Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12855
Monday, 18 November 2002
[Open session]
[The accused entered court]
[The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good morning, Your Honours.
WITNESS: WITNESS Milan Babic
[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
Q. Good morning, Witness.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the witness has not yet taken the oath.
JUDGE MAY: That's quite right. Let the witness take the declaration. He's having trouble hearing.
Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
JUDGE MAY: If you would like to take a seat.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me?
A. Good morning. Yes, I can hear you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, the witness needs to be shown the witness identification sheet that we had prepared, and it
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12856 should be in front of everyone here.
No, not -- it has to be shown to the witness only.
Q. Sir, looking at the sheet, is there your name on the sheet, your birthday, and your place of birth?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Your ethnicity, your family status, and your profession?
A. Yes.
Q. On the sheet, is there also the position that you had before the war?
A. That's right, yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, this sheet needs to become an exhibit, and it has to be under seal.
THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 354, to be kept under seal.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, in these proceedings you will be referred to by the code number Milan Babic.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we would need to go into private session for a period of approximately 15 minutes.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Private session.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you.
Q. Were you interviewed as a suspect on several occasions in November last year and in January and February of this year?
A. That's right.
Q. Can you explain how this contact with the Prosecution came about.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12857
A. Well, after I heard through the media that my name was on an indictment which the Tribunal had raised against Slobodan Milosevic, I asked through some organisations and individuals, people in Belgrade, to come into contact with The Hague Tribunal and especially with the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor in order to clear up, first of all, my own role in the events that are mentioned and also for me to be able to say everything I know about those events. After that, I had contacts with representatives of the OTP. That's how it came about.
Q. Did you believe that participating in a suspect interview would assist you in your own case?
A. Yes. To clear up everything and to clear up the truth and, within the frameworks of that truth, my role in the events.
Q. Are you currently still under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor in your own case?
A. As far as I have been informed, yes.
Q. Are you aware that the military court in Split tried you and 18 other Croatian Serbs in absentia and convicted you to a prison term of 15 years for having committed the criminal act of imperilment of the territorial integrity of the Croatian state? Are you aware of this?
A. Yes, I am aware of that. I know about that. I know that it was prosecution for political crimes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would briefly show the witness the Exhibit 352, tab 169, the judgement -- the first-instance and appeal judgement.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12858
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Where are we going to find this, please?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You'll find it -- it's Exhibit 352. That's the binder, the binder with the exhibits to be tendered through the witness. And it's tab --
JUDGE MAY: I don't recollect giving exhibit numbers to these items. Did we do so on the last occasion?
[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
JUDGE MAY: Remind me what they are, please. Perhaps the registrar would be kind enough to do it.
THE REGISTRAR: The Rule 92 bis is numbered Exhibit 351, the exhibit binder 352, the intercepts 353.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And in the Exhibit 352, Your Honours, it's tab 169.
Q. Witness, if you briefly look at page 4 of the first-instance judgement, where it says --
A. Yes.
Q. "Thus, the accused from 1 to 19 have committed the criminal act of imperilment of territorial integrity of the State, against the Republic of Croatia, punishable and defined under Article 236,b)cl.1.KZHR," and it gives the 15 years' imprisonment sentence.
And I would also like you to look at the first page of the appeal judgement. That's the judgement of the Court in Zagreb. And it says here: "The appeals of the military prosecutor and the accused," and there
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12859 come the list of names, "are rejected as groundless, and the judgement of the first-instance court is upheld."
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you. That's enough.
Q. Witness, at that time when the first-instance judgement was adopted, did you know about it? Did you take part in any way?
A. No. I heard about it later on.
Q. Did you appeal the judgement?
A. No.
Q. Thank you. Speaking of the investigation against you here in The Hague, are you aware that after the termination of the investigation against you, you may get indicted before this Tribunal for your personal conducts in the events?
A. Yes, I am aware of that.
Q. After your arrival in The Hague, did you have several conversations with me and other members of the Prosecution staff in preparation of your testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. During the suspect interviews in Belgrade and your conversations here in The Hague, were you -- were any promises made to you regarding the outcome of the case against you?
A. No promises were given me.
Q. Were you granted any kind of immunity?
A. I was granted protective measures for testifying here, nothing else.
Q. Were any promises made in case you would testify in the Milosevic
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12860 case?
A. No promises were made.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I think at this point in time I would like to give the witness a warning according to the Rule 90(E).
JUDGE MAY: I think that's appropriate. Witness --
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE MAY: Witness Milan Babic, you should understand your position at the moment as a witness in the light of what we've been told about some of these interviews and the like and your position generally. You, as a witness, may object to any statement -- to making any statement which might tend to incriminate you. That means, of course, to admit or involve you in any criminal offence. If you make such an objection, it would be then a matter for the Trial Chamber to determine whether you should be compelled to answer the question or not. If you were compelled to answer and did answer under compulsion, the evidence which you gave as a result could not be used against you in any subsequent Prosecution for any offence except giving false testimony. That means, in effect, that you have the right to object to giving evidence about anything which you may think will incriminate you. It's a matter for you whether you do make such objection or not.
We note, of course, that in your case the position is rather unusual because you have counsel here to represent you, but it's right that you should have the position formally explained to you so that you may know it.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12861 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
Q. Witness, having heard the warning, what is your motivation to testify here in these proceedings? Can you tell us?
A. I would like to state in this trial the whole truth about the events that came to pass and what I know about and those that I took part in. Also, I consider that I do bear certain responsibility for everything that took place during that period of time in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and I expect that my role will be assessed correctly both by the Prosecution and by the other institutions, if it comes to that, at this Tribunal.
Q. Yes.
A. I also expect that if it comes to that, that I be treated leniently.
Q. Before the war -- I just want to go now through some of your positions you held before the war, and it's enough to just give yes or no answers because we go into more details later on. Before the war, had you been a member of the League of Communists in Croatia?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you participate in the last Congress of the League of Communists of Croatia on December 1989 in Zagreb?
A. That's right.
Q. On this occasion, did the party in Croatia adopt the proposal to become independent from the League of Communists in Yugoslavia?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12862
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
JUDGE MAY: We've got the microphone on. What is it, Mr. Milosevic?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My question was why is this a private session? The witness is a protected witness. We can't see his image. His voice is distorted. So why have a private session for these questions?
JUDGE MAY: Why do we need one, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I'm going now through the positions that this witness had.
JUDGE MAY: Let's go on.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And they were so particular --
JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well, but let's do it as rapidly as we can, particularly if you propose to come back to it in open session.
JUDGE KWON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, the birth year in the summary is wrong, you recognise? The witness -- birth year of the witness, which is right?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: What do you mean, Your Honour?
JUDGE KWON: He was born - we are in private session - 1956 or --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. It's 1956.
JUDGE KWON: 1959 is wrong in the summary.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 1956 is correct.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12863 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12864
Q. You haven't answered yet my last question.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. In February 1990, did you become a member of the Main Committee of the SDS party in Croatia?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. In April or May 1990, did you become the president of the Municipal Committee of the SDS for the municipality of Knin?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you become, later on, the president of the Main Committee of the SDS?
A. Of the Main Committee? The Regional Committee of the SDS of Krajina, for the Krajina.
Q. Yes. And how long did you remain in this position?
A. Several months in the second half of 1992.
Q. Besides your position in the SDS, did you become the president of the Knin municipality?
A. That's right.
Q. And how long did you remain in this position?
A. About four years.
Q. Did you become the president of the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you become the president of the Serbian National Council at some point in time?
A. Yes, that's right.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12865
Q. Did you become the president of the Executive Council of the SAO Krajina?
A. That's right.
Q. And how long did you stay in this position; from when to when?
A. From the 21st of December, 1990, up until the 30th of April, 1991. And the post was the temporary president of the Executive Council. And from the 30th of April, 1991, to the 29th of May, 1991, the president of the Executive Council of SAO Krajina.
Q. Did you at some point in time also become the president of the government of the SAO Krajina?
A. That's right. On the 29th of May, 1991.
Q. Until when?
A. Until December, the 19th of December, 1991.
Q. When the RSK was founded, were you its first president?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And how long were you in this position?
A. From the 19th of December, 1991, until the 16th of February, 1992.
Q. In 1993, 1994, did you run against Milan Martic in the presidential election?
A. I did take part in the elections for the post of president of the Republic of Srpska Krajina and Milan Martic was one of the candidates too.
Q. In 1994, did you get a position in the RSK government?
A. Yes. I became Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of the RSK.
Q. Did you, finally, become the president of the RSK again in 1995?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12866
A. I became Prime Minister of the government of the RSK on the 27th of July, 1995, until the 5th of August, 1995.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we can go now into open session.
[Open session]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you. With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness a map. It's Exhibit 326, tab 11.
Q. Witness, the map has the title "The Republic of Serbian Krajina." Are you familiar with this map?
A. Yes, I am.
JUDGE MAY: Is this a map which has been exhibited, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, or not? I don't recollect it.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's a new map.
JUDGE MAY: Let's have a copy, please. We seem only to have got one copy.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We turned them all over to the registrar. There should be one for each of Your Honours.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have it now.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, do you have the original -- do you have the original map with you, by chance?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you provide this map to the Prosecution?
A. Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the original map is of a better
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12867 quality and would be more useful on the ELMO. I suggest that you allow the witness to use his map. It's exactly the same map.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, if it goes onto the overhead projector.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
Q. You can use the map, sir, your map. Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the original map is actually two-sided, printed two-sided. On one side is the map as such, and on the back side are photos and a lot of text, describing what is to be seen on the map. And the translation of the map, you have -- you should have with you together with the map. And the translation goes on the map, on the first side from the left to the right, and the same for the back side.
Q. Witness, can we have the page with the landscape -- with the map, yes. Thank you. Witness, who produced this map? Do you know that? Does it say?
A. It says on the back. I can't see very well. It was published by the military publishing, the military publishing company in Belgrade.
Q. Was that the military publishing company from the RSK or from the VJ, or another one?
A. It was the VJ, the Army of Yugoslavia in Belgrade.
Q. And when was it produced? Does it say?
A. In 1994. I can't see very clearly. Just a moment. I noticed somewhere in the text that it said 1994, after the elections in the Krajina, the elections of 1993.
Q. Witness, on the page with the map, you -- can you again turn to the page with the map? You have there a map. Can we turn it so that the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12868 blue map in the middle is to be seen. Yes. Witness, in the middle of this map, there is the territorial distribution of Serbs by towns in Croatia according to the census of the 31st of March 1981, and the blue colour represents the Serbs. Is that what we see on this map, the percentage of Serbs in the region?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was it similar in 1990?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Again on this page with the maps, in the right corner there is a map of Ustasha genocide against Serbian population in the territory of the Independent State of Croatia. That's in the right-hand corner. Why is it on this map? Can you explain?
A. This falls within a context in which mention of the genocide of the Serbian people during the Independent State of Croatia in World War II was mentioned. The context -- or rather, the message was that Serbs had to bear in mind what the Croatian Ustasha had done to them during World War II in order to avoid this being repeated in the armed conflicts that took place between 1990 and 1995 on the territory of Croatia and, according to this map, also on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Q. Witness, below this green map there is a blue box, and it gives certain data on the ethnic composition of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem, and Baranja. Could you show us --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: First of all, can the map be folded differently, please. The map needs to show now -- yes. The map has to be opened.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12869
Q. First of all, Witness, can you show us this region, the region of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem, and Baranja? You have to move the map -- you have to move the map so that it can be seen.
A. It's this area here.
Q. And it says in the text, in the blue box, it says "Population: 135.800," and it says "95 per cent Serbs, 4 per cent Croats, and 1 per cent others." Do you know what these figures are, from which time?
A. This was the assessment of the army in 1993 and 1994.
JUDGE KWON: I think it's at the right bottom side of the map. Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. But it's actually not necessary to put it on the ELMO. We want to look at the regions.
Q. How was it in 1990 and 1991? Do you know?
A. Just a question, if I may: Are you referring to the data in this table here or this table here?
Q. I'm referring to the table in the right-hand corner of the map. The right-hand corner. Right. This blue box in the right-hand corner of the map, it says, for Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja, it says 95 per cent Serbs, 4 per cent Croats, 1 per cent others. And my question was: How was it in 1991 -- in 1990 and 1991? Do you know that?
