Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11230

1 Wednesday, 9 October 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.


8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 Examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

10 Q. In the summary, we're at paragraph 36, and it's time to look at

11 Exhibit 338, tab 8, please. This document is the conclusions of the

12 Assembly meeting held on the 24th and 25th of October of 1991, and you've

13 made some passing reference to this yesterday, but if we can just look at

14 it briefly.

15 It reads: "Conclusions. The Assembly of the Republic of

16 Montenegro supports the participation of the Delegation of the Republic of

17 Montenegro in the plenary session of the Conference ... in The Hague...

18 notes that the Delegation acted in keeping with the power it received

19 during the debate ... of the last session of the Republic of Montenegro

20 Assembly and the conclusions and positions adopted thus far by the

21 Assembly to resolve the Yugoslav crisis in a peaceful and democratic

22 manner."

23 It's suggested that there was a need to continue in participation

24 in The Hague Conference, taking account of the interests of the citizens

25 of Montenegro, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Montenegrin peoples.

Page 11231

1 And then the next paragraph, 2, just the first part of it: "The

2 Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro concludes that the Yugoslav crisis

3 must be solved peacefully and democratically. The basic principles

4 supported by the Assembly are the equality of citizens and nations, their

5 inalienable right to decide final questions directly, and the respect for

6 their interests and desires of all nations to decide independently about

7 their fate, and especially those nations which oppose the unilateral

8 abolition of Yugoslavia and have expressed an interest in its

9 preservation."

10 JUDGE KWON: I note the ELMO is not working for the moment.

11 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I wondered if it was our screen. I see

12 now there's no light on the overhead projector. Thank you, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MAY: It's apparently not working today. The technician is

14 coming in to have a look. Perhaps we can keep going.

15 MR. NICE: Certainly.

16 Q. I've read out or summarised the material parts of that document,

17 Mr. Samardzic. Any observations you want to make apart from those made by

18 the document itself?

19 A. The document clearly says that the Assembly of Montenegro adopted

20 and approved of the position taken by the Montenegrin delegation in The

21 Hague and the position of President Bulatovic to accept the Carrington

22 Plan. So this was drafted and a session was held when Bulatovic had to

23 withdraw from his position in The Hague under pressure. The Assembly of

24 Montenegro expressed itself clearly, and this needs no further comment.

25 However, this was never implemented, including the last conclusion

Page 11232

1 which says that efforts must be made for continuing implementation of

2 these conclusions, and that was never done, regrettably.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, if in the Court's papers following the

5 English version of the document there's a two-page document with the

6 number 0305627 on the top right, headed Vecernji List, then it probably

7 shouldn't be there and I think can be removed.

8 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll remove that together with the

9 original. It's a newspaper report.

10 MR. NICE: Yes.

11 JUDGE MAY: We will remove it. Yes. Do you want the usher to

12 remain by the ELMO?

13 MR. NICE: No. I think we're done for the time being.

14 Q. A few other topics, then, please, Mr. Samardzic, before we turn to

15 another substantive item, the Vienna conference. But just dealing with

16 the contacts of which you were aware between the President and Prime

17 Minister of Montenegro, Bulatovic and Djukanovic, and the military

18 leadership, in particular amongst others, Miodrag Jokic, are you able to

19 help us with the degree to which there was contact between those parties?

20 If so, what's your source of information?

21 A. No. I don't have much to say about this. I can't say anything

22 specific because at the time when there was a war around Dubrovnik, Jokic

23 was not in Titograd around the Podgorica most of the time, he was on the

24 front line. Djukanovic, for his part, was in Titograd. So I can't say

25 anything about the extent of their contacts. They must have had some

Page 11233

1 contact, but I can't say anything specific. I know the Montenegrin

2 political leadership was in contact with the senior officers, but to what

3 extent, especially for Djukanovic, I can't say.

4 Q. Can you help at all with the chain of command so far as the

5 military were concerned, how clear it was, what sort of reporting

6 structure it had, and again tell the Chamber how you would know these

7 things.

8 A. Most of what I know is from Bulatovic, from speaking to him,

9 usually in his office, and the conversations we had on the plane when we

10 travelled to The Hague. It was clear to me that military operations were

11 led by officers, that is generals of the Yugoslav army, who were on the

12 front line. And as far as the navy is concerned, which was also attacking

13 Dubrovnik, I know that they were under the command of Admiral Jokic.

14 I don't think that politicians were directly involved in military

15 operations, although they had mutual contact and there was reporting among

16 them. That's the way I believe it was.

17 Q. Did there come a time when the possibility of crimes or the

18 certainty of crimes being committed in the course of this fighting was

19 discussed? And if so, was it ever discussed or talked about between you

20 and any or either of the major political leaders?

21 A. There was no discussion of that at official sessions, but I did

22 speak about it to President Bulatovic. I must say that he, too, was

23 horrified by the news that reached us from the Dubrovnik front, but

24 nothing was officially done about it at the time.

25 Q. Was --

Page 11234

1 A. I must add one more thing. In addition to conversations and

2 discussions I heard in the government about plundering and looting, I

3 heard stories from individual citizens. I saw yachts from Dubrovnik in

4 Budva. Obviously stolen. And I saw many other things that must have been

5 stolen. They were called war trophies although they couldn't have been

6 war trophies.

7 I visited this centre located in the Vinogradi Motel on the border

8 with Croatia - it was guarded by the army - where various items were kept

9 that were looted. I know that from citizens and also from officials, from

10 President Bulatovic. I know that various items from the Cilipi airport of

11 Dubrovnik were moved to Montenegro. Equipment and even cattle were also

12 stolen and taken to Montenegro.

13 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment, Mr. Samardzic.

14 Is this in the indictment? Looting? I don't recollect.

15 MR. NICE: I'm not sure but it's nevertheless part of the

16 widespread. And it's also a question of notice. I'll just find it. I

17 may be wrong. My indictment's currently supporting my lectern.

18 JUDGE MAY: If you can deal with that in due course. If you can

19 move on.

20 MR. NICE: Yes. The topic we're going to come to, in any event,

21 at paragraph 44.

22 Q. But I want to go back to what I was asking you about initially,

23 which is conversations with Mr. Bulatovic about crimes. Apart from crimes

24 in Dubrovnik, did he speak of any other notorious events happening on the

25 territory of the former Yugoslavia other than at Dubrovnik?

Page 11235

1 A. Yes. Before the battle of Dubrovnik, crimes were perpetrated in

2 the north of Montenegro when certain members of paramilitary formations

3 massacred a number of Muslim families in the north of Montenegro. And

4 similarly, somewhere around Zvornik. This became public. The press

5 started writing about it, and President Bulatovic was very much taken

6 aback. He thought that President Milosevic would be forced to resign over

7 this. It is my personal opinion, of course, but I may be naive, but I

8 believe that's what President Bulatovic himself would have done.

9 Later on, people in Montenegro somehow learned to live with it and the

10 attention was less than that first instance.

11 Q. While these things were happening, did you learn of, directly,

12 some who had deserted from a front line in Western Slavonia?

13 A. Yes. More precisely, men deserted from Banija. Some units from

14 Montenegro had been sent there. I believe it was only one unit. And one

15 day, about 25 soldiers burst into my office. They looked drained from the

16 long journey. They told me they had run away from the front line, and

17 they asked me to help them avoid the consequences. They were scared that

18 military authorities would arrest them and try them as deserters. They

19 told me about the course of fighting in Banija, and on that occasion I did

20 whatever I could. I went to see President Bulatovic, I told him about the

21 case and asked him to do all in his power to save these young men.

22 Bulatovic told me there wasn't much he could do, but he advised these

23 young men to keep a low profile and hide in their homes, hoping that

24 nobody would come for them. And that's what actually happened.

25 After this event, Bulatovic ordered that Montenegrin soldiers

Page 11236

1 withdraw from Banija and return to Montenegro, which again was contrary to

2 the policy of the military leadership and Slobodan Milosevic himself, but

3 that was what was eventually done.

4 Q. Very well. Thank you. Was there a camp at Morinje in Montenegro?

5 A. Yes. There was a camp there for captured Croatian soldiers,

6 although some of the detainees were not soldiers, they were just captured

7 somewhere near Dubrovnik and taken to Morinje.

8 Q. Did you learn something of what happened at that camp from

9 somebody who'd been an employee of yours when you ran the Jugooceanija

10 company?

11 A. Yes, I did. There was an employee of mine who later became a

12 manager, a director, himself. He was a reserve officer of the KOS, the

13 counter-intelligence service, and when he was appointed in the course of

14 mobilisation to be a guard there, to be on the security staff of the

15 Morinje prison, and much later he arrived in Malta and told me about

16 Morinje and what went on there. According to what he told me, the

17 situation was not good at all and the treatment of Croatian prisoners was

18 not merciful at all.

19 Q. Did he give you specific examples of what happened to detainees

20 either at his own hand or from what he saw himself?

21 A. Well, yes. People were slapped about, yelled at, but there were

22 no killings, unlike in Bosnia and in other places. From what I heard,

23 nobody was killed in Morinje, although the regime was strict, obviously.

24 Q. Was there any incident involving a man named Ante Prlenda?

25 A. Since there were guards from Kotor there, there was one prisoner

Page 11237

1 from Dubrovnik, Ante Prlenda. They hail from somewhere in Dalmatia. And

2 we had in Jugooceanija company a captain by the name of Prlenda. And this

3 prisoner Prlenda was actually slapped in the face only because he had the

4 same family name as this man who wasn't really well liked.

5 Q. Very well. We'll move on to a couple more documents, one that we

6 can look at, Exhibit 338, tab 9, the date of which is not clear from the

7 document. You may be able to help us with it. Perhaps we could place the

8 original of this one on the overhead projector first briefly so you can

9 see it. It's a typed document in Cyrillic.

10 The headline word being translated in the English version which

11 will now be laid on the overhead projector meaning, I think, "Stands."

12 And, Mr. Samardzic, this document, a document you've seen before?

13 A. Yes. I received it as soon as it was drafted or, rather, brought

14 from Belgrade. I believe Kostic himself brought this document after the

15 events in The Hague. And this document represents a draft for the future

16 shaping of Serbia and Montenegro. These stands were formulated here and

17 later distributed in Serbia and Montenegro.

18 Q. And so the draft reads: "Considering the current situation ...

19 bearing in mind that both Assemblies adopted the Belgrade Initiative and

20 the Fundamentals for the Regulation of Relations...

21 "Stands:

22 "1. ... we decided that the resolution of the Yugoslav crisis must

23 be made on the legality and continuity of Yugoslavia as a state rather

24 than on its discontinuation because some of its constituent nations do not

25 wish to live in Yugoslavia any longer.

Page 11238

1 "2. We express our full respect of the right to

2 self-determination for each Yugoslav constituent nation that does not wish

3 to live in Yugoslavia any longer. However, we demand full respect of the

4 will of the Serbian and Montenegrin people and the citizens of the

5 Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, as expressed, to preserve Yugoslavia as

6 a common state.

7 "Within this common state, the Serbian and Montenegrin people and

8 the citizens of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro,

9 together with other Yugoslav nations that so wish, must be equal and must

10 be provided with all conditions to express and protect their interests and

11 develop successfully.

12 "3. Proceeding from the fact that the Assemblies of the Republic

13 of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro adopted the Belgrade Initiative

14 and the Fundamentals for the Regulation of Relations in Yugoslavia, they

15 will establish an expert commission together based on the principle of

16 equality for the purposes of further constitutional and legal elaboration

17 of documents..." and so on.

18 Well, there's the draft that was brought from Belgrade. What

19 progress was there with that approach, please?

20 A. There was no progress. There was regression. What Lord

21 Carrington proposed was annulled, to be annulled, and all six republics

22 would no longer constitute Yugoslavia but, rather, Serbia and Montenegro

23 should form a new state of Yugoslavia, which was actually done on the 27th

24 of April, 1992. The parliament of Montenegro declared that the position

25 of the Montenegrin delegation in The Hague was right.

Page 11239












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11240

1 But despite all that, work continued in the opposite direction,

2 geared at establishing a state of Serbia and Montenegro only.

3 These are initial starting positions that were later expressed in

4 the referendum of Montenegro, which was carried out in an illegal way, in

5 an improper way, in which allegedly the people of Montenegro declared

6 themselves in favour of living in a common state with Serbia.

7 Immediately after -- immediately after that, a session of the

8 Montenegrin parliament was held, on the 23rd of April, where the new

9 constitution, hastily written and botched really, was summarily adopted,

10 and that constitution was soon afterwards promulgated, and in Belgrade the

11 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed on the 27th of April,

12 1992 --

13 Q. Very well.

14 A. -- by --

15 Q. Bringing you to a conclusion there --

16 A. -- helped by the votes of lame duck MPs from Montenegro.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

18 MR. NICE:

19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Samardzic. We're moving through things

20 chronologically. With a broadly chronological approach in mind and

21 dealing with the degree to which Mr. Bulatovic was on notice of various

22 views, can we look, please, at Exhibit 338, tab 10, which is an open

23 letter sent to him. And we can -- actually, this can go on the overhead

24 projector generally because it's side by side. Put the first sheet on the

25 overhead projector, please. Thank you.

Page 11241

1 And if you'd be good enough on this occasion, Mr. Samardzic, to

2 follow it on the screen, because this provides the best for those viewing.

3 This is an open letter from the parliament of the Republic of

4 Croatia's committee for external affairs, the letter going to Momir

5 Bulatovic. And six lines down, just picking up parts of it, it reads: "I

6 am writing to warn you that you are much too late in your attempt to

7 deceive Montenegrins about what has been happening in Dubrovnik." Four

8 lines after that: "Too much blood has been shed. Croatia has been

9 incredibly plundered and devastated in the areas near neighbouring

10 Montenegro. In silence, you watch as Milosevic, through the words of his

11 Minister Jovanovic, shames you before the world, denying that Serbia is

12 mixed up in this dirty war when he says that the Yugoslav army and

13 Montenegro are at war with Dubrovnik."

14 Perhaps go over the page. Starting at the top, having referred to

15 the obligations of a man of high office, it says: "The higher a man's

16 office, the less his scope and time to keep silent in these dramatic

17 days." And then a few lines further down, seven lines down: "Stop the

18 spreading of lies and the fanning of hatred against Dubrovnik and

19 Croatia." And then just to draw a little more from this open letter, the

20 next paragraph but one: "Your responsibility is not only political. Stop

21 the Montenegrins from coming into other people's villages and homes as

22 aggressors, occupiers, and plunderers and exposing themselves to the guns

23 of Dubrovnik's defenders."

24 Then right at the end, a quote from Njegos: "He who seeks

25 strength in the club has a trail reeking of inhumanity." This is signed

Page 11242

1 by the president, Dr. Kacic.

2 JUDGE MAY: Could we have the date, please.

3 MR. NICE: Yes. It's given -- the 11th of, I'm afraid I can't

4 remember what the month "Prosinca" is. It's December, I think. Perhaps

5 the interpreters could help us. Or indeed, Mr. Samardzic, what month was

6 this?

7 A. It says the date right here; the 11th of December, 1991.

8 Q. Well, this open letter speaks for itself, does it not,

9 Mr. Samardzic?

10 A. Absolutely right. It is self-explanatory. Let me just highlight

11 one thing. It was written after the most ferocious attack on Dubrovnik on

12 the 6th of December when Dubrovnik was attacked both from land and sea.

13 So this was written a few days after that attack on Dubrovnik on the 6th

14 of December.

15 MR. NICE: Thank you. On the same topic of notice of events being

16 available to those with authority, we go to tab 11 of Exhibit 338. Thank

17 you very much, Usher, Mr. Usher. If you'd be good enough to just lay the

18 original on the overhead projector, to see what it is. And this is a

19 publication of a later date. If we then go to the English version --

20 JUDGE MAY: We have in fact been stopping the accused

21 cross-examining on these sort of documents. How is this in any way to be

22 distinguished from what we've stopped him asking about?

23 MR. NICE: If you go on page 3 of the English, notice to

24 Mr. Bulatovic. Public notification in documents of this kind.

25 JUDGE MAY: You're not producing it -- this better be clear:

Page 11243

1 You're not producing it as evidence of what's contained in it.

2 MR. NICE: No. It's the notice issue.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MAY: Is there anything you want to say about that?

5 Distinction is being made, of course, between the contents. It may be a

6 fine distinction but it is one between the contents and the fact that

7 something is brought to the attention of Mr. Bulatovic.

8 MR. KAY: It's not within the period of the indictment. It's a

9 great deal of time thereafter. In relation to material such as this which

10 one cannot say anyone in particular saw, it's just a publication, it's

11 linkage to facts within the indictment is -- is not made out.

12 Just on the other matter Your Honour mentioned about looting,

13 counts 28 to 32 --

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't know if I can, just before you

16 announce a decision, draw your attention just to the format of the

17 document, which is a collection of the expression of views of authors and

18 intellectuals, and indeed you'll see at the first line of the second

19 paragraph there's a historic reference, or reference to an interview on

20 the 1st of November of 1991, and I think that this witness will be able to

21 say of material in this exhibit, of the which I was only going to go to

22 one part in detail, he will be able to say whether such material was being

23 sent to those in office at the time.

24 JUDGE MAY: That is a distinct point, but the fact is this: That

25 we have rightly excluded, in the hands of the accused when

Page 11244

1 cross-examining, the opinions and writings of journalists and academics

2 and the like, and we think the same should apply here. It is of very

3 limited value. It is, of course, hearsay and hearsay of a kind which we

4 do not think should be admitted. The distinction between admitting it

5 simply to show that such things were published as opposed to admitting it

6 for the truth of what's in it is too fine for us to allow it to be

7 admitted.

8 Accordingly, that tab 11 will be excluded, and perhaps I can hand

9 to the registrar my copy of that, plus the other one which didn't come in.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. NICE:

12 Q. I now turn to complete what the witness has already dealt with

13 substantially about plunder. I'm grateful to Mr. Kay for dealing with

14 what I was going to return to, counts 28 and 31. You will find references

15 in the indictment at paragraphs 77 and 81. The witness has already dealt

16 with a great deal of the evidence I wanted him to cover. There was one

17 exhibit which he will have to look at which won't take very long.

18 I'm not sure, Mr. Samardzic, whether you've said anything about

19 your knowledge of which units, if you can say, were involved in plunder of

20 the kind you've described happening in and around Dubrovnik and how the

21 plunder was brought back to Montenegro.

22 A. I do not know specifically the names of these units, because all

23 units have their names, and I don't know which one specifically did

24 plunder and which one did not. What was plundered was taken from various

25 individuals. I cannot say from here, from this witness stand, that the

Page 11245

1 entire army was engaged in the plunder. It was only individuals and

2 certain units.

3 Obviously, for the most part they were organised by the military

4 command, and all of this was collected at the Vinogradi Motel, as I

5 already mentioned, and the rest was taken further on into Montenegro.

6 Who did this specifically, I cannot say. I cannot name any names,

7 but I'm quite sure that this was done and had been done.

8 Q. In which case, let's look, in light of that, at the next exhibit,

9 tab 12.

10 THE WITNESS: Some more light, is that possible? Because I cannot

11 read it.

