1 Thursday, 1 September 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

6 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I've asked for the witness to be kept out.

7 I have a short matter to raise that has absolutely nothing to do with his

8 evidence. It relates to the decision on the admission of documents in

9 connection with the testimony of Defence witness Dragan Jasovic, which was

10 filed last Friday and about which we obviously have to give consideration.

11 I'd be very grateful for, as it were, clarification of one issue.

12 I can either put it in the question form, which would be inappropriate, or

13 put it in the issue form, which might be appropriate. The issue is this:

14 Whether admissibility or, rather, admission of the Jasovic Defence

15 material is effective for all purposes and for all time or whether if the

16 Prosecution Jasovic material is admitted into evidence at the rebuttal

17 stage of the case, the issue of the admissibility of Jasovic's material is

18 still open for consideration or whether at that stage the Prosecution

19 Jasovic material, if admitted into evidence, would only go to issues of

20 fact and weight and credibility.

21 Now, that's the issue. As I say, I don't want to -- it's not for

22 me to raise it in the form of a question. It may be that the Chamber will

23 say that the decision is clear on its face. It may be that it would be

24 able to assist us by saying, yes, it's admitted for all purposes and for

25 all time and Prosecution material in respect of Jasovic would only ever go

1 to weight, fact, and credibility.

2 I don't know if the Chamber would be able to assist us sometime

3 today. We would be grateful if so.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I must give you what is my personal

5 view on this matter.

6 MR. NICE: Yes.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I do not think it is proper to utilise the

8 Court's time to raise issues of law of that -- of that nature. The

9 Chamber has given its decision, and you must live with the decision. If

10 matters arise, then we'll deal with them, but this habit of the

11 Prosecution attempting to reopen matters that have been decided by the

12 Chamber is something that must stop, in my view.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour --

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not ascribing ill motives to you, but the

15 Chamber has made its decision and, in my view, the decision is clear.

16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, it would certainly be entirely, if I may

17 say so, absolutely inappropriate to ascribe bad motives. This is an

18 attempt to clarify issues in our own mind so that we can take our

19 appropriate, if any, next step. If the Chamber feels it can't assist me,

20 then I shall obviously act accordingly. If it feels it can, I would be

21 very grateful.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ex abundanti cautela. What I say is that we take

23 note of what you have said, and if we find it appropriate, we'll respond.

24 Please call the witness.

25 Mr. Nice, I might say that we did consider that matter, and in our

1 view it's admissible for all purposes. The question of weight is another

2 matter.

3 MR. NICE: I'm grateful and I'm actually much assisted. Thank

4 you.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

7 WITNESS: VOJISLAV SESELJ [Resumed]

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

10 Q. [Interpretation] We left off yesterday just before paragraph -- or

11 at paragraph 36 of the Croatian indictment. That's on page 9. Could you

12 please find that.

13 A. I've found it.

14 Q. I'm not going to deal with the preceding part dealing with

15 persecutions, and then comes paragraph 36 that is rather extensive. It

16 says that "persecutions were based on political, racial, or religious

17 grounds and included the following..." Then it goes on to talk about "the

18 extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians

19 in Dalj, Erdut, Klisa, Lovas, Vukovar, Vocin, Bacin, Saborsko and

20 neighbouring villages, Skabrnja, Nadin, Bruska, and Dubrovnik and its

21 environs, as described in detail in paragraphs 38 to 59 and 73 to 75."

22 Tell me, please, Mr. Seselj, all these references here, do they

23 have anything to do with Serbia or any authorities in Serbia, without

24 going into what really happened or didn't happen?

25 A. In some of these places, crimes indeed happened. In some of those

1 -- in some other places, there were no crimes. For instance, in

2 Dubrovnik there was not a single crime against the civilian population.

3 In the course of the operations to capture Dubrovnik, there was a

4 murder in a village in Herzegovina of certain villagers. It's the village

5 called Kijev Do on the Bobanska plateau, but the man who perpetrated these

6 crimes was a soldier of the JNA, a reservist from Montenegro, as far as I

7 remember, and he was convicted to ten years in prison by the competent

8 military court.

9 On the territory of the municipality of Dubrovnik itself, there

10 were no killings of civilians.

11 As for the departure of civilians from many places, that was

12 organised by the Croatian authorities before the JNA arrived. In some

13 other places enumerated here, crimes indeed happened but Serbia could not

14 have been involved in any way because it was mainly JNA that was active in

15 those areas, and why some of these crimes were never investigated or

16 prosecuted is something that the Trial Chamber could find out from

17 Aleksandar Vasiljevic, chief of the military security, because for all

18 these crimes it was the competent military courts that were in charge.

19 Civilian courts in Belgrade could not prosecute these crimes then,

20 but the civilian court in Belgrade is prosecuting currently some of those

21 crimes. But in fact it is military courts that are in charge for any

22 crimes perpetrated by members of the armed forces and war crimes.

23 Our legislation stipulated very precisely the prosecution of any

24 crimes that fall under the Geneva Conventions, various international

25 treaties and covenants, and in the legislation of the former Yugoslavia,

1 that was stipulated in detail.

2 Q. Mr. Seselj, did the authorities in Serbia, including any agency of

3 the government or myself as president of the republic, did they have any

4 capacity whatsoever to gain insight into what was going on in some of

5 those places that are enumerated here at the time when the SFRY existed

6 and institutions functioned?

7 A. There was no institutional capacity to find out or again this

8 information. There was only hearsay, unreliable reports from the media,

9 et cetera, but there were no institutional channels. Only the federal

10 authorities had such institutional channels or, rather, the authorities of

11 the JNA, through military courts and the state -- or, rather, the security

12 service of the JNA.

13 Q. Now, look at this reference to Serbia in the following subsection

14 of the same paragraph 36. That's subparagraph (b), which refers to

15 "prolonged and routine imprisonment and confinement of thousands of Croat

16 and other non-Serb civilians in detention facilities within and outside of

17 Croatia..."

18 I'm not going to deal with this bit about Croatia, because that

19 has nothing to do with Serbia whatsoever. But it also says, "prison camps

20 located in Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina -" so Serbia is one

21 of these places - "as described in detail in paragraph 64."

22 And now if you turn to page 16 of this same document, you will see

23 what paragraph 64 says. So (d), (e), (f) and (g), as far as I could make

24 out. These subparagraphs contain allegations that served as a basis for

25 many charges here.

1 Look at what it says: (d) -- paragraph 64, subparagraph (d). I

2 think you've found it.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. "Stajicevo agricultural farm in Serbia... approximately 1.700

5 detainees.

6 "(e) military barracks in Begejci in Serbia run by the JNA,

7 approximately 260 detainees.

8 "(f) military barracks in Zrenjanin in Serbia run by the JNA,

9 scores of detainees.

10 "(g) military prison Sremska Mitrovica in Serbia run by the JNA,

11 hundreds of detainees."

12 Now, please answer this: Since Serbia is mentioned in all of

13 these subparagraphs, and I hope I haven't omitted anything, and it refers

14 to facilities run by the JNA, did Serbia have any competencies there? Did

15 Serbian authorities have any powers over these affairs that were dealt

16 with by JNA agencies? But also tell me, what is this about in the first

17 place?

18 A. I can say emphatically that the authorities in Serbia could have

19 absolutely no powers or competencies in these places because all of them

20 were JNA facilities, JNA installations. I never even heard about these

21 installations in Stajicevo, Begejci and Zrenjanin where somebody was

22 detained, but I know about the military prison in Sremska Mitrovica.

23 However, the JNA could bring only prisoners of war to these places. I

24 don't know that a single civilian was among them.

25 A civilian could have been arrested - a civilian, a person who

1 wasn't wearing a uniform. Such a person could have been captured if they

2 nevertheless took part in combat on the side of Croatian armed forces,

3 paramilitaries, et cetera. But a very small number, if any, were tried.

4 They were all of them released quite simply without any charges and they

5 were able to travel wherever they wanted. I think most of them opted for

6 Croatia.

7 To the best of my knowledge, in the military facilities where

8 detainees were kept, there was not a single murder or killing. And that

9 includes facilities in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, because the

10 JNA placed some prisoners of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro

11 facilities while they were fighting Croatian separatists.

12 Q. Now, look at this. The conflict was going in Croatia with those

13 attacks on military barracks that were going on, and the conflict was

14 between the existing federal army and the Croatian national forces, and

15 some prisoners were taken in the process, and this is all ascribed to the

16 authorities in Serbia. Could that be true?

17 A. The Serbian authorities could have had nothing to do with it.

18 They had no powers or competencies and they had no effective involvement.

19 Q. Look now at the paragraph 66. It says: "By these acts and

20 omissions, Slobodan Milosevic committed ..." That is to say the fact that

21 the JNA took some prisoners of war in the conflicts in another territory,

22 I committed - look at this - imprisonment, a crime against humanity;

23 torture, a crime against humanity; inhumane acts, a crime against

24 humanity; unlawful confinement; torture again; wilfully causing great

25 suffering; cruel treatment, and so on.

1 First of all, to the best your knowledge, did the JNA torture

2 anybody of these camps or prisons?

3 A. No. All JNA authorities had strict instructions to act in

4 consistence with their regulations. I don't know if there have been any

5 incidents - I haven't heard about any - but I know for a fact there hadn't

6 been any killings. The JNA had its own general enactments and bylaws and

7 rules of procedure and regulations that stipulated precisely how prisoners

8 of war were to be treated. All of these were written in conformity with

9 international rules.

10 There is a reference here to the violation of the Geneva

11 Conventions. That could not be true because there were no international

12 conflicts. Violations of the additional Protocol B could have occurred

13 because what was going on was a civil war, but it is absolutely

14 nonsensical that you could be responsible for anything that happened,

15 imprisonment, torture, inhumane acts, unlawful confinement and wilful

16 causing of great suffering, et cetera. You could have had no involvement

17 or role in that.

18 And I would also like to draw your attention to another thing. In

19 addition to the JNA, some other players are being mentioned here that

20 could not have been under the JNA control at all times. And then a

21 general conclusion is drawn from all this -- or, rather, an inference.

