1 Tuesday, 17 June 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

6 MR. NICE: Your Honour, in addition to the normal parties --

7 parties normally present, there are other representatives here. The

8 Chamber may wish to identify who they are. There's the lawyer for

9 Mr. Lilic himself and there's the representative of the government.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. If the lawyers would identify themselves,

11 please. Yes.

12 MR. PANCESKI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My name

13 is Miodrag Panceski. I am first secretary of the Embassy of

14 Serbia-Montenegro in The Hague. Together with me today is my colleague,

15 counsellor in the embassy, Mr. Slavoljub Caric. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.

17 Yes. Counsel for the witness, I believe is here. Would he

18 introduce himself, please.

19 MR. SAPONJIC: [Interpretation] My name is Dragan Saponjic. I am

20 legal counsel to Mr. Lilic.

21 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

22 MR. NICE: Your Honour, may the witness be brought in.

23 The Chamber was provided yesterday with a file of papers or a clip

24 of papers. I'm having it recopied so that the lawyers attending this

25 morning for the government and for the witness may have copies themselves.

1 There's one additional document that was provided last night by

2 Mr. Lilic that I'm also having copied, which should be added to that.

3 Unfortunately, it's in Cyrillic only at the moment. It's a document that

4 identifies the documents that he is being allowed to refer to. So it's a

5 further constraint upon him that was provided to him. When that's

6 available, I'll distribute it without further notice. And perhaps it can

7 form the last two pages of the existing small bundle.

8 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We've read the statement. There does seem

9 to be quite a lot of irrelevant matter in it, which no doubt you'll avoid.

10 Also, the witness's views on the constitution. He's not an

11 expert. Of course he can talk about the practice the way he saw it, but

12 he can't of course give expert evidence upon it, if there's any danger of

13 that.

14 And the final comment is this, that we have three days available

15 at most for this witness. And of course we must allow for proper time for

16 cross-examination.

17 MR. NICE: Yes. There's a summary produced. You'll see it's

18 quite extensive. And it only -- it has yet to be completed by the

19 addition of Kosovo. But the Chamber will be heartened to know that it

20 includes simply all the material that the witness has been providing so

21 there can be no question of omitting material that should be Rule 68. It

22 includes material that we won't be leading for various reasons. And I'm

23 hopeful to be able to deal with the evidence comparatively swiftly. And I

24 will review my progress from time to time and if necessary cut material

25 from the latest sections.

1 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

2 Yes, we'll have the witness, please.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 WITNESS: ZORAN LILIC

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

11 Examined by Mr. Nice:

12 Q. Your full name, please.

13 A. My name is Zoran Lilic.

14 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's a file of exhibits for use with

15 this witness. May it be given an exhibit number.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Prosecution Exhibit Number 469.

17 MR. NICE:

18 Q. And if first exhibit -- the first tab of 469 is the relevant

19 curriculum vitae of this witness. I don't propose to go through it in

20 detail. It's available for the Chamber.

21 Mr. Lilic, were you a member of the SPS [Realtime transcript read

22 in error "SDS"] party from 1990, holding various posts in that party until

23 in 1993 you were elected president or you were made president of the FRY,

24 a post you held until 1997, you replacing Dobrica Cosic?

25 A. Yes, that is correct.

1 Q. A vote of no confidence had been passed in respect of your

2 predecessor. We may hear more about that later.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

4 JUDGE MAY: What is it?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a mistake in the question,

6 and I see that the mistake was repeated in the transcript. Mr. Lilic was

7 not a member of the SDS. He was a member of the SPS.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Sorry, I didn't hear that bit.

9 I'm sorry. Of course the other is right.

10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lilic, could you not respond at this stage to the

11 accused directly. You're giving evidence to the Court.

12 In any event, that correction is now clarified. Yes.

13 MR. NICE:

14 Q. Following your text as president of the FRY in 1997, were you

15 appointed deputy president of the government and reappointed in 1998,

16 leaving that position or position of deputy prime minister in 1999,

17 August?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. For some time now you have been in contact with the Office of the

20 Prosecutor of the ICTY. In the course of that time, have you ever sought

21 anything from the Office of the Prosecutor?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Has anything been offered or provided to you by way of assistance

24 by the Office of the Prosecutor?

25 A. No, nothing.

1 Q. In the course of your negotiations with the Office of the

2 Prosecutor, have you identified with particularity a range of documents

3 that it is considered might be of assistance to the Tribunal in the

4 resolution of its task?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Some of those documents indeed provide stenographic notes, that

7 is, verbatim notes of things said at important meetings where you yourself

8 were present?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Have you reinforced efforts made, to your knowledge, by the Office

11 of the Prosecutor to get those documents, reinforce them by personal

12 contacts?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. To your knowledge, has the majority of those documents, and in

15 particular records of the SDC and of one other body to which we will

16 return later, have those -- the majority of those documents not been

17 provided by the authorities, despite well over a year's pressure following

18 your identification of documents?

19 A. According to the list that I received from the national committee

20 for cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, that is correct. I mean, the

21 list of documents I received, the list of documents that were provided to

22 The Hague Tribunal.

23 Q. And you are giving evidence subject to a waiver from the

24 government that limits your -- the topics you can give evidence about

25 where you would be at risk of revealing state or military secrets?

1 A. In relation to request 219 that you submitted to the national

2 committee for cooperation with The Hague Tribunal in Belgrade, in which

3 was submitted to me by the national committee for cooperation with The

4 Hague, that is correct.

5 Q. I turn to paragraph 8 of the summary.

6 MR. NICE: And the Chamber will recall that it may be worth

7 repeating for those observing the proceedings that I'm going to deal with

8 evidence in the order identified to the government as topics that would be

9 covered by the evidence of this witness, for everybody's convenience. The

10 first topic is the role of the SPS in the legislative process.

11 Q. Mr. Lilic, is it right that the SPS had the majority in both

12 federal and republic assemblies at the time we start this evidence --

13 start the account you can give, when the accused was president of Serbia

14 but also president of the party?

15 A. The SPS from its very inception in 1990 all the way up to 2000 was

16 the leading political party in Serbia. Sometimes it was in a position to

17 form a majority government, sometimes a minority government, and sometimes

18 with coalition partners with whom they found a joint interest. So the

19 answer would be yes, this is correct.

20 Q. Apart from one period, the accused was president of the party;

21 correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you explain how the party featured in the legislative

24 process. What role did it play?

25 A. The Socialist Party of Serbia, as the leading party in the

1 political arena in Serbia, particularly drew on the great authority

2 exercised by its president, President Milosevic. It was in a position to

3 set up a republican government and also a federal government, or the

4 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the elections, when it had a larger

5 number of seats in parliament that was actually required to set up a

6 majority government, practically all the ministers were from the SPS and

7 from some of the coalition parties. Also, the majority of MPs, either in

8 the republican parliament or in the federal parliament belonged to, if I

9 can use the word, our party, the Socialist Party of Serbia. The Socialist

10 Party of Serbia also exercised influence on the drafting of bills and of

11 course eventually made them passed as laws.

12 Q. Were the smaller parties in a position to do more than operate as

13 pressure groups? Were they in a position to make laws themselves?

14 A. The parliamentary life of Serbia, it was possible for all the

15 parliamentary parties to propose bills and to effect the legislative

16 process in the Assembly of Serbia. However, in view of the vast majority

17 we had in 1990 and later on in 1992, after the elections, and then also in

18 1996, their bills remained bills, and our bills were passed as laws

19 practically.

20 Q. Looking, please, at tab 8 of Exhibit 469, and at one aspect of

21 law-making at that time, we have the minutes of a Supreme Defence Council

22 meeting held before your Presidency. I'll turn to the reason -- I'll

23 emphasise that later. And maybe if it's possible for the usher to put the

24 English version on the overhead projector, I'd be grateful.

25 We can see that this is the 7th session of the supreme Defence

1 Council held on the 10th of February. The date would appear to be wrong.

2 But if we go to the second page of the English, under item 3 -- no, we'll

3 stay on if first page, I'm sorry. The supreme Defence Council approved

4 the agenda, which was the bill on the Yugoslav army and the bill on the

5 defence. What role would the supreme Defence Council, a body to which

6 we'll turn later, have in the legislative process, paragraph 10 of the

7 summary.

8 MR. CARIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry, because I'm disturbing you. I

9 would like to know -- I would like to know the exactly date of that

10 document, because Mr. Nice didn't tell us.

11 MR. NICE: According to the --

12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

13 MR. NICE: According to the B/C/S version, it's the 10th of

14 February, 1993. The English version is an obvious translation error.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

16 JUDGE MAY: Have the various representatives got these documents?

17 Have you got this binder of documents?

18 MR. CARIC: We -- we didn't receive anything, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MAY: You should. Very well.

20 MR. CARIC: Thank you.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, you wanted to say something?

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know if I

23 heard Mr. Nice properly, but he mentioned the date of the 10th of

24 February; isn't that right? In the Serbian version, in the B/C/S version,

25 the date is the 22nd of February, 1993.

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Referring apparently to a meeting on the 10th of

2 February. Yes. Yes.

3 Yes, Mr. Caric.

4 MR. CARIC: 1993. In that case -- in that case, we request

5 private session with your permission, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MAY: Well, I wonder if at this stage we -- let us simply

7 mark this document for identification and you can return to it in due

8 course.

9 MR. NICE: I'll ask the question in general terms.

10 Q. Mr. Lilic, would there be circumstances --

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. -- Mr. Caric, what we'll do is we'll -- we'll not

12 stop at the moment. We will leave this document on one side and we can

13 return to it in due course and you can have a private session then.

14 Yes.

15 MR. NICE:

16 Q. Mr. Lilic, would the Supreme Defence Council, a body whose --

17 MR. CARIC: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 MR. NICE:

19 Q. -- We will explore more later, would the Supreme Defence Council

20 have any role in the legislative process?

21 A. The Supreme Defence Council certainly, when this kind of an

22 important law was concerned, like the law on defence, it was supposed to

23 give its opinion, if that's what you're referring to. As for other legal

24 documents, indeed its role is not all that important. It is more of a

25 consultative nature.

1 Q. You've referred already to the accused having one period of time

2 when he was not president of the SPS. Can you give the period roughly and

3 explain why he ceased to be president of the party for that period.

4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters ask to connect the second

5 microphone of Mr. Lilic.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1992, when the position of president

7 of the Socialist Party of Serbia was ceded to the member of the Presidency

8 of Yugoslavia until then, Mr. Borislav Jovic. There could have been two

9 reasons for that. One was that Mr. Jovic no longer held a political

10 position at federal level. And the second possibility is that the

11 constitution of the Republic of Serbia, and if I'm not mistaken, it is a

12 particular article that defines carrying out the duties of the president

13 of the Republic of Serbia -- practically the president of the Republic of

14 Serbia cannot be engaged in other public duties. But I believe that the

15 first reason is more important because afterwards, it was only logical,

16 President Milosevic took over this other important political office yet

17 again.

