Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12960
Tuesday, 19 November 2002
[Open session]
[The witness entered court]
[The accused entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Yes?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] About this exhibit, when he explained that it was signed by Martic, I believe that you cannot properly introduce an exhibit like this through this witness for several reasons. First of all, it's not his document. Second, he doesn't know. He only thinks it was signed by Martic. Third, it does not bear the stamp that belongs to the authority mentioned in the letterhead. It is the stamp of the Knin municipality. And fourth, I believe such a stamp should be procured from the competent authority.
Maybe the lady on the opposite side can introduce this through another witness but not through this one.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we have ruled often enough and told you often enough before that as far as documents are concerned, we admit them for what they're worth. Usually their value can be seen from what's written on them. They speak for themselves. There is no hearsay rule, as you've been told often enough, in this Tribunal. Now, the points that you make as to the witness recognising the signature of Martic, the letterhead and the stamp, these are all matters
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12961 of detail and you can ask the witness about them. Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
WITNESS: WITNESS Milan Babic [Resumed]
[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff: [Continued]
Q. Good morning, Witness.
A. Good morning.
Q. Witness, yesterday we spoke about this document Mr. Milosevic referred to this morning, and it was a request by Milan Martic to Defence Minister of Serbia, Mr. Simovic, from the 18th of September, 1991. I would like to put to you now another document, and it is Exhibit 352, tab 4. It is a document from the Ministry of Defence of Serbia dated the 1st of November, 1991, and it refers to a report on assisting Serbian areas in Croatia.
Looking at the letterhead and the stamp on this document, can you comment on both? Are they what you knew they looked like?
A. Yes. Looking at the letterhead and the stamp, I can say they were the letterhead and the stamp used in the administration of the Republic of Serbia.
Q. And the person signing this letter, it says Deputy Minister Major General Branislav Kuzmanovic. Do you know whether this person was at that time in this position and do you know him?
A. He became deputy to the Minister Simovic, but I don't know his exact name. That is the Deputy Minister I met in Simovic's office. I
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12962 don't know if it was Kuzmanovic at the time, but there was a person named Kuzmanovic.
Q. In this letter, General Kuzmanovic requests that the following items be put on the agenda of the government session of the Republic of Serbia, and it's reporting on assisting the Serbian areas in Croatia. Are you aware that at that time this was a point of discussion within the Serbian government?
A. I am not sure whether it was a topic of discussion, but I have already spoken about the way in which the competent ministers, municipality presidents, and others, sought help for Krajina in Serbia.
Q. And in November 1991, did you ask for assistance, or in the month before, did the government of the SAO ask for assistance from the Ministry of Defence?
A. Beginning with September and October, yes, assistance was sought.
Q. Thank you. And now with the help of the usher, another document. It is tab 5 of Exhibit 352, and it's again the Ministry of Defence of Serbia, addressing, on the 1st of November, 1991, the government of the Republic of Serbia, and reports on providing assistance to the Serbian districts in Croatia. Did you have time to review this complex document while you had your conversations with the Prosecutor in The Hague?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. At that time, in November 1991, and the time before, was assistance provided in the way described in paragraph 1 of this report?
A. Assistance was extended. I don't know exactly in what amount.
Q. Would you please have a look at attachment 5 to this report,
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12963 attachment 5. Sorry, sir. Attachment 4. I made a mistake. Attachment 4. Attachment 4 is the overall assistance required for the Serb-populated areas in Croatia, and it is here the total amount is 1,2 billion dinar. Would you know how many Deutschmark that was at that time, in November 1991?
A. I can hardly remember the exchange rate that applied at the time. I couldn't tell you the figure in Deutschmark.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, Morten Torkildsen, the expert we have in house, actually looked at the figures and found that the exchange rate, the official exchange rate with Deutschmark at that time, according to this official exchange rate, of 30 Deutschmarks -- it amounts to an official Deutschmark value of about 92 million Deutschmarks, and on the black market it was about 30 million Deutschmarks, almost 31 million Deutschmarks.
Q. Would you now, please, look at attachment 5, and it refers to a table of the number of personnel of the TO in the SAOs. And I would like you to comment only on the figures for the SAO Krajina and not for the other SAOs. And you see here the total amount of personnel for the Knin Operational Zone with 12.000, the Lika Operational Zone with 5.800, and the Kordun and Banija zone with 20.000 staff. Is that -- would that be correct, according to your recollection?
A. They are correct, according to the plan that the main headquarters of SAO Krajina made for these formations. But I have to add that at the time, especially for the area of the Operational Zone Knin, this staff was attached to the command of the Knin Corps. But the figures are accurate,
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12964 in light of the planning documents of the Main Staff of the SAO Krajina.
Q. Would you please now look at attachment 6 to this report, and I would also like you to look at the columns related to the Knin Operation Zone, the Lika Operation Zone, and the Kordun and Banija Operation Zone, and here we have actually the amounts that were necessary to pay these military staff. Can you comment on the figures for these three zones? Would they be correct?
A. Yes. If you look at the calculations for the manpower in these columns, the amounts should be correct.
Q. Looking at the attachment -- the attachments number 1 and number 2 with the list of equipment needed in communication and in other areas, could you comment on these items? Were such items needed, would you know?
A. Those were our planned requirements for the Territorial Defence system of SAO Krajina.
Q. Do you know who made this plan for the requirements in the SAO Krajina? Who put all this equipment together when needed and when?
A. As far as I know, beginning with October, these requirements were planned by the Main Staff of the defence force of SAO Krajina and especially the chief of the Main Staff, Colonel Kasun, Dusan Kasun.
Q. Returning to the letter -- the report, the body of the report itself, it says actually on page 2, it makes a reference as follows: "Since there are no legal grounds for this, that is providing for assistance to meet these needs is not regulated by the law, we propose that these issues be legally regulated by an appropriate decree especially
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12965 in view of the fact that these needs are great and can be expected to grow and the fact that other ministries also face these problems within their respective jurisdictions." And then there follows a list of ministries. Do you know whether various ministries in the Serbian government were approached in this way, and do you know of any decree?
A. I know that other Ministers in the government of Serbia were approached to seek assistance for Krajina, but I don't know specifically about this group that was supposed to discuss this within the government of Serbia.
Q. Did you yourself in -- did someone from the Krajina actually have a discussion with Mr. Simovic on these needs and these matters of financing?
A. There were discussions with General Simovic. The Prime Minister of SAO Krajina talked to him too.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, for one question I would like to go into private session.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, at that time when those needs arose, were you actually the head of the TO of the SAO Krajina, and is that the reason why you can comment on these matters?
A. Yes. As Prime Minister, I was at the head of the TO as the civilian head of the Territorial Defence.
Q. Thank you.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12966 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12967
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can now go back into open session again.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to now put to the witness, from Exhibit 352, the document tab 6, and it is a letter from Milan Martic as the Minister of Interior of the SAO to the Ministry of Interior -- to the Ministry of Interior of Serbia and to Minister Sokolovic, dated the 10th of February, 1992.
Q. Looking at the letterhead, the stamp, and the signature, are these -- is this a genuine document?
A. Yes.
Q. In this letter, it actually refers to funds needed and that Minister Sokolovic should exert his influence on Minister Zebic in order to receive these amounts needed, and there is actually the amount of 38 million dinars.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And, Your Honour, according to Mr. Torkildsen, the black market value of this amount is approximately 330.000 Deutschmarks.
Q. Can you comment on this letter? Is the contents correct?
A. Yes. This letter reflects the circumstances and the situation that prevailed at the time.
Q. These were the documents I wanted to put to you in this context. Were the police and the TO incorporated into the budget of the RSK at some point in time? Yesterday you said that they were financed outside of it. Were they put into the official budget at some point in time?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12968
A. From 1992, a more stable budget began to be developed for the Republic of Serbian Krajina. As for the SAO Krajina, it had a very poor budget.
Q. When the budget of the RSK was in existence, were all the expenses of the police covered in the budget or did this payment of cash outside of the budget continue?
A. Yes. Payments were made in cash, and the budget of the Republic of Serbian Krajina was also subsidised from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Q. Were all the costs of the army covered in the RSK budget or was it paid otherwise for the costs?
A. The budget of the Republic of Serbian Krajina only partly covered the expenses of the army, and another part of the budget was subsidised by the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and yet for another part materiel and equipment were procured outside of the budget. Also, most of the officers in the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina was financed by the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia directly.
Q. I would like to put to you as an example a budget, which makes it easier for us to explain the proportions, and it is Exhibit 352, tab 7. It's the budget of November 1994.
Did you have time to review this document while you had your conversations with the Prosecutor in The Hague so that you are familiar with it?
A. Yes. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you see budgets of this form and this one during the events?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12969
A. Yes. There were reports made both to the government and the Assembly about the status of the budget. I'm talking about the Assembly and government of Krajina.
Q. I would like you to have a look at actually the figures in this list stating the income of the RSK, and I would like you to comment from your knowledge of the budget of the previous years. Would you please compare the proportion of the income from taxes and from the FRY, as it is stated here? Was the income deriving from taxes higher or lower or equal in the previous years before 1994?
Witness, Witness, there is a statement of income and expenditure as the second page. There is a sticker. There should be a yellow sticker.
Witness --
A. Here I see expenditures.
Q. I would like you to use only the main sheet with all the summarising figures, not the detailed lists. And you see here the amount from taxes, and you also see here the additional funds from the FRY on this list. And my question was regarding the previous budgets. What was the proportion in the earlier years, comparing the taxes -- income from taxes and the income from the FRY?
A. Major revenues came from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Q. Does that mean in the earlier years it was the -- what was financed by the FRY was even higher than in 1994?
A. Yes, certainly, much higher. That was the time of war and armed conflicts, where the requirements for money were greater and revenues in
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12970 the Krajina were lower.
Q. And looking at the budget on this sheet, there is a position: loans from the National Bank of RSK. The budget deficits, were they financed through loans of the National Bank of the RSK?
A. Yes, that's right. That was one of the ways of financing the budget. Based on my information, this was mostly covered from the primary issue of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
Q. Where did the National Bank of RSK receive its money from?
A. From the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
Q. And you said it was from -- it was financed from primary issues. Does that mean it was newly printed money that they received from the National Bank of Yugoslavia?
A. Yes, that's right. That was that kind of money.
Q. Was the National Bank of the RSK an independent institution?
A. Well, it practically operated as a branch office of the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to the figures in dinars, Mr. Torkildsen could not find the proper figure to put into Deutschmarks because the official exchange rate was 1 dinar to 1 Deutschmark, and he couldn't find any figures in relation to the black market, so I cannot give you a proper amount in Deutschmarks. It would actually be the same amount in Deutschmarks, but only officially.
Q. Witness, could the RSK or could the SAO have existed without the support from Serbia or Yugoslavia?
A. No, under no circumstances it could exist. SAO Krajina and RSK
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12971 were completely economically and financially dependent on Serbia.
Q. And if you look at the -- actually, the next page following this page listing the income, you have the page "means of production," actually, the expenditure for what it was used. And looking at especially the figures for financing the army and financing the police, those two together, is it almost two-thirds of the entire budget?
A. That's right.
Q. Is that also your recollection of the proportions?
A. Yes. I remember these proportions very well. The greater portion was always spent on these requirements. Even at the time when there was no real armed conflict, we still had a state of an imminent threat of war, which required great expenses for payment of people who were in the units but were not employed.