A. I haven't found the information you're referring to, madam. Are you referring to Eastern Slavonia?
Q. Yes. I'm going down, actually, through the blue box from the left-hand side down, and the first one is Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem, and Baranja. Do you have it now?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12870
A. Yes. I understand now. Would you please repeat your question.
Q. My question was: How was the ethnic composition in 1990 and 1991 for that region? Do you know that? Approximately, not --
A. In the territory of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem, and Baranja, the ethnic breakdown of the population was approximately half/half. Half Serbs, half Croats, and there were others as well.
Q. And now going down, Baranja -- Banija, sorry -- Banija, it says here --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it's not very clear to me because the box to which you refer on the map is not in English, so I expect we are to follow it from this document.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. We have it only in this format. It's --
JUDGE ROBINSON: So the data which was just given comes under the heading "Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem, and Baranja."
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE ROBINSON: It doesn't seem to coincide with what is here, or is that for a different year? 1990 --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We are actually now comparing the situation in 1993, which is the situation marked on the map, and I'm asking the witness how it was in 1990, 1991, and he is giving these figures. It's not on the map. It's from his knowledge.
JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. We go now down to Banija, and on the map it says for 1993, the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12871 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12872 population is 82.406, and the ethnic make-up is 97 per cent Serbs, 2 per cent Croats, and 1 per cent Others. And my question to you first is to show Banija on the map on the ELMO so that the Judges can see where it is, and then the ethnic composition in 1990 and 1991, if you know. The witness is pointing out the Banija region.
A. This is the area of Banija.
Q. Yes. And can you tell us what the ethnic composition was in 1990, 1991?
THE INTERPRETER: Would the witness please be asked to speak into the microphone.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About 75 per cent was Serbs and the rest was other ethnic groups.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. And do you recall how many Croats lived there in 1990? Approximately.
A. Up to a third, or 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
Q. We go now further down to Kordun. Can you, first of all, show Kordun on the map, where it is situated?
A. This is the area of Kordun.
Q. And on the map for Kordun for 1993, it says 98 per cent Serbs, 2 per cent Croats. Do you know how it was in 1990?
A. About 75 to 80 per cent were Serbs and 20 per cent or so were Croats.
Q. And now going to Lika, can you show us where Lika is on the map?
A. This is the area of Lika.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12873
Q. In the map, it says for Lika 48.389 inhabitants and 90 per cent -- 93 per cent Serbs, 5 per cent Croats, 2 per cent Others. And can you tell us how it was in 1990?
A. 1990, two-thirds or three-quarters were Serbs or, rather, 75 to 80 per cent were Serbs and 20 to 25 per cent were Croats and Others.
Q. Going further down, Northern Dalmatia. Can you show us Northern Dalmatia?
A. This is the area of Northern Dalmatia.
Q. It says on the map population 87.000, and ethnic make-up 90 per cent of Serbs and 10 per cent of Others. Can you tell us how it was in 1990?
A. Approximately 80 per cent were Serbs and 20 per cent Croats.
Q. When it says in the -- in the map it says 10 per cent of Others for Northern Dalmatia, does that mean Croats or who?
A. Well, the ethnic make-up of the population during the census in the area had Croats, Serbs, and those who declared themselves as Yugoslavs. And there was a smaller percentage of other ethnic groups. Less than 1 per cent.
Q. Witness, the last region is Western Slavonia, but we have already had a lot of evidence on Western Slavonia, so we do not need to talk about it now. Thank you.
Would you now please turn around the map, because I would like to ask a few questions from the back side of this map.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: On the map, Your Honours, when you go to the translation, page 3, there is a list of municipalities of the RSK, and
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12874 it's actually 28 municipalities.
Q. Do you find the list of municipalities? Do you have it, sir? I would like to know just two questions. There is the municipality, under number 23, of Plaski.
A. I don't know whether I can see the numbers here.
Q. Witness, there is actually the photo -- there is the photo. The photo is Knin, and below -- yes.
A. I found it. I found it. I found it now.
Q. I just have a question in relation to number 23, Plaski. Plaski, when did it become a municipality?
A. Recognised as a municipality and their representatives made part of the Assembly of Republika Srpska Krajina in December 1991. Before that time -- well, they became a municipality because first they were part of the municipality of Korenica, and they separated themselves from the municipality of Korenica in the autumn of 1991, and their delegation was part of the Assembly of the SAO Krajina in December 1991. So the exact time when they constituted themselves as a municipality and declared themselves a municipality I couldn't say, but it was before December or in late November 1991.
Q. And the town of Plaski, was it before then a part of the Ogulin municipality that was in Croatia?
A. The town of Plaski and several surrounding villages were, in 1990, part of the municipality of Ogulin, but in early 1991 they held a referendum, and the town of Plaski and several villages around it with Serbian population joined the municipality of Korenica.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12875
Q. And my other question relates to number 26, the Serbian municipality of Zadar. The Serbia municipality of Zadar, when was it introduced and which villages belonged -- or towns belonged to it?
A. The former municipality of Zadar, which was a municipality in 1990, two Serbian towns, Donji Zemunik and Smokovic, held a referendum in early 1991 and joined the municipality of Benkovac. That was the situation in 1991. And then in 1992 or 1993, I'm not sure exactly when, the Serbian municipality of Zadar was constituted, but it was defined at the elections held in the Republic of Serbian Krajina in late 1991 as the Serbian municipality of Zadar, with one delegate in the Assembly of the Republic of Srpska Krajina.
What the Serbian municipality of Zadar encompassed, what territory it covered, well, we could say part of the territory of the former municipality of Zadar which was under the control of Yugoslavia up to May 1992.
Q. And did it include the villages Skabrnja and Nadin? Do you know that?
A. In terms of territory, yes.
Q. And --
A. In 1993 and 1994 and 1995.
Q. And there is another text on this back side of the map. It's headed with the words "Republic of Serbian Krajina." And it actually gives a few features in relation to the regions we just talked about, and I have only a few questions related to that. For Northern Dalmatia, it says that Knin was the administrative centre. Was it so?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12876
A. Yes.
Q. And it also says for Northern Dalmatia that it was relatively undeveloped?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it like this all the time?
A. Excuse me. I apologise. In answer to your previous question, Knin was not formerly the administrative centre of Northern Dalmatia but it was the main town. It was the centre of Northern Dalmatia in that sense.
And in answer to your second question, yes, it was an underdeveloped area, as were the other parts of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
Q. And I have a question in relation to Banija. In Banija, there is mentioned the five municipalities: Petrinja, Glina, Kostajnica, Dvor na Uni and Caprag. The villages Dubica, Cerovljani, and Bacin, are they part of Kostajnica?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. There is another article on the back side of the map, and it has the headline "How Republic of Serbian Krajina Emerged," and would you please find this. And as we are going through the details later on, I just have one question and it relates to the first paragraph.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's on page 9 of the English.
Q. It says here: "In 1989, the Serbian people responded to increasingly aggressive Croatian chauvinism by establishing the Serbian Cultural Society 'Zora' in Kistanje, as well as by presenting a united
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12877 front regarding national symbols and myths."
When was this society established and what was the purpose?
A. This society was first established in early July 1989, but it was formally recognised, legalised as the Serbian cultural association Zora in the autumn of 1990.
Q. Who established this society?
A. It was established by people who were of Serb ethnicity from the area of Knin, Benkovac, or, rather, Dalmatia and Lika. Jovan Opacic, from Knin, was the president of the society.
Q. We can now turn aside the exhibit. Witness, while you were still a member of the League of Communists of Croatia, did the Knin region have a particular reputation in the League of Communists?
A. Well, starting in February 1989 and July 1989 the League of Communists of Croatia, the then ruling party, was labelled as a centre of Serb nationalism because of the events that took place in February and June and July in the area of Knin.
Q. What events had taken place?
A. In February 1989, during the strike of Albanian miners in the Trepca mine in Kosovo, there was political division around this event throughout Yugoslavia. The Croatian association of trade unions supported the miners' strike in Trepca, while at the same time a large rally was held in Belgrade in support of the policy of the Republic of Serbia in connection with the events in Trepca.
In Knin, this gave rise to solidarity in the trade unions, in the large companies such as the nut and bolt factory. They supported the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12878 policy of Belgrade and they protested against the standpoint taken by the trade union centre in Zagreb which had expressed solidarity with the miners in Trepca.
Q. Thank you. We do not need to have all the details, sir. Did anything happen in Kosovo Polje near Knin?
A. The celebration of the anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo was held in that year in Kosovo Polje near Knin several days after the large celebration that was held in Kosovo Polje near Pristina. This was a ceremony in which many bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church took part. It was a religious and cultural event, but at the end of the ceremony a political incident took place when Jovan --
JUDGE MAY: Witness Milan Babic, as you'll appreciate, we've heard evidence about this from other witnesses. The significance, if I may say, as far as your evidence is concerned is any effect that it might have had in your region that you can speak of.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Was what happened in Kosovo Polje near Knin understood in the Croatian society as a nationalist event?
A. The representatives of the ruling party, the League of Communists of Croatia, and of the Croatian people, described this as a nationalist event.
Q. Why did you join the SDS party? Can you explain that?
A. Well, in view of the fact that I was following events surrounding the political position of the then ruling party in Croatia, that is the League of Communists of Croatia and its attitude towards Knin and the Knin
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12879 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12880 region, I was beginning to understand that a new party was needed to represent the special interests, the particular interests of that region. That is one of the reasons why I joined the SDS as a party which, in addition to the general democratic programme and reform of the society, had a special part of its platform related to improving the economic status of that region.
Q. Were the Serbs in Croatia in an unfavourable position in Croatia at that time?
A. It is a fact that the municipalities with the majority Serb population in Croatia fell within the category of underdeveloped, economically underdeveloped regions. On the other hand, many Serbs realised that the former communist regime displayed a certain discrimination and suppressed the Serbs' linguistic identity in those areas of Croatia.
Furthermore, at that time there was a media campaign to shed light on the position of the Serb people in Croatia which depicted their status as inferior and worse than the position of the majority Croat population.
Q. This media campaign, who conducted this campaign? Can you tell us?
A. That campaign was conducted by the state-owned media from Serbia, especially from Belgrade.
Q. Did you attend the founding rally of the SDS in Knin?
A. I did.
Q. When was it held and where was it held?
A. On the 17th of February, 1990, on the square just above the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12881 railway station in Knin.
Q. How many people attended and who was the president of the new party?
A. It was attended by 5.000 to 10.000 people, and a member of the Academy of Sciences, Dr. Jovan Raskovic, from Sibenik become president of the party.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, for two questions I would like to go now into private session because it's the position of the witness in relation to this rally.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you.
Q. Did you give a speech on this rally?
A. Yes. The offer was made to me to address the rally by the organiser, Jovan Opacic, and I did indeed make a brief speech, two or three minutes maybe.
Q. Why were you offered to give a speech? At that time were you already heavily involved in politics, or why?
A. No. It was by chance that I was in contact with the initiators of the rally, Jovan Opacic and Marko Dobrijevic, regarding some premises they were looking for for the cultural society of Zora. I asked them how the preparations for the Assembly were going on, and on that occasion Jovan Opacic asked me, "Doctor, would you be willing to address the rally?" and I said yes.
Q. And Jovan Opacic --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I withdraw this question. We
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12882 can do that in open session.
Q. What did you say during your speech? You said you gave a short speech. What did you say?
A. When I was making that speech, I was under the impression of the things I saw while travelling from Zagreb to Knin when I was coming back from the party congress. I was thinking of the newspaper articles I was seeing at that time, especially in the Duga magazine, about the restoration of -- of the non-restoration of Serbian searches, et cetera, how people were moving out of Plitvice. And I remember that rally I said that the previous regime created a desert in the area from Karlovac to Knin. This was met with approval on the part of the members of the Assembly.
And also, I supported the establishment of the SDS party as a party that would take care and represent the interests of the population of that area. And that is why I was offered to be on the Main Board of the party.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can go now into open session again, Your Honour.
