Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11958

 1                           Thursday, 20 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The witness entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 8.32 a.m.

 5                           [The accused entered court]

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

 7     case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.

10             This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus

11     Vojislav Seselj.

12             Thank you, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             Today is Thursday, November 20th, 2008.  Good morning to the

15     witness.  Good morning to the OTP representatives.  Good morning to

16     Mr. Seselj, and good morning to everyone assisting us in this case.

17             Before I ask the witness to take the solemn declaration, I'm

18     going to refer to two decisions that will be filed in a few minutes.  I'm

19     going to read out the operative part of these decisions, because the

20     decisions, as such, are quite long.  So I'm not going to read them out in

21     their entirety.  I'm just going to read out the operative part of these

22     decisions.

23             The first ruling relates to the motion of the OTP to apply 92 ter

24     to VS-1035.  The Trial Chamber dismisses the Prosecutor's motion and

25     decides, first of all, to hear Witness VS-1035 viva voce, and to grant

Page 11959

 1     one hour and a half to the Prosecution and an hour and a half to the

 2     accused for the purpose of the cross-examination.  That's what I had to

 3     say for Witness VS-1035.

 4             Now, decision related to the Prosecution's motion to hear Witness

 5     Sulejman Tihic pursuant to Rule 92 ter.  The Trial Chamber has ruled as

 6     follows:

 7             The Trial Chamber dismisses the motion and decides, first of all,

 8     to hear Witness Sulejman Tihic viva voce, and to give an hour to the

 9     Prosecution and one hour to the accused.  That's all.

10             These decisions will be translated in due course, but I wanted to

11     inform you all about these decisions immediately.

12             Witness, would you please stand.

13             Please state your last name, first name, and date of birth.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anna-Maria Radic.  I was born on

15     the 2nd of September, 1969, in Germany, Florsheim.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  If the interpreter heard correctly.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current

18     occupation?

19     THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm head of the Administration for

20     Areas of Special State Concern in the Ministry of Regional Development

21     of Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Croatia.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Witness, have you ever

23     testified before a court of law with respect to the events that took

24     place in the former Yugoslavia, or is it going to be the first time

25     today?

Page 11960

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time today.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Please read the

 3     solemn declaration.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 5     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6                           WITNESS:  ANNA-MARIA RADIC

 7                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  You may be seated.

 9             Let me give you some information about the way we are going to

10     proceed, because we don't want you to be surprised by what's going to

11     happen at any point in time.

12             First of all, you will have to answer questions put to you by the

13     representative of the OTP.  You've probably met her before coming to

14     testify here.  She will put a number of questions to you, based on your

15     report and based most probably on a number of documents that will be

16     shown to you.  During that phase of the proceedings, it may very well

17     happen that the three Judges sitting before you ask you follow-up

18     questions in order to further explore some of the topics you examine in

19     your report.

20             As a rule, this first stage of the testimony runs extremely

21     smoothly for the witness.  But when it comes to the second stage of the

22     testimony, to the cross-examination, it may be rather trying for the

23     witness, because the Defence cross-examining the Prosecution witness

24     inevitably asks questions related to the credibility of the witness and

25     to the substance of the statement of the witness or of the report of the

Page 11961

 1     witness, when the witness is an expert witness.  As a result, this part

 2     of the testimony may be trying, but that's the way things have been

 3     provided for by the Rules.

 4             Since you are dealing here in your testimony with technical

 5     matters, I'm going to ask you, Witness, to be as specific as possible in

 6     your answers.  If a question is not clear enough to you, please ask the

 7     one asking the question to rephrase it.

 8             We have breaks every 90 minutes.  We'll have our first break of

 9     20 minutes at 10.00 a.m., and then we'll have a second break later.  We

10     have an hour and 20 minutes before the first break, and Ms. Biersay will

11     most probably be able to complete her examination-in-chief before the

12     break.

13             I wanted to tell you all this for your testimony to run as

14     smoothly as possible.

15             Ms. Biersay, good morning again, and you have the floor.

16             MS. BIERSAY:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Thank you.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

18                           Examination by Ms. Biersay:

19        Q.   Could you please give the Court the full name of the organisation

20     for which you work currently?

21        A.   Currently, I work for the Ministry of Regional Development.

22     Within that Ministry, there is the Department for Areas of Special State

23     Concern.  It's recently changed as far as its name is concerned.  It was

24     called the Administration for the Return of Displaced Persons, Returnees

25     and Refugees.

Page 11962

 1        Q.   Is that entity the successor entity to the Office for Displaced

 2     Persons and Refugees?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And in abbreviated form, is it often referred to as the ODPR?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So if I use that acronym, ODPR, can we agree that it would

 7     include your current place of employment as well as all the predecessor

 8     entities?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   You prepared a report for this case, the Seselj case; is that

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Was that a report that was limited to the Seselj case or was it

14     also prepared with consideration for another case?

15        A.   It was prepared with another case in mind, Simatovic.  It's

16     another case that has yet to start.  So, in fact, I drafted one single

17     report, since according to the requests of the Prosecution in another

18     case, the subject I had to deal with overlapped.  So it was easier and

19     better for me, in fact, to just draft one single report.

20        Q.   Directing your attention to the binder I believe that you have

21     to -- it's marked -- it's 65 ter number 7415.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, could you speak closer

23     to the microphone.  The interpreters have a hard time hearing your voice.

24             MS. BIERSAY:

25        Q.   Do you recognise the document 65 ter number 7415?

Page 11963

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   What do you recognise it to be?

 3        A.   Well, it's this report of mine, if I'm not mistaken, if I can see

 4     the numbers correctly.

 5        Q.   So it's in your binder, and it comes after the number 7415?

 6        A.   [In English] Yes, I got it, I got it.  [Interpretation] Yes,

 7     I can see the document.  This is the report that I prepared.

 8        Q.   In your report, specifically in section 2, do you describe the

 9     evolution of the directorate for areas outside areas of special state

10     concern, the evolution from that entity -- the evolution of the ODPR into

11     your current employers and organisation?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Was there, throughout the years and throughout the transitions

14     that you describe in section 2, was there continuity as far as the

15     transfer of records, data and archives from one entity to the next?

16        A.   Yes.  Well, in fact, that organisation, which was initially the

17     governmental Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees, fully took over

18     the database and the entire archives of the previous office.  With those

19     archives and the database, it had competence for certain fields of

20     activity; and there's a department in one ministry and there's the

21     structure of the ministry's change would become part of another ministry,

22     that it continued to deal with those activities that concerned refugees.

23     And refugees is a subject dealt with in this report.

24        Q.   Was there also continuity in personnel from one entity to the

25     next?

Page 11964

 1        A.   Yes, there was continuity of personnel, naturally.  Since we're

 2     talking about a governmental body, some people left that system, that

 3     body, but a significant number stayed on in that department from the very

 4     beginning.

 5        Q.   And for how long have you been with the department in the field

 6     of displaced persons and refugees?

 7        A.   Since 1994.

 8        Q.   Directing your attention to page 1 of your report, does that

 9     describe -- does that give us an overview of your responsibilities within

10     the ODPR over the years?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   When you were asked to prepare the joint report that you

13     submitted for the Seselj case and the Stanisic/Simatovic case, were you

14     asked to do that in your capacity as director?

15        A.   No, no.  I was asked to do that before.  Or, rather, the

16     government designated me in accordance with the Prosecution request for

17     me to testify in this case, and in this way I was to prepare this report.

18        Q.   What was the purpose of this report?

19        A.   Well, the purpose of the report was to deal with the subject of

20     expelled persons from the area of Croatia that had been affected by the

21     war from 1991 until 1995.

22        Q.   Does your report cover any other geographical area outside of the

23     Republic -- the former Republic of Croatia?

24        A.   In part of the report, I address the issue of refugees from

25     Serbia.  This was in accordance with the Prosecution request, since this

Page 11965

 1     department or administration that I work in, the ODPR, among other things

 2     took care of refugees from neighbouring countries as well for a certain

 3     period of time.

 4        Q.   Could you define for the Trial Chamber, please, the term

 5     "displaced persons," as compared to "refugees"?

 6        A.   When defining these terms, one took over the definitions used for

 7     refugees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.  It has to do with

 8     the status of refugees and with the relevant protocols.  So there is a

 9     difference that has to be made, a distinction.  When you talk about

10     displaced persons, one is referring to internally-displaced persons who

11     remain within the borders of the state of which they are citizen, so in

12     fact they had to leave their place of residence and move to another

13     place.  But when the term "refugees" is used, then we are talking about

14     people who, for the very same reasons, namely, threats to their lives,

15     left the state of which they are citizens.  And when we talk about

16     refugees in Croatia, we are talking about people who have come from

17     Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, on the whole, at least when we're

18     talking about registered refugees.

19             According to our legal provisions, refugees are also considered

20     to be people who left Croatia and moved to other countries; for example,

21     they spent some time in Germany, and having returned -- they had some

22     kind of refugee status over there, but having returned, they had the

23     right to have the status of returnees, and that included expelled persons

24     when they returned to their homes.  In such cases, they would gain the

25     status of returnees.

Page 11966

 1        Q.   I'd like to briefly go over the structure of the report.

 2     Directing your attention to section 6 of the report, does that section

 3     describe the data source used in your report?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And section 7 describes -- does that describe the data collection

 6     methodology used in the report?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Sections 9 through 12, do those sections detail the data,

 9     statistics and analysis on displaced persons within the former occupied

10     territories of the Republic of Croatia?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I'd like to direct your attention to section 10 of your report.

13     I believe in meeting yesterday, you made a correction to a date that

14     appeared there.

15        A.   Yes.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection.  Any

17     correction introduced from the preparation session, from the proofing,

18     should have been provided to me in written form.  Nothing was done in

19     this respect.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, was Mr. Seselj

21     notified that a date was going to be amended in the report?

22             MS. BIERSAY:  Your Honour, it's less -- the date is correct in

23     another part of the report.  The correction is with respect to one

24     section of the report.  We finished proofing yesterday at around 5.00,

25     and it made sense to do it orally today in court, and it's not a

Page 11967

 1     substantial change.  The change is to be consistent with another part of

 2     the report.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  If it's just a simple

 4     typo, please tell us what it is.  What page is it on?

 5             MS. BIERSAY:  In e-court, it will be page 27, and in your binder,

 6     it will be marked page 26 of 47.

 7        Q.   So if I could direct your attention to the second paragraph of

 8     section 10, specifically to the second sentence that begins:  "On 1st

 9     August 1994 ..."   Is that date correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Should it read "1994"?

12        A.   Yes, that sentence appears somewhere at the beginning of the

13     report, and it's quite clear that we're talking about the year 1991.

14     This is quite simply a typo.

15        Q.   Okay, let me see if I can understand.  The second sentence in the

16     second paragraph in section 10 currently reads, in English:  "On 1st

17     August 1994 ..."   Is that year correct?

18        A.   No.  It should say "1991."

19        Q.   Now, if I could direct your attention, and for the Trial Chamber

20     it would read page 2 of 47 in your binder, in e-court it would be page 3

21     in the English version, the top of that page reads:  "From 9.683 persons

22     on 1st August 1991 ..."  Is that what you mean when you say in another

23     part of the report it appears correctly, the date?

24        A.   Yes, yes.

25        Q.   And the final section in your report, section 13, does that

Page 11968

 1     section describe the data pertaining to refugees from Vojvodina?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   In your report, you refer to 11 tables; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And those tables are attached and incorporated in your report; is

 6     that correct?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   With respect -- setting aside table 1 for now, but for tables 2,

 9     3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, where did the data come from with respect

10     to those tables?

11        A.   As far as tables 2, 3 and 4, these documents are original

12     documents.  It also concerns 5 and 6.  These are original documents of

13     the ODPR from the period referred to in the tables.  So these are

14     original documents.  As far as 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are concerned, well,

15     similarly these are tables that were made by extracting data from the

16     ODPR database.  This was done on the basis of information or records that

17     are kept in an electronic form on refugees in the Republic of Croatia

18     from 1994.

19        Q.   Now, going back to table 1, where did the data for that table

20     come from?

21        A.   The main data was obtained from the State Institute for

22     Statistics in Croatia.  It was in accordance or on the basis of the

23     census of 1991, but it was compiled in a way to reflect the current

24     territorial and administrative structure of the Republic of Croatia.  So

25     it was done on the basis of the towns, municipalities and counties that

Page 11969

 1     are now in the Republic of Croatia, and it relates exclusively to areas

 2     that were occupied or directly affected by the war, up until 1995, or

 3     1998 if we're talking about Croatian Podunavlje.

 4        Q.   Now, you described where the underlying data came from.  Who

 5     actually created the table, itself?

 6        A.   I created it.

 7        Q.   Were you independent in creating this report?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And you've previously described that the report details the

10     methodology that you used in its creation; is that correct?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   And the results are based on -- with respect to the tables 2

13     through 11 are based on the official records kept by your employer; is

14     that correct?

15        A.   Correct.

16             MS. BIERSAY:  At this time, the Prosecution moves for the

17     admission of 65 ter number 7415.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall determine the matter

19     at the end.

20             MS. BIERSAY:  For ease of reference, would the Court like to

21     assign an MFI number?

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that might be a good idea.

23             Mr. Registrar, an MFI number.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be marked for

25     identification as Exhibit number P632.  Thank you.

Page 11970

 1             MS. BIERSAY:

 2        Q.   Now, your -- in section 1 of your report, you describe your

 3     professional responsibilities.  Could you briefly describe for the Trial

 4     Chamber your educational background, please?

 5        A.   I finished primary and secondary school in Split, and received

 6     university education in Zagreb at the School of Philosophy, majoring in

 7     Sociology.  So I'm, in fact, a sociologist.  I am still at post-graduate

 8     studies at the School of Political Science of the University of Zagreb.

 9     According to the Bologna agreement, it's the equivalent of a Master

10     degree.

11             MS. BIERSAY:  Now, Mr. Registrar, I will be asking for the

12     English page 51 and the B/C/S page 34 of MFI P632 in a moment.

13        Q.   If we could now talk about tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in general

14     terms.  The ODPR data depicted in those tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, from

15     what time period does that data come from?

16        A.   These tables are from 1992.  That is the time indicated on the

17     document.

18        Q.   I'm sorry, you said "1992"?

19        A.   Yes, 1992.

20        Q.   And in what months of 1992?

21        A.   The first table and the second and the third tables are for March

22     1992.

23        Q.   In March 1992, was there a formal registration of displaced

24     persons within the then Republic of Croatia?

25        A.   Not yet.  The first formal registration was done in April 1992.

Page 11971

 1     At that time, people who were coming as displaced persons would report to

 2     the competent regional offices, of which there had been 16 by that time

 3     in the Republic of Croatia, and they reported to centres for social

 4     welfare that exist in all large cities and municipalities in Croatia.

 5     There were more than a hundred of them.  They registered there, and they

 6     received a special ID for displaced persons.  And thus this data was

 7     statistically collected through regional offices into the Zagreb office.

 8        Q.   And what you just described was the situation that existed before

 9     April of 1992; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   So if we now look at table 2, English page 51, B/C/S page 34,

12     could you tell us what that first table represents?

