You are on page 1of 290

Vojislav [e{elj

VojiSlaV [e[elj, PhD, fileS a SuiT againST PRoSecuTion anD falSe wiTneSSeS of The hague TRiBunal

Serbian Radical Party Belgrade 2011.

Vojislav [e{elj Vojislav [e{elj, PhD, files a Suit against Prosecution and false witnesses of the hague Tribunal Direktor izdava~kog sektora OgwenMihajlovi} Redakcija IvanaBorac,VesnaMari},QubinkaBo`ovi}, LazarMacura,QiqanaMihajlovi},BiqanaOlui},SeverinPopovi}, MarinaRisti},ZlatijaSevi},Milica[e{eq Izdava~ Srpskaradikalnastranka Trgpobede3,Zemun Za izdava~a DrVojislav[e{eq [tampa AMD“Sistem” Za {tampariju DragoqubKe{eq Tira` 500primeraka

CIP - Katalogizacija u publikaciji Narodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd 32:929 [e{eq V. 341.645.5 VOJISLAV [e{elj, PhD, Files a Suit against Prosecution and False Witnesses of the Hague Tribunal / (priredio) Vojislav [e{eq. Zemun : Srpska radikalna stranka, 2011 (Zemun : AMD. Sistem) - 290 str. ; 25 cm Tira` 500. ISBN 978-86-7886-099-7 1.[e{elj, Vojislav (urednik) a) Me|unarodni krivi~ni tribunal za biv{u Jugoslaviju (Hag) - Optu`nice b) [e{eq, Vojislav (1954 - ) - Su|ewe COBISS.SR-ID 184418060

i
02 September 2010 BcS original received 25 august 2010 filed as confidential as per instruction by the President’s office international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia case number: IT-03-67 To: President of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Before: Judge Patrick Lipton Robinson, President of the ICTY Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Date: 25 August 2010 Submission: 458 THE PROSECUTOR v. PROFESSOR VOJISLAV [E[ELj MoTion BY PRofeSSoR VojiSlaV [e[elj SeeKing ThaT The PReSiDenT of The inTeRnaTional cRiMinal TRiBunal foR The foRMeR YugoSlaVia iniTiaTe PRoceeDingS foR conTeMPT of couRT againST The PRoSecuToR’S office of The TRiBunal in The hague icTY Prosecutor’s office The accused: Professor Vojislav [e{elj The expert Team assisting the Defense Zoran Krasi} Vesna Mari} Nata{a Jovanovi} Filip Stojanovi} Gordana Pop-Lazi} Jadranko Vukovi} Mirko Blagojevi} Momir Markovi} Dragan Todorovi} Ognjen Mihajlovi} Petar Joji} Nemanja [arovi} Vjerica Radeta Marina Toman Vesna Zobenica Dejan Mirovi} Ljiljana Mihajlovi} Miroljub Ignjatovi} Elena Bo`i}-Talijan
3

i introduction With this notification, professor Vojislav [e{elj seeks, just in case, leave to exceed the word limit and the number of words per page imposed in the Instructions on the Length of Submissions and Motions, version 2, of 16 September 2005. The justification for exceeding the word limit in this motion lies in the fact that Professor Vojislav [e{elj is initiating proceedings for contempt of the International Tribunal against the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal (hereinafter: Prosecution), which is of extreme importance for a fair trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (hereinafter: ICTY). As the Trial Chamber in the Slobodan Milo{evi} case no longer exists, this motion seeks that Patrick Robinson, President of the ICTY, examine and determine whether the representatives of the Prosecution used unlawful means to compel Mr. Miodrag Lukovac to give false evidence as a Prosecution witness in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}. The resolution of this matter is of the utmost importance in order to establish the credibility of the ICTY. As the current President of the ICTY, Mr. Robinson was a member of the Trial Chamber of Judge Richard May, which heard the case of Slobodan Milo{evi} at the time of Mr. Lukovac’s testimony, this puts an additional obligation upon him to take this motion seriously and urgently act upon it. ii allegations of contempt of court Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence prescribes the punishment of every person for contempt of the International Tribunal. The relevant parts of Rule 77 for this Motion are as follows: “(A) The Tribunal in the exercise of its inherent power may hold in contempt those who knowingly and willfully interfere with its administration of justice, including any person who: (iv) Threatens, intimidates, causes any injury or offers a bribe to, or otherwise interferes with, a witness who is giving, has given, or is about to give evidence in proceedings before a Chamber, or a potential witness; “(B) Any incitement or attempt to commit any of the acts punishable under paragraph (A) is punishable as contempt of the Tribunal with the same penalties. “(C) When a Chamber has reason to believe that a person may be in contempt of the Tribunal, it may: (iii) Initiate proceedings itself. “(D) If the Chamber considers that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against a person for contempt, the Chamber may: (ii) In circumstances described in paragraph (C) (ii) or (iii), issue an order in lieu of an indictment and either direct ami cuscu ri aeto prosecute the matter or prosecute the matter itself.” Professor Vojislav [e{elj hereby presents a specific example which may illustrate the use of those unlawful means which are punishable under Rule 77 of the Rules. Namely, the Expert Team assisting the preparation of the defense of Professor Vojislav [e{elj was contacted by Mr. Miodrag Lukovac in August 2010 and he sent his court-certified statement in which he describes the harassment to which he
4

was exposed by representatives of the Prosecution, in order to compel him to testify as a Prosecution witness against Slobodan Milo{evi}. Both in his statement and personally, Mr. Lukovac admitted to having been a false witness in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi} case and said that representatives of the Prosecution unlawfully forced him into this position through threats, intimidation, blackmail, bribery and extortion. The arrogant, haughty and bullying behavior and mistreatment by the representatives of the Prosecution forced this man to succumb to their threats, pressures and blackmail, and become a false witness. Although he knew that he had never committed any crime for which he might answer before a court, including the ICTY, Mr. Lukovac was exposed to constant threats that criminal proceedings would be initiated against him, unless he agreed to cooperate with the investigators and prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal. Agreeing to testify practically meant unconditional surrender to the will of these arrogant officials of the Tribunal who did not even talk to him to find out the truth about certain allegations in the indictment against Slobodan Milo{evi}. Instead they used him to confirm what they considered to be the truth. Every time Mr. Lukovac tried to indicate the representatives of the Prosecution that he could not confirm what they were inducing, they threatened to indict him. They lied about having alleged witnesses who would confirm that he had committed crimes, which made him afraid. He was particularly frightened when he received direct death threats. In order to make sure that he was under their absolute control, they dared kidnap him and his ex-wife and bring them first to Holland and then to Norway. In Holland Mr. Lukovac and his ex-wife were given false documents, an apartment and means to live. It was only there that he learnt that the Prosecution intended him to be a Prosecution witness against Slobodan Milo{evi}, even though while in Serbia he had believed that he was being interviewed only so they could clear up certain doubts. After being informed that he had to testify against Slobodan Milo{evi}, and solely in the way the Prosecution wanted, Mr. Lukovac was promised that he could live in a country of his own choice and that he and his family would be taken care of financially. Only after being moved under pressure and against his will to Norway, where he was given an apartment and money to furnish it, did Lukovac become familiar with his alleged statement. Only then did he see that he had signed something he had never said and something nobody had ever asked him. All this took place during 2002 and 2003, when the Prosecution was still able to issue new indictments, which put additional pressure on Mr. Lukovac to accept the game imposed upon him by the representatives of the Prosecution. Mr. Lukovac was right to take the threats of the Prosecution very seriously because any threat which might be carried out is serious. He saw from his own example how the Prosecution was unlawfully recruiting witnesses for its needs and it became clear to him that they would easily find false witnesses against him as well in the same way, if he decided to refuse cooperation with the Prosecution. The evil which to this man seemed entirely tangible and certain if he did not agree to give false evidence against Slobodan Milo{evi}, and Professor Vojislav [e{elj as they planned, was quite suitable for coercion because it was feasible.
5

What also made this harassment possible was that nobody could prevent the arrogant behavior of the representatives of the Prosecution in Serbia. Unfortunately, the DOS /Democratic Opposition of Serbia/ authorities looked favorably upon it because they were infinitely loyal to the United States of America and the great Western powers whose exponent is the Hague Tribunal. Mr. Miodrag Lukovac mentioned the following people as being the chief persons who blackmailed him, threatened him and put other types of pressure on him: Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Reynaud Theunens, prosecutors Daniel Saxon, Geoffrey Nice and Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and Judge Richard May. Apart from signing, under pressure, blackmail and threats, a statement which was not his own which made a string of false accusations against Slobodan Milo{evi} and Professor Vojislav [e{elj, and after giving false evidence before the ICTY in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}, in the summer of 2005 Mr. Lukovac was informed that he would also be a Prosecution witness against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Since he did not wish to be a false witness again, Lukovac refused and fled from Norway. However, the pressure, the threats and the blackmail continued in Serbia. This Motion does not dispute the right of the Prosecution to procure witnesses. However, the contacts, discussions, interviews, the taking of statements and other acts must not occur under threat, intimidation, blackmail, bribery and the other pressures to which this witness was exposed, and which directly impeded the administration of justice before the ICTY. It is unacceptable that someone should be unlawfully compelled to give false evidence, under threats, blackmail and other types of pressure. The Prosecution and its representatives who committed the crime of contempt of court are guilty of such behavior. Those members of the Prosecution who, either personally or on behalf of the most responsible officials in the Hague Tribunal, are responsible for the threats, blackmail and other types of pressure on Miodrag Lukovac deserve the severest condemnation because they asked him and in the end consciously and deliberately forced him to commit perjury before the so-called International Tribunal. The President of the ICTY must not tum a blind eye to this Motion because, as a member of the Trial Chamber, he examined this false witness himself and thus in a way participated in compromising the ICTY, which brings into serious question whether justice can be done at this International Tribunal, if the Prosecution is administering it unhindered, as in the case of Miodrag Lukovac. This is a most blatant example of perverting the course of justice and contempt of the International Tribunal. Therefore, Professor Vojislav [e{elj rightfully expects the President of the ICTY to address this Motion urgently and impartially. Professor Vojislav [e{elj attaches to this Motion a statement by Miodrag Lukovac, which was certified before the Novi Sad Lower Court on 19 August 2010. iii legal remedy sought With this Motion, Professor Vojislav [e{elj requests that, in accordance with Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the President of the ICTY insti6

gate and conduct contempt proceedings against those responsible in the Prosecution because there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they committed the punishable act of contempt of the International Tribunal, since they consciously and deliberately perverted the course of justice and by using threat and intimidation to force Miodrag Lukovac to give false evidence as a Prosecution witness in trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}. Word count: 1,532 Professor Vojislav [e{elj /signed/ (Drafted by Expert Team member Vjerica Radeta) I, Miodrag Lukovac, son of Milo{, born 25 April 1962 in Sombor, Republic of Serbia, residing in Novi Sad at Du{ana Vasiljevi}a 30, third floor, apartment 13, policeman by profession, Serbian, Orthodox, personal identity card number: 000848583, issued in the Novi Sad SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, JMBG /personal identification number/: 2504962810069, hereby give the following Statement The Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal contacted me by deception in 2002 through Nata{a Kandi}, director of the Humanitarian Law Centre. Nata{a Kandi}’s secretary called me and told me that Ms Kandi} wanted to talk to me, which I accepted with pleasure since I was out of work at the time and I thought she wanted to help me to find employment so I could take care of my family’s existence. Unfortunately, Nata{a Kandi} told me in my house in Silba{ that I had to cooperate with her and that if I refused I would be handed over to the state organs of the Republic of Serbia for certain crimes which I was alleged to have committed during the war. During this two-hour conversation with Nata{a Kandi}, apart from being interested in my participation in the war and my possible knowledge about the Chetnik movement of the Serbian Radical Party, Slobodan Milo{evi}, Vojislav [e{elj and Jovo Ostoji}, Nata{a Kandi} also told me that I had to go to Novi Sad for an interview. A few days later, as agreed, they sent a car for me and I arrived at the agreed location, where I was met by a jeep with diplomatic number plates. A man came out of this jeep and introduced himself as Paolo Pastore Stocchi from the United Nations. He had an interpreter with him. We drove in this jeep to Novi Sad to see Olivera Frani~evi}, who said she was from the Humanitarian Law Centre. At the beginning of the conversation Paolo Pastore Stocchi threatened me and told me that I had to cooperate with them, otherwise I would be arrested by our authorities and taken to The Hague where, as he said, I would remember everything immediately and sing like a bird. During the interview, Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me questions and I dictated my answers on the record under my own name, under the threat of having to cooperate and sign the record, otherwise I would be swallowed by the darkness. The interview in Novi Sad with Paolo Pastore Stocchi in the presence of Olivera Frani~evi} lasted for about an hour. At the end of the interview, Paolo Pastore
7

Stocchi threatened me again and said he was from Interpol, that I had to go to Belgrade where I would spend a minimum of three days and that it would be better if I came of my own free will than if I was arrested and brought in by the police. During the interview Paolo Pastore Stocchi typed something on a laptop but he did not ask me to sign any record. In mid-July 2002, due to my poor health, they sent Nata{a Kandi}’s car for me from the Humanitarian Law Centre and I went to Belgrade to Jevrema Gruji}a Street number 11. I was met there by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, who told me then for the first time that he was an investigator from the Hague Tribunal. A woman called Andrea, who said she was a security officer for Interpol was there, as were two interpreters, Dita and Dana Todorovi}, and another investigator called Philip, whose last name I do not recall. I think he was a German. I told Stocchi that I had recently undergone surgery and that I was not feeling well, so he immediately went to a nearby pharmacy and bought me a belt which one usually wears after surgery and which I did not have. I suppose he wanted me to think that he was concerned about me and my health which, I later realized, was a part of his tactics to force me to cooperate. Later in this statement when I talk about my testimony in the Slobodan Milo{evi} case, I will explain in greater detail everything regarding the way my statement was taken, what the investigators noted down while I did not dare react, what they told me I had to confirm although I did not know about it, how they treated me, the pressure I was under, the threats and blackmail. While my statement was being taken in the offices of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal in Belgrade, Paolo Pastore Stocchi very dramatically staged a lie. He told me that somebody from the neighboring building had taken my photo and recognized me. He said that as a result he was worried about my personal safety, so he started dialing some numbers nervously in order to get a helicopter. He said that a helicopter would come to get me and take me to Sarajevo. During the time I spent in Belgrade I was put up in private accommodation in a house which was probably rented by the Prosecutor’s Office and was under the constant surveillance of their security services. This made me feel very uncomfortable and unsafe. Since I was driven home by car after all, I realized that Paolo Pastore Stocchi was only trying to frighten me. It was under this pressure and fear that I awaited my further destiny. Two or three days later prosecutor Geoffrey Nice also came and told me that it was good that I had signed the statement because otherwise they would have indicted me for war crimes, but he did not tell me what crimes. At the end of 2002, during the night somebody fired several shots from an automatic weapon at my house in Silba{, but nobody was injured. I found 15 cartridges from the bullets which had been fired, so I immediately called the Victims and Witnesses Unit and told them what had happened. I am certain that this incident was a form of intimidation and that it was done on orders from the Prosecutor’s Office. It might also have been someone from the police because they were the only ones who knew about my contacts with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal.
8

This incident frightened me some more and I had no other choice but to contact the Victims and Witnesses Unit for help. Andrea from the Victims and Witnesses Unit came after a few hours, asked about the incident and took my passport and that of my wife. She called me in early January 2003 and told me to be ready and that on 9 January they would move us to a safe location, where we should take only the most necessary things. On 9 January 2003, Andrea came with a man from Finland, told us to get into the van quickly and they drove us off. After two or three hours of driving, we got to a hotel, where we spent the night and continued our trip from here. When my wife and I got out of the van, we realized that we were at Belgrade airport and that they were taking us somewhere outside Serbia. They threatened us not to say anything and said they would deal with all the formalities at the airport. We entered the aircraft without any passport or customs control, still not knowing where they were taking us. When we landed at an airport and left the aircraft, they told us we were in Holland. Only then did we realize that we had been kidnapped. A passenger vehicle met us at the airport in Holland and drove us to Zoetermeer, where Andrea put us up in an apartment. She told us that we were completely safe now and gave us 300 to 400 EUR each for food. She said that the accommodation and all other costs would be borne by them. Before they left, Andrea and an Englishman who I think said his name was Bob, told us that my wife and I would get between 700 and 800 EUR each month, but that we could not go back to Serbia. They warned us not to direct attention to ourselves because there were many operatives from the Serbian State Security in Holland who, as she said, would look for me and kill me. My ex-wife and I were taken to Holland against our will, so we felt kidnapped and we had limited freedom of movement in Holland. Andrea came the next day with an interpreter and brought us our health insurance cards. I got one in the name of Bojan Kuvalo and my ex-wife in the name of Marija Kuvalo. The next day, after we received these cards, Paolo Pastore Stocchi came to see us and said, “If you fail to confirm your statement, you’ll have to bear the consequences. You’ll answer for your crimes and be in prison together with Milo{evi} and [e{elj”. I told him that that was not my statement but his and that sooner or later he would answer for falsifying it. Paolo ironically replied to my comment and said, “We have information that they are looking for you from Serbia and want to kill you. You cannot go back there”. I spent over a year in Holland, during which time they changed my place of residence twice. Before moving me to a place near the town of Leiden, Paolo Pastore Stocchi visited me. He told me that I was going to be a witness in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}, that preparations would start in a few days and that I would have to stand by the statement I had given to the Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade. I was astonished by the fact that I was to testify against Slobodan Milo{evi}, with whom I have absolutely no connection.
9

Paolo Pastore Stocchi replied, “You’ll see what connections you have to him, we’ll teach you.” The Prosecution tried in a “nice” manner to get me to cooperate and accuse Slobodan Milo{evi} and Vojislav [e{elj of war crimes. They promised me a third country of my own choice, an apartment, employment, a new identity for me and my family, money and free medical care. If I refused to cooperate, they repeated that I would be held criminally responsible for war crimes and that I would end up in their prison. Having to choose between two great evils, I opted for the evil that seemed more favorable to me at the time. During the preparations to testify against Slobodan Milo{evi}, which started in April 2003 and lasted daily for over a month, about ten people talked to me at the seat of the Hague Tribunal. I do not remember the names of all the people present but I know that Paolo Pastore Stocchi from Italy, Daniel Saxon from the USA, a Canadian man whose name I do not recall, a Belgian officer called Reynaud Theunens who testified in the trial of Dr Vojislav [e{elj in February 2008 and a German woman called Hildegard were in charge. During the preparations for my testimony in the Milo{evi} case in Holland I had a toothache. The doctor in The Hague gave me valium several times and I had five teeth extracted, so I was completely dazed and incapable of giving any sort of statement. However, this did not stop the prosecutors from questioning me in these circumstances. During the preparations they showed me a map of Yugoslavia, read out my so-called statement and asked me questions about all the possible flash points during the conflicts between the Serbs and the Croats and the Serbs and the Muslims in the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia. They were most interested in knowing which and whose units were on which part of the front, who had sent them there and who commanded these units. When I told them I knew nothing about this, they handed me some documents, claiming that they were from the General Staff and the Serbian Radical Party, and demanded that I confirm their authenticity. They also showed me some orders from the General Staff marked military secret, and I was supposed to confirm during my testimony that I was familiar with them and that they were authentic. They also showed me some documents which they claimed were from the Serbian Radical Party and which mainly related to orders given by Ljubi{a Petkovi}, Chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. They demanded that during my testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi} I confirm the authenticity of these documents, the seal of the Serbian Radical Party and the signature of Ljubi{a Petkovi}. I found this particularly surprising because during the interview at the Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, Paolo Pastore Stocchi never mentioned Ljubi{a Petkovi}. He kept saying that Zoran Dra`ilovi} was the Chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party and that I was to confirm this during my testimony. I did not know who Ljubi{a Petkovi} was or what and where his function was. I am completely unfamiliar with his signature and they wanted me to testify that I had received some documents from Petkovi} himself by fax. During the preparations for my testimony they showed me photographs of some politicians, such as Radovan Karad`i}, Milan Babi}, Mirko Jovi}, Vojislav [e{elj, Arkan and others, some military officers, including Rafko Mladi}, Milan Marti} and others, and finally poli10

ce generals Luki} and \or|evi} and some others, who I was supposed to identify as being accused of war crimes, regardless of whether I knew them or not. Whenever I told the prosecutors from Hague Tribunal that I did not know a certain person in the photos, they would tell me to memorize the face on the photo well and that I would have to identify them. They insisted in particular on police generals Luki} and \or|evi}. As I was very frightened that they would liquidate me, I agreed to give false evidence against Slobodan Milo{evi} and confirm certain allegations I did not know about. I remember seeing police general Dragan Karleu{a once in the hallway of the Hague Tribunal. During a break in the trial, Daniel Saxon, in the presence of Hildegard, told me that Slobodan Milo{evi} and Vojislav [e{elj would never be released from prison. This was probably supposed to mean that I could feel free to confirm their fabrications because I would never be in a position to look either Milo{evi} or [e{elj in the eye and be ashamed of the lies I had told against them under threats, blackmail and other types of pressure. Before the start of my testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi}, Daniel Saxon warned me that he had an agreement with Judge May to suspend the trial for a short while if my answer was not in accordance with the agreement I had made with the Prosecution. This happened several times. He also ordered me to look towards the Prosecution the whole time, so that they could indicate to me how to answer a certain question with a nod of the head or some other gesture. I observed this instruction, so the Prosecution constantly controlled my testimony. I was a Prosecution witness in the Slobodan Milo{evi} case. I testified on 3, 4 and 10 June 2003 under protective measures, with face and voice distortion. The code I was given and under which I testified was C-047. Without any pressure, threat, blackmail or any influence, I hereby assert that at the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi} gave the following false evidence under oath: I testified falsely when replying to the Prosecutor’s question regarding my first contact with Vojislav [e{elj and the place of the meeting, our conversation, and the instructions I had allegedly received from [e{elj because of pressure, threats and blackmail by the Prosecutor’s Office in The Hague. I said that I had met Vojislav [e{elj for the first time in late 1990 at the restaurant of Aleksandar Nikoli} in Mali Stapar, after which I joined the Serbian Radical Party. I also said that [e{elj told me to get in touch with Bo`idar Vuji} and Milan Stevanovi} in Subotica, who had already established the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ for the northern Ba~ka district. I said that I immediately joined these men to gather more people. I also said that Vojislav [e{elj told us at that gathering that there would be a war and that we needed to create an army in order to fight and bring down communism, using weapons if necessary. I also said that Vojislav [e{elj told us that he already had his Chetnik units in western Ba~ka, which were led by a man called Jovo Ostoji}, who was collecting volunteers from that terrain, training them and preparing them for war in Croatia. I also said that right at the beginning of 1991, Vojislav [e{elj got close to the SPS /Socialist Party of Serbia/ and that he was doing everything with the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ and the police, under the command of the state.
11

