So there

16 may be complicated issues on how these witnesses should be treated.

17 Ordinarily, of course, we get two weeks to respond to a motion that is

18 filed; we're happy to shorten that time as much as possible to try to

19 expedite matters. But nonetheless, time is -- the clock is ticking. So we

20 would emphasise that if there's going to be a motion for 92 bis or 89(F),

21 it should be filed very, very soon so that we have an opportunity to

22 respond and the Bench has an opportunity to rule on it.

23 The only final point I would make, Your Honour, is that the

24 Defence indicated that it now intends to appeal the Court's order of the

25 7th of September, 2006. I would only note that the time to seek

1 certification for an appeal has expired under Rule 73(C). The order was,

2 it's I said, the 7th of September. The Defence has seven days to seek

3 certification; that time has now expired. So in our view an appeal is not

4 available.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Whiting, I just wondered what response you

8 would have on the issue of equality of arms. You had just touched upon it

9 incidentally, but I'd like a response more specifically and how you

10 perceive it in these circumstances. Could you give us some assistance. I

11 know there is some jurisprudence. I think Oric and Milosevic maybe, but

12 how would you respond to Mr. Milovancevic's contention that the manner in

13 which the Chamber has dealt with it doesn't seem to have addressed

14 appropriately the issue of equality between the two adversarial sides, the

15 two adversaries.

16 MR. WHITING: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. The first point I

17 would make with respect to equality of arms is His Honour Judge Moloto made

18 a reference to the domestic situation when the Prosecution has the state

19 behind it. I only wish we had a state behind us here on the Prosecution,

20 which of course we do not.

21 The second point is that I would dispute the notion which was

22 sort of contained within the equality of arms that the Defence has not had

23 the same opportunity as the Prosecution to prepare its case. The -- this

24 is resorting, again, to the notion which has been repeated again and again

25 that the Defence was only given a few weeks or a few days to prepare its

1 case while we had years to prepare our case. I think that's -- that is

2 false. The Defence had years to prepare their case when they knew all of

3 our witnesses, the theory of our case, our witness statements, and so

4 forth. The third point which is probably more responsive to Your Honour's

5 question with respect to jurisprudence is the -- there is jurisprudence

6 from the Appeals Chamber that the notion of equality of arms does not --

7 it's not a mathematical calculation of equality of resources for the

8 Prosecution and the Defence. That's not what equality of arms means. The

9 Tadic Appeals Chamber held that: "Equality of arms obligates a judicial

10 body to ensure that neither party is put at a disadvantage when presenting

11 its case."

12 And that I think is the key -- that's the key test. And I don't

13 think anything like that has been done here. I think the Defence has been

14 given every opportunity to present its case, and the -- in our view, the

15 decision of September 7th, 2006, of this Trial Chamber fully gives the

16 Defence an opportunity to present its case.

17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: So in respect of hours allotted, for example,

18 what would you say specifically there?

19 MR. WHITING: Well, I think the Trial Chamber has itself cited in

20 its decisions jurisprudence that there is no requirement that the Defence

21 get the same number of hours as the Prosecution, and I think this goes back

22 to two things, really, is that the number of hours is not just a

23 mathematical calculation, but it's a function of looking at the witnesses

24 that are proposed, what type of evidence is proposed, and making a

25 judgement about how much time should be required for that -- at that

1 evidence to be presented. So that's -- that's the first point. And then

2 the second point is it doesn't make sense in our view to insist on equality

3 of arms when the Prosecution carries such a different burden in the trial

4 in two respects. First, the Prosecution is obligated to prove every single

5 element of every single crime or at least attempt to do so, whereas the

6 Defence is -- does not necessarily -- I mean, of course the Defence could

7 dispute every element of every crime. That typically is not what happens.

8 The Prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, a very

9 heavy burden, which the Defence does not have.

10 Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before Judge Hoepfel says, I would imagine

12 also the fact -- ordinary number of witnesses, if the Prosecution has a

13 different number of witnesses from the number of witnesses that the Defence

14 has, that also affects the allocation of hours.

15 MR. WHITING: Right. I think that's correct, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Judge.

17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I agree with my colleagues, and I just wanted to

18 say this is in fact the point we wanted to make and we hope we have made

19 clear in our last decision we handed down on the 7th of September. And the

20 principle which is expressed in the Statute is the fairness principle. The

21 Statute doesn't speak of equal arms. And, Mr. Milovancevic, I cannot see

22 any unfairness in the situation, and you cannot argue, I think, that you

23 had only several weeks to prepare compared to the time the Prosecution had.

24 In fact, it was years, wasn't it?

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think we have stretched out the issues, Mr.

1 Milovancevic. And in the hope that we have understood one another, all of

2 us in court, I would like to hear from you, Mr. Milovancevic, very briefly

3 how you propose we go forward. We're now trying to get solutions. We are

4 no more complaining.

5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, today's Friday.

6 On Monday we shall submit to you, the Trial Chamber, a revised list with

7 the number of hours which you have allotted us. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I would like you to consider

9 very seriously the promise you make. Remember, we're talking here about

10 the promises that were not kept, and I would like you to keep your promise.

11 Now -- okay, I --

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we shall do so.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear you. Thank you so much. Now, you say --

14 okay. You are going to give us a revised list with hours allocated to each

15 witness. And let me just -- thank you very much for that, Mr.

16 Milovancevic.

17 Let me say by way of closure. As the trial unfolds and it

18 becomes apparent to you that you are not able to fit into that time

19 schedule, it is always open to the Defence to apply for an extension of

20 time.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I

22 fully understand.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

24 Yes, Mr. Whiting.

25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I don't know if Your Honour was about

1 to suggest calling the next witness, but I had just three very brief

2 procedural matters to bring up.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means.

