1 Tuesday, 21 May 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tanic, I hear that -- from the registry that

7 you've asked to say something. The short answer is this, that the way

8 that this examination of witnesses occurs here is by question and answer

9 from the parties, and we don't on the whole allow statements from

10 witnesses. But there will come a time at the end when the Prosecution

11 will re-examine, and that may be an opportunity for you to add something

12 which you wanted to add. Meanwhile, Mr. Milosevic's time is limited, and

13 therefore we don't think it right to take it up in any other way.

14 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

15 WITNESS: RATOMIR TANIC [Resumed]

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

18 Q. [Interpretation] At the beginning of your statement, you expound

19 the reasons for which you are testifying, and then roughly speaking, in

20 the roughest of terms, you set out six points, six basic points on which

21 you base this: Personal experience in your negotiations with the Kosovo

22 Albanians; second, that you were liaison officer between the Western

23 countries and the Yugoslav government; third, the knowledge that you

24 gained over the past five years during your many contacts with individuals

25 who worked directly under Slobodan Milosevic; fourth, in your professional

1 relationship with the State Security Service and intensive cooperation

2 with Zoran Mijatovic and Jovica Stanisic; and fifth, from your relations

3 with Dusan Mihajlovic, the president of the party, whom you mentioned most

4 frequently here as an individual that was included in all this activity.

5 And also Dusan Mitevic, as you describe him, a former leader of the Radio

6 Television Serbia stations, at one time a key negotiator and close friend

7 and associate of Milosevic, who Milosevic believed and trusted most, and

8 Momcilo Perisic, whom on page 20 you quote as being a man for whom you say

9 that, "most of my information as to the activities of the state commission

10 comes from Perisic." That's what you say on page 20. And as far as I can

11 see, we have the key individuals whom you mention and refer to except for

12 Dusan Mihajlovic, and we'll come to him later on. Perisic and Mijatovic;

13 Mijatovic as a man whom I believed in most, as you claim here on page 1,

14 and Perisic, the other man whom you talked to.

15 Now, in this connection, do you know when Mitevic was replaced as

16 the director of Radio Television Serbia? Do you know when that took

17 place?

18 A. No, I don't know exactly, but I do know that it was quite some

19 years ago.

20 Q. In 1991, actually. Now, do you know that at the presidential

21 elections in Serbia in 1993, that my main adversary, the candidate that

22 opposed me, was the premier at the time, Milan Panic, who was an American

23 and who lost the elections to me in 1993 in the first round of the

24 elections in fact. Do you remember that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you remember who the head of the election headquarters was for

2 Milan Panic and who worked to promote him in the elections?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Was that in fact Dusan Mijatovic?

5 A. Yes. But he was your friend.

6 Q. Very well. So you claim -- you're saying here that I trusted

7 somebody who was the head of the electoral campaign headquarters of my

8 opposing candidate that was replaced already in 1991. And do you know

9 that Dusan Mijatovic, of course under another name, also wrote a book

10 against me but he received 6.000 marks for it, and now as far as I heard,

11 you got 5.000 euros, so I think they seem to value you more than him. Do

12 you know about that?

13 A. There are other records that say that he was your personal

14 negotiator and friend after that.

15 Q. What was it that he negotiated in my name and on my behalf? Who

16 did negotiate with?

17 A. Together with Milan Panic, he prepared the peace agreement in

18 Dayton, and with the United States of America. And this went exclusively

19 from our part -- on our part, the preparations went via Mr. Panic and via

20 Mr. Mijatovic. When the preparations were concluded, then, of course, you

21 were the main person after that.

22 Q. You've been misinformed by someone about that as well but let's

23 not go into that now. It is quite clear who you are referring to.

24 Now, do you know when you're speaking about Momcilo Perisic that

25 Momcilo Perisic is a general and one time head of the General Staff and

1 that this year, in fact a few months ago, was arrested as a spy by the

2 present government and authorities, as an American spy together with an

3 American representative, and this took place in a motel on the Ibarska

4 Road. Do you know about that?

5 A. I read that in the papers. I can't comment on something that I

6 wasn't able to see. I wasn't in the country and wasn't able to follow

7 current events.

8 Q. So your source of information is the Panic head of staff, and this

9 person that is being held accountable for espionage against his own

10 country. Very well.

11 A. If somebody is a spy, it doesn't mean he's not saying the truth,

12 and they weren't my main sources of information, they were only additional

13 ones, as it says in my statement.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please be asked to make

15 pauses between question and answer. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MAY: Both of you are asked to make pauses. Would you

17 remember, Mr. Milosevic in particular, the interpreters.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. You're saying that we would meet in the cabinet of Mira Markovic

21 or, rather, my wife. You never met my wife; is that true or not?

22 A. It is not true. I did have a meeting with your wife. Of course

23 not in her capacity as your wife but in her capacity as the president of

24 the head department of administration of JUL, the JUL party.

25 Q. Do you have any proof of that, any evidence to bear that out?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What kind? Let's hear it.

3 A. The meeting took place with Mr. Martin Lutz, Mrs. Mira Markovic.

4 Mr. Martin Lutz is a representative of Carl Bildt. He was there and so

5 was I, and the meeting was devoted to the question of opening up a

6 headquarters for the European Union in Kosovo. There are minutes about

7 that and I think that Mr. Lutz would be able to testify, if you challenge

8 this.

9 Q. Well, I challenge any relationship between you and her. Now,

10 whether you were an escort to somebody, whether you accompanied somebody

11 and whether somebody should say whether a meeting actually took place and

12 who accompanied the people attending, I hope you agree that that is quite

13 by the way; it is not a main matter, it is a secondary element. Is that

14 right?

15 A. I wasn't only accompanying Mr. Martin Lutz. I wasn't an escort.

16 I had an active part at the meeting, and even if I was in his escorting

17 party, this does not show anything.

18 Q. This doesn't prove anything but let's move on. Furthermore, you

19 say that you had meetings with Stanisic, head of the State Security

20 Service. On page 4, paragraph 2, it says, "I met with Stanisic but I

21 never found myself in a situation with Stanisic when other people were

22 there." That's what you say, isn't that right? And then you go on to say

23 that you informed Milan Milutinovic and so on and so forth. Is that right

24 or is it not?

25 A. The interpretation wasn't correct. I said I saw -- the

1 translation is incorrect. I said I saw Stanisic and not met him. It is

2 quite clear that I met Zoran Mijatovic and his deputy and head of the SDB

3 service for Belgrade. I just said I saw Stanisic.

4 Q. Right. So you had no relationship with Stanisic, in fact, did

5 you?

6 A. I did have relations with Jovica Stanisic but not in the sense of

7 getting personal instructions from him or having meetings with him. I had

8 a professional relationship with Mr. Stanisic by his deputy, who was

9 Mr. Zoran Mijatovic, and he was also the head of the SDB service for

10 Belgrade, that is to say, the second man in security service, and this

11 wasn't correctly translated. It just said that we saw each other on two

12 or three occasions at a reception of some kind.

13 Q. We'll come to the translation later on. I have the English

14 version in front of me and I saw that there was nothing incorrect there in

15 that translation so that you can't use that as a pretext, that is

16 unacceptable. And I am going to take note of it and we'll see about it

17 later on, whether we can accept this. We'll compare the two translations,

18 in fact, in due course. Very well.

19 A. At all events, I did have a professional relationship with

20 Stanisic as Stanisic, as the head of the service, was the sole person who

21 could authorise what his number 2 man did, and that is how you should

22 interpret my statement. I said quite clearly that I never received

23 personal instructions from Mr. Stanisic but a relationship did exist in

24 the sense that I have just said, that is to say, in a professional sense.

25 Q. At the end of the third paragraph on page 4, you say that the

1 written analyses about his tasks were elaborated. "I elaborated in

2 cooperation with other members of the SDB." You, therefore, elaborated

3 analyses in cooperation with other members of the SDB, as you say. Now --

4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, we couldn't follow your -- the

5 reference to the page numbers. Could you clarify the page number again.

6 You said you were looking at the English version.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm looking at the Serbian version

8 now but I mentioned the English text because I compared the two. I

9 compared his reference to a poor translation. There is no poor

10 translation. It's quite all right. And in the Serbian version, on page

11 4, at the end of the paragraph in the middle of the page itself, it says

12 that, "I completed written analyses on my progress in cooperation with

13 other members of the SDB." Full stop. That's the entire sentence.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Now, my question is as follows: Does that therefore confirm that

16 you were a member of the SDB, the State Security Service? Because you

17 prepared and completed analyses with other members of the State Security

18 Service.

19 A. That is correct. But that does not confirm the fact that I was a

20 member of the SDB. Neither did I say that. It just confirms that I

21 worked in the official system of the State Security Service in an official

22 capacity, official working capacity of the SDB. But I never said that I

23 was a member of the State Security Service. The description of my

24 cooperation was given in the sense that there was -- I was not informed,

25 did not receive information from anybody. There was no ratting. But I

1 have all the confirmation that confirms this.

2 Q. That's your affair. But I'm asking you about what you're saying

3 in your statement. On page 5, at the beginning of paragraph 3, you say:

4 "Via my contacts with the SDB, I was able to follow Milosevic's reactions

5 to proposals to solve this crisis in Kosovo. He had to agree to what I

6 achieved in the negotiations for me to be able to continue the

7 negotiations at all."

8 Is that what you say? So I had to accept what you achieved in

9 negotiations for you to be able to continue the negotiations; right? And

10 then at the end of the paragraph, you said, "Now, whether Milosevic okayed

11 the negotiations or not, I knew his opinion."

12 Now, my question to you is the following: In addition to

13 Milutinovic, who was president of Serbia, who carried on negotiations with

14 the Albanian said, the representative of the Kosovo negotiators, in

15 addition to the government representatives and their commissions and all

16 the different groups, working groups, et cetera - let me remind you that

17 Mr. Nice here showed an official note from a meeting of the government

18 commission that was held - so why, then, would the SDB carry out

19 negotiations at all and when did the State Security Service ever hold any

20 kind of negotiations which had to be with political matters? Do you

21 consider that it did or that it did not?

22 A. The SDB was always included into the intelligence dimension of

23 your negotiations. It necessarily had to be included because your

24 cooperators and associates, together with you, misled the public. And

25 your associates very often misled you too. That is why the State Security

1 Service was included into those negotiations. And the sentence you quoted

2 of mine is quite clear that you did not accept what I -- had you not

3 accepted what I was doing, I couldn't have gone on doing it for three and

4 a half years. I would have stopped two months later. Somebody would have

5 said that is not in order, that is not all right, he can't do work of that

6 kind. And so there is a lay -- a chain of command, a chain of

7 subordination in the political system of Yugoslavia, and the SDB, the

8 State Security Service, is a link in that chain, a component part of that

9 chain, and the overall information on that situation.