Q. You mentioned that a lot of money came from the National Bank of Yugoslavia, and you said it's actually newly printed money. Who controlled the National Bank of Yugoslavia? Do you know that?
A. Formally, legally speaking, the institution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In reality, the president of Serbia.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because people from Krajina always went to the president of Serbia when it came to their needs, both financial and material needs, and that he would send those orders to the governor, prime ministers, and so on.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, can we go into private session for one question?
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12972
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, did you yourself go to Mr. Milosevic for help in financing?
A. Yes, on several occasions.
Q. Can you tell us the first occasion when did you go, and for what reason, and what was the result?
A. The first time I went regarding financial matters was my third meeting with the president of Serbia. I went because of the problem that the factory called Vijak in Knin had, screw factory. Namely, the account of that factory was blocked due to a debt of 60 million dinars. This is the money they owed to the bank of Split. And I went to the president of Serbia to see if he could assist in procuring the money for the factory so that the factory could pay the debt. And on that occasion, the president of Serbia promised he would comply with this request, and later that was implemented. I think that the factory later received about 40 million in order to cover that debt.
Q. And when did that take place? When did you go?
A. That was in December of 1990.
Q. And you said you met him on several occasions in relation to finance. What were the other occasions?
A. In 1993, in mid-1993, I was a member of a large delegation from the Republic of Serbia Krajina, and I was there in capacity of president of the municipality of Knin. Together with me there were prime ministers, ministers, army commanders, presidents of municipalities, and on that
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12973 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12974 occasion we asked for greater, broader assistance from Serbia, or rather, from President Milosevic. Nikola Sainovic, Prime Minister of Serbia, attended the meeting, and he promised that all of these material and financial needs would be resolved.
JUDGE KWON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it's about the screw factory. What factory was that, and does it have any relation to arms or something like that?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, you heard the question of His Honour. Can you answer that?
A. That factory manufactured screws. In 1991, it did provide some minor services to the army, manufacturing of hand grenades, and then also material for manufacturing armoured trains. So those were minor services that were provided to the army.
Q. Witness, one more question.
A. In addition to what Franko Simatovic had in Strmica. These operations were in addition to that.
Q. Witness, did Mr. Milosevic ever indicate to you during a meeting that he was actually in charge of the National Bank or the Serbian administration?
A. This simply went without saying. That was the attitude that he had.
Q. Did you have a -- a discussion with Mr. Milosevic in April 1995 where you discussed the situation in Knin and the assistance that Knin could get?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12975
A. In April of 1995, I talked with President Milosevic on three occasions. In early April, I talked to him about military operations conducted by the HVO army in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the rear of Knin.
On that occasion, he told me the following regarding the assistance: that it was not true that there were only 300.000 people against 4 million Croats but that there was an entire logistical support of Serbia standing behind Krajina.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, go back to the question that you asked the witness as to whether Mr. Milosevic ever indicated that he was actually in charge of the National Bank or the Serbian administration, and the witness answered: "This simply went without saying. That was the attitude that he had." I believe that requires some clarification, some amplification.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And on this -- I take this opportunity to also point out to you that in relation to these points that the witness just mentioned, there is in the summary, paragraph 95 and paragraph 267, these two paragraphs are also covered now in this section. I've pulled it together so that we do not have to repeat anything.
Q. But, Witness, you have understood the remark of Judge Robinson. Did Mr. Milosevic -- on my question about whether he indicated to you that he was in charge of the National Bank or Serbian administration, you referred to this remark he made in relation to the 4 million -- the -- sorry, that you referred to Serbia being behind you, the Serbian system. What does that mean?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12976
A. That meant that Krajina had enough people for combat and that all material and financial means were provided by Serbia.
Q. And your remark that it simply went without saying that Mr. Milosevic was in charge of the National Bank or the Serbian administration, what is the basis of you saying that? Why does it go without saying?
A. Because any problem that was not possible to resolve with competent Ministers or the governors, that problem would be addressed to Mr. Milosevic. And after a discussion with him, that problem would later on be solved.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we can go back into open session.
JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Mr. Witness, as the President of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic may have said that you have the full support from the Serbian people, but how is that related to the control of the bank of Yugoslavia? Could you clarify, articulate more reasons, reasons of your thinking?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, President Milosevic controlled all institutions of the Republic of Serbia. And after the creation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in April of 1992, he also controlled federal institutions of Yugoslavia. President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was Zoran Lilic at the time, used to describe himself as somebody who was at the disposal of President Milosevic. This is how all other institutions operated too.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12977
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can go into open session.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. You just mentioned President Lilic. When did he make such remarks that he was at the disposal of President Milosevic?
A. That was in 1994, early 1995. I saw him as he left the presidential palace, Mr. Milosevic's office, and in front of me he greeted Borislav Mikelic who was then Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. I know that they were close, personally close. And then Mikelic asked how he was, and then he said about himself, "Well, I'm somebody who is at somebody's disposal. I'm a usable man."
Q. I would like to put a few more financial documents to you, and the first one is in Exhibit 352, tab -- tab 13. Sorry, tab 15. It is the request of the Minister of Finance of the RSK from the 19th of June, 1992, to the Federal Executive Council and the Federal Secretariat of Finance and the Yugoslav National Bank, and there is requested a sum of 12,900 billion dinars. And there is also mentioned that it has to go to the -- "Please pay the funds into the giro account of the budget of the Republic of Serbian Krajina."
Is that the giro account in the SDK system or is it a bank account?
A. That was the budget account.
Q. And is -- looking at the letterhead and the signature, can you comment on the genuinity [sic] of this document?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12978
A. Yes. This is a letter sent by the Minister of Finance, the then Minister of Finance, Vojin Peuraca, who was Minister in the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Higgins.
MS. HIGGINS: Your Honours, just briefly. Perhaps it's wording which is used by my learned friend. Of course the witness can comment as to the stamp that he sees, but whether he can comment as to the genuineness of the document, it's evidently a copy. But as I say, it's probably just the wording that my learned friend has used.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Can you -- you mentioned the signature. Do you recognise the signature?
A. I've seen this signature, yes.
Q. And according -- and in relation to the letterhead, is that a letterhead used by the government of the RSK at that time, do you know?
A. This is a regular letterhead.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, as a reference, Mr. Morten Torkildsen has found out that the equivalent in the black market value for D-mark is approximately elf million -- 11 million, sorry. Eleven million.
Q. The next document is tab 13 in Exhibit 352. It's a letter of the Minister of Defence of the RSK to the ministry of -- to the Ministry of the Republic of Serbia, and it refers to a meeting held on the 12th of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12979 November, 1992, with President Milosevic and various other persons. They're all listed in paragraph 1 of this letter. When you look at the participants, Goran Hadzic, Zdravko Zecevic, Milan Martic, Stojan Spanovic, Vojin Peuraca, and Bosko Bozanic, did they have these positions at the time that they are given here in this document?
A. Yes. They were at the time, yes.
Q. Are you aware that such a meeting took place in November 1992?
A. No, it didn't.
Q. Did this meeting not take place or were you not aware of it?
A. I was not aware of it.
Q. And looking at the letterhead and the stamp and the signature, can you comment on it?
A. Yes. There's a stamp here of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Belgrade office, and then Minister Spanovic here. I'm not sure about his signature, but this stamp does correspond to the stamp used at that time.
Q. And did the government of the RSK actually have such an office in Belgrade at the address given and is that the letterhead of the office?
A. Yes. What the stamp says does correspond to that. The government did have a representative office in Belgrade, and this is the stamp used by that office.
Q. In this letter, there is, in paragraph 2 on the first page, it says:
"The president, Mr. Milosevic, agreed to the concept of creating a defence system of the Krajina, which would be based on about 23.000 people
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12980 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12981 in the police, of whom 5.000 in the regular force and 18.000 in brigades, which would make up the peacetime corps of the army and provide security for the borders in the Krajina. The view is that this number should not be reduced and that a manner and system of financing need not be found, as this number of men should remain in the standing force as the professional part of the army. It was accepted that the planning of funds for army and police needs should begin immediately, as was done in 1992 via the RSK Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia."
Witness, was there such a defence concept, and was it paid in this manner described in the letter?
A. Yes, there was such a concept of defence. This concept was established in the fall of 1991 and it was financed in this way.
Q. And the letter continues: "President Milosevic said that funds for maintaining equipment should be planned via the army of Yugoslavia, that he would help in the implementation of this, and that the army of Yugoslavia should finance the active officers and civilians who stayed behind in the Krajina. All other defence finance needs should be planned via the Ministry of Defence." Was that done in this way?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Milosevic actually agreed on this concept and endorsed it?
A. This is how this system functioned. I know of some cases, for example, the appointment of the army commander. For these matters they
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12982 went to see Milosevic personally. So the system did function in this way.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, to this letter point we come a little bit later in the course of the testimony, when we go into army matters.
The next document to be put to the witness is tab 17 in Exhibit 352, and it is a request from the RSK Minister of Finance to the FRY National Bank for 5 million dinars.
Q. Can you comment on the letterhead and the stamp and the signature?
A. Yes. That is how the Minister of Finance communicated in those days, that is, the Minister of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Ratko Veselinovic.
Q. Yes. Thank you. And the next document is tab 18. It's another letter. It's the National Bank of RSK, Governor's Office, to the National Bank of Yugoslavia, in relation to the request for cash grant of 10 billion dinars of the 24th of July, 1995. Can you again comment on the letterhead, the stamp, and the signature?
A. Yes. That is the method of communication used by Pavo Marjanovic, the governor of the National Bank of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. And I also know specifically that there was this request that this letter refers to at the time.
Q. And was the request granted? Was it done that way, then?
A. I don't know whether it was, because several days later the National Bank of RSK was evacuated from Knin.
Q. The next document is tab 19 of Exhibit 352, and it's a letter of the RSK Ministry of Interior of the 5th November 1993 to the MUP of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12983 Serbia. Can you comment on the letterhead, the signature, and the stamp?
A. Yes. This is a document that could have been compiled by the chief of police, that is, of public security, in the MUP of Krajina. He was Nebojsa Pavkovic, according to the stamp, but I don't know his signature. I'm not certain about it.
Q. And in relation to the contents of this letter, it's actually referring to border crossing of MUP employees from Republika Srpska to the Republic of Serbia, to escort the transport of money from Belgrade to Knin. Was money transported in this manner that is indicated in this letter? Do you know that?
A. Yes. Two types of cash: cash from the National Bank of Yugoslavia and cash which people from the Ministry of Interior or of the army went to fetch for themselves, to meet their own needs.
Q. When you say "for themselves, to meet their own needs," do you mean the offices or do you mean the persons? Does that mean the offices of the army and the MUP?
A. I'm referring to the institutions: the Ministry of the Interior and the army.
Q. And this practice of bringing money in this manner from Serbia to the Krajina, in which time period did this operate?
A. This was done from 1991 until 1995. In fact, in July 1995 I know that the then commander Mrksic brought money in that way for officers of the Serbian army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. He brought the money from Belgrade.
Q. And the last document is tab 20 of that same exhibit, and it is
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12984 now a letter of Milan Martic, as the Minister of Interior in Knin, to the offices of the President of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic; the Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, Sainovic; and the Minister of Interior, Zoran Sokolovic, dated the 28th of April, 1993, and it's another request for funding. Can you comment on this letter, first in relation to the letterhead, the signature, and the stamp, and then in relation to the contents.