[Open session]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. You mentioned you and Opacic. What position did he have at that time?
A. He was president of the Serbian Cultural Society, named Zora, and one of the political leaders in the SDS, although he was not formally vice-president or anything of the kind.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12883
Q. Did representatives from parties from Serbia attend the rally?
A. There were many party representatives, and the main one among them was Kosta Cavoski, president of the Democratic Party.
Q. Were any members of Mr. Milosevic's party present?
A. I don't know. I wasn't familiar enough with those people.
Q. Did Mr. Milosevic support Jovan Raskovic politically? Do you know that?
A. Well, my impression then was that after the establishment of the SDS, and some time later perhaps, until the beginning of the war, the SDS did not enjoy the support of Belgrade, or rather, Mr. Milosevic. But after the beginning of the summer 1990, you could feel, at least in media coverage, that this support is there. Whether he supported Jovan Raskovic personally, I cannot say with any certainty, but I -- Jovan Raskovic did maintain contacts with then president of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic.
Q. While the SDS party was forming in Croatia, was there also a party led by Borislav Mikelic?
A. There existed a wing in the League of Communists of Croatia led by Borislav Mikelic, and from that faction, Mikelic created the League of Communists of Croatia, which was pro-Yugoslav. That was in 1990, in the summer of 1990. It later sided with the group of leftist parties in Belgrade.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the SDS platform. It's the Exhibit 353, tab 1.
Q. Witness, is this the SDS platform from the 17th of February, 1990?
A. Yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12884
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I've misspoken. It's Exhibit 351, not 353, and it's tab 1.
Q. Witness, looking at the first five pages of this document, does it refer to the opposition of the SDS party to the communist system?
A. Yes, certainly. This is the basic party platform at the time of the monopoly of the one ruling party, and speaks about the need for a multiparty system and a new economic system, on the basis of a multiparty system, and pluralism of ownership.
Q. Yes. I would like to --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, how does it reflect opposition of the SDS party to the communist system?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there are a lot of quotes in this platform, and I can read a few.
JUDGE ROBINSON: It would be better if the witness gave that.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Okay.
Q. Can you refer us to the parts in this platform where it says that the SDS is in opposition to the Communist Party and wants democratic changes?
A. Well, on page 1 -- it is leitmotif throughout the text, but you can see on page 1 the communist movement was historically defeated, and I quote: "Regardless of its sometime high rate of success, this movement suffered a historical debacle." And then it goes on to say: "This movement becomes the main obstacle for establishing political democratisation in our country. We believe that the way out of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12885 the crisis is not only economic and political, but also ethical, and lies in the creation of new parties and new movements. This is an idea that permeates the whole programme."
Q. There is one other --
A. So we could look through the entire text, if you think that is necessary.
Q. Just one more quote in relation to that. It's actually -- in the English it's on page 4, in the second paragraph; in the B/C/S it's in a paragraph which starts with: "We are ready to cooperate with any party seeking a democratic way out of this situation. We are an opposition party, which is naturally inclined to other opposition parties, but we shall not accept to cooperate with any aggressive or repressive parties, especially not with those that advocate national egocentrism, hatred, and ethnic paranoia."
Do you have this?
A. I remember this. I remember this part very well. I just have to find it. You said page 4?
Q. It's in the English page 4, but it's actually two paragraphs after the last quote that you read, two paragraphs after the last quote that you actually read a minute ago.
A. Yes, I found it.
Q. Yes.
A. That is page 2 in my text.
Q. Yes. And I would like you now to move on to a paragraph that starts with the headline "System of government and the ethnic question."
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12886 It is on page 4 in your text; and in the English, it's on page 8 and 9. Witness, it says in the first paragraph: "For the Serbian Democratic Party, the ethnic question is primarily a democratic question." And a few lines down it also refers to the unresolved ethnic question. What is meant with these references?
A. As for the ethnic question in Croatia, it was believed that it was not resolved in a satisfactory manner as far as the Serb people are concerned, because the territories populated by Serbs were rearranged in the administrative division of Croatia. They were turned into parts of other municipalities and they became peripheral. It was further believed that this was the reason why these areas continued to be underdeveloped, were suffering from depopulation. And as a result, the Serb people were in an inferior position. They were linguistically neglected. Their media, education, and other areas of life and progress were not supported.
Q. Now I would like to refer you to page 6 in the B/C/S, and in English it's page 11. The headline "Democratic Federalism." It says here:
"We believe that the fate of the Serbian people in Croatia depends on democratic federalism, hence we make our choice for a federative domestic organisation of Yugoslavia, under the conditions that it is accepted by all the constituent people of Yugoslavia." Does it mean in this chapter, "Democratic Federalism," does this chapter already refer to territorial autonomy within the federal units?
A. Not in this paragraph perhaps, but it is mentioned in other paragraphs in other parts of the text. We see here there is an emphasis
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12887 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12888 on the option for a model for organising Yugoslavia as a democratic federal state.
Q. Does that mean Serb autonomy within Croatia? Did the SDS see Serb autonomy within the Croatian framework?
A. In other parts of this document, there are specific references to that. The Serb Democratic Party advocated a new administrative division of Croatia. It advocated territorial autonomy in those places where geographically, historically, economically, and for ethnic reasons, this was possible and even necessary.
Q. It's actually in this paragraph. I refer you a little bit further down, where it says: "It is necessary to ensure constitutional possibilities to create territorial autonomies within individual federal units should the population in the territories with the special ethnic composition or cultural and historical identity so decide in a referendum."
It's in that same paragraph. It's actually the last paragraph in this chapter.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And Your Honour, it's on page 12, on the bottom, and in the beginning of page 13 in the English.
Q. Did you find it, sir? It's page 7. It's the last paragraph before the next headline, Roman IV.
A. Which number is that?
Q. It's page 7, the last chapter before the next headline. It's before this headline Roman IV, "Market economy."
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can assist with another copy here.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12889
JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you've got it marked on a copy. Witness Milan Babic, just look at that marked copy. Yes. Now perhaps you'd like to ask the question again, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, I just --
A. Yes, yes. I found it. Thank you.
Q. And I had asked you whether at that time you already had considered Serb autonomy within Croatia in certain regions.
A. Only in principle, nothing specific.
Q. Did it mean cultural autonomy, more or less?
A. You could say that precisely it involved regional and local self-management, meaning territorial self-management, territorial autonomy, with local self-government.
Q. Yes. And if you move forward in the text, there is a -- there are listed the objectives of the Serbian Democratic Party.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And Your Honours, it's on page 13 of this document. And we have marked it here. If the usher would just get it.
Q. Witness, there is the objective 8: "Yugoslav democratic federalism must ensure constitutional possibilities within individual federal units so that territorial autonomies can be established should the population in the territories with specific ethnic composition or a special cultural and historical identity decide so in a referendum." Is that what you had in mind?
A. Yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12890
Q. There is also the goal number 15, the objective number 15.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's on page 17 in the English, Your Honours.
Q. Do you have this? Witness, do you have it, or we have --
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. Okay. It says in this goal: "The recent one party politics brought us into an unacceptable situation. Certain parts of Croatia in which Serbs make up the majority of the population are economically backward and underdeveloped." And it continues a little bit further down: "The economic status of Serbs in those areas weakens, becoming even more unfavourable."
That is what you actually have already mentioned, the dissatisfaction of the Serbs with their economic situation.
A. That is correct.
Q. And in goal number 16, there is a reference to the regional division of Croatia. It says: "The regional division of Croatia is out of date and does not correspond to the modern principle of coexistence, and it particularly does not correspond with the historical interest of the Serbian people."
Can you explain this? What is meant by this? Why was the regional division of Croatia against the historic interest of the Serbian people?
A. This is supposed to mean that the areas populated by Serbs, historically populated by Serbs as residents, found themselves on the periphery of administrative units, and that was the reason for their
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12891 lagging behind in economic terms and for depopulation of these areas.
Q. Was this --
JUDGE MAY: It's now half past 10.00. We should come to -- is that a convenient moment?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, because we would stay with this document another five minutes, I suppose.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Witness Milan Babic, we're going to adjourn now for 20 minutes. Could you remember in this and any other adjournments that there may be not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team.
Very well. 20 minutes.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: The witness needs his microphone adjusted. Yes. Can you hear us all right?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I forgot when we discussed the map that the witness had, I forgot to mention that this is a new exhibit. It was -- it gets now included into the exhibit binder, the Exhibit 326, the map binder. It's a new exhibit, and I have to tender it officially.
Q. Witness, while talking about the goal number 16, you mentioned the dissatisfaction with the regional division of Croatia and the disadvantage of the Serbian people. Was -- the regional division of Croatia, was that
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12892 something that the new government, the Croatian government, had created or was it something that was in existence for quite some time before 1990?
A. It existed before 1990.
Q. So it was nothing new.
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. A little bit further down in the document, there is the statute of the Serbian Democratic Party, and it starts in the English on page 20. And it's on page 12. It starts on page 12, sir, in the B/C/S. And there are just a few matters.
It says in Article 6 that the Serbian Democratic Party is based in Knin. Was that decided?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And in Article 7, the party bodies are the Assembly, the Main Board, the regional boards, municipal and local boards, and party activists. Was that practised in this way?
A. That's how it was, yes.
Q. And there is an attachment to the platform, and it is the Serbian Democratic Party Resolution on Kosovo. It's the last two pages in the English, and it should also be the last page in the B/C/S. Why was this attached to the platform? What does Kosovo have to do with it, with the situation in Knin?
A. Well, Kosovo has to do with the overall political events on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, especially among the Serb people. In fact, the position of the Serbs in Kosovo as the public perceived it and learnt about it gave rise to national solidarity with their position, and
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12893 of course the party saw the need to determine its own position therein.
Q. Thank you. That's enough for this exhibit. Witness, was the SDS then officially registered in Croatia and on the federal level?
A. Yes, it was. It was officially registered both in Croatia and in the organs of the Croatian federation and in the Ministry of Justice of the SFRY.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to put to the witness just briefly the Exhibit 351, tab 2. And it is just to confirm the registration of the SDS party by the Croatian register of public organisations of -- as of 6 March 1990.
Q. Do you recognise the document?
A. Yes, that's right. That is the document.
Q. Thank you. There's no need to discuss it. Did the SDS party take part in elections in Croatia, in the first election after the founding?
A. Yes, it did. The SDS did take part in the elections of the Sabor or the Assembly of the Republic of Croatia and the elections for the Municipal Assemblies in the area of the Republic of Croatia.
Q. Did the SDS win a majority in some municipalities?
A. In four of them, in fact, yes. Four municipalities.
Q. Which?
A. In Knin, Donji Lapac, Gracac, and Benkovac. In Benkovac there were additional elections, and it won those too.
Q. In August 1990, was Jovan Raskovic opposed in the SDS after secret
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12894 negotiations with President Tudjman?
A. I don't understand the question. Could you repeat it, please.
Q. In August 1990, was Jovan Raskovic opposed in the SDS party after secret negotiations with President Tudjman; and if so, who opposed him?
A. Yes. At that time in the Main Board, a faction was formed against the president of the party, that is to say Dr. Raskovic, and this faction was led by Jovan Opacic, Dusan Zelenbaba, Branko Peric, and some other people as well.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Milosevic influenced this opposition? Did he have anything to do with this opposition against Raskovic and negotiations with the Croats?
A. I don't know whether Mr. Milosevic personally did take part, but the Belgrade press, at any rate, fanned the flames and instigated this lack of tolerance, especially towards Jovan Raskovic after his talks with Mr. Tudjman. And a journalist of Television Belgrade, on the eve of the SDS Main Committee meeting which was to have discussed some of these events, prepared a report in advance to the effect that the president of the party, the president of SDS, Jovan Raskovic, Dr. Jovan Raskovic, had already been replaced.
Q. But was he replaced?
A. No, he wasn't. He hadn't yet been replaced. The group was a minority in the committee and later on, after one or two months, they stepped down from the party.