12 MR. NICE: If the witness can be provided with the original, now

13 that it's been displayed, and we place the English translation on the

14 overhead projector. The witness and we are now viewing a document dated

15 the 28th of December, 1991, from the command of the 9th Naval Sector and,

16 we will see in due course, signed by Vice Admiral Jokic. And it says it's

17 in keeping with the memorandum of the 26th of December, and the order is

18 that in the motel, the Vinogradi Motel in Sutorinsko Polje sector, there

19 is to be set up a collection centre for collecting material captured and

20 confiscated as spoils of war.

21 The document goes on -- it goes on in paragraph 2 to deal

22 particularly with the appointment of a director, providing of motor

23 vehicles which shall be kept in the parking lot while other weapons and

24 military equipment shall be kept in its hall.

25 "The physical security of the Collection Centre ..." paragraph 3,

Page 11246

1 "... five military policemen from among the conscripts of the 9th

2 Military Police Battalion."

3 Paragraph 4: "The issue of any material from the Collection

4 Centre to military units and institutions ... without permission from the

5 ... Administration ... is prohibited.

6 "5. The 9th Naval Sector Command shall conclude a contract with

7 the ..." body whose expansion from initials is unknown "...

8 socially-owned enterprise on the rent of three bungalows for the

9 accommodation of personnel and a space for the storage of materiel in the

10 Vinogradi Motel..." And then meals for the personnel.

11 We see over the page Colonel Dragicevic, Commander, unclear,

12 responsible for the operation of the centre, signed by Jokic.

13 Does that fit entirely, Mr. Samardzic, with what you understood to

14 be going on so far as plunder was concerned?

15 A. Yes. It fully coincides. However, I have to point out that this

16 was done only on the 28th of December. That is to say, the war had been

17 going on, the war around Dubrovnik had been going on for almost three

18 months; all of October, November, and most of December. And there had

19 been plundering until then, too, but no order was established, if I can

20 use that phrase at all. This is considered to be some kind of military

21 booty and that that should be stored at the Vinogradi Motel. Until then,

22 there had been no such centre. It pertained to various sides. Some

23 people brought this in on an organised basis into Montenegro, and many did

24 this on a private basis, so to speak. Soldiers and officers took things

25 from Konavle, from the areas surrounding Dubrovnik, and simply took them

Page 11247












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11248

1 to Montenegro.

2 Q. Very well. Let's -- thank you very much. Let's move on.

3 JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.

4 MR. NICE: Yes.

5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Samardzic, just a moment ago you said that you

6 cannot say from here, from the witness stand, that the entire army was

7 engaged in the plunder; it was only individuals and certain units. Could

8 you make any observation in relation to that comment regarding this

9 document?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Although this document does exist

11 and was written by the commander, I still think that the entire army was

12 not engaged in plundering simply because I trust my Montenegrin people,

13 that not everybody is a thief. What Admiral Jokic wrote shows that he is

14 an admiral and is a military commander on the front line, gives orders to

15 plunder. You're quite right on that.

16 However, in spite of that, not all the soldiers who were there

17 were plunderers. However, a certain number of them, certain groups

18 involving Admiral Jokic as well, were indeed plunderers.

19 JUDGE KWON: What do you think Mr. Jokic referred to at that time

20 as "spoils of war"?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Jokic or, rather, Admiral Jokic,

22 when he referred to the spoils of war, for him it is everything that he

23 could collect and bring to motel Vinogradi. It is quite sure that most of

24 this was not of the nature of goods that were required by the military.

25 They took things from privately owned houses and also equipment from

Page 11249

1 various companies. So all of that was stored there or taken further into

2 Montenegro.

3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.


5 Q. Can you help with whether any of the political or military high

6 post holders benefited directly from any of this looting? If so, which

7 ones?

8 A. [In English] Are you asking me?

9 Q. Yes. So sorry. Yes.

10 A. [Interpretation] I cannot indicate any person specifically, that I

11 know that this person took something for himself. When we're speaking of

12 the military leaders, there were rumours going about, but we are in a

13 court of law so we're not going to take rumours into account. I could not

14 say that specifically Admiral Jokic took anything for himself or did not

15 take something for himself, although there were some kind of rumours going

16 round. But I personally cannot confirm that. I cannot say that. I can

17 just confirm that there was plundering and property was destroyed in

18 Dubrovnik.

19 Q. Very well. A couple -- three more shortish topics and we're done,

20 apart from sweeping up issues left over from yesterday.

21 Paragraph 50. What if anything can you help us with about the

22 involvement of the accused in the appointment of the first or second

23 president of the FRY, as it became?

24 A. I can say the following: I travelled with Bulatovic only once, on

25 the same plane with the accused Milosevic. We had a plane of our own, but

Page 11250

1 after we spoke up in The Hague and after we expressed all the positions

2 that were contrary to his policies, he asked that we travel together.

3 On that plane, he talked to Bulatovic, he consulted Bulatovic,

4 discussing who should be appointed president of Yugoslavia. This was a

5 few days before this ceremony was held in Belgrade on the 27th of April.

6 Of course, Bulatovic agreed with his proposal, and his proposal was to

7 appoint Dobrica Cosic, a writer with a nationalist orientation who is one

8 of the authors of the memorandum and the idea of a Greater Serbia up to

9 Karlobag and Virovitica.

10 I said then, perhaps the accused Milosevic may remember, although

11 I did not take part in this conversation - he wasn't really paying any

12 attention to me and, truth to tell, I wasn't really paying any attention

13 to him either - I said to him, "Comrade President, before or later, that

14 man will stab you in the back." I must admit that the accused Milosevic

15 did not say anything, he just looked at me, and that's indeed what

16 happened to him. Dobrica Cosic abandoned him and indeed stabbed him in

17 the back. That's an expression we have in our language. So he did leave

18 him.

19 As for Lilic, he is a nobody, a non-entity. He also appointed

20 him --

21 JUDGE MAY: You will have to deal with the relevance of this. Do

22 I understand this conversation to have taken place on the aeroplane on the

23 way back from The Hague? Is that the position?

24 MR. NICE: Yes.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

Page 11251

1 MR. NICE: Lilic was appointed later.

2 Q. Just yes or no. Do you have any knowledge of the accused's

3 involvement in the appointment or why he chose this man? Don't comment

4 about Mr. Lilic himself, it's just the decision-making process of the

5 accused, if you can help with that, or the involvement of the accused in

6 the decision-making process itself.

7 A. He proposed him. Not publicly, but as things were going on in

8 those days, he was the man he chose, nobody else, because he was the one

9 who was making the choice. The conversation took place during the flight

10 from Belgrade to The Hague. I want to correct that. So it was on the

11 plane from Belgrade to The Hague that this conversation about Cosic was

12 taking place.

13 Q. Very well. And finally, on the involvement of the accused and the

14 position of those holding ministerial office: The federal Minister of the

15 Interior for a time was Pavle Bulatovic. Can you just tell us from your

16 own knowledge what happened when he lost office and whether the accused

17 had any role in that.

18 A. Please, what do you mean? What do you mean? The late Pavle

19 Bulatovic held several different offices, so I'm not sure which particular

20 office or post you're referring to.

21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not going to pursue this. It's

22 tangential.

23 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I remember now but it's irrelevant.

24 [Interpretation] Pavle Bulatovic was appointed federal Minister of the

25 Interior after he held the same office in Montenegro. Namely, he was

Page 11252

1 Minister of the Interior of Montenegro as well. He was appointed the

2 first Minister of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

3 Immediately after that, a funny, strange putsch took place. The Ministry

4 of the Interior of Serbia came one day to the big building in Knez

5 Mihajlova Street and kicked out all the employees of the federal ministry,

6 and the Serbian ministry took over the building and all the equipment in

7 the ministry, and all the employees were practically kicked into the

8 street. So Pavle Bulatovic was not replaced, he was simply expelled from

9 his office into the street and the ministry was taken over by the Serbian

10 ministry. So then the Serbian ministry acted on behalf of the federal

11 ministry. The federal ministry was only there pro forma and it had

12 nothing, it just had a minister, and that's the kind of federation it was.

13 Q. One detail before we come to the Vienna conference. Paragraph 52.

14 Was there, to your knowledge, any flow of arms or supplies from Montenegro

15 to Republika Srpska before and/or after the blockade?

16 A. There was a flow of weapons, but I cannot testify about that

17 specifically.

18 Q. Your source of information --

19 A. When --

20 Q. Your source of information being?

21 A. Well, the sources of my information are certain friends who knew

22 that weapons were being transported to Bosnia. I heard about that while I

23 was in government as well, but then I heard about it also in Malta. I

24 went to Malta when sanctions were imposed, when I was relieved of duty,

25 but then I also resigned as well. Then I moved to Malta. So I could not

Page 11253

1 exactly know how many weapons were going to Bosnia, but I was informed

2 through various conversations that arms were certainly going to Bosnia, to

3 Herzegovina, and that this was being done, yes.

4 Q. Very well. Let's then go to the Vienna conference and then just a

5 couple more questions and I shall be done. You've already taken us, in

6 your evidence, to April 1992, but the Vienna conference was on the 12th to

7 the 15th. Can you just give very shortly a summary of what happened there

8 so far as the accused is concerned?

9 A. The round table of Europe was held at that time at the initiative

10 of a certain number of politicians from Europe and also the Austrian

11 government. There was an imposing number of people, and it was devoted to

12 the aggression of Serbia against Bosnia. Six days earlier, on the 6th of

13 April, the war in Bosnia started, and Bosnia was recognised

14 internationally during those days.

15 This round table of Europe brought in a resolution in which it

16 condemned the aggression against Bosnia and called upon Serbia and the

17 Yugoslav army to leave Bosnia. I joined in the spirit of that resolution,

18 although it was not the official policy either of Serbia or Montenegro,

19 and I also confirmed this when I gave a television interview in Vienna and

20 publicly called for peace in Bosnia, and for that to be able to be

21 achieved that the Yugoslav army should pull out of Bosnia, because Bosnia

22 had become an internationally recognised state and, therefore, the

23 Yugoslav army should leave as soon as possible from that territory.

24 So I was criticised for doing this, and I must say that neither

25 Bulatovic nor Djukanovic said a word to me, although I learnt later on

Page 11254

1 that I was to be arrested and that this was considered a faux pas by the

2 policy pursued at the time by President Milosevic and that it was

3 completely unacceptable to him at the time.

4 Q. Thank you very much. Last tab in the exhibit bundle, tab 13 of

5 Exhibit 338. It's only in English because it's an original English. And

6 I think we can just lay it on the overhead projector, and Mr. Samardzic,

7 you could read it with us or follow it with us from the video.

8 This is a resolution of the round table of Europe dated the 14th

9 of April, condemning the brutal military aggression in violation of

10 international law and human rights committed in Croatia and

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina by the formerly Yugoslav federal army and by Serbian

12 guerilla commandos who are attempting to change the borders of sovereign

13 states by violent means and are thus causing immeasurable suffering from

14 the innocent -- for the innocent population, and appeals to the UN

15 Security Council to take all the measures necessary to restore peace in

16 the successor states of the former Yugoslavia.

17 "Moreover, we demand that all refugees be placed under the custody

18 of the European family of peoples, which means in concrete terms that we

19 bear the responsibility for their accommodation and care as well as the

20 personal protection of each individual. The European Community, as well

21 as other states and institutions of Europe, are called upon to ensure the

22 fulfillment of this obligation in a manner compatible with human dignity,

23 with the assistance of humanitarian organisations such as the Red Cross,

24 et cetera.

25 "We condemn the attitude of Serbia, which is demanding guarantees

Page 11255












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11256

1 for the Serbian minorities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina while

2 severely violating the rights of minorities and nationalities in the

3 autonomous regions of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and therefore demand the

4 immediate restitution of all their rights to the Albanian nation in Kosovo

5 and the ethnic minorities in Vojvodina and Serbia."

6 So that's the resolution following this meeting at which you spoke

7 in the way you've described, and I think probably speaks for itself. Is

8 that right, Mr. Samardzic?

9 A. Yes. Not after the meeting. That was the conclusion from that

10 particular meeting and it speaks for itself, yes. Although this is not

11 the text in its entirety, it is just a part of the entire text.

12 MR. NICE: Thank you. Your Honour, I've reviewed the matters that

13 were outstanding and I think although you will have identified them

14 probably on the summary, I don't think I need to take time dealing with

15 them now. The witness has covered everything in one way or another. But

16 there's one other question I want him to just deal with. If he could have

17 back this map which is Exhibit 326 tab 3.

18 Q. And just briefly, and I mean briefly because you've explained it

19 in various ways already, but it may help the Judges if you deal with this.

20 Do you speak of the formation of Croatia in some way as having two

21 wings, I think? And if so, do you draw a connection in relation to the

22 overall plan of what was happening between what was happening in the area

23 of Dubrovnik, said to be coming from Montenegro, and what was happening in

24 the north? And if so, just explain it briefly to the Judges, please.

25 A. Croatia has the same borders as it did in socialist Yugoslavia.

Page 11257

1 Today, too, as an independent state. And if you look at the map, you will

2 see that it does indeed have two wings, or it looks like a crescent moon.

3 In the war that ensued, the Dubrovnik theatre of war, and this is

4 my personal assessment, had as its goal not only to conquer Dubrovnik but

5 to reach Karlobag, because at the same time, there were attacks launched

6 on all the major towns and cities along the Adriatic coast up to Karlobag

7 and not beyond it. In the north, before the battle of Dubrovnik began,

8 there was the battle for Vukovar. And the rest of the parts of the --

9 what were called self-management regions of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem

10 and so on had not yet been taken over. And the goal was to reach

11 Virovitica, which is far closer than Vukovar. From Vukovar to Virovitica

12 than from Dubrovnik to Karlobag, it's a shorter distance. Therefore, the

13 military operations had as their objective the creation of --

14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we must

15 deal with your evidence with respect to what you saw and heard yourself

16 and what you know of. It will be a matter for us to decide what the

17 purpose of this attack was in Dubrovnik.

18 MR. NICE: Very well. In which case, that's all I ask of this

19 witness. Thank you.

20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, may we just determine the

22 time that I'm going to have at my disposal? Yesterday the

23 examination-in-chief lasted exactly three hours, plus an hour and ten

24 minutes today, as you can see for yourself, which is a total of four hours

25 and ten minutes. So could you please bear that in mind in view of the

Page 11258

1 fact that until the end of work today, and day has been extended, there is

2 far less time than the four hours and ten minutes which I consider you are

3 duty-bound to ensure for me as well.

4 JUDGE MAY: Since we are time keeping, the time yesterday was two

5 hours 40 minutes, today was one hour five minutes; three hours 45 minutes.

6 Three hours and a half I would have thought would be sufficient, but I'll

7 consult.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, we'd like you to finish, if you

10 can, today. You've got two and a bit sessions, but you can have the same

11 as the Prosecution, three hours, 45 minutes. But try and finish earlier,

12 if you can.

13 Let me just add this to assist you: There is no need to

14 cross-examine this witness about his theories about what happened because

15 his theories, as I've just pointed out, are not matters of evidence. So

16 you needn't trouble about them, but you can concentrate on the evidence

17 which he gave.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, as you can see yourself if

19 you look at the clock, we have only three hours 15 minutes remaining for

20 the work in hand, and your time keeping doesn't seem to be correct,

21 because yesterday, in the second break, 1 hour and 45 minutes in the last

22 session and, before that, it was one hour and 15 minutes, from 15 to

23 twelve to one, and from half past two to 4.15, which makes it three hours

24 plus one hour ten minutes today. However -- and so as I say, this is ten

25 -- four hours and ten minutes. I don't know how this time seems to be

Page 11259

1 reduced by so much, but I'm sure there are notes and records about the

2 time and we can compare them. But at any rate, the time you have given me

3 is insufficient for the cross-examination even if you were right with

4 regard to time keeping.

5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that's the time you've got. Rather

6 than arguing about it, let's get on and try and finish this, if we can, as

7 soon as possible.

8 Mr. Samardzic, may I just say something to you: Of course you

9 will need to give explanations to answers. The time will be limited, as

10 I've said, in the way which we've ordered, so it would be of assistance if

11 you could keep your answers as short as you can. Try and, if you can,

12 follow the question and answer it. If you find it impossible to answer

13 the question because it's not comprehensible, just say so.

14 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

15 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

16 Q. [Interpretation] You said you were a pensioner, retired.

17 A. Yes, I am retired. I am a pensioner for Yugoslavia, but in

18 [redacted] I still work. I have a small firm based at home, so that is it.

19 Q. Do you receive your pension in Montenegro and do you live in fact

20 in Montenegro?

21 A. Yes, I do receive my pension in Montenegro, but I do not live in

22 Montenegro.

23 Q. And is it true that you fled to [redacted]after unauthorised --

24 you took from the bank account where the Jugooceanija had $400.000 on its

25 account, on the official company account, that you took those funds and

Page 11260

1 fled?

2 A. That is absolutely not true. Those are information from your

3 secret police. I never took any funds from Jugooceanija.

4 Q. Well, was the money from the Jugooceanija firm on your private

5 account?

6 A. The funds of the company were not on my private account. That is

7 a flagrant lie.

8 Q. My secret police does not exist. It never did exist, and if you

9 mean the secret police of Serbia, I assume you know that it wasn't -- that

10 its competence didn't stretch to Montenegro.

11 A. Yes, it was in charge of Montenegro as well, but we can discuss

12 that matter on some other occasion.

13 Q. Mr. Samardzic, as this statement of yours is completely

14 untruthful, and I'm going, of course, to show you that here, and it is in

15 fact quite contrary to everything that you did as the Minister of the --

16 the Foreign Minister of Montenegro and as the director of the Jugooceanija

17 company. Now, can you tell me, what was promised you? What promises were

18 made to you to utter such a mass of untruths? That's putting it mildly.

19 Are you buying a domo vnica, a residence permit, in Croatia or anything

20 else? What is it that you are getting?

21 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Have any promises been made to

22 you? I take it to be in return for giving evidence. That's what's being

23 suggested.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is nonsense. What

25 the accused is saying is complete nonsense. No promises were made to me.

Page 11261

1 What he's saying is the product of his imagination and I never asked for a

2 domo vnica or a residence permit in Croatia, neither do I have a passport

3 of his own SR Yugoslavia, nor did I ever take out a passport of that kind.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Well, then, which passport did you use to go to [redacted]?

6 A. The red passport of socialist Yugoslavia, Mr. Milosevic, not your

7 one with the hen on it.

8 Q. Tell me, you were minister in the government of Montenegro and a

9 person in whom great confidence was placed. You were in the peaks of

10 power in the government of Montenegro, whereas you are representing

11 yourself as a sort of dissident here, a sort of anti-communist. You are

12 painting that image although you had a very nice career in the system in

13 which you lived in. You achieved a very high position and lived very well

14 on the proceeds. So how come you suddenly made this salto mortale or this

15 about turn in your image and options?

16 A. It is not true that I'm a dissident, nor is it true that I left

17 the ideas of the League of Communists. That is something you are just

18 making up yourself here and now. Those ideas and ideals of the League of

19 Communists of Yugoslavia and the ideals of Yugoslavhood, you were the one

20 who abandoned them and did what you did. Your state -- and you understand

21 this full well what I'm going to tell you now; your state was -- it is

22 difficult to interpret what I'm now going to say, but it was just one

23 descent into an abyss.