A. Yes. The letterhead relates to the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina, the stamp of the Ministry of the Interior, and the signature, a signature that I have seen as being that of Milan Martic.
Q. And are you aware that in April 1993 additional funds were needed in this way, for the increase?
A. Yes. There was a state of armed conflict between Krajina and Croatia.
Q. Yes. Thank you. Witness, we will leave now the section of finance and speak about the SAO Krajina in December 1990.
JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, this I think is an area which we really can take quite quickly. You may have had that in mind. And certainly in relation to the foundation and the documents, we can go through them with very short reference indeed.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. The first document I would put to you in relation to the SAO constitution and law is tab 26 in Exhibit 351, and you just need to give yes or no answers. Is this a report dated the 30th April 1991 in relation
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12985 to the verification commission to verify the mandate of members of the Assembly of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina, dated on the 30th of -- yes, I said already the date. Yes?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And tab 29 of that same document, and we can actually also add tab 36. Tab 29, is it the edition dated on the 30th April 1991 on the Assembly of the SAO Krajina, ratifying the election of the president of the Executive Council of the SAO Krajina?
A. Yes.
Q. And the other document, is it the decision of the SAO Krajina, dated the 29th of May, 1991, proclaiming the statute of the SAO as constitutional law?
A. Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, in the translation is actually an error. In the English translation, it says as the date the 29th of June, 1991, but in the B/C/S it's May.
The next document is tab 37 of that same document, of that same exhibit, 37.1 and 37.2. Are these the constitutional laws of the SAO Krajina of the 29th of May, 1991, and the law amending the constitutional law of the SAO Krajina?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And the major changes, is it actually changing the name of the Executive Council of the SAO Krajina into "government"?
A. That's right.
Q. And we have seen the other -- the original SAO statute, where
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12986 there were the references to the law of Croatia and the FRY. Is there a change in this regard here? Is it now only the law of the FRY?
A. Yes. Yes. There are two major changes in relation to the statute. In addition to the designation of the government of SAO Krajina, there was the constitutional establishment of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina as part of the federal territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Q. And the next document is tab 38 in that same binder. It's a law on the government of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. The next document is tab 40, and it's the law on the ministries of the SAO Krajina.
A. Yes.
Q. I just would like you to look at Article 6 in this document, in relation to the Ministry of Defence. It says:
"The Ministry of Defence shall deal with administration matters that relate to planning and organising of defence matters concerning compulsory military service, organising and realising the civilian protection, and other matters."
And in Article 7 there is the duties and the competencies of the Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The next document is tab 42 in that same document, and it's the law on the courts of the SAO Krajina, and it's all dated 29th May 1991.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12987 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12988
A. Yes.
Q. And now the next three documents, it's tab 43, tab 52, and tab 53, again of Exhibit 351. These three documents refer -- the first one to the law on the application of regulations of the Republic of Serbia in the SAO Krajina; the next one is a decision of the government of the SAO Krajina, dated the 1st August 1991, on the application of the law on political organisations of the Republic of Serbia; and the third one is decision of the government of the SAO Krajina, dated the 1st August 1991, on the application of the law on internal affairs of the Republic of Serbia. Can you tell us why there was made a reference to the Serbian law and not the FRY law?
A. Because there was no need to mention the law of the FRY. It was applied continuously. It was never abolished. So the laws of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were implemented. As for laws which ceased to apply in Krajina and were laws of the former Socialist Republic of Croatia, and no other laws were introduced to cover the same areas for SAO Krajina, for that reason for those kinds of legislative acts it was necessary to apply the laws of the Republic of Serbia.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the next set of documents are actually appointments of persons into positions, and I think we can even not put it to the witness. I'll just admit it.
JUDGE MAY: We can read them for ourselves.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And it's related to the tab 49.5, tab 49.14, tab 49.3. It's the -- it's --
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12989
JUDGE MAY: The second binder.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's the second binder, and it's actually the tab 49.5, 49.8, 49.9, 49.10, 49.14, tab -- yes, that's it. I would like to ask the witness one question in private session briefly to make it clear in relation to authentication.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, during your suspect interview in Belgrade, did you provide a great deal of documents related to the SAO and the RSK and their functioning?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And most of these documents were signed by either you yourself or your colleagues in the government of these institutions?
A. That's right.
Q. Yes. Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can now go into open session again.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like to put to the witness the exhibit tab 63 of Exhibit 351, and it is dated the 26th of October, 1991, and it is a "Decision on moving on to work in the conditions of war."
Q. When did the war actually start in the SAO Krajina? Was that on that date or earlier?
A. The armed conflicts were ongoing in Krajina from the middle of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12990 1991. The real war started in August 1991 when the Yugoslav People's Army was involved on a large scale in the combat operations.
Q. And the next document I would like to put to you is actually tab 59 of that same exhibit, and -- no. We can just move on. We can just move on. We don't need to discuss it.
But I have a question in relation to the next document I would like to put to you, and it's tab 61 in that same document, and it is a "Decision to appoint members of the commission to establish a platform for a possible solution to the constitutional status of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina in the future union of Yugoslav people," and it's dated the 21st of November, 1991.
Can you explain why a commission was formed and what it was supposed to do?
A. This was a period of time that followed the holding of the main sessions of the conference on the former Yugoslavia which was being held in The Hague. At the time, already certain changes had come into effect in the area of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and under those conditions, the SAO Krajina needed to define its own position as well.
Q. Yes. And there is actually another document going with this as well. I would like to show to you the exhibit tab 62. And it's the law on internal affairs. And I have one question in relation to Article 30. Article 30 reads as follows: "The Ministry of the Interior cooperates with the organs of internal affairs in the Federation and in other republics -- and other republic and gives them help in executing
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12991 tasks from their jurisdiction.
"The relation and cooperation between the Ministry of Interior and the interior organs in the Federation and other republic are based on the rights and duties determined by the law..." and so on. Which other republic is referred to in Article 30?
A. To the Republic of Serbia in the first place.
Q. Yes. This concludes the documents. I have just one question in general in relation to all these documents.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it's really absurd for a lawyer to ask who is meant in a general act which has the force of law and in which it explicitly says "cooperation with other republics," and then this poor witness answers "Republic of Serbia." Surely the law means what it says and no explanation is required. This is the law of one republic which says that its Ministry of the Interior will cooperate with other republics. It really is absurd.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you will have your chance to comment on what you regard as absurdities. Let's try and get on with this evidence. Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, just an additional question in relation to Article 30. With which other republics did the RSK cooperate? The SAO and the RSK, with which other republics did they cooperate?
A. In those days with Serbia and Montenegro. There were no other republics that it could cooperate with within this context of this
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12992 provision of the law.
Q. And in relation to the decisions and laws that we just discussed, who drafted these decisions and laws?
A. Boro Rasuo and Risto Matkovic.
Q. Witness, I would also like to also very briefly address the issue of the defence law that prevailed in the SAO Krajina, and did you provide such laws during your conversations with the Prosecutor in Belgrade and in The Hague?
A. Yes. As far as the Law on Defence is concerned, I provided a text which in content corresponds to the law that was applied on the 1st of August, 1991, in SAO Krajina.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I don't think we have to put these documents to the witness. I think just refer to them. It's a Law on All People's Defence adopted by the SFRY of 1981. That's tab 21 of Exhibit 352. Then the amending Law on People's Defence published in the Official Gazette of the SFRY in 1991. That's tab 22. Then the Serbian Law on Defence, July 1991. That's tab 24. And the next one is tab 23, the decree to enforce the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia in the territory of the RSK in August 1991.
Q. And tab 25 is an additional document which I would like to discuss with you, actually, and it's tab 25.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Could that be briefly put to the witness.
Q. It's a letter to the -- a letter to the president of the Municipal Assembly, informing them that the law -- in accordance with the law on the application of legal regulations of the Republic of Serbia on the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12993 territory of the SAO Krajina and who is the head of the TO, that is the Prime Minister. Is that what you supplied to the Office of the Prosecutor?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Witness, how -- how did you -- you provided -- you had available in the Krajina the Serbian Law on Defence of July 1991. How did you get it?
A. You mean the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia?
Q. Yes.
A. We received it from the office of the president of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, by fax.
Q. Had you requested it by fax, or how did it arrive?
A. Yes. We requested the office to send it to us by fax.
Q. Did you actually request -- speak to Mr. Milosevic about it or did you just approach the office?
A. We spoke to the secretary of Mr. Milosevic, asking her to ask the president whether we could have a copy.
JUDGE KWON: Was it the only way to get the law of Serbia at that time?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a way to get it quickly, without waiting for it to arrive by mail or through the Official Gazette.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did you ask --
JUDGE MAY: Now, if it's another of your comments, I think we can do without it, Mr. Milosevic.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12994 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12995
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to assist the gentleman.
JUDGE MAY: No, no. You can assist later. We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I have just one question in relation to this and then it will be finished.
Q. At that time when you requested the Serbian Law of Defence, was it already adopted or was it in the process of being adopted?
A. The Assembly of the Republic of Serbia had adopted it, and it was in the president's office for signature, so that it was in the signature stage.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn. Twenty minutes.
--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
--- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
Q. Witness, in the beginning of your testimony you already mentioned the Serbian media and their relevance at that time. How did the Serbian media report about the situation of the Serbs in Yugoslavia, in particular, the Serbs in Croatia, in the years 1990, 1991?
A. These media not only followed the events involving Serbs in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, especially in the territory of Croatia, but they worked very intensively on creating public opinion, both about the events and the general situation at the time. As political tension grew in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and particularly the conflicts, political conflicts in Croatia in early and throughout
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12996 1990, the reporting of the media from Serbia, and especially Belgrade, was very idiosyncratic. All reports on these events were accompanied by reminiscing of events from more distant history, such as World War II, when Croatian Nazis, or the Ustashas, committed pogroms and mass crimes in the territory of the former independent state of Croatia. Generally speaking, I can say that the spectre of reporting and these evocations of historical events was led by Belgrade, in creating public opinion in the sense that mistrust was fueled against the current government in Croatia and animosity towards the new government in Croatia.
Q. How was the Croatian government described?
A. The Croatian government was described in various ways, depending on the time period involved. It was described as neo-Ustasha government at the beginning, and at the time of the armed conflict it was also described as genocidal and Ustasha.
Q. Was anything said about the intention of the Croatian government towards the Serbian population in Croatia?
A. Yes, especially in the beginning of 1990. It was said that the intention of the Croatian government was to commit a new genocide and massacres against Serbs, in Croatia especially.
Q. Was anything said --
THE INTERPRETER: Especially in Knin. Interpreter's correction.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Was anything said about the Croatian population and their relationship with Serbs? Could they live together?
A. The emphasis was put more on separation.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12997
Q. Did the Serbian media from Belgrade and Serbia report falsely about events in Croatia?
A. One could say that they exaggerated events and made them more dramatic than they really were.
Q. What effect, if any, did this reporting have on the Serb population in Croatia?
A. Yes, it had a great impact, insofar as this reporting created first mistrust and then hostility towards the Croatian government.
Q. And how about the Croatian population? You mentioned they had distrust and even hostility towards the Croatian government. What about the attitude towards the Croatian population?