Q. Did Mr. Raskovic eventually leave the region of Krajina; and where did he go, if so?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12895 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12896
A. Dr. Raskovic left Sibenik for Belgrade upon the advice of academician Dobrica Cosic.
Q. Was the SDS party meant to be restricted to the Krajina only or was it supposed to cover the whole of Yugoslavia?
A. The Serbian Democratic Party was founded with the object of covering the whole area of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That is why it was formed in the first place and registered with the competent state authorities in Zagreb and with the organs in Belgrade as well.
Q. Was a party with that same name, SDS, founded in Bosnia in July 1990, and if so, who was the lead figure there?
A. Yes, that's right. The name was similar. It was the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the president was Dr. Radovan Karadzic.
Q. Did Raskovic support Mr. Karadzic, and did they even campaign together?
A. Yes, Raskovic did support Karadzic, and I heard from him that the election of Karadzic to a great extent took place because of the support lent him by Jovan Raskovic. So together they waged an electoral campaign. And Dr. Raskovic was very active in creating the Serbian Democratic Party in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Q. Was there any dispute between Knin or Raskovic and the SDS of Bosnia and Herzegovina whether local SDS committees in the Bosanska Krajina around Banja Luka would associate with the SDS in Knin or the SDS in Sarajevo? Do you know that?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12897
A. There were such disputes and discussions about that between Raskovic and Karadzic or, rather, that was a conflict in the committees of the SDS in the area of Bosanska Krajina as to which party they would belong to, the SDS in Knin or the SDS of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Q. And how were these conflicts solved? To which SDS party did those -- did this region then belong?
A. It was solved in the following manner: All these committees belonged to the SDS of Bosnia-Herzegovina with its seat in Sarajevo.
Q. Did Jovan Raskovic form regional SDS committees in Novi Sad and Belgrade; and if so, when?
A. Yes. Committees were formed or, rather, Dr. Raskovic formed them at the beginning of the summer of 1990. He formed these committees in Belgrade and Novi Sad.
Q. Did they take part in election in Serbia?
A. Those committees, in the autumn of 1990, after the elections were called in Serbia, scheduled, these committees set themselves apart into a separate party, the Serbian Democratic Party of Serbia, and they did take part in the elections in Serbia.
Q. Were attempts made to join the parties of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina at different times?
A. Which parties are you referring to?
Q. I was referring to the -- to the SDS parties in Croatia and Bosnia. And to assist you, I would like to put to you the Exhibit 351, tab 4. It is a public announcement by Krajina Serb Democratic Party regarding the talks with Republika Srpska SDS delegation of the 21st of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12898 July, 1993. And it refers in the text, in the first paragraph, to a visit of the RSK capital by the representatives of the state and party leadership of Republika Srpska, headed by President Radovan Karadzic, on the 19th of July.
Do you recall, was there an attempt to join the parties or an initiative to join the parties?
A. Let me say beforehand that while Dr. Raskovic was alive, these -- this type of disintegration was taking place within the frameworks of the Serbian democratic parties, which means that independent autonomous SDS parties were set up in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro. After his death in August 1992, the Serbian democratic party of Krajina, of the Krajina, was set up. From the end of 1992 or, rather, the beginning of 1993, Radovan Karadzic led the initiative to have all these parties conjoined under his own leadership in Neum, or, rather, a party which would be called the Serbian Democratic Party of Serb Lands, of which he would be the president.
Q. In this document, in the last paragraph, it says: "It has been concluded that the basis of the programme orientation must be the unity in achieving the Serb national interest."
What does that mean?
A. Unity in uniting the Serb peoples from the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state.
Q. And it continues then in the document: "With the final achievement of that interest, the reasons for the existence of the Serb democratic parties in the republics would disappear, but, at the present
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12899 stage of the fight for the preservation of the state sovereignty of both Republika Srpska Krajina and Republika Srpska, the existence of the parties on this level is unavoidable."
Was that your position at that time, that you wanted to be separate?
A. That was our position, yes, while Dr. Karadzic's position was that the parties should unite.
Q. We will now leave the parties and go to the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika. And I have a series of documents from Exhibit 351, and the first document is tab 5, and it's the stamped decision of the Knin Municipal Assembly dated 6 June 1990, approving an initiative to link the municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika. And the next document is the same exhibit, tab 6, and it is a draft statute of the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, in the English translation, at least the version that I have, there is a mistake. It says "South Dalmatia," and it has to be "Northern Dalmatia." That's a mistake.
Q. Is this the statute, sir?
A. This is a document that came into being several months after the Association of the Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika came into being. This is a draft statute. And before this document, there were two other documents compiled. The first is the one we have here, the conclusion on the initiative to link up the municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika. And the second document is the document relating to
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12900 the constitution of this association, dated the 27th of June, 1990.
Q. Yes.
A. And this one here, as I've already said, is a draft statute, which makes it the third document in line related to that particular topic.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Then we have to put now to the witness the Exhibit 351, tab 8.
Q. That's actually the document that you just mentioned, the Decision on Establishment and Constitution of the Regional Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika from the 27th of June 1990. That's what you mean?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. And it says here in Article 1, it says: "The regional association of municipalities of Northern Dalmacija and Lika also includes the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac, Obrovac and Titova Korenica." Were these the municipalities that joined?
A. Yes. First of all, the municipalities of Knin, Donji Lapac, and Gracac, and later on the rest.
Q. Yes. And coming back to this document, the draft statute, I would like to ask you something in relation to the introduction to the statute.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's on page 2 in the English, Your Honour, and this is the document tab 6 that we just briefly addressed.
Q. It says here in this introduction: "The aim of this Statute is to legally sanction the current situation, that is, the established Association of the Municipalities of Northern Dalmacija [as read] and Lika, and the wish of the Serbian
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12901 population in this area to introduce Serbian autonomy in Croatia." What was the reason to establish this association?
A. The first reason to establish this association at the end of May and the beginning of June 1990 was to improve the economic position of the people to which this initiative referred in those municipalities, and the assertion of Knin as the headquarters and seat of this regional association, community; later on, once the Croatian Sabor, or parliament, or rather, the Presidency of the Republic of Croatia, launched the initiative for an amendment to the constitution of the Republic of Croatia and doing away with the possibility of creating an association of municipalities. The third reason and main political initiative taken to preserve this community and association was the one which had to do with preservation of national equality for the Serb people living in Croatia.
Q. In chapter 2 in this document - it's on page 3, Your Honours, in the English - and you can see the Roman chapter II here. And I quote here:
"Regulatory competencies shall be listed by name. It is vital that they include rights and institutions connected with the use of the alphabet and the name of the language, schools and other educational and cultural institutions, reporting, religious freedom, and the appropriate institutions, as well as other concerns linked to the specific ethnic, historical, and cultural traits of the Serbian people." This association, did it basically refer to cultural autonomy and a certain regional autonomy within the framework of Croatia?
A. That's right, yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12902
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like now to show the witness the Exhibit 351, tab 9.
Q. It is a letter dated 3rd July, 1990, from the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika, to 17 municipalities, proposing a meeting on 6 July 1990, in Knin, of all municipalities with a significant number of Serbs, to adopt a unified position with regard to proposed amendments to the Croatian constitution. And my question to you is: Did such a meeting take place, and did you actually make proposals for the amendments to the Croatian constitution?
A. The meeting did take place and a large number of people took part, representatives of the municipalities and deputies in the Croatian Sabor of Serb ethnicity and other public figures, and views were put forward as to the proposed amendments, those proposed by the Presidency of the Republic of Croatia.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And now I would like to show you another exhibit, and this is Exhibit 351, tab 10.
Q. And it refers -- it is, actually, the declaration on the sovereignty and autonomy of the Serbian people, dated the 25th of July, 1990, and I would like to know from you who initiated the declaration on autonomy.
A. The initiator to call this meeting and proclaim autonomy was Jovan Opacic, one of the leaders of the Serbian Democratic Party, and this initiative of his was taken up by the president of the party, Dr. Raskovic, and the others from the -- other members of the SDS. The declaration is the product of that initiative.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12903 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12904
Q. Was there a particular reason to do that at this point in time, that is, the 25th of July, 1990?
A. Yes, there was a specific reason. The Sabor parliament of the Republic of Croatia was in session; it was meeting. And on the agenda of the parliamentary meeting was the adoption of the new amendments to the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia. And by those amendments, the possibility was wiped out for the existence of the association of municipalities. And the amendments introduced new symbols, state symbols for Croatia, a change in the name itself and the language. And the object of this was to hold the Sabor in Srb, with the appointed representatives of the Serb people in Croatia, elected ones, who would question the validity of the adoption of constitutional amendments along these lines, which would be taken by sidestepping the right to decide on the part of the Croatian people on a footing of equality with the -- the Serb Croat people on a footing of equality with the Croatian people. So these amendments would be brought into question and the majority vote would be taken by the Croatian people in the Croatian parliament, or Sabor.
Q. Who took part in the meeting in Srb?
A. At the meeting in Srb were the chosen representatives of the Municipal Assemblies, representatives in the parliament of the Republic of Croatia, representatives of political parties, representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and about 100.000 citizens as well, from all parts of Croatia.
Q. Did political officials from Serbia attend the meeting?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12905
A. No, they did not.
Q. Looking at the declaration in paragraph 1, in chapter 1 - it's on page 1 in the English, and it should also be the first page in the B/C/S - it says here:
"In the process of establishing new relations in Yugoslavia, the Serbian nation in the Republic of Croatia is fully entitled to opt for a federate or confederate system of state government, either jointly with the Croatian nation or independently."
What were the options that you had -- that you discussed at that time?
A. Well, the dominant options on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, as far as options to restructure Yugoslavia, were federal ones, the federal option, first and foremost, and the confederal option as well, for the new set-up of Yugoslavia.
Q. It continues in this paragraph 1: "The Serbian nation claims a right to determine, on the historic territories united within the existing borders of Croatia, with whom it will co-exist, in what kind of regime it will live, and how it will relate to the other nations in Yugoslavia."
And then it continues in paragraph 2: "Based on its sovereignty, the Serbian nation in Croatia has a right to autonomy. The scope of autonomy will depend on whether Yugoslavia has a federate or a confederate system of government." It then says:
"In a federate system of government, the Serbian nation is
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12906 entitled to unimpeded and unlimited usage, both of official and private purposes, of the Serbian literary language and the Cyrillic script to Serbian schools and programmes, Serbian cultural and political institutions, companies, newspapers, and Serbian radio and television." This first option, does that mean cultural, basically cultural autonomy within the Croatian framework, within a Croatian republic?
A. As far as I understand it, it represents regional self-government within the Republic of Croatia.
Q. And what was the option in relation to the confederate system of Yugoslavia?
A. This kind of autonomy would be at a higher level. Its contents would be at a higher level. So in legal terms and political terms, it would be political and territorial autonomy, which means autonomy for the region, territorial autonomy, with a higher degree of decision-making, also within the frameworks of the Republic of Croatia.
Q. Did that mean secession from Croatia? Was that included?
A. Political territorial integrity did not mean secession from Croatia. What it meant was only a higher degree, a higher level of political self-government within Croatia.
Q. In paragraph 3 in this document, it says: "The Serbian Sabor, with its seat in Srb, shall be formed as the political representative of the Serbian nation in Croatia." Does that mean that it was a Serbian assembly as a parallel organ to the Croatian assembly, or what?
A. In a political explanation dating back to those times, this was to have been the second part of the Croatian Sabor, because with the majority
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12907 Croatian people and national political parties of the Croatian people who had the majority in the parliament, or Sabor, this was representing the interests of the second constituent people and that that people had the right to take part in the government of Croatia, and this was one form it took. So in political parlance, this is what was said. It is the second half of the Croatian Sabor, or parliament. So not parallel, not a parallel organ, but one that participates within the same system; a co-parliament, terminologically speaking.
Q. In paragraph 4, there is a reference that: "The Serbian National Council has a right to hold a referendum of Serbian people on all issues relevant for the status of the Serbian people in Croatia and Yugoslavia, and other issues relating to the establishment of Serbian sovereignty and autonomy."
So does it mean you had already the plan to conduct a referendum?
A. As far as I can recall, there was no plan. The referendum, however, was the highest form of expression of one's democratic rights, and that's how it was defined. I mean, at the moment this draft declaration was drawn up, it had not been determined that the referendum would be held; it was only an option that was open.
