34087
Thursday, 2 December 2004
[Open session]
[The accused entered court]
[The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, to continue with your cross-examination.
WITNESS: VUKASIN JOKANOVIC [Resumed]
[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]
MR. NICE: Your Honour, the first exhibit, as promised, is now available. It can be distributed. I'll explain what it is. It's a collection of open-source material. I may be able to refer to every page in it, I may not, because time is short and there's a great deal to cover with this witness. But it seems more convenient to have a collection of open-source material in chronological order, and if I have to be selective, we can use the numbers on the top right-hand corner to find our way through this particular exhibit.
If I don't refer to every page number, then the Chamber may decide to withdraw certain pages at the end, but it seemed more convenient to have it manageable in this way.
Q. We're looking at -- it's in English only, I'm afraid Mr. Jokanovic. So may the usher very kindly display on the overhead projector, if you'll give him one more copy, the second of the pages of the document we were looking at yesterday afternoon, which is from The New 34088 York Times, July 12, 1982.
We had, I think, looked at Mr. Jokanovic's quotation, and just to pick that up, he explains -- this is right, Mr. Jokanovic, isn't it, you described to this newspaper four reasons for departure; socio-economic, normal migration, adverse socio-political climate, direct and indirect pressures.
JUDGE KWON: The ELMO should show the upper part.
MR. NICE: Sorry, yes.
JUDGE KWON: Yes.
MR. NICE:
Q. Is that correct, Mr. Jokanovic?
A. I think it's correct. I certainly spoke of it in broader terms. I spoke to this journalist more extensively, and this is the part that the journalist chose to publish.
Q. Very well.
A. I said much more than this quotation.
Q. We're going to have to be very quick today, Mr. Jokanovic, because in light of your evidence yesterday, there's a very great deal to cover. However, the point that I want you to deal with is this: In this newspaper report, you having an opportunity to explain what the position was, you said nothing then about killings of Serbs by Albanians; correct?
A. Well, from this article, one can see that this was said by my colleague, Mr. Hoti. I probably said the same thing and the journalist didn't want to repeat the same thing twice.
Q. But you referred to the one incident, I think. But there's no -- 34089 the point is that there is no general complaint of killings. There's complaints of other pressures, and we're going to look at this more a little later in the sequence, but you weren't complaining at this stage of killings.
A. May I repeat?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think the question is not quite fair, because Mr. Jokanovic had first explained that the journalist had chosen to quote another official of Albanian ethnicity, whereas he spoke to the journalist more extensively. And you cannot infer from the article that he had never spoken about any killings.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, the --
JUDGE ROBINSON: That's quite so, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. That observation may or may not be correct. I'm not actually sure that it is, but I am going to protest, if I may, about the accused's repeated interruptions, if they occur, when he comments on the evidence.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, my point is this, and let's just deal with it: If your description as generally given yesterday of the build-up to the problems for Kosovo is correct, and if killings was an important part of your concern, you would have put that at the top of your agenda, and you would have mentioned that in detail to any journalist, wouldn't you?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, it is likely that Mr. Hoti and I were together when we were speaking to that journalist and he chose to quote Hoti on some things and me on other things. This also covers the killings, 34090 because I had no reason not to mention such an obvious thing that my colleague, the Albanian, Mr. Hoti, spoke about. It is a matter of editorial policy, and it is the journalist's choice not to repeat the same thing twice if the two of us interviewees worked in the same organisation and gave the interview in one and the same room.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, can you draw my attention to where Mr. Hoti is quoted as to referring to a killing?
MR. NICE: Well, he doesn't, Your Honour. I was going to make that point. There's a single killing referred to and I simply have to move on because time is so short.
JUDGE BONOMY: But it is not referred to by him, it's simply referred to by the journalist.
MR. NICE: Correct, there's just the one. My point remains the same.
Q. I'm going to go back just briefly. '68 strikes or student unrest simply matched -- didn't "simply" but it matched student unrest all around Europe, not least in Paris; correct?
A. There were student demonstrations in Europe briefly, that's right. However, the insurgency in Kosovo was not of the same nature. It was of a different nature, and I described it yesterday.
Q. And indeed the army was sent in by the federal authorities.
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.
A. In part there was some -- there were some troops in Kosovo. It's probable that they were sent there. 34091
Q. 1981, social unrest in Kosovo; correct?
A. It was not social unrest. Those were great massive, aggressive demonstrations.
Q. Certainly the army was sent in again.
A. The army was called in by the Committee of the Province of Kosovo because the police troops in Kosovo, among which the majority were Albanians, was unable to suppress the demonstrations because of their violence and aggressiveness. The troops, the army, did not suppress the demonstrations. The army was just protecting the main government and other buildings.
Q. And so that I can understand our position, you and I clearly, Mr. Jokanovic, is it going to be your case throughout that the Kosovo Albanians were entirely to blame for everything? Is that your case? Is that your evidence?
A. That is not my evidence. I am not blaming Kosovo Albanians. And please do not try to put a wedge between me and the great number of Albanian friends I have.
I was talking about a great number of Albanians, nationalists, separatists who were trying to separate Kosovo from Serbia. I distinguish between nationalists, chauvinists on the one hand, and the Albanian people on the other hand.
Q. In 1981, Serbia, Kosovo, and Vojvodina were subject to the 1974 constitution. Under that constitution, just to explain it in the most general terms, Serbia was not a centralised republic. On the contrary, the provincial organs had their own responsibility under the constitution 34092 BLANK PAGE 34093 for implementing republican laws; correct?
A. Correct. I talked about that yesterday.
Q. Unfortunately, although we may be able to get them translated, the articles haven't been translated into English and I'll have to summarise their effect.
You know, Mr. Jokanovic, don't you, that the history you've described to this Court yesterday is actually the history of this accused effecting a centralisation of power in Serbia. That's what this was all about, and we're going to explore it in detail; but first of all in summary, do you accept that that's actually what was happening?
A. You made comments, Mr. Nice, with which I cannot agree. First of all, I did not deal with history. I'm not an historian. I spoke about events in which I was involved personally. And I want my evidence to be only about the things which I attended and which I have personal knowledge of.
As for the centralisation which you ascribe to Mr. Milosevic, it transpires directly from my evidence yesterday. The point was that Serbia was only given back some essential functions that every other republic had. In all the other areas, the position of the province within the federation did not change in any way.
Q. We'll explore the change later. Sticking with the 1974 constitution, although there was this decentralised republic operating through its provinces, circumstances could arise under Article 296 where, if it was necessary, Serbia could act directly and legally; correct?
A. I don't know which constitution you are referring to and which 34094 Article 296, whether it was of the constitution of Serbia, of Kosovo, or the federal constitution. Is that a law maybe?
Q. The 1974 constitution of Serbia, Article 296, for example, allowed the central government of Serbia to deal directly with municipal organs other than going through the provincial body itself in certain urgent circumstances, and this is an example of the constitution giving the power, in justifiable circumstances, for central exercise of control. Are you aware of that?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would appreciate it if you would read that article out.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, please wait a minute. Mr. Milosevic wants to say something.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want to ask you, should Mr. Nice put this document before the witness? He's speaking about the constitution, about a particular Article. I suppose the witness should read this Article rather than have it interpreted for him by Mr. Nice, or better said, misinterpreted.
JUDGE ROBINSON: If the witness wants to see it, then it can be placed on the ELMO.
MR. NICE: I can hand it to him in the Serbian. I simply don't have time, and our translation facilities were completely --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, hand it to him, Mr. Nice. Hand it to him.
MR. NICE: Hand it to him. I have to say that the burden of translation imposed by the documents produced yesterday overnight has 34095 meant that -- [microphone not activated].
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, is the translation job going on of the entire constitution?
MR. NICE: No.
JUDGE KWON: It's very odd for us not to have it at this moment.
MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour --
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, the position is that the relevant parts, for our purposes, were translated at an earlier stage. The accused raised this issue without providing translation.
You will recall that one of the documents produced yesterday that was not translated included a large passage of words by this accused. It seems to us that of the various priorities that we could give, that was probably the passage that had to have the priority. And in light of that, the resources simply haven't been able to accomplish anything else and indeed they haven't even been able to accomplish that yet.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, had these documents been disclosed before, in the course of pre-trial or pre-defence --
MR. NICE: These particular documents had come to us a few days before, but as to the untranslated documents, the expectation was that, although they hadn't arrived yet, the Defence were still coping with it. So we weren't going to double up the translation exercise because the assumption was that those documents were going to arrive yesterday.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, have you had a chance to consider the Article to which I referred? 34096
A. Yes.
Q. My proposition is correct, isn't it? There were powers -- there were powers in Serbia, Belgrade, to operate directly if the circumstances justified it.
A. You are right only in part because this Article says that in the area of national defence, when there is an emergency, provincial authorities -- or, rather, republican authorities may communicate with provincial authorities -- or, rather, may communicate with municipal authorities through provincial authorities, or even directly, but they have to inform the provincial authorities thereof. However, this doesn't change in any way what I said earlier, that Serbia had no powers in the area of national defence. It had to exercise them through provincial authorities.
Q. Next point: Throughout the point, of course the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia itself allowed the federal authorities to intervene as they had done by sending in the army in 1968 and 19 -- well, that was before the 1974 constitution -- in 1981, to deal with problems and disturbances.
A. The army was a unified organisation in Yugoslavia. It could be used only if the supreme body in Yugoslavia proclaimed a state of emergency and decide so. Generally speaking, it was the provincial authorities, again, who were in charge of implementing even federal laws.
Q. Pre-1981 and I think 1986, you were the secretary of the League of Communists in Kosovo; correct?
A. I was one of the executive secretaries in the provincial 34097 committee. Unfortunately, I was not the secretary. I was one of the executive secretaries. It would take a lot of time for me to explain now the whole organigramme.
Q. And just to try to keep things in an orderly way, from 1986 to 1988 you were a member of the Kosovo Presidency. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. So when we come to the year 1986, a couple of things happened. First of all, the memorandum of the academy, the well-known memorandum, was leaked or published or whatever it was; correct?
A. There has been a lot of talk in Kosovo about the memorandum, but in fact, few people have read it. I was one of the few who actually managed to read it. A great number of meetings were held to discuss the memorandum, attended by people who mostly haven't read it.
Q. You told us yesterday of Ivan Stambolic being the person who triggered the process of reform. Before he was killed, Ivan Stambolic wrote a book.
MR. NICE: I'm afraid this again has exceeded the translation capacity that's available to me. There are only six lines that I want this witness to read. If I may place it on the overhead projector?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.
MR. NICE: I've got the original book here. This is in ERN form. Here's the book as I hold it up, but we've got an ERN -- a registered version of it there.
Q. Would you be good enough, please, Mr. Jokanovic, to read from -- the book, by the way, is written in the form of question and answer, so 34098 BLANK PAGE 34099 one needs to read the question, starting "Ipak, izborili ..." and then the answer, please.
A. Yes. You mean: "In the year 1986, parliaments finally took the decision to proceed with amending the constitution of the SFRY and the constitution of Serbia in those parts which relate to the position of Serbia and the provinces within it. I thought then that we had taken a course for the better. Regrettably, as you know now, the forces of resistance became active in a hurry, ready for quite a different type of change, with violence and for the worst."
However, this is not quite true. Ivan Stambolic is not quite correct here, because the changes began long before 1986, and Ivan Stambolic chaired one of the first meetings that I attended. I didn't say that he initiated it.
Q. Well, before we move on, and I'll come back to the Stambolic quotation shortly, do you accept -- first of all, Raif Dizdarevic, who was the Bosnian president of the Presidency in 1988 and 1989, has written his own book. Is he somebody who you have any reason to doubt as to the things he describes?
A. I wouldn't say I have grave doubts, but at the same time, I do not have full trust, especially because it is mostly about the wisdom of hindsight. As we say, men and generals are wise after the battle.
Q. If -- and I don't have his book with me but I have a note of what is contained in it. If he expressed the view that the 1981 events that you've described in the way you have gave rise to increasing tendencies for Serb nationalism to be expressed, would you agree with him? 34100
A. You wish to impose this view that this was all caused by Serbian nationalism. I spoke about the worsening of inter-ethnic relations, about the cooling down, about the insecurity and lack of perspective for Serbs as well as about the fact that Serbs were being pressured and that they wanted to receive assistance in order to exercise their normal rights and to lead a normal life.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, that's not what I asked you. I wasn't asking you whether this was all caused by Serb nationalism. I simply asked you, and perhaps you could help us, whether the events of 1981 gave rise to increased tendencies for Serb nationalism to be expressed. I was careful in my choice of words. Do you agree with me?
A. I don't agree. You speak about increased tendencies of the Serb nationalism, whereas I speak of the unequal position in which Serbs and Montenegrins found themselves in and the fact that they were pressured into moving out. This deviates from all of the conclusions passed by all of the organs in Serbia federation and the province. What you are giving is a legal qualification that does not correspond to the actual state of affairs at the time and the official conclusions adopted and publicised by all of the official state organs.