13        A.   The first table represents the number of displaced persons as of

14     that date in the Republic of Croatia, broken down by the places where

15     they were accommodated in the Republic of Croatia.  Of course, these are

16     only major urban centres.

17        Q.   And could you give us the total number of those displaced

18     persons?

19        A.   335.792 persons.

20        Q.   Now directing your attention to the second table of -- on that

21     same page, is there also an illustration of the numbers of refugees from

22     Croatia who were accommodated in other countries?

23        A.   Yes, and the total number is 125.381.  This information was

24     collected in contacts with other states and with the assistance of the

25     UNHCR.  In fact, primarily the UNHCR and contacts with other states where

Page 11972

 1     refugees from Croatia were received and accommodated.

 2        Q.   The formal registration process that you describe as beginning in

 3     April of 1992, was that data put in an electronic database at that time

 4     in April of 1992?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   When was data pertaining to displaced persons and refugees put in

 7     electronic format?

 8        A.   In 1994, after re-registration of both displaced persons and

 9     refugees.  This was another -- after this first attempt at registration,

10     we tried to put data into an electronic database, but it turned out to be

11     impossible because we had not enough equipment and inadequate technology

12     to do that job.  It was necessary, first of all, to put information

13     collected in the field into the database.  And in that first attempt some

14     of the data was put in electronic form, some was not, so it didn't work

15     the first time.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a few technical

17     questions for you.

18             The first chart or table, we have 326.012 individuals that were

19     expelled or displaced.  Under that figure, we have a figure of 9.780

20     individuals that were not registered, and it said "Estimate" in the

21     chart.  How could you estimate that, because these people were not

22     registered.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So these 326.000 is the number of

24     persons registered, but at that time, unfortunately, there were people

25     who were not registered.  And on the basis of information available at

Page 11973

 1     that time from the field, it was estimated that the percentage of the

 2     unregistered was at least 3 per cent, and that's the basis for this

 3     estimate.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So 9.780 is a figure that was

 5     just given as an estimate with the 3 per cent rule.  In total, 335.782.

 6             Second chart, it deals with refugees that found themselves in

 7     Croatia and went to other countries.  So I guess that in this overall

 8     figure, we may find people who were, for instance, registered in

 9     Dubrovnik and went to Germany.  Do you agree with me?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, no.  Really not at

11     that time, because the Office for Displaced Persons that started issuing

12     displaced persons IDs was established only at the end of 1991.  You have

13     to understand that at that time, displaced persons were flowing in by the

14     thousands per day, and it was impossible to register them all at the same

15     time at the end of 1991.  The people reflected here were simply in one

16     place, somewhere else, and then went to foreign countries.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we could add the figures

18     from chart 1 to chart 2 and we would have an overall figure of 460.000

19     persons.  Do you agree with that figure?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How is it that among the

22     countries, we do not find Serbia?  Aren't there any refugees that went to

23     Serbia?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In another report that we will come

25     to later, numbers 3 and 4, reference is made also to refugees who left

Page 11974

 1     for Serbia.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One thing strikes me.  We have

 3     55.000 persons for Germany; in other words, the German Federal Republic

 4     had opened its borders widely to refugees.  Also in Hungary, because

 5     there we find 45.000 of them.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was precisely the case at

 7     that time, and that number of refugees remained stable in Germany for

 8     quite a long time.  They gave those people temporary refugee status and

 9     protection, and most of those people were in Germany until 1994, when an

10     agreement was signed between Croatia and Germany on the return of

11     refugees.

12             And after that, systematically, people started to come back.  And

13     the number of refugees even increased in Germany later with the arrival

14     of refugees from Bosnia and Croatia.  The number reflected here are only

15     refugees from Croatia.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How do you account for the fact

17     that Switzerland, which is the country with the status of refugees, we

18     only have 164 people there?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the official figure at the

20     time.  At the beginning, that's what Switzerland had.  Of course, later

21     the number increased significantly, but the Swiss, obviously like other

22     states, did not want to put forward estimates.  The numbers for other

23     states were mainly estimates, estimates either of the state's, such as

24     Switzerland, or of the UNHCR.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 11975

 1             MS. BIERSAY:

 2        Q.   You described the re-registration that occurred in 1994, which

 3     was also put into an electronic database.  Was there another registration

 4     that followed the one in 1994?

 5        A.   In 1997, there was a re-registration, because in the meantime

 6     some changes had occurred in the ranks of the refugees and displaced

 7     persons, because some had returned.

 8             MS. BIERSAY:  And if I could now have table 9, which is the

 9     English page 79 and the B/C/S page 65, please -- excuse me.  Actually, if

10     we could have table 7, the English at page 77 and the B/C/S at page 60.

11             And it's quite a sprawling sheet.  What I'd like to focus on is

12     the portion that says:  "County, Vukovar-Srem," and then the portion that

13     says:  "VS county, town of Vukovar."  So it's on the left side.

14        Q.   Do you have that in your binder?  It might be easier for you to

15     see.  It's in your binder?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And that one, it's called "Statistics of Expelled Persons," is

18     that correct, that table?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, after the re-registration process, was there another number

21     that was developed for total displaced persons?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   What was that number?

24        A.   After those several registration drives, we reached the number of

25     refugees expressed in this table.  That's 220.338 displaced persons, and

Page 11976

 1     they were displaced from the then occupied areas in Croatia in 1995, and

 2     displaced persons who came from areas adjacent to separation lines.

 3        Q.   According to your statistics and data, when were most of those

 4     people displaced?

 5        A.   From the statistics, we see clearly that most of those people had

 6     been displaced in that period up to the end of 1991; that is, from the

 7     summer until the end of 1991.  This number, reflecting the persons who

 8     were displaced from 1991 to 1995.  And if we're talking about Podunavlje,

 9     then through 1998, that is the peaceful reintegration of the Podunavlje

10     region, those people were displaced for seven years.  At the time that we

11     mentioned in earlier statistics dating back to 1992, the number of

12     displaced persons is much higher, because at that time the population

13     from major cities exposed to attacks also left their homes and left for

14     other areas of Croatia, seeking safety.

15        Q.   Could you tell us, in looking at this chart, the number of

16     displaced persons in the Vukovar-Srem county?

17        A.   The Vukovar-Srem county is divided into two spaces because of

18     different dates of displacement taken as criteria here.  The total number

19     for the Vukovar-Srem county is 32.470, plus there is a number strictly

20     for Vukovar, 23.174.

21             In looking at these numbers, we have to bear in mind that in the

22     meantime, 1.357 children were born, if we're talking about Vukovar.  And

23     if we are -- county -- if we're talking about Vukovar county, the number

24     of babies born was 2.250.  And that's how we reached the total number of

25     displaced persons for the Vukovar-Srem county.  That's 23.174 plus

Page 11977

 1     32.470.

 2        Q.   Based on your analysis of the data that you had at your disposal,

 3     were you able to determine the predominant group that was displaced?

 4        A.   Well, the largest group of refugees or displaced persons were

 5     expelled by that date.  If we are talking about Vukovar town, that's the

 6     18th November 1991.  If we are talking about the rest of the Vukovar-Srem

 7     county, that is, settlements around Vukovar, they were displaced by 20th

 8     October 1991.

 9        Q.   Could you tell us if most of these people were -- what ethnicity

10     were they, the ones who were displaced?

11        A.   The majority of displaced persons are Croats, as we can see from

12     table 9, with a proviso that in this total number, 25.215 -- that is,

13     205.215 Croats, and in Vukovar town and Vukovar county, we have 29.770

14     Croats plus 21.235 if we are talking about the town of Vukovar.  There

15     are some Serbs among the displaced persons, that should not be forgotten,

16     a total of 500 -- I'll try to calculate it now, 578 persons who were

17     Serbs.  The rest are members of other ethnic communities, ethnic

18     minorities who lived in that area of Croatia.  And precisely in that area

19     of Croatia, there were a lot of ethnic minorities; Hungarians,

20     Ruthenians.

21             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a general question

22     regarding these tables, especially their titles.

23             Indeed, they say "Expelled Persons," so that would -- or whose

24     departure or displacement would be motivated.  Was it possible to

25     determine whether these people were displaced because they'd been

Page 11978

 1     expelled or is it possible that somebody decided to leave voluntarily?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were people who were

 3     literally expelled.  They left their homes because of bombing, shelling,

 4     or direct entry of the military units of the JNA, or paramilitary units.

 5     So these people had to leave their homes.

 6             In some cases, like the notorious case of Vukovar, but also Ilok

 7     and some other places, several localities found themselves under siege,

 8     in complete encirclement, and these people were simply forced to leave.

 9     The army put them on buses, at least some of them, and deported them from

10     their towns and villages; and in many cases people simply ran from the

11     military units that were entering their places, and they had to leave

12     their homes.

13             Now, these people referred to here are expelled persons who found

14     shelter and accommodation in other areas of Croatia that were not

15     occupied at the time, and they were under the control of the legitimate

16     authorities of the Republic of Croatia.

17             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Therefore, you would agree with

18     me in saying that in these tables, you are using a very broad concept of

19     expellees?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not think it is a very broad

21     definition of expulsion that I'm using, because the concept of expulsion

22     coincides with the very substance of refugee status, as defined in the

23     conventions.  These are people who left their homes, fearing for their

24     lives, under direct threat.

25             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 11979

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one objection,

 2     Mr. President.

 3             I believe the Prosecution should, at least by the next break, get

 4     us the definition of "refugees" and the definition of "deported persons"

 5     from the Geneva Conventions, because through this report the Prosecution

 6     is offering us definitions from the Croatian legislation, and that's why

 7     we are confused between the terms "refugee" and "deported" or "expelled."

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This was the reason for

 9     Judge Lattanzi's questions.  Of course, if we ask questions, you must

10     understand that we have legal interrogations.

11             I don't think you have more than ten minutes left, so please come

12     to an end.

13             MS. BIERSAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14        Q.   The figures that you have just described, in your opinion, do

15     they capture all the persons who would fall under the definition of

16     displaced persons, when we're talking about the former Republic of

17     Croatia?

18        A.   These figures, since this is information contained in our

19     database, kept electronically from 1994 onwards, capture persons who were

20     expelled at that time and remained refugees for a long time, at least

21     from 1991 to 1995, or alternatively 1998.

22             However, this database does not contain persons who were refugees

23     from 1991 to 1994, April 1994, when this registration drive occurred, and

24     who in the meantime either left Croatia for third states and did not

25     return, but stayed in third countries, that is, they passed through

Page 11980

 1     Croatia in transit, and there was a certain number of persons who, for

 2     personal reasons best known to them, did not register.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you be more specific?

 4     While these are impressive figures, we do not intend to dispute them as

 5     to their volumes, but could you give a precise answer to this

 6     hypothetical question?  Let us imagine that we have a given village which

 7     is the target of a military JNA offensive.  Let us imagine that the

 8     inhabitants of that village leave it because they're being shot at.  The

 9     people leaving the village, are they regarded by you as expelled people?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, very well.

12             Let's assume that 40 kilometres away from that village, we have

13     another village, and in that village they find out that in the first

14     village, there was an attack by the JNA, and that in another village 30

15     kilometres away from there, people are leaving their homes.  This second

16     group of people, would you consider them as expellees?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1991, these people were also

18     considered -- or, rather, such people were also considered to be

19     refugees.  But our first decrees that precisely defined who could be

20     considered to be a refugee, well, these decrees were adopted in 1991 and

21     subsequently in 1992.  In 1992, the definition was that people from

22     places such as Osijek, which had been shelled at the time -- we're not

23     talking about a neighbouring village, but a major town that was directly

24     shelled, and many people, especially women with their children, left that

25     place, well, at that time the definition was those people couldn't be

Page 11981

 1     granted the status of refugees, since their homes had not been damaged

 2     and it was possible for them to return there.

 3             So in 1992, according to the rules in Croatia, only people who

 4     could not return to their homes were considered to be refugees, because

 5     their place of residence, their towns and villages, were totally occupied

 6     and under the control of Serbian units or --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, do not try to confuse

 8     matters, my question was very specific.  I gave you a very specific case,

 9     and I'm not asking you to tell us about various decrees or laws.  I'm

10     asking you whether -- if we have a village 40 kilometres away from the

11     first village, where people start leaving their home, although the JNA is

12     nowhere to be found, are the people that are leaving the second village

13     considered as refugees, according to you?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not just for that reason, not at

15     that point in time.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what about the case in

17     which the JNA does not go to that second village because that village is

18     of no interest to the JNA?  What about the village inhabitants who go and

19     have themselves registered in Zagreb; do you consider them as displaced

20     persons or as expellees?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They're not included in this figure

22     of 220.330 refugees.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So they can't be included

24     because they are able to return home?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

Page 11982

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, thank you.

 2             MS. BIERSAY:  At this time, the Prosecution has no further

 3     questions, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 5             Before we take the break and before the beginning of the

 6     cross-examination by Mr. Seselj, I have a number of technical questions

 7     to put to the witness.

 8             Witness, I had a look at your CV, and I saw that you started your

 9     professional life as a journalist.  You were working for the Hina News

10     Agency.  What was your area of specialty as a journalist?  Did you cover

11     politics, sports, environmental matters?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Internal politics.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, internal politics.  But

14     could you be more specific?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, I was a fairly young

16     journalist, just starting my career in Zagreb; and on the whole I covered

17     events in Zagreb in 1992 up until the end of 1993.  That's when I worked

18     there.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you say "events," do you

20     mean by that political events?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, various press

22     conferences, meetings, visits of foreign politicians coming to Zagreb.

23     Hina is an agency that covers a lot of events that occur in Zagreb.  Some

24     other newspapers wouldn't cover such events, for example.  So it's only

25     involved in news.  It's not involved in writing other kinds of articles

Page 11983

 1     and so on and so forth.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was the Hina News Agency a news

 3     agency that was completely independent from the political authorities or

 4     was it under their control?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was a state agency or it

 6     is a state agency.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So it was under the control of

 8     the state?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because it's a state agency,

10     yes.  But the question as to whether something is a state organisation or

11     not, well, I don't think that has anything to do with the independence of

12     the agency, as an agency involved in the media; but there's no doubt

13     about the fact that it's owned by the state.

14        Q.   Fine.  At the very beginning of your testimony, I asked you a

15     question about Serb displaced persons; in other words, Croatian nationals

16     belonging to the Serb ethnicity.  In your view, how many people of that

17     category left their home?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look, it's very difficult.

19     I'll give you my opinion here.  I can tell you about things that I'm

20     familiar with.  I can present some facts to you with regard to what I

21     know about refugees from Croatia, refugees of Serbian ethnicity who left

22     the Republic of Croatia.  Well, unfortunately, we don't have precise

23     information or records on this matter, records on how many refugees there

24     are of Serbian ethnicity, and the majority of them in Serbia and a few of

25     them in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and even a lower number in Montenegro.  But

Page 11984

 1     with regard to this matter, we never had very precise information or

 2     records.  International organisations and part of the Serbian public, at

 3     various periods of time, had certain assessments.  Unfortunately, we

 4     never exchanged information for refugees who were from Croatia, but fled

 5     to Serbia; so we could never determine how many people were actually

 6     concerned.