Q. In this document there is mentioned the Serbian National Council. Was it established on that same day in Srb?
A. On that day, the members of the council were elected, and it was constituted a few days later, on the 31st of July.
Q. And whose initiative was this? Was this also the initiative of Mr. Opacic that you mentioned?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12908
A. No. The initiative to establish an executive organ arose when the text of the declaration was being drawn up, or rather, it was accepted by everyone who looked at this text and considered it: the representatives of the Serb Democratic Party, the representatives of the municipalities and of the church. So before it was made public and acclaimed by the citizens present, it was reviewed at the level I have just described.
Q. Did the Serb National Council then prepare the conduct of the referendum in August 1990?
A. The 31st of July, 1990, at the first session of the Serb National Council, it was decided to hold a referendum on Serb autonomy in Croatia and that the Serb National Council should be the body that would organise the referendum in the local communes.
Q. Was there a particular point -- a particular reason why the referendum was then scheduled for August 1990?
A. This happened only because of the course of events. The acclamation of the autonomy had to be confirmed. It was adopted at the assembly. This was the final step in the political developments that started on the 25th of July at the Srb assembly.
Q. What was the question put to the voters who could vote in the referendum?
A. On the ballot paper they could vote for autonomy, which implied expressing an opinion about the text of the declaration adopted at the Sabor, or assembly, in Srb.
Q. Did the voters have the possibility to choose between the two options that we just discussed, in case of federation and confederation?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12909
A. The voters could choose in favour of the text of the declaration or against it. Those who voted in favour voted for both options.
Q. Who was allowed to vote? Just the Serbian people or all people living in a certain region?
A. Members of the Serb nation in Croatia were invited to vote because they were a constitutional category. The Serb people in Croatia were a constitutional category, and their rights had been impinged upon by the constitutional changes. They were called upon to defend their constitutional position. But others were not prohibited from voting.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the Exhibit 351, tab 11.
Q. It is a report on the results of the referendum held between the 9th of August and the 2nd of September, 1990, and it's dated the 30th of September, 1990. And in paragraph 3, you see here the results. What was the result?
A. The results that the commission conducting the referendum presented to the Serb National Council and the general public were the ones mentioned here: 567.127 in favour, 144 against, and 46 invalid ballot papers. These were the results presented by the Commission.
Q. What position did the Croatian authorities take regarding the referendum?
A. I have to say, before I reply to that, that the referendum was scheduled and the citizens were invited to vote on the 31st of July because the plebiscite - that's what it was called - was to be held then. But on the 16th of August, 1990, the Serb National Council decided that
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12910 the citizens' vote should not constitute a referendum but that it should be a vote, simply a vote which had special -- which was under special provisions of the legislation.
Would you please repeat your question now?
Q. My question was: What position did the Croatian authorities take regarding the plebiscite? Were they -- did they support it, did they work against it, or just nothing?
A. The Croatian authorities actively worked against the plebiscite. The president of the republic, Tudjman, publicly stated that there would be no referendum. The Minister of Justice sent a letter to all municipalities prohibiting the referendum. The Minister of the Interior, Bojlkovac, threatened to prevent the referendum by force.
Q. What was the attitude of the Serbs towards the Croatian authorities at that time?
A. Do you mean the Serb people to the Croatian government? Is that your question?
Q. Yes.
A. The Serb people in Croatia, for the most part, as they showed at the Sabor in Srb, disagreed with the political decisions made by the Croatian government at the time.
Q. Did the Serb population start to set up armed guards in the regions where they lived, and if so, who organised it?
A. This sort of political conflict gave rise to fears and anxieties among the Serb people, and the Serbs began to arm themselves, first with hunting rifles, and then they obtained other weapons.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12911 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12912
Q. And who organised this?
A. The first organised distribution of weapons was performed by a group of policemen from the Knin police station, and then this was done in several other police stations.
Q. And how early did they start?
A. The 17th of August, 1990, in the afternoon.
Q. Were Serbs from outside Krajina involved in this early stage?
A. As far as I know, some Serbs from Bosnia brought weapons to Knin.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I would like to go now into private session because I would have to ask the witness about some details that are very particular for him.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, in that time period, August 1990, did you eventually try to establish contacts with Mr. Milosevic?
A. On the 10th of August, 1980 [sic], several people in Knin, people from the police station in Knin and from the leadership of the Serb Democratic Party, asked me to establish contact with the then President of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic, in order to complain to him about the events in Knin.
Q. Witness, you -- in the transcript it says "the 10th of August, 1980." Did you mean to say 1980?
A. 1990. 1990. It may have been a slip of the tongue on my part or the interpreters. I meant 1990.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12913
Q. And you said that several people in Knin from the police station approached you, and also from the leadership of the SDS party. Who? Can you be more specific?
A. On the 9th of August, in the evening, an inspector of the police from Knin, Milan Martic, wearing a combat uniform with an automatic rifle, came to my house, to my home, and he said that the Croatian special police had set out in the direction of Knin in APCs. And he told me that I should seek out a place to spend the night where I could hide, and he and his men found a place for me and my family to stay. And on the following day, he and Mr. Rastovic, from Donji Lapac, and Bogoljub Popovic, from the leadership of the Serb Democratic Party, who was in favour of -- who was a leader of the commission for the safety of the Serb people, they asked me to go to Milosevic. One of them - I don't know exactly who - said that I should ask Slobodan Jovanovic, the editor of Ekspres Politika, where Milosevic was at that moment, and that's what I did.
Q. And did the editor, Jovanovic, know where Mr. Milosevic was, and did he help you to get in contact?
A. Yes. He said he was in Kupari on holiday and that I should go to a member of the Presidency of Serbia - I can't remember his name right now. It may come back to me later - and that this member of the Presidency was in Bilusi and that he would put me in touch with President Milosevic.
Q. Was Slobodan Jovanovic an associate of Mr. Milosevic? Do you know that?
A. Yes. He was one of the leaders and activists. He was in the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12914 leadership of the Socialist Party of Serbia. I think at the time the SPS already existed so he was an associate of Mr. Milosevic in political and party terms.
Q. And did he tell you with whom Mr. Milosevic was in Kupari?
A. No. Slobodan Vucetic was the one who told me this. This was the man I mentioned who was the vice-president of the Presidency of Serbia, and today he's the president of the Constitutional Court of Serbia. Slobodan Vucetic, he mediated between me and Bogoljub Popovic and Mr. Milosevic in Kupari. He said all three of them were there. That's what he said to me. All three of them are there, Slobo, Jovic, and Kadijevic.
Q. You mean General Kadijevic?
A. That's right. The Federal Secretary for National Defence.
Q. And you mentioned Mr. Jovic. Which Mr. Jovic would that be?
A. Yes, Borisav Jovic, the President of the Presidency of the SFRY.
Q. And were you able to contact Mr. Milosevic in Kupari?
A. Indirectly through Slobodan Jovanovic. Slobodan Jovanovic transmitted our message and then transmitted back a message from Mr. Milosevic.
Q. And what was the message?
A. The message sent by Mr. Milosevic was that we should ask officially to be received by the president of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, Jovic, and that he would receive us and that we should set out our problems to him.
Q. Why did you and these people who suggested it to you, why did you
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12915 want to meet Mr. Milosevic? What did you expect from him?
A. Slobodan Milosevic was the political leader of Serbia and of the Serbian people in Yugoslavia. And in Croatia, the people in Knin saw in him the protector of the interests of the Serbs all over Yugoslavia. This political option at the time in the media was that Yugoslavia should be preserved.
Q. You mentioned that you were referred to Borisav Jovic. Did you meet him in August 1991?
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Higgins.
MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I just wonder whether, having listened to the evidence that is being given, whether it is really necessary for there to be a private session at this moment. So long as the witness and the Prosecutor takes care not to reveal the witness's position, it seems that most of the evidence that's being given could be given in open session. It's important evidence that concerns contact potentially between this witness and Mr. Milosevic, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. That seems to be a point. Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the problem is when we go into the details of the contacts and also now the next detail on Mr. -- of the witness's contact with Mr. Jovic, I think it would be quite obvious to the -- to people outside who the witness is.
JUDGE MAY: Let us try and keep these private sessions to an absolute minimum. Can you deal with the relevant matters now and then we'll go back into open session?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12916
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did you meet Borisav Jovic in August 1991, and if so, where did you meet him? Who was with you?
A. I met him on the 13th of August, 1990, in the Presidency of Yugoslavia in Belgrade. With him there were some associates, and I was accompanied by David Rastovic, a representative of the Donji Lapac municipality, and the man I mentioned a moment ago, Bogoljub Popovic.
Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Jovic?
A. We explained to him the problems we had, that is that the Croatian government denied the validity of the referendum, the guards that had been set up in the Serb villages. Those were the topics we discussed. And Borisav Jovic said that he gave us his support for a political struggle, and he said that we would have the support and protection of the army in our struggle. And he said also that a law was being prepared on the right of peoples to self-determination, leading to secession, if necessary. And he suggested that we should bring our referendum in line with the constitutional provisions, and that his associates suggested to us what these provisions are and what provisions we would have to respect in order for a referendum to be legally valid.
Q. Did you ask him for help in case of a Croatian intervention against the referendum?
A. We set out our problems, and it was he who said he was giving us his support and that we would be protected by the JNA in our political struggle.
Q. Did you see anyone else on this occasion in Belgrade? I mean any
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12917 official member of the government.
A. After him, we met Petar Gracanin, the federal Minister of the Interior.
Q. What was discussed with him?
A. The same issues, with the emphasis on the changes in the police, the new uniforms of the police in Croatia, the new insignia, the reorganisation of the police force.
Q. Did Mr. Gracanin offer any assistance or advice on what to do?
A. He said that through the federal organs he would establish contact with the government of Croatia. And I didn't hear this, but later on Gracanin told me that he recommended to the Serbs in Knin that they should erect barricades. It was mostly Bogoljub Popovic who talked with him, so I don't know whether he said this to him or to another delegation which was led by Martic or the police in contacts with Gracanin.
Q. When did Mr. Gracanin tell you? You said later on he told you that he recommended the erection of barricades. When did he tell you that?
A. He said this publicly in the media several years later. He boasted about how he had helped the Serbs and how he had instructed them to erect barricades.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we can now go into open session again.
[Open session]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, you have now mentioned several times David Rastovic.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12918 During the events, what was his role, if any?
A. David Raskovic was the president of the Municipal Assembly of Donja Lapac and the president of the Association of Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika and a member of the Serb Democratic Party.
Q. Did he have any functions during the war or after the war?
A. He kept the function of the president of the Municipal Assemblies. In 1993, he was a minister in the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. In that year, he was also a member of the Commission for the Reorganisation of the Serbian Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. He was one of the members of the Presidency of the Regional Board of the SDS for the Krajina. And in my estimation, he belonged to the so-called parallel structure in the Krajina.
Q. What do you mean when you say "so-called parallel structure in the Krajina"?
A. I mean by this a group of people which consisted of members of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia, the public security service of Serbia, people from the police in the Serbian municipalities in Croatia, and other people who were in close contact with them and which had not been established by the legal authorities in Krajina or Croatia or Serbia and which played a special role in all the events starting from August 1990 and in the following years.
Q. Who was in this -- in the centre from the personality? Who was in the centre of this parallel structure?
A. The central figure was the chief of the State Security Service of Serbia, Jovica Stanisic, followed by his assistant, Franko Simatovic, then
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12919 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12920 Captain Dragan "Rasko" Vasiljkovic, and other people from the State Security Service Serbia. Also Milan Martic from the police force in Knin, several other people from the police force, and many other people later. In fact, later, it was the entire police force in Serbian municipalities Orlovic, Vitas; and presidents of the municipalities who were closely related to them, Bozovic, Rastovic, Benkovac, Zecevic, and other people.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we will go into more details on this so-called parallel structure in the course of the testimony.
Q. And you mentioned that David Rastovic was within this structure already. What about Bogoljub Popovic that you mentioned? Where did he belong?
A. Well, he was close to those people. I don't know how integrated he was into that structure formally and directly, but he was related to them.