Q. There was, at the end of the December 1981, when you were in the position of the Communist Party that you've described, there was a three-day session of the Central Committee of the Serb communists. Can you remember if you attended that meeting?
A. In 1981, I was not in the committee. I was in the executive administration of the province, and I was provincial secretary for 34101 legislation, and I was never a member of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
Q. So you didn't go to that meeting in any capacity?
A. No, I did not attend that meeting in any capacity. In my life, I attended only one --
Q. Let's go back, then, to the start of the process of reform. I hear what you say about an earlier meeting, but Ivan Stambolic says that he thought "we had taken a course for the better. Regrettably, the forces of resistance became active in a hurry, ready for quite a different type of change, with violence and for the worst."
Is this the position, Mr. Jokanovic, and I want to express it compendiously for you to have a chance to answer: The process of reform, just as with the emergence of the memorandum, provided opportunities that this accused took, in each case adopting however silently the opinions of the memorandum and using the process of reform to establish his power base.
A. I disagree with your conclusion. I believe it to be not correct. As for this passage from Ivan Stambolic's book, which was written many years later, many years after the event, it does not say which are these forces that want the change for the worse. Those forces that did want that change for the worse and that wanted violence existed primarily in Kosovo, but he does not specify what forces those were.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, the pressure for reform of the constitution wasn't coming from the Kosovo Albanians, was it? It was coming from the Communist Party, it was coming from Belgrade, and it was coming from 34102 Serbs.
A. The term "pressure" isn't appropriate in this context. The 1981 demonstrations themselves initiated criticism and demands to change 1974 constitution. These demands and criticisms were heard in Kosovo, Serbia, and at the federation level. And this was discussed by the Central Committee of Yugoslavia, which included communists from all republics and provinces, including a large number of Albanians from Kosovo. This was not pressure but, rather, a proposal to review and propose various solutions in order to achieve unity in the Republic of Serbia.
MR. NICE: Next open-source document which will -- starts at the top right-hand corner, number 619. If that could go on the overhead projector, please.
Q. While this is being prepared for display, Mr. Jokanovic - and the usher can get on with it, yes, please - just remember that I'm looking for a couple of things -- on this one, three things; whether the reporting by international press is fair, because of allegations that have been made in this court that the international press was in the hands of American or some other Western conspiracy, I think; second, what you were saying yourself; and third, what's the evidence of what was actually happening on the ground? I don't have time to go through this report in full, and I hope I do it justice by the passages I select.
This comes from the Washington Post of 19 -- November 29, 1986. Paragraph 1 speaks of growing tension --
MR. NICE: And, usher, we're going to move through it quite swiftly if you want to, on this occasion, help us. Thank you so much. 34103
Q. Since -- paragraph 2: "Since the outbreak of riots in 1981, authorities ... have faced a steady challenge from separatist and nationalist groups among the dominant Albanian population. More than 1.000 people have been jailed for seeking ... independence from Serbia." I'm probably reading too fast. I'll slow down.
"The significance of this conflict has been multiplied this year by the emergence of concern among Yugoslavia's Serbs ... about 'forced emigration.'"
"Small farmers have --" I'm skipping words to save time. "Small farmers ... have been steadily leaving the province's cities and the small Serbian villages ... More than 20.000 have emigrated since 1981 out of a total population of ... 220.000. ... the Albanian population ... is expanding at the fastest rate in Europe.
"The local Serbs, arguing that Albanian-dominated provincial authorities have offered them no protection from violent attacks, have signed petitions and staged ... demonstrations outside Pristina ... and they sent delegations to press their case in Belgrade ... "The acts have inflamed nationalist feeling amongst Serbians outside Kosovo and prompted demands by the intellectuals and even Serbian communist political leaders for constitutional changes and other drastic action to stop the emigration and to restore Serbia's control over Kosovo. The Serbian outbursts, in turn, have provoked concern by leaders of Yugoslavia's five other, smaller republics who sympathise with some complaints but are wary of Serbian national aspirations." Then we come to you: "The last delegation --" Mr. Jokanovic, 34104 BLANK PAGE 34105 "The last delegation of Serbs to visit Belgrade earlier this month ... warned that they would take up arms against their perceived tormentors among the Albanians."
And you warned this: "'This should be very seriously considered. This is a warning, and we understand it that way,' said Vukasin Jokanovic ... 'We must take urgent measures to win back the confidence of these people.'"
Pausing there. Did you, at that stage, think that it was a matter for taking up arms?
A. I have never in my life uttered these words. I never called for taking up arms. All of my statements were aimed at preserving peace. I kept saying that peace was our ultimate goal, not weapons, because weapons would inflict terrible damages upon both Serbs and Albanians.
Q. Very well.
A. This is an invented story that has nothing to do with the truth.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is completely inappropriate. The witness is supposed to answer something that is not even stated in this article. The article doesn't say that the witness said that they need to take up arms. No. It says quite the contrary.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think you're being overly defensive of the witness. The witness can take care of himself and has taken care of himself. You don't need to be so interventionist.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, I suppose that you will agree with me that witness should be given the text 34106 of the article that he is questioned about. Otherwise, it's very difficult for him to follow the examination. He must be given the text so that he can read it.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. If he wants the text. Do you want the text?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask Mr. Nice not to take advantage of the fact that I don't speak English and not to ascribe me the words that I have never uttered in my life. This is a text in English that I cannot understand. I don't think that it is fair to publicly state that I was the one who issued a call to arms. This is completely untrue, and in fact it's an insult.
JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you have dealt with it quite adequately --
MR. NICE: Yes.
JUDGE ROBINSON: -- Mr. Jokanovic.
MR. NICE:
Q. Now, apart from that observation, the description in the Western press, the Washington Post we've read so far, do you accept that's a fair description of what was happening in Kosovo in 1986?
A. This description, as you read it out, contains partial truth but not full truth. It is the situation as it -- described as it was perceived by the journalist.
Q. Bottom of this page we have further exploration or -- or explanation of what was going on, and it says: "A package of measures was adopted to slow emigration, including a ban on land sales by members of 34107 one ethnic group to members of another."
Then we come to the next page. At the top of page 620: "Even a brief visit to Kosovo, which is about half the size of Maryland, quickly reveals seemingly intractable roots of ethnic tension." And then you're quoted, Mr. Jokanovic, as saying this: "Laws will never stop the emigration. The law --" apparently the law on banning land sales -- "is only accepted by people who really don't want to emigrate." Pausing there. Was that indeed your opinion, that laws would not stop emigration?
A. Well, that probably was my opinion at the time, because it is certain that the laws could not stop emigration. There were a number of other -- there were a number of ways to bypass the law, if I can say it that way. What I was committed to was the return of trust, return of good neighbourly relations, and adoption of adequate laws, not laws on banning the sales of property.
Q. Taking something out of order. Just at the bottom of this page, please, Usher, we see the following: "Few killings have been recorded since the 1981 riots, but in the three months of July, August, and September, authorities recorded 34 assaults by Albanians on Serbians. Two instances of rape provoked outraged demonstrations near Pristina and motivated the last, angry delegation that marched on the federal parliament in Belgrade."
Now, is that an accurate picture? We're trying to get an accurate picture, not from one side or the other. Few killings since 1981, and the recording of 34 assaults in three months, and two instances of rape. Has 34108 the journalist got it right?
A. I have stated and I can repeat that the pressures were intensified after the 1981 demonstrations. So it is possible. It could be that in three months only there were 34 assaults and two rapes. I don't have accurate information, but I have no reason to doubt this. It is true that after the demonstrations the pressure was intensified, and there was an increased number of attacks.
Q. Last point from this news report, a different kind, to assist the Judges with your experiences to how it was that this economic migration in part happened.
If we go a little way up the page, please. Somebody called Abrashi - I've now forgotten where he's identified - explains what happened. It says this: "'Let me explain the psychology of an Albanian farmer about the land,' said Abrashi, himself an Albanian. 'For centuries these people have been defining their existence and their worth only through land. They are ready to make great sacrifices, to work 30 years, to go and work abroad, to live in terrible conditions so as to collect, dinar by dinar, the money to buy a piece of land. And the land must be near that of the rest of the family. For that they will pay almost any price.'
"'Land prices in Kosovo, despite its poverty, are five times those in Serbia and typically range around $35.000 for an acre of good farmland,' Abrashi said. Newspapers have reported sales of farms for over --> million. As a result, Serbs, who unlike the Albanians have attractive alternatives outside the province, have had a powerful economic incentive 34109 to sell their land to Albanians."
He goes on to say that for those who remain there has been harassment. But I'm just focusing. This description of the way migration occurred is true, isn't it? Just to finish my question, the Judges may not remember this from other evidence: Albanians in Kosovo live in compounds with several families or linked families or parts of families living together, whereas the Serbs live in perhaps the way that's more familiar to those of us in Western Europe. Would that be roughly right?
A. You mean this last bit of your question.
Q. Yes.
A. You spoke in very broad terms, and many questions can stand from that, and many comments can be given. Now, I do not agree with what Mr. Abrashi stated here, because I think that he tried to put it in milder terms and in more relative terms.
As for the way Albanians live, I'm very familiar with that. I visited many families and many Albanian homes on various occasions, and I can tell you that there is very little difference in the way rural Albanian and Serbian families live. There are practically no differences. Serbian rural families are also very attached to their land. They also have patriarchal traditions similar to Albanian ones. And was for the Western way of life, yes that could apply to some of the families living in Pristina or in other big cities, and the same would apply to Albanian families living in cities.
Q. Coming back to one part of your answer and one part of my question. Was one of the ways in which emigration -- and I'm only saying 34110 BLANK PAGE 34111 one of the ways, Mr. Jokanovic; one of the ways in which emigration was encouraged or stimulated, that Albanians would pay a very great deal of money for land, making offers that their Serb neighbours might find it hard to refuse?
A. The better way to phrase it would be one of the causes. That would be the proper way. I am very familiar with that. May I explain? Because it's hard to say whether it's true or not true, I need to explain. As the strategy existed to achieve the ethnically clean Kosovo, I could explain that to Their Honours, if they wish me to.
JUDGE ROBINSON: On this point, yes, very briefly.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Specific examples that I can quote from my village in Tankosic. First they would go to the most prominent farmer, most prominent host in that village, who determines the rules, the social rules that will apply in the village, and a very high price would be offered for his land in order to destroy the unity, the harmony in the village. And once they enter the village, all other properties would receive much smaller, much lower price for their property, whereas the last properties in the village would be sold for practically nothing. And this was all done in order to cleanse the area of Serb inhabitants. My village, Tankosic, was inhabited exclusively by Serb residents, and in 1990, it became ethnically clean, and only the first property bought in the village achieved a very high price, and all other properties were sold for a much lower price. This is how they break the fabric, the harmonious fabric of a society, and this is how they introduce a feeling of insecurity into a village. 34112 Over a longer period of time, 700 settlements in Kosovo became ethnically clean.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, please continue.
MR. NICE:
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, the article we've been looking at concludes on page 621 with the single sentence attributed to you: "We did not deal with the emigration for a long time, and now that it has reached this stage, it is very difficult to break the chain of events."
Was that your view, and indeed is it your view now, that by having failed to deal with emigration for a long time, that is emigration of the Serbs, the process was pretty well unstoppable?
A. This statement confirms what I've just told you, because once you break up the ethnic fabric of a society, when people don't have proper conditions for schooling, for other needs they have, then it is very difficult to maintain several households and to lead a normal way of life. And in that context I gave the statement, and this is a very complex situation.
Q. We see in this report, apart from the reference to the few killings since 1981, again no expressed reliance by you - and you were spoken to by the journalists - no expressed reliance by you on killings of Serbs as being a cause of something at the top of your mind; correct?
A. I don't know what you're referring to. I would like to see that.
Q. It's not -- the point is, in the article there's no reference by you to there having been killings. There is reference in the article to there having been a "few killings since 1981," and I've already dealt with 34113 that. And I'm just trying to get a fair picture for the Chamber. By 1986, we aren't dealing with the position of substantial number of killings by Albanians of Serbs or anything like that. We're dealing with other, maybe very serious, but other problems; correct?