10 Q. Well, that's what I'm saying, that you never did do that work. So

11 we agree then, there's no problem there, but let's move on on page 6 --

12 A. I do apologise but we did not agree at all on that point.

13 Q. All right. Very well. Now, on page 6, paragraph 2, you say Agani

14 was more important than Rugova. I -- this is something that I'm hearing

15 for the first time. Do you actually consider that that is one of your own

16 findings? Is that something you consider you have discovered?

17 A. It was said that Agani was more important in the negotiations than

18 Rugova in the sense that he took part in the negotiations straight away,

19 authorised by Rugova, and Rugova only took part from time to time. And we

20 all know, and you know full well as well, that Mr. Rugova is a hermetic,

21 if I can put it like that, personality. He did not appear very frequently

22 in the negotiations himself in person, and in that sense, Agani was more

23 important, just as I, who did not have any great function, was the driving

24 force of many of those negotiations. In Serbia, political life evolved to

25 a great extent out of the -- outside the institutions, and we all know

1 that.

2 Q. That's something that you claim and we'll come to that later on,

3 but let's move on. In paragraph 4 on that same page, you say Monsignor

4 Paglia, the papal representative whom the European Union authorised to be

5 a negotiator in the negotiations et cetera, et cetera. Do you know that

6 Monsignor Paglia acted as an individual and that his advantage was

7 precisely the fact that he did not represent any kind of state; he did not

8 represent an institution, and he was there as a friend, as a personal

9 friend, my friend and Rugova's friend, to try and help us find a common

10 tongue. So do you know that that was his advantage, precisely the fact

11 that he did not represent anybody except representing himself? Do you

12 know that or not?

13 A. That simply is not true. Mr. Paglia, now Bishop Paglia, had

14 personal authorisation from Pope Paul II and was accepted by the European

15 Union as a discrete negotiator. He did act in his personal name at the

16 beginning, but once he had achieved the most significant result, he was

17 accepted just as the recommendations of Bertelsmann's commission was

18 accepted by the European Union.

19 Q. So you're now coming to what I was saying, that all the support

20 that Paglia received from various institutions followed after the

21 conclusion of the agreement on education in which he assisted. Is that so

22 or not?

23 A. As soon as Monsignor Paglia, now Bishop Paglia, achieved progress

24 on the agreement on education and before it was signed, he was given

25 support, and many international mediators and national ones took part.

1 This was a process based on good offices, and I also took part in this.

2 There is no dispute over that, and I see no contradiction.

3 Q. The contradiction is that the agreement between Rugova and me was

4 not published and no one knew about it. Is that true or not?

5 A. That is absolutely not true. I can -- I can show you a lot of

6 evidence. That is absolutely not true, because it was only you that took

7 part and Monsignor Paglia in the preparation of that agreement and that no

8 one knew about it.

9 Q. Very well. At the end of page 6, you say the SDB analysed

10 potential problems that may jeopardise the negotiations or - and that is

11 my point - other individuals within the circle around Milosevic would be

12 given a chance to feed him incorrect information. Why was this a chance

13 for individuals around Milosevic to feed him incorrect information?

14 A. This is distorting the meaning of the sentence, because if you

15 read it carefully, it says that SDB prevented certain individuals around

16 you from giving you incorrect information, because there were such people

17 around you.

18 Q. Very well. If the sentence is incorrect, then there is no need

19 for me to prove it because it is clearly written.

20 A. I'm sorry. That is not what it says. I ask the Court to read it;

21 that is not what it says.

22 Q. I have read it and the Court can examine it later.

23 In another paragraph, you said: "Round tables were organised

24 which actually served as a screen for discussions, as a cover for

25 discussions that were held in the evenings." So when meetings are held in

1 cafes and restaurants, then real discussions and substantive discussions

2 are conducted; is that what you're saying?

3 A. The organisation of round tables everywhere in the world serve as

4 a cover for more concrete meetings among significant persons, meetings

5 that do not take place in coffee bars but in other premises, and

6 everywhere in the world, in such situations, that is the most traditional

7 form of meetings. That is applied everywhere in the world.

8 Q. That is your interpretation. We've cleared up the matter.

9 Tell me, in the fifth paragraph, did you notice that all the dates

10 of the articles that you have listed, and there are about three articles,

11 that all those dates of those articles are after September the 1st, that

12 is, after the date when the agreement was signed between Rugova and me on

13 education in Kosovo?

14 A. It is my duty to inform the Court that I never denied the

15 significance of that agreement, but there are also articles before that

16 agreement on education, and my -- and I have supplied only a small

17 percentage of the articles linked to this subject and not designed to

18 promote me.

19 Q. Very well, then. I have nothing to ask in that connection.

20 You said that all the recommendations, and that is what it says

21 here on page 8, in paragraph 1, that they all represent "what was achieved

22 in the first of these stages which Mihajlovic and I had proposed to

23 Milosevic at our meeting," et cetera, et cetera.

24 So that was the result of joint efforts by you, Mihajlovic, and

25 your involvement in the preparations of the agreement. Is that so or not?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Let us see the page, please.

2 Q. Page 8, paragraph 1. You say:"These recommendations represent

3 what was achieved in the first stages that Mihajlovic and I proposed to

4 Milosevic."

5 So my question is: The main activity was conducted by Mihajlovic

6 and you; isn't that so? You and Mihajlovic took care of all these things

7 and were active in that field. You and Mihajlovic. Is that correct?

8 A. We suggested the programme to you. Until then, you had no

9 platform for the negotiations. We were the motive force behind these

10 negotiations. We kept chasing you to dismantle the powder keg so that it

11 doesn't blow up in your face. And the platform that we presented to you

12 and you approved in 1995 was the most complete platform that Serbia and

13 Yugoslavia ever had for negotiations on the Kosovo problem, and that

14 platform was further elaborated, and until your agreement with Holbrooke -

15 this is in evidence and this can be illustrated by reading through the

16 documents --

17 Q. I'm just trying to establish what you are saying here, that you

18 and Mihajlovic were actually in charge of these activities, according to

19 you. Is that so?

20 JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Would you please play this tape? It is only one minute long. So

23 I should like to ask you some questions after that.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the interpreters interpret,

25 because this is a live recording of what Mihajlovic is saying, and it is

1 linked to what the witness has said.

2 [Videotape played]

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's no sound.

4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "THE INTERVIEWER: In today's

5 testimony in the police there are some people who still are withholding

6 the truth. He even mentioned the head of the public security service.

7 "MR. MIHAJLOVIC: Well, you see The Hague Tribunal is a very

8 serious institution that the world expects a lot of. It has invested a

9 lot of time, money, and hope in it. And we see what is happening to us

10 now, to find ourself in a rather ridiculous or sad situation that the

11 Prosecution is loudly announcing a key witness, somebody who cannot be

12 that, who has simply collected what he found in the newspapers and

13 preparing his book on the crisis in Kosovo has actually made it available

14 to The Hague Tribunal. So this is mixing apples with pears, mixing

15 political negotiations with the Albanian side organised by various

16 foundations all over the world and other efforts that were made to avoid a

17 conflict, to avoid the bombing and so on. But in any event, neither did

18 Mr. Tanic take part in that nor was he an active executor of any plans

19 that he refers to. So this is simply rumours and hearsay, which calls in

20 question the seriousness of the Prosecution. This cannot be established

21 in any way, because he did not participate in any way in the

22 decision-making that he's testifying about nor in the execution of those

23 decisions. He was just an observer, like almost all the citizens of

24 Serbia. If that is an exaggeration, then anyone who took part in public

25 and political life could be compared with him, and this can be found in

1 articles or programmes in the media."

2 JUDGE MAY: Just -- before we go any further, when was that

3 programme made, Mr. Milosevic? The date.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is a live programme three days

5 ago. As you can see, Mihajlovic is being asked about the testimony of

6 this witness here. After his testimony, the programme was aired.

7 JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can -- you can ask the witness about

8 it. What appears on the television is not evidence. That ought to be

9 plain. It's merely the comments of Mr. Mihajlovic. However, you have the

10 opportunity to ask the witness about them so that he can get the

11 opportunity of answering.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Is Mihajlovic telling the truth or is he lying?

14 A. Unfortunately, he's not telling the truth.

15 Q. Very well, then. The entire press has carried this statement.

16 Dusan Mihajlovic, for instance, in The Express: "Tanic is talking

17 nonsense. Ratomir Tanic under no circumstances can be a witness --"

18 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter what the press says. Now, you can

19 ask the witness about what Mr. Mihajlovic has said so that he can answer.

20 If you're not going to, I shall.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've asked him the question, and he

22 has given an answer.

23 JUDGE MAY: No. No. What was said on that clip, Mr. Tanic, so

24 that you can deal with this, what was said is that you were not a

25 participant, you were a mere observer, like anybody else in Serbia. What

1 is your answer to that?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is absolutely untrue, and I

3 will later submit documents showing that it is not true. I can also

4 provide at least ten names of domestic figures and international figures

5 who can confirm that I did take part in that.

6 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Very well. So all the media have carried, in addition to this

9 live TV programme, similar comments. But let me go on to the next

10 question.

11 So the main person that you are relying on is Dusan Mihajlovic,

12 the current Minister of the Interior, is disproving what you're saying and

13 you're claiming that he is lying.

14 JUDGE MAY: That's a comment. We've already dealt with it. Let's

15 move on.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. In a part of your statement, you said that you were arrested by

19 the security with three vans and taken to a cellar, to a basement. Is

20 that true?

21 A. It is not true, because I said that I was kidnapped by certain

22 individuals from the state security rather than arrested.

23 Q. Very well. So you were kidnapped. So you're a victim of the

24 service for which you were working. Is that so?

25 A. No. In that service, there were individuals working for you

1 outside the legal frameworks, and an investigation was conducted and the

2 results of the investigation can be made available to the Court, and I can

3 comment on them. My wife was also kidnapped.

4 Q. Did you perhaps make that up?

5 A. Absolutely no.

6 Q. Did you perhaps not flee from Belgrade for some other reasons,

7 Mr. Tanic?

8 A. First of all, I didn't escape from Belgrade. I left the country

9 legally, and I didn't leave it for any other reasons nor do any such other

10 reasons exist.

11 Q. Did you cheat somebody or do you owe somebody some money?

12 A. No. My debts and liabilities are such that I have much greater

13 claims than my debts. As for cheating, there was no such thing.