I assert that all this was written in my alleged statement by Paolo Pastore Stocchi. He ordered me to confirm all this during my testimony and said that otherwise I would be indicted. Stocchi mentioned the names of certain people from Sivac to me in Belgrade and asked me whether I knew them. I confirmed that I knew them and he said that one of them had a restaurant which Dr Vojislav [e{elj often visited. He said I had to repeat this under threat of being indicted, and to say everything that I did. Although I told Stocchi that I had never been at that restaurant and that I met the people he was talking about much later, he insisted that this had to be in my statement and that I was to confirm it all at the trial. The truth is that I never met Dr Vojislav [e{elj anywhere, including at the restaurant of Aleksandar Nikoli} in Mali Stupar in late 1990. The truth is that I did not join the Serbian Radical Party in 1990 because that was impossible due to the well-known fact that the Serbian Radical Party did not even exist at that time. Since I claim that I never met Dr Vojislav [e{elj, he could not have mentioned the names of Bo`idar Vuji} and Milan Stevanovi} who had allegedly already established the Serbian Radical Party for the northern Ba~ka district. It is also impossible that I joined these men in order to allegedly gather more people. I could not have known whether Vojislav [e{elj ever said at the restaurant of Aleksandar Nikoli} that an army should be created to fight communism, with weapons if necessary, because I was never in that restaurant or anywhere else with him. It is well-known that at that time Dr Vojislav [e{elj was not close to the SPS and that he was the politician most persecuted by Slobodan Milo{evi}, so he could not have done anything under the command of the state, the army or the police, as I falsely stated under the threats of Paolo Pastore Stocchi, who showed me in Belgrade newspaper articles, in which \in|i}, Dra{kovi} and other politicians made such claims. As far as I know, until October 1991 the Serbian Radical Party secretly sent volunteers to Croatia and did not cooperate with Milo{evi}. Since I have never talked to Vojislav [e{elj, he could not have told me that Jovo Ostoji} was gathering and training volunteers from the territory of western Ba~ka for war in Croatia. I falsely testified that Jovo Ostoji} told me about the plan to attack Borovo Selo and that he participated in the fighting in Borovo Selo on 2 May 1991. The truth is that I first met Jovo Ostoji} only in 1992. – When the prosecutor asked me what was the difference between Mirko Jovi}’s White Eagles and the SRS Chetniks, because I was frightened of being indicted I said that the insignia of the White Eagles was an eagle and that of the Chetniks of the Serbian Radical Party a skull and crossbones. However, the truth is that there was no noticeable difference in the insignia because the cockades were not uniform. They came from various producers and everyone bought them their own way. They were very popular and easy to get a hold of. – At the request of the prosecutor to explain the command structure of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party in Vojvodina and Belgrade, I said that Maja Gojkovi}, as vice-president of the Serbian Radical Party, was responsible for Vojvodina, Bo`idar Vuji} for the northern Ba~ka district and Ljubomir Radi}, as an employee of the Serbian State Security, for Subotica.
12

During my testimony I had to confirm all this because Paolo Pastore Stocchi ordered me to do so back in Belgrade when he was taking my statement. He showed me some documents then which confirmed that Maja Gojkovi} was the vicepresident of the Serbian Radical Party, that she was from Vojvodina, Novi Sad, and he told me that she was responsible for everything. The only thing that is true is that Maja Gojkovi} is from Novi Sad and that she was the vice-president of the Serbian Radical Party there at the time. I explained to Stocchi at the time that Serbia is divided into districts and municipalities and that, as far as I knew, the Serbian Radical Party had boards in every municipality, while the party headquarters was in Belgrade. He insisted that I confirm that this structure was also the command structure of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. I knew well that Stocchi’s claim was not true but I confirmed it under pressure, threats and blackmail. Even though I did not know Bo`idar Vuji} at the time, nor did I know that Ljubomir Radi} was connected to the Serbian Radical Party in any way whatsoever, I testified falsely and confirmed everything they wanted from me, so as to avoid being indicted by the Prosecution, which they constantly threatened to do. During the preparations for my testimony, prosecutor Daniel Saxon insisted that I confirm the Prosecution’s allegations that the command of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party was composed of a Council of Voj vo das /military leader/, even though nobody had mentioned that when my statement was taken in Belgrade. I confirmed this lie even though I knew that at that time Dr Vojislav [e{elj was the only Serbian Chetnik voj vo daand it was only in 1993 that he appointed another 18 voj vo das,which was general knowledge both then and now in Serbia. During my testimony I had to confirm that some of my volunteers had been arrested in 1993 by the Serbian Security Service because someone had apparently handed over a list of these volunteers to the Security Service together with the Code, that is to say, the rules of conduct for Chetnik volunteers. Daniel Saxon insisted that I talk about the arrest of the volunteers, but he did not allow me to explain during my testimony that humanity was the basic rule in the code of conduct for Chetniks at the front. The truth is that we adopted this Code, or rules, in Subotica ourselves and this has nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party and Dr Vojislav [e{elj. The Belgian Sergeant Theunens, who testified in the case against Dr Vojislav [e{elj, and prosecutor Daniel Saxon ordered me to confirm another one of their fabrications during my testimony and say that in 1993 Vojislav [e{elj was pursuing the same policy as Slobodan Milo{evi}. This was also a false statement because, like all citizens of Serbia, I knew that [e{elj and Milo{evi} had a very open conflict at the time. During my testimony I said that I had the rank of a Chetnik colonel, given to me by voj vo daJovo Ostoji} in 1994. I assert that Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party had nothing to do with that because Jovo Ostoji} had left the Serbian Radical Party before that. – In answering the prosecutor’s questions about the rally of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica, I said that the rally took place in 1991 and that Vojislav [e{elj said at the rally that the eyes of those Croats living in Subotica who are not
13

loyal to the current authorities should be gouged out, that all Croats should be expelled to Croatia, and that the same went for the Hungarians. During my testimony I confirmed all these lies under pressure and the direct order of Paolo Pastore Stocchi, investigator at the Hague Tribunal, who showed me a video recording from the Mak so vi zi jacomedy show, where Vojislav [e{elj jokingly said something to that effect. The truth is that I was never at the rally of the Serbian Radical Party which was held, as far as I recall, in September 1991 and at which Vojislav [e{elj spoke. I could not have been at that rally because I was not in Subotica at all. I never heard, nor did anyone tell me, that Vojislav [e{elj ever said that he would gouge out the eyes of Croats and that they should be expelled together with the Hungarians. According to the reports in the media, there were about 5,000 people at that rally and many journalists and TV crews. I am certain that Vojislav [e{elj would never say anything like that, especially not in front of such a large audience. When Paolo Pastore Stocchi took my statement in Belgrade, he put before me a list of senior Serbian MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ officials and demanded that I confirm that the people on that list met with Vojislav [e{elj and Maja Gojkovi} in Novi @ednik and that they discussed the pressures and threats against the Croats and their expulsion. Under great pressure and threats made by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, I confirmed during my testimony that I was present at a gathering at Milan Stojanovi}’s private home in Novi @ednik in 1991 and that Milan Jerinki}, Secretary of the InterMunicipal Secretariat of the Interior; Radovan Kne`evi}, Chief of the District SUP; Mirko Zijani}, an independent inspector; Nikola Ivo{evi}, Chief of the Operative Service of the SUP; Vojislav [e{elj and Maja Gojkovi} were apparently also present. I also testified falsely before the court that [e{elj talked to us about expelling the Croats and the measures we needed to take against the Croats in Hrtkovci in Ruma municipality. I also stated that he mentioned a man called Ostoja Sibin~i}, who was already forcing Croats to move, and that state institutions like the police were dismissing Croats and Hungarians. Our task would have been to throw hand grenades at their houses, to attack them physically, to break windows, make telephone threats and mark their houses with crosses. The truth is that I was never present at any gathering in Novi @ednik in the company of those people who I falsely claimed to have attended this alleged meeting. I emphasize that I never met with Vojislav [e{elj anywhere. When the deputy chief prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, Geoffrey Nice, was in Belgrade, they called me. Geoffrey Nice told me, via an interpreter, that my alleged statement was well-written and that now they had irrefutable facts for a joint criminal enterprise. He told me that I was not allowed to change my statement, that I would not be indicted and that in return I would be relocated to a third country and have a safe future. Geoffrey Nice or Vladimir /D`uro/ demanded that I confirm at the trial that I was passing through Ba~ka Palanka in 1991 and saw Jovo Ostoji}, Vojislav [e{elj, Mihalj Kertes and several JNA officers distributing weapons to civilians at an army training ground. They said they had a video recording and that all I needed to do was to confirm that I had been there and seen them personally.
14

I confirmed this lie, but the truth is that I never saw these people together anywhere, including in Ba~ka Palanka in 1991. Geoffrey Nice threatened me and said I had to confirm that I met Jovo Ostoji} in 1990 as well. Because I was afraid of being indicted I had to confirm everything that was asked of me, even though it was not true. The truth is that I first met Jovo Ostoji} in 1992. – When the prosecutor asked me where volunteers were being trained in the territory of Subotica and who gave permission from the army and the police, I said that the volunteers were being trained at the army and police training ground. I falsely claimed that Colonel Jovanovi} gave permission for training at the army training ground and that Milan Jerinki} and MUP senior officials gave permission for training at the police training ground. I also said that we had shooting practice with fire arms and automatic weapons at the training ground. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that I confirm these lies during my testimony. The truth is that there is only one open training ground in Subotica and everyone had access to it and they used it for recreation. We did not need anyone’s permission or approval to use this training ground, and the volunteers only had fitness training and did other physical exercises without uniforms or the use of firearms. – The prosecutor asked me what the Chetnik volunteers were told about their tasks during the recruitment and I said, “The struggle against communism. That was the main purpose of my unit and the others fought against the Croats.” I said this because Paolo Pastore Stocchi claimed that such a statement would be a mitigating circumstance for me. My unit and I were most certainly not designated by anyone to fight against communism, which was already disappearing from the Serbian political scene. I do not know why I said this. As far as I recall, the Serbian Radical Party and Dr Vojislav [e{elj did everything to achieve reconciliation among the Serbs and not to repeat the bloodshed of the 2nd World War. – Paolo Pastore Stocchi also inserted into my statement that after my alleged meeting with Vojislav [e{elj in 1990 I talked with senior officials in the MUP who had a positive opinion about the formation of a special Chetnik unit in the north of Ba~ka as there was a possibility of conflict there between the Serbs on one side and the Croats and Hungarians on the other. He particularly insisted that I confirm in court that the leaders of the Socialist Party of Serbia and the Serbian Radical Party were informed of the formation of such a unit. This was another lie. The truth is that I never met with Vojislav [e{elj and until then I had not had any contacts with officials of the Socialist Party of Serbia or the Serbian Radical Party, so I could not have known what I falsely claimed to the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal. – The prosecutor asked me, when I was in Vukovar, and whether I knew Slobodan Kati} and Milan Lan~u`anin aka Kameni, whether I had seen any crimes being committed in Vukovar by the Chetnik volunteers during the time I spent there, including looting, rape or murder, whether I knew a man called [vaba and what I had heard of his crimes, how the crimes committed by Chetnik volunteers could be recognized, and whether the Petrova Gora detachment had been a unit of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I told him that there had been conflicts between the
15

military police and officers of the Leva Supoderica detachment, mainly because of the looting in which the Chetniks participated. I also said that I had seen them rape a girl and that I had seen three murdered Croats in a bathroom in Vukovar. I falsely blamed all these crimes on the Chetniks and claimed that the crimes of the Chetnik volunteers could be recognized because they cut people’s throats, cut off their ears and noses and mutilated them. I falsely claimed to know that [vaba and Kinez were Chetniks who brutally murdered Croats, primarily helpless civilians. The truth is that I have been to Vukovar only once and stayed two or three days. I went there as a private person some 10 days after it was liberated. I never met Milan Lan~u`anin aka Kameni or Slobodan Kati}. I was never in the Leva Supoderica command, nor do I know anything about the behavior of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. Under pressure from Daniel Saxon during the trial I had to say that I had been in Vukovar twice, and that two of my friends and I reported at the Territorial Defense in order to be issued with equipment, food, accommodation and weapons. This was another false claim. Vukovar was already free and there was no need for volunteers. The disarming had long started and so there was no need for the three of us to get new weapons. When I gave my statement to investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philip Oberkne`ev, one of the investigators told me that they had information from other witnesses that a girl had been raped and murdered and that three Croats had been found killed in a bathroom, and that I had to confirm this. I do not recall which of the two of them asked this of me, but unfortunately I told this despicable lie during my testimony. I know nothing about the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party looting, raping or murdering civilians. During the two or three days I spent in Vukovar privately, I did not have the chance to meet people called [vaba or Kinez and I do not know how they behaved at the front. I categorically state that there is no recognizable style of killing used by the Chetniks, although I did present this to be monstrous Chetnik behavior at the insistence of Paolo Pastore Stocchi. As for the Petrova Gora detachment, I do not know whether any volunteers from the Serbian Chetnik Movement were in that detachment. – When the prosecutor asked me whether I knew what had happened in Vo}in, how the Croats were treated there and from whom I had received the information, I lied by saying that I knew what had happened and that I had received the information from colleagues in Belgrade and the War Staff Command. The truth is that even today, in 2010, I do not have any information about Western Slavonia, other than knowing that in the autumn of 1991 there were volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party in the territory of Western Slavonia. In Belgrade Paolo Pastore Stocchi showed me several documents signed by Ljubi{a Petkovi}. I falsely confirmed that I knew his signature and that the signatures he showed me were authentic. The truth is that I saw those documents for the first time during the interview with investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi in Belgrade, and he ordered me to confirm that I had personally received them from Petkovi}. I did what he wanted under
16

pressure, even though it is not the truth, just as it is not true that I had /ever/ seen his signature before. – When the prosecutor asked me whether a request had come to the centre of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade during 1992 to send volunteers to Marku{ica in order to reinforce Serbian positions there, I confirmed this even though I knew absolutely nothing about this. I know that the Serbian Radical Party sent volunteers to Marku{ica in the summer of 1991, but not in 1992, as I was forced to state. Apart from this, I was not there as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party. I know for a fact that throughout the war in Croatia there was never any fighting in Marku{ica because it is surrounded by Serbian villages and was under no threat of attack. I falsely stated that the incident I described occurred in Marku{ica. I claimed to have seen Arkan’s men kill two civilians at a distance of some 150 meters from Arkan and Goran Had`i}, which is not true. The truth is that I saw Arkan and Had`i} in a small village next to Marku{ica. I heard a short burst of fire, turned around and saw two people lying on the pavement surrounded by Arkan’s men. However, from this distance I was not able to see whether they were alive or not. The burst of fire had come from the direction of these two people on the pavement, but I did not see whether they were standing up before, and whether they shot at them or into the air to frighten them. – When the prosecutor asked me whether I had received an order in February 1992 to take my unit to Lika in Croatia, who issued that order and what was the name of the unit to which we were assigned, I falsely replied that this group had been led by Milan Stojanovi}. I also said that the order had been given by Zoran Dra`ilovi} and that the volunteers were under the command of the 4th Lika Brigade. The truth is that I have never been to Lika, I do not recall how Colonel Jovanovi} showed up, but I do know that he had gone from Subotica to Lika with a group he had and that some volunteers joined them. During my testimony, by accident and out of ignorance, I linked the Serbian Radical Party, the war staff and Zoran Dra`ilovi} to the departure of volunteers to Lika. The truth is that they were JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ volunteers. I am not sure what the name of this unit was, but I think it was continuing the tradition of the partisan 6th Lika Brigade from the 2nd World War. – In connection with the departure of the volunteers from Bubanj Potok to Bajina Ba{ta and Skelani, the prosecutor asked me who met us there, what the role of Milan Luki} was, how the army treated 15 Muslim civilians in a school, etc. I falsely said that we had gone from Bubanj Potok to Bajina Ba{ta in army buses, that we were escorted by the police and that Milan Luki} from Bosnia met us in Bajina Ba{ta and said that he was responsible for us. I lied under pressure and said that the Army of Republika Srpska took a group of 15 Muslim civilians to a school, tied them up, cursed their Muslim mothers and threatened to hand them over to the Chetniks if they failed to listen. After these threats they made them put on old JNA uniforms, gave them old and malfunctioning M-48 rifles and sent them to the front, from where they never returned.
17

The real truth is this: I reported to the war staff of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade in early February 1993 with a group of volunteers from Subotica. A few civilian buses transported all the volunteers to the barracks in Bubanj Potok. A few days later, the JNA equipped us and sent us to the front in Skelani in their own buses and escorted by the military police. At that moment we all became JNA volunteers. After we arrived in Bajina Ba{ta, we were put up at the Fire Station for the night and moved to Skelani the next day and accommodated in a school. I found out that there were 15 Serbian civilians in that school. They had been either arrested or taken into custody for failing to respond to the mobilization. Since I was in Skelani for only seven days I do not know what happened to these detainees. As far as I recall, I did not say anything about these matters when I gave my statement in mid-July 2002. However, under the pressure, blackmail and instructions of lead prosecutor Geoffrey Nice and investigator Vladimir D`uro, whom I met at their request in early November 2002, I had to give false evidence and say that these people were not Serbs but Muslims, that they had been beaten and abused by the Serbian forces and that all trace of them was lost after they were forced to go to the front with malfunctioning weapons. At the demand of Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro I had to say during my testimony that a man called Milan Luki} was authorized by someone to meet us in Bajina Ba{ta, and I had to describe an incident involving a volunteer from Prijepolje. They ordered me to testify that Milan Luki} and Rajo Bo`ovi} beat and abused this volunteer because, despite a ban on the use of a telephone, he had allegedly called his family. At the insistence of Nice and D`uro I had to testify that Milan Luki} introduced himself as a state security official and that I personally saw his official identity card. Nice and D`uro demanded during the trial that I say that Colonel Koljanin and Milan Luki} were responsible for the operations in Skelani, and that they sent me on a reconnaissance mission in order to prepare for the attack as best I could. According to Nice and D`uro, six soldiers of the Serbian Chetnik Movement had been killed in Skelani from the previous group of volunteers. None of this is true, but at the trial I did not dare say that we had in fact been the first and only group and that nobody had been in Skelani before us. When I gave my statement to the investigators from The Hague in July 2002, Paolo Pastore Stocchi dictated himself what would go onto the record, which I was to accept as my own statement. On that occasion, I was forced to confirm during my testimony that before I left for Skelani in Bosnia, I met with Vojislav [e{elj in his office in Belgrade, that Zoran Dra`ilovi} and a man called [vaba from Smederevo were present and that Vojislav [e{elj ordered us to mercilessly kill the Muslims where we were going, and that civilians, including the elderly, women and children were also to be killed. Unfortunately, even though I knew that these were blatant lies, under pressure I accepted and confirmed them. When I talked to Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro about this in November 2002, they added to my statement that, in his office in the presence of two police generals, Vojislav [e{elj ordered me to kill everyone where I was going, including the women, children, the elderly and infants, so nothing would remain of them –
18

all the Turks, so not even a cat would remain alive – and the two police generals did not react. When I told them that this was not in the first statement I had given to the Prosecution, that they had gone too far and that I could not testify to this, Geoffrey Nice told me that I had to, otherwise he would indict me for war crimes committed in Skelani. He told me that they had evidence and witnesses to confirm that I was responsible and that I had killed 19 civilians. Even though this is not true, I was cornered and agreed to cooperate to the end, because they reminded me that my family and children would suffer the consequences if I refused to cooperate with the Prosecution. Later during the interview and the preparations for my testimony, Nice showed me some photographs and told me that they were of police generals Luki} and \or|evi} He told me to memorize their faces well and identify them during my testimony as the people who were present in the office of Vojislav [e{elj. During my testimony in the Milo{evi} case I confirmed everything the Prosecution asked of me, purely to avoid being indicted for war crimes, even though I had never committed them. It is important for me to stress that as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical /Party/1 was in Skelani only for seven days. All my visits to the front before and after Skelani had nothing to do with either the Serbian Radical Party or the Serbian Chetnik Movement. At the specific demand of Paolo Pastore Stocchi, I confirmed before the Tribunal that the Serbian Radical Party and the Socialist Party of Serbia acted in an organized fashion in Subotica to expel non-Serbs from this area, even though I knew this was a despicable lie. During my testimony and being afraid of the indictment with which Paolo Pastore Stocchi constantly threatened me, I falsely testified that the Serbian Chetnik Movement and the MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ were in close cooperation and that the entire MUP leadership of the northern Ba~ka district were members of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. Stocchi forced me to say that the MUP leadership and officials from the state security were at the very top of the command structure and at the head of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. Paolo Pastore Stocchi particularly insisted on my saying that I had the approval of the secretary of the district SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/ of the northern Ba~ka district to form a unit there, in order to prove that the Croats and Hungarians were allegedly in danger in Vojvodina. As I was a policeman I can positively claim that not a single officer that I mentioned from the northern Ba~ka district and Subotica was a member of either the Serbian Radical Party or the Serbian Chetnik Movement. On the contrary, they all had to be members of the Socialist Party of Serbia, JUL /Yugoslav United Left/ or the SKPJ /League of Communists – Movement for Yugoslavia/. It is general knowledge that those who are in power appoint their own people to office. As a prosecution witness, following the orders of Paolo Pastore Stocchi, I had to say at the trial that non-Serbian houses in Hrtkovci and Subotica were marked, even though I knew that I was not telling the truth. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that I had to learn by heart everything about this and about the behavior of a man
19

called Pero Stokandi} from the book by Nata{a Kandi}, director of the Humanitarian Law Centre. As for the questions regarding the mining of the Catholic cathedral and the hand grenade that was thrown at a school in Subotica, I assert that I knew very little about that but was forced to testify falsely. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi knew this, which was why he prepared his own story, which I was threatened and blackmailed into confirming. So that his story, which I accepted as my own, would appear as convincing as possible, I was forced to say that I knew that the explosives had been planted by a member of the Serbian Radical Party called Bojani}, with the help of some members of the municipal board of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica. This is a despicable lie because, although as a policeman I did not carry out the on-site investigation of this incident, I heard from a colleague who had been present at the on-site investigation and from the official bulletin that this was a handmade explosive of low intensity, which had been planted by a non-Serb from Subotica who was not a member of the Serbian Radical Party. Even though I knew that the perpetrator had been caught and processed and that a hand grenade had not been thrown at the cathedral but an explosive had been planted on the cathedral door, I had to stick to the statement as Paolo Pastore Stocchi demanded, and to testify falsely at trial. Vojislav [e{elj had nothing to do with this, but under pressure I was forced to sign this lie and falsely accuse him of personally ordering it. Regarding the explosive in the yard of the Sve to zarMar ko vi}grammar school, I had no reliable information about what had really happened there. However, I did have some information that this was done by a Hungarian man who wanted to draw attention to the alleged threats to Hungarians in Vojvodina. I was forced to ascribe this to Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party because Paolo Pastore Stocchi ordered me to do so, even though I was certain that neither the Serbian Radical Party nor Vojislav [e{elj had anything to do with it. During the proofing for my testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi}, Daniel Saxon told me that there would be agreed signals with the prosecutor that he would give me secretly during my testimony, indicating when and what to say and when to stop testifying. Daniel Saxon ordered me to testify against Slobodan Milo{evi} according to our agreement and the statement I had allegedly given to the Prosecution. If I refused, he would indict me for war crimes. He told me that if I testified well, I would be moved to a third country with all imaginable benefits for me and my family. I am trying to justify to myself why I agreed to being a false witness, and I think I had to do it. All this was happening after my operation, when I was without a job or means of living, with constant threats that I would be accused of war crimes, which I had not committed. I had no other choice but to agree to their blackmail because I would not have had any protection in this DOS /Democratic Opposition of Serbia/-run country. For my false testimony in the Milo{evi} case, the Prosecution gave me a new identity and an apartment of about 60 m2 with a garage and brand new kitchen appliances in Norway. I also received about 4,000 euros cash to buy furniture. Two months later I bought a car, received a new identity card, driving license, and a passport valid in all the countries of the European Union, but was also banned from entering Serbia and Montenegro. My monthly income was about 2,500 euros.
20