A. I have to say that I failed to understand you. I don't understand what you're asking me. And, Your Honour, I have read the instructions indicating that the witness needs to make it known whenever he or she does not understand something and has a right to have it explained to him or her. I don't think this is an appropriate way, to read out an article, several articles, and then put ten questions to me on the basis of that.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, I've made my question, and unless the Chamber --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me see if I can put the question that Mr. Nice put to you. What he's saying is that in the entire article, there is no reference by you to killings by Albanians of Serbs or anything like that, saying that you referred to other factors explaining migration, but no reference to killings by Albanians of Serbs. Can you answer that? And you can provide an explanation if you -- it need not be yes or no.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This interview was held in 1982, which means that it was 22 years ago. It is very difficult for me to remember what I stated on the occasion. I never even knew that it was published, especially not in The New York Times that I never read anyway. It is true that I spoke in broader terms, that I explained the problem of emigration in broader terms. I spoke of various kinds of pressure, murders, rapes, and everything else that was going on, because I 34114 was a member of a commission that dealt with that. Therefore, I could not have just uttered one sentence to this journalist. It must have been a longer interview and then the journalist himself selected the bits that he wanted to put into the article, and perhaps this information quoted here about the murders was something that he had obtained from me. So I'm sure that I described the situation in Kosovo as it was at the time.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Earlier you said that another colleague was also interview and that he might have dealt with the question of killings, or did I misunderstand you?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I don't know English, that's what I understood Mr. Nice to say. He mentioned the name of Hoti and those murders. I trusted what he said.
If I had the text before me, if I could see the article, then I might be able to give better answers to the questions rather than responding to what Mr. Nice is imputing to me. He is putting words in my mouth which I never spoke or even thought.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jokanovic, the last series of questions relate to an article in 1986, and the earlier questions in which Hoti was referred to relate to an article in 1982. Do you recollect whether you were interviewed on separate occasions and that these questions and facts relate to two separate occasions? The first -- the author of the article in 1982 is Marvine Howe, and that in 1986 is Jackson Diehl.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have been in public life, in political life, for 30 years. I have given countless interviews, 34115 engaged in countless discussions, made large numbers of speeches. I really cannot recall all the occasions on which I gave interviews or talked to people from the time I entered political life until the time I retired.
As Your Honour said, yes, there are two articles here, but I cannot recall what I said on each occasion. If I had the text before me in my own language, then I would be able to comment.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And we take that into consideration in assessing the evidence.
Go ahead, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Thank you very much.
Q. I'm going to move now to 1987, and you will understand, Mr. Jokanovic, that I'm taking you through matters chronologically and at as deliberate a speed as is possible with the time constraints in order that we can see things as they developed, to assist the Court. In 1987, in April, in Kosovo Polje --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, could you just hold for a minute.
MR. NICE: Of course.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I've been considering the question of fairness to the witness, because it is a fairly substantial document that you're going through, and it's not translated into his own language. Now, the Chamber has in the past allowed both parties to examine on documents which are not translated when they are fairly brief. What is the explanation for not having it translated into his 34116 BLANK PAGE 34117 language, into B/C/S?
MR. NICE: First of all, there is no need under the Statute to do so, and it hasn't been the practice of this Chamber. Secondly, although I've taken him through these passages somewhat extensively in order to meet any allegation or comment of unfairness, and as you will have appreciated, nearly all that I've relayed has been matters outside his particular personal knowledge in the sense that it wasn't him as an interviewee but it was him to comment on a very general description, and it simply wouldn't be possible, with the limitation of valuable interpretation resources or translation resources, to have documents that are prima facie admissible like this translated into the language of the witness.
Your Honour, Mr. Struggles, who sits here, and I have been discussing how much more of these we are going to rely on in any event. Maybe not very much, for reasons of time, and if so, they will be only selected items. But when witnesses come with the very limited information available to us on the 65 ter summaries, we have to prepare a range of materials to deal with what they may say. Sometimes it's short notice. After all, witnesses are comparatively short notice with this accused and this series of witnesses, and it simply wouldn't be realistically possible, probably, to get something like this translated into B/C/S. I don't know, I'll ask Ms. Dicklich how long --
JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the substantial nature of the document that worries me. But you say that you will only be dealing with certain selective parts. 34118
MR. NICE: If at all. And I repeat that the number of items that I've read out so far that relate to this witness have been perhaps ten lines at the most, and for the rest I've been asking his comment on a general description and I've been attempting to ensure that that is the evenhanded description insofar as the press have got it right that emerges from the press report.
So I would press the Chamber not to restrict us from using documents in this way given that it complies with the regulations of the Tribunal.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Nice, but I'm bound to say that I for one, in assessing the evidence, will take that into consideration.
MR. NICE: It's a necessary limitation.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
MR. NICE:
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, can we move now to April of 1987, where the accused went to Kosovo Polje twice, I think, and where he made his famous, "You will not be beaten again" speech. Were you there?
A. I didn't attend that rally. I was in Kosovo, however. I was in Pristina, working in the government organs, not the party organs. The rally in Kosovo Polje was a party rally attended by members of the League of Communists, and I don't know who else attended because I wasn't there. The president of the provincial leadership was there, as far as I can recall, and those who were professionally employed in the League of Communists of Kosovo. So it's correct that in 1987, Milosevic was in Kosovo Polje. 34119
Q. And before making his "You will not be beaten again" speech, it's right, isn't it, that stones, prepared and in a lorry, were thrown at the police who inevitably retaliated? That's right, isn't it?
A. Unfortunately, I don't know that. I don't know what you're referring to.
Q. If time allows, I'll show you a clip that deals with it, but I'll come back to that later.
As a result of --
JUDGE BONOMY: What's the point of that, Mr. Nice, if the witness wasn't there?
MR. NICE: Your Honour, hearsay rules do not, of course, restrict evidence in this place, and he's a member of the Communist Party. This is all very local, and there is -- and I will play it after the break. There is a passage that goes to suggest that this was indeed planned, and it's something that I'm going to suggest that this witness would have known about.
May I move on?
Q. As a result of what he said, "You will not be beaten again," the view was taken --
JUDGE BONOMY: I must say, Mr. Nice, that's the third time that has been referred to. It sounds to me, today, as though it's a speech you're making rather than cross-examining the witness.
MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I hope not. Sorry. I'm not sure which bit Your Honour is concerned about.
JUDGE BONOMY: "You will not be beaten again." 34120
MR. NICE: I'm sorry, yes. No, no. I see, yes. No, there's nothing in a speech about it. I'm trying to get the sequence of events before the Court. I'm trying to get the sequence of events before the Court because it has a significant impact on the approach that the Prosecution takes to 23rd of March, 1989 events.
Q. As a result of what was said, there was a disciplining of the accused by the party, wasn't there, because what he said was out of line with the brotherhood and unity because it effectively espoused a national cause, the Serb cause.
A. That's not correct. By Their Honours' leave, let me reiterate: I did not attend that rally. I was a member of the League of Communists, but I was a member of the Presidency of Kosovo, which was a state organ. I know quite a lot about what happened from the media, from radio and television. I saw the entire speech. This has been published in various books and newspapers. And what you are quoting, "No one will beat you again," this has been taken out of context. Let me try to explain what the crux of this speech was in order to clarify --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, I think you have answered the question. Just let's move on.
MR. NICE: Yes.
Q. The next thing that happens, and it's in 1987, is that the accused replaced Ivan Stambolic as president of the Communist Party, and I'd like you, please, to look at a short clip that shows something of that. It's one of two clips that I intend to play, subject to going back to play the other one. 34121
[Videotape played] "NARRATOR: To oust of the president's man, Milosevic canvassed every possible vote.
"[No interpretation] "NARRATOR: It was clearly an overwhelming victory for Milosevic. He savoured the moment.
"[No interpretation]"
MR. NICE:
Q. Does that summary of events concerning Stambolic's removal and the accused's succeeding to the presidency of the Communist Party accord with your recollection of events?
A. I was not a member of the League of Communists of Serbia. I did not attend that meeting. I did not attend any meetings of the League of Communists at the time because I was a member of the Presidency of Kosovo, so I attended meetings of the state bodies.
This exhibit, as it is called here, I think has now been shown to a witness who did not participate in these events. As Their Honours have observed, I have testified only to events in which I participated personally, things that I saw and heard myself. As for my comments, Mr. Nice --
Q. I wants your comments on two aspects, because obviously the change in the leadership of the Communist Party was something --
THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes. 34122 BLANK PAGE 34123
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wished to make a correction in the transcript so as to avoid the witness being impeached. It says here, "I was not a member of the League of Communists of Serbia." The witness could not have said this. He could have said he was not a member of the leadership of the League of Communists of Serbia, that he did not attend a meeting, but he was a member of the League of Communists. I don't want it to appear that the witness said something untrue. He could only have said, "I was not a member of the leadership of the League of Communists of Serbia," not, "I was not a member of the League of Communists of Serbia."
I'm reading from the transcript. In the transcript it says, "I was not a member of the League of Communists of Serbia." This is not correct.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I was not a member of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia, the Central Committee.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But you were a member of the League of Communists.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Nice, the Chamber is giving some thought to the line of cross-examination and whether -- and how helpful it is, because you're asking the witness questions in relation to issues like the last one, in which he was not directly involved. Of course we take in hearsay here, 34124 but it's really a question of how helpful it is to --
MR. NICE: My questions, if I may say so, will show the relevance.
JUDGE BONOMY: I think the point has changed, though, with the intervention of the accused just now. The point's been clarified because the answer that came up was he was not a member of the League of Communists. We now know that that's wrong, so the point has in fact been resolved helpfully by the accused himself.
MR. NICE: I'm grateful.
Q. And my two questions arise from the clip that we've looked at, matters, I suggest, that are going to be in your knowledge. First of all, the accused's takeover of the Communist Party, or the way he presented it was on the basis of the reforms that he wanted to push through in part; is that correct? Because he uses it. He says, "Nobody is going to stand in the way of our reforms." Is that right, that he took over the leadership in part, or he justified it in part because of the reforms?
A. That's your comment. I am not an analyst. I can give you my opinion, if that's relevant for the Chamber.
Q. As I must --
A. I am not an analyst who can analyse all political events.
Q. The second question arising from the same clip: Azem Vllasi was, of course, Albanian, communist, and a former close associate of the accused. On the clip he says that everyone was canvassed hard for their vote, although he declined to support the accused. Did you discuss this with Vllasi ever? 34125
A. I know Azem Vllasi very well. He was formerly a friend of mine, which doesn't mean he may not be a friend again in the future. I say a former friend of mine because of the events that followed. Azem Vllasi was a closer associate of mine than he was of Mr. Milosevic's. Whether pressure was exerted on him or somebody else, I don't know.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, the question was did you discuss this with Vllasi ever? What's the answer to that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I talked to Vllasi on several occasions, but he never told me that pressure had been exerted on him. We discussed numerous issues.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Very well.
Q. So we move from 1987 to 1988. Now, I think you told us you may have been present at one Central Committee meeting of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. I cut you off in your answer, but is that right?
A. I don't remember exactly what year it was, but the topic was Kosovo, and the president of the Central Committee, I remember that Korosec, the Slovene, was chairing the meeting, and this was an extended meeting of the Central Committee and that certain cadres from Kosovo were invited who were not members of the Central Committee. I did attend that session and I did participate in the discussion. Not as a member, however, but as a guest.
Q. May this have been in July of 1988 or are you not able to help?
A. I'm sorry, but I cannot recall the month now or the date.
Q. I'll not trouble you with that, but you can confirm, again just 34126 for purposes of chronology, that in 1988, and indeed in the October of 1988, there was trouble in Vojvodina, the other of the two semi-autonomous provinces; correct?
A. You said there was trouble. I don't know if it was interpreted correctly.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I never heard this expression. Mr. Nice is speaking English, so the transcript must be correct. He says "semi-autonomous." I don't understand this. What does "semi-autonomous" mean? [In English] "Semi-autonomous provinces."
MR. NICE: I'm not here to answer questions.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Does the witness have difficulty with that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't speak English. I speak Albanian. I don't know what it says here.
JUDGE ROBINSON: "Semi-autonomous." Do you have an understanding of that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do understand the expression, but it doesn't correspond to the facts. Vojvodina was an autonomous province within Serbia and a constituent member of the federation.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE:
Q. The trouble in Vojvodina by the autumn of 1988 when the accused was now president of the Presidency of Serbia, people went from Kosovo -- Communist Party members went from Kosovo as demonstrators in Vojvodina, and in due course the Vojvodina leadership was overthrown. What can you 34127 help us with about that?
A. I lived and worked in Kosovo, not in Vojvodina. I can give you my opinions, but I don't know how relevant they are.
Q. Is it right -- let's break it down. Is it right that Communist Party members, and maybe others, went as demonstrators from Kosovo to Vojvodina to demonstrate there? Just yes or no.
A. I can say neither yes nor no. I will say the following, however: Citizens from Kosovo who had suffered the various injustices that we have spoken about arrived in Belgrade on more than one occasion to visit various organs in the federation. Citizens of Kosovo also went to Vojvodina and Novi Sad. I remember seeing this on television. Which of them were members of the League of Communists and which of them were not, I don't know. We cannot speak of members of the League of Communists. We can only speak of citizens of Kosovo who went to Vojvodina in order to set out the problems they were facing and the difficulties they had. I know about this from the media, from television, from the newspapers, and that's what I can say. I don't know, however, how relevant this is as testimony.
