1 Friday, 19 December 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number
8 IT-01-42-T, the Prosecutor versus Pavle Strugar.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody.
10 If I could remind you, Mr. Stringer, that the affirmation you took
11 is still applicable.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, are you ready?
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 WITNESS: ADRIEN STRINGER [Resumed]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Stringer. I will continue
18 cross-examination today. It will be significantly shorter than yesterday,
19 so let us begin.
20 Item 11 of your diary, which lists the team which took part in
21 negotiations. So this is the Crisis Staff of Dubrovnik, Zeljko Sikic,
22 Hrvoje Makan, and Misa, and another name. After Misa, in parenthesis it
23 states "interpreter." This is what your diary shows as an entry of that
24 event; however, in the statement you gave to investigators, next to Misa
25 it says Mihocevic, the last name and then it says producer of the festival
1 and interpreter for the monitoring mission. Could you please tell me who
2 supplied you with the last name of this interpreter and the function of
3 this person.
4 A. The interpreter's name was given to me by his card, as producer of
5 the Dubrovnik Festival.
6 Q. Yes, I understood that. However, you never listed this person's
7 last name in your diary, nor did you list this person's role, the one
8 mentioned in the statement. However, the statement was given to
9 investigators based on your memory and using the notes you made in your
10 diary. So what I would like to know is whether somebody supplied you with
11 the last name of this person, because the statement was given ten years
12 after the events.
13 A. That's right. At the time I wrote in the diary Misa, because that
14 was how we knew him. But he then later gave us his card and I had a copy
15 -- the actual -- one of his cards which had his name on it, so it was
16 helpful to put the surname as well as the first name.
17 Q. Just a minute, please.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] The general is not receiving
19 interpretation, so we need to see what is the matter.
20 Could the usher please put before the witness Exhibit P4, which is
21 a handwritten diary which the witness gave to the investigators.
22 Q. Could you please take a look at paragraph 44 of your diary. Could
23 you please read it out loud to us.
24 A. "Prior to the 1500 hours meeting, the team visited a children's
25 hospital at Cavtat opposite the JNA front line, run by a Sarajevo charity.
1 The team was also shown holes in windows and walls caused by small arms
2 fire were told that one round had penetrated a ward at 0415 that morning."
4 Q. Does your diary indicate that you had been shown holes in windows
5 and walls caused by fire from infantry weapons?
6 A. To the best of my recollection, that is so, but I can't confirm
7 that at this stage, at this time.
8 Q. Were you told that a bullet entered a hospital ward at 4.15 that
10 A. That's what my statement says in the diary, and I have no reason
11 to doubt the veracity of my annotation.
12 Q. So that means that we can conclude that this was not a shell that
13 pierced the wall, because there is an obvious difference between a shell
14 piercing the wall and a wall being damaged by artillery round, or a window
15 being pierced by an artillery round. Do you agree with me?
16 A. I can't confirm or -- I can't confirm whether it was an artillery
17 round or a small arms fire at this time because I do not recall it.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please also give to
19 the witness the typed-up report dated 16th October, which was given to all
20 the parties yesterday and marked with an ID number.
21 MR. WEINER: Excuse me --
22 JUDGE PARKER: Could I just say, Mr. Rodic -- could I just say
23 that I don't believe any statement has been marked at this point. It was
24 given to us, and we were waiting to see what, if any, use was made of it,
25 to see whether or not it might be admitted.
1 Now, did you have some other point, Mr. --
2 MR. WEINER: That was my question. I wasn't aware of any document
3 being marked.
4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to do that at
5 the end of the hearing today. Nevertheless, this document dated October
6 16th, in our view, should be given an ID number.
7 Q. Mr. Stringer, I'm interested in item 9. Could you please read it
9 A. "We immediately drove to our fishing boat to have a message
10 relayed over the coastal radio system to General Strugar at Kumbor, Bay of
11 Kotor, expressing our concern at this turn of events and asking him
12 immediately to have the ultimatum withdrawn and announced to the villagers
13 by loudspeaker. He was also asked to withdraw his patrols which were
14 causing extreme alarm to the local population."
15 Q. Have you read out everything that is stated in that item? Is
16 Kumbor perhaps mentioned somewhere in the text?
17 A. I did say Kumbor. "We immediately drove to our fishing boat to
18 have a message relayed over the coastal radio system to General Strugar at
19 Kumbor (Bay of Kotor)."
20 Q. Thank you. Did your communication normally go through the radio
21 with the coast guard in Kumbor, and was it used frequently -- were
22 messages relayed in this manner frequently?
23 A. I can't recall precisely how many messages were relayed by that
24 means. But on that occasion, certainly, that was the only means of
25 transmitting a message.
1 Q. Thank you. Related to this, I would like to ask you whether you
2 always -- when you sent messages to the JNA, did you always send them to
3 Kumbor first, as the centre receiving such messages?
4 A. I can't confirm that.
5 Q. Do you know any other place where you might have sent messages, or
6 did perhaps somebody else indicate another place where you could send
8 A. Again, I can't confirm that at this time.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please put before the
10 witness his statement given to the Prosecutors and discussed yesterday,
11 the one in English which also hasn't been given a number.
12 Q. Could the witness please go to page 14 of the English version.
13 This is the part where you explain item 7(A). I'm interested in this
14 particular sentence, the second one. Where it states: "However, as time
15 went on, it became clear that the JNA negotiating team, except for Jokic,
16 always deferred to the operational commander."
17 Did you state this?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you. I would now like to ask you to take a look at the
20 bottom of the page, last paragraph. The following sentence -- I will read
21 it out: "Jokic was in charge of the first real negotiations. He was a
22 vice-admiral, and I think that as such, as a commander of the naval
23 centre, Jokic also took over command or responsibility for all weapons and
24 all units in this campaign. It was completely clear to me that he can
25 adopt decisions or influence the decision-making and pass orders
1 concerning land forces."
2 I would like to know whether you concluded this as a result of
3 your contacts with Jokic or naval officers during your stay in Dubrovnik.
4 A. This was the assumption that we made after our discussions with
5 Admiral Jokic and certainly up to the time that Captain Zec handed us --
6 up until the time certainly when we were handed a letter from General
7 Ruzinovski advising us of his change of command. It's thereafter, as my
8 notes do indicate, the liaison officer always had to go back to General
9 Strugar for advice as to the questions we asked.
10 Q. Could you then explain to us why did you state something like this
11 to investigators? Because this is a clarification that you are giving
12 here in this statement concerning Admiral Jokic and his role in
14 A. It didn't occur to me at the time, I'm afraid.
15 Q. At what time?
16 A. At the time of making the statement.
17 Q. So is this something that investigators put into the statement, or
18 is this something that you have stated?
19 A. This is my statement, but it didn't occur to me. I perhaps should
20 have thought further and made a further clarification as to the
21 responsibilities of the various military officers. But it was Jokic with
22 whom the ball lay, if I may put it that way, certainly up to the time of
23 the change of command of the generals.
24 Q. I agree with that, and this is in accord with this quotation that
25 I have just read out.
1 I will now turn to another question. Further in this statement
2 please take a look at the clarification you gave concerning item 21.
3 First paragraph, last sentence in the first paragraph: "This left us with
4 no doubt that the naval officers were very much part and parcel of this
5 operation and had significant influence or command over its execution."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is this correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. In the following paragraph you say -- I apologise,
10 not the following paragraph, but the penultimate paragraph concerning item
11 21 in your statement. You say that: "A list of conditions that was
12 handed to the Croats was signed on behalf of Jokic or by Jokic." This is
13 another example of the command responsibility of Admiral Miodrag Jokic.
14 Is this true?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Thank you. On the following page when you give clarification, as
17 per item 26, the second paragraph, you say: "I personally informed the
18 JNA leadership, including Jokic, that in the hotels around Cavtat and in
19 Cavtat there were thousands of refugees." Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, please take a look at the clarification given for
22 item 76, where the message or the letter of General Strugar is mentioned.
23 So this is your clarification for item 76. I will quote. You turned over
24 to investigators a copy of the letter of General Strugar and then you go
25 on to explain: "The letter spoke of provocation by the Croats and I have
1 little doubt that this was indeed a provocation."
