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

1 issued a decision on the withdrawal of the reserve forces of the police

2 from municipalities, mostly in the Krajina, where the Serbs were in the

3 majority, you remember that, I assume.

4 A. This is yet another lie and another trick. A decision was made to

5 collect weapons in all municipalities of the Republic of Croatia so that

6 Croatia could defend herself, because the authorities in Belgrade had

7 previously issued a decision that all weapons should be withdrawn from

8 Croatia so that Croatia could be brought to her knees.

9 The Territorial Defence, I have to explain, was commanded by a

10 staff in Zagreb, the staff of the Territorial Defence. The army - that

11 is, the army of the SFRY - was commanded by the General Staff in Belgrade,

12 but both were components of the armed forces of Yugoslavia. We held the

13 opinion that it was improper to withdraw weapons from the Territorial

14 Defence because these weapons were protected in Croatia. However,

15 evidently the regime of Slobodan Milosevic and his subordinates felt it

16 was in their interest to disarm Croatia and to arm the rebellious Serbs in

17 order to implement the plan that General Kadijevic also speaks about, and

18 that is the establishing of the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag border. I

19 know the accused does not like this, but these are the facts.

20 Q. There's nothing for me to dislike here. These are not facts but

21 your political opinions, Mr. Mesic, because you have failed to put forward

22 a single fact here.

23 Along with a decision to collect the weapons from the Serb areas

24 in late July, you also made a decision to establish the National Guard

25 Corps. This was a paramilitary formation. Is this correct or not?

1 A. I have to remind the accused that, on the one hand, there were

2 illegal paramilitary organisations and there were legal paramilitary

3 organisations. The police force is also a paramilitary organisation.

4 They have weapons, they have uniforms, and they have a chain of command.

5 But they are not an army. Croatia adopted a decision that the National

6 Guard Corps be established. Its purpose, in fact, was to be something

7 like the gendarmes in France or the carabinieri in Italy. We wanted to

8 have a unit which could be activated, in case of need, if the vital

9 interests of the Republic of Croatia were threatened. At that time, this

10 was not yet the Croatian army.

11 Q. This decision of the Croatian government was to have been

12 implemented, first of all, in the area of Lika, where Serbs made up 93 per

13 cent of the population; is that correct or not?

14 A. Where did you get this 93 per cent? That's not true.

15 Q. Very well, then. The majority.

16 A. Well, 93 per cent and 51 per cent is a big difference. But as we

17 have heard, the accused no longer stands by the usual kind of arithmetic.

18 Q. When the political and security situation deteriorated, did the

19 political leadership of the Serbs in Krajina decide to hold a referendum

20 on autonomy? This was in late August 1990.

21 A. I have to respond again, although I have already answered a part

22 of this question: Weapons were collected on the entire territory of the

23 Republic of Croatia, and the referendum was illegal, and Croatia failed to

24 recognise it, did not recognise it, because it was an illegal referendum,

25 and in Croatia law has to be respected.

1 Q. Is it correct that on the 16th and 17th of August, when the police

2 set out toward Benkovac, where 10.000 Serbs had gathered, do you think

3 that this move that you made had anything to do with the reactions of the

4 Serbs and that it was not actually incited by the authorities of Serbia?

5 You said Belgrade -- I mean, when you say "Belgrade," I assume you're

6 referring to the federal organs of Yugoslavia, not to the leadership of

7 the Republic of Serbia.

8 A. I'm referring to the accused and his regime and his links with the

9 Yugoslav army.

10 Q. All right. We're going to get to that a bit later.

11 Did this have anything to do with the reaction of the Serbs, the

12 fact that the police set out to Benkovac, where 10.000 Serbs had

13 assembled? Is that correct or is that not correct?

14 A. The police did not set out against anyone. They could only

15 provide security at the rally.

16 Q. Oh, so they went there to guarantee their security.

17 A. Yes, by all means.

18 Q. Do you think that such wrong decisions of yours, to send police to

19 places where people had rallies, in spite of the constitutional right to

20 freedom of assembly, was a wrongful decision which made the Serbs place

21 roadblocks; this was not part of a struggle for a greater Serbia?