JUDGE ROBINSON: That's for the Chamber to determine.
MR. NICE:
Q. And I'm sorry, I said president of the Presidency in 1988. He was president of the Presidency in May of 1989. I'm grateful to Mr. Struggles for correcting my note.
May I ask one question, if the Court is otherwise minded to take the break, before the break? 34128 BLANK PAGE 34129
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I think we'll take the break now. You want to ask one question? Okay.
MR. NICE: One question.
Q. You see, Mr. Jokanovic, I'd like your answer to this question, or problem: If the need for reform of the constitution in Kosovo was so heavily built on the separatist movement of the Kosovo Albanians and not driven by some other purpose, what on earth was the reason for withdrawing the level of autonomy that existed in Vojvodina? And that was effected by the movement, amongst other things, I'm suggesting, that was effected by the movement of demonstrators into Vojvodina. What was the purpose?
A. Your question and your manner of putting it and my understanding of it confirms everything I said during my testimony yesterday: Nationalism and separatist on Kosovo was only one of the issues that facilitated this process; however, there were numerous reasons to reform the constitution of Serbia. Whether the Republic of Serbia was able to exercise the basic functions that it had under the constitution, functions having to do with defence, with international relations, this had nothing to do with the ethnic make-up. It had to do with the fact of whether Serbia was or was not a republic.
As for nationalism and separatism, this speeded up the process and was just an additional argument in favour of this. The same applies to Vojvodina, where the predominant population was Serbian.
JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take a break now. Twenty minutes.
--- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m. 34130
JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE:
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, we're coming now to 1989, and Vojvodina's leadership having been changed, it's right, isn't it, that both at the end of 1988 and the beginning of 1989 there were serious strikes at the Trepca mine in Kosovo, including at the Stari Trg mine?
A. This question is specific, and the answer is yes, correct.
Q. And included in the concerns of the Albanian striking miners was concern about proposed amendments to the constitutional position of Kosovo.
A. The miner's strike in Trepca occurred in January 1989. Their principal demand was a political one. They wanted the replacement of several prominent Albanian leaders; Ali Shukrija on the federal level, Rrahman Morina, and Mr. Hasani. That was their basic demand. However, there was also a degree of manipulation with the miners who were deluded into believing that constitutional changes would deprive them of schooling in their mother tongue, that they would be deprived of their equal rights to use their own script and language, and the miners strike was essentially a manipulation of the workers in order to achieve well-known objectives.
Q. The three men you referred to, Sinan Hasani, Rrahman Morina, and Ali Shukrija, had been imposed in place of three other men Kaqusha Jashari, Sinan Hasani, and Azem Vllasi. Those replacements were in order to find people more favourable to this accused, weren't they? Vllasi and the other two lost their jobs and were replaced by loyalists to the 34131 accused; correct?
A. No. That is not true. No one can say that Ali Shukrija was a man who was brought in as a yes-man. He was a man of integrity, decorated with the award for veterans, who joined the national liberation struggle in 1941. In any case, he was a man of complete integrity, and no one in Serbia had enough power to simply replace one set of people with another.
Q. But I'm right, aren't I, that the three names I gave, Jashari, Hasani and Vllasi, were the names of the post holders to whom jobs were given to Morina, Hasani, and Shukrija. I'm right about that, aren't I?
A. Well, the places were not given to them. The competent Fora elected them to those posts. The elected -- the competent organs of the party elected them.
Q. Quite.
A. Nobody imposed them.
Q. The Communist Party forum elected them, and that brings us to what actually happened on the 23rd of March of 1989, but we'll take our time to get there so that we can make things clear.
First of all, it was on the 3rd of February - do you recall this? - that the National Assembly of Serbia passed the amendments to the constitution which would have given more control over Kosovo's security, judiciary, finance, and so on. That actually happened on the 3rd of February.
A. On the 3rd of February, the Assembly of Serbia enacted the amendments which were later proclaimed on the 28th, according to the procedure which was then envisaged by the constitution of Serbia. 34132
Q. Because, of course, at this stage and under the 1974 constitution, Kosovo's consent was required in this non-central republic. Help me with this: The proposals that Serbia made to bring it into line with the other republics were different in one material respect, weren't they? When the amendments were effected, Kosovo and Vojvodina would still retain their voting seats on the Presidency of the federal government, so that Serbia would have three votes, whereas all the other republics would have one; correct?
A. Not correct.
Q. Explain, then, please.
A. I can explain. The position of the provinces within the federation did not change at all. After the passing of amendments, the Assembly of Kosovo elected Riza Sapundzija, a member of the Presidency, by secret ballot. Thus it was not a Serbian vote in the Presidency of Yugoslavia, it was a vote of a member of the Presidency from Kosovo within the Presidency of Yugoslavia. His name was Riza Sapundzija. He was elected on the 5th of May.
Q. I follow your point and we will see what happened to Sapundzija later, but if you won't accept my first proposition, you'll accept this perhaps: Coming from the Serbia inclusive of Vojvodina and Kosovo under its amended constitution that Serbia pressed for, there would be three people on the Presidency of the federal government, whereas for each other of the republics there would only be one. That's true, isn't it?
A. No, that's not true. First of all, we're not talking about the government here, we're talking about the Presidency of the SFRY. Second, 34133 the Assemblies of Vojvodina and Kosovo elected their members of the Presidency themselves. In the case of Kosovo, the elected members were Albanians. I said Riza Sapundzija was elected after the passing of the constitutional amendments. And the member from Vojvodina was elected by the Assembly of Vojvodina. I cannot recall the name at the moment. It could be Kostic.
Q. Very well. Jugoslav Kostic maybe?
A. Yes, you're right, Jugoslav Kostic.
Q. Now, next event is this: On the 20th of February - do you recall this? - there was a further miners' strike. This may actually be the one where there was pressure for the return of Vllasi but I make no criticism of your ascribing that to the earlier strike. There was another strike on the 20th of February, and some 1.300 Albanian miners went on hunger strike.
A. In February -- I know there were strikes in January. I don't know. It's possible there could have been some in February too. As for the number of miners involved, I really don't know, but they did go on strike. And I said earlier it was a sort of manipulation of workers under the slogan, "Let us not give up on our cadres."
Q. Elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia, and in particular in Ljubljana in Slovenia, there were rallies in support of the Kosovo miners with Kucan, to be President Kucan, as he became, aligning Slovenian and Kosovar interests and concerns; correct?
A. That is true to a large extent, but I can explain why.
Q. Maybe later. But meanwhile, as you explained yesterday, and I'm 34134 BLANK PAGE 34135 opening but not to go through in detail, meetings of various kinds were held, reflected in some of the documents - I don't know if you know about this, Mr. Jokanovic, I hope you do - that were served in anticipation of being used in your evidence by the accused. Various meetings were held of Communist Party organs dealing with the upcoming proposal for amendment of the constitution; correct? Various meetings.
A. I think there was a large number of meetings in Kosovo as well as in Belgrade, both at the federal level and at the level of the Republic of Serbia.
Q. And so that we can understand the way the communist system worked, and you adverted to this yesterday yourself, decisions were made at a local level, and people came to a meeting on the 23rd of March as delegates, largely.
A. Is that a question?
Q. Yes. The people came with the decision as to how they should vote already made.
A. Mr. Nice, I think you are insufficiently familiar with our very complex constitutional system in which we lived. It was dominated by the so-called delegate system, and that implies that before making his own decision, a delegate has to consult and find out the opinion of the constituency which elected him delegate in the first place. That is a very complex system in which we lived, and it was an attempt --
Q. And I can try and find the part in your evidence yesterday. Am I right that, for the most part --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just let him finish. It was an 34136 attempt --
MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You were saying it was an attempt, the delegate system was an attempt to do something.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It was an attempt to promote socialist self-management, a unique system in the world. And it was precisely at the time when it was perfected to a certain degree and when it started to really function, Yugoslavia dissolved.
MR. NICE:
Q. Now, amongst the documents that we were provided by the accused in anticipation of your producing them, but that wasn't possible, are such things as, and I'm just going to read the titles, a Session of the Coordinating Body of the Commission of the Assembly of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo of the 20th of February, 1989. Another one was the audio recording of the meeting of the Constitutional Commission of the Assembly of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo on the 13th of January. Another was a tape recording of the Session of the Constitutional Commission of the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo on the 5th of January. And the last one I can identify is a transcript of an audio recording of the Expanded Session of the Coordinating Body of the Constitutional Commission of the Assembly of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo on the 4th of January. Now, to the extent possible in the time, and limited by the translations available, will you accept, Mr. Jokanovic, that the local discussions held reflected in these documents do not refer at all, unless 34137 I've missed it, to violence by Albanians and probably do not refer at all to the issue of Albanian separatism, and they proceed entirely on lines of being concerned with constitutional change focusing on such things as education. Would you accept that?
A. Those meetings were of professional nature. There was a large number of them which reflect the serious and meticulous work on the wording of constitutional amendments. Every word, every comma was debated, every formulation. And everyone was given the opportunity to express their opinion so that all the views could be ultimately harmonised.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, I hope that I pointed the matter in which I have an interest, but if I didn't, I'll repeat it. We will find or we're unlikely to find in these records any reference to violence by Albanians or Albanian separatism as the cause or justification for constitutional change; correct?
A. When legal professionals with Ph.D.'s in constitutional law deal with constitutional solutions, they do not discuss the political situation on the ground. It is this document, the policy of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, that deals with the political situation. And if you're interested in that part, that was in the purview of political bodies.
However, the constitutional commission consists of professionals who concentrate on legal technical matters.
Q. I've asked the question and I'm going to move forward in time. After the Ljubljana rallies in support of the Kosovo Albanians, there was 34138 one of the rallies in Belgrade, I think to which you referred when you said people went to Belgrade, and perhaps you can -- I just want you to look at a short clip of this, please.
[Videotape played] "NARRATOR: They gave Milosevic the power to use the Yugoslav army in Kosovo.
"[No interpretation] "NARRATOR: The crowd had waited all day for Milosevic to tell them that Kosovo would be theirs again.
"[No interpretation]"
MR. NICE:
Q. Were you at that rally?
A. I did not attend this rally.
Q. Did you see it on television?
A. Of course I saw that on television, and I read the press coverage.
Q. This was whipping up Serb nationalism at a very great level, wasn't it?
A. No. Mr. Milosevic says that the Serbian leadership will work for just and fair aims. I hope this was correctly translated. And he says there is no such force that will prevent the leadership of Kosovo to punish those who are working against the people, against the state. I heard it even before, so I cannot agree with your statement.
Q. You will recollect that a few days after this, on the 27th of February, the accused persuaded the federal government to initiate emergency measures; correct? 34139
A. You ascribe great power to Mr. Milosevic, or the accused, as you call him. Unfortunately, he did not have such power. You seem to imply that he was able to dictate the federal government, the republican government, the people, and everybody. He couldn't even dictate anything to me. And I was in public and political life before he ever appeared. When Milosevic told me something and I didn't agree, I didn't obey him. And if he had suggested something to me that I couldn't go along with, I would not have obeyed. So I think you are ascribing to him a sort of power that he didn't have.
Q. Emergency powers were imposed, and the consequence of that for Kosovo was the following: Troops arrived, and indeed we just saw, at the beginning, the tanks rolling in. A curfew was imposed and strikes were prohibited, all at the end of the February of 1989; correct?
A. Emergency measures were introduced by the Presidency or the federal government, I can't remember any more. And pursuant to that, decisions were made later on to restrict movement in Kosovo and forbid assembly in public places.
President -- that is Prime Minister Nazmi Mustafa, Official Gazette of March 1989 -- I don't know whether that's precisely the issue. There is a set of them here. It is true that emergency measures were introduced.
Q. On the 2nd of March, Vllasi, who had opposed the accused when he went for Stambolic's job and got it, and who had been cried out for by the Serb crowd in Belgrade, he was arrested, detained for five months without charge, and then tried for some alleged offence; correct? 34140 BLANK PAGE 34141
A. Azem Vllasi was tried in Kosovska Mitrovica, and he was acquitted by the court.
Q. At the time we are concerned with, the changes to the constitution, Vllasi was arrested, off the streets and in prison.
A. I can only suppose. I don't know. But Vllasi was qualified as the organiser and manipulator of the strikes and demonstrations in Kosovo because he had lost his leading position in Kosovo and Metohija. However, later, at trial, it was not possible to prove it, and according to our law, he could not be convicted for political activity.
Q. Let's now turn to the meeting of the 23rd of March of which we saw a clip yesterday and for which we were provided at one stage, although not to look at in detail, with this exhibit, Exhibit 254. The document that came with -- in incomplete form, did you bring this document or was this already made available to you by the accused when you came here to The Hague, Mr. Jokanovic?