2 Is that true?
3 A. I said the letter spoke of provocation by the Croats and I have
4 little doubt that this may, in fact, have happened, because there were
5 renegade Croats we believe, as I say in my statement here, who may have
6 tried to undermine any bona fide effort by all sides to restore peace.
7 Q. Thank you. Also in this part where you give explanation for item
8 76, in the following paragraph you say: "As to the reference to a canon
9 at the Hotel Croatia, I think that this hotel was in Cavtat, but I cannot
10 comment on the veracity of this allegation."
11 Is this true?
12 A. That's true.
13 Q. Thank you. The following page, when you discuss the telephone
14 message by Lieutenant Colonel General Strugar -- just a minute, please, I
15 need to find the sentence.
16 A. [Previous translation continues]... goes to page 16, actually.
17 Q. So below the place where it's indicated Lieutenant Colonel General
18 Pavle Strugar, so right in that area. Have you found it?
19 A. I'm just trying to look at the piece of document that you have.
20 Can you repeat, I'm sorry, where you're asking me to look. Page 16?
21 Q. It is indicated in bold letters: "Message by telephone from
22 Colonel General Strugar 0030 16/" and so on.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. So at the end of the text concerning that statement, again in bold
25 letters, you have Lieutenant General Pavle Strugar. And right below that,
1 it's on page 17, "It is possible that this message had come in through
2 Dubrovnik Crisis Staff, because they had both radio and telephone
3 connection with the JNA in Kumbor. And this is the connection that we
4 used to establish contact with the JNA." Is this true?
5 A. As it says there, yes. I can't recall, I'm afraid, at this point
6 in time precisely what the communication link was. But at the time that I
7 wrote this, I believe that to be correct.
8 Q. And then at the end, in the report of the parliamentary assembly
9 of the Council of Europe, in September of 1993, on page 24, under the
10 subheadline "Cultural Vandalism in the Old Town," it is stated that: "The
11 monuments in the Old Town concerning the Second World War had been
12 destroyed by explosives, explosive material." So this happened in the Old
13 Town. Do you know anything about this, did you learn anything of this
14 during your stay on the mission in Dubrovnik? Had you heard anything of
15 this or did you learn anything about this?
16 A. I did not.
17 Q. Thank you. And finally, I would like to repeat what you have said
18 here before this Court, namely that you never met General Strugar, that
19 you never spoke to him directly, that your contacts were only with naval
20 officers Jokic, Zec, Sofronije Jeremic, interpreter Uljarevic. Then you
21 also said that everything that Croatia and the JNA submitted to you was
22 related to you by other persons, namely interpreters. Is that true?
23 MR. WEINER: I object to that question, Your Honour; that's a
25 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps, Mr. Rodic, you might rephrase it to say:
1 Did you also say those things?
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] All right. I agree, Your Honour,
3 thank you.
4 Q. So let me repeat, Mr. Stringer: Have you said -- is it true that
5 you never met General Strugar personally, that you never spoke to him
6 directly, that you only contacted naval officers Admiral Jokic, Captain
7 Zec, and Sofronije Jeremic, Colonel Svicevic, interpreter Uljarevic, and
8 that all messages, both from the Croatian Crisis Staff and from the JNA
9 were conveyed to you through interpreters?
10 A. I think you have to add General Ruzinovski to that list of
11 officers with whom we spoke, because he conducted the initial meeting, of
12 course. And I believe there was one other army officer that we met there.
13 I think that is in my notes. But otherwise, yes, the -- I had not -- I
14 never met General Strugar personally, nor did we speak to him. We merely
15 tried to make contact but were unable to do so. The messages were
16 conveyed. I can't confirm exactly who -- the mode of communication. That
17 came through our interpreter, Misa. Some must have come through the
18 Dubrovnik Crisis Staff, that is true.
19 Q. Can you confirm that the messages that were described as messages
20 from General Strugar were indeed messages that he personally had sent?
21 A. That is my belief, yes.
22 Q. Another brief question: When you returned from your mission in
23 Dubrovnik, you said that in London, at the Ministry for Defence, you took
24 over as the director for security of physical persons, buildings, and
25 facilities. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes, basically.
2 Q. Was somebody else performing those duties before you who namely
3 served as the director for security?
4 A. I succeeded a person who had been director of security before me,
6 Q. I would like to ask you -- I assume this is correct, and you can
7 correct me if I'm wrong, did you go through the formal procedure of taking
8 over your new responsibilities? And if so, can you tell us, how long did
9 this period last for, approximately?
10 A. My responsibilities after I left Dubrovnik?
11 Q. Yes, yes. I mean when you took over in your new capacity as
12 director for security department and the Ministry of Defence. So when you
13 took over this job from your predecessor, how long did this transition
14 process last for, approximately?
15 A. I can't recall, maybe a day. But it's one of these things that is
16 continuing, because I believe my successor, in fact, took up a job above
17 me. I can't recall precisely how long the handover took.
18 Q. However, I assume that it was longer than one day. It took you
19 longer than one day to understand and comprehend all these new
20 responsibilities that you assumed?
21 A. Not really, because I had been a deputy director before that.
22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have concluded by
24 Thank you, Mr. Stringer.
25 Could Mr. Stringer's statement please be given an exhibit number,
1 tendered into evidence, including the statement dating October 16th.
2 Could that be given an ID number, please? Thank you.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Do you have any submission in respect of the two
4 statements, Mr. Weiner?
5 MR. WEINER: We have no objection to Mr. Stringer's statement
6 being given a number and tendered into evidence. And we would have no
7 objection if they would like the second statement tendered into evidence,
8 too, his statement indicated "Note an incident at Dubrovnik."
9 JUDGE PARKER: I think both of those that Mr. Rodic indicated
10 should be --
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Both the
12 statement given to the investigators on the 26th and 27th March of 1992,
13 and the other document dated, I think, Note, and given on the 16th of
15 JUDGE PARKER: The two documents will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the statement of Mr. Stringer dated
17 27th March, 2002, would be given Exhibit Number D1; and the note made by
18 Mr. Stringer, D2.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
20 Mr. Weiner, do you re-examine?
21 MR. WEINER: Yes, please.
22 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:
23 Q. Just a few questions, Mr. Stringer. After General Strugar assumed
24 command, did you have any contact with Admiral Jokic?
25 A. No.
1 Q. After General Strugar assumed command, who made the decisions in
2 relation to your requests?
3 A. General Strugar.
4 Q. What was the ECMM's position or view of the chain of command with
5 regard to General Strugar and Admiral Jokic?
6 A. I believe that whilst Admiral Jokic did have command
7 responsibilities, the overall commander was, in fact, the general.
8 Q. Which general?
9 A. General Strugar at that time.
10 Q. And when General Ruzinovski was the commander of the 2nd
11 Operational Group, what was the ECMM's team view of General Jokic's
12 position in relation to General Ruzinovski?
13 A. The same.
14 Q. Now, you indicated that at one point General Ruzinovski ordered
15 Admiral Jokic to take part in the negotiations. Were you surprised at
17 A. Not particularly.
18 Q. Why is that, sir?
19 A. Because in so many of these situations there tends to be joint
20 command, inter-service command, and you would not expect perhaps the
21 supreme commander to be concerned with the minutiae of negotiations.
22 Q. Now, there was some discussion in relation to the interpreter that
23 you were using. At your meetings, did the JNA also have an interpreter?
24 A. Yes, they did.
25 Q. At any point during any of those negotiations, did the JNA
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 interpreter complain that something was not being properly translated?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Was there ever a complaint from anyone in the JNA that your
4 interpreter was not properly translating matters?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Now, you indicated that on or about the 15th or on the 15th of
7 October, you sent a message to General Strugar concerning the incident
8 that you had seen, the shooting and the loudspeaker. Was General Strugar
9 present when you sent that message through the coastguard at the coastal
10 radio system?
11 A. No, we were told that he was not available.
12 Q. Did they say what they were going to do with your message?
13 A. They were going to pass the message to his headquarters for
14 immediate attention.
15 Q. Thank you. And just two matters in relation to your statement.
16 MR. WEINER: Could the witness be shown Exhibit D1, his statement.
17 Q. I'd like you to look at page 15, at the bottom of page 15 of that
18 document. And it says: "A hand report" -- above that, I'm sorry. In
19 relation to -- that's right. The last line: "I hand a report that
20 further covers events on the 16th of October and mark it ..."