24 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I understand what you're doing, but let's move on

25 and look at the observations that you made and we'll arrive at answers to

Page 11262

1 many questions that were raised by you. But in this regard, let me say

2 that you said that there was no place under the sun for you in Montenegro,

3 that you weren't treated properly in terms of cadres, that they treated

4 you as a traitor and that that was because your father had spent a term in

5 prison, et cetera, et cetera. And then you go on to say something quite

6 contradictory and say that you did hold high offices, and then you go on

7 to enumerate the high offices you held. So it is not me that fabricated

8 all this, it is precisely what you say in your statement; isn't that so,

9 Mr. Samardzic?

10 A. No, it is not true. You're turning things about, topsy-turvy. A

11 long time after my father, who was in the liberation army, I went to the

12 Goli Otok island and -- he, my father did, and it took me a long time to

13 go forward in my career, and I was able to do so in the firm of

14 Jugooceanija and later on in the government. I was elected minister, I

15 was elected to the Yugoslav Assembly. So that has nothing to do with what

16 you're saying. I have made a career for myself, and I'm proud of it, but

17 I will never agree, nor did I ever agree, to be a dissident. I can never

18 be called a dissident, although I was against your criminal policy of

19 destroying Yugoslavia and the crimes that were committed under your

20 command and in your name.

21 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. Very well. Please just try and answer

22 my questions and don't get so excited.

23 A. I'm not excited.

24 Q. You will have quite enough time to get excited in due course.

25 A. I'm not excited at all.

Page 11263












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11264

1 JUDGE MAY: No. Just a moment. Remember, both of you, that the

2 interpreters have to be able to interpret. Let us keep the temperature

3 down.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. In your statement, you say that you went to The Hague with

6 Bulatovic but that you took a route via Prague so as not to be shot at by

7 the army. Could you explain this lie to me, this circuitous route that

8 you took and the expectations of your plane being toppled? And what do

9 you mean by this circuitous route? I assume that airspace between

10 Yugoslavia is the same when you fly to Prague and you fly to The Hague as

11 well, and both times the same.

12 And also, do you remember that when you flew, you didn't have your

13 own plane, you were lent a plane by the army. How, then, can you imagine

14 the army giving you a plane and then shooting down that plane? Why did

15 you just think this up? Can you tell us that? Why all these fabrications

16 in addition to all the hundreds of other --

17 JUDGE MAY: Let's get to the question. You're being asked,

18 Mr. Samardzic, about this route that you took to The Hague. Can you

19 explain that?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Instead of The Hague, we diverted

21 our route and came to Prague. It is a well known fact, common knowledge,

22 that that is not the direct flight route to Hague, because Prague is more

23 northerly rather than the Belgrade to The Hague route. So what he just

24 said is nonsense and quite incorrect. And the fact that the army was

25 supposed to shoot us down, I didn't actually see the order but I did hear

Page 11265

1 the rumour that the possibility existed, that this might be done, they

2 might shoot the plane down because of our attitude and positions. And

3 that would have taken place following your orders. The army wouldn't have

4 done this himself.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. And who did you hear that from?

7 A. Well, Bulatovic spoke about that possibility.

8 Q. Right. Bulatovic again. You seem to refer to Bulatovic all the

9 time. You've mentioned him goodness knows how many times and you've heard

10 everything from Bulatovic. Now, tell me this: Is it true and correct

11 that that particular plane, for technical reasons, had to make a short

12 stay-over in Prague and then flew on to The Hague? But at any rate,

13 Prague and the Hague are to the north of Yugoslavia and from Podgorica you

14 would fly across the same corridor and flight route across Yugoslavia as

15 every other plane; isn't that true, Mr. Samardzic?

16 A. Of course it isn't true. Look at the map of Europe and you'll see

17 where The Hague is and where Prague is. What are you talking about? Why

18 would we have to go to Prague, fly to Prague? If you can't fly across

19 Croatia because of the war there, you can fly via Budapest and Vienna and

20 then come to The Hague that way.

21 Q. Well, when you go to The Hague, do you fly across Budapest using

22 the flight route via Budapest and that corridor or do you perhaps fly via

23 Italy?

24 A. What you're saying is just funny. It's ludicrous. No plane flies

25 to Prague if it is flying to The Hague. Just take a look at the map of

Page 11266

1 Europe.

2 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. We're not going to quibble and quabble

3 [sic] over these minute details. It's just comic. But tell me this: You

4 are talking about a conference chaired by Carrington, and you claim that

5 Milosevic didn't like Bulatovic's statement, that he jumped up from his

6 chair, that he was furious and threatened you with his finger and verbally

7 too when he went up to you. All that, of course, is not true, but it is

8 interesting to note because, in fact, it demonstrates just how far you are

9 willing to think up diplomatic scandalous behaviour. How come nobody else

10 noticed that except you yourself? And how can you delve in these - what

11 shall I call them? How shall I put this? - in these very base

12 speculations, Mr. Samardzic?

13 A. Kiro Gligorov is still alive and he was next to us, and so is his

14 minister and so it Momir Bulatovic. They are all still alive and they all

15 heard what you did. You jumped up, out of your seat. You didn't run. I

16 didn't say you ran. I'm -- and I don't suppose you can run either. But

17 you came up, and this is what you said: "I'll give you what for. I'll

18 give you a sovereign and independent Montenegro." That is the threat you

19 made which meant that you could do any ill you thought up, and that is the

20 whole truth.

21 Q. Very well, Mr. Samardzic. You have referred yet again to Mr.

22 Bulatovic, as you did at least 50 times yesterday. And that is what Momir

23 Bulatovic himself had to say, so would you please answer me -- answer my

24 question once I read out what he said. "With respect to the testimony of

25 Nikola Samardzic, the former Foreign Minister before the International

Page 11267

1 Tribunal in The Hague, I make the following statement: In the testimony

2 of Nikola Samardzic, there are many incorrect and --"


4 MR. NICE: [microphone not activated]

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

6 MR. NICE: -- and there it is.

7 JUDGE MAY: When was this statement made, Mr. Milosevic, by

8 Mr. Bulatovic?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This morning, Mr. May.

10 Mr. Bulatovic listened. He was astounded, just as the whole of Montenegro

11 was astounded, with the lies.

12 JUDGE MAY: Very well. There's an objection to the question.

13 We'll consider it.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE MAY: We shall allow the question. The witness -- just a

16 moment. The witness can be asked what it is alleged that Mr. Bulatovic

17 said, but of course what Mr. Bulatovic said is not evidence unless he

18 comes here and says it. It's what the witness has said which is evidence,

19 but you can put what Mr. Bulatovic said in order to test what the witness

20 himself has said.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will be sufficient. That will

22 be quite sufficient, yes.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. But to continue, these were not founded in any realistic events

25 dating back to the time that he is testifying to, and this can be proved

Page 11268

1 and borne out by a simple insight into the documents and the newspaper

2 reports that attended the events.

3 "Mr. Samardzic is testifying about a government meeting of

4 Montenegro of the 1st of October, 1991, at which some generals were

5 present, some JNA generals, representing -- he represented this meeting as

6 a manipulation of Montenegrin public opinion by the JNA and the start of

7 the creation of a plan, the nucleus of a plan of some sort of takeover of

8 Dubrovnik, conquest of Dubrovnik. In fact, it was a joint session of the

9 Presidency of the Republic of the Montenegro, the government of

10 Montenegro, and high-ranking functionaries from the security section.

11 "The meeting had a commemorative character because it was on that

12 day that, on the border, eight members of the JNA were killed from a

13 mortar that had been shot from the -- by the Croatian paramilitary units.

14 And among the dead soldiers, two of them were Albanians from Kosovo and

15 Metohija, one solder was from Macedonia, and one from Tuzla in

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina."

17 It is from this meeting that the daily paper Pobjeda published the

18 statement by Minister Samardzic in a separate column, as it says here.

19 JUDGE MAY: Right. Now, pause there. The purpose of this is to

20 put these matters to the witness.

21 What is being suggested, Mr. Samardzic, is that this meeting on

22 the 1st of October was not to prepare for military action but to -- was of

23 a commemorative nature in relation to the eight members of the JNA who had

24 been killed. Now, what -- you can react to that. You can give us your

25 answer to that. Is that right or not?

Page 11269

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is an absolute untruth, what

2 the accused Milosevic has just said. It was no commemorative meeting. It

3 was a meeting of the military leaders ...

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Go on, Mr. Samardzic.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a meeting of the military

6 leaders who had come in their uniforms, uniforms ready to do battle,

7 battle dress, to denote the beginning the war that had actually begun on

8 that particular day, the war against Dubrovnik. And what he -- the

9 accused Milosevic is saying just now I'm hearing for the first time, that

10 anybody was killed on that first day. That was when the move towards

11 Dubrovnik was made, and my testimony was quite correct. I came to the

12 second half of that meeting because I was sent by President Bulatovic to

13 visit Cetinje and to show the person the museums there, and I didn't know

14 that the war had already begun.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue? This is not what I

16 am saying; I'm reading the statement by Momir Bulatovic.

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. He goes on to say the following: "The Assembly of Montenegro

20 devoted to the conflicts along the Croatian/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Montenegrin

21 borders because this is tripartite zone, for those who don't know, a

22 three-pronged zone, was held on the 4th of October, and Mr. Samardzic took

23 part in it. The introductory address was made by General Bozidar Babic,

24 the Defence Minister of the day, and he informed the Assembly and the

25 public at large that the -- and the meeting was televised via the national

Page 11270

1 television station, and he said that in the first three days of the

2 fighting, 28 members of the JNA were killed, of which 12 from the

3 territory of Montenegro. In that same period, 100 were wounded --"

4 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with what you've

5 put and then we must have the break.

6 Now, can you help us to this meeting of the Assembly,

7 Mr. Samardzic?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with the 1st

9 of October, and he himself has just said that this was on the 4th of

10 October. Yes, that meeting was held on the 4th of October. And as to the

11 particulars, apart from the fact that the initiative was taken for

12 negotiations with Croatia, I did not testify about anything else, how many

13 people were killed, how many people were wounded. Nowhere did I testify

14 about that up until now. And what the accused has just said is quite

15 unfounded and untruthful.

16 I spoke about the 4th and 7th of October when the government and

17 Assembly had their session and took the initiative and tabled documents,

18 and not what the combat operations were like on the theatre of war. I

19 knew that people were killed, and that's what I do know, and they were

20 killed without any need, and this was a crime against Montenegro.

21 JUDGE MAY: No. We're going to adjourn now. We're a bit past the

22 time. Mr. Samardzic, we'll adjourn for half an hour. Could you be back

23 then, please.

24 MR. NICE: Your Honour, at some stage today, preferably before the

25 lunch break, may I have five minutes of closed session administrative

Page 11271












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11272

1 matters?

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just before the lunch break.

3 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. I want to finish what I've started when you interrupted. The

8 sentence I didn't read from that item said, "Units of the JNA were then

9 composed of members from four Yugoslav republics. All this fighting and

10 losses were incurred before the JNA ever approached the town of

11 Dubrovnik."

12 Next: "The statement by Nikola Samardzic concerning the weapons

13 arsenal in the Port of Bar is completely untruthful. Although he doesn't

14 have any information about it himself, he says it is contrabanded into the

15 area then involved in the conflict, and Milo Djukanovic and his brother

16 Aco were involved in the contraband.

17 "This was actually a warehouse owned by a private businessman with

18 a partner from one of the Middle East countries. The official taxes and

19 levies were not paid as due so the warehouse was taken over by the police

20 and customs officials. All of this is on record in the competent

21 authorities and you can see from it that the weapons were not really

22 legally brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

23 JUDGE MAY: You can't go on reading like this. You're supposed to

24 be cross-examining this witness, not reading out statements.

25 Now, Mr. Samardzic, what is said is your statement about the Port

Page 11273

1 of Bar is completely untruthful. Now, you can deal with that, but I'll

2 put the other point which is being made, and that is that this was a

3 warehouse owned by a private businessman and the weapons were not really

4 legally brought into the territory of the FRY. Perhaps you'd like to deal

5 with those two matters.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing to add to what I have

7 said. I never accused Djukanovic or his brother. What was written in the

8 previous record is a mistake, and here before the Court I never said a

9 word about it.

10 The essence is this: I know that ships were right at the entrance

11 to the Port of Bar. They were full of weapons. And I stated, as I will

12 repeat now, I don't know where these weapons finally ended up. I don't

13 see anything bad about what I said in my testimony, nor do I admit that I

14 uttered an untruth.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Can I continue? "It is a complete misrepresentation of the role

17 of Branko Kostic, member of the Presidency from Montenegro. He is

18 presenting Branko Kostic as a yes-man of Slobodan Milosevic. Nikola

19 Samardzic testifies that Branko Kostic did not participate in the

20 decision-making of the authorities of Montenegro or obey their decisions

21 but, rather, just conveyed decisions from Belgrade. In the press coverage

22 of the work of the parliament of Montenegro, this statement of Nikola

23 Samardzic is gainsaid. Branko Kostic in fact participated in all

24 important debates and decision making, just as Nikola Samardzic, and never

25 presented in the Presidency of the SFRY positions which would run counter

Page 11274

1 to the conclusions of the parliament of Montenegro. In many photographs

2 of parliament sessions published in the press, you can see both Kostic and

3 Samardzic on the benches of MPs."

4 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. My question is, why did you lie, Mr. Samardzic, as far as Branko

7 Kostic is concerned?

8 A. I didn't lie. I stand by what I said. He was your servant whose

9 task was to discipline Montenegro. That was his role. But I just want to

10 add, since you're asking: In The Hague, when Lord Carrington took the

11 floor away from him and he rose angrily to leave the session, your three

12 other members of the Presidency followed although Lord Carrington had said

13 nothing to them. All four of them left the session because you told them

14 to. That was my testimony. I stand by it and there is no lying

15 involved.

16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you are describing events when Lord Carrington took

17 the floor away from Branko Kostic and he rose and left the session. You

18 are saying that it was me who told him to do that when Lord Carrington

19 took the floor away from him?

20 A. No. You're making this up now. I said that the four of them

21 worked in sync, according to your wishes and your policies. They were

22 your yes-men, and Nikola Samardzic is not the only one who knows that.

23 All Serbia and Montenegro know it.

24 Q. All this that you are saying to discredit these people, members of

25 the Presidency, the collective body ruling the country, are not founded in

Page 11275

1 fact. That is just your statement.

2 A. That's not true. Facts are there. It was their political

3 activity at that time which demonstrates this abundantly clearly.

4 Q. I'm quoting Bulatovic, actually. He says: "An important part of

5 Mr. Samardzic's testimony is based on information that I allegedly passed

6 on to him in private conversations. I am astounded by his motivation

7 which led him to completely misrepresent the events of the time. However,

8 I'm willing to state that I never told Mr. Nikola Samardzic that his life

9 was in danger or that I am being threatened for my political decisions,

10 nor did I ever tell him that Slobodan Milosevic should resign. And the

11 same is true of many other things that he is interpreting so liberally and

12 casually."

13 JUDGE MAY: Pause there. The comments of Mr. Bulatovic are

14 neither here nor there, but the witness can respond to his allegation that

15 -- the one matter which I think was given in evidence, you mentioned this

16 morning, I think, that Bulatovic was of the view that Mr. Milosevic should

17 resign owing to some of the crimes committed in Montenegro. Is that

18 right, Mr. Samardzic? Is there anything else you want to say?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just want to reiterate Momir

20 Bulatovic told me this. He was horrified by the crimes perpetrated

21 against the Muslims which were reported by the press. People started to

22 talk about it, and he thought, naively, of course, at the time, that

23 Slobodan Milosevic should resign.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Okay. Let's dwell on this a little. These crimes, were they

Page 11276

1 perpetrated in Montenegro?

2 A. Some of them were perpetrated in Montenegro. Others, some were in

3 Bosnia.

4 Q. Well, as you know, I was President of Serbia then. What had

5 Serbia to do with crimes in Montenegro? Did someone from Serbia come to

6 commit crimes in Montenegro? Is that what you're saying?

7 A. No, that's not what I'm saying. Those crimes were perpetrated in

8 the name of the idea of Greater Serbia. The killing of Muslims and ethnic

9 cleansing of Muslims from Bosnia, Montenegro, and other areas which were

10 supposed to become part of Greater Serbia. That is a fact. It was done

11 in your name. You were the leader.

12 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of Serbs --

14 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Mr. Samardzic, would you just

15 concentrate, please, on answering the questions. They may be provoking,

16 but just deal with them as best you can.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Samardzic, are you aware of any event at all when crimes were

19 perpetrated against Muslims in Serbia? In all these past ten years,

20 throughout the war.

21 A. I know about the event on the railroad Belgrade-Bar, in the place

22 called Strpci, when 20 Muslims and one Croat were taken off the train,

23 killed, and thrown into a river.

24 Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you know that the Strpci railway station is not

25 in Serbia, it is in Bosnia-Herzegovina? It is for nine kilometres that

Page 11277

1 this railway passes through Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you know that?

2 A. I do. But this railroad of Serbia and Montenegro, if it passes

3 through one single settlement, which is not even an official station and

4 not on the official railway timetable, as far as I'm concerned, it's a

5 crime committed in Serbia.

6 Q. It is not a crime committed in Serbia because it is not the

7 territory of Serbia. And if you remember, I personally flew through

8 Prijepolje that very day - because the people involved were from

9 Prijepolje, and the ethnic make-up of that place is half and half, Serbs

10 and Muslims - to talk about the need for peaceful life and cooperation.

11 And I told them that that had been done, that must have been done to

12 inflame people and to spread the fire from Bosnia and Herzegovina; that

13 everything had to be done, including proper investigation, which was in

14 fact done, as I informed Mr. Stoltenberg later. I asked for one unit of

15 our police to enter that territory to guard the Strpci railway station

16 precisely from the formations that were roaming the area. Do you know

17 that?

18 A. No, I don't, and that has nothing to do with it, anyway. It was

19 the inhabitants of Serbia and Montenegro who were killed on that occasion,

20 and you did actually nothing in practice about it, whereas you had the

21 means, you had the power, both in Serbia and Montenegro. The only thing

22 that was done was done in Montenegro, which condemned one single man. I

23 believe only one man, Ranisavljevic, was convicted only ten years later.

24 Q. This man was convicted in 1994, not recently. I even have the

25 judgement here. If I have enough time, I'll somehow it to you, but let's

Page 11278

1 move on.

2 A. That's not true. He was tried and he was in custody, but he was

3 convicted only three months ago.

4 Q. If he was arrested in 1994 and sentenced to 20 years, which is the

5 maximum sentence in Yugoslavia, you can't say that nothing had been done.

6 And second, you didn't answer my question. Was there, on the

7 territory of Serbia, a single killing committed by any paramilitary

8 formation, any killing of a Muslim in all this time?

9 A. I never said anything of the kind. I never said anything about

10 Serbia except this place of Strpci. And you can't get away with it just

11 because this is a small place and a small area involved. It is a

12 disgrace, a shame on Serbian leadership, to which you belong.

13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, could you please just answer the

14 questions and stick to that. And don't -- it may be provoking, but try

15 not to argue with the accused, and he will be told not to argue with you.

16 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, my questions are not

18 provocative at all. I am just quoting the statement of Momir Bulatovic.

