1 Q. You arrived on the 5th of December in the Croatian parliament.

2 You thanked them for their confidence. This was on the 5th of December,

3 1991. And you made a notorious statement to the effect that you thought I

4 have performed my task. Yugoslavia is no more. Is this so, Mr. Mesic?

5 We saw it on the video we played here a few days ago, and all of

6 Yugoslavia knows about this. You said: I think I have performed my task.

7 Yugoslavia is no more.

8 A. An excellent question. I will explain what this was about. The

9 Croatian parliament elected me to be the Croatian member of the Presidency

10 of Yugoslavia. I went to Belgrade, where first, for several months, I was

11 not allowed to take up my duties because the Federal Assembly was unable

12 to meet. After that, the Serbian bloc boycotted my election as president

13 under --

14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let him finish. You've asked him a

15 question. Let him give his explanation.

16 A. Finally, under pressure from the international community, I was

17 elected president. Croatia adopted a decision on its independence.

18 Croatia, in agreement with the international community, postponed its

19 secession from Yugoslavia by three months. This time period had elapsed.

20 Yugoslavia no longer existed. The federal institutions were no longer

21 functioning. I returned to Zagreb, and that's precisely what I said.

22 Because I did not go to Belgrade to open up a house-painting business. I

23 went there as a member of the Presidency of Yugoslavia. Since Yugoslavia

24 no longer existed and the Presidency no longer existed, I had performed

25 the tasks entrusted to me by the Croatian parliament and was reporting

1 back, ready to take up a different office. What was I to do in Belgrade

2 when the Presidency no longer existed?

3 Q. Very well, Mr. Mesic. This is truly worthy of admiration, your

4 explanation of what you said, but you haven't told me whether you actually

5 said: I have performed my task. Yugoslavia is no more.

6 A. The accused is a lawyer. He understands very well what I'm

7 talking about. My task was to represent Croatia in the Federal

8 Presidency.

9 Q. There is no need for you to repeat this. You said this in the

10 Croatian or Serbian language, or whatever you want to call it, and

11 everybody understood it. Your explanation now is obviously an attempt to

12 make this statement relative, but this is no longer important.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. In your public statements, or rather, in Tudjman's public

16 statements on Ban Jelacic Square on the 24th of May, 1992, said "There

17 would have been no war had not Croatia wanted it. But we thought that it

18 was only by war that we could win the independence of Croatia. That's why

19 we had a policy of negotiations behind which we were setting up military

20 units. Had this not been so, we would not have reached our goal." Is

21 this correct, Mr. Mesic?

22 A. I think that this could have been reported only by the Serbian

23 press, because it simply does not correspond to the truth. We know who

24 was in control of the press in Serbia. It was the accused, Slobodan

25 Milosevic.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Unfortunately, a few days ago we watched a video of this, and we

2 saw this speech on Ban Jelacic square, taped on video. Tell me, please:

3 Do you know that when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was founded and

4 the new constituted was promulgated on the 27th of April, 1992, a

5 declaration was adopted on the goals of the new common state, that is, the

6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, according to which, and I quote verbatim:

7 "Yugoslavia has no territorial pretensions towards any of the former

8 Yugoslav republics." Are you aware of this?

9 A. I don't know what the declaration on the establishing of the

10 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia says, but I do know everything that was

11 done to cut off parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and annex them

12 to Serbia.

13 Q. Mr. Mesic, you're telling us fairy tales about Karlovac, Karlobag

14 Virovitica boundary. When did you ever hear any official of the Republic

15 of Serbia referring to this border, and when did any body or organ of the

16 Republic of Serbia or anyone in Yugoslavia raise this issue and talk about

17 such a boundary? This is a pure fabrication that you are launching here.

18 Where did you get this idea?

19 A. It's quite understandable that those who perpetrated aggression

20 did not make such statements, but the Serbian minister, who was in the

21 government, one of the ministers of Mr. Milosevic, visited this boundary

22 with Vojislav Seselj, the Chetnik Vojvoda or leader, to show how far the

23 interests of Serbia reached.

24 Q. What minister are you referring to? And if a minister visits a

25 spot, if he goes to a certain municipality, does he go to a boundary or

1 does he mark a boundary? Was he marking a boundary there?