14 Q. Very well.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Will you please place this document

16 on the ELMO.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I will read it out for you from the ELMO. It says here: "The

19 district court in Belgrade --" and giving the number of the case -- "17th

20 of May, 2002, Belgrade." And it says here, "Certificate. With the

21 district court in Belgrade regarding the case K1269/76, criminal

22 proceedings were conducted against the accused Tanic Ratomir, father's

23 name Lazar, born the 6th of April, 1956, in Belgrade, a student at the

24 time residing in Belgrade, Topuska Street [phoen] 14, for the criminal act

25 of looting under Article 255 paragraph 1 and in relation to article 258,

1 paragraph 2, pursuant to article 16 of the Criminal Code and article 306,

2 paragraph 3 in connection with paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

3 "On the 7th of March, 1977, for the same criminal acts, he was

4 found accused and -- found guilty and sentenced to a prison term of one

5 year and two months of strict confinement.

6 "The defendant and his attorney appealed on the 19th of April,

7 1977, and by decision of the Supreme Court of Serbia and Belgrade,

8 KZ.130/77, dated the 1st of November, 1997, by decision of the district

9 Court in Belgrade, K1269/76, the sentence was changed, revised, and his --

10 to seven months of imprisonment."

11 It says later on that: "In accordance with the court rules of

12 procedure, the decision was annulled, and this certificate is being issued

13 exclusively to be used in the proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic."

14 So already in 1977, you were sentenced for robbery, were you not,

15 Mr. Tanic?

16 A. I have nothing to say about this except that the commission

17 annulled the case, so I don't know how Mr. Milosevic got hold of it. And

18 anyway, this is something that is 26 years old. And it says that, by

19 commission, the case was annulled. I don't know what I'm being asked

20 about.

21 Q. Mr. Tanic, as you know, according to the rules of procedure of the

22 court, after a certain number of years, cases are destroyed but records

23 are kept, and this was issued by the district court in Belgrade on the

24 17th of this month, signed and stamped by the court. Are you trying to

25 tell us that you were not sentenced for robbery, as stated here, and that

1 this is a forgery that I have provided the Court with?

2 A. I was never sentenced for robbery, and there is no record any --

3 and there is no criminal record about me in Serbia or anywhere else. So

4 there is no criminal -- I have no criminal record. I was never sentenced

5 for robbery. And this is a piece of paper 26 years old and presenting

6 such information, I don't know what the purpose is, but that is up to the

7 Court to judge.

8 Q. So you're telling us that what was shown on the ELMO is false,

9 that it is a piece of paper that doesn't exist, that it is a forgery?

10 JUDGE MAY: He didn't say that it was false. The document will be

11 exhibited and translated.

12 Yes. Give it a number, please.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I did say I was never sentenced

15 for robbery, and this is something 26 years old, which to tell the truth,

16 I cannot remember to be able to confirm before the Court, but there is no

17 legal record of my name as a convicted person.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Very well.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'd like you to just explain to me

21 a little more about this certificate of annulment. Was the annulment done

22 after the lapse of a certain period of time? What is the period after

23 which the conviction is annulled?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly the provisions

25 of the rules of procedure in court but cases are not kept eternally as a

1 whole but the certificate was issued on the date that it says, stamped and

2 signed by the court, and it clearly states that Mr. Tanic was convicted

3 for robbery according to the articles of the Criminal Code that was in

4 force in Yugoslavia at the time. And it is well known in the rules of

5 procedure --

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... it was in May

7 of this year.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The certificate. Yes. You have

9 this certificate, and it says in the upper left-hand corner - you have the

10 date - on the date of issue of the certificate.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is not clear to me is when did the annulment

12 take place? Did the annulment take place on the date of the issue of the

13 certificate? Because it appears to me that certificate was issued for the

14 purposes of this case. Or did the annulment take place sometime before

15 that date, in May of this year?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. This was issued on the date

17 it says, as I read it out to you. Upon the request of my associate, who

18 is a professional advocate who has offices in Belgrade, and who asked the

19 district court, in view of the fact that this person is appearing here, to

20 issue a certificate confirming that this was a person who was convicted,

21 and that is why it says that it is being used exclusively for these

22 proceedings, upon the request of my associate who is an attorney in

23 Belgrade.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... evidence.

25 You can continue.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And we can get any further

2 information that we need subsequently.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll give that an exhibit number.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Exhibit Number

5 D11.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Tanic, do you know about the statement that was made by the

8 vice-president of your party, the Novo Demokratija party, Nebojsa

9 Seleskovic, which he gave over television and this was carried over the

10 press? Are you acquainted with the statement he made? Yes or no. He

11 says Tanic was not a participant in the negotiations with the Kosovo

12 Albanians. He furthermore states, "This witness in The Hague was never in

13 a direct role in the negotiations with the Albanians, and he never saw or

14 talked to Slobodan Milosevic, but he might have seen him sometime across

15 the street perhaps." And he goes on to say that he is informed that

16 Tanic, in Belgrade, ran up a lot of debts, and in the autumn of 1999 he

17 just disappeared from Belgrade, and that he agreed to testify in The Hague

18 for a sum of money. That is what the vice-president of your party claims.

19 A. In Belgrade, there are two active processes in my favour against

20 people who owe me money. As to the statement made by the vice-president

21 of my party that I could have seen you from across the street, we're going

22 to show that very quickly here when I come to present my evidence.

23 You have supplied the Tribunal with a document about a case that

24 you said was annulled, and you also submitted a forgery from the Novo

25 Demokratija, and we're going to prove that in the course of today.

1 JUDGE MAY: We're not going to go into argument here.

2 Two allegations are made; that you disappeared from Belgrade in

3 the autumn of 1999, it's said, because you ran up debts. And your answer

4 to that, in fact, is that you were owed money and you have begun or

5 succeeded in actions to get that money back; is that right?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. And there is no

7 ongoing legal claims on me or any legal proceedings for these concocted

8 things that I owe.

9 JUDGE MAY: No. Let us deal with the other serious allegation

10 which is made, apparently to a newspaper. It's now been repeated here, so

11 you should have the opportunity to deal with it.

12 This person apparently alleges that you agreed to testify here for

13 a sum of money. Now, you should have an opportunity to deal with that.

14 Is there any truth in that?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no truth in that. I have

16 my own affairs independent of any relationship with the Hague Tribunal,

17 and these affairs and businesses are outside and they are protected from

18 these concoctions from Belgrade.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I move on, let me just remind

20 you that Mr. Nice here too mentioned money in connection with the

21 protection of this witness, his identity changed, the fact that he was

22 moved to a third country and given a different place of residence and

23 everything linked to large sums of money, which I'm sure does not comprise

24 only that. But I do consider that this matter should be investigated.

25 JUDGE MAY: Now, have you got a question?

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have a question. Did he

2 receive money or did he not?

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Yes or no.

5 JUDGE MAY: He has said that he didn't for giving evidence.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. If not money, perhaps some other material gain has been promised

9 him.

10 A. I should like to inform the Court that no money was offered me nor

11 did I ask for any. I have my manufacturing plants in a country in the

12 West and the only benefit that I can have from this testimony is I can go

13 back to manufacturing the goods that I have been manufacturing for nine

14 years previously, and I can also provide proof of that?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. What I read out a moment

16 ago about the statement made by the vice-president of the Novo Demokratija

17 party, this is an agency news item, the Beta news agency, taken from its

18 general service, and it is what was said on television. So I should like

19 to tender this document into evidence as well and to move on.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

22 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, this proposed evidence, along with the

23 copy of the tape, of course, is subject to the fact that it has never been

24 subjected to cross-examination by the Prosecution. In fairness, this type

25 of evidence can only be, in my respectful submission, useful in order to

1 put a particular issue to a witness to give him an opportunity to answer

2 it before it becomes evidence when the accused presents his case. In

3 other words, it's part of the putting your case to a witness but ought not

4 be evidence per se simply because it's tendered in this form.

5 That's the comment I wish to make at this time.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE MAY: We shall not admit this document. The reason that

8 we're not admitting it is that it is a totally unsubstantiated comment

9 made after a witness has given evidence, published in the press. There is

10 no support for it at all. The only reason that the accused was permitted

11 to cross-examine about it was so that the witness could deal with the

12 allegations. And only his answers are evidence.

13 If the Defence want to put this witness before the Tribunal, of

14 course they could do so, or they could apply to put this document in in

15 due course as part of their case, but that application will only be

16 considered in the totality of the case. At the moment, it is not

17 admissible as evidence and it will be returned to the accused.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I expect you to deduct

19 this time you spent conferring from the time allotted me for the

20 cross-examination.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Now, on page 8, you say that Vedrine-Kinkel or, rather, Kinkel and

23 Vedrine, as you say, in February of 1998 came and presented Milosevic a

24 document with joint recommendations. And my question to you is as

25 follows, then: Why did they present me this document if you say that it

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 was compiled along with my acquiescence?

2 A. Well, they presented the document to you once again so that what

3 you had promised that you should not retract, because you promised and

4 then retracted it and they wanted you to finally sign the paper which you

5 claimed you wanted to. And in the course of three years, you kept

6 maintaining this face that you would give a broad autonomy back to the

7 Albanians and the problem was there. The international community finally

8 wanted to ask you when you were actually going to do this. Now, you did

9 it with Holbrooke in 1998, and then -- actually, you wrote it, you signed

10 it, and then you went back on it, your word.

11 Q. You obviously know nothing about that, but let me just ask you

12 this: What are your reactions to the following fact? As the whole public

13 knew our policy, the policy we were waging and pursuing, and there was no

14 surprise on that score, I have here an official report from the

15 Kinkel-Vedrine meeting with me. That, of course, did not take place in

16 February but on the 20th of March, as it says here in the header of

17 Politika cooperation. It was on the 19th, but that's not important. It

18 doesn't matter that you made a mistake of one month, but it speaks about

19 cooperation, so this is all public matter, public material. No

20 Bertelsmann was made mention of here. And let me just quote a brief

21 excerpt from it. And it is towards the end of the page or, rather, in the

22 second half of this official report, and it says: "In connection with the

23 problems in Kosovo and Metohija for which there was great interest by

24 Kinkel and Vedrine, the ministers, President Milosevic said that our two

25 key positions were as follows: First, that Kosovo was the internal affair

1 of Serbia and that it can be resolved only within Serbia through political

2 means. And the second point is that that is why we cannot accept his --

3 the problem's internationalisation. We cannot accept that the problem be

4 internationalised."

5 And then it goes on to say that I lent my support to the statement

6 made by the president of Serbia, Milan Milutinovic, and so on and so

7 forth.

8 Now, do you consider that Kinkel and Vedrine would come with one

9 thing and then the statement from the meeting or report from the meeting

10 would read quite differently from what you're claiming was discussed at

11 that meeting and that they didn't react to it at all or pose the questions

12 that you were posing? Can you believe that that is possible in political

13 life when a head of state receives two ministers coming from the European

14 Union in front of cameras, cameramen, journalists, et cetera? Is that

15 possible?