A. The relationship was indirect. That is to say that it was believed that anyone who supported such a government in Croatia was the same as the government, could be identified with the government.
Q. Was there a particular media item that affected you personally?
A. Well, all articles that evoked the past impressed me a great deal. There was even one interview I gave when I myself evoked that past. The reporters in question specifically asked me to. And I was particularly impressed by all the efforts to portray the intentions of the Croatian government and Croatian ministers regarding Serbs in Croatia. That is what impressed me most and inspired in me a hostility towards the Croatian authorities.
Q. Did you view the so-called Spegelj tape, Spegelj's tape? Do you know what that is?
A. Yes. It was a film broadcast on Television Belgrade about
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12998 Spegelj, Boljkovac, both ministers in the Croatian government, and their intentions regarding Serbs in Croatia, the army, and Knin.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to play a few sequences of the Spegelj's tape, and it's actually Exhibit 352, tab 170. If you allow for this.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The AV director has the tape and knows what he has to play. Thank you. You can start.
[Videotape played]
THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] If it is needed, two or three men for the liquidation of the leadership.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, you have the English translation of what we hear in that same tab number. I actually thought that we would hear the translation, because I thought they were supplied with that document.
JUDGE MAY: I'm told there's a problem about the interpreters following. I don't know whether they've got the translation or not.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: They did, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Do you want to play some more, see how we get on?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, please.
THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: The quality of sound is too bad for interpreting, and we --
JUDGE MAY: Let's see how we get on with the next bit. If you can't interpret, we'll have to abandon it.
Do you want to play another section? Yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 12999
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, please.
[Videotape played]
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Is it still not possible?
JUDGE MAY: It seems impossible. We have the transcript of --
THE INTERPRETER: We have the transcript now. Interpreters now have the transcript.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think we can abandon it and --
JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've got it in English.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have it in English, and that should be enough. The only thing is that the witness, of course, doesn't have now the text.
Q. Did you review this tape in the Office of the Prosecutor while you were here in The Hague?
A. Yes. I saw part of that footage.
Q. And did Mr. Spegelj on this tape refer to killing members of the JNA, and in particular, solving the problem in Knin by slaughtering? Did he say that?
A. Yes, that's what he said.
Q. And who produced the video? Do you know that?
A. When the film was shown, it was announced that it was produced by the information service of the Federal Secretariat for National Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Later, the media reported that the footage was actually produced by the KOS, the counter-intelligence service.
Q. Did Mr. Spegelj, General Spegelj at that time, did he deny to have
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13000 said such things like killing the JNA members and the people in Knin?
A. Through the media he denied -- he denied this.
Q. This tape, was it -- when was it -- was it broadcast once or on several occasions and at what time?
A. I know that it was broadcast around the 25th of January, and I know it was followed by articles in the press. It may have been broadcast several times, but I didn't watch it more than once. I watched it only the first time.
JUDGE MAY: Which year was it, please?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1991. Around the 25th of January, 1991.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did this tape have an effect on the Serbian population in Croatia, in particular in Knin?
A. Yes. After this film, there were mass rallies not only against Spegelj but the entire Croatian government and in support of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav People's Army. It had such an effect that the Croatian government and anyone who supported it was considered as an enemy of the Serbian people. Great fear reigned, fear of Croatia, especially at that time.
Q. You have already mentioned, actually, an interview you gave to the media, but I would like to have some additional remarks on this, but I think it should be in private session.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13001 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13002
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to put to the witness the Exhibit 352, tab 26. It's an interview that you gave in January 1991 to the Nin magazine, and it is an interview signed by Stefan Grubac. Did this man interview you, and how do you know this man?
A. Yes, he did this interview with me. And not only this one but many others in the second half of 1990 and the first half of 1991. He became very close with me. And he personally is from Drnis near Dalmatia. He became close to me in the sense that he made frequent contact with me and even made suggestions as to how I should make my public appearances and what to say.
In the month of March, he asked me to write a statement on the occasion of the rallies organised by SPS during demonstrations in Belgrade. On one occasion --
Q. Witness, we'll come to this. I actually wanted just to know how you know him. And did Mr. Gruban [sic] have contact with Mr. Milosevic? Do you know that?
A. I know that he was in contact with Mr. Milosevic's associates and close friends.
Q. Whom do you mean?
A. These persons are from the family circle of Mr. Milosevic. There is one person, a woman, from the Yugoslav left wing party and another man whose name I can't recall now. Gruban [as interpreted] also was in contact with the chief of cabinet of Mr. Milosevic. He accompanied me to his office.
On one occasion, he asked me to make a statement against Vuk
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13003 Draskovic, then leader of the opposition in Serbia.
Q. Does that mean Mr. Gruban [sic] had an influence on you, on what you said and when and how often?
A. Yes.
Q. Here in this interview, actually on page 2 in the English, Mr. Gruban refers to you and says: "And to the Serb Autonomous Region of Krajina and Dr. Milan Babic, its `chancellor'...." Did he refer to you in his reports and interviews as "chancellor"?
A. Well, he tended to glorify me, to attach greater importance to me and my office than I really had.
JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff, I don't think I follow you. Are we talking about "Mr. Gruban" or "Grubac"?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's "Grubac."
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's actually on the last page of the -- on page 7. It's "Stefan Grubac."
JUDGE KWON: The transcript has been saying it as "Gruban."
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Sorry. It's a name you find on page 7, "Stefan Grubac."
Q. Were there other journalists from Serbia around you at that time glorifying you as you say?
A. Well, there were many journalists. I think simply that I had to, I was forced to, I was constantly asked to make statements and comment on any and every event. Especially Krste Bijelic, from the beginning of the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13004 1990s, who was correspondent of the Radio Television Belgrade in Knin, constantly asked me for statements, and I know he bragged on one occasion that he made a politician out of me.
Q. You said he bragged he made a politician out of you. When did he say that?
A. Sometime in 1991.
Q. Mr. Krste Bijelic, was he related or close to Mr. Milosevic?
A. In 1991, he became editor of the information programme of Television Belgrade, an institution controlled by Mr. Milosevic. On one occasion even, President Milosevic told me tongue in cheek that some people are reproaching him for appointing Krste Bijelic editor of Television Belgrade through Mr. Milosevic.
Q. When did he tell you that? When did Mr. Milosevic tell you that?
A. Sometime in 1991 during one encounter.
Q. Yes. And in this interview that we just spoke about of Mr. Grubac, there is on the last page a reference that you make to the question Mr. Grubac asked you. "Serbs are being arrested these days and Croats are not. Who is engaged in `banditry' in Croatia?" And you refer in your answer to the "Croatian leadership's Ustashoid police regime." Does that mean you adopted this language that you described to us in your own speeches?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that same section, two questions down, you refer to Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, and you say that he is "...the president of all Serbs, not only of Serbia, and he enjoys the support of all Serbs." Was
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13005 that so at that time?
A. That is what he held himself out to be and promised support to Serbs, and Serbs believed him. I personally believed him too.
Q. Yes. We can actually turn -- turn away from this document and go back into open session.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I recommend that the Prosecution indicate which tabs should be under seal, in particular tab 26.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This tab should be under seal, yes.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. You mentioned that Mr. Milosevic -- let me ask you differently. Who controlled the Serbian media?
A. The media in Serbia was controlled by President Milosevic.
Q. How did he do that? How did he control the media? In which way?
A. He had two options: either through the institutions of the Republic of Serbia, which he controlled through his ruling SPS party; or personally, through people which held posts of editors and media outlets. I personally know about this second option, way.
Q. What do you know about this second option, that he controlled the media through people who held posts?
A. I know that he appointed and removed from office directors of radio/television; that he held, controlled, appointed, directors and editors of the daily Politika --
JUDGE ROBINSON: To what extent was the media privately or
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13006 publicly owned?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was publicly owned. It was public property, ownership.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. You mentioned the daily Politika. Is that a leading paper? Was it a leading paper at that time?
A. Yes. It was the leading daily, called Politika.
Q. How do you know that Mr. Milosevic appointed the editors and those who held post in this leading paper? And if it's necessary, we can go into private session. I'm not sure yourself, but you know.
A. I heard personally, from some directors, that they were under the control of President Milosevic, and I heard personally from President Milosevic that he had appointed certain directors.
Q. When did Mr. Milosevic tell you that he personally appointed directors? And who did he appoint?
A. In March, he appointed the director of television of Belgrade, Belgrade television, in March of 1991.
Q. And is that what he told you?
A. Yes, personally.
Q. In March 1991, or when?
A. In March of 1991.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I suggest we go briefly into a private session so that the witness can speak more freely.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13007
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, which directors or editors told you personally that they were influenced or appointed by Mr. Milosevic, do you recall?
A. Yes, I remember. Zivorad Minovic, director of Politika, told me, in 1995, that President Milosevic knew why he held him in that office, that of director of Politika, in addition to Dragan Hadziantic, who held the office of the editor of Politika. I met Zivko Minovic for the first time at the after-elections reception, around the new year of 1991. It was a reception given by President Milosevic. And in early February 1991 I was his guest in Politika.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, when you are referring to the fact that the director said he was appointed by President Milosevic, by whom is the director supposed to be appointed, instead of Mr. Milosevic, at that time? Did Mr. Milosevic appoint him in the capacity of president legitimately, or is it different?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was done differently. President of the Republic had no competence to appoint directors of media outlets. Directors were elected by the council of workers of a media outlet after there was a publicly announced vacancy.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Was that set out in some instrument, in a law or regulation perhaps?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was regulated by various laws.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. You said that legally it was not Mr. Milosevic who would appoint
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13008 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13009 the editors or directors. How, then, can you say that he appointed? In which way did he take part in this?
A. He held the power in Serbia, and through Serbia, also -- or rather, through people in Serbia, he also held power at a federal level, that of Yugoslavia. He was president of a ruling party, the party that -- or rather, he held that post for a certain amount of -- certain period of time, but practically he always held power. That party had power in the Assembly of Serbia and also in the majority of municipalities in Serbia.
Q. Did the party actually have a say in the decision of who becomes a director or editor?
A. Procedurally, it was the workers' council that decided on this. The state, or rather, the municipalities, had an insight and had supervision, so to speak, of it. This was called the so-called public supervision, social supervision.
Q. Were you ever present when Mr. Milosevic gave directions or directives to editors or directors of media, as, for instance, TV or Politika?
A. On one occasion, around the 23rd of January, during a meeting that I had in the office of President Milosevic, he personally went to the secretary and dictated the text of the statement and then called somebody in Politika to have it published. I can't remember what the second instance was. He said about the director of television in 1991, after the opposition in Serbia asked the then director Mitevic to resign or to be removed from office, he said, "Well, I gave him this new director." I can't remember now his new name. It's not a typical Serb last name. But
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13010 he said his name and then said, "His father was a member of the Ljotic units, and now they basically have no reason to oppose him."
Q. Did any of the editors tell you that they got directives from Mr. Milosevic personally?
A. No.
Q. Did you have contact with Mr. Rade Brajevic, and can you tell us who that is?
A. Rade Brajevic was editor of Vecernje Novosti, a daily. I met him on a number of occasions, starting in 1990, both in Knin and in the offices of Vecernje Novosti, and in the cabinet of President Milosevic.
