1 Thursday, 7 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 8.30 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please

6 call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. This

10 is Thursday, February 7, 2008, and I would like to welcome all people from

11 the Prosecution, Mr. Seselj's associates, Mr. Seselj, as well as everyone

12 in the courtroom helping us.

13 We will be hearing a witness soon, a witness that enjoys

14 protection measures. I would like to remind you all that when a witness

15 has such protection measures, no one is allowed to reveal his identity.

16 Furthermore, when we are sitting in closed session, it is absolutely

17 impossible to say outside what has been told inside the courtroom.

18 Nothing of what has been said here can be made public. This is the rules

19 and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.

20 Since we have the associates of Mr. Seselj in the courtroom, I

21 would like to take the opportunity to mention one thing, one of my

22 concerns. This is my concern directly. It comes directly from Rule 90.

23 In Rule 90, on paragraph (F), the Trial Chamber should control how

24 the witnesses are to be -- the Trial Chamber exercises control over the

25 mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence, so as

1 to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment

2 of the truth and avoid needless consumption of time.

3 So what I'm interested in is having a very effective presentation

4 of evidence to ascertain the truth. The truth, in my mind, is not the

5 truth of the Prosecution or the truth of Defence. It's the truth as it

6 is. It's the entire truth, if I could say so, which means that when

7 witnesses are called, the Prosecution prepares a binder with all the

8 exhibits that are to be tendered, and normally Defence should also prepare

9 this kind of document ahead of time in order to make sure that they can be

10 presented during cross-examination.

11 However, since this trial started, I must note, and we must note,

12 that Mr. Seselj has a very hard time giving the documents he wants to show

13 ahead of time. Most of the time these documents are not translated into

14 English, which is a handicap for us. Secondly, I don't have the documents

15 myself in hand. Normally, usually these documents are just presented on

16 the ELMO and used as of the ELMO, and I don't even have them in my hands.

17 I want to be able to hold this document in order to read it from top to

18 bottom and in order to study it. When it is on the ELMO, I believe this

19 is not possible.

20 Mr. Seselj has been preparing for this trial for five years, and

21 I'm quite surprised that after five years, we have witnesses that are

22 heard but are that heard in a very chaotic fashion. No file has been put

23 together, documents are not correctly presented, and documents come out of

24 the blue, if I could say so, during cross-examination.

25 I think it's still possible, you know, to get back on course. I'm

1 sure it is very possible for everyone to prepare themselves effectively,

2 because what's important, and this is what we have in Rule 90(F), deals

3 with evidence.

4 When the Prosecution the file, the binders, and has the documents

5 together in the binder and asks for them to be tendered, they are

6 admitted; but if Defence is always talking about documents that are not

7 admitted, how can a decision be made in the end? The decision will only

8 be made on the documents that have been admitted, and sometimes,

9 unfortunately, for Defence only the documents from the Prosecution were

10 correctly admitted.

11 So as President of this Trial Chamber, as Judge, I must absolutely

12 draw Mr. Seselj's attention on this problem.

13 Mr. Seselj, you usually make great statements, but these

14 statements are not corroborated by any document whatsoever; and,

15 therefore, your words have a very -- have very little weight, if any. I'm

16 telling you this now, but Judge Robinson, Presiding Judge of the President

17 Milosevic case, already said that to Mr. Milosevic, because Milosevic was

18 doing exactly the same thing. Mr. Milosevic was stating facts but without

19 backing it by documents, and the Judges wanted documents. You cannot

20 state anything without backing it by documents, with documents, because

21 otherwise there will be no probative value to your words.

22 There are two essential elements you must take into account when

23 you present your evidence. One, you must make sure that it is relevant.

24 When you're asking a question, when you're tendering a document or showing

25 a document, you must absolutely wonder first whether it's relevant or not.

1 If it is not relevant, the Judges will not even take into account your

2 demonstration. They will not understand the point of your questions,

3 which is why my fellow Judges and myself have wondered at times, you know,

4 where the relevance was in all this. So please, try and tell Judges that

5 you're going to ask a question for a specific purpose: "I'm asking this

6 question because it deals with paragraph X in the indictment, where this

7 is said, and I'm going to prove the exact on site." Then we'll

8 understand.

9 Let me give you an example. Yesterday, we spent a great amount of

10 time on the 9th and 10th century, and some could really wonder whether

11 this was relevant or not. We really had to delve into the crux of the

12 matter and go very deeply to eventually come up with a connection. So we

13 must absolutely save time.

14 Remember, as Judges, we are duty-bound to make sure that we save

15 time and we don't waste time. So when you think that maybe there's a

16 problem of relevance, it's true that this is a very complex case. When

17 there is a problem of relevance, shed light on our minds, on minds of the

18 bunch, and say: "I'm asking this question for this reason because this is

19 what I want to demonstrate." Then we understand, and then you prove your

20 point. We know what the relevance is.

21 The second element that is absolute essential is probative value.

22 It's useless to try and defend yourself if the evidence that you're

23 admitting or at least tendering has hardly any probative value, if any,

24 because it will not be used in the final decision.

25 I'm reminding you of all this because you absolutely must keep

1 this mind. I'm not the first one to say this. In the Milosevic case,

2 Judge Robinson told Mr. Milosevic that since he was defending himself,

3 since he had no lawyer, no counsel, he said, "I will help you. I will

4 give you some elements of advice." This is exactly what I'm doing,

5 because a fair trial is a trial where everybody has equality of arms. If

6 I find out that this equality of arms is not respected, if Defence is in

7 jeopardy because technically it has failings, I must absolutely remind you

8 of this and tell you of this.

9 We're going to be hearing a witness later on. The Prosecution

10 wants to tender a great number of documents. I don't know if you have

11 documents yourself that you also want to admit. So right now as of, you

12 know, quarter to 9.00, I haven't been told of any documents that you may

13 tender. I have no idea, and this is not normal. You should have told us

14 ahead of time through the legal officer, through the registrar what

15 documents you wish to show to this witness.

16 Now, maybe some documents are in your own language and have not

17 been translated yet into English or French. I can understand that you may

18 have problems with this, but let me remind you, Mr. Seselj, that you have

19 been preparing yourself for this trial for five years. I have noted, as I

20 note this over and over again yesterday. For example, there are failings

21 in your defence. Those failings are documents that are supposed to back

22 what you are trying to demonstrate.

23 So I absolutely wanted to say this, notably in front of your

24 associates who help you very effectively in preparing for your defence, in

25 order for you to understand the magnitude of the problem. You can't say

1 this is a false witness, this person is lying. This is just not enough.

2 This is a statement. You must demonstrate and prove it, stating: "This

3 didn't happen this way; it happened somehow else." I can believe you,

4 sure, but you must prove it, not just say it. You must prove it.

5 If this entire trial is only about rebutting or dismissing what

6 the Prosecution is saying in the Prosecution's case and not backing what

7 you are saying with anything, you'll run into big problems.

8 So this is why I wanted to take the floor on notably with Rule 90

9 in the regulation, because the Trial Chamber exercises control over the

10 mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and presenting of

11 evidence. I believe, as a Presiding Judge, I was duty-bound to do this.

12 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I did not prepare my

14 defence for five years. The Prosecution had prepared themselves for five

15 years. I spent five -- four years fighting to have a right to represent

16 myself, and the entire evidence you have so far will show you that. I've

17 just won the right to represent myself. It was only last year that I

18 really tried to prepare myself for defence.

19 Why would I start preparing my defence if my very right to defend

20 myself was in jeopardy? Would I have done that knowing that there will be

21 an idiot here in the courtroom pretending to defend me, who is in league

22 with the Prosecution? You know that those alleged lawyers had in the past

23 cooperated with the Prosecution without my knowledge, without my consent.

24 To date, I have not received any minutes of their meetings.

25 Second, you know that politically and ideologically in this

1 indictment, I turned over two books to be translated for my part. You

2 asked me to find a translator. I found an agency that guaranteed to

3 finish the translation of both books by the end of January. The Registry

4 found somebody, obviously, themselves, but the books have not been

5 translated yet. I should have had them here in order to examine the

6 expert witness testifying on Greater Serbia. I need those books. All the

7 references are there. All the documents are there.

8 Now I am cross-examining an expert off the top of my hands because

9 I do have these things in my memory. You don't have documents. I'm

10 sorry, but why would I be worried about it? What matters to me is for you

11 to see that the witness expert is an ignoramus. He can't answer my

12 questions. But it's up to you how you will judge him. I've told you

13 already that I'm not interested in your eventual judgement or the sentence

14 whether it would be three years, 30 years, or life imprisonment. My right

15 to represent myself was my goal. We have other problems at stake.

16 I turned over a whole set of documents concerning Sarajevo, which

17 hasn't been translated yet. I gave ten other documents, many other

18 documents, in fact. Some have been translated, but many more were not.

19 The Registry is obviously unable to fulfil their obligation. I turned

20 over one more document that I need for the cross-examination for expert

21 Theunens.

22 For today's witness, what did the Prosecution give us for today?

23 Is there a single relevant document here? No. Which document should I

24 offer for this document? I don't need any. I don't need any to

25 cross-examine him. We'll see if the witness has anything to say, if

1 there's anything relevant in his testimony. Don't forget he's testifying

2 about events that are not covered by my indictment. They're not in the

3 indictment at all. I will have to think whether I'm going to

4 cross-examine him at all.

5 I don't wonder that you're surprised I didn't offer any documents.

6 Maybe I won't offer any. I receive documents systematically, not

7 randomly. But I have another problem, and that problem surfaced in the

8 testimony of expert Oberschall. It only escalated with the expert Tomic,

9 to the maximum.

10 You have seen that we heard an inept, an ignorant expert here, but

11 he was perfectly coached to do two things: Not to answer my questions

12 directly and rare were my questions that he answered directly, and he was

13 also coached to waste as much of my time as possible with empty talk. He

14 talked and talked like a chatterbox without giving any essential answers

15 to my questions but telling his own empty stories.

16 Every time I tried to stop him, the Prosecutor intervened telling

17 me not to do that, and the Trial Chamber did not warn him that he was not

18 answering my questions. You listened to every one of his empty stories to

19 the end. I needed one more hour to properly examine him. I have never

20 completed the end of my cross-examination, but I'm not dissatisfied. I am

21 perfectly satisfied with what I have done.

22 There is no real connoisseur on the earth who would say that Tomic

23 is an expert. You can only take for granted what he said. You know how

24 full of holes his knowledge of history is. You saw him falsify the map of

25 territorial extensions of Serbia granted by Western powers in August 1915.

1 You saw the things he resorted to. That's enough to me. Do you think I

2 care whether his expert report would be admitted? I'm absolutely not

3 afraid of it. It's an empty work with a lot of deficiencies.

4 Another document remained here on the table yesterday that was on

5 the ELMO. You could have taken it. I don't need it. In his

6 examination-in-chief, he invoked the genocide against Muslims book by

7 Vladimir Dedijer and another author. He mentioned it in his expert

8 report. I put a question to him citing the last passage of that book and

9 he tells me, "I can't tell you until I check." Why didn't he check

10 before? Why didn't he prepare himself? Why didn't he read a single book

11 till the end?

12 He had consultants in Belgrade who put bits and -- bits and pieces

13 together for him, but there is no real knowledge and scientific

14 argumentation underlying his report. He is a Master of Arts under the

15 Bologna system. That means he did not do actual post graduate studies,

16 and he did not get his degree of master. What can I do to help you now?

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's start dealing with the

18 expert who was testifying earlier. A couple things first. You know that,

19 for the cross-examination, this is a dual procedure, hybrid procedure, but

20 there was a lot of the British system.

21 Normally, you know, the witness is supposed to be asked a question

22 and the answer should be yes, no, or I don't know. As a rule, there

23 should not be lengthy answers, but that's if the question is well-put. If

24 you put the question correctly, then the witness will just say "yes,"

25 "no," or "I don't know." If you don't put your question correctly, if

1 it's not formulated correctly, then the witness is not going to answer,

2 you know, just by "yes," "no," or "I don't know." He's going to start a

3 lengthy answer, especially if it's an intellectual that you have in the

4 witness seat.

5 So you're right, it is also up to the Chamber to remind the

6 witness that he's supposed to answer the question put and only the

7 question put. That is true.

8 There's another thing that I can absolutely not let slip, slide

9 by. You told us - and it's not the first time; it's the third time that

10 you are telling us - you are telling us that the outcome of this trial,

11 whatever the decision, whether if you're convicted, it doesn't mean

12 anything to you. You've said this over and over again. Well, maybe

13 that's your point of view. But as Judge, as Presiding Judge, I cannot

14 agree with this, because when deliberating, I cannot find guilty a person

15 that will not have had an adequate defence, because I may find guilty

16 someone who maybe innocent. Still, as of today, I don't know what you

17 are, whether you're guilty or not. I don't know that yet, because that

18 will be the final decision.