22 Lovas, for instance, Dusan Silni units, Arkan's men, et cetera. A

23 distinction has to be made.

24 Q. I'm talking now about places of confinement or places of detention

25 outside of Serbia. References to Serbia relate only to military

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 facilities run by the JNA, and the JNA as a federal institution is the

2 only one who was in charge, whereas the Republic of Serbia did not have

3 any authority over it. Were Serbian authorities able to enter any of

4 these facilities?

5 A. No, they could not.

6 Q. Now, look at subparagraph (k) of paragraph 36. I am charged with

7 the deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170.000 Croats and other

8 non-Serb civilians from the territories specified above, I'm not going to

9 enumerate them now, and then it refers to their deportation to Serbia.

10 Who was it who deported Croats to Serbia?

11 A. I personally think it's pure fabrication. I never heard of a

12 single Croat civilian deported to Serbia ever. But there are some other

13 things that are completely made up here. For instance, in Ilok there were

14 no combat actions at all, but most civilians still wanted to move out of

15 Ilok, and the media covered it widely at the time. And as far as I

16 remember, there were no armed operations in Ilok at all.

17 Q. Now look at what they refer to in connection with this

18 subparagraph (k). They invoke details described in paragraphs 67 to 69.

19 So look at 67. It reads: "From the 1st of August, 1991, until May 1992,"

20 and that is the period about which they themselves say that the SFRY

21 existed then. So they go on to say, "Slobodan Milosevic, acting alone or

22 in concert with other known and unknown members of the joint criminal

23 enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed," et cetera, et

24 cetera, "aided and abetted the deportations or forcible transfers of the

25 Croat and other non-Serb civilian populations." That is all in -- during

1 the existence of the SFRY.

2 And then paragraph 68: "In order to achieve this objective, Serb

3 forces comprised of JNA, TO and volunteer units including the 'White

4 Eagles,' 'Seselj's men' -" so this is a specific reference to your name -

5 "'Dusan Silni' and 'Arkan's Tigers,' in cooperation with police units,

6 including 'Martic's Police,' SNB -" I don't know what that means but it is

7 probably again -- I don't know what SNB means - "and Serbian MUP and

8 others under the effective control of Slobodan Milosevic or other

9 participants in the joint criminal enterprise, surrounded Croat towns and

10 villages and demanded their inhabitants to surrender their weapons,

11 including legally owned hunting rifles. Then, the towns and villages were

12 attacked, even when those inhabitants had complied with the demands.

13 These attacks were intended to compel the population to flee."

14 And then it goes on to say that they were "... forcibly

15 transferred to locations in Croatia controlled by the Croatian government

16 or deported to locations outside Croatia, in particular Serbia and

17 Montenegro."

18 Mr. Seselj, what can you tell us about this?

19 A. First of all, there was never any plan about the deportation or

20 forcible transfer of the Croatian or any other population.

21 Secondly, there was never an organised or systematic deportation

22 or forcible transfer.

23 Thirdly, there is not a single case where Croats who had

24 previously been armed by the Tudjman regime handed over their weapons to

25 the JNA or to the Territorial Defence or the Serbian police and after that

1 hand-over their villages were attacked. There is no such case, not a

2 single one.

3 Tudjman armed the Croats intensively in areas where the Serb

4 population was in the majority, in the Krajina, and there is evidence to

5 support this. I've already mentioned a case where weapons were found in

6 shipments of flour for the Croats in Knin.

7 The Serbian authorities of the Krajina and the JNA demanded the

8 handing over of those weapons, but nowhere where weapons were actually

9 handed over was there an attack. Such things happened only in Bosnia

10 where, in the village of Glogova, the Muslims handed over their weapons

11 after which 65 helpless civilians were slaughtered and killed. In the

12 conflicts on the former Croatian federal unit, this never happened.

13 And finally, even had this happened, you could not have had any

14 role in it whatsoever.

15 Q. Well, not to speak only of my own role. Could the authorities of

16 the Republic of Serbia or the representatives of its government have had a

17 role?

18 A. No, absolutely not. There was no organ of the Republic of Serbia

19 who had any kind of competencies there. Only volunteers from Serbia could

20 have been there as part of the JNA and the Territorial Defence. No

21 official players from Serbia could have been present on the ground there.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj, the question and

23 the answer appear to proceed on the basis of what was the de jure

24 position. You just said that Serbia had no competence in that area, but I

25 have to remind you that the indictment proceeds on the basis that there

1 were laws, there were legal competencies assigned, but these were

2 breached. So it's not an answer to the indictment simply to say what the

3 de jure position was. You will see references to effective control. What

4 the indictment is looking at is what happened as a matter of fact before

5 the laws were complied with. Then there would have been no indictment,

6 for the essential allegation in the indictment is that there were laws and

7 legal competencies properly assigned to certain organs but these were

8 breached, and it is the breaches which happened as a matter of fact that

9 the indictment alleges.

10 So I'd invite you to attend to the factual situation, to answer

11 the factual situation. So in addition to saying what the legal position

12 is, then you should also say, if that is your evidence - I cannot say

13 whether it is your evidence - that nothing of that kind happened as matter

14 of fact, and then I think you would be giving what might be a more

15 complete answer to the allegations in the indictment.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, on a separate matter, who was

17 responsible for killing the 65 Muslim civilians?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Miroslav Deronjic. Miroslav

19 Deronjic demanded -- he was the president of the Crisis Staff of Bratunac

20 municipality, and he demanded that the Muslims hand over their weapons and

21 guaranteed full security for them if they did. They handed over their

22 weapons and then Deronjic attacked the village of Glogova and 65 unarmed

23 Muslim civilians were killed.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I fully understand, Mr. Robinson,

1 what you are talking about, but I assert that de facto no institution and

2 no government body in Serbia took part in breaches of the law on the

3 territory of the Krajina. In those places where there was sporadic

4 breaches of the law -- and these figures here are exaggerated, there's no

5 doubt of it. It's not possible that 170.000 Croats were deported. The

6 Croats mostly left of their own accord, just as the Serbs fled from the

7 territories under the control of the Serb forces. Likewise, the same

8 happened on this side. And of course there were breaches of the law in

9 places, but de facto no official body from Serbia was involved in such

10 breaches of the law.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serbia cannot be held responsible

13 for something that Arkan's Tigers may have done, Dusan Silni, the White

14 Eagles, and so on. That has nothing to do with the government authorities

15 in Serbia. That's my testimony. Neither formally nor de facto.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Seselj, now that we're discussing this topic - let's leave

19 these quotations aside for a moment - at the time of these civil wars in

20 Croatia and Bosnia, from 1991 until the end of the war, did any Croats or

21 Muslims whose forces were fighting the Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia,

22 were any of these people expelled from Serbia?

23 A. No, no one was ever forcibly removed or expelled or deported from

24 Serbia.

25 Q. Was anyone arrested in Serbia because of their ethnicity or

1 discriminated in any way throughout these ten years?

2 A. I guarantee that in Serbia throughout all this time no one was

3 ever arrested because of their ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation,

4 and no one was discriminated against in any way as a citizen.

5 Q. Mr. Seselj, do you remember that in Serbia we had Muslim refugees

6 from Bosnia? There were over 70.000 of them.

7 A. Yes. A large number of Muslims from the area of Bosnia and

8 Herzegovina took refuge in Serbia when war broke out, especially those who

9 had relatives or friends or who were able to find their way to Serbia in

10 some other way. And those who did not were assisted by the authorities in

11 Serbia in the same way that the Serbs who had been expelled or who had

12 fled were assisted. No distinction was made.

13 Q. Was there a single case of someone arriving in Serbia, which was

14 completely peaceful and where there was no fighting, no war, who did not

15 receive protection, who was not able to live in peace like any other

16 citizen?

17 A. No. There is not a single instance of anything like that. Let me

18 draw your attention to a characteristic example. During the operations

19 for the liberation of Srebrenica in 1995, a large number -- I can't be

20 precise about the number, but a large number of Muslim soldiers swam

21 across the River Drina and fled to Serbia. In Serbia, they were given

22 decent accommodation, and a few days later they were allowed to leave and

23 go wherever they wanted. It never occurred to anyone to hand them over to

24 the Serb authorities of Republika Srpska. It never occurred to anyone to

25 hand them over to Miroslav Deronjic in Bratunac, for example. They could

1 leave Serbia and go literally wherever they wanted to.

2 Q. That was an entire brigade?

3 A. I can't remember the exact number of men.

4 Q. On the following day, they were visited by all the diplomatic

5 representatives at my request.

6 A. I know for certain that they were given decent accommodation, that

7 they were given decent food while they were accommodated there. Nobody

8 ever maltreated them and they were able to leave and go literally wherever

9 they liked.

10 Q. So it says here that I, because this is an indictment against me,

11 but also the authorities of Serbia deported people and that I thereby

12 committed deportation, a crime against humanity, a grave breach of the

13 Geneva Conventions, and so on. In view of the fact that this trial is

14 public, the citizens of Serbia who witnessed what was happening in Serbia

15 all this time should hear what the charges against me are.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: The indictment is public.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, people can't read this

18 on the Internet, citizens, but a large number of people in Serbia and

19 Republika Srpska is following this on television, and they're all amazed

20 at what it says here.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... that remark

22 because the trial is not to be used for that purpose, to publicise the

23 indictment. It's already public.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. You see, Mr. Seselj, in paragraph (l), and this is something I am

2 charged with, it says here, "wilful destruction of residential housing and

3 other public and historical --"

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters have a reference, please.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking for a

6 fuller reference. 36(l). I think he just said (l). 36(l).

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, 36 (l). As I'm dealing with

8 36, I thought they would bear this in mind.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Look here: "The deliberate destruction of homes, other public and

11 private property," and so on and so forth, "of the non-Serb population in

12 Dubrovnik and its environs, Vukovar, Erdut, Lovas, Sarengrad, Bapska,

13 Tovarnik, Vocin, Saborsko, Skabrnja, Nadin and Bruska, as described," it

14 says here, "in paragraphs 71 and 77 to 82."

