100216ED

Page 15402

1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes, yes, I know what this is all about.

3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, you talk about it in your

4 statements. This is not something which I'm suggesting out of the blue;

5 this is something which arises from your statements. So can you please

6 tell us about this rally?

7 A. I can tell you that I did not attend the rally, but I know that

8 of the major political figures in Serbia at the time, Ms. Pesic was

9 there.

10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Was there anybody else?

11 A. Some other prominent figures, unfortunately I can't recall their

12 names, were also there. As far as I know, one of the people there is a

13 prominent member of a non-governmental organisation in Serbia.

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Please tell us which

15 non-governmental organisation it was.

16 A. I can't really tell you. I don't know the name of the

17 institution.

18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Do you know the name of the

19 accused of this trial in which you're now giving your statement?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Did he ever come to Hrtkovci in

22 1992?

23 A. Did he ever come to Hrtkovci? Yes, in early May 1992.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] At what exact date, if you

25 remember?

Page 15403

1 A. If I'm not mistaken, I stated the 6th of May, 1992, as the date.

2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. That is

3 what is found in your statements. Now, Witness, you talked about this

4 rally, of the speech allegedly made by Mr. Seselj there by hearsay

5 because you did not attend it yourself. What I'm essentially interested

6 in has to do with the question of the list. And essentially the fact

7 that in the list, according to what you're saying, your name was also on

8 this list.

9 So can you confirm that you heard about a list of people who were

10 supposed to go as quickly as possible, go away from Hrtkovci? I'm

11 talking about Croats and Hungarians.

12 A. Yes, I can say again, as I stated before, I never laid eyes

13 personally on that list and I had never read a name on that list of a

14 Croat or a Croatian -- of a Croat or a Hungarian who was to leave

15 Hrtkovci. I only heard about it.

16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Who did you hear that from?

17 A. From a few people who attended the rally.

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 A. No, no. Those were private conversations.

22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Did you hear anybody say that

23 someone had allegedly read out this list of names?

24 A. From what I've heard, only a few names were read out. But I can

25 only repeat again, I only heard about it because I did not attend the

Page 15404

1 rally myself. That's all I can say.

2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you. That we have

3 understood, but I wanted to know something else. When you were told

4 about this, namely that some names had been read out, names were on that

5 list of people that needed to leave as quickly as possible and leave

6 Hrtkovci, were you also told who read out this list at the rally? Or

7 perhaps simply read out a few names on this list. Who was it?

8 A. I can't recall that I was told who read out the names, but truth

9 to tell, I did not consider that a very important piece of information.

10 What I thought important was that such a list exists and that it contains

11 names of people who were supposed to leave. Whether this or that person

12 read out the list, I didn't think was important at the time.

13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, yes, it is rather

14 important in our eyes.

15 Witness, I have another question for you. I'd like to know this.

16 This is a sentence which purportedly had been mentioned during this

17 rally. Can you remember this sentence and the author of this phrase?

18 A. Which sentence?

19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I had rather you remember what

20 you mentioned in your statements. I'm still talking about the fact that

21 the people from different ethnic backgrounds, i.e., people who were not

22 Serbs, needed to leave. Do you remember this, that they needed to leave

23 Hrtkovci?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Could you be more specific,

Page 15405

1 please.

2 A. Well, I was told that Mr. Seselj had said on that occasion that

3 it would be better for Croats from Hrtkovci to leave the place while they

4 still had the opportunity to leave under the circumstances that still

5 prevailed, that means after having exchanged their properties with Serbs

6 that were in a similar situation as we in Croatia or we would leave later

7 with just the bare necessities in a small bag. I think that's what I

8 said in my statement and it was from what I heard about the rally.

9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Since this sentence is fairly

10 detailed, I'm asking you whether you remember who told you this.

11 A. No, I really can't tell you. It was a conversation among a

12 number of people, people who had attended the rally where it was said.

13 Now, who exactly quoted that sentence, I would be hard-put to remember

14 now and I couldn't remember it even when I was giving the statement. One

15 of these people but I didn't think it was important to try to remember

16 who that was. What mattered to me was what was said, the substance.

17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Just a few more

18 minutes.

19 I would like to address your personal situation now, with a

20 degree of caution, of course, because we are now in open session. You

21 left Hrtkovci, if I remember correctly, at the end of June 1992?

22 A. Correct.

23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You resigned from your job well

24 before that, a month and a half or so before that, after this rally. I

25 was wondering --

Page 15406

1 A. Exactly on the 13th.

2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Let's leave the details aside

3 because we wish to protect your identity. I was wondering why so much

4 time elapsed between your resignation and your departure. Were you

5 forced to resign from your job? Were you pressured in any way to resign?

6 A. I can only repeat what I said in my statement. There were no

7 direct threats, no one person out of those who filed through Hrtkovci at

8 the time and whom I considered to be Serb refugees or Serbs expelled from

9 Croatia had ever threatened me in so many words or asked me to leave my

10 job or the village of Hrtkovci. I believe that I said as much in my

11 statement that I gave a few years ago.

12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Please continue.