 7             What we do know is some people in the meantime returned to the

 8     Republic of Croatia, and they were registered with us, and we have files

 9     for them.  This concerns almost 127.000 people at this point in time.  So

10     the administration that I work in also deals with the return of Serbs to

11     the Republic of Croatia, among other things, and they keep records on

12     people who register with us as returnees.

13             As far as the information we currently have, in Serbia there are

14     currently about 70.000 refugees from Croatia.  Assessments of

15     international organisations, the estimates of these organisations, are

16     more or less the same, the figure is more or less the same, but it's not

17     very precise.  And I really can't say much about these figures, because

18     we're only talking about estimates here.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me now move on to another

20     topic, where you may help us understand a better what it's all about.

21             A number of witnesses came here to testify about exchanges of

22     apartments.  At the time, some of them, Serbs, lived in Croatia, and they

23     were asked to go away and to exchange their apartments with Croats who at

24     the time were living in Serbian areas.  So we had witnesses here tell us

25     about this, and they showed us contracts related to exchanges of

Page 11985

 1     apartments.  We have received a number of evidence in that respect.

 2             You are dealing with statistics, with data, and I would like to

 3     know whether, according to you, these people who exchanged their

 4     apartments were recorded in the statistics, were they considered as

 5     displaced persons or refugees?

 6             But before you answer my question, another question.  Were you

 7     aware of such things going on?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm aware of the fact that such

 9     things were done.  However, many cases had to do with refugees who came

10     to Croatia from Serbia.  To be more precise, many people from Vojvodina

11     came to Croatia in this manner.  They exchanged their property for

12     property that belonged to people who had decided to leave Croatia, people

13     of Serbian ethnicity.  The same thing occurred with refugees from Bosnia

14     and Herzegovina at a later date.  Houses were exchanged not just with

15     people from Vojvodina but also with people from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16             However, as far as people from Vojvodina themselves are

17     concerned, some of these people were registered in our offices as

18     refugees because they were from a different state, they came from a

19     different state to the Republic of Croatia.  However, some of these

20     people who exchanged their houses didn't register as refugees with us.

21     They did not have the need, since they had managed to exchange their

22     property, they had a place to stay; and so some of these people didn't

23     feel the need to register as refugees in order to obtain certain benefits

24     and advantages; for example, accommodation, food, social security,

25     because they also obtained Croatian nationality very rapidly, because

Page 11986

 1     we're talking about the Croats, the Croatian national minority that lived

 2     in Serbia.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you've said is extremely

 4     relevant.  I believe I understand that Croats from Vojvodina exchanged

 5     their property with Serbs who were in Croatia, and that these people

 6     decided that they did not need to register as refugees because they saw

 7     themselves as being Croats; and they did not request any type of help or

 8     benefits.  Were there many such cases, to your knowledge?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were quite a few such people,

10     but I couldn't provide you with a precise figure with regard to the

11     number of people we have registered as refugees.  Well, we can't say

12     whether this concerned everyone or just some of them, but we have

13     registered refugees from Vojvodina, we have 5.131 refugees from

14     Vojvodina.  As far as 3.377 of these refugees are concerned, we have

15     information according to which they are of Croatian ethnicity.

16             However, we don't have any information for about 1.511

17     individuals who initially did not register as refugees; but as of 2002,

18     when Croatia made this possible, they asked for our assistance in finding

19     accommodation for them, so some of the people who arrived by exchanging

20     their property did not register as refugees because at the time they did

21     not need any assistance when it came to accommodation, but later on they

22     did report to us.  Those who felt the immediate need at the time, on the

23     whole, registered as refugees.

24             I think we're dealing more with certain personal reasons and not

25     with other reasons for which someone decided to register as a refugee or

Page 11987

 1     not to do that.  This was thought to be humanitarian aid, a matter of

 2     humanitarian aid if you registered as a refugee.  It was only later that

 3     things changed, when people understood that it also had a lot to do with

 4     requests for renovating your home, when you returned to your home, if you

 5     returned to your home, or if you had requests for accommodation if you

 6     didn't have a home to return to.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question.  You are a

 8     high-ranking civil servant of the Republic of Croatia.  As such, we can

 9     consider that you are aware of what's going on now.  To your knowledge,

10     are there any disputes between people who at the time exchanged their

11     property, but then later realised that the exchange was not fair because

12     the property they received in the exchange was worth less than the one

13     they had let go?  So has your government been seized of such disputes?

14     Are there trials or proceedings going on in that respect, or is it

15     something that you have no information about?

16             I'm asking you the question, because we had witnesses here tell

17     us that when it came to the exchange, they did not receive what they

18     gave.  So my question is very straightforward.

19             Are you aware of cases of people who exchanged their property at

20     the time and are now asking for damage or who have started legal

21     proceedings?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't keep records about such

23     cases.  Recently, I haven't heard anything about any individual cases.

24     However, since this isn't the responsibility of my ministry, I don't have

25     to be aware of such cases; but I have to admit that recently I haven't

Page 11988

 1     heard anything about such cases.  But I have heard that legal proceedings

 2     have been instituted for such reasons.  I don't know what numbers we're

 3     dealing with here, but I do know that there were such cases when it comes

 4     to exchanges of property with Bosnia and Herzegovina.  But if you're

 5     asking me to provide you with figures, I really couldn't do that.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One very last question.  Rest

 7     assured, it is actually my very last question, and it relates to these

 8     people who exchange their property and who came from Vojvodina to Zagreb

 9     or the surrounding areas.

10             To your knowledge in the ensuing years or even today, do any of

11     these people go back to Vojvodina or is everybody very pleased with their

12     current situation?  Has everybody decided to stay put?  And if some

13     people decide to go back where they came from, do you have any idea how

14     many they are, do you have a percentage to give us?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of any of these

16     people returning to their homes.  As far as I know, these people did not

17     return to their homes.  Quite the contrary.  Some family members who came

18     to Croatia would later bring other family members who had perhaps

19     remained in Serbia to Croatia, so, in fact, most of the family members

20     remained in Croatia and live in Croatia.  But as to how satisfied they

21     are or not, well, that's something you should ask them about.  But what

22     everyone knows with regard to refugees and international investigations

23     has also demonstrated this, and this doesn't just concern Croatian

24     refugees in Croatia, but also Serbians in Serbia, after many years spent

25     abroad as a refugee, the family situation changes and then people decide

Page 11989

 1     whether to return or not on that basis.  It has nothing to do with how

 2     happy they are or not.  Parents, well, that's one matter.  Children,

 3     that's another matter.  Elderly grandparents is another matter again.

 4     We're talking about living individuals here.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 6             My fellow Judges may have some questions for you now.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 8   Madam Radic, the report that you have made, as I have understood it, mostly

 9   deals with the registration of persons who moved from various areas to

10   other areas, but the question I have to you is if you have any information

11   about how this was organised in practical terms.  And I'm asking because if

12   you have hundreds of thousands of people moving in one direction or in

13   several directions and almost as many people moving in the other direction,

14   that is, in and of itself, an enormous logistical task, and I would have

15   thought that it would require a very high degree of organisation.

16    And my question to you is: Do you know how this was organised in practical

17    terms?  I mean, how would a family from one place, who felt compelled to

18    leave their home and go to -- let's say they would move from, just as an

19    example, from Vukovar to Zagreb.  How would they be able to find a vacant

20    home there without being assisted by private organisations, or by

21    government bodies, or by somebody else?  It would seem to be that there

22    would have to be some sort of organisation, either private or government-

23    sponsored, to put some degree of order and organisation into all of this.

24             Can you tell us something about that?

25             THE WITNESS: Absolutely.  I think that this has been fairly well

Page 11990

 1     explained in my report.  In fact, at the time the organisation that first

 2     started taking care of displaced persons and refugees was the Ministry of

 3     Labour and Social Welfare.  That ministry deals with such matters,

 4     matters of social welfare, and in Croatia, in most towns and

 5     municipalities, it has social welfare centres which were part of the

 6     ministry at the time.  So these were their field offices.  They would

 7     deal with family matters, with children who had special needs, with

 8     disabled persons, people who were socially at risk, and they had their

 9     principles.  So at the time, there was the Croatian Red Cross.  It still

10     exists.  And in many towns, in many municipalities in the Republic of

11     Croatia, the Red Cross had its own offices and its own staff members.

12             When all these are taken together, the ministry, within which that

13     office for displaced persons and refugees was first established at the

14     very end of 1991, and the independent governmental body – the Office for

15     Displaced Persons and Refugees - they, in fact, organised the reception

16     of individuals in the free areas of the Republic of Croatia.

17             I don't want to present you with a false picture, but how did

18     things unfold?  Well, in certain cases people simply fled from their

19     homes, carrying bags with them and nothing else.  This happened on a

20     number of cases.  People from Drnis became expelled persons in this way.

21     Many people from Lika became expelled persons in this way.  This also

22     concerns areas around Slunja.  Immediately prior to the entry of military

23     units after intense shelling had occurred, these people simply fled from

24     their homes.  In many cases, people simply fled from their villages,

25     others -- some had transport, others had nothing.  And there were people

Page 11991

 1     who would receive them at certain places.  It was quite complicated.

 2             In the case of Vukovar or Ilok, people were transported out in

 3     buses.  They were bussed out in Vukovar, and the date concerned is the

 4     18th of November.  Well, that's the anniversary when the JNA and

 5     paramilitary units entered Vukovar and captured the remaining population

 6     there.  They had been assembled at several points, and on the following

 7     day the civilians, the women, children and the elderly, were put into

 8     buses and transported through Novi Sad and Bosnia to Croatia, via

 9     Slavonski Brod, Djakovo and Zagreb.  People knew that the buses were

10     arriving, so some of these people were put up in sports halls at the

11     time.  The Red Cross naturally provided these people with food.  So there

12     was a civilian headquarters that organised the reception of such people.

13     These were the most difficult tasks, when such huge groups of people

14     arrived as was the case with Vukovar or Ilok.

15             So some people from Vukovar were received in Slavonski Brod, some

16     in Djakovo, and most of them in Zagreb.  Most of them ended up in Zagreb.

17     On the first day, at around 9.00, about 3.000 people from Vukovar were

18     received in Zagreb, and they were provided with accommodation at the

19     premises -- on the premises of the fair.  There were also hotels in

20     Zagreb, five-star or four-star hotels, that we used to provide these

21     people with accommodation, too.  At the time, we didn't have any

22     settlements for refugees, so they were first provided with accommodation

23     at the seaside, on the coast.  If they were refugees, they would be first

24     gathered in sports halls, in large buildings, schools.  Usually they were

25     assembled in schools, and then they were sent on to other places.

Page 11992

 1     Naturally, many people found accommodation with relatives of theirs, and

 2     later they asked for the state to assist them and to provide them with

 3     accommodation elsewhere.  So they would assemble in these large centres,

 4     and we would send them on.

 5             At the time, all the hotels on the Adriatic coast were used to

 6     provide these refugees with accommodation.  That was the case for a long

 7     time.  So many of the well-known hotels we used for such purposes.

 8             To present you with a vivid description, about 11.000 refugees

 9     were provided with accommodation in Dubrovnik hotels, or, rather, let's

10     be more precise.  11.000 expelled persons were provided with

11     accommodations there.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much.  We'll have to take the

13     break now, but my next question to you would be -- and I will give the

14     question to you now so you can consider your answer in the break.  The --

15     from the point in time when the refugees had arrived and had been

16     accommodated in these hotels and schools and places, how then would the

17     authorities or the institutions who assisted these refugees know about

18     vacant homes, because there must have been then a registration of, say,

19     Serbs who left Zagreb to return to Serbia, so that the authorities knew

20     that the authorities in Croatia would know which houses would be

21     available for the refugees from Vojvodina or other parts.  And my second

22     question to that is:  Do you know if there was any cooperation between

23     Croatian authorities and Serbian authorities to organise this?  These are

24     the two questions that I would like you to consider.

25             Let's have the break.

Page 11993

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, let's have a 20-minute

 2     break.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 10.02 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 10.22 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have had a break, Witness.

 6     Can you now answer the questions put by Judge Harhoff?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So in response to your first

 8     question, where you asked, in fact, how the authorities were aware of

 9     houses that were available to refugees from Vojvodina and other areas, to

10     displaced persons, I'll try to be a bit more precise.

11             As far as the ODPR is concerned, the office which was in charge

12     of accommodating displaced persons and refugees and expelled persons at

13     the time, the ODPR, as the competent agency of the Republic of Croatia,

14     did not have lists at that time.  We're talking about 1991 to 1995.  It

15     did not have a list of vacant houses and flats where they could put up

16     displaced persons.  We used exclusively facilities for organised

17     accommodation.  At that time, that included all the hotel-type

18     facilities, workers' prefab houses, and then we proceeded with building

19     dedicated accommodation.

20             Already in 1993 and 1994, we started building such accommodation

21     near Osijek, with the assistance of the German government, also near

22     Karlovac and Vinkovci, and each of these buildings had a capacity of

23     accommodating 3.000 persons.  We did not put people up in private

24     accommodation.  If displaced persons went to private accommodation, it

25     was usually with family, with friends, who would let them use a house or

Page 11994

 1     a flat they had or would simply receive them as guests.  Later on, it

 2     turned out that some people could not go on staying in such private

 3     accommodation and had to turn to something more organised.

 4             As for houses and flats that were abandoned, one of the

 5     competences of our agency is accommodating displaced persons from Serbia,

 6     people who had tenants' rights to housing.  I know that Croatian courts,

 7     based on Croatian legislation, in regard to people who had tenants'

 8     rights to housing, brought in verdicts that such housing rights were

 9     annulled if it was established that somebody did not live in a certain

10     house or apartment for more than six months.  Such flats and houses

11     existed.  However, at that time it was municipalities and towns that had

12     the right to dispose of such housing, not the ODPR.  So I cannot answer

13     the question in what way some of the displaced persons were accommodated

14     in such vacant housing.

15             It is a well-known fact that as time went on, some of these

16     people addressed themselves to us for assistance, and they received

17     decisions on accommodation; but that did not happen in 1991.  It happened

18     in 1992 through 1995 that some displaced persons were accommodated in

19     some of the abandoned, vacant housing.

20             This thing that I'm describing, that we put up displaced persons

21     in an organised way in such housing, that was later, closer to the

22     Operation Storm.  But in the period I was talking about, we could only

23     put up people in organised accommodation, and we did not have any flats

24     at our disposal.

25             As for your second question, whether at that time there was

Page 11995

 1     cooperation between Croatia and Serbia, it simply did not exist at that

 2     time.  There was no cooperation whatsoever regarding the accommodation of

 3     displaced people.  The war was simply going on.

 4             That's what I know.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 6             We have heard some of the witnesses in this trial, who came to

 7     testify earlier, that there was, on the Serb side, a private organisation

 8     called Lasta, and that they were able to provide some assistance, on the

 9     Serbian side, to refugees who came to Serbia, I think.  So what I was

10     curious to know was that if there were -- if you know of the existence of

11     any similar private organisations on the Croatian side who would be able

12     to assist in this exchange of property.  Do you know that?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know.  That must

14     have been some private agency or agencies in the area concerning real

15     estate sale and purchase.  That did not fall within the jurisdiction of

16     the ODPR.  Everything that concerns trade and economy, that is within the

17     sphere of private business.  We, as a state institution, did not deal

18     with that.  People found each other in some private contacts.  We don't

19     know anything about it.  We don't know if there is an organisation who

20     was involved.