15 Let us now look at paragraph 71, where this is described. It says

16 that this is wanton destruction, plunder of public or private property.

17 So I wantonly destroyed and plundered public or private property.

18 "From the 1st of August 1991 until May 1992, Slobodan Milosevic,

19 acting alone or in concert with other known and unknown members of the

20 joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or

21 otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the

22 wanton destruction and plunder of the public and private property of the

23 Croat and other non-Serb population, within the territories of the SAO

24 SBWS ... although these actions were not justified by military necessity."

25 What kind of military force from Serbia was in that area?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. There was no armed force from Serbia active in these areas. It

2 was exclusively the JNA. Sporadically certain paramilitary formations who

3 were outside JNA control did turn up, and there was looting and deliberate

4 destruction but never under orders from the JNA commands. These could

5 only have been isolated incidents, groups turning up to loot. That did

6 occur. But these groups that engaged in looting could have had nothing to

7 do with the government authorities in Serbia either formally or de facto.

8 Q. It's very clear because -- it's very important that you always

9 draw attention to the de facto situation as Mr. Robinson has this aspect

10 in mind.

11 A. Well, looting was a frequent occurrence on both sides. That

12 cannot be denied. It did happen, but this was never organised or

13 systematically carried out by the Serb side, either by the government

14 organs of Serbian Krajina or by the JNA. This was done by spontaneously

15 organised gangs of robbers and looters.

16 Q. It says here from the 1st of August, and this refers to Dalj,

17 Vukovar, Erdut, Lovas, Sarengrad, Bapska and Tovarnik from August to

18 October 1992; and then Western Slavonia from August to December 1991, SAO

19 Krajina from August to December 1991, and these towns are listed again.

20 Tell me, those periods of time from August to October to December

21 1991, who was participating in the hostilities at the time throughout this

22 period in all these locations?

23 A. It was the JNA with the Croatian separatist paramilitary

24 formations throughout this time.

25 Q. Well, it says here that at that time, from August to October 1991

1 during the conflicts in Croatia I committed widespread plunder and

2 destruction not justified by military necessity, that I wantonly destroyed

3 and plundered villages, destroyed and -- intentionally destroyed homes and

4 religious and cultural buildings. When it says here religious and

5 cultural buildings, Mr. Seselj, throughout these events was a single

6 mosque or Catholic church destroyed in Serbia?

7 A. No. In Serbia not a single mosque or Catholic church was

8 destroyed, or any other house of worship. However, in some of these

9 places, such as Vukovar, for example, I know of no building that was

10 destroyed deliberately, either privately owned or religious or any other.

11 Large numbers of buildings were destroyed during the military operations.

12 Even the Orthodox church in Vukovar has been destroyed. I know of no

13 building in Vukovar that was destroyed intentionally, targeted by someone

14 because it was a certain kind of building. But in Vukovar, literally

15 there was fighting for every house, for every building. One could say

16 that the JNA did not have a well developed tactics of taking part in urban

17 warfare, which is why they lost quite a large number of tanks initially

18 and so on. But literally there was fighting for every building.

19 Q. All right. When we are talking about Vukovar, it's a very

20 important subject here anyway, how did these conflicts come about in

21 Vukovar?

22 A. The conflicts in Vukovar came about because the Croatian

23 paramilitary forces surrounded the JNA barracks and started targeting it

24 from different weapons.

25 Secondly, in the area of Vukovar, the Croatian police and

1 paramilitary forces tried to threaten the Serb civilian population.

2 Before the war, it cannot be said that there was any majority population

3 in Vukovar among all the ethnic groups. However, the Serbs were rather

4 numerous. That numerous that even the mayor of Vukovar was a Serb.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Were you in Vukovar at the time? Were you in

6 Vukovar?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. During the war I was in

8 Vukovar twice, and I was there once before the war, too, sometime in the

9 spring of 1991. That's when it was very calm and peaceful in Vukovar. I

10 freely walked about the streets of Vukovar in civilian clothing without

11 any kind of armed escorts, and there were no incidents whatsoever. During

12 the war, I came twice.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: But were you there at the relevant time in

14 relation to the conflicts alleged in the indictment?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Twice during the

16 relevant time. The last time was a month or 20 days prior to the

17 liberation of Vukovar. The first time was about a month before the

18 liberation of Vukovar. It's hard to remember the exact dates but it's not

19 hard to establish them. I always went to the front line, and I saw with

20 my very own eyes that there was fighting literally going on for every

21 house.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I ask the question because your evidence is so

23 wide-ranging.

24 Mr. Milosevic, it might be as well if you elicited from the

25 witness the basis for his knowledge in relation to this very wide range of

1 matters that he's testifying about. It will help to make his evidence

2 more credible.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was my understanding that the

4 witness had presented the basis for his knowledge.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Seselj, please, have you got anything to add to this? You

7 were there on the spot itself. You had your own volunteers within the

8 Yugoslav People's Army. You communicated with citizens. You communicated

9 with officials at the time.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no, Mr. Milosevic. You must ask the witness

11 the question. You're giving him the answers.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's the question. Well,

13 I'm asking. He's already enumerated all of that.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So all these persons, are they --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's proceed.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Now, look at this. It says here in subparagraph (l) -- I've

20 already read out 71 to you and you commented on it, and then from 77 to

21 82, it says. Look at 77 to 82. It's an entire page, everything contained

22 in this indictment against me.

23 A. I found it.

24 Q. It's Dubrovnik, as far as I can see. And then it says here from

25 the 1st of October, 1991, until the 7th of December, 1991. Look at that.

1 It seems that I waged some kind of artillery warfare here. It says that

2 Slobodan Milosevic -- that: "... during this same shelling attack,

3 Slobodan Milosevic, acting alone or in concert with other known and

4 unknown members of the joint criminal enterprise --" perhaps I shouldn't

5 read all of this since it's the usual thing -- "planned, instigated,

6 ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning,

7 preparation and execution of the wanton destruction or wilful damage and

8 plunder of the public and private property of the Croat and other non-Serb

9 population within the area of the Dubrovnik Republic."

10 Please, Mr. Seselj, was there anyone from Serbia in the territory

11 of the Dubrovnik Republic in any way; directly, indirectly, whatever?

12 A. As far as I know, only I was there.

13 Q. It was my understanding that you were there to tour the

14 Herzegovina front.

15 A. Yes, and I was in the area of Konavle while the fighting was going

16 on. I visited some JNA units.

17 One day I was there where the actual firing squad of a unit was.

18 I saw with my very own eyes that in Konavle not a single house had been

19 destroyed or looted. There were a few cases when I saw some cows that

20 were killed by crossfire lying by the road, three or four cows. Not a

21 single house was destroyed or damaged. The soldiers had strict orders not

22 to touch civilian property. However, when the JNA was withdrawing towards

23 the end of 1991, then there was some spontaneous looting. Probably it was

24 hard for anyone to keep the soldiers under control then, and that is when

25 people broke into private homes and looted property.

1 Q. Let's just get this clear. Who was it that was looting this

2 property in Konavle? Was it soldiers from Serbia, reservists, active duty

3 soldiers? Who was it?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Who was doing this in Konavle?

6 A. To the best of my knowledge, only reservists from Montenegro were

7 there. Recently Milo Djukanovic admitted that some livestock had been

8 stolen in Konavle and taken to Montenegro and now he paid whatever,

9 300.000 euro by way of damages, but nothing came to Serbia. None of this

10 came to Serbia.

11 Also, as regards the shelling of the old town, that happened

12 sometime in the first half of December, because from the old town the

13 Croatian paramilitary forces opened fire at JNA units. JNA units had

14 casualties, fatalities from the gunfire, and then fire was returned.

15 According to international law, the very instant someone abuses a

16 place of worship or any cultural monument as a place for engaging in armed

17 activity, from that moment onwards, such a facility is no longer

18 protected.

19 Q. Mr. Seselj, let's just get this clear. This is what paragraph 81

20 says. I'm just going to read the beginning out to you. It says: "In

21 October 1991, the Serb forces took control of the Croatian towns and

22 villages Konavle, Zupa Dubrovacka --"

23 A. Where's that?

24 Q. 81.

25 A. Yes, yes, I found it.

1 Q. Please, in all these operations around Dubrovnik, in everything

2 that happened around Dubrovnik, can this term be used at all, this term

3 "Serb"? What kind of Serb forces took control of Dubrovnik? So what is

4 written here, "Serb forces," were there any Serb forces?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Was there a single member of any Serb forces in Dubrovnik?

7 A. No. There were no Serb forces there. There were only units of

8 the JNA, only units of the JNA. There weren't any paramilitary forces

9 either or Territorial Defence. In Trebinje, truth to tell, there was a TO

10 unit that was mobilised, but it didn't take part in the operations at all.

11 It was only operations units of the JNA that were taking part.

12 Q. And then reference is made here to all sorts of localities;

13 Dubrovnik, various places around Dubrovnik, the area of Dubrovacka Zupa

14 and so on.

15 Do you know that at that time the minister of defence, Veljko

16 Kadijevic, told all of us that it was not true at all that the army was

17 engaged in any operations in Dubrovnik?

18 A. Yes. The newspapers were full of reports to that effect.

19 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ...

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

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

22 MR. NICE: "Do you know at that time the minister of defence,

23 Veljko Kadijevic, told all of us ..." and so on.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic: Not permissible form of

25 question.

1 MR. NICE: And once more on an absolutely critical issue. So the

2 whole issue is now valueless from the mouth of this witness.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, since you're on your feet, in paragraph

4 77 of the indictment there's a reference to the area of the Dubrovnik

5 Republic.

6 MR. NICE: Yes.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that a proper reference?

8 MR. NICE: I'm sure it's a proper reference. Let me see how --

9 I'll get an answer for why it was used, if that would help you.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

11 MR. NICE: But may I come back to that a little bit later because

12 I think that, given the history of the drafting of these documents, which

13 goes back over several years, it would be preferable for me to get you a

14 concise and simple answer.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, were you in the area of Dubrovnik at

17 all during the month of December?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My knowledge about what was going on

21 in the month of December is indirect, but I was in Dubrovnik sometime in

22 the end of September or beginning of October 1991, when the operations in

23 Konavle were going on. I was in Konavle while the fighting was still

24 going on. I was in Popovo Polje. I was in some other localities. I went

25 all the way up to Ljubinje. That's where the front line was, at Cavaska

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Gradina.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. And no leading questions,

3 particularly on matters that are at issue between the Prosecution and the

4 Defence.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. So, Mr. Seselj, at that time -- or generally speaking, did Serbia

7 have any forces that it could have sent to Dubrovnik even if it wanted to?