4 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: We might as well use this -- we're supposed to go

6 at quarter past anyway.

7 MR. WHITING: The first is, as everyone I assume knows, the

8 Appeals Chamber ruled on the issue of Milan Babic's testimony yesterday,

9 and that, it seems to us, then triggers the order of the Trial Chamber in

10 its original decision with respect to the Defence filing questions that it

11 had intended to ask plus exhibits and any prior transcripts and the

12 Prosecution responding. I would emphasise in that -- and I went back and

13 looked at the order of the Trial Chamber, it was some time ago, that it was

14 to be questions that the Defence intended at the time to ask and documents

15 that it intended at the time to use. There -- I mean, it's been a long

16 time since Mr. Babic testified and I assume that this is not going to be an

17 exercise where new documents or new information or new ideas that have been

18 developed since then are going to be put before the Trial Chamber; it's

19 going to be what was intended at the time. But in any event I wonder if

20 the Trial Chamber wants to set a schedule for those filings to be made. It

21 originally was seven days for the Defence and then seven days for the

22 Prosecution. I don't know if the Trial Chamber wants to adhere to that --

23 those -- that schedule. We do have something else scheduled coming up, but

24 it's up to the Trial Chamber.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said a couple of procedural -- I thought you

2 said three procedural issues. Just go through all of them.

3 MR. WHITING: Okay. I will. The second point is the -- and I've

4 raised this already privately with the Defence, but I would like to put it

5 on the record. The notice that we are receiving of exhibits that are going

6 to be used with Defence witnesses is getting later and later and later.

7 And often it's -- we're receiving the notice the night before and even, at

8 times, I think the morning that the witness is going to testify. And it

9 seems that we're only receiving the notice of exhibits after the proofing

10 of the witness has been done. I've asked Defence counsel and I'd like to

11 put it on the record. We would ask that we be provided exhibits -- a list

12 of exhibits that are going to be used with witnesses further in advance of

13 the witness's testimony. And of course if as a result of proofing or

14 further thinking, exhibits are added to that list or dropped, we have no

15 problem with that. But it seems the bulk of the witnesses should be known

16 to the Defence before the witnesses arrive in town. So, for example, for

17 next week there are probably going to be three witnesses that testify; we

18 don't have the exhibits for any of them. So if the Defence could be asked

19 to do that.

20 The third point is with respect to expert reports. The time is

21 beginning to press on that, and I'm -- particularly since we'll have a week

22 break at the beginning of October, under Rule 94 bis, the -- once an expert

23 report is filed, the other side has 30 days to consider the report. So in

24 order to -- for this -- these witnesses to testify before the end of trial,

25 these reports are going to have to be filed fairly soon. So I just thought

1 I would raise that.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Whiting, thank you so much for raising those

3 issues. Again, what could the Chamber do without you? Last time it was

4 Mr. Black; now it's your turn.

5 Mr. Milovancevic, you will agree that these three points are

6 fairly important points. Obviously the handing down of the Appeals

7 Chamber's decision automatically triggers the order that had been given by

8 this Trial Chamber. Mr. -- Mr. Whiting is asking whether the Chamber is

9 going to give new scheduling times. Prima facie I don't think there is any

10 need. The scheduling is in that order, and that order must then be

11 complied with. I'm not sure whether the Rules provide for the time in

12 which exhibit notices must be filed before they are used.

13 MR. WHITING: No, they don't, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: They don't.

15 MR. WHITING: It's been a matter of --

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the practice?

17 MR. WHITING: I'm not sure there's a single practice. I think 24

18 hours, 48 hours, and we would just ask if it can be done two days before

19 the witness testifies, if possible, that we would be most grateful.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

21 Mr. Milovancevic, on that one then, let me just find out is it

22 possible to do so? Obviously the bulk of the exhibits that you are going

23 to use you will have long before you talk to the witnesses, if not all of

24 them. And you are -- if you can give those 48 hours before, at least. And

25 if after you've given them you get new exhibits that you would like to add,

1 I'm sure your learned friends will always be ready too accept them. And if

2 you want to drop some, you can drop some. Do you think 48 hours would be a

3 fair request?

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please do not

5 set a specific deadline for us. We shall do our very best to submit it on

6 time to our colleagues, because we feel that to be the basics of fairness

7 and fair play. And we are quite clear on the fact that our colleague

8 cannot pursue his cross-examination if we submit it just prior to the

9 testimony. So in order not to find ourselves in a situation of having to

10 breach a deadline, please do not impose one on us. We shall try to keep

11 within the confines of 48 hours, but --without having that as a strict

12 deadline -- but we shall seek to abide by this obligation to the best of

13 our ability.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand, Mr. Milovancevic. It's not the

15 intention of the Bench to make a ruling or an order. It's just to find out

16 from you -- that's why I'm asking you: Do you think you are able to live

17 with it? You know, obviously here and there you may miss the deadline or

18 you might miss it by giving it three days earlier.

19 The question of expert reports I think Mr. Whiting is right,

20 it's becoming very urgent now, Mr. Milovancevic.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you will

22 allow me to give you a very concrete reply to that question on Monday. I

23 have to check it out with my associates. The expert -- the military

24 expert's findings are being translated. And the other expertise report is

25 also being translated. It is a short one. I'm quite sure it will be

1 finished very shortly. Of course we are aware of the rules and of the

2 deadlines that we have to comply with, but if you will allow me to give you

3 a very specific response on Monday, I shall do that.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, Mr. Milovancevic. Give us the

5 specific reply on Monday, but I'm just underlining the urgency. That I

6 must underline.