13 A. In Hrtkovci, I and a lot of the people had a very good idea of

14 what had happened in Vukovar and some Bosnian towns, that grave crimes

15 had been committed including killing of non-Serbs. And the warnings that

16 we were receiving and that were voiced aloud at the rally at Hrtkovci

17 later and other rallies as well, including on the floor of the Assembly

18 of the Republic of Serbia, I understood to be quite serious warnings in

19 view of what had happened in Vukovar. And I thought that such warnings

20 and those events could not be ignored. Therefore, I believed that in

21 view of my ethnicity I could be a target and so could my family and that

22 it was wise to take steps to remove that threat; and for me, that meant

23 at the time moving to Croatia and swapping our property with some

24 unfortunate person who at the time was a citizen of the Republic of

25 Croatia.

Page 15407

1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, one last short

2 question. Nonetheless, you said in your statements that your wife had

3 received visits while you were not at home and that these visits

4 indicated that you were being pressured to leave.

5 A. I can confirm only that my wife told me that. At that time, I

6 was often away, travelling between Hrtkovci and some places in Croatia,

7 mainly Zagreb and the environs of Zagreb. And she told me that there had

8 been several visits by armed men who were threatening - would be the most

9 precise word - in view of the guns they had and the things they said.

10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow-up

12 question for you. After that, I shall give the floor to Judge Harhoff.

13 What I'm primarily interested in is this, this speech which purportedly

14 was made and which people told you about, they told you about the content

15 of this speech. What I want to know is: At the time when a rally of

16 this nature was organised, did the local press mention it? Did the print

17 press indicate that such a political meeting was going to be held, or on

18 the 6th of May, 1992, was there not a single journalist present in this

19 room? No one mentioned it, either on the radio or on television? What

20 can you tell me about this?

21 A. About the fact that the rally would be held, I really did not

22 know, either from television or from newspapers, but rumours about this

23 upcoming event had circulated around the village. I don't know who

24 started these rumours, this talk, whether it was announced on television

25 (redacted)

Page 15408

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to redact what you have

4 just said. So what did you learn in fact?

5 A. I heard that a rally would be held in Hrtkovci and that it would

6 be attended by Mr. Seselj, who would also speak.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is my last question: In

8 your village at the time was there a local newspaper or was there no

9 local newspaper?

10 A. There was no local newspaper.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There was no local newspaper.

12 Did you yourself read --

13 A. [Previous translation continues] ... I mean when you say local, I

14 mean really local. That's how I understand it. I think I understood you

15 correctly. No, we really did not have a local newspaper.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were there articles in the

17 national newspapers that talked about your village sometimes?

18 A. Up until that time, up until that date, I can't remember any

19 except for one story in a Belgrade weekly called "Nin." And the story

20 mentioned the Ustasha village of Hrtkovci, but that was a few years

21 before.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your 2006 statement you said

23 that Mr. Seselj made speeches, political speeches, and that you had heard

24 him. You said you also heard him on television, that it wasn't only him.

25 You said there were other intellectuals also. This is my last question.

Page 15409

1 Before the 6th of May, 1992, had you heard Mr. Seselj make

2 political speeches?

3 A. Well, from what I remember, the Serbian television did not

4 broadcast Seselj's speeches in their entirety. They broadcast only

5 excerpts or short statements as part of a news item on the news bulletin.

6 I really don't recall entire speeches by Mr. Seselj being broadcast on

7 the television in Serbia. Some of the speeches were transmitted on local

8 radio stations, but that again is something I heard from other people.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I shall give the

10 floor to my colleague who will put his questions to you.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. President.

12 Mr. Witness, I just have a few questions for you in extension of

13 the thorough examination already conducted by my two colleagues. Could I

14 begin by taking on where the Presiding Judge just left us, namely, in

15 relation to the press coverage of the speeches made by Mr. Seselj.

16 Because I would like to know if you are in a position to tell us whether

17 the rally in Hrtkovci on the 6th of May, 1992, was covered by the press?

18 Do you know if it was?

19 A. Yes, it was. Newspapers wrote about it. I saw an article in the

20 Belgrade daily "Borba."

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Did you hear anything about the

22 speech that Mr. Seselj held being broadcasted on either local or national

23 radio?

24 A. No, no, that I didn't hear.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Great. Now let me get back to the issue that was

Page 15410

1 raised by Judge Lattanzi when she put questions to you about the list of

2 names that were read out by someone during the rally. Because I think I

3 remember from your statement that you said that you had heard that your

4 name was also read out. Is that correct?

5 A. I think I said in my statement that my name was on that list, not

6 that it was read out.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: So you --

8 A. That means somebody -- somebody who had a peep on that list told

9 me.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. So your name was not read out, but

11 you were told that your name did appear on the list. Now, how did that

12 make you feel?

13 A. To put it simply, it made me feel uncomfortable. The way I saw

14 it, it was a threat and a sort of ultimatum that, quite simply, we must

15 leave; in other words, if my name was on the list we should leave. And

16 at that time I had no reason to believe that we were not on the list.

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see. The reason I bring this up is that you

18 also in your statement said that you did not receive any threats

19 yourself. How are we to reconcile these two views? Did you mean to say

20 that you never received any threats directly formulated directly towards

21 you or --

22 A. That's precisely what I meant.

23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you please explain with a little more detail,

24 sir.

25 A. When I was giving that statement I meant to say that there was no

Page 15411

1 direct threat, no demand in so many words by a person who would tell me

2 so in my face that I had to go. And certainly it was not said in a

3 threatening tone or intimidating language. Nobody told me in my face.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see. So your testimony is that you felt an

5 indirect threat arriving out of the information that your name appeared

6 on the list, but other than that, you did not encounter any direct

7 threat. Is that the way we should understand you?