16 A. I should like to inform the Court, and that is my duty, that the

17 difference between Milosevic's statements in the press, in the papers, and

18 Milosevic's statements in the course of negotiations with anyone was the

19 main reason that the conflict broke out, not only in Kosovo but also later

20 on with the international community. Mr. Milosevic quite simply tricked

21 and deluded the international community as he is deluding this Tribunal

22 here today.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't suppose that is a

24 comment, is it? I suppose that's testimony because the witness was there

25 and he knows all about it.

1 JUDGE MAY: Move on.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Do you know that I informed them precisely because of the

5 importance of the negotiations that were conducted between the leadership

6 of Serbia and the leadership of the Kosovo Albanians, that for those

7 negotiations I should nominate my own special representative in the

8 dialogue between the leadership of Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians? Are

9 you aware of that? That's what it says too in the Politika paper of that

10 day.

11 A. I am aware of that, but I know that the negotiations took place in

12 a different way than you had promised the representatives of the

13 international community and domestic political factors that it would take

14 place in private contacts.

15 Q. So are you that domestic political factor, as you put it? Are you

16 one of those?

17 A. I'm just one of them. But when I have an occasion to state this

18 and demonstrate it, I will show documents to the contrary of what you're

19 saying.

20 Q. I'm not claiming anything. You're the one that's testifying here,

21 I'm just conducting a cross-examination based on your testimony.

22 Now, in view of the fact that we have this statement, let us clear

23 some matters up. You refer to some errors and mistakes in translation

24 with respect to your statement. And in the Serbian version, on page 26,

25 paragraph 2, you say: "In the course of the NATO bombing, I had a very

1 fierce confrontation with Milosevic at a small reception."

2 Later on, and that's what it says here, whereas in the English

3 version, gentlemen, on page 27, paragraph 3, it says the following: "NATO

4 bombing -- [In English] heated conversation with Milosevic at a small

5 reception."

6 [Interpretation] There is no difference whatsoever that I can see

7 between what it says here in English and in the sentence that I read out

8 in Serbian, which says that during the NATO bombing, and that's what it

9 says in English, during the NATO bombing campaign, "I had a heated

10 conversation with Milosevic at a small reception," and here it says: "I

11 had a heated conversation with Milosevic at a small reception." That's

12 precisely what it says. So there is no difference whatsoever in the

13 translation there, the difference and discrepancy that the so-called

14 alleged witness referred to.

15 Now, in this connection -- let's put that aside for the time

16 being. You, Mr. Tanic, said that, in fact, it was a reception held in the

17 Novo Demokratija Party premises; right?

18 Now, Vuk Draskovic telephoned me from -- telephoned me. That's

19 what you said. And that you listened to it over a loudspeaker and that

20 this is not good because it wasn't translated very well but that it was a

21 telephone conversation with Vuk Draskovic, in fact.

22 A. As we're talking about that, I didn't say and refer to a mistake

23 in the translation. I apologise to the Court, saying that I didn't

24 describe these events precisely enough because they were -- it took place

25 in the year 2000. As there were several hysterical conversations in the

1 course of the war, I apologise to the Court and the Prosecution for not

2 describing it in very precise terms.

3 There was a reception in the sense that there was a working

4 meeting between Vuk Draskovic, the vice-premier of the Yugoslav

5 government, Dusan Mihajlovic, myself, and the Italian Ambassador who would

6 -- who turned up with a peace solution. Now, it is from talks of this

7 kind and of course at those talks something -- they had something to eat

8 as well because they went on for three hours.

9 Q. Please don't go on telling us what you ate but we have established

10 what you actually said. Now, tell me this: How could you have had a

11 heated discussion with me, heated conversation with me if you listened to

12 Vuk Draskovic's conversation with me on the phone?

13 A. For the simple reason that you were informed first as to who was

14 present at the meeting, and secondly, I stepped in with two or three

15 sentences in that conversation. Vuk Draskovic found it difficult to

16 locate you but he informed you he looked for Lilic and Pavle Bulatovic.

17 He succeeded in finding you on one occasion over the phone --

18 Q. All right, all right, Mr. Tanic. Do you know about Vuk

19 Draskovic's statement precisely with respect to what you have just told

20 us, and it says the following, and it was by Blic. The man denied that in

21 the course of the meeting with Mihajlovic that Milosevic was ever on a

22 direct telephone line and he assesses Tanic's statement as a complete

23 untruth. Now, is Vuk Draskovic speaking untruths as well, Mr. Tanic? Is

24 that it?

25 A. Well, it's quite obvious now that everybody is washing their hands

1 of it. But there is evidence that those meetings did take place and that

2 Vuk did have telephone conversations both with Lilic and with Bulatovic

3 and on one occasion, after trying a great deal, he did manage to get you

4 on the phone as well, but it was dealing with peace plans.

5 Q. All right, so what you're saying is that Vuk Draskovic is telling

6 untruths as well; is that it?

7 JUDGE MAY: That's a comment too.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. So a

9 comment.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. You say that I didn't want to strike a bargain with the Kosovo

12 Albanians. Is it your opinion that bargaining is a principle on which a

13 state that attaches great significance to its integrity and national

14 dignity should be based on?

15 A. What page are we talking about, please?

16 Q. I'll tell you, but I don't have to quote the page every time,

17 surely. At the end of the third paragraph on page 9. "On several

18 occasions, he rejected the chance of striking a bargain with the Kosovo

19 Albanians."

20 So my question is: Do you feel that bargaining is a principle on

21 the basis of which a state that attaches significance to its integrity and

22 national dignity should function?

23 A. All political negotiations on delicate issues contain an element

24 of bargaining, and that is well-known worldwide.

25 Q. Very well. So that is your position?

1 A. You did bargain with them when that was necessary.

2 Q. I never bargained with anyone, Mr. Tanic. Maybe you do. In the

3 middle of the last paragraph, you say that: "We managed to agree with

4 Monsignor Paglia an agreement on education which Milosevic even agreed to

5 start implementing." Do you know that even some Albanian witnesses did

6 not deny that in the process of the implementation of those negotiations,

7 many thousands of square metres of faculties were handed over as a result

8 of this group on education which was implementing the agreement?

9 So surely this is completely untrue when you said that he didn't

10 even start to implement it. Do you know that?

11 A. That was far from a real beginning to the implementation of the

12 agreement. Some facilities were handed over, but -- that is true, but the

13 Serbian factor, upon your orders or somebody else's orders, opposed what

14 you had signed. That was the first time for me to see someone opposing

15 you. So this was a double-faced game. And this was confirmed to me by

16 your associates. But as no one seems to remember me now, I don't know

17 what to do about it. We'll try and prove that in another way.

18 Q. Very well. You can try and prove that with them.

19 On page 10, you say that what was done, that this agreement

20 actually meant recognition of the fact that there was discrimination at

21 the expense of the Kosovo Albanians. So my question is: Is it

22 recognition or acknowledgement of the existence of discrimination or was

23 it the result of an effort for the Albanians to give up this parallel

24 system and to be reintegrated in the life of Serbia? So is it recognition

25 of discrimination or a reflection of efforts to reintegrate the Kosovo

1 Albanians in the political life of Serbia? Yes or no. Which of the two?

2 A. If there had been no problems or discrimination, why would you

3 have had to have an agreement to deal with the problems? When everything

4 is all right, there's no need for any agreements. They wouldn't be

5 educating themselves in basements.

6 Q. Very well. We'll come back to that later. I can see that on page

7 10, you list the names of people attending the reception. You read that

8 from the newspapers, and then you said that they were the people you saw

9 at the reception, like Mirko Marjanovic, Milovan Bojic, and so on, people

10 from the government of Serbia. You read that in the newspapers, didn't

11 you?

12 A. No. I attended all those receptions, and there is proof of that.

13 Q. Very well. On page 11, you said at the very beginning, at the top

14 of the page: "Shortly before the conversation, I spoke to Ratko Markovic,

15 the vice-president of the government, who told me that Milosevic had

16 ordered that he would not negotiate seriously with the Kosovo

17 Albanians." And before that, you said that -- you were explaining in your

18 conversation with Ratko Markovic, that he said that the attitude towards

19 Kosovo was being changed. So I would like at least this to be admitted

20 into evidence. It is a letter by Ratko Markovic, who says, in connection

21 with the statement - it is a handwritten letter - "Ratomir Tanic gave a

22 statement in The Hague Tribunal." And he wrote this letter on the 14th of

23 May, and he says: "He spoke about alleged meetings and conversations he

24 had with me before going to Rambouillet. It is my duty to inform the

25 public of the truth: With Mr. Tanic, I did not have any meetings before

1 going to Rambouillet, and therefore, I could not have had any

2 conversations with him. And how little truth there is in his statement is

3 evidenced by the fact that the platform with which the state delegation of

4 the Republic of Serbia went to the negotiations in Rambouillet is the same

5 as the one with which the Government of Serbia went to Pristina throughout

6 1998 for negotiations with representatives of all ethnic communities

7 living in Kosovo and Metohija but without success." Signed Ratko

8 Markovic, 14th of May, 2002.

9 So Ratko Markovic is not telling the truth either, is he?

10 JUDGE MAY: The same applies as applied to the earlier document.

11 The witness has heard what this person has said in the letter.

12 Mr. Tanic, you can deal with it. Mr. Markovic has apparently

13 written a letter, saying that he didn't have any meetings with you. Is

14 there any truth in that or not?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. And when I'm allowed to speak,

16 I can mention the names of two people who can confirm a meeting with

17 Mr. Ratko Markovic, who complained to me that he had a lot of problems.

18 He's a honest man, a man of integrity. I'm not calling that in question

19 at all. But people in Belgrade are exposed to pressure and are saying all

20 kinds of things. And I will show various photographs and other documents

21 that confirm everything I'm saying or most of what I'm saying.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Are those photographs from the receptions as well?

24 A. No. No. No. I didn't bring photographs from receptions. But

25 you said that I didn't even attend receptions. So maybe they would be

1 sufficient. But I will rely on witnesses.

2 Q. On the contrary, I said that you may have only attended

3 receptions.

4 A. They are not receptions.

5 Q. So for Ratko Markovic, that you say is a honest man, you wrote

6 that he said to you, on page 11 again, that he had been given an apartment

7 from Milosevic and, therefore, he has to follow my requests.

8 Imagine, a vice-premier to whom I'm giving an apartment - the very

9 idea of me giving people apartments - and then the poor person has to do

10 what I say. Is there any end Mr. Tanic, to your endeavours to sling mud

11 against people in this way?

12 A. First of all, I didn't slander Mr. Ratko Markovic. It is my duty

13 to tell the Court that Mr. Markovic showed me bruises from beatings in

14 Pristina, that the Serbian police did not protect him there. So I didn't

15 sully his integrity nor anybody else's. It is up to the Court to judge.