18 MR. NICE:

19 Q. In 1995, did the accused's wife found or take part in the founding

20 of a political party called JUL, the Yugoslav United Left?

21 A. Yes. There is a general belief that towards the end of July 1995

22 the Yugoslav Left was founded by Mrs. Markovic. Now, whether it was

23 founded by Mrs. Markovic or President Milosevic is a question I cannot

24 really give an answer to.

25 Q. Following its founding, what influence and control did the SPS and

1 JUL in combination have?

2 A. I really wish I could distinguish between the influence of the SPS

3 from the influence exercised by the Yugoslav Left. But in view of the

4 question that was put, I usually say and I would like to repeat it here

5 that the Yugoslavia Left practically took over all important functions in

6 the Republic of Serbia and later on in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

7 as well; and in that they relied upon the enormous resources, including

8 human resources, that the SPS had. At any rate, the Yugoslav Left and the

9 SPS were under the domination and the authority of President Milosevic.

10 They certainly controlled all financial flows, the members of the Yugoslav

11 Left did, in the Republic of Serbia, in the Federal Republic of

12 Yugoslavia, also the media. I think that the leading members of JUL

13 practically held all important positions in the Republic of Serbia.

14 Q. [Microphone not activated]

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

16 MR. NICE: I apologise.

17 Q. Tab 2 of Exhibit 469.

18 MR. NICE: I don't know if the Judge's versions have the

19 English-language versions. Mine doesn't.

20 Q. You can look at them quickly to see what they are.

21 Mr. Lilic, are these charts that record the share of the vote

22 obtained by parties in elections in 1990 and 1993, 1994, 1997, and 2000,

23 first for the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, and one can see the

24 largest segment being the SPS, reducing in size in 1993, enlarging in

25 1994, and then in 1997 being the SPS and JUL combined, smaller again, and

1 then much smaller in 2000?

2 On the second sheet, the Court can see the election results for

3 the FRY Assembly for the 4th of June, 1992, and the following pages deal

4 with 2003, perhaps of less value. Those first two charts show the

5 majorities held by the SPS and by the SPS and JUL in combination; correct?

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, earlier Mr. Lilic said that the leading

7 members of JUL practically held all important positions in the Republic of

8 Serbia.

9 Could you give us one or two examples of that.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I can. I can give a

11 multitude of examples. But for instance, the Minister of Health,

12 Mrs. Leposava Milicevic; Vice-president of the Republican Government,

13 Mr. Bojic; directors of various funds for health, first Mr. Djordjevic and

14 then Mr. Djokic. In the federal government, Mr. Borisa Vukovic, through

15 him all foreign trade was carried out; then Mr. Matic, Minister of

16 Information; then Mr. Markovic in the federal government, and a great many

17 other names that I could mention. They all held positions that were

18 dominant, especially from the economic point of view and from the media

19 point of view.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

21 MR. NICE:

22 Q. Paragraph 18 of the summary - we turn from the charts - how did

23 decisions in the SPS, as initially formed, come to be made? Where did the

24 decisions start? How did they develop?

25 A. The SPS was first and foremost one of the most significant if not

1 the largest party in that part of Europe or that part of the Balkans,

2 relative to the number of members it had, local boards, more than 10.000

3 of them, virtually in every constituency there was a local board, and a

4 number of prominent members who were first in the SPS and when the

5 coalition was made with the Yugoslav Left their number went down and I

6 must say that the SPS took part in the elections independently for the

7 first time in the year 2000, so that its support was very low as compared

8 to the authority and powers it had. So the decision were mostly taken

9 within a limited circle of people - and I am talking about the period I am

10 familiar with, that is, in the second half of the 1990s - and I think that

11 the decisions were conceived primarily by President Milosevic in his home

12 and then through the narrow circle of associates, those decisions were

13 passed on to the executive board or were immediately made public, even

14 prior to the executive board having met, and that board actually only

15 approved the decisions already taken by President Milosevic and then

16 through loyal cadres, through district and local boards those decisions

17 were actually implemented, so that no decision of any significance could

18 not have been taken without the approval and authority of President

19 Milosevic.

20 Q. Could you name, please, the inner circle to whom you've referred

21 and which I believe you sometimes refer to as the shadow cabinet.

22 A. With regard to members of the Socialist Party of Serbia, a certain

23 number of people rotated, but there was a constant group of people that

24 were in the inner circle of President Milosevic. In the first place,

25 Mr. Mirko Marjanovic, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, who

1 headed that republic for seven years, if I'm not mistaken, who was also

2 general manager of the -- one of the leading foreign trade companies,

3 thanks to state sponsored arrangements.

4 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... so Mirko Marjanovic?

5 A. Then I should like to mention Mr. Dragan Tomic, president of the

6 republican assembly; Mr. Minic, who was president of the chamber of

7 citizens; later Mr. Milan Milutinovic, then after that Mr. Zivadin

8 Jovanovic, Gorica Gajevic, and a very interesting member of that team is

9 Mr. Uros Suvakovic, and as the need arose other people too.

10 Q. We know of a man called Sainovic. Did he ever feature in this

11 inner circle or not?

12 A. Yes. I omitted to mention his name.

13 Q. Just, please, confirm, because we may deal with the detail in

14 another way later, that Dobrica Cosic was removed on an accusation of

15 violating the constitution because he had a meeting with the chief of the

16 general staff which was a topic not previously discussed at an SPS

17 meeting; is that correct?

18 A. Dobrica Cosic was replaced as president because of the meeting he

19 held in Dobanovci with the senior staff of the general staff headed by

20 Mr. Panic, Zivota Panic.

21 Q. This was then -- excuse me, this was then taken to the federal

22 assembly by the accused and impeachment proceedings led to his being

23 removed from office; correct? Just let me know if it is roughly correct

24 or correct.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What happened - paragraph 20 - to SPS members who opposed policies

2 advanced in the way you've described from the family and the inner circle?

3 A. They would very quickly cease to be members of the SPS, either of

4 their own free will or were excluded from the Socialist Party of Serbia.

5 Q. You've set out in the summary the details of how you lost office.

6 Much of this will be a matter of public record. In a first round you had

7 by far the largest number of votes, more than Seselj. Eventually you

8 withdrew your candidature and Milutinovic recorded a landslide victory, in

9 your judgement, because their involvement of the accused and his wife in

10 the election in a way that was adverse to you? Just yes or no.

11 A. These were the elections in 1997 for the post of president of the

12 Republic of Serbia. And from this distance in time, certain members of my

13 own party played a highly dishonourable role. I can say that. And in

14 view of the way in which such instructions were made, there's no doubt

15 that Mr. Milosevic and Mrs. Markovic played a significant role. Certainly

16 I wouldn't have been a candidate at all if they hadn't wanted it in the

17 first place.

18 Q. That will probably do for these purposes. Thank you, Mr. Lilic.

19 And I'm sorry to have to take things quickly, but you understand the real

20 pressures of time we face, because we -- well, because we do.

21 Let's go to tab 3 of Exhibit 469 to see a little bit more about

22 the programme of the SPS.

23 MR. NICE: And if the Chamber would look at the top right-hand

24 page numbering, I shall be going first to page 11 in a document that is

25 the programme of the Socialist Party of Serbia, as set out in the first

1 congress on July the 16th, 1990. At page 11 of 13 in the English version,

2 under the headings "The Serbian Diaspora," was the platform of your policy

3 as follows -- platform of your party as follows: "The Socialist Party of

4 Serbia will regularly monitor the living conditions and development of

5 Serbs living in the other republics and abroad and maintain extensive" --

6 it's right towards the end. I'm sorry, Mr. Lilic. "And maintain

7 intensive relations with their political, cultural, and other

8 organisations, believing it to be only natural for other nations to

9 maintain such relations with their fellow countrymen living in Serbia, she

10 will extend material and moral assistance to them, help improve their

11 living conditions, and preserve their national identity and cultural

12 traditions, and ensure more intensive cultural development."

13 And at the foot of the same page -- at the foot of the page in

14 English and two-thirds of the way down the page in your version,

15 Mr. Lilic, does it say: "The new Yugoslav constitution should allow for

16 the forming of autonomous provinces in Yugoslavia on the basis of the

17 expressed will of the population and national, historical, cultural, and

18 other specificities"? Is that part of the policy of your party?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. At the Second Congress, on the 23rd and 24th of October of 1992 -

21 tab 4, please. Thank you very much. And here if the Court would look at

22 page 31 of 40. And if the usher could take the witness to page 30 of 38.

23 For the witness, page 30, please. I think it may start, actually, on the

24 foot of page 29, 29/30.

25 At this congress was the following made clear, under the title

1 "Yugoslav - A Free Federal Republic." Page 31 of the English for the

2 usher.

3 "The option for Yugoslavia is based on a variety of grounds. It

4 makes a community with the Montenegrin nation possible. By maintaining

5 Yugoslavia, the Serbian nation preserves its homeland, an essential

6 guarantee of the protection of all the remaining parts of the Serbian

7 nation. It enables legitimate concern for the Serbs outside Serbia and

8 creates the institutional possibility for the Federal Republic of

9 Yugoslavia to be joined, in future, by Krajina and the Serbian Republic of

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Regardless of all resistance to the recognition of

11 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from the aspect of international law,

12 its international legal continuity is more difficult to contest than the

13 establishment of the sovereign state of Serbia, therefore in this context

14 too, the reorganisation of Yugoslavia is the optimal solution."

15 Was that the expressed opinion at the Second Congress?

16 A. Yes. This was when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had already

17 been constituted. And in the constitution of the Federal Republic of

18 Yugoslavia, this possibility existed and this was one of the important

19 activities of all of us in the SPS, including activities in the area that

20 you referred to a moment ago.

21 Q. In your judgement, paragraph 32 of the summary, did the accused

22 have any wider political or military strategies with which the SPS

23 policies were or not consistent?

24 A. I have to admit that I don't quite understand the question. Could

25 you be more specific, please.

1 Q. Yes. At that time, did the accused demonstrate by his statements

2 any intention to unite Serbs in a single state?

3 A. All Serbs in a single state is a thesis that has been put forward

4 for many years, and it was only the SFRY that was the state in which all

5 Serbs were in one state and every effort was made to preserve that

6 territory so that Serbs would remain in such a single state.

7 Q. Can we look at tab 5 briefly, which is an English version only, I

8 think. The British Broadcasting Corporation report on a speech by the

9 accused. If you'd be good enough to listen to this, in translation if

10 appropriate -- a speech by the accused in 1991 was to this effect, third

11 paragraph: "We hold that each nation has the equal right to decide freely

12 about its destiny. Such a right can be constrained solely by the same,

13 equal right of other nations. As far as the Serbian people are concerned,

14 they want to live in one state. Hence, divisions into several states,

15 which would separate Serbian people and force them to live in different

16 sovereign states is, from our point of view, unacceptable, that is - let

17 me specify - out of the question. The Serbian nation will live in one

18 state and every nation wanting to live with the Serbian people in the same

19 state on an equal basis is welcome. Confederation is not a state."