Q. Was he a police person or a military person? I mean Bogoljub Popovic.
A. He was a retired colonel of the JNA.
Q. Which role, if any, did he play during the events?
A. Not an important role. He had an advisory role in the area of Benkovac in 1991. In the year 1990, he was president of the Committee for Security of the SDS, and a little unusually, he made a speech. He made speeches at rallies, talking about the procurement of weapons, and he referred to them as planks, meaning rifles. But I don't know to what extent he was really directly involved.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12921
Q. When did he make these speeches and refer to rifles as planks?
A. That began in the summer of 1990 and continued into the autumn of 1990. That was the time when rallies were frequent and were held all over the place, and there were also founding rallies of the SDS at the time.
Q. Having met Mr. Jovic, were you able to make any observations as to the independence of Mr. Jovic in his political views and actions?
A. As far as I could judge and from what I heard from other people, he was the second man in the party led by Mr. Milosevic. My conclusion was that on that ladder, he was below President Milosevic, President of Serbia.
Q. You mentioned that the issue of self-determination was discussed and that a law or -- a law was in preparation. Mr. Jovic mentioned that a law was in preparation on the issue of Serbs' self-determination. Did he actually proceed on this, pursue it?
A. If you want me to be precise --
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- he spoke about the right of people to self-determination. He wasn't speaking about the Serb people's right to self-determination. He only referred to a new law that would regulate the right of nations to self-determination up to secession. That was one of the draft laws in the process of preparation. And he spoke on television on one occasion that I heard when he was explaining how that would actually be put into practice, referring to nations which are not in favour of preserving the Yugoslav federation and how other nations that were in favour could react to it.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12922
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The lady on the opposite side is asking improper questions, because she says that Jovic had said that a law was being in preparation regarding the right of the Serbian people to self-determination, and the witness now corrected her. But that kind of question is improper, I find.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness Exhibit 352, tab 1. And it is an exhibit referring to the session of the Serbian National Council held in Dvor na Uni on the 16th of August, 1990.
Q. Witness, you have already mentioned this session. And it refers here in the first point of the agenda to talks between the Serbian representatives and the president of the Presidency, Mr. Jovic. Did you discuss this agenda point?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the discussion with Mr. Jovic have an impact on the decision of the Serb National Council to go forward with the referendum?
A. Yes. It had an impact in the sense that the term for self-determination was changed. It was no longer called referendum, it was called political declaration of one's will. Jovic, namely, suggested that the political declaration of Serbs in Croatia should be put into a legal framework, made consistent with the legislation, and that's what one of his assistants explained when he said that certain provisions of the constitution applied to this.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12923
Q. And --
THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the last part of the answer because of the shuffling of papers. We apologise.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Can you repeat the last part of your answer, because the interpreters did not hear you.
A. Then I would like to ask you to repeat your question as well.
Q. I can actually read to you what has been translated so far, and it says: "... made consistent with the legislation, that's what one of his assistants explained when he said that certain provisions of the constitution applied to this."
I just see that actually it's not -- it didn't miss something what you said, they actually missed my question.
I would like to ask you in relation to the minutes on -- under point 1, there is a remark in this document saying: "Rastovic, the army is a guarantee for our declaring." Does that refer to what Mr. Jovic had meant and had said?
A. Yes. This is in fact a report by Rastovic on what Jovic had said.
Q. The term "log revolution," to which incident does that refer?
A. This is a name given by the Croatian media to the events that happened on the 17th August and later in Knin and around Knin.
Q. What did happen on the 17th of August in Knin?
A. On the 17th of August, several events took place. The first one was the announcement made by some people from Knin and Obrovac that the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12924 Croatian government or, rather, the police, special police and armed personnel carriers are moving towards Knin to prevent the referendum. On the same day, the media announced that the president of the Assembly had declared a state of war that day, that the police from the Knin police station distributed weapons to citizens. And the same evening, the president of the municipality denied that he had declared a state of war, and it turned out as well that Croatian police and armoured personnel carriers were not moving towards Knin. And it was later that evening also announced that JNA helicopters had prevented the Croatian APCs from entering Knin.
Q. Were barricades erected, and if so, by whom?
A. Yes, they were. Barricades were starting to be erected on a large scale by members of the SDS, villagers who did it of their own free will, and they were helped by the police force in Knin. The same happened in other municipalities such as Obrovac and Gracac.
Q. You said that the -- it was announced that the Croatian police would approach Knin. Did they come or was it a misinformation?
A. It was a piece of disinformation by Dusan Orlovic and also president of the Obrovac municipality, Sergej Veselinovic.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we need to go into private session previously.
JUDGE MAY: With regard to the clock, that would be a convenient time to adjourn. We'll adjourn now. Twenty minutes.
--- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
--- On resuming at 12.37 p.m.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12925
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Are we in private session?
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: Yes, we are in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Thank you.
Q. You mentioned that certain disinformation was received about the approach of the Croatian police. After having received this information, what did you do?
A. I left the building of the Municipal Assembly of Knin and went to one of the neighbouring villages. En route, I gave instructions to one of the employees of the Assembly to turn on the siren for alert. When I arrived to that village, I told one deputy of the Municipal Assembly to go to the post office, which was nearby, to use their telephone and call the centre for information and alerting, to say that we had an emergency, almost a state of war. The men did go to the post office and called the centre for information and alerting in Knin.
I later heard that this information was passed not to local communes to which it was directed but to the media in Knin, the office of the correspondent of the Tanjug news agency in Zagreb, and this information that was later broadcast said that Milan Babic had declared a state of war.
Some time later, perhaps half an hour, I went back, stopped by in Golubic, and I saw that there were a number of policemen from the police station in Knin, led by Milan Martic, distributing weapons to the citizenry. I asked where the APCs of the Croatian police were, and they
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12926 made light of it. They joked and said, "There are no APCs." I returned. I saw that turmoil reigned there, and I gave instructions that my denial should be typed out, to the effect that there was no state of war and no emergency in Knin.
THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness be asked to approach the microphone.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Sir, can you go a little bit closer to the microphone so that the interpreter can hear you better.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can go into open session again.
[Open session]
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The people who are listening outside complain that they can't hear anything. This witness is speaking in a very low voice, and combined with voice distortion, it is completely inaudible. You should either turn up the volume or have him speak more distinctly and loudly.
JUDGE MAY: Witness Milan Babic, could you speak up, please, so that everyone can hear you.
Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, you have mentioned Dusan Orlovic, who was one of the sources for the misinformation about the Croatian police, and earlier on you mentioned that he was part of the parallel structure. What position did he have during the events?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12927 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12928
A. In the summer of 1990, he was being seen all over the place, and I didn't know exactly what his position was. I apologise for clearing my throat.
From the end of September and the beginning of October, formally, and in real terms, he belonged to a structure that was called the People's Council Against the Oppression of Serbs. So it was a formal structure that he publicly belonged to. After January 1991, when the secretariat for the interior was established, the secretary, Milan Martic, appointed him chief of security for Krajina.
In my personal view, he was a man from the State Security Service in Serbia that is answerable to Jovica Stanisic. He was appointed after 1990, and he was later transferred to Serbia. I heard from other people that after 1995 he continued to work in the State Security Service of Serbia on the territory of Serbia. I don't know whether this is true. He -- my source told me that he worked somewhere around Smederevo.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I don't know whether it can be fixed, but now I hear the voice of the witness in the Serbian language very loudly, and I almost cannot hear the interpreter any more. I don't know -- okay. Thank you. That was obviously my personal problem with the equipment. Thank you.
Q. You mentioned the village -- a village, and you mentioned Golubic. What did you see? Did you see any armed formations in Golubic, or in the village that you mentioned?
A. On the 17th of August, 1990, in the afternoon - it was perhaps 5.00 - I saw policemen from the police station of Knin distributing
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12929 weapons to citizens. After that, for a week or two, there was a headquarters in Golubic - that's what it was called - whose task was to erect and maintain barricades around Knin during the time it took to conduct the referendum.
In the beginning of September this headquarters was disbanded, because in this area of Golubic an armed formation was set up that organised village guards, and around this settlement. Thus, something like a military camp sprung up. That is why the Executive Council of the SDS formally disbanded the headquarters, because this military camp existed formally, based on the basis of a decision by the Serbian Radical Party of the 18th of August, 1990.
Q. You mentioned that the Executive Council requested that it be disbanded. Were the armed formations then actually disbanded in the region or did they continue to exist?
A. The SDS, that is, its Executive Council, adopted the decision to disband this headquarters in Golubic. It was formally disbanded and evacuated from Golubic. But armed formations continued to exist and were later coordinated by the so-called Council of Popular Resistance, and this council was not formed by the SDS or any other political authority in the area of Knin.
Q. Who was in charge of these armed formations and this Council of Resistance?
A. From what I saw in Knin, it was a group consisting of Milan Martic, Dusan Orlovic, Nebojsa Mladinic, Jovo Vitas, and other people. It also included some people who were not from Knin. One journalist, named
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12930 Cvele Cvetkovic, said that he was sending information directly by fax to the cabinet of the president of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic, informing about events in Knin. There was one man who was hiding from me, whom I didn't know, who controlled the encrypting room in the centre for information in Knin, and some other people as well.
Q. Did this journalist explain to you why information was being sent to Mr. Milosevic's cabinet? And when did you have this discussion with the journalist Cvetkovic?
A. Until August or September, I continued to meet with him and talk to him. It sounded as if he was boasting of having direct access to the cabinet of the president, that he was transmitting directly to the cabinet and to the media and various agencies in Belgrade. However, I heard from certain circles of journalists that his information was always subjected to thorough vetting.
There was another man, though, who was transmitting information to someone outside Knin, and that was the man who was controlling the encrypting room. I know that Jovica Stanisic also visited Knin in August 1990, together with Martic. I met him on that occasion. I later came to the conclusion that the information was sent to him.
Q. Witness, returning to the 17th of August, 1990, you mentioned that weapons were distributed. Were these weapons returned later on or did the people keep them?
A. The people kept the weapons. On the 10th of September, they were asked to return the weapons, but the weapons were not returned. And on the 10th of September, after talks between the president of the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12931 municipality of Knin, Lapac, and Gracac with the Minister of the Interior of Croatia, and in the Croatian Sabor, people did not return the weapons. The weapons were returned in January 1991, when the Presidency of Yugoslavia issued orders that the paramilitaries be disarmed on the territory of Croatia, and that was when a portion of the weapons were returned to the Yugoslav People's Army.
Q. Were the barricades removed after it was found out that the Croats were not approaching?
A. The barricades were set up to ensure that the referendum went through, but they weren't disbanded afterwards, because at the beginning of August, the end of September, there was an escalation, and a series of events took place in and around Knin and the adjoining municipalities. So that the state of affairs, to all intents and purposes, had escalated after the 10th of September, 1990, instead of things calming down. So the barricades were not disbanded until April 1991, when the police established permanent control and set up its people in the area. From April 1991, the police, in terms of --
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Witness Milan Babic, we have to get through a great deal of information in this case, and therefore, it would be helpful if you would just concentrate on the question and just answer that as shortly as you can, and then wait for the next question, and that way maybe we can get through this evidence as expeditiously as we can.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did the Croatian police ever take control of Knin again before 1995?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12932
A. No.
Q. And when you mentioned the police that established control in April 1991, is that the -- what police is it?
A. The police, or milicija of Krajina, which cooperated with instructors from Serbia and was under the control of instructors belonging to the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we need to go into private session briefly.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, you mentioned already that in August 1990 you met an official from the Ministry of Interior of Serbia. How did this come about? Whom did you meet, and where did you meet?
A. At the end of August 1990, Milan Martic called me to go to a cafe between Knin and Golubic, and I arrived there, and he introduced me to a man he introduced as being from Serbia. I'm not sure whether he said from the Serbian MUP or wherever. I was not able to make any strong contacts with the man, but the man, Jovica Stanisic, who was with Martic and who he introduced to me, in January, or rather, at the end of January 1991, said that he was with me, he had been at that meeting at Vrelo with me. And his comment was that at the time, I did not show any great confidence and trust towards him.