A. Which document? Can you just give me the title?
Q. Certainly. Did you bring this one with you or was it already here when you --
A. I brought with me the original, and this was probably submitted to Mr. Milosevic earlier. What I have with me is the original.
JUDGE KWON: What's the number again, Mr. Nice?
MR. NICE: It's 254.
JUDGE KWON: 254 is tape recording of the joint sessions of all three Chambers?
MR. NICE: Yes, that's what it's headed. 34142
JUDGE KWON: It's in English.
MR. NICE: It's in English and in Serbian.
JUDGE KWON: And in Serbian too.
MR. NICE: You'll remember yesterday I explored the format of the document, revealing how there were missing pages, and the pages at the end, although they met some of the deficit they didn't actually complete the document.
Q. If you could be good enough, please, to go, in the English to page 35 but in your version can you just take that document in front of you. If you would be good enough to go to page 70 -- can you give it -- give it to me and I'll find it. 74, I think.
A. 74.
Q. At the top. And if you come back one page before 74, you will see you come to page 71 in the version we have. Is that 71 in your version?
A. Yes. I have 71.
Q. So that pages 72 and 73 are missing, and they are the body of the speech of Avdi Trnkoli.
MR. NICE: I'm going to take the Chamber to one, and I suspect only one more, of the open-source documents that I handed in this morning, because it may fill in the deficit that this document leaves. And if you'd be good enough, please, in this bundle of papers to go to the top right-hand corner 5634. If the usher would be good enough to put that on the overhead projector.
MR. NICE: Does the Court have this on the screen? Mine is not working, I'm afraid. Never mind. We can do it with documents until it 34143 becomes live again.
JUDGE ROBINSON: It's there now.
MR. NICE: Thank you.
Q. What we're looking at is a BBC summary of world broadcasts for the 28th of March, 1989, and if the Chamber would, and the usher would be good enough to go along two pages to K0485636 at the top. We see -- and there are three paragraphs that I'm going to read on the BBC summary of this meeting. I'll read them slowly, Mr. Jokanovic, because they say something about what Ms. Trnkoli said. It starts at the top of the page. "Some Albanian delegates today continued openly to express reservations regarding the amendments to the Serbian Constitution. For instance, a number of delegates called for the verification" - and I don't understand what follows - "of some amendments. Amendment 47 which regulates the changes to the Serbian Constitution was most referred to. Some delegates claimed that this amendment had not been submitted for public discussion and warned that for the time being it cannot be voted for or against.
"Delegate Melihate Trnkoli became involved in a detailed 'examination' of the position of Serbia and said that Serbia was a republic with a specific position which in her opinion means a state of a special type because of the two provinces within it. For Melihate Trnkoli this is Serbia's privilege and she therefore does not understand the equation of the position of this republic with other socialist republics in Yugoslavia. This would mean, according to her, the abolition of the autonomy of the provinces ... 34144 "Similar 'arguments' against amendment 47 were voiced by delegate Uka Riza. In his words, the framework for the changes to the Serbian Constitution were not adhered to. He therefore suggested that no consent be given to amendments 29 and 47 which were claimed not to have been submitted for public discussion ..."
Just for completeness but -- not for completeness, but if we just go to the bottom of the page, we can see how it's summarised, where it says:
"The delegates of all the three Chambers of the Kosovo Assembly gave the green light to the constitutional changes in the republic and province after an open vote. Consent was given by a majority vote to the inclusion of amendments nine to 49 in the Serbian Constitution. Only 10 delegates were firmly against and two abstained. This solemn act, as it was described by many, ended by a long standing ovation. Assembly President Vukasin Jokanovic stressed in his brief address to the delegates that this historic day would be the beginning of a happier -- a better and happier future for everyone in the province."
So do you recall the opposition raised by at least one but it may be more delegates; Ms. Trnkoli?
A. I do remember. It is true that Delegate Trnkoli, a young girl, had a very long speech, longer than my introductory speech, whereas the other Trnkoli mentioned here is her uncle. And this other delegate, Riza, they expressed their opinion, gave their comments, objections. During that session they were able to say whatever they wished to say. We had a democratic atmosphere in the Assembly. Their objection was that this 34145 amendment 47 was not publicly discussed enough, and the issue is what is the purpose of public discussion? The purpose is for the draft to be sent to all citizens, all workers, all places where people can express suggestions, proposals, and so on. Suggestions were expressed in Vojvodina, Serbia, and Kosovo.
In Kosovo, we had some unacceptable proposals and in Serbia itself there were such proposals. We in Kosovo rejected such proposals that were unacceptable, and out of this public discussion, amendment 47 was formulated to restore back to Serbia the constitutional powers that each republic had. This is a sovereign right of each republic, except that --
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... we are going to look at amendment 47, and I have it here for you in B/C/S and for us in English, I think, but I want to stick with the process whereby this vote was effected.
You've already confirmed, I think, that for the most part, people came to the meeting with the way to vote already decided; correct?
A. Their constituencies had decided, all municipalities, a total of 22 municipalities, in all organs, both at the level of the province and at other levels. They had a discussion, and then they took a position that their delegates were to follow.
Q. And under the complicated or complex communist system in operation, it would be extraordinary for a meeting of this kind not to vote in the way it eventually voted; correct?
A. I don't know what you have in mind.
Q. I'm suggesting to you that after this process of discussion, and 34146 it goes over for several years, with delegates reaching a decision under the Communist Party system, it would be extremely unusual, it may even be unique for them to come to a meeting like this and vote other than in the way proposed. These amendments were bound to be passed. Is that right?
A. Had to. I don't think so. This was a result of the entire effort carried out in the society. Nobody was forced into voting this way or that way. This was a result of three years of work. And when something has been harmonised and formulated at a certain level, and delegates were not free agents who could act as they pleased, however, they were not banned from expressing their opinion.
Delegate Trnkoli did express her opinion, and in this document you will find what other people stated from her municipality, saying that that was her personal opinion, that she wasn't right, and so on.
Q. Because we have a body here, 70 per cent Albanian but 100 per cent communist; correct?
A. I'm not sure about it. I don't think that is correct, because some delegates came from the League of Communists, some delegates came from the Socialist Alliance, and then the third group came from the unions. So there could have been delegates who were not members of the League of Communists. However, those who had been delegated by the League of Communists automatically were members of the party. We didn't keep records as to who was a member and who wasn't.
Q. As delegates, full-time bureaucrats? The delegates there, full-time bureaucrats?
A. No. These were people from the ground and the Assembly had 34147 delegates representing social structures in the society and other structures, meaning that all nationalities were represented, citizens were represented, farmers were represented. None of these people were bureaucrats, none of them were paid from the budget by the Assembly, except those who were in leading positions in the Assembly such as myself and several other people. Delegates were paid per diem when attending sessions.
Q. And Assembly members, before this vote, had been called in by government officials and by political representatives - do you remember this? - and instructed how to vote?
A. I don't remember that they were called in by government officials. I don't believe that government officials called anybody in. The delegates represented the municipalities who had delegated them. And at that level, in their constituency, they discussed various proposals, they harmonised the opinions. There were representatives of the unions, of the League of Communists, Social Alliance, and so on. The government, which at the time was called the Executive Council, was not authorised to call anybody in, unless some of them had private conversations with some delegates, but I'm just assuming this.
Q. In the hall on the day, there were members of the DB, the secret police, present. What were they doing there?
A. The Assembly had its own internal security personnel, just like any other parliament would in the world. No members of the state security or any other similar persons were present. I don't know who from the state security was present there. I didn't notice any such presence as 34148 president of the Assembly. The state security at the time could not have been anything else but the state security of Kosovo, who at the time was headed by an Albanian. The minister of interior was an Albanian. The chief of state security was Brosaj, and minister of interior was Karakushi, therefore both Albanians.
I don't think that -- or, rather, I think that the Prosecution believes those people who want to present the work of the Assembly in a distorted way. You have obviously received information from those who want to depict the situation in such a way as to favour them, and their goals are quite clear. They're clearly expressed today. Their goal is an independent, sovereign Kosovo.
Q. I'll return to the available evidence a little later, but it was drawn to your attention yesterday that the indictment contains an allegation that there wasn't the necessary quorum. The validity of this vote that you told the Judges about yesterday has in fact been challenged before, hasn't it?
A. I -- the interpretation I heard was "the validity of this vote." You mean the voting?
Q. Yes.
A. What do you have in mind? The voting? You mean the voting in the Assembly?
Q. The validity of the decision in the Assembly has been challenged before, hasn't it?
A. Challenged by individuals who had a clear separatist goal, a goal to create Kosovo as a republic and to detach it from Serbia. Other than 34149 that, it was not challenged in any other official forum. You can even see in this document --
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... as to how it was that the challenge could never be allowed to reach a conclusion. But my suggestion to you, Mr. Jokanovic, is this: The meeting where voting was by a show of hands included people within it people who weren't entitled to vote, packed with other individuals. And that's an allegation that you've heard before as well. Isn't it?
A. I could read or hear such allegations uttered by those same people who had a goal that I just explained to you.
Q. And as you explained yesterday in answer to His Honour Judge Kwon, it's perfectly possible to have a secret ballot, but you chose to go by a show of hands in a packed hall.
A. First of all, it was not up to me to choose a voting procedure. We had rules of procedure in the Assembly, and in principle voting was public by raising hands. If delegates wanted the voting to be done in any other way, then they expressed such proposal, it was discussed, and then decided upon. There were no such proposals on that occasion. As I said, it was both a working and a solemn session, and it was decided that it would be -- the voting would be open, public. At the time it was not my decision. It was in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Assembly and in accordance with the constitution.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you did ask whether the meeting -- well, you put to the witness that the meeting was packed with people who were not entitled to vote. 34150
MR. NICE: Indeed.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, could you answer that specifically. You gave a general answer that that is the kind of allegation that would have been made by separatists, but I think you should answer that question specifically.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What Mr. Nice asked me is not true. On the first page of the stenogram notes, you can see the names of the people attending. Among them were representatives of highest organs of the federation, republic. There were people from the Constitutional Commission of Serbia, socio-political organisations of the province, general secretary of the Federal Executive Council, and representatives of municipalities. They attended there -- that as guests, and they were present in the hall. I believe that there were 20 to 30 such guests attending the session, and everyone -- everybody else and the remaining people were the delegates. And you can see on the first page that I greeted all of these people.
MR. NICE:
Q. Finally on the circumstances in which the vote was taken --
JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I have the first page but it doesn't seem to have names of the people who attended. It gives a few names, but it doesn't list 190 or 187 delegates.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I wish to inform the deputies that the following comrades are also present here as guests," and then there's a list of people attending as guests.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jokanovic, the question should be this: Among 34151 the people who were present there, were there people who were not actually delegates pretending to be delegates and voted? Were there such persons?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were no such persons. We had guests, but guests did not vote precisely because they were guests. These people attended this session ex officio. They were there as guests. As for somebody impersonating deputies at the session, that's a fabrication. Do you think that maybe some of those 180 journalists or photo reporters present there would not have been able to tape and record those impersonators or tape or record that tanks were present, police were present? These are all attempts to distort the truth, to present this event in a different light.
JUDGE KWON: And, Mr. Nice, before we get rid of this Exhibit D254, I don't follow why you directed us to note there's some missing pages 73 and 74 before which Avdi Trnkoli's speech appears, because Melihate Trnkoli's speech appear on English page from 19 to 22.
MR. NICE: If I've been pursuing the wrong --
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.
MR. NICE: That speech is there in full. You're quite right. I was pursuing the wrong Trnkoli, yeah, the one that's missing. And presumably what we find between 19 and 22 is reflected in the BBC's summary. I'm grateful for that. It's the other Trnkoli who appears to be missing. But I can simply also add this: That overnight it has been possible to contact Melihate Trnkoli, and she is now available as a witness, something to which we may return later.
Q. Because I don't know if you know this, Mr. Jokanovic, but I'm able 34152 to put to you both on the basis of what one of the delegates from within the Assembly was able to say and what President Rugova said in giving evidence before this Court, that there were indeed either tanks, or if not tanks, armoured personnel carriers surrounding the building as well as secret police inside it, and that all of this created an enormously oppressive pressure on delegates who had no choice but to vote these amendments through. And that's the reality of it.
A. I'm not surprised that Mr. Rugova stated that and that he believes that and keeps claiming that, because he has his own goals. He's the chairman of the party that has been advocating for 15 years secession from Serbia. So naturally he would use any chance given to him to score a point in that regard.
I -- what surprises me is that you believe such information. I graduated law in Skopje, and at law school we were always taught that the Prosecutor is duty-bound to reveal the truth, to uncover the truth and not just to listen to one side or to refer to Melihate Trnkoli, who spoke longer than I did. And this other person is her uncle.
JUDGE ROBINSON: I think Mr. Nice is aware of his duties as a Prosecutor.