21             Today, we have a state agency that purchases real estate on

22     behalf of the state in Croatia, but it was established only in 1997,

23     during the peaceful reintegration of Croatian Podunavlje region.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you may begin with

25     the cross-examination.  You were granted one hour and 30 minutes by the

Page 11996

 1     Trial Chamber.

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:

 3        Q.   Ms. Radic, do you believe yourself to be an expert?

 4        A.   In this area that I'm dealing with, yes.

 5        Q.   Did you appear anywhere before as an expert in this area?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Do others in Croatia believe you to be an expert?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Where did you appear as an expert?

10        A.   At many international conferences, seminars.

11        Q.   As an expert in the area of displaced persons and refugees?

12        A.   Yes, for what happened in Croatia.

13        Q.   All right.  You said you were designated by the Croatian

14     government to make a report and testify in this case?

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   And that means that the Prosecution did not contact you directly;

17     they contacted the Croatian government?

18        A.   Correct.

19        Q.   The OTP asked the Croatian government, and the Croatian

20     government designated you, trusting that you will do that job the best?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And you did it on the orders of your government, within your

23     working hours?

24        A.   Whether it was within my working hours, I don't know, if you

25     believe working hours to be 10 or 12 hours a day.

Page 11997

 1        Q.   I sometimes worked 16 hours a day.  Anyway, you may have done

 2     overtime, but you did it in your workplace?

 3        A.   In part, yes.

 4        Q.   And you had to take some of it home?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And you had to engage government officials to help you with the

 7     data?

 8        A.   To a smaller extent, yes.

 9        Q.   So you are an expert of the Croatian government, lent to the

10     Croatian -- to the OTP to testify in this case?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And you are also to testify in the Simatovic and Stanisic case,

13     which is in preparation?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And did anyone explain to you what it means to be an expert

16     witness before a court?  Did they give you some basic instructions in

17     principle, because you have never appeared in court before?

18        A.   I have never.

19        Q.   You were a government expert who appeared at international

20     conferences and defended the interests of your government on this issue

21     or, rather, represented the interests?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Did anyone instruct you what it means to be a forensic expert?

24        A.   I was instructed by the OTP, who asked me to do certain things,

25     and I believe I wrote those things in my report.

Page 11998

 1        Q.   I have read your report, although I received it, together with

 2     the background material, only last Friday.  I read it very

 3     conscientiously.  Don't worry, we'll discuss it all.  These are questions

 4     in principle.  I am interested in your status here.

 5             Did anyone tell you that you are representing the interests of

 6     the Croatian government here or that you have to testify in an unbiased

 7     way, even at the detriment of the interests of the Croatian government?

 8     Did anyone tell you that?

 9        A.   When we talk about the concept of expert or professional, that

10     implies precisely what you're saying; namely, that one must be impartial.

11        Q.   Why, then, did you not take the trouble to prove that you are

12     impartial in your expert report?

13        A.   I don't know what you mean.

14        Q.   I'll show what I mean.  Did anyone communicate to you that at

15     first the Prosecution planned to use Colonel Ivan Grujic as the expert

16     witness?

17        A.   I don't know that.

18        Q.   So they didn't tell you that at all?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Is in the official papers here, it is evident that the

21     Prosecution replaced Ivan Grujic because he was compromised, and two

22     other persons were used to replace him, Ms. Visnja Bilic and you?

23        A.   I was not informed by the Prosecution of that, but I know that

24     Mr. Grujic covered this area in some other prior cases.

25        Q.   But if they had told you that Ivan Grujic had been disqualified

Page 11999

 1     for such-and-such a reason, and you are called to testify instead of him,

 2     what would have been your response?

 3        A.   I was not designated to testify on this issue either by

 4     Mr. Grujic or by the Prosecution, but --

 5        Q.   By the Croatian government?

 6        A.   -- by the Croatian government for which I work.

 7        Q.   Your answer is very satisfactory to me.  But do you know

 8     Mr. Ivan Grujic personally?

 9        A.   Yes, I met him.

10        Q.   He is a brigadier general now, isn't he?

11        A.   I don't know that.

12        Q.   Do you know why he was disqualified?

13        A.   No, I don't.

14        Q.   Did anyone tell you that Ivan Grujic used to be the head of the

15     war branch office of the State Security Service in Osijek in 1990?

16        A.   No, I don't.

17        Q.   Do you know that in 2001, Ivan Grujic testified in the

18     investigation in the Glavas case concerning the killing of Serb civilians

19     in Osijek?

20        A.   I did not follow the news that much, not sufficiently to know all

21     that happened there.  It concerns no segment of my work.

22        Q.   Ms. Radic, you are a high-ranking civil servant, an employee of

23     the government, if you wish.  You are well educated.  You have a

24     university degree.  You majored in Sociology.  You are doing

25     post-graduate studies.  I suppose you watch television, listen to the

Page 12000

 1     radio and read newspapers.

 2        A.   Certainly.  Of course I watch television, of course I listen to

 3     the radio and read newspapers, but believe me, there is so much

 4     information and news in all the mass media that you can't know it all.  I

 5     did not know this particular thing.  I may have missed it.

 6        Q.   Do you know who Branimir Glavas is?

 7        A.   I do.

 8        Q.   Croatian general, an MP in the Croatian Parliament, a prominent

 9     politician.  He even had his own party.  He was an important man for the

10     regime at one point in time?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   He's now on trial; you know that?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   He's on trial for war crimes against Serb civilians in Osijek?

15        A.   That's the indictment against him.

16        Q.   That's what he is being tried for.  I'm not prejudging the

17     decision of the Court, because he had been acquitted for certain things

18     before.  There is a certain [indiscernible] case also.  You know about

19     that?

20        A.   Only from the media.

21        Q.   Well, same here.  My associates found certain material on the

22     internet concerning Ivan Grujic earlier, because I didn't have time to

23     prepare specially for you and I did not explore your CV; but I believe

24     there are no compromising things, as there are for Ivan Grujic.

25        A.   I hope not.

Page 12001

 1        Q.   So I wouldn't have found any, would I?  I have here the Nacional

 2     Weekly and then I have the Feral tribune newspaper.

 3             Ivan Grujic was a key witness in the Glavas case, and in 2001, in

 4     the process, he incriminated Glavas very heavily.  And then suddenly in

 5     2006, he withdrew all his incriminations against Glavas as head of the

 6     state security in Osijek.  He knew about all of Glavas' crimes.  Before

 7     the Investigating Judge, he incriminated him seriously, and then he

 8     withdrew all that because there turned out evidence that Ivan Grujic was

 9     involved in the murder of Reihl Kir.  And even though Grujic gave an

10     interview to Robert Bajrusi of the Nacional Weekly, he refused to talk

11     about all this.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Biersay.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can only thank you for all

14     this information.  I had no such details.  I didn't know at all that

15     Mr. Grujic was involved in that case.  I may have read something in the

16     Nacional Weekly, but I must say I didn't pay much attention to that

17     because --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Ms. Biersay.

19             MS. BIERSAY:  Your Honour, if I may respectfully request some

20     clarification from Mr. Seselj regarding the relevance of the information

21     about Mr. Grujic in the context of this witness's expert report.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  Mr. Seselj, where is the

23     relevance?  Why is it relevant to know that Mr. Grujic, who was supposed

24     to be a Prosecution expert, was withdrawn, to be replaced by another two

25     individuals?

Page 12002

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm checking the

 2     expert's credibility, first of all.  I'm doing this with considerable

 3     success.  That would be my subjective assessment.

 4             The Prosecution should explain to you why they did not ask for an

 5     independent witness perhaps from the International Red Cross, who would

 6     draft a report on the expelled and displaced persons in the territory of

 7     the former Yugoslavia, and that would include the territory of Croatia.

 8     Instead of doing this, the Prosecution contacted the Croatian government,

 9     and the Croatian government designates Ms. Radic to draft an expert

10     report.  I think this is an unheard-of scandal.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, in your country, as

12     in mine, this kind of situation would not happen, because experts are

13     independent persons appointed by judges.  But this is a type of

14     Anglo-Saxon proceedings in which each party calls their own experts.  The

15     case law established by the Appeals Chamber is that such experts can be

16     independent.  Well, that's what the Appeals Chamber says.  So you, when

17     you call your own experts, that will be the same.  The Prosecutor could

18     say that your expert is not independent.

19             This is an endless topic for discussion.  It would have been

20     better if the experts had been appointed by the Trial Chamber, following

21     motions by parties, and this sort of situation would not have cropped up.

22     But we have Rules establishing these proceedings, so the Prosecution can

23     choose their own expert, including their own staff members, and can ask a

24     government to send their representatives.  That's it.  You may have your

25     own view upon it, but that's allowed by the Rules.

Page 12003

 1             Only following the testimony of the witness and following

 2     cross-examination, the Trial Chamber will decide whether the report

 3     should be admitted or not.

 4             So please proceed.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you are quite right.

 6     However, something new cropped up here.  We're not talking about a

 7     Prosecution expert, but about an expert representing the Croatian

 8     government, and the Prosecution and the Croatian government have joined

 9     forces here against me.

10             So far, we have heard five experts that work for the Prosecution,

11     staff members of the Prosecution, and now we have experts sent by the

12     Croatian government.  The Prosecution didn't find them and then assign

13     them tasks, but the Prosecution told the government in Croatia, "We need

14     such and stuff a thing," and then the Croatian government acted

15     accordingly.  So this is something new with regard to the practice to

16     date.  And I had to draw your attention to the fact.

17        Q.   Ms. Radic, you probably know who Reihl Kir was.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   He was the head of the police in Osijek, of German nationality,

20     but a local German, so he was of German ethnic origin.  And Reihl Kir

21     wanted the Serbs and the Croats to find a peaceful solution to the crisis

22     in Eastern Slavonia and Western Srem.  He wanted to make sure that there

23     were no incidents, there was no killing, no shooting.  Have I described

24     him correctly?

25        A.   I don't know that much about Reihl Kir, so I really couldn't say

Page 12004

 1     whether I agree with you or not.  This isn't my area.  All I know about

 2     Reihl Kir is from the media.

 3        Q.   Very well.  But you must know that as the head of the Osijek

 4     police, Reihl Kir was killed by the Croats in 1991.  You must be aware of

 5     the fact.

 6        A.   I really am not aware of that.

 7        Q.   Very well, if you don't know.

 8        A.   I'm not here to discuss those events, because I really don't know

 9     anything about that.

10        Q.   No, you're here to answer my questions, and I'm not putting any

11     insulting questions to you; would you agree?

12        A.   I do.

13        Q.   Very well.  And I'll continue in this way.  But you must answer

14     all my questions, and if there's something you don't know, just say so,

15     and we'll move on.

16             Since you worked as a journalist in Zagreb in 1992 and you worked

17     for a state agency as a journalist, were you aware of the fact that the

18     Croatian government, from 1991 to 1995, used the premises of the Zagreb

19     Fair or Velesajam as a camp where they detained civilians, and several

20     thousand Zagrebian Serbs passed through that camp; are you aware of that?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   As you're a sociology graduate, do you know who Professor

23     Zarko Puhovski is?

24        A.   Yes.  He was one of my professors at the university.

25        Q.   He's a very distinguished professor; is that correct?

Page 12005

 1        A.   Yes, it is.

 2        Q.   And he was also the president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee?

 3        A.   That's correct.

 4        Q.   And he made a documentary film about the camp at the Zagreb Trade

 5     Fair.  You're not aware of that?

 6        A.   I'm not.

 7        Q.   Very well.  We won't linger on that theme if you're not aware of

 8     it.

 9             When you were drafting this report, did you consult literature on

10     expulsion and deportation of Serbs in Croatia from 1991 to 1995?

11        A.   No, I didn't go into such documents for this report, because the

12     subject of my report was the expulsion of individuals from an area about

13     which I have clear information.  With regard to the Serbs, we have

14     information about the return of Serbs.

15        Q.   But not about the departure of Serbs?

16        A.   Unfortunately, not about the departure of Serbs, because in this

17     area or these areas, areas in Croatia that were occupied, they were

18     called "Krajina" at the time, they were under the supervision of UNPROFOR

19     and they weren't part of the legal structure of the government in

20     Croatia, they weren't under the control of the government, so we weren't

21     aware of what was happening in those areas.

22             Later, when people started returning, and then they all started

23     recounting their stories, we found out that quite a lot of people left

24     those areas in the period from 1991 to 1995.

25        Q.   I'm not asking you about that.  I'm asking you about areas that

Page 12006

 1     were under the control of the Croatian government in Zagreb all the time,

 2     and from that area hundreds of thousands of Serbs were expelled.  That's

 3     what I'm asking you about.  Did you have a look at the literature about

 4     that subject, if you don't have any official information?

 5        A.   We don't have any official information about that.

 6        Q.   Very well.  Do you know who Professor Svetozar Livada is?

 7        A.   I've heard that name, but I'm not sure who he is.

 8        Q.   A professor at the Zagreb University.  He's currently retired, as

 9     far as I know.

10        A.   That's possible.

11        Q.   He has published a lot of books containing detailed information

12     on the expulsion of Serbs from the territory of Croatia, territory that

13     was constantly or continually under the control of the Croatian

14     government.  The Prosecution has his publications, his statements and so

15     on, but you have no knowledge about this?

16        A.   Well, look --

17        Q.   I'm looking.

18        A.   There are a lot of books that have been published.  They are

19     based on various assessments as to how many Serbs left Croatia.  What

20     I can tell you about has to do with official information regarding how

21     many people were living in the area that was occupied or the areas that

22     were occupied at the time, how many people returned in the meantime.

23        Q.   Who occupied the areas?

24        A.   At the time, those areas were not part of the legal structure of

25     the Republic of Croatia, and in 1991 that area was occupied by the JNA

Page 12007

 1     and by paramilitary units.  And later on, they said their name was

 2     "Krajina."

 3        Q.   How can the JNA occupy parts of Yugoslavia, since the JNA was the

 4     regular Yugoslav Army?

 5        A.   But the Republic of Croatia was an independent state at that

 6     time.

 7        Q.   When?

 8        A.   In 1991.  The 8th of October, 1991, is when a decision was issued

 9     by the Croatian Parliament according to which all legal links to the SFRY

10     were being discontinued.

11        Q.   Who accepted this?

12        A.   It's the decision of the Croatian Parliament.

13        Q.   As a functionary of the Croatian Parliament, you always say that

14     those decisions are legal that I'm asking you.  Who recognised this legal

15     act as a valid one?  No one.

16        A.   It was recognised to be valid subsequently.

17        Q.   Subsequently.  But previously, the territory of the Serbian

18     Krajina came under the protection of the United Nations, and then the

19     independence of Croatia was recognised?

20        A.   Well, that's not quite correct.  UNPROFOR was deployed up until

21     May 1992, in fact.

22        Q.   They needed a little more time.  But according to the Vance

23     Plan -- well, the Vance Plan was accepted before Germany, the Vatican,

24     and other European countries recognised the independence of Croatia;

25     isn't that correct?  First of all, the Vance Plan was accepted and then

Page 12008

 1     the independence of Croatia was recognised; am I correct?