8 A. Something like that.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Now, could I then take you to another

10 part in your statement, and indeed also bring you back to something that

11 you have already explained to us in response to some questions put by

12 Judge Lattanzi. It is the part where you said that you took the speech

13 that was held by Mr. Seselj very seriously because you knew what had

14 happened in Vukovar. And I'm referring to paragraph 17 of your statement

15 from June 2004. And you go on to say that you "... heard very precisely

16 what happened in Vukovar and there was no reasons for us not to believe

17 Seselj's words."

18 And I shall ask you to explain in a little more detail what

19 exactly you meant by saying this. What did you -- what have you heard

20 about the events that took place in Vukovar and how did this make you

21 conclude that Mr. Seselj meant business?

22 A. I would like to say, first of all, a few words to the effect that

23 we did hear about that and we had reliable information about what had

24 happened in Vukovar. It's general knowledge that Vukovar was for the

25 most part razed to the ground and many people were killed there,

Page 15412

1 predominantly non-Serbs. Later I heard that quite a few Serbs also were

2 killed there, but this is not the topic of our conversation here.

3 We heard about the events at Ovcara, about the mass execution by

4 firing squad of the captives there. This kind of information -- well,

5 you could consider them to be rumours, but people from Hrtkovci had been

6 conscripted into the Yugoslav People's Army, as it was still styled at

7 the time, who claimed that having spent time in that area, they had heard

8 or seen some things and that lots of people were killed there. On

9 Sarajevo TV, this channel was called Yutel, we were able to see footage

10 of Vukovar at the time and most of the footage showed piles of dead

11 bodies.

12 Now, the fact that some -- that numerous people were executed

13 first in Vukovar and as I learned later on in some towns in Bosnia, I

14 considered that to be a warning sign, something that one should not

15 ignore, something that one should take into account very seriously. It

16 was a serious warning that according to what Mr. Seselj had said at the

17 rally in Hrtkovci, according to what I had been told about that, the

18 warning and the instruction that we should leave Hrtkovci voluntarily

19 while we could, I thought that all this should be taken very seriously.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Witness.

21 A. I say "quite seriously." I don't mean to say that we were about

22 to be executed in the same manner as it happened at those execution

23 sites, but precisely what Mr. Seselj allegedly said, and that is that we

24 would be forced to leave our homes with nothing but a small bag in our

25 hands. At that time I considered that to be a serious threat, and I

Page 15413

1 thought that my vital interests were threatened by statements such as

2 that one.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Witness.

4 A. I don't know if I really -- if I understood your question, that

5 would be my answer.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: You understood my question perfectly well and you

7 also answered it very well. But, Mr. Witness, you may be aware that

8 every hour and a half we have to take a short break because the tapes of

9 the recordings from these proceedings need to be changed. So we will now

10 take a break for 20 minutes, so we will resume ten minutes to 11.00.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are now back in open session

14 and Judge Harhoff will proceed with his questions.

15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good morning again, Mr. Witness. Can you hear

16 me?

17 A. Yes, I can.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Before the break we were talking

19 about the reasons why you wanted to take the message that you perceived

20 coming out of Mr. Seselj's speech seriously because you had heard what

21 happened in Vukovar. And you explained that very well.

22 My next question to you would be just why you thought that what

23 Mr. Seselj now said was to be given any weight. What made you think that

24 exactly Mr. Seselj's speech was to be taken seriously? Did Mr. Seselj

25 speak with any authority that demanded that his words were to be given

Page 15414

1 particular importance? Why was it that of all the information that you

2 may have heard at the time, Mr. Seselj's speech appeared to have a

3 special impact on you? Can you explain this to us?

4 A. First of all, I would like to say that at that time Mr. Seselj

5 was or was considered to be a prominent political figure in Serbia. At

6 the same time, the political party led by Mr. Seselj as far as I knew at

7 the time had its armed wing, the paramilitary formations that took part

8 in the fighting in Croatia and I assume also in Bosnia. If that

9 information was correct, and indeed it proved to be correct later on,

10 those paramilitary formations took part in the war events where things

11 that could be or that I called executions happened. It is my opinion

12 that those two facts contributed to Mr. Seselj's speech, the one that he

13 held in Hrtkovci at the time, and some other speeches that I took note of

14 either in the press or on TV. I considered that this speech, in light of

15 those two facts, does have a considerable weight.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Witness. You're being very clear.

17 Can I just ask you to elaborate a little more on the first of

18 these two elements that you have referred to. You said that the fact

19 that Mr. Seselj was considered to be a prominent political figure in

20 Serbia made you listen very attentively to what he said. In what sense

21 was Mr. Seselj a prominent political figure in Serbia, and let me explain

22 a little more what I'm trying to elicit from you. When Mr. Seselj spoke

23 in public, did he express views that were consistent with what other

24 prominent political figures in Serbia expressed at the time? Or was

25 Mr. Seselj's views very much his own personal views that were individual

Page 15415

1 to Mr. Seselj and were not necessarily shared by other persons in the

2 political domain at the time?

3 A. Let me first answer the part of the first question as to why I

4 think that Mr. Seselj was a prominent figure on the political scene. At

5 the time Mr. Seselj enjoyed a lot of media exposure for what he had to

6 say, and he also had another platform to espouse his views in the Serbian

7 Assembly. His party had a large following, and if I'm not mistaken, at

8 that time it was between 10 and 15 per cent or maybe 10 to 15 per cent of

9 the Serbian electorate. So as far as I was concerned, those were the

10 elements that made him a prominent political figure in Serbia.