20 Is that consistent with the views publicly expressed by the

21 accused at the time?

22 A. Yes. Only as far as we were concerned in the SPS, this applied --

23 involved the right of a referendum, so that people who wanted to stay

24 could stay and those who wanted to leave could leave. So I assume that

25 this relates to that period, and my answer is yes.

1 Q. Tab 6, please. The Third SPS Congress held on or about the 2nd of

2 March, 1996, includes speech of -- well, it may be by the accused, and

3 it's about six lines down, the first paragraph in both the English and

4 B/C/S versions, where the accused said this: "Serbia has assisted

5 materially and morally all afflicted Serbs, those at war where a war was

6 waged, those in peace who could not work, those in exile, and those here,

7 and all this while she was under sanctions, which after all has been

8 imposed precisely as a consequence of this moral and material support to

9 Serbs outside Serbia."

10 Was that part of the general policy advanced by the accused and

11 indeed, I think, repeated at the Fourth Congress, in February 2000?

12 A. Yes, that is true.

13 Q. Going back to the question I asked you earlier: These political

14 statements advanced in the setting of the political party, were they

15 consistent with, as you could judge it, the political and military

16 strategies of the accused at the time?

17 A. As far as extending aid is concerned and everything else regarding

18 the activities within the SPS of Serbia, the answer is yes.

19 Q. And the next topic to which you've been given leave to give

20 evidence by the government. It's paragraphs 37 and 8 under the general

21 heading "The De Jure Powers of the President of Serbia." I think it's

22 actually probably appropriate to deal with that under the next section,

23 really, which is the de jure powers of the president of the SFRY.

24 Just help us, please, Mr. Lilic. So far as your position as

25 president was concerned, was it an office with real authority? Was it an

1 office of formality? In a couple of sentences, help us.

2 A. The position of the president of the Federal Republic of

3 Yugoslavia, as defined in the constitution by Articles 135 and 136 is a

4 protocol position. It is the chancellor system of government that was

5 established when all powers in the hands of the prime minister, so that as

6 I said, the post of president of FRY was of a purely protocol nature.

7 Q. Did that position change when the constitution of the FRY was

8 amended in 2000?

9 A. Yes, to a certain extent it was changed in the year 2000, with the

10 amendments to the articles of the constitution defining the mandate,

11 method of election, and term of office. As according to the previous

12 constitution was indirectly elected in the federal assembly by the

13 majority who had the majority, and in this way the possibility was given

14 to extend the mandate. The term of office used to be four years, and then

15 it was extended to two mandates of four years, and the president was

16 elected directly, which gives him greater legitimacy and greater powers;

17 whereas, at the same time, the powers of the president of the federal

18 government were reduced.

19 Q. I move, then, more formally to the title "De jure powers of the

20 president of the FRY" with a number of subdivisions in respect to which

21 leave has been given for you to give evidence, even if some points would

22 otherwise be revealed, paragraph 39.

23 Can you help us please, with just very briefly, the manner of

24 command over the VJ exercised by the president of the FRY, and what was

25 the role of decisions of the Supreme Defence Council in that chain of

1 command?

2 A. You have given excessive authority to the president of Yugoslavia

3 when you say that the army was in his hands. That wouldn't be a good

4 thing. If the president were to act in that way. The president of

5 Yugoslavia was one of three equal members of the Supreme Defence Council.

6 When we talk about the president of Yugoslavia, in relation to Article 4

7 of the law on the Army of Yugoslavia, it can be said that the president

8 was in command of the Army of Yugoslavia in war and peace primarily and

9 exclusively in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Defence

10 Council.

11 Q. Paragraph 42. To what extent was the president of the FRY able to

12 receive reports from the Serbian DB?

13 A. The president of FRY was one of the institutions that regularly

14 received reports from the state security. However, if I would be

15 interested in a particular situation, I would receive such reports, but I

16 would regularly receive them from others.

17 Q. What authority, if any, did the president of the FRY - paragraph

18 43 of the summary - have in respect of promotion of military officials?

19 A. There are different interpretations, but as a rule I respected the

20 principle defined by Article 136 of the constitution of FRY and a decree

21 passed by the federal government on the promotion of military personnel,

22 but the president did have the right to promote generals to major general

23 and up rank and also to promote the first group of cadets upon graduation

24 from military academies. But I certainly, I consulted and conferred with

25 the Federal Defence Council, but all such promotions were made on the

1 proposal of the general staff and the college of the general staff

2 meeting.

3 Q. Now, the next exhibit, tab 9, is or would be the minutes of the

4 5th Session of the Supreme Defence Council held on the 9th of June, 1998,

5 after the witness was out of office. I have been notified of no national

6 security concerns in respect of this particular document, but I observe

7 what happened the previous occasion, so it may be that the government

8 representative wishes to say something about it. I don't know?

9 JUDGE MAY: Do you want to deal with this now? I mean, it may

10 be -- there could be a series of these documents which we could deal with

11 it together.

12 MR. NICE: I'm happy to deal with it on that basis. I simply

13 don't know whether this is one that was objected to or not.

14 JUDGE MAY: Okay. Let's just see. Tab 9, yes, Mr. Caric.

15 MR. CARIC: Yes, that's correct. We -- we haven't any remarks --

16 any objections concerning that document.

17 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

18 MR. NICE: Tab 9, then, please, is the minutes. If the witness

19 can have it. And it's the 5th Session of the Supreme Defence Council held

20 on the 9th of June of 1998. I think the Chamber's document may be marked,

21 I'm not sure, on the first page under agenda number 2 is personal issues.

22 If the Chamber would go to the bottom right-hand corner numbering pages 4

23 of 8. And if the accused -- the witness would go to -- I think it's

24 page -- the top right-hand corner, 01132438 I think is the right place to

25 go.

1 Q. We see, Mr. Lilic, at this minute of a Supreme Defence Council

2 meeting that the accused asked General Perisic to distribute copies of

3 material with proposals for issues amongst attendees of the session and

4 then to explain the proposals and Perisic notified the attendees that the

5 committee -- the chiefs of the general staff had discussed it and the

6 proposals were brought in consent with the Ministry of Defence or the

7 Federal Ministry of Defence. And then we see reaching a decision on the

8 seizure [as interpreted] of professional military service, Bozidar Babic

9 and Markovic Mihajlo were referred to and so on. And then we see further

10 down promotions to higher ranks.

11 This document, how does it fit with your understanding of the role

12 of president and of the SDC in promotions of military officers?

13 A. This is what I was referring to a moment ago, and I assume that

14 list had previously been agreed upon in a certain sense. But in any

15 event, I think that the proposal of the general staff, the chief of the

16 general staff, was respected, and that the Supreme Defence Council fully

17 accepted this proposal, which I think is quite in order.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: Seizure is a mistranslation.

19 MR. NICE: I guessed it was, and the word should be ...?

20 THE INTERPRETER: Cessation.

21 MR. NICE: I thought so. Thank you very much.

22 Q. I'm going to move straight on at the moment to paragraph 51 to

23 save time. During your term of office, please, help us with the

24 subordination of MUP to the VJ. In what circumstances did that -- or

25 could that happen?

1 A. The MUP or, rather, individual units of the police from both

2 republics could be subordinated in the command sense to the Army of

3 Yugoslavia only under certain conditions. In the case of immediate threat

4 of war, and the existence of a threat of war, or a state of war in the

5 whole republic or a part of the republic, and that could be a motive for

6 introducing a state of emergency.

7 Q. Paragraph 52. Can you help us with the terms with which we are

8 becoming familiar, Supreme Command and Supreme Command Staff. What was

9 the Supreme Command?

10 A. The Supreme Command exists only in times of war. The Supreme

11 Command Staff is the most qualified body implementing decisions taken by

12 the Supreme Command. The Supreme Command is formed on the basis of the

13 strategy of armed struggle and the doctrine of the defence for the Federal

14 Republic of Yugoslavia. The Supreme Command consists of members of the

15 Supreme Defence Council and then, only then, is the president of the

16 Supreme Defence Council at the same time the Supreme Commander of the

17 armed forces, and then the armed forces act together by certain units of

18 the MUP joining them. Which those units are, I cannot talk about them.

19 In addition to permanent members of the Supreme Defence Council, the

20 Supreme Command also includes the Minister of Internal Affairs, the

21 Minister of Foreign Affairs, the presidents of both chambers of the

22 Federal Assembly, and the Supreme Command Staff is in fact the general

23 staff that takes over the role of the Supreme Command Staff.

24 Q. The Federal Minister of Defence --

25 A. Yes, I forgot to mention him. Of course. The Minister of Defence

1 of course is a member of the Supreme Command.

2 Q. The mandate and obligations of the Supreme Command Staff and the

3 Supreme Command, in case we need to research this, are to be found, I

4 think, in two documents. Can you name them?

5 A. Those two documents are adopted by the Supreme Defence Council, so

6 I assume that as the NATO bombing began on the 24th, that a state of

7 emergency and state of war was introduced that same day, so I assume that

8 by decision of President Milosevic the Supreme Command was set up on the

9 strategy of armed struggle and the military doctrine of the Federal

10 Republic of Yugoslavia. Those are the two documents. And you'll be able

11 to find them in the federal government -- or rather, the Federal Ministry

12 of Defence, the military doctrine and strategy of armed struggle or

13 battle.

14 Q. Paragraph 56. You may have covered this, but just for

15 clarification or detail, the defence plan when formed is adopted by which

16 body?

17 A. The plan of the country's defence was adopted by the Supreme

18 Defence Council. It is a document which is highly confidential and is

19 donated with a state secret. And all I can say is that it contains

20 detailed defence plans for the entire territory of the FRY. So a decision

21 to deploy it is made by the president of the Federal Republic of

22 Yugoslavia. Of course, it can undergo certain changes and amendments,

23 depending on the political and security situation in the region and within

24 the country as a whole.

25 Q. To your knowledge or understanding, was it changed regularly or

1 only infrequently?

2 A. The country's defence plan is changed very rarely. That is

3 logical and that's how it should be. And during my term of office, I

4 don't think it was changed at all, even once.

5 Q. Do you know or have a belief as to whether it changed before the

6 NATO bombing campaign?

7 A. I don't know. But in view of these specific features and

8 circumstances of the war, it probably did undergo certain changes. But I

9 just can't say which.

10 Q. Next heading, under "Constitutional framework of the Federal

11 Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia." Mr. Lilic, were --

12 we've heard a lot about the various constitutions of these bodies, and

13 you've heard the Chamber say that you're not an expert -- perhaps you

14 hadn't heard it, but you're not an expert on law. But nevertheless this:

15 Were the republic and federal constitutions ever properly brought into

16 line, the ones with the other?