21 The incident where you had the meeting and then the shooting that
22 occurred, did that occur on the 16th, sir?
23 A. No, I think that was the 15th.
24 Q. And then if you go to the next page, sir, page 17, the first line.
25 It says at the top: "On the 17th, I received a message from General
2 And then if you go down to the middle of the page, it has the
3 message and it's dated on the 16th. What was the date of that message?
4 A. The 16th. The confusion arose, I think, because it was about
5 midnight and it was the -- in between the two dates.
6 Q. And then the last thing I want to discuss with you is on page 3.
7 On page 3, paragraph -- the third full paragraph. The second sentence:
8 "The Croats did possess defensive weapons, although they were mainly small
9 arms, with some smaller artillery or anti-tank weapons."
10 Did you ever see any smaller artillery or anti-tank weapons within
11 the Old Town?
12 A. No, I did not.
13 Q. Where did you see those weapons, the artillery or anti-tank
15 A. I didn't personally see these weapons.
16 Q. Your information, what does that refer to then?
17 A. The information, I believe, refers to advice that we were given,
18 either by the JNA or by the Croats themselves.
19 Q. Now it says: "The JNA" -- if we go down two more sentences.
20 "The JNA were without doubt in the driving seat and totally in control of
21 areas they occupied. They could dictate the pace or intensity of any
22 battle as they pleased and any purported retaliation to cease-fire
23 breaches seemed to be more punitive than out of military necessity."
24 Could you tell me first what you meant by your statement: "The
25 JNA seemed without a doubt to be in the driving seat"?
1 A. Because they had the dominating positions around Dubrovnik, around
2 the airport, and there was no way that Croatians could leave that area.
3 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stringer, I believe we have -- I'm sorry,
5 Mr. Weiner, I assumed that you were saying that was the end of your --
6 MR. WEINER: Yes. I've completed re-direct examination. Thank
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Stringer, you have come, I believe,
9 to the end of your evidence. May I thank you for your attendance here and
10 the assistance that you've given to the Tribunal.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE PARKER: You're now free to leave if you wish.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, the question of the next witness and
16 one of time. How practical is it, do you think, to commence the witness
17 with the hope of finishing the evidence today?
18 MR. WEINER: I think Mr. Kaufman, who is handling that witness,
19 would be better to address that.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I was not aware of that. Mr. Kaufman.
21 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honour, I anticipate that the
22 examination-in-chief should be somewhere in the region of half an hour to
23 an hour. I have spoken to my learned friend Mr. Petrovic, and he
24 anticipates that the cross-examination - I'm sure he'll correct me if I
25 misrepresent what he told me - will be considerably shorter than the
1 cross-examination of Mr. Stringer.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned colleague
4 is quite right. It will, of course, be shorter than Mr. Stringer's
5 interrogation, but whether we will finish by 6.00, it's difficult to say.
6 I cannot specify the exact time. So it is up to you, Your Honours, to
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
9 Mr. Kaufman, I fear that it's going to be necessary for the
10 witness to return.
11 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, the witness is prepared for that
13 JUDGE PARKER: If that is the case, is there a great deal to be
14 gained by proceeding with part of the evidence this afternoon or not? How
15 do you see it?
16 MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I leave that matter -- if I may just consult
17 with Mr. Weiner.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Do it.
19 [Prosecution counsel confers]
20 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, we're quite happy to leave the matter
21 to the discretion of the Court. We're quite happy to start
22 examination-in-chief today. But if the Court feels it would rather that
23 the cross-examination and examination-in-chief take place on one day, then
24 we would leave that matter to the Court's discretion.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE PARKER: The Trial Chamber is of the view, Mr. Kaufman, that
2 we would take the evidence in-chief of the witness now, but would then
3 adjourn, with cross-examination on the 12th of January. If you think that
4 will fit in with your situation, we could proceed to call the witness.
5 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honour, bearing in mind, therefore,
6 that the proceedings today will be considerably shortened, I would beg
7 Your Honour's request for maybe a five-minute interval so that we can set
8 up a stand in court, because I intend on presenting some maps during the
9 evidence of the next witness.
10 JUDGE PARKER: What we might do, then, is to have a break perhaps
11 a little longer than five minutes to ensure that Mr. Strugar can relax for
12 a little while, and we will resume at a little after 20 past.
13 --- Break taken at 3.11 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 3.29 p.m.
15 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, before the witness is sworn in, I have
16 some exhibits which I would like to present to the Court by virtue of
17 agreement between myself and Mr. Petrovic. There's no need to introduce
18 them through this witness, they can be submitted at this stage. We're
19 talking about maps, maps of the Dubrovnik region and the former
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you then, Mr. Kaufman. If that's by
22 agreement between counsel, then you can proceed to do that now.
23 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honour. The first map is a map of --
24 entitled "The Times Map of the Western Balkans." It depicts the former
25 Yugoslavia -- or at least, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Dubrovnik area.
1 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received then.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that would be Exhibit P9.
3 MR. KAUFMAN: The second map I would wish to introduce is a map
4 entitled "Croatia City Graphic." It is a cartographer's map and I would
5 request that this map be displayed on the stand once it has been given an
6 exhibit number.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Dubrovnik city -- what was that?
8 MR. KAUFMAN: Sorry, it's "Croatia City Graphic."
9 JUDGE PARKER: I beg your pardon. "Croatia City Graphic." That
10 will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be marked, Your Honour, as P10.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Usher, I wonder if one of those maps may be put
14 on the stand.
15 Your Honours, the third map is entitled "Dubrovnik City Map."
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be P11.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 MR. KAUFMAN: The fourth and penultimate map is entitled
19 "Dubrovnik." It portrays the Old Town.
20 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: And that would be marked P12, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
23 MR. KAUFMAN: The fifth and final map, I will call it "Cultural
24 Monuments Map" because it is also entitled "Dubrovnik Old Town" and we
25 already have that title. So if we could call this map "Cultural Monuments
1 and Old Town Map."
2 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P12 -- P13, I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE PARKER: P13, yes.
5 MR. KAUFMAN: I thank Your Honours for their indulgence.
6 JUDGE PARKER: If the witness would now take the affirmation.
7 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: JOHN ALLCOCK
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.
11 Examined by Mr. Kaufman:
12 Q. Sir, could you state your full name for the record, please.
13 A. My name is John Bartlett Allcock.
14 Q. And that is Allcock with two Ls, is it?
15 A. Allcock with two Ls.
16 Q. And your title?
17 A. At the moment, I have an honourary title; Honourary Reader in the
18 Sociology of South-Eastern Europe.
19 Q. I will refer to you as Dr. Allcock.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And your age, please, sir?
22 A. 61.
23 Q. And present address.
24 A. My present address is -- You mean my domestic address rather than
25 university address. Is Broadfolds House, "Broadfolds" is one word and
1 spelled as it would be expected to. Chrisharben Park in the area of
2 Clayton, which is part of Bradford, and the postal code is BD14 6AE.
3 Q. Dr. Allcock, before we formally tender your expert report, which
4 has already been submitted to the Trial Chamber, I would like to ask you a
5 few questions about your curriculum vitae.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I believe you are now retired but what was your last position that
8 you held?
9 A. The last position I held until the end of July two years ago was
10 as reader in sociology at the University of Bradford.
11 Q. And now that you have retired, what are your current academic
13 A. I continue to spend a certain amount of my time in sociological
14 writing and covering a variety topics. The principal thing which concerns
15 me at the moment is a study of the political response to the existence of
16 this Tribunal within the countries of the former Yugoslavia.
17 Q. Dr. Allcock, I don't wish to go into the list of all your
18 publications, which are appended to your expert report, but if I may just
19 draw your attention to perhaps your last major published work. Can you
20 tell the Court what that was.
21 A. That was the book entitled "Explaining Yugoslavia," published
22 jointly by Christopher Hurst in London and the Columbia University Press.
23 And this was a large-scale study from the point of view of historical
24 sociology of the nature of the Yugoslav Federation.
25 Q. I believe that you are also the chief editor of a work entitled
1 "An Encyclopedia, the Balkan Conflict."
2 A. That's not quite the title, but I get the idea.
3 Q. Correct me and perhaps tell the Court the correct title, and let
4 us know a bit about that publication.