8 A. No. Serbia did not have a military force or police unit that it

9 could have sent to the Dubrovnik front line even if it had wanted to. It

10 did not have any such thing.

11 Also, in connection with this mention of the Dubrovnik Republic,

12 there was an initiative by an opposition party in Montenegro to

13 re-establish this republic. However, this initiative was never carried

14 through. That is the historical area of the Dubrovnik Republic, but this

15 Dubrovnik Republic was abolished by Napoleon in 1808. After Napoleon's

16 defeat, it became part of Austro-Hungary or, rather, Austria, and all the

17 way up to 1918 it was within Austria.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for that information, Mr. Seselj.

19 Mr. Milosevic.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. So, Mr. Seselj, if you look at all the counts mentioned here as we

22 are dealing with them in order, is there a grain of truth in anything that

23 is written here in this alleged indictment of Mr. Nice's?

24 A. No. But what I find of particular interest is that this

25 indictment was issued in Zagreb. I assume that indictments before this

1 Tribunal are issued in The Hague. This is an exception, that an

2 indictment against a Serb, the then president of the Republic of Serbia,

3 was issued in Zagreb. In Zagreb, Croatia, the 23rd of October, 2002.

4 It's all clear. It's all clear to me.

5 Q. We're going to deal with some of the other counts here, although

6 it is quite clear, I believe, to anyone who wishes to read this or to hear

7 this. Please look at paragraph 39 now.

8 Again we see your name there, but I'm not asking you only because

9 your name appears there, but --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, get on with the questions. This

11 is not an occasion for comments.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in order to put a question I

13 have to indicate --

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just indicate the relevant paragraph and put the

15 question.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Paragraph 39. I have it on page 11 in the Serbian text, although

18 I honour this language used here by calling it Serbian, because it is

19 really below any acceptable level.

20 So it says here that "Beginning August 1991 the Serb forces

21 including the volunteer units 'Seselj's men' and the 'White Eagles' were

22 in control of Vocin. On the 13th of December 1991, while the Serb forces

23 withdrew from Vocin and the surrounding area, they went from house to

24 house, killing a substantial portion of the remaining Croat civilian

25 population."

1 So these two units are Seselj's men and the White Eagles. A total

2 of 32 civilians were killed by these two units before they withdrew on the

3 13th of December, 1991. The names of the victims are set out in Annex 1,

4 and so on.

5 Do you know anything about this; and if so, can you tell us about

6 this? Was there a volunteer unit of yours there in that area that could

7 have carried out any kind of crime in the area?

8 A. First of all, there were no volunteer units that were Seselj's

9 men. There were volunteers of the Serb Radical Party within the ranks of

10 the JNA who, on orders from the command of the JNA in charge, were

11 deployed in the Territorial Defence of Western Slavonia and were placed

12 under the control of the active army Colonel Trbojevic.

13 Our volunteers had strict political orders from the Serb Radical

14 Party not to have any contacts whatsoever with the White Eagles. I've

15 already said that, to the best of my knowledge, Veljko Dzakula brought the

16 White Eagles to Western Slavonia. How this happened can best be explained

17 by General Aleksandar Vasiljevic. I did not take part in having them

18 brought in.

19 Q. Wait a moment. Who was Veljko Dzakula?

20 A. Veljko Dzakula was the president of the Assembly of Western

21 Slavonia. On one occasion he was arrested in Belgrade on the suspicion

22 that he was a Croat spy, and he was kept in prison I don't know how many

23 days. He was suspected of working for the Croatian intelligence service.

24 Q. On what grounds?

25 A. Well, it was his conduct that gave rise to that suspicion. I

1 don't remember all that very well but I remember the time when he was

2 arrested and I remember why he was arrested.

3 Q. But what you just said, what is it based on, your claim that

4 Veljko Dzakula was the one who brought White Eagles to Western Slavonia?

5 A. I knew that already in 1991. When I was in Western Slavonia, I

6 also avoided all contact with the White Eagles. I didn't meet with them

7 at all. I met with many soldiers, with volunteers of the Serbian Radical

8 Party, with many civilians, both Serb and Croat, but I avoided

9 categorically all contact with members of the White Eagles. They were, in

10 my eyes, untouchables. And wherever they were, volunteers of the Serbian

11 Radical Party were told as a political suggestion, it was only a political

12 suggestion that did not bind them in any way, they could only have been

13 expelled from the party for non-compliance, but they had the political

14 instruction not to contact with the White Eagles.

15 Q. And who controlled the White Eagles at the time? Who commanded

16 them?

17 A. Veljko Dzakula, as far as I know. Veljko Dzakula pursued his own

18 policy that was distinct from the policy of the leadership of the Serbian

19 Autonomous District of Western Slavonia. And all the time when I was in

20 Western Slavonia, I met with Vukelic, Prime Minister, Mr. Sasic and other

21 members of the leadership, but I never, ever met with Veljko Dzakula,

22 because the policies diverged drastically.

23 Q. It says here that your withdrew -- these units withdrew in

24 December 1991. Were they still there at the time?

25 A. Yes. And their withdrawal was rather chaotic when it happened

1 because the Serb forces could not withstand the onslaught of Croatian

2 paramilitary formations. On one day in the defence of Masicka Sagovina,

3 many volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party got killed in one day and

4 more were wounded. Many were taken prisoners. But I have no information

5 whatsoever that anybody killed Croatian civilians while withdrawing.

6 Q. Well, that's just an allegation put in here by Mr. Nice.

7 A. Well, it looks very nice here, the way it's put without any

8 evidence to support it, but it's not difficult at all to establish who by

9 name --

10 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... comment in this

11 way on matters that are not his province.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a little bit on the balance, Mr. Nice, as

13 to whether the witness can say there is no evidence to support it.

14 But, Mr. Seselj, avoid comments of that kind. That may be more a

15 proper comment coming from the accused.

16 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. All right. Mr. Seselj, in connection with what Mr. Nice just

19 commented upon, I will ask you about something that is definitely your

20 province; Seselj's men. Did any Seselj's men exist there as an armed

21 unit, or is it true that there was a volunteer unit or is it simply a lie?

22 A. It is true that an armed unit, Seselj's men, existed, and it often

23 happened that -- that volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party and the

24 unit they formed were referred to as Seselj's men. Locals called them

25 Seselj's men, but there was no such thing as an armed unit officially

1 called Seselj's men.

2 Q. Can I ask you if --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before moving on, the start of that answer

4 was, "It is true that an armed unit, Seselj's men, existed ..."

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know what your

6 interpreters are doing. I didn't say that, Mr. Bonomy.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, perhaps we -- it's of some importance, so

8 perhaps --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an error by the interpreter.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Seselj is beginning to answer too quickly

11 after the question is posed and that creates a lot of problems.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, here we have -- here we have come to the crux

13 of the -- one of the major problems throughout your evidence. The blame

14 for this difficulty is being placed squarely on your shoulders by

15 answering far too quickly, and we have now an answer that appears to say

16 it is true that an armed unit, Seselj's men, existed. Are you happy with

17 that?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't want this to happen, but

19 I'm not to blame. I can't accept that.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: It's also the result of another problem in the

21 presentation of this evidence, that this particular question has been

22 asked over and over again and it's inevitable, I suppose, if you ask it

23 long enough, you'll cause confusion -- rather, ask it often enough, you'll

24 cause confusion.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only one thing is missing here, the

1 word "not." The record currently says, "It is true," whereas Mr. Seselj

2 said, "It is not true." That's what Mr. Seselj said.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Seselj. You see the kind of

4 problem that can arise by answering too quickly. Once again, you must

5 observe a pause before answering Mr. Milosevic.

6 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

7 JUDGE KWON: Just a pause. A long pause is necessary. You always

8 start to answer while the translation of the question is being -- going

9 on.

10 Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Seselj, even those volunteers who were at that time within the

13 JNA, were they under your control?

14 A. In no way could they have been under my control. However, in a

15 certain way I tried to make sure and made additional efforts to persuade

16 them that they should be disciplined, but the only thing I would have -- I

17 could have done to sanction any untoward behaviour was to expel them from

18 the party.

19 Q. Were there any elements from Serbia in Western Slavonia?

20 A. No, there were no elements from Serbia in Western Slavonia,

21 formally or informally.

22 Q. De jure or de facto?

23 A. Neither.

24 Q. Mr. Seselj, do you know any -- anything about the events in Vocin?

25 A. I heard about these events. I even publicly condemned the

1 perpetrators of these crimes. But since that came to fall within my

2 indictment, I don't want to repeat who I condemned. The Office of the

3 Prosecutor has in their possession all my public statements.

4 Q. Well, they charged you on account of your address to the

5 volunteers in Vocin and thereby instigating the crimes that followed; the

6 burning, et cetera.

7 A. They can charge me with whatever they like. They can charge me

8 for Kennedy's murder if they like. It's up to them. But it's a real

9 delicacy for me to tear apart the indictment raised against me.

10 I'm testifying here about your indictment and my knowledge about

11 the events I have any knowledge of.

12 The killing of a certain number of Croat civilians did occur. I

13 don't know the exact number. As soon as I found out about it, I publicly

14 condemned the perpetrators in Belgrade. And I know that General

15 Vasiljevic, who happened to be in Western Slavonia during its fall, did

16 not do anything.

17 I'll give you another fact. One of the commanders of those units

18 that included volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party was Radovan Novacic.