Q. The daily Novosti, is that a widely published state newspaper, a publicly owned publishing house?
A. Yes, it was publicly owned, but I'm not quite sure who was the founder of Vecernje Novosti. It could have been the enterprise Borba, which was a federal institution, but it also could have been founded by somebody else. And they had a more independent policy than Borba. Now, as to their exact status and their founder, I'm not quite sure, but they were publicly owned.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Rade ^ Brajevic in relation to an interview that you gave in 1994 that was then not published?
A. When we met -- after meeting him in President Milosevic's cabinet, he asked me to be his guest and to have his journalists conduct an interview with me. I was their guest, but the interview was done separately from that time when I was their guest, and I --
JUDGE MAY: Witness, we're not really getting very far with all
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13011 this.
Shall we move on, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. We can go into open session.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session, Your Honours.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did the media also report about Milan Martic, and if so, in which way?
A. Yes. They did write about him, especially starting in April of 1991.
Q. How was he portrayed? Was he, as well, glorified, as you said in relation to another person before?
A. Yes. His role was glorified in Krajina.
Q. Witness, when Yugoslavia started to disintegrate, was there a major goal for the Serbs in Yugoslavia?
A. The discussion on future relations in Yugoslavia, as far as I can remember, were quite intense in 1990, and there were two options there, two approaches. One was a political approach of Serbia, which was that Yugoslavia should be set up as a strong federation; and the second option or approach was that adopted by Croatia and Slovenia, where they believed that they should be independent states or that it should be set up as a confederation. The Serbs opted for the political approach taken in Belgrade, that of Yugoslavia as a firm federation. In the case of full disintegration of Yugoslavia, they thought that Serbs had a right to remain in one state, which is what President Milosevic used to say, that
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13012 Serbs cannot live in four states. Even a confederation -- and even a confederation cannot be considered one state, and that Serbs shall live in one state.
Q. You said that Mr. Milosevic said that. When did you hear him say that?
A. In January of 1991.
Q. What was the occasion?
A. Personally, during personal meetings. And there was also a public speech, or something that was publicly announced by the governing structures of Belgrade.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to put to the witness, from Exhibit 352, tab 27.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, before that: Have you ever heard of or are you familiar with the notion of Greater Serbia?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a concept that clearly was explained by Vojislav Seselj, president of the Serb Radical Party.
JUDGE KWON: Is it different from all Serbs living in one state, which Milosevic is referred to say that? Is it the same notion or is it a different one?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a different notion; however, the contents of both of them were quite similar.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. In which way do you mean that? In which way were they similar?
A. Well, the concept of President Milosevic meant that Serbs, in addition to Serbian Montenegro -- so in the state that he advocated, in
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13013 addition to Serbian Montenegro is a state where Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina should live as well.
Seselj formulated that in a different way, namely that the Greater Serbia should have its boundaries in Karlobag, Ogulin, and Virovitica. This is where its western boundaries should be, which is similar to this option advocated by Mr. Milosevic.
Q. And to just follow up on this, I would like to show you the map Exhibit 326, tab 3. This black line, what is it?
A. This is a line advocated by Vojislav Seselj and representing western borders of Serbia.
Q. The western borders of the state that Mr. Milosevic had in mind, where would that be? Would it be --
JUDGE MAY: Well, were there any borders? I think we need to be careful about how this is formulated, because this is the first time that any such suggestion has been made by the witness.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. All Serbs in one state as you said --
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with that. What, as you understood it, did the notion of "all Serbs in one state" mean?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I saw it, that meant that Serbs from Croatia, Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina, had a right to live in the same state as Serbia.
JUDGE MAY: Was there any suggestion as to where the borders of that state should be?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On television, Borisav Jovic,
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13014 sometime around the 10th of September of 1990, explained in which way this could possibly be implemented, and he spoke of municipalities as territorial units that would be included in that state which would be a firm federation and would be created by restructuring the then-Yugoslavia. Seselj was the only one who spoke about borders, Karlovac, Karlobag, Ogulin, and Virovitica.
President Milosevic spoke of this principle as a proper principle, that Serbs from Croatia or, rather, that Serbs from four republics have to be in one state, have a right to that.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can you put this map on the ELMO, please?
Q. Witness, I don't know whether this map can assist you or whether we have to take another map, but where -- in which areas -- can you point out with a pointer in which areas actually the Serbs in Croatia lived? Was there -- could you point that out?
JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we can save time. We know that now. We've had evidence about it. Can we move on, please?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay.
Q. Witness, the usher was supposed to show you a document. It's a proclamation of the working group for preparation of the plan for unification of Republika Srpska Krajina and Republika Srpska, and on the bottom there is --
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what's your point?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since I'm certain that this witness could not confirm even under the circumstances that he's describing this invented border, why won't you let him --
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13015 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13016
JUDGE MAY: No. What's your point?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Why won't you let him answer?
JUDGE MAY: What is your point? You can ask him. You can ask him. You'll get your turn in a minute.
Yes. Let's move on.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. This working group, are you familiar with this?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the first page there is a paragraph, and I will quote: "The objective and clear commitment of Serbs was to live in a joint state with the remaining Serbian nation, and they were aware that only that type of state could protect them from new genocide and guarantee national freedom and equality."
Can you comment on this quote from the working group?
A. That referred to the key reason why it was necessary to have all Serb territories unite in one state.
Q. Does that mean -- what does it mean? It says here to "...protect them from new genocide and guarantee national freedom and equality." Was that necessary?
A. At the time, it was not necessary to mention genocide because Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska had already been created.
Q. The objective and clear commitment of Serbs to live in the one state, since when was this notion used and until when? This document of the working group is actually from May 1995. Was it a thesis throughout?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13017
A. From the beginning of 1991, this was a thesis that had been accepted by President Milosevic, all Serbs in one state. As far as Republika Srpska Krajina was concerned and Republika Srpska, this thesis was an accepted one in 1995 as well.
Q. The quote continues, and I quote to you: "One-sided and unconstitutional secession of Croats and Muslims from former Croatia and former Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out in order to destroy joint Yugoslav state, to bring to an end its state-legal identity and continuity, and to deprive Serbian people of the status of constitutive nation, to get it to a position of humiliated minority deprived of its right of self-determination."
Can you comment on this quote? In which way would the Serbian people be deprived of its right of self-determination and be a humiliated minority?
A. It was believed that if Serbs in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina agreed to have Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina exist as independent states, then in that case they would lose their status of constituent nation in those republics, which is a status that they had according to previous constitutions, and in that case, they would not have the right to unite together with other Serbs in other republics where Serbs lived. This pertains to the notion of minority and that of a constituent nation.
Q. Was there a notion that it would be humiliating for the Serbian people to be a minority in a state?
A. Yes.
Q. Who created this notion?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13018
A. At first this notion came from Belgrade that the Serbs are a constituent nation not only in the republics in which they live but in Yugoslavia as a whole, that as a nation that they have a right to self-determination, to remain in one state and not to be reduced to a national minority. This was a thesis supported by the political leaders of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it was widely accepted by citizens of Serb ethnicity in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and by Serbs in Serbia.
JUDGE ROBINSON: The specific question related to the notion of humiliation that would be experienced by the Serbs as a minority, I don't think you have addressed that directly. The question you were asked was: Who created that notion? How did it come about?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was considered that if the Serbs as a nation would lose the status of a constituent nation in Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, they would be reduced to the status of a national minority. These are two different concepts in the sense that a nation, the concept of a nation or a people has the right to self-determination up to secession, whereas a national minority does not enjoy that right.
JUDGE ROBINSON: By whom? By the Serbs in Belgrade or by the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In both Belgrade and in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry. You accepted that notion at the time, didn't you.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13019
JUDGE KWON: Do you think differently now?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Today I think differently because such a notion was ethnoegoistic. It led up to interethnic confrontation, conflict, and war and all the horrors that occurred in war. That thesis was fatal for the peoples of Yugoslavia. That is my opinion today.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, you mentioned that the Serbs in Serbia and in Croatia were of that opinion at that time. Does that include in Milosevic, and if so, did he voice that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you answer? I didn't hear any translation.
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Milosevic the proposal that the Croats had, the confederation, and what was his reaction to this?
A. During a discussion among the presidents of the Presidencies of the republics of the former Yugoslavia that were held in April, May, and the beginning of June in 1991, during an encounter with him, I asked him whether Serbia and Croatia could be a confederation, and he said, "I don't want that. Let them go. I will go it with Greece," meaning that he would set up a state with Greece, a confederation, or something like that, whatever.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, to make it faster, we have several documents related actually to the working group of the unification of Republika Srpska and the RSK throughout the years 1995 and where this
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13020 unification of all Serbs in one state are also mentioned. I would suggest you just accept it and read it yourself, because the documents speak for themselves and wouldn't need any further authentication because it's actually related to activities of the witness.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd like to refer --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
JUDGE MAY: If you would like to refer to the tab numbers so we have a record of them.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's tab 28 -- it's all in 352, Exhibit 352. It's tab 28, tab 29, tab 30, and tab -- no, it's actually only the tabs 27, 28, 29, and the letter document refers to a convention of Yugoslavia, also speaking about the right of self-determination and what the witness just talked about.
And I have here a document which I would like to put to the witness, and it's also referring to a similar issue, but I would like to ask a question. It's tab 31. It's a letter to the -- it's a letter from Andjelko Maslic, General Secretary of the SFRY Presidency, to Milan Martic on the 21st of February, 1992, and it refers to an agenda item, "Report on discussion of the proposal for the adoption of a law on the exercise of the right of people's self-determination."
Q. Witness, is that -- according to the agenda item, was this discussed at that time?
A. I don't know, but I do know that this law was discussed for a long time, this draft law, this draft of a law, ever since August 1990; then at the conference in Yugoslavia by the parties on the 4th of January, 1991;
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13021 at the second convention, I think it was in February 1992. On the 4th of January, 1992 - I am not sure I gave the correct date - and again in February 1992.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there are two more documents, and I would think we don't need to put it to the witness. It's tab 32 and tab 33, dealing with that same issue of the unification of certain territories into one state.
Q. During your conversation with the Prosecutor in The Hague, did you have an opportunity to listen to intercepted conversations --
JUDGE MAY: You want to move on to the intercepts, do you?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I would like -- because it's actually referring now to that same issue, the joint Serbian state and what it could be.
JUDGE MAY: Well, there are objections to the admission of the intercepts. Would this be a convenient moment to deal with them?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think --
JUDGE MAY: You or Mr. Nice --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Nice will deal with this legal question.
JUDGE MAY: It may be convenient if we deal with that now. Then we can come back to it in due course.
We have the various objections. Just one moment. Yes. We're short the appendix to your last filing. If we could have that.
MR. NICE: I'm sorry. I didn't know that that hadn't reached you. Let me just check on what's happened. I think it may take some minutes for the attachment to be available.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13022 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13023
JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let us continue while it is being made available. We should obviously have it. May I just deal with those submissions that we've had.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, maybe I can be of assistance in relation to the appendix, because it's actually an exhibit, and the exhibit number is Exhibit 353, tab 1. That is actually the declaration of the witness and the intercepts that are in question. So you have that appendix as an exhibit, which is supposed to be tendered a little bit later.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's the declaration that we have. Very well. Thank you. We have it.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: What I am looking for is -- in your reply to the amici curiae's observations regarding the intercepted communications, you said that you would be attaching the law authorising interception, and that's not attached. That is what I would like to get.