MR. NICE:
Q. Let's look, shall we, at critical amendment 47. And if I can just place an English version on the overhead projector. This is already an exhibit. And the tab version for -- it's Exhibit 526, tab 5. And for want of time, I'm going to take you straight to the central part of the amendment you're saying was voluntarily voted through 34153 by the representatives of a formerly, so as to say the accused's misunderstanding, autonomous region.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask you to see if I can also be given amendment for 47 so that I can see it.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, you're entitled to have it. Yes.
MR. NICE:
Q. I'm interested, Mr. Jokanovic, and we'll wait and see if we can find another version for the accused, with subsection 5 of amendment 47, which is on the screen in English.
A. Do you want me to comment on it?
Q. The accused wants to have sight of it. Can we just find it, please.
Ms. Dicklich, as ever, able to make good in speedy time my lack of proper preparation.
This amendment is the critical one, isn't it, because it says: "Prior to deciding on a proposed act to change the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia shall send the proposed act to the Assemblies of the autonomous provinces for their opinions and take a position on those opinions." Is that right? That's the critical point, isn't it?
A. Item 5 of the amendment says that prior to deciding on a proposed act to change the constitution shall send the proposed act to the Assemblies of autonomous provinces in order for them to take their 34154 opinion, and then it will take a position on these opinions. Yes. The interpreters translated this correctly.
Q. Whereas formerly the position was that a change in the constitution required not just an expression of an opinion but required a vote by the Kosovo Assembly. It was able to make or break an application or an effort to amend the constitution. Yes?
A. I don't know if you are familiar enough with this, Mr. Nice, but that was in the constitution prior to these amendments, and after this amendment was adopted, the procedure was amended and then constitution could be amended in accordance with these provisions. And what you are saying was a formulation in the previous constitution.
Q. So that by this amendment, you're explaining to us, that the people of Kosovo voluntarily surrendered through your Assembly, or the Assembly over which you presided, its ability to determine its own constitution. It gave it completely to the Belgrade, Serbia government, didn't it?
A. The procedure was changed. The mechanism was changed. The procedure remained complex, the procedure to amend the constitution. It is certain that all competent organs gave their consent to the amendments from 9 to 49.
JUDGE KWON: So let me be clear on this. Mr. Jokanovic, what is reflected in this amendment 47 is the very abolition of the veto power of the Kosovo autonomous provinces. Am I right?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The change in the way constitution was adopted. Yes, that's what they did. Instead of a veto, they adopted 34155 a very complex procedure. But, yes, it could be said that veto was eliminated. And the power to formulate and pass constitution was restored back to Serbia. This is one of the main basic rights of every state, because Kosovo was in the position to pass its own constitution on its own without interference from Serbia.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MR. NICE:
Q. And the history of events, quite rapidly now, is as follows: As we've already heard, on the 28th of March, there was the ceremony presided over by Borislav Jovic where he proclaimed that Serbia is equal now. Remember that?
A. It was not a ceremony. It was a meeting of the Assembly of Serbia, all three councils with guests and all the delegates, and the delegates included a certain number of delegates from Kosovo, both Albanians and Serbs, and also others. Representatives of Kosovo were, therefore, represented. They were part of the Assembly. The session was held in compliance with the constitution of Serbia, and after the agreement of Vojvodina and Kosovo, the constitutional amendments were promulgated. This, therefore, was not a ceremony, it was a meeting of the Assembly.
Q. I'm sorry if I misdescribed it as a ceremony. I had in mind the two rows of women in identical clothing standing behind Mr. Jovicic that misled me. But if Borislav Jovic said that Serbia was equal now, it wouldn't be true, would it, because -- and I go back to the point I made before -- for the Presidency of the federal republic, there were now three 34156 votes in the territory of the Republic of Serbia, whereas there was ever only going to be one vote in the other republics. Correct or incorrect?
A. Incorrect.
Q. Had -- had --
A. There were two votes; one from Vojvodina, one from Kosovo.
Q. Let me ask the question another way. Why, in reforming the constitution in the way that it was reformed, didn't Kosovo and Vojvodina lose their right to have a person on the Presidency of the federal republic? Can you explain that?
A. You mean the Presidency, not the government.
Q. Yes, the Presidency. Sorry if I used the wrong word.
A. Because in the amendment you're referring to, in item 2 - and you can put it on this machine if you like - it says that a change in the constitution of Serbia cannot change the rights and duties of the autonomous provinces which are governed by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This could not be changed by the amendments I am testifying about today.
Q. These amendments took the best of both worlds, didn't they, because they left the three votes, but by the 1990 constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which of course was not subject to the veto of Kosovo, Kosovo no longer had a constitution. It had -- it no longer had its own Presidency. Is that correct?
A. I testified to the period of 1990 about events in which I participated and which I know about. In 1990 a new constitution was promulgated and our system was changed. A multi-party system was 34157 introduced and the constitution of Serbia was changed, modeled on constitutions of other countries in Europe. This then was a completely new constitution and a completely new situation which arose because of the overall changes taking place in Yugoslavia. The decision had already been made in Slovenia and Croatia that they were leaving Yugoslavia.
Q. So that its autonomy, Kosovo and Vojvodina's autonomy was completely withdrawn, yes, or abolished.
A. It was not withdrawn, it was not abolished. What was abolished, unfortunately, was Yugoslavia. Without Yugoslavia, there was no longer any province or republic left. What was abolished was Yugoslavia, in fact.
Q. Let's go back, then, to where we were. The amendments having been made in Kosovo and dealt with under the chairmanship or presidency of Borislav Jovic, what I don't think you told us about yesterday was this: In Kosovo there were massive demonstrations, weren't there? Kosovo that you're saying voted through its representatives for this change, there were massive demonstrations, with many people killed; correct?
A. There were demonstrations in Kosovo in March.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you refer to documents, may I, Your Honours, also refer to a document and read out something?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just tell us what it is that you're reading from.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are documents of the League of Communists of Kosovo evaluating and assessing these demonstrations.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And the date?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The date -- 34158
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this is an exhibit that was tendered yesterday. This is the set of documents I quoted from. I quoted the federal president of the Presidency. This is part of the same set of documents. The witness is referring to the conclusions.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the explanation. But what is that exhibit? What number is that?
MR. NICE: 253, marked for identification.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I read now?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Address, introductory address or keynote speech, page 67. "The events in March are the most serious so far because the Albanian nationalists and separatists came out into the open with the aim of destabilising Yugoslavia, threatening its territorial integrity, constitutional order. There has been not an inter-ethnic clash, but an armed clash between Albanian nationalists and separatists with illegal organs of the Yugoslav state. This is the most aggressive attempt so far by the separatist forces to cause large-scale riots and bloodshed."
And then another passage: "When the Assembly of Kosovo by an overwhelming majority approved the enactment of the new constitution of Serbia, the Albanian nationalists saw that they were losing ground for their nationalist activities. That's why they resorted to arms, not reconciling themselves to the fact that this Kosovo leadership is decisive in its decisiveness and in openly opposing the counter-revolutionary forces and ensuring peace and co-existence for all the people inhabiting 34159 the province." This was said by the Albanian Yasir Maj [phoen]. And he also speaks of those who were killed. He says: "In these demonstrations, two policemen were killed and --"
THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apology: 112 policemen were killed.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]"-- and two members of organs of public security were killed. There is much disinformation going around these days with a view to sowing panic and a lack of confidence in the measures taken by the Presidency of the SFRY. It should be said on this occasion that in the massive counter-revolutionary demonstrations 21 demonstrators were killed and 92 persons were wounded."
MR. NICE:
Q. I don't have the document you're reading from.
THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apology: Two were killed and 112 were injured.
MR. NICE:
Q. Going back to the point I was making, I think the answer is simply yes. After this amendment to the constitution by which in a very easy process the entire autonomy of Kosovo was abolished, many people were killed and injured, including two policemen; correct?
A. I read this out.
Q. Let me just move on, then.
A. Twenty-one demonstrators were killed, two policemen were killed, 112 policemen were injured, and 92 persons were wounded. These are the official data. You cannot say a large number of people and you cannot say 34160 that the province was abolished. I do not agree with these statements.
Q. I'm going to --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Not the province. The autonomy of the province was abolished.
MR. NICE: We will deal with the particular terms of the constitutions if we have an expert on one side or the other, or preferably both, in due course, Your Honours, but through this witness I'm just going to confirm the following:
Q. As early as June of 1990, under the new regime, special circumstances were found or decided upon which enabled action to be taken in respect of the Electrokosovo enterprise, the local television, the newspaper, and the mines, all to bring them under greater control; correct?
A. When?
Q. June 1990.
A. June 1990 I was working in Belgrade then, and I'm not familiar with the details.
Q. Well, as the person who presided over the change of the constitution so far as Kosovo's consent was required, I come back to what I said earlier about that vote having been challenged. It was taken to the Constitutional Court of Kosovo on the initiative of academician Gazmend Zajmi, and a lawyer, Bajram Kelmendi. Do you remember that? On the 27th of June --
A. What year?
Q. 27th of June -- 34161
A. When?
Q. -- 1990.
A. I'm not at all surprised. This was after the dissolution of the Assembly of Kosovo and after all these demonstrations and this attempt at armed rebellion. This was a situation when Yugoslavia had already fallen apart and when these separatist forces were able to do whatever they wished outside the proper institutions and declare whatever they wanted.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, that question admits of a very short answer.
MR. NICE:
Q. And you see, what actually happened, so that we can see the consequences for the rule of law in Kosovo, what actually happened was that there was something called a project decision in translation, and I don't know what that translates as.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is quite clear to me, because of the interpretation, and I'm not objecting to what the interpreter said but the interpretation was such that I feel the witness did not understand the question. The question was whether he knew that the decision of the Kosovo Assembly was challenged before the Constitutional Court. It seems to me that Mr. Nice mentioned the Constitutional Court either of Kosovo or Yugoslavia or Serbia, but that's how I understood the question, that a certain Kelmendi instituted proceedings before the Constitutional Court. That was the question. And the witness did not answer because he didn't 34162 understand the question.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said what year and so on, but I don't know about this, because if it was in the second half of 1990, I wouldn't know about it because I wasn't on Kosovo then. But by that time the Assembly of Kosovo had been dissolved because of the reasons I mentioned yesterday.
MR. NICE:
Q. I'll conclude my questioning on this point, just this: By something that's described in translation so I can't better identify it as a project decision of the court, numbered 54 of 1990, the decision, that is the decision that was made by the vote of hands that you've described, was annulled. That decision was never signed because the Constitutional Court itself was abolished by the new Serbian constitution. So the question of the validity of that vote, Mr. Jokanovic, never reached the court that should have decided on it. Is that true?
A. That is not true, because there is a Constitutional Court of Serbia, and there is also a Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia.
Q. My last question on this topic, and I don't want to trespass too much into the third session, but I still haven't seen the translation of the English of the version of the accused -- of what the accused said in the document that was not translated yesterday, and I have a few other questions to ask, but my last question on this topic is this: The very first witness in this Court said of -- when asked in cross-examination, said of this vote, "Some were braver and said, irrespective of violence, I don't agree with the changes," being the changes to the constitution. 34163 He'd already explained that the vote came about by the use of force, implied and express, on those who voted for it.
Mr. Bakalli was right, wasn't he? The vote was brought about by force but a limited number of people had the courage to say that they didn't agree with the changes.
A. This is not correct. And as for the feelings of individuals, I don't want to go into that.
Q. Your career has rather matched and went with that of the accused, didn't it?
A. No. My career began before that of the person you call the accused. I was a functionary as early as 1970.
Q. Let's remind ourselves - I'm grateful for that - that between 1986 and 1988 you were a member of the Presidency of Kosovo. March 1989, chairman of the Kosovo Assembly. June 1990, vice-president of the Serbian Assembly. 1990 to 1994, vice-president of the Serbian Assembly. 1996 to -- I beg your pardon, 1994 to 1997, ministry -- minister of the interior for the FRY. 1997 to 2000, state prosecutor.
Is that a rough summary of your curriculum?
A. Yes, but you didn't say what I had done before 1988 -- or 1986. Are you trying to prove that my career was parallel to the career of Slobodan Milosevic? That is absolutely not true. I was elected president of the Assembly of Kosovo and member of the Presidency of Kosovo before I even knew Slobodan Milosevic. And had he wanted to - let me finish, by Their Honours' leave - even had Slobodan Milosevic wanted to influence this election, he could not have done so 34164 because the organs on Kosovo were then in charge of the staffing policy.
Q. Just to complete the picture for my purposes, you held the position of chairman of RTS, the radio or television station between 1996 and the year 2000 so that you doubled up that job in the media with being both the minister of the interior and also the state prosecutor for a time.
Help us, please, is that what normally happens in countries of either the former Yugoslavia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that people with such important state functions can also be chairman of the board of a television company?