17 A. Unfortunately, for the most part, or at least in the essential

18 aspects, the republican constitution was adopted in 1990, the federal ones

19 in 1992, and of Montenegro in the autumn of 1992. It is my impression, in

20 addition to the various efforts made, that this did not correspond to

21 either the republican governments or presidents and so the influences of

22 the republic were lost?

23 A. That is to say, they were not brought in line with the

24 constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And the best example

25 of this was the intensive desire on a federal level to constitute a united

1 system of national security in order to tie up all the republics and

2 security systems into one single system and thus have a collection of

3 information. But this was not accepted by any of the parties.

4 Q. In your judgement, was there one and only one institution that

5 operated on a truly federal level? And if so, what was it?

6 A. At federal level?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. As far as it was possible, the Army of Yugoslavia functioned and

9 operated.

10 Q. Thank you very much. I turn now to the next heading, something

11 called the State Council for coordinating positions on state policy,

12 paragraph 58 and following.

13 Did you become aware through records you were able to read of --

14 or by other means -- of a body called the State Council for coordinating

15 positions on state policy that was effective during the reign of the --

16 during the period of your predecessor, Dobrica Cosic?

17 A. Yes. When I became president, I did have occasion to see all the

18 minutes from the meeting of the council to dovetail the state policy of

19 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And, as far as I remember, they were

20 strictly confidential or, rather, came under the heading of state secret.

21 So I won't be able to comment on them, in keeping with Rule 90.

22 Q. Records of that meeting were made how, Mr. Lilic?

23 A. If you mean the council, if you're referring to the council for

24 coordinating positions on state policy, they were shorthand notes.

25 Q. Did that mean that there was a verbatim record of what people said

1 at those council meetings?

2 A. For the most part, yes.

3 Q. And are the records of that body something that has been sought

4 pursuant to the same request for assistance, number 219, to which you've

5 already referred, a request made in June of last year?

6 A. Yes, they are on list 219. And I personally asked to have insight

7 into the minutes and records that I didn't have a chance to read, but

8 unfortunately I didn't have that opportunity.

9 Q. Was this body complementary to the Supreme Defence Council, to

10 which we'll turn in detail a little later?

11 A. What is certain is that that particular body was composed of the

12 most influential and most important officials of the Republic of Serbia,

13 the Republic of Montenegro, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And

14 of course also present were members of the Supreme Defence Council, which

15 means that the membership was even broader than just the members of the

16 Supreme Defence Council. Although, that body did not have any de jure

17 authorisations.

18 Q. Now, this council, in your judgement, was it more or less

19 influential than the SDC itself, the Supreme Defence Council itself?

20 A. If we look at it de facto, look at the competencies and

21 authorisations of the persons attending the council meeting and who

22 through their authority could make decisions and later on implement the

23 decisions reached at the council, to dovetail state policy, of course

24 looking at it from the aspects of the decisions made, then the council had

25 a much broader importance than the Supreme Defence Council.

1 Q. The council ceased to exist when you became president, I think.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Indeed, from that moment on, is the position that the -- there was

4 no political organ capable of dealing with the Republika Srpska or the

5 Republic of Serbian Krajina except for something called the Serbian

6 Ministry for Cooperation with Serbs Outside Serbia?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So that before your time, there's this wider council which --

9 which did have representation as needed, I think, of members of the

10 Republika Srpska and the Republika Srpska Krajina?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. It had a wide and extremely influential membership, and there are

13 verbatim notes of what was said at the meetings.

14 A. I just said that in response to your previous question, that there

15 were shorthand notes that were taken and that the council discussed topics

16 from fields that were important for negotiations to be conducted at that

17 time with the International Community and other subjects too.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why did it cease to exist when you became

19 president? Was there any particular reason?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Robinson. The council,

21 according to my knowledge, it was -- this was by decision of the former

22 president, President Dobrica Cosic. He considered the council to be

23 necessary, and that's how it came into being. I considered that we should

24 respect the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia within the

25 frameworks of his competencies on the constitution and also there were

1 state institutions that could deal with matters of this kind, such as the

2 Serbian government, the federal government, the prime minister of the

3 Serbian government, and so all the activities that were linked to the

4 negotiating efforts with respect to the International Community were

5 transported from President Milosevic, because his activities were made,

6 legitimised, by Serbs outside the border of Serbia and so on. So quite

7 simply it ceased to exist. It wasn't actually abolished, but it died an

8 actual death. It withered away.

9 MR. NICE:

10 Q. And how many --

11 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, continue.

13 MR. NICE:

14 Q. How many meetings all together, to your knowledge, did this

15 council have?

16 A. I had an opportunity of reading four shorthand records from the

17 four meetings, the first meetings, because I was interested in them. And

18 so to the best of my knowledge, there were about seven meetings in actual

19 fact of that type. In view of the relatively short period of time during

20 which President Cosic was president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I didn't appreciate that the

22 lawyers of the government don't have a copy of the outline. They must

23 certainly have that. And I'm going to invite them to turn their attention

24 to paragraph 61 immediately, on page 17.

25 While they're doing that, can I remind the Chamber that these

1 documents were dealt with in certain application, and they're numbers 48

2 and 49. And the resistance to production of the documents was on the

3 basis of overbroad and unduly onerous, but not on any other grounds. And

4 if the Chamber would be good enough to look to paragraph 61 of the

5 summary. The witness is in a position, I understand it, to help us with

6 what's set out there. And I'm going to ask him to do so in my next

7 question.

8 But I'm sorry that the officials didn't have the summary in

9 advance. They now do.

10 JUDGE MAY: It may be you should ask the question -- whether the

11 witness feels he can answer it or not will depend on him and whether

12 there's an objection or not. But at least you can ask the question and

13 we'll see what the response is.

14 MR. NICE: Yes.

15 Q. Mr. Lilic, are you in a position to give an account of what you

16 understand to be recorded in those notes, if and when they're produced to

17 us, from the meeting of the 9th of January of something said by the

18 accused in the presence of representatives of the Republic of Serbia, FRY,

19 Montenegro, the Republika Srpska, and Republika Srpska Krajina, touching

20 on de jure and de facto issues? Long question, but the question is

21 susceptible to a yes or no answer. Are you able to give an account of

22 what he said in that setting?

23 A. I can try and tell you, recount, what it says in a part of that --

24 those shorthand notes, in view of the fact that it's been quite some time

25 since I've read through them. Of course, linked to 1993.

1 MR. NICE: In the absence of objection, I'd ask the witness to

2 give his answer, please.

3 A. What this was about, as far as I recollect, is a specific

4 sentence, actually, which I remembered very well. And later on, out of

5 respect towards Mr. Milosevic, bearing in mind the time that he led this

6 and said -- and I think the sentence would be as follows: You can give up

7 everything for your own people and sacrifice everything except your own

8 people. But it was in the context of saying that by peaceful means he

9 wanted to have de jure things that had already been achieved de facto. He

10 meant negotiations, the unity that had been achieved, political, economic,

11 cultural, with respect to Republika Srpska, Republika Srpska Krajina, et

12 cetera. So that would be the gist of it, to the best of my knowledge,

13 that is, to make legitimate what had already existed in the field, on the

14 ground, make it legitimate in the eyes of the International Community.

15 Q. Thank you. We'll move on to the next topic, the Supreme Defence

16 Council itself, starting at paragraphs 65.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am unable to find the text of what

20 was quoted a moment ago by Mr. Nice. Has it been disclosed to me at all?

21 JUDGE MAY: Paragraph 61.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Paragraph 61, you say? I can read

23 that, yes, in the summary. However, Mr. Nice mentioned some shorthand

24 notes and records of a council that was set up by the first president of

25 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic. However, in all my

1 documents I don't seem to have come across any shorthand notes and minutes

2 from the council meetings, in all the material that I've received in the

3 past few days.

4 JUDGE MAY: Well, they haven't been disclosed, so you haven't got

5 them. But you can ask questions about them in due course, when you

6 question the witness, but there aren't any available.

7 Yes, Mr. Nice, go on.

8 MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

10 MR. NICE: My apologies.

11 Q. Paragraph 65, we've already heard a lot about the Supreme Defence

12 Council. Its composition was the presidents of the FRY, Serbia, and

13 Montenegro. Did those three members have voting rights and were they

14 technically equal in their rights and powers?

15 A. Yes, all three members of the Supreme Defence Council and the

16 presidents of all three republics were equal in the Supreme Defence

17 Council and also equal with respect to decision-making. The only right

18 that was different was the right enjoyed by the president of the Federal

19 Republic of Yugoslavia, on the basis of decisions taken by the council to

20 convey them through orders to the Army of Yugoslavia, via the chief of the

21 general staff, of course.

22 Q. Look, please, at tab 12, which perhaps can conveniently go on the

23 overhead projector -- I beg your pardon, tab 11. Tab 11. Does this in

24 diagramatic form show the council with its component voting members with a

25 chain of authority down to the chief of the general staff and then down to

1 the armed forces with off to the left Serbia, including Kosovo and

2 Vojvodina, and Montenegro and the FRY marked separately? Is this

3 schematically a fair reflection of how the Supreme Defence Council fitted

4 in and worked?

5 A. I'm afraid the picture on my monitor isn't a good one. But let me

6 have a look to the side here. All that remains here is the Federal

7 Defence Minister. But otherwise, yes, this schematic or diagram does

8 correspond to the composition of the Supreme Defence Council and its

9 authorisations.

10 And of course other members could have been added without -- could

11 have been added to inform the council without the right of voting, so they

12 could advise the council but they did not have the right to vote.

13 Q. The chief of the general staff, can you outline his

14 responsibilities and who he reported to and who he controlled?

15 A. It is logical that the chief of the general staff reports within

16 the framework of the orders he has received and in keeping with the

17 Supreme Defence Council decisions first of all to the president of the

18 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and also the president by virtue of office

19 is the individual who was to see that the Supreme Defence Council

20 decisions were put into practice, and at a subsequent meeting should

21 inform the other two members of the Supreme Defence Council thereof.

22 Q. Did he, along with other people, attend the Supreme Defence

23 Council meetings, although they didn't have voting powers?

24 A. The presence of the chief of the general staff, by virtue of the

25 work that the Supreme Defence Council did was obligatory. So he had to

1 attend Supreme Defence Council meetings, yes, regardless of the fact that

2 he didn't have any voting rights but he was there to inform them, to

3 report to them, to present them with analyses, and to participate in the

4 council's work.

5 Q. Typically who else attended Supreme Defence Council meetings?

6 A. As a rule, they were the three members of the Supreme Defence

7 Council with voting rights, that is, the president of the Republic of

8 Yugoslavia, the president of Serbia, and the president of Montenegro as

9 permanent council members, and always a representative of the federal

10 government of Federal Yugoslavia, the chief of the general staff of the

11 Yugoslav army, Yugoslavia, the Defence Minister, and the Defence

12 Ministries of the FRY, and as needs be there could be another expert

13 present from another field, depending on what the Supreme Defence Council

14 was discussing or what it was interested in. And the reverse solution

15 could also be possible, that one of the members or all the members of the

16 Supreme Defence Council wanted to transfer the knowledge and information

17 to an expanded superior staff of the general staff, the senior staff, and

18 then an expanded session would be held.