19 So I must tell you that, in the meanwhile, you must absolutely

20 defend yourself. You must not present yourself as maybe guilty because

21 you believe the trial is of no importance and you only want to use this

22 trial as a panel, you know, to speak, to speak out.

23 We are Judges, and we are here to rule, you know, to make a

24 decision, to draw conclusions from what is presented by the Prosecution

25 and by yourself, and make a decision as to whether you are guilty or not.

1 This is what we have in mind a hundred per cent of the time. This

2 is why we is have a trial, and this is why you must absolutely defend

3 yourself, presenting your own case, presenting it well in order for the

4 Judges to examine this.

5 If there was a trial where only the Prosecution case was correctly

6 presented, this would not be a fair trial, in the strict meaning of this

7 world.

8 I also want to take this opportunity, since we have Mr. Krasic

9 here and I know he works very effectively and hard, remember that when

10 there are briefs or replies, remember that there's a limit to the word

11 count. You must not exceed that limit. There's a directive that gives

12 you the limit. If you want to exceed that limit, you must submit another

13 brief to explain why you need to and why you want to exceed the limit.

14 Otherwise, your brief might not even be looked into, just because the

15 limit -- the word limit is exceeded.

16 There is a practice direction that deals with this. This is the

17 way the Tribunal operates. You may have your opinion on this but that's

18 the way things are.

19 Now, up until now, as Pre-trial Judge, I was extremely tolerant.

20 My fellow Judges have also been extremely tolerant; but at one point in

21 time, we'll have to put our foot down and say, no, and reject because this

22 is not -- this does not satisfy the criteria that are set in the practical

23 directions.

24 Mr. Seselj, do you have anything to add?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, at the very start, I

1 presented my position, and I'm not changing it. The directive limiting

2 the word act cannot be a generally binding enactment. It is a personal

3 document by the President of the Tribunal, and it has as much legal

4 importance as the very title indicates. It's an instruction. Nowhere in

5 the Statute, nowhere in the Rules of Procedure are there any rules about

6 the length of submissions, nor is the right of the President of the

7 Tribunal to prescribe the length envisaged by the Rules.

8 If you don't like any of my submissions because it's too lengthy,

9 reject it. I reckon with that as well. But I, as a lawyer, reckon that

10 the President of the Tribunal does not have the right to limit the word

11 count. My right to represent myself takes priority over his right to

12 prescribe such things. Why would I obey such directions?

13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I'd like to answer to

14 this. If you are right in saying that practice directions are not legally

15 binding documents, they become so if Trial Chambers, various Trial

16 Chambers, decided to implement them and to decide that they should be

17 applied. So it is up to the Trial Chamber to decide whether the practice

18 direction is to be followed or not, and then it becomes a legally binding

19 document for you and us.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are completely right, and then

21 there's no reason to discuss the issue. You have your own position that

22 you will reject every submission of mine that is longer than the word

23 limit. I consciously take that risk, make a submission that is over that

24 word count. You reject it, and matters are very simple. There's no

25 reason to argue. It will be recorded that my submission was rejected

1 because it was longer than the prescribed word count, and that's the end

2 of it.

3 Let me remind you that, for every expert report, I submitted very

4 lengthy replies both for Oberschall and for Tomic. Concerning this expert

5 report of Tomic, my reply was translated into English. I had engaged four

6 renowned Serbian experts to prepare that. It was submitted to you in

7 English. Why would I waste my time arguing that here? You have the

8 standpoints of four renowned Serbian historians, and you can weigh their

9 opinions against his.

10 Secondly, the expert also talked about things that were not in the

11 report, and that's why I felt the need to ask my legal advisors to provide

12 me with additional material. That's why the fax machine had to be

13 engaged, and that's why I had to present arguments that I otherwise

14 wouldn't have.

15 He drew the map of the territorial expansion of Serbia here on the

16 spot. I used an original map to denounce him as an expert. That is the

17 point. I'm responding to what's happening in the courtroom. As a result,

18 in the course of examination-in-chief, I feel I need additional documents.

19 You saw the same happen with Witness Stoparic. His testimony did not

20 correspond at all with the written statement he gave to the Prosecution.

21 Look at his statement and look at the transcript of

22 examination-in-chief and see how large the discrepancies are. It's like

23 those were two different persons speaking. That's why I need to respond.

24 I need additional documents that arrive by fax, and that's how I respond

25 to examination-in-chief. If I didn't respond, then I wouldn't need these

1 things.

2 Then you also know that I'm on a parallel track preparing my

3 defence case, and I need documents for that. Why would I use all my cards

4 now? Why would I help the Prosecution prepare for my defence case? I

5 will give them, in due time, my 65 ter list, but why would I help the

6 Prosecutor now? On the contrary, I want to destroy the Prosecution by

7 saving my ammunition till the end. I don't want to help them in advance,

8 to give them advance knowledge.

9 Look at how many documents they had concealed from me. They had

10 concealed passages from the Theunens report until a few days ago. My

11 expert, Bozidar Delic, did not have all of the Theunens report when he was

12 writing a response and a clarification. See what's going on.

13 You cannot ask me to function the way you want me to while the

14 issue of financing has not been resolved yet. My legal advisors are at my

15 throat already, asking me to pay them for the last five years, and I can't

16 do it. They are coming here in their free time. They are practically

17 volunteering their services. In a few days, I might end up completely

18 alone. I won't need even the telephone and the fax machine any more if I

19 don't pay them for their work so far. We have asked for this issue to be

20 resolved, but the Registry keeps refusing.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In this respect, since you

22 tackle this issue and since your associates are in the courtroom, let me

23 tell you this: For the time being, the Registrar is not paying you

24 because the Registrar is expecting from Mr. Seselj, for him to appoint,

25 officially so, among the four of you, the one who meets all the criteria

1 provided for in Rule 45.

2 Rule 45 says that there must be, among the associates, one

3 individual who meets all the criteria as expressed in Rule 44. So one of

4 these individuals must be a lawyer in a country, and he must be in the bar

5 association of the country. This is the position of the Registrar. That

6 comes from the administrative UN regulations.

7 The Registrar has told the Chamber that, as soon as he receives

8 this information from Mr. Seselj, the money will be released. So,

9 basically, we are on the doorstep, as it were, of a solution. This is the

10 situation as it exists. As far as I'm concerned, I have done everything I

11 could for Mr. Seselj to have an assistant and associates. The best proof

12 of that is that you are here today in this courtroom, and all this will be

13 finalised when Mr. Seselj officially notifies the Registrar that one of

14 the four of you meets the conditions of Rules 44 and 45.

15 There is another condition as well, but it is in my view not so

16 important. It's more secondary. Mr. Seselj must also show that he is

17 indigent, but that's a second step.

18 This is what I wanted to tell you. There may be a solution, but

19 it is for Mr. Seselj to provide the solution.

20 Yes, Mr. Seselj.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, let me remind you

22 that a month or so ago, here in the courtroom, it must be in the

23 transcript, I said that lawyer, Slavko Jerkovic, is my legal advisor who

24 meets all the requirements, and my main advisor is Mr. Zoran Krasic.

25 Second, in year 2003, I proved to the Registry my indigency and

1 that I am unable to finance my defence. The Registry has still not

2 provided me with a study resulting from the investigation of my

3 allegations. Instead, they asked for information about the financial

4 situation of my family that I will never provide.

5 And, finally, the Registry still has not given me information that

6 I asked for: How many other defences financed by the Tribunal cost; how

7 many imposed standby lawyers were appointed, Van der Spoel and the other

8 one, Mr. Hooper; and how much they cost. The Registry now comes up with

9 something that is incredible. As soon as I officially appoint Mr. Slavko

10 Jerkovic as somebody who meets all the requirements, they will release the

11 funds. They won't. Slavko Jerkovic, himself, does not dare receive money

12 until I approve it. They have to say, "In pre-trial stage, pre-trial

13 stage costs this much; you get this much. The Prosecution case costs this

14 much; you get this much."

15 I won't let the Registry buy my advisors. My advisors will be

16 allowed to receive money from the Registry when I allow it. It's not a

17 matter between them and the Registry. It's between me and them. It's my

18 right to finance my defence, but the Registry will enable by determining

19 quotas for each stage of the trial, and the Registry won't do that.

20 That's why things have come to a standstill. There is no progress at all.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will look

22 again into this problem in order to try and arrive at a solution. Rest

23 assured the Trial Chamber is fully committed to doing its utmost for you

24 to have the assistance of your associates. You know that perfectly well.

25 But you also have the administration services, and that's the problem.

1 We're going to have the witness brought in, and he has protective

2 measures. So we have to lower the blinds again, so that people can't see

3 him. He's going to have the following protective measures: A pseudonym

4 and also voice and face distortion. But everything that he's going to say

5 is going to be said in open session.

6 Let's have the witness brought in.

7 Let's move to private session for the solemn declaration.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 3303-3312 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have the floor.

14 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Mr. President, before I start, I want to come

15 back to the complaints of the accused. He complains yesterday and he

16 complained on the 15th of January that he did get the first statement of

17 this witness only in redacted form. We checked our records, and I can

18 tell you that he got the redacted format as part of the supporting

19 material on the 17th of March in 2003. The unredacted statement was

20 disclosed to him on the 9th of November, 2007, and he signed the receipt

21 number 104. So he got it much earlier when he asserted. But I'm sure

22 that he got it also yesterday, the third time.

23 Before I will start my examination-in-chief, I would ask you to

24 turn back into private session, because I want to deal first with some

25 private and professional background which might reveal the witness

1 identity. I tried to structure my examination-in-chief in the way that we

2 will go --

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before moving back

4 into private session, Mr. Seselj, did you want to reply to the Prosecution

5 said? Prosecution said that you received the total statement in November,

6 November 9, 2007.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that's not true.

9 What Mr. Mussemeyer said is not true, because last year I got a new

10 statement by (redacted) I don't know whether he gave a new statement or

11 perhaps the passage was taken from the previous statement referring to me.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please stop. You just gave the

13 name when we are in open session. We need an order for redaction. Just

14 remember, you have to call this person Witness 004. You mentioned his

15 name.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understood that Mr. Mussemeyer had

17 asked for private session. I thought we were already in private session.

18 That's why I made the slip; otherwise --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Hold on. Hold on.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will not happen again, but it

21 can be redacted, I believe.

22 So I received the statement of Witness 004 that refers exclusively

23 to me, while the statement the witness gave in 2003 was a very extensive

24 one and referred to a large number of persons. Only a few days ago, I

25 received that first statement in unredacted form. In 2007 - I don't know

1 if I have it here; if I don't, I'll bring it on Tuesday - I got a brief

2 statement that referred only to me. So those are two different

3 statements.

4 Whether Witness 004 gave a statement twice, you can ask him here;

5 but in unredacted form, I received only that short statement in 2007. The

6 complete unredacted statement from 2003, I received for the first time

7 yesterday.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It seems that, in reality, there

9 are two statements; one that is very comprehensive dealing with a number

10 of persons and another shorter version dealing only with Mr. Seselj.

11 Maybe this is where the problem stems from.

12 MR. MUSSEMEYER: If I can clarify. There was -- the witness gave

13 two statements to the OTP. The first one he gave in 2002. This was what

14 Mr. Seselj says the complete one. He gave a second statement which were

15 taken under the Rule 89(F), and that was given in August 2006. It was

16 much shorter, only dealing with facts relevant to the accused. But

17 according to our records, we disclosed also the first statement of 2002 on

18 the 9 November 2007 in unredacted format, and the accused signed the

19 receipt number 104 for that.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there are two statements; one

21 dates back to 2002. First question: This 2002 statement, non-redacted in

22 full, could you tell us exactly when it was disclosed to Mr. Seselj? Then

23 we have a second statement dated August 2006, and only dealing with

24 Mr. Seselj. When was this one disclosed to Mr. Seselj? I want to know

25 when you disclosed the 2002 and the 2006 ones to Mr. Seselj.

1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: According to our records, the first one was

2 disclosed the 9th of November last year, 2007, and the accused signed the

3 receipt number 104 for this.

4 At the moment, I can't tell you the exact date when the second

5 statement from August 2006 was disclosed to him, but it was also last

6 year.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. These statements

8 were in B/C/S, since the witness speaks B/C/S. So they were in B/C/S, and

9 the English version was probably attached.

10 I'm a little bit surprised here. First statement was made in

11 2002, disclosed on November 9, 2007. It took you five years to disclose

12 this statement?

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER: It did not take us five years. The first time

14 when it was disclosed, it was part of the supporting material, and we

15 asked for this witness for protective measures, which we got granted. And

16 when the trial was going to start, we disclosed the other statements and

17 the documents related to this witness 30 days before trial started. That

18 was in November last year.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I demand that

21 Mr. Mussemeyer show you that receipt with my signature, because I assert

22 that in November 2007, I received the witness's statement from 2006, the

23 new short one, not the long one from 2002. So let Mr. Mussemeyer show you

24 what I signed. He doesn't know the date when I received the short

25 statement because I received it in November, on the date he mentions. The

1 long unredacted statement I received only yesterday.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. According to the accused,

3 the 2002 statement, he only received it yesterday, not November 9, 2007.