5 A. I shall have to look up the correct title myself now that you've
6 given me the wrong one. The correct title is "Conflict in the Former
7 Yugoslavia, an Encyclopedia." And this appeared as one of a series of
8 major conflict problems throughout the world, published by ABC Clear.
9 Q. Have you received reviews of your work, sir?
10 A. Yes, quite a few.
11 Q. Have there been any reviews from the former republics?
12 A. Yes; in fact only this week I came across one published in a
13 well-respected Belgrade journal Tokovi Istorije by Professor Mile
14 Bjelajac, who is a professor at the Institute for Modern History in
16 Q. Now, the expert report which will be tendered to the Trial Chamber
17 in this case focuses on a matter of tourism to a large extent.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, I believe that the focus of your research has since changed.
20 Could you tell the Court when that happened and what is now the major
21 focus of your research?
22 A. Yes, my interest and work on the sociology of tourism really
23 extended from principally 1983 up until things began to go wrong in
24 Yugoslavia in about 1989. After that, not only did tourism decline in its
25 importance in that region but also other aspects of the political
1 structure and process in Yugoslavia began to attract much greater
2 attention and I began to switch my activities to that, publishing first of
3 all a substantial review in a book edited by Professor Steven White of
4 Glasgow University which was a review of reconstruction in all of the
5 former socialist states of Europe - I wrote the chapter on Yugoslavia -
6 and then moving into more specifically political concerns with two
7 contributions to books published by the London publishing house Longmans
8 which were studies of the formation of new political parties in Eastern
9 Europe, and in both editions of that work I produced the chapters dealing
10 with the former Yugoslav states.
11 Q. Now, you talked about publications which were commissioned by the
12 publishing house Longmans. Can you talk about perhaps the commission from
13 Longmans publishing house with respect to the year 1991.
14 A. Well, this was an interesting proposition, because, as I've
15 already indicated to the Court, until that time the greater part of my
16 research activity had been concerned with tourism. And the invitation to
17 look at the emerging political parties and electoral processes in the
18 former Yugoslavia was a relatively novel idea for me. So I made it a
19 condition of my accepting the commission that I would be able to put
20 together a package of funding that would enable me to do fieldwork in the
21 area to support what I had to say. And with assistance, both from my own
22 university as well as from the publisher and from some other sources as
23 well, I put together enough money to enable me to make a systemic tour of
24 all of the republics of the former Yugoslavia in which I was able to
25 interview leading figures in the various political parties, to gather
1 appropriate information, to look at public opinion polls and this kind of
3 So that that tour took me throughout the Federation and indeed was
4 one of the occasions on which I was able to visit Dubrovnik. My stay in
5 Croatia coincided with the referendum run by the Tudjman government on the
6 question of Croatian independence and I was travelling in Croatia,
7 including Dubrovnik, at the time of that referendum.
8 Q. What month would that have been, sir?
9 A. I believe it was May 1991.
10 Q. Thank you. Just a few more questions before we tender your expert
11 report. Are you conversant with the language of Bosnian/Serbo-Croat,
12 otherwise known as B/C/S in this institution?
13 A. It wasn't known as that when I was there at the time, but yes.
14 Q. And is this the first time that you have given evidence in the
15 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?
16 A. No, this is the second occasion. I was invited by the Office of
17 the Prosecutor to serve in this same capacity in connection with the trial
18 of Dario Kordic.
19 Q. And what was the nature of your testimony in that case, as far as
20 your expertise is concerned?
21 A. On that occasion I was asked to provide a broad background
22 overview of some aspects of society and politics, principally in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina but also because it was relevant to the case to some
24 extent also dealing with Croatia.
25 Q. Thank you, sir. Maybe at this point we could formally tender your
1 expert report?
2 MR. KAUFMAN: I request that it be given an exhibit number.
3 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the expert report would be Exhibit
6 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
7 Q. You have a copy of your report in front of you, do you?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 MR. KAUFMAN: Do the Bench have a copy of the report?
10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. One member of the Bench, two members.
11 MR. KAUFMAN: We're making progress.
12 Q. Now, Dr. Allcock, now that we've established your expertise in the
13 matter of Yugoslavian affairs, I'd like to ask you when you first became
14 acquainted with Dubrovnik.
15 A. My first visit to Dubrovnik, I believe, was in the spring of --
16 no, the summer of 1981. This was a private visit I made on the way to
17 attend a function in Macedonia. My systematic acquaintance with Dubrovnik
18 really began in 1983 when I started my research into the sociology of
20 Q. And how many times have you been to Dubrovnik in total?
21 A. I really couldn't tell you exactly how many times, but I can give
22 you an indication in that from 1983 up until 1991, my research into the
23 sociology of tourism regularly took me to Dubrovnik. I was certainly
24 there at least on one occasion in each of those years, and some of those
25 stays would be really quite protracted, of more than a month. And I
1 believe on one occasion, at least one occasion, certainly one occasion, I
2 was there for two months.
3 Q. Are you acquainted with the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
4 A. Oh, yes.
5 Q. And with its monuments?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, if we may turn to the main body of your evidence. The first
8 issue I'd like to refer you to is the section where you talk about the Old
9 Town in general.
10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 Q. Could you perhaps start by clarifying the distinction between the
12 municipality of Dubrovnik and the Old Town of Dubrovnik in particular.
13 A. Yes. The phrase the "Old Town" refers generally to the area lying
14 within the fortified walls of the city. Building land is really rather
15 scarce, however, along the Dalmatian coast, because high and rather steep
16 hills, very bare hills, come very close to the sea for the greater part of
17 that coastline. Consequently, when it was no longer possible to
18 accommodate everybody within the Old Town itself, building expanded beyond
19 that and has extended in a linear fashion along the coast. The first area
20 in which this settlement expanded was to the north-west, the area known as
21 Gruz, around the new port there. But generally speaking, since that time,
22 since the 19th century, building has continued to expand along the coast
23 in a rather diffuse fashion.
24 Q. Now, you talk about the spatial area of the Old Town of Dubrovnik,
25 and you state in your report that it was 13.38 hectares. Now, I would
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 like you to comment if you could, perhaps, on the density of the
2 population that lived within that confined space.
3 A. Yes. It's difficult to be exact about population density in this
4 respect because the census figures, the official published statistics for
5 Croatia only give settlement figures by municipality. And as you'll see
6 from my report, there were, of the 1991 census, more than 71.000 people
7 living in that larger municipality. It would be necessary to go back to
8 the original census documentation, which I have not been able to do, in
9 order to determine exactly how many people lived within the city walls.
10 This is quite a substantial number, however. I don't know exactly
11 how many, but I would guess that it is possibly about 7 or 8.000 people
12 live there. That is a guesstimate rather than anything else. It is
13 fairly densely settled, however, within the city walls. This is not just
14 a space occupied by monuments, it is a city in which people live.
15 Q. Now, could you describe, perhaps, features of the type of the
16 living accommodation within the walls of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
17 A. Yes, with the exception of the main thoroughfare which runs down
18 the centre of the town, known as the stratum, the streets are really
19 rather narrow on the whole and bordered on each side by old houses going
20 back sometimes into the early medieval period, which usually extend to
21 about four floors.
22 Now, when they were originally constructed, many of these
23 buildings were really rather grand. They tend to be known even today as
24 palaces but in fact they're what in Britain would probably be known as
25 rather stately townhouses. Because of the change in the social structure
1 and economic structure of Dubrovnik, these are no longer occupied by
2 single noble families, as they would be at the time of their construction.
3 They've since been divided into flats, apartments, and I don't know
4 whether any of these large old houses still are single-family occupied. I
5 doubt very much that any of them are.
6 So that, bearing in mind the multi-occupancy of these buildings,
7 separated by really rather narrow streets, I think it's possible to assume
8 that the density of the population within the Old Town is fairly high.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, in the last paragraph of the section entitled The
10 Old Town of Dubrovnik, you talk about the boundaries of the municipality
11 of Dubrovnik. Perhaps you could slightly elaborate on that matter; how
12 they were formed, perhaps, throughout the ages
13 A. Yes, the boundaries of the municipality, with some small changes,
14 really go back into antiquity and, for the most part, follow the borders
15 of the medieval Republic of Radusa, which was the name given to Dubrovnik
16 in an earlier incarnation. This means that although Dubrovnik is part of
17 the Republic of Croatia and in its north-westward extension continues into
18 other municipalities of the republic, on the England side, the
19 north-eastern side and eastern side, the border of the municipality itself
20 forms the border of the Republic of Croatia with the neighbouring Republic
21 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 The municipality tapers to a very fine point just short of -- down
23 near the Gulf of Kotor, the Bay of Kotor, at which point it touches on the
24 Republic of Montenegro, and at that point also formerly constituted the
25 inter-republican boundary within Yugoslavia; now, of course, that has
1 become an international boundary.