19 Q. Were SDC sessions recorded - paragraph 71 - in two ways, both by a

20 stenographic -- whatever it is, a stenographic record, but also by tape

21 recording?

22 A. Sessions of the Supreme Defence Council, at the beginning, when it

23 started working - and I have to say here that during my term of office

24 there were a lot of meetings that were held, over 50 in fact - and they

25 were all recorded in two ways, that is quite right. One were the

1 stenographic or shorthand notes, and the other kind was audiotapes. But

2 later on this practice of tapes was no longer -- and an audiotape was also

3 used, but not later on.

4 Q. Why was the audiotape practice abolished, to your knowledge and

5 understanding?

6 A. What I know is this: In view of the fact that President Milosevic

7 told me that he considered that it was enough to just have the

8 stenographic shorthand minutes and that we didn't need this additional

9 technology which implied the presence of technicians.

10 Q. In addition to the stenographic notes, which are extensive record,

11 there are minutes of the meeting in a few or several pages; correct?

12 A. Yes. But if I may just explain this: The minutes were recorded

13 as excerpts of the most important parts of the meeting, but of course an

14 additional minutes recorded the entire proceedings.

15 Q. Now, despite efforts to obtain these documents for over a year, in

16 fact for much longer periods of time as far as some of these are

17 concerned, they haven't been available, and in absence of either the

18 stenographic notes or of the minutes and a full record of either, do you

19 feel capable or incapable of dealing with any of these meetings in any

20 detail at all?

21 A. Absolutely not, and that for two reasons: The issues are too

22 important, so any improvisation would not be proper, either towards the

23 Tribunal, the Court, you, or Mr. Milosevic. And the second very important

24 reason is that these are high -- very confident documents, and these are

25 not on the list for which I have received a waiver of liability.

1 Q. That additional list has been copied. It will be distributed in

2 due course. But it does further limit the witness. And it may be

3 appropriate in due course to explore with the authorities what their

4 attitude with regard to that is going to be.

5 Nevertheless, speaking in general terms - paragraph 68 - was an

6 SDC decision required either to mobilise or demobilise the Army of

7 Yugoslavia?

8 A. Of course, the Supreme Defence Council had to take part in

9 discussing a decision of that nature; although, I don't know what period

10 you have in mind.

11 Q. The representatives of the government might like to look, please,

12 to tab 14, which I would turn to in the absence of objection and will

13 otherwise turn to at a later stage compendiously with other such

14 documents.

15 MR. CARIC: Your Honour, we haven't any objection.

16 MR. NICE:

17 Q. Then tab 14 is a record of the 6th Session of the SDC for the 9th

18 of December of 1992. And in line with the evidence you've just given,

19 Mr. Lilic, on the agenda item number 1 is this: Preparation of the

20 Yugoslav army to face the threat of military intervention in Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina, possible aggression by Croatia against the Republic of

22 Serbian Krajina and a possible secessionist Albanian uprising in Kosovo.

23 We needn't look at the detail. That reflects the necessary role of the

24 SDC in these matters; correct?

25 A. Absolutely, so yes. I have to just ask you this: The minutes are

1 not on the list of documents that I am able to comment on. But if I

2 understood what the government representative said, he accepts -- he takes

3 over part of the responsibility for that, he takes it upon himself.

4 MR. NICE: It would be helpful for the witness if the government

5 representative could make that clear.

6 MR. CARIC: Your Honour, this document doesn't cover the period

7 from 1993 to 1997, but for any precaution we -- it depends on Trial

8 Chamber to decide concerning that.

9 JUDGE MAY: Well, it -- it may be convenient if you would have a

10 word with the Prosecution and tell them the pages or the documents that

11 you object to so that they can know in advance, and then we will deal with

12 them all compendiously at some stage later in the proceedings.

13 It may be sensible during the adjournment, Mr. Nice, if you can at

14 least make some progress on that.

15 MR. NICE: Certainly, I will. I'm very anxious, incidentally, to

16 conclude if I possibly can - it may be a tall order - the evidence by the

17 end of today's session or straying into tomorrow's only to a limited

18 extent. I'll see how I'm doing. I'm not doing too badly so far. I may

19 have to cut certain topics to achieve that objective. If I do achieve

20 that objective, I hope that there will be a -- a reasonable period of time

21 for re-examination, because of course by abbreviating my

22 examination-in-chief I allow more time for issues to be joined by the

23 accused with the witness, the accused being in a position to know fully

24 what the witness would say on various topics from the summary and the

25 statement.

1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lilic, we're going to adjourn now for 20 minutes.

2 I must warn you, as we warn all witnesses, not to speak about your

3 evidence until it's over, and that does include speaking to members of the

4 Prosecution team. Could you be back, please, in 20 minutes.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was my understanding a short

10 while ago, from the explanation provided by Mr. Nice, that he wants to

11 shorten to a maximum this examination-in-chief. This is a witness who is

12 testifying about all of ten years, from 1990 until 2000. This is a

13 witness who held the highest political offices in the country and in the

14 party in that period. He spent an entire term of office as president of

15 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then also Deputy Prime Minister.

16 JUDGE MAY: Now, look, it's up to -- it's up to Mr. Nice how long

17 he takes, if he wants to shorten things. When it comes to your turn to

18 cross-examine, of course we'll bear it in mind. If it's been

19 foreshortened, you won't be prejudiced.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wish to add one more thing,

21 that Mr. Nice is introducing through this witness a great many important

22 documents, and I need time to go through all of them. So I ask to be

23 given time that is not somewhat longer than the time Mr. Nice will have

24 but much more time than Mr. Nice will have, because there are a great many

25 questions about which I have to ask Mr. Lilic and these are questions that

1 he can certainly give me answers to.

2 JUDGE MAY: All that we'll have in mind.

3 MR. NICE: I think the witness has before him tab 14, which we've

4 looked at already, the preparation of the Yugoslav army. And we can move

5 on from that. I can say I've spoken to the representatives of their

6 government. Although Mr. Lilic's presidency fell within the years 1993 to

7 1997, at the moment they have a general blanket objection to documents

8 that fall in any part of the years 1993 to 1997, and so any such documents

9 we'll deal with compendiously at the end. But other than that, I think

10 they have no objections and they'll notify me -- or the Court, rather, if

11 they do.

12 Q. If we can go now, please, to paragraph 74. Mr. Lilic, in your

13 time as president, by what method were SDC decisions made, vote or

14 consensus?

15 A. As a rule, irrespective of the rules of procedure for the Supreme

16 Defence Council, decisions were passed by consensus, although the rules of

17 procedure did provide for the possibility of passing decisions by majority

18 vote.

19 MR. NICE: Tab 15, please. There are two versions of these rules,

20 I think, slightly unhelpfully in the reverse order. Sorry about that. If

21 the Chamber would go through about four sheets to the rules of the Supreme

22 Defence Council for 1992 and then turn to the second sheet to Article 7.

23 The rule operative at the time of Mr. Lilic's presidency was to the effect

24 that the Supreme Defence Council should conduct its work in sessions and

25 adopt final decisions when the majority of council members are present.

1 The council may also, when circumstances require, adopt decisions and

2 conclusions on matters within its jurisdiction without holding a session

3 on the basis of consultation amongst council member.

4 Q. Mr. Lilic, dealing with that last point, what was envisaged as

5 consultation? Was it telephone discussion, matters of that sort?

6 A. Yes. They could consult through special telephone lines that were

7 protected. They're very rare, these situations. I think that I only had

8 one of them.

9 Q. I'll come back then to the first part of the document as produced,

10 which is the amended rules. The first sheet of the exhibit, the

11 amendments being effected, I think, in March 1999, after Mr. Lilic's

12 presidency. You can see under Article 3 for this period of time sessions

13 of the Supreme Defence Council -- it's Article 3, second paragraph --

14 "sessions of the council must be attended by the Federal Ministry of

15 Defence and the Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army or by

16 persons standing in for them and a session cannot be held without their

17 presence."

18 And then it say this is under Article 4: "The Supreme Defence

19 Council shall do its work at all sessions; all its decisions shall be

20 taken by consensus and shall only be valid if so taken."

21 Then it goes on to say: "...decides by consensus on appointments,

22 promotions, and the cessation of professional military service for

23 generals and admirals," and sets out more detail of that.

24 Any comment you want to make on those changes to the rules of the

25 Supreme Defence Council beyond what you've already said, Mr. Lilic?

1 A. Article 4 practically confirms how the previous Supreme Defence

2 Council operated. Although, in Article 7 it did not say that decisions

3 are reached by consensus. The presence of the chief of general staff was

4 obligatory at that time as well. It is a fact that after 1997 the Supreme

5 Defence Council did not reach all its decisions by consensus. So this

6 gave a definition to everything that was actually going on. For example,

7 when President Djukanovic disagreed to the replacement of the chief of

8 general staff. It is interesting that this was adopted only a day before

9 the bombing. It doesn't really have to be of any significance, but it is

10 interesting.

11 Q. Because the council members had equal voting powers, theoretically

12 any two could -- in your day could outvote the third. Did that ever

13 happen? And in particular, did it ever happen that the accused was

14 outvoted?

15 A. I do not remember whether something like that ever happened, that

16 Mr. Milosevic was outvoted. As for the first part of your question, I

17 think that Mr. Perisic was replaced by a two-to-one vote. Although, this

18 was the legitimate right of President Milosevic. This kind of an

19 important decision should have been reached by consensus though.

20 Q. Paragraph 76. What percentage of the FRY's budget was provided by

21 Serbia, as opposed to Montenegro?

22 JUDGE MAY: Do you want the -- any documents shown, or can the

23 usher return?

24 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. Yes, the usher can return.

25 Q. Mr. Lilic, what percentage of the FRY's budget was provided by

1 Serbia?

2 A. Well, during my term of office, from 1993 to 1997, this

3 percentage, that is to say, the share of the Republic of Serbia and the

4 overall budget of Yugoslavia, was about 95 per cent; whereas, Montenegro

5 accounted for about 5 per cent. Of course, these were budget estimates at

6 the time of the adoption of the budget and hardly ever were they actually

7 carried through during the year. I think that at a point Montenegro

8 practically stopped paying even that share, and the entire financing of

9 the state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia fell on the shoulders of

10 the Republic of Serbia. I think that this is identical today.

11 Q. And what effect did that financial contribution have on the

12 realities for outvoting Serbia in the SDC -- or outvoting the accused in

13 the SDC?