A. This is not what normally happens. It was due to circumstances because, as a federal deputy, I was on the board, and my task in the federal government was quite different. It had to do with a certain legislation because the federal Ministry of the Interior was then attempting to constitute itself because the republics of Serbia and Montenegro had taken over security affairs and because I had experience in constitutional and legislative matters, I was assisting with certain legislation on citizenship, on passports, on foreign residents, and so on and so forth. And that's how it happened that I held all these posts at the same time. However, this is not usual. It's not what normally happens.
At that point in time in the Rump Yugoslavia, my position was not one of power, it was simply something that had to do with the remnants of the posts at the level of Yugoslavia but which were by then very limited. However, I do agree with you that this is not what normally 34165 happens.
Q. Is it a way of exercising control over the press and the media?
A. No, by no means. The federal Ministry of the Interior did not have either a public or a state security. It only had its administration, and it looked after the security of government buildings and embassies. There were no employees doing anything else, and no employees dealing with what you are trying to say, coercion, and so on, threats. So that the federal MUP could not have exercised any kind of control over the media at that point in time.
MR. NICE: Mr. Nice, we have passed the time for the break. We'll take a break now for twenty minutes.
--- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
--- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll come, at the end of the questions I'm asking, to how to deal with the material I've just received. I'll ask a few more questions of this witness before then.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, we dealt just before the break with the impotence of the federal MUP, and I want to turn back now to something else.
MR. NICE: And for this I would ask the Chamber to look at one more part of the open-source material that we've been considering. It doesn't contain a quotation from the witness. It's on page 5647, and it's dated the 23rd of March of 1991, and it comes from the BBC. Mr. Jokanovic, I asked you some questions earlier on, and you responded by inquiring whether I was suggesting that in some way your 34166 career and its success was linked to the accused. At an earlier stage, you'll remember I'd said something about Sapundzija and how we'd have to see what happened to him.
The English version, which I will read slowly, of this 23rd of March 1991 report says as follows: "The Serbian parliament on Thursday [21st of March] nominated deputy Sejdo Bajramovic candidate for the Yugoslav Presidency member from Serbia's province of Kosovo. Bajramovic, an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo, should replace Riza Sapundziju, whom the Serbian parliament relieved of office on Monday [18th March]. In explaining the replacement proposal, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic said that Sapundziju 'has participated for some time in work at the Presidency of Yugoslavia to the detriment of Serbia and Kosovo-Metohija, and has openly advocated the separatist positions.' Bajramovic's candidacy is subject to approval by the Yugoslav parliament. Until then, vice-president of the Serbian parliament, Vukasin Jokanovic, will ex officio deputise for Sapundziju in the state Presidency." Two things then from this extract. One, separatist talk, even in 1991 was simply unacceptable to the accused, wasn't it?
A. I did not understand your question, really.
Q. Separatist talk, talking about advocating any form of separation for Kosovo, was unacceptable to the accused. That's why he got rid of Sapundzija.
A. Mr. Milosevic, as well as a large number of people, citizens and politicians both in Kosovo and outside were opposed to separatism. Riza Sapundzija, as far as I can remember, together with a member from the 34167 Presidency from Montenegro, Bucin, resigned. Sejdo Bajramovic, also an Albanian from Kosovo, was nominated to occupy that post. In the meantime, before the procedure for his election was completed, I attended, I think, two sessions of the SFRY Presidency, standing in for him, because I was from Kosovo and I was vice-president of the Assembly of Serbia. I was, however, not a member of the Presidency. I just stood in for him pending the completion of the election procedure. And Riza Sapundzija resigned. Nenad Bucin, too, resigned, from Montenegro.
Q. We can see what -- you've heard what and we can see what was said by the accused according to the newspaper article. At this time, before further disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, it was important for the accused, wasn't it, that he should have his four guaranteed Serb votes on the Presidency; one for Serbia, one for Vojvodina, one for Kosovo, and one for Montenegro, so that he always had four of the total number of votes in the Presidency. That's the truth of it, isn't it?
A. That is not true. Sejdo Bajramovic was from Kosovo. Kostic was from Vojvodina. They voted on the basis of the opinions and positions taken in the Assemblies of Kosovo and Vojvodina respectively, at least as long as the Assembly of Kosovo existed.
I do not agree with your attempts to ascribe to Mr. Milosevic the desire to control the Presidency. At the time, he was president of the Republic of Serbia, whereas the member of the Presidency was Borisav Jovic.
Q. Did you ever vote against anything the accused wanted in any of 34168 the positions you held?
A. I voted only in favour of things I believed in. I never voted against my conscience. There must have been events and issues on which I disagreed with a lot of people, including Mr. Milosevic, and it can't be that I always voted along with him. I have never been an executor of anybody's orders as you are trying to paint me here in order to discredit me.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, earlier in response to the same line of questioning from Mr. Nice, you said Mr. Nice was attributing too much power to Mr. Milosevic, and as an illustration, you said that if -- I believe you said that whenever Mr. Milosevic asked you to do anything that you did not want to do, then you would not do it. Do you remember saying that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that, and I still believe that. That's my opinion. I believe that I would have never followed anybody's orders, including Mr. Milosevic's, if they did not coincide with my beliefs.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Following on that, I was going to ask if you could give us one or two examples of occasions when Mr. Milosevic would have asked you to do something that you did not want to do and did not do it.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I will recall, and Mr. Milosevic can probably recall it, too, that I did not agree with many staffing proposals in Kosovo. I was against the election of many leaders in Kosovo who were elected eventually to important positions in Kosovo. I 34169 don't know if you want me to name these positions. And in my conversations with Mr. Milosevic, I said openly I didn't agree with these nominations. I can give you the names of the people, but I don't know if that is pertinent.
JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not necessary. That's not necessary.
JUDGE KWON: But if you could tell me why Mr. Milosevic gave you the names to be -- to be the candidate for that elections. What was his position?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean elections to the Presidency. Oh, you mean elections in Kosovo. Sorry. I understand now. Milosevic did not chart and pursue the staffing policy alone. He was one of the people who attended meetings which decided on staffing in Kosovo. I also attended such meetings, and I had a separate, dissenting opinion. I didn't always agree that the nominated candidates were suited to the positions, because I believed they were not capable of performing that job properly.
I did not agree with many staffing solutions in Kosovo and Metohija because I worked and lived there, and I was very familiar with the situation.
JUDGE KWON: Why did -- what position did Mr. Milosevic attend the meeting which discussed the staffing things while he was the President of Serbia? Was it discussed in Serbia?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The meetings that I referred to he attended in his capacity as president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, because the candidates in question were members of the Socialist Party, 34170 and those meetings included the leadership of the Socialist Party. I also didn't agree with some other proposals put forward by others, not only Slobodan Milosevic. The meetings sometimes discussed nominations of the Socialist Party candidates to the parliament, and on those occasions, I didn't always agree with him. I hope Mr. Milosevic also remembers that.
JUDGE KWON: In that capacity, did Mr. Milosevic not have sort of influence on the federal Presidency, as the president of the Socialist Party of Serbia?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did not have direct influence as President of Serbia, because Serbia had its own representative in the Presidency. It was Borisav Jovic. And it's probable that in discussing with Borisav Jovic while harmonising positions he did have certain influence. But also there were sessions of the Presidency --
JUDGE KWON: I'm referring to the position that Mr. Milosevic had taken as president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, not as the president of Serbia.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE KWON: So in that capacity you agree that he has a kind of indirect influence on the members of that party?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As every president of every party, he presided over sessions and had influence over the members. He propounded his positions and exercised general influence on the work of the party, including the proposals that the Socialist Party formulated and submitted to the competent authorities. However, he was not the only decision-making factor. There were also proposals coming from grassroot 34171 level and other fora.
Please, I don't believe that this magic wand was held by Slobodan Milosevic, and I don't agree that he appointed, replaced, decided. He had no such power. It's true he had authority. He was held in great esteem, and he propounded positions that were supported by many. However, there were also positions that not everybody agreed with.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jokanovic.
MR. NICE:
Q. You said yesterday, right at the end of your evidence, that your friend or neighbour, Bane Petrovic, protected Albanians from paramilitaries. Which paramilitaries were operating in Kosovo?
A. After the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, those so-called dogs of war appeared in Kosovo as well, with their criminal intentions to loot, to wreak havoc.
Q. What were their names?
A. Some sort of volunteers. Volunteers who got hold of weapons and came to Kosovo holding themselves out as fighters in the general chaos that reigned.
Q. Can you not give us a name or any name for these paramilitaries who were working in or fighting or doing whatever they were doing in Kosovo? There were various bands we've heard of. Could you give us the names of the ones that were in Kosovo?
A. All sorts of gangs whose names I don't know. Nobody knew their names, but there were gangs of two or three who were only interested in causing evil -- 34172
Q. Let's go back --
A. -- to the people of Kosovo, looting --
Q. -- to the early part of the history of paramilitaries. To remind the Court, you held Serb positions, vice-president of the Assembly and so on, between 1990 and 1994. The Red Berets were established on the 4th of May of 1991. Who were they paid -- you were in the Assembly of Serbia at this stage. Who paid for the Red Berets and how?
A. That's something I don't know.
Q. Well, the Assemblies both of Serbia and the Assembly of the FRY, are those bodies that have a say in the budget?
A. It's not that they had a say. They were the ones who passed the budget as proposed by the government, the same as in every state.
Q. If the government, whether the government of Serbia or of the FRY, was spending money on paramilitaries, it would be appropriate for the Assembly to be properly informed, wouldn't it?
A. It would have been appropriate if some funds were spent in a wrong way outside of the budget for somebody to raise the issue at the Assembly or in some other competent body. While I was in the Assembly of Serbia, nobody ever raised the issue of the existence of financing of any paramilitary groups, including the Red Berets. I am not aware of that, and I am absolutely certain that the budget had certain items concerning the administration, the government, and the MUP, and I don't think that could have ever been part of the budget.
Q. Before we move on from that, if it emerges -- this is a hypothetical question, so the accused understands what I'm saying. If it 34173 emerges that paramilitaries were commissioned by and paid for by Serbia, you in your position as vice-president of the Assembly should have been informed; correct? It's a pretty important thing, to be paying for paramilitaries, isn't it? You should have been informed.
A. I did not have to be informed. I wasn't, in fact, informed, and I didn't have to know anything about it. I was one of four vice-presidents of the Assembly.
Q. Let's pursue it a little more. You're a senior member of the Assembly. You get a budget to review. Did you review it? Did you read it and check what you were authorising expenditure for? Because there are two possibilities. Either you knew about it and you're not telling us, or either at this stage or at the later stage, we'll look at the FRY, the government was keeping this expenditure from the Assembly, and I just want you to help us with which one it is.
A. I, as a deputy to the parliament of Serbia, know nothing about the financing of the Red Berets. Anything that I might say would be totally ungrounded in any knowledge or information.
Q. You know of the existence of the Supreme Defence Council which operated as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, yes?
A. In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or --
Q. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
A. There existed the Council for the National Defence of the SFRY; right?
Q. Yes. Various titles will do, but that's one of them. Now, that body - and we've got all the documents, you see - 34174 created a system for paying for those fighting in the SVK and in the VRS, the Serbs fighting in Croatia and Serbia. It was under the 30th and 40th Personnel Centres which I must suggest to you was a fictional device for sorting out the money. Were you as a senior Assemblyman, Assembly member, informed of the existence of the 30th and 40th Personnel Centre and of how this money was being used to pay for those fighting in Croatia and Serbia -- Croatia and Bosnia? Were you, or was that kept from you?
A. It's not that it was kept from me, but it's neither the case that I know anything about it. As far as what the exact procedure was, I see that you have some information and you'll probably have the opportunity to question some other witness about it. I know nothing.
Q. I --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that it's clear from everything that Mr. Jokanovic has said here that he had nothing to do with the army, and I think it's a pure waste of time to ask him this. And by the way, Mr. Nice has gone considerably beyond his time. There is no point in asking this witness about the army with which he never had any links.
JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness can answer.
MR. NICE:
Q. In light of the accused's observation, Mr. Jokanovic, just help me with this: You said you were moving Yugoslavia into a Western democracy under his leadership. Do you understand that in Western democracy, 34175 supervision of financing is typically in the hands of what is going to be the lower of any two houses of parliament, typically, in order that the elected representatives may supervise how money is spent? Is that your understanding of basic Western democracy?
A. I have spoken about the constitution that was enacted with an eye on the constitutions of Western countries. However, I'm not a financial expert, and I don't know really anything about the supervision of the spending of budget expenditures. As an MP, I received certain background material --
Q. Forgive my interrupting you or seeking to interrupt you because I want to bring my questioning to a conclusion, but your last answer -- there's about two other topics, each of them can be very short. Your last answer doesn't fit very comfortably, does it, with the fact that it was you who, in 1994, conducted the investigation into the Dafiment bank?