4 According to him, on November 9, 2007, he received the August 2006

5 statement, and he's asking for the receipt to be shown, because he always

6 signs a receipt every time he gets something.

7 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I have the receipt here, and it says: "Attached

8 please find documents that are subject to the delayed disclosure 30 days

9 before trial as specified in the annex." Unfortunately, I don't have the

10 annex here, but this is the signed receipt from the accused. If the usher

11 can give it to him.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will look into

13 this. Show me this first.

14 This is a document in B/C/S, but it does not bear any reference to

15 any statement. It's an all encompassing document. It doesn't give any

16 details, and it refers to an annex and you don't have the annex. So we're

17 going to show this to the accused.

18 Theoretically, in the annex, we should have reference to the 2002

19 statement.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I guarantee to you, Mr. President,

21 that on this occasion I received the statement from 2006, not 2002. I

22 showed you what I had from 2002 here in the courtroom. You saw how many

23 pages were redacted in black. The witness statement from 2002, I received

24 for the first time yesterday. Mr. Mussemeyer has no proof that I received

25 it last November.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Could Prosecution

2 please check the annex, but the registrar was kind enough to give me a

3 document. It seems that you have the list of all documents disclosed 30

4 days before the trial: 0305-9433 and 0305-9466. It seems that there are

5 two documents.

6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The document with the ERN number you quoted is

7 the statement from 2002, the first statement.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the first statement dated

9 2002 would be 0305-9433.

10 MR. MUSSEMEYER: That would be correct. This is the B/C/S ERN,

11 the B/C/S version.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will show this to

13 Mr. Seselj.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Regardless of what number is

15 indicated here, Mr. President, I claim that I received only a short

16 statement, the short statement in November.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move to private

18 session, since we have some personal details to deal with at first.

19 Mr. Registrar, could we please move into private session, and then

20 we'll have a break in 15 minutes.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 3319-3321 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 [Open session]

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will now have a

23 20-minute break, and we'll resume in 20 minutes.

24 --- Recess taken at 9.56 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 10.21 a.m.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing's resumed. Please

2 proceed.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: To give all the participants an overview over the

4 geographic, I want to start with a very basic map. Mr. Registrar, could

5 you please put Exhibit number 4165 on the -- on the monitor.

6 Q. As you can see, this is a very basic map dealing with Croatia and

7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it shows the municipalities.

8 I would like to ask the witness if this map is correct and if he

9 can show us which part is Croatia and which part is Bosnia and

10 Herzegovina.

11 A. This is the Republic of Croatia, and this here is

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Can we please have admitted this exhibit into

14 evidence.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P165.

16 And just to correct the record, yesterday the report of Mr. Tomic was

17 numbered as MFI P163, in fact it should be MFI P164. Thank you.

18 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

19 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us when the first multi-party

20 elections were held in Croatia?

21 A. Well, the first multi-party elections in Croatia were held in

22 1989.

23 Q. Can you please tell us what was the result of these elections?

24 Which was the strongest party and the others ones?

25 A. The strongest party in Croatia was the Croatian Democratic Union,

1 followed by the League of Communists of Croatia, the Party of Democratic

2 Changes, and then there was the Serb Democratic Party representing the

3 Serbs, and it the five members of parliament. Then there were other

4 popular parties, the Croatian Peasants Party and others.

5 Q. Did the HDZ of Franjo Tudjman already exist?

6 A. No. It was then being established. It came out on the political

7 scene and won the elections.

8 Q. When was this?

9 A. This was in 1989.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The HDZ is the Croatian

11 Democratic Union.

12 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

13 Q. Now, could you please explain us what is the SAO?

14 A. This is short for Serb Autonomous Province.

15 Q. Where was it founded? Where existed this?

16 A. It was established first in Knin and encompassed several

17 municipalities surrounding Knin, initially.

18 Q. And later on?

19 A. Later on, the SAO of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem was

20 established, and the third to be established was the SAO of Western

21 Slavonia.

22 Q. Was this later on united to the SAO Krajina or not?

23 A. Later on, they joined to form the Republic of Serbian Krajina in

24 the course of 1990.

25 Q. Can you tell us who was the first president of the SAO Krajina?

1 A. Milan Babic was the first president of the SAO Krajina.

2 Q. Was he elected, and what was his position?

3 A. He was elected in several municipalities down there, Knin, Gracac,

4 Lapac, Obrovac, Benkovac, and he was the president -- or rather, the prime

5 minister of the SAO Krajina.

6 Q. Can you tell us what the ethnic distribution of the SAO Krajina

7 was? Approximately, how many Croats and how many Serbs in percentage?

8 A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I can say there was a Serb

9 majority. About 60 or 70 per cent were Serbs, and the rest were Croats.

10 Q. I want to show now three regional ethnic -- three maps about the

11 regional ethnic distribution, and, Mr. Witness, could you please look at

12 it and tell us if it is correct?

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Mr. Registrar, please put number 4112 on the

14 ELMO.

15 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please comment on this map.

16 A. This map corresponds to the census of 1991, the ethnic

17 distribution of the population according to that census.

18 Q. We can see that there is a great concentration of Serb inhabitants

19 in the south, and to a lesser extent more in the north and the north-east.

20 Is that correct?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. Is the percentage correct on the map which says that the red one

23 where most Serbs live is a concentration of Serb inhabitants of 81 to 100

24 per cent? Is this correct?

25 A. Yes, it is.

1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Mr. Registrar, could we have admitted this

2 exhibit into evidence, please.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P166.

4 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I will come to another exhibit. This is number

5 4243. It's a happen related to the SAO in Serbia, Baranja, and Western

6 Srem. Could we please have it on the ELMO.

7 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please explain us what the map depicts and

8 if it is correct?

9 A. This map depicts the participation -- or rather, the proportion of

10 population of Serb, Croat, and other ethnic groups in Eastern Slavonia.

11 It's based on the census of 1991.

12 Q. You see here that the majority of Serbs is in yellow and the

13 majority of Croats is in red. Is this correct more or less on this map?

14 A. As far as I can see, yes.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Okay. I would like to have the Exhibit 876, and

16 to have the last map admitted.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P167.

18 MR. MUSSEMEYER: And the next map I want to talk about is Exhibit

19 number 876.

20 Q. This is a map of the Serb autonomous areas declared and controlled

21 in Croatia at the end of 1991. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us what

22 it depicts and if it is correct?

23 A. This map depicts two things. The blue line delimits the territory

24 which was declared to be the SAO Krajina, Western and Eastern Slavonia;

25 and the line in red shows what was held under military control by the

1 Serbs by the end of 1991 in these areas.

2 Q. I see on this map that sometimes the controlled areas go over the

3 declared areas. Why is this the case?

4 A. It was the result of wartime clashes in the course of 1991. That

5 was as far as the military units advanced, and that was the line that was

6 established when the international forces came in.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One technical question, Witness.

8 In red, as you said just a moment ago, we have the boundaries of the

9 military control. Who drew these lines? Where does this come from?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These maps were drawn based on the

11 positions achieved in the course of the war in 1991. We can see the red

12 lines do not correspond to the blue ones. Sometimes they went further,

13 and sometimes they didn't go as far as the blue lines. It depends on

14 where the military positions were taken up. And when the Vance Plan was

15 drawn up, the international forces marked these lines on the map.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So these military

17 positions are which unit? Who was there?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the inside, there were Serb

19 units, and on the outside were Croatian units. These were the demarcation

20 lines, as they were called.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who among those Serb forces?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serb forces of the Territorial

23 Defence of the three SAO territories. In the southern part and the

24 eastern part, there were also JNA forces.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order to be exact, you are

1 defining Serb forces, two types, TO units and JNA units.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

4 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

5 Q. I now would like to deal with the SDS party. Can you please tell

6 us who were the leaders of the SDS party in Krajina?

7 A. The leaders of the SDS, Milan Babic was at its head. Next to him

8 was Bosko Bozanic, then David Rastovic, and other less well-known people.

9 That's as regards the SAO Krajina itself. The part around Vjestica,

10 Macura, I can't -- there were men called Vjestica, Macura, and others. I

11 can't recall all the names.

12 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Before I asked the next question, I forgot to ask

13 to have the last map admitted into evidence. Could that be done.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P168.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

16 Q. In the beginning, the SDS was only founded Western Slavonia. Did

17 the SDS also cover larger errors later on?

18 A. The SDS was initially established in Knin. Later on, it spread

19 from Knin, to Lapac, Gracac, Benkovac, Obrovac, Korenica Srb, Kostajnica;

20 and then moved to Western Slavonia, Pakrac, Grubisno Polje, Slatina,

21 Daruvar, and Eastern Pakrac or Okucani, Daruvar, Grubisno Polje; and in

22 eastern Slovania, Vukovar, Beli Manastir, Dalj, and so on.

23 Q. So all over the area.

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to have the Exhibit number 67 now

1 shown on the ELMO.

2 Q. This is a pamphlet containing the platform of the Serbian

3 Democratic Party in Knin and the statute as issued on the 17th February

4 1990.

5 Mr. Witness, can you please comment on this? What was the

6 background of this pamphlet?

7 A. The statute, in February, in Knin, in 1990, it was enacted at the

8 founding Assembly. It was then adopted at this Assembly and became the

9 document of the party that was being established.

10 Q. What was the reason to create this new party?

11 A. Because when the Serbs saw that the HDZ was being established, we

12 saw it as too rigid, too nationalist. So the Serbs in the south around

13 Knin wanted to establish a Serbian political party because they felt it

14 would best defend Serb interests. This proved to be partially correct,

15 because the League of Communists, the party of democratic changes which

16 the rest of us in Croatia blindly believed in, betrayed our interests.

17 The party started there. It entered the elections, and it got five seats

18 in parliament.

19 Q. Is it correct when we can say that in the HDZ were only Croats and

20 in the SDS only Serbs?

21 A. Well, I think so. There were rare individuals Serbs in the HDZ

22 and Croats in the SDS, but the numbers were purely symbolic. They were

23 perhaps people in mixed marriages. But on the whole, that's how it was.

24 Q. Could you please have a look on page 2.

25 MR. MUSSEMEYER: For the Judges' convenience, it's page 4 in the

1 English of this document.

2 Q. Could you read the paragraph where it starts with "We shall not

3 accept to cooperate ..."

4 A. Just let me see where it is. I still haven't found it.

5 Q. It's on page 2 of the B/C/S version, and it's at the second

6 paragraph.

7 A. Correct.

8 "We are prepared to cooperate with all parties seeking a

9 democratic way out of this situation. We are an opposition party which is

10 naturally inclined towards other opposition parties, but we shall not

11 accept cooperation with any aggressive or repressive parties, especially

12 not with those that advocate national egocentrism, hatred, or ethnic

13 paranoia. In that we, shall not have any illusions regarding the name of

14 the party, even if it calls itself democratic. We are prepared to

15 acknowledge..." --

16 Q. Stop there. It's enough. I wanted to come to the point where it

17 said "hatred and ethnic paranoia." Thank you for reading.

18 Could you please explain us why was it necessary to have such a

19 sentence contained in the platform?

20 A. Well, because in those first parliamentary elections, at the very

21 beginning, the Croatian political parties used ugly terms to describe the

22 Serbs. There was paranoia. They saw citizens of other ethnicity

23 differently, especially if they were Serbs. So it was included in the

24 statute that we would not cooperate with any parties behaving like that.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.

1 Mr. Mussemeyer is putting this witness in the role of an expert. This

2 witness, to the best of my knowledge, did not participate in the drafting

3 of the party platform of the Serbian political party. He can read out

4 that paragraph. He can give his opinion, but he cannot interpret this

5 programme, this platform, because he did not participate in its drafting

6 and he's not an expert here.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, with regard to this

8 text of a political nature, are you in a position to give your evaluation

9 of the text or not?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I gave my opinion about this

11 document which was enacted in February 1990.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you repeat your opinion?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the statute of that

14 party included this text about national paranoia because that paranoia had

15 begun to spread in the Republic of Croatia in those first parliamentary

16 elections. There was fear and mistrust, and probably the people who

17 drafted that statute thought it important to include in the statute that

18 anyone spreading paranoia, fear, or repression towards others, that the

19 SDS would not cooperate with them.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Another question: This is a

21 text by Professor Raskovic, a member of the academy. It is addressed to

22 the public. I suppose that they're not just illiterates among them. If

23 there's a public document, it's for people to read it, isn't it?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I don't want to have this witness as an expert,

3 but he is telling about historical facts, and I think he's in a position

4 to give us the reasons for this sentencing in this platform.

5 Q. My next question is: Have these basic rules written down in this

6 platform always been respected in the SDS in the future?

7 A. No. They were in the beginning; but later as events developed,

8 the rules were departed from.

9 Q. We will come to this later. I would like you to go to page 7.

10 MR. MUSSEMEYER: For the Judges' convenience, it is page 13 in the

11 English text, which deals with the objectives of the party.

12 Q. In paragraph one, it says - may I read it in English? It's very

13 short - that: "The one-party status must be abolished."