7 On that note, I think it's a convenient time to take the break.

8 We'll come back at quarter to 6.00 and let's have the witness ready. I

9 think we have talked about every we wish to talk about in terms of

10 housekeeping. Let's have the witness ready.

11 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 5.52 p.m.

13 [The witness entered court]

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration. May

15 the witness please make the declaration.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

17 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated, ma'am.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

21 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.

22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 WITNESS: LJUBICA VUJANIC

24 [Witness answered through interpreter]

25 Examination by Mr. Milovancevic:

1 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Madam.

2 A. Good evening.

3 Q. Before I start asking you questions, please bear in mind the

4 interpreters and so please wait until I have finished asking my question

5 and then make a small pause before starting your answer so the interpreters

6 can do their job properly. Thank you. Of course that obligation also

7 refers to me, myself.

8 Can you tell us, Madam, your first name and last name.

9 A. Ljubica Vujanic.

10 Q. When were you born and when --

11 A. I was born on the 10th of March, 1937, in the village of Miruse,

12 Niksic municipality, Montenegro.

13 Q. What are you by ethnicity and by religion?

14 A. I am a Montenegrin of the Orthodox religion.

15 Q. Thank you. You said that you were born in Montenegro. Where did

16 you go to school and what schools have you completed?

17 A. Elementary school -- I completed elementary school in my native

18 village. I graduated from elementary school in Bileca and high school and

19 faculty of law I completed in Belgrade, and I also passed the bar exam in

20 Belgrade in order to be able to pursue my profession later.

21 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us when it was that you graduated from

22 the faculty and where did you find employment?

23 A. I graduated from the faculty on the 18th of March, 1966. After

24 that, by dint of circumstance I went to work in Knin, as I had completed

25 the judicial stream and I wanted to work in the judiciary proper, which job

1 I could not find in employment -- in Belgrade because it was difficult to

2 find employment in the judiciary in Belgrade at the time anyway because of

3 an economic reform that was being implemented. So I went to work in Knin.

4 There were some vacancies offered in Drvar and Livno, and I started working

5 in Knin on the 6th of May, 1996 [as interpreted] in the civilian

6 construction company called Dinara as a probationary for a year. After

7 that I was promoted as officer for legal affairs and I represented the work

8 organisation.

9 Q. Thank you. Can I interrupt you there. So your first job was in

10 Knin in a -- in an enterprise. Did you change your job later and where did

11 you go?

12 A. Yes, in the meantime I passed this exam for the bar, and later

13 got an appointment in the judiciary. And on the 1st of July, 1975, I was

14 elected a judge of the municipal court in Knin and was given the civil law

15 department to be in charge of. And I stayed on that job until 1984, I

16 believe. Later I was elected a municipal public attorney, and I remained

17 on that post until the 1st of May, 1992, when I left Knin and after that I

18 was of course in Belgrade.

19 Q. Thank you. Can we -- can you give us a brief answer to tell us

20 when was it that you exactly came to Knin and how long did you stay there?

21 A. I came to Knin on the 25th of May, 1966, and I started working on

22 the 26th of May, 1966. And I left on the 1st of May, 1992.

23 Q. Thank you. And when you arrived in Knin, what was the ethnic

24 composition of the population there?

25 A. Well, there were some elections that were held very shortly after

1 my arrival in Knin, and being a jurist I was on some electoral commissions

2 there. And actually, I found myself in a new milieu and this was very

3 interesting to me. I believe that there were about 92 per cent of Serbs, 6

4 per cent of Croats, and 2 per cent of all the other ones.

5 Q. Thank you. What were the interethnic relations there, the

6 interpersonal relations? You say there were 92 per cent of Serbs, 6 per

7 cent of Croats, and 2 per cent of the rest, who what were the

8 interpersonal, on a personal, human level, not only interethnic relations

9 like?

10 A. In my opinion they were excellent. During the first two nights -

11 - I spent the first two nights in the Hotel Dinara there. And this lady

12 approached me -- of course this is a small place and everybody had heard

13 that the jurist had come from Belgrade. And she told me: Come and sleep

14 at my place. And she was later the -- the godmother of my children. So

15 for two years, until I got married, I stayed with this family. They were

16 Croats, and later when they had children, after getting married of course,

17 I was godmother to their children. So these relations were indeed

18 excellent.

19 Q. Thank you. When you say that the interpersonal relations were

20 excellent, are you talking about your own experience only or do you have

21 the experiences of other people in mind as well?

22 A. Well, I simply think that this was something that was so also

23 where other people were concerned. I had never heard of any problems.

24 Q. Thank you. What was the ethnic structure of employees in state-

25 owned enterprises, businesses, companies in Knin, I mean from the time you

1 came until 1992?

2 A. As far as I remember - and I do remember especially since I was

3 in those higher circles, especially later when I worked in the court and in

4 the public attorney's office - whenever appointments were made to, let's

5 say, leading positions in the municipality and elsewhere - and I have to

6 tell you that I didn't quite understand this at the beginning because I was

7 raised in a different environment - when you looked at those lists and I

8 was involved in various electoral commissions and board, if you look at

9 those lists if the president of the municipality was a Serb, then the vice-

10 president had to be Croat, and vice versa. There was always this principle

11 of proportionate representation that had to be observed. And as for

12 businesses, appointments were made and you have to know that Knin was very

13 well developed at the time with a strong economy and businesses employing

14 3.700 people, for instance, in the railway system. A large number of

15 people who were Croats had leading positions in the businesses like

16 director of the bank, marketing centre, et cetera.