14 A. I've already told you that during my term of office the Supreme

15 Defence Council indeed did not pass a single decision that required

16 outvoting, where there was a two-to-one vote in relation to Montenegro or,

17 anyway. As for the influence of Mr. Milosevic, I think that his influence

18 in the Supreme Defence Council was a major one indeed, not only due to the

19 fact that Serbia financed 95 per cent of the budget but absolutely because

20 of Mr. Milosevic's authority.

21 Q. In which case let's turn, because we've dealt with paragraph 78,

22 to paragraph 79. How did the accused impose his political will, if he

23 did, on the SDC?

24 A. It would be hard to talk about imposing will on the SDC. I don't

25 know whether you have any concrete examples.

1 Q. How, if at all, did the accused influence or how was his influence

2 felt at the SDC?

3 A. I said a short while ago that at any rate, his influence was

4 dominant, because of the overall strength of the Republic of Serbia and

5 its overall influence, in terms of the budget of the FRY, in terms of

6 financing the Army of Yugoslavia. Of course, there were mutual

7 consultations between the two republics, and it is hard to draw a line in

8 terms of his dominant influence over the SDC or perhaps if agreement was

9 reached on a particular point before a session or at a session itself.

10 Q. The accused was - it's obvious, I think - a member of the SDC from

11 its beginning to its end, 1992 to the year 2000; correct?

12 A. From 1992 until the year 2000, from the day the Federal Republic

13 of Yugoslavia was constituted.

14 Q. In the course of your presidency, four years, from 1993 to 1997,

15 is it right that the SDC met on some 53 occasions?

16 A. I'm not aware of the exact number, but there were certainly tens

17 of sessions that were held. It must have been over 50.

18 Q. Do you know how many sessions there were in the remaining period

19 of the council under the presidency of the accused between 1997 and 2000?

20 A. I am not aware of that particular piece of information.

21 Q. Was it more or less or about the same frequency as with your

22 presidency?

23 A. Well, I assume less, but it is an assumption merely.

24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lilic, just a moment.

25 He doesn't know, Mr. Nice. I don't see any point in pursuing it.

1 MR. NICE: Very well.

2 Q. And finally, so far as the workings of the SDC are concerned - at

3 paragraph 83 - there came a time when Mr. Djukanovic became the

4 Montenegrin representative on the SDC. Are you able to help us with the

5 relations as you understood them between the accused, Djukanovic and

6 Milutinovic from your position in government at the time?

7 A. Well, unrelated to the Supreme Defence Council, I think that this

8 is a period of intensively bad relations between the FRY and Montenegro

9 and in terms of Serbia's and Montenegro's participation in the FRY in

10 general. In Montenegro, it was the bad relations between Mr. Djukanovic

11 and Mr. Bulatovic, and of course this was reflected in Serbia, and it was

12 also reflected on relations in the SDC. As far as I knew about the work

13 of the SDC in that period, it was clear that Mr. Djukanovic was opposed to

14 the passing of some very important decisions. I think that later on he

15 attended these meetings of the SDC less and less, if they were held and to

16 the extent to which they were held, which I really don't know.

17 Q. Can you turn to the next title, "The VRS and SVK Officer

18 Salaries," paragraph 85. Did the FRY provide financial assistance to VRS

19 and SVK officers?

20 A. The answer is yes. But if possible could I please explain it in a

21 bit more detail?

22 Q. Yes. I think first of all you can tell us, did you inherit this

23 situation when you became chairman of the SDC? And did you formalise it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you formalised it by the creation of, I think, a couple of

1 bodies. Tell us about those.

2 A. This was done through a decision passed by the SDC. If I'm not

3 mistaken, it was towards the end of 1993, in November 1993. The order to

4 establish the 30th and 40th so-called personnel centres is one that I

5 signed. Now, how did these centres come into being? I think that this is

6 the core of this matter, why part of the VRS and part of the SVK were

7 financed.

8 During 1992, as the Yugoslav People's Army was withdrawing from

9 everything that was going on in the territory of the former SFRY - and it

10 is not contested that the SFRY was the only internationally recognised

11 state by the UN - therefore, the Yugoslav People's Army was the armed

12 force of that recognised state. I don't want to go into lengthy

13 explanations of this nature. At any rate, when the JNA was withdrawing, a

14 great many officers of the JNA who originally came from the territory of

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina wished to remain in the territory of

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to the information that I saw, we are

17 talking about 1800 people, either civilians employed by the JNA or NCOs or

18 commissioned officers of the Yugoslav People's Army.

19 At the same time, the presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic

20 of Yugoslavia during the second half of the year, during the second half

21 of 1992, passed a decision that all citizens of the Republic of Serbia and

22 the Republic of Montenegro who are within the Yugoslav People's Army

23 outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be

24 withdrawn to the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and

25 practically this was how the Army of Yugoslavia was created. This was the

1 base for doing that. However, there were people who remained within the

2 JNA but outside this territory who were not citizens of the Federal

3 Republic of Yugoslavia or, rather, they were not citizens of the Republic

4 of Montenegro or the Republic of Serbia, and therefore they could not be

5 members of the Army of Yugoslavia, and that was the basic reason why the

6 30th personnel centre was established, primarily to resolve the

7 existential status of these people who formerly belonged to the JNA and

8 who were outside the territory of the FRY and who were citizens of the

9 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10 The centre was established precisely with that aim in mind, in

11 order to have the documents taken care of properly, to take care of their

12 own needs, to take care of the needs of their families primarily, because

13 most of them were refugees in the territory of the Federal Republic of

14 Yugoslavia.

15 Q. Paragraph 87. From November 1993, what was the approximate

16 expenditure per month - or if you want to deal with it per year - per year

17 on payment of salaries and other benefits to VRS personnel and their

18 families?

19 A. Of course I will do that. The monthly allocations for the members

20 of the 30th personnel centre amounted to about 1.600.000 Deutschmark or

21 about 800.000 Euros. In the period from 1993 until 1997, there were 4.000

22 recipients of this aid, a bit over 4.000. The annual allocations were

23 about 8 million Euros. And then after 1997, or to be more precise, on the

24 28th of March, 2001, Mr. Kostajnica abolished this centre all together.

25 After this, this assistance was received by a remaining 1600 people until

1 an annex were to be made, which is -- an agreement were to be made which

2 is an annex to an agreement between Republika Srpska and the Republic of

3 Serbia and which is quite like the agreement signed between the Republic

4 of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

5 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the next exhibit would be tab 16. It's

6 outside the presidency of the witness but is 10th of November, 1997. If

7 Mr. Caric confirms that he's like that put on the basis of the previous

8 exhibits, we'll put that aside and come to it later.

9 It would perhaps be better to come to it later, in any event, and

10 give the government time to think about it.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

12 MR. NICE: I'll move on, paragraph 89.

13 Q. I'm sorry, you may have covered this. Was there a break in the

14 provision of funds to the 30th Personnel Centre at the time of the embargo

15 against the Bosnian Serbs in August 1994?

16 A. There was a break. The decision was passed on the 4th of August,

17 1994. This was a decision passed by the federal government. If I can use

18 an expression which was quite a burden on the Federal Republic of

19 Yugoslavia to practically sanctions were imposed against Republika

20 Srpska. This was an economically motivated decision but it was also

21 political because the leadership of Republika Srpska did not accept the

22 plan of the contact group. It went on for about a year or a bit more, and

23 the allocations amounted to social welfare practically and it did not

24 exceed average salaries in the Republic of Serbia -- or rather, the

25 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So there was a break of about one year or

1 perhaps a bit more than that.

2 Q. Next topic, the accused's control over Serbian or Federal MUP,

3 paragraph 93, page 25. The accused's attitude in the time of your

4 presidency to the VJ and to the MUP, did he trust one -- or have

5 confidence in one more than in the other?

6 A. From the point of view of finance and providing technical

7 resources and all other resources, one may reach the assessment that the

8 VJ was subordinate, in terms of President Milosevic himself and the

9 Republic of Serbia, because it is the police of the Republic of Serbia

10 that was given primacy.

11 Q. To what extent did his financial -- did the financial steps he

12 took influence the army? How badly was it affected?

13 A. During all those years, from 1993 until 1997 - I'm talking about

14 the period while I was aware of this information and had access to it -

15 not only due to the wishes of President Milosevic or anybody else from the

16 government of Serbia but because of the overall situation - but let's move

17 along these lines - I don't think that in any single year the army did not

18 get even the allocations that were originally earmarked for it. In 1996,

19 as a matter of fact, all the bank accounts of the Army of Yugoslavia were

20 blocked, so this was quite a move made by the Republic of Serbia -- or

21 rather, its government, namely that the army was not meeting its financial

22 obligations, vis-a-vis the government of Serbia. At that time it was a

23 truly inconceivable thing to do.

24 Q. Following the appointment of Momcilo Perisic to the position of

25 chief of the general staff of the army in August of 1993, were you able to

1 effect some change or was there some change effected as to the type of

2 officer appointed to the VJ general staff?

3 A. In view of the period which in a way followed a period during

4 which most generals who were in top positions then, either in the JNA or

5 the VJ were pensioned off for one reason or the other, the appointment of

6 new generals to the general staff could have been very selective because

7 they were supposed to be professionally capable, and perhaps I can put it

8 that way, they should properly carry out the constitution and laws,

9 everything that meant the preservation of Yugoslavia. So the army was

10 supposed to be this truly cohesive factor that was supposed to safeguard

11 the former Yugoslavia. I'm convinced that such generals were chosen and

12 I'm very glad that that proved to be so at a later stage when they acted

13 the way the rules of service required of them.

14 Q. Did the accused accept this new cadre or different cadre, as you

15 would say it was, of generals? And if so, in your judgement, why?

16 A. Well, of course he did, because had he not accepted, they would

17 not have been appointed. I think the reason is a very simple one: He

18 thought that after all, in case there is any misunderstanding in relations

19 with the army, it was all possible to remove these generals. On the other

20 hand, there was a considerable force among the police itself.

21 Q. To what degree had the police by this sort of time become

22 militarised?

23 A. I don't know whether the expression "militarised" is a good term,

24 but I think that it was technically very well equipped and that it had

25 very good special units and also that the logistics that was lacking at

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts. Pages 22596 to 22603.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the request of senior police officers was obtained through the Army of

2 Yugoslavia by a decision of the federal government as the titulary of the

3 property of the Army of Yugoslavia is the federal government, which is a

4 quite a legitimate and legal transfer of weapons and supplies towards the

5 police.

6 Q. What comment, if any, do you have on the introduction of military

7 ranks into police hierarchy and the appointment of Radovan Stojicic, known

8 as Badza?

9 A. I personally do not think that when Mr. Milosevic accepted this,

10 he had any last intentions. He wanted to do a service to Mr. Stojicic.

11 At the same time, I can say with responsibility that this decision caused

12 dissatisfaction within the Army of Yugoslavia, in view of these ranks and

13 the level of education and the way in which ranks were acquired in the

14 army, which is far more complicated than it was at the time in the

15 police. So I think he had no ulterior motives in doing this.