11 Now, as to whether Mr. Seselj's words were eccentric or whether

12 they jibed with what other political leaders, leaders of political

13 parties in Serbia had to say, it's difficult to say. To my mind, they

14 were not that different. The only difference was that Mr. Seselj's words

15 were always much more direct whenever he espoused his political views.

16 Leaders of other political parties or people who were in the Serbian

17 authorities at the time expressed their views in a much more circumspect

18 manner. Or to be more precise, they expressed them less openly. I'm

19 talking about the political views in light of the political circumstances

20 in the country at the time, and the country was facing break-up or in

21 effect it was already undergoing the process of collapse.

22 I don't know whether I've answered all your questions now. The

23 question was quite long and I'm not quite sure whether I -- I've answered

24 fully.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: You have, sir. You have been very clear, and I

Page 15416

1 thank you for providing such precise answers.

2 So what you are telling us is that Mr. Seselj was a no-nonsense

3 political figure who was able to express in very direct and clear terms

4 what many other politicians at the time said in a much more convoluted

5 way; is that correct?

6 A. Yes. When I said it was done in a more convoluted way, I meant

7 Mr. Jovic or the late Mr. Milosevic.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right.

9 A. They were the leading politicians in Serbia at the time.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: And so what was it that the political leaders in

11 Serbia at the time were saying, some of them in a convoluted manner and

12 Mr. Seselj in much more direct terms, what was the underlying message as

13 far as you could perceive it at the time?

14 A. Let me try and answer this question, although I'm not quite sure

15 that what I'm about to say will be completely accurate. In the Serbian

16 politics, politicians were always saying that they were trying to

17 preserve Yugoslavia as it was, that this was the basic goal of the

18 Serbian politics, and that the leaders of other republics which were at

19 the time already independent internationally recognised states were doing

20 the exact opposite, that they were trying to break Yugoslavia up. And

21 that one of the instruments for the preservation of Yugoslavia was in

22 fact the Yugoslav People's Army.

23 Now, as to how the Yugoslav People's Army was actually used in

24 the effort to preserve the collapsing state I think is more or less

25 general knowledge. As far as I was able to follow the developments as

Page 15417

1 they were presented on TV or in the press, of course this kind of

2 conclusion could not be drawn. But the events that became quite clear

3 later on showed that the JNA, the Yugoslav People's Army, was put to a

4 completely different use, a use that was much more profitable for the

5 Serbian political leaders at the time. It benefitted them much more, so

6 I'm talking about the people in the government.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Right. My question to you, Mr. Witness, was

8 rather more to try and understand how you perceived the underlying

9 message that came out from the political Serbian leadership at the time.

10 You told us that most of the politicians or the political leading figures

11 were speaking in convoluted terms, but that Mr. Seselj was able to cut

12 right through all those words and express in a clear and direct manner

13 what this was all about. So my question to you was: Well, what was it

14 about? What was the underlying message as far as you could perceive it

15 at the time?

16 A. Are you referring in your question to Mr. Seselj only or to the

17 leading politicians in the rump Yugoslavia? I don't think that I've

18 understood your question. So are you talking about Mr. Seselj

19 specifically or other people too?

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise for being unclear. My answer to you

21 is that if you're able to make a distinction between what other

22 politicians said and what Mr. Seselj said in terms of the contents, then

23 I would be interested to hear. But my question was actually generally

24 put, namely, from the Serb political leadership what was the underlying

25 message that came out in respect of the way in which the former

Page 15418

1 Yugoslavia should be preserved? And as I said, if you can distinguish

2 between what Mr. Seselj said and what other politicians said, that's

3 fine; but if you can't, then I was interested in hearing just how you

4 perceived the programme or the message that was disseminated in public at

5 the time.

6 A. I will try to explain to you now how I saw things. In my

7 opinion, and after all this was said what I'm about to share with you,

8 what this was all about was about all Serbs living in a single state.

9 This could be taken -- an effort to -- for that state to be Yugoslavia,

10 but at the same time you could see it as an effort for all Serbs to live

11 in a single state which would be, as it was termed then, Greater Serbia.

12 And some former Yugoslav republics had already become independent states

13 at the time, and in light of that fact, my opinion that it was in fact an

14 effort to create a state which would be inhabited exclusively or in the

15 majority by Serbs, that would be tantamount to Greater Serbia. And that

16 means that parts of Croatia and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be

17 annexed to that state. I don't know if I have been clear enough.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. But that -- did that also imply that

19 non-Serbs would have to leave Serbia?

20 A. Well, a certain number of people or even a large number of

21 people - I was not aware of the figures at the time - of Serb ethnicity

22 who lived in other republics, primarily Croatia, did leave Croatia at the

23 relevant time, time relevant for my testimony. Of course I didn't know

24 whether those people had been expelled or simply were refugees who had to

25 flee in face of the fighting. But it is a fact that at the time the idea

Page 15419

1 was already mooted that there should be an exchange of population. And I

2 think that Mr. Seselj spoke to that effect in the Serbian Assembly, but

3 as far as I can recall, he used other terms when he spoke about this

4 issue. He talked about reciprocity, something that we could call

5 reciprocity. So if a certain number of Serbs had to flee for any reason

6 or was expelled from their homes, then Croats who during the war, the

7 ethnic revolutions, lived in Serbia would have to suffer the same fate.