16 There was pressure in Belgrade against people. Similar kind of pressure

17 was brought to bear against me.

18 Q. We have to hasten, because I have a lot more questions.

19 On imagine 12, you say that from Western sources, you learnt that

20 their intelligence services had said that they would assist in the

21 elimination of the KLA if I support the reforms for Kosovo Albanians, that

22 they would stop financing them and that they would cooperate with Serbia

23 and FRY, et cetera, et cetera. Is that true?

24 A. It is true, but I didn't say that they would stop financing them

25 but that they would interrupt the flow of finances.

1 Q. So you confirm cooperation with all these foreign intelligence

2 services, don't you?

3 A. No. Out of the question. Working contacts about political

4 questions such as terrorism is one thing and cooperation is another.

5 Q. So you don't confirm it. Very well. Are you familiar with the

6 basic request of the Kosovo Albanians from much earlier on? Are you

7 familiar with that demand of theirs?

8 A. That demand was to have their autonomy at least restored that they

9 were deprived of at the end of the 1980s.

10 Q. Mr. Tanic, their demand was a Kosovo republic. Yes or no.

11 Please answer me, I have very little time left, so yes or no. Was there a

12 demand for a Kosovo republic in negotiations?

13 A. No. But as for what is said in media, I don't want to comment it.

14 Q. But you heard Rugova the other day, that never in any negotiations

15 did he say that he was demanding independence. Is what he said is true or

16 not? What was the demand that he was making?

17 A. I think that Mr. Rugova confirmed what I am saying. It is one

18 thing to have autonomy and political independence, and secession is

19 something else. And a third thing is autonomy plus --

20 Q. Never mind, leave that for your book. So you do know that the

21 West financed the KLA and assisted it to that end, without interrupting

22 the drug -- Albanian drug trafficking. You're aware of that, aren't you?

23 A. I never said that the West financed the KLA. That is not in my

24 statement nor in my testimony. One thing is to interrupt the flow of

25 sources and another thing to finance them, and never did I say that the

1 West financed the KLA.

2 Q. A moment ago, you said that if something happened, that they would

3 cease financing the KLA. That is what you said a moment ago. So as a

4 connoisseur, as you pretend to be, of the requirements of the Kosovo

5 Albanians and the positions of the international community, you list the

6 countries on whose name you speak, and as a participant in numerous

7 negotiations you're saying that the KLA was financed by the West and that

8 the international community did nothing --

9 JUDGE MAY: That is not what he said. Now, stop misrepresenting

10 the evidence, particularly as time is short.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. You say on page 12: "Milosevic refused Stanisic's proposal to

13 export the problem of Albanian terrorism to Northern Albania by exploiting

14 the divisions between the Gheg and Tosk clans and rifts in Albanian

15 politics, an opportunity which presented itself during the crisis in

16 Albania in spring 1997."

17 So you're claiming that I rejected Stanisic's proposal for

18 exporting the problem to Northern Albania. Does that mean that Stanisic

19 also felt that what was happening in Kosovo was terrorism? Just yes or

20 no, please. I have no time.

21 A. Yes indeed. There is no dispute about it. What the dispute is

22 over the methods of dealing with the problem.

23 Q. Then you go on to say -- sorry. Was that the position of the

24 international community as well, that that was terrorism?

25 A. Yes. But only the question was who was provoking it. You

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 provoked it and not they.

2 Q. Oh, I see. Fine. So Mr. Stanisic's proposal, I hear it for the

3 first time from you, regarding the export of terrorism. Can the problem

4 of terrorism be resolved by being -- by exporting it to the neighbours?

5 Do you consider that an ethical solution?

6 A. I'm sorry. When talking about the defence of a country, it's not

7 a question of morality. Everything that helps solve the problem is

8 allowed. Our aim was protect the territory of Serbia and Yugoslavia from

9 escalation of terrorist activities that you signed.

10 Q. So you're claiming that Stanisic wanted to export terrorism to

11 Albania, and you took part in the preparation of that plan, as you say

12 here.

13 A. No. He simply wanted to export the Albanian terrorists from where

14 they had come, and you wanted to keep them in the territory of our country

15 because you needed them.

16 Q. Very well. At the end of page 12, you say: "In spite of the fact

17 that he received information from me that the governments of three western

18 states were ready to assist in eliminating the KLA."

19 So I got a message from you. How come they didn't hand it through

20 the Ministry of the Interior, through Stanisic, but rather through you?

21 Which three states sent me a message through you?

22 A. They did send a message through Stanisic and other security

23 sources and the diplomatic service. I just said that it went through me

24 as well. You received hundreds such -- a hundred or so of such messages

25 and you turned a deaf ear. You know all that but you say here that you

1 got the message through me.

2 Q. You're also claiming that I rejected some sort of a plan of

3 Perisic's. Is that true?

4 A. I'm sorry. Would you please give me the page? I can't follow.

5 Q. If you don't know, let me move on.

6 A. No, no. Give me the page so I can find the context. It's not

7 that I don't know. I want to see the context. I explained Perisic's plan

8 the other day - a state of emergency, a legal struggle against terrorists

9 - and that was also Stanisic's plan.

10 Q. Are you sure that that was his plan or somebody else's plan, in

11 view of what is happening with Perisic now and his arrest and accusations

12 of spying, charges of spying and so on?

13 A. That was a joint plan of Mr. Perisic, Mr. Stanisic, Mr. Lilic, and

14 some others, people in the public security service, honest patriots from

15 the security structures, military structures, and politicians.

16 Q. So on page 15, in the second paragraph, you refer to information

17 of American, British, and Vatican services from whom you learnt that NATO

18 had no problems acting under the UN flag, and so on. Can you answer my

19 question: Why didn't NATO ask for UN approval, and why didn't you ever

20 give permission for the NATO aggression, and do you consider that NATO did

21 commit aggression and violate the charter of the UN by attacking

22 Yugoslavia?

23 JUDGE MAY: No. That's not for him.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we'll give you another five minutes, to

1 twenty-five to, because some time was taken up. So you should -- any

2 questions you want to ask, you should ask them now.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have very many questions. It is

4 very hard for me now to make a selection because, as you see, this false

5 witness has made a vast number of allegations that everyone is denying.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. You said that in February or March, facts needed to be collected

8 about Kosovo. Lilic, Stanisic, Perisic, and then Sainovic joined in. My

9 question is: And why did the security service or the military need any

10 vice-premier, whether his name was Lilic or Sainovic, to discover what the

11 real state of affairs was? Why would they need that? Surely they know

12 the situation without a vice-premier.

13 A. They wanted to cooperate with honest patriots from around you

14 rather than people who were misleading you or participating together with

15 you in the tricks against Serbs and Albanians. Lilic is an honest man.

16 He's known as an honest man, as the majority of those I've listed here.

17 Q. You claim that they, at the time when they drew up this information,

18 they said that there was no major organised terrorism in Kosovo. Isn't

19 that so?

20 A. No. They told you that that terrorism could be eliminated by

21 legal means and that it was high time to resort to those legal means,

22 otherwise, terrorism would escalate, we would enter into a dispute with

23 the international community, et cetera.

24 Q. Leave that aside. Isn't it illogical for these insignificant

25 terrorist groups, as you claim throughout your testimony, and then to

1 suggest the use of the army to suppress them, don't you think that is

2 illogical, to talk about insignificant terrorist groups and then to

3 advocate the use of the army to deal with them?

4 A. He suggested the introduction of the state of emergency as a legal

5 framework for the struggle against Albanian terrorists who were still

6 weak.

7 Q. So you claim without a state of emergency, there's no legal way of

8 struggling against terrorists? Is that what you're saying?

9 A. There is, but future problems were already emerging that required

10 a state of emergency. The border belt and combat operations, and one

11 needed to see whether all of them were terrorists or whether the problem

12 could be solved without the use of force.

13 Q. You said that there was no definition as to what is terrorism and

14 what is not. Do you know that the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia very

15 clearly sanctions the criminal act of terrorism? Are you aware of that?

16 A. Yes. But one thing is massive terrorist activities and rebellion,

17 and a second thing are individual acts of terrorism.

18 Q. You talk about a commission of mine for preparing and conducting

19 ethnic cleansing and the Horseshoe operation, because I heard from you

20 that the JNA had this Horseshoe plan. Did such a commission exist? Was

21 it only for Albanians or is it also for Bulgarians, Romanians, and

22 Hungarians? Who set up that commission? What kind of a commission are

23 you talking about?

24 A. We had a headquarters for Kosovo that is mentioned in Perisic's

25 letter. It is the state commission for Kosovo which was founded to

1 implement your private will outside the legal institutions.

2 Q. You said that outside the legal institutions through the Minister

3 of the Interior and the head of the security of the services gave orders.

4 I don't know who those two gentlemen and those two institutions are if

5 they are not legal institutions. But my question is: As you named

6 Sainovic as the head of an illegal commission, do you know that Nikola

7 Sainovic was the president of the commission of the federal -- of the head

8 of the Federal Commission for Cooperation with the OSCE? Do you know that

9 or not?

10 A. That is quite true, but it is not the same commission. I did not

11 also say that Mr. Stanisic was involved in any way, because he was against

12 your plan, as was Perisic.

13 Q. What plan are you talking about? You're talking about a plan that

14 did not exist. What plan are you talking about? Which plan were they

15 against? Is there mention of the word "plan" anywhere?

16 A. They were against the plan to provoke war in Kosovo when both

17 Albanians and Serbs would suffer as well as our army and our police and

18 the Albanian civilians. They were against that plan.

19 Q. So you're claiming that I wanted to ethnically cleanse all the

20 Albanians and then to kill the Serbs as well? Is that what you're saying?

21 A. In your own interest to hold onto power, you wanted to exert

22 violence over Serbs and Albanians, and that is what you did.

23 Q. Fine, Mr. Tanic. That is another pearl in your string of

24 allegations.

25 Where was this commission active? You mentioned people who held

1 very responsible state positions and who went to Kosovo to assist in the

2 work of the local bodies. You mentioned the president of parliament,

3 Milomir Minic. True enough, but here it says secretary of the Federal

4 Assembly but let me assume it is a printing error, he was president of

5 parliament. You mentioned the vice-premier, who was president of the

6 commission of the Federal Government for cooperation with the OSCE. You

7 mentioned a vice-president of a party, Dusko Markovic. You mentioned the

8 president of the provisional Executive Council in Kosovo, Zoran

9 Andjelkovic. Surely all these people had the duty to deal with political

10 problems affecting Yugoslavia and Serbia. Yes or no, Mr. Tanic.