In the summer of 2005, while I was in Norway, Paolo Pastore Stocchi called me and told me that I had to come to The Hague to be proofed to give testimony in the case against Dr Vojislav [e{elj. I had had enough of everything. I had no strength left, or desire to testify falsely and confirm the lies from the Milo{evi} case. Despite all the warnings I fled to Serbia. I became familiar with the contents of my so-called statement for the first time in Norway. This statement was sent to me by a person from the interpretation service, and some time ago I obtained a transcript of my testimony in the Milo{evi} case, which had been published by the Nata{a Kandi}’s Humanitarian Law Centre, and this helped me put this statement together. I give this statement of my own free will without any pressure or blackmail, and I agree with Dr Vojislav [e{elj using it in his trial before the Hague Tribunal. in novi Sad Statement by: 19 august 2010 Miodrag lukovac /a signature/ OV number: 29994/2010 It is hereby certified that Miodrag Lukovac from Novi Sad, Du{ana Vasiljevi}a Street number 30, as provider of statement, personal identity card number 000848583/09 Novi Sad, personally signed this statement – acknowledged that the signature on this statement was his own. His identity was established based on his personal identity card – passport. The 230 dinar certification fee was collected. Novi Sad Lower Court Date: 19 August 2010 Authorized official Dejan Mi}in /a stamp and signature/

21

ii
02 September 2010 BcS original received 25 august 2010 filed as confidential per Trial chamber’s instruction international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia case number: IT-03-67 To: Trial Chamber III Before: Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti, Presiding, Judge Frederik Harhoff, Judge Flavia Lattanzi Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Date. 25 August 2010 Submission: 459 The Prosecutor v. Professor Vojislav [e{elj noTice BY PRofeSSoR VojiSlaV [e[elj To TRial chaMBeR iii of unlawful conDucT of The office of The PRoSecuToR of The inTeRnaTional cRiMinal TRiBunal foR The foRMeR YugoSlaVia The office of the Prosecutor: Mathias Marcussen, Ulrich Mussermyer, Lisa Biersay, Divya Prasad The accused: Professor Vojislav [e{elj The expert Team assisting the Defense Gordana Pop-Lazi} Jadranko Vukovi} Mirko Blagojevi} Momir Markovi} Dragan Todorovi} Ognjen Mihajlovi} Petar Joji} Nemanja [arovi} Vjerica Radeta Marina Toman Vesna Zobenica Dejan Mirovi} Ljiljana Mihajlovi} Miroljub Ignjatovi} Elena Bo`i}-Talijan i introduction To cover any eventuality, in this Notice Professor Vojislav [e{elj requests authorization in advance to exceed the word limit and the word limit per page set in
22

Version 2 of the Practice Direction on the Length of Briefs and Motions of 16 September 2005. A valid reason for exceeding the length in this Notice is in the fact that Professor Vojislav [e{elj hereby notifies Trial Chamber III of a very important issue that has a significant impact on the fair conduct and the outcome of the proceedings. ii Reasons for submitting the notice In mid-August 2010, Mr. Miodrag Lukovac from Novi Sad visited the Expert Team assisting in the preparation of Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s defense and submitted his two statements, certified in the Novi Sad Lower Court. In one of his statements, Mr. Lukovac admitted to having given false evidence as a witness for the Prosecution against Slobodan Milo{evi} and described in detail how he was blackmailed and the kinds of threats and pressure to which he was subjected by the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal. From his first contact with investigators of the Hague Tribunal, made through Nata{a Kandi}, until the preparations for his testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi} and during the testimony itself, Mr. Lukovac and his family went through real torture. In his statement and subsequently during his testimony in the proceedings against Slobodan Milo{evi}, Mr. Lukovac was forced to confirm allegations he did not know about or allegations he knew were absolute lies. In his second statement Mr. Lukovac gives a detailed account of all the kinds of false accusations he made against Dr Vojislav [e{elj under blackmail, threats and various forms of intimidation by the Hague Tribunal. Several times during his interview with investigators of the Hague Tribunal, Mr. Lukovac insisted that only the truth and facts known to him be given in his statement. Nonetheless, the investigators interviewed him only as a formality, and the answers to the questions he was supposed to answer had already been formulated. All he was asked to do was to sign what the investigators of the Hague Tribunal were to write. He was often forced to give false descriptions of widely known facts and confirm blatant lies. The investigators of the Hague Tribunal stopped at nothing to obtain their own decreed truth. To force Mr. Lukovac to confirm everything they asked him, the investigators of the Hague Tribunal constantly threatened to bring an indictment against him. Considering that the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal could bring new indictments until 1 January 2005, and Mr. Lukovac was subjected to his torture in 2002 and 2003, his fear of indictment was well-founded. Although he knew that he had not committed any crime with which he could be charged, he could not withstand the pressure of the investigators of the Hague Tribunal, because through his so-called testimony he saw how the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal trumped up charges and how easy it was to secure witnesses for the needs of the Prosecution using threats, blackmail and pressure. The basic argument that the investigators of the Hague Tribunal wanted to confirm through the false testimony of Miodrag Lukovac was to link Professor Vo23

jislav [e{elj with a joint criminal enterprise. That was why they forced him to confirm non-existent links between Professor Vojislav [e{elj and certain people which Mr. Lukovac, like everyone else in Serbia, knew were impossible. Although he realized the intention of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, under constant threats and blackmail Mr. Lukovac agreed to confirm their lies, but he knew from the start that what he confirmed were absolute lies and fabrications. In his certified statement submitted to the Expert Team assisting Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s defense, Miodrag Lukovac described in detail everything he falsely confirmed for the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal. In his statement he told the real truth and listed the events he had confirmed as correct about which, in fact, he knew nothing. It is incredible, and that is why the statement and testimony of Mr. Lukovac are the best example, how the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal tried to prove its clearly trumped-up indictment against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. In addition to continuous threats of indictment before the Hague Tribunal for non-existent crimes, Mr. Lukovac was threatened with death (he would be swallowed by darkness) unless he agreed to sign a false statement of investigators of the Hague Tribunal. They even kidnapped him and his ex-wife. Except for signing a false statement under various kinds of pressure, about a year later when he first saw what he had actually signed, Mr. Lukovac noticed that his alleged statement contained a lot of things he had never said and had never been asked about. During the interview with the investigators of the Hague Tribunal that preceded his signing of the statement, he was also told what he would have to confirm when he testified as a witness for the Prosecution against Professor Vojislav [e{elj, although he had never agreed to be a witness for the Prosecution in the proceedings against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Then he was promised that, if he testified as the Prosecution wanted, he could choose a country where he wanted to live, of course, with financial support for him and his family. Before his testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi}, Mr. Lukovac was kidnapped and taken to the Netherlands and then to Norway, from where he ran away in the summer of 2005, when they called him from the Hague Tribunal to prepare to testify against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Although he thought that, having run away from Norway, he had escaped from the clutches of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, they did not leave him alone later even in Serbia. They could not accept the fact that their effort was in vain and that they had lost another false witness. Mr. Lukovac faced great problems and pressure from the Prosecution, although he told them umpteen times that he did not want to testify against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and that he had never wanted to do so. Miodrag Lukovac was subjected to torture, pressure and intimidation not only by arrogant investigators of the Hague Tribunal, but also by prosecutors, and some judges of the Hague Tribunal openly showed that they were on the side of the Prosecution. As the principal perpetrators who blackmailed, threatened and put all kinds of pressure on him, Mr. Lukovac lists Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Reynaud Theunens,
24

prosecutors Daniel Saxon, Geoffrey Nice and Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and Judge Richard May. This group stopped at nothing to achieve their goal. They did not care that they threatened Miodrag Lukovac’s family or jeopardized his life. Although they knew he was ill, they continuously harassed him and ignored his persistent refusal to appear before the Hague Tribunal as a witness for the Prosecution against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. They are the best representatives of Machiavelli’s theory that the end justifies the means. And their end was as many false witnesses against Professor Vojislav [e{elj as possible, because genuine ones are impossible to find in this rigged political trial, which Mr. Lukovac realized already at his first meeting with investigators of the Hague Tribunal. Although seriously ill, Mr. Miodrag Lukovac was able to describe all this and to co-operate with the Expert Team assisting Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s defense, and he was prepared to testify publicly via video link as a Chamber witness in the trial of Professor Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. Mr. Lukovac was prepared, during his testimony as a Chamber witness, to present all the details of how he was blackmailed and the kinds of ways in which he was forced and instructed by investigators of the Hague Tribunal to give false evidence against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Above all, he wanted the public in Serbia, which is following this trial closely, to hear the real truth about how far representatives of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal are prepared to go in their fight against Professor Vojislav [e{elj, who has defeated them completely. Mr. Lukovac is sorry for not having been given an opportunity before the Trial Chamber to deny all the lies foisted on him by the Prosecution and tell the real truth about his treatment by the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal and all the details of the statement he had to sign, although he always knew that he had signed lies because they persuaded him that it was the only way he could help himself, that is, that giving false evidence could save him from an indictment brought by the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal. Professor Vojislav [e{elj also notifies Trial Chamber III of the fact that, pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, he filed a motion for contempt of the Tribunal against the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal because it forced Mr. Miodrag Lukovac to give false evidence in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}. Professor Vojislav [e{elj encloses with this Notice the statement of Miodrag Lukovac certified on 20 August 2010 in the Novi Sad Lower Court. iii Relief Sought In this motion Professor Vojislav [e{elj draws the attention of the Trial Chamber to the unauthorized and unlawful conduct of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal and requests that the Trial Chamber seriously consider the allegations made in this Notice and take appropriate measures under its jurisdiction. Word count: 1,501/in original/ Professor Vojislav [e{elj /signed/ (drafted by Expert Team member Vjerica Radeta)
25

I, Miodrag Lukovac, son of Milo{, born 25 April 1962 in Sombor, Republic of Serbia, residing in Novi Sad at Du{ana Vasiljevi}a 30, third floor, apartment 13, policeman by profession, Serbian, Orthodox, personal identity card number: 000848583, issued in the Novi Sad SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, JMBG /personal identification number/: 2504962810069, hereby give the following Statement The Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal contacted me by deception in 2002 through Nata{a Kandi}, director of the Humanitarian Law Centre. Nata{a Kandi}’s secretary called me and told me that Ms Kandi} wanted to talk to me, which I accepted with pleasure since I was out of work at the time and I thought she wanted to help me to find employment so I could take care of my family’s existence. Unfortunately, Nata{a Kandi} told me in my house in Silba{ that I had to cooperate with her and that if I refused I would be handed over to the state organs of the Republic of Serbia for certain crimes which I was alleged to have committed during the war. During this two-hour conversation with Nata{a Kandi}, apart from being interested in my participation in the war and my possible knowledge about the Chetnik movement of the Serbian Radical Party, Slobodan Milo{evi}, Vojislav [e{elj and Jovo Ostoji}, Nata{a Kandi} also told me that I had to go to Novi Sad for an interview. A few days later, as agreed, they sent a car for me and I arrived at the agreed location, where I was met by a jeep with diplomatic number plates. A man came out of this jeep and introduced himself as Paolo Pastore Stocchi from the United Nations. He had an interpreter with him. We drove in this jeep to Novi Sad to see Olivera Frani~evi}, who said she was from the Humanitarian Law Centre. At the beginning of the conversation Paolo Pastore Stocchi threatened me and told me that I had to cooperate with them, otherwise I would be arrested by our authorities and taken to The Hague where, as he said, I would remember everything immediately and sing like a bird. During the interview, Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me questions and I dictated my answers on the record under my own name, under the threat of having to cooperate and sign the record, otherwise I would be swallowed by the darkness. The interview in Novi Sad with Paolo Pastore Stocchi in the presence of Olivera Frani~evi} lasted for about an hour. At the end of the interview, Paolo Pastore Stocchi threatened me again and said he was from Interpol, that I had to go to Belgrade where I would spend a minimum of three days and that it would be better if I came of my own free will than if I was arrested and brought in by the police. During the interview Paolo Pastore Stocchi typed something on a laptop but he did not ask me to sign any record. In mid-July 2002, due to my poor health, they sent Nata{a Kandi}’s car for me from the Humanitarian Law Centre and I went to Belgrade to Jevrema Gruji}a Street number 11.1 was met there by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, who told me then for the first time that he was an investigator from the Hague Tribunal. A woman called Andrea, who said she was a security officer for Interpol was there, as were
26

two interpreters, Dita and Dana Todorovi}, and another investigator called Philip, whose last name I do not recall. I think he was a German. I told Stocchi that I had recently undergone surgery and that I was not feeling well, so he immediately went to a nearby pharmacy and bought me a belt which one usually wears after surgery and which I did not have. I suppose he wanted me to think that he was concerned about me and my health which, I later realized, was a part of his tactics to force me to cooperate. Later in this statement when I talk about my testimony in the Slobodan Milo{evi} case, I will explain in greater detail everything regarding the way my statement was taken, what the investigators noted down while I did not dare react, what they told me I had to confirm although I did not know about it, how they treated me, the pressure I was under, the threats and blackmail. While my statement was being taken in the offices of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal in Belgrade, Paolo Pastore Stocchi very dramatically staged a lie. He told me that somebody from the neighboring building had taken my photo and recognized me. He said that as a result he was worried about my personal safety, so he started dialing some numbers nervously in order to get a helicopter. He said that a helicopter would come to get me and take me to Sarajevo. During the time I spent in Belgrade I was put up in private accommodation in a house which was probably rented by the Prosecutor’s Office and was under the constant surveillance of their security services. This made me feel very uncomfortable and unsafe. Since I was driven home by car after all, I realized that Paolo Pastore Stocchi was only trying to frighten me. It was under this pressure and fear that I awaited my further destiny. Two or three days later prosecutor Geoffrey Nice also came and told me that it was good that I had signed the statement because otherwise they would have indicted me for war crimes, but he did not tell me what crimes. Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s method of questioning was very unprofessional. He did not want to hear what I wanted to say and he replied with threats and blackmail to any objection I made. He asked questions and dictated for the record the answers which he had prepared in advance and which were absolute lies. He asked me to accept his answers as mine and, if I refused, he threatened to accuse me of war crimes. When he was taking my statement, Paolo Pastore Stocchi mentioned some people from Sivac and asked me whether I knew them, and I said yes. Then he told me that one of them had a restaurant where Vojislav [e{elj often went. Threatening to indict me, he demanded that I confirm that in the summer of 1990 I was together with them and Dr Vojislav [e{elj in that restaurant. Although I drew his attention to the fact that I had never been to that restaurant and that I met the people he mentioned only much later, Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that it had to be written like that in my statement. I never said that I spoke with Dr Vojislav [e{elj in Aleksandar Nikoli}’s restaurant in Mali Stapar in the autumn of 1990; on the contrary, I maintained that I had never met Dr Vojislav [e{elj anywhere and that is the only truth. It follows that I
27

have never heard, nor could I have heard, Vojislav [e{elj mention the names of Milan Stojanovi} from Stari @ednik and Bo`idar Vuji} from Subotica. Since the Serbian Radical Party did not exist at the time, which is a widely known fact, I could not become its member. This is the truth, and the claim made in my purported statement is false. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that I confirm that in early 1991 in the municipalities of Mali I|o{, Subotica, Bajmok, Ba~ka Topola and Kanji`a in Northern Ba~ka, I gathered friends, colleagues from the police and other people to join the Serbian Radical Party. He said that Stojanovi}, Vuji} and I together recruited about 450 people, including about 300 recruited by me, and that all of them received membership cards bearing Vojislav [e{elj’s signature. When I told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that this was not true and that membership cards are signed by the general secretary rather than Vojislav [e{elj, Paolo said that they had copies of some membership cards bearing the signature of Vojislav [e{elj and that I had to confirm that in my statement. During my interview with investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philip, whose last name I do not remember, Stocchi asked me who my superior officers were. I said that Milan Jerinki} was the chief of the district SUP of Northern Ba~ka, Radovan Kne`evi} was the chief of the Operations Service, Mirko Zinaji} was an independent inspector and chief of the Traffic and Transport Service, and Ljubomir Markovi} and Ljubomir Radi} were officers in the Operations Service of the Serbian DB /State Security/. In front of him, Paolo Pastore Stocchi had a List of all police officials of the Northern Ba~ka District and demanded that I confirm that they were all members of the Serbian Radical Party but that Radovan Kne`evi} was only a sympathizer. I said that this was not true, because if it were true, they would have all lost their jobs. I maintained that the ruling Socialist Party of Serbia appointed them to these positions and that most of them were members of the SPS /Socialist Party of Serbia/, while some were members of the JUL /Yugoslav United Left/ or the SKPJ /League of Communists – Movement for Yugoslavia/, which is the absolute truth. Stocchi did not care what I said. He came with a prepared statement and, in fact, just informed me what I had to sign. He repeated that these SUP officials were members of the Serbian Radical Party and this would be written in my statement, which I would have to sign and confirm during my testimony. If I refused, he said that an indictment would be brought against me. Afraid of the indictment, although I knew I had not committed any crime, I agreed to everything, aware that both my statement and my testimony would be false. In addition, he said that I would have to confirm that I had known Jovo Ostoji} since 1990, that he was an active member of the Serbian Radical Party who gathered and trained volunteers from Sombor and Apatin for the war in Croatia, that he took part in the attack on Borovo Selo on 2 May 1991, and that before the attack he told me the plan of attack on Borovo Selo. The truth is that I first saw Jovo Ostoji} in his house in 1992, I know nothing about his participation in the attack on Borovo Selo and he never told me about the plan of the attack, nor could he, because I did not know him at the time. 1 knew nothing about his activities, if any, concerning the training of volunteers for the war
28

in Croatia, but I know that at the time he was a member of Jovan Ra{kovi}’s Serbian Democratic Party, rather than the Serbian Radical Party. Stocchi did not want to listen to the truth, and under threat of indictment for a war crime I agreed to sign what Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me to sign. I state that Milan Jerinki} and Radovan Kne`evi} never ordered me to gather volunteers and reserve policemen, everyone but Croats and Hungarians. Although I never spoke with them about this subject, Paolo Pastore Stocchi tried to persuade me that we had spoken about it in October and November 1991 and that it must be put in my statement if I wanted to go free. I state that my superior officers knew nothing about my political activities outside working hours, nor did they know that I was a member of the Serbian Radical Party. At Stocchi’s insistence, I signed a despicable lie in my statement that, at a rally in Subotica in 1991, Vojislav [e{elj said that he was going to gouge out the eyes of the Croats living in Subotica who were not loyal to the current authorities and that all the Croats should be expelled to Croatia, which also applied to the Hungarians. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that they had evidence that this was exactly what [e{elj had said and showed me a video recording from the Mak so vi zi jacomedy show, where Vojislav [e{elj jokingly said something to that effect. Telling me in a threatening way to take care of myself and my family, Paolo Pastore Stocchi put this lie in my statement and pointed out that I would have to confirm it when I testified against [e{elj. The truth is that I was never at the rally of the Serbian Radical Party which was held, as far as I recall, in September 1991 and at which Vojislav [e{elj spoke. I could not have been at that rally because I was not in Subotica at all. I never heard, nor did anyone tell me, that Vojislav [e{elj ever said that he would gouge out the eyes of Croats and that they should be expelled together with the Hungarians. According to the reports in the media, there were about 5,000 people at that rally and many journalists and TV crews. I am certain that Vojislav [e{elj would never say anything like that, especially not in front of such a large audience. Under great pressure and threats from Paolo Pastore Stocchi, as a witness for the Prosecution I would have to confirm that after the rally held in Subotica I was at a private meeting in Novi @ednik. Although I knew it was a lie, Stocchi tried to persuade me that it was in 1991 in Milan Stojanovi}’s house, where Milan Jerinki}, the secretary of the Inter-Municipal Secretariat of the Interior, Nikola Ivo{evi}, the chief of the Operations Service of the SUP, Bo`idar Vuji}, the chairman of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica, and Vojislav [e{elj were allegedly present. According to Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s instructions, as a witness in court I would have to confirm that Vojislav [e{elj told us then that we would kill and expel all the Croats and all non-Serbs. During the interview with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philip Oberkne`ev, Stocchi told me that Maja Gojkovi} was from Novi Sad, that she was Vojislav [e{elj’s deputy and that she was responsible for Vojvodina. I confirmed this although I did not know what position she actually held. I made a mistake. He told me that Zoran Dra`ilovi} was the commander of all the Chetniks in the whole of Yugoslavia, the chief of the war staff and the link between all the Chetniks and [e{elj. Since I did not know who he really was, I believed him and
29

confirmed this. Later I learned that it was not true, but I had to stand by that statement. I state that I never said that the S^P /Serbian Chetnik Movement/ was the military wing of the Serbian Radical Party. Paolo Pastore Stocchi entered that in my statement without my knowledge. Stocchi also had his theory about the structure and hierarchy in the Subotica SUP, claiming that all the Serbs were Chetniks, that all SUP officials were Chetniks and that they controlled all political parties, in particular the Serbian Radical Party. I tried to explain to him who held which position and I did not link anyone with the Serbian Radical Party, because there was no such link, but for the umpteenth time he repeated that my statement must say what he asserted, or else I could be indicted on war crimes charges. I told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi that volunteers sometimes trained on an open air training ground on a state-owned farm in Subotica and that the training ground was used not only by the army and the police, but also by ordinary people for recreation. Nonetheless, Stocchi insisted that my statement say that we had to have permission from the army and police and that we practiced shooting from firearms on that training ground. I state that I did not say this and that it is a downright lie, because volunteers in Serbia never had firearms. I was in the war staff of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade only once, when I went to the Bubanj Potok barracks as a volunteer. Neither then, nor later did I see Vojislav [e{elj or have lunch with him, nor did I ever state this, although it is written in my purported statement. The truth is that we volunteers had lunch on our own, as I told Stocchi, so it is possible that, because of a mistranslation, it was written in the statement that [e{elj was with us, which, I repeat, is not true. When I spoke with the investigators in Belgrade, I said that I went to the front through the Serbian Radical Party only once, but I went several times without the SRS and this is absolutely true. I was telling the truth that we went to the front in Su bo ti caTransor Elek troVoj vo di nabuses, but I certainly did not say that we had military or police escort, because that is not true. Paolo Pastore Stocchi said that he saw in video recordings that volunteers went under police escort, so he put in my statement that we had police escort and that Zoran Dra`ilovi} obtained buses to transport the volunteers. This is a false assertion, but unfortunately I gave in to pressure, threats and blackmail, so I accepted all Stocchi’s fabrications as my statements, although I knew they were blatant lies. I never knew anything about how the Serbian Radical Party was financed. When I spoke with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and a certain Philip, I said that from time to time private entrepreneurs came to the SRS Municipal Board in Subotica and they themselves offered humanitarian aid for refugees and the Serbian people who remained in war-affected areas. The humanitarian aid involved food, medicines, heating and personal hygiene items. We never received money. Stocchi told me that I was lying and that they had information that the Serbian Radical Party had a registered enterprise, Ra di kalKo mercin Subotica, which generated large revenues. He also told me that they had information that some private and state-owned firms had to pay protection money, that is, finance the war in Croatia and the Serbian Radical Party so that their firms would not be blown up.
30