17 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Vujanic. I have something to ask of you. Could

18 you please speak a little more slowly because this all has to be

19 interpreted and you are rather hard to follow I must say. And they are

20 trying to interpret you as faithfully as possible.

21 You say you were in Knin until approximately mid-1992. Those

22 good interpersonal and interethnic relations, did they continue throughout

23 the time you were in Knin?

24 A. As long as I worked in the court in Knin, out of four of us

25 judges - and we had one presiding judge as well who was the fifth - there

1 were two Croats among the judges. It is a fact that after the multi-party

2 elections something did change in our community in our region, because as

3 far as I can remember - and you will understand if I don't remember all the

4 dates - but I think the elections were in May 1990 when the HDZ, led by

5 Tudjman, won, whereas in Knin and other Serb municipalities the SDS won.

6 And Milan Babic, who is no longer alive regrettably, was elected president

7 of the municipality. Something changed. At the beginning it's just the

8 feeling that something is going on; however, the last drop came - and you

9 must understand, it's only my opinion and I was never involved in politics,

10 I was always only concerned with my profession - something tipped after the

11 elections. Serbs felt cheated after the elections when they voted for

12 Ivica Racan's party predominantly, and Ivica Racan campaigned a lot and

13 there were a lot of rallies. And so I had this feeling that Serbs were

14 feeling cheated. But what was really the last drop, the straw that broke

15 the camel's back came in the end of 1990 was the killing of a young man,

16 Vaso Pecar, at least that's the story I heard, he was visiting his

17 grandfather when the Ustashas killed him. That resonated horrifically in

18 Knin, and later the adoption of the new constitution --

19 Q. Thank you. That will do. I think you also said, among other

20 things, that you were involved in various electoral committees and you

21 mentioned that when you were talking about your knowledge of the ethnic

22 structure of the population?

23 A. Yes, practically from the moment I came to Knin, whenever there

24 were some local elections I was either chairman of the electoral committee

25 or a member.

1 Q. Thank you. Thank you. When you tell us that you were a member

2 or the chairman of an electoral committee, do you mean the electoral

3 committee, at what level, the Knin electoral committee or what?

4 A. I was talking about local elections that at that time were held

5 in the area of the municipality of Knin.

6 Q. Thank you. That will do. Did the law stipulate the composition

7 of the electoral committee; and if so, how, can you tell us briefly?

8 A. No. The law did not stipulate the composition, but there was the

9 generally accepted practice that I can describe to you very briefly. When

10 I was a judge in criminal courts, depending on the accused of course, the

11 composition of my chamber over which I presided was always such that there

12 was a Croat among us or an Albanian among us, if the accused was Albanian.

13 It's not something that anybody told me that it had to be so; it was just a

14 feeling you had living in that community that it should be so. But as far

15 as I remember, it was not written in the law anywhere.

16 Q. Thank you. You were telling us about the ethnic composition of

17 your Trial Chambers, but my question is this: What was the electoral

18 committee like? Did the law stipulate the qualifications necessary to be

19 on that committee?

20 A. I can remember -- I don't know about the law, but I know that

21 people in the electoral committee came from all walks of life.

22 Q. You said you remember well the first multi-party elections of

23 1990. Do you remember certain particular events in August 1990?

24 A. I do remember that month of August. There are many memorable

25 things about it, and among other things I recall the attempt, in August I

1 think it was of 1990 -- at least that's the version that we know, the

2 attempt of Croatian policemen called by a new Croatian term to remove the

3 weapons from the reserve force of the Knin SUP, which had been done in some

4 other municipalities before. And it's the first time -- I recall the first

5 case that I remember that the police was defending -- sorry, the people

6 were defending the police. And that's how it started. People took to the

7 streets, and later it was the railway employees who came out to protest.

8 Q. Thank you. That will do. These mass protests that you're

9 talking about, why did they happen, in one sentence?

10 A. Because the Croatian police, the new Croatian police, tried to

11 seize the weapons of the Territorial Defence or whatever, that's what it

12 was called at the time.

13 Q. Thank you. That will do. Do you know anything about the weapons

14 of the reserve police force in Knin?

15 A. I don't know, really.

16 Q. All right then. Do you know anything about a referendum in 1990?

17 A. Yes, I think that was also in autumn, sometime in August or

18 September, 1990 when a referendum was held for SAO Krajina. And what I

19 recall from that period is that this referendum took place over 10 or 15

20 days, and I travelled in the meantime and came and went. It was held in

21 north Dalmatia and Lika, which means Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Korenica,

22 Gracac, and other municipalities in that area. So, yes, there was a

23 referendum for the establishment of SAO Krajina, as it was known.

24 Q. Thank you. You mentioned SAO Krajina. Do you recall in which

25 year, in which period, the decision was taken to establish SAO Krajina?

1 A. I think it was promulgated on the 21st December, 1990, at least

2 that's the date I recall.

3 Q. Thank you. When you hear the term "Christmas constitution," what

4 kind of associations do you have?

5 A. In my mind, as in the mind of many of my friends, neighbours, and

6 acquaintances, that is something horrible. That is the constitution

7 promulgated by Croatians at that time led by the HDZ, which transformed the

8 Serb people from a constituent people into a national minority, in other

9 words, threw the Serbs out of the constitution. That is something that hit

10 us all very hard.

11 Q. Thank you. You say it hit us all very hard. Can you tell us

12 very briefly, why did you take it so badly? Limit yourself to the

13 situation in Knin.