19 JUDGE MAY: They may be provocative to him. Just move on.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, maybe it's provocative in

21 terms of content to this witness who is testifying falsely. But if you

22 remember, Momir Bulatovic is a person whom he invokes all the time in his

23 testimony as the main source of his information.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Furthermore, Bulatovic says, "I am especially surprised by the

Page 11279












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11280

1 interpretation of his testimony concerning the peace conference in The

2 Hague. There are two completely untruthful things there. First, that

3 after I made my position clear concerning the proposal of Lord Carrington

4 on the 18th of October, 1991, he said that Slobodan Milosevic crossed the

5 entire hall and threatened him loud and clear. That sort of scandal was

6 simply impossible at such an international conference, and --"

7 JUDGE MAY: The witness has already answered questions about that

8 and he's described what happened, so let's move on to another point.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. But Momir Bulatovic says: "So that is absolutely untrue. Second,

11 another untruth regarding this statement was that later, under pressure

12 and threat, I reversed my position and withdrew my approval of Lord

13 Carrington's plan. Facts speak to something entirely different."

14 I have just a few more words to say about this statement. First,

15 Lord Carrington's plan would --

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, go on.

17 MR. NICE: It appears that the accused is cross-examining from a

18 statement, not from a published statement that's been published in a

19 newspaper. Some jurisdictions, of course, say that where a document is

20 being cross-examined from, the witness should have the right to look at

21 the document himself, and that might be a sensible precaution in this case

22 to ensure that things are being put in context. I'm not suggesting that

23 the document from which the accused is cross-examining should be produced

24 as an exhibit. I know nothing about it. But I suspect that, in fairness,

25 it should be available in its full form for the witness to look at and

Page 11281

1 insofar as I have the advantage of language speakers to assist me, it

2 might be desirable for me to have sight of it as well.

3 JUDGE MAY: If it's a document that he's got, he's entitled to use

4 it, to put it to the witness. He doesn't have to show it to you, it seems

5 to me. I don't see why he should.

6 MR. NICE: There are rules and very frequently it's the case that

7 documents are put to witnesses so they can see what's really being said

8 from the document. Otherwise, we don't know whether it's context or not.

9 JUDGE MAY: I've already made it plain. It doesn't matter what's

10 in the statement. It is only the accused's response which is evidence --

11 I mean the witness's response which is evidence. It doesn't matter what

12 the statement says. I assumed it was either something sent to the accused

13 or it's something that's been published in the press. It doesn't seem to

14 me to make much difference.

15 MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases, but --

16 JUDGE MAY: I'll certainly consult on that.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we think he's entitled to use it. He doesn't

19 have to disclose it.

20 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. So the second untruth is related to this subject, and that is the

23 statement that, "Under pressure and threat, I later reversed my position

24 and withdrew my approval of Lord Carrington's plan. Facts speak

25 differently." There are only five items, each one consisting of two

Page 11282

1 lines. Very briefly: "First, Lord Carrington's plan would be affected

2 only if accepted by all six Yugoslav republics. Second, the fact that the

3 President of Serbia had reservations about one part of the plan did not

4 mean discontinuation of the negotiating process but only its continuation

5 until it is acceptable to all. Third, my position in The Hague was

6 supported by the parliament of Montenegro. I was criticised

7 but there was no pressure. Four, for the following session of the

8 conference --"

9 JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot possibly follow all this. Perhaps

10 you could have a look, if you would, at the screen, if you can read the

11 English there, Mr. Samardzic. Let's deal with the matters which already

12 -- the first point is that he claims, or it's being claimed that Bulatovic

13 never reversed his position on Lord Carrington's plan. Now, is that true

14 or not?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He changed his position as soon as

16 he arrived in Podgorica, and that became known one or two days later, this

17 reversal.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. All right. The next item. He says -- he says that he didn't.

20 "Four, for the following session of the Conference on Yugoslavia,

21 Slobodan Milosevic and I approved a joint draft amendment to the document.

22 These amendments were supported by the Presidency of the SFRY and the

23 parliament of Montenegro and Serbia. The Presidency of the Conference on

24 Yugoslavia included our draft amendments in the documentation prepared for

25 the next session on 5 November 1991. This was a new spiral in the

Page 11283

1 conference, making it closer to final solution.

2 "Six, under the leadership of Lord Carrington, the conference did

3 not succeed. But this did not happen due to the categoric position of any

4 individual but, as Lord Carrington said, due to the announcement of the

5 European Union that they would recognise Croatia and Slovenia, which made

6 these two republics lose interest in the --"

7 JUDGE MAY: You seem to be going a long way from the point, and

8 we're now dealing with Mr. Bulatovic's views, which I've said are

9 irrelevant. Now, have you a question for this witness?

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. All right. Let me just add the last item in this statement that

12 he signed.

13 JUDGE MAY: No. No. I'm going to stop you. You've been dealing

14 with total irrelevances. Now, have you got a question for this witness?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm just going to take up

16 ten seconds of your time to read the last sentence, which reads as

17 follows: "As for this question and all other questions where I can

18 contribute to establishing the full truth and the real truth, I am

19 prepared to testify at the request of the defence of Slobodan Milosevic."

20 JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can call him and we'll hear what he's

21 got to say, and these matters can be put to him. The account which this

22 witness gives can be put to him. Now, let's move on.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. So Mr. Samardzic, as I've read to you at the very beginning, he

25 refers to your testimony and says that there are many falsehoods and many

Page 11284

1 misrepresented facts that are not based on a single real event from the

2 period that you are testifying about. Is that correct, Mr. Samardzic?

3 A. That is not correct. What you just read now, this statement of

4 Momir Bulatovic, shows that he changed his mind, and this so-called

5 process after The Hague is proof of the fact that, together with you, he

6 agreed not to follow what Lord Carrington had proposed. So he changed his

7 mind. Everything that you have been reading out shows that he no longer

8 accepted Lord Carrington's plan but that other ways and means were to be

9 taken in order to resolve the Yugoslav crisis. So precisely by reading

10 what you've been reading, you have been disputing what you have claimed.

11 Q. That's not my conclusion. I can only conclude that Bulatovic is

12 fully refuting everything that you said when you invoked his name.

13 As for what I did in The Hague on that day, I'm going to leave

14 aside insinuations like the one that I usurped the microphone, I guess,

15 and that Lord Carrington did not give me the floor, and Lord Carrington

16 was chairing the meeting and that would have been highly improper. But I

17 am going to read one paragraph to you, a paragraph that is in question,

18 and that also fully denies what you have been saying. I am quoting my own

19 speech and I am going to exhibit the speech, the speech in its entirety,

20 that is.

21 "The proposed arrangements for the general framework agreement on

22 the Yugoslav crisis suspend the valid constitutional and legal order in

23 Yugoslavia. In this way, it is not only internal constitutional

24 continuity of Yugoslavia that is being interrupted but Yugoslavia as such

25 is being abolished as a state which has continuously existed for over 70

Page 11285

1 years now. A decision on the abolition of a state cannot be passed by an

2 international forum or even by the top constitution-making authority of

3 the country. Such a decision can only be passed by the entities that

4 founded the state at a given point in time. This state came into being

5 through a decision reached by the Yugoslav peoples, and they are the only

6 ones who can decide to abolish it at a referendum. Not a single

7 participant in this conference has the mandate to do this, nor does this

8 conference as a forum have that kind of mandate."

9 So do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that after that and in my

10 speech, I said Yugoslavia could not be abolished by a stroke of the pen.

11 I said there at that conference, I asked for the peace process to

12 continue, to find solutions, fair solutions, solutions that would be fair

13 to all the peoples of Yugoslavia, and so on.

14 I'm not going to read the entire speech because it would take up

15 too much of my time.

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, you've been reading for about five minutes

17 -- or two minutes, anyway. Now, the witness should answer.

18 Do you remember this speech? Do you remember what the accused

19 said? Does what's been read out accord with your recollection,

20 Mr. Samardzic?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That is part of his speech.

22 However, he is not reading the rest. Nevertheless, this shows his

23 hypocrisy, his political hypocrisy, because Yugoslavia had already been

24 abolished through his deeds and what his political party did.

25 Allow me to finish. A lot had already been done for Yugoslavia to

Page 11286

1 disappear. In The Hague, he could not call for the continuation of

2 Yugoslavia because there was no more Yugoslavia.

3 Nevertheless, I have to add another thing. I did not say during

4 my testimony that he had usurped the floor. Lord Carrington gave him the

5 floor. But this was not in accordance with the rules of procedure or,

6 rather, the order in which we were supposed to speak and that was given to

7 us beforehand. It was Bosnia that was supposed to speak first. Mr.

8 Milosevic took the floor first, and in this way he effectively did away

9 with Lord Carrington's proposal. That's what I said and I stand by that.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Well, you see that Bulatovic, as head of your delegation, is

12 saying the contrary.

13 JUDGE MAY: No. It doesn't matter about that. You've heard what

14 the witness said.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. As opposed to many others,

16 I do dare to make public every one of my speeches, and I'm not ashamed of

17 a single word I said. Could you please take this copy of my speech. I

18 see that Mr. Samardzic has been saying that I did not read all of it. I

19 cannot read all of it because it would take up a lot of my time. It has

20 five and a half or six pages. This is the speech I made on the 18th of

21 October.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will exhibit that if it's given the next

23 exhibit number when it's translated.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit D44.

25 JUDGE MAY: Let the Prosecution see it.

Page 11287












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11288

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Samardzic, yesterday you said that after this, what followed

3 was the Belgrade initiative on the basis of which the constitution of the

4 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted, and as you had put it, on the

5 27th of April, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established.

6 I wish to remind you precisely in this connection and also in

7 connection with what you said a few minutes ago, that Yugoslavia had been

8 abolished, that from the point of view of international law, what you are

9 saying is not correct.

10 I have my speech here, the one I delivered on the 6th of May,

11 1992, in Brussels. So that is only ten days after the Federal Republic of

12 Yugoslavia was established or, rather, after the constitution of the

13 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was adopted. In this speech, I say, first

14 of all, that the delegations of Serbia and Montenegro shall from that

15 point in time be considered to be the delegation of the Federal Republic

16 of Yugoslavia, that the adoption of the constitution was a step forward

17 towards the stabilisation of the situation in Yugoslavia, that Yugoslavia

18 is not a new state but a rearranged form of the state of Yugoslavia that

19 had existed until then. And I particularly point out a declaration that

20 was adopted along with the constitution which contains the objectives and

21 the principles of guiding the policy that would govern the relations

22 between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former republics of the

23 former Yugoslavia. There are only four points, and I'm going to read them

24 out to you. They're contained in the declaration:

25 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is prepared to observe the

Page 11289

1 interests of the former republics and it expects that its interests will

2 also be respected and observed at the same time on a footing of equality.

3 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is prepared to give its

4 contribution to all interrupted ties on the territory of the former

5 Yugoslavia.

6 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not have any territorial

7 aspirations vis-a-vis anyone in its neighbourhood.

8 "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will strictly observe the

9 objectives and principles of the UN charter, documents of the CSE and

10 particularly the principle of not using force in resolving international

11 disputes, and we hope that threats, blackmail will not be applied towards

12 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to bring out an unraveling of

13 the crisis."

14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to interrupt you. Now, you

15 have in fact been speaking for three or four minutes and I haven't stopped

16 you. You should be able to put your defence. But we must really come to

17 a point at which we understand what is the point that you're trying to

18 make and what is the question for this witness?

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. The question for this witness is: How can he claim that

21 Yugoslavia had been abolished? Because Slovenia and Croatia had left. I

22 hope that not even he can deny what I also said in that speech and what

23 I'd like to read out to him. So let him challenge it then.

24 Just one paragraph.

25 JUDGE MAY: Deal with the first which you've made. Dealing with

Page 11290

1 the first point:

2 The point is made that you're wrong to claim that Yugoslavia had

3 been abolished. Do you think you could deal with that or is there

4 anything you want to add to what you've said before, Mr. Samardzic?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. I will be very glad to

6 answer this question. The word "Yugoslavia" means The Land of the

7 Southern Slavs. Yugoslavia without Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and

8 Bosnia is not Yugoslavia. It is not The Land of the Southern Slavs.

9 Yugoslavia without the other peoples. If there are only two people in

10 Yugoslavia out of all the seven southern Slavic peoples is no longer

11 Yugoslavia. It cannot be Yugoslavia if its population consists of

12 Southern Slavs only to the extent of 20 per cent.

13 What Slobodan Milosevic declared about continuity are his

14 positions, and that has nothing to do with reality. It is true that he

15 did advocate the state continuity of Yugoslavia, but the world did not

16 recognise that. The international community did not recognise that

17 continuity. And in fact, this ceased when he was replaced by the people

18 of Serbia.

19 Yugoslavia itself today is changing its international status, and

20 it accepts that what remains of that Yugoslavia, these are only the

21 remains, that is to say Serbia and Montenegro is no longer Yugoslavia and

22 the name has been abolished. Now it is Serbia and Montenegro. Now they

23 are creating a state. Because what Slobodan Milosevic did on the 27th of

24 April - and that's when he completed the job - that was not Yugoslavia.

25 Although I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Member of

Page 11291

1 Parliament, I publicly refused to attend the promulgation, the alleged

2 promulgation of that Yugoslavia of his. And I did that publicly, because

3 that was not the country that my forefathers fought for and that his

4 forefathers fought for. Again, it was a fiction only aimed at retaining

5 power the way he did retain power until he was replaced by the people.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. At that time, I was President of

8 Serbia. And as you know full well, I was not a candidate for the

9 Presidency of Yugoslavia. But let me read out this paragraph and later on

10 I'm going to refute what you said just now.

11 "The idea of dissociation --" this is the speech I made on the 6th

12 of May, in Brussels: "The idea of dissociation was launched in order to

13 conceal and indirectly legalise the one-sided secession. Such an

14 inversion of the truth cannot be accepted, even more so because we always

15 emphasised that we are not a hindrance in the path of those who want to

16 leave Yugoslavia and who want to create states of their own. Let them do

17 this in a peaceful and legal way. But by their secession, we do not cease

18 to exist, for a simple reason; because they could pass decisions on

19 secession that would relate only to themselves, that would not pertain to

20 us and to our destiny. We point out today, as we have pointed out, that

21 the right to secession cannot be stronger than the right to allegiance to

22 one's own state, one's existing state, and we remain convinced that this

23 is a position of principle. Rewarding secession on the one side and

24 punishment for allegience to one's homeland on the other side and denying

25 people the right to guard their homeland cannot lead to fair and just

Page 11292

1 solutions."

2 And then I say that we want to have cooperation with the countries

3 of the European Community, and I refer to a great many other things; the

4 situation in Bosnia, our principled position that this should be resolved

5 by the three constituent peoples, et cetera, et cetera. So I would like

6 to have this exhibited as well, please.

7 The fact remains -- or perhaps you are challenging that fact as

8 well, Mr. Samardzic --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I am normally a very patient

10 person, but I must say that the manner in which you cross-examine does

11 test one's patience. You read passages from speeches, but you do not ask

12 questions. The Chamber has been very, very liberal with you because you

13 are defending yourself. I think in most jurisdictions, you would not be

14 allowed to cross-examine in this way.

15 You just read out a passage which is about 12 lines. What is the

16 question? The trial here has a specific purpose. We are to determine

17 facts, and we cannot do that if you read passages of that length without

18 asking questions, because by the time you have finished, the witness would

19 have forgotten the first part of the passage.

20 What you must do is formulate a question. You know the passage.

21 You don't need to read it out. You have the gist of it. Formulate a

22 question based on the passage and put it to the witness, and we can save a

23 lot of time that way.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this witness invoked

25 my positions at the peace conference, and I thought that I can use the

Page 11293

1 authentic text. And after all, that is what Mr. May indicated yesterday,

2 that I could show that to him in order to fully refute the statements he

3 made.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. So my question, Mr. Samardzic, is: Is it correct that the

6 citizens of Montenegro carried out a referendum concerning the Federal

7 Republic of Yugoslavia and that it was on the basis of this referendum

8 that Montenegro became a constituent element of the Federal Republic of

9 Yugoslavia together with the Republic of Serbia?

10 A. In my statement, I did say that a referendum was held, but I

11 repeat yet again that that referendum was not carried out in a legal way,

12 that the right question had not been put and that the rules governing

13 referendums were not applied, so it is totally invalid and nobody in the

14 world accepted it then as a valid document. The entire international

15 community then condemned this referendum.

16 However, I have to say something about what you read out just now.

17 Your speeches, the speeches that you made in Brussels and The Hague, you

18 did read them but that is absolute hypocrisy. How can you say that you

19 are giving other republics and other peoples the right to secede and at

20 that time you already held a third of Croatia under your occupation? And

21 you had created the Serb Krajinas with the ultimate objective of

22 separating these territories from Croatia. And also at that time, before

23 the war in Bosnia had started, you had counted on all of Bosnia to be

24 Serbian.

25 This was a camouflage Yugoslavia. It was camouflage for the idea

Page 11294

1 of a Greater Serbia, to create some kind of state, since you had already

2 been defeated in 1992. So what remained was to create a small Greater

3 Serbia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro. Can you imagine what kind of

4 a constituent element that could be, what kind of equal rights we could

5 talk about then?

6 Q. Please, Mr. Samardzic. We don't have time to go into all those

7 details. What you're here to do is to answer my questions.

8 You said that the referendum was held, you just question its

9 legality. But at that time, nobody questioned its legality. And let me

10 add this: Do you recall --

11 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with that,

12 because you're making an assertion.

13 Did anybody at the time question the legality of the referendum,

14 Mr. Samardzic?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they did. The European

16 Community did. The representatives of the European Community, and I have

17 a document in my possession to bear that out, where they stated that the

18 referendum was not conducted in a legal manner. And I don't think it is

19 necessary to prove this any further. The documents will speak for

20 themselves, the ones that individual European countries and the European

21 Community as a whole, when the -- a meeting of it was held and

22 Mr. Van den Broek was there. Those documents record that the referendum

23 in Montenegro was not a valid one and organised in a valid fashion. That

24 it prevailed in Serbia, that was another matter, because there were

25 different authorities there. And if the proclamation of Yugoslavia on the

Page 11295












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11296

1 27th of April, which emerged from that, was accepted, none of the

2 ambassadors who were in Belgrade, except perhaps Iraq and Libya, attended

3 or accepted this new Yugoslavia of his. Nobody. Yugoslavia was not

4 recognised at that time. The policy was reverted towards Montenegro and

5 Serbia afterwards, but at that time, the international community insisted

6 upon the fact that --

7 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. This is once again an untruth, because apart from the ambassadors

10 of the United States and the European Union, all the other ambassadors

11 accredited in Yugoslavia attended the promulgation and proclamation.

12 There are minutes and records about this. There was a videotape and

13 footage about this and a television programme. So once again, you are

14 speaking an untruth.

15 But do you remember this, Mr. Samardzic, because you say that

16 nobody wanted to recognise it, that in fact even, if you will recall, in

17 August 1996, I signed, I myself signed, together with Tudjman, a document

18 on the normalisation of relations in which Croatia recognised the

19 continuity of Yugoslavia. And that same year -- this took place in

20 Athens, and the hosts were Greek Prime Minister Simitis of the day and the

21 present one too and representatives of the Greek government. That

22 document is in existence and it did accept and recognise Yugoslavia's

23 continuity.

24 In October of that same year, the host was Jacques Chirac this

25 time, to me and Mr. Izetbegovic, and we normalised relations during that

Page 11297

1 meeting between the SRY and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the provisions were

2 contained therein which recognised the continuity of Yugoslavia.