14 Mr. Witness, was it necessary to mention this in this platform;

15 and if so, why?

16 A. It was mentioned at the time because up to that time there had

17 been one-party rule by the League of Communists in Croatia. That's why it

18 was felt it was important to abolish the one-party system and establish a

19 multi-party system.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

21 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Let's go to paragraph 15 of this platform, which

22 is in the B/C/S version on page 10, and in the English version on page 16

23 and 17.

24 Q. Could you please read us this paragraph.

25 A. "We shall constantly take care of the situation of all the Serbian

1 diasporas in Yugoslavia. We shall especially restore the situation of the

2 Serbian people in Croatia. The one-party policy up to now has led to an

3 unacceptable situation."

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness read more

5 slowly, please.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "There is displacement of Serbs

7 moving to more developed areas. A large number of Serbs have gone to work

8 abroad, and the number of Serbs in Croatia is dwindling. Once compact

9 Serbian groups in Croatia have been totally broken up. The economic

10 status of Serbs in those areas is weakening, becoming evermore

11 unfavourable.

12 "The development of underdeveloped municipalities of Croatia with

13 a Serbian majority has become a very pressing concern. There is no

14 national equality without economic equality. We shall use all democratic

15 means to overcome the unfavourable situation of the Serbs in those areas.

16 We believe that the democratic situation has been deformed."

17 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

18 Q. Please be aware that it has to be translated, and next time please

19 try to read a bit slower.

20 What I want to know is: It is said that the Serbs are living in

21 "diaspora." What does that mean?

22 A. Well, this expression is not quite clear to me because there's

23 mention of a diaspora within Yugoslavia. One could consider the diaspora

24 to be Serbs living in Germany, America, Canada, and Australia. Outside

25 Yugoslavia, as we then had the common state of Yugoslavia, I can't

1 understand what is meant by the diaspora within Yugoslavia.

2 Q. Do you know what kind of solution was intended?

3 A. I think that there was concern then that the Serbs should live in

4 Yugoslavia as the common state.

5 Q. We already spoke about the SDS party which was not always united.

6 Can you tell us if there has been a division; and if so, when did this

7 occur?

8 A. The division occurred in late 1990, I think, or early 1991 - I

9 can't tell you the precise date - when Milan Babic separated of the SAO of

10 the SDS and the SAO Krajina was established, because he disagreed with the

11 policy being conducted by Dr. Jovan Raskovic. Then he separated his party

12 from the other SDS, and he established the SDS of the SAO Krajina, which

13 was active in that area.

14 Q. How would you characterise these two different movements?

15 A. I think that the party led by Professor Dr. Raskovic was a

16 democratic option. It was in favour of dialogue, negotiations, and the

17 search for political solutions; whereas, the policy conducted by Milan

18 Babic was more extreme, nationalist, and it was active only on the

19 territory of the SAO Krajina. They didn't want to engage in any dialogue

20 with the Croatian authorities in Belgrade. They dealt only with their own

21 problems and were not interested in anything beyond their area.

22 Q. Is it correct if I say they did not try to negotiate or did not

23 intend to negotiate?

24 A. Well, they condemned the negotiations Jovan Raskovic led with the

25 representatives of Croatian authorities in Zagreb, and any attempt from

1 other people in the party to continue the dialogue was condemned by Milan

2 Babic and the SDS of the Autonomous District of Krajina.

3 Q. If I call the party wing of Mr. Babic hard-liner, would that

4 describe exactly what it was or is it not true?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Leading question,

6 Mr. President. Mr. Mussemeyer cannot first define the answer and then ask

7 the witness whether it's true or not.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please reformulate your

9 question.

10 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

11 Q. Please describe us, in short words, which were the aims of the two

12 different movements inside the SDS party.

13 A. As I said, the party led by Raskovic was the democratic option in

14 favour of talks and negotiations and dialogue and searching for a

15 political solution; whereas, the SDS of SAO Krajina was exclusive, closed,

16 and intolerant towards Croatian authorities and the rest of Croatia.

17 Q. You say that the Raskovic part was democratic. Was the other not

18 democratic?

19 A. Not really, because of the very fact they didn't want to talk even

20 with other Serbs who thought differently within the Serb community. In

21 that sense, I meant when I said they were exclusive.

22 Q. Can we also characterise this split in the party in geographical

23 parts?

24 A. I think it's difficult, because the party of Jovan Raskovic was

25 active in SAO Krajina as well, along with the SDS of Milan Babic, but

1 Jovan Raskovic's party was active in the same area. But when other areas

2 like Slavonia --

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness repeat

4 this? He is talking too fast.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, can you please repeat your last

6 answer.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me explain it this way: The SDS

8 of SAO Krajina was active only in the area of SAO Krajina; but in the same

9 area, the SDS of Jovan Raskovic was still active, and it was dominant in

10 Eastern Slavonia and Western Slavonia and the other part of Croatia where

11 it was establish. So we had them on parallel tracks. In Krajina, there

12 was both the SDS of Jovan Raskovic and the SDS of Milan Babic.

13 Q. Can you tell us if there have been from 1990 onwards growing

14 tensions in the area?

15 A. Immediately after the elections and the establishment of new

16 authorities in the Republic of Croatia, ethnic tensions grew in the

17 broader area of Croatia.

18 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Before I come to the next exhibit, I would like

19 to have this exhibit admitted into evidence.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P169.

21 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The next exhibit I want to talk about is Exhibit

22 number 346. It is the so-called Brioni Declaration, and this declaration

23 was calling for a peaceful solution.

24 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us what was the goal of this

25 Brioni meeting?

1 A. Well, the goal was to draw the attention of the public to

2 Yugoslavia, to use dialogue and political talks to look for a peaceful

3 solution, to avoid and relieve the tensions that had already begun to

4 spread all over Croatia.

5 Q. Can you let us know the date of this declaration?

6 A. Well, the statement was made on the 26th of March, 1991, as far as

7 I can see the date.

8 Q. I see the date 8th of May, 1991. Can that be correct?

9 A. Lower down, it says 8th May 1991, Declaration on Yugoslavia; and

10 then further down, it says 8th June.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The Prosecutor should

12 explain why this is the Brioni Declaration. He called it the Brioni

13 Declaration, but we don't see why. I believe the Brioni Declaration is

14 something quite different.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I think the Brioni Declaration refers to the

16 village or the island where this was dealt with.

17 Q. Is this correct, Mr. Witness?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you explain us --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Let the Prosecutor show

21 the Brioni Declaration rather than statements of the European Community

22 about Yugoslavia. The Brioni Declaration is something quite different,

23 and the participants were different. The Prosecutor obviously ignores

24 this.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, please, the

1 document that we have here on the screen, on page 2 of the English

2 version, which probably corresponds to page 3 of the English version, you

3 should find the corresponding passage in your language. It says "Common

4 Declaration" and "Brioni Declaration."

5 Could you tell us something about this?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can only say what is written

7 there, that it was a joint declaration that comes under the Brioni

8 Declaration; nothing else.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] During the cross-examination,

10 I'm sure the accused can come back to this question if he wants to.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

13 Q. Mr. Witness --

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to intervene.

15 We have not been shown the Brioni Declaration. We have been shown on the

16 screen something else. That is the point of my intervention; nothing

17 else. I don't contest that there was a Brioni Declaration, but what we

18 are being shown is not it.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You're telling us

20 that what is on screen is not the Brioni Declaration. I have a document

21 which is headed "Brioni Declaration." If you challenge this, well, during

22 cross-examination, show us a document that would be the true Brioni

23 Declaration.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. But on the screen, we need

25 to have the Brioni Declaration, on page 3 of the English version.

1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: If I may help, it's on page 19 of the B/C/S

2 version, and there is also number 34 at the side, which is called

3 "Brionska Deklaracija," if I pronounce it correctly.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Registrar, could

5 you please put on the screen the English text that we find on page 3.

6 This is the text I was referring to.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, only now do we have the

8 Brioni Declaration on the screen. The witness was talking about quite a

9 different text that has nothing to do with the Brioni Declaration. That's

10 why I had to intervene.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We took note of

12 this.

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

14 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us why this initiative failed?

15 A. Because there was no interest in having this initiative translated

16 into practice.

17 Q. Who had no interest? Can you give us names?

18 A. I believe that there was no interest on the part of Milosevic, and

19 I believe it was the same with Tudjman.

20 Q. So both parts were not interested in peaceful solutions?

21 A. At that time, correct.

22 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Before I come to the next exhibit, I would like

23 to have this exhibit admitted.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P170.

25 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The next exhibit should be Exhibit number 261.

1 Q. In the last paragraph of this exhibit, it says that the Serbs in

2 Croatia lived under state terror. Were the citizens in Western Slavonia

3 subjected to state terror?

4 A. This statement of the 30th of May, 1991, at that time there was no

5 state terror against Serbs in Slavonia.

6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: To be correct, I think it's a statement of the

7 28th of May, 1991. It's at the end of this document.

8 Q. In the last paragraph of this document, it says that there is a

9 threat for the survival of the Serbs. Were the Serbs under threat of

10 survival in Western Slavonia at that time?

11 A. At that time, the threat was not as pronounced as it is claimed;

12 although, there were ethnic-based incidents.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, to avoid

14 confusion, we should distinguish clearly what's Western Slavonia versus

15 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. Those are two different things.

16 What is stated in the document is happening in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja,

17 and Western Srem, and the Prosecutor is asking about Western Slavonia

18 regarding these texts. Those are two different categories.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Prosecutor. There are

20 two Slavonias, and the text seems to refer to Slavonia, Baranja, and Srem.

21 So which Slavonia is involved in your question?

22 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to know this from the witness for

23 both parts, if he can give evidence about this.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So rephrase your question.

25 Either a general question encompassing both Slavonias or specific

1 questions first on one Slavonia, then on the other Slavonia.

2 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

3 Q. Mr. Witness, I refer again to the last paragraph where it said

4 that, I read: "Due to all that and to avoid danger that threats to the

5 survival of Serb national being, Serb people from Slavonia, Baranja, and

6 Western Srem will be forced to self-organise and to decisively prepare for

7 self-defence."

8 Was there a danger of survival in both regions?

9 A. Well, I've already said what I heard about Western Slavonia.

10 As far as Eastern Slavonia is concerned, after the 1st or the 2nd

11 of May, 1991, when there occurred an armed conflict, incidents increased,

12 fear, and mistrust. I cannot tell you to what extent these problems

13 existed in Eastern Slavonia because I lived in Western Slavonia.

14 As for Western Slavonia, the conflict occurred on the 2nd of

15 March, 1991, but it was overcome, and we continued to live without major

16 incidents or clashes.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

18 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Can we please have this document admitted into

19 evidence.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P171.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, I believe

22 this method is absolutely impermissible. The document applies to Eastern

23 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. The witness says he's not very

24 familiar with the events in that area. He's testifying about Western

25 Slavonia in May, where the situation is quite different from the east.

1 There is no armed conflict. There are no major incidents. Now the

2 Prosecutor is tendering this document as if the witness contested its

3 contents.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. The title of

5 this document is "Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem." Therefore, it

6 seems that the title encompasses all Slavonias, western and eastern, and

7 this is why the Prosecutor is asking a question to the witness on the

8 conflict.

9 He explains that in Western Slavonia where he was living,

10 according to him there was no incident.

11 Witness, please, this text that you have on the screen, does that

12 encompass Western and Eastern Slavonia.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot know what the

14 authors meant, which Slavonia, but this is about Eastern Slavonia,

15 Baranja, and Western Srem.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Look at the title in your own

17 language. Look at the way the document is titled in your language.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've seen the title, but that

19 council headed by Ilija Petrovic was active in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja,

20 and Western Srem. It had nothing, no contacts with us in Western

21 Slavonia.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Therefore, according

23 to you, this document is irrelevant regarding Western Slavonia.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, since nobody contacted with us

25 regarding this text that was drafted, I cannot claim that he had any

1 opinions about Western Slavonia as well. They were representatives of

2 Eastern Slavonia. Now, what they were thinking when they were writing, I

3 can't know.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you want me to

5 give you full information, it will be easier for you to find your way

6 through this because the Prosecutor didn't provide it. If you don't want

7 me to -- when Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem were formed as

8 an autonomous district, it was only named Slavonia without "Eastern" in

9 the title. Western Slavonia was not an autonomous district then. It was

10 formed as such a bit later.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will solve this difficulty by

12 giving it an MFI number. Correction, please. We will have an MFI number

13 instead.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be MFI P171.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please resume.

16 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

17 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please describe us what was your

18 relationship to Milan Babic and Goran Hadzic?

19 A. Well, from the very beginning, I did not agree with Milan Babic.

20 We didn't understand each other because of his behaviour at meetings where

21 he was exclusive, intolerant. He liked listening to himself talk, and he

22 didn't appreciate the opinions of others. He didn't particularly seek

23 contacts because he thought that we from other parts of Croatia were

24 unimportant. There were conflicts within the party. He conflicted with

25 Jovan Raskovic, and I saw him as a man who was exclusive, intolerant to

1 other opinions.