14 A. That's an area where the Serb people had always been a

15 constituent people, and overnight in this so-called democratic society you

16 turned them into a national minority. What does that say to you?

17 Especially since -- even for me who was not born there in that area, I was

18 a newcomer and I came to hear about all those horrible things that had

19 happened once before, and I was an avid listener, if only because I wanted

20 to spread my own world view. But I know that among the Serb people it

21 inspired great fear.

22 Q. Thank you. Fear from whom or what? Can you tell us briefly, and

23 may I remind you once again to speak a little more slowly.

24 A. I'm sorry. Fear from seeing a repetition of what had already

25 happened in World War II.

1 Q. In 1991, did you work in whatever position on the electoral

2 committee?

3 A. After what we called the Plitvice incident, which was not really

4 a conflict, the Executive Council of SAO Krajina, as it was known, passed a

5 decision and submitted it to the Assembly for review to carry out a

6 referendum. And the Assembly of SAO Krajina - and that is the part of the

7 work in which I was involved, held a session on the 14th of April, 1991, at

8 which the text that would later be on the ballot was approved. And I was

9 elected member of the central electoral committee, the one that had to

10 review the voting results from the entire territory of SAO Krajina.

11 Q. Thank you. As the chairman of that central electoral committee,

12 did you carry out that referendum?

13 A. Yes, it was held on the 12th of May, 1991, and it was the federal

14 law on appointment and re-call that was applied. It set a certain term,

15 which was 30 days. And as chairman of that electoral committee, I had a

16 big workload, reviewing the entire background material, and the results

17 from all the municipalities and together with other --

18 Q. We'll come back to that if necessary, thank you. It suffices for

19 now.

20 When you were telling us about your activities as chairman of the

21 central electoral committee you mentioned the Plitvice incident or the

22 Plitvice events. Can you place them more precisely in time and tell us

23 what you know about that, in one or two sentences?

24 A. Of course I don't know the exact date, but it was on the Orthodox

25 Christian Easter day in 1991. It could have been April I think, I can't

1 recall exactly. It was Easter day when there was a skirmish between the

2 police and the locals of Krajina, the local residents. And after that

3 conflict, the decision to carry out a referendum was passed.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now take a look at the

5 monitor. Can we see on the screen document number 62 from the

6 Prosecution's 65 ter list.

7 This is definitely the document I was looking for but I have made

8 a mistake. In the -- indicating the mark. Actually, the document which I

9 want is from the 30th of April, 1991, it is a decision on the scheduling of

10 the referendum. The Serbian -- the B/C/S number is 02141880, so I

11 apologise for this mistake, and if this document could be found, please?

12 MR. WHITING: I think it's Exhibit 144 in evidence, I believe.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.

14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, colleague. Thank

15 you very much. So can we have it, please? Yes.

16 Q. Do you see in front of you this document, the document that I

17 referred to, Madam Vujanic? And can you tell us what it is.

18 A. Yes. That is the decision of the Assembly of the SAO Krajina.

19 The Assembly meeting was held on the 30th of April, although I do seem to

20 recall another date which is the 14th of April. This is a decision on the

21 scheduling of the referendum, and this document shows the text of the

22 decision. I suppose that that is that decision frankly speaking.

23 Q. Thank you. That will do. Did you conduct the referendum with

24 this question -- referendum question which is indicated in this decision?

25 A. Yes, yes, we did.

1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the record show that this is actually Exhibit

3 148.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, so this is

5 Exhibit 148.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm told by the court official.

7 MR. WHITING: Yes, I in fact see that in my notes now. I

8 apologise for misdirecting everybody.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, Mr. Whiting. Thank you for the

10 effort.

11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Can we just take a look at Article 3 of this document.

13 Q. Does Article 3 contain the question which was put at the

14 referendum?

15 A. I didn't quite understand your question.

16 Q. Does Article 3 contain the question which was on the slate, which

17 was on the referendum question?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] We no longer need this

20 document on the screen. Thank you.

21 Q. Can you tell us briefly what was the task of the central

22 commission for the conducting of the referendum, organisationally and

23 technically speaking, what was your duty, what did you have to do, and on

24 the basis of what regulations did you operate?

25 A. The task of the central electoral commission or committee was to

1 technically prepare all the material which was required to appoint the

2 electoral commissions in the areas of all the municipalities in which the

3 referendum was to be held. And we operated on the basis of federal law

4 which was applied throughout the districts. So this central electoral

5 committee which was appointed by the Assembly of the SAO Krajina was tasked

6 with the task of compiling -- it consisted of three members. I was the

7 chairman and there were another two members, and the task of the commission

8 was as follows: To appoint the electoral commissions in all the

9 municipalities. The municipality in question would submit the nominations,

10 and then the central commission would endorse those nominations, appoint

11 those people. And those electoral commissions had their own polling

12 committees to implement the referendum in -- on -- in -- on the ground.

13 The material, the ballots, the slates, the slips, the voting slips were all

14 printed in Knin in the printing enterprise in Knin as well as the forms for

15 the minutes and the records of the electoral commissions.

16 At the time with some of the members of the

17 commission I visited all the municipalities to acquaint myself with the

18 situation there and then with the procedure. It was a very short period.

19 We had a very short period to prepare the elections, otherwise elections

20 normally require a much longer period so that we had a lot of work to do

21 organisationally and technically speaking.

22 In my capacity as the chairman of the central electoral

23 commission, with some of the members I toured all of the municipalities, I

24 talked with the people there, I told them what was to be done, how it was

25 to be done. I informed them that they would be receiving the material if

1 we hadn't brought it along, and the only municipality which we did not

2 visit was the municipality of Pakrac because they told us it was not safe

3 there.