MR. NICE: Very well. I'll see whether we can get a hold of that. We were expecting this to come up, I think, in the third session, and in the event, we've made better time than we had forecast. It's coming, but it's not here immediately.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, as I was saying, we've had -- in relation to this, we've had some observations by the amici; we've had your original submission, Prosecution original submission; observations by the amici, including a schedule of tapes; we've had your reply, Prosecution reply. We've been referred to the Kordic judgement in February 2000. We don't
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13024 need to go over what we already have by way of argument, but I propose to give everybody the opportunity, shortly, to address these matters, and of course to give the accused his opportunity to address us on it. But we'll start with the amicus, we'll go on with the accused, and we'll allow the Prosecution to respond.
Ms. Higgins, now, do you want to add anything to what is already written, or anything in response to what the Prosecution have said?
MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I don't wish to repeat in detail what's already been said, but I do want to raise a few issues which, in my submission, have not been exhausted by the written submissions by the Prosecution.
There are two issues at stake here. The first issue relates to authenticity and reliability of the evidence, and the second issue relating to legality. Can I just deal firstly and briefly with authenticity and reliability?
THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, slow down, please.
MS. HIGGINS: [Previous translation continues] ...laid out in the pleadings. For the evidence --
JUDGE KWON: You are asked to slow down.
MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. For the evidence to be admissible before this Tribunal, it must be both relevant and probative, and the thread that the amici has said runs through both is, of course, reliability.
The question is whether or not the intercept material is reliable, and the amici are of the view that the Prosecution have not laid the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13025 foundation for the introduction of the intercepts at this stage. The Trial Chamber still does not know how, when, where the intercepts came from. There is no continuity evidence. We don't even know how the intercepts have been dated or whether they came from a reliable source, authenticity evidently being a key issue in relation to this material. The fact that the Prosecution in their pleadings state that the full picture regarding intercepts will be developed throughout the trial does not assist the Trial Chamber at this stage in deciding whether the material can be admitted at this point. Before the Trial Chamber has heard evidence on how these intercepts were recorded, preserved, transcribed, this material, in our view, should not be admitted.
JUDGE MAY: Your submission, not your view. You're making submissions.
MS. HIGGINS: Of course, Your Honour. I excuse myself. That the submission is that the material should not be admitted, as all of these features go to the reliability of the evidence. The Prosecution is right to say that there are many factors to consider in evaluating the reliability, and one of those is evidently voice recognition, which has already been raised. If this witness is going to be used to introduce evidence, conversations which he did not take part in, then evidently the Trial Chamber has to be sure that the intercepts are genuine. The Prosecution have asserted that the witness recognises the voices from a base of strong familiarity. They also suggest that this witness is intimately familiar with the situations referred to in the intercepts. However, one additional point that wasn't
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13026 raised in the pleadings is perhaps this: that just because a witness has a strong familiarity with events reflected in the conversations, it doesn't necessarily mean that the conversations are genuine or that the voices are of those who they purport to be. Evidently, in time --
JUDGE MAY: He can give his evidence, and what he can say is: "I know Mr. X and I recognise his voice." Now, it would then surely be for us to weigh, having heard any evidence to the contrary that there may be, if any, whether he's right about it or not, given also the context in which the conversations take place. This is not a case, of course, of identification by voice. This is a case of recognition. He says: "I know these people and I can tell you this is his voice." It's a matter of weight, isn't it?
MS. HIGGINS: Well, the only point we make in relation to that is even if he recognises the voices, it may still be that the voices are not genuine, are not the voices of those people; they are perhaps imitations. That's the only point we raise in relation to that, Your Honour. Of course the witness can say that he recognises the voices. Then it would be for the Trial Chamber to determine.
Your Honour, can I just briefly deal with the issue of legality. The accused, Mr. Milosevic, has stated -- has put, effectively, the Prosecution to proof on this matter. His position is that they were not legally obtained. The authorisations have now been put before Your Honours in the confidential schedule by the Prosecution. However, in the submission of the amici, it is perhaps still unclear as to whether the Prosecution are in possession of the original authorisations and the
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13027 original notebooks of the intercepts. It's unclear as to what the Latas and Zoran authorisations mean, and evidently this witness will not be able to help us with the genuineness of those authorisations. We would also ask where the legal provisions are and the law pursuant to which the authorisations were purportedly made. Again, we would submit that no basis has been laid in relation to the authenticity and reliability of the material.
Finally, Your Honour, just to address one point in relation to Rule 95. The Prosecution asked the Trial Chamber to make a ruling that Rule 95 does not apply to communications intercepted during wartime. The amici would submit that there should be no blanket ruling of this nature and that each of the circumstances should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Your Honour, you have the submissions of the amici, and I would draw your attention to the factors raised in paragraph 13 of our submission in relation to this issue. We would say that at this stage they should not be admitted but perhaps more appropriately marked for identification until the basis has been provided. Your Honour, unless I can assist you any further.
JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Mr. May. I have already indicated that it is unacceptable to tender allegedly intercepted conversations obtained in an illegal manner, because these are montages. And I will add another material document in support of this, as I had occasion to read those transcripts, and it can be seen that parts of
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13028 conversations were taken out of context and that the conversations are not logical in the way a normal conversation is conducted. Therefore, I cannot leaf through all those intercepts now, nor do I wish to do that, to find an example, but it is obvious that these are montages. Thirdly, with regard to authenticity, I think that this particular witness can speak about the authenticity of his conversations with a person he talked to. I see there are no conversations between me and him, but allegedly there are transcripts of his conversations with a third person. But I don't see how he can confirm the authenticity of conversations between me and a third person, any third person. So from the standpoint of authenticity and legality, and obvious editing of elements of conversations that are obvious from the intercept, I feel that, out of reasons of principle, it is unacceptable to accept such evidence. As for the content itself, it doesn't bother me. I won't enter into that now. I will if you rule in a different manner.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's little to add in the circumstances of the brief submissions that have been made. Marking exhibits for identification purposes only and deferring their formal adoption into evidence is a course that's, in our respectful submission, not appropriate and not one that should be used excessively, when an alternative and proper course would be to admit all the exhibits now, recognising that the weight to be accorded to any exhibit will inevitably be assessed later, and recognising that with this category of evidence, it's going to be particularly easy to mark indicia of weight later. For example, when the evidence of provenance of these intercepts
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13029 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13030 is available, or assuming it is available, then it will be possible to mark beside any intercept what evidence of provenance has been given and in due course for that itself to be weighed. Where there is evidence of identification of voices that is either accepted or, alternatively, proved satisfactorily, but certainly accepted by one of the other parties, why, then, that would itself be a matter of weight. Where there is evidence of understanding of and acceptance of the reality of the content of the intercepts by this particular witness, that again would be an element that could be easily tabulated so as to give weight to the intercept concerned.
By far the preferable course, in our respectful submission, would be to admit all these intercepts. I think there are 50 where this witness recognises the voice, and two, I think, where he actually can, as it were, identify the conversation. But to admit the intercepts now, doing what the Chamber regularly does, which is to put off the final determination of questions of weight until later, following argument, which will take account of all the evidence. Of course, not only will be thereby in due course evidence of provenance, but there will be an interaction of the content of these intercepts with other evidence. For example, if, as the accused would appear to be allowing as a possibility, there should be a conflict between what he maintains are montages and other evidence that may come in in one part of the case or another, then that would be registered. If, on the other hand, the evidence is all to the effect that the challenged intercept fits with other evidence, and a large number of pieces of evidence, then there would
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13031 be every reason to give weight to that particular intercept. I remember a problem that we encountered in Kordic where a piece of evidence was excluded by the Appeals Chamber, over the ruling of this Chamber, relating, in fact, to a different topic, a dead witness. And I think it was well recognised in argument, in both Chambers, that a proper way to proceed, although rejected by the Appeals Chamber in that particular case, is to admit evidence, knowing that more evidence will be forthcoming, by which that first piece of evidence can be properly weighed and its admissibility and the value of its admissibility assessed. We, of course, would have argued in that other case that that was the appropriate course there, and this Chamber took that view, in line with our argument. That was a particular, but quite a good graphic example of how to exclude evidence at an early stage can limit the ability for that evidence ever subsequently to be enhanced or given greater weight. These intercepts should be admitted now, there being no reason the alleged illegality is met in any event by the document now being made available to you and, for reasons already argued, wouldn't exclude the material. These intercepts should be admitted now, their weight assessed later.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes, and any additional time that's necessary for us to consider this submission.
--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.
--- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber has come to this conclusion: that we find prima facie these tapes are admissible, but since we think that there
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13032 should be more details as to the provenance of how and when these intercepts were taken that we shall at this stage simply mark them for identification and order that they now be played.
JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd just like to add, Mr. Nice, the reference to the law on the basis of the system of state security, I'm fairly confident that this is a law that authorises this kind of interception which would normally be a derogation from the right to privacy, and it does so in the interest of national security, which is a recognised exception under international human rights law. But there's nothing in the document to indicate that. In fact, it's not even clear to me whether the references here are to regulations made under the law. So perhaps if you're able to provide something in the law itself which I feel sure would give me the information that I need that it is -- that the action taken is authorised in the interest of national security.
MR. NICE: We'll pursue the matter.
JUDGE MAY: And if you would, too, have in mind, as I say, we will need some more details as to the provenance. We've simply got the authorisation at the moment.
MR. NICE: Certainly. Well, evidence as to provenance would have been and will be forthcoming in any event. As to the law, we'll flesh out the detail in due course.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Did you wish to say something?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. We've just received this appendix, a response regarding intercepts, and that includes, as far as I understand, what Mr. Robinson has said.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13033 As far as I know under the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the authorisation to make an exception in relation to the right to privacy can be given only by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and by no means by the Minister of the Interior. I know that in Serbia, only the Supreme Court had this right, this authority. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was the Presidency. So this paper cannot be considered as a basis for treating something as legal. And this is something from Savnik, a person, Bojan Savnik.
And regarding what was said just before the break, data related to the source do not confirm legality unless there is evidence of legality. And third, Mr. Nice explained to us here that this witness is able to recognise voices. Even if you were to accept these intercepts, to admit them, then the witness would have to recognise all of these conversations here in front of you. It is not enough for the opposite side to claim that all of the 52 intercepted conversations are recognised by the witness, because it may well be the case of an agreement between the witness and the OTP to say that he recognised them. If evidence is admitted, it has to be adduced here. You can't admit them without their being produced.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let us not go on about this. You have heard our ruling that it will be -- simply these tapes will be marked for identification at this stage. They will be played. During the course of that playing, the witness will explain to us how it is that he can -- if he does, how he can recognise the particular voices in each case, if he does.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13034 Now, we'll hear the evidence, and in due course we will hear further submissions on the law which you've heard Judge Robinson has raised.
Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the intention is actually not to play all the intercepts here in court. That would take at least approximately two days. We will address -- we will hear a few, sequences of a few, and we will discuss more where we have the transcript, and we will discuss the transcript. And for some, we would simply put them in without even a lengthy discussion on the contents. That is at least what is planned.
JUDGE MAY: We have the transcripts of the various intercepts you wish to refer to, as I understand it.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Now, what in each case you must do if you want us to have these admitted in due course through this witness is to have the witness identify the voices if he says he can and lay a foundation as to how he can identify them.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. But what we have produced -- and I will ask the witness now first about the procedure that we used while playing the intercepts.