2 With Hadzic, I agreed for quite a long time, at the beginning when

3 the SDS was established, all the way up to the incident in Plitvice when

4 he was arrested. He was quite severely beaten up by the MUP of Croatia,

5 and it seemed that he changed overnight. This changed him. Then, in

6 December 1991, we drifted apart finally, and he created this National

7 Council of the Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem. Our contacts

8 became few and far between; and after the war started, we practically had

9 no more contacts until the end of 1991 -- from the end of 1991. He opted

10 for war as a solution, and we opted to create the Autonomous District of

11 Western Slavonia.

12 Q. So is it correct that there was also a geographical split between

13 the SDS members?

14 A. At that time, as soon as the war began, there was a rift between

15 us. We who lived in Western Slavonia did not share the same options that

16 applied to Eastern Slavonia and that whole area, and we sought to find a

17 peaceful solution through political activity.

18 Q. Had there already been contacts to Serbia itself, and who was

19 opposing this peaceful solution and who was going to the hard-liner way?

20 A. Well, the contacts started sometime in late 1990 with Borisav

21 Jovic in the Presidency of Yugoslavia and Mr. Milosevic. There was a

22 group of representative Serbs from Krajina, Western Slavonia, and Eastern

23 Slavonia, where we tried to find a political solution. However, the group

24 that came from Knin was exclusive, intolerant. They only talked about

25 war, that there was a threat of war, and we should be expecting it. Then

1 the incidents started in Pakrac, in Plitvice, in March and April, and then

2 the conflict started to escalate.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to come to the next exhibit, which is

4 Exhibit number 619. This is a declaration of the European Community

5 appealing for a peaceful solution.

6 Q. Mr. Witness, are you aware of this document?

7 A. Well, I heard of him sometime after the war. In -- I heard it in

8 the media, but I really saw him after the war.

9 Q. It is said in this document, on paragraph 4: "The European

10 Community and its Member States are appalled at the constant violation of

11 the principles." The principle is the protection of human rights. Is it

12 correct what is said in this document?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Was such a declaration necessary at that time?

15 A. Yes. Because at that time, the war was spreading in all three

16 Autonomous District of Krajinas between Croats and Serbs, and such a

17 document was certainly important, appealing to parties to stop the

18 conflict and continue the dialogue.

19 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Could I please have admitted this document --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P172.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One small question, please.

23 You're saying that this document, the substance of this document is

24 something that you learned of after the war. This document was written in

25 Brussels, October 28, 1991. At the time, did you have radio or TV?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I heard of this document

2 during the war, the declaration, the statement, whatever it's called; but

3 the first time I saw all of it was after the war. In fact, I hadn't seen

4 it before. I heard over the radio that a document existed and there were

5 frequent conferences and communiques.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Therefore, late

7 October and early November, you knew that the European Community had made

8 a statement on the situation, because you had heard it on the radio.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

11 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to have the Exhibit number 511 on

12 the ELMO.

13 Q. This is a decision on the appointment of presidents,

14 vice-presidents, and ministers of the government of the Serbian district

15 of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and it was published in the

16 Official Gazette on the 25th of September, 1991.

17 Mr. Witness, could you please comment on this document?

18 A. Well, I heard that the government of SAO Slavonia, Baranja, and

19 Western Srem was formed. I saw this document only after the war, but I

20 had heard before the people who were on the government. It was reported

21 in the media. They had their own statute, decision, laws, everything they

22 published in the Official Gazette. But I saw the document, itself, only

23 later, not during the war.

24 Q. Does this document say that they did not want to stay any longer

25 in Croatia?

1 A. I believe it's mentioned.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Could we --

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Judge, I believe this

5 has to be shown. Where is it said in the document? The witness can't

6 just say, "I believe it's mentioned," when we can't see it. If the

7 document is shown, the witness says it's mentioned, let them show where.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I had the same thing in

9 mind before Mr. Seselj took the floor, but he was faster than me.

10 Where is it in this document that you can find that this Eastern

11 Slavonia was no longer part of Croatia? Where is it in the document?

12 Witness, you have the document on the screen.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have only part of the document

14 now. I have to see where exactly it is.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is the entire

16 document as published in the Official Gazette, so it's not part of the

17 document. It's the whole document, a photocopy of the Official Gazette of

18 the Serbian Autonomous District.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have the document

20 on the screen.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I see on one page, if

22 that's all.

23 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This is all we have here; but for me, it's my

24 opinion and I don't know if the witness and the accused agree, that the

25 fact that they constitute a local government shows that they did not want

1 to stay any longer in Croatia.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, this is your own

4 interpretation. We shall see.

5 Please continue.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think you have to

7 absolutely forbid this, for the Prosecutor to think something here. It's

8 up to the Prosecutor to offer evidence and put questions. It doesn't say

9 here had they wanted to separate off from Croatia at that time, they would

10 have established a state, not an autonomous district. An autonomous

11 district has to exist within a state. This is unprecedented. This did

12 not happen with Madam Dahl.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please continue,

14 Mr. Prosecutor. The objection seems to be irrelevant.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Can we have this document admitted into evidence.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. This document should get a

17 number.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit --

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have another objection,

20 Mr. President.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I must say I have a difficulty in accepting this

22 document into evidence. You haven't proven your point, so I think we

23 should not enter it into evidence.

24 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I think the document is relevant. It's up to the

25 Judges, to you Judges then, to make your conclusions of this document, but

1 it should go into evidence so that you are in a position to make you

2 conclusions.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This document is relevant, but

4 according to what? In what is it relevant?

5 MR. MUSSEMEYER: It's relevant to show or to demonstrate that

6 there was a split in the SDS and that one part of the SDS is creating an

7 own government.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, I see your point, but the

9 difficulty I have is that this could just as well be a government for

10 local autonomy. It doesn't show that this has the intention to break out

11 of Croatia.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Prosecutor. This

13 document was published in the Official Gazette. That's the title of this

14 publication. It is a decision on the appointment of presidents and

15 vice-presidents of the government of the Serbian district of Slavonia,

16 Eastern Slavonia, and ministers of the said government. But this is, as

17 can be seen, further to Article 19 of the constitutional act creating

18 Slavonia.

19 Before you submitted this document or sought to tender it, you

20 should have shown Article 19 to the witness. We don't have Article 19,

21 because based on that, you drew conclusions which prompted my fellow

22 Judge, rightly so, to think that, as such, the document cannot be

23 admitted.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, Mr. President.

25 The Prosecutor says that this document is evidence of a split in the

1 Serbian Democratic Party, but this document has nothing to do with the

2 Serbian Democratic Party. It's a document issued by the large popular

3 Assembly of the Serbian district which refers only to Eastern Slavonia,

4 and that Assembly comprised representatives of different parties, not just

5 the SDS. There were also people present who were not members of any

6 party. So it has nothing to do with inter-party conflicts. It cannot be

7 admitted into evidence through the testimony of Witness 004, because this

8 witness can speak relevantly of the events in Western Slavonia and his

9 direct experience in other Serb areas.

10 When there is a witness testifying to the events in Eastern

11 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, then it can be admitted into evidence

12 for that witness.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to solve the problem

14 as follows: We're going to give it an MFI number.

15 Mr. Registrar, MFI number, please.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI P173.

17 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Just for your information, this document has been

18 admitted in the Milosevic case under Exhibit number 327, tab 6, and it was

19 admitted with this witness. I don't insist now on this document. I want

20 to proceed and want to have --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A short observation by the

22 Chamber, of mine: The fact that a document was admitted in another case

23 does not automatically mean that it becomes an exhibit of this case. This

24 must be clear to everybody.

25 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This is clear to me. I only wanted to make you

1 aware of this fact.

2 The next exhibit I wanted to have tendered into evidence is

3 Exhibit number 914.

4 Q. This is published in Epoha, number 12, of the 7th January 1992,

5 and I would like the witness to comment on this, if he is aware of this,

6 and what he can tell us about this.

7 A. I only heard about that text by Dobrica Cosic, speaking of the

8 third Yugoslavia, the third way. I did not have occasion to read it until

9 recently. I didn't see it at the time. I only heard of its publication.

10 I heard there was a text in which Cosic spoke of a third Yugoslavia.

11 Q. There was a conference. Are you aware of this?

12 A. Yes. There was a conference in early 2002 in Belgrade on the

13 third Yugoslavia in the Assembly of Yugoslavia.

14 Q. Did you participate?

15 A. Yes. I participated in that conference -- or rather, its

16 beginning. Later on, I left. There were many people there, many

17 speakers.

18 Q. Was the accused also there?

19 A. Yes, he was. The accused was also there.

20 MR. MUSSEMEYER: May I ask --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question. Did you know

22 the accused? Had you talked to him before, or did you just sort of come

23 across him at the conference?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew him from before.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Had you had conversations with

1 him before?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before that, yes.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

4 Q. May I ask if also Mr. Karadzic was there?

5 A. Yes. To the best of my recollection, he was there, too.

6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Contained in this article is a map. We have a

7 nicer version of this map which is Exhibit number 915. Could it be shown

8 on the ELMO.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, you didn't give

10 a binder to the witness? I see he's looking at the screen. Does he not

11 have a binder there for the map? It might be better for him to have a

12 binder, so that can see at the same time. I mean, the screen is okay, but

13 it's better to have the document.

14 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

15 Q. I would like to know what is the meaning of the map which is

16 attached to this article. Can you tell us?

17 A. As far as I can see from the map, there's the Republic of Serbia,

18 Montenegro, parts of the SAO of Eastern Slavonia, Western Slavonia, and

19 the SAO Krajina, which were under Serb control, and some municipalities in

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Whether they were SAOs at the time, Romanija, the

21 Krajina region, the Krajina, the SAO of Northern Bosnia. These were Serb

22 areas within Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was also the SAO of Eastern

23 Slavonia, the SAO of Western Slavonia, and the SAO Krajina.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, the

25 Prosecutor started discussing the standpoint of Dobrica Cosic. The

1 witness said he hadn't seen it, but remembers hearing about it. However,

2 we have not seen the document. What is this about? What does Dobrica

3 Cosic have to do with the convention on the third Yugoslavia? Why

4 introduce Dobrica Cosic into this evidence if the photograph of Dobrica

5 Cosic appearing on the cover page of Epoha is the only thing we're going

6 to find out about him?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. What does the Prosecution

8 answer?

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: For me, it's relevant, the map which we are

10 looking on, and I would like the witness to tell us what was the purpose

11 of this map, what was it showing. He already commented shortly on it, but

12 I want to have further comments.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. But maybe you

14 should tell us where the map comes from precisely.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The map is contained in the article, and a the

16 Exhibit number 915 is a nicer version, a more readable version of the map.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection again, Mr. President. The

18 Prosecutor has to tell us what Dobrica Cosic has to do with all this. He

19 mentioned a standpoint or a declaration by Dobrica Cosic. The witness had

20 confirmed that he had heard about it, but we don't know what this is

21 about. This situation is untenable. Either Dobrica Cosic is involved and

22 the Prosecutor will offer a document, or he just happened to mention him

23 because his photograph is on the cover page, or maybe he should say that

24 Dobrica Cosic has nothing to do with this.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. What is the relationship

1 between Dobrica Cosic and the map? You told me the map was contained in

2 the article. Who was the article written by, by Dobrica Cosic or not?

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This is what I think, because the title of this

4 document is "Yugoslavia for the Third Time" by Dobrica Cosic, and there is

5 the map contained in the Serbian version, and it's on page 00914.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Witness, the Prosecutor

7 appears to say that this map comes from an article written by Dobrica

8 Cosic. Do you agree or not?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw this article a few months ago.

10 It speaks of the third Yugoslavia. It speaks of the Serb districts that

11 opted for a third Yugoslavia.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. No use having

14 useless objections, because the witness just said first that he saw the

15 article, and apparently the map was attached to the article.

16 Is this what you just said, Witness?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. What is the objection? He

20 has seen this article, he read it, and the Prosecution wants to put a

21 question about it. So where's the problem?

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My objection is that the Prosecutor

23 is shamelessly lying to you, saying that this is an article by Dobrica

24 Cosic and we see it signed by Ivica Dacic. It's an article written by

25 Ivica Dacic which has nothing to do with Dobrica Cosic. In the same issue

1 of Epoha, there was an interview with Dobrica Cosic which has nothing to

2 do with this article. The Prosecutor is now lying to you, saying that the

3 author of this article is Dobrica Cosic. Please punish the Prosecutor for

4 lying to you in this way.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we have somebody who has

6 read the article. He's going to solve the problem.