19 Radovan Novacic's father is a Croat. It's not possible that Radovan

20 Novacic, who was a true Yugoslav of truly Yugoslav orientation -- and he

21 was close to Vocin, commanding a company, I think. He was at Vocin and I

22 visited him too. He lost a lot during the war. It's not possible that

23 Radovan Novacic would be killing Croat civilians if his father is a Croat.

24 Father was a Croat and mother was Serbian. He wanted to preserve Croatia

25 within Yugoslavia maybe, but not kill Croat civilians.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. In the transcript on page 10.432, Witness C037 states that some

2 local people told him that your radicals had taken part in causing the

3 exodus of the population on the 23rd of December, 1991, in Pakrac. Have

4 you got any knowledge about this?

5 A. No. You know, this secondhand testimony is always unreliable.

6 I'll give you a specific example. A story circulated or, rather, cropped

7 up in various places in Bosnia and Herzegovina that Seselj was coming with

8 thousands of his Chetniks. He was feeding them some pills whose effect

9 was to keep them awake, able to go without sleep, for a week without

10 eating. They can keep on cutting throats. That's one of the stories that

11 circulated. I am here to talk about facts, not to discuss other people's

12 fantasy.

13 It's a big problem when you bring witnesses who testify about

14 something that somebody told them. That's nonsense. No lawyer can treat

15 this with any seriousness.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Seselj, I observe that you have given

17 evidence of that kind, and the Chamber -- the Chamber receives it. We are

18 allowed to receive hearsay evidence. The question as to what weight is to

19 be attached to it is another matter.

20 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't really have the impression

22 that Mr. Seselj was giving hearsay evidence, but we can establish that

23 from the transcript.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: He has given hearsay evidence in answer to Judge

25 Bonomy as to whether he was in a particular place in, I think, December

1 1991. He said no, he wasn't there. How did he get the information? He

2 received it.

3 Let's move on.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Another witness was Dzuro Matovina here. He was not a protected

6 witness. His testimony is on page 10996, 7 December 2002. He mentions in

7 his testimony that during attacks on Vocin and surrounding villages

8 volunteers under your command took part.

9 Would you have a direct reply to that?

10 A. There is not a single instance in that war that I was ever in

11 command anywhere. I never even had occasion to have effective command,

12 nor did I have a legal position that would put me in command, nor was I

13 there in the first place when those things happened that we can read about

14 in your indictment. That happened about 20 days after I left Western

15 Slavonia, and it happened in a chaotic situation during the Serb exodus

16 before greatly overpowering Croatian forces.

17 As to the scale of the crime, you can make a judgement only if you

18 compare the number of civilians on the Croat side who were killed with the

19 number of Serb civilians killed during Serbian withdrawal and Croatian

20 conquest of Western Slavonia. I tell you that there are many more Serb

21 victims, but the Office of the Prosecutor here is not interested in

22 hearing it. They didn't prosecute a single Croat for the crimes in

23 Western Slavonia.

24 Q. Well, they didn't prosecute anything for the greatest ethnic

25 cleansing of all, the Storm operation.

1 MR. NICE: It's absurd to think that he doesn't know that what he

2 is doing is contrary to your rules, and the time may come when I will

3 invite the Chamber yet again to ask itself the question whether conscious,

4 repeated disobedience of your rules doesn't invoke reconsideration of the

5 use of assigned counsel. He wants to be his own advocate; he ought to

6 behave like one.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a problem with the

8 interpretation. I do have a problem with the interpretation. Please.

9 There occurred a problem.

10 I don't know what "opetovano" means.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure what it means either if indeed it

12 were used.

13 Mr. Milosevic, comments are not allowed. You waste the time of

14 the Court in that manner.

15 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I see the time. Can I help with the

16 question that you raised earlier about the drafting?

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

18 MR. NICE: And given the author of the document, of which I, of

19 course, happily accept general responsibility, it would be surprising if

20 there wasn't a precise and perfectly conceived reason for the drafting in

21 the form that you find.

22 And indeed, if the Chamber is good enough to go back to paragraph

23 6 of the Croatian indictment, you will see that the terminology used is

24 very precisely explained there, where it sets out the characteristics of

25 the alleged joint criminal enterprise, and then it says in the second half

1 of the paragraph: "These areas included those regions that were referred

2 to by Serb authorities and are hereinafter referred to as..." and then it

3 sets out the various titles.

4 And so therefore, the adoption for the rest of the indictment of

5 the phrase "Dubrovnik Republic" was simply a use by the drafter of the

6 terminology used by the Serb authorities.

7 Since the Court raised the issue, we have been trying to identify,

8 perhaps to assist you, the particular document or one of the particular

9 documents that may have been in mind at that particular time, and there

10 certainly was, amongst other documents, a document produced in the

11 evidence of Paponjak which may be one of those that was in mind. The

12 Court will have in mind, of course, that Dubrovnik Republic is, from the

13 evidence of this witness himself, a concept well known and regularly used.

14

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it only in paragraph 77?

16 MR. NICE: I beg Your Honour's pardon?

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: It is only in that paragraph, 77?

18 MR. NICE: I can't say whether it appears in any other intervening

19 paragraphs, but its use in paragraph 77 was foreshadowed and explained in

20 the paragraph that I've just read out.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: If in other paragraphs you mainly refer to

22 Dubrovnik, I wonder whether there is not some confusion.

23 MR. NICE: Well, I will --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think in other areas you refer to the district

25 of Dubrovnik or simply Dubrovnik or the city of Dubrovnik.

1 MR. NICE: City of Dubrovnik of course might have a particular

2 meaning, referring to the walled and ancient city as opposed to the

3 broader area contemplated by the phrase "Dubrovnik Republic" or if the

4 phrase "area of Dubrovnik" was used, to that term as well.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. It's in paragraph 67 again. We'll have a

6 look at it.

7 We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just before the break, a few words

11 about what Mr. Nice said.

12 He just said that the term "Dubrovacka Republika," the Dubrovnik

13 Republic, is something he uses -- he took over from the terminology of the

14 Serbian authorities. The term Dubrovnik Republic was not used in any

15 terminology of the Serb authorities.

16 MR. NICE: And Your Honours, I should have said it was Poljanic,

17 not Paponjak. It was my mistake.

18 JUDGE KWON: Who was the mayor of Dubrovnik. We dealt with it.

19 MR. NICE: Yes.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

21 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

22 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yesterday, if you recall, when I put

2 questions in connection with the testimony of Dulovic and Anastasijevic,

3 Mr. Seselj pointed out that he had submitted certain submissions. My

4 collaborators have made copies here. It says number 55 -- submission

5 number 55 and number 56 to the Prosecution. These submissions refer to

6 these two witnesses. Both submissions were made on the 24th of November,

7 2004; almost a year ago. I don't have the translations here, but I

8 assume, as they were handed in over a year ago, that the other side has in

9 the meantime obtained translations.

10 I wish to put a few questions in connection with these to

11 Mr. Seselj, and I tender both these submissions as exhibits because they

12 contain numerous arguments impeaching the testimony of these two witnesses

13 that Mr. Nice called.

14 Could the liaison officer give Mr. Seselj copies. My

15 collaborators have made 15 copies of these documents, both of them, the

16 submissions by Mr. Seselj. It says this was submitted to the OTP,

17 Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, Ulrich Mussemeyer, Daniel Saxon, and in both

18 cases this -- the date was the 24th of November, 2004.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Seselj, have you received the copies?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Please be kind enough --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber has not yet received them.

24 Mr. Milosevic, let me hear again exactly what it is that you

25 intend to do with these documents.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To put it in a nutshell,

2 Mr. Robinson, I wish to tender them as exhibits. Yesterday, if you

3 recall, on several occasions I quoted the statements made by these

4 witnesses or, rather, their testimonies, and Mr. Seselj mentioned that he

5 had made submissions. He --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Milosevic read more slowly, please.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- of the Rules of Procedure and

8 Evidence.

9 I have been told by the interpreters to read this to more slowly.

10 The title is "Notice to the accused in this case -- by the accused

11 Mr. Seselj that he intends to present a separate Defence in accordance

12 with Rule 67(A) and (B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence."

13 These are two witnesses who made many claims in the course of

14 their testimony here, and --

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do these documents relate exclusively to these

16 two witnesses or do they cover other matters and other witnesses?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I'm able to understand,

18 they relate to these two witnesses. However, they mention many other

19 aspects of these matters. They talk about the Vreme magazine and its role

20 and so on and so forth.

21 However, tendering these two documents would save time, because it

22 would make it possible for me to refrain from asking Mr. Seselj many

23 questions in connection with these two witnesses. He has made written

24 submission in connection with the testimony of these two witnesses, so it

25 would save time.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, yes.

5 MR. NICE: We would object to the production of these documents to

6 this Court. If they are produced, then I'll have some very specific

7 questions to ask of the witness about the whole purpose of their original

8 production, but I'd rather not go into that now. It's sufficient to

9 observe at this stage that these documents constitute argument by this

10 witness about two other potential witnesses in his case and two existing

11 witnesses in our case.

12 Insofar as he can give evidence of fact about those witnesses who

13 have given evidence in this case, of course that's acceptable. It can't

14 be rejected, couldn't possibly be argued against. But insofar as he's

15 putting together a document, or has put together and now through this

16 accused seeks to lay before you documents of argument about the value of

17 other witnesses, it should be rejected. It's opening the door far too

18 wide to categories of material that shouldn't be before you.

19 It may be you'll need to have a look at the documents a little bit

20 more to see their general nature, but in summary that's what they

21 constitute.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: If it relates to evidence that they have given in

23 there case, wouldn't it be relevant?

24 MR. NICE: Well, a written comment by a witness, saying -- coming

25 in, that means that any witness is going to be allowed to present to you,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 or might be allowed to present to you his own written arguments on why you

2 should reject other witnesses.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: It may not just be comment.

4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I said insofar as he can give evidence of

5 fact about the witnesses, fine. Let him give the evidence if it's

6 material, if he hasn't already done so. Insofar as it's comment and

7 argument, it's quite wrong for the Chamber to allow witnesses to bring in

8 through an accused's application their own written arguments about

9 existing witnesses.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nice.