8 That's how I understood things. If I'm not mistaken, this opinion was

9 not created later, but I think that it was actually confirmed later.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sir, the way in which I understand you -- your

11 testimony just now is that there was an interest on the Serbian side and

12 perhaps also on the Croatian side to expel non-Serbs from the Serbian

13 territory and to expel non-Croatians from the Republic of Croatia. And

14 there was then a movement to accommodate on both sides people who were

15 expelled from the other side. Is that a correct understanding of your

16 testimony?

17 A. I think it is. The only difference is that other terms were

18 used, human re-settlement of the population, humane re-settlement of the

19 population. Well, it's really -- there's no need for us to make any

20 comments as to how a re-settlement can be humane at all.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: We will get back to that in just a little minute,

22 but if I can return to the question that I put to you just a while ago,

23 namely, what was the underlying message that was sent out from the

24 political leadership in Serbia? From what you have just told us, the

25 understanding that I am able to make is that the message that was given

Page 15420

1 from the Serbian political leadership was that non-Serbs should leave the

2 territory which was perceived to belong to Serbs. And I just want to ask

3 you if this is a correct understanding of your testimony or whether I

4 have misunderstood you.

5 A. Your understanding is correct. This perception applies only to

6 the statements of some politicians, not all of them.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Was that also the perception expressed by

8 Mr. Seselj?

9 A. Yes, yes. I remember reading somewhere or maybe seeing on

10 television if it was broadcast by Serbian TV a debate in the parliament,

11 where Mr. Seselj stated that the same number of Serbs as had been

12 expelled by Franjo Tudjman from Croatia must leave from the Republic of

13 Serbia. The same number of people must leave Serbia. It's a primitive

14 understanding of justice or maybe some sort of justice.

15 When I mentioned the convoluted nature of some public appearances

16 and speeches, I forgot to say in them the term "humane re-settlement" was

17 used.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir. I think the issue of whether or

19 not the re-settlement was humane can be left to a later moment. At this

20 point I have no further questions to you and I thank you for your

21 answers.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, since I have not had my

23 40 minutes, I still have a little bit of time, a follow-up question for

24 you. At some point you mentioned Mr. Sibincic. Can you tell us more

25 specifically who this person was?

Page 15432

1 either individually or in small groups even before that date that was

2 mentioned.

3 Q. And -- excuse me. When you say "before," how much earlier?

4 A. Well, perhaps some 10 or 15 days earlier. It's a long time -- it

5 was a long time ago and I can't really recall all that specifically.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'd like to ask you an

7 important follow-on question. Mrs. Biersay is asking you questions about

8 the arrival of the refugees, and indeed, as she says, there was a first

9 wave and then a second wave. As I'm listening to Mrs. Biersay I was also

10 reading a document and I'd like you to give us your opinion on this

11 document. You're not aware of this document, but it's important for

12 Mrs. Biersay to know because she knows it. This is a report from the

13 Ministry of Interior, Department of State Security, dated 4th of June,

14 1992, and I've got the number for the benefit of Mrs. Biersay, 1399.

15 Now, the Ministry of Interior of the republic of --

16 MS. BIERSAY: I'm sorry, Your Honour, forgive me for

17 interrupting. That's Exhibit Number P551 and it's also in your binder if

18 you'd like to access it.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. So this is

20 Exhibit P551. All right.

21 So, Witness, the Ministry of Interior is writing a report about

22 the arrival of the refugees and explains at great length that they had

23 arrived from Croatia, that some were armed, that there were paramilitary

24 forces, and so on and so forth, and this was highlighted by Mrs. Biersay

25 in her questions.

Page 15433

1 Now, what I'm interested in is the following. A number of cases

2 were mentioned and there's probably one case that you're not aware of in

3 which refugees arriving from Croatia did not abide by the decisions of

4 the authorities, and on the 1st of June, 1992, with the aid of the

5 Serbian Radical Party they went on to create problems in a road which was

6 under the responsibility of the Indjija municipality. Indjija, I don't

7 know where this municipality is located.

8 Now, this report states that measures must be taken. So

9 Mr. Witness, you - and because you have seen the arrival of these

10 refugees, you have seen what was the reaction of the authorities, and

11 unless I'm mistaken, it is stated that there were only two policemen in

12 your locality. However, in some reports those behaviours are criticised

13 and the paramilitary forces, including the Serbian Radical Party's, are

14 also criticised. Now, in your opinion, in June 1992 at the time, on the

15 1st of June, 1992, according to you, was the Serbian Radical Party in

16 total agreement with the authorities of the time, including the

17 president, unless I'm mistaken it was Slobodan Milosevic; or, as you see

18 it, could it be that there were some disagreements? Can you answer this

19 question or not?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's really difficult for me to

21 answer that question in any way that might be considered reliable. I

22 really don't know whether Mr. Seselj and Mr. Milosevic, as the president

23 of Serbia, had opposing views of some issues or whether they worked

24 together on some issues. The question that Madam Prosecutor asked me

25 about the first wave of refugees where I tried to respond by saying for

Page 15434

1 the most part these were peace-loving, unfortunate people who needed

2 assistance. But based on what the Serbian Ministry of the Interior was

3 writing about, violent, armed people, I don't know nothing about that.

4 But later on this did indeed happen.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Okay. Well, while I

6 have this document in front of me I'd like to ask you a question related

7 to a previous question I asked you about Sibincic. Now the department of

8 state security, which seems to be very well informed, states, white on

9 black, that on the 15th of May, 1992 --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving any

11 interpretation at all. Since you have started talking, I have not heard

12 a single word.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. So we need to be

14 assisted by technology here. Let me ask the question again.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, nothing.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. Let me put the question

17 again. Can you hear? Is it working now? Well, maybe it has to do with

18 a problem of microphone.