As those who provided the funding, he mentioned the Lu kas firm and its owner Ljuban Luki}, the Spascompany and its owner Mom~ilo Raji}, Mile Jerkovi}, the owner of a football club, but also the state-owned companies @e le zni ~arand 29. No vem berfrom Subotica. I knew nothing about this and I said so. I know that it is not true that Milan Stojanovi} was in charge of collecting money from companies and I said so, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi said that he had a lot of evidence of everything he had said, that it would be written in my so-called statement and that I had to confirm it if they decided that I was to testify against Vojislav [e{elj. I knew absolutely nothing about the proclamation of new voj vo das/military leaders/, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that it was immediately after the fall of Vukovar, and that the proclamation ceremony was held in a Serbian church near Valjevo. I believed that this was possible, so I confirmed it as true. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that many witnesses asserted that killing and looting were usual among Serbian Radical Party volunteers and that I had to confirm this in my statement. I said that I did not and could not know about that, because I went to the front mostly with my group, which had nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party, and that only once, briefly, I had been a Serbian Radical Party volunteer. Stocchi was visibly angry because of this and told me that from the very start I was a Serbian Radical Party volunteer, that I went to the front exclusively through the war staff in Belgrade and that I had to confirm that I myself saw all the crimes he was going to tell me about, or else I would be put on trial for war crimes. He told me that my statement would say that in February 1993 I spoke with [e{elj in his office in Belgrade in the presence of a man known as [vaba from Smederevo and Zoran Dra`ilovi}, and that Vojislav [e{elj then ordered me that in Skelani, where we were going, all Muslims should be killed, including civilians, women, the elderly and children. I knew that this was a despicable lie and I was astounded to hear Paolo Pastore Stocchi dictate this for the record. I did not dare oppose him because of the threat that I would be put on trial in The Hague or before courts in Serbia. When I spoke about this subject with prosecutor Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro in November 2002, they added a lie that two police generals, I think they said they were called Luki} and \or|evi}, were present during my conversation with Vojislav [e{elj and that they did not react when [e{elj allegedly gave orders to kill everyone in Skelani, and they added that he ordered us to kill babies in cradles and that all the Turks should be killed, not even a cat should be left alive. Geoffrey Nice then told me that they would not bring an indictment against me if I confirmed this and that I could choose the country where I wanted to live with my family, I would be given another identity, citizenship and enough money to live. I saw how far they were prepared to go, how they invented and lied, so the fear of a potential indictment completely paralyzed my consciousness and power of reasoning and out of fear I agreed to their blackmail. During the proofing for testimony in the case against Slobodan Milo{evi} in The Hague, I told Daniel Saxon that I did not know Luki} and \oro|evi}, and he said to me: “We will give you their pictures and you will have to memorize and identify them.”
31

In the office of the Prosecution in Belgrade, Paolo Pastore Stocchi showed me photographs from the appointment of new Chetnik voj vo dasand said that it was a tradition during this ceremony to stand by the Chetnik flag and put a pistol, hand grenade and knife on the flag. I did not see that in the photographs, and I know that you do not carry weapons into a church, but I still believed that he was telling the truth and confirmed it. Paolo Pastore Stocchi demanded that I confirm that Milan Stojanovi} and Jovan Glamo~anin took 3,000 DM /German marks/ from the party coffers and allegedly used it to buy food for [e{elj, although the money was badly needed for the funeral of two volunteers killed in a military operation in Petrinja. I said, which is absolutely true, that we had never had so much money in the coffers, that Glamo~anin had no jurisdiction over Subotica and that there was nothing more stupid than to spend 3,000 DM to buy food for someone at the time when people were living on 10 to 15 marks a month. Stocchi said that it had to be like that and there was nothing I could do. Threatening me with an indictment on war crimes charges, Paolo Pastore Stocchi demanded that I confirm that I was present during the conversation between [e{elj, Jerinki} and Ivo{evi} in Milan Stojanovi}’s house in May 1992. Stocchi told me that [e{elj allegedly said that through pressure the SRS took power in Hrtkovci, the village they renamed Srbislavci. [e{elj allegedly said that the Chetniks from the village threatened the Croat who was the president of the local commune and removed him from that position. He also said that [e{elj mentioned a certain Ostoja Sibin~i}, who was already forcing Croats to leave, and that state institutions such as police were dismissing Croats and Hungarians from work. He allegedly ordered us to throw grenades at their houses, attack them physically, break windows, threaten them over the telephone and mark their houses with crosses. Stocchi also told me that I had to confirm that [e{elj said that in Hrtkovci we should kill some people and that a Catholic priest had already been killed there. I knew nothing about this and I state that these are fabrications and lies. Stocchi told me that he knew that I had personally contributed to the intimidation of the Croats, but they would not criminally prosecute me for that. In the record he even described how I intimidated a group of Hungarian hunters in Hajdukovo village on the orders of Milan Jerinki}. These lies, with my consent because of Stocchi’s pressure, also became an integral part of my statement. Because of the fear of indictment, I had to confirm in my statement that Bo`idar Vuji} and other members of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica and Hrtkovci marked non-Serbian houses for the purposes of identification and expulsion and that grenades were thrown at several Croatian houses in Hrtkovci, that they expelled about 70% of non-Serbian civilians, with the participation of the police who escorted them to the Croatian border. I knew that these were all lies, of course, and that my statement would be false, but I had no courage to oppose these lies, because I was not prepared to answer for something I had not done, and they continuously threatened me with criminal responsibility and an indictment by The Hague. I learned from the official bulletin and some colleagues that in 1992 in Subotica, a makeshift low-intensity explosive device was placed at the front door of the
32

Catholic cathedral, causing no visible damage or casualties. I said so when I gave my statement in Belgrade. Nonetheless, Paolo Pastore Stocchi was not interested in the truth, rather he told me that my statement would say that the Catholic cathedral in Subotica was blown up by explosive, that the order to place the explosive was given by Vojislav [e{elj through Bo`idar Vuji} and that it was done by members of the Serbian Radical Party. I even had to confirm in my statement that I was present on the premises of the Serbian Radical Party when the alleged perpetrator, Nikola Bojani}, was talking to Bo`idar Vuji} about the explosion. I agreed to confirm this lie, too, and later I learned that the perpetrator of this crime was caught, processed and was not a member of the Serbian Radical Party. I learned from the official bulletin that in May 1992 an unknown Hungarian placed a makeshift low-intensity explosive device in the Sve to zarMar ko vi}secondary school in Subotica and one passer-by was slightly injured in the incident. Paolo Pastore Stocchi ordered me to accuse Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party of this, stressing that the Serbian name of the school should not be mentioned, but rather that a Hungarian school was in question. It is also true that I said that in the spring of 1992 the Subotica SUP mobilized many reserve policemen and distributed weapons to them in Novi @ednik, which was totally legal. I maintain that no distinction was made on the grounds of nationality or religion at the time. Paolo Pastore construed his own version and added a lie to my statement that the weapons were allegedly distributed to the Serbian Radical Party, the Socialist Party of Serbia and other Serbs. He also added that the SUP started to dismiss Croatian and Hungarian policemen, which was not true, nor was it true that, when weapons were distributed to the reserve police force, sniper rifles aimed at Hungarian villages of Cantavir and Orum were positioned on silos as intimidation measures. I did not know how and from where the weapons came, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi said that I had to say that I personally saw the weapons come and that they were distributed to the SRS and SPS. When I first spoke with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and a certain Philip in the office of the Hague Tribunal in Belgrade in mid-July 2002, Stocchi was both asking questions and giving answers, constantly threatening me with an indictment on war crimes charges. Although I knew that I had done nothing against the rules of war, I was deeply afraid of the indictment and I was sure they could always find several witnesses to give false evidence against me. There were situations when, in addition to promises that they would not bring an indictment, they promised a third country, new identity and financial provision. In early November 2002, they again called me to come to the offices of the Hague Tribunal in Belgrade, where I spoke with Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro. Geoffrey Nice told me that he had read my statement from July 2002, that it was good, that now they had irrefutable facts for a joint criminal enterprise and that I was not allowed to change the statement during my testimony. Nice then insisted on adding new lies to the statement. He said that I had to confirm that I heard from Zdravko Abramovi} and Jovo Ostoji} that Vojislav [e{elj and Mihalj Kertes came to Ba~ka Palanka in 1991 and, together with Jovo Ostoji}, distributed weapons to the Serbs. When I spoke about
33

this subject with Daniel Saxon in The Hague during my proofing in the Milo{evi} case, Saxon said that it was not enough if I heard it from someone, but he insisted that I say during my testimony that I was accidentally passing through Ba~ka Palanka and personally saw [e{elj, Kertes and Ostoji} distributing weapons to the Serbs on a military training ground. During an adjournment, in the presence of Mrs. Hildegard, Daniel Saxon told me that they had some video recordings confirming that and added that I had nothing to be afraid of because neither Milo{evi} nor [e{elj would ever come out of prison. I confirmed all this although I have never seen these three men together in my life anywhere, including Ba~ka Palanka. During the interview in Belgrade in November 2002, Geoffrey Nice told me that the army, through the MUP, brought weapons to Novi @ednik in 1991, that the weapons were placed at the disposal of the Serbian Radical Party and that Milan Stojanovi} and \ordija Leki} distributed the weapons to members and sympathizers of the Serbian Radical Party. Although I knew nothing about this, I had to say that the weapons were distributed without my knowledge and that I found out about it much later. The interview with Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro lasted one day and after that I went back home to Silba{. At the end of 2002, during the night somebody fired several shots from an automatic weapon at my house in Silba{, but nobody was injured. I found 15 cartridges from the bullets which had been fired, so I immediately called the Victims and Witnesses Unit and told them what had happened. I am certain that this incident was a form of intimidation and that it was done on orders from the Prosecutor’s Office. It might also have been someone from the police because they were the only ones who knew about my contacts with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal. This incident frightened me some more and I had no other choice but to contact the Victims and Witnesses Unit for help. Andrea from the Victims and Witnesses Unit came after a few hours, asked about the incident and took my passport and that of my wife. She called me in early January 2003 and told me to be ready and that on 9 January they would move us to a safe location, where we should take only the most necessary things. On 9 January 2003, Andrea came with a man from Finland, told us to get into the van quickly and they drove us off. After two or three hours of driving, we got to a hotel, where we spent the night and continued our trip from there. When my wife and I got out of the van, we realized that we were at Belgrade airport and that they were taking us somewhere outside Serbia. They threatened us not to say anything and said they would deal with all the formalities at the airport. We entered the aircraft without any passport or customs control, still not knowing where they were taking us. When we landed at an airport and left the aircraft, they told us we were in Holland. Only then did we realize that we had been kidnapped. A passenger vehicle met us at the airport in Holland and drove us to Zoetermeer, where Andrea put us up in an apartment. She told us that we were completely safe now and gave us 300 to 400 EUR each for food. She said that the accommodation and all other costs would be borne by them. Before they left, Andrea and an Englishman who I think said his name was Bob, told us that my wife and I would
34

get between 700 and 800 EUR each month, but that we could not go back to Serbia. They warned us not to direct attention to ourselves because there were many operatives from the Serbian State Security in Holland who, as she said, would look for me and kill me. My ex-wife and I were taken to Holland against our will, so we felt kidnapped and we had limited freedom of movement in Holland. Andrea came the next day with an interpreter and brought us our health insurance cards. I got one in the name of Bojan Kuvalo and my ex-wife in the name of Marija Kuvalo. The next day, after we received these cards, Paolo Pastore Stocchi came to see us and said, “If you fail to confirm your statement, you’ll have to bear the consequences. You’ll answer for your crimes and be in prison together with Milo{evi} and [e{elj”. I told him that that was not my statement but his and that sooner or later he would answer for falsifying it. Paolo ironically replied to my comment and said, “We have information that they are looking for you from Serbia and want to kill you. You cannot go back there”. I spent over a year in Holland, during which time they changed my place of residence twice. Before moving me to a place near the town of Leiden, Paolo Pastore Stocchi visited me. He told me that I was going to be a witness in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}, that preparations would start in a few days and that I would have to stand by the statement I had given to the Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade. I was astonished by the fact that I was to testify against Slobodan Milo{evi}, with whom I have absolutely no connection. Paolo Pastore Stocchi replied, “You’ll see what connections you have to him, we’ll teach you.” The Prosecution tried in a “nice” manner to get me to cooperate and accuse Slobodan Milo{evi} and Vojislav [e{elj of war crimes. They promised me a third country of my own choice, an apartment, employment, a new identity for me and my family, money and free medical care. If I refused to cooperate, they repeated that I would be held criminally responsible for war crimes and that I would end up in their prison. Having to choose between two great evils, I opted for the evil that seemed more favorable to me at the time. During the preparations to testify against Slobodan Milo{evi}, which started in April 2003 and lasted daily for over a month, about ten people talked to me at the seat of the Hague Tribunal. I do not remember the names of all the people present but I know that Paolo Pastore Stocchi from Italy, Daniel Saxon from the USA, a Canadian man whose name I do not recall, a Belgian officer called Reynaud Theunens who testified in the trial of Dr Vojislav [e{elj in February 2008 and a German woman called Hildegard were in charge. During the preparations for my testimony in the Milo{evi} case in Holland I had a toothache. The doctor in The Hague gave me valium several times and I had five teeth extracted, so I was completely dazed and incapable of giving any sort of statement. However, this did not stop the prosecutors from questioning me in these circumstances.
35

During the preparations they showed me a map of Yugoslavia, read out my so-called statement and asked me questions about all the possible flash points during the conflicts between the Serbs and the Croats and the Serbs and the Muslims in the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia. They were most interested in knowing which and whose units were on which part of the front, who had sent them there and who commanded these units. When I told them I knew nothing about this, they handed me some documents, claiming that they were from the General Staff and the Serbian Radical Party, and demanded that I confirm their authenticity. They also showed me some orders from the General Staff marked military secret, and I was supposed to confirm during my testimony that I was familiar with them and that they were authentic. They also showed me some documents which they claimed were from the Serbian Radical Party and which mainly related to orders given by Ljubi{a Petkovi}, Chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. They demanded that during my testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi} I confirm the authenticity of these documents, the seal of the Serbian Radical Party and the signature of Ljubi{a Petkovi}. I found this particularly surprising because during the interview at the Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, Paolo Pastore Stocchi never mentioned Ljubi{a Petkovi}. He kept saying that Zoran Dra`ilovi} was the Chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party and that I was to confirm this during my testimony. I did not know who Ljubi{a Petkovi} was or what and where his function was. I am completely unfamiliar with his signature and they wanted me to testify that I had received some documents from Petkovi} himself by fax. During the preparations for my testimony they showed me photographs of some politicians, such as Radovan Karad`i}, Milan Babi}, Mirko Jovi}, Vojislav [e{elj, Arkan and others, some military officers, including Ratko Mladi}, Milan Marti} and others, and finally police generals Luki} and \or|evi} and some others, who I was supposed to identify as being accused of war crimes, regardless of whether I knew them or not. Whenever I told the prosecutors from the Hague Tribunal that I did not know a certain person in the photos, they would tell me to memorize the face on the photo well and that I would have to identify them. They insisted in particular on police generals Luki} and \or|evi}. As I was very frightened that they would liquidate me, I agreed to give false evidence against Slobodan Milo{evi} and confirm certain allegations I did not know about. Daniel Saxon also told me that if I testified well, I would be moved to a third country with all imaginable benefits for me and my family. I am trying to justify to myself why I agreed to being a false witness, and I think I had to do it. All this was happening after my operation, when I was without a job or means of living, with constant threats that I would be accused of war crimes, which I had not committed. I had no other choice but to agree to their blackmail because I would not have had any protection in this DOS /Democratic Opposition of Serbia/-run country. For my false testimony in the Milo{evi} case, the Prosecution gave me a new identity and an apartment of about 60 m2 with a garage and brand new kitchen appliances in Norway. I also received about 4,000 euros cash to buy furniture. Two
36

months later I bought a car, received a new identity card, driving license, and a passport valid in all the countries of the European Union, but was also banned from entering Serbia and Montenegro. My monthly income was about 2,500 euros. In the summer of 2005, while I was in Norway, Paolo Pastore Stocchi called me and told me that I had to come to The Hague to be proofed to give testimony in the case against Dr Vojislav [e{elj. I had had enough of everything. I had no strength left, or desire to testify falsely and confirm the lies from the Milo{evi} case. Despite all the warnings I fled to Serbia. I became familiar with the contents of my so-called statement for the first time in Norway. This statement was sent to me by a person from the interpretation service, and some time ago I obtained a transcript of my testimony in the Milo{evi} case, which had been published by the Nata{a Kandi}’s Humanitarian Law Centre, and this helped me put this statement together. I am sorry that the Hague Tribunal did not agree to my testifying in the proceedings conducted against Dr Vojislav [e{elj so that I can tell publicly to what I was subjected by the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal and why I had to give false evidence. I was particularly interested in testifying as a Chamber witness in the Vo ji slav[e {eljCase and correcting the mistake that I have had on my conscience for more than seven years. Faced with the fact that the Hague Tribunal is emphatically anti-Serbian, I could not bear another Serb suffering the consequences of my false testimony to which I was forced under threats, blackmail and various kinds of pressure, /and so/ I decided to write and certify this statement. I give this statement of my own free will without any pressure or blackmail, and I agree with Dr Vojislav [e{elj using it in his trial before the Hague Tribunal. in novi Sad Statement given by: 20 august 2010 Miodrag lukovac /a signature/ OV I number: 30084/2010 It is hereby certified that Miodrag Lukovac, Novi Sad, Du{ana Vashjeva 30 as Provider of Statement, personal identity card 000848583/09 Novi Sad personally signed this statement – acknowledged that the signature on this document. His identity was established based on his personal identity card-passport. The 230- dinar certification fee was collected. Novi Sad Lower court Date: 20 August 2010 Authorized official Dejan Mi}i} /a stamp and signature/

37

iii
14 january 2011 aj BcS original received 23/12/2010 chamber’s instruction international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia case no. iT-03-67-P77.3 To: Trial Chamber II judges: Judge O-Gon Kwon, Judge Kevin Parker, Judge Barton Hall Registrar: John Hocking Date: 23 December 2010 Submission no: 463 PRoSecuToR v. VojiSlaV [e{elj PRofeSSoR VojiSlaV [e[elj’S Rule 65ter MoTion amicus curiae Prosecutor: Bruce MacFarlane The accused: Professor Vojislav [e{elj expert Team assisting the Defense Zoran Krasi} Mirko Blagojevi} Gordana Pop-Lazi} Petar Joji} Dragan Todorovi} Vesna Zobenica Vjerica Radeta Elena Bo`i}-Talijan Ljiljana Mihajlovi} Miroljub Ignjatovi} Filip Stojanovi} Marina Toman Vesna Mari} Momir Markovi} Jadranko Vukovi} Nemanja [arovi} Ognjen Mihajlovi} Nata{a Jovanovi} Boris Aleksi} Aleksandar Martinovi} 1. Pursuant to Rule 65ter of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Professor Vojislav [e{elj hereby submits a list of persons he intends to call as witnesses at the trial, and copies of the statements those persons have given to the media and made public. 2. The proffered documents meet the general admissibility criteria for evidence under Rule 89 of the Rules: they are authentic, relevant and have probative value.
38

3. The proposed witnesses whose names are listed in Annex A have knowledge which is relevant for the present case and the defense of Professor Vojislav [e{elj. In the statements they have given to the various media, attached in Annex B, they clarify important issues crucial for the trial. Inter alia, the proposed witnesses shed light on the details pertaining to the public disclosure of the information on their identity, thereby showing that the accusations against Professor Vojislav [e{elj are inaccurate and unfounded, and that he cannot be held responsible in any way for the offences he is charged with. We will now present an overview of a part of these allegations, dealt with in full in the statements attached in Annex B: – Jovan Glamo~anin, in his statement OV I No. 15033/2010 of 9 December 2010 notes as follows, “At the moment when I got in touch with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, I disclosed publicly in Serbia my name and the pseudonym I have never acknowledged, which was imposed against my will by the Pre-Trial Chamber at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal in The Hague.”1) – Zoran Ranki}, in his statement OV I No. 153643/2010 of 2 December 2010, states as follows: “I have never tried to conceal my identity. I have made public appearances in the media. At public debates and launches of Dr. Vojislav Se{elj’s books, organized all over Serbia, I have spoken before audiences numbering thousands of people, always under my full name. I have always spoken about my experience with the Tribunal, too.”2) – Nenad Miti}, in his statement OV I No. 7976/2010 of 29 September 2010, explains in detail the protective measures he was granted: “I have spoken about that after giving evidence; this has been in the public domain for a long time, and I have made it public myself.”3) – Dim~e Mijatovi}, in his statement OV I No. 158554/2010 of 10 December 2010, explains why he decided to go public with his identity: “I did this as a precaution, because as time went by, given the bad treatment I received at the hands of the OTP, the threats and pressure, I slowly began to understand that going public was the only way for me to protect myself and that the more people knew about my interviews with them, the safer I would be.”4) – Radovan Nova~i}, in his statement OV I No. 156989/2010, presents details about the public disclosure of his identity: “I wanted as many people as possible to learn about that, and I am grateful to the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj for presenting my statements to the Serbian public.”5) – Mile Crnobrnja, in his statement OV I No. 157817/2010 of 9 December 2010, notes as follows: “I have never wanted to testify under a pseudonym...”6) – Had`i Zoran Dra`ilovi}, in his statement OV. 2 No. 5731/2010 of 8 October 2010, speaking about the public rallies, states the following: “My name was often mentioned publicly at the rallies in the context of the abuse of witnesses on the part of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal or as a potential defense witness for Vojislav [e{elj. I have never objected to that; quite the contrary, I have been happy with the presence at the rallies of the media which could record all that. I wanted to address the public at the rallies myself, but unfortunately, this has not been possible for health reasons.”7) – Miodrag Lukovac, in his statement OV I No. 39207/2010 of 10 December 2010, notes as follows: “I have spoken publicly at some local rallies, I have given
39

an interview to the Pravda newspaper, in which I gave my name and informed the public about the pressure exerted on me by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal.”8) – Aleksandar Gaji}, in his statement OV I No. 134735/2010 of 29 October 2010, states the following: “For all the statements I have given to [e{elj’s expert defense team, I have given my permission for them to be used in public before the Hague Tribunal, and to be disclosed to the public in Serbia. Before I got in touch with the Defense Team, I had decided to testify before the Hague Tribunal in open session, as a defense witness, under my full name.”9) – Nenad Jovi}, in his statement OV I No. 10595/2010 of 2 November 2010, notes as follows: “I have never sought any protective measures from the Prosecution, and my identity has not been disclosed to the public by Vojislav [e{elj... The first time my name and my identity were made public was on Fox TV on 29 November 2007. My identity was disclosed by Nata{a Kandi}” in the Recite narodu programme.”10) Relief sought 4. In the present motion Professor Vojislav [e{elj requests that the persons listed in Annex A be included in the witness list and that their statements to the media, attached in Annex B, be added to the exhibit list. (Word count: 861) Professor Vojislav [e{elj /signed/ (Drafted by Expert Team member Boris Aleksi}) annex a List of witnesses to be called by professor Vojislav [e[elj: 1. Jovan Glamo~anin, JMBG /personal JD number/ 1706940862500, residing at Veljka Vlahovi}a No. 11/14, Pan~evo, Serbia. 2. Zoran Ranki}, JMBG 010895571400, residing at Husinskih rudara No. 43, Belgrade, Serbia. 3. Nenad Miti}, JMBG 1512959760041, no permanent residence, temporary address: \ure Dani~i}a no. 11/24, Smederevo, Serbia. 4. Dim~e Mijatovi}, JMBG 2801959850038, residing at Tihomira Ostoji}a No. 114, Zrenjanin, Serbia. 5. Radovan Nov~i}, JMBG 300961773627, residing at Vojvode Mi{i}a bb /No house number/, Loznica, Serbia. 6. Mile Crnobrnja, JMBG 2210954312501, residing at Viktora Star~i}a No. 15a, Zemun, Serbia. 7. Had`i Zoran Dra`ilovi}, JMBG 1905947710237, residing at Vidska No. 37, Belgrade, Serbia. 8. Miodrag Lukovac, JMBG 2504962810069, residing at Du{ana Vasiljeva No. 30, Novi Sad, Serbia.
40

9. Aleksandar Gaji}, JMBG 2807962714046, residing at Jelenka Mihajlovi}a No. 12, Belgrade, Serbia. 10. Nenad Jovi}, JMBG 0210957774118, residing in the village of Radalj, Mali Zvornik, Serbia.
endnotes: 1) Statement of Jovan Glamo~anin of 9 December 2010, para. 81. 2) Statement of Zoran Ranki} of 2 December 201, para. 163. 3) Statement of Nenad Miti} of 29 September 2010, para. 16. 4) Statement of Dim~e Mijatovi} of 10 December 2010, para. 81. 5) Statement of Radovan Nova~i} of 8 December 2010, para. 79. 6) Statement of Mile Crnobrnja of 9 December 2010, para. 47. 7) Statement of Had`i Zoran Dra`ilovi} of 8 October, para. 45. 8) Statement of Miodrag Lukovac of 10 December, para. 136. 9) Statement of Aleksandar Gaji} of 29 October, para. 106. 10) Statement of Nenad Jovi} of 2 November, para. 57.