22 A. During this trial I've answered that question too.

23 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. After this Croatian government was

24 constituted, the one whose prime minister you were, wasn't it clear that

25 at that time the activity of the organised arming of HDZ members started?

1 Is that right or is that not right? Is that being contested too?

2 A. I was prime minister of Croatia for three months before I went to

3 Belgrade, and on the 17th of August, 1990, the log revolution started.

4 Roads were blocked, roads that were of vital interest to the economy of

5 Croatia. Croatia had to survive, both politically and economically. Who

6 was it who was destroying Croatia then? Was it those who wanted to

7 establish free traffic on Croatian roads or those who were carrying out

8 orders issued by the accused and provoking the Croatian authorities?

9 Q. All right. It just so happens that the accused at that time was

10 vacationing in Dubrovnik and heard about this from the newspapers there.

11 But are you trying to say that logs are some kind of offensive weapon, or

12 is it the police that enters settled areas and attacks people? Was

13 anybody ever attacked by a log?

14 A. Yes, logs are a very lethal weapon, because they do not allow

15 free communication in Croatia. They do not allow the economy to

16 function. This is a grave attack on the Croatian economy and the Croatian

17 state. Before that, I would really like to hear where this happened,

18 where the police attacked someone so the Croatian roads had to be

19 blocked. I would really like to hear that once and for all.

20 Q. I've given you countless examples - I've presented them here

21 anyway - during 1989 and 1990, many examples. I even quoted your own

22 newspapers to you, about incursions, about arrests, about people being

23 taken away and who are still missing. You know about that. Mr. Mesic, do

24 you think that since at that time you were prime minister, you are the

25 guiltiest person of all for clashes with the Serbs in Croatia?

1 A. Although this is nonsensical, I am going to dignify it with an

2 answer. They opted to provoke the Croatian authorities in order to

3 establish the boundary that I refer to. Specifically in Pakrac, there was

4 a conflict between two streams in one police station.

5 Q. All right. You've already explained that.

6 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He's taking up my time. He spoke

8 about it yesterday.

9 JUDGE MAY: You've put serious allegations to him. He must be

10 able to answer them.

11 Yes. Go on, Mr. Mesic.

12 A. Since part of the police station was disarmed, the Minister of the

13 Interior sent reinforcements in and disarmed the attackers. That brought

14 an end to it all. However, the army came into the streets with 20 or 30

15 tanks, and they purportedly separated the conflicting parties. There were

16 no conflicting parties. There were those who were attacking the police

17 and there were those who were protecting the police. There were no two

18 parties that were clashing. There was not an interethnic conflict there.

19 Nobody was wounded. Nobody was killed. I came to Belgrade. Borislav

20 Jovic, the representative Serbian of the Presidency of Yugoslavia, said

21 that there was a massacre of Serbs in Pakrac, where 40 persons were

22 massacred. I said, "Well, I was in Pakrac yesterday. Nobody was wounded.

23 Where did you read that?" And he said, "In the Titograd daily newspaper

24 of Pobjeda." Now, where is Titograd? Where is Pakrac? They have nothing

25 to do with each other. But it is obvious that this is a scenario. The

1 army was supposed to be brought into the picture to ensure the boundaries

2 that not only General Kadijevic knows of very well but also this accused,

3 Slobodan Milosevic.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. This accused doesn't, and I do not consider myself to be accused

6 by this false indictment. And since you behaved the way that you behaved,

7 that you behaved in this broad-minded, democratic manner, how is it

8 then possible and why were you the protagonist of a programme that Serbs

9 were supposed to be expelled from the constitution of Croatia as a

10 constituent and state-building people?

11 A. Croatia proclaimed its independence. It had its own

12 institutions, it had its own parliament, and it passed laws. I'm not in a

13 position now to interpret why each and every law was passed and in which

14 way and how the constitution was adopted. There is a procedure involved.

15 I don't know in which case I would have to give answers now in respect of

16 a decision that is reached by the parliament of my country.

17 Q. A parliament that you chaired. So you believe that you preserved

18 the status of the Serbs that they had according to all previous

19 constitutions. I mean, had you retained that status for them, that they

20 still would have rebelled; is that your opinion?