7 Witness, is it Ivica Dacic who wrote the article or Dobrica Cosic?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm speaking of Dobrica Cosic's

9 article. That's what I'm looked at, and I looked at the map that was

10 shown to me. I know that, at that convention, there was mention of a

11 third Yugoslavia which should include those Serb districts which opted for

12 remaining in Yugoslavia. I didn't read the entire paper, the entire

13 issue.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, we don't have Dobrica Cosic's

15 interview here. The interview really was published in this same issue,

16 but it does not have anything to do with the article entitled,

17 "Yugoslavia, The Third Way." It has nothing to do with Ivica Dacic's

18 article. Dobrica Cosic is not the author of the article shown to us. At

19 the end the article, we can see quite clearly that the author is Ivica

20 Dacic.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, it appears that there

22 was a meeting which you attended. Mr. Seselj attended as well, and so did

23 Karadzic. During that meeting, apparently mention was made or the issue

24 was made of a third Yugoslavia. Based on that, it appears for the

25 Prosecutor that Mr. Cosic gave an interview. Mr. Dacic apparently wrote

1 an article. Our question is this: We have now a map. In your view, this

2 map does not come from the interview. It comes from Mr. Dacic's article.

3 Yes or no?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't read Ivica Dacic's

5 article. I know that, at that convention, there was discussion of the

6 third Yugoslavia, that Cosic spoke about it, and that these are the Serb

7 autonomous districts, the SAO Krajinas, also in Bosnia which would join

8 Yugoslavia.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I truly regret this, but I have to

10 object again. Judges, you also heard Mr. Mussemeyer saying loud and clear

11 the author is Dobrica Cosic, referring to the text he disclosed to,

12 "Yugoslavia, The Third Way." The witness cannot remember the contents of

13 Cosic's interview unless the interview is shown to me. We don't have the

14 interview here. There is no connection between Dobrica Cosic's interview

15 and this article. Dobrica Cosic did not even attend the convention on the

16 third Yugoslavia. It was only we, the representatives of different

17 political parties, who attended the convention. Dobrica Cosic was not a

18 member of any political party at that time.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we admit that Mr. Cosic was

20 not at this meeting about the third Yugoslavia, it still remains that we

21 have a map in front of you. The thing of interest to the Trial Chamber is

22 the meaning of that map.

23 Please put your questions to the witness, Mr. Prosecutor, relating

24 to this map.

25 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

1 Q. Again, what can we see on this map? What is the reason of the

2 different colours? Please explain it to us.

3 A. On this map, you can see the former Yugoslavia. In light blue,

4 you see the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, the SAO of Eastern

5 Slavonia, Western Slavonia, the SAO Krajina, and several SAO regions

6 within Bosnia-Herzegovina. All these are Serb areas; whereas, in dark

7 blue is the rest of the former Yugoslavia.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll get back to this later.

9 We'll have to have a break now. But the Prosecutor would like to address

10 the Trial Chamber when the witness is out for ten minutes. So we'll ask

11 the witness to leave the courtroom, and then I'll give the floor to the

12 Prosecution.

13 Witness, you can have a rest now for 20 minutes. You shall be

14 recalled. So the witness may leave the courtroom.

15 [The witness stands down]

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, do you wish to move

17 to private session or not.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I have

19 three very, very brief issues, only one of which would require private

20 session. Perhaps, we can do that at the very end. I certainly won't take

21 too long.

22 The first issue concerns Professor Seselj's notice concerning the

23 expert report of Mr. Reynaud Theunens. Obviously, that was dated the 3rd

24 of January of 2008 and filed in English yesterday, 6 February 2008. It's

25 unclear to the Prosecution whether Professor Seselj is seeking specific

1 relief from the Trial Chamber or is, rather, indicating simply his desire

2 to cross-examine the witness and providing notice that he will challenge

3 the witness's expertise. And, of course, both of those are completely

4 proper matters for cross-examination.

5 I simply rise at this point because, in the event the Trial

6 Chamber is inclined to issue a ruling on the matters raised in this

7 notice, the Prosecution would like the opportunity to respond and would,

8 therefore, seek some kind of leave to reply. And, in that sense, I'm

9 simply at this point, before the last session of this trial week, seeking

10 some guidance from the Chamber in terms of whether the Chamber would think

11 it would be helpful for the Prosecution to file any response.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's try to move swiftly.

13 Mr. Seselj challenged the expertise, but he challenges everything, so

14 we're not taken by surprise. It's not surprising he should challenge the

15 expertise of Mr. Theunens, and he's been doing that for a long time

16 already. And now you're telling us that on the 6th of February, 2008, he

17 filed some submissions, and you were wondering what you have to do. You

18 are entitled to file a response. But since Mr. Theunens is due to testify

19 next week, it might be better for you to tell us here orally what your

20 position is to Mr. Seselj's filings.

21 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's clear from

22 what I've just indicated that we believe that the position taken by the

23 accused simply relates to matters that can be dealt with in

24 cross-examination. Our concern was if the Trial Chamber were to be

25 inclined to rule before Mr. Theunens comes that he is in fact not an

1 expert, then we would have a gaping hole in the schedule for the next two

2 weeks. So it's very simply that if the Chamber anticipates issuing a

3 ruling on Professor Seselj's filing, we would like to reply to that.

4 However, if, in fact, what he's simply doing is notifying us that

5 he wants to cross the witness and he's going to challenge the expertise of

6 the witness, I don't think any further steps would be required from the

7 Prosecution at this time. I simply wanted to seek some kind of guidance

8 as to whether the Chamber might, in fact, issue a ruling, because it's not

9 clear to us he's actually seeking any kind of relief in his response, but

10 is simply indicating that he wants to cross-examine the witness and that

11 he will be challenging the expertise of the witness. So that was simply

12 why I raised this issue before we break for the week.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In any event, before a witness

14 comes to testify, the Trial Chamber always hands down a ruling or

15 decision, be it to admit his or her report or to say that the report is

16 not admitted, but still a decision dismissing the expertise of the

17 witness. That was done for Oberschall. We said we would rule after

18 cross-examination of that witness.

19 Therefore, the Trial Chamber will issue a decision regarding

20 Theunens today or tomorrow at the latest, so there it is. But the

21 procedure is now clear.

22 The Prosecutor has told us that they wanted to call Mr. Theunens.

23 Mr. Seselj filed some submissions challenging the expertise of expert

24 Theunens, but he asked General Bozidar Delic to prepare submissions that

25 were filed. Therefore, we've got all we need.

1 Now, orally, if you want to tell us that in your view he still is

2 an expert, you can say so now.

3 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, Mr. President. The Prosecution stands by

4 the report of the witness as an expert, and we believe the matters raised

5 by Professor Seselj are best dealt with in cross-examination.

6 The second point, very briefly --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

8 MR. MUNDIS: The issue of disclosure of statements came up this

9 morning.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. First,

11 to be allowed to file a reply, you must ask to be allowed to do so but

12 this is well-known. So the Chamber will issue a decision.

13 What do you want to add?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only wish to explain to the

15 Prosecutor, who is new in this case, that my practice in the case of each

16 expert witness of the Prosecution was first to say that I challenge the

17 qualifications of the expert and his report, and then to put forward the

18 platform on which I -- the basis, the foundation on which I challenge the

19 expert. I did the same with Oberschall and Tomic. I will do the same for

20 Theunens and for all the others.

21 I could have sprung all those things on them as a surprise in my

22 report written by General Delic. I disclosed it to them so that they can

23 prepare in time for the sort of cross-examination I am preparing for.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Second point.

25 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you very much. I appreciate that response.

1 As for disclosure, the issue concerning witness statements arose

2 this morning. I simply want to take this opportunity to assure the Trial

3 Chamber and Professor Seselj that the Prosecution obviously takes its

4 disclosure obligations very seriously, both because the Rules require it

5 and more importantly because it's the best way of ensuring the trial is

6 fair.

7 To this end, we are committed to reviewing our disclosure in this

8 case, and we will put in place a system to ensure that disclosure is done

9 as transparently as possible, and that the Trial Chamber and Professor

10 Seselj are fully informed that our obligations have been made before the

11 appearance of future witnesses.

12 The third issue I would like to briefly go into private session

13 for, please.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Private session for the

15 third point.

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 3362 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall resume at 10 past

6 12.00.

7 --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before giving the floor to the

10 Prosecution, the Chamber will issue an oral decision regarding expert

11 Theunens, and a written decision will be also handed down on Tuesday.

12 The oral decision is such, and I will only read the disposition:

13 According to Rule 94 bis, the Chamber orders that, one, Reynaud

14 Theunens be called as an expert to be examined by both parties and by the

15 Trial Chamber.

16 Secondly, the examination-in-chief will not be longer than five

17 hours.

18 Then, three, the Prosecution examination must not be longer than

19 five hours.

20 Now, regarding the report of the expert, this report will

21 eventually or possibly be admitted after the cross-examination. A written

22 decision will be filed on Tuesday; and, of course, it will be more

23 comprehensive, but this is the disposition regarding this expert Theunens

24 and his testimony.

25 I now give the floor to the Prosecution in order for Prosecution

1 to continue with its examination-in-chief. We will stop our proceedings

2 in exactly one hour.

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I want to come back to Exhibit -- to the 65 ter

4 number 1914. This is the article which we said was by Cosic. I want to

5 correct this. It is not by Dobrica Cosic. We called it in the

6 Prosecution this kind of a document, but it's only to show what is the

7 origin of this document and identifying the source and the date of this

8 document. If you could -- is it clear?

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Then who is the author?

10 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I can tell you. It was mentioned recently. The

11 witness told us who is the author. I don't remember the name at the

12 moment.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ivica Dacic.

14 MR. MUSSEMEYER: And Dobrica Cosic appears only on the first page

15 to give the origin, the date, and the source of this article.

16 Can I have admitted these two 65 ter number 914 and 915 into

17 evidence.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, we need two

19 numbers, please.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. 65 ter number 914, which is

21 the article, will be Exhibit number P174; and the tendered map, which is

22 65 ter number 915, will be Exhibit P175.

23 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Thank you.

24 Q. I would now like to come to the beginning of the conflict in

25 Slavonia. Mr. Witness, could you please describe us the situation in this

1 area after the split between Eastern and Western Slavonia?

2 A. When SAO Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem was established, a

3 conflict occurred between the Croat police forces and the Serbian

4 Territorial Defence. Sometime in August 1991, we in Western Slavonia set

5 up the Autonomous District of Western Slavonia because we saw that the war

6 was ablaze. We wanted the territory of Western Slavonia to avoid this

7 conflict and to use dialogue and political negotiations with Croatian

8 authorities to find a peaceful solution.

9 Therefore, sometime on the 12th of August, the Autonomous District

10 of Western Slavonia was formed as a political entity in order to formulate

11 political interests of Western Slavonia in a different way.

12 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us if at that time period, let's

13 say from March 1992 onwards, incidents happened?

14 A. In the area of Western Slavonia, there were incidents; namely, in

15 Pakrac where, during May and June I believe, one Croatian policeman was

16 killed; and in the area of Okucani, later I believe in July or maybe at

17 the beginning of August, two policemen were killed between Okucani and

18 Pakrac. Those were the incidents that slowly escalated towards a

19 conflict.

20 Q. What does the name "Borovo Selo" say to you?

21 A. Well, Borovo Selo happened on the 2nd of May, I believe, or maybe

22 the 1st of May. It was a clash between the Croatian police that entered

23 Borovo Selo village.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Witness,

25 everything you're saying is extremely important, notably regarding the

1 chronology of facts.

2 You talked about the two policemen who were killed at Okucani, but

3 I thought I understood that this was in May and June, and Borovo Selo is

4 on May 2nd. I would like to know what incident occurred first. Was it

5 first Borovo Selo or first Okucani? We need to know what started. So

6 could you tell us, according to you, where it started?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Borovo Selo happened first,

8 then in Pakrac, and only in August was the one near Okucani.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the first incident is Borovo

10 Selo. Very well. Please continue.

11 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

12 Q. Could you please repeat what you said about Borovo Selo?

13 A. Well, there was a clash in Borovo Selo between Croatian police

14 forces that entered the village and the local men who lived in the

15 village. I heard later that there were some volunteers there, as well,

16 who had come to the village.

17 Q. Do you know to whom these volunteers belonged?

18 A. What I heard was that those were the volunteers of the Serbian

19 Radical Party.

20 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to show the witness a video clip,

21 which is 65 ter number 6063.

22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Just a moment. Before we move to

23 this video, I would like to take an opportunity. I have a problem with my

24 devices. They're being set, but I do have a problem. If I understood

25 correctly, we admitted document 914 as P174, but I see that there are

1 three documents: There's an article, a list of parties who took part to

2 this convention on the new Yugoslavia, and a third document with a map. I

3 don't really understand. Maybe it's the same map that we were shown on

4 the screen. So I would like to know exactly what has been admitted. Is

5 it just the article? I'm a bit confused.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Prosecutor, for 914,

7 we have three documents. You're asking for all three documents to be

8 admitted as my colleague, my fellow Judge, just asked. The first document

9 is an article dated January 3rd, starting with our only Nobel Prize and so

10 on and so forth; then the second document is a list of all attendees who

11 took part to the convention; and the third document where we find that

12 map, which is the same map that will we have as number 915. And above

13 this map there is an article, and that is document in B/C/S, and we also

14 have photographs and so on and so forth.