3 Yugoslavia, throughout that time, had its representative in the United

4 Nations, and the fact that the new quisling government threw all that

5 away --

6 JUDGE MAY: You're making --

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. -- rejected all that is not an argument, sir.

9 JUDGE MAY: You're making a speech again. Now, what is the

10 question for the witness?

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Do you recall, do you remember those documents signed in 1996 in

13 August and in October with Tudjman and Izetbegovic and the question and

14 issue of continuity? Do you remember that?

15 A. Allow me to answer your question. I am talking about 1992 and not

16 1996. I said a moment ago that in 1992, when your so-called Yugoslavia

17 was proclaimed, none of the large civilised countries of the world

18 recognised that state at that time, and I remember very well that the US

19 administration insisted upon it being called Serbia and Montenegro and not

20 Yugoslavia.

21 And what happened in 1996 that this policy towards Yugoslavia

22 underwent a change, I cannot deny that either. I'm sorry that that

23 happened, and that is why we see complications there today. But that is

24 the year 1996. And, Mr. Milosevic, I did not testify about 1996, I am

25 testifying about 1992 when it was a deformed, completely deformed country

Page 11298

1 in the views of the international community.

2 Q. Mr. Samardzic, all right. In 1992, as you were the Foreign

3 Minister when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established, do you

4 remember how many tens of ambassadors representing foreign countries were

5 present in that particular Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992 right up

6 until 1996? If you discount China, Russia, India, and the other big

7 countries, if you don't consider these to be big countries, if you only

8 consider the countries of the European Union and NATO pact countries to be

9 big countries, that's your affair.

10 A. No. You're trying to trick me. I don't think that the big

11 countries are only countries which belong to NATO. That's not true. I

12 was not present because I refused to go to a meeting of that kind. If

13 this was a demonstration of my part, I did not want to see this

14 proclamation of Yugoslavia that did not have its Assembly to elect it but

15 had delegates, MPs, whose mandate had expired. And these were MPs from

16 two republics and not six. So it was your proclamation of Yugoslavia that

17 was completely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the law, and I

18 didn't want to go there, in protest.

19 Now, what you're asking about, how many ambassadors were there, I

20 really can't say. I heard that there were just a handful, such as the

21 representative of Cuba, of Iraq, Fidel Castro's representative, Libya's

22 representative, and so on and so forth, their envoys. Whether India and

23 China had their envoys there, I don't know. If they were, I withdraw what

24 I said, that only two or three were present. But I was not there, I did

25 not attend. All I did see was the representative of Libya. He was there.

Page 11299

1 He could be seen on television, on the television screens. What I'm

2 saying is it doesn't matter how many of them were actually there.

3 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's cool down.

4 Now, Mr. Milosevic, I think we've exhausted this topic. Now,

5 let's move on to something else.

6 Yes. You wanted a speech exhibited, and we will give it the next

7 exhibit number.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the speech made on the 6th of May in

9 Brussels will be Defence Exhibit 45.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Before I move on, I just want to prove to you that you weren't

12 speaking the truth here with respect to the government meeting that took

13 place on the 1st of October and that it was precisely Bulatovic who was

14 telling the truth.

15 I have here the minutes from the 46th session of the government of

16 Montenegro held on the 26th of September, 1991, and under point 14, we see

17 Bozidar Babic, minister who informed the government on the present

18 security situation along the borders of Montenegro with the Republic of

19 Croatia and the measures being undertaken to protect the frontiers and the

20 citizens and what the government concluded in this regard. So that was

21 the 46th session held on the 26th of September.

22 Do you remember, as you were the minister at the time, that at

23 each subsequent session, the minutes from the previous meeting are first

24 of all adopted as the first point on the agenda? Is that so, Mr.

25 Samardzic?

Page 11300

1 A. Well, I don't know what your question is, whether I remember --

2 Q. My question is, as this is the minutes from the meeting of the

3 26th of September, and that was the 46th session that was held -- just let

4 me finish. You have the minutes from the 47th session of the government

5 of Montenegro that was held on the 3rd of October, for example, and this

6 confirms and bears out the fact that the session that you mentioned of the

7 1st of October with the generals, Bulatovic, et cetera, was not a

8 government session but a commemorative meeting about which Momir Bulatovic

9 speaks in his own statement. So it was the 46th session and the 47th

10 session.

11 JUDGE MAY: What is your point? Are you saying that there weren't

12 any minutes of the meeting so therefore it shows that it was something

13 other than a normal session? Is that the point?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is that the witness spoke

15 untruths on this subject as well, and that Bulatovic in his statement

16 published the fact that this was not a government meeting that we -- was

17 held.

18 JUDGE MAY: What is it that you're putting to the witness to

19 refute what he says? He says he's told you the truth about it. Now, what

20 is it you're putting to him to refute it?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am putting to him that I wish him

22 to confirm that that infamous session of the 4th of October, along with

23 the presence of Bulatovic, the eight officers of which four generals, was

24 no government meeting at all but that it was a commemorative meeting, as

25 Bulatovic says.

Page 11301

1 JUDGE MAY: Very well. He's already, I think, dealt with that.

2 Was it a government -- a formal government meeting that day or not?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On that day, an official government

4 meeting was held, and I stand by that. That is the whole truth. What he

5 is putting forward now, that is to say Mr. Milosevic, are falsifications,

6 and it is quite untrue that it was a commemorative meeting. It was a

7 session, I repeat once again, to discuss the defence of the country in the

8 face of the aggression by Croatia on Boka Kotorska, Montenegro.

9 They did not come to express their commiseration but they came in full

10 battle dress and not in their ceremonial dress for a commemorative

11 meeting. So this was a meeting to discipline Montenegro in an unjust,

12 unfair war against Croatia, a war which took so many young lives with it,

13 young lives from Montenegro. And what you're saying now, this is living

14 falsification, and I assume that that's what you want.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm very sorry that you are speaking so many

17 untruths, but what I have here are the minutes of your own government's

18 sessions. I didn't claim that there was a commemorative meeting, but I

19 claimed what Momir Bulatovic said and read out. And we can see that the

20 46th government meeting was held on the 26th of September, and the 47th

21 government session was held on the 3rd of October. Therefore, that

22 session that you mention of the 1st of October was no government session

23 at all. It was some other kind of meeting. But let's move on. It is

24 precisely in the minutes --

25 JUDGE MAY: No. You must let the witness deal with it.

Page 11302

1 What the accused is saying, apparently, is that there were no

2 official minutes, or that the official minutes don't contain a reference

3 to this meeting and, therefore, it was not a government meeting. Now, can

4 you -- is there anything you'd like to say about that?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. At this point in time,

6 after the passage of ten years, I cannot remember what is said in what

7 minutes but I think that this is another provocation and I'm sure that the

8 minutes do exist but I can't say with any certainty. What I have said I

9 stand by. It was a government session. Whether the minutes were recorded

10 or not, I can't say with any certainty but I do believe they were. That

11 the generals were present, they were. My memory has not let me down on

12 that score. And so were the other Montenegrin leaders. And the session

13 was devoted not to the commemoration but to the war efforts against

14 Croatia, and that is the sole truth. Everything else is an attempt to

15 bypass the issue and to seek ways of proving that this was not done. It

16 was done. It was a session to involve the war in -- to involve Montenegro

17 in the war with Croatia, to show that the two were at war whereas Serbia

18 was standing by. That was the object.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Please don't take up too much of my time. I am presenting the

21 bare facts here and no assertions or anything else. So I have presented

22 the facts pertaining to the government sessions.

23 Did you attend the 26th of September government session?

24 A. Probably I did. I didn't testify at all about that session.

25 Q. And did you attend the session on the 3rd of October, the

Page 11303












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11304

1 government session?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. Let me then read out to you -- read out to you the minutes from

4 that session that was held. Just let me see. Let me take a moment to

5 find the 3rd of October and the minutes thereof, the government meeting

6 held. Presiding was Mr. Djukanovic, and the stenograms are held of all

7 this. Absent was Zoran Lilic, Vice-Premier, Predrag Goranovic, Vojan

8 Djukanovic [as interpreted], Pavle Bulatovic, and Ilija Lakosic [phoen],

9 and Nikola Samardzic, members of the government. You did not attend that

10 meeting.

11 At the meeting of the 26th, the following were absent, among

12 others, Nikola Samardzic, et cetera, et cetera, members of the government.

13 Now I want to ask you this: You said that it was after that

14 meeting of the 18th of October, at the conference which was chaired by

15 Lord Carrington, that the Belgrade initiative followed. Let me just tell

16 you that in this -- these minutes dated the 3rd of October, that is to say

17 15 days before the meeting was held under the chairmanship of Lord

18 Carrington, under point 2, it says that -- and you can look for the

19 original minutes, they will -- the government apparently will give you,

20 looked at the foundations for setting up Yugoslavia and, in brackets, it

21 says, "The Belgrade initiative which was sent to the government by the

22 Montenegrin Assembly for discussion."

23 So you were telling an untruth there too, Mr. Samardzic. Fifteen

24 days before that, the government presents its views and states its

25 position pertaining to the Belgrade initiative sent by the Montenegrin

Page 11305

1 Assembly. So that means even prior to that. So you are reversing the

2 facts here and times, and quite blatantly telling untruths. Let me remind

3 you what it says here.

4 JUDGE MAY: No. Let the witness deal with what you've read out so

5 far.

6 Mr. Samardzic, it's said that you're not dealing the truth. It's

7 your opportunity now to deal with what the accused has put to you, should

8 you wish to do so.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that after The Hague, the

10 Belgrade initiative received the force and strength to replace what was

11 proposed by Lord Carrington. I did not refer to the rumours and stories

12 put out pertaining to the Belgrade initiative. Probably what Mr.

13 Milosevic just read out was on the agenda of that government meeting, as

14 can be seen from the minutes, because it says that I myself was not

15 present. I was absent from the meeting. As I was the director of the

16 Jugooceanija company, I was very often late to meetings and the minutes

17 probably recorded my absence at these two meetings. However, so far, I

18 have not made any statements with respect to them, nor did I take into

19 account the conclusions made at those meetings. On the 4th of October, I

20 did arrive, but I arrived late.

21 Now, whether I was present at the 27th meeting, perhaps -- so much

22 time has gone by, perhaps I wasn't. I don't remember, because -- but

23 nothing important on the 27th of September was discussed because the war

24 hadn't begun yet.

25 Now, what I testified about, and I stand by this, is what happened

Page 11306

1 on the 1st of October. On the 1st of October, that was the date when the

2 meeting of the generals took place and the members of the Montenegrin

3 government, when they met members of the Presidency of Montenegro, and I

4 stand by that. There is absolutely no possible lie there or any

5 fabrications or untruths. All that I said was the truth.

6 Q. You are testifying to a government meeting that did not take place

7 but not the one that did take place. Now, please present your views with

8 respect to what I'm now going to read to you from the minutes, and it has

9 to do with the opinions of the government about the Belgrade initiative,

10 and this was a joint initiative of Serbia and Montenegro, not only

11 Belgrade, and I quote, and I will also tender it into evidence:

12 "With this regard, the government gives the following views: The

13 groundwork for relations within Yugoslavia assert that Yugoslavia is a

14 community of equal peoples, republics and citizens. In accordance with

15 the principles of the broadest freedoms and rights of citizens based on

16 parliamentary democracy, market economy, and equality of all types of

17 property and ownership, as well as common interests of republics and

18 citizens, respect for human rights, unified market, monetary system,

19 foreign affairs, security, and unified armed forces as a sovereign country

20 within the borders of its constitution-determined competencies with the

21 republics within its composition as a community where every possibility of

22 national, ethnic, republic, religious and other domination is ruled out.

23 The basis for the future structure of Yugoslavia should express to the

24 greatest possible extent the interests of its citizens to live together in

25 a state following the loftiest standards of modern civilisation. This

Page 11307

1 document, after being approved by the respective parliaments, should serve

2 as the basis for developing new ideas," et cetera, et cetera.

3 Mr. Samardzic, as you can see, the main qualities emphasised in

4 this document are equality of republics, equality of peoples, independence

5 of republics, a unified state. Where do you see Greater Serbia in this

6 under the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? How

7 can you see it here where the keyword is "independence and equality"?

8 Year 1991, may I remind you.

9 A. In September 1991, which you're talking about, Greater Serbia, if

10 there is only 95 per cent of the population of the Greater Serbia and only

11 5 per cent of the population of Montenegro, that amounts to Greater

12 Serbia. There is no equality to speak of, and nobody could make it. And

13 what you are reading is sheer words.

14 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I'm reading you what your own government, of which

15 you were a member, noted. And what you are considering to be a deficiency

16 I believe to be a virtue. It is true that Serbia is 18 times larger than

17 Montenegro, but it is also true that, despite that, republics are equal in

18 every respect in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or are you going to

19 gainsay this as well? Are you perhaps asking that your qualification of

20 this constitution which you qualified as botched should be accepted and

21 the opinion of the government of Montenegro dismissed? Because the

22 government of Montenegro says completely the opposite, and you supported

23 it at the time.

24 A. No, I never supported it, even at the time. I never was in favour

25 of that state. I did not attend the proclamation ceremony. And as for

Page 11308

1 equality between Serbia and Montenegro, it was impossible in all these

2 past ten or 11 years, as it was founded. Therefore, what you are reading

3 may be written in those declarations, and it is not only the position of

4 the Montenegrin government but after ten or 15 days in The Hague, Momir

5 Bulatovic, president of the Presidency of Montenegro, assumed a completely

6 different position, opposite to the Belgrade initiative, regarding Lord

7 Carrington's proposal. He was the first one to refuse it.

8 Q. Since that is completely contrary to what Bulatovic is saying, I

9 would only ask --

10 JUDGE MAY: No. We cannot go over these positions again. We've

11 been over your position. You've heard what the witness has says. We've

12 been over The Hague conference. Now, let us move to something else.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. All right. I have to hurry this up. I have many questions, and I

15 expect this witness to say that he didn't say even what he actually said.

16 You see here in your statement, since you've mentioned it, you

17 said yesterday that you had met with leaders from Republika Srpska, with

18 the mediation of Milo Djukanovic, in Bar. And then for reasons of your

19 own, which I cannot even guess at but they must have to do with your

20 personal interests and this false indictment which can only be proved by

21 lies, not by truth --

22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, come to a question instead of this sort

23 of abuse.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Well, here, I'll read out to you from your own statement, page 8,

Page 11309

1 paragraph 1. First full paragraph, I mean:

2 "Much more than Bulatovic, Djukanovic contacted with other leaders

3 in Yugoslavia. He kept trying to gain influential friends. For example,

4 I know that he brought the Bosnian Serb leadership to his house in Bar for

5 meetings. I had a home in Budva, and on one occasion I ran into

6 Djukanovic in town. It was unusual, but he invited me to accompany him to

7 Bar where he was entertaining some friends from Republika Srpska. I went

8 with him, and when we arrived, I met Momcilo Krajisnik, Biljana Plavsic,

9 and Nikola Koljevic, who were all there. They were all talking about how

10 they were going to build this new Serbian state in Bosnia. I didn't stay

11 long with them, though, and instead went to visit some friends who live in

12 Bar." That's the end of it.

13 MR. NICE: He missed a line out. If he's going to quote, would he

14 quote in full, please.

15 JUDGE MAY: The point that's made, would you use the full

16 quotation.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I read out the entire quotation. "This new Serbian state in

19 Bosnia." And then, "I remember also that every time they referred to

20 Muslims, they called them Turks. I didn't stay long with them and instead

21 went to visit some friends who lived in Bar." I don't see that I had

22 skipped anything of essence. I'm trying to say that this witness is

23 lying, because yesterday he said he had found himself in a public place -

24 a tavern, a cafe or something - and he was trying to accuse Djukanovic of

25 something that Djukanovic cannot possibly be guilty of.

Page 11310

1 A. That's not true I was trying to blame Djukanovic or accuse him.

2 What you have just read is a misrepresentation of my previous statement.

3 I only said that I went to Bar with Djukanovic and that I had met them.

4 Djukanovic has no house in Bar. He didn't have it then, and I don't

5 believe he has it today, so we couldn't have been in his home. I couldn't

6 have said it.

7 What I did say and what is relevant is what I said yesterday. I

8 see nothing bad about the fact that I met up with some people in casual --

9 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Let us make this clear.

12 A. You are trying to trick me now as you've been trying to trick me

13 all along. Nobody accused President Djukanovic of anything. We just met

14 by chance in Budva and went to Bar. I met these Bosnians in a cafe. I

15 recognised them from television. They started talking about Republika

16 Srpska. They mentioned Turks. That much is true because that's how they

17 called Muslims in Bosnia. And then I left. I don't see anything that

18 accuses Djukanovic in what I said, nor does it matter at all. And what

19 you are trying to put to me is completely untrue.

20 Q. Another quotation has to do with this: "During the summer of

21 1991, I was aware of at least five ships that docked in Montenegro

22 carrying weapons. Milo Djukanovic's brother, Aleksandar - Aco -

23 Djukanovic, facilitated these shipments with the police military. I do

24 not know from where the shipments originated, but after they arrived in

25 Bar, the arms were transported in military vehicles onto the Serbs in the

Page 11311












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11312

1 Krajina and in Bosnia for distribution. During the same period, the

2 Montenegrin Ministry of Interior began distributing weapons to people in

3 Montenegro who were known to have a Chetnik orientation and those were

4 supportive of the designs for a Greater Serbia. This was coordinated by

5 Deputy Interior Minister Nikola Pejakovic."

6 I am quoting your statement, the witness statement that you

7 signed, Mr. Samardzic, and you are now claiming that this is a

8 misrepresentation on my part.

9 A. Of course it is. What I said about Pejakovic is true. He did

10 distribute weapons to Chetnik elements. And that Djukanovic was involved

11 with the weapons, that is something that must have been misunderstood,

12 because when I was giving my statement, I meant Jasmir Vasiljevic

13 [phoen]. And all these are assumptions, anyway. And these were all the

14 dealings involving weapons. That's all I know. I know these dealings

15 existed, I know about these ships. I am a naval man, I know that these

16 ships were berthed there and I gave my statement about it.

17 Q. Mr. Samardzic, please take your witness statement and tell me,

18 because all I read out is here on the transcript. What did I misquote? I

19 read your statement, signed by you, word-for-word. Are you saying that I

20 did not read it correctly?

21 A. No, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that it's not a real

22 statement of mine. It may have been misunderstood, because I didn't

23 accuse Djukanovic or his brother ever of having anything to do with these

24 weapons.

25 Q. Do you still say that this part of your statement is made up?

Page 11313

1 A. No, I'm saying it's in error.

2 Q. How do you think they can make an error introducing new names in

3 the statement?

4 A. Well, it is an error. If you want, I made it, but I wasn't lying.

5 I said all I know about the weapons. I know that the weapons arrived on

6 ships and that suddenly it disappeared. Where, I don't know.

7 Q. Do you mean to say that what you said in your written statement

8 you signed and said by mistake?

9 A. No. There's no mistake except that I didn't include Djukanovic's

10 brother in all this because that's not true.

11 Q. Is it written in your statement?

12 A. It probably is.

13 Q. Does it mean it's falsified, forged?

14 A. No, it isn't forged. It may be an error. I didn't repeat this

15 mistake here in court, nor will I accept it.