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. witness Statement witness information Last name: Glamo~anin First name: Jovan Father’s name: Mitar Nickname: none Date of birth: 17 June 1940 Place of birth: Hajdukovo, Subotica, Republic of Serbia Address: Pan~evo, Veljka Vlahovi}a Street no. 11/14 Telephone: – Gender: Male Ethnic origin: Serbian Religion: Orthodox Christian Language(s) spoken: Serbian Language(s) used in interview: Serbian Current occupation: retired, writer, member of the Academy Former occupation: lawyer Date and place of interview: 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 November 2010, in Pan~evo Interviewer: Peter Joji} Names of all persons present during interview(s): l. Petar Joji} 2. Dejan Mirovi} Witness’s signature /signed/ Initialed: 1. /signed/ 2. /signed/ /stamped/
41

witness Statement 1. I, Jovan Glamo~anin, father’s name Mitar, born on 17 June 1940 in the village of Hajdukovo, municipality of Subotica, Republic of Serbia, residing in Pan~evo, Veljka Vlahovi}a Street no. 11/14, identity card No. M 001916963, issued by the Pan~evo SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, JMBG /personal ID number/ 1706940862500, with a degree in law, member of the Academy, of Serbian ethnic origin, Orthodox Christian faith, citizen of the Republic of Serbia. 2. Since I have been following from the very start and regularly practically all the trials in The Hague, primarily that of Vojislav [e{elj, I have reached the conclusion that a new indictment for contempt of court has been issued against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. The indictment is based, as far as I understand, on a book in which my name is mentioned among twenty other names. 3. Prompted by the indictment for contempt of court against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, and by my patriotic feelings, I have contacted attorneys Petar Joji} and Dejan Mirovi}, members of the Expert Team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj in preparing his defense before the Hague Tribunal in order to provide a statement. 4. In the course of the interview, Petar Joji} and Dejan Mirovi} read out to me Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which I understood, because I have a law degree myself. I understood the penalties that failure to comply with Rule 77A of the Rules may incur. 5. In my statement, I will state clearly what I have seen and heard myself and what I have heard from others. 6. In my statement, I will describe my contacts with the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor from The Hague, the threats, blackmail and intimidation I have suffered at the hands of some of the investigators. I will describe my contacts with the members of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team. 7. In the case against Vojislav [e{elj before this Tribunal, I was called by the Trial Chamber to testify, and I did testify under my full name, in open session, on 10 and 11 December 2008, without any voice or image distortion, and without using the pseudonym VS-044. My general Political Background 8. In late eighties and early nineties, when the League of Communists, of which I was a member, broke down, I set out to establish a movement which was named the Serbian Popular Movement for a Unified Serbia. 9. The movement was established in order to pressure the government into allowing the institution of the multi-party system in Serbia and to provide aid and protection to the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, who were at risk because of an escalation of the [iptar /Albanian/ separatist insurrections. 10. I met Vojislav [e{elj in early 1990, as one of the founders of the Serbian Freedom Movement. 11. In late 1990 and early 1991, my contacts with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj intensified. I concluded, based on those contacts, that our political and /word illegible because of stamp/ views were completely identical, and I decided therefore to join the Serbian Radical Party, which was in the process of being founded at the time.
42

12. The Serbian Radical Party was created with the establishment of the majority of the municipal boards of the already registered Popular Radical Party (NRS) and all the municipal boards of the Serbian Chetnik Movement (S^P). 13. The inaugural convention of the Serbian Radical Party was held in Kragujevac on 23 February 1991. I was elected member of the Main Board at the convention. 14. It is not true that before the Congress, or the inaugural convention, was held, I signed an application form for the membership in the Serbian Radical Party, because there were no membership application forms. It was not until the first session of the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ Main Board that the decision was made on the format of the membership application form which was then printed a few days later; I was among the first to sign the application form for the membership in the Serbian Radical Party. 15. I do not know how my statement came to contain the claim that I signed the membership application form before the Main Board decided on its format, the protective symbols and size. 16. At a regular session of the Main Board, in September or October 1991, I was elected president of the Serbian Radical Party Regional Board for Banat. contacts with the Prosecution 17. I had my first contact with the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor /OTP/ from The Hague on 26, 27, 28 and 30 May 2003. On that occasion, I talked to Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philippe Oberkne`ev. The interview took place in the OTP office in Belgrade, Jevrema Gruji}a Street no. 11. 18. The interview with the prosecution was preceded by a telephone call on 4 May 2003 from Filip Petrovi}, most likely an interpreter, who introduced himself as an official of the Tribunal in The Hague. 19. Since I did not call Filip Petrovi} back on the telephone number he had left with my wife with whom he had talked, some ten days later, he called me again in the presence of prosecutor Daniel Saxon, and told me I had to come to the OTP office in Belgrade. 20. In the course of the interview, the investigators did not tell me if I should give a statement as a witness, as an accused or as a suspect. They did not tell me for what purpose my statement would be used. 21. As far as I can recall, they did not tell me that my attorney should be present, and I did not notice that the interview was recorded using audio or video equipment. 22. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi wrote down my statement on a laptop computer, and after the interview was over, I was given the statement in English to sign, and I signed it. I was never given a copy of the statement in Serbian for me to read carefully and make comments. 23. I remember quite clearly that I never told the investigators while the statement was taken from me that in the Serbian Radical Party there was a parallel board of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. In the Serbian Radical Party there never were two parallel boards in a single municipality; there would be a section of the
43

S^P /Serbian Chetnik Movement/, which operated under the auspices of the political structure, i.e. the municipal board of the Serbian Radical Party. 24. I told the investigators that on one occasion I was a member of the delegation of the Serbian Radical Party which visited Knin in the Republic of Serbian Krajina in late January 1993. The investigator recorded erroneously in my statement or the interpreter misinterpreted, that there were between five and six thousand volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party present there. I remember quite clearly that I mentioned the figure of between 500 and 600 volunteers. war Staff 25. I remember well that I never defined the War Staff as the main organ of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I would like to note that as of April 1991 it was called the Crisis Staff, and that it was established in order to collect humanitarian aid for the refugees who were coming in from Croatia at the time. As such, the Crisis Staff could not have been the main organ of the S^P. In the meantime, the conflict in Croatia escalated, and the Crisis Staff started sending volunteers there and on 1 October 1991, it changed its name to the War Staff. 26. I am sure that I did not tell the investigators that Dr. Vojislav [e{elj had the final say when decisions were made in the War Staff and that he personally signed all the decisions. I did not have anything to do with the workings of the War Staff, nor do I know what kind of decisions they made. I never saw any decisions of the War Staff signed by Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. 27. I know that all the wounded, regardless of their affiliation, were treated in all health care and military institutions. Paolo Pastore Stocchi lied that the volunteers from Pan~evo had to go to the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ or VJ /Yugoslav Army/ hospitals to get treatment. 28. The volunteers who joined the effort to defend the Serbian people had the same rights and obligations as the soldiers in the reserve force of the JNA or the VJ. 29. When I gave my statement to the investigators, I did not know who the members of the War Staff were. I had an opportunity to view the document later and I realized I had made a mistake when I said that Tomislav Nikoli} and Maja Gojkovi} were members of the War Staff. 30. I know that Jovo Ostoji} was the chairman of the local board in Prigrevica; he fought in the war, and was a deputy of the Serbian Radical Party in the Assembly of the former Yugoslavia. When I spoke about Jovo Ostoji} to the investigators, I had in mind another period, not the year 1991, when Jovo Ostoji} was a member of the Serbian Democratic Party headed by Jovan Ra{kovi}. 31. I do not know if Vojislav [e{elj met with Milan Stojanovi} in his house in Novi @ednik in the autumn of 1991. I was not present. financing the SRS 32. I know that for a short while – for about a month or two in 1991 – the Serbian Radical Party had a company registered as belonging to the Belgrade board, but the company did not generate any income. I was not involved in the financing issues at that level and I do not have any direct knowledge thereof; everything I said was based on hearsay.
44

33. It is true that during the interview with Paolo Pastore Stocchi I said that Vojislav [e{elj had received financial aid to the amount of one million German Marks from Milo{evi}’s regime to give support to the appointment of the Federal Government. I also stated that Vojislav [e{elj had received one million German Marks from the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), with Slobodan Milo{evi}’s approval, as financial aid to support the appointment of Nikola [ainovi}’s government in the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. When we discussed this topic, I said that Vojislav [e{elj had received three million German Marks from the SPS in order to buy support and victory for Slobodan Milo{evi} over Milan Pani}, his opponent at the elections. I am sure it is not true because I received this misinformation from Aleksandar Stefanovi}, an unreliable person who is at odds with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. I put this lie in my book as a piece of gossip, in response to the slander Dr. Vojislav [e{elj spread about me in the previous period. 34. I never told the OTP investigators that Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s personal bodyguard controlled the black market foreign currency dealers operating in the streets. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi talked about this topic and wanted me to confirm it in my statement. Despite the fact that I said I had no knowledge of that, I was quite surprised when the presiding judge of the Trial Chamber asked me about the alleged control over the black market in foreign currency. 35. When the financing of the Serbian Radical Party was discussed with the OTP representatives, I told the investigators that in the autumn of 1995 I received a visit from a high-ranking official from the Yugoslav Allied Left (JUL), Zoran Todorovi} aka Kundak, who offered me two million German Marks. In return, he wanted me to join that party, bringing with me the parliamentary group of the SRS Nikola Pa{i}. Since I rejected the offer, Zoran Todorovi} tried to persuade me by lying to me that Vojislav [e{elj had already received ten million German Marks in 1992 and 1993 from the SPS, but I did not believe him. 36. In the course of the interview with investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philippe Oberkne`ev, Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that Slobodan Petri~evi} from Pri{tina, Novak Savi} from Loznica, Slobodan Stanki} from Belgrade and ^edomir Vasiljevi} from [abac, who allegedly bankrolled Vojislav [e{elj, had broken the law or served years in prison. I told Stocchi I was not aware of that, but Paolo Pastore nevertheless put it in my statement himself. 37. As I was being interrogated by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, he told me that Vojislav [e{elj owned property valued at about 50 million German Marks, and that his wife, Jadranka [e{elj, owned an export-import company. Since I left the Serbian Radical Party in 1994, thereby severing all ties with Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party, I do not know if Vojislav [e{elj has any property. In this regard, I would like to say that I heard for the first time from Paolo Pastore Stocchi about Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s wife, Jadranka [e{elj, owning any kind of company. Vojislav [e{elj’s Treatment of SRS Members 38. Paolo Pastore Stocchi put to me a totally untrue statement. He told me that Vojislav [e{elj was arrogant towards his colleagues in the party. By way of an example, he told me he had personally inspected the items on the agenda that all the members of the Main Board, and later of the Central Homeland Administrati45

on, had to vote for; those who were against were subjected to humiliation, insults and called names. Since I was an official of the Serbian Radical Party, I can say that this is not true. Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, in his capacity as the president of the Party, also served as the chairman of the Main Board, and of the Central Homeland Administration. It is quite usual for the chairman to propose the agenda and to chair sessions, in his capacity as such. When an agenda was put forward, he would always ask those present if they had any suggestions, and then asked who was in favor. When votes were taken, on occasions people disagreed with the decisions, but those persons were never disparaged, insulted or called names. This is a blatant lie fabricated by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, who insisted in particular on its inclusion in my statement. 39. When I talked with the OTP investigators, Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that he had reliable information and statements by several witnesses who confirmed that some of Vojislav [e{elj’s close associates had been killed or died in suspicious circumstances. In the context of those stories, he spoke about the death of the former vice-president of the Serbian Radical Party, Vojin Vuleti}, the wife of Slobodan Jovi}, former deputy and chairman of the SRS City Board in Belgrade, Paska Jovi}, and the Chetnik volunteer and war leader, ethnic Albanian Oliver Denis Barlet. 40. Since I was in the inner circle of the Serbian Radical Party leadership until 1994, I told investigator Stocchi that those tales were fabrications and untrue, because Vojin Vuleti} died of angina pectoris as a member of the Democratic Party in 1992, and there are medical records to support that claim. As regards Paska Jovi}, I can say that I personally knew Slobodan Jovi} and that he spread the misinformation to the effect that Vojislav [e{elj was responsible for his wife’s death. Slobodan Jovi} had a pathological hatred of Vojislav [e{elj, and this is why he spread those lies and calumnies. After all, the court file shows that there is no mention of Vojislav [e{elj’s name in the judgment. As regards Oliver Denis Barlet, I know that this was an act of revenge by a lad – Oliver Denis Barlet had fallen in love with his girlfriend. I gave all this information to the investigators but they told me I did not speak the truth. 41. When volunteers left for the front, I was present on two occasions when Vojislav [e{elj addressed the volunteers. Vojislav [e{elj warned the volunteers to fight the enemy with chivalry and to thus acquit themselves honorably, as is the tradition of Serbian soldiers. He insisted in particular on the humane treatment of civilians, women, children, the elderly, prisoners and the wounded. The volunteers’ send-offs were public occasions, and there were journalists and TV crews in attendance, when Vojislav [e{elj addressed the volunteers. I said all this to the OTP investigators, and I do not know what they recorded in my statement. 42. I never told the OTP investigators that Vojislav [e{elj was a hypocrite, nor did I ever say he had ties with the State Security Service. I did not have any knowledge of that at the time, and I do not have any knowledge to that effect now. I never saw any personnel from that Service in the Serbian Radical Party headquarters, nor did Vojislav [e{elj ever say to me that he had met the personnel of the Service at any other place.
46

43. It is true that I told the OTP investigators that some persons, unknown to me, tried to kidnap my wife in early 1995. 44. I admit that at the time I suspected this had been done on the orders of Vojislav [e{elj, because my wife told me one of the persons looked a bit like Zoran Dra`ilovi}, but that same day I was able to ascertain this was not true. Pressure and Blackmail by the office of the Prosecutor and other Persons 45. As I have already noted, in all my interviews with the investigators and the prosecutor in May 2003, on 16 September 2006 and on 15 November 2007, I unequivocally stated that I could not testify as a prosecution witness because I was not aware of any war crimes committed by the SRS volunteers or of any other crimes from the 1991-1995 war for which Dr. Vojislav [e{elj was responsible. 46. I formed this opinion as one of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s closest associates from the period when I was a member of the Main Board, chairman of a regional board and vice-president of the Serbian Radical Party. 47. Christine Dahl, as a prosecutor, told me at the end of the interview on 15 November 2007 in my apartment, “We will come to an agreement regarding Ov~ara and Vo}in once you arrive in The Hague!” 48. I notified the Trial Chamber that I had decided to testify as a defense witness after the interviews with Christine Dahl and investigator Stocchi in my apartment in Pan~evo on 15 November 2007. With regard to that interview, I feel it is incumbent upon me to explain how they arrived, how the interview progressed and how the police officers who escorted prosecutor Dahl and investigator Paolo Stocchi acted. 49. The interview in my apartment was arranged by telephone, at the persistent insistence of Paolo Stocchi, for 16 November. However, the day before, Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me he and his associated would come on 15 November. 50. Some hours later, Paolo Pastore Stocchi and his team showed up in front of the building in which my apartment is located. I came down to meet the arrivals and was surprised to see Christine Dahl was among them. 51. When the investigators arrived in front of my apartment, a uniformed police officer informed me he had to first search the apartment, justifying his actions by saying he had been ordered to do it. 52. The search of my apartment was illegal and unconstitutional, without any court warrant, performed by a person who purported to be a police officer from Serbia. 53. After the entire apartment was searched, Christine Dahl and Paolo Pastore Stocchi, an interpreter and another police officer who did not speak Serbian entered. 54. As far as I can remember, the interview lasted for about an hour and a half, and several issues from the indictment against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj were covered in its course. 55. In the course of the interview, Christine Dahl insisted on my testifying about the war crimes committed by the SRS volunteers in Vo}in and at Ov~ara. When, after persistent insistence by Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Christine Dahl, I sa47

id I could not testify about war crimes because I did not know about them, Christine Dahl, who was displeased and angry, said, “Well, you are refusing to testify about war crimes, everybody is refusing, what am I supposed to do with the indictment, [e{elj will come back”. 56. When I said I refused to testify about non-existent crimes, Paolo Pastore Stocchi reacted angrily. He insisted I must testify, that I would be forced to do it by the police, as the carabinieri do it in Italy. He got particularly angry when I said I had decided to testify as Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense witness. 57. In the course of the interview, Christine Dahl stressed she complied with the policy pursued by her country, USA, and was implementing it herself. It was the policy to introduce Western democracy and other Western values to Serbia, the entire former Yugoslavia and the entire world. At the same time, she warned me that the OTP had the ways and means to force me to testify for the prosecution in the case against Vojislav [e{elj. 58. Christine Dahl warned my wife that we should be mindful of our daughter’s future, that there would always be a pro-Western government in Serbia, and if we felt we were at risk because of the testimony, the prosecution would provide us with a house and good living in the West. 59. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me our daughter spent a lot of time on the Internet, which caused me to suspect and conclude that I had been under police surveillance. My conclusion was reinforced by the conduct of the Serbian police officer who entered my daughter’s room from the hallway and checked her computer. This action caused me to suspect that the data on the computer were copied. 60. During my testimony on 10 and 11 December 2008 in the case against Vojislav [e{elj, the judges in the Trial Chamber, the prosecutor and the accused dealt in detail with the issue of my signature on the record of my interview or rather, interrogation in May in the office of the International Tribunal in Belgrade. In this regard, I can only repeat that I had been coerced into signing the record. 61. I was coerced because I was told in the form of a serious threat that my interrogation would continue if I refused to sign the record; this after four days of interrogation. Another form of coercion in my view was the fact that in the course of the four days I was asked questions about great many things that have nothing to do with the indictment. 62. The OTP investigators demanded from me to give them information about the names of the party leadership, from the municipal level up to the Main Board, or the Homeland Administration of the Serbian Radical Party, etc. This prompted me at one point to ask the investigators if they were interrogating me as an intelligence service or as investigators of the International Tribunal. 63. I signed the statement on the fourth day although the statement was not read out to me, because it was done in the English language, which I do not understand. For me, the coercion existed also because I was giving a statement and was supposed to testify about war crimes, and yet I do not know about any war crimes or any other crimes from the indictment against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, nor could I have known about them, and I am convinced that the SRS volunteers and Dr. Vojislav [e{elj himself did not commit them.
48