19 Right. So, Mr. Witness, as I said, I want to use this document

20 while I have it -- is it still not working?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, perhaps the interpreter is

22 silent. Maybe the interpreter could say a few words and then I could

23 tell you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Can the interpreter say

25 something so -- make sure as that Mr. Seselj receives the interpretation?

Page 15435

1 Registrar, if there is a problem, maybe we can take a break now.

2 Anyway, we were due to take a break at 12.30, so let's take a break a

3 little earlier than planned and so technicians have the time to fix it.

4 I have an important question to ask and I hope I don't forget about it

5 during the break.

6 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

9 Witness, I'm going to put you a question based on this document

10 which you do not know but this is not a problem. The state security

11 department --

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a moment. Since I don't have

13 the commands for the headphones, I would like the volume for the

14 interpretation to be turned up a little bit. I can no longer do that

15 myself.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I hope I will be able to put my

17 question. Let me start again for the sixth time.

18 Witness, the state security department says in this document that

19 Mr. Sibincic was at the time, on the 15th of May, 1992, one of the

20 leaders of the SPO. You claimed that Mr. Sibincic was a member of the

21 Serbian Radical Party.

22 As far as you're concerned, are the SPO and the Serbian Radical

23 Party the same thing?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that a question?

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's my question, yes.

Page 15436

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's not the same.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying, no, no, it's

3 not the same thing.

4 How is it, then, that Mr. Sibincic according to these people

5 well-versed in state security matters say that he is a member of the SPO,

6 a leader of the SPO, and at the same time you say Mr. Sibincic was a

7 member of the Serbian Radical Party? I'm trying to understand.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only explanation that I could

9 provide is that I made a mistake. I couldn't say anything else really.

10 So the information that I heard was obviously wrong and not in line with

11 what you've just told me.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall see. I shall draw no

13 conclusions thereof for the time being. I noticed that this document

14 which stems from operatives who are specialists, they established this

15 distinction between those -- between the SPO and the Serbian Radical

16 Party. In the next paragraph, the Serbian Radical Party is mentioned,

17 whereas in the previous paragraph the SPO is mentioned. That's it.

18 Mrs. Biersay, you may proceed.

19 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you.

20 Q. With respect to this exhibit, which is Exhibit P551, just for the

21 record it reads:

22 "Republic of Serbia, Ministry of the Interior, state security

23 department, Sremska Mitrovica, state security department centre."

24 Could you describe to the Trial Chamber how far or how close

25 Sremska Mitrovica is to Hrtkovci?

Page 15437

1 A. Is that a question?

2 Q. Yes, that's a question for you, Mr. Witness.

3 A. 15 to 16 kilometres.

4 Q. I'd now like to turn your attention to the Assembly session that

5 you discussed during the questions from the Trial Chamber, and in this

6 regard, in connection to your 2006 statement you were shown three -- more

7 than three, but specifically I want to address three of the items that

8 you discussed in your statement.

9 MS. BIERSAY: First if we could please have 65 ter 1062.

10 Q. And while that is being obtained, it is dated April 1st, 1992.

11 The description is Vojislav Seselj's speech before Assembly of Serbia,

12 published in Vojislav Seselj's book. The English is "Speeches of the

13 Deputy, Belgrade 1993."

14 MS. BIERSAY: If we could have the second page in B/C/S so that

15 the witness can see the actual beginning of the speech. And if we could

16 now go to the third page in the B/C/S for the witness's benefit.

17 Q. Mr. Witness, do you generally recognise this speech as the one

18 that you discussed -- one of the ones that you discussed in your

19 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor?

20 A. Well some -- I do recall some of the details from this speech,

21 whether through the media, the press, or TV, I really don't know. But I

22 do recall some of those things.

23 Q. And if I could direct your attention specifically, I believe it

24 is the B/C/S page 5. It would be the second paragraph under the heading

25 "Vojislav Seselj." And I'll read the English which is on page 4, if we

Page 15438

1 could go to page 4 of the English. And the first -- that line reads:

2 "Mr. Skenderovic should know that, in international law there is

3 a principle of retortion, which in the Serbian language means

4 retaliation."

5 Do you see that, Mr. Witness?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And then moving to the -- in the same section under

8 "Vojislav Seselj," and we could move to the last sentence in the B/C/S --

9 I believe it would still be page 5. In English it's also page 5. And

10 reading:

11 "Croats in Slankamen, Zemun and other places will not be able to

12 sleep a wink until they have moved out ..."

13 Do you see that sentence?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Madam Biersay, when she

15 asks questions, cannot falsify the text itself and she's doing that by

16 leaving out the beginning of this sentence here, which reads:

17 "After the next or any other elections once the government" --

18 MS. BIERSAY: Objection, Your Honour. This is a point --

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- "changes Serbia" --

20 MS. BIERSAY: -- if he would like to read that --

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not completed my objection

22 and I don't think it's admissible --

23 MS. BIERSAY: [Overlapping speakers] -- he can. I am reading the

24 English translation and he can wait for his turn in order to speak to the

25 Court.

Page 15439

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Madam Biersay cannot falsify the

2 text.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're raising an

4 objection. According to the Rules of this Tribunal, nothing relates to

5 objections.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I have yet to present it,

7 Mr. President. I began making my objection and Mrs. Biersay then simply

8 butted in, as she usually does. She was supposed to read the beginning

9 of the sentence --

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, this might be a

11 translation issue. You interrupted me when I hadn't even finished my

12 sentence. I was saying that you raised an objection. I was saying that

13 objections are not taken into account by our rules. This is an

14 Anglo-Saxon practice where there is a sole Judge and a jury, and

15 objections are made to avoid making an impression on a jury that is not a

16 specialist in any field, and this is how the Judge can rule on the

17 matter. In civil law countries the objection is, in fact, in the form of

18 a remark made by a lawyer or an accused if the accused is

19 self-representing himself when the person in question does not agree with

20 what has just been said. And now you've said that Mrs. Biersay did not

21 quote the text in its full context.