Q. And that means that you met Jovica Stanisic in Knin in this -- in Golubic, but at that time you didn't know, but learnt it only later, who
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12933 he was. Is that what you say?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. What was the purpose of the meeting with Stanisic?
A. Martic wanted to introduce me to this particular man, somebody who meant something to him and who he was in contact with.
Q. And what was Stanisic doing in Knin in August 1990?
A. I don't know exactly, except for the fact that he was in contact with Martic.
Q. And before we go back into open session, one more question. In summer 1990, were you invited to hold talks with Tudjman?
A. Yes. After the 10th of September in 1990, a little while after that, the president of the Sinj municipality, Jerko Vukas, conveyed a message to me from President Tudjman saying that Tudjman would like to talk to me.
Q. And yes. And did you actually attend the talk?
A. I accepted, and I wanted this to be a public meeting, that is to say, a meeting about which the public would be informed. But this didn't take place. The invitation was not repeated and the meeting never took place.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think we can go into -- I think the solution to be more in open session is that I refer not to the witness but ask him what the president of the municipality did, or those kind of things, would make it easier.
Q. And you speak of yourself in the third person, maybe. That makes it possible for us to be more often in open session. So when you refer to
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12934 the body only, the Executive Council or whatever body, you refer to instead of yourself. And whenever it is important to know that it's you, we will go into private session.
[Open session]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did the SDS politicians --
A. I understand, and I'll do my best.
Q. Did the SDS politicians at that time, the Executive Council, pursue a peaceful solution, trying to make negotiations with the Croats in summer 1990?
A. Yes. On the 10th of September, a meeting took place between the president of the municipalities of Knin, Lapac and Gracac, with representatives of the Croatian government, and it was decided at the meeting that all outstanding issues be solved through the institutions of the Republic of Croatia and that weapons begin to be returned to the police stations in Knin and other places, and that in the government of Croatia, the initiative should be taken to set up a Secretariat of the Interior in Knin.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness the Exhibit 352, tab 2. And it's a declaration of the 10th of the September, 1990 to settle disputes with the Croats by negotiations.
Q. Does that refer to what you just mentioned, these attempts to reach a peaceful solution?
A. That's right. That's it.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12935 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12936
Q. Was it -- referring to this, was it actually planned that the Croatian police would return to Knin?
A. The Croatian police never left the Knin area, which means that the plan was, organisationally speaking, that the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia should be organised in the Knin area and that it should rank at the level of a Ministry of the Interior, not just a police station which would be subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior in Sibenik.
Q. This attempt to negotiate a peaceful solution, was it opposed in Knin by what you call the parallel structure?
A. That's right. Very energetically. There were even threats for the physical liquidation of one of the signatories of the agreement on the Serb side.
Q. And who made these threats? Can you name any particular person?
A. Jovo Vitas.
Q. And who is he?
A. He was the man close to Martic and Dusan Orlovic, or rather, a member of the parallel structure, as I saw it.
Q. Did Mr. Milosevic have a position relative to negotiations between the local Serbs and the Croatian authorities? Do you know?
A. I don't know about that.
Q. You mentioned these armed groups, and you already mentioned that they continued to exist. Did anything happen in October 1990 in Banija and Kordun related to this?
A. An escalation took place. There were more and more incidents that
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12937 took place in and around Knin, and especially great conflicts between the Serb population and the non-armed Serb groups and the Croatian police in the area of Banija and Kordun. So October was characteristic of this escalation. The intensity of the incidents was stronger, and figuratively speaking, it moved from the Knin area to the Banija region.
Q. And when you speak of incidents, what do you mean by this? What happened? Who did what?
A. In the area around Knin, I know that the railway line was mined, blown up, and shops owned by people around Knin were -- newspaper kiosks, other facilities near Sibenik, and many provocations of that nature. And in the Banija area, and this was covered by the media, were conflicts with the Croatian special police with the armed Serbs from the region.
Q. When you speak about shops and kiosks, to whom did they belong and who caused these provocations?
A. The proprietors were social companies, socially-owned companies from Zagreb, such as the Vjesnik publishing house or members of the ethnic -- Albanian ethnic group or Croats.
Q. And who -- who committed these provocations?
A. People from the group that was called the National Resistance Alliance.
Q. Did these activities cause any reactions of the Croatian police?
A. Reactions on the part of the Croatian police had been manifest before that as well in the sense of taking control of Knin. At that time in October, it was a process of keeping people informed, the police force informed about what was going on, not reactions in the field on the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12938 ground. The Croatian police force didn't have access to that area. So the police force under the authorities of the Croatian government. And the police stations themselves in that particular area, I didn't hear of them completing the investigations and uncovering the perpetrators. At least, they didn't put this forward publicly.
Q. If I understand you correctly, you said that the persons who committed those provocations were in this council of resistance, or did I misunderstand that?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Why did they do that?
A. Well, in my opinion, they wanted to cause provocations and incidents. And the basic reason for this was, to my mind, the fact that the social crisis in that part of Croatia should be raised to such a level, should be escalated so that Yugoslavia could then step in and introduce a state of emergency in the whole area, a state of emergency which would suspend the powers that be in the area, the Croatian authorities, in fact.
JUDGE MAY: Which ethnic group were the National Resistance Alliance from?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serbs. They were Serbs.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. And if I have understood you correctly, it was Serbs around Milan Martic.
A. That's right.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12939
MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to make a request. I don't understand anything at all of what the witness is saying. He's speaking very softly, and I can't understand what he's saying. So could I please ask the witness to speak up and speak into the microphone, closer to the microphone, and louder, please. Thank you.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Witness Milan Babic, you heard that request.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Could the Serb politicians in Knin, of the SDS and the Executive Council, could they not stop these armed groups from creating such provocations?
A. No. And Vasil Tupurkovski, member of the Yugoslav state Presidency, was informed about it when he came to Knin at the beginning of October. They were not under the control of the local authorities or the SDS, for that matter, although in the group there were members of the SDS who were active as well.
Q. And Vasil Tupurkovski, are you aware if he took any actions on what he heard from the people in Knin?
A. The member of the Yugoslav state Presidency or, rather, the members of the Presidency and the federal government did send observers from, I think it was, the Federal Ministry of the Interior. They sent people to the area. And I think the result of their activities there was the fact that the situation had calmed down somewhat in October 1990.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the Exhibit 351, tab 14. It is the statute of the Serb Autonomous District of Krajina, and a decision of the Assembly of the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12940 municipality of Knin, dated the 20th of December, 1990, on the implementation of the statute of the SAO Krajina.
Q. Witness, why was this step taken in December 1990? Why was the SAO Krajina formed?
A. It was formed so that the setting up of the municipality of Northern Dalmatia and Lika should be completed in the sense of forming the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, a district of that kind, and on the basis of the provisions of the constitution that was in force up until then of the Republic of Croatia, leaving aside the amendments which on the 25th of July were attached to the constitution. So the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina was constituted at that time for the -- for this to take place before the 23rd of December when the new constitution of Croatia was to be enacted. And the proposal was in that constitution that the Serb people be wiped out as a constituent ethnic group, as a constituent nation of the Republic of Croatia.
Q. Witness, referring to Article 1 of this statute, there -- it says here: "The Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina should be the form of territorial autonomy within the composition of the Republic of Croatia." What sort of autonomy was --
A. That's right.
Q. Which form of autonomy did this statute include?
A. Regional autonomy within Croatia.
Q. And in Article 4, you -- there are listed the territories including -- included in the SAO Krajina, and it says here: "Comprised of territories of the present union of municipalities of Northern Dalmatia
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12941 and Lika, territories of municipalities with majority Serbian population which adopt decisions to join the SAO of Krajina, and settlements in which Serbian people comprise the majority of the population and which have voted at a referendum in favour of joining one of the existing or newly established municipalities with a majority Serbian population." Which municipalities did actually join in addition to those who were already in the union of municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika?
A. In addition to the six municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika, there were also the municipalities successively - not all at once - Dvor na Uni, Glina, Kostajnica, Vrginmost, Vojnic, and Pakrac.
Q. In Article 5 there is the capital mentioned of the SAO, and it's Knin. And throughout this document, there are references to the legal framework in which the SAO would be operating, and as an example, it's in Article 6.7: "Implement laws, other regulations, and general enactments of the Republic of Croatia and the federation whose implementation is entrusted to district organs."
Did this -- was this SAO planned to operate within the Republic of Croatia and the federation of Yugoslavia?
A. It was to function within the Republic of Croatia, which was a member of the Yugoslav federation itself.
Q. And in Article 8, we have the organs of the -- of the SAO described as the Assembly, the Executive Council, and the president of the Executive Council. Was that done in this way?
A. From the 21st of December, 1990, up until the 30th of April, 1991,
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12942 they existed as provisional organs. So the presidents of the municipalities performed these functions as provisional organs, which means yes, in this way, as I have described it.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, for two questions we would need to go into private session.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Who drafted this statute?
A. It was drafted by Borivoj Rasuo and Professor Ratko Markovic.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can go back into open session.
[Open session]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Who was Ratko Markovic, Professor Ratko Markovic? Who was that?
A. He was a professor of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade and a member of the leadership of the Socialist Party of Serbia.
Q. The Socialist Party of Serbia, that [microphone not activated].
A. That's correct.
Q. Who was Mr. Borivoj Rasuo?
A. Borivoj Rasuo was an associate of the Marxist Centre of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Serbia. Later, he was a member of the Yugoslav Institute for Journalism, a man who was close to the political circles in Belgrade.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the Exhibit 351, tab 15, and it is a draft decision dated on the 19th of December, 1990, on The Implementation of the Statute
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12943 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12944 of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina.
Q. You recognise this?
A. Yes. This was a proposal which was adopted at the same time as the statute, on the 21st of December.
Q. And again with the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the Exhibit 351, tab 19, and it is the decision on The Implementation of the Statue of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina, and it says here the date is the 26th of December, 1990. Is that correct?
A. This is not correct. It's been altered. This is on the 20th of December. Somebody later changed this and corrected it.
Q. And the correct date is the 20th?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. According to the statute, municipalities could join the SAO. I would just like to discuss with you an example for such an act, and it's Exhibit 352, tab 3. Can you please have a look at it? It is a decision on adopting the Statute of Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina, and it's in this case the Knin municipality who joins; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You've already mentioned those municipalities who joined, and you also mentioned that Pakrac, the municipality of Pakrac, joined. Did they actually get involved in the work of the SAO organs, this municipality of Pakrac?
A. No. I think the municipality of Pakrac adopted a decision on the 20th of February, 1991, on joining the SAO Krajina, but this was never implemented. The Pakrac municipality never actually joined in the work of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12945 the institutions of the SAO Krajina.
Q. You also mentioned -- thank you. We don't need to discuss the documents any more.
In addition to the municipalities who joined the SAO, did local communes join the SAO, and if so, how was it done?
A. Municipalities did join in. First of all, they had to hold a referendum in order to join one of the municipalities in the SAO Krajina, and then, as part of that municipality, they were able to become part of the SAO Krajina. And many local communes adopted this method from neighbouring municipalities which had not previously been in the SAO Krajina. And perhaps one-fourth of the territory of the SAO Krajina joined it in this manner.
Q. And you have already mentioned, actually, in the beginning, when we looked at the map, you mentioned Plaski, and you also mentioned the parts of Zadar municipality. Which other local communes joined, in particular in the region of Knin? Which communes joined?
A. In the area of Knin, it was local communes from the Sinj municipality, that is, Otisic, Koljane, Laktas, and parts of some other municipality. Then from Drnis municipality, it was Bobota, Debu [phoen], Mircic [phoen], Bircic [phoen], Tanjane, Stikovo, later on Baljci. From the area of the Sibenik municipality, it was quite a few local communes, such as Bratiskovci, Bribir, and there are more. I won't enumerate them all. These were all local communes that joined the municipality of Knin from the areas of other municipalities.
Q. And were they all municipalities with Serb majority? Sorry,
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12946 communes with a Serb majority?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. How were the municipalities financed before the formation of the SAO?
A. They were financed from the revenue provided for by law as belonging to the municipalities and from the so-called additional funds allotted from the republican budget.