16 Q. Was Stojicic, known as Badza, apparently a man suitable for the

17 high rank he was given?

18 A. He did acquire that rank. Probably it was assessed that it was a

19 suitable rank. I can give you a comparative qualifications of a colonel

20 general in the army. He had to have a Ph.D.; he had to have graduated

21 from the national military school; he must have had the highest marks

22 during his years of service. And if you compare Mr. Stojicic with an army

23 officer with the identical rank, then my answer would be no.

24 Q. Paragraph 96. In peacetime, the MUP reported to whom?

25 A. The MUP, by nature of things, when we're talking about MUP, we

1 have to make a distinction between its component parts. But in any event,

2 the Minister of the Police is the number-one figure in the Ministry of the

3 Police, and he is accountable to the prime minister.

4 But if I may go back to the previous question, the ranks were

5 introduced only in the public security sector, not in the state security

6 sector, within the MUP of Serbia.

7 Q. Zoran Sokolovic, please. Tell us about his role and his

8 relationship to the accused.

9 A. Sokolovic, I think, was president of the Assembly of Serbia in

10 1990, if I'm not mistaken, when the constitution of Serbia was being

11 adopted. Later on -- I'm not familiar with his biography. Please forgive

12 me. But I think later on he became minister in the Ministry of Police in

13 the Republic of Serbia, and I could say freely that he was a loyal person

14 to President Milosevic and that until 1997, if I'm not mistaken, he

15 remained Minister of the Police.

16 Q. In your judgement, did Zoran Sokolovic have any -- exercise any

17 real power?

18 A. Real power within the Ministry of the Police, no, if we are

19 talking about any powers within that ministry.

20 Q. Jovica Stanisic next. How influential was he in the Serbia MUP

21 hierarchy?

22 A. Mr. Stanisic who was head of the state security department until

23 he was replaced in 1998. I think it was in October of that year. I think

24 that he was a man of great authority, a good professional, and that his

25 authority in the MUP of Serbia was among the greatest, especially in the

1 state security department.

2 Q. Was he formally obliged to report? Who in fact do you understand

3 he reported to?

4 A. As I've already said, he certainly should have reported to the

5 Minister of the Police in the first place, and I think he did that during

6 Mr. Sokolovic's term of office. Later on those reports went to the prime

7 minister and the president of the Republic of Serbia. What I do know is

8 that when Mr. Stojiljkovic took over, this practice was changed, and that

9 Mr. Stanisic, as far as I know, upon personal inquiry, I had occasion to

10 see a decision by President Milosevic on the basis of which he reported

11 directly to Mr. Milosevic.

12 MR. NICE: Your Honours, we've seen Exhibit 277 as recently as

13 yesterday. I don't think there's any need to remind ourselves of it

14 again. I think it was yesterday.

15 JUDGE MAY: 227, was it?

16 MR. NICE: 277. I don't think we need look at it again. I think

17 the Chamber will be familiar with it.

18 JUDGE MAY: We have it, yes. 277.

19 MR. NICE: So we can move on from that.

20 Q. Paragraph 99, a word or so about telephone tapping and the like.

21 As of 1993, which service, according to General Dimitrijevic, had the

22 right to deal with telephone tapping?

23 A. According to information that I had from Mr. Aleksandar

24 Dimitrijevic, general and head of the -- in security administration of the

25 Yugoslav army, the exclusive right to tapping or secret control of

1 telephone conversations as of 1993 was, according to his words, in the

2 hands of the state security service of the Republic of Serbia. Until

3 then, it was equally shared by the counter-intelligence of the army and

4 the state security service, but this was regulated by adequate decisions

5 by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia. The federal

6 police no longer existed in this sense after 1992, in terms of security.

7 As far as I know, Mr. Kostajnica restored that right to be jointly shared

8 by the Army of Yugoslavia and the state security in 2000.

9 Q. That's probably outside our period of interest for these purposes.

10 You described the process of the accused favouring the MUP over

11 the VJ - paragraph 100 - did that process reverse? If so, when?

12 A. In my judgement, and according to information that I received from

13 Mr. Perisic, I think that this process was changed in relation towards the

14 Army of Yugoslavia sometime around 1998.

15 Q. Next topic, the accused de facto control over the JNA or the VJ in

16 1995, paragraph 101. Your judgement, Mr. Lilic, does it amount to this,

17 that the accused had some control over senior officers -- some senior

18 officers in the JNA?

19 A. I don't know whether one could use such a strong word as

20 "control." But certainly Mr. Milosevic had in the Yugoslav army generals

21 who were closer and others who were outside his influence in a sense.

22 Q. Can you name those who were closer to him?

23 A. Certainly one could include in that group of generals, for

24 example, Mr. Ojdanic, who signed the capitulation in Kumanovo. That group

25 of generals should certainly also include in a sense General Ivanovic,

1 maybe General Ojdanic, maybe General Stefanovic. It is difficult to list

2 the names of the generals who were closer to them in relation to a group

3 of generals who saw that cooperation between the president of Serbia and

4 the Army of Yugoslavia differently.

5 Q. How, if at all, would you rank the relationships of any of the

6 following to the accused: Zivota Panic or Nedeljko Boskovic, Pavkovic and

7 Perisic himself? How would you rank in closeness or otherwise to the

8 accused?

9 A. Zivota Panic could certainly be ranked in that first group.

10 General Boskovic, I know him barely, so I couldn't be able to say anything

11 with any certainty, but it is a fact that the promotion of generals

12 depended to a high degree on Mr. Milosevic, and some of them saw that if

13 they were closer to him they would make a career more quickly. General

14 Pavkovic is not one of those generals who made such a good career on that

15 basis, but he was certainly very close to Mr. Milosevic.

16 Q. What was the accused's de facto ability to appoint or dismiss

17 high-ranking officers? Paragraph 103.

18 A. I don't know whether you're referring to the period of 1993 to

19 1997 or after 1997, when Mr. Milosevic was president of the Federal

20 Republic of Yugoslavia.

21 Q. 1993 to 1997.

22 A. I have told you that all decisions regarding retirement,

23 promotions, transfers to other duties within the Supreme Defence Council

24 were made by consensus. There is no doubt that he played a very important

25 role there. But in those days such decisions were taken in the Supreme

1 Defence Council upon the proposal of the chief of staff -- of the general

2 staff and the senior staff of the general staff, and that was the rule I

3 respected and was guided by.

4 Q. How significant, if at all, to an officer's promotion would be his

5 membership of the SPS or of JUL?

6 A. I don't know by name the officers who were explicitly members of

7 the Yugoslav Left or of the SPS, but it was certainly a good reference to

8 move up the ladder more quickly. Some of the generals which also caused

9 dissatisfaction in the top echelons of the Army of Yugoslavia would attend

10 official meetings of the Yugoslav Left in uniform, and this, on the other

11 hand, was considered to be their right, but the army itself felt it was

12 not a good idea to get the army politicised, and every effort was made to

13 keep it out of politics as far as possible.

14 Q. Were you aware that General Perisic had private meetings or

15 meetings with the accused without your being present?

16 A. That he met separately outside meetings of the Supreme Defence

17 Council, yes. And I was not informed about it; that is also true.

18 Q. We're now going to turn to exhibit number -- or tab 18 of Exhibit

19 469. It's within the period of 1993 to 1997. It's the 7th of December,

20 1994, but it's within the topics covered by the waiver. And I'm not sure

21 that there's any objection to the production of this document, in which

22 case may we look at it, please.

23 MR. NICE: English on the overhead projector; B/C/S for the

24 witness.

25 Q. Dated the 7th of December to the president of the Republic of

1 Serbian Krajina. Mr. Milan Martic, "On the order of the President of the

2 Republic of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic, urgently to facilitate the passage of

3 UNPROFOR humanitarian aid for two reasons, because...Mr. Martic had

4 promised this to Mr. Akashi," and "because the decision on UNPROFOR's

5 withdrawing from Bosnia is at stake. Inform UNPROFOR in writing that you

6 will perform this task" and to submit a report to the president of the

7 republics --

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's no

9 interpretation into the B/C/S.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have that looked at.

11 MR. NICE: And we see it's on the authority of the accused, but

12 over the name of also Mr. Perisic.

13 Q. Your comment on this document, please, Mr. Lilic.

14 A. This is a highly positive decision by Mr. Perisic, though I'm not

15 familiar with it and I don't know why Mr. Perisic is involved to convey

16 such a message to Mr. Martic. It sounds like an order, though it is a

17 good one. I think this dates back to the period when there was a lot of

18 obstinacy on the part of the leadership of the Republic of Srpska and the

19 Republic of Serbian Krajina. I don't know why Mr. Perisic was used here

20 as some sort of an envoy.

21 Q. Paragraph 109. Did you learn of the organisation of a training

22 centre, volunteers from the Republika Srpska and the Republika Srpska

23 Krajina in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, organised by a man known as

24 Dragan?

25 A. Yes. I think we're talking about the autumn of 1995. I received

1 information from the head of the security department, Mr. Dimitrijevic,

2 that within the Army of Yugoslavia volunteers were being trained for the

3 Army of Republika Srpska and that this was happening even under the

4 supervision of our own experts. I asked for additional information from

5 Mr. Perisic, and I think those documents exist. And I've seen them.

6 Mr. Perisic responded that he did so upon instructions from

7 Mr. Milosevic. I was surprised and astonished in view of the fact that

8 we're talking about September or end of September or beginning of October

9 of 1995, after enormous efforts that Mr. Milosevic himself had made above

10 others for the Dayton Agreements to be signed, that this should be done

11 after Srebrenica, when I'm sure -- I'm quite sure that Mr. Milosevic has

12 nothing in common with what happened in Srebrenica, that this was a crime

13 committed by individuals for which they should be certainly held

14 responsible.

15 Q. Mr. Lilic, I was going to ask you about that later, but can we

16 just focus on what I'm asking you about at the moment. The particular

17 documents to be referred to, tab 18, please.

18 A. I'm trying to explain why --

19 Q. Yes. Let's just look at the orders you've got concerning -- I'm

20 sorry, no, we talked about that already.

21 The training centre established by -- or under the control of the

22 man Dragan, the steps you took in relation to it yourself were what?