22 Mrs. Biersay as a professional read the passage, but quite

23 rightly she says that in the Anglo-Saxon system this is something which

24 you could have raised during your cross-examination. Since we are all

25 trying to be efficient to establish the truth we can make an effort and

Page 15440

1 not stick to the examination-in-chief and cross-examination strictly.

2 Since this is a different procedure, the witness is a witness of the

3 Court, and therefore answers the Judges of this Court essentially. And

4 you have been entitled, like the Prosecution has, to put questions. Your

5 questions therefore cannot challenge the questions of the Judges.

6 Mrs. Biersay, the problem runs as follows. You have quoted part

7 of the intervention. Seemingly, this part should be read in its

8 entirety. Could you make this effort from an intellectual standpoint to

9 quote what the person has said in its entirety in this discussion with

10 Mr. Seselj where he opposes what Mr. Seselj has said.

11 MS. BIERSAY: My question to the witness, because we are dealing

12 in two different languages, is: Has he found in the B/C/S the part of

13 the sentence that I've read. Once I have that affirmation, I will move

14 on.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, did you find this part

16 of the text?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have.

18 MS. BIERSAY:

19 Q. Now, where is Slankamen and -- and Zemun --

20 MS. BIERSAY: I'm getting a French translation on the English

21 channel.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Slankamen is a village in Vojvodina

23 and Zemun is a town in Vojvodina, facing Belgrade.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Biersay, Slankamen is a

25 village in Vojvodina and Zemun is a town in Vojvodina, not far removed

Page 15441

1 from Belgrade.

2 MS. BIERSAY:

3 Q. So if I could now read the sentence to you in full.

4 "Croats in Slankamen, Zemun, and other places will not be able to

5 sleep a wink until they have moved out, because we have to accommodate

6 Serbian refugees from Zagreb, Rijeka," forgive me for my pronunciation,

7 "Varazdin and other Croatian towns, and put roofs over their heads and

8 compensate them for the damages they have suffered in being expelled from

9 their homes."

10 When you described, Mr. Witness, to the Trial Chamber that you

11 had information --

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, do I now have the

13 right to make an objection?

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is it you would like to

15 say?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to say that Mrs. Biersay is

17 again falsifying facts. She must not do that. It says clearly here

18 after these or some future elections, when we come into power, and that's

19 the point of this whole passage, when we come into power, we'll do this

20 and that. That's also the point of what I said in Hrtkovci. When we

21 come into power, we will give each Serbian refugee the address of a Croat

22 and we'll let -- we'll have them swap properties. I am explaining my

23 programme, my platform, and what we will do when we come into power. And

24 this is an obvious example that Mrs. Biersay is falsifying what I said.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Biersay, I don't have the

Page 15442

1 exact text before me, but it seems that what you are describing is a

2 situation which would be correct if Mr. Seselj were to come to power.

3 This is not a reality. This is what he says.

4 MS. BIERSAY: I understand very well that's what he says. He's

5 testifying instead of raising a legitimate procedural point, and I -- as

6 the Court can see, I'm reading from the English translation. If he has

7 an issue, then he can raise that with the Court or with the witness

8 during his time. The Court can clearly see the sentence that I'm reading

9 from page 5 of the English version at the top of the page.

10 So may I continue?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] One more thing. I think

12 deliberately the English page does not fit the Serbian page because what

13 I am pointed out as being falsified by Mrs. Biersay is on the next page

14 of the English. And these are cheap tricks by the Prosecutor, cheap

15 tricks that have no place in a serious judicial system.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Biersay, I don't know what

17 the situation is. I assume you are of good faith. What matters is to

18 know what actually happened. Perhaps the witness can answer this. Put

19 your question. I and my colleagues remember what Mr. Seselj has just

20 said, and when he puts his questions I believe he will address us again.

21 MS. BIERSAY: I have a proposal, if Mr. Seselj seems to think

22 that somehow I've -- and the Office of the Prosecutor has doctored this

23 exhibit, I'd propose that the witness read that last sentence in his

24 language, if he's able to.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that is precisely the point.

Page 15443

1 Why just the last sentence? Why not the one before too? Let the witness

2 read from the sentence that begins with: "After these or some future

3 elections ..." This is the second sentence in this paragraph, and then

4 the sense would not be falsified.

5 MS. BIERSAY: He can have the witness do that during his time.

6 During my time, during the Prosecution's time, I would propose that the

7 witness read it -- the one sentence in his language.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed and put your

9 question, Mrs. Biersay.

10 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you.

11 Q. When you look at this and in the context of what you previously

12 told the Trial Chamber about hearing what Mr. Seselj said about expelling

13 Croats in return for the expulsion of Serbs from Croatia, is this what

14 you meant, this document? Is this what you had in mind, the information

15 in this document?