 2        A.   I don't know when the Vance Plan was adopted.  It's not my field

 3     of expertise, so I cannot address the matter.

 4        Q.   Well, that's such an important thing that every intellectual

 5     should know about it, especially you Croatian intellectuals should be

 6     aware of the fact.

 7        A.   That's what you think, but as you can see, I don't know about it.

 8        Q.   Very well.  So what can I do?  There's nothing I can do for you.

 9     There's some terminologically confusion in your report.  You refer to the

10     Croatian law on the Status of Expelled Persons and Refugees.  That's the

11     name of the law?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And you said that an expelled person is a person who left his

14     place of residence in order to avoid threats to his life as a result of

15     aggression, and this individual found a place of residence in another

16     part of Croatia?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And in terms of international law, is this an arbitrary

19     definition of what an expelled person is?

20        A.   Well, look, as far as that definition is concerned, the

21     definition you find in the Geneva Conventions, well, I just want to say

22     something.  I'm not a professional lawyer, so I cannot discuss this

23     subject as a lawyer, but I know certain things on the basis of

24     experience, because this is a subject that has been discussed at length.

25             Allow me to finish, please.

Page 12009

 1        Q.   Go ahead.

 2        A.   According to the Geneva Convention, the definition of a refugee

 3     is quite broad.  It refers to a real threat that an individual feels when

 4     leaving his or her state of origin.  One leaves because one fears for

 5     one's life or one is being prosecuted, it's because of one's religious

 6     beliefs, one's gender.

 7        Q.   I'm asking you about expelled persons.

 8        A.   They are internally-displaced persons, in fact, and the UNHCR, as

 9     a UN organisation, has accepted this definition.  This Geneva Convention

10     that defines the status of a refugee, in the 1950s of the last century,

11     well, given what happened -- has happened over the years, this definition

12     was adapted to include war refugees, people who are refugees because of

13     war, people who have crossed a border and they have left their country of

14     origin and are therefore refugees; or we are dealing with people who are

15     internally-displaced individuals, and they have remained in their states

16     of origin.  This is the case in many states to this very day.  You've

17     seen the news on the Congo.

18        Q.   Refugees are people who are fleeing in the face of a real danger,

19     a real threat; do we agree?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   It could be a matter of war, a flood, an earthquake, political

22     terror; it could be anything.  A refugee flees in the face of danger,

23     whereas an expelled person is a deported person, people who are ordered

24     to leave.  Because one threatened to use force, an order was issued, they

25     were told:

Page 12010

 1             "Either you leave or we'll arrest you.  Either you leave or we'll

 2     kill you.  Either you leave voluntarily or we'll take you to the border

 3     ourselves."  So expelled persons are deported persons; do you agree with

 4     that?

 5        A.   Well, they are similarly described according to Croatian law.

 6        Q.   No, you said something else here.  You said that an expelled

 7     person is, in fact, a refugee within the territory of Croatia itself,

 8     this move from Krajina to other parts of Croatia.  That's what you said.

 9     It doesn't really matter.  So there's terminologically confusion here.

10             In your opinion, an expelled person is someone who, for various

11     reasons, left the territory of Serbian Krajina and moved to Croatia.  Was

12     it a matter of danger, was it actually a deported person?  Well, for you,

13     it doesn't matter, they are all expelled persons for you.  And this gave

14     rise to the terminologically confusion that you are guilty of.  Is that

15     correct?

16        A.   I quite clearly stated what the definition was.  I'll try and

17     repeat that.  That's all I can do.  That is how an expelled person is

18     defined according to Croatian law.  These are individuals who have left

19     territory affected by war in Croatia, and they have left their place of

20     residence because they were fleeing in front -- in the face of danger,

21     and they found shelter in other places in the Republic of Croatia.  So

22     they left these occupied areas, crisis-affected areas.  But as for the

23     manner in which they were deported, well, every man was different.  It

24     depended on the case.  We're talking about a lot of people.  They weren't

25     all bussed out on the same day and then moved somewhere else.

Page 12011

 1        Q.   People who were put onto buses and forcibly taken somewhere,

 2     well, such people are expelled or deported people.  The people who fled

 3     from Knin because they felt that they were facing a real threat, well,

 4     they are not expelled persons, they are refugees; isn't that correct?

 5        A.   Well, look --

 6        Q.   I'm looking.

 7        A.   We are dealing with a matter of linguistics that I believe may

 8     not be entirely clear to somebody who is a native English speaker.  The

 9     word "prognanik" should properly be translated as "expellee."  In

10     Croatian legislation, we used the word "prognanik," "expellee" and we

11     defined it --

12        Q.   In such a way as to include refugees?

13        A.   In such a way as to include all the things you're talking about.

14        Q.   That's what I'm saying.  You wanted to create a terminologically

15     confusion deliberately to muddle the substance.  You are -- you are

16     confusing refugees with deported people, and the people who are

17     interpreting you into English really have a problem.

18             I, for one, do not use English, and that language is disgusting

19     to me, to be frank, but "refugee" is one thing and "expelled person" is

20     another thing.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do not make such

22     attacks against various languages.  It's completely irrelevant.

23             Witness, we are dealing with very complex legal definitions.  You

24     are not a lawyer, so let's not waste any time.  But the Croatian term you

25     use in your report, if I understand properly, excuse my pronunciation,

Page 12012

 1     it's something that sounds like "prognanik."  Is this the word used, as

 2     Mr. Seselj seems to be saying, is it the word used to describe refugees

 3     and displaced persons?  Does the word "prognanik" cover all these

 4     situations or not?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It covers persons who have fled

 6     within the borders and remained within the borders of Croatia, on the

 7     condition that they left home to avoid a direct threat to their lives.

 8     That's what I said.  But we have already defined it earlier.  These are

 9     people who fled from those occupied areas or crisis areas and could not

10     return to their homes for a long time.  It's not for one day; it lasted

11     for a while.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  And in your language,

13     what word do you use to describe a refugee who went to Switzerland?  You

14     know, these 164 people who went to Switzerland, what word would you use

15     in your language to describe those people?

16        A.   "Izbjeglica," "refugee," and as such they have been defined by

17     the law.  There is a legal provision --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you spell the word for

19     us, please?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I-Z-B-J-E-G-L-I-C-A.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this word covers refugees

22     within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; is that correct?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, correct, but the

24     definition applied by the law is, in fact, adjusted.  This adjusted

25     definition speaks of war refugees.  It refines the definition of war

Page 12013

 1     refugees.

 2             You said it yourself, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not an

 3     expert in international law dealing with refugees.  I'm just saying what

 4     I know, and I can define the term as it is defined in the Croatian law.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

 6             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, with respect to the

 7     definition given by your Croatian legislation, all the "izbjeglica"

 8     coming from the territories where there was fighting are considered to be

 9     expelled persons, something that sounds like "prognanik," am I right, did

10     I understand you properly?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Ms. Radic, do you agree that you and I speak the same language?

15        A.   The languages are similar.  We understand each other very well.

16        Q.   We understand each other.  Well, what is different in our

17     languages is a new development, and you find it hard to find your way in

18     these new changes in the Croatian language.  I notice -- first I notice

19     you said "izvjestaj" and then you said "izvjesce."  Once, and we can hear

20     it on the tape-recording, you said "sistem," and then you said the new

21     Croatian "sustav."  These are new differences.

22        A.   I cannot say that with certainty.  Both "izvjestaj" and

23     "izvjesce" are equally used in the Croatian language.  I don't see the

24     problem.

25        Q.   You Croats used words "izvjestaj" and "system," and a few years

Page 12014

 1     ago somebody instructed you to change it, and now you are using

 2     "izvjesce" and "sustav" in order to differentiate yourself from the

 3     Serbs.

 4             Here you gave a table -- an overview of population in areas of

 5     the Republic of Croatia that were occupied in 1991.  Tell me, which

 6     international legal document or document of the Prosecution defines that

 7     the area of Serbian Krajina, from 1991 to 1995, is in fact an occupied

 8     Croatian area; do you know of any specific legal document?

 9        A.   I don't know all the international legal documents that define

10     it, but there were certain UN resolutions that talked about --

11        Q.   Occupation?

12        A.   And in addition, international forces of the UNPROFOR were

13     deployed in those areas, areas that were occupied and affected by the

14     war.  The UNPROFOR was deployed there, so there was some kind of UN

15     resolution defining which areas those were.

16             Later on, so-called Pink zones were designated with demarcation

17     lines, and in this table you see all these places enumerated according to

18     the new administrative division of the Republic of Croatia, which is a

19     bit different from the previous one.  And these were later defined by

20     Croatian law.

21        Q.   Ms. Radic, the United Nations officially called these areas of

22     Serbian Krajina UNPAs, United Nations Protected Areas; is that true?

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   Why didn't you use at least this neutral term, if you don't want

25     to say "Serbian Krajina"?  Why do you use the terms used by the Croatian

Page 12015

 1     state propaganda, saying "occupied areas" as if Krajina Serbs could have

 2     occupied it themselves?

 3        A.   I do not see there anything problematic, because I heard this

 4     term, "occupied area," in statements of the Prosecution.  We did consider

 5     these areas to be occupied, because for fours years they were outside the

 6     control of the officially, legally-elected authorities in Zagreb.  And I

 7     know some people who had been expelled from these areas, and I know that

 8     we were not able to return them to their homes for these particular

 9     reasons.

10        Q.   Ms. Radic, when the Republic of Croatia was internationally

11     recognised as an independent state, the area of the Republic of Serbian

12     Krajina or, rather, UNPA, was outside of the Zagreb government control;

13     is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And under international law, when a newly-created state is

16     recognised, it can only be recognised within the territory that its

17     central authorities control.  Did anyone inform you of that?  You are an

18     expert.  An expert must know sociology, political science, economy,

19     psychology, international law.  No, nobody told you?

20        A.   Mr. Seselj, I have to give you this answer:  I know a few things

21     on the topics you are mentioning.  However, I'm not here to speak on

22     these subjects; and I was not brought here, as an expert, to speak on

23     topics of international law.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're dealing with

25     very complex legal matters, and the witness is not an expert in that

Page 12016

 1     field.

 2             I have a question for you; not a matter of substance, but at

 3     page 57, line 23, you said that:  "When the Republic of Croatia was

 4     internationally recognised as an independent state," you seem to be

 5     implying that this did not imply the UNPA.  Is this what you meant to say

 6     or did I misunderstand you?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are you asking me?  Under

 8     international law, this could not have included territories under the

 9     protection of the United Nations, because according to the Vance Plan,

10     those territories came under UN protection so that negotiations may be

11     held on their future status.  That was the point of the Vance Plan.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.  Okay, so that's your

13     interpretation.

14             Very well, please proceed.

15             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Ms. Radic, when you were making this first table on the ethnic

17     composition of the population from the territory of the Republic of

18     Serbia Krajina or, rather, UNPA, why didn't you use the Administrative

19     Division of Croatia from that time?  Why didn't you indicate them as

20     municipalities that existed in 1991 or 1992, but used instead the latter

21     administrative division which increased the number of existing

22     municipalities by fragmenting them?  As an expert, you should have used

23     the administrative division from the relevant time.

24        A.   I could have used both.  I chose to make this table to show the

25     status of -- the current status of things concerning particular places,

Page 12017

 1     including Vukovar among others, because the current -- today's

 2     administrative division delimits the area of Vukovar town, whereas the

 3     previous administrative division was a much larger territory.  You can

 4     see that precisely because of that, we had to divide the Vukovar-Srem

 5     county, and this was much more precise.

 6        Q.   Ms. Radic, you gave us here data on the number of registered

 7     expelled persons, and displaced persons in Croatia.  We have 27 March

 8     1992 data and some other dates, later dates.  But you provided us with

 9     information in table 6, "Overview of Facilities in Organised

10     Accommodation and Number of Persons Accommodated in October 1992," and

11     then a list of those facilities and the number of people put up in them.

12     You have "B" category facilities, hotels; correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Then you have a lower category, refugee centres, collective

15     accommodation, and then another category where displaced persons are

16     placed in private accommodation.  When you look at the numbers, 73.898 in

17     "B" category, then in a lower category you have the total 15.033, in

18     refugee centres you have 21.020, and in facilities where only food is

19     provided, that's 16.401 --

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, I suppose you're

21     looking for the table.

22             MS. BIERSAY:  No, Your Honour.  I just wanted to say that this is

23     at e-court -- the page number of the English is, I believe, 67, and the

24     B/C/S is 50, just for ease of reference.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

Page 12018

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay is only seeking to

 2     interrupt me, that's all.

 3        Q.   73.000, and if we add to that 15.033, that's 103.921.  Then we

 4     add 21.000, and that gives us -- let it be 130.000.  Then we have 16.000

 5     receiving only food.  Let's say the total is 150.000, and I rounded it

 6     off to your benefit, in your favour.  And then we have the registered

 7     number of displaced persons in Croatia as of the 27th March 1992, seven

 8     months earlier, that is, 325.806.  I suppose in October, there must have

 9     been much more than 325.000.

10             So if 150.000 were put up in hotels, collective centres,

11     et cetera, what happened with the 200.000 who were not put up in that

12     way?  They were placed in Serbian houses and flats, if there were 325.000

13     in the first place?  Where else would they have been put up?  Perhaps

14     somewhere with family, but not many could have been put up with family.

15        A.   That is precisely where you are wrong.  A large number of

16     expelled persons, and later displaced persons, were not accommodated in

17     an organised way.  They were in private accommodation.  To begin with,

18     with family.  Some people later moved to organised accommodation when we

19     could provide more of it.  But I mentioned that already in 1993, we

20     started building large settlements for displaced persons, with the help

21     of international donations and institutions, and 15 of such centres were

22     built in Croatia, accommodating a large number of persons.  So the

23     accommodation facilities listed in this report were additionally

24     increased.

25             The largest number of people, whether we are talking about

Page 12019

 1     expelled persons or refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were the

 2     largest number, remained in private accommodation, first with friends and

 3     some found other ways later.

 4             As for the numbers, the numbers were very high in the beginning,

 5     because they had left their homes within the Republic of Croatia, and the

 6     largest number of those left their homes in 1991 and the beginning of

 7     1992, when a large number of people left not only these occupied areas

 8     but also the areas of the Republic of Croatia that suffered from constant

 9     shelling.  Part of those people were put up within Croatia, and others

10     left the country.

11             Just after the Sarajevo truce and the deployment of the UNPROFOR

12     in UNPAs in the Republic of Croatia, a large number of these people

13     returned to their homes.

14             I also said that according to our legislation, we did not

15     recognise these people as expelled.  In the registration drive in April

16     1994, we defined very precisely --

17        Q.   You are starting to talk about things that are not in the scope

18     of my question.  My time is precious, and I want to discuss many things

19     with you.

20             Croatian authorities, with regard to all Serbs who were expelled

21     or who fled from the area of Croatia controlled by the Zagreb government,

22     they annulled their housing rights, and even the international

23     authorities had to intervene; correct?

24             Are you going to answer the question?

25        A.   The Croatian authorities didn't do this, but the courts acted in

Page 12020

 1     this way in their judgements.  There are court judgements.

 2        Q.   When I say "the Croatian government," well, I'm referring to the

 3     legislative, executive and local authorities, when I say "the Croatian

 4     authorities."