2 Q. So as your evidence progresses, we will talk about specific
3 features of the Old Town of Dubrovnik, but before we get to that, I would
4 like to have Exhibit P9 put in front of you. That is the map entitled
5 "The Times Map of the Western Balkans."
6 A. Thank you.
7 Q. Here we can perhaps see part of the boundaries of the municipality
8 of Dubrovnik, at the lower part of the map.
9 A. Indeed.
10 Q. And I would like to refer you to -- or perhaps ask you to comment
11 on the town that we can see called Trebinje. This is a town which will
12 have significance as this case progresses. I would like you --
13 MR. KAUFMAN: First of all, I would inquire whether or not the
14 Trial Chamber has identified the town of Trebinje.
15 THE WITNESS: Due east of Dubrovnik, about three quarters of an
17 MR. KAUFMAN:
18 Q. Dr. Allcock, what can you tell us about Trebinje?
19 A. Well, Trebinje is located in Bosnia and Herzegovina and indeed in
20 that part of Herzegovina usually called Eastern Herzegovina. It's in many
21 respects rather different from Dubrovnik, and indeed the coastal area
22 generally. The separation of that inland area from the coast by high
23 hills has meant that not only topographically is it very different, but as
24 a consequence of that, the type of agriculture, the type of economy, the
25 way of life, has developed very differently.
1 Also, Trebinje will have been part of the Ottoman Empire in the
2 period before the departure of the Turks from the area in 1912, 1913. And
3 indeed before then it was part of the Austrian domination of Bosnia. So
4 that its history in many respects has been different from that of
6 As you can probably see from the map, although it is part of a
7 different republic, the natural lines of communication which connect
8 Trebinje with the outside world, generally speaking, are poor, but a
9 significant line of contact and communication is with the coast and with
10 Dubrovnik. It -- a good deal of the economic life of Trebinje was
11 connected with that of Dubrovnik, and in particular through the activity
12 of tourism.
13 As I'm sure the Court will be familiar, tourism is a highly
14 seasonal activity which attracts very large amounts of labour for limited
15 seasons of the year. And Dubrovnik had in this respect an enormous
16 attractive potential which extended through a large part of its hinterland
17 and a good deal of its seasonal labour was drawn in from Eastern
18 Herzegovina and indeed from much more widely afield from that. And that
19 road that you can see on the map there connecting Trebinje with Dubrovnik
20 is really very significant for the economic social communication -- or has
21 been in the past before they became part of two separate states, was very
22 important as a means of communication between the two towns.
23 Q. Thank you, Dr. Allcock. Now, perhaps succinctly, a few words on
24 the ethnicity of the place Trebinje.
25 A. As I suggested, the two towns are very significantly different in
1 their social structure and certainly that is true in the case of their
2 ethnicity as well. Not being advised of this question before I came here,
3 I haven't had a chance to look up exactly what the proportion of different
4 ethnic groups is in Trebinje, but it is certainly a town with a
5 substantial preponderance of ethnic Serbs. I believe also that there were
6 a significant number of ethnic Muslims there before the war, but certainly
7 it was the case that by far the largest proportion of its population were
8 ethnic Serbs.
9 Q. Thank you, sir.
10 A. This is not so of Dubrovnik, of course, and figures in that
11 respect are given in my report.
12 Q. As I promised, we will now turn to some features of the Dubrovnik
13 municipality and region. I would like to exhibit a photograph for you.
14 If you could look at your video monitor, hopefully you will see this.
15 A. Not yet -- oh, I see, I have to press something. We have a
16 photograph, yes.
17 Q. Good. Now, you were talking about contours and hills overlooking
18 Dubrovnik before. Perhaps you could use this diagram -- sorry, this
19 picture, as a means of elaborating.
20 A. Right, yes. I have no idea what the numbers 28 and 909 mean, but
21 ignoring those I think it's possible to see, looking at those contour
22 lines, the way in which they're rather steeply clustered in a line running
23 from the top left to bottom right of the picture, this indicates that on
24 the seaward side, the bottom left-hand side, there's quite a steep slope,
25 generally speaking -- and I've lost the picture now. There's quite a
1 steep slope separates that coastal area from the inland area of -- right,
2 I've got my picture back now.
3 Q. And the red blob, just for the sake of clarification, is the Old
5 A. Represents the Old Town, that's right.
6 Q. Good. Now, perhaps with the aid of the map which is exhibited to
7 your right we can see a few more features. I'm afraid this map is not in
8 video presentation --
9 A. Am I allowed to leave my seat at this point to point to things?
10 Q. If you could. Now, sir, could you point out where Mount Srdj is.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Is there a microphone?
12 MR. KAUFMAN:
13 Q. I'll ask the question. If you can just point and return to your
15 A. Mount Srdj, you can see this area here is the Old City --
16 JUDGE PARKER: If you would perhaps just pause a moment. We're
17 trying to overcome the technical problem which will ensure that your
18 evidence is recorded.
19 THE WITNESS: Is that working now?
20 MR. KAUFMAN: We can move on, Your Honours, if this is
22 JUDGE PARKER: One on the other side, perhaps, might be easier to
24 THE WITNESS: If I stand on this side, perhaps this microphone --
25 are we audible now?
1 JUDGE PARKER: Keep your voice clear, as seems not to be a problem
2 for you, Mr. Allcock, and I hope the interpreters will manage to pick you
3 up and the sound recorded.
4 THE WITNESS: This here is the Old Town of Dubrovnik. This is the
5 coastline of the Old Town. The steep ground, as I mentioned, runs
6 immediately inland there and Mount Srdj is this highland area here, which
7 is immediately to the north-east of the -- of the Old Town. And that area
8 -- that there, the point immediately due north of the Old Town is the
9 submit of the mountain.
10 MR. KAUFMAN:
11 Q. What is on the summit of that mountain, do you know?
12 A. There are old fortifications there.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, if you could return to your seat, sir, I will
14 show you a photograph on the monitor.
15 MR. KAUFMAN: Hopefully that photograph is being displayed on Your
16 Honours' monitors as well.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Are we still functioning?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Good.
20 Q. Do you see a photograph, sir?
21 A. I do see a photograph, yes.
22 Q. Now, Mount Srdj, is it visible enough?
23 A. Mount Srdj is visible in the top right hand of the picture, yes,
24 where the pointer is now.
25 Q. Now, perhaps you could elaborate on the historic significance of
1 Mount Srdj, give us an example.
2 A. Yes, Mount Srdj represents a really rather fateful experience in
3 the former history of the area, in that, as my report indicates, the city
4 of Dubrovnik was the centre of an independent republic city state from
5 early medieval times up until the beginning of the 19th century. During
6 the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon extended his control over increasingly large
7 parts of the Adriatic - and I don't think the details of that process
8 concern us at the moment - but in the early part of 1806, Napoleon's
9 Marshal Marmont, who had been threatening the town for a little while,
10 succeeded in getting his canon on the top of Mount Srdj, at which point
11 the citizens of Dubrovnik decided that cooperation was probably a better
12 policy than resistance.
13 Q. Now, if you look at my pointer, hopefully I'm pointing at a road.
14 A. A road, that's correct.
15 Q. Can you tell us what that is?
16 A. I believe that is the Adriatic highway. This is very important in
17 the development of Dubrovnik, because prior to the 1960s the greater part
18 of communication between Dubrovnik and the outside world had to take place
19 by sea, certainly the great part of communication along the Adriatic
20 coast, for various reasons, that was very difficult. Then in the early
21 1960s, Yugoslavia obtained substantial foreign credits which enabled it to
22 build a road all the way down the Adriatic coast. This had an immediate
23 and dramatic impact upon the development of tourism in the entire area.