15 So 914, are you asking for all documents to be admitted, since 915

16 is the map after all? Is this what you want?

17 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I want to have admitted only the third article

18 which contains the map.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, you're only asking

20 for the third article to be admitted, the one with the map. For the two

21 others, you're not asking for admission. Very well. We will proceed in

22 this fashion.

23 Mr. Registrar --

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think, Judge, that you, as the

25 Trial Chamber, can also ex officio admit this list of political parties

1 that participated in the convention about the third Yugoslavia. The

2 witness spoke about this. He mentioned the Serbian Radical Party was also

3 involved, that he saw me, that I spoke there. I believe it's important

4 for you to have in evidence a list of all political parties that were

5 involved. This was discussed. Maybe it doesn't suit the Prosecutor, but

6 you can admit it ex officio.

7 MR. MUSSEMEYER: If the accused wants to also have this admitted,

8 I have no objection.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Then we will admit

10 the list and the document bearing the map, so we need two numbers.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The article with the map will

12 be or will continue to remain Exhibit P174, and the list will be Exhibit

13 P176. The map as a separate entity will be Exhibit P175.

14 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Can we please continue with the video. This is

15 65 ter number 6063A. The ERN number is V000 and then 0561 for the

16 interpreters.

17 [Videotape played]

18 "The Serbs in the Vukovar suburb ceased two policemen. The Croats

19 hit back."

20 "[No interpretation]

21 "Two buses of heavily armed Croat police drove confidently into

22 the Serb stronghold, straight into an ambush.

23 "[No interpretation]

24 "Twelve Croat policemen were killed, 22 wounded."

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, where does this

1 video come from? I saw a mention in English: "Seselj, paramilitary

2 leader." So where does it video come from, please?

3 MR. MUSSEMEYER: From my recollection, I'm not sure, but I think

4 it's from "Death of Yugoslavia", but I can check this.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] From BBC then.

6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: It should be. If you insist, I can check this

7 quite quickly.

8 Can we have this 65 ter number admitted into evidence. It's 65

9 ter number 6063A.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P177.

11 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

12 Q. My question to the witness now: Witness, do you know where the

13 volunteers --

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, the

15 Prosecutor must tell us the exact provenance of this video, from with

16 year, where was it broadcast, if it was broadcast. Without that this

17 footage means nothing.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Prosecution saw

19 the objection. Do you have any additional information to give us?

20 Apparently, it comes from the BBC. Now, do you have a broadcast date?

21 Maybe we could see it again. Maybe this would help us identify. Let's

22 have the video again, please. We will see the video again.

23 [Videotape played]

24 "[No interpretation]

25 "The Serbs in the Vukovar suburb seized two Croat policemen. The

1 Croats hit back.

2 "[No interpretation]

3 "Two buses of heavily armed Croat police drove confidently into

4 the Serb stronghold, straight into an ambush.

5 "[No interpretation]

6 "Twelve Croat policemen were killed, 22 wounded."

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. For the transcript,

8 I must say that there's no date on this video, but the interview is after

9 the event. That's obvious. However, knowing when this interview was

10 conducted and when it was broadcast, we have no element to know that.

11 MR. MUSSEMEYER: In the meantime, I could check. It's form, in

12 fact, "Death of Yugoslavia", from the BBC, and the date I have is March

13 1995.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] March 1995.

15 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This is correct.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this was broadcast in March

17 1995?

18 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The date of the source is March 1995. I don't

19 know when it was broadcasted. The Prosecution got it from BBC.

20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Did he make this interview, the

21 accused?

22 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I think we could see this. I don't understand

23 your question correctly, obviously.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Where was he talking, the

25 accused? Where was the accused talking? He was sitting, but where was

1 he? We could imagine in the video, but I believe that it must be in the

2 transcript. We must have it on the transcript.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. My fellow Judge's question

4 is essential and very important. We have a video showing Mr. Seselj in a

5 suit with a tie, sitting at a desk and relating what happened. The

6 question is the following: Is he giving an interview right after the

7 event or years after the event? And years after the event could be March

8 1995. That is the question.

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: It's my understanding, I don't know this for

10 sure, but more than one politician has been interviewed by BBC after the

11 events, and the BBC wanted to reconstruct what was the origin of these

12 wars in the former Yugoslavia. Among these, also the accused has been

13 interviewed, but this is an assumption I have. I'm not sure about it.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please continue.

15 We'll see all this later.

16 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

17 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please tell us, do you know where these

18 volunteers got the weapons from?

19 A. I don't know, because I didn't see that. I wasn't there. All I

20 know is from media reports like this one, where Mr. Seselj says that they

21 received weapons from the MUP of Serbia. That's what I heard. I never

22 saw it directly.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I don't trust videos,

24 because, you know, images can be construed to say whatever you want. But

25 we're talking about volunteers, and we have an individual and he's in

1 profile and not in front. You can't see his face, and he is loading his

2 gun. This man seems to be in a camouflage unit, but it's impossible to

3 say whether it's a civilian in a camouflage suit, whether it's a military

4 serviceman, whether it's a volunteer or a Martian. We don't know. But

5 when we have the commentary in English, you can draw the conclusion that

6 it is a volunteer, but it could be just anyone.

7 You saw the image just like I did. Do you have anything to add,

8 supplement, deduct, in relation to what is said in this video as a

9 commentary?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I was asked

11 whether I know whom the volunteers got their weapons from, whether it was

12 the MUP of Serbia. I said I don't know exactly. I had no insight into

13 that.

14 From the footage that was shown, I can only say that Mr. Seselj

15 said they were receiving their weapons from the MUP, the Ministry of

16 Interior, of Serbia. Whether the person on the video was a volunteer or

17 somebody else, I can't say, because there were all sorts of people wearing

18 all sorts of uniforms, from all sorts of places in the battlefield. Just

19 on basis of the video, I can't say who the man is and to whom he belongs.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for this

21 detail.

22 Prosecution, please.

23 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

24 Q. Mr. Witness, what was your position at that time? Have you still

25 been for a peaceful solution or for a solution by force?

1 A. Well, we, as a group in Western Slavonia, insisted and pursued

2 peaceful solution, talks, and dialogue; and after all this, we went to

3 meet Croatian intellectuals in Zagreb, those what participated in the

4 forum with us, to try to find together a way out of that situation which

5 was threatened by an all-out conflict.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I feel that the

7 Prosecution is not coming back on Borovo Selo. What I want to know,

8 according to what you knew at the time, we see that Croatian policemen

9 were brought in two buses. There was a fight; and according to the video,

10 it seems that they were ambushed. Could you tell us what happened,

11 exactly?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot claim with

13 certainty what happened there because I was some 250 kilometres away, but

14 from what I heard in the media was that the conflict occurred. A lot was

15 written about it in Croatian media and Serbian media. One side said that

16 Chetniks killed Croatian policemen; whereas, others said that two busloads

17 of policemen came to the village.

18 Now, when they entered the village, who started shooting first and

19 what happened, I can't say. I know only what I read in the newspapers.

20 All I know is that when they got off the buses, an all-out clash and

21 skirmish began, but I wasn't there and I can't tell you specifically what

22 happened.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, you're saying that

24 what was said at the time was that when the policemen got off the bus they

25 were shot at.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what the Croat press wrote.

2 Serbian press wrote was that as soon as they got off the buses, they

3 started shooting at the village and the Serbs responded. So we have two

4 versions, two different stories: One Serbian, one Croat.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, so there's two different

6 versions. Thank you.

7 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

8 Q. Have you been criticised for your peaceful approach, you and the

9 others?

10 A. Well, yes, especially after we went to talk with Tudjman. The

11 group of us who went experienced pressure from the Krajina, from Milan

12 Babic upwards, as well as extremists in Western Slavonia, saying that

13 there should be no negotiations with the Croats, that what we were doing

14 was treason, that it shouldn't be done. When through an initiative of the

15 Serbian Democratic Forum, we wanted to establish a permanent dialogue with

16 the Zagreb, seeking ways to find a peaceful solution to all this.

17 Q. Have you also been criticised from politicians from Serbia?

18 A. Well, later on, politicians from Serbia criticised me in the

19 course of the war in 1991; but at that time, when we were negotiating, I

20 don't remember any criticism coming from Serbia.

21 Q. You already referred to the media coverage of Borovo Selo. Could

22 you please give us a general overview. How were these events commented in

23 the Croatian media, and how were these events commented in the Serbian

24 media?

25 A. The Croatian media spoke of a Serbo-Chetnik rebellion, aggression

1 against Croatia, the killing of innocent Serbian policemen. They used the

2 worst possible names for the Serbs without sending any kind of messages

3 seeking a peaceful solution.

4 As for the Serbian media, they spoke about the attacks by the

5 police on the Serbian population, that they had attacked the local

6 population, and these were the two stories that started spreading around.

7 Q. What was Mr. Seselj's role in the media? Can you tell us?

8 A. At the time, when he spoke about Borovo Selo, to the best of my

9 recollection, it was to defend the Serb villages and the Serb people from

10 that kind of police and that kind of aggression. That was the gist of it.

11 Q. What kind of comments? How would you characterise these comments?

12 Were they tolerant or were they different?

13 A. I did not experience them as being tolerant. Mr. Seselj is a

14 vehement speaker. His speeches can be fiery; and when he spoke, it was

15 not something that the Croats found pleasant to listen to. Some Serbs

16 were happy that someone was protecting their interests and responding in

17 this way to the messages coming from Croatia.

18 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to have now the Exhibit -- or the 65

19 ter number 128, a video clip, on the screen. For the interpreters, the

20 ERN is V000-5022.

21 [Videotape played]

22 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]

23 "Vojislav Seselj: Croatia Ustashas are defeated. Vukasin

24 Soskocanin led the resistance in Borovo Selo, and Ustashas didn't.

25 "Audience: Revenge, revenge.

1 "Vojislav Seselj: It's too much. We have to get back because

2 we're threatened by a new genocide. We have to go back to the old, the

3 Ustasha policies of Stjepan Mesic.

4 "Audience: We will kill Mesic.

5 "Vojislav Seselj: Ante Markovic.

6 "Audience: Ante Ustasha. Ante Ustasha. Tito Ustasha.

7 "Vojislav Seselj: "... of the Serbian people, Dr. Milan Babic.

8 Serbs from the Serbian Krajina will not remain alone and unprotected.

9 "Audience: That's right.

10 "Vojislav Seselj: Hundreds of thousands at every moment ... the

11 words, and then to leave, and Serbia to remain definitely dismembered.

12 The Serbs will never accept any kind of confederation. We, in

13 Yugoslavia... which is above the interests of the Serbian people."

14 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Can I please have this video tendered into

15 evidence.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P178.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The Prosecutor did not

18 tell us what this video represents, what date it is. You can see that

19 it's very cut up, and you can't really tell what I'm talking about. The

20 only thing that is incontestable is that it is me in the video.

21 Everything else is in dispute.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is the date,

23 Mr. Prosecutor?

24 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The date - I don't have the exact date - but it's

25 from 1991. It's a video which the Prosecution got from the RRD [as

1 interpreted] Studio in Vienna. Sorry.

2 JUDGE HARHOFF: So was this video from before the incident in

3 Borovo Selo?

4 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Your Honour, I think the tone was not very good

5 because the accused was referring to the events in Borovo Selo, so it must

6 have been after Borovo Selo.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: And Borovo Selo was in 1992, wasn't it?

8 MR. MUSSEMEYER: No. It was the 2nd May 1991.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry.

10 MR. MUSSEMEYER: But I'm not quite happy with the tone which was

11 not coming out like I was used to hearing it on my computer, but it's not

12 necessary to repeat it.

13 Q. I would like to have the witness comment if this kind of speech

14 was typical for the accused or not.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. The Prosecutor didn't

16 tell us where this was filmed. My impression was that it was filmed

17 somewhere in Germany because he got the footage from German television.

18 He has to know where, if he doesn't know when, this was filmed.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does the Prosecution know where

20 it was filmed because ARD that's a German channel. They may have a studio

21 in Vienna but it is an a German channel, and they are the ones that have

22 filmed this.

23 Witness, did you see this video at the time it, this excerpt?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw this video clip in the

25 Prosecution.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As to the date, do you have one,

2 or roughly, and the location?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was in front of the

4 Yugoslav Assembly in Belgrade, as for the place; but as for the date, I

5 can't say. Judging by the way people were dressed, I would say it was not

6 in winter. It was sometime in the summer, but that's all I can conclude.

7 I wasn't there.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Borovo Selo was on the 2nd of

9 May, 1991, so it might have been around May, June, July, around that time?

10 It looked as if it was summer. I didn't see any coats or snow, so it must

11 have been in the summer.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At any rate, Mr. Seselj knows

14 perfectly well when it was filmed.