4 Q. Thank you, that will do. When you say we toured -- I visited all

5 the municipalities, what municipalities are you talking about?

6 A. Apart from Knin, Benkovac, and Obrovac, also Korenica, Gracac,

7 Srb, then Dvor Na Uni, Glina, Kostajnica, and the only one which we did not

8 visit was Pakrac because allegedly there had been some incidents there and

9 it wasn't safe.

10 Q. Thank you. That will suffice. Who prepared the voting slips,

11 the material in general, the notices about the referendum, who distributed

12 the material, and what happened with the electoral materials after the

13 referendum?

14 A. All the material was prepared by the central commission of which

15 I was chairman. The voting slips, the ballots were given to me personally

16 by the then president of the SAO Krajina, the late Milan Babic, and he

17 actually wrote the question on it in his own hand. So all the records and

18 all the materials of the polling committees of the municipal commissions

19 and of the central commission, all the complete materials were printed by

20 the Mlados printing shop, and that was according to our instructions.

21 When it was finished, if we didn't take it physically ourselves,

22 we would send the materials by car to the -- their intended destination.

23 Q. Thank you. After the referendum had been conducted, what

24 happened to the used material, the material used during the referendum, the

25 voting slips, the records, the minutes?

1 A. After the referendum was finished, I as the chairman of the

2 electoral commission submitted a report to the Assembly of the SAO Krajina

3 who had appointed me, I submitted a written report of course. And there

4 was certain, at that time, falling out, a certain incident because the

5 president of Pakrac municipality, who had not appointed a municipal

6 electoral commission, and the electoral commission decided to actually

7 accept the overall results, but their representatives were unhappy.

8 Q. Thank you. That will do. Who had the right to vote the -- at

9 the referendum?

10 A. All citizens of age of the SAO Krajina had the right to vote at

11 the referendum. Those who had a permanent place of residency in the area

12 of the SAO Krajina, that is --

13 Q. Thank you. I understand. Was the referendum, was the referendum

14 conducted throughout the territory of the SAO Krajina?

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The interpreter is

17 struggling very hard. Thank you.

18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. We will have to proceed a bit more slowly. And let us -- do let

20 us try to do that, Ms. Vujanic. Was the referendum conducted throughout

21 the territory of the Krajina, what was the turnout like?

22 A. The referendum was conducted in all the municipalities which I

23 enumerated, the turnout was a hundred per cent, shall I say. Provided,

24 however, that we had a problem which we solved in our stride, as it were.

25 In some of the municipalities there were a large number of Serbs who wanted

1 to vote, and in order to avert any dissatisfaction at the commission's

2 meeting we agreed and issued a recommendation, i.e., gave a -- instructions

3 to the municipal electoral commissions that these people could appear on a

4 special list and vote on these special lists.

5 Q. Thank you. In order to understand what you are saying, you said

6 that all citizens of age with permanent residence in the municipality in

7 which the referendum was being held actually had the right to vote. What

8 are you talking about now? You said there was some problems, some other

9 people wanted to vote and we allowed them to do so. Will you briefly

10 explain, please.

11 A. Well, there was a number of people who lived, for instance, in

12 Zadar, Karlovac, Zagreb, Sibenik, and they would come to their parent

13 municipalities to vote, but under the law they could not vote in the

14 referendum. But simply in order to accommodate them, you know how it was.

15 You couldn't just tell them: No, you can't. So that is not reflected in

16 this main list, however.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ma'am, just for the sake of the Bench, what is

18 meant by "of age"? What is the age of adulthood in the area at the time?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Major citizens were those who had

20 turned 18.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Who were these people who forced -- were forced

22 that they should vote when they were not entitled to vote?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were people who were -- who

24 hailed from those areas, from the municipalities where the referendum was

25 being conducted but worked elsewhere and had residences elsewhere in other

1 municipalities, as I said, Zadar, Karlovac, Zagreb. But they wanted to

2 come to their municipalities of origin to vote there which was unlawful.

3 So we showed them on this list, but that was not encompassed by the

4 electoral materials. We just had this special list for them to sort of

5 accommodate their request, but that was not something that was reflected in

6 the final official list and the final results of the referendum as such.

7 So this was something which just happened during those elections, i.e.,

8 referendum.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: How many would you say they were, just estimating

10 by way of percentages? What percentage of the total population that voted

11 did they constitute?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot remember

13 exactly. I seem to recall this figure from Benkovac which was 4.300 or so,

14 around 4.500 of those people.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That will suffice. Thanks.

16 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.

17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. In order for this question not to remain incomplete, were the

19 polling stations at which the people were voting at the referendum, did

20 they have the electoral roles, roles of voters?

21 A. Yes, absolutely. And I assert that that was so.

22 Q. So you say yes.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Who was -- what citizens were on those roles?

25 A. All the citizens of age who lived in the area of the municipality

1 in question were on those lists, specifically in Knin --

2 Q. That will do. Thank you. So all these citizens of age were on

3 the electoral lists, those, that is, who had permanent places of residence

4 in the municipality in question where the voting was taking place. Is that

5 what you said?

6 A. Yes, that is what I said.

7 Q. Thank you. What was the result that you published as the

8 official result after the referendum had been conducted?

9 A. The result which we obtained on the basis of all the input into

10 the central electoral commission from all the specific electoral

11 commissions; that was the procedure. So the municipal commissions would

12 submit their results to the central commission, the seat of which was in

13 Knin; and on the basis of all the records of the municipal commissions, we

14 published the final outcome of the referendum.