 5             Well, if these very bodies act differently, the Parliament, the

 6     executive body, the legislative body, well, I'm not interested in that.

 7     You represent the Croatian authorities, in my mind.  You deprived the

 8     Serbs of their housing rights.  I don't mean you, personally, when I say

 9     "you," but the Croatian authorities at various levels, and you allocated

10     their flats to Croats.  And the Serbs, who fled or were expelled, could

11     no longer regain those housing rights; is that correct?

12        A.   Mr. Seselj, in Croatia we have a programme.  We have certain

13     rules in force that we implement, and we are implementing them to this

14     very day.  According to these rules and regulations, people who lost

15     their housing rights in Croatia, well, they can be allocated flats if

16     they want to return to Croatia; and so in this way they can return to

17     Croatia.  This programme is being implemented.

18             When it comes to large towns, well, in this manner we have

19     provided about 750 families with accommodation.  In the areas that are

20     concerned by state social care, we've provided accommodation for about

21     5.000 families.  They used to have housing rights.  And in these areas of

22     special interest or special care, the areas that were occupied, such as

23     Knin, well, in those areas, in this manner, about 5.000 families have

24     returned to those areas; to Vukovar, too.  For example, out of 70 --

25     70 per cent of them are Serbs.  As far as these urban areas are

Page 12021

 1     concerned, the large towns like Zagreb and Osijek, well, I said that

 2     about 750 families had been provided with flats in this way, and this is

 3     something we're working on today.

 4        Q.   Ms. Radic, these are insignificant numbers in comparison with the

 5     hundreds of thousands expelled Serbs, but you should be aware that in the

 6     former Yugoslavia, having housing rights amounted to having certain

 7     property rights.  A state would allocate a flat to you, or your company.

 8     An institution would allocate a flat to you, and then you could use that

 9     flat for life.  No one could expel you.  Your children could inherit it.

10     You could exchange the flat.  The only thing you couldn't do was sell it.

11     So housing rights were different from property rights only in that you

12     could not sell it; am I correct?

13        A.   No, you're not right, and I think that many lawyers would not

14     agree with what you have said.  This is, in fact, a fairly significant

15     legal subject that could be discussed at length; but I think that

16     judgements could also be of assistance when it comes to this subject,

17     judgements that were handed down a few years ago by the Court for Human

18     Rights based in Strasbourg, in a very well-known case.  Well, there was

19     Blecic versus Croatia, this was a very well-known case, and there was a

20     different interpretation of what you have said.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm rather surprised, because

22     earlier on you told us that you were not a lawyer, and now you're quoting

23     decisions of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  I'm rather taken

24     aback by all this.

25             But when it comes to social property now, I have the following

Page 12022

 1     question:  If we take the case of a Serbian family that was expelled,

 2     that left Zagreb, and that had the use of a flat because they had been

 3     assigned this apartment by their company, what measures were taken by the

 4     Croatian government to restore the rights of these people, or is it the

 5     case that the Croatian government did nothing?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my previous answer, I tried to

 7     explain this.  It wasn't the subject of my report.  These are things that

 8     we are working on at present.

 9             We would provide flats for people returning to the Republic of

10     Croatia.  We do this by allocating flats in areas of special interest to

11     the state, and this is how we would make it possible for these people to

12     return.  Many of these people are in Serbia.  They don't have any other

13     property, and whether they are allocated a flat depends on whether they

14     return to Croatia.

15             In response to Mr. Seselj's question, I also provided some

16     figures.  About 5.000 families in the area of special state concern are

17     concerned, and about 750 families outside the area of special state

18     concern are concerned.

19        Q.   But the flats that they had housing rights to are not returned to

20     them.

21             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I need some clarification from

22     the witness before you continue.

23             You are referring to Tribunal decisions or rulings.  Were they

24     taken based on a new piece of legislation that changed the former act

25     regarding usufruct; is that right, or did I not understand properly?

Page 12023

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look, as I have already

 2     pointed out, I'm not a lawyer; so I couldn't really make an assessment.

 3     But I am familiar with those judgements.

 4             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, this was not my

 5     question.  I don't want you to go into legal details.  I just wanted to

 6     know whether you knew whether there was a new act that would have changed

 7     the previous act removing the right of usufruct, and I wanted to know

 8     whether there was a law that was applied retractively.  That's the only

 9     thing I want to know, if you know.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, no retractive law

11     was passed.  But in 1996, the idea of housing rights came to an end; the

12     system came to an end.  Then certain deadlines were established, and

13     deadlines by which one should try to sell the flat for which one had

14     housing rights.  So nothing was done retroactively.

15             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would seek another

16     clarification, if you don't mind.

17             You said that you had a programme aimed at helping Serbs who

18     wanted to return to Croatia, so to help them to be resettled or find

19     accommodation.  I wanted to know whether that programme took on board

20     their will or their choice as to the village or town where they wanted to

21     return, or whether you had decided as to a special location where you

22     would put all these people.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We really took into account the

24     desires that people had, where they wanted to return to.  The first rule

25     was that people would submit requests.  Most people would submit a

Page 12024

 1     request to return to the place of residence they had in 1991, and this

 2     was something that we respect or this is something that we respect.

 3     Naturally, in some places it's easier to find accommodation.  In other

 4     places, it's more difficult.  But, in any event, we strive to respect

 5     people's desires, and on the whole people want to live in places where

 6     they lived in 1991.

 7             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

 9             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   On the last payable, table 4, you provided information from the

11     High Commission of the Office for Refugees.  I believe that this is a

12     reliable source.  You provided information on the number of refugees

13     registered in other republics of the former Yugoslavia.  It's the 27th of

14     March, 1992, in Serbia, 142.000; is that correct?  Montenegro, Macedonia,

15     several thousand; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 95.000; and the total number is

16     252.000.  This includes the 7.600 registered in Slavonia; 252.000

17     refugees from Croatia, and other republics of the former Yugoslavia; is

18     that correct?  On the whole, these people are Serbs; would you agree?

19        A.   I cannot confirm that.  That's probably the case.

20        Q.   Perhaps there's a few Slovenians, a few Muslims?

21        A.   We cannot make such claims, since the information from that

22     period -- well, we weren't the only ones to keep records.  Other states

23     did too.  So no one kept precise records so that we could know exactly

24     who is in question.

25        Q.   The UNHCR also registered these individuals on the basis of their

Page 12025

 1     ethnic origins, and the Serbian government did that.  I can't say that

 2     Montenegro, Macedonia and Slovenia acted in a similar way, but the UNHCR

 3     did act in this way.  There were naturally certain cases in which Croats

 4     came to Croatia from Serbia.  I know a well-known Croatian intellectual,

 5     Goran Babic.  Have you heard of him?  He went to Serbia from Croatia --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, moved from Croatia to

 7     Serbia.

 8             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   -- because he couldn't support Tudjman's regime, and when we

10     examine those numbers, well the number of Croats would be very low.  On

11     the whole, we're dealing with some Serbs, perhaps some Muslims, but it's

12     not clearly stated here.  Perhaps there were Slovenians who fled during

13     the war to Slovenia, and Macedonians who went to Macedonia, because 2.000

14     of them went to Macedonia.  Out of 252.000, over 200.000 are Serbs.

15     There's no doubt about that.  That would be the minimum number.  Would

16     you agree with me?

17        A.   That's quite possible.

18        Q.   It's possible.  Very well.  And now we have the number of

19     refugees from Croatia and other states, 115.781.  You said that this

20     information was gathered on the basis of the assessment of foreign

21     countries, mostly on the basis of Germany's assessments.  Do you have any

22     information as to how many Serbs and how many Croats is included in this

23     figure?

24        A.   What I know with regard to the information from that period of

25     time, well, in two cases you have precise information.  It concerns

Page 12026

 1     Switzerland and Czechoslovakia.  But it was a problem at the time to

 2     determine whether someone was a Croat or a Serb; or, rather, to determine

 3     whether someone was a citizen of the Republic of Croatia or a citizen of

 4     Serbia.

 5        Q.   They were all fleeing with the passport of the former Yugoslavia?

 6        A.   That's correct.  So for a long time, statistics were kept in many

 7     states according to which we were dealing with SFRY citizens.  No

 8     distinctions were made as to whether someone was from Croatia or Serbia.

 9        Q.   That's correct, but this is information for which you said that

10     the refugees were from Croatia, so 115.781 individuals.  Well, these

11     individuals are from Croatia; that's what you've written down here?

12        A.   These are estimates of the authorities of the UNHCR, but that

13     does not mean that there are no Serbs included in the figure.  We can't

14     make that claim.

15        Q.   Or the majority are Serbs?

16        A.   Well, because we're dealing with people who are from Croatia.

17     Later on, when the process of returning from those foreign countries had

18     started, we then saw that among those people, well, there were both

19     Croats and Serbs.  But we're talking about Croatian citizens.  We can't

20     keep records in this way.

21        Q.   Well, Croatian citizens, also that over 200.000 Serbs who fled

22     from Croatia, over 150.000 went to Serbia and over 50.000 to

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?  They are also Croatian citizens?

24        A.   That's correct, they are Croatian citizens, Croatian nationals,

25     because among them there are people --

Page 12027

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm looking at the

 2     time, because I want Mr. Seselj to be able to use his hour and a half.  I

 3     don't want to interrupt him.

 4             I'm looking at the 164 individuals who went to Switzerland.  Your

 5     department, your office, could have asked the UNHCR or the Swiss

 6     authorities to know how many of these 164 people would declare themselves

 7     as Serb or Croat.  It wasn't that complicated to do, and you would have a

 8     fair estimation.  Of course, you have 55.000 in Germany.  It must be a

 9     mixture of Serbs and Croats, more complicated.  But when you have smaller

10     figures, it was easier to find out.  There are 2.000 in Czechoslovakia,

11     2.117.  It might have been interesting to look at the breakdown.  Well,

12     it wasn't done.  It will remain at that.

13             Continue, Mr. Seselj.

14             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Well, let's see about the following:  You have table 11.  It's an

16     overview of individuals who fled from Serbia from 1991 to 1995.  For you,

17     all these people who moved from Serbia to Croatia are refugees?  All

18     these people who moved from 1991 to 1995, they're refugees or expelled

19     persons; is that correct?

20        A.   We're dealing with people who were registered in the Republic of

21     Croatia.

22        Q.   Because Croatia provided certain financial benefits if one

23     registered, so why shouldn't they register; is that correct?

24        A.   As I have already explained, Croatia did not provide financial

25     benefit, really.

Page 12028

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Biersay.

 2             MS. BIERSAY:  For ease of reference, the e-court reference, I

 3     believe, is English page 114, B/C/S page 99.

 4             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   You have cited here, broken down by municipalities in Serbia,

 6     first of all you divided it into Serbia proper and Vojvodina and Kosovo;

 7     and then you stated precisely, municipality by municipality, what you

 8     registered, and I have no reason to doubt it in advance.

 9             And now we have numbers.  From Serbia property, for a long time

10     there is no movement towards Croatia almost at all; in 1991, 3; in 1992,

11     12; in 1993, 48; and then in 1996 it's 113.  In total, we have 546 people

12     who moved from Serbia to Croatia, and you keep them on record as

13     refugees.  There are 17 Serbs among them?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   In total, it's 546 people.  Now, let's look at Vojvodina.  We

16     have 5.131 persons there?

17        A.   Correct.

18        Q.   In 1990, 7; in 1991, 61.  I draw the attention of the Chamber to

19     this.  It's very important.  In all of 1990, 290 from Vojvodina; in 1993,

20     345; in 1994, 541; and in 1995, after Operations Flash and Storm, 1.868;

21     in 1996, 280.  In total, 5.131 persons moved from Vojvodina, all of

22     Vojvodina, to Croatia.  You registered them as refugees.  Only 3.377 were

23     Croats.  That's your number; right?

24        A.   It's at least 3.377 Croats.

25        Q.   All right.  There are at least 61 Serbs who moved from Vojvodina

Page 12029

 1     to Croatia.  You register them -- you keep them on record as refugees.

 2     There are also six Muslims, in the category of "Others," 144; 32 unknown.

 3     But the total number is 5.131 persons from 1990 through 1996.  And what

 4     happens in 1997?  In 1997, you say the Croatian government established a

 5     state agency for the purchase of real estate.  That state agency

 6     purchases Serbian property for peanuts and assigns it to Croats who move

 7     from anywhere to Croatia; is that correct?  You can answer with a "yes"

 8     or "no" so we can move on.

 9        A.   I cannot confirm this, because it is not a simple matter, and it

10     is not assigned only and exclusively to Croats.

11        Q.   I don't like complicated matters, so let's move on.  We have this

12     information from Vojvodina, but what will be of special interest to the

13     Judges, I suppose, because you showed considerable diligence and

14     conscientiousness in the substance of this report, you should remember

15     5.131 people moved from Vojvodina to Croatia, including 61 Serbs.  And

16     now look what happens?  From Kosovo and Metohija, the total is 6.924

17     persons who moved to Croatia.  Out of them, 3.755 Croats, 7 Serbs, 91

18     Muslims, and others, 1.490.  That must include the Gornji, Turks,

19     Albanians, et cetera.  From whom or what did they flee from Kosovo?

20             The largest number, look at how they left.  Before 1996, it says

21     "4.251," which means we don't know exactly when they left, and then year

22     by year, the figures are much smaller:  1990, 14; 1992, 27; 1993, 670.

23     They left certainly before 1996, but we don't know when, 4.251.  In

24     total, it's 6.924.  So it's 1.800 more than from Vojvodina.  From what

25     did they flee from Kosovo?

Page 12030

 1        A.   As you could see from these numbers for yourself, concerning

 2     these people from Kosovo, they are mainly Croats, but not exclusively

 3     Croats.  There were a lot of Albanians among them who left before 1995,

 4     but also after 1995, and moved to Croatia.  The largest number came to

 5     Croatia in 1999, during the war in Kosovo, and among them there was a

 6     large number of Albanians and -- Croats and Albanians.  And people were

 7     also leaving for the reasons we discussed before.

 8        Q.   Fleeing in the face of certain dangers?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   Now, tell me this:  Among these 5.131 people -- or let's reduce

11     it.  Among 3.755 Croats, who according to your data fled from Vojvodina

12     to Croatia, how many left without having exchanged their property; that

13     is, abandoning their flats and houses in Serbia without exchanging them?

14     Do you have that information?

15        A.   I don't have that information here.  Some of the figures

16     reflecting in what housing they are is recorded with our agency, but I

17     did not include it in the report because I didn't search for numbers

18     according to that criterion.  But we recorded the situation when they

19     registered.  So I cannot tell you the number.

20        Q.   Please, you have a total of 3.377 Croats that you say fled from

21     Serbia between 1991 and 1999, with a proviso that before 1992 -- that is,

22     until 1992, in 1991 and 1992 together, the number was 358?  Did I do the

23     addition right?

24        A.   I think so.

25        Q.   358 Croats who fled from Vojvodina to Croatia.  What should be

Page 12031

 1     the most important for us here, in your expert report, would have been if

 2     you had found whether, among them, there was a single Croat who had to

 3     flee from Serbia for any reason, leaving all their real estate behind,

 4     all their immovable property.  I say that it's not the case.  All of them

 5     either sold their property and left or exchanged their property and left.