11 Mr. Kay.

12 MR. KAY: It looks almost like a Rule 89(F) application to my eyes

13 that is being made but without actually technically following the

14 procedure of Rule 89(F). That's what it looks like.

15 Aside of Rule 89(F), as documents themselves, I can't provide any

16 argument in line with the Trial Chamber's recent decisions in relation to

17 the admissibility of documents. A decision we had very recently on

18 Jasovic, the earlier decisions we've had in March and April of this year

19 that cause them to be justified as exhibits in relation to production by a

20 witness of exhibits. But as a result 89(F) statement, if it was to be

21 within that procedure, then of course it is capable of being admissible by

22 that means rather than any other means.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, part of the difficulty I have is not

24 knowing what the contents are. One would have to discern the contents.

25 Some of it may be matters of fact. Some of it may be comment. But you're

1 saying irrespective of that it might fall under -- it would follow under

2 Rule 89(F).

3 MR. KAY: It is capable, if the procedure was followed as outlined

4 by the Appeals Chamber of Rule 89(F), it is capable of coming within that

5 class of documentation.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness is here to be cross-examined.

7 MR. KAY: We haven't followed the rules of the procedure according

8 to the decision of the Appeals Chamber, but it falls still to be -- to

9 arise under that.

10 The rules of the Appeals Chamber were that they be served on the

11 Prosecution in advance, the witness be called, he confirm his statement,

12 and then the witness be tendered for cross-examination.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. We'll consult.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, when did you receive a copy of this?

15 MR. KAY: Two minutes ago.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: So your submission is not based on an analysis of

17 the contents of this.

18 MR. KAY: I've been able to read it very, very quickly and see

19 what it is.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, as quickly as I have, I suppose.

21 MR. KAY: Yes.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before you reach a decision, I

2 wanted to point out a few other facts to you. This is without doubt part

3 of the testimony of Mr. Seselj about these witnesses.

4 Secondly, as to what Mr. Kay said, that it should be submitted to

5 the other side is closed, it was submitted to them on the 24th of

6 November, 2004. And furthermore, there is no obstacle to Mr. Nice

7 cross-examining on this.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: But not submitted to them in 2004 for the

9 purposes of this case. And is there anything in it, Mr. Milosevic, that

10 is anything more than argument, argument and comment?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course there is. I'll put a

12 question to Mr. Seselj.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. What is there in these documents as regards facts apart from

15 comment?

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. Don't put -- you're making your

17 submissions to us now. If we need the witness, we'll ask him to -- we'll

18 ask him to comment, but at this stage we're concerned with your legal

19 submissions for the admission of these documents, and I have asked you if

20 there is anything in it that is more than comment and argument. If it is

21 only argument and comment, I'm not going to admit it. I will not admit

22 it.

23 JUDGE KWON: So, Mr. Kay, the problem I have with this is that

24 this is not a submission submitted by a witness for -- as his statement.

25 This is an argument of a party. So what is your observation on this

1 matter?

2 MR. KAY: You could still -- Your Honour is quite right in

3 relation to what it is and what its content is, and --

4 JUDGE KWON: So the problem is probative value it has, whether it

5 has any probative value as evidence.

6 MR. KAY: Unless it was put in a form for Rule 89(F), which is a

7 -- because there are facts in there in the sense of what this witness was

8 able to see or what he read and what he concluded from what he read, so

9 what his state of mind was. It hasn't been perhaps drafted in a way that

10 Rule 89(F) would generally recognise such a statement. So perhaps it

11 could come within that procedure, but it has not been brought within that

12 procedure, and I can't see any point which I could improve upon the

13 observation Your Honour made about it containing argument. It plainly is

14 argument within his case. It hasn't been prepared as a Rule 89(F)

15 statement for this case.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you haven't said anything so far

17 to convince us that this is a statement of a witness, that it is anything

18 other than the argument, the comments of this witness on two other

19 witnesses in his case. Can you point us to anything that is of a factual

20 nature in these documents?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What is of a factual nature is,

22 inter alia, what Mr. Seselj spoke about yesterday, that these are

23 witnesses who wrote about events in Eastern Slavonia and Vukovar in one

24 way up to a certain point in time, he even mentioned the year 1995, and

25 then after 1995 wrote in a completely different way. And this is a

1 comparison between what they wrote at that time and what they testified to

2 here.

3 I hope Mr. Seselj can assist me. He even refers to the testimony

4 of one of them before a Special Court in Belgrade.

5 So these are facts, not just arguments and comment.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber's ruling is that we will not admit

8 these documents. They are not statements of the witness. They're

9 arguments prepared by him in relation to two other witnesses in his own

10 case.

11 However, Mr. Milosevic, we will allow you to put to the witness

12 questions relating to matters of fact that arise, that are mentioned in

13 the documents.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Seselj, in this document, in your motion of the 24th of

16 November - number 55, that is - you gave certain quotations. For example,

17 on page 31, paragraph 3 --

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they have not

19 received the document.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters haven't received

21 the document.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] They will receive copies straight

23 away.

24 What is stated here are facts, Mr. Robinson, facts that pertain to

25 Ovcara and assertions made by a witness here, a witness who testified

1 here.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, do you need the statement? Do you need

3 this document in order to put that question to the witness? How does the

4 document assist?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the document assists because

6 it practically disqualifies these two witnesses, showing how contradictory

7 their writings were when compared to their statements made here. And to

8 what extent can any serious person rely on the allegations made by them?

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Seselj --

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness is here to give the evidence. He can

12 give it in answer to the question.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, what I wanted to do,

14 Mr. Robinson, was to save time, not to go through these documents at all.

15 Since this was copied from a book, one has 100 pages. So that's about 200

16 pages of your transcript. That's as long as it would be. The other one

17 is half as long. It's very voluminous material. There are many questions

18 contained in it. We could spend an entire day asking him about these

19 things.

20 With the best of intentions of saving time, I wanted to have this

21 exhibited and leave Mr. Nice time to put any kind of questions he wishes

22 to in his cross-examination. Of course, that is up to him entirely. I

23 cannot affect him in any way.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have passed that now because we have ruled we

25 are not admitting it.

1 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there is an initial problem identified by

2 the very first question that the accused has asked, and I think that,

3 although I'm leaving it to the Chamber, of course, to decide whether and

4 to what extent the document itself may or may not be used by the accused

5 and the witness in this part of the evidence, if the Court goes, for the

6 purposes of argument, to the larger document page 7, I think we'll find

7 the passage that the accused has it in mind to take the witness to, and

8 he's there setting out - I think this is the paragraph probably -

9 "Anastasijevic wrote," and then there's set out presumably something from

10 a newspaper article.

11 If it's intended to get before you the contents of newspaper

12 articles written by Anastasijevic or the other witness, then what you need

13 is copies of those articles. That should have been provided. That's what

14 should have been the evidence. And having it secondhand and through oral

15 testimony is entirely unsatisfactory and makes the process of

16 cross-examination even more difficult.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let us hear the question you're putting.

19 And the English page number, with Mr. Nice's help, is page 7.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Seselj, on page 31 here, you quote Anastasijevic, his text,

22 and it says: "The cameras of television reporters filmed a stout officer

23 with a large moustache threatening a scrawny fair-haired representative of

24 the International Red Cross, saying he would throw him into the Vuka river

25 if he persists --"

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I am bamboozled at the moment by the form of

2 procedure that's being adopted here. This document is not admitted. I

3 don't have it in front of me. If you've got questions about matters that

4 Mr. Seselj can deal with from his own direct experience, then they have to

5 be put as questions, not as quotations from you. I just don't follow

6 what's happening here. This is an attempt to use one witness to express

7 views and argument about the evidence given by other witnesses in this

8 case, and I find that a process that is not appropriate. It's a matter

9 for argument at the end of the trial. It's not a matter of evidence, the

10 way it's being conducted at the moment.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is not the kind of question

12 that you can ask. This doesn't relate to an issue of fact within the

13 knowledge of the witness. It's not the kind of use that the Chamber is

14 permitting you to make of the document.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber, by majority, will not allow that

17 question to be put.

18 Mr. Milosevic, as I said, you may put to the witness questions of

19 fact within his knowledge.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Seselj, yesterday I quoted the original transcript to you. I

22 quoted several statements. I cannot mention all of them now, but you will

23 recall that. Several statements made by witnesses Dulovic and

24 Anastasijevic in these proceedings, and you fully refuted that. By

25 refuting their statements, you indicated certain motions that you sent to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the other side in relation to those particular witnesses. Did you base

2 these motions on some facts that have to do with these proceedings or did

3 you just give your comments and opinions about these witnesses in these

4 submissions?

5 A. I presented facts, first and foremost, in these motions and only

6 then comments. Motions -- the motions were actually written by the expert

7 team that is there to assist my Defence. They submitted that to me on the

8 basis of their own thorough investigations. Their investigations involved

9 three aspects; testimony in court proceedings, newspaper articles written

10 both by Dulovic and Anastasijevic, and official police information about

11 their behaviour in the relevant period.

12 Here in these motions there was something that was indicated very

13 emphatically, namely the differences between what Jovan Dulovic wrote in

14 Ekspres Politika while the war was going on and the operations that he

15 wrote about, especially the operations in the liberation of Vukovar and

16 his later writings in Vreme.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I don't think we are being helped by that.

18 Mr. Milosevic, if you have specific questions which fall within

19 the ambit that I have indicated, then you may put them.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. What are the main differences that you indicate in these motions?

23 A. There is an enormous number of differences in the way in which

24 events were presented during the war and a few years after the war. Also,

25 in Dulovic's case there are enormous differences in terms of what he said

1 in his testimony and the proceedings against you in this Tribunal as

2 compared to his testimony in the Special Court in Belgrade where the group

3 of indictees related to the Ovcara crime is being tried.

4 Q. Could you please tell us what the main differences are in terms of

5 what he said here and what he said in his testimony before the Special

6 Court.

7 MR. NICE: Did he hear the evidence of the Special Court? Was he

8 there himself? Have efforts been made to produce to this Court the

9 records?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, if witnesses make contradictory

11 statements, then the easy and simple way of establishing that is to

12 produce the transcripts of what they've said on two different occasions,

13 not to lead evidence which sounds at the moment like it's hearsay twice

14 removed from the event.