24 And I'm not sure exactly when the road reached Dubrovnik, but Dubrovnik
25 certainly benefited as part of that general opening up by means of the
1 Adriatic highway.
2 Q. Thank you, sir. Please, if you would, look at the next
3 photograph. Here we see, where my arrow is pointing, can you tell the
5 A. Yes, that is the old port of Dubrovnik, the old medieval port,
6 which was protected, as the Court can see from the photograph, by the city
7 walls and the boom across its mouth. That port, unfortunately, ceased to
8 serve the needs of the town with the advent of steam navigation during the
9 19th century. And the greater part of commercial maritime activity moved
10 during the 19th century north-westwards along the coast over the hill to
11 Gruz which then opened up as a new port which was big enough and deep
12 enough to take modern steamships. And since the later part, certainly
13 since the last quarter of the 19th century, the old port there, which you
14 see in the picture, has only served as an anchorage for visiting pleasure
15 boats and tripping ships of one kind or another.
16 Q. Now, please, sir, follow my arrow.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The arrow is tracing a path --
19 A. Yes, that is the thoroughfare to which I've already referred, the
20 main axial thoroughfare of the Old Town of Dubrovnik, known as the
22 Q. And could you --
23 A. This is a picture of the same.
24 Q. Could you elaborate on something perhaps conspicuous about this
25 photograph? It was photographed on the 6th of December.
1 A. Two things strike me about the photograph: One is that it
2 illustrates very well the type of housing which I mentioned in the earlier
3 part of my remarks, the multi-storey accommodation, fairly closely spaced,
4 suggesting the density of population in the town; but the first thing
5 which strikes one when one sees this picture is that there are no human
6 beings in it.
7 Q. What is the normal situation?
8 A. Well, I have never seen the stradun looking like that. It is
9 normally busy from early in the morning until very late at night.
10 Although there is a car shown there, it's largely a pedestrian
11 thoroughfare so that, for the most part, it's a very busy scene of
12 pedestrians walking up and down. In the evening, incidentally, it becomes
13 a particularly significant social centre where people come to walk and
14 meet and use the cafes which are found in the ground floor of those
15 buildings along the street.
16 Q. Sir, moving to -- back to the previous photograph and to the next
17 section of your expert report, which is entitled "The Architectural
18 Heritage of Dubrovnik," you mentioned the fortifications of Dubrovnik.
19 Here we see the fortifications. Perhaps you could elaborate on the
21 A. I've lost the single again, but I can certainly elaborate on what
22 I saw in it, yes, and on the nature of the fortifications. The
23 fortifications were built over quite a long period of time, from the early
24 medieval period. I think they were probably completed in the 17th
25 century, if my memory serves me correctly. They've been particularly
1 important in the life of the town, because being a very small independent
2 city state, Dubrovnik had virtually no armed forces. And so, for its
3 defensive capability it relied almost exclusively upon two things, one is
4 the enormous strength of its fortifications, and the other thing, of
5 course, was the skill of its diplomats who tried to head off trouble in
6 the first place. But I gather that those walls are a remarkable example
7 of late medieval and early modern fortification. The thickness of them is
8 really quite astonishing in places. I did have some correspondence with
9 the city planning authorities about this in the process of preparing my
10 report, and although my report indicates that the area inside the city
11 walls is 13.38 hectares, the total area occupied, including the walls, is
12 15 hectares. So you can see that a fairly substantial area is covered by
13 those walls, which indicates their enormous strength in places.
14 Q. Now, sir, this photograph was taken after 1991.
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. And after what appears to be the restoration of the Old Town of
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We see the roof tiles of the roofs. Could you perhaps comment on
20 the nature of the roof tiles prior to 1991?
21 A. Yes. There is a very visible difference between what one would
22 have seen before 1991 and what is displayed in this picture. It is
23 possible to see, if you look closely, a few areas of undamaged tiling.
24 These appear, if you look closely, as a lighter, browner shade. Yes,
25 where the arrow is pointing now, the roof of the Franciscan monastery
1 there is still showing that lighter colour. The sight of the roofs of
2 Dubrovnik was one of the most attractive features of the town before the
4 As I'm sure the Court will be able to imagine, with several
5 centuries of aging, the roofs had acquired a kind of irregularity through
6 the contraction and twisting of timbers. And with tiles being replaced
7 over a long period of time, and with those tiles not being the result of
8 modern factory production but of a rather haphazard craft production, you
9 had an extremely interesting surface represented by those tiles;
10 variegated colouring, subtle shades of difference, subtle differences in
11 form because of the way in which the roofs had settled and shrunk over
12 time. That has now been replaced by the regular forms of the replacement
13 roofs in many places where the structures had to be replaced and certainly
14 even where it's only been necessary to replace the tiling, the uniform
15 colouring of modern factory-produced tiles. At one time before the war,
16 certainly it was the case that one of the preferred activities of tourists
17 in the region, to the town, was to walk around the walls simply in order
18 to observe and enjoy the view of the old roofs.
19 Q. Thank you, sir. If we can move on now to a totally different part
20 of your report, and I would like to take you to the part of your report
21 which deals with tourism and the effect of the conflict in Dubrovnik on
22 tourism. What was the importance of tourism for Dubrovnik?
23 A. Tourism was of extreme importance to Dubrovnik. The entire
24 Adriatic coast was extremely poor between the -- I suppose the --
25 particularly the end of the 18th century and the early part of the 20th
1 century. A very substantial out-migration took place from those areas
2 because of the inability of the population to feed themselves. Large
3 numbers of the contemporary inhabitants of Australia, parts of South
4 America and North America hail from Dalmatia. Indeed among
5 anthropologists looking at the region previously, Dalmatia was known as a
6 passive region. In other words, it was not able to actively support
7 itself, it relied entirely upon the import of foodstuffs.
8 Although tourism began to take root in the later part, last
9 quarter of the 19th century, and indeed enjoyed some success during the
10 inter-war years, the years between World Wars I and II, it was really only
11 with the arrival of the road, which we've already examined, in the 1960s
12 that mass tourism became impossible down the Adriatic coast. And at that
13 point the economic fortunes of Dubrovnik were reversed and the Adriatic
14 coast as a whole, including Dubrovnik, instead of being among the poorest
15 and most destitute parts of Yugoslavia became one of the most prosperous
16 areas of Yugoslavia.
17 Q. And the effect of the Balkan conflict on that?
18 A. The effect of the Balkan conflict was to bring that process
19 crashing to a standstill. I think that a very good illustration of this
20 is given in the table which I provide --
21 Q. That's on page 17 --
22 A. That's correct. Figure 1 on page 17, which provides graphically
23 there accounts of the number of nights spent by tourists -- these are
24 figures for Croatia as a whole -- the number of nights spent by tourists
25 from Croatia and the number of nights spent by foreign tourists. We can
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 see that as early as 1989, when the political condition of Yugoslavia
2 became steadily more unstable, there was an accelerating process of the
3 decline of tourism, especially the significance of foreign tourism.
4 Q. And perhaps that would explain, if I can refer you to page 12 of
5 your expert report, the first sentence, you talk about the decline of
6 visitors in Dubrovnik to 33,489 in 1990, which is in fact before the time
7 of the conflict relevant to this particular case.
8 A. That is correct, yes. Tourism is an extremely sensitive aspect of
9 business from the point of view of risk. At the first sign of risk,
10 tourists become very reluctant to visit an area, and although open armed
11 conflict had not begun in 1989 and 1990, already tourists were sensing the
12 political instability and risk of Yugoslavia and were refraining from
13 taking their holidays there.
14 Q. Thank you, sir. Well, I think that, to a large extent, clarifies
15 your report. Before I conclude the review of your report I would just
16 perhaps like to refer you to the appendices attached to your report and
17 ask you if there's anything you wish to clarify. We've already dealt with
18 the graph on page 17, perhaps the graph on page 18.
19 A. Yes, the graph on page 18 is really intended to convey something
20 of the same information. The light grey figures in -- the horizontal bars
21 indicate the volume of tourists coming from particular countries to
22 Croatia in different years: The top bar, 1989; the white bar in the
23 middle, 1993; and the bottom bar 1994. And if you compare in particular
24 the first and second of those bars, figures for 1989 and figures for 1993,
25 roughly pre and post the armed conflict which is the subject of this
1 particular court case, that gives a very dramatic visual indication of the
2 decline of tourists from different foreign countries.