 6     Nobody had to run away in haste.  I know that in some war-stricken areas,

 7     people had literally to flee, to run away, carrying only a little bag,

 8     but in Serbia it never happened.  Nobody had to run with just a small

 9     bag.

10             Now, can I please know how much time is left to me, because I'll

11     have to --

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You need to make it brief,

13     because we need to have at least ten minutes before the end of the

14     hearing for housekeeping matters.

15             Let me see.  You have used one hour, so you must have 30 minutes

16     left.

17             Witness, just one question, because these figures are extremely

18     relevant for us.  They are indeed at the very centre of the indictment

19     regarding Vojvodina.  I'm focusing on 1991 and 1992.

20             With regard to, well, first 1990, we have seven leaving.  Well,

21     not much happened in 1990.  We have 61 for 1991 and 290 for 1992.  As

22     part of your survey, it would have been interesting to know how many

23     people had actually exchanged their flats or apartments out of these 350,

24     because if 350 exchanged apartments in complete freedom, that's different

25     as in a situation where you're forced to do so.

Page 12032

 1             In 1993, we have 345, and then we can see that the situation is

 2     deteriorating because the next year is 541, and then 1.800 the following

 3     year.  But we're focusing on 1991 and 1992, and it would have been

 4     interesting to know, out of the 350, how many exchanged apartments.  But

 5     I don't suppose you have an answer.  You don't have any doubt on that, do

 6     you?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have said, I have no numbers

 8     showing how many people had exchanged their property.  The numbers that

 9     we have, but I did not derive them for this report in particular, are the

10     numbers showing reasons for leaving that people stated during

11     registration.  In most cases, they mentioned expulsion and personal

12     threats or harassment as the reasons for leaving their homes.

13             There is another important proviso; namely, that a significant

14     number of these people did not register as refugees.  Here I'm only

15     talking about people who registered as refugees and obviously had reasons

16     to do so.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

18             We have five minutes before the break, so you have time before

19     the break.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want to draw your attention,

21     Mr. President, concerning these 350 from Vojvodina up to the end of 1992.

22     Information on their ethnic composition would have been interesting,

23     because not all of them were Croats.  There could have been Serbs among

24     those 350, if there were 61 Serbs from this area motivated by something.

25        Q.   You said that 127.000 Serbs, according to your files that you

Page 12033

 1     opened returned to the area of -- to the territory of Croatia.  A few

 2     days ago, Serbian authorities informed the public that around 75.000

 3     returned.  How do you interpret this?  How do you explain this difference

 4     of 52.000 in Serb returnees?

 5        A.   I can only talk about the people who registered as returnees to

 6     the Republic of Croatia, and this is an exact number, 127.000.

 7        Q.   All right.  You gave us information about the age composition,

 8     gender percentages, very detailed information broken down by

 9     municipalities in Croatia, about Croats who fled from somewhere to

10     Croatia; but it would have been interesting to know the age composition

11     of the Serbs that you have on your files as having returned.  Do you have

12     that?

13        A.   Our agency does have it.

14        Q.   But you did not deem it necessary to include it in your report?

15        A.   No, because I wasn't asked to.

16        Q.   Because the Prosecution is not interested in the fate of Serbs.

17     You're right, they always represent your side.

18             MS. BIERSAY:  [Previous translation continues]

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I withdraw my objection.  That is

20     my comment.  Let's move on, so Ms. Biersay shouldn't jump so.

21        Q.   According to my information, it is mostly Serbs who are elderly,

22     who are simply unable to start a new life anywhere or get used to a new

23     place, or who came back to finally sell their property at any price and

24     then leave the area now under Croatian control, am I right that these are

25     mostly elderly people or people who are coming only in order to sell

Page 12034

 1     their property?

 2        A.   You cannot talk about it in such an exclusive way.  A large

 3     number, higher than in other segments of population, are elderly people.

 4     Why?  Because elderly people are the first to come back.  But that's no

 5     longer the case.  You have many more younger families with children

 6     coming back to Croatia.  This story that it's mainly elderly people

 7     coming back or people who want to sell their property, that happened in

 8     the beginning, because in all situations that results in refugees, among

 9     all ethnic groups, Serbs, Croats, any others, elderly people are the

10     first to come back.  Younger people come back later.  So you can't be

11     that exclusive.

12             Of course, in this number there is a larger number of Serbs, and

13     some of them, of course, came to sell their property.  That's true.

14        Q.   Now, explain this miracle.  In 1997, the Croatian government

15     established a state agency for the purchase of real estate.  I know of no

16     other example in Europe where a state, a country, establishes an agency

17     to purchase the real estate of its own nationals who want to get rid of

18     it.  That's what happened in Croatia in 1997.  I would understand if it

19     was left to some special funds, or foundations, or local self-government,

20     but you have a special state agency dealing with purchase of Serbian

21     property for peanuts; and I know this for a fact, it's for peanuts.  I

22     have reliable information about this.  Can you explain that, as an

23     expert?

24        A.   This agency, I didn't know you were going to ask this, so I

25     didn't take the papers with me.

Page 12035

 1        Q.   What did you expect me to ask?

 2        A.   I can tell you a few things about that agency.  It was

 3     established at the time of the peaceful reintegration of Croatian

 4     Podunavlje when, among other things, an agreement was made on two-way

 5     return from Croatian Podunavlje to other areas of Croatia, and

 6     vice versa.

 7             This agreement deals with the return of internally-displaced

 8     persons.  In that agreement, the possibility of selling property is

 9     mentioned, and this agency is also mentioned.  This agreement - I'm

10     sorry, I don't have it with me - was signed between the Croatian

11     government and the transitional administration.  It provides the

12     possibility of people who remained in Croatian Podunavlje, of deciding

13     whether they want to stay, and if they want to go, whether they want to

14     sell their property.  And that agency served the purpose of buying their

15     property, because in that area at the time there was no real estate

16     market.

17        Q.   But a large number of Serbs is not returning.  You say that

18     certain areas of Croatia.  You mean actually the Republic of Serbian

19     Krajina or UNPAs were liberated by Operation Storm in 1995?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   It was liberated from all the Serbian population, because all

22     Serbs were expelled.  Those who were not expelled were killed.  Those who

23     were foolish enough to stay were killed; is that correct?

24        A.   I can't confirm that.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can't.  Very well, you can't.

Page 12036

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to break for 20

 2     minutes and resume at 20 past 12.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

 6             The Registrar has told me that Mr. Seselj has 22 minutes left.

 7             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Ms. Radic, do you know that the majority of the refugees and

 9     expelled Serbs, especially those who were expelled at the time of Flash

10     and Storm, simply don't want to return to their homes for as long as the

11     Republic of Serbian Krajina, in which they lived, is not liberated?  Are

12     you aware of the fact?

13        A.   I know that there are many Serbs who fled from Croatia and have

14     decided not to return to the Republic of Croatia, but I cannot speculate

15     as to the reasons for this.  International investigations carried out by

16     the OSS, the UNHCR and other organisation show that there are various

17     reasons for which some decided to return and some decided not to.

18        Q.   Very well.  In the concluding parts of your report, you do not

19     attempt to use a scientific or specialist method in order to analyse

20     certain themes.  You have recourse to journalist method, and you

21     described your view of the alleged expulsion of Serbs from the Republic

22     of Serbian Krajina.

23             As an example, I'll mention the case of Borovo Selo.  You say

24     that Croatian policemen were killed and massacred there.  One might draw

25     the conclusion that Serbian terrorists killed innocent Croatian

Page 12037

 1     policemen; isn't that correct?

 2        A.   Here I'm only referring to an event that took place in that area,

 3     an event the consequence of which was the departure of a certain number

 4     of non-Serbs from that area.

 5        Q.   Ms. Radic, I read through that carefully.  You said that they

 6     were killed and massacres; isn't that correct?

 7        A.   That's quite correct.

 8        Q.   And I'll tell you what I know about the event, since volunteers

 9     from the Serbian Radical Party participated in the fighting there, and

10     today they are proud of that victory, and so am I, who sent them there.

11     I'm proud of that Serbian victory.  The Serbian villages in eastern part

12     of Slavonia and in Srem were under threat because various Croatian

13     military formation were attacking them.  The Serbs were unlawfully

14     arrested and beaten up, and some of them were even killed.  And as a

15     result, the Serbian villages set up blockades at access routes, and they

16     used weapons to prevent the Croatian police and paramilitary formations

17     from entering these places.  Then there were negotiations to calm the

18     situation down.  Reihl Kir participated in the negotiations --

19             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please refrain from

20     testifying and put your question to the witness.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I can't put my question to

22     the witness until I inform the witness of what happened there, according

23     to the information I had.  But, Ms. Lattanzi, you should have noticed

24     that many parts of this expert report amount to no more than a

25     journalistic view of the events.  The Croats are always innocent and the

Page 12038

 1     Serbs are guilty.  And this wasn't the task assigned to the expert.

 2             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] That's another matter,

 3     Mr. Seselj.  Your questions should refer to the various parts of your

 4     description, because you start by referring to all sorts of events, you

 5     describe a whole series of events, and then at the end we have no idea

 6     what your question is about.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're not interested in the event,

 8     so I won't deal with it.  History has recorded it.

 9             JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I am interested, indeed.  You

10     cannot say that I'm not interested.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]

12     ... thanks.  How did the Croatian policemen enter this Serbian village?

13     There were peace negotiations, an agreement was reached to calm things

14     down and to remove the blockades.  The blockades were removed, and then

15     the Croatian policemen entered Borovo Selo, armed to the teeth, and they

16     were bussed in.  As soon as they got out of the buses, they opened fire.

17     The Serbs responded and they won.  And now one says in this expert report

18     that innocent Croatian policemen were killed.  And this is an expert for

19     refugees and displaced persons.

20             That was the substance of my question, but I will abandon that

21     question.  I don't have anymore time to deal with, so I will move on.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Borovo Selo is a very

23     significant event, indeed.  You mention that in your report.  Mr. Seselj

24     has just given us his version of the events that took place there.  What

25     do you have to say?

Page 12039

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This event, and other similar

 2     events in Croatia, well, regardless of the causes - I can't go into the

 3     causes, I'm not such an expert - but I only mention these events here as

 4     events that actually took place, and I describe them such as they were

 5     described.  I say that these people were killed not only in the course of

 6     combat.  I say that there was a massacre too.  There are several such

 7     events that took place in various parts of Croatia, and as a result of

 8     these events, a certain number of the population fled from the area

 9     concerned.

10             In the case of Borovo Selo, the outskirts of the town of Vukovar,

11     the settlement of Borovo and Vukovar, strictly speaking, well, in those

12     cases the first refugees started appearing in certain areas of Croatia.

13     They came from areas where such events took place.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, while

15     combat was still ongoing, a tank unit from the JNA intervened and put an

16     end to the armed conflict.  They helped the Croats to get out, to

17     withdraw, and to withdraw with their dead and with the wounded.  That's

18     for your information, but it's not important.

19        Q.   Why doesn't your report, Ms. Radic, cover the Serbs who, after

20     Storm and Flash, moved to Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, although there

21     were quite a few of them?

22        A.   Because I wasn't requested to cover that.

23        Q.   Very well.  That satisfies me as an answer.  Do you know that

24     between two censuses in Croatia in 1991 and 2001, a discrepancy of -- a

25     minority -- a loss of 38.000 Serbs was recorded?  So even if we don't

Page 12040

 1     take into account -- we shouldn't take into account the idea that the

 2     birth rate was nil for the Serbs.  Children must have been born.  That

 3     was the case for the Croats, that was the case for the Serbs.  There's no

 4     difference in the birth rate; there shouldn't be any difference.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   So 38.000 [as interpreted] Serbs were missing between these two

 7     censuses; you're aware of that?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.  There's a

10     mistake in the transcript.  It's 380.000, and not 38.000.

11             Please proceed.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, everyone's against me here,

13     even the court reporter, but it doesn't matter.  I'm used to that.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges are here to control

15     everything.

16             MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Could you answer this question, Ms. Radic?

18        A.   You're referring to the censuses, and that is correct, 380.000 --

19     380.000 and 32 between the two censuses.  But the census was in 2001, and

20     after 2001 we, as a body, dealt with the return of refugees, registered

21     40.000 returnees.  They had returned from abroad.  So the figure is a

22     little different in relation to the one mentioned in the census.  That's

23     one thing, but this is just a census.

24             Just allow me to say one more thing.

25             It would be important to compare the areas that were directly

Page 12041

 1     affected by the war, areas where the entire non-Serbian population, on

 2     the one side, started fleeing, and afterwards the Serbian population

 3     started fleeing from such areas; so this is the sphere that this body

 4     that I lead deals with.

 5             As a result of the war and all the events, both segments of the

 6     population emigrated.  We don't have fewer Serbs; we also have fewer

 7     Croats.

 8        Q.   Let me just correct you.  First the Serbs started fleeing as

 9     early as 1990, after Tudjman's regime was established.  There was the

10     return of Ustasha symbols.  There were homeland certificates that were

11     introduced.  That's when the Serbs started fleeing, first urban Serbs --

12     well, you should have consulted Svetozar Livada, who has information

13     about that.

14        A.   I don't have such information.

15        Q.   The Prosecution also has such information.  Very well.  In this

16     information that you have on Croatian refugees, well, there were lots of

17     Croats who fled from Bosnia and Herzegovina included in this information;

18     isn't that correct?

19        A.   In the information I present in my report, apart from several

20     places where refugees are explicitly referred to, well, in this

21     information we're dealing with citizens of the Republic of Croatia.

22     We're not talking about Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In several

23     places, Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina are mentioned.  Croats from

24     Bosnia and Herzegovina are not included in the figure of 220.000 expelled

25     persons.

Page 12042

 1        Q.   When Tudjman's regime was established, all the Croats obtained

 2     the right to have Croatian nationality, and many Croats from Bosnia and

 3     Herzegovina used their right; and they participated in all Croatian

 4     elections on a massive scale in the previous 18 years; isn't that

 5     correct?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   So almost all of them.  I don't know who didn't, but almost all

 8     Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the same time citizens of Croatia;

 9     is that correct?

10        A.   Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you.  That's not the case for

11     all of them.

12        Q.   But almost all of them are.  Whoever didn't want to be a citizen

13     of Croatia didn't become such a citizen.  There were those who adhered to

14     the Muslim regime in Sarajevo; isn't that correct?

15        A.   I can't confirm that.

16        Q.   That's my claim, but it doesn't matter.  Would it be correct to

17     say that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, before the war, the Croats

18     represented 17 per cent of the population, according to the official

19     statistics?

20        A.   If I remember correctly, I think that's correct.

21        Q.   Would it be correct to say that as things stand today, they

22     represent less than 6 per cent, not even 6 per cent of the population;

23     you don't know?

24        A.   I can't provide you with any precise figures.  Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina didn't carry out a census.  We're just talking about

Page 12043

 1     estimates here.

 2        Q.   Very well.  You know that the Croatian government filed charges

 3     against Serbia for allegedly committing acts of genocide, they filed

 4     these charges with ICJ?

 5        A.   I know about that.

 6        Q.   In order to put my following question to you, I'll tell you a

 7     little historical anecdote.