11 A. They were not working with the authorisation of our institutions,

12 and the problem of Kosovo was never discussed at Assembly bodies or

13 government bodies of Serbia and Yugoslavia, as they should have been.

14 They were state functionaries but they acted as a private group connected

15 to you rather than our institutions as institutions.

16 JUDGE MAY: Your last question, Mr. Milosevic, and then we will

17 adjourn.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you won't let me continue, the

19 only thing I can ask Mr. Tanic is:

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How does he think that he can sell

21 this story of his -- and surely you will accept this as evidence, in

22 connection with that really absurd statement that we had been informed by

23 NATO that they would bomb the television station and other targets, here

24 is a letter from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the district court in

25 Belgrade, dated 2001, because these questions were raised not linked to

1 me, and it says: "We are responding to your request as to whether the

2 television station has any evidence that someone from the NATO command or

3 the countries of the NATO alliance gave prior information to any

4 executives in our country or any executives in Radio Television Serbia

5 that the building of the television would be bombed. We wish to inform

6 you that Radio Television Belgrade does not have any such evidence."

7 Could you please admit this into evidence, though you don't have

8 to because it is clear to everyone. Even NATO denied this.

9 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well. There is no need to make a

10 speech at this stage. That document can be put in. We'll admit it into

11 evidence.

12 Let it have an exhibit number.

13 JUDGE KWON: Before we adjourn, I'd like to raise a couple of

14 questions to the Prosecution, which I hope then they can consider during

15 the adjournment.

16 First, it's all about the exhibits. The first thing is the

17 Prosecution Exhibit 147.3, which is a news clipping from Politika, dated

18 31st of July, 1997. According to the statements of this witness, Mr.

19 Tanic was identified as a negotiator in this article, but I couldn't find

20 what phrase is doing this. And also, if I'm right in reading Cyrillic,

21 the Serb version of the exhibit seems to mention the witness's name in

22 several places but I couldn't find an English translation or even in some

23 redacted version. Nothing at all. That's the first thing.

24 And second thing is the Prosecution Exhibit 148 or TX-5. It is

25 the final version of the Halki meeting of BSF, called "Joint

1 Recommendation on Kosovo Conflict." According to the witness statement of

2 this witness, the last page is missing and which was offered to the

3 witness by one of the investigators. So could the Chamber get the last

4 page, which is TX-6.

5 And the final question is that Mr. Perisic's letter referred by

6 this witness, he said that this is the photocopy of the letter, but is

7 that -- I'd like to know whether the Prosecution's position is the same.

8 I'd like to hear at a later stage.

9 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll attempt to deal with

10 those during the break.

11 Just one question, however. I don't know whether the witness was

12 given an opportunity to respond to the allegation with respect to the last

13 exhibit that was put in. I didn't hear a response from him with respect

14 to that allegation.

15 JUDGE MAY: I don't think it called for comment from him. If you

16 want to ask him about it, do, Mr. Ryneveld.

17 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll get an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the letter from the Ministry of

20 Internal Affairs will be Exhibit D12.

21 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now for 20 minutes. When we come

22 back, we will go on with cross-examination from the amicus.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.

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

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

1 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Questioned by Mr. Kay:

3 Q. Mr. Tanic, can you deal with this matter, please: Were you

4 convicted of any criminal offence in 1977?

5 A. Since I am not amongst the record of those convicted and as the

6 whole proceedings have been destroyed, I don't need to answer that

7 question. And secondly, I am speaking as a person who is not contained in

8 any of the records, legal records, of convicted persons.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tanic, you will have to answer the question.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that question can go to my

11 disadvantage. Why do I have to answer if I'm not on the list and in the

12 records of any convicted persons?

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's for the Chamber to assess what weight we

14 will attach to the answer that you give, but an answer is required. If

15 you don't answer, the Chamber will also make an assessment as to that.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. That's not a problem.

17 Twenty-six years ago, there was some slight sentence, not for robbery.

18 But it was wiped out on the basis our law because they were small

19 problems. I was only 19 years at the time, but it wasn't robbery.

20 MR. KAY:

21 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber for what offences you were

22 convicted of.

23 A. I must say, without going round the problem, I don't really

24 remember any more.

25 Q. Very well. I've got some other questions to ask you now. When

1 did you start writing your book on Kosovo?

2 A. In the summer of 1999. Summer, autumn. Late summer, early

3 autumn. Late summer, in fact.

4 Q. Has the book been published or completed?

5 A. The book is being completed. It is in the stage of completion.

6 An interview was published and an article, an excerpt from the book.

7 Q. When did the British security service contact you about your book?

8 A. The British intelligence service never contacted me in connection

9 with the book but in connection with the discovery of Serb victims in

10 Kosovo.

11 Q. Have the British security service paid you money as part of your

12 funds for writing this book?

13 A. It gave a sum which was supposed to cover about 50 per cent of the

14 expenses of the research, because there was quite considerable research

15 linked to the writing of the book.

16 Q. In what circumstances did it come about that the British security

17 service were paying you funds for the expenses of this book?

18 A. Because one of the subjects in the book was research into Serb

19 victims in Kosovo and sending in information about that, among others, to

20 the International Tribunal in The Hague, and Milosevic and his men refused

21 to do so, to supply that.

22 Q. Did you declare this interest of the British security service in

23 your book to your political party or any other agency, government agency?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. To which agencies?

1 A. To the State Security Service of Serbia.

2 Q. The money that was paid to you, we were told, was 3.000 euros. Is

3 that right?

4 A. No, no. I said approximately 5.000 euros in two instalments, on

5 two occasions.

6 Q. And how was that money paid to you? Was it cash or to a bank

7 account?

8 A. In cash, with no records. I didn't have to mention it or bring it

9 up here in this Tribunal. There is no bank account, nothing. It was in

10 cash for 50 per cent of the expenses of the research, as the rest of the

11 50 per cent was supplied by -- was supplied by me.

12 Q. You told us that you had businesses and that you were successful

13 in business. Why did you need the money from the British security service

14 of 5.000 euros?

15 A. I'm not a businessman. I am a manufacturer of goods, a producer

16 of goods, a small scale industrialist and for nine years I spent my own

17 money in politics, but due to the costs of the war and the different

18 problems that arose with regard to myself and my family, I was not able to

19 finance all my activities and that is why I asked for assistance as this

20 was of general national interest. And I reported this to the State

21 Security Service of Serbia, so there was no secret on that score.

22 Q. And did the State Security Service of Serbia give their approval

23 of your writing this book with the aid of money from the British security

24 service?

25 A. Yes, it did. They even started collecting documents and

1 information about the Serb victims. And this was dispersed in different

2 boxes and trucks, this information, or storehouses, rather, warehouses,

3 not trucks.

4 Q. You told us last week that the book concerned the victims of

5 Kosovo. Was that victims exclusively who were Serb or also Albanian

6 victims?

7 A. The basic thesis of the book is that Mr. Milosevic caused a war in

8 which both the Albanians and the Serbs fell victim. In view of the fact

9 that the Albanians victims are already common knowledge, more or less, the

10 book starts out from the premises of Serb victims but of course just as

11 part of all that.

12 Q. And did the British security service tell you what interest they

13 had in you writing and publishing this book?

14 A. Yes, they did. Their interest was twofold: One was to secure via

15 unofficial channels some facts on Serb victims which Mr. Milosevic did not

16 supply at the time; and the second interest was that we have a

17 well-balanced out picture of what actually did happen in 1998 and 1999 in

18 that unfortunate circumstance that befell all of us.

19 Q. Did you ask them for money or did they suggest that they would pay

20 you money?

21 A. I asked them, because I said that I would not be able to finance

22 the costs and expenditure of the research and that, if they were willing,

23 they could meet 50 per cent of the expenses in view of the fact that I

24 knew them for a long time and that it was a subject that was of common

25 interest. So I contacted them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. From what you say, would that subject be that it was anti or

2 against Mr. Milosevic?

3 A. No. The British side, like myself, was interested in seeing a

4 realistic, or as close to real as possible, of the image of what was going

5 on in Kosovo. No mention was made of any specific interest against

6 Milosevic because The Hague indictment had already been raised against

7 him. Therefore, it was quite clear that there were other -- that there

8 was other evidence except for that.

9 Q. Would you say, then, that it was accepted by both of you that the

10 book would be anti-Milosevic?

11 A. That book was to be the truth or as close to the truth as

12 possible. Whether that was anti-Milosevic or not, that's another matter.

13 The book did not deal in anti-Milosevic positions but in ascertaining as

14 correctly as possible the facts of the matter.

15 Q. Have any other security services paid you any money?

16 A. No. Not until I left the country. Only once I had left the

17 country, but that was a private affair altogether at that point in time.

18 And not money. It wasn't money. When I left the country, it wasn't a

19 question of money, it was assistance with regard to accommodation for a

20 brief period of time.

21 Q. Were you in need of money to support yourself when you left

22 Serbia?

23 A. For a brief period of time, yes, because I had to leave Serbia in

24 a great hurry, and lots -- I did not manage to have all the debts owed me

25 paid in. So 150.000 euros, claims to that effect, claims that were not

1 paid to me to that amount.

2 Q. Did you avoid the payment of bills yourself when you left Serbia?

3 A. No. Quite simply, I had no accounts abroad. So there was no one

4 to pay in except the firm's accounts. But of course, private affairs and

5 the affairs of the firm cannot be mixed up. And my firm, my company, was

6 frozen for two years anyway.

7 Q. So did you settle all the outstanding accounts and bills owing by

8 you at the time that you had left Serbia?

9 A. No, because the money I was to have been repaid was ten times

10 greater than the bills that I had to be paid. So before I got the money

11 paid to me, I wasn't able to settle my outstanding accounts and bills. But

12 nobody is persecuting me for that, because the bills I should have paid

13 are far smaller than my claims. So nobody's after me for that.

14 Q. Since leaving Yugoslavia, you've said that you had some slight

15 assistance from another security service while you established yourself in

16 accommodation, I just want to ask you some questions now about your

17 circumstances without you giving any personal details in public. Do you

18 understand that?

19 A. I must say that I don't understand what you're telling me.

20 Q. Have you been provided with a new country in which to live?

21 A. No, not up until now. Whether I shall be or not, I don't know

22 that.

23 Q. So you're currently seeking asylum in another country. Would that

24 be right?

25 A. Well, you would have to see about that with the OTP office of The

1 Hague Tribunal. I have not officially asked for asylum because I can live

2 in a third country even without the asylum status. But perhaps I will ask

3 for it. I really didn't deal with the question of my future in any great

4 detail.

5 Q. But is the position that you will be given a new identity in

6 another country? I don't want the details, but just whether that fact is

7 true or not.