A. I was a delegate to the federal Assembly, a federal MP, in the federal parliament which set up a board of inquiry that was to investigate into the circumstances that made it possible for this bank to came into existence and to operate in the way it operated. It is a parliamentary procedure within which MPs sought information from certain organs in order to present them to the Assembly. But that is not.
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... as president of the board of the inquiry. And this is a report that found a high level of corruption in a pyramid bank that was there to raise money and has been the subject of a further report since then. Not by you but by outsiders.
A. As chairman of that board of inquiry which was composed of federal 34176 MPs, I did not conduct the investigation. The investigation was conducted by organs of the MUP and the Court. I as an MP headed the board of inquiry.
Q. The accused Milosevic was involved in that bank, as has been found since in another report?
A. That was a good report that was drawn up by federal MPs, that was unanimously adopted by both the party in power and the opposition. And this board of inquiry got hold of a lot of information from all the organs who conducted the inquiry. They also heard Dafina Milanovic, and at no point did the board of inquiry establish that Mr. Milosevic was involved in the setting up or the operation of that bank. Our report speaks about the weaknesses displayed by the governor of the National Bank, inspectors, and other authorities, and I believe the report suggests a set of measures to deal with it.
As for Mr. Milosevic, statements of anybody about it, there is nothing to indicate that in any of the information that the board of inquiry had.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since a moment ago, Mr. Nice mentioned that I had something to do with that Dafiment bank, and he mentioned a report about it. Will you please mediate in order to enable me to get that report, because this is the first time I'm hearing I was involved with the Dafiment bank. I would really like to see that report he's referring to. I'm really curious.
MR. NICE: I will provide it to him. 34177
JUDGE ROBINSON: And, Mr. Nice, you have to watch the time now. We have to stop at a quarter to. The accused will need time for re-examination.
MR. NICE:
Q. My last question goes back to the same topic. Between 1994 and 2000, you were first federal minister -- federal minister of the interior, and then federal state prosecutor, Mr. Jokanovic. Apart from reading the newspapers and watching the television, you must have been informed by many, many government documents. I want you to help us, please, with this: It's very recently, as you will know, been made absolutely plain by the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro that Mladic's employment file shows he was kept on the books until 2002. How was he paid and why?
A. I don't know that. I only read about that in the press, and I've just heard it from you.
Q. In your position, assuming that in due course it's satisfactorily established that what is being conceded in Belgrade is true, assuming that's true, for you as minister of the interior not to know that, does that mean that people were keeping that from you? And, if so, who was keeping such information from a federal minister?
A. Mladic was in the military. What would the federal minister have to do with the army? I had nothing to do with the army. You are trying to implicate me in something of which I knew nothing and had no contacts with.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, before -- are you going to re-examine, 34178 Mr. Milosevic?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a few questions. And prior to that, I would like to kindly ask you, as I don't have enough time, the usher has just given me a copy of the report of the board of inquiry on the assessment of the situation in the sector of the Citizens Foreign Currency Savings, financial operations of the Dafiment bank, Mixed Ownership Bank D. D., Joint Stock Company, Jugoskandik, Inos bank, Srpsko-Moravska Bank, and Aleksandar Bank.
This is a voluminous document, and as Mr. Nice has just explained us that he has some information about my involvement in this, could you please ensure that I am told which segments of this document I need to read, because I don't have time to read it in its entirety.
JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness made no comment on it. There is no evidence on it.
Before you begin your re-examination, let's me just say that you raised the question of time for cross-examination. We allowed for cross-examination to go beyond the normal time because we thought it was warranted, though I should say, Mr. Nice, in future, we will be more strict in that because we have to ensure that the accused has time for re-examination.
Also, Mr. Milosevic, please bear in mind that any time that goes beyond the time allocated will not be counted against you. In the end, the obligation is to ensure that you have the same time to present your Defence as the Prosecutor did. Please start.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that it will be so, 34179 Mr. Robinson.
Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
Q. [Interpretation] Just a few questions, Mr. Jokanovic. Who introduced emergency measures in Kosovo in 1989?
A. In 1989.
Q. Well, the ones that Mr. Nice asked you about.
A. It was the Presidency of the SFRY.
Q. Thank you.
A. And the decisions were passed by the Executive Council of Kosovo. I have the Official Gazette here with me.
Q. Thank you. Amendment 47 has been mentioned here, and then its provisions were quoted. I'm not going to go into that, but based on what you gave evidence about here, based on what could be seen from the documents, did amendment 47 emerge from this democratic process and from the public discussion which took place throughout Serbia, including Kosovo, as its integral part? Yes or no.
A. Yes. And I stated what were the purposes of public discussions.
Q. All right. So amendment 47 was a result of a public discussion held by citizens.
A. Yes. In the entire territory of Serbia, including both provinces.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Jokanovic. Please tell me, here on page 1 you gave the names of the guests attending the session, and as it is a very brief list, it seems as though the number of guests is quite limited. I would like you to confirm something.
You informed the deputies that the session is attended by the 34180 following, and then you go on to say, Sinan Hasani, member of the SFRY Presidency; Sefcet Jasari, member of the Presidency of Serbia; Velimir Vukmanovic and Ferat Ahmeti, vice-presidents of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia; and then you just mention many other guests collectively. You say vice-presidents of the Constitutional Commission of the Socialist Republic of Serbia, representatives of the Yugoslav People's Army, representatives of all, and I emphasise all socio-political organisations of the province, and then you mention Deputy Secretary-General of the federal Executive Council, then deputy secretary for agriculture, and then you say "presidents of municipal Assemblies and other guests," which means that there were 26 representatives from municipal Assemblies in Kosovo, and then there are all these other people mentioned cumulatively. All of that indicates that this is quite a large number of guests. Is that clear?
A. Yes.
Q. So these guests who were not deputies to the Kosovo Assembly, did any of them vote at this session?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone vote except for the deputies of the Kosovo Assembly at the time, in the presence of 180 journalists?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned that there was no electronic voting at the time. It was a public, open voting. So do you know that even nowadays anybody can get records on how people vote, even though today in Serbia they vote electronically and that secret ballots were used only for very limited 34181 occasions? So is there any doubt that the session of the Kosovo Assembly was held in accordance with the constitution of Kosovo and the rules of procedure of the Kosovo Assembly at the time?
A. No, no doubt about that whatsoever.
Q. Was there a legal possibility, was it legally possible for any decision, including this consent to the amendments, to be challenged before the Constitutional Court?
A. Yes. Any decision passed could have been challenged at the Constitutional Court.
Q. Was this decision challenged before any Constitutional Court in Yugoslavia?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. In the explanations which followed this session of the Assembly, we saw the reports of the news agencies and so on. Ten people voted against and two abstained from voting. So in all of these reports, it was mentioned that those who voted against were persecuted and arrested later on. Please tell us, were any of these people who voted against persecuted or arrested?
A. No, they weren't. Nobody was persecuted or arrested for their vote in the Assembly. There was a provision in a law concerning that. People who were deputies had immunity.
Q. Mr. Jokanovic, just tell us this, please: At the time, the time that you spoke about, up until 1990 when you left Kosovo, could anyone from Belgrade have decided on any appointments within Kosovo?
A. No. Nobody from Serbia could decide or make decisions on who 34182 would be appointed to what position in Kosovo until 1990, when a multi-party system was introduced.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Jokanovic. I have no further questions for you.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jokanovic, that concludes your evidence. Thanks for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may now leave.
[The witness withdrew]
MR. NICE: Exhibits?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Exhibits, yes.
MR. NICE: Can I explain the position on --
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. NICE: -- Defence 253 marked for identification. Our understanding is that the document arrived untranslated in its entirety because the accused had asked for it to be translated in full and the service that provides translation had said that they wished to have identified passages to be translated, and they weren't provided with that -- an answer to that request and therefore they did nothing and they were unable to help.
At the last minute realising that we weren't going to get an English version, we identified passages that we thought would be of relevance. First of all, the whole of the content of the accused, given the line of the evidence that's been given by the witness on this topic, and various selected passages, and I reviewed these when I first saw them at the second break and realised that there wouldn't be time nor, in reality, would it be possible for me to have organised them sufficiently to present them in a satisfactory way to you. 34183 Our request is that the exhibits should go in with these passages, which we can make available, of translations as well so that there will be some selected passage. It would always be open to the accused to seek further passages to be translated as he had been requested by the translation service, and I'll reserve, as it were, rights to argue on these passages in due course, or possibly to put them to other witnesses, but they having now been translated, and in particular the passage of the accused in full on the question of the amendment of the constitution, but I think they're probably documents you should have.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll do that.
MR. NICE: Thank you very much. Secondly, this exhibit, we haven't, I think, given it a number. The open-source material. In the event, we looked at the first two, and we looked at one subsequent one or a small part of a subsequent one that starts at page 5632. I'm -- they're all of the like --
JUDGE BONOMY: Also 5647.
MR. NICE: 5647 as well. Yes, there are four. I'm sorry. I overlooked that one. I'm again entirely in the hands of the Tribunal whether we excise the others or simply leave them as a collection, possibly because they'll be returned to later, they covering the period of time with which we're particularly concerned.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Excise the others.
MR. NICE: Very well. We'll do that. Thank you for that. As I've already indicated, I will be seeking in due course to -- or may seek in due course to call the potential witness referred to today, 34184 and her name will be added to list B of the Prosecution list.
JUDGE ROBINSON: We haven't a number.
MR. NICE: Oh, I'm sorry.
JUDGE KWON: We need a number for that.
MR. NICE: His Honour Judge Kwon is always ahead of me on matters of housekeeping.
THE REGISTRAR: This document will be P796.
MR. NICE: Thank you.
JUDGE KWON: And how about the Article 300?
MR. NICE: Oh, yes.
THE REGISTRAR: Article 3 --
JUDGE KWON: No, I'm asking the parties where that came from.
MR. NICE: Part of an existing exhibit. It's part of an existing exhibit. Can the translation, when we get it, be added to --
JUDGE KWON: Do we have Article 3 in B/C/S already?
MR. NICE: We already have it in B/C/S.
JUDGE KWON: What's the number?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, transcript speaks of Article 3, when in fact it's Article 300. It's 300, not 3.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, 300. That's correct, Mr. Milosevic.
MR. NICE: The existing exhibit is entirely in B/C/S, Ms. Dicklich tells me. We can add -- 526, tab 6. There are already some, as I think I indicated earlier, some parts translated for the witness Kristan. We can simply, if this is acceptable to the Court, add the additional translation to that exhibit, Your Honour, if that would be acceptable. 34185
JUDGE KWON: So whole constitution is 526, tab 6.
MR. NICE: Tab 6, yes.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
JUDGE BONOMY: Is that where the translation is as well?
MR. NICE: That's where the existing partial translation is to be found.
JUDGE KWON: And you are not tendering the transcript of The Death of Yugoslavia.
MR. NICE: Yes, of course, I always forget. That as well, yes, those two clips from The Death of Yugoslavia.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the history is that we had decided not to admit the entire document, but some parts have been admitted.
MR. NICE: Correct.
JUDGE ROBINSON: But in relation to these two clips, the witness wasn't able to identify --
MR. NICE: If I may say so, I think in each case the -- in the first case, the evidence was there for several purposes, but you will recall that the -- that Vllasi, a man who has long been on list B, as a matter of fact, explained the background, and I asked the witness questions about that, which was the background to the change of the Presidency of the Communist Party, and in any event, the -- he knew of the event.
The second clip, which was the mass meeting that preceded the state of emergency was something that he knew about, and I think he said 34186 he'd seen it on television at the time, and it's clearly an important feature of the chronology in this case.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Then we'll admit clip 2.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: We will make a decision on these two clips later.
MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mark them for identification.
MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
JUDGE KWON: Number.
THE REGISTRAR: The number for the clips will be P797 marked for identification. Video clips 1 and 2.
MR. NICE: Your Honours, one other thing while I'm on my feet: The next witness, Terzic, is subject of an expert report. This morning we were -- or last night we were served with two very large full files of material, some I think not translated, or maybe the most of it not translated. I'm not sure how much -- what percentage is translated. Purely personally, it so happens that every second of the time between now and next Monday morning was already earmarked for work, nothing else, and so it will be quite difficult to divert to deal with two full binders but it's going to be impossible if a great deal of the material is not translated for me to deal with it. I say no more than that. It's just going to be very difficult to deal with this material if it's not translated and if it comes in as late as this.
[Trial Chamber confers] 34187
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you are consistently now presenting material not translated. We have in the past accommodated you, but the exception is becoming the rule, and I put you on notice that if it continues, we will bar the evidence. The Rules of the Tribunal have to be complied with, and there are very substantial and good reasons for those rules. So please bear that in mind.
We are adjourned until -- adjourned until Monday at 9.00.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of
December, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.