15 Now, this could be -- this could easily be done in writing and

16 save a lot of time if you gathered the material together. You've got all

17 the information you need from getting hold of the two motions that have

18 been referred to, but it's not going to help us to hear hearsay twice

19 removed about events in two different sets of proceedings.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, Mr. Seselj has just

21 explained what his team did, and the list is here at the very end. It is

22 a very -- it is a team consisting of many members and also they are highly

23 qualified and competent. This is a matter of public record as well, the

24 transcripts of the Special Court in Belgrade and also the transcripts of

25 the Tribunal here.

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Is that a fact, Mr. Seselj?

3 A. Yes, that is a fact.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: That's why, that's why it's a simple exercise for

5 you to do it properly and we should insist on you doing it properly.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is an area in which you could

7 have benefited from advice from assigned counsel. I perceive that this

8 could be a matter of some importance to your case, but the way in which it

9 is being handled makes it very difficult for the Chamber to hear it.

10 If you want to show inconsistencies between the evidence given by

11 these two witnesses in a court in Serbia and the evidence that they have

12 given here in this case, that may very well go to their credibility, but

13 how can you possibly do it through this witness? How can we be assisted?

14 You have had enough experience here to know that the way to do

15 that is to present a transcript of the testimony from the two cases. We

16 can have access to the transcript of the evidence here, but we would

17 certainly need to have access to the transcript in the -- of their

18 evidence in the Special Court as well, and that would make your case much

19 stronger as distinct from merely relying on this witness's recollection of

20 what was told to him.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this witness has just done

22 what you said should be done. He compared the two in order to see how

23 reliable their statements are. I really have nothing to defend myself as

24 far as Vukovar is concerned here. I wish to have the truth established.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: But we do not before us the prior testimony of the

1 two witnesses in the Special Court, which is the point of the comparison.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, Mr. Seselj yesterday,

3 in response to a question I put, said that he submitted these motions to

4 the other side and that they contain many important points in order to

5 ascertain how unreliable the testimony of these witnesses is. So if he

6 mentioned that yesterday, I imagine I'm within my rights to ask why he

7 mentioned this, what he mentioned, and what the main elements of these

8 motions are. He mentioned that during his own testimony. I did not plan

9 in advance to submit these motions. He mentioned them. However, since I

10 consider them to be relevant, I'm asking the witness what they contain,

11 and I think that that is very logical.

12 When a witness mentions a particular fact, you have the right to

13 put subquestions to him related to what he himself mentioned. So I'm

14 asking him what these contradictions are indicating that these two

15 witnesses are totally unreliable.

16 Now, you're not letting him answer those questions, but that is

17 your own affair. I'm just indicating that that is my perfectly legitimate

18 right.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have been considering the

21 matter because it is an important one. It's important to your case, but

22 the way you have managed it, the way you have presented it is not going to

23 be of assistance. If we were to hear Mr. Seselj give evidence of the

24 discrepancies between the evidence given by those two witnesses here and

25 their evidence given in the Special Court merely on the basis of an

1 analysis done by others, an analysis not done by himself but by others, it

2 would be of very little weight, very little weight. So it's not going to

3 advance your case.

4 What you should do, and I tell you this because it could be

5 vitally important to your case because the discrepancies may be of such a

6 nature that they totally discredit the witnesses, you should get the

7 transcript of the evidence from the Special Court as well as the newspaper

8 writings and present them to us. And as I said, it may very well serve to

9 discredit the witnesses. But doing it through this witness is of very

10 little assistance, because that evidence -- to that evidence we will not

11 be able to attach much weight, even if theoretically, and I can put it no

12 higher than that, the evidence may be admissible as hearsay, it's not the

13 kind of evidence to which we would be able to attach great weight.

14 So this goes to the management of your case, and I am prepared to

15 allow you some time to get the transcript of the -- those two witnesses'

16 evidence in the Special Court and to bring to us evidence, not necessarily

17 through this witness, it could be through another witness, as to the

18 discrepancies. And the discrepancies may be of such a nature that they

19 discredit those witnesses. And that's why I have paid so much attention

20 to it, because these are matters that could serve to strengthen your case.

21

22 Do you understand what I've said, Mr. Milosevic?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did, Mr. Robinson. You were very

24 clear. You're asking me to do something that Mr. Seselj has already done,

25 that is to make --

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Let me correct you. He has not done what I

2 just said to you. We do not have the transcript of the evidence from the

3 Special Court here. What Mr. Seselj will be giving is second- or

4 thirdhand hearsay evidence of an analysis done by his experts. And as I

5 said, we will not be able to attach much weight to evidence of that kind.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson. I

7 understand that Mr. Seselj cannot answer these questions now because you

8 do not allow it. But he had occasion yesterday to respond to many

9 allegations made by these witnesses, and he refuted them completely. I

10 really have no intention to deal with all the witnesses that Mr. Nice

11 tried to use to corroborate his unprovable allegations.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind what I have said.

13 You have assigned counsel, but you do not make use of them. Nonetheless,

14 the Chamber has a duty to assist you since you are, in that sense,

15 virtually unrepresented. You're representing yourself, and it is a duty

16 of the Court to assist you. That is how it is in the jurisdiction from

17 which I come where an accused represents himself.

18 So bear in mind what I have told you. You can get the transcript

19 of the evidence of these two witnesses from the Special Court, and you

20 can, through an appropriate witness, put it to them so that the Chamber

21 may be alerted to discrepancies and discrepancies of such a nature that

22 their credibility could be affected.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I simply reinforce what has been said and make

24 one individual comment, which is this: That I, speaking for myself,

25 consider the evidence presented in this way to be inadmissible because it

1 has no probative value. I could not consider the evidence presented in

2 this way to be reliable when there's a perfectly simple, straightforward

3 way of producing the actual material which can be directly compared by the

4 Trial Chamber or through the evidence of a witness.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, next question.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Seselj, we stopped at paragraph 49 of the Croatian indictment.

9 It's on page 12. I hope you can locate it. It says "Vukovar Hospital."

10 It all relates to that event in Ovcara.

11 Tell me, do you know anything about these events and is it correct

12 what's written here?

13 A. I know something about these events because I made efforts to find

14 out, but I'm not an eyewitness. And what I found out is rather reliable,

15 namely that the authorities of the Autonomous District of Eastern

16 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem asked the JNA that some prisoners from

17 the Vukovar Hospital be turned over to them, with a demand that they be

18 tried for the crimes that they had previously committed over the civilian

19 population of Vukovar. And the information I got is that a certain

20 number, I don't know exactly how many, of those prisoners were turned over

21 to them, after which the prisoners were taken to the farm called Ovcara

22 whereupon the execution of those prisoners occurred.

23 Q. From all that you managed to find out, who was involved? Was the

24 JNA involved in any way?

25 A. According to my information, not a single officer of the JNA was

1 involved, and from what I learned it was some locals who did it who had

2 some outstanding accounts with the prisoners. But I have no direct

3 knowledge about it because I wasn't there.

4 Q. Then we will not delve into this any deeper because you don't know

5 any more about it than was available from media reports at the time.

6 A. I dealt with it because it was one of the charges in my

7 indictment. So I had to research it extensively, and my experts are

8 working on it, and the knowledge I have was obtained actually by my

9 experts.

10 What I know firsthand is that at the time of the execution, the

11 commander of the Guards Brigade was not in Vukovar, but General Aleksandar

12 Vasiljevic was.

13 Q. Very well.

14 JUDGE KWON: What do you mean by "firsthand," Mr. Seselj?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I learned from people who were

16 there, that is reliable information that I got, because I dealt with this

17 question, in a way.

18 JUDGE KWON: From whom did you hear that?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I talked to a large number of

20 people. I talked in particular to the commander of the Leva Supoderica

21 unit, Milan Lancuzanin, also known as Kameni. I couldn't even tell you

22 the names of all the people with whom I discussed it.

23 Just after the event happened, several months after the event, I

24 made intensive efforts to find out if by any chance some volunteer of the

25 Serbian Radical Party was involved.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic. We'll hear it.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. But you see, Mr. Seselj, precisely this witness Jovan Dulovic,

4 whom we mentioned before, mentioned on page 11669 that your men, your

5 drunken men, killed people from the Vukovar Hospital.

6 A. That's precisely what I'm doing here. I'm analysing. While the

7 fighting for Vukovar was going on, Jovan Dulovic had only praise for the

8 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, and he quoted my statements in

9 his reports, namely that I insist on discipline, on sobriety, and several

10 years later he comes up with totally opposite claims in his writings. He

11 praises Major Jovan Radic as an honourable and honest officer at the time,

12 whereas several years later he invokes his allegedly contemporaneous diary

13 and says that Major Radic was involved in crimes. These are incredible

14 things.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Seselj, where can we see these writings?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, you can see that from

17 transcripts. Second, from newspaper articles, and you can address

18 yourself to the state security service of Serbia, which is now called

19 Security and Documentation Agency.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Things that were said at the time which were praise

21 for you or praise for your volunteers, you said, "He quoted my statements

22 in his reports, namely that I insist on discipline, on sobriety, and

23 several years later he comes up with totally opposite claims in his

24 writings."

25 Now, what we should be seeing is a report on the one hand, and a

1 writing on the other hand so that we can see the difference. Now, are

2 these available? Can Mr. Milosevic get them and present them to us?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, it's a very big job.

4 That job was done for me by my experts, and this analysis is their work

5 product, a result of their work. They quote the newspaper, the article,

6 the number of the issue, and the date. But I finance my own experts, and

7 I owe them already a lot of money in arrears for their work. I cannot

8 incur additional expense myself to do something that I have already had

9 done.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: As you know, I did not ask that question. I asked

11 you how Mr. Milosevic could get his hands on the material.