3 Q. Thank you, sir.
4 MR. KAUFMAN: Now, at this point I would like to tender the
5 photographs that we displayed on the video monitor to the Court. There
6 are four in total.
7 Q. And I would conclude your examination-in-chief, which shouldn't
8 take more than ten minutes, hopefully, by asking you to comment on some of
9 the Defence submissions that have been made in respect of your expert
11 MR. KAUFMAN: So if those photographs could be submitted at this
13 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the photograph depicting the
15 features of Dubrovnik would be Exhibit P15. The photograph of Mount Srdj
16 would be P16. The photograph of the old port of Dubrovnik would be P17.
17 And the photograph of the thoroughfare of Dubrovnik P18.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
20 I would like to address you briefly.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I do not wish to give any
23 suggestions on how the cross-examination should be conducted; however, I
24 think that it would be appropriate to say that -- what I'm trying to say
25 should probably come out in cross-examination. And that is because our
1 submission under Rule 74 bis was of a summary nature. It did not contain
2 facts or arguments that perhaps would have been appropriate. Therefore,
3 to the extent that the Defence does have some objections to the opinion of
4 this witness I think would have been better to point that out in the
5 cross-examination rather than in this way because our submission, as I
6 have said, was of an informative nature and did not go to the substance of
7 the matter. However, I will leave it to your discretion to make a
8 decision concerning this.
9 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not entirely clear the point you make. I'm
10 sorry, Mr. Petrovic. I gather you don't object to the tendering of the
11 report, but you wanted to be received subject to the submission -- to the
12 cross-examination that you will put and perhaps to some other submissions.
13 Is that it?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I wasn't clear
15 enough; and if I wasn't, I apologise to you for that. Therefore, the
16 issue of admissibility of this report, I believe this issue to have been
17 already resolved by your ruling concerning this report. Therefore, there
18 is no sense in our objecting or not objecting to it now. What I was
19 trying to say is that some objections that we have concerning this should
20 probably come out during our cross-examination rather than be interpreted
21 now through the questions put by my learned colleague. That is the
22 essence of what I'm trying to say, however it is naturally up to you
23 decide. And I apologise if I wasn't clear initially.
24 JUDGE PARKER: I'm grateful for your comments, Mr. Petrovic. May
25 I firstly indicate as a matter of general practice to both Prosecution and
1 Defence that when an exhibit is tendered to the Court, if I do not detect
2 that there is objection by the opposing party, I will simply admit the
3 document. I did not notice that you proposed to object, and so I received
4 the report as I did. In future, if there is an objection to an exhibit,
5 I'd be grateful if it -- you make that known, and this is for both
6 parties, at the time it is tendered and we can deal with the objection.
7 Your particular concern is that Mr. Kaufman now proposes to put
8 questions that anticipate to some way, from what he said, what you propose
9 to be putting in cross-examination. That's the concern. Let me explore
10 that with Mr. Kaufman a little, if you would.
11 Yes, Mr. Kaufman, perhaps you could elaborate just a little what
12 you have in mind.
13 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honours. I understood Mr. Petrovic's
14 first submission, on which there was in fact a ruling on the 12th of
15 December, 2003, to refer purely to the procedural aspect of whether or not
16 Dr. Allcock had expertise sufficient in order to enable him to testify
17 before this Tribunal. The Court decided on that matter. However, within
18 the framework of the Defence objections to that expert opinion, certain
19 substantive matters were raised. And as far as I am aware, it's the
20 practice of this Tribunal -- and certainly the practice in the
21 jurisdiction from where I come, that it is perfectly permissible to
22 anticipate Defence cross-examination by way of examination-in-chief
23 insofar as those matters to which Defence take objection are critical to
24 the issues before the Court. Otherwise, I may have no way of getting the
25 Prosecution case across by way of evidence which may be led from this
1 particular witness.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 Is there anything further you would like to put, Mr. Petrovic?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, thank you.
5 JUDGE PARKER: My reaction to your concern, Mr. Petrovic, is to
6 suggest that it is already clear to both Prosecution and Defence and to
7 the Trial Chamber that certain aspects of the report of the witness are to
8 be challenged or questioned by you. And in my experience of these
9 matters, it would be perfectly proper for Mr. Kaufman to be asking the
10 witness to put his observations about those points of concern into
11 evidence at this point of the Prosecution case. That in the long-term, I
12 would suggest, is likely to have the advantage that you will then know
13 exactly what it is that Mr. Allcock wants to say about those matters, and
14 you can then shape your cross-examination with that knowledge. So in a
15 sense, it is not only enabling the Prosecution to put what it wants, but
16 it gives you some clear knowledge of how to shape your own
17 cross-examination. So I would propose at this stage to allow Mr. Kaufman
18 to proceed.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you. I withdraw
20 my previous submissions. Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 Mr. Kaufman.
23 MR. KAUFMAN: And I thank my learned friend for that.
24 Q. Dr. Allcock, I would like to refer you to some submissions which
25 were made within the Defence pre-trial brief which touch on the nature of
1 your evidence. Perhaps if you could look at your monitor, I am displaying
2 the relevant page of the Defence pre-trial brief. If you could perhaps
3 read paragraph 22 --
4 A. I don't think I have got it yet. Shall I press a button or
5 something? That's it, yes.
6 Q. Could you look at paragraph 22, perhaps.
7 A. 22.
8 Q. Can you read that or would you like me to --
9 A. I can read it.
10 Q. The last sentence in particular.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Perhaps you could comment on that.
13 A. Well, this is a very commonly expressed opinion, but I think the
14 consensus among social scientists these days would tend to challenge that.
15 My interpretation of that sentence is that -- well, it doesn't need much
16 interpretation. "... the unsettled national issue was the key reason for
17 the disintegration of the second Yugoslav state."
18 Two things emerge from that statement. First of all, the key
19 status of what is called here "the national issue," and secondly the use
20 of "the," the definite article. It suggests that this above all other
21 things was the reason why the former Yugoslavia fell apart. I believe
22 that the longer scholars go on looking at this issue, the more the
23 national issue comes to be seen not so much as the primary cause for the
24 disintegration of Yugoslavia in this fashion but as a consequence of
25 processes of an economic and political nature and that the causal
1 inference which is conveyed by this sentence needs to be reversed.
2 Q. Okay. Thank you.
3 A. I can elaborate on that if it is necessary.
4 Q. At this moment in time it's not necessary, sir.
5 If you could look at paragraph 23. I can enlarge that if you
7 A. I can read it. I have read it.
8 Q. Perhaps the Bench would like that.
9 A. I have it, right. It's interesting from a rhetorical point of
10 view. The word "disguised" is heavily emotive, is it not? To me, this
11 sentence suggests -- the phrase "the disguised Croatian separatism"
12 suggests two things: First of all, it suggests that there is a single
13 Croatian view which is being conveyed here, "the disguised Croatian
14 separatism"; but also it suggests that somehow or another there is
15 something going on here to conceal from general knowledge what are the
16 real aims of Croatian politicians.
17 Now, there may well have been Croatian politicians to whom the
18 implication of this sentence applies. I believe that is the case. But
19 from my familiarity with Croatian politics, it's by no means the case that
20 Croatian views about -- we're talking here about the pre-1991 period, the
21 period when Croatia was anticipating some kind of change of its status in
22 relation to the Yugoslav state. It certainly is not my recollection that
23 there was a uniform view among Croatian politicians that the only future
24 for Croatia was separation from the Yugoslav state. It certainly was the
25 case that the predominant opinion, I believe not only among Croatian
1 politician but probably the public as well, was that some kind of
2 redefinition was appropriate of the relationship between the various
3 republics which made up the Federation and that greater autonomy for a
4 Croatian republic was certainly desirable. But I don't believe that the
5 implication is correct, conveyed by that sentence that somehow or another
6 there was a single Croatian view about the future of Yugoslavia. That
7 separatism was desirable and that there was some kind of, well maybe
8 conspiracy is to put it too strongly, but there was some kind of attempt
9 to conceal the real intentions of Croatia in relation to the future of the
10 republic. I don't believe that those assumptions are correct. So that I
11 would want to challenge that statement fairly strongly. Again, I would be
12 happy to elaborate on that opinion, should it be necessary, but in a
14 Q. Thank you very much, sir. The last item in the Defence pre-trial
15 brief which I would like to draw your attention to is to found at
16 paragraphs 43 and 44. Unfortunately, I have a slight technical problem
17 here so I can't display that page in front of you but I will let you know
18 what it contains. This is about the exploitation of propaganda, the
19 alleged, if I may put it, exploitation of propaganda by the Croatians.