8 A. It is absolutely untrue. A new identity abroad. I never

9 discussed that with anybody, nor would I accept it. I have no reason to

10 ask for a new identity. Protection is one matter, a new identity is quite

11 another.

12 MR. KAY: Thank you. I have no further questions.

13 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honours. Did you wish me to deal with

14 the questions posed to me by Judge Kwon before I re-examine?

15 JUDGE MAY: Whichever is convenient.

16 MR. RYNEVELD: Perhaps I may do that, and the third of those

17 questions may well lead into my re-examination, if I may.

18 In the first place, Your Honour, my -- according to my note, Your

19 Honour asked about a document, 147.3, and referred to the fact that in the

20 document dated the 31st of, I believe it's July 1997, there appeared to be

21 references in Cyrillic script to this particular witness which do not

22 appear on the English translation that was provided.

23 My understanding is that the copy that was sent for translation at

24 that particular time was sent in a redacted form with the name, of course,

25 because this was a protected witness, with the name -- that then was a

1 protected witness, the name redacted. Therefore, the translation that has

2 been submitted under 147.3 does not contain the witness's name and the

3 translation is written in such a way as to try to make sense of it without

4 the name in it.

5 My understanding is that we have requested a subsequent

6 translation of this document in its unredacted form, and that is

7 forthcoming.

8 If it would assist, we could place the unredacted document on the

9 ELMO now and perhaps have the translators or the interpreters read a

10 couple of aspects of it.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.

13 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm sorry, did Your Honour respond that you'd like

14 to put it on the ELMO now?

15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.

16 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Thank you.

17 JUDGE KWON: Other translations indicate that there are some parts

18 redacted but this does not.

19 MR. RYNEVELD: That's correct. It's two pages but the first page

20 is being placed on the ELMO now. And I suspect that it's the underlined

21 aspects that were in fact redacted when it was sent for translation.

22 So if the interpreters are able to read this particular exhibit as

23 it's now displayed, perhaps we could go to, first of all, the --

24 THE INTERPRETER: The --

25 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Go ahead.

1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise, but somebody from

2 the courtroom will have to read the text first.

3 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. I'm unable, of course, to read the Cyrillic

4 text, so I'm unable to assist in that regard. Perhaps that could be shown

5 to the witness who, I take it, can read it, and perhaps the witness will

6 be prepared to read that for us.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There's no problem there.

8 Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

9 Q. All right, Witness, I'm go to ask you, if you would please,

10 underneath the headline, there appears to be a reference. Could you read

11 the caption, if you would, please, in Cyrillic, out loud so the translator

12 can interpret.

13 A. The subtitle is: "The previous authority led by Salih Denicoc

14 [phoen], the Social Democrats of Albania have not been hit by the virus of

15 nationalism, says Predrag Simic. The Social Democrats and Democratic

16 Alliance of Albania are turned towards European integrations and

17 tendencies of the new European left, is the opinion of Ratomir Tanic.

18 After this signal from Tirana, the politicians of the Albanian parties in

19 Kosovo are starting to reassess their positions." That is the subtitle.

20 Do you wish me to read on?

21 Q. I would like you to turn to the column where it is underlined and

22 read the underlined sentence in its entirety, please. That was the three

23 columns, the three vertical columns, the left one appears to have a

24 sentence underlined. Could you read that to us.

25 A. Well, the whole sentence is a lengthy one, and it says: "As to

1 what the relationships were like between the SRY and Serbia with

2 neighbouring Albania and their possible improvement after the mentioned

3 statement as well as the repercussions on the viewpoints of the leaders of

4 political parties of Albanians in Kosmet, we talked to Dr. Predrag Simic,

5 the director of Institute for International Politics and Economics, and

6 Ratomir Tanic, advisor for international relations in the Novo Demokratija

7 party, with experts who took part in the negotiations for a solution to

8 the Serbian-Albanian problem in Kosmet, Kosovo and Metohija."

9 Q. Thank you. And in the remaining highlights, you will see a name

10 underlined. Is that your name, in fact, that's been underlined?

11 A. Yes, yes.

12 MR. RYNEVELD: Unless Your Honours wish me to have the entire

13 article written, I understand that the translation is available tomorrow.

14 Thank you. That deals with that.

15 Now, the second document that Your Honours have asked for

16 clarification was the document 148, which was marked, I believe, as an

17 attachment to this witness's statement as item TX-5, and TX-5 was noted in

18 the statement to be missing a page, as it were, and in fact, TX-6 in the

19 statement was a document which included the first five pages in TX-5 and

20 the additional pages -- the balance of page 5 and a final page as well.

21 That has not been marked as an exhibit. I would ask to substitute

22 TX-6, which we have copies of here, for item TX-5. So if this could have

23 a new exhibit number. This is the entire article.

24 JUDGE KWON: On the front page, there are some parts redacted.

25 What are they?

1 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm sorry. Yes. I'm afraid I -- the original, I

2 believe, that has been given to the registrar and marked as an exhibit is

3 in its unredacted form, but I have a redacted copy as well, Your Honour.

4 But I believe the original that has been marked as an exhibit is in

5 unredacted form. 148.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked 148A.

7 MR. RYNEVELD: I propose now, in re-examination, to deal with the

8 third issue that Your Honour has mentioned, but if I may, I propose to ask

9 a few questions about it in the course of re-examination. Thank you.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Tanic, during your cross-examination, you have been

11 challenged about -- that you were never in a position to know many of the

12 matters to which you have testified to. In response, among other things,

13 you've said that you've testified only about those matters which there is

14 independent corroboration for what you say; is that correct?

15 A. Yes, correct. I did not present my overall knowledge because I

16 cannot corroborate my overall knowledge.

17 Q. Yes. Now, sir, in particular dealing with conversations which you

18 refer to both in your evidence and in your statement that you had with

19 Momcilo Perisic while you were preparing your book, I believe you

20 indicated that he showed you a letter dated the spring of 1998 that he

21 apparently sent to the accused Milosevic while Mr. Perisic was still the

22 Chief of Staff of the VJ, and that's at page 19 of your statement. Do you

23 recall testifying to that matter?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in that letter, it's alleged that Mr. Perisic pointed out some

1 six points he referred to as negative facts, and in so doing, in effect

2 complaining that Mr. Milosevic was cutting Mr. Perisic out of the chain of

3 command of the VJ. Do you recall that?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. RYNEVELD: Now, Your Honours, I understand that the book

6 itself has not been marked as an exhibit. I have a copy of it here, and I

7 understand the accused was provided with a copy, or borrowed the copy - I

8 don't know if that's been returned - but an extract of page 160, I

9 believe, was entered as Exhibit 150.

10 Now, I just want to ask some questions about it.

11 Q. First of all, sir, I'm showing you -- if you could look at me, I'm

12 showing you a book which is authored by Messrs. Dejan Lukic and Pero

13 Simic, and its translated title is "Fire and Flood." Are you familiar

14 with that book?

15 A. No. I saw that book for the first time three or four days ago,

16 when I was provided with a photocopy of Perisic's letter.

17 Q. All right.

18 MR. RYNEVELD: Might the usher assist. I'm just going to show

19 this page, the inside page, which indicates its publication date, please.

20 Could you show that could the witness.

21 Q. There appears -- I'm showing you a single page of that book, which

22 appears to have the names of the two authors at the top, a title in the

23 middle, and then an address and date as to publication. Can you tell us

24 what that is?

25 A. The title page of the book, Filip Visnjic is a publishing house in

1 Belgrade, 2001. Pero Simic and Dejan Lukic are the authors of the book

2 "Fire and Food," which is the title of the book.

3 MR. RYNEVELD: And perhaps I might -- I don't know whether it's

4 gone in as part of the exhibit or not, but I have a copy of that title

5 page. Was it marked originally as part of Exhibit 150? Thank you. All

6 right.

7 Q. Now, sir, if you could -- sorry. I'm going to turn to page 160

8 that book.

9 MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher.

10 Q. At page 160 of that book, labelled Appendix 2, you will find a

11 letter dated the 23rd of July 1998 from Momcilo Perisic, addressed to

12 then-President Slobodan Milosevic of the FRY. Is that the letter to which

13 you referred in your evidence? Is that the letter that you were shown?

14 A. Yes. And I know that because it wasn't just the letter that was

15 shown to me but Mr. Perisic and I had a long discussion about the contents

16 of that letter. So the letter wasn't just shown to me but it was the

17 subject of a lengthy discussion between me and Mr. Perisic.

18 Q. Now, this letter is dated the 28th of July, 1998, according to its

19 publication date as Appendix 2 to that book. When, approximately, did you

20 first see the letter when you discussed it with Mr. Perisic?

21 A. I knew of the existence of the letter earlier than that, but I saw

22 the letter itself for the first time in the summer of 1999. But I knew

23 that the letter existed immediately after it had been written. But I

24 didn't see it then, I saw it in the summer of 1999.

25 Q. Now, is it true, sir, that you gave your statement to officials of

1 the ICTY over the course of several interviews between the 21st of June,

2 1999, and the 19th of July, 2000?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And we've already seen that, according to the publication date,

5 that letter was not published until 2001. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes, absolutely so.

7 Q. Now, secondly, sir, in your statement, I believe in the course --

8 in the English version, pages 30 to 32, and in your evidence, you refer to

9 conveying information to the accused Milosevic about two secret offers of

10 settlement, both just before the bombing commenced and after it had

11 started, and the purpose of that was to indicate that it was possible to

12 negotiate peacefully with the West. You also refer to Zoran Lilic's

13 involvement, in your statement.

14 Would you look at page 166 of that same book. That's Appendix 4.

15 Do you recognise the document at Appendix 4? Just have a look at it, if

16 you would, please.

17 A. I do recognise it, but I recognise the political content of the

18 document, but I didn't see it before a couple of days ago, though I knew

19 of its existence, but I recognise its contents.

20 Q. What is that document?

21 A. It's a document confirming that already at the end of April and

22 the beginning of May there was a possibility, without the violation of the

23 vital interests of Serbia and Yugoslavia, the war with NATO to be ended

24 and the continued suffering of our people to be brought to an end.

25 Q. When is it dated?

1 A. The 5th of May, 1999.

2 Q. Who wrote it?

3 A. Mr. Zoran Lilic. I recognise his signature. I don't know

4 Mr. Zoran Lilic, but I know from Mr. Vuk Draskovic, who spoke with Mr.

5 Lilic several times about peace offers.

6 Q. To whom is the published letter addressed?

7 A. To Mr. Milosevic.

8 Q. You may have already said this, but when did you first see this

9 letter?

10 A. As I said, a couple of days ago.

11 Q. And you referred to the contents or similar contents as is

12 contained in this letter in your statement to the ICTY before you saw this

13 document in its published form; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, indeed.