16 Q. All right. Shall I read out to you one more --

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

19 help the Chamber. It's on page 9, paragraph 2 of his witness statement

20 given to investigators.

21 JUDGE MAY: We haven't got the statement, but thank you for that

22 information.

23 MR. NICE: It's available.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We better have it exhibited. We'll have it

25 after the adjournment.

Page 11314

1 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Speaking of - and I'm quoting your statement again - as to why

4 Bulatovic and Djukanovic --

5 JUDGE MAY: I'm reminded that the Prosecution wanted to raise

6 something, and I said they could raise it before the adjournment.

7 We'll continue -- Mr. Milosevic, we'll continue with your

8 examination after the adjournment.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I only want you to bear in

10 mind that we started this session with a five-minute delay and you are

11 taking away five more minutes plus ten minutes you owe me for tomorrow.

12 JUDGE MAY: It will be recorded, Mr. Milosevic, don't worry. You

13 won't lose any time.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fine. Fine.

15 JUDGE MAY: Can the witness withdraw or --

16 MR. NICE: Indeed he should withdraw. It's a private session that

17 I want to deal with.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Samardzic, we're going to adjourn now for

19 lunch. Could you be back, please, at half past two.

20 [The witness stood down]

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Private session.

22 [Private session]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 11315












12 Page 11315 redacted private session














Page 11316












12 Page 11316 redacted private session














Page 11317












12 Page 11317 redacted private session














Page 11318

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now. 2.35.

24 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.04 p.m.


Page 11319












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11320

1 --- On resuming at 2.37 p.m. - [Open Session]

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

3 MR. NICE: Witness statements of the witness, with attachments,

4 statements, I think being in both English and B/C/S, have now been

5 provided.

6 JUDGE MAY: What are the attachments?

7 MR. NICE: They're simply part of the original statement, exhibits

8 to which he then referred. To some degree they are repeated here, to some

9 degree they are separate.

10 JUDGE MAY: Well, we don't need to exhibit the attachments, simply

11 the statement, but we'll take it as it is now and it can be given an

12 exhibit number.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be marked Prosecutor's

14 Exhibit 339.

15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that you have established

17 that it is twenty minutes to three now.

18 Secondly, before I continue, I asked for these minutes of the

19 meetings of the government of Montenegro that are official records of the

20 government of Montenegro and that refer to many of the points that the

21 witness made here, namely that what he was saying was quite false. I

22 wanted them to be exhibited. I think that these are official transcripts

23 and that therefore you can include them.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now we can go on.

Page 11321

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. In your statement --

3 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We'll get a number for that.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 46.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. In your statement, you say -- this is page 8, the paragraph one

8 before last: "As for why Bulatovic and Djukanovic embraced Milosevic's

9 plans so enthusiastically, I think there are several reasons. Bulatovic

10 liked being the president of Montenegro. He wanted to hold on to that and

11 that meant slavishly supporting Milosevic no matter what. Djukanovic, on

12 the other hand, wanted to advance even further. He was extremely

13 ambitious and saw himself perhaps becoming Milosevic's top deputy and one

14 day successor or possibly becoming ruler of some expanded territories in

15 the new Greater Serbia."

16 Tell me, please, did you ever hear either me or Bulatovic or

17 Djukanovic say anything about any kind of Greater Serbia on any occasion?

18 Just say yes or no.

19 A. Yes, I heard you talking about a Greater Serbia.

20 Q. Tell me, please, because this is absolutely untrue, what did you

21 hear me say? Where did I say it and what did I say?

22 A. At the conference in The Hague, you were advocating a Greater

23 Serbia, for the Serb Krajina to remain within some new state. Also, you

24 spoke about all the Serbs living in the same state. And that you did not

25 refer to that once, you referred to it several times. Wait a minute, let

Page 11322

1 me finish now. You said several times that all Serbs should live in one

2 state. You created a Greater Serbia as you created a Serb Krajina

3 practically all the way up to Karlobag.

4 Secondly, your candidate for the president of Serbia, the current

5 one, Vojvoda Seselj, is talking about a Greater Serbia to Karlobag and

6 Igalo non-stop. That is the candidate for the president of Serbia that

7 you have supported. This is your candidate. He has always asked for a

8 Greater Serbia, and he goes even further than that.

9 JUDGE MAY: We cannot deal with the current political situation,

10 Mr. Samardzic. We are dealing with events ten years ago, as you know.

11 Was Mr. Seselj saying things like that at the time?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. He talked about that the

13 most then and now. That is my statement, that he did not change any of

14 it. As a matter of fact, he said that Rijeka was the main Serbian port

15 and Rijeka is even further away.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Samardzic, please save my time. You know full well that my

18 position regarding Yugoslavia was that it should be preserved and that

19 that is in the interest of all the Yugoslav peoples and that the Serb

20 people have an additional interest because in that Yugoslavia, Serbs live

21 in one state. That state in which the Serbs lived was Yugoslavia, not any

22 kind of Greater Serbia. So did you ever hear me speaking about a Greater

23 Serbia?

24 A. What you said, that the Serbs should live in one state, that was

25 greater Serbia, and Yugoslavia had fallen apart. It no longer existed.

Page 11323

1 For me, Yugoslavia --

2 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. So Yugoslavia was actually

3 a Greater Serbia.

4 A. No, no.

5 Q. Let me ask you something else. Did you ever hear Bulatovic or

6 Djukanovic advocating the idea of a Greater Serbia?

7 A. I never said that I -- that they advocated that. This is nowhere

8 in my statement.

9 Q. I've just quoted your statement. That's why I'm asking you why

10 you could have -- why you said something like that about the two of them.

11 A. This statement is the way it is, but I never said that they were

12 in favour of a Greater Serbia.

13 Q. Also you say in the statement you should also understand that both

14 of them -- I'm continuing that paragraph: "They were both anti-Catholic,

15 extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Croatian. Djukanovic's grandfather Blaze

16 was a Chetnik commander killed during World War II. Djukanovic revered

17 him and in fact named his son after him.

18 "Bulatovic's mother was from Herzegovina and her father was

19 killed by the Ustasha during the Second World War. She raised him with

20 this intense hatred for the Croats and for Roman Catholics in general. So

21 because of this combination of personal ambition and just pure hatred

22 towards anyone and anything non-Orthodox, Bulatovic and Djukanovic dragged

23 Montenegro down Milosevic's path to disaster."

24 You say here that they have great hatred for anything

25 non-Orthodox, as if they were some kind of Orthodox fanatics. How can you

Page 11324

1 say that when you know that's not true?

2 A. That's not what I meant to say, that they were Orthodox fanatics.

3 But at that time, that's what this euphoria was like when the war against

4 Croatia started, that everything that is Croatian is Ustasha and that it

5 should be fought against. That is what I said, in that sense, something

6 similar to that, but I don't see that exactly the way you read it.

7 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I did not say anything. I just read your

8 statement, your signed statement. So it's not my words, it's your words.

9 A. I did not sign that. I gave statements that were similar to that,

10 but there is no signature of mine there, and obviously you are adding

11 things to this. I am telling you what I am saying to you now and what I

12 said in front of the Court. That is what I'm saying and that is what is

13 true.

14 Q. Please. That's what it says here. Here it says: "Witness

15 certification: I have read this statement that consists of 34 pages and

16 it contains everything that I said to the best of my recollection and

17 knowledge. I give this statement voluntarily, and I am aware that it can

18 be used in court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal

19 for Violations of International Law Committed in the Territory of the

20 Former Yugoslavia and also that I can be called to give evidence in

21 court." And the date is there when the statement was given, that is to

22 say the 23rd of October, 2000, and now saying that that is not your

23 statement is -- well, let me not use too harsh a word. I don't think this

24 is serious.

25 Also, what do you have to say with respect to a paragraph on page

Page 11325

1 22? You say, as I mentioned before -- this the penultimate paragraph on

2 page 22: "Djukanovic maintained close contacts with the leadership of

3 Republika Srpska, RS. Large quantities of fuel and weapons were given to

4 the Serbs across the Drina and Milo's brother, Aco Djukanovic, is to be

5 credited with that. Even when Milosevic imposed the blockade on the

6 Drina, even after they rejected the Vance Plan, this equipment still

7 continued to flow into Republika Srpska across the border with Montenegro.

8 As far as I know, international observers were only at Scepan Polje, a

9 single border crossing. So this smuggling went on unhindered."

10 How can you say that when you don't know about that? Why are you

11 accusing people without having any arguments for that?

12 A. I'm not accusing people there. It was quite well known that

13 weapons did go through Montenegro to Bosnia and that the government of

14 Montenegro knew about that. When this was going on, this was during the

15 war in Bosnia, I was no longer a minister, but I did find out from various

16 people that weapons were getting through and they were.

17 Q. You don't have any firsthand knowledge about this. You are

18 involved in hearsay, in rumours.

19 A. This is not hearsay or rumours. These were generally known things

20 in Montenegro. At that time, I was no longer minister. And it is in that

21 sense that I meant it. That's how I said it.

22 Q. You also say: "Paramilitary groups that operated first in Croatia

23 and then in Bosnia had training and support facilities in Montenegro. I

24 was aware of at least two large training facilities that were in operation

25 in late 1991 and into 1992. One was at Lukovo, near Niksic, and the other

Page 11326

1 was in Golobovci at the military airport in Podgorica. These clearly were

2 known to be Babic, Bulatovic, Pavle Bulatovic, Pejakovic and Djukanovic."

3 And then, in brackets, "Niksic is Djukanovic's hometown." This is the

4 only argument you have in order to confirm this that you have been

5 accusing him of?

6 A. I am not accusing him at all and it has nothing to do with

7 anything that Niksic is his hometown. I probably said this in a different

8 context.

9 Q. I'm reading your own statement.

10 A. And I'm giving you an answer, and let me answer. There were

11 centres in Montenegro, and that is correct. However, I wanted to avoid

12 mentioning that now, what I said two years ago but now you're insisting.

13 Yes, it is true. There were training centres in Montenegro.

14 Q. You say: "There is no way that they could have operated without

15 their acquiescence and their support. These paramilitary groups were

16 responsible for the cleansing of Muslim families from their homes in the

17 Bukovica area. This had been the last remnant of a rural Muslim

18 population in Montenegro left after the 1924 ethnic cleansing of Muslims

19 from Montenegro. The work of the paramilitaries was common knowledge and

20 was clearly done with the knowledge of the police and military."

21 That is your assertion.

22 A. I assert that at that time, Muslim families in Bukovica, many of

23 them, were massacred. That's a well-known fact, and that occurred in

24 Montenegro.

25 Q. You say further on: "At the very beginning of the war in Bosnia,

Page 11327












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11328

1 I remember Djukanovic saying at a meeting of the government that, 'We

2 (Montenegrins) had to stop the Muslims from killing our Serb brothers.'

3 However, once Milosevic made the decision to 'withdraw' the JNA from

4 Bosnia, though, very little was ever said about Bosnia any more in open

5 meetings. Since Serbia was officially out of Bosnia, so was Montenegro."

6 Well, do you know?

7 A. What do you mean?

8 Q. Without any quotation marks, when the Federal Republic of

9 Yugoslavia was proclaimed, all the citizens of the Federal Republic of

10 Yugoslavia were supposed to withdraw into Yugoslavia. That is to say both

11 from Serbia and from Montenegro.

12 A. Please repeat your question. What are you asking me? What do you

13 want me to say?

14 Q. I want you to tell me why are you accusing Djukanovic yet again

15 that he explained at a government meeting that you were supposed to

16 struggle against Muslims and that you were supposed to stop them from

17 killing our Serb brothers, et cetera? I did not see this in any of the

18 minutes of the Montenegrin government.

19 A. Two years have gone by. I don't really remember that that's what

20 I stated. To tell you the truth, I can hardly believe that I put it

21 exactly that way, but if that's the way it's been transcribed --

22 Q. Mr. Samardzic, in 2000 you remember what happened in 1991, and in

23 2002 you don't remember what happened in 2000.

24 A. Yes, it's possible that I don't remember what happened yesterday.

25 That's quite possible.

Page 11329

1 Q. And also, you say a certain number of Muslims from Foca were

2 thrown into the Piva Lake, and so on and so forth. Is that what you

3 claim?

4 A. Yes. A family of Muslims was thrown into the Lake Piva, but I

5 never accused Djukanovic of having done that. That's what you are adding,

6 what you are inventing.

7 Q. I'm not inventing anything.

8 A. Yes, you are. Does it say that anywhere? Is that written

9 anywhere?

10 Q. Please give me an answer to the following question: You say --

11 you attack Cosic, the president of the FRY at the time, otherwise, he is

12 no doubt the greatest living Serbian author. You say that in Herceg-Novi

13 -- you say this in the penultimate paragraph on page 24, that: "Soon

14 after he became head of state, he made a speech and he said that

15 Yugoslavia would never give up on Prevlaka and that the struggle for

16 Prevlaka is not only the struggle of the people of Herceg-Novi and Kotor

17 but also of Serbs from Kragujevac -- Serbs in Kragujevac and Pancevo. One

18 week later, though, Milosevic told him to sign the agreement for the JNA

19 to withdraw from Prevlaka and for it to be turned over to Croatia albeit

20 under UN supervision."

21 How can you say that? Cosic was older than me. How can I give

22 orders to him? And secondly, wasn't his -- the step he took a step

23 towards peace, to have UN monitors there until a final settlement? You

24 could have known that at least, Mr. Samardzic. Isn't that the way it was?

25 A. No. It was the way you read it out, the way I said it.

Page 11330

1 Q. All right.

2 A. Let me answer. That's precisely the speech he made in

3 Herceg-Novi, and he was watching Prevlaka. Seven days later, on your

4 orders, he signed or, rather, he agreed with Tudjman to return Prevlaka to

5 Croatia. What is so surprising about that? He did not return Prevlaka on

6 his own. He wouldn't have done it without you.

7 Q. All right. All right. Since you say in this statement, and I'm

8 sure you're not going to challenge that because you are now speaking in

9 this way, nobody brought into question the fact that Prevlaka was part of

10 Croatian territory and always had been. That's at the end of page 24.

11 And now I'm asking you the following: Since this story of yours

12 concerning Prevlaka is particularly interesting, you say that Prevlaka was

13 invented as a pretext in order to attack Dubrovnik, and that nobody

14 brought that into question, that it was always Croatian territory. And

15 now I'm asking you, because you are the first person to bring that into

16 question, in the newspapers dated the 3rd of October, 1991, that is to say

17 the time when you say that you were the staunchest critic of the war, and

18 now I'm quoting what you said, this is the Pobjeda newspaper, the leading

19 newspaper in Montenegro, and I'm quoting you: "As for the question of

20 Prevlaka, we have to prove that Prevlaka is part of our territory and that

21 it was never Croatian. With what right are they taking it now and

22 attacking because of that? Since it is so, we have to fight because we

23 are defending ourselves."

24 This is what Pobjeda published and you stated --

25 JUDGE MAY: I'm stopping this. It's right that the witness should

Page 11331

1 be able to deal with this. First of all, do you remember what's ascribed

2 to you as being said on the 3rd of October 1991? Does it sound as though

3 you might have said that? Can you help us?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This is absolutely made up. I

5 don't think so. If it is in Pobjeda, then it is a forgery or, rather, it

6 was invented by Konatar who was then editor of Pobjeda and who was a major

7 advocate of the war with Croatia. That is why it is called Konatar's

8 Pobjeda. I never could have stated anything like that, nor did I.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Samardzic. It is sufficient to say

11 that that is not correct, and that is even what you stated at an

12 extraordinary session of the Presidency of the government of Montenegro

13 that was held on that day; is that right?

14 A. You mean what Pobjeda wrote? No way, no. It is certain that I

15 never said that, never. Definitely not.

16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, on the 12th of September at the plenary session of

17 the conference in The Hague -- as regards Pobjeda, it would be easy to

18 find. But in The Hague, you said that Montenegro advocated the

19 preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Federation. Now here you are

20 saying that Montenegro advocated a Greater Serbia. I shall remind you.

21 I'm quoting you now. This is the statement made by Nikola Samardzic,

22 Minister of Foreign Affairs in Montenegro at the plenary session of the

23 conference in The Hague on the 12th of September, 1991:

24 "It is generally known that from the very outset, Montenegro

25 advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav federation but

Page 11332

1 that changes were supposed to be carried out between the republican and

2 federal authorities so that the new federation would be better than the

3 one until now."

4 So what, you advocated -- what did you advocate, actually? Did

5 Montenegro advocate a Greater Serbia or the preservation of Yugoslavia?

6 A. I did say that Montenegro -- where did I say that Montenegro

7 advocated Greater Serbia? Why are you trying to trick me into saying

8 that? I say that that's what you advocated.

9 Q. You are saying here that in Montenegro, there was a feeling in

10 favour of --

11 JUDGE MAY: Wait a minute. One at a --

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. -- there was a feeling in favour of a Greater Serbia and that is

14 what is present throughout your testimony.

15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, what is suggested is that you made a

16 statement in The Hague on the 12th of September of that year, and the

17 statement attributed to you is -- well, as the accused has read out,

18 "Montenegro advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav

19 federation." Did you make a statement to that effect or anything like it?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I did. That's the

21 statement I made, and that can be proven by these documents from this

22 session at the beginning of October. And then the leadership of

23 Montenegro advocated peace so that Yugoslavia could be maintained in a

24 way. At that time, there was sill no Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of

25 Slobodan Milosevic. I don't see anything bad in that, in what the accused

Page 11333

1 Milosevic is trying to put into my mouth.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I see nothing bad there too because I always strove

4 to preserve Yugoslavia. What I see that is bad is that you're saying

5 something quite different to what you were saying at the time, and that's

6 the point, not that you advocated the wrong thing.

7 Let me also quote the next sentence from that same speech yours at

8 the conference in The Hague, and it is contained in official documents.

9 At that same session you said the following quite literally: "Montenegro

10 in respecting the rights of Croatia and Slovenia to self-determination,

11 always stressed that the Serbs living in Croatia have the right to remain

12 within Yugoslavia." That is the exact quotation from that same speech of

13 yours. "Fully respecting the rights of the peoples of Croatia and

14 Slovenia to self-determination and to secession from Yugoslavia,

15 Montenegro has always emphasised that the same rights should be enjoyed by

16 the Serb people living in Croatia, that is to say that they may be allowed

17 to opt and live and remain in Yugoslavia. We are convinced that this is

18 the rightful democratic and peaceful solution for the position of the Serb

19 people in Croatia and that is one of the basic factors for the overall

20 solution to the Yugoslav crisis."

21 I agree with that quotation of yours, Mr. Samardzic.

22 JUDGE MAY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Why are you now saying --

25 JUDGE MAY: Wait. Let's first of all check that the witness

Page 11334

1 agrees that he said this lengthy quotation you're reading out again.

2 Mr. Samardzic, you can see it on the monitor. Do you agree that

3 you said this or something like it at the meeting?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Eleven years have elapsed since that

5 time. I quite certainly did say something very similar. I did not say

6 that the Serb people in Croatia should break away from Croatia and leave

7 but that a settlement should be found for the Serb people in Croatia. I

8 said something along those lines on that occasion.

9 So the first part of the quotation is correct. The second one is

10 an approximation, and I see nothing bad or terrible in what I said at that

11 time at that meeting in defending the interests of Montenegro.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. I see nothing terrible or bad either. What I do see as terrible

14 and bad is that you're saying quite the opposite now.