15 Q. Thank you. You said a while ago that these voters who actually

16 were not registered as having places of residence in the municipalities in

17 which the referendum was being held, that you showed them on a special --

18 separate list. Did I understand you correctly?

19 A. Yes, you did.

20 Q. You said that you wouldn't just turn those people down and that

21 you also showed their number, although it did not form part of the official

22 result. Is that right?

23 A. Well, I have to say this quite clearly. Those people voted on an

24 ad hoc basis because they were not encompassed in the original basic lists.

25 So they were allowed to express their will, as it were, and it was just an

1 exercise per se, but they were not reflected in the official final

2 materials.

3 Q. Thank you. That will do.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I hope that I will now get the

5 number right. The next document should be 63, the report on the completed

6 referendum in SAO Krajina from May 1991. 63 from the 65 ter list.

7 Q. What you see in the top left corner?

8 A. Socialist federal republic of Yugoslavia, Serb autonomous

9 district of Krajina, Serb Assembly of Krajina, central committee for

10 conducting the referendum in SAO Krajina, Knin 14th May, 1991 --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel warned the witness to read slowly.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Number 27/91, dated 14th May, 1991.

13 Yes, that is the date. And on the same day the report of the committee was

14 issued.

15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at page 6

16 of this document. The number in B/C/S is 02141859, page 6 in B/C/S.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]... just five

18 pages, Mr. Milovancevic.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's the last

20 page of the document.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]...

22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we just look at the very

23 bottom of this document -- of this page.

24 Q. Who submitted the report?

25 A. The central electoral committee, chaired by myself, as we can

1 see, and my colleagues were Borka Lalic and Dusan Vjestica. These were the

2 other two members. I stand by this document fully. I prepared it together

3 with my committee, signed it, and submitted the report.

4 Q. Thank you. Is this an official document, the official report of

5 the central electoral committee?

6 A. Yes, otherwise you can see our signatures here -- I mean, you can

7 see our signatures on the original document. But the text is the same, as

8 in this copy.

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] May I please tender this

10 document, if it is not already an exhibit?

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I'm advised that it is already

13 in as an exhibit, number 149.

14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Can I --

15 can the registrar please nod to me next time to avoid this kind of problem.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're going to have to nod first so that he can -

17 -

18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Then I have nothing to tender

19 at this time.

20 Q. Was the referendum covered by the media?

21 A. Very much so. I think I will not exaggerate if I say that on the

22 12th of May, especially, and throughout the referendum there were 120 to

23 150 foreign reporters there.

24 Q. Were there any incidents or irregularities at this referendum?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Thank you. After the referendum was completed, was there a

2 delegation that was supposed to inform whoever about this referendum?

3 A. There was a delegation, of which I was again the head, that was

4 meant to report to the Assembly of Serbia. Mr. Lazar Macura and Jasminka,

5 I can't remember the last name, representative from Gracac on that day.

6 Q. So you say a delegation was appointed to travel to Belgrade to

7 report to the Assembly of Serbia. Who made that decision to set up a

8 delegation?

9 A. If I remember well, it was done in the same Assembly session when

10 we submitted the report.

11 Q. That will do. Thank you.

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the

13 document number 64 from the Prosecution's 65 ter list?

14 Q. Mrs. Vujanic, could you please read aloud who passed this

15 enactment and the conclusion.

16 A. "Pursuant to Article 9 of the Statute of the Serb Autonomous

17 District of Krajina (official bulletin of Knin municipality number 1/91)

18 the Assembly of SAO Krajina at its 2nd Session held on 16th May, 1991,

19 adopts the following conclusion on the appointment of the group of

20 Assemblymen to submit the report of the committee, the referendum

21 committee, in SAO Krajina to the National Assembly of the Republic of

22 Serbia."

23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at the rest

24 of the document? Scroll a little further, please.

25 Q. Are you on this list of the appointed persons, and who signed it?

1 A. Yes. My name is under number 5, and it is specified that I am

2 chairman of the commission. And I believe it's Mr. Velibor Matijasevic who

3 was then the president of the Assembly of SAO Krajina who signed it.

4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if this document

5 is already an exhibit. If not, may I please tender it, Your Honour?

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

7 please be given an exhibit number.

8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit Number 954, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Did that delegation really go to Belgrade to inform the Serbian

12 Assembly about the results of the referendum?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. When and what happened in Belgrade? Just take it easy, please,

15 because the interpreters, they're already tired.

16 A. If I remember correctly, it could have been around the 20th of

17 May, but I hope you will understand it's been a long -- it was a long time

18 ago. We arrived in Belgrade and we were received that same evening in the

19 Assembly. We were met by members of opposition parties as well. There was

20 Mr. Micunovic, who was then president of the democratic party; there was

21 Mr. Milan Komljenic from the Serbian renewal movement, SPO, Mr. Rakovic and

22 some others.

23 Q. Let me just interrupt you briefly. Do you remember the names of

24 the other members of the delegation that accompanied you?

25 A. Yes, yes.

1 Q. Was Mr. Macura with you?

2 A. Of course.

3 Q. Thank you. Did you inform the Assembly of Serbia of the results

4 of the referendum? What happened?

5 A. Unfortunately, we did not. That evening, as I said, we arrived,

6 we were met at the Assembly, we went to dinner with people from the

7 opposition party and from the ruling party. And the next day we met with

8 then-president of the Assembly, Vukovic, who was ill. And we spent two

9 days talking to various Assemblymen, and we did not get into the hall where

10 Assembly sessions were held. We were not allowed in. And we pleaded:

11 Please let us in. We just want to inform the Assembly. We don't want any

12 kind of declaration. We just wanted to send a message out to the people

13 who were probably unaware, we wanted to explain what the people of Krajina

14 had decided.