16 A. That is the question?

17 Q. Yes, yes, it is. That is a question for you.

18 A. Yes, that is what I meant and that is my answer.

19 MS. BIERSAY: At this time we'd move for the admission of

20 65 ter 1062, which is the excerpt from Mr. Seselj's book. We would also

21 tender the complete minutes of the speech, not just of his speech but of

22 the session, and that is 65 ter 1065, and that's where 1062 comes from.

23 So we would tender both of those exhibits at this time.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber always rules

25 on the admission of documents after the cross-examination. We have noted

Page 15444

1 your request.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I agree completely.

3 This is obviously exculpatory material for me, so there's no controversy.

4 It can be admitted now.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No problem. We shall ask the

6 Registrar, since Mr. Seselj so wishes, to give us an exhibit number.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 01062 shall be

8 assigned Exhibit P892. 65 ter document 01065 shall be assigned

9 Exhibit P893. Thank you.

10 MS. BIERSAY:

11 Q. Mr. Witness, you also discussed with the Trial Chamber seeing and

12 hearing about media coverage of Mr. Seselj, and specifically with respect

13 to the April 1st, 1992, Assembly session. I'd like to play you a clip

14 that was also showed to you -- shown to you in conjunction with your

15 November 2006 statement. And that is currently MFI P16, which is also

16 65 ter 6011 for easy reference in your -- in the Court's binders. I hope

17 you'll be able to see the clip from where you are.

18 [Video-clip played]

19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This can't be shown for the

21 moment.

22 MS. BIERSAY: I can move on to another topic and we can -- and I

23 hear that it's now ready. So if we could please try to play this.

24 [Video-clip played]

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We didn't have the translation

Page 15445

1 in French. We've seen the English subtitles, but the problem is that we

2 see Mr. Seselj taking the floor but the commentary comes from a

3 journalist. Is her running commentary exactly the same as what

4 Mr. Seselj was saying? I don't know.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I may be of

6 assistance. We heard this dispute once before when there was another

7 witness related to Hrtkovci and this videotape. It's all about

8 interpretation. You have it all in the two documents you admitted, an

9 excerpt from my book and a broader excerpt from the parliament

10 transcript. This is an interpretation --

11 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honours, I object to this discussion --

12 testifying by Mr. Seselj. The -- he's absolutely right --

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not testifying.

14 MS. BIERSAY: -- he's absolutely right that it was previously

15 presented to the Court. The issue was context. This witness has

16 described for the Court hearing about press coverage, and so this is just

17 about that. And I certainly understand that it will be for the Court and

18 the Court only to decide whether or not what is being said about the

19 speech is accurate or not, but the purpose with respect to this witness

20 is to get him to say whether or not this was an example of the press

21 coverage that he described for the Trial Chamber. That's it.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is an example

23 of the sort of forgery the Prosecution resorts to. This is the programme

24 from the Croatian television that the witness was not able to see in

25 Hrtkovci. The witness could have seen the direct Serbian broadcast from

Page 15446

1 the parliament session and he could hear all that I said and all the

2 other MPs said in the parliament. And the programme from Croatian TV was

3 not something he could have watched in April 1992. However, the Croat

4 journalist is fairer than Mrs. Biersay. He says correctly that I said

5 "after the next elections when we come into power." The Croatian

6 journalist is fairer than Mrs. Biersay, the Prosecutor.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Look, Mr. Seselj, according to

8 what Mrs. Biersay is saying, what she's trying to highlight is the media

9 coverage of things which you may have said. And she's using this video

10 that also includes the comment of a journalist and she's probably going

11 to ask the witness whether he heard the comment made by the journalist or

12 whether he heard your speech before the Assembly. And of course, yeah,

13 there may be a difference here but we'll only find out through the

14 witness's answer.

15 So keep going, Mrs. Biersay, please.

16 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. Mr. Witness, and this time this is a question for you, could you

18 tell us whether this is the type of media coverage of the Assembly

19 session that you described hearing about from other people?

20 A. If you mean what the journalist said, the journalist of the

21 Belgrade TV, that's correct; but precisely this passage that is concerned

22 here, I heard that in its entirety on Belgrade television.

23 MS. BIERSAY: At this time we'd move for the admission of what is

24 now MFI P16.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. There is no grounds for

Page 15447

1 admission. Still today the Prosecution can ask from the Serbian

2 government a recording of my entire speech in the parliament in 1992

3 because it is all carefully archived, both the transcript and the video

4 recording. The transcript is already in evidence, you just admitted it.

5 A journalist's interpretation cannot replace the original, and the

6 witness just said he heard the speech in its entirety. This is really

7 inadmissible conduct.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the Chamber decides that

9 a decision shall be made at a later stage. I just wish to say that the

10 comment from the journalist refers to the elections, what's going to

11 happen after the election. That is written black on white, and this

12 corresponds to what Mr. Seselj was saying.

13 Mrs. Biersay, please.

14 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you.

15 Q. I'd now like to turn your attention to the second wave of armed

16 Serb refugees that you talked about previously. I believe that you

17 described when they started coming to Hrtkovci. Could you remind the

18 Chamber of the date that -- as far as you remember it, of that happening?

19 A. That's your question?

20 Q. Yes, it is.

21 A. I think I've already said this before. They started coming in

22 individually and in smaller groups. Armed men of intimidating demeanour

23 started arriving in Hrtkovci even before this speech by Mr. Seselj, and

24 after the speech they were coming in in larger numbers.

25 MS. BIERSAY: Could we please go into private session for this