2 A. You understand very well that if someone visits Croatia,

3 especially an official, he should visit the official organs of the

4 Republic of Croatia.

5 Q. What municipal organs are you referring to if someone is visiting

6 a municipality? I didn't know you were a police state of that kind, that

7 someone visiting a municipality in Croatia would have to report to the

8 police.

9 A. I was not paid to teach the accused Croatian laws. I was paid to

10 implement them.

11 Q. Mr. Mesic, you are a university graduate. Did you ever learn

12 about the rights of peoples to self-determination, and do you know that

13 volumes and volumes of books have been written on this topic? Do you know

14 about this?

15 A. I think this question is pointless. Of course I do. Of course I

16 know about the right to self-determination. This is going too far.

17 Q. Well, then answer me, please: Where did you get the idea that, as

18 you said, the Serbs in Croatia do not have a right to self-determination?

19 Where did you get the idea, as you said on page 2 of your statement, that

20 according to the constitution of 1974, Yugoslavia was a confederal state?

21 You know yourself that this is untrue. Show me a single constitutional

22 provision to this effect. Is this correct or not, Mr. Mesic?

23 A. The Presidency of Yugoslavia was established as a confederal

24 institution because all decisions were made for the most part by

25 consensus, and the accused knows this very well. He also knows very well

1 that according to the constitution of 1974, the republics were called

2 states, and he also knows that, by virtue of their association into

3 Yugoslavia, they also had the right to disassociate themselves from

4 Yugoslavia. When a threat arose that Croatia and Slovenia might suffer

5 the same fate as Kosovo, Vojvodina, and Montenegro, Croatia made use of

6 its right to disassociate itself, and the Badinter Commission confirmed

7 this. Of course the Serbs have a right to their own state. That state is

8 the Republic of Serbia. But it is well known that national minorities

9 cannot ask to secede from the Republic of Croatia. They could ask for

10 that but they could not realise it, because the Republic of Croatia was

11 recognised in the borders established by Avnoj and the accused knows this

12 very well.

13 Q. Do you know that according to the Yugoslav constitution, it was

14 the peoples and not the republics that had sovereignty? Do you remember

15 that even the coat of arms of Yugoslavia had five torches, represented

16 five peoples: The Serbs, the Croats, the Slovenes, the Macedonians and the

17 Montenegrins, and then later on a sixth torch was added when the Muslims

18 were declared a constituent people? Are you aware of this, Mr. Mesic?

19 A. The constituent elements of the Federation were the republics,

20 plus two autonomous provinces: Vojvodina, and Kosovo. Those were the

21 constituent elements of the Federation. Symbolism is one thing, but

22 constitutional provisions are quite another.

23 Q. You assert that in the constitutions of Yugoslavia and the

24 republics, it was not the sovereignty of peoples that was the starting

25 point but the territory of the republics established in 1945; is that what

1 you're claiming? I just want to be clear so as not to waste time.

2 A. I have said what I had to say about the constituent elements of

3 the Federation. Croatia had the right to self-determination, and the

4 Serbs in Croatia had the right to protection, to protection of their

5 collective rights and of their status as citizens of the Republic of

6 Croatia.

7 Q. Very well. Let us proceed, then. Let us proceed at a faster

8 pace, so please answer me yes or no: Is it correct that all the

9 constitutions of Croatia, until the amendments introduced by you in 1990,

10 had a provision about the Serbs as a constituent people, not a ethnic

11 minority, as you have just said? For example, the constitution of 1945,

12 1963, 1974, the constitutional amendments of July 1990. So these

13 amendments of July 1990 for the first time left out the Serbs as a

14 constituent element of the Republic of Croatia. I'm referring now to the

15 constitution of the Republic of Croatia. Did all the constitutions

16 contain a provision about the Serbian people as a constituent people in

17 Croatia; yes or no?

18 A. One cannot reply to this question with yes or no. The

19 constitutions were enacted in different periods of time, in different

20 situations, and in different international environments. The

21 constitution, therefore, had different provisions at different points in

22 time. For example, the Yugoslav and the Croatian constitutions had a

23 provision which other constitutions, for example, do not contain, that

24 there are two kinds of groups: Narodi and Narodnosti, two kinds of

25 peoples, plus ethnic groups. The constitution was further developed up

1 until 1990.