15 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I do have copies of this particular

16 appendix which may be marked as exhibits in these proceedings. The

17 witness has now recognised it and testified about it. Since we don't have

18 copies of the book, I wonder whether I might be able to tender both the

19 original copies of Appendix 4 and an English translation at this time.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

22 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

23 JUDGE MAY: Give it the next exhibit number, please.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Prosecutor's Exhibit

25 152.

1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ryneveld.

2 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE KWON: Am I right in understanding that this witness has no

4 idea about -- as to whether Appendix 2 is a photocopy or not?

5 MR. RYNEVELD: I didn't ask that question, but, Your Honour, my

6 understanding is that Exhibit 2 is a photocopy of -- let me double-check

7 because I didn't personally make the copy.

8 JUDGE KWON: Let me ask this: On page 160, there's a date in the

9 first part of the letter which is written 23rd of July, 1998. Are you

10 following me?

11 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE KWON: And the last page is 164. There once again we have

13 the date, 23rd of July, 1998.

14 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE KWON: To my eye, the letters themselves look different.

16 Could you clarify that matter? Especially the number 7 is different, and

17 9 is different.

18 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I didn't focus on that

19 particular aspect over the brief adjournment we had. Perhaps if you will

20 allow me the opportunity to find out exactly whether this was photocopied

21 or whether it's simply a copy of it, I will undertake to respond.

22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you.

23 MR. RYNEVELD:

24 Q. Now, Mr. Tanic, during the course of your cross-examination, the

25 accused produced a document purporting to show your registration in your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 capacity as a sympathiser with the New Democracy Party. Do you recall

2 being shown that document?

3 A. Yes, I do indeed.

4 Q. He went on to suggest in cross-examination that you were not a

5 member or did not hold any specific function with that political party.

6 Do you recall that aspect of the cross-examination?

7 A. Yes, I do remember.

8 Q. Now, sir, are you familiar with the Bertelsmann Wissenschaftsstung

9 system?

10 A. Yes. I apologise for interfering, but I can offer written

11 evidence that I was an advisor of the president of New Democracy. Even

12 the Prosecution doesn't have this document because I didn't consider all

13 that to be necessary, and I do indeed apologise. But there is absolute

14 direct evidence of that. I simply didn't know that I needed to prove to

15 the Prosecution what is common knowledge in Belgrade. I'm sorry for the

16 interfering.

17 Q. No need. I'm going to ask -- I'm going to show you some

18 documentation at this point.

19 Sir, what is the Bertelsmann Wissenschaftsstung system? What kind

20 of an organisation is that?

21 A. It is what we call an NGO, a non-governmental organisation, a

22 powerful NGO engaged in investigating peace settlements in various parts

23 of the world. It is linked to the German government, and the director of

24 the research project is Mr. Janning, who was an advisor, at that time at

25 least, in the European Union.

1 Q. And did you ever attend any of the conferences of that

2 organisation, that NGO, as a representative of the New Democracy Party?

3 A. Yes, several times, but as a representative of the ruling

4 coalition. And I also did some writing for that foundation.

5 Q. Now, for example, sir, did you attend a conference of the

6 Bertelsmann Wissenschaftsstung in Rhodes in September of 1996?

7 A. Yes. That was when I first brought an original copy of the

8 Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement, which was given to me by the ruling

9 authorities in Serbia, and it was the first time to be taken abroad.

10 Q. Did you attend any further conferences of that organisation?

11 A. Yes. I attended several more, which were also attended by

12 representatives of the Socialist Party of Serbia on two occasions.

13 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I have a series of documents I now

14 wish to show to the witness, if I may. I have the originals and copies.

15 First of all, perhaps we can -- in order to save time, just put

16 the whole bundle in at once to everyone, and then I'll quickly refer to

17 all of them rather than do them piecemeal.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. First of all, here are some originals

20 to go to the registrar, please, Mr. Usher.

21 I intend to deal with these documents in the order that they are

22 being handed out. And for the sake of convenience, perhaps the bundle

23 might get an exhibit number, if Your Honours so choose.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Prosecutor's Exhibit

25 153.

1 MR. RYNEVELD: And for the record, the bundle that I'm handing are

2 six separate documents.

3 Q. First of all, Witness, I'm showing you the first document which

4 has a list of participants with the heading of "The Albanian Question in

5 the Balkans in Rhodes September 5th through 6th of 1996." Do you see that

6 document, the front page? Sorry. I'm just asking you to look at the

7 front page now.

8 Mr. Tanic, the question is: Do you see the page --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- list of participants, "The Albanian Question of the Balkans in

11 Rhodes September 5th and 6th, 1996?"

12 I don't have a response from you, sir.

13 A. Yes, yes, I do. Yes.

14 Q. Looking at the second page following that, there's a number of

15 people listed as having been participants in that -- at that conference,

16 and on the second page, under number K0224112, your name appears fourth

17 from the bottom. Do you see that? On the English version.

18 A. Yes. Yes, yes.

19 Q. And you are described there as the conciliarly to the president

20 and secretary for international relations of New Democracy in Belgrade.

21 Was that your function when you attended that particular conference?

22 A. Yes. And I can also provide my own documents; my party booklet,

23 my card, party card.

24 Q. I'm not asking for that. I'm simply asking whether you recognise

25 your name and described title as a participant at that conference. You're

1 nodding your head, being yes?

2 A. Yes, yes, yes.

3 Q. Very quickly, sir, look at the next document, list of participants

4 in Munich, 21st to 22nd of January 1997, the same organisation. Front

5 page, third name from the bottom, is that your name and your affiliation

6 to New Democracy Belgrade?

7 A. I simply can't find the page. I do apologise. Is it -- does it

8 refer to Rhodes or something else?

9 Q. This.

10 A. Yes, yes. You're right, quite. I see it now, yes.

11 Q. The next document titled List of Participants, Strategies and

12 Options for Kosovo in Athens June 4th and 5th 1997. That's the

13 title page. Over the page, your name, third from the bottom -- fourth

14 from the bottom. And again your affiliation with New Democracy Belgrade.

15 Correct?

16 A. Yes, yes. Indeed.

17 Q. Next document. List of Participants, Strategies and Options for

18 Kosovo in Halki, September 7th through 10th 1997. Next page, your name

19 fourth from the bottom, New Democracy, Belgrade?

20 A. Yes, yes. Yes.

21 Q. And quickly, next document, again List of Participants, Strategies

22 and Options for Kosovo, Thessaloniki, April 20th and 21st 1998. Your

23 name, two pages down, looks to be about sixth from the bottom. Again New

24 Democracy, Belgrade?

25 A. Yes, yes.

1 Q. And finally --

2 A. I see it. I can see it.

3 Q. -- Balkans Security Risks and Implications for the European Union,

4 again in Halki, September 7th through 9th 1998, and your name, second

5 page, second from the bottom, again New Democracy, Belgrade? Correct?

6 A. Yes. Correct.

7 Q. Sir, do you recall a press conference on the 15th of September,

8 1994, wherein you were described in that press release that you were now

9 a -- or words to the effect that you were now an advisor to the president

10 of the New Democracy Party, responsible for international questions?

11 A. Yes, of course.

12 Q. I'm going to show you, sir, first of all -- excuse me just one

13 moment.

14 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I have copies of a press release

15 dated the 16th of September 1994, both in its Cyrillic text, showing its

16 source, then the second page is an enlarged copy of the article to which

17 I'm referring, and the third page is an English translation of that

18 article. If I might tender that as the next exhibit.

19 Q. Sir, first of all, do you recognise this as being a photocopy of

20 what appears to be a publication known as Politika, dated the 16th of

21 September, 1994?

22 A. Yes. It is Politika, the official organ of the Republic of

23 Serbia. That is subject to censorship, therefore, only data that are

24 correct can be published. And I do recognise this report.

25 Q. Sir, there's no need to give additional information. I'm asking

1 you, first of all, do you recognise this as being -- and you've answered

2 that. Now, I'd like you to turn your attention to the bottom third --

3 A. Yes, yes.

4 Q. -- bottom quarter, as it were. There seems to be an article which

5 has as a headline, "New Democracy Press Conference." Do you see that

6 article on the bottom quarter, right-hand corner of the page?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And if you'll turn the page, please, in the bundle, there appears

9 to be an enlargement of that particular article.

10 A. Yes, I see it.

11 Q. And does this article describe you as having recently resigned

12 from the office of the vice-president and having left the Civic Alliance

13 of Serbia and becoming a member of the New Democracy Party?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Does it go on to describe what your position would be with respect

16 to the New Democracy Party? Was something announced there? Just look at

17 that first paragraph.

18 A. Yes. Yes. I've looked at it. It does --

19 Q. Okay. What does it say --

20 A. -- publish that.

21 Q. -- your job would be and what you would soon do, according to the

22 press release from the party?

23 A. It is said that my job would be advisor to president of New

24 Democracy for international affairs and a member of the Executive Board of

25 the party.

1 Q. Thank you. Just a few other questions, if I may, sir. Because

2 time is of the essence, if possible if you could respond to my questions

3 -- oh, I'm sorry.

4 MR. RYNEVELD: Might we have an exhibit number before I move on in

5 my haste.

6 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 154.

7 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Madam Clerk.

8 Q. Wherever possible, sir, just short succinct answers would be good.

9 Have you maintained contact with Mr. Mihajlovic since you became a witness

10 for the Prosecution?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you ever tell Mihajlovic that you would be giving evidence at

13 this trial?

14 A. No. But we did discuss the problems linked to this trial.

15 Q. Again, just confining your answers, if possible, to yes or no, was

16 the figure of the Albanian population in Kosovo being less than a million

17 ever discussed in parliament or within the circles where you moved, to

18 your knowledge?

19 A. It was mentioned in private conversations by officials, in

20 parliament -- in parliament, as far as I know, it was not, but I wasn't

21 fully aware of what was happening in parliament, and I apologise for not

22 being able to provide a full answer.

23 Q. Are you aware whether it was ever discussed as anybody's official

24 policy?

25 A. No. In no parliament was the problem of Kosovo ever discussed in

1 that way or from the standpoint of investigating any other problems

2 either.

3 Q. Sir, has anyone ever suggested to you that you were kidnapped by

4 anyone other than the Serbs?

5 A. No. The results of the investigation showed officially that they

6 were Serbs.

7 Q. And have you pursued any legal remedy or civil redress for this

8 kidnapping from any source?

9 A. I asked the Minister of the Interior, Mihajlovic, and the heads of

10 the State Security Service that the persons who perpetrated the

11 kidnapping, after they were identified through an official investigation,

12 that they should be arrested and charged. I personally did not undertake

13 any steps because I do not have the conditions to do that.

14 Q. So you complained and you sought that something be done about that

15 fact, is that correct, through official channels?

16 A. Yes, together with the names that