64. As I have already noted, for me, the whole interview with the investigators in May 2003 was tantamount to coercion. Mr. Stocchi asked me many questions that were based on false information he had been given by the late Slobodan Jovi}. Pressure from Zoran \in|i} 65. As far as I was concerned, a special form of pressure consisted in the joint efforts of the national government headed by the late prime minister of the Republic of Serbia, Dr. Zoran \in|i}, and the OTP to make me take part in the political assassination of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and the marginalization of the Serbian Radical Party. 66. As regards the efforts of the late Zoran \in|i}, I feel it incumbent upon me to repeat the answer I gave to the Trial Chamber on 11 December 2008. The late Zoran \in|i} talked with me in an irregular and insulting manner. He did not receive me in his office or in any other official premises: we spoke in a forest in Ko{utnjak. He told me then that the new government needed to be stabilized, that the government enjoyed Western support, that the West was ready to invest a lot of money in Serbia and that it was the only way out for our country, but that Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and the SRS were a serious obstacle to the effort to stabilize the government, which is why he had to be suppressed and his party marginalized. 67. He then added that the government in Serbia would be stabilized only once Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party were suppressed, and that this had to be done because [e{elj was much more dangerous than Slobodan Milo{evi} for the Western politics, just as the SRS was more dangerous than the SPS. When I told him I could not act against my convictions and take part in such activities, he told me, “What convictions, what patriotism, we should work for the state, forget about all that, you should think about your livelihood, I know that you do not earn a lot of money, and you deserve more”. After those remarks, he asked me to get back to him in a week’s time. 68. Since I did not get back to him, I was subjected to the torture by the special service of the Police. Among other things, in early May 2001, I was brought into custody on two occasions to be interrogated on allegations of bribery; my apartment and the apartment of my mother-in-law were searched. Needless to say, no reliable evidence was found of my involvement in bribery or anything of the sort, but it should be noted that the agents who arrested me and searched the apartments told my wife that I was placed under arrest and that the apartments were searched on direct orders from the late Zoran \in|i} 69. Based on the pressure exerted by Zoran \in|i}, special police and later on by the investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Daniel Saxon and Christine Dahl to attribute to Dr. Vojislav [e{elj not only war crimes and hate speech but other crimes and to effect his political assassination. I think that Dr. Vojislav [e{elj is on trial for his political views, not for any alleged war crimes. 70. This conclusion is corroborated by the claims made by Daniel Saxon in the course of the interview held in my apartment on 16 September 2006. On that occasion, he said, among other things, “For Serbia, the only way out is to have a pro-Western government, those who are opposed to that government should be
49

suppressed, and the most serious opponents of the Western policy are Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party.” 71. Daniel Saxon also said that [e{elj should be suppressed, and I got the impression that he was more focused on implementing the US policy and the activities of the American CIA than to the judicial function. When I made that remark, he said, laughing, “But why should I not work for my government and my intelligence service.” 72. Ana Manhajn, as the lady I encountered outside my apartment on 27 February 2008 introduced herself, more or less, brought the pressures bearing on me from May 2003, or rather from May 2001, onwards full circle. 73. Ana Manhajn appeared in front of my apartment without any previous notice, rang the doorbell and when I opened the door, she said she was looking for Jovan Glamo~anin and that she had to talk to him. When I asked her who she was, she said she was Ana Manhajn, or something like that, and when I asked her what it was that we had to talk about since I did not know her, and she did not announce she would be coming, she said, “But we must.” 74. I was reluctant to let Ana Manhajn into my apartment, but she came in uninvited. When she entered the apartment, she repeated her name and said she was Slovenian and she was a friend of the Hague Tribunal. 75. As soon as she said that, I threw Ana Manhajn out of my apartment because I figured she was not really a representative of the Hague Tribunal, because if she had been, she would have announced her arrival for sure and would not have entered my apartment like some commando. 76. As regards Ana Manhajn’s attempts to speak with me, I think it is important to note her warning as she left the apartment, “You’ll get your comeuppance when I get to The Hague!” And this marked the end of my contacts with the investigators and prosecutors from The Hague which lasted for almost five years, up until the day when I testified as a Chamber witness on 10 and 11 December 2008. contacts with the Defense Team 77. After five years of various forms of pressure, blackmail, intimidation and attempts to bribe me on the part of the prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, on 16 November 2007 I got in touch with Zoran Krasi}, member of the Expert Team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj with the preparations for his defense before the Hague Tribunal in order to explain to them the way I had been treated by the OTP investigators. 78. After talking to Zoran Krasi}, on 19 November 2007 I gave my first statement to the Defense Team member Petar Joji}, in which I described all the pressure, blackmail and intimidation on the part of the representatives of the OTP. In my statement I confirmed that I had never intended to testify for the prosecution against any Serb, including Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. 79. After the statement I gave on 19 November 2007, I gave two more statements to the Defense Team, on 27 February and 8 August 2008. 80. All the statements I gave to the Defense Team were given at my initiative and no pressure was exerted on me by any members of the Expert Team preparing the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. I had all the statements duly notarized in court
50

and placed them at the disposal of the Expert Team and Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, allowing them to use the statements in public and publish them in Serbia and before the Hague Tribunal. Public appearances 81. At the moment when I got in touch with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, I disclosed publicly in Serbia my name and the pseudonym I have never acknowledged, which was imposed against my will by the Pre-Trial Chamber at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal in The Hague. 82. In the meantime, I have attended practically all the public rallies, debates and symposia organized by the Serbian Radical Party devoted to the trial of Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. 83. In quite a few cases, at those rallies I addressed publicly an audience of thousands of people, and I spoke about the pressure, intimidation and blackmail on the part of the Hague Tribunal. 84. I remember quite clearly that in November 2007 I spoke at a press conference, and on 21 November 2007 I gave an extensive interview to the Pravda daily. I was a participant at a major rally in the Sava Centre on 19 September 2010, which dealt with the doctrine of abuse of process in the proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. in Pan~evo, 9 December 2010 Statement given by jovan glamo~anin, Member of the academy /signed/

attachments: – Photocopy of the KZ[ /press conference/ from November 2007 – Photocopy of the Pravda daily of 21 November 2007 – Photocopy of the debate in the Trade Union Hall in 2008 I confirm with my signature that I have read this statement, typed in the Cyrillic alphabet in the Serbian language, and that all the claims made therein are accurate and reflect what I have told the members of the Defense Team, Petar Joji} and Dejan Mirovi}. Witness /signed/ /stamp on original/ OV I No. 15033/2010 This is to certify that Jovan Glamo~anin, Pan~evo, Veljka Vlahovi}a 11 in the capacity of a person providing a statement, identity card No. 001916963, Pan~evo, personally signed this document – recognized the signature in this document as his own. The identity of this person was verified on the basis of his identity card-passport. Stamp duty has been paid in the amount of 230 dinars. Lower Court in Pan~evo Date: 9 December 2010. Authorized official Ivana Crepajac /signed and stamped/
51

“Pravda”, 21 november 2007/ The Hague Tribunal’s Prosecution also “Processed” Jovan Glamo~anin I will not Go against [e{elj The interview of Jovan Glamo~anin, who refused to be a witness for the Prosecution, looked more like a commando operation or a joint military exercise of Serbia and NATO Lawlessness nosing about without a court order • You had an unpleasant experience during your last meeting with representatives of the Hague Tribunal? – While we were talking in the living room, the policemen went out into the corridor. When my wife went to the kitchen to bring refreshments, she saw one of the policemen using the computer in my daughter’s room. Surprised, she addressed the other policeman and realized he did not understand Serbian. When the visitors left, we realized that objects had been moved in our daughter’s room. This made me suspect that data had been taken from the PC and that the apartment had been tapped, which would be a violation of the Constitution and the law guaranteeing the inviolability of the home. Serbian laws have also been broken by the very fact that I agreed to talk to the investigators, let alone that there was a search of the apartment without a court order. And on top of everything, in the presence of a policeman from a NATO country. I assured the investigators that [e{elj never identified the Ustashas and the Mujahedin with the entire Croatian people and with all the Muslims. Jovan Glamo~anin’s first contact with the Tribunal took place on 4 May 2004, when a man called Filip Petrovi} called him, introducing himself as an associate of the Hague Tribunal. “I was not at home, so my wife answered the phone. Petrovi} told her that the Tribunal was interested in meeting me and made her aware of the fact that ’they knew everything about me’. He left a phone number and stressed that I should call him.” • It is interesting that Slobodan Milo{evi}’s trial was broadcast on the TV at the time of the call... – Yes, I later made a connection to this “coincidence”. At the time, one of the protected witnesses was talking about an alleged meeting with the Chief of the Subotica SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, which he said I had attended and at which, according to this witness, [e{elj requested the liquidation of some people. • When did you first meet them? – At the end of June 2004, I received a call to visit the Tribunal’s Belgrade Office, and I was told that the interview would go on for several days. They did not inform me of my status in their proceedings. The interview was conducted by an investigator by the name of Paolo Stocchi. He talks in a very specific way, trying to leave an impression of a well-intentioned man and presenting himself as a “friend”. But he is very pushy, which I put down to his Italian temperament. • The direct questions and insinuations, however, were not as friendly? – On the contrary. In addition to Stocchi, there was another employee of the Hague Tribunal, who just said that he was a Frenchman of Russian descent. As the
52

interview went on, I was getting the impression that I was being questioned by the CIA. They were very interested in who the officials in the Serbian Radical Party are. They were, of course, informed about which political posts I held in the party so they behaved that I should know this. They showed special interest in the financiers and member of SRS Business Clubs. They were very surprised to hear that among these businessmen, activists and party sympathizers there were not only Serbs, but also a considerable number of Ba~ka Croats and Hungarians. • You were, of course, also asked about what you knew about the war crimes they committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia? – They mentioned some events which I did not participate in and laid particular emphasis on this infamous meeting with the Chief of the Subotica SUP, Mr. Jerinki}. Believe it or not, although I was born in Subotica, I have never spoken to this man. And I have not been at the premises of the Subotica SUP since I moved out of the town in 1969. • What was important to the Prosecution representatives in the next meeting with you, in September 2006? – They could not understand for the life of them, while I explained in detail that it was not hate speech when you call for the defense of your people and fight against the Ustashas and the Mujahedin, and I think it is clear to everyone that they are criminals. I assured them that he never called against the Croatian people and the Muslims, in fact, he always ordered that civilians of any ethnicity should be protected. The fact that there is a large number of Muslims among SRS members and among Dr [e{elj’s personal friends, for whom he said and wrote that they were of Serbian descent, but whose predecessors converted, speaks volumes. This meeting also ended in a virtual stalemate, since no one gave up on their initial stances. Nevertheless, it was clear to me that the Prosecution focus was now shifting toward the political disqualification of Vojislav [e{elj. • And a year later, on 15 November 2007, to be precise, you had a third meeting with the Tribunal representatives under very strange circumstances? – Yes. Again, they phoned me up and when I refused to show up at their premises in Belgrade they said they would come to my apartment. This time, an entire team, with two police jeeps, came. When I came outside the building, I was met by a Serbian policeman wearing trainers, jeans and a balaclava. He had a pistol in his waist. He did not let me say hello to the people who had arrived, but went with me into the apartment, saying that he has to search it before “the guests” arrive. When this was done, Paolo Stocchi and prosecutor Christine Dahl came in with the interpreter and escorted by two policemen. This conversation continued with the usual pressure and indecent offers if I agreed to cooperate the way they expected me to. • How long was the interview and how did it end? – The interview was about an hour and an half long, during which I was told that if I refused to testify I would be taken to The Hague by force, and at my own expense at that. On the other hand, I was offered the status of protected witness so that I could testify against Dr Vojislav [e{elj at a closed session with scrambled video and audio.
53

I refused all this and did not change my decision not to testify, of which I informed Christine Dahl both on the spot and later in an email. In this letter I informed her that I wished to testify only as a potential witness for the defense of Dr [e{elj. I will consider any further calls from the Prosecution a violation of my procedural rights, because Rule 77 of the Hague Tribunal Rules strictly forbids pressure on the witnesses, even contact with witnesses who have decided to testify at the invitation of and for the defense. A. C. The Prosecution showed special interest in the financiers and sponsors of the party cinicism They pay no heed to sovereignty • Did you voice your displeasure at having your apartment rummaged through to the Tribunal investigators? – I did, but Paolo Stocchi, in order to demonstrate their power and how they pay no heed to the laws and Serbia’s sovereignty, cynically told me that by searching through her private computer, he noticed how our daughter spends a great deal of time on the Internet during the night. With this admission, Stocchi unequivocally confirmed that our private computer and telephone communications are monitored and tapped by the Serbian MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ for the needs of the Hague Tribunal. Trade union hall, 20 September 2008 /handwritten/ Professor Zurovac: All those who humbly serve evil become dead corpses over which the evil march towards their victory. That is why I personally have been in a bad mood for years seeing so many stiffs in the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. Dead body next to dead body, but look here, over the past few months, you will immediately recognize who I am referring to, a miracle has happened over the past few months, some of those dead men have come to life. It is known who has breathed life into them, nothing doing without that. Russia and the Democratic Party of Serbia are in question. Hence, some of those dead men have come alive. It offered some hope before the elections but, regrettably, late for they were then immediately replaced by other dead men, who will never come to life for they have already started decomposing. You know who I am referring to. You know who I am referring to. In question is the hapless leadership of the Socialist Party who has betrayed everything. They have betrayed their own program, their statute, their ideology, their constituency, their sympathizers, for some minor positions and so on. It goes without saying that there are honest men in the Socialist Party and I like them very much, but I am talking only about the leadership. For, mind you, if we have to stand this appalling injustice, we at least do not have to justify it as the media and the official authorities in Serbia are doing, and especially not glorify this infuriated force, for, mind you, those who win are not the most righteous, they are always the strongest, but we must bear something in mind, as long as there is a single righteous man on this planet, as long as the will exists to stand up to evil and injustice, hope in what is just and righteous will not die.
54

A precondition for any freedom, and that is the issue, is first and foremost spiritual freedom, and free is that milieu which can be neither surrendered nor taken over. I am convinced, where freedom is concerned, that today, Vojislav [e{elj, imprisoned in The Hague, now regrettably already with Radovan Karad`i}, is freer than all those newsvendors strutting about in armchairs in state institutions and those spreading anti-Serb propaganda in Serbian cities and in the media. The former are free, the latter are not. And at the end I just wish to say that despite this totally dubious adventure into which the Serbian people has been pushed, one should hope, and that is why we have to fight, that the Serbian people will get back on its feet and gain new selfconfidence. May we, primarily Vojislav [e{elj and then all of us too, given the horrible reality of this world, be granted courage and boldness. Thank you. Zoran Krasi}: Thank you, Prof. Zurovac. At this point I should like to introduce people who have withstood the incredible pressure of the Tribunal at The Hague, opposed that pressure, clearly, loudly, publicly stated, they are present here today, that they wish to be witnesses for the defense. They are: Messrs. Radovan Nova~i}, Vojislav Dabi}, Zoran Ranki}, Jovan Glamo~anin, Dragan Spasojevi}, Aleksandar Gaji}, Milan Radovi}, Nenad \ura{kovi}, Miodrag Lukovac, Mile Crnobrnja, Aleksandar Stefanovi}, Dim~e Mijatovi}, Zoran Dra`ilovi}, Nenad Miti}, Nenad Jovi}, General Miodrag Pani}, Colonel Ljubi{a Vuka{inovi}, a man who has helped the Tribunal at The Hague to see much better, Neboj{a Stojanovi}. All of them are willing to take part in this gathering today. May I present our next speaker, Mr. Jovan Glamo~anin. jovan glamo~anin: Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, our Serbian thinkers, like today, did many years ago establish that in question is a non-legal and illegitimate judicial system and organ in the service of the hegemonistic policy of the USA and the European Union. Only the Serbs, primarily Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and now Radovan Karad`i} too are under the attack of this organ of Western hegemony. Why the Serbs and why Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, everything substantial has already been almost resolved. I had the opportunity to see for myself the legal reasons for the attack on Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and the other Serbs. The USA, the main force among the protagonists of the new world order aims, through our quislings, to turn us Serbs from a freedom-loving and dignified people into a humiliated and dependent people. In realizing that aim, the government of the traitor Boris Tadi} is fully in their service. It sends Serbian heroes to The Hague, and excessively rewards quislings such as Ivica Da~i} and many others. Arrests and trials at The Hague are intended to do away with the Serbs’ will to resist, and through the sale of enterprises and natural resources we are to be turned into paupers seeking alms. I had a chance to see for myself the real objectives of the work of the Tribunal at The Hague and the expansion of the European Union and NATO. In mid-April 2001, Zoran \in|i} offered me conditions for a comfortable life if I cooperated in the political liquidation of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. I have to participate in that because [e{elj with his Serbian Radical Party is the greatest danger to the policy of the West towards Serbia, and a much greater danger than Slobodan Milo{evi} and the Socialist Party at that, \in|i} said to me then. Since I did not accept to cooperate with \in|i}’s special police I was haras55

sed and maltreated on a number of occasions. That Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party were the greatest obstacle to subjugating Serbia and the Serbian people was repeated by ICTY investigators who questioned me for four days in May 2004. When I remarked that they were asking me about things which were supposed to be of interest to the American intelligence service, the CIA and not to the ICTY, one of the two of them told me that this service was the striking force of the West and that it was only natural that investigators from The Hague should be cooperating with that service. They also added that [e{elj must not return to Serbia and that I had to help with that, like people from the Democratic Party were helping. The same position of the ICTY was repeated by chief investigator Dan Saxon on 15 September 2006, when he asked that I testify against Dr. [e{elj. The most important thing for him was for [e{elj not to return to Serbia, although he expressed doubts in such an outcome as they lacked the necessary evidence. In our conversation, as it was being conducted in my Fiat, he accepted the remark that he was working for the American intelligence service, as he was an American and was obliged to work for the service of his country. Prosecutor Christine Dahl, together with investigator Paolo Stocchi, a Serbian and an American policeman, asked me on 15 September last year, to testify against Dr. [e{elj about all sorts of things. When I refused, she threatened that I would be brought in by force and offered me a comfortable life in the West should I opt to testify. Since I did not agree to testify under any conditions, she stated with resignation that everyone was refusing to testify and that [e{elj would be acquitted. Paolo Stocchi joined in the conversation and said that the leading people of the Democratic Party with whom he was in constant contact were helping him in every respect. They were both encouraging him to work and were socializing with him. They were asking him to do everything to have Dr. Vojislav [e{elj convicted and the Serbian Radical Party destroyed. The last attempt to have me testify against Dr. [e{elj was on 27 February this year. A tall woman who introduced herself as Ana Manhajn, a Slovene and a friend of the ICTY came by my flat unannounced. Despite my protests she entered the living room, opened a big bag full of foreign currency and requested that I testify against Dr. [e{elj. I did not give her an opportunity to say anything else but saw her out of the flat. So, the ICTY is blackmailing, offering bribes and exerting different kinds of pressure so as to find false witnesses against Dr. [e{elj. Many Serbian volunteers have experienced much more serious pressures but have honorably withstood them and shown the West that the Serbs are still all-out freedom lovers and a most courageous people. Because of all that, I have concluded that the ICTY cannot be subsumed under any contemporary judicial system. In my assessment, in question are a court, prosecutor’s office and investigators who most closely resemble the medieval inquisition. The Roman Catholic Church needed the inquisition in order to control religious life and rule over the souls of the believers. The new world order needs the ICTY to intimidate the Serbs, and not only the Serbs, and turn them into an obedient crowd, and not free people. With the help of the might of the Catholic kings the Pope has held his faithful in subjugation and acquired great wealth and great power. The protagonists of the new world order, with NATO’s military power are doing the same. The inquisitors tortured heretics to death, and ICTY inve56

stigators are maltreating witnesses and have killed 11 Serbs. The inquisition burned its accused at the stake and the ICTY convicts Serbs to such sentences that they die in prison. There are so many similarities that we can freely say that it is a court against the Serbs and not an international court which applies international law. Long live Vojislav [e{elj, long live the Serbian Radical Party. Your support has inspired me and I have to exclaim: Long live Serbia! Long live Russia! Zoran Krasi}: I thank Mr. Glamo~anin and invite Prof. Branko Raki} to take part. Prof. Branko Raki}: Good afternoon. I should first of all like to greet Mrs. Jadranka [e{elj and Mr. Vojislav [e{elj, I hope these greetings will be conveyed to him, and also all of you who are present and I should in particular like to greet these heroes who had the pluck to appear and oppose primarily the ICTY. I have some experience with them and so I know that they are not dangerous, that they are pitiful and pathetic and that they are very boring. As Mr. Glamo~anin said, that Daniel Saxon had said that he was working for the American intelligence service and that it was natural that he was working for the American intelligence service, and he is probably proud of that. We, regrettably, live in a country where it is shameful to work for one’s own intelligence service for it is the key task of our own intelligence service to track down and persecute the greatest heroes of the Serbian people. I regret to say that yesterday I watched a woman, if it is a woman at all, pulling the wool over the eyes of that hapless Simo Spasi} and I think, there are even worse /ones/, it is a whole movement that is joining in the chase. If there were only one, it would be superfluous, but, unfortunately there are more of them. Luckily, they are genuinely a minority in this country, I do not wish to mention their names as I have been brought up not to utter foul words in public.

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Last Name: Ranki} First Name: Zoran Father’s Name: @ivan Nickname: ^etnik Gender: male Date of Birth: 1 August 1955 Place of Birth: Bogati}, Serbia Address: Belgrade, No. 43, Husinskih Rudara Telephone: Ethnic Origin: Serb Religion: Orthodox Language(s) Spoken: Serbian, Russian
57

Language(s) Used in Interview: Serbian Current Occupation: Manager in the “Zoga” Construction Company Former Occupation: Representative of the “Merkur Promet” international enterprise Date(s) of Interview(s): 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24 25 and 26 November in Belgrade Interviewers: Vjerica Radeta, graduate jurist Names of all persons present during interview(s): 1. Vjerica Radeta 2. Dejan Mirovi} Witness signature /signed/ Initials of persons present: 1. V. Radeta /signed/ 2. Zoran Mirovi} /signed/ /every page initialed/ /stamp illegible/ witness Statement 1. My name is Zoran Ranki}. I was born on 1 August 1955 in Bogati}, of father @ivan. I live in Belgrade at 43, Husinskih Rudara Street, identity card No. T60904, JMBG /personal identification number/ 010895571400, I am a Serb by nationality, of the Orthodox faith, a citizen of the Republic of Serbia. 2. As I have already made statements to the Expert Team preparing the defense of Vojislav [e{elj, they had my personal particulars, so that members of the Expert Team Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi} called me to make a statement and clarify my role and all my activities during the war in the area of the former Yugoslavia, as well as the circumstances under which I gave statements to the Prosecutor’s Office and to the team assisting in the preparation of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. 3. In my statement I am ready to accurately describe the events I saw with my own eyes and to clarify what I heard from other people. 4. I shall also describe all the pressures, blackmail and intimidation I was exposed to at the hands of the investigators of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hague Tribunal. 5. Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi} cautioned me that I had to tell the truth and explained the consequences I could suffer pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for War Crimes for the Former Yugoslavia if I were to give a false statement. Membership in the S^P (Serbian chetnik Movement) 6. I was a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement (S^P) from 1990 until it was disbanded in the summer of 1994. 7. In February 1991 the Serbian Radical Party was formed by merging the Serbian Chetnik Movement and most of the boards of the People’s Radical Party, and I joined the Serbian Radical Party for the first time only on 11 September 2010.
58