15 Q. Did you inform the Assembly? Were you allowed into the Assembly

16 hall? How did that end?

17 A. No. We spent two days at the Assembly. They even let us have

18 lunch in the cabinet -- in the office of the President Unkovic --

19 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that you did not complete the business

20 that you were there for?

21 A. No. They explained to me that it was the boss's decision. I

22 asked: Who is the boss? They told me Milosevic. That's why we had to go

23 home empty-handed, although I insisted that we were not seeking a

24 resolution to be adopted or anything. We just wanted to inform, and there

25 was no --

1 Q. Thank you. How did the delegation react? What were your

2 feelings?

3 A. As anybody would have in our shoes, we were bitter, we were

4 unhappy.

5 Q. Was that your first visit to Belgrade? You said it was around

6 mid-May or maybe end May 1991.

7 A. I can't remember when I visited Belgrade before. I think -- I

8 only know that Borisav Jovic was president of the Presidency at the time.

9 Q. Can you place that in time. Which part of the year was it when

10 you went to Belgrade? Who invited you and who did you meet with?

11 A. I only remember it because Borisav Jovic came back from the

12 United States on that day, so we can find out eventually. But it was a

13 long time ago. I really can't remember and I'm not -- I was not prepared

14 for this sort of question. Around midnight I got a call from now late

15 Milan Babic, who told me that a delegation should go to Belgrade. And he

16 said: Please come to the Assembly building. And so I went. I was told

17 that a delegation should go because Serbs from Krajina sought to be

18 received by the Presidency of Yugoslavia. And I said: Why me? Because I

19 was only involved in my profession work at the time, nothing else. And

20 they told me: That's how we decided it, that none of the politicians

21 should go but somebody who is not involved in politics. And Mandinic

22 Nebojsa was to go with me.

23 Q. Was it just the two of you, you and Nebojsa Mandinic or did

24 somebody else go to the Presidency of Yugoslavia?

25 A. Late Milan Babic and the people who were with him at the time

1 explained to me that two people from each municipality should be on that

2 delegation.

3 Q. So Milan Babic told you two people from each municipality. From

4 which municipalities exactly?

5 A. From all the Dalmatian and Lika municipalities. That's at least

6 how I understood it when he first told me; however, when we were received

7 by Mr. Jovic, it was supposed to be at 10.00 but his plane was late and we

8 were eventually only received at 1.00 p.m. and there was a meeting of the

9 Presidency scheduled for the same day. Anyway, we spent a lot of time

10 waiting and there were people from Slavonia as well, from Kordun as well,

11 the entire Western Slavonia. We were about 30 or so.

12 Q. So did I understand you correctly, a group of about 30

13 representatives of Serbs from all Krajina representatives, including

14 Slavonia, Kordun, Banija, Lika, Dalmatia went to that meeting of the

15 Presidency of Yugoslavia?

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Jovic?

18 A. If you ask me, when it was all over I understood that that

19 meeting was held just to give us a shoulder to cry on. In that time, in

20 some places, although particularly in Okucani and Slavoni and more in the

21 areas where I lived --

22 Q. What did the representatives from those areas exactly say at the

23 meeting?

24 A. At that time people were already being dismissed -- I mean Serbs

25 were being dismissed from various institutions. I can't remember anymore

1 if it was from Pakrac. There was a doctor who said that his work colleague

2 had been rounded up, a father of two, and he had simply gone missing.

3 Nobody knew anything of him anymore. And I just remembered that the

4 atmosphere that prevailed under the weight of all the stories that people

5 had to tell. Everybody said whatever they had to say --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Witness, can you please try to concentrate on the

7 question and answer the question that's put. The question that's put to

8 you is: What did the representatives from those areas exactly say at the

9 meeting? Don't -- now you're telling us about Pakrac and people being

10 moved. Can you just tell us exactly what they said at the meeting with Mr.

11 Jovic.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those people who came to that

13 meeting with Mr. Jovic related what was going on in their respective areas,

14 localities. If I may add, it was filmed by cameras from various TV

15 stations. It was covered by the press.

16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I ask one

17 more question before the end? Maybe we have another two or three minutes.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means.

19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. You said that you were astonished by the stories people had to

21 tell. What did they have to tell? You mentioned just one case

22 illustrating what was going on in that territory. What was actually going

23 on? What was the picture that you gained, the impression?

24 A. They were talking about persecution of Serbs who were being

25 thrown out of their jobs, who were asked -- required to sign statements of

1 loyalty, statements declaring their support to the authorities. I heard

2 that one story of the doctor whose colleague was rounded up and taken away.

3 And the late motif of all these stories was that people were afraid that

4 what had already happened to them in World War II would happen again.

5 Q. Why were they afraid of that how did they explain their fear?

6 A. They were afraid of a repetition of World War II when so many

7 Serbs perished.

8 Q. You said you remembered one particular case. A man who was named

9 was rounded up and went missing. What was his ethnicity? How was he

10 rounded up and what do you mean by "went missing"?

11 A. It's something that a doctor who was on that delegation

12 recounted. He said his work colleague, another doctor, was taken away by

13 Croat policemen, and that had happened 10 or 15 days before that meeting

14 when he told that story and that he -- nobody knew what became of him.

15 Q. So he was taken away and he was nowhere to be found anymore?

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I think it's time to call it a

18 day.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. You are

20 correct. We'll take an adjournment, and the court will reconvene on Monday

21 at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon in Courtroom II, not here.

22 Court adjourned.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of

25 September, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.