15 A. What is it that I'm saying that is contrary to what I said then?

16 Tell me. When I said that Montenegro pursued different lines. I kept

17 stressing that the Montenegro leadership wanted to get out from under your

18 influence, at least as far as it was possible.

19 Q. This has nothing to do with my question. You spoke something

20 quite different then to what you're saying now. You now -- you said that

21 the same rights should be enjoyed by the Serbian people living in Croatia,

22 namely that they could opt to live in Yugoslavia, to continue to live in

23 Yugoslavia. Why are you saying something quite different now,

24 Mr. Samardzic?

25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, did you ever say --

Page 11335












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11336

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Judge.

2 JUDGE MAY: Did you ever say that the Serbs in Croatia could opt

3 to live in Yugoslavia?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. I remember that. I

5 have just recalled those meetings, and I do remember having said that at

6 one of them.

7 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. What is your point?

8 What is the point you're trying to make with this witness in these lengthy

9 quotations?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is precisely in the fact

11 that the witness who at the time said things that were very reasonable,

12 rational, and quite proper and correct, now calls all of that a crime and

13 refers to it as being Greater Serbian expansionism, et cetera.

14 JUDGE MAY: What are you challenging in particular?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am challenging the verisimilitude

16 of that, because this witness, Mr. May, is lying. That is what we're

17 dealing with here. As he says in his statement --

18 JUDGE MAY: I don't understand why you put these points. You make

19 these lengthy quotations; the witness agrees with you. Now, what is the

20 point you want us to take since we're going to have to judge the

21 truthfulness of this evidence?

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he claims that Serbia and

23 Montenegro and all of that together under my leadership had taken up

24 positions along the border of Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica, whereas now he

25 says that the Serb people living in Krajina, if they wished to remain

Page 11337

1 within Yugoslavia, have the right to do so, to remain within Yugoslavia.

2 That is something he advocated and strove for, whereas in his statement

3 and testimony, he refers to that ten years later, here, as Greater Serbian

4 expansionism and a crime. That's what I'm saying. I think that's quite

5 obvious.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you are simply not making yourself

7 plain, but we'll allow the witness to deal with this. It may be said,

8 this point may be said: Did you at the time - and perhaps you can help

9 with us this - complain about Serb -- what you now say about Serb

10 expansionism and the plans for a Greater Serbia? Can you help us with

11 that?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

13 JUDGE MAY: Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. I'm asking the

14 witness a question.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, I did speak about the

16 expansion and about Greater Serbia and taking over territory by force,

17 territory of Croatia as far as I knew at the time, and I knew less about

18 it then than I do now, and taking territories from Croatia by force. This

19 is expansionism, and I condemned it then and condemn it now. And that was

20 borne out by Mr. Kacic and Mr. Wejnaendts as well in their books. I

21 condemned violence, the violence that was directed against Croatia and its

22 territory, and that nothing to do with the right of the Serb people to

23 self-determination, what he is criticising me for now.

24 So I presented this view at the meeting, and I stand by it now,

25 and I stood by it then, and I condemn what was done in Croatia by the

Page 11338

1 so-called Yugoslav army under your leadership. That is what I condemn,

2 what was done and perpetrated in Croatia by force.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. So you call one and the same concept, the right of Serbs to live

5 in and remain in Yugoslavia, that same concept now ten years later you are

6 referring to and calling Greater Serbian expansionism; is that it?

7 A. This once again is a trick, because that is not how things stand.

8 It is a complete trick on your part. I still think that the Serb people

9 have the right to self-determination. That means that the Serb people in

10 Croatia have the right to have their own autonomy, as was proposed by Lord

11 Carrington himself, and you should have proposed this and not sent an army

12 against Croatia.

13 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you know nothing about all that because you

14 wouldn't be saying what you're saying now if you did, but let me be more

15 specific. In that same speech of yours at the plenary session in The

16 Hague - so this is no newspaper article, it is your speech - in that, you

17 say the following: "Montenegro always strove and is still striving for

18 the fact that the existing borders between the Yugoslav republics should

19 remain unchanged on condition that Yugoslavia remains as a state and an

20 international legal subject."

21 Do you remember having said that?

22 A. Yes, I do. What's bad in that?

23 Q. That means that if Yugoslavia is preserved, that the boundaries

24 and borders should be not changed. Now, who called for a change in the

25 borders? Was it the Serbs in Croatia if Yugoslavia was preserved? Do you

Page 11339

1 remember that they voted in favour of preserving Yugoslavia? Isn't that

2 right?

3 A. Well, Yugoslavia had already almost disappeared by that time, and

4 Croatia had proclaimed itself an independent state, so it's no use talking

5 about preserving Yugoslavia at that time because Yugoslavia had already

6 ceased to exist.

7 Q. How can you then say that Yugoslavia -- that Montenegro strove and

8 is still striving? Why were you striving for that then when you say that

9 Yugoslavia no longer existed, had already disappeared?

10 A. Well, it was still recognised officially but it had actually

11 disappeared, whereas Montenegro did strive to preserve Yugoslavia. That's

12 it. What do you want?

13 Q. Yes. But you used the past tense and the present tense.

14 A. Well, maybe that's a mistake but I used the past tense.

15 Q. You used both the present and the past tense.

16 A. Well, don't hold me to just one single word.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, as this is the statement of

18 your esteemed witness Mr. Samardzic and it is the speech he made in The

19 Hague, I would like to tender this into evidence.

20 Now I can move on to the next question.

21 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Defence Exhibit

23 47.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I have a document here which you tabled, Nikola J.

Page 11340

1 Samardzic, Foreign Minister, and Momo Knezevic, Minister of Justice,

2 Titograd. The 15th of September 1991 is the date and you submitted a

3 report on the work to the Ministerial Conference on Yugoslavia.

4 Now, tell me this, please: You state in that report -- the report

5 is a written one, you submitted it. "At a separate meeting with Lord

6 Carrington, we presented a number of details to substantiate the positions

7 put forward at the plenary conference, and they are as follows: The

8 conflicts in Croatia emanated through the fact that the Serb people living

9 in that republic were in jeopardy." Isn't that right, Mr. Samardzic?

10 That is what it says in your own report, that the conflicts in Croatia

11 followed on from the fact that the Serbs were threatened there. And now

12 you say that they were threatened because Milosevic went to -- waged a

13 conquest for the borders up until Karlobag.

14 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with it, please.

15 Yes. That's what's alleged that you reported at the time.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What we did was to write a report.

17 I recognise that we did write this. We presented it, and we told Lord

18 Carrington that we would do so, to justify what was going on at the time

19 in Croatia so that we could in a way protect that party at that time, and

20 I recognise that I did not say all things quite exactly and precisely in

21 my talk with Lord Carrington.

22 Q. Well, all right. In the report, you go on to write the following,

23 Mr. Samardzic, as well, that you told Carrington, that is to say at that

24 separate meeting with him, and you and the Minister of Justice state this

25 in the report, and I quote you: "Collective consciousness and

Page 11341

1 recollections of Serbs in Croatia about the genocide which took place 50

2 years previously by the quisling Croatian authorities against the Serbs is

3 still very much present and strong in the psychology of the Serb

4 population living in Croatia."

5 Isn't that so, Mr. Samardzic?

6 A. Yes, and I can confirm that today. That idea is -- is -- does

7 exist in the consciousness of the Serbs living in Croatia because there

8 was a genocide that was committed during World War II. All that is true.

9 But what is the point there? The point is that instead of you, faced with

10 a Yugoslav crisis, assume a different position --

11 JUDGE MAY: Let him finish.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the answer to my question is

13 just this, Mr. May; I don't have time to listen to him go on and on --

14 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.

15 Yes, Mr. Samardzic.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Momo Knezevic and myself set out the

17 truth there. Yes, it is true that the Serbian people in Croatia feared

18 that they would see a repeat of what had happened to them in 1941, and

19 that is why this had to be treated, this symptom had to be treated,

20 because Croatia in 1941 was not the same Croatia that existed later on,

21 and instead of treating this ailment, you supported this fear that the

22 Serb population had.

23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. But you yourself, Mr. Samardzic, wrote down the following here:

Page 11342

1 "The Serb people in Croatia see the new Croatian authorities as the

2 revamping of fascism and the recollections of the fascist state which was

3 the greatest ally of fascist Germany which declared war on Great Britain,

4 the United States and the USSR." That is something that you yourself

5 wrote down here. Is that what you thought? And if you did think that,

6 why are you saying something quite different here and now?

7 A. Well, I'm not saying anything different and I'm going to confirm

8 that the Ante Pavlovic Independent State was a quisling creation. There

9 is nothing to be challenged on that score.

10 Q. But I'm asking you about the first part of your sentence when you

11 say that the Serbian people in Croatia saw the new Croatian authorities as

12 the revival of that type of fascism, and you were very eloquent in

13 explaining it at that time. Are you suffering from dementia of some kind

14 now that you can't explain it away now?

15 A. These Serb people in Croatia thought that this is what was going

16 to happen to them again, but this did not happen to them because the

17 Croatia that was created in 1991, let me repeat again, was not the same

18 Croatia that existed in 1941, and this is where you should have helped and

19 not to make use of this fear that the Serbs felt to organise bloodshed and

20 everything else you did in Croatia. So that is the accusation made

21 against you. You should have taken steps to prevent this from happening,

22 and --

23 JUDGE MAY: Now, just a moment. Just a moment. Just pause.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. I am precisely proving here that you are not speaking the truth.

Page 11343












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11344

1 And in that same text, in the very next sentence, this is what you say:

2 In the elements that you laid forth before Lord Carrington you say

3 everything that is quite right. You're saying quite the opposite now,

4 that's what I'm saying. What you say is that: "The bloodshed in Croatia

5 would have been far greater, incomparably greater had the army not

6 prevented even greater clashes and conflicts from breaking out." That's

7 what you said then. And now you accuse the army of having gone there to

8 incite a conflict and clash.

9 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Isn't that right, Mr. Samardzic? Isn't that what you were doing?

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

13 JUDGE MAY: I've turned the microphone off because everybody is

14 trying to speak at the same time. Now we'll pause.

15 Now, the question is put to you that you said then that the

16 bloodshed would have been worse had the army not been there, or words to

17 that effect; had the army not prevented even greater clashes. Now, did

18 you say that? And if so, what did you mean by it?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that, Your Honour.

20 That was on the 12th of September. And at that time, I still believed in

21 the Yugoslav army, the kind that I had remembered from my childhood, and I

22 thought that it would defend the heritage of the Yugoslav liberation

23 movement from World War II. I believed that, and I thought that.

24 However, later on, after the 1st of October and beyond, as things

25 developed, I came to realise that it was no longer the kind of army that I

Page 11345

1 loved and respected. So that is where the difference lies, and that is

2 what the accused Milosevic wants to say.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. All right, Mr. Samardzic. Will you look at one more thing, one

5 more explanation from this report. "In response to a question by Lord

6 Carrington, 'Why is the army destroying cities?' We replied that the army

7 was trying to deblock their besieged and surrounded barracks in certain

8 towns of Croatia. These barracks were deprived of electricity and water

9 and their food supply was cut off. The army, we said, had to break

10 through to reach their own units."

11 These things that were correct as you put them then, why are you

12 denying them now? Why are you saying completely the opposite in your

13 testimony?

14 And there is one more sentence here. You said: "We had no

15 information that the army was destroying cities, so we thought that the

16 European Community should have sent their observers to garrisons as well."

17 Why are you now saying something entirely different to what you

18 said then?

19 A. I have to say again that you are trying to make a fool of me

20 again. What I said on the 12th of the September was what I believed and

21 what I thought correct. Later, when you attacked Dubrovnik and when you

22 were trying to destroy it, I took the stance that it was an unjust war, an

23 aggression, and acted accordingly. There is no contradiction involved.

24 It is true, as far as I heard then, that there were certain garrisons that

25 were encircled and had to be freed, as the one in Rijeka was indeed freed

Page 11346

1 and got out. There is no contradiction between this quotation and my

2 subsequent condemnation which -- which followed receipt of information

3 about things that were going on in Vukovar and elsewhere. I realise that

4 the army was not exactly what I thought it was. On the 12th of September,

5 I still believed that the army was defending Yugoslavia and that it would

6 succeed.

7 However, let me finish. You were pursuing a completely different

8 policy, the policy of Greater Serbia. You took over the army. You turned

9 it practically into a Serb army, and that's how it was after the 1st of

10 October when you attacked Dubrovnik. There is absolutely no

11 contradiction.

12 And I'm not lying. I did write that report. I did say these

13 things to Lord Carrington. However, when I saw or, rather, when I learned

14 what was going on around Vukovar, around Dubrovnik, then it's quite normal

15 that I condemned it. And other people also confirmed this in their books.

16 Dr. Kacic and Mr. Wejnaendts.

17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, we must try and conserve time.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. You don't have to try so hard to justify yourself. You were

20 telling the truth then and you are now retelling the indictment. And what

21 you said then was the truth.

22 I would like to know, however, how do you imagine this: You said,

23 "We attacked Dubrovnik." What did Serbia have to do with attacks on

24 Dubrovnik? Did Serbia attack Dubrovnik? Why did you call this letter of

25 the Prime Minister cynical, as if Serbia had attacked Dubrovnik?

Page 11347

1 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. There's a series of questions

2 going on. Let the witness answer.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Yugoslav army was the one that

4 attacked Dubrovnik, and at the time when it was done, the Yugoslav army

5 had already been in -- turned over into your hands. It is true that

6 Montenegrin reservists were involved, reservists who were conscripted into

7 the Yugoslav army, but what was done around Dubrovnik could not have been

8 done without the involvement and leadership of Serbia. Zelenovic himself

9 says in his letter the Territorial Defence and the Yugoslav army will do

10 this and that. They will chase away the Black Legions from Dubrovnik.

11 The Black Legions didn't even exist at the time, by the way.

12 So the Prime Minister is telling what the Territorial Defence and

13 the army would do, meaning the Territorial Defence of Montenegro, and he's

14 using the imperative mode. You should read that letter.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. That's not true at all and that's not what Zelenovic's letter

17 says, but I'll come back to that tomorrow if I have enough time. The

18 letter, in fact, says quite the opposite, but I don't want to dwell on it

19 because it has already been exhibited.

20 Will you please take this report of the Justice Minister Samardzic

21 and --

22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Justice Minister Momo

23 Knezevic and Foreign Minister Samardzic.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. In this report you explained that the army was trying to deblock

Page 11348

1 their own barracks and --

2 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let me take a look at this. Wait a

3 moment.

4 Do you want to exhibit this?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. That is the report of his

6 own Minister of Justice from which I quoted. He was then giving a correct

7 account of the events and now he's saying completely the opposite.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you remember --

10 JUDGE MAY: Let it be exhibited and we'll have an exhibit number

11 before we go on.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Defence Exhibit 48.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that it was I who, when the news

15 arrived that Dubrovnik was being shelled, condemned all attacks on

16 Dubrovnik in the presence of Lord Carrington and Tudjman and said that

17 Dubrovnik is a Croatian town and that it was insane to bomb or attack

18 Dubrovnik, a town which is a jewel not only for that region for but the

19 whole of Yugoslavia? Do you remember that?

20 A. You may have said that, but that was part of your politics. The

21 army that you commanded was destroying Dubrovnik at the time. There is no

22 doubt about that. And of course you could have been telling sweet stories

23 to Lord Carrington.

24 Q. We'll come back to that later. Tell me, what is the basis for

25 your claim that Serbia in some way was involved? Was there anyone ever

Page 11349

1 from Serbia, and I mean from the official level because I'm not interested

2 in anything else, was there anyone who ever mentioned Serbian claims on

3 Dubrovnik based on something that happened in the Middle Ages?

4 A. Let me say that this campaign against Dubrovnik was led by

5 Yugoslav army officers who were under your command, Serb officers.

6 Furthermore, Dr. Kacic in his book, and I don't know if you've read it,

7 says --

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, we can't be -- we can't be dealing with

9 somebody else's book. That's secondhand at best.

10 Mr. Milosevic, just help us -- just -- Mr. Milosevic, will you

11 help us with this: You say that you condemned this attack on Dubrovnik.

12 Now, what is your case about this? I mean, who do you say attacked

13 Dubrovnik? So the witness can deal with it.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We worked together with Lord

15 Carrington at this conference when the news arrived that somebody was

16 firing shells at Dubrovnik, and I said, This is madness, I don't believe

17 it, but if anything of the kind is really happening, that deserves

18 condemnation. Dubrovnik is a Croatian town and this cannot be tolerated.

19 There was no doubt at any level in the government of both

20 Yugoslavia and Serbia that this was a Croatian town. And these stories

21 about the Dubrovnik Republic was totally silly.

22 JUDGE MAY: But who was -- who do you say was responsible for

23 attacking it?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will come back to that later. At

25 the time when I returned --

Page 11350

1 JUDGE MAY: Can you tell us now? You don't have to, of course,

2 but if you can tell us who you suggest was responsible --

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. The explanation that I got

4 was that the army was being attacked. And it was absolutely not true that

5 the army was attacking Dubrovnik, because if it had wanted to take it, it

6 would have taken it. The army, instead, only wanted to limit the actions

7 of the National Guard Corps. That's the information I got.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Samardzic, as you know well, none of the presidents of

10 Yugoslav republics was able to command the Yugoslav army. That was not

11 within their purview.

12 Mr. Samardzic, you submitted a report to the president of the

13 Republic, Momir Bulatovic, on the 13th of December, and you said in that

14 report that the status of Croatia are hard line, categoric, and the new

15 minister, Separovic, misses absolutely no opportunity to accuse the army

16 and Serbia. You had a critical attitude to the Croatian authorities then

17 and you are saying something quite different now.

18 I will quote item 5, where it says, "Nikola J. Samardzic, Momo

19 Knezevic" - with your signatures underneath - addressed to "Momir

20 Bulatovic, President of the Presidency of Montenegro, brief report on the

21 work of the conference." Item 5: "The stances of Croatia are the most

22 intractable and the new Minister Separovic missed no opportunity to accuse

23 and blame the JNA. He held the only press conference after the work was

24 completed, in addition to one held by Lord Carrington."

25 And then you go on to say where the next meeting should be held,

Page 11351












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11352

1 and you mention Igalo. I will exhibit this as well. Can you explain

2 this?

3 A. It will be very easy. That report was from the session in

4 September, and as I've already said, at that time, I still believed that

5 the Yugoslav army would prevent conflict in Yugoslavia, not create it.

6 That's what I believed and that's when I wrote. I wrote the truth. The

7 aggressive minister of Croatia at the time was Separovic who was indeed

8 very aggressive, very hard-line in all his opinions, and I didn't invent

9 any of this. When Croatia was attacked in the way it was attacked around

10 Dubrovnik, I condemned it. I condemned the attack on Dubrovnik. I

11 condemned the way it was handled.

12 What you are saying now about the ZNG moving on Montenegro and the

13 reports you got about it, it's absolutely untrue. I don't know what kind

14 of reports you got, but it was the Yugoslav army which moved out of

15 Montenegro at the time and spread devastation and plundering around

16 Dubrovnik. There is absolutely no contradiction involved.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... condemned

18 both by Mr. Milosevic and the witness.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Samardzic, it is certain that nobody justified either

21 plundering or the killing of innocent people, of soldiers or anyone else.