 8             Towards the end of 1941 or at the beginning of 1942, the American

 9     President Roosevelt called the most prominent politicians from Serbian

10     Croatia to Washington.  Jovan Ducic, one of the greatest Serbian poets,

11     attended.  Juri Krnjevic was the most distinguished Croat, the

12     vice-president of the Croatian Peasant Party, and Macek's first deputy.

13     There was much discussion on the Ustasha crimes, crimes committed by the

14     Ustasha against the Serbian people, and terrible news about such crimes

15     had already arrived in America.  The Croats who attended tried to deny

16     those crimes and to ascribe those crimes to Italian or German occupiers.

17             I'll conclude in a minute.

18             MS. BIERSAY:  At this time, the Prosecution would object to

19     Mr. Seselj essentially testifying.  If he has a question for the witness,

20     he should just pose it.  The pretence that he's going through, giving a

21     speech and then asking a question at the end, is improper.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but before you put a

23     question, you have to lay the foundation.  Mr. Seselj wants to put a

24     question to the witness about a meeting between Mr. Roosevelt, a Serb and

25     a Croat.  That's what he's explaining.

Page 12044

 1             Please proceed.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We also have to put slightly

 3     complex questions to experts, not simple questions as is the case for

 4     witnesses who have only completed primary school.  Ms. Radic is an expert

 5     here.

 6        Q.   Given the attempts to conceal the Ustasha crimes and ascribe

 7     guilt to Germans and Italians -- or when doing this, Jovan Ducic said the

 8     following.  He said:

 9             "You Croats are the most courageous people in the world, but not

10     because you're not afraid of anyone.  You Croats are the most courageous

11     people in the world because you're not ashamed of anything."

12             Ms. Radic, given the way the Croatian government acted, and given

13     the charges against Serbia, have Ducic's words just been emphasised, in

14     fact?

15        A.   [No interpretation]

16             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter apologises.  The microphone was

17     switched off.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have now concluded my

19     cross-examination.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, would you repeat your

21     answer.  We had a slight technical hitch.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I was saying, I don't see any

23     relation between those words and that event or, rather, the proceedings

24     that are ongoing.  I think that this is more a matter of someone's

25     opinion, not a matter of fact.  I can only speak about facts.

Page 12045

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow-up

 2     question, following something Mr. Seselj asked you.

 3                           Questioned by the Court:

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are an educated witness, so

 5     I can put a long or longer or more complex question to you than to a

 6     less-educated person.

 7             We had a number of witnesses who told us that a lot of Serbs

 8     arrived in Vojvodina from Croatia.  We were given a great deal of

 9     detailed evidence about all this.  We heard that apartments were

10     exchanged, but I'm not going to go into more detail about this.

11             Earlier on, Mr. Seselj talked about the census of 1991 and the

12     census of 2001.  And according to him, and I suppose he's relying on very

13     reliable documents, we find a deficit of over 300.000 Serbs between the

14     two censuses, between the census of 1991 and between the census of 2001.

15     This is a very high figure indeed, 300.000 people who, in 2001, did not

16     register as Serbs.

17             This is your area of expertise.  Could you tell us if these

18     figures are accurate?  Do they reflect the truth or the reality?

19        A.   These numbers that reflect the shortfall in population between

20     two censuses are correct.  There has been a lot of debate about why.

21     There was a decrease not only in the number of Serbs in Croatia, if we

22     are speaking now about the ethnic composition of the population, there

23     was also a decrease in the number of Croats.

24             Between these two censuses, the methodology of census has also

25     changed considerably, and there has been a lot of debate and public

Page 12046

 1     opinion about that.

 2             The numbers are correct, but if we were to talk about the

 3     reasons, then we would need special analysis, because we're talking

 4     demographics here.  You must know that at this time the birth rate should

 5     also be taken into account, and in that period, the birth rate was

 6     negative for all the ethnic communities.  And between the two censuses,

 7     not only because of the war, we had a large migration of the population

 8     not only from Croatia, not only of Serbs and Croats, towards third

 9     countries.

10             There was the phenomenon of "brain drain"; that is, the move of

11     young, educated people to the West.  Some people also left as refugees.

12     Many people are still living in the Netherlands, for example, and are not

13     even planning to go back.  It's not only Serbs; it's a lot of Croats as

14     well.  That's how the population decreased.

15             Also, indubitably, the war had a large impact on the demographics

16     in Croatia, and not only in Croatia but specifically on the areas that

17     were stricken by the war and occupied, because from there almost the

18     entire non-Serb population fled, and after them the Serbs fled too.  Our

19     demographers wrote a lot about it, and there are numerous papers dealing

20     with these events.  These papers attempt to explain the reasons why it

21     all happened and in what period the Serbs left these areas.

22             It is difficult for me to speak about that, because there's four,

23     or in the case of a certain area, seven years, we have no way of knowing

24     how many people left the Republic of Croatia at the time because we had

25     no control over the border, and we don't know why these people were

Page 12047

 1     leaving.  All we know is that they did leave.

 2             The fact, however, is that today, despite all the measures our

 3     government is taking, enabling people to find new housing in those areas,

 4     and to return, and to enable the return of the prewar population to those

 5     areas, both Serbs and Croats, we still have a shortfall of 65 per cent

 6     compared to the census.  But since it's been seven years from the census,

 7     if we add to this figure the number of returnees, we still have a

 8     shortfall of at least 30 per cent.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One final question.  What is

10     the population today in Croatia, how many inhabitants, and how many Serbs

11     in that population?

12        A.   According to the census, four and a half million I believe is the

13     total population.  According to that census, there were 4.5 per cent.

14     But as I said, the return of refugees continued even after the census.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But according to the 1991 census,

16     there were 12 per cent Serbs.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Precisely.  That was the

18     question that I was about to ask.  You were ahead of me.  I was about to

19     ask the following:  In 1991, how many inhabitants were there, and what

20     was the percentage of Serbs in that population?

21        A.   4.700.000, and the percentage of Serbs was 12.2.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there is a drop in the

23     percentage with regard to the Serbs.  There's no doubt about it.

24        A.   That is correct.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, do you have any

Page 12048

 1     redirect?

 2             MS. BIERSAY:  With the Court's permission, yes, please.

 3                           Re-examination by Ms. Biersay:

 4        Q.   I'd like to cover, very briefly, two areas, and the first area

 5     that I'd like to discuss with you is the statistics and numbers with

 6     respect to refugees from Vojvodina.  And the second area - there will be

 7     some overlap - has to do with the definitions that we have been

 8     discussing, and hopefully we can clarify some issues and not muddle it

 9     further.

10             With respect to those individuals coming from Vojvodina, as

11     refugees, into Croatia, now, this table 11 to your report gives us some

12     figures; is that correct?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   And it's organised by dates.  Do those years at the top of the

15     table represent the date of expulsion or something else?

16        A.   They represent the date of expulsion, and concerning a number of

17     persons for whom we had no information of this date, we have the date of

18     registration; namely, dates of expulsion were taken from the personal

19     statements of people who stated that date.

20        Q.   And that is what I'd like to ask you.  Where does that

21     information come from, the expulsion date?

22        A.   It comes from the registration of expelled persons in 1994, and

23     we keep these records electronically from that time onwards.  During that

24     registration drive, everyone signed a certain form, signed it, and made a

25     statement indicating when they were expelled and the reasons of

Page 12049

 1     expulsion.  Of course, all the other information concerning their

 2     accommodation was also included, and they received IDs.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.  In all the

 4     documentation here in the table, we see references to refugees, whereas

 5     Ms. Biersay speaks of expelled persons, and the witness picks it up and

 6     speaks of dates of expulsion.  I have just seen this table.  I can find

 7     it again.  The reference there is to refugees from the area of Serbia,

 8     and a distinguishment is made between Serbia property, Vojvodina and

 9     Kosovo.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's on the record.  The Judges

11     keep all of this in mind, whatever the questions.  There's no way you can

12     misdirect us.

13             MS. BIERSAY:

14        Q.   Now, if an individual, say, from Vojvodina sought refuge in

15     Croatia, let's say, in 1992, and that person did register with one of the

16     local centres, if that person then left before the re-registration in

17     1994, would that person appear in the data that's contained in table 11?

18        A.   That person would not appear there.

19        Q.   And why is that?

20        A.   Because the paper trail of approving somebody's status was

21     exclusively on the local level until 1994.  It was kept in centres for

22     social security, that was a local organisation, and in regional offices.

23     They kept the archives, but only in hard copy.  So the information on

24     persons who had the status in 1992 and 1993 were never collected in one

25     place that would give us a list of names.  That is why in 1994, we

Page 12050

 1     organised this re-registration so that we could have, in one place, a

 2     list and all the information on all the persons who were then recorded as

 3     displaced.

 4        Q.   And then my final question pertains to the geographical coverage,

 5     if you will, of some of these terms that we've been using; namely,

 6     "refugees."  Are refugees people who are displaced within the Republic of

 7     Croatia or people who are coming from outside of Croatia?

 8        A.   Refugees are people who arrived from other states, other

 9     countries; that is, either from Bosnia-Herzegovina or Serbia.  They are

10     not the same as internally displaced within the borders of Croatia.  If

11     we are talking about people who fled within the borders of the Republic

12     of Croatia, we speak of expelled persons.

13             The international term frequently used is a synonym, but that

14     could only cause confusion in the courtroom, is "internally displaced."

15     And in order to understand this better, the term in English is used

16     "displaced."

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one thing, please.  These are

18     internally-displaced persons, as we say in Serbia, and tendentiously the

19     Croats introduced the term "expelled persons," whereas "expelled" means

20     people who were deported.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've devoted a lot of time to

22     this issue.

23             MS. BIERSAY:  I've completed the redirect, Your Honour.  Thank

24     you.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

Page 12051

 1             Thank you, Witness, for testifying on behalf of the Prosecution.

 2     I wish you a safe return home, and I shall ask the usher to escort you

 3     out of the courtroom.

 4             I have a few administrative matters.  Some will be in open

 5     session, others in private session.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, Mr. Seselj,

 8     this is a question for you.

 9             On the 21st of September, the Prosecutor filed a motion for

10     judicial notice of facts regarding Vukovar as mentioned in the Mrksic et

11     al judgement.  The question was put to you, and you answered then.

12     However, it appears that when comparing the English transcript and the

13     French transcript, there is some ambiguity regarding your position.

14     Therefore, I shall put the question to you again.  Are you going to file

15     a written response or not?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have already made

17     myself clear, orally.  I said that if that motion had been properly

18     filed, I would have made a written response, item by item, concerning the

19     facts in question.  But since these facts were established in a non-final

20     decision, then it's out of place for the Prosecution to make this motion.

21     If it were a final judgement, then I would have found it purposeful to

22     make a written response and answer point by point.  As it is, I reject it

23     because the Prosecution is making this motion based on the trial

24     judgement, which is not final.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The second question.  I'm now

Page 12052

 1     turning to the Prosecution, Ms. Biersay or Mr. Mundis.

 2             Regarding Vukovar, does the Prosecution maintain its motion,

 3     knowing that from the perspective of the Trial Chamber, we believe that

 4     we have a lot of witnesses who came to testify about Vukovar, and we

 5     wonder whether the motion is still necessary?

 6             MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Absolutely the motion is

 7     still necessary, and the Prosecution stands by the motion.

 8             To briefly respond to what the accused has said, of course, the

 9     jurisprudence of the Tribunal is such that one Trial Chamber may take

10     judicial notice of adjudicated facts from the Trial Chamber's finding in

11     another case with respect to those matters which are not the subject of

12     an appeal from the first Trial Chamber's decision.

13             The material that we've put before Your Honours in our motion of

14     25 September 2008 was limited to those issues which were not under appeal

15     and which could, therefore, be considered to be final; and therefore

16     would be ripe for consideration by this Trial Chamber.

17             And so we do stand by our motion, and we do --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Trial Chamber

19     will look into each and every fact.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If Mr. Mundis were right, well,

23     then the Prosecution should first provide me with all the appeals to the

24     judgement so that I can convince myself that this wasn't appealed.  But

25     this is just hot air.  There's no evidence.

Page 12053

 1             There are two brief administrative matters I'd like to deal with,

 2     but it would be for open session.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.  Yes, you

 4     will have your question in time for that, but let's move straight away

 5     into private session, because what I have to say is important, and I need

 6     time to announce that because we have to stop at 1.15 because we're going

 7     to have the swearing in of a new Judge just after that.

 8             Private session.

 9                           [Private session]

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)

Page 12054

 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                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, I'd

22     like to inform you that I was provided with a request from the

23     Prosecution according to which VS-1000 should be heard according to

24     Rule 92 ter.  You've already rejected the request and decided that the

25     witness should appear viva voce.  I've already presented arguments with

Page 12055

 1     regard to this matter, and I don't want this witness to testify pursuant

 2     to 92 ter.  This witness is VS-1000.

 3             On the 27th of October - this is the second matter - I received

 4     information from the Prosecution concerning VS-18, dated the 19th of

 5     October.  A few days ago, I received a note from the Prosecution in which

 6     they said they were withdrawing this submission.  And then on two

 7     occasions, detention guards came and asked me to submit this to them.

 8             First of all, I couldn't find it.  I thought it was an

 9     unimportant decision, and I had mislaid it.  Then a representative of the

10     Registry, yesterday or the day before, asked me for this document.  I

11     found the document last night, and today I'm asking Mr. Mundis whether he

12     asked for this document to be returned to him.  I asked him about that.

13     He didn't know what I was asking about.  And then I was told by a

14     representative from the Registry that the Registry, in fact, wanted me to

15     return this document.

16             It's unheard of.  How is it that the Registry has the right to

17     ask for me to return a document to them, a document that the Prosecution

18     decided not to file a submission?  I won't return this to the Registry.

19     As soon as I return to my cell, I'll shred this.  If the Registry is

20     defiant on this, they'll have to look through my cell.

21             What has the Registrar got to do with this document?  It's a

22     public document, it has a confidential annex, so that I am very familiar

23     with --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, the accused said he

25     would conceal or hide the document in his cell.

Page 12056

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is all this about,

 2     Mr. Mundis, about VS-18?  Apparently Mr. Seselj received a document and

 3     then you told him that you wanted to withdraw it?  I don't understand the

 4     first thing about it.

 5             MR. MUNDIS:  To be honest, Mr. President, I have no idea what

 6     Dr. Seselj is talking about.  I have not filed any documents concerning

 7     VS-18.  I have absolutely no idea what the accused is talking about.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Seselj, so we have no

 9     idea.  Mr. Mundis is going to inquire about it.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The representative of the Registry

11     should inform you of this.  Perhaps the representative of the Registry

12     could say something.  He is present.  He asked me to return this

13     document.  It's a Prosecution document, and the Prosecution told me that

14     this document was being withdrawn.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, our legal officer is

16     going to take over the Registrar's work.  We're going to look into this.

17     We're going to try and shed some light on this.  You've got the document.

18     Keep it, do whatever you want to do with it.  I don't know anything about

19     this document.

20             It was just about time to adjourn.  I wish you all a good

21     weekend.  We shall reconvene on Tuesday, Tuesday at 2.15.

22                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.09 p.m.,

23                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of

24                           November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.