8. As a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, at the beginning of April 1991 I was elected to the post of deputy chief of the Crisis Staff of the Serbian Radical Party, which was on 1 October 1991 renamed the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. 9. I held the post of deputy chief of the Crisis Staff, later the War Staff, until 12 December 1991 when I resigned all my functions for family reasons. From the time of my resignation I had no obligations whatsoever towards the War Staff or the Serbian Radical Party. Although I did not have any tasks I still formally kept the membership card of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. 10. Prior to 11 September 2010, when I signed up for the Serbian Radical Party, I had never had anything to do with this Party or any of the members of the Party leadership. contact with the office of the Prosecutor 11. In June or July 2003, an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY, Paolo Pastore Stocchi, rang up my family and asked them to tell me that I had to come to the Prosecutor’s Office of the ICTY in Belgrade to give a statement. I was not living with my family at the time. 12. At the end of July 2003, my son called me and told me that the ICTY had been looking for me and that they had threatened that I would be brought in by the police if I did not respond to their summons. In order to spare my family and neighbors any possible maltreatment by the police I told my son to find out, when next they called, when and where I was to report. 13. I went to the ICTY Office in Belgrade at 11, Jevrema Gruji}a Street at the appointed time on 4 August 2003 and talked to Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz there. Right away I told them that I did not wish to be a witness for the prosecution but possibly a witness for the defense. 14. At the beginning of the interview Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that it was good that I had come, for had I not I would have been brought in by the police. He also said that I was no saint myself and that they had something incriminating against me. This act, as well as the warning by Paolo Pastore Stocchi that I was not to tell anyone that I was in contact with the ICTY prosecution had a disturbing effect on me. Stocchi also said that some close associates of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj had died or had been killed under mysterious circumstances which I saw as additional pressure and a threat. 15. I occasionally socialized with some people who were members of the Serbian Radical Party and I was absolutely sure that no danger whatsoever threatened me from the Serbian Radical Party and Vojislav [e{elj, but these warnings by Stocchi nevertheless upset me very much. 16. The first interview between me and representatives of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz, took place on 4 and 5 August 2003, with Marina Krsti} interpreting. No one told me at the time in which capacity and for which purposes I was giving a statement, so that I did not know whether I was giving a statement as a suspect or as a potential witness in a case before the International Tribunal at The Hague. This uncertainty additionally frighte59

ned me as at the time there were rumors that there existed some secret lists of persons indicted by the ICTY. 17. My statement was typed out on a laptop and I read it only on the laptop. Afterwards they printed it and brought it to me to sign. 18. Before signing I read the statement on paper and saw that what had been printed did not correspond to what I had said during the questioning. I drew Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s attention to that and told him that it was obvious that they had deliberately mixed up some things and misinterpreted my words and that the statement had acquired a completely different sense. 19. Since I refused to sign the falsified statement, Paolo Pastore Stocchi angrily repeated that I was no saint myself and that they had something on me too and, in front of the second investigator, Sabine Shulz and interpreter Marina Krsti}, he tore up my alleged statement in rage. 20. There ensued a long, heated and unpleasant discussion between me and Stocchi. I said that the statement was shit, that it had been put together haphazardly, that I would sign it only placing my trust in the interpreter, and also that if I testified, I would tell the real truth before the Tribunal. Paolo Pastore Stocchi and I often addressed one another in a raised voice, and there were also some more serious verbal outbursts on his part because he was dissatisfied with my answers. The forming of the Serbian chetnik Movement 21. After the usual questions concerning my biography, the investigators asked questions related to my political engagement since 1990, the forming of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, the Serbian Radical Party, as well as about the activities of the Crisis, i.e. War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party at the time of the war events since 1991. 22. With regard to the questions concerning the beginning of the political engagement of Vojislav [e{elj in the early 90’s I said that Vojislav [e{elj had, with a group of intellectuals, on 6 January 1990 formed the Serbian Freedom Movement (SSP) and that on the same day, in Nova Pazova, Vuk Dra{kovi} with Mirko Jovi} had established the Serbian National Renewal (SNO). I also said that after two months Vuk Dra{kovi} was expelled from the Serbian National Renewal and that a small group left with him which with the Serbian Freedom Movement with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj at its helm, formed the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO). At the beginning of June 1990, the SPO Main Board excluded Vuk Dra{kovi} from the Party by a majority vote and he, with a group of people, in a restaurant, formed a new party, also bearing the name Serbian Renewal Movement. 23. For over a month there were two parties bearing the same name on the Serbian political scene which was confusing for the public and because of which we decided to change our name to the Serbian Chetnik Movement (S^P). I was one of the founders of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, i.e. one of the 100 signatories for the registration of the party, which the then authorities of Slobodan Milo{evi} refused to register. 24. The investigators of the ICTY, evidently on purpose, misunderstood everything I said in this connection and in my alleged statement they wrote that Vojislav [e{elj and Vuk Dra{kovi} had founded the Serbian Freedom Movement
60

which did not last long because they parted ways after a falling out over something and that Vojislav [e{elj then formed the Serbian Chetnik Movement and Vuk Dra{kovi} the Serbian Renewal Movement. 25. When drawing up the statement which I did not even see before testifying at the trial against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, the investigators also incorrectly listed the names of the founders of the Serbian Chetnik Movement from 1990, i.e. mixed them up with the founders of the Serbian Radical Party from 1991 and wrote that one of the founders of the Serbian Chetnik Movement was Jovan Glamo~anin from Pan~evo. This is completely wrong for Jovan Glamo~anin was not a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and as far as I know he became a member of the Serbian Radical Party only in 1991. 26. When in January 2004 I talked with investigators Rita Pradhan and Thomas Ackheim about the founders of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in 1990, despite my express opposition, Rita Pradhan, included in my statement as founders of the S^P also Stanoje \or|evi}, Ljubi{a Petkovi}, Maja Gojkovi}, Tomislav Nikoli}, Mirko Blagojevi}, Nikola Popla{en, Mirko Vuji~i} and Du{an Bo{kovi}. It is true that some of these people are founders of the Serbian Radical Party from 1991, while some joined the Serbian Radical Party much later. Rita Pradhan wrote down of her own volition the names of the alleged founders of the Serbian Chetnik Movement although I kept drawing her attention to the fact that that was not true. 27. I remember well, and the entire public in Serbia was aware of it at the time, that Vojislav [e{elj was often in prison in the autumn of 1990 as a political dissident and that as a candidate of a group of citizens for president of Serbia at the presidential elections he was released from the prison in Padinska Skela sometime in November 1990. In my statement, the investigators wrote that [e{elj was released from prison in February 1991 which is absolutely incorrect and which can be checked in the archives of the responsible judicial organs. It is possible that the investigators mixed up his release from prison with the forming of the Serbian Radical Party, which indeed took place in February 1991. 28. I am quite certain that I never connected the non-party association Sava with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and I cannot explain how that found itself in my statement. The founding of the Serbian Radical Party 29. In February 1991 I was in Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s house in Batajnica when it was agreed that the unregistered Serbian Chetnik Movement and some municipal boards of the People’s Radical Party (NRS) would embark on forming the Serbian Radical Party. 30. I am sure that I never told ICTY investigators that the Serbian Chetnik Movement had the special status of an alleged military wing within the Serbian Radical Party. I could not have said anything to that effect also due to the fact that something like that was not necessary as there were no war conflicts at the time. 31. It is true that in my interview with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz I mentioned the names of persons who joined the Serbian Radical Party during 1991, but I am sure that I did not say that Mirko Vuji~i}, Du{an Bo{kovi} and Jovan Glamo~anin had been in the Serbian Radical Party since its founding.
61

32. I know for a fact that Aleksandar Stefanovi} was secretary-general of the Serbian Radical Party and that he had never been its vice-president. These facts are common knowledge which anyone could find out from the media. 33. Paolo Pastore Stocchi evidently, when drawing up the text of the statement, mixed up some names and functions held by specific members of the Serbian Radical Party. He mixed up the function held by Aleksandar Stefanovi} with the one held by Vojin Vuleti} at the time. I know that Vojin Vuleti} was the vicepresident of the Serbian Radical Party and that in 1992 he was expelled from the Party for, I learned that from some friends of mine, misusing Party funds. 34. Investigator Stocchi spoke about Vojin Vuleti} the most, claiming that he was just one of a number of people from the immediate milieu of Vojislav [e{elj who had died under mysterious circumstances. During the break he claimed that Paska Jovi}, wife of the former deputy of the Serbian Radical Party, Slobodan Jovi}, had been killed in her bookstore under mysterious circumstances as had volunteer Oliver Baret and some other members of the Serbian Radical Party, whose names I do not remember. The claims Stocchi made during the break in the official interview were not entered into my statement. 35. I kept telling Paolo Pastore Stocchi that these were all fabrications, but he claimed that he had witness statements confirming that. I told him that I knew for a fact that Vojin Vuleti} had died a natural death, of a heart attack in 1992, after he had been expelled from the Serbian Radical Party and had become a member of the Democratic Party. With his fabrications about the deaths of Vojislav [e{elj’s former close associates under mysterious circumstances, Paolo Pastore Stocchi in fact intended to scare me. That is why he emphasized that I should not tell anyone that I was in touch with the prosecutor’s office for I could possibly be the next person on whom [e{elj would take revenge. 36. The founding assembly of the Serbian Radical Party was held in Kragujevac on 23 February 1991. I attended this assembly as a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and did not sign up for the newly-formed Serbian Radical Party. 37. The first meeting of the Main Board was held immediately after the founding assembly, and it was agreed that in cities in which there existed boards of the People’s Radical Party boards of the Serbian Chetnik Movement would not be formed and vice versa. In cities in which there existed boards of both the Serbian Chetnik Movement and the People’s Radical Party work should proceed on merging them into one board with the obligation of ensuring that the most capable people were elected to the main functions, according to the proportionate representation of members of the People’s Radical Party and the Serbian Chetnik Movement. forming of the crisis Staff 38. At the beginning of 1991, a large number of refugees from Croatia arrived in Serbia every day so the Main Board of the Serbian Radical Party, at its regular session held in mid-March 1991, adopted a decision to form a crisis staff to help the refugees, primarily in food and medicaments. Ljubi{a Petkovi} was unanimously elected chief of the crisis staff at that session. Petkovi} and I were friends, he trusted me and so he appointed me his deputy.
62

39. I never told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi that Vojislav [e{elj had by himself decided to form the crisis staff and that he had appointed Ljubi{a Petkovi} chief of staff. I don’t know why Stocchi wrote that in my statement, I guess that his aim had been to incriminate Vojislav [e{elj on the basis of as many false statements as possible. Ministry for Relations with Serbs outside Serbia 40. I have no knowledge about Ljubi{a Petkovi}’s contacts with the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Serbia but I was once with Petkovi} in the Ministry for Relations with Serbs outside Serbia. Petkovi} and I were passing by the building of the Ministry and he told me that he should drop by to see minister Cvijan privately. I did not talk with Cvijan but sat with the secretary and had some coffee there. Petkovi} stayed with the minister for about ten minutes and after that the two of us left the Ministry building. Since I knew that Ljubi{a Petkovi} had paid a private visit to the minister I did not ask him what they had talked about. Paolo Pastore Stocchi made up and inserted in my statement the false fact that we had gone to the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry for Relations with Serbs outside Serbia in order to make plans for the schedule of assigning and transporting volunteers. I claim that the truth is that we never asked any Ministry of the Government of the Republic of Serbia for such assistance. Buses for the transport of volunteers were provided by the Territorial Defense in cooperation with the non-governmental organization – Association of Serbs from Croatia, in which retired General Du{an Peki} actively participated. The Ministry for Relations with Serbs outside Serbia was under the obligation to assist in providing care for refugees, their accommodation, food and medicaments, as was done by other citizens and organizations as well as the Serbian Radical Party. I am certain that these two ministries did not have any information on the needs of volunteers in specific areas. I know that the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Serbia did not have any military resources, since only three of four people were employed in the Ministry. It is not true that we needed to obtain approval from the above-mentioned ministries for sending volunteers, as was added to and made up in my statement by investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi. The crisis, i.e. war Staff of the Serbian Radical Party 41. After the Crisis Staff was formed at the beginning of April 1991, chief of staff Ljubi{a Petkovi} held meetings of the Crisis Staff approximately once a week, and after a month or two these meetings were held once a month. Commanders of squads, platoons or companies who happened to be in Belgrade, i.e. in the Crisis Staff at the time of holding these meetings could attend, and no decisions were adopted at those meetings in connection with war operations but only discussions on improving the quality of work were conducted. 42. I never told investigator Stocchi that meetings of the Crisis Staff were held in continuity once a week and that commanders were obliged to attend these meetings. This statement made by Stocchi is not true, and in addition, that was practically impossible. It is not true that commanders were obliged to submit written reports to the War Staff either. From time to time, Ljubi{a Petkovi} would send me,
63

as his deputy, to the field to check on discipline among the volunteers and then I had the obligation to submit a written report to him about that. I never submitted any written reports to Vojislav [e{elj. If we had any information or data from the field in the Crisis Staff and if Dr. [e{elj dropped by at the Staff at the time I would talk about that with him and these were always casual conversations. I am now absolutely sure that Paolo Pastore Stocchi deliberately misinterpreted my words and thus my alleged statement took on a quite different meaning. 43. Paoli Pastore Stocchi lied that I said that Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni had been one of our commanders. I am sure that I told him that Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni was born in Vukovar or in the surroundings of Vukovar, that he was appointed commander of the Leva Supoderica Detachment by the Territorial Defense Command, that all volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party in the area of Vukovar were under his command and that, at the time, he was a member of the Serbian Democratic Party and not of the Serbian Radical Party. These facts are absolutely correct and what is stated in my statement is a figment of Stocchi’s rich imagination. 44. At the time I talked to Stocchi the public had already learned from the media that some crimes had happened at Ov~ara, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi wanted to link, at any cost, Milan Lan~u`anin as the commander of a unit in Vukovar with Vojislav [e{elj, by representing Kameni as a commander and member of the Serbian Radical Party, probably because he was assuming that Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni had committed that crime. At the time, some people in Serbia had been arrested on account of the crime at Ov~ara, and wanted notices had been posted for others. 45. When volunteers went to the front in Eastern Slavonia and Vukovar, training was conducted at the camp in Prigrevica and not, as Paolo Pastore Stocchi said in my name, in the Lipova~a Trade Union resort. Lipova~a was the point of assembly for all volunteers from where they were assigned to Territorial Defense units. 46. It is true that I told investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz that Vojislav [e{elj had some priorities, among which first and foremost was the quality of the volunteers, then their number and finally, publicity. Paolo Pastore Stocchi completely reversed this order with the aim of proving that it was not important to Vojislav [e{elj if the volunteers behaved in a disciplined manner. 47. The despatch of volunteers to an area was always preceded by a request from the Territorial Defense or a fax bearing the signature of the authorized representative. After a check done generally by Ljubi{a Petkovi}, and which concerned the checking of the justifiability of the request and the degree of danger to the volunteers, a check of the signature and verification by the responsible persons in the Command, preparations were embarked on for checking the march route to the destination. 48. As a rule, a guide from the Territorial Defense always came to pick up the volunteers and he escorted the group to their destination. Someone from the War Staff often accompanied the volunteers and guide. Most often it was Ljubi{a Petkovi} or me.
64

49. Before setting off for the front the volunteers were lined up and counted against a list which was always made in two copies and as a rule care was taken to see to it that every volunteer met the conditions envisaged by military rules. Journalists and television crews attended every departure of the volunteers to the front, and the volunteers were, before their departure, most often addressed by Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, and sometimes, if [e{elj was prevented, they were addressed by Ljubi{a Petkovi} or me. 50. Vojislav [e{elj always emphasized to the volunteers that the rules of war had to be abided by at the front and stressed that they had learned that as regular soldiers. [e{elj spoke about the Geneva Conventions and the laws and customs of war, always warning them that they had to treat prisoners and the wounded humanely and that it was prohibited to torture and execute them. [e{elj particularly emphasized that they had to take care of civilians, women, children and the elderly and to comport themselves bravely as soldiers in keeping with the tradition of the Serbian soldier. 51. I related all this in detail to Paolo Pastore Stocchi but he claimed that it was not true and that it was not true that [e{elj warned volunteers that they were to obey the rules of war for he allegedly had statements from other witnesses saying quite the opposite. I knew that Stocchi was lying and that is why we had a heated argument and I told him that these alleged statements were not true and that he could read confirmation of what I had been claiming in the archives of all the media from that period. Stocchi threatened me saying that I would be sorry for not cooperating with him and added that [e{elj was a lunatic and a fool. Stocchi included these words he had said into my statement and that is additional proof that the statement considered to be mine by the Tribunal is not, in fact, mine. 52. I never told the investigators nor did I ever hear Vojislav [e{elj in addressing volunteers say: “Be heroes, kill the Ustashas, fight for a Greater-Serbia”. I read this sentence for the first time in my alleged statement when I was testifying at the trial being conducted against Vojislav [e{elj at The Hague. 53. I talked to Paolo Pastore Stocchi about the alleged participation of criminals in armed action in the presence of investigator Sabine Shulz. Stocchi informed me that there were quite a few witnesses claiming that the then authorities of Slobodan Milo{evi} released the hardest-core criminals from prison and dispatched them to the front as volunteers in order for them to commit war crimes. I told Stocchi that it was disinformation and that it was spread by some traitorous parties in order to make the Serbs waver in taking part in the defense of the Serbian people, for honorable Serbs would not wish to be in the same ranks with criminals. This claim made by Stocchi also became an integral part of my alleged statement against my will. I assured Stocchi that this had not been the case, and I was particularly certain that there had never been criminals in the ranks of volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. 54. There were no mentally ill persons among the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, nor could there have been any in view of the fact that all volunteers were checked and that in their military booklets it stood that they were healthy and fit for military service. It is true that at the front I saw mentally unbalanced and unstable persons, but I do not know whether they were from among the ranks of mo65

bilized persons or if they were locals. I also told Stocchi that and he, as usual, wrote in the statement what suited the ICTY prosecution. Vukovar 55. When in October 1991 I headed for Vukovar with the first group of volunteers we first went to Lipova~a in [id where we registered on some premises and were issued with uniforms. I do not know who these premises belonged to, but I remember that they looked like the premises of local communes, and Stocchi assured me that he had information that those were the premises of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia. As Lipova~a was a collection centre, all volunteers were transported to Vukovar by civilian buses, and the buses were provided by the Association of Serbs from Croatia. In my statement it is written that the buses were provided by the Ministry for Serbs outside Serbia, and I claim that these are not my words but Stocchi’s arbitrary and ill-meaning statement. 56. We reached Vukovar late in the afternoon and I immediately turned over the list of volunteers to Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni, commander of the Leva Supoderica Detachment. I remember that Stanko Vujanovi} and his wife were also present. Kameni made the roll call and checked the volunteers against the list I had given him. Having checked what was necessary, Kameni signed the list, kept a copy and I returned the other one to Belgrade. It was routine practice to make two copies of lists of volunteers, one to be retained by the Territorial Defense Command and the other one, stamped and signed by the authorized person, to be returned to the War Staff in Belgrade. I claim that it is not true that in Vukovar I turned over the list of volunteers to Stanko Vujanovi} and his wife as Paolo Pastore Stocchi wrote in my statement. 57. Besides the Leva Supoderica Detachment in Vukovar there was also a detachment commanded by Stanko Vujanovi}, but the Serbian Radical Party never sent a single volunteer to that detachment. 58. I never told ICTY investigators that active officer of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), Major Veselin [ljivan~anin was operations officer of the sector. I could not have said anything of the kind since I knew that that job was not within the competence of a security officer. Paolo Pastore Stocchi, in this instance too, mixed up competences, and today I am sure that he did that consciously and deliberately. 59. Although it is written in my statement, I claim that it is not true that Vojislav [e{elj came to Vukovar escorted by volunteers. It is true that in mid-November 1991 Vojislav [e{elj was in Mirkovci and that he then visited Vukovar as well. On that occasion several volunteers from Vukovar and the surroundings came to [id in order to be in [e{elj’s escort. 60. I remember well that Vojislav [e{elj was welcomed in [id by a large number of journalists and TV crews and that they went to Vukovar all together in an organized column. I believe that media archives contain proof of these claims I have made. 61. During Vojislav [e{elj’s stay in Vukovar I positively did not hear Vojislav [e{elj say that not a single Ustasha may leave Vukovar alive. In Vukovar he was constantly and closely followed by representatives of the mass media and had something of the kind happened they would have certainly recorded it. Paolo Pasto66

re Stocchi inserted countless lies and nonsense including, among other, that Vojislav [e{elj gave a speech in front of 50 people at the frontline in Vukovar. This is an absolute lie primarily because of the fact that it would have been extremely dangerous because the Croatian artillery was incessantly shelling our positions. 62. As during Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Vukovar I was constantly close by, I claim that Vojislav [e{elj did not address the people over a megaphone and that he did not say: “Ustashas, you are surrounded, surrender for there is no way out for you”. This is Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s disgusting lie, and without asking me, he wrote down that lie in my statement. 63. I remember that Slobodan Kati} and Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni came to the War Staff in Belgrade twice, in November and December 1991, but I do not know whether they met with Vojislav [e{elj as well. When we talked in the War Staff they did not mention any incident in Vukovar. 64. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that he had information that a person by the name of Slobodan and nickname Topola had, at the end of November 1991, after the liberation of Vukovar, taken away somewhere five or six Croatian prisoners from the Velepromet Collection Centre and killed them. 65. I told Stocchi that I had not heard of any incident or killing having happened after the end of the operations for liberating Vukovar. I also said that I did not know who the man he was mentioning was. Neither do I know if this Topola was a volunteer, a local or a reserve soldier, nor to which unit he belonged. 66. Paolo Pastore Stocchi described Topola as a man about 2 metres tall, corpulent with a big black beard. Stocchi claimed that Topola was under Milan Lan~u`anin’s command in the Leva Supoderica unit and that he committed these killings with another person, as well as that he was a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party. 67. I did not have the faintest idea about this possible event and I was unpleasantly surprised when during my testimony at The Hague, at the trial being conducted against Vojislav [e{elj, I saw that it was written in my statement that allegedly Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni and Slobodan Kati} had come to the War Staff in Belgrade and described to us the incident which had allegedly taken place at the collection centre in Velepromet in Vukovar. In the statement is it also written that [e{elj and the entire War Staff knew of this incident and that we had received this piece of information from the Guards Brigade or the Territorial Defense. This is absolutely a lie and the truth is that I did not say that, nor could I have done so when I am certain that I had never heard that. 68. Vojislav [e{elj, Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni, Slobodan Kati}, Ljubi{a Petkovi} and I never talked about this possible incident, and Paolo Pastore Stocchi wrote in my statement that we had a meeting in connection with that incident and that Vojislav [e{elj had allegedly said in that connection: “What can I do about it now, disarm the man and send him home, he is tired”. Such a meeting never took place and these allegations in my statement are absolutely untrue and I never said that in my life. I only later realized Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s malevolence and his obvious intention to incriminate Vojislav [e{elj as much as possible with his fabrications and lies.
67

69. I responsibly claim that Ljubi{a Petkovi} and I never talked with Vojislav [e{elj together. If the both of us were at the Staff when [e{elj dropped by, he talked only with Petkovi}. He talked with me only if Petkovi} was not at the staff. These were unofficial talks in which [e{elj only enquired about any possible news from the field. 70. When while testifying at The Hague I read for the first time the statement which Paolo Pastore Stocchi had drawn up instead of me I was surprised to see that, a day after the alleged meeting with Kati} and Lan~u`anin, I had gone to Vukovar in order to find Topola there and bring him back to Belgrade, from where he would have gone by bus to Topola, a place near Kragujevac. Stocchi had even written that I had noted that Topola was mentally disturbed, which is impossible given the fact that I do not know the person at all. 71. It is true that at the time of the liberation of Vukovar I went to Vukovar on the order of Ljubi{a Petkovi}, though not in order to look for Topola but to organize the redirecting of volunteers to Western Slavonia. 72. I never said to Paolo Pastore Stocchi that Vojislav [e{elj had been in authority in 1991, i.e. that he was second-ranking in authority. It is common knowledge that in the second half of 1991 Vojislav [e{elj was the only people’s deputy of the Serbian Radical Party to the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia and that he was a great opponent of the authorities. I told Stocchi that [e{elj had been secondranking in popularity in Serbia and not second-ranking in authority. 73. I remember that at the time of and after the liberation of Vukovar, Dr. Vojislav [e{elj was in Knin, Banjaluka and Western Slavonia and that he was not in Belgrade then. 74. I privately socialize with my neighbor Aleksandar Gaji} and Gaji} told me at the beginning of 2007 that after the war he met Topola who was his friend’s wedding witness, and that he learned from him that he had never been a member of the Serbian Radical Party. 75. I did not hear about the crimes at the Ov~ara farm until the end of the war. I know that Arkan was in Sector North and that it is quite far from location south, so they could not have had any points of contact with the positions at which the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party were. Investigator Stocchi claimed that Arkan had been at Ov~ara, that he had taken some prisoners somewhere and executed them, but I did not have any information about that. Resignation 76. After the liberation of Vukovar, around 25 November 1991, I took a group of volunteers to Western Slavonia. Upon returning to Belgrade I often had conflicts with my wife because I was often away from home and was neglecting my two minor children. Because of difficult living conditions I had to stop working at the War Staff and try to find a job so as to improve my family’s living conditions and make up with my wife. 77. In the resignation to the post of deputy chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party which I tendered on 12 December 1991, I gave completely different reasons for resigning because I did not want my personal and family problems to be discussed in public.
68