15 So let's go ahead.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to object

17 again. The witness said here that the first time he saw this footage was

18 when he was shown the video in the OTP. How, then, can it be presented

19 through the witness? All that the witness can say is that the Prosecution

20 really showed him the video clip. The Prosecutor has to bring in someone

21 who was there, not just to show the witness the footage in the OTP and

22 then the witness can testify about it. I don't think he can; but if he

23 can, I withdraw my objection.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. Because you did not hear

25 that the Prosecution then asked a question based on the speech you made

1 before the parliament. The Prosecution had asked whether there was a

2 typical speech you made at the time, so I think that was the purpose of

3 your question.

4 Was that the question you had put? If it is so, just put it

5 again.

6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Exactly. This was the question I put. If I can

7 repeat it.

8 Q. I wanted to know from the witness if this kind of speech, like we

9 have seen here from the accused, was typical for him at that time.

10 A. Yes, it was.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Typical, how typical? I

12 listened carefully to the speech, just as everybody did. There are two

13 moments in the speech. There is what he said, and there was also what the

14 people were shouting. What is typical? Can you qualify the typical

15 features that you may have heard in other speeches?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that a question for me?

17 Yes, I think so. At the time, words were often used by Serbs.

18 The word "Ustasha" and the word "Chetnik" was often used by Croats.

19 Mr. Seselj would often refer to the leading people in Croatia as

20 "Ustashas."

21 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

22 Q. Could you please explain as to whom Seselj was referring when he

23 used the word "Ustasha"?

24 A. Well, from this text, one can see that he used that label to refer

25 to Ante Markovic, who was the federal Prime Minister at the time, and

1 Mesic was the president of the Presidency of the then Rump Yugoslavia.

2 Q. Did he make a difference between Croats and Ustasha?

3 A. Well, you couldn't really call those two men Ustasha, so I don't

4 think he did.

5 Q. Is it correct if he referred to all Croats as Ustasha?

6 A. I can't say that, because he does refer to Croats. He also refers

7 to Ustasha. So he wasn't generalising, saying that all a Croats were

8 Ustasha, but that people representing Croatia, such as Mesic and Ante

9 Markovic and probably others were.

10 Q. Can you please tell us, the use of the word "Ustasha," what does

11 it evoke in a normal Serb inhabitant?

12 A. Well, the word "Ustasha," among all Serbs, is the worst thing you

13 can mention, because throughout their history it was the Ustasha who

14 committed the greatest crimes against Serbs. So the very word evokes very

15 ugly, very bad memories.

16 Q. Can we say that it is a reference to the tragic events which the

17 Serbs had to suffer during World War II?

18 A. Yes, precisely so. In the course of World War II, Ustasha

19 committed genocide against the Serbs in Croatia.

20 Q. Mr. Witness, I would like to know from you if you ever heard the

21 expression "Greater Serbia," and what does that mean?

22 A. Yes. I did hear the expression "Greater Serbia." It referred to

23 the territory bounded by Serbia and going up to the --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is moving to

25 another topic whilst he has showed us this video footage. I wanted to

1 come back to this video footage for some questions.

2 I have here in front of me the words expressed to the crowd by

3 Mr. Seselj, and he does mention the Ustashas, and you answered a question

4 about this.

5 But the crowd shouted, "Revenge, revenge." Obviously, it's not

6 him who is evoking revenge, and Mr. Seselj answered: "It's too much."

7 Then he mentioned the name of Mr. Mesic. The crowd starts

8 screaming, "We want to kill Mesic."

9 Seselj did not answer to that, and he gave the name of Ante

10 Markovic.

11 Then the crowd said, "Ante Ustasha. Tito Ustasha." And the

12 crowd, in a loop, kept repeating that.

13 Then he spoke about Mr. Babic, who was going to protect the Serbs

14 in Krajina. The crowd said, "Good."

15 That is the speech as it took place. Of course, you can read it

16 in various ways. Somebody who is neutral and who sees this footage and

17 its contents for the first time can see it in a special way, but I was

18 struck by the fact that the crowd was quite excited.

19 Was it the general feeling at the time?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The Serbs were

21 afraid of the Ustasha and of the Croatian policies, and the very mention

22 of Ustasha evoked such strong emotions among them. I don't think it was

23 easy to control that among the Serbs. These emotions arose because of the

24 bad memories.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has the witness finished answering?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I think the main problem is

3 that this footage has been cut up. I don't think it's possible for me to

4 speak in such a vague way without it being understood what I was saying.

5 I'll tell you that this happened on the 15th of May, 1991, and it was a

6 speech I gave in front of the national assembly, the Federal Assembly,

7 against the election of Stipe Mesic as the president of the Presidency.

8 The rally was convened to oppose his election.

9 The Prosecutor could have found this out had he bothered to

10 investigate. He could have looked at the press, the media.

11 The rally was against Stipe Mesic. The speech made sense. I

12 assure you I was never drunk, at least not in front of a crowd, and I was

13 never in a situation where you couldn't understand what I was saying. So

14 the entire footage had to be shown.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So given Mr. Seselj's

16 observations, Witness, 15th of May, 1991, was there an election problem

17 with regard to the Federal Presidency where Mesic was a candidate? Is

18 this the way it was? Because was the speech a reaction a direct reaction

19 to the Borovo Selo event, or was this a much more general speech, in

20 which, incidentally, the question of Borovo Selo was addressed? What do

21 you remember?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know the

23 precise date when this speech was made in front of the Assembly. It's

24 possible it may have been on that occasion because I know there really was

25 a problem about the election of Stipe Mesic and that there was enormous

1 resistance from the representatives in that federal body. I also know

2 that Borovo Selo could have been mentioned because this all happened right

3 after these events. But as I said, I wasn't there.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well for this answer. One

5 thing has to be clarified. The people are shouting, "Revenge," a number

6 of times, and I wondered are they saying revenge in relation to the Borovo

7 Selo event or was it revenge in relation to what the Ustashas did during

8 World War II? What do you think?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, looking at this footage, I

10 think it was linked more to World War II when a heinous crime was

11 committed, and now there was again a threat which provoked such reactions

12 in people. I think this was a reference to World War II, not to Borovo

13 Selo.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Judge, this is evidently

15 speculation, which is not permissible in the proceedings. The witness

16 doesn't know anything about this. He's speculating. He says, "I think,"

17 "I don't think."

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is recorded.

19 Last question: The Borovo Selo event, did it have a major impact,

20 I mean, considerable impact, on the media and the public opinion at the

21 time, or was it something as there are, unfortunately, many events in our

22 world today, or was it a truly traumatic thing?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that after Pakrac and

24 Plitvice, which occurred before Borovo Selo, Borovo Selo was the most

25 vehement clash where the most lives were lost, and this evoked fear and

1 disbelief and all kinds of other feelings among people. This was the

2 third incident but the worst, and it happened in Eastern Slavonia.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have ten minutes.

4 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

5 Q. I would like now to change the issue and would go to Greater

6 Serbia. So I already asked the witness, but we didn't get an answer, if

7 he has ever heard of the expression "Greater Serbia," and what does that

8 mean?

9 A. Yes. I have heard the expression "Greater Serbia." It was

10 considered to be the territory of Serbia across Bosnia; and after Croatia,

11 along the Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica line. I may have skipped some

12 names, but it is a well-known slogan. It was seen as the border of

13 Greater Serbia.

14 Q. Who used this expression?

15 A. Mr. Seselj used that expression.

16 Q. Was it exclusively him from the famous Serbian politicians?

17 A. Among the well-known ones, I think it was only him.

18 Q. Do you know if Mr. Milosevic ever used this expression?

19 A. I never heard him use it.

20 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I would like to ask the registrar to show us the

21 65 ter number 4270 on the screen. It is a map, and we have this map also

22 in the mapping binder. It's map number 5.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that we've already

24 seen this map, and I'm even wondering if we have not already admitted this

25 map.

1 Please continue.

2 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

3 Q. Mr. Witness, is the black line you can see on this map, is this

4 the Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica line?

5 A. Yes. It's been drawn according to the names of the towns and

6 villages mentioned. It's probably not that straight; but from the names,

7 that would be the border.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, we

9 already had this problem when expert witness Tomic was being questioned.

10 This is a Times map. It's not a map published in Serbia advocated by the

11 Serbian Radical Party. The Prosecutor has the original map, not the hand

12 drawn caricature, but the original map.

13 I said, for example, that Sisak was never within Greater Serbia,

14 but the person who did this for the Times included it in Greater Serbia.

15 Let's not waste time with this map.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, this had been mentioned

17 when we had the expert witness. So we know problems involved in this map,

18 but the important thing is to know whether the black line that's on this

19 map corresponds to this Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica line. The

20 witness can say "yes" or "no."

21 Witness, you see this line. There's a black line on this map. Is

22 this the border?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I've already said, a

24 straight line has been drawn from Karlobag to Ogulin -- Karlobag, Ogulin,

25 Karlovac, Virovitica. The real border is probably not a straight line.

1 It's just been drawn from one town to another to designate where the

2 border of Greater Serbia would be.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I insist, Mr. President, that the

4 witness be shown the original border of Greater Serbia and not for us to

5 waste time on this.

6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: With this map, I only wanted to give a great

7 overview. It's not detailed, but we will come to the real map later.

8 Q. Did you hear Mr. Seselj personally speaking about Greater Serbia?

9 A. Yes. I saw him speaking about it on television.

10 Q. Can you give us the time period when he spoke about this?

11 A. It was in the course of 1991.

12 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I don't know if time permits, but I would like to

13 have another video clip, which is number 6014, 65 ter number. For the

14 interpreters, it's V000-0739.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MR. MUSSEMEYER: I think this is not the right one.

17 [Videotape played].

18 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]

19 "Vojislav Seselj: As far as we are concerned, the Croats can

20 leave Yugoslavia any time they want, but we are letting them know openly

21 that they will not take an inch of Serbian territory, not a single piece

22 of land on which there are Serbian villages, demolished churches, caves

23 and pits in which Serbs were butchered, Serbian camps, Serbian killing

24 fields such as Jasenovac.

25 "Should we permit that, we would be unworthy of our glorious

1 ancestors and shamed before our descendants. The Croats may create their

2 new state but only to the west of the Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica

3 line. Everything east of that line is Serbian. We shall not allow the

4 Croats to manipulate the Bunjevci Serbs and the Sokci Serbs. They are

5 Catholic Serbs who, we hope, will soon realise what kind of role the

6 Vatican and the Ustasha leadership has in store for them against the

7 Serbian people."

8 MR. MUSSEMEYER: For the registrar, this video clip has already

9 been admitted. It has the number P14. It comes from Mr. Seselj's

10 testimony in Milosevic where the documents have already been admitted.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ask your last question, because

12 we have to finish on time.

13 MR. MUSSEMEYER:

14 Q. Mr. Witness, were only Serbs living south of this line?

15 A. No. There were also Croats, Hungarians, Czechs, and other

16 minorities, Muslims as well, Bosniaks.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A slight error, Mr. Prosecutor.

18 I am told that this exhibit was not admitted. Are you asking for this

19 exhibit to be given a number? P14 must be another footage.

20 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This is a shorter version of P14.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will give a number to the

22 shorter version.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P179.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, if the

25 question is to be put to the witness based on this footage, we have to

1 know from where the footage comes and from what time.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor should look into

3 that. Maybe the best is to deal with this next week, Tuesday, at 8.30

4 a.m. So, at 8.30 a.m., you will tell us exactly what was the date and the

5 location where this footage taken, and you will continue with your

6 examination-in-chief.

7 MR. MUSSEMEYER: If you don't mind, I have the dates.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Quickly then.

9 MR. MUSSEMEYER: This video is from the 21st of April, 1991, and

10 the Prosecution got this video from the Ministry of Interior from Zagreb.

11 If I see the date, it might be of the meeting at -- I don't know how to

12 pronounce it, but there was a meeting on the 21st of April -- no, I don't

13 remember the name exactly. I can give it to you later. I don't want to

14 make a mistake.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm always ready to assist,

17 Mr. President. That was a rally in Jagodnjak near Beli Manastir in

18 Baranja. And if you have finished with the examination for today, I wish

19 to raise an objection as -- or raise an issue, as this morning, you told

20 me about the irrelevance of the questions put in the cross-examination of

21 expert witness Tomic. You lectured me on it.

22 I wish to raise the issue of the relevance of all the evidence and

23 questions put forward by the Prosecutor today. I put relevant questions

24 following the pattern established by the Prosecutor. So far, we have had

25 nothing relevant to the indictment brought against me, either as regards

1 the time period or the substance of the matter.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have taken note

3 of this and it's on the transcript. We will now adjourn.

4 I say good-bye to your associates. I don't know if they will be

5 back in the courtroom next week. Maybe we'll have the pleasure of having

6 them in the courtroom next week. Maybe they'll come back some other day.

7 The Trial Chamber will try and solve the problem of the associates

8 and their funding. We will discuss this among ourselves.

9 So please come back next week for the next hearing on Tuesday at

10 8.30 a.m.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.16 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day

13 of February, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25