12 You've dealt with the writings, and it must be clear to him that

13 the considerable legal assistance he has will be able to obtain these

14 materials. What about the reports that you quoted? "He quoted my

15 statements in his reports." Who were these reports made to and where can

16 they be found?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dulovic, in the paper Ekspres

18 Politika of 1991, quotes how much I insisted that there should be no

19 looters or alcoholics among the fighters and that they should not cause

20 any incidents. He is quoting my words spoken in Vukovar. This same

21 newspaper in which he wrote quotes my call to the Ustasha, asking then to

22 surrender so that the conflict can be resolved peacefully, which I made on

23 Radio Vukovar. The paper Ekspres Politika quoted my statements.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: These are all newspaper reports, and again they can

25 be obtained and no doubt you can give the dates of these to Mr. Milosevic,

1 you can pass them to his assistants and obtain the documents.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you know, as soon as I started

3 testifying in Mr. Milosevic's case I have been prevented from meeting him,

4 and I can say nothing to him apart from what I say in the courtroom. I

5 have no contact with his advisors.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's not play games here. You can write down the

7 details. You can pass them to him. You can ask your advisors to do that.

8 There's no problem about giving him basic information to enable him to

9 locate evidence for the production of that evidence in the Court.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All this basic information is

11 contained in the submissions that I gave to the OTP as my special defence.

12 It quotes the papers, issues, and so on.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: That clarifies it all. He has all the information

14 he needs. Thank you.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Seselj, when you say that everything is contained in these

18 submissions that I'm not allowed to put questions to you about, does this

19 refer what it says on page 51, where you say that Dulovic in his text in

20 Ekspres Politika of the 25th of November, which is certainly later than

21 the 21st of November, does not mention any crimes? However, later on he

22 says that Captain Radic committed crimes. Here he not only does not

23 criticise or accuse him but he praises him.

24 A. Well, Mr. Milosevic, I just said that here a little while ago.

25 This is just one example. He was full of praise for Captain Radic,

1 putting him on a pedestal, and later on he accuses him of crimes. He

2 refers to his so-called contemporaneous entries in a diary whereas I prove

3 here these were written later on on orders from others, and this is what I

4 say in my submissions, inter alia.

5 Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Seselj. I hope we shall be able to go

6 into this in greater detail, but what he says in the original transcript

7 from his testimony here on the 16th of October, 2002, on page 11669, he

8 says that your men, while drunk, killed the people from Vukovar Hospital.

9 A. Well, here I prove that he's lying, because I demonstrate what he

10 said about the volunteers in 1991. And he says quite the opposite in the

11 proceedings against you as an OTP witness. And then I go on to

12 demonstrate the contradictions between his testimony in The Hague and his

13 testimony in Belgrade.

14 Q. Dulovic, in the original transcript on page 11668 of the 16th of

15 October, 2002, stated that it was this person nicknamed Kameni, whom we

16 mentioned, who told him about the killing of Croats from the Vukovar

17 Hospital, how they were taken to the Ovcara farm and then on from the farm

18 toward Grabova, where 250 people were killed. He describes him here as a

19 member of your units. Is this correct?

20 A. We have already clarified who Kameni is.

21 Q. I'm asking you about the transcript of Dulovic's testimony in the

22 proceedings here.

23 A. I don't believe he discussed this with Kameni at all. He's

24 inventing this conversation. Kameni was not among those who shot the

25 prisoners in Ovcara. I know that for certain, and I can guarantee it.

1 Q. Very well. Then he couldn't have told him about something where

2 he was not present.

3 A. Yes, certainly he couldn't have.

4 Q. I don't have the page reference here.

5 A. Although Dulovic himself, as far as I can understand from the

6 transcript, doesn't claim that Kameni participated in the shooting. He

7 remembers the name of Kameni so he says it was Kameni who told him what

8 happened. The story is very naive.

9 Q. Are you charged in your indictment with the fact that the

10 so-called Seselj's men were in the volunteer units who, from the group of

11 prisoners held in Velepromet, separated off certain people and killed

12 them?

13 A. Yes, this is mentioned in the indictment although it has nothing

14 to do with the volunteers of the Serb Radical Party and me personally.

15 You see, for a full two years I have been insisting that the OTP interview

16 me. My only condition is that this should be attended by my legal

17 advisors and videoed. For a full two and a half years, the OTP has been

18 avoiding any conversation with me. My goal, however, is to set out my

19 arguments and evidence ahead of time in order to save time, because it

20 would eliminate certain issues. However, the OTP is avoiding having an

21 interview with me. That is why I have been writing these submissions,

22 putting forward my special defence. I am advising the OTP of what I have

23 at my disposal.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am stopping you. Much of what you have just

25 said is not relevant.

1 Ask another question.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Seselj, in the document concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, you

4 will see that in paragraph 6 there is mention of some sort of plan to

5 remove non-Serbs from a large part of the territory of Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina, so I'm asking you now, did anyone from the government of

7 Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to the best of your

8 knowledge, have any kind of plan or goal of removing non-Serbs? It says

9 here from a large -- from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia and

10 Herzegovina, but my question is from any part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

11 A. No. No one from either the government of Serbia either had such a

12 plan or such an intention. The government in Serbia did everything

13 possible to avoid conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to reach an

14 agreement with the leadership of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian federal unit

15 regarding the future of Yugoslavia.

16 Q. Tell me now, as you have been quite clear about the standpoint of

17 the government of Serbia and the SFRY, did anyone from Republika Srpska

18 have any plan to remove the Muslim population from Bosnia and Herzegovina?

19 A. No. The leadership of Republika Srpska had no such plan. To the

20 best of my knowledge, the leadership of Republika Srpska did everything

21 possible to keep the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina within Yugoslavia,

22 and they insisted on this.

23 The leadership of Republika Srpska, only when it was outvoted in

24 the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in a counter-constitutional manner,

25 because a decision of that nature could not be reached by outvoting, it

1 had to be reached by a consensus of all three constituent nations, it was

2 only then that all the deputies of the Serb Democratic Party walked out of

3 the Assembly and organised the Assembly of the Serbian Republic of

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So every subsequent move of theirs was a response to

5 the previous move of the Croats and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6 The more evident their separatist moves became, the more the moves that

7 the Serbs made in response led to the separation of these areas from the

8 control of the executive government in Sarajevo.

9 Q. Mr. Seselj, after this, did the leadership of Republika Srpska

10 have any plan to expel the Muslims? I want to avoid putting a leading

11 question.

12 A. No. The leadership of Republika Srpska, to the best of my

13 knowledge, never had a plan to expel the Muslims. Of course, quite

14 naturally they wanted to have control over as much of Bosnia and

15 Herzegovina as possible, but I'm telling you a very telling fact: In the

16 Serbian army, there was a considerable number of soldiers who were

17 Muslims. For example, in Semberija a considerable number of Muslim men

18 joined the Serb army. These were Muslims whose orientation was towards

19 preserving Yugoslavia, whose interests were very close to the Serb

20 national interests. In Semberija there was a considerable number of

21 Muslims who were soldiers in the Serb army.

22 Q. Do you know that in Semberija there was even a brigade -- a Muslim

23 Brigade in the army of Republika Srpska?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In connection with these allegations that such an intention

1 existed, I asked you whether there was such a plan in Republika Srpska,

2 and I showed to you a document which has already been admitted in

3 evidence, and that is Karadzic's order of the 19th of August, 1992, which

4 contradicts this, because it orders the prevention of forcible deportation

5 and removal of the population.

6 You read this document here, and you testified that this was the

7 practice at the time.

8 A. I had a number of meetings with the leadership of Republika

9 Srpska; Radovan Karadzic, Momcilo Krajisnik, Aleksa Buha, and others. And

10 according to my direct information, the leadership of Republika Srpska

11 never had a plan or an intention of expelling the Muslims from the

12 territory of Republika Srpska. Their policy was that if the Muslims

13 wanted to leave, they should not be forced to stay. They should not be

14 treated in the way that Izetbegovic's government was behaving, forcibly

15 detaining the Serbs and preventing them from leaving the territory under

16 Muslim control. This was an essential difference between the two

17 leaderships. However, there were individual incidents where Muslims were

18 persecuted, and I testified to some such cases that I knew about.

19 However, these cases occurred without the knowledge and outside the

20 control of the Serbian leadership in Pale.

21 Q. Mr. Seselj, I won't repeat in connection with these paragraphs

22 from the Bosnian indictment what I have already asked you in connection

23 with the same paragraphs in the Croatian indictment, but I draw your

24 attention to the fact that just as in paragraph 22 of the Croatian

25 indictment, in paragraph 22 of the Bosnian indictment there is an almost

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 identical text in which you are mentioned as a participant in this joint

2 criminal enterprise.

3 As you have already answered questions about the almost identical

4 paragraph in the Croatian indictment which also bears the number 22,

5 please tell me, have you anything to add to what you said about this

6 paragraph now referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the period that this

7 indictment relates to?

8 A. What is stated here is absolute nonsense. I did not spread

9 inter-ethnic hatred. My attitude toward the Muslims was always brotherly,

10 friendly. I publicly attacked only pan-Islamists, and that this is the

11 case can be seen from the pre-trial submission of the OTP in my case.

12 They say that I threatened pan-Islamists. I started my political debate

13 with these pan-Islamists ten years before the war began, and all my

14 attacks were against these fundamentalists, these pan-Islamists who are a

15 great evil not only in the Balkans but in the whole world. My attitude

16 towards Muslims as such has always been brotherly and friendly. And the

17 Trial Chamber can see the pre-trial brief of the OTP in my case, which

18 contradicts what is stated in the indictment against you when it comes to

19 me and my role.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Seselj. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Bosnian

21 indictment, it says that -- that's 23. It says: "From 1987 -" and I

22 emphasise 1987, if you can find this paragraph - "until late 2000,

23 Slobodan Milosevic was the dominant political figure in Serbia and the

24 SFRY/FRY. He acquired control of all facets of the Serbian government,

25 including the police and the state security services. In addition, he

1 gained control over the political leaderships of Kosovo, Vojvodina, and

2 Montenegro."

3 Kosovo and Vojvodina I assume ar