Zvornik 78. I claim that during the war I was never in Zvornik in Republika Srpska, but in the second half of April 1991 I passed through Mali Zvornik which is in the Republic of Serbia. When passing through Mali Zvornik I stopped by at the Jezero Hotel where I found some volunteers with whom I had been in Eastern Slavonia. I greeted them and we sat together over a drink for an hour or two, after which I left the Hotel. 79. When in August 2003 I talked to investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz, Stocchi told me that he had information to the effect that I had been in Zvornik and that I had been present when a crime against Muslims was committed. He emphasized that he had some witnesses who had recognized me and that he would let me off lightly if I accepted to testify and incriminate Vojislav [e{elj. 80. I told the investigators that I had not been in Zvornik and that all my possible information about events in Zvornik came from the media and that is why I was shocked to see when I was testifying at The Hague in allegedly my statement that at the beginning of April 1992 I had taken a group of volunteers to Zvornik and had done so in response to a request submitted to us by fax by the president of Zvornik municipality, Brano Gruji}. This is a notorious lie since at the time I was not in the War Staff and I could not have known if and who had asked for volunteers and whether the possible request had been delivered in person or sent by fax. In any case, at the time, I had no authorization to take volunteers to any front on behalf of the Serbian Radical Party. 81. At the time of the liberation of Zvornik I did not have any contacts with Vojislav [e{elj or with anyone else from the War Staff so that I could not have attended any possible meeting concerning the behavior of volunteers in Zvornik. 82. I fail to understand how the claim that from Marko Pavlovi}, alias Branko Popovi}, I had received information that a group of volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party under the command of Vojin Vu~kovi} @u}a did not obey anyone’s command, found itself in my statement. 83. It is true that I talked about Zvornik with investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz, but I emphasized to them that I did not know anything about Zvornik except for what had been accessible in the mass media. I remember stating that Vojin Vu~kovi} @u}a had been a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party in Eastern Slavonia in the summer of 1991 and that on account of breaches of party discipline he was expelled from the Serbian Radical Party in September of that year. 84. I never heard that Vojin Vu~kovi} @u}a and his unit, the “Yellow Wasps”, had stopped Serbs and Muslims and charged them for travelling to Serbia or had seized their vehicles. I claim that I never talked about that with Vojislav [e{elj, nor could I have done so because I know nothing about that and also I had no competence over @u}a’s group, nor was I a member of the War Staff. Since resigning from the War Staff I saw Vojislav [e{elj only on television. I myself was surprised to see in my statement that [e{elj had talked me into going to Zvornik to try and persuade the “Yellow Wasps” to cross over to Skelani and that I had managed to persuade a group to cross over to Skelani and that almost a half of them had rema69

ined with @u}a. However this slipped into my statement, I claim that it is an absolute lie and that I never said that. 85. When in 2003 I talked to ICTY investigators in connection with Vojin Vu~kovi} @u}a and his brother Du{an Vu~kovi} Repi}, I said that I had read in the media and that I had heard from some volunteers in 1993 that the two of them had at the beginning of April 1992 set off for Zvornik, that they had lost their way and that the Muslim police had arrested them. I found out in the same way that Miroslav Bogdanovi} and Milorad Ulemek aka Legija had been with them. This piece of information surely exists in the archives of the Muslim authorities and it is easy to ascertain that I had not been with them. Investigator Stocchi deliberately reformulated my statement and wrote down the pure fabrication that I had taken them to Zvornik, that they had been members of the Serbian Radical Party and that at the time I knew that Du{an Vu~kovi} Repi} had committed a crime in ^elopek while I was in Skelani, where, by the way, I have never been. 86. I did not know anything about the activities and behavior of Du{an Vu~kovi}. From the media I learned that Du{an Vu~kovi} was arrested in 1992, that he stood trial and that he was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment and that he had committed suicide in prison. It is impossible that I said that Du{an Vu~kovi} Repi} had been killed with a friend of his at the frontline and that he had committed another crime at the Culture Centre in Zvornik, where, having a nervous breakdown, he killed between 20 and 30 prisoners. It was a surprise to me too that this was also part of my alleged statement. 87. Paolo Pastore Stocchi added to my statement how in connection with that incident and the attitude of Vojislav [e{elj towards it I protested as I had allegedly personally taken the Vu~kovi} brothers to Zvornik as members of the Serbian Radical Party. It is also written in the statement that this and the rapprochement between Vojislav [e{elj and Slobodan Milo{evi} had been the reason for my resigning the office of deputy chief of the War Staff and leaving the Serbian Chetnik Movement. Since I tendered my resignation on 12 December 1991, the reason for it could not have been an incident in Zvornik which took place after that and which I learned of a year later. In that period I did not have any contacts with the Serbian Radical Party and it is a blatant lie that I personally informed the War Staff of the crimes of Du{an Vu~kovi} in Zvornik. I neither knew of them nor did I contact the War Staff nor did I impart such a fabrication to ICTY investigators. This, too, is Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s fabrication. 88. I did not know then nor do I know now that Marko Pavlovi}, i.e. Branko Popovi}, was a member of the military, a member of /the/ state security /service/ or a person who worked for that service. There were various stories and disinformation and I don’t know if I ever heard that from anyone. I am absolutely sure that I never met a man with the nickname Slon. 89. In the summer of 1992 I happened to come across some volunteers and heard from them that the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party had returned from Zvornik immediately after the liberation of Kula Grad, but I do not remember the date. 90. I precisely told investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz that I knew that Vojislav [e{elj had held a promotion of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Mali Zvornik in August 1990 and that the Serbian Radical Party had not
70

existed at the time. Paolo Pastore Stocchi tried to convince me that this rally had taken place in April 1992. I later realized that the statement I had signed had in fact been Stocchi’s statement for in that statement he had written whatever crossed his mind, i.e. everything that had been conceived in advance. Thus he also lied that at the time I had been in Karakaj in Zvornik municipality and that volunteers had gone to secure the bridge on the Drina so that the rally might pass without any incidents. Skelani 91. During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina I was never in Skelani. It is not clear to me why investigator Rita Pradhan inserted that in my statement in January 2004. [e{elj never told me to transfer @u}a’s group from Zvornik to Skelani, for @u}a had never been under the competence of the Serbian Radical Party, nor was I a member of the War Staff then. Hence, another piece of nonsense and a fabrication. 92. I never met anyone by the name of Buca so that he could not have submitted any report to me, especially not as a member of the War Staff for I had not been one at the time. I know that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party were in Skelani and that is all I know in connection with Skelani, but I claim that in the interview with the investigators in 2004, Skelani was not discussed at all. Bratunac 93. When I talked to investigator Rita Pradhan in 2004 I told her that I had heard that a group of volunteers had been in Bratunac, that they had been led by Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni and that I did not know anything about their activities or how many of them there were or in what period they were in Bratunac. Rita Pradhan forged my statement as she wrote down that in October or November 1992 I took volunteers to Bratunac with the approval of Ljubi{a Petkovi}. At the time I was employed in a detective agency in which I worked for about two and a half years and I did not leave Belgrade at all. It is also a lie that on Petkovi}’s order I went to Vukovar to make plans with Kameni for the transfer of volunteers to Bratunac. 94. I never saw in my life and therefore never talked to Colonel Te{i} or a certain Milo{evi} who are in my alleged statement represented as commanders of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). 95. An incident is described in the statement in which a group of volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party fell into a Muslim ambush in Bratunac and in which two volunteers were killed. I heard that from a friend, but I do not know if it is true because I never checked that nor did I participate in that. 96. In the interview with investigators in 2003 the events in Bratunac were not mentioned at all. Vi{egrad 97. I heard of Milan Luki} for the first time after the war, namely from the mass media. The mass media broadcast that Milan Luki} had been in the group which had at the end of February 1993 in [trpci stopped a train on the Belgrade71

Bar line from which they had allegedly picked out some 20 passengers of the Muslim faith, taken them somewhere and killed them. Milan Luki} was the commander of the unit “Avengers” or “White Eagles” and these units were in no way connected with the Serbian Radical Party. I do not know what motive the investigators had to turn my statement inside out and write that I said that Muslims had captured Milan Luki}. 98. To the best of my knowledge the Serbian Radical Party and its War Staff never sent volunteers to Vi{egrad during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 99. In my interview with investigators in 2003 no one mentioned Vi{egrad. This subject was broached in 2004 by Rita Pradhan but I had nothing to say in connection with Milan Luki} and I told her so. Bijeljina 100. I personally know Mirko Blagojevi} from Bijeljina and as far as I remember he is one of the founders of the Serbian Radical Party in Bijeljina. I am sure that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party did not go to Bijeljina because that was, in fact, not necessary. 101. Against my will, Rita Pradhan put down in my statement that volunteers from Serbia were sent to Bijeljina, which is a notorious lie. There was no mention of Bijeljina in the interview with investigators in 2003. Borovo Selo 102. When talking to Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Shulz in 2003, on the basis of my recollections I said that a group of volunteers had gone to Borovo Selo in April 1991. I also remembered that in that group were about fifteen volunteers who were transferred across the Danube in a boat. I never said that I had gone to Borovo Selo with that group of volunteers. 103. I know that Vuka{in [o{ko}anin was the commander of the Territorial Defense of Borovo Selo. I knew him personally and I talked to him twice, but I do not know how he was killed. Some say that it was from the back but I never had any proof of that. I later learned that it was disinformation and that the truth was that [o{ko}anin had in mid-May fallen out of a boat when crossing the Danube and drowned as he was not a good swimmer. 104. I told the investigators that the Croatian MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ had staged the conflict in Borovo Selo on 2 May 1991, in which 12 members of the Croatian police and a Serb, a volunteer of the Serbian National Renewal, were killed. This happened at the time when agreement had been reached on removing the barricades separating the Serbs and the Croats. I never stated that the state security /service/ of Serbia had taken any participation in or had orchestrated the operation in Borovo Selo. The words in my statement about this event are the words of Paolo Pastore Stocchi. 105. With regard to the departure of volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party to crisis areas in Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja I claim that that we did not cooperate in any way whatsoever with the regime of Slobodan Milo{evi}. On the contrary, we had to hide from the police and to cross the administrative border with Croatia by boat or ferry across the Danube.
72

western Slavonia 106. It is indisputable that I resigned the post of deputy chief of the War Staff on 12 December 1991 and that I no longer came to the War Staff so it is not clear to me how it has been written in my statement that at the end of December 1991, we in the War Staff received information that in Vo}in, in the area of Western Slavonia, a crime had been committed in which some civilians were also killed. Quite a while later I learned from the media that there had also been civilian casualties in the area of Western Slavonia during the withdrawal of the Serb forces, but I could not have learned that in the War Staff because I did not go there at the time and I am absolutely sure that I did not tell the investigators that. 107. I later read in a Croatian magazine that the crime in Vo}in had been committed by locals, and even some names which I did not remember were given, and the Serbian media attributed that crime to the “White Eagles”. 108. I don’t know if Dragoslav Bokan was in Vo}in but I know for a fact that the “White Eagles” were. I don’t know how the “White Eagles” went to that area and I certainly never told the investigators that Bokan and the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party accused one another of that crime. 109. Radovan Nova~i} was at that time a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party and the commander of a detachment in which there surely were no volunteers of the “White Eagles”. erdut and arkan 110. The Serbian Radical Party and its War Staff never cooperated with @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan’s Serbian Volunteer Guard. It is common knowledge in Serbia that Vojislav [e{elj was never on good and friendly terms with @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan. During the 1980’s when Vojislav [e{elj was a political dissident, persecuted and often convicted by the then regime, Arkan engaged in criminal activities and there are also reasonable grounds to suspect that he committed political liquidations outside the territory of the former Yugoslavia for the needs of the Federal Secretariat of the Interior. 111. The mutual intolerance between Vojislav [e{elj and Arkan continued also during the armed conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 and also later, after the end of the war when [e{elj often publicly aired what he knew about Arkan’s criminal activity. 112. I spoke to ICTY investigators about the relationship between Vojislav [e{elj and @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan and I am positive that I never said that [e{elj and Arkan had cooperated during the war. As the constant conflicts and disagreements between [e{elj and Arkan were spoken about publicly, this also found its way to the front so that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party avoided being in the same area as Arkan’s men in order to avoid a possible mutual conflict. 113. It is true that in the summer of 1991 I visited the reception and training centre for volunteers in Erdut and that I met Arkan on that occasion. 114. My visit to the Reception Centre in Erdut did not have anything to do with Arkan. I went there because of a friend of mine who was in Arkan’s unit and I had the intention to transfer him to the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party.
73

115. I do not know and I never said that I knew whether Ljubi{a Petkovi} had ever met with Arkan, but I know that we from the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party did not have any coordination with Arkan and his Serbian Volunteer Guard either in Belgrade or in the field. I claim that I never saw @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan in the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party and as far as I know he never came there. goran had`i} and Milan Marti} 116. I never saw Goran Had`i} in the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party and I told the investigators that I had and that is my mistake. I also made a mistake when I said that Milan Marti} had visited the War Staff for that is not true. I only remember that Marti} visited Vojislav [e{elj but that had nothing to do with the War Staff. 117. I did not tell the investigators that the Government of Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem had decided to have volunteers deploy in Dalj but I said that volunteers passed through Dalj en route to their assigned destination. Dalj was among the first towns to be liberated at the very beginning of the war. I do not remember mentioning Goran Had`i} in that context. cooperation with the State Security Service 118. The War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party did not have any contacts with the Ministry of the Interior and the State Security Service nor was there any cooperation or coordination regarding the deployment of volunteers in crisis areas. We never had any combat or military activities with these organs. 119. I told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi that Ljubi{a Petkovi} and I were in the municipal SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/ and that Petkovi} intended to pay a private visit to his neighbor whose name is, I think, Branko Stani{i}. This was Petkovi}’s private visit and had nothing to do with the War Staff. In addition, this man was not in his office so that we did not linger on SUP premises. I did not mention to the investigators that Branko Stani{i} is related to Jovica Stani{i}. Stocchi fabricated conclusions of his own and said in my statement that I had talked about cooperation between the War Staff and the State Security Service, which is an absolute lie. 120. I really never had any connections with the war in Bosnia and I never said that I took volunteers to Bosnia, that I carried some papers and that we did not have any problems with the police. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi wrote this in my statement although I had surely never said that to anyone. Bubanj Potok 121. I gave investigators precise data concerning the provision of uniforms for volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. I said that as of 1 October 1991 the War Staff sent volunteers directly to the JNA or that the JNA provided volunteers with military uniforms and dispatched them to their destination. 122. I said that a group of volunteers got uniforms at the Vasa ^arapi} Barracks and all other groups of volunteers got uniforms at the Bubanj Potok Barracks. This is the sole truth and what is written in my statement is the ill-meaning fabrication of the investigators.
74

2004 Statement 123. The second time I met with ICTY representatives was on 17, 18 and 19 January 2004 in ICTY premises in Belgrade, when I talked with investigators Rita Pradhan and Thomas Ackheim. 124. I had interviews with a number of investigators before and after that, but Rita Pradhan was the worst. Her behavior towards me was intolerable. I had been threatened by Paolo Pastore Stocchi and by Daniel Saxon, but the worst and most direct threats were leveled at me by Rita Pradhan from Nepal. 125.1 shall try to recall all the threats, pressures and blackmail and to explain them in detail. I shall also try to explain under which circumstances statements allegedly by me were created, which had in fact already been prepared in the Tribunal. They just tried to abuse me to provide cover for their dirty deals. Statements from 2006 126. I gave the first three statements to ICTY investigators in Belgrade, in the offices of the Office of the Prosecutor, at No. 11, Jevrema Gruji}a Street. The third and the last one which I gave to officials of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor in Belgrade was the statement of 19 September 2006. 127. I gave my fourth statement to the investigators in The Hague on 17 and 18 October 2006. Tribunal staff tricked me into going to The Hague and I was there for about two months. I realized that it was all a trick and a swindle and so I decided to escape and return to Serbia. Pressures, Threats, Blackmail and intimidation by the office of the Prosecutor 128. From the very first encounter with representatives of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, they exerted pressure on me and intimidated me and my family. They overtly threatened to arrest me if I was not cooperative. They warned me that I had better respond to their calls and that only in that way could I avoid disagreeable scenes and protect my family. I perceived as a dangerous threat Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s remark that I was no saint and that they had “something” on me too in connection with some events in Bosnia. I was particularly upset by the haughty and arrogant conduct of Paolo Pastore Stocchi when in the presence of interpreter Marina Krsti} on 5 August 2003, visibly dissatisfied because I would not sign a falsified statement, he tore up the papers on which the statement had been printed. 129. When in 2003 we talked about @u}a and Zvornik, Paolo Pastore Stocchi behaved inappropriately and that had an unsettling effect on me. Whenever he was not satisfied with my answer he claimed that I was not telling the truth and that my statement was inconsistent with the statements of other witnesses, and in order to convince me of his contention he would show me clips from some newspapers or parts of statements of other witnesses. I realized that Stocchi had the intention of substantiating the indictment against Vojislav [e{elj through me, and I was in panic and in fear that he could have me arrested as well, or have an indictment filed against me. 130. I remember well that when early in January 2004 I talked with investigators Rita Pradhan from Nepal and Thomas Ackheim from Sweden, Rita Prad75

han told me that she would deliver me to the judicial organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina if I refused to cooperate with the investigators. 131. I knew that I had committed no crime, but I equally knew that I would not be able to defend myself from their accusations if they really decided to bring an indictment against me. I was afraid of the ICTY, but my fear from a possible trial in Bosnia and Herzegovina was even greater. Although I was aware that neither of these two courts would be fair in trying Serbs, it seemed to me that it would be much worse in some prison in Bosnia and Herzegovina, among Muslims. The fear from these threats was so intense that I decided to confirm whatever they wanted from me and to stop opposing them in order not to tempt fate and to save my neck. 132. At the end of September 2006, they called me on the telephone and told me to come to the offices of the ICTY in Belgrade at No. 11, Jevrema Gruji}a Street. That was the first time I was interviewed by prosecutor Daniel Saxon. 133. The interview with Daniel Saxon was short. Saxon told me that my statements had disappeared at Belgrade airport and that I had to go to The Hague in order to give a second statement there and possibly complement it with new details. He said that they would take me to The Hague by force if I did not agree to go voluntarily. He also intimidated me by misinformation to the effect that they had some information from the Victims and Witnesses Unit that physical liquidation threatened me in Serbia. 134. Prosecutor Daniel Saxon told me that I was in danger from the Serbian Radical Party and that the Office of the Prosecutor in The Hague was willing to protect me and secure my safe departure to a third country. He clearly told me that I would be provided accommodation and financial support and that as additional security they would see to a change of my identity. He specified that in return I would have to appear before the ICTY and represent their interests as a witness for the prosecution in the case against Vojislav [e{elj. At the end of the interview, Saxon told me that I was to bring my passport already the next day and to get ready to travel to The Netherlands. 135. I thought that I had no choice and so, against my will, I got ready to travel to The Hague. As agreed, the following day I came to the ICTY offices and there they immediately took my passport and returned it to me with a Dutch visa within an hour. When we set out for Belgrade airport I saw that we were not escorted by Serbian police and I thought that our police and state organs did not know that I was being taken to The Netherlands and concluded that I had been tricked and kidnapped. 136. When I arrived in The Hague, they put me up in a private flat in Scheveningen and not at a hotel as they had promised me. I realized that I had been tricked, but there was no turning back. 137. During my stay in The Netherlands, my freedom and right of movement were restricted, because immediately after I had passed through passport control at Belgrade Airport, ICTY officials seized my passport and other personal documents. 138. I was in The Hague from 6 October to 2 December 2006, and there Tribunal officials questioned me two to three times a month. I received a 25-Euro daily food allowance.
76

139. Every time they took me out of the flat for interrogation, on the way they would show me the cemetery and the prison in Scheveningen. I took that to mean that they were warning me of what lay in store if I refused to cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor. 140. While I was in The Hague, I was interrogated by a number of investigators and prosecutors, but most often by Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon. They constantly threatened me, blackmailed me and tried to bribe me. 141. In the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor they planned to immediately call me as a witness in the case against Vojislav [e{elj and that is why they had brought me to The Hague. That did not happen because Dr Vojislav [e{elj had gone on a hunger strike on account of human rights violations. 142. It was uncertain when Dr [e{elj’s trial would begin, and it was quite clear to me that I had been tricked and deceived for I got nothing of what representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor had promised me in Belgrade. I decided to flee and to return to Serbia. I employed a ruse and I asked staff from the Victims and Witnesses Unit to give me my passport so that I could go to Sweden to see a friend who could help me move to Sweden after testifying. 143. When in the beginning of December 2006 they gave me my passport and food money for the following month, I waited for the next weekend, because I knew that no one checked on me on weekends, and I fled. I left all my things in the flat in order not to raise suspicions in case someone was following me. I took the tram from Scheveningen to The Hague, a train from The Hague to Dusseldorf, and from there a bus to Novi Sad via Vienna. 144. I deliberately went to Novi Sad, because I knew that the Office of the Prosecutor would immediately on Monday, once they noticed that I was not there, notify officials in Belgrade that I had escaped, and that the police would be looking for me in my flat. From Novi Sad I telephoned my family and they told me that the police had already been there and that they were looking for me. They warned me that they often saw police outside the building. 145. I remained in Novi Sad for a few days until I found temporary accommodation in Belgrade, where I believed neither Tribunal officials nor Belgrade police would be looking for me. 146. After my arrival in Belgrade from Novi Sad I no longer had any direct contacts with representatives of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor. 147. In the beginning of November 2007, I received a summons from the War Crimes Prosecutor in Belgrade signed by Deputy Prosecutor Veselin Mrdak. In the summons it was written that I was to report on 15 November 2007 for an interview at the request of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor. I was to meet with prosecutor Christine Dahl then, but I refused that meeting. 148. The many years of maltreatment, blackmail, pressures and intimidation by the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor had terrible consequences for me and for my family. Because I was very nervous and tense my tolerance threshold went down and I often quarreled with my wife with whom I have two children. We frequently fought and we divorced. I left my family and I moved out of the flat. I sub-leased a flat, I was out of a job and without any desire to look for other work. I had no means of livelihood and I started borrowing money. As I was unable to pay back
77

my loans, I got drunk every day. All that led to serious health problems. Because of everything that had befallen me as a consequence of the pressures and threats on the part of ICTY investigators I was actually unable to think straight. I wanted to get out of my misery and live a decent life and those are the reasons why I confirmed to the investigators what they submitted to me even though I knew that it was not the truth. 149. As at that time I was jobless, without a flat, without a livelihood, I saw going abroad as the solution to all my problems. When ICTY investigators offered me the possibility for me to move to a third country in return for a false testimony against Dr Vojislav [e{elj, I accepted that, and I only later realized that it had been a grave mistake and that the investigators had blackmailed and deceived me. 150. As the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor did not fulfill a single promise, I discontinued all contacts with them and decided to turn to the Expert Team assisting the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj before the Tribunal at The Hague, to tell them what threats, blackmail and intimidation I had been subjected to by the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor. contact with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team and Disclosure of identity 151. I first got in touch with Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team in the summer of 2007. I rang up the Serbian Radical Party and asked to speak to