20 Can you perhaps comment on that.
21 A. What is the specific phrase on which I am required to comment?
22 Q. I do actually have a copy here of the Defence pre-trial brief, so
23 I shall read it out for you. I will ask the usher to place a copy of that
24 in front of you.
25 A. Thank you. Could you remind me of the number of the paragraph?
1 Q. Yes, it's paragraphs 43 and 44. If I may read them out for you.
2 "Croatia's top officials in Zagreb and military commanders located in
3 Dubrovnik knew very well that the events around Dubrovnik could be availed
4 of exceptionally beneficially as a means in the propaganda war against
5 JNA, SFRY, and in the battle for gaining independence. Croatian side
6 conscientiously transformed Dubrovnik into a military target."
7 Paragraph 44 in the language of the Defence counsel:
8 "Moreover, by operating from the immediate proximity of the Old
9 Town, very often from the very centre of the Old Town as well, Croatian
10 side was provoking the fire of the opposite party which it then skillfully
11 used for propaganda purposes well aware of the degree of sensitivity of
12 the international community when endangering of valuable monuments of
13 history and culture is concerned."
14 Could you comment on that, please, sir.
15 A. Well, my first comment is that in many respects these two
16 sentences are referring to events which neither figure in my report nor
17 upon which I have any direct means of commenting. As I've already
18 indicated, my last presence in Dubrovnik before the outbreak of hostility
19 was May 1991, and so I have no means of commenting upon the -- whether or
20 not Dubrovnik was transformed into a military target. I have no direct
21 observation of those things. But as a sociologist who has taught courses
22 on mass communication before, once again the rhetorical structure of these
23 paragraphs does leap to my attention.
24 And it is certainly the case, it is certainly the case, that the
25 military activities surrounding Dubrovnik in the winter of 1991 became
1 extremely important factors in the way in which international public
2 opinion perceived the events in the former Yugoslavia. I would say that
3 probably during the course of the armed conflict, three events have
4 probably equalled each other in the way in which they have attracted
5 public -- and formed public opinion outside Yugoslavia with respect to the
6 events in that country. The first of these would be the siege and
7 eventual capture of Vukovar. The second would be the siege of Dubrovnik,
8 or military activity surrounding Dubrovnik. And the third would be the
9 long-running siege of Sarajevo.
10 Now, all of those events certainly were commented upon very
11 freely, very fully in the press outside of Yugoslavia and had a powerful
12 role in forming public opinion about the nature of the conflict there. So
13 much I would certainly agree with. These two paragraphs contain an
14 additional implication, however, which I think it's appropriate to draw to
15 the attention of the Court that go beyond what I've said, and that is
16 contained in the last sentence, certainly, of paragraph 43: "The Croatian
17 side conscientiously transformed Dubrovnik into a military target." This
18 suggests that the propaganda value of a military attack on the city was
19 anticipated by the Croatian authorities, and that any disposition of
20 Croatian military forces in the area of Dubrovnik took place with the
21 intention of bringing about events that could be exploited for propaganda
23 Now, as I say, I have no -- I had no direct access to the Croatian
24 leadership of this time, so I'm not able to comment on the truth or
25 falsity of that claim. I merely comment on it in my capacity, as I say,
1 as a sociologist accustomed to analysing mass communication. But it
2 certainly remains to be demonstrated that that was the case. And nothing
3 in my report could be said to either contribute to that view or to
4 challenge it, it's simply outside the competence of my report.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. I thank you very much for your help and for
6 clarifying Dubrovnik in its cultural, historic and economic context. That
7 concludes the examination-in-chief. I'm afraid you will have to come back
8 next year to be cross-examined.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
10 And you will have gathered from that, Mr. Allcock, that the
11 circumstances are such that on the 12th of January we will continue, and
12 the cross-examination --
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, do you mind if I consult my diary for a
14 moment, because your mention of the 12th of diary rings a bell. Is it
15 possible to assure me that I will be able to be in Oxford on the 13th of
16 January? I am very reluctant indeed to inconvenience this Tribunal, and
17 if it is important, then I can change my arrangement in Oxford, but I
18 simply point out that I have a commitment in Oxford on the 13th of
19 January. If you would really like me to make that effort, I will do it.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Petrovic.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I can be of
22 assistance to Mr. Allcock. We shall do everything in our power to
23 complete it on the 12th, so I hope that you will be able to go home either
24 on the 12th in the evening or on the 13th.
25 THE WITNESS: I will be available on the 12th of January.
1 JUDGE PARKER: I am not wanting to put a -- what I would call a
2 spanner in the works about this, but unfortunately, on the 12th it will
3 not be possible for us to resume sitting before 3.00, that is three
4 quarters of an hour later than usual. Now, will that still leave you time
5 enough, Mr. Petrovic?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I believe yes, Your Honour. Thank
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we press all systems green or go,
10 Mr. Allcock, for the 12th of January, and your evidence should conclude
11 that day, and hopefully you will be able to meet your commitment the next
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Now, if you wouldn't mind just sitting there for a
15 moment while I turn to a few other matters. Just a couple of procedural
16 matters first, Mr. Weiner.
17 First, Mr. Weiner, the issue of the witnesses and the order that
18 they'll be called, are you in a position to confirm the informal
19 indication you gave to the staff I think earlier this week?
20 MR. WEINER: Yes. We believe it's going to be now Allcock and
21 then hopefully Davies, Samardzic and Alajbeg with the possibility of the
22 witness Peko following Allcock.
23 JUDGE PARKER: You will be aware, of course, of the need -- for
24 the purpose of ensuring the smooth running of these matters and the
25 availability of the necessary documents, exhibits, et cetera, for there to
1 be an ongoing clear indication of the order of witnesses. So if you could
2 just confirm with the staff when we rise exactly what that order will be
3 in the first week, I would be grateful.
4 Now, there was the issue of the proofing charts. Is that one that
5 has now been dealt with?
6 MR. WEINER: It just has to be printed out, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE PARKER: So that will be in the hands of the Tribunal this
8 afternoon, will it?
9 MR. WEINER: Yes; that takes one minute.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Good.
11 We had earlier indicated our ambition to deliver our reasons on
12 the Rule 92 bis application of the Prosecution by today. For two
13 particular reasons we are not in a position to do. Two matters which we
14 find bear directly on the 92 bis application are yet to be the subject of
15 written submissions. They are, of course, in respect of the witness
16 Nikola Jovic and, more significantly, there is the Defence objection to
17 the admission of evidence relating to events other than the 6th of
18 December, 1991, and the determination of the Prosecution application in
19 respect of a significant number of the witnesses involve consideration of
20 that issue.
21 So we are not in a position to oblige you with that ruling at this
22 point, I'm sorry, Mr. Weiner, but could I suggest that for the purposes of
23 planning the early stages of the New Year, that you ought to proceed on
24 the basis that if the evidence of a witness which is -- who is the subject
25 of the Rule 92 bis application is seen to be required in the early stages,
1 then that witness should attend in person.
2 I have -- turning now to a further matter, I've already indicated
3 that, unfortunately, it will not be possible to commence sitting before
4 3.00 on Monday the 12th.
5 The one remaining matter is the motion of the Defence for a
6 medical examination of the accused pursuant to Rule 74 bis. There has
7 been prepared, and it is now published, a short decision of this Trial
8 Chamber. For the reasons there indicated, we have not been persuaded that
9 we have reason to order a full and further medical examination of the
10 accused, so the motion does not succeed. But we have and do request the
11 Registrar of the Tribunal to ensure that during the adjournment, during
12 the three-week break, the accused is kept under observation by a doctor of
13 medicine and that should there be any deterioration in his general
14 physical or medical condition, that that be reported to the Tribunal. And
15 of course, we do note in the decision that our action in no way precludes
16 the Defence themselves commissioning a report on the health and condition
17 of the accused if that is thought to be necessary at this point.
18 We will now adjourn for the break. We would wish everybody an
19 enjoyable break and the compliments of the season.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
21 at 4.49 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
22 the 12th day of January, 2004, at 3.00 p.m.