23 A. I was just trying, Mr. Nice, to explain that. This refers to

24 Captain Dragan, who with the agreement of the Army of Yugoslavia set up a

25 camp for the training of volunteers for Republika Srpska. I insisted

1 through my military office, the head of that office, to be quite -- to get

2 detailed information from General Perisic. I first received information

3 from head of the security department, Mr. Dimitrijevic. Mr. Perisic

4 responded that the camp had been organised, formed, established, whatever

5 you like, with the approval and permission of President Milosevic. I was

6 really astonished, as this was the period prior to Dayton. And by my own

7 order, after talking to Mr. Captain Dragan himself, who wanted to come and

8 tell me what it was about, I abolished that centre because I was convinced

9 that that was another provocation to draw the republic -- the Federal

10 Republic of Yugoslavia into the war, which was a constant wish on the part

11 of Republika Srpska and partially of Krajina too, and this camp was

12 disbanded because I was -- throughout my presidency I felt that members of

13 the army, special forces, volunteers being trained in this way in our

14 camp, I was opposed to them being sent to the Republika Srpska, as they

15 had their own forces and that camp could have been organised on their

16 territory, and this camp was abolished.

17 Q. Tab 19. My mistake. Four documents. We'll look at them briefly.

18 MR. NICE: If we can put them on the overhead projector in the

19 English very swiftly, one after the other. The first is, in fact, the

20 order of the witness, Mr. Lilic, dated the 29th of September, prohibiting

21 the receiving and training of persons, including volunteers who are not

22 Yugoslav citizens in the Yugoslav army.

23 The second document, same date, 29th of September, 1995 to General

24 Perisic, passing to your jurisdiction the order of the president, banning

25 the reception and training of persons.

1 Third document, a report to you on the training of volunteers,

2 coming from Perisic, where he said that -- notified you that "In order to

3 assist the Army of Republika Srpska and Republic of Serbian Krajina you

4 organised a training of reserve volunteers" and says, "We've decided to do

5 this kind of training because of the request of the Republika Srpska, the

6 Republic of Serbian Krajina, the and the approval of the President of the

7 Republic of Serbia to send them volunteers." He goes on to say, "Since we

8 did not have enough volunteers from the formation of the Yugoslav Army and

9 the response of the reserve formation is also poor, we were obliged, with

10 the help of 'Captain' Dragan to receive volunteers and, under the command

11 of the commanding officers of the Special Units to train and prepare

12 them." And then there's a cover letter containing a report by the chief

13 of the general staff about training volunteers.

14 Thank you very much.

15 Q. Can we under the same title -- I'm not going to overlook the

16 matter that you were dealing with earlier, but we'll come back to that in

17 another place in the narrative -- can we under the same title --

18 MR. NICE: Yes. I'm finished with that document. Thank you very

19 much.

20 Q. -- deal with the removal of a number of generals in late 1998. As

21 a matter of record, the accused -- I beg your pardon. As a matter of

22 record, the following were removed from office: Generals Perisic,

23 Martinovic, Samardzic, and Dimitrijevic. Why did the accused do that?

24 A. General Perisic was replaced by a decision of the Supreme Defence

25 Council or President Milosevic in November 1998. According to his

1 allegation, because he insisted on introducing a state of emergency in

2 part of the territory of the Republic of Serbia and because he was

3 allegedly too long in that office. General Dimitrijevic, whom I

4 considered to be an excellent counter-intelligence officer, one of the

5 best the army had, was replaced in March 1999. General Martinovic, who

6 was a career general - he was very young; I think he's 50 only now - also

7 in 1999. And General Samardzic was transferred to another position and

8 then pensioned off. He was commander of the 3rd Army, covering part of

9 the Kosovo and Metohija. General Grahovac was an excellent air force

10 officer. These were people who were not willing, as far as I know them,

11 to deviate in any sense from what is called the use of the Army of

12 Yugoslavia in accordance with the law, the law about the army, the law on

13 defence, and the constitution of the Republic of Yugoslavia.

14 Q. Next title, "The accused and the RS and RSK leadership." We've

15 heard of financial assistance and we've heard of the contribution by

16 Serbia to budgetary matters generally. What control, if any, did the

17 accused have over the leadership of the Croatian and Bosnian Serbs?

18 Paragraph 111.

19 A. I said a moment ago that the word "control" in my opinion is too

20 strong. But he certainly wielded a great deal of influence over them.

21 But it is a fact that that influence was not sufficient for them to do

22 everything required of them, for instance, with respect to peace plans,

23 Cutileiro, the Vance Plan, the contact group plan, right up to Dayton. In

24 any event, the aid coming from the Republic of Serbia and the Federal

25 Republic of Yugoslavia. But when I say "the Federal Republic of

1 Yugoslavia," I really mean mostly the Republic of Serbia was the only way

2 to correct their behaviour, and this proved true in 1994, when sanctions

3 were enforced against the government of the Republika Srpska.

4 Q. Paragraph 113. Were Bosnian Serb leaders seen in the building of

5 the Serbian presidency? If so, with what regularity?

6 A. Yes, they could be seen. And I think they would come quite

7 frequently for various consultations prior to travel, prior to

8 negotiations, and so on.

9 Q. Your assessment of the accused's relationship with Mladic you set

10 out as being in some sense cyclical. Can you just amplify that by a

11 sentence or so?

12 A. Mladic -- Mladic is a man who I would say is unpredictable, so

13 that in certain situations relationships with President Milosevic and

14 others varied. But in any event, I think that the relationship between

15 President Milosevic and Mladic, up until the refusal to accept the Vance

16 Plan, was correct and good. Later it deteriorated significantly, and

17 after the contact group plan was rejected an attempt was made to improve

18 that relationship so as to bring influence to bear on the relationship

19 between General Mladic and Mr. Karadzic. That is why I said that it had

20 its ups and downs, that is, their relationship.

21 For instance, Dayton again improved that relationship. The

22 relationship became correct.

23 Q. Paragraph 115. In your judgement at the time, was there any

24 prospect of Sarajevo not remaining under Muslim control?

25 A. Do you mean with respect to the Dayton Agreement?

1 Q. Before, yes.

2 A. I think it was impossible that Sarajevo should not be under Muslim

3 control, were not to be. I don't understand the question, actually. Could

4 you be more specific.

5 Q. I think that's enough for the purposes of my questioning at the

6 moment.

7 Paragraph 117, you've touched on this already. After the fall of

8 Srebrenica and when the details of the massacre were discovered, the

9 accused's reaction was, as you've already told us, but just remind us.

10 A. Yes. I tried to link that up to the constitution of the centres.

11 And one of the fears was, in which I issued an order for this to be

12 stopped, that President Milosevic himself -- actually, I was in a

13 situation in which I could directly at the beginning of August have

14 intensive meetings to discuss other issues and problems within the Federal

15 Republic of Yugoslavia. I know that he was personally very upset and

16 angry, and I think that he was very sincere in his behaviour and conduct,

17 and he even said at one point that that leadership from Pale, that they

18 were mad, if they had actually done that. And I'm quite sure that as far

19 as he is concerned, he could not have issued an order of that kind. I do

20 believe that Srebrenica, unfortunately, is the result of individuals who

21 allowed themselves to perpetrate an act of that kind, and it is my deep

22 conviction that it cannot be placed in the context of any participation on

23 the part of the Yugoslav army at all, and that is why I said that

24 Mr. Milosevic, which was exceptionally angry, his reaction was very

25 strong, and he considered that this kind of behaviour and conduct would

1 worsen our positions with respect to preparations for the Dayton

2 Conference. I think he even said that at one of the meetings. Of course,

3 nobody would take on this great burden on the side of the Bosnian Serbs,

4 that is.

5 Q. You realise, of course, that these are matters of fact ultimately

6 for the Judges, but I'm not going to of course stand in the way of your

7 expressing that opinion.

8 You participated with Bosnian Serb leadership at two meetings, on

9 the 25th and 29th of August, 1995, in Dobanovci?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You can answer further questions about that if asked. I don't

12 propose, in light of time constraints, to take you through it at the

13 moment in detail.

14 You -- paragraph 119, where at Dayton Sarajevo was -- were given

15 up, do you regard that as a reflection of the accused's influence over

16 Mladic?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Very well.

19 MR. NICE: Can we have a look at tab 20, please. Except that I

20 think this is -- sorry.

21 [Prosecution counsel confer]

22 MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated]

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

24 MR. NICE: I'll have to come back to this one later. I gather

25 there's some problem with the tab numbering. I'll deal with it later. It

1 may also be a document which the government will take some exception. So

2 I'll deal with it after the break.

3 Q. Paragraph 120 -- or 121. The replacement of Milan Celeketic as

4 chief of the general staff of the SVK in May of 1995 by Mile Mrksic,

5 what's your view on the involvement or approval or whatever of the accused

6 for that?

7 A. May 1995 is highly specific for the Republic of Srpska Krajina,

8 especially that beginning part of May, the start of May, because Western

9 Slavonia, due to a mistake, it fell, and the Belgrade-Zagreb motorway was

10 closed and we saw the first stages of the Vance-Owen Plan implementation.

11 This error was ascribed to General Celeketic. However, as far as I knew,

12 it was Mr. Martic who ordered the road closed. But anyway, it brought

13 into question the Republic of Srpska Krajina. And General Mrksic, who was

14 otherwise a pensioned general of the JNA and was born in the area, he knew

15 the area very well, and as far as we thought had very good military

16 qualifications for the post. So he was brought in. And I think that the

17 proposal did come from President Milosevic personally. I'm not quite

18 sure, but I think that that might have been the case.

19 Q. [Microphone not activated]

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

21 MR. NICE: Sorry.

22 Q. Next heading, "Relations between the VJ and the VRS and the role

23 of the accused," starting at paragraph 122. Did the general staff of the

24 VJ brief presidents of the FRY and of Serbia and of Montenegro about the

25 position in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia on a regular basis?

1 A. The general staff of the Army of Yugoslavia did provide briefings

2 of that kind.

3 Q. In fact, was this the only source of information those presidents,

4 including yourself, would have received, or were there other lines of

5 communication that would have kept the accused and the president of

6 Montenegro informed of what was happening in those other territories?

7 A. I assume, that is to say, certainly there were other lines of

8 communication, yes.

9 Q. Paragraph 125. Were VJ officers serving in the VRS and the SVK?

10 A. The officers of the Army of Yugoslavia, on the principle of

11 volunteerism, could have been on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that

12 is, as volunteers in the Republic of Srpska Krajina and therefore in both

13 armies, and they were first and foremost officers who had stayed on, who

14 he remained when the Yugoslav People's Army had disintegrated or, rather,

15 withdrawn. And there were volunteers from the Army of Yugoslavia as well,

16 yes.

17 Q. Paragraph 126, a matter of detail. Fikret Abdic, did you see him

18 in Belgrade? Or was he to be seen in Belgrade?

19 A. I myself did not have a chance of meeting Mr. Abdic in Belgrade.

20 I didn't meet him. But I do know that he did attend some meetings in

21 Belgrade, yes.

22 Q. With whom?

23 A. He would come to see President Milosevic.

24 Q. Logistical support, paragraph 130. Do you allow of the

25 possibility of support being given to the SVK or the VRS on -- on orders

1 or instructions of the accused?

2 A. What I can say is that the Supreme Defence Council of the Federal

3 Republic of Yugoslavia never passed a decision of that kind. Now, whether

4 there was some other way i