Q. That means from the Croatian budget.
A. The budget of the Republic of Croatia.
Q. Did that eventually stop; and if so, when?
A. Starting in October 1990, when what the Croats refer to as the log revolution took place in Knin and its surroundings, the government of Croatia halted the payments coming from the Croatian budget in the case of municipalities which they considered did not respect the decisions made by the government of the Republic of Croatia. And this happened especially in late 1990 and early 1991 in all the municipalities that made part of the SAO Krajina. So the funds were not paid.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness the Exhibit 352, tab 8.
Q. It says here in the conclusions that the: "Executive councils of the aforementioned municipal assemblies are required to submit to the municipal assembly a draft decision on blocking the payment of funds into the budget of the Republic of Croatia in the amount of additional funds for municipal budgets that have been blocked."
Was that the reaction of the SAO municipalities to this blocking
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12947 of the funds?
A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
Q. What local resources did the municipalities have that they then kept instead of transferring to the Croatian government?
A. The system of payments of taxes was such that in a certain branch of the state accountancy service, these funds were distributed so that the part of the revenue that belonged to the municipalities was set apart right away, and the rest was paid into the budget of the republic, in this case Croatia; and as we have just explained, then some of these funds were returned to the municipality. It was the municipality, in fact, that made a decision, and the funds that belonged to the taxes belonging to Croatia but which were supposed to be paid back to the municipalities were actually held back and given to the municipalities directly so that the municipalities had their own revenue and also revenue from taxes.
Q. Did -- were the local resources that were earned in the municipalities, were they sufficient to support the entire work of the municipalities, or did you need help from outside?
A. It is evident from this that the municipalities in the SAO Krajina belonged to the underdeveloped part of the Republic of Croatia and did not have sufficient revenue within the municipality to finance the municipal administration, which is why some of the taxes of the Republic of Croatia from the republican budget were used to finance the municipalities. When Croatia stopped sending these funds, the municipalities had to turn for help to whoever could assist them.
Q. To whom did you turn for help? I mean not you personally but the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12948 municipalities.
A. We turned for help -- well, every municipality addressed a friendly municipality in Serbia or representatives of the government of Serbia.
Q. How was that done in Knin? In practical terms, what did you do in Knin to get the money needed, for instance, for the health sector or for pensions?
A. Knin was a more developed centre in the Krajina, and it was able to fund part of its needs from its own revenue, but it needed more funds for health care, for education later on, and for these it had to apply for help elsewhere. Textbooks were donated from Montenegro. Health institutions in Serbia gave assistance, and then some of the debt of the nut and bolt factory in Knin was resolved with the support of the president of the Republic of Serbia.
Q. Before we come to this latter remark of you, you mentioned that the municipalities were part of the SDK system in Croatia. Did that change? Did you turn to another accountancy service?
A. Well, at first we turned to another SDK service because the government of Croatia instructed the Croatian SDK to block the accounts of institutions and companies in the Krajina. So in order to function normally, they had to rely on another service. First of all, institutions and companies from the Krajina opened their additional accounts or extra accounts in the SDK in Serbia. It was with Branch 6 in New Belgrade that they opened these accounts. They were so-called non-residential accounts. Later on in 1991, the SDK service in the Krajina was unified and
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12949 linked up directly with the SDK of Serbia through Branch 6 in New Belgrade.
Q. When this contact with the SDK branch in New Belgrade was established, who actually negotiated this on the SAO side and on the Belgrade side of matters?
A. As far as I know, the Minister for Serbs outside Serbia, Slavko Cvijan was involved in this and so was the deputy director of the New Belgrade branch. From the Krajina, it was presidents of the municipalities and the directors of companies and institutions.
Q. The deputy director of the SDK in New Belgrade, who was he?
A. Mirko Konjikusic.
Q. Was he affiliated with Slobodan Milosevic?
A. He could have been, through the State Security Service, because I heard that he worked for that service and he had connections with Jovica Stanisic while the director of the service had connections with the Minister of the Interior of Serbia, Radmilo Bogdanovic. That is the former minister. He was a minister in 1990, and after that, he was the former minister. That's what I heard from them.
Q. When did you hear about Mr. Mirko Konjikusic being a member of the State Security Service? Who told you that and when?
A. He told me this in the second half of January 1991 on an occasion when he was observing employees of the State Security Service escorting someone, and he made a comment to the effect that he would take a wheel off their car, and he -- because he knew how this was done, and he described the men. He knew what they were like. It was on this occasion
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12950 that he referred to himself.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now the Exhibit 352, tab 9. It is a decision on the temporary mode of financing the Municipalities in Serb Autonomous Region of Krajina of the 19th of January, 1991. And in Article 2, it says, referring to the mode of payments: "The payment of the basic sales tax is discontinued, and it will, after the agreement with the Federal Organs has been reached, be calculated and paid into the Federation account." Does that refer to what you just told us about the SDK Serbia, New Belgrade, or what does it mean?
A. This is a step further from halting payments of additional funds from the budget of the Republic of Croatia. So this meant halting the entire tax collected by the government of Croatia from the territory of the SAO Krajina. So this was a step further as far as financing went, and this tax would be paid to the account of the federation, and it was from there that the needs of the SAO Krajina would be financed. As for the SDK, this would be a legal way for the job to be done, for transactions to be conducted and payments made and registered.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And again with the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now Exhibit 352, tab 10, and it's referring to the session held on the 19th of January, 1991, in Knin, and there is again the references here on the agenda in relation to the financing of the municipalities.
Q. Was that the session in -- during which those decisions were made?
A. Yes. It refers to what we have just been talking about.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12951 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12952
Q. In practical terms, how was the SDK Serbia branch New Belgrade integrated into the financial transaction? Can you explain how that was done in practical terms?
A. As I said to begin with, everyone participating in payments, that is, all public institutions, companies, municipalities, everyone who had a giro account, opened this account in Branch 6 in Belgrade and used it to make all their payments. From mid-1990, the SDK system on the territory of the Krajina was unified, and through the centre of the SDK in Krajina, it was linked up to Branch 6 in New Belgrade, and in this way it was joined to the SDK system of the territory of Yugoslavia.
Q. Does that mean the SDK in the SAO Krajina was a part of the SDK Serbia then when it was established?
A. Factually, yes. De facto, it was.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, with the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness now two exhibits relating to this issue, and it's Exhibit 352, tab 11, and the other one is tab 12.
Q. Tab 11 is the decision of the 16th of May, 1991, On The Public Auditing Service of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina. And, Witness, if you look at Article 5, it says here: "In the performance of its duties, the Service shall cooperate with organs of the Krajina and the Republic of Serbia."
And the other document is of that same date, a decision on the appointment of the director of the public auditing service. Yes. Thank you. That's -- we don't need to discuss details of these documents.
JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we'll sit until five to two - so
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12953 an additional ten minutes - and we'll start the next hearing ten minutes later as a result.
I'm not sure we've ever had a translation of SDK. Perhaps you can help us with that.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This is actually used -- several English expressions are use. That is the public auditing service. It's also called public -- the other term now I just -- sorry. Public accountancy service is another expression. But Mr. -- the expert that the Prosecution will present, Mr. Morten Torkildsen, will actually address the issues and the functioning of this SDK service. It's more -- it's actually a sort of controlling system of transfers of money.
Q. Witness, you -- in which period did this system operate, this public accountancy service through Serbia, or this cooperation between the two SDK services? Did this continue until Operation Storm?
A. That's correct; from May 1991 until August 1995.
Q. Did Mr. Milosevic know about this system of cooperation?
JUDGE MAY: Well, I don't know the witness can answer that. Is there anything you know which could help you as to what Mr. Milosevic may have known or not known?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only say that he could have known through the government of Serbia, which controlled the system. Whether he knew, I can't say, but I believe that he did.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I have another exhibit to put to the witness, and it's Exhibit 352, tab 14, and it is a letter dated the 12th of May, 1992, to the Government of Serbia, to the Prime Minister; to the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12954 Government of the Republic of Montenegro; and to the Governor of the Yugoslav National Bank. And it is referring to the regulations in relation to the National Bank, and you find here the sentence: "With the creation of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the legal regulations of the Republic of Croatia ceased to be valid, and the law and legal regulations of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia continued to be applicable..."
It says: "Among other laws that continued to be valid in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and which are still valid today, are the Law on the Yugoslav National Bank and the Single System of Monetary Transactions of National Banks of Republics and National Banks of Autonomous Provinces..."
And it further says: "Since the first day of the state of war in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, bank transactions and the transfers of payments are conducted through commercial banks and branches of the Public Auditing Service from the Republic of Serbia."
Q. So does that mean, when the RSK was in existence, it continued to be like this, and the constitution, the new constitution of the FRY in 1991 did not change that either, or did it have an effect?
A. I apologise. What year did you say? The constitution of what year?
Q. 1992.
A. I don't know what the constitutional provisions were, but nothing changed. The cooperation even became stronger and better institutionalised, including the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12955
Q. Did the SAO Krajina have at some point in time a budget?
A. Yes. The budget came into existence when the government was set up in late May 1991.
Q. How was the budget financed?
A. From taxes collected on the territory of Krajina.
Q. Was that sufficient or did you get support from outside of Krajina?
A. No, it was not sufficient, not even for the functioning of the administration which was set up. We received assistance from Serbia.
Q. Who -- in which way was that done?
A. Some ministers in the government, for their needs, or directors of companies or institutions, for their needs, or presidents of municipalities or communes would go to Serbia to representatives of companies or municipalities or institutions there, and they would receive assistance.
Q. Was the finance -- how was the financing of the police done?
A. The police was not financed from the budget of the Krajina except for a small part of it in the summer of 1991. The police was financed from Serbia through the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.
Q. How was that done in practical terms? Did they get cash or did they have an account with the SDK? Do you know that?
A. To begin with, they got cash. I know that they got cash and technical equipment. Later on, they opened accounts. Later on, the Ministry of the Interior of Krajina had an account.
Q. Why was the financing of the police not included in the SAO
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12956 budget?
A. In 1991, there were no planned revenues and expenditures for the budget, but this was not the main reason. The main reason was the lack of funds. The SAO Krajina was only just being established. It consisted of an association of self-governing municipalities, and its revenue as very small. There was not enough.
Q. How was the TO financed at that time, Serbian TO?
A. Until August 1991, employees in the municipal staffs of the Territorial Defence who had permanent jobs were paid by the municipalities. After the war broke out, the JNA entered the war and the TO joined in with the JNA, it was financed by the JNA. Later on, plans were made for the TO to have separate funding, but that was only from 1992 onwards. However, in 1991, for the most part, it was in the way I have just described.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to show the witness the Exhibit 352, tab 76. It is a specified request by Milan Martic to the Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Defence Belgrade, dated the 18th of September, 1991.
Q. Witness, when you look at the header and the signature and the stamp, is that a genuine document? Can you comment on this?
A. Yes, it is an authentic document. But I wish to mention that the stamp is not that of the TO Main Staff. It's that of the TO of the municipality of Knin. The other one is, I think --
THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the microphone.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12957
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, we couldn't hear the last half sentence that you spoke. It was too low in the tone.
A. The document is authentic, but the stamps used were those of the Territorial Defence Staff of the municipality of Knin.
Q. Do you recognise the signature of Mr. Martic?
A. That is his usual signature, the signature I've seen on documents signed by him.
Q. And the other person, Savo Radulovic, who is he?
A. The commander of the Municipal Staff of the TO in Knin at the time.
Q. Witness, without going into specifics, it's a request for several TOs such as Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, Vrginmost, Vojnic, in particular about -- at war Glina, in particular about ammunition and -- I think it's basically ammunition and equipment and weapons; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this is --
JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we are concerned about the time, as we mentioned before. I don't think you're anything like a quarter of the way through. We have got constraints of time, as you know, upon us, and therefore, the conclusion we come to is that the original estimate for this witness was, I think, 14 hours. We will give you a total of 16, which is four days. We said three, but we'll give you four, and could you
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12958 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12959 please be through by then.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. Much appreciated, and I'll do my best. I think it's going, actually, rather fast.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. Witness Milan Babic, will you be back tomorrow at 9.00, please, to continue your evidence.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.58 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of
November, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.