2 Q. So the fact that the Serbs were left out of the constitution was

3 a development.

4 Do you know that on the 14th of May, 1887, the Croatian parliament

5 enacted a provision on the use of the Cyrillic alphabet? Are you aware of

6 this?

7 A. I was not aware of that particular piece of information, but I do

8 thank the accused for having given me this piece of information. That is

9 truly meaningful for me.

10 Q. And do you know about the rest, that what the constitution -- what

11 the assembly of Croatia adopted in 1887 was abolished in 1990 by your

12 parliament? They abolished the Cyrillic alphabet as an official

13 alphabet. Do you know about that? You went 150 years backwards. Do you

14 know that?

15 A. Yet another piece of information, very important to me, as a

16 lawyer.

17 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. Do you remember an entire series of laws,

18 not to mention taking over symbols, the symbols of the Nazi state of the

19 independent state of Croatia, for example, the law on the Academy of

20 Sciences and Arts, the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts? In article

21 1 it says that it is the legal successor of the academy from the period

22 from 1941 to 1945. The budget for 1991 does not envisage a single dinar

23 for the schools of Serbs in Croatia, but it does envisage money for

24 Italians, Czechs, Ruthenians, and other national minorities. The law on

25 the government allows the government to take measures against so-called

1 disobedient municipalities. The only executive government in Europe that

2 has the right to dissolve municipalities. The law on education refers to

3 the Croatian language only, and so on and so forth?

4 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. What is the question,

5 Mr. Milosevic?

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. The question is -- the question is: Is it correct that not only

8 through this behaviour and also the combination of this ethnic intolerance

9 towards the Serbs, but it is also through the adoption of many laws, the

10 Croatian authorities instigated nationalism and chauvinism not only in

11 Croatia but also a discriminatory, an insulting attitude towards Serbs in

12 Croatia. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Mesic?

13 A. Croatia adopted laws that gave equal rights to all its citizens

14 and protect national minorities, all vulnerable groups, actually.

15 National minorities are vulnerable groups, and that is why Croatia favours

16 positive discrimination of all vulnerable groups.

17 Q. Very well. Then give me a comment with regard to these following

18 statements: There are many such laws, and of course they did have to

19 cause concern. For example, a meeting of the parliament on the 4th of

20 October, 1990, the 4th of October, 1990, your own assembly. Damir Majovic

21 says: "Do not trust the Serbs even when they bring gifts." Stjepan

22 Sulimanac says: "Persons who moved in after 1918, who moved into Croatia

23 after 1918, a law should be passed with regard to such persons and there

24 should be protection from them." Then MP Ivan Milas says: "We are going

25 to use a sword in respect of your rights. The day of a final showdown is

1 getting near." Another MP says: "All Serbs should be isolated like Iraq

2 isolated the Kurds. A ghetto should be established for the Serbs." And

3 Praljak, what's his name, one of the helmsmen of the HDZ said in April

4 1990: "Outside the boys are already singing we are going to slaughter the

5 Serbs." And so on and so forth. Is that the right kind of atmosphere,

6 Mr. Mesic? Is that the atmosphere in which the Serbs were supposed to

7 view everything that was happening to them with confidence? And in the

8 meantime you dismissed practically all Serbs from the state

9 administration?

10 JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Now, you've read out a series --

11 you've read out a series of quotations which are said to have been made in

12 the parliament.

13 Now, Mr. Mesic, you can deal with that. First of all, do you know

14 if these statements were made, or these sort of statements, and if so, is

15 there anything that you can tell us about them?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were different statements that

17 will were impermissible, and it is certain that such statements harmed

18 Croatia. As for Slobodan Praljak, I must say that he was never a member

19 of the HDZ. When the HDZ was established, he was one of President

20 Tudjman's major critics. Now, why were such statements made? I say today

21 as well that they did not work to Croatia's advantage but to its

22 disadvantage. There were rallies of Serbs in various places on the 4th of

23 February, 1990. On the 4th of March, 1990, there was a rally in Petrova

24 Gora of people from Lika, Kordun, Banja Luka, Bosanska Krajina, and also

25 Vojvodina in Serbia.

Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and English transcripts.

* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-4.htm