Q. During the conversation with the Prosecutor in The Hague, did you have opportunity to listen in to 50 intercepted telephone conversations?
A. Yes, I did.
JUDGE KWON: For two days?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13035
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It lasted several days. Two days, and on the third day I listened -- I reviewed it on four occasions. It took a long time, if you added it all up. Two full days, I believe.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did you actually listen to the total of -- did you hear them all in the full -- the full scope of the intercept of each? Did you hear it all, and did you follow it on the transcript?
A. Yes. I heard all of them, following the transcript for the majority of them, and I did not have a transcript for a smaller number of them. Some of them were played to me without the transcript, with the transcript being provided later.
Q. Did you follow the transcript actually and compare it with what you heard?
A. Yes. I listened and followed the transcript when I had one in front of me.
Q. Did you comment on the correctness of the transcript? Did you find mistakes and comment on them?
A. No. The transcripts were correct. My only comments were on the voices: clarity, pitch, colour. I would recognise some of the voices. Whenever something was unclear, I indicated that.
Q. While you listened to the conversations and when you heard the voices, did you make comments on which voice you recognised, and were these comments on the recognition put into a document?
A. Yes. I indicated the voices I could identify, and that was recorded in a document that was later given to me to review, and which I
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13036 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13037 signed, putting my initials on each page and my signature on the last page.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Can the witness be shown tab 1 of Exhibit 353.
Q. Is this the document that was produced in your presence, referring to the intercepts heard, and there's a reference to the voices that you recognised?
A. Yes, that is the document.
Q. Did you adopt this document -- you said already that you signed it. Did you actually compare it when you had it in front of you? Did you check it?
A. Yes. All the 50 items were reviewed by me, and I would always stop to think and remember a conversation that I had, because this was at the end of all the intercepts, and I put my initials after that.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we would like to enter this declaration of the witness under seal.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's part of the binder.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But it has to be under seal.
JUDGE MAY: Very well.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like now to ask the AV booth to play one intercept in part, and it is --
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. We need to confer.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we have been discussing the methodology that apparently you propose to use. You would be relying, as
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13038 I understand it, on the written declaration by the witness as to his recognition of voices in tapes that were played before the OTP, which he heard over a period of two or three days.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --
JUDGE ROBINSON: I recognise the difficulty that would be involved in playing 50 tapes. It's a question of reliability and weight. We would certainly need to know how he recognised the voices, at a minimum, and I would imagine we should also hear one or two of the tapes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, actually, most of the tapes have the same persons talking, basically Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Milosevic. Therefore, we didn't think it would be necessary, in relation to each and every tape, to discuss it specifically in relation to recognition of the voices. We will discuss each person the witness recognises with him personally here during the testimony, and we will actually -- we address almost -- we will address most of the intercepts with the help of the transcripts. And about 13 will be played, partly. There is -- I think there's only one that will be played in full, because the conversations are often quite lengthy and have parts in it which are not of interest. That is at least what we propose.
JUDGE MAY: The matter that you must, of course, satisfy us about is that the witness is able to identify the particular voices. So how does he know the person speaking, how long has he known him. All that kind of thing we'll have to go into, from the point of view of weight. Yes. Very well. If you'd like to go on.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I would like to ask the AV booth to
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13039 play now the first intercept, and it is tab 42 in the intercept binders. And we will only play a brief part.
JUDGE MAY: Now, just before that happens, I've got here this index of intercepts to be played. Are we going to use that at all? It would be helpful if we could. Or using some other document?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In this list, you can actually see the tape number. It's in the left-hand column. You have the --
JUDGE MAY: Yes, I've got it.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You have the tab number.
JUDGE MAY: Well, which one are we starting with?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We are starting with tab 42.
JUDGE MAY: No, but where is it in these excerpts which I have?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It is tab 42 in the left -- when you follow down the left-hand column --
JUDGE MAY: Look, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. Let me show you what I have.
I need assistance. Show that to counsel, please.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I thought you were referring to the declaration. In the declaration, we have these tab numbers. This document --
JUDGE MAY: No. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it's plain what I was referring to if you would listen to what I say.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. This is actually only those who are played, and it's the order how they are played. This document is just an assistance for you so that you can follow --
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13040
JUDGE MAY: That is all I needed to know. All right. Give it back to me.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I didn't see to which document you referred.
JUDGE MAY: If you are going to give us these things to help us, you must follow through, and when you prepare, you must say, "Right. We're going to play whichever tab it is, and the excerpt can be found in." It would be of great assistance to us. Now, let's go on.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: So it's the first intercept in that small binder that you just showed me. And we are playing only a sequence, and it's in the transcript, it's in the English, the sequence page 5.
[Intercept played]
THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
RADOVAN KARADZIC: Well, if they do that then the unrest will start and they will be out. But here in Herzegovina near Dubrovnik, we'll have to provide support.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Factually speaking, Yugoslavia is defending its territories, and it's a matter of view point, how you look at it.
RADOVAN KARADZIC: Well, we have to protect our people, the people living on those territories. We don't want anything that doesn't belong to us. That's the main thing.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Yes. If they got bogged down down there, we have our ways... tell those -- although these people said about the Sava Centre tomorrow that they will not attack them. But if it is really necessary, then they can be attacked as well.
RADOVAN KARADZIC: I don't know at all about the Sava centre.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13041
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: They are ... it's this Radoslav Petrovic person.
RADOVAN KARADZIC: Listen, call me as we agreed, and we will talk.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: All right. Sometime before 3.00. Agreed.
RADOVAN KARADZIC: All right.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you.
Q. Witness, which voices, if any, do you recognise? Who -- which are the people talking?
A. I recognised first the voice of Radovan Karadzic, and the second voice was Slobodan Milosevic. I must say there is more noise in the headphones now than when I heard it for the first time in the OTP office. The sound was clearer that first time. There is more interference in the headphones now. I don't know why.
Q. Witness, how often did you meet Mr. Milosevic in the course of the events approximately, and how familiar are you with his voice?
A. Well, I met him about 30 or more than 30 times. That's only our meetings. And I had another five to ten telephone conversations with him.
Q. And Mr. Karadzic, how often approximately did you meet him during the course of the events, and did you also speak with him on the phone?
A. Yes, I did. I spoke to him on the phone many times. About ten or more than ten. And I also spoke to him on the phone [as interpreted].
Q. Did you recognise the voices clearly or do you have any doubts?
A. Yes, I recognised the voices clearly.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13042
Q. Witness, from the -- do you have the --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Does the witness have the transcript in front of him, the B/C/S? Can he please be given the B/C/S transcript.
Q. Witness, in the conversation you heard, reference is made to "...secure Herzegovina down there up to Dubrovnik." And it's also said: "That's what we should go for, the de facto situation, Yugoslavia is defending its territory, and then it depends on whatever deal we come up with."
What does this sequence refer to? What are Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic talking about?
A. They were talking about the fact that those territories will remain in Yugoslavia, which after the disintegration will, as they put it here, be factually in Yugoslavia, which means those that Yugoslavia will hold as its own territory through the JNA.
JUDGE MAY: Witness Milan Babic, let me clarify this. You were asked how often you met Mr. Karadzic, and you said: "I spoke to him on the phone many times. About ten or more than ten. And I also spoke to him on the phone."
Now, that may be a mistake in transcription. Would you clarify your answer? How many times did you speak to him on the phone, and how many times did you meet him?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I met with him more than ten times, and I spoke to him on the phone several times.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13043 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13044
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
Q. This reference to the de facto situation, and you make a reference that this means the territories that -- that those Yugoslavia will hold, you said, its own territory, through the JNA. What does that mean? What does the de facto situation -- how does that relate to the JNA?
A. It relates to the JNA because the JNA was in control or was deployed on territories which were supposed to be a part of the newly reorganised or newly created federal state Yugoslavia. So that de facto situation meant that that was the territory held by the JNA. Based on Slobodan Milosevic's words, that territory was supposed to remain in Yugoslavia and represent the territory that will be within the new Yugoslavia.
Q. Did you have an indication from the context of the conversation with references to a Sava Centre event, do you have an indication when this telephone conversation took place? And you may even look at the transcript, what else is mentioned there.
A. Yes. Would you please allow me to read the text first. In the autumn of 1991.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because there were negotiations about Yugoslavia, and it also mentions the role of European countries and others regarding Yugoslavia. There was also the conference on Yugoslavia.
Q. You refer to the Carrington negotiations, the Carrington Plan, or which negotiations do you mean?
A. The Hague Conference.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13045
Q. And when did it take place?
A. It was prepared in September of 1991, and plenary sessions - there were three of them - were held in October of 1991 and in November of 1991. It operated practically up until that point, although it existed for some time in 1992 as well.
Q. And when Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic spoke about the de facto situation in relation to the JNA on the ground, in which territories in October 1991 was the JNA in relation to Croatia?
A. It was in the territory of SAO Krajina, in Western Slavonia, Eastern Slavonia, and in the area around Dubrovnik.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this is what I have to discuss in relation to this intercept with the witness. I would like now to discuss only, and not play, the tab 28 in the intercept binder, and the witness would need to have the transcript.
Q. Witness, did you have opportunity to listen to two more --
JUDGE MAY: Ms. Higgins, do you really have a point you want to raise now? Because too much interruption is bad for the flow. What is the point?
MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, the very brief point is that if the Prosecution do seek to rely on these intercepts, then perhaps an extract, a short extract, should be played.
JUDGE MAY: No. We haven't the time to play 50 intercepts. Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did you have opportunity to listen to two intercepts in which
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13046 Milosevic and Karadzic speak about the first step to be taken for the separation or disintegration of Yugoslavia, and is this one of the conversations?
A. Yes, I listened to them, and this is one of those conversations.
Q. It refers here to -- on page 1, it refers to -- it says here Mr. Milosevic says: "You see that they want to step out, and they are carrying out these things exactly the way we planned it." Then Mr. Karadzic says: "Yes, that is right." And Mr. Milosevic again: "Exactly the way we planned it." And Karadzic again: "My only fear is that he might get carte blanche from the army, that is, that the army might support him."
What are they talking about? What was the plan, so to speak?
A. The plan was to force Slovenia and Croatia to leave Yugoslavia and to have that part of Croatia which was occupied by the JNA and which was under the control of Serbs to remain in Yugoslavia. They in fact talked about a way, a method, a concept, in which the new restructured Yugoslavia had to be created from the remnants of the former Yugoslavia, in a way in which Slovenia and Croatia, and all others who didn't want to remain with Serbs in Yugoslavia, to be forced to leave that country and to have those parts which remained constitute this new Yugoslavia.
Q. And a little bit further down there is the reference -- Mr. Karadzic says: "There are, I suppose, some information from the head of the General Staff that they will not let Croatia and Slovenia do it." And then Mr. Milosevic says: "Well, that is why I'm preparing this amendment, to enable them to do it."
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13047 What does that refer to? Do you know?
A. This pertains to Ante Markovic, Federal Prime Minister, and his relations with the JNA Main Staff, in a sense that Mr. Markovic was not in favour of Croatia and Slovenia seceding and leaving Yugoslavia. Mr. Milosevic asked for and offered legal or legislative solutions that would enable them to do so.
Q. And in this conversation, when you listened in to it, did you recognise the voices of Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic?
A. Yes, I did.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And I would like now to have a look into the tab 24, and it is again a conversation between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Karadzic, and again there is that issue of separation and who is doing it first.