21 A. Institutionally, no rights of Serbs or of any other ethnic group

22 were violated. I admit that there were some messages that were

23 unacceptable, but they had to be discussed at a table, not by destroying

24 Dubrovnik, not by destroying Vukovar, Skabrnja, Vucine, not Cetekovac, not

25 by massacring people. In that way, not a single conflict can be resolved.

1 Q. Mr. Mesic, as a member of the Presidency, later on you even

2 compounded your responsibility for everything that happened to the Serbs

3 in 1991 and 1992 and later on your responsibility as Croatia's -- as the

4 president of Croatia's parliament, at the beginning of 2000, you stated,

5 on television, that the Croats in 1995, through military actions, that is

6 to say, through storm and flash, in the war for the homeland, that they

7 won a glorious victory. Mr. Mesic, no doubt storm and flash are actions

8 that meant carrying out war crimes and ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing

9 of practically all Serbs from Croatia. Do you --

10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you know that this is not the time to

11 make speeches or try and give evidence, which you're trying to do. Have

12 you got a question to ask the witness?

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Please, I do have a question. If these were glorious actions, why

15 are you saying now that Bobetko should be held responsible if he was doing

16 something glorious, in your words?

17 A. The victories in the homeland war were glorious because they made

18 it possible for Croatia to reach each and every part of the Croatian state

19 and to establish the functioning of the institutions of the Croatian

20 state. In these battles, crimes may occur, as always. I am advocating

21 the following: That everybody should be held accountable for what he did.

22 Croatia adopted a constitutional law in cooperation with The Hague

23 Tribunal. I am advocating the following: That everybody should have the

24 right to defence. All suspects should be held accountable before The

25 Hague Tribunal. If these are Croatian citizens, then they should have the

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 right to defence, maximum defence, implying dignity and respect for

2 everything that everyone did by way of a contribution to the independence

3 of Croatia. But I want each and every citizen to be equal before the law

4 because it is only then that we can expect to realise our strategic

5 objectives and that is to become part of European and Atlantic alliances,

6 which is truly our strategic objective.

7 Q. All right. It is my understanding that the expulsion of 250.000

8 Serbs from Krajina and taking tens of thousands of them out of columns,

9 according to the findings of Commissioner Ema Bonino, and these persons

10 went missing, simply that you are calling all of this individuals crimes

11 and individual actions. The expulsion of 250.000 Serbs and the

12 destruction of thousands of persons who were in these columns. You are

13 calling this individual crimes within this glorious --

14 JUDGE MAY: The witness has dealt with this, and it's not clear

15 what relevance this has to this particular indictment. These are events

16 in 1995. Yes let's move on to something else.

17 MR. NICE: I'm concerned if there's to be the time limitation that

18 the Chamber has identified that the accused is simply not dealing with the

19 matters on which evidence has been given, and typically in the last

20 question but two he slid over 1991 and 1992 with an allegation to which

21 the witness was not allowed to give an answer, that being exactly the time

22 of the Presidency, the Rump Presidency, and the other matters that we

23 should be investigating.

24 JUDGE MAY: What was the question that you say he should have been

25 able to answer.

1 MR. NICE: Well, it was where he suggested -- I'll just find it

2 again. He simply suggested that he compounded everything by his behaviour

3 in 1991 and 1992, without putting any particulars.

4 JUDGE MAY: I think the witness has dealt with that.

5 Mr. Nice, there is a question of time. We understood that the

6 witness could not be available tomorrow. Is that right?

7 MR. NICE: The way I expressed it was he was definitely available

8 yesterday and today and that he might be available for tomorrow. I know

9 his original plans were to travel back tomorrow. But the Chamber will of

10 course be in the witness's hands and he'll know better than I, I not

11 having spoken to him yesterday, what his availability now is.

12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mesic, could you help us with this? You've heard

13 about this question of time. Are you available tomorrow at all in the

14 morning or do you have to get back?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have some engagements tomorrow

16 afternoon, so I could be present in this courtroom for part of the morning

17 tomorrow.

18 JUDGE MAY: Could you be here for an hour, say from 9.00 to 10.00?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

21 Well, Mr. Milosevic, you can have until 2.00 today. You can

22 have --

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

24 JUDGE MAY: You can have a few minutes tomorrow in addition to

25 that, but there must be time for the other parties to cross-examine and

* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-10.htm