22 I'm saying something quite different, namely you are now telling something

23 quite opposite to your words at the time.

24 A. I'm not. I'm saying the same thing.

25 Q. Mr. Samardzic, let's not waste any more time. Give me a direct

Page 11353

1 answer. Here is your speech at the peace conference in The Hague held on

2 the 19th September. I will skip everything up to the very end where you

3 say: "The tragedy of the Serb people in Croatia and Bosnia in both world

4 wars, and I emphasise, and the current bloodshed in Croatia are the main

5 causes of the tragedy and crisis in Yugoslavia from its conception to

6 date. Without resolving the Serb issue in Croatia, there can be no

7 resolution of the Yugoslav crisis." These are your words, again, at the

8 plenary session.

9 Why are you saying something entirely different now as to the

10 cause of the war, something entirely different to what you described as

11 the cause of the war when you were minister?

12 A. Well, that's simply not the case. I am prepared to say that

13 today, that the Serb people in Croatia and Bosnia, through the fault of

14 their then-leadership because you were not even alive then, was victim of

15 a great tragedy in both world wars. But it is equally true that the Serb

16 people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia suffered great misfortune

17 also through your policies and your actions.

18 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you keep repeating, despite all my arguments which

19 completely refute all you say, that it is my policy that is to blame,

20 whereas in the quotations I have read out, you describe the cause of the

21 Yugoslav crisis quite differently.

22 I want both of these reports exhibited. Let's not waste time.

23 On the 20th of September, 1990, at the press conference in The

24 Hague -- 1991 -- you said, Mr. -- you said: "The Yugoslav People's Army

25 continues the tradition of the heroic resistance to fascism and the

Page 11354

1 national liberation war. That is why the Yugoslav delegation repels all

2 attacks and attempts to blame the Yugoslav People's Army and slander.

3 "We have many facts that indicate that the Yugoslav People's

4 Army's actions helped prevent much broader conflict and bloodshed among

5 warring parties in Yugoslavia. Until now, the JNA did not respond to

6 attacks in order to avoid greater casualties. The JNA is not destroying

7 Yugoslav towns. If the Croatian troops put -- put a machine-gun nest on a

8 bell tower, then it is a military facility and not a religious temple."

9 JUDGE MAY: Now, we're going to stop this reading. The witness

10 can't deal with all this.

11 Mr. Samardzic, you can see what's suggested here that you said at

12 a press conference in The Hague on the 20th of September. You said that

13 the -- just a moment. Let me just go through this. "The Yugoslav

14 delegation repels all attacks and attempts to blame the JNA." You said,

15 as alleged, that it helped prevent much broader conflict and bloodshed.

16 It didn't respond to attacks in order to avoid greater casualties. It

17 isn't destroying Yugoslav towns. And then there is an allegation about

18 the Croatian troops putting a machine-gun on a bell tower, it being a

19 military facility.

20 Did you say words to that effect or not? And if so, if you want

21 to explain them, you can.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say words to that effect

23 because I deeply believed then that the Yugoslav army would not do what it

24 actually did and what it started doing ten days after that, that is the

25 20th of September. The war for Dubrovnik had not started yet.

Page 11355

1 As for the happenings around Vukovar at the time, I did not know

2 about it. I repeat for the third time to the accused Milosevic that at

3 that time, I still believed that the Yugoslav army would prevent bloodshed

4 in Yugoslavia. I deeply believed in that. I was disillusioned when I saw

5 what was going on around Dubrovnik.

6 I repeat to you once again: I come from a partisan family. I was

7 a child then, but I remember this national liberation army, the national

8 liberation struggle, and I had deep trust in our army. And when I saw

9 around Dubrovnik that the unit of the 5th Montenegrin Brigade that follows

10 its tradition, that you sent Vojvoda Seselj, a Chetnik, to review that

11 brigade, when you sent him with cockades --

12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Samardzic, if you could just deal with the point

13 shortly.

14 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, why are you saying such falsehoods? The Yugoslav

17 army, any official authorities of Serbia, the police of Serbia on its

18 territory never wore any different kind of insignia but the official

19 insignia. Everything that you are saying about different political

20 parties and in Montenegro the People's Party and in Serbia various parties

21 that you refer to, you know full well that they were in opposition both in

22 Serbia and in Montenegro and that therefore they could not have nor did

23 they have any role in the functioning of the Yugoslav army or the

24 Montenegrin police or the police of Serbia or any official authorities.

25 Therefore, this is false.

Page 11356

1 Why did you make this up? Did you see Seselj inspecting this

2 military unit?

3 A. I saw Seselj on television, and that was in the newspapers, and

4 I'm astounded by that until the present day. And today he is your

5 candidate for the President of Serbia, and he is still a Chetnik vojvoda.

6 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I don't think that Serbia is threatened by

7 Chetniks. It is threatened by Ustashas, those who forge elections and

8 work for aggressors.

9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're not going into the current

10 politics.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. May, I believe that

12 we have heard very well that in terms of everything he established quite

13 correctly at the time, Mr. Samardzic has said that that's the way it was

14 until he saw the units of the JNA, and I don't know who else, attack

15 Dubrovnik, which is not true, because Dubrovnik was not destroyed. And

16 since he found these explanations in September, I'm going to move him on

17 to December.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Now, this is your text, Mr. Samardzic. It was written in New York

20 on the 6th of December the same year, and it says here -- this is the

21 historical aspect of the alliance between Serbia and Montenegro, and it

22 says: "Montenegro is not denying but highlighting its alliance with

23 Serbia in respect of the protection of interests and the survival of the

24 Serb people in Croatia."

25 So that's what you wrote in December. And then: "The present-day

Page 11357

1 Croatian government is carrying out a genocide over the Serb people in

2 Croatia, and in this century only this is the third genocide against the

3 remnants of these people." And that is correct, what you wrote then, Mr.

4 Samardzic, but now you're saying something completely different and --

5 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. You're being asked -- let him

6 deal with it.

7 You're being asked about a statement it's alleged you made in New

8 York on 6th of December when you were highlighting -- just a moment --

9 highlighting the alliance with Serbia, referred to the protection and

10 survival of the Serb people in Croatia. Can you help us about that?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is a forgery. I did not

12 make any statements in New York. I was in New York in a delegation

13 together with President Bulatovic, and if anybody was making statements,

14 it was him, not me.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I am talking about a text of yours in the capacity

17 of a minister who is accompanying a president and who is writing him an

18 official pro memoria. This is your text. It says the 6th of December,

19 1991, New York, Nikola J. Samardzic. It is your text.

20 JUDGE MAY: Let him see the text. Put it to him. Let him see it.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No problem, as you know, to prove

22 this. And you can go on denying whatever you don't like, but please go

23 ahead. Just have it admitted into evidence and it is no problem for me

24 to --

25 JUDGE MAY: We will not admit it into evidence until we've heard

Page 11358

1 what the witness says about it. If he accepts it, we may.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not my text. However, I

3 have to give an explanation.

4 I presented facts to President Bulatovic, and he wrote down these

5 facts about the First World War, about the Second World War, facts that

6 are important for the relations between Serbia and Croatia and in terms of

7 overall relations in the Balkans. I presented him facts about the

8 14-point plan of President Wilson.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. It's included there.

11 A. It is included there and I told him about it and he wrote it down.

12 I did not write this. Again I'm -- an attempt is being made to trick me

13 into something. I did not say that the current authorities in Croatia

14 were genocidal. I said that in 1941 Croatia had a genocidal government.

15 This was the government of Ante Pavlovic, this was a puppet state of

16 Hitler, of Nazi Germany. That's what I said.

17 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Help us with this: What is the

18 document that you're looking at? It's described as a text but what does

19 it purport to be?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it doesn't really represent

21 anything. There are just some historical facts here that I presented to

22 Bulatovic and that he wrote down. I did not write this. And now he has

23 this text, including these historical facts from World War I and World War

24 II. In addition to that, there is the statement that the new Croatian

25 government in the early 1990s was genocidal and that is something I deny.

Page 11359












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11360

1 I did not say that. But I did give Bulatovic historical facts as we were

2 flying to America, and I insisted or, rather, I proposed to him that he

3 take advantage of this --

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... signature?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Nobody signed it. Nothing. It

6 was just written. I assume that at the embassy or somewhere Momir wrote

7 this and prepared this so that he could speak about this somewhere, so

8 that he could speak about these historical facts that I told him about. I

9 never wrote this for him in December 1991, that the then-Croatian

10 government in 1991 was genocidal. This is a trick.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Samardzic, do you claim that Momir Bulatovic, on the last page

13 of that text, at the bottom of the page, put the date of the 6th of

14 December, 1991, New York, and then he put Nikola J. Samardzic, your very

15 own name and surname down there? So it was Bulatovic who was taking notes

16 while you were talking to him on the plane, and then he wrote this down

17 and then he put your name on these notes regarding what you had told him

18 verbally. Do you know that the entire delegation can testify to the fact

19 that you gave him this paper as a pro memoria?

20 JUDGE MAY: No. It didn't matter about the entire delegation.

21 Mr. Samardzic, does your name appear at the bottom?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's printed, Nikola

23 Samardzic.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, I did not sign it. Again,

Page 11361

1 I repeat that I presented historical facts to Momir Bulatovic, historical

2 facts related to the First World War and the Second World War. If

3 necessary, I'm going to present these facts now again, and I presented

4 these facts often, not only then on the plane, and I presented these facts

5 in public very often.

6 JUDGE MAY: Can you help us as to how your name may have gotten on

7 the bottom?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to tell you the truth, I can't

9 really help you how this text was written. I don't remember who actually

10 wrote it and when. I remember the historical facts that I presented to

11 Momir Bulatovic, and I remember these very same historical facts that I

12 myself presented at various places. I do advocate an independent

13 Montenegro, and I said often that the President of the United States of

14 America, President Wilson, supported the independence of Montenegro under

15 point 11 within his 14 points, and it says quite clearly that Montenegro

16 should be independent.

17 Your Honour, let me say one more thing now that this has come up.

18 The 14 points of President Wilson is a programme of the democratic world

19 which was presented to the US Congress on the 8th of January, 1918, so

20 three months after the communist October revolution broke out in Russia.

21 JUDGE MAY: I must stop you. We can't go into this history.

22 Can we have a look at the document, please.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All these facts that Mr. Samardzic

24 is mentioning are there.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 11362

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a reminder, an outline for

2 his president that he accompanied to New York.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Samardzic, are you saying that your name,

4 which appears on page 4 of this text at the bottom, was written by

5 somebody else, was typed in by somebody?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. I did not write that

7 text, nor did I accept it. I repeat once again that the historical facts

8 that are presented there do come from me. I presented them at several

9 places, and I also presented them to President Bulatovic during the flight

10 to New York and before that. I stand by the historical facts, but do I

11 not stand by the claim that I said that the Croatian authorities at the

12 time were genocidal.

13 Quite simply, I presented historical facts. And who wrote this

14 text, it was probably one of the civil servants who wrote this out for

15 President Bulatovic on the basis of what I had been saying, because there

16 were several people on the delegation, and there is not a single person

17 who is going to confirm that I wrote that. It is true that I talked about

18 the First World War and I talked about the Second World War.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... translated.

20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll mark that for identification. And while

21 that is being done, Mr. Milosevic, there was another document you wanted

22 exhibited. I think it was the statement of the 20th of September.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters cannot hear anything from the

24 courtroom.

25 THE ACCUSED: Please, separately.

Page 11363

1 JUDGE MAY: Let us -- just a moment. Let us get these exhibited

2 in order, see what we've got.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document dated the 30th of the

4 September, 1991, will be Defence Exhibit 49.

5 The document dated 19th of September, 1991, will be Defence

6 Exhibit 50.

7 The document marked the 12th and 13th of September, 1991, will be

8 Defence Exhibit 51.

9 And then the last document, which is dated 6 December, 1991, will

10 be marked for identification as D52.

11 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

12 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. So in addition to that document, Mr. Samardzic, that you

15 personally gave to your president as a reminder for his official

16 meetings --

17 JUDGE MAY: He's given his explanation about it. There's no point

18 in arguing about it.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Samardzic, that you also gave him a text

22 entitled, "Questions that may be put to President Bulatovic during his

23 visit to the USA, a brief outline of possible answers"? Do you remember

24 that, Mr. Samardzic, since you accompanied your president and then you

25 gave him this brief outline regarding possible questions and answers?

Page 11364

1 A. Let me see this document.

2 Q. First I'm going to put a few questions to you and then I'm going

3 to give you that document just like I gave you the other document. It's

4 also authentic. The Republic of Montenegro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

5 Questions that may be put to President Bulatovic during his visit, brief

6 outline of possible answers, Titograd 1991." You are preparing your

7 president's visit and the president for this visit.

8 I can't read all of this now but one is: "What is the reason for

9 the Yugoslav crisis?" And now what follows is: "The new authorities in

10 Croatia are carrying out a genocide against the Serb people in Croatia."

11 Next: "The collective memory of the Serb people concerning the

12 genocide that was carried out against it in 1941 is still fresh in

13 people's memories."

14 Further on: "Due to the current genocide and the memory of the

15 genocide from 1941, the Serb people in Croatia will not at any cost remain

16 in Croatia and live in Croatia."

17 And then further on: "If the Croatian people has the right to step

18 out of Yugoslavia, so does the Serb people; they have the right to remain

19 within Yugoslavia."

20 So those then are four points for the cause of the Yugoslav crisis

21 that you prepared for your president, and you're now saying something that

22 is quite the opposite, whereas at that time you claim what he claimed and

23 the whole of official policy.

24 Now, the next question: "Are there any differences between

25 Montenegro and Serbia in their attitudes to the settlement of the Yugoslav

Page 11365

1 crisis?" And your thesis and outline for the answers are that: "The

2 basic stands and viewpoints are identical. There are differences in the

3 ways in which to settle certain concrete questions. Montenegro is an

4 equal party in the Yugoslav federation and therefore it is normal for it

5 to have its own positions and stands."

6 Is that so, Mr. Samardzic? Were they indeed -- was this indeed

7 your outline? Were they your outlines prepared for your president, the

8 president of the Republic of Montenegro?

9 A. Your Honour, I'd like to be able to have a look at the document

10 for me to be able to answer --

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and respond.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have just a few more questions to

14 ask from this document and then I'll let him have a look at it

15 afterwards.

16 JUDGE MAY: Just let him look at it.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. "Why do Montenegrin reservists --" "Why are Montenegrin reservists

19 the only ones that are fighting around Dubrovnik?" "Now there is relative

20 peace around Dubrovnik. We are dealing with December 1991 in this theatre

21 of war. The truce is being respected. The historical part of the City of

22 Dubrovnik has not been destroyed or damaged."

23 And then: "Do you consider that the siege of Dubrovnik is

24 necessary and rational from a military and humanitarian aspect?" And you

25 say: "Yes, it is true that there are no military barracks in Dubrovnik.

Page 11366

1 The military operations over Dubrovnik started with the onslaughts on the

2 basis of Prevlaka and this was implemented within the frameworks of the

3 basic strategy of the paramilitaries in Croatia to expel all the JNA

4 barracks from the territory of Croatia. The continued operations around

5 Dubrovnik probably have as their objective and have their military logic

6 that the siege at Dubrovnik would reduce the pressure of paramilitary

7 units on the rest of the barracks of the JNA in other parts of Croatia.

8 The JNA is doing everything in its power not to inflict any damage to the

9 historical part of the City of Dubrovnik as endeavouring to normalise life

10 in the Dubrovnik region and there is a lot of proof to bear both these

11 stances out."

12 JUDGE MAY: This is long enough.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. That is the outline.

15 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm turning your microphone off.

19 You've been asking long enough questions. Let the witness see it and make

20 his comment. We have only five minutes left before we have to adjourn.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have taken a look at the

22 document. I did not write the document, nor do I have anything to do with

23 it. It is possible that somebody from the ministry compiled it. There

24 were associates of that kind who would work directly with President

25 Bulatovic on documents of this kind, and it was they that -- who probably

Page 11367












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 11368

1 wrote the document. I did not sign it. It doesn't say that it was

2 written by Nikola J. Samardzic, and I wouldn't have said anything of this

3 kind. Some of these stands put forward here can stand, but not all of

4 them, and I did not take any part in writing this.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Samardzic --

7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Give it back to the accused, please.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Samardzic, is that an authentic document of the Ministry of

10 Foreign Affairs of Montenegro?

11 A. I don't know. I cannot confirm that. It's not mine, that's all I

12 can say. I'm no longer a minister, but I do know that I didn't write it.

13 And if I may be allowed to say this: You quite obviously are dealing with

14 large scale forgeries.

15 And let me also mention the matter of the minutes of the

16 government session on the 1st of October. You say -- you deny that that

17 session took place at all on the basis of the minutes, and I say that the

18 whole of the records that were kept from the government meeting and the

19 stenogram, including the 1st of October, was published in the journal

20 Monitor. Do you think that I am lying and that the Monitor is lying? You

21 are also claiming that that session never took place, on the basis of the

22 documents that you have before you, and you have before you forgeries, as

23 far as I'm concerned.

24 Q. Do you want to say that the minutes from the Montenegrin

25 government sessions that I had in my hands were forgeries?

Page 11369

1 A. If somebody claims - and you are claiming precisely that - that

2 the government session did not take place on the 1st of October with the

3 generals, then, yes, it is a forgery because the session did take place,

4 and any other assertion with any other document would be a forgery. Look

5 at the Monitor magazine issues. They published the entire proceedings

6 from that government meeting.

7 Q. Mr. Samardzic, I didn't follow the Montenegrin government meetings

8 at all, and I'm sure that everybody will believe me when I say that. All

9 I did was to collect the minutes, and they are the official documents of

10 the government of Montenegro, and I read out the statement of the then

11 president of the Republic, Momir Bulatovic, who refers to the meeting that

12 you talked about, and you say you were late in arriving to the meeting.

13 And I also read that two consecutive government sessions --

14 JUDGE MAY: We've been over these minutes now.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. I just want to make one more point. Do you claim, Mr. Samardzic,

17 having had in your hands a moment ago - and don't forget that you are a

18 witness under the solemn declaration here and responsible for what you say

19 - you had the document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro

20 in your hands. Do you state that this is not an authentic document of the

21 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro? Just give me a yes or no

22 answer and then we can move on.

23 A. I state once again that I do not stand behind that document. I

24 didn't then, I don't now. Now, whether anybody wrote it from the

25 ministry, I really can't say.

Page 11370

1 Q. Mr. Samardzic, you cannot deny this, you say. Were you the

2 Foreign Minister at the time?

3 A. Yes, I was.

4 Q. Were you --

5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, he's given his answer. He's given his

6 answer. He doesn't know anything about it. Now, that's not taking us any

7 further. If in due course you want to prove the document, you can do so.

8 He simply says he doesn't know anything about it.

9 No. We've got to adjourn now because we've got to leave the court

10 at ten past. You've got -- tomorrow you have three-quarters of an hour

11 more. You've had just over three hours already. Three-quarters of an

12 hour more with this witness.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to have my time

14 extended. I insist that I be given more time.

15 JUDGE MAY: We'll see about that. We're going to adjourn -- we're

16 going to adjourn now until tomorrow morning, half past nine.

17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.10 p.m.,

18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of

19 October, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.