Your Honour, I would now briefly have to go into private session, because a particular issue with the witness comes up. I'm sorry. I'm also sorry. I had a wrong script. It's not -- it's Mr. Karadzic with a female person. It's not Mr. Milosevic. I'm sorry. I had a wrong document in front of me. I'm sorry.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, when you listened to this conversation - it's Mr. Karadzic and an unknown person, female person - there is a quote in the beginning with the reference to --
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Are we in private session? Yes.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13048
Q. -- with a reference to you, and it says here: "The editorial office, you probably know about this last statement of Milan Babic and the uniting of the SAO Krajina in Bosanska Krajina." What does this refer to?
A. This refers to an event which took place in Banja Luka. It had to do with the preparation and signing of an agreement on comparison with SAO Krajina and autonomous region Bosnian Krajina.
Q. And when did it take place, this telephone conversation supposed to be held on the 24th of June, 1991? When did you pursue this uniting of the SAO and the Bosanska Krajina? Was that at that time?
A. Yes, at that time.
Q. And did Mr. Karadzic oppose this move of unification that you pursued?
A. Yes. He was emphatically against it, on the 21st of June, 1991. And that was a continuation of the events in Banja Luka, which are mentioned in this transcript.
Q. Later on, did Mr. Karadzic actually pursue that same idea, the unification of the Krajina -- the two Krajinas?
A. He advocated the idea of joining - or SAO Krajina, rather - territories he controlled in Bosnia in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. And in July of 1995, he advocated the future joining of SAO Krajina, or referred to this as the territory that the Serbs will create in Bosnia.
Q. Yes, but we do not want to go into too many details on the later events. But why did he oppose it at that time, and what does he refer to his reasons to this female person in this intercept?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13049
A. Yes. He said that the time was not ripe for that, that this wasn't a good moment for it.
Q. Why not? What was the reason why it was not?
A. Because he wanted the international community, first of all, the public in general, not to interpret the events in Bosnia, in Croatia, or rather, in former Yugoslavia, as those that were provoked by Serb side, but rather as something that was a consequence of political steps of others, meaning Croats and Muslims.
Q. In this conversation with the female person, Mr. Karadzic says, rather at the end, when this person asks: "But SAO Krajina in that case wouldn't remain in Croatia, but it would remain in Yugoslavia; right?" And then Mr. Karadzic says: "No. SAO Krajina is not separating from Yugoslavia, but Croatia is separating from Yugoslavia, and the SAO Krajina remains within Yugoslavia."
Is that what you meant with your quote?
A. Yes, that was the concept that I spoke about.
Q. You -- did you recognise Mr. Karadzic's voice?
A. Yes, when I listened to this tape.
Q. And the female voice, you didn't recognise?
A. I didn't. It reminds me of somebody; however, I couldn't recognise it.
Q. The context, could you make out whether this person is a journalist interviewing Mr. Karadzic, questioning Mr. Karadzic?
A. Yes, that was a journalist, whom I couldn't remember. She asked for an interview, or rather, she wanted him to give a statement following
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13050 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13051 these events.
Q. I would like to move now to another topic, and that is actually something that relates to the goal that we previously spoke about, the State for All Serbs. And my question is: When the idea of the State for All Serbs was formed, what was planned for the non-Serbs in this territory? Was it addressed by Mr. Milosevic?
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we can actually go into open session. Sorry.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session, Your Honours.
A. It was said that peoples were constituent elements of the Yugoslav Federation and that they had a right to decide -- and stemming from that, the Serb people had a right to decide on preserving the Yugoslav Federation. These things were mentioned in public, in speeches, in 1991 and in 1992. However, in early 1991 this became very clear. It was said that the Serbs had a right and that the Serbs want to remain in one state.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. But, Witness, my question was another one. I was asking you whether Mr. Milosevic said something in reference to the non-Serbs living on this territory. Did he say anything about them?
A. I don't remember him mentioning non-Serbs.
Q. We have before -- before we mentioned also Mr. Vojislav Seselj. What did he say? Did he make any statements in relation to non-Serbs in the territory that he actually put a western border to?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13052
A. He used to say, and he actively advocated and took steps to have Croats move out from those territories, Vojvodina in particular. He used to say that that would be that -- that that future state, Greater Serbia, would be exclusively a Serb state.
Q. Mr. Seselj, did he have his own party, and if so, what was the name of this party?
JUDGE MAY: Well, we know this, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. We don't need to go over it.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay.
Q. Was Mr. Seselj's party competing with the SPS or were they related?
A. They were most often in partner relations. There were times in 1993 when they were opposed, openly opposed, to each other in political public scene in Serbia, and prior to that they were coalition parties, and they were a party that supported the SPS, supported Slobodan Milosevic.
Q. Did Milosevic support Seselj or did the JNA support Seselj, and if so, how do you know? What do you know about it?
A. As far as I know, Milosevic publicly commended Seselj as a patriot.
Q. Did Seselj come to the Krajina and visit his volunteers in Croatia?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did --
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think that that was a proper
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13053 question, whether he used to visit his volunteers, because prior to that we did not establish that Seselj indeed had volunteers in Krajina.
JUDGE MAY: We've heard about that from other witnesses, certainly that he sent volunteers.
Yes.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did Seselj come to --
JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's go on with the evidence. Let's hear what the witness has to say about it, what he knows from his own knowledge.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did you see Seselj in the Krajina, and do you know how he got there and who facilitated this?
A. Seselj used to come to Krajina. He came on several occasions. I remember quite well his visits on the 2nd of May, 1991, and especially his visit at the end of December, early January, either late December 1991 or early January 1992, when he came to see the volunteers. And he told me that personally. I don't know in which way he came. I know that he went back in a helicopter of the JNA, which organised his transport from Krajina to Serbia. In fact, it was organised by the Minister of Defence, Marko Nejgovanovic.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we need to go for one question into private session, because it's now very particular.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honours.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13054
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. How did you get aware that the Minister of Defence, Marko Njegovanovic, actually provided the helicopter?
A. Vojislav Seselj, during that visit of his to Krajina, came to my office and called Marko Njegovanovic from my office, asking for a helicopter to be sent. He said that he didn't dare travel by car through Bosnia, and that was the reason why he asked for a helicopter.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can go back into open session.
[Open session]
THE REGISTRAR: We're back into open session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Did Mr. Karadzic ever mention what he had in mind or what idea he had in relation to the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
A. Yes. I heard that in July of 1991. He said he would chase them into the river valleys in order to link up all Serb territories in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, first of all, the reference is now also to paragraph 161 of the proofing summary, and we also need to go into private session because it's a very special conversation that the witness had with several persons.
[Private session ordered for public release,18 December 2002 (D18520-D18519)]
THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
Q. Witness, when and where did Mr. Karadzic make this -- make this point that he wants to chase the Muslims into -- into the river valleys?
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13055
A. He said this in the month of July, toward the first half of July in 1991, in the office and in the presence of the President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic.
Q. Who was present, and what was actually the purpose of the meeting?
A. President Milosevic was present, Radovan Karadzic, and myself. The purpose of the meeting, I got an invitation from Mr. Milosevic to come for Mr. Karadzic to tell me personally in his presence why we must not unite SAO Krajina with the Autonomous Region of Bosnian Krajina at that time, because this was after Assembly meetings of both Krajinas held on the 27th of June, 1991, in Bosansko Grahovo. And at the time, Karadzic presented to me this concept of his regarding Bosnia in Milosevic's presence.
Q. What exactly did he say in relation to the Muslims and in relation to the political -- the politicians involved in Bosnia?
A. The explanation being that the time was not good, and criticising me personally, both of those present, that is Milosevic and Karadzic. Karadzic said the following: that he held Alija Izetbegovic in his little pocket, that he could settle accounts with him at any time, but the time was not ripe for it so that the Serbs should not be blamed for things, that it would be better to wait for Izetbegovic to first make the wrong political move and that is when accounts would be settled, and the Muslims would be expelled or crammed into the river valleys and that he would link up all Serb territories in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but he said that he wasn't sure whether he would take Zenica from them.
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13056
Q. What was Mr. Milosevic's reaction to this remark, if any?
A. He said that I shouldn't be stubborn and stand in the way of Radovan, stand in Radovan's way.
Q. When Mr. Karadzic made these remarks that they would push the Muslims into the river valleys, did he actually have an army at his disposal to do that and to settle the accounts or what?
A. From the continuation of the conversation on that occasion, I gathered that he had an army, because at the end of the conversation, President Milosevic asked where the army should be deployed, and he had at his disposal the police or a part of the police in Bosnia-Herzegovina which he had organised by his party being a partner in the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and with the support of Jovica Stanisic, the chief of the state security of Serbia.
Q. Witness, I will speak about this aspect a little bit later in another context, but you just mentioned that Mr. Milosevic asked where the army should be deployed. When did he ask that, and which army can he mean?
A. At the end of that conversation. That was mid-July 1991. At the end of our conversation in his office, and he was referring to the JNA. He always spoke about the JNA. Up until then, he would say, "The JNA would protect you." He would say that many times frequently to me in personal contact with him. This was the first time that he said where he would deploy the army, so I gathered that he really was in control of the army.
Q. And was it a rhetorical question or did he really ask you and
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13057 BLANK PAGE
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13058 Mr. Karadzic's opinion on this matter?
A. I think it seemed to me that he wanted to let us know that he had the army at his disposal and that he was thinking over the question of where it should be deployed, in which territories. That was the position he took. If I may describe in detail, I can, this particular part of the conversation and his attitude.
He said, "Wait a moment," as we were on our way out. He went out to a room behind his desk, and he came back carrying a paper in his hand firmly. He looked up, and he said, "Where shall I deploy the army?" Radovan Karadzic immediately responded, "On the borders with Croatia." Milosevic made no comment. He looked at me, and I said, "In Krajina to protect Krajina." And he said, "Fine," and we bade farewell. There were no further comments.
Q. And in relation to this conversation, were you supposed to go somewhere? Did you go somewhere after this conversation, together with Mr. Karadzic?
A. Yes. Karadzic said, "We are going together to Celinac." This is a town close to Banja Luka where he had called a meeting of activists of his party from the region of the autonomous area of Bosanska Krajina, a group of people, in fact, who had taken part in decision-making regarding the uniting of SAO Krajina and the Autonomous Region of Bosnian Krajina, to tell them that. Actually, that this shouldn't be done and why it shouldn't be done. And I remember that very well.
Q. We have to come to an end for today, but I just have one more question in relation to this conversation. This visit to Celinac
Public Non-Redacted Version of Previous Private Session Transcript of Witness Testimony by Order of the Trial Chamber 13059 afterwards, was that discussed in front of Mr. Milosevic, and did he have an opinion on whether you should go there?
A. Yes. Yes, that I should go with Radovan to appear there. That was his position.
Q. Was it --
A. For the matter to be settled.
Q. For the matter to be settled. In which way? In which way to be settled?
A. So that people in Bosnian Krajina should not stand in the way of Karadzic and that I shouldn't stand in his way too, so that Karadzic should show me to these people, letting them know that this option was no longer valid at that point in time.
MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I had a little bit more time, but I wanted to conclude this.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, could I point out that you've had nearly half your time when you're considering your further preparation.
Very well. Would you be back, please, Witness Milan Babic, tomorrow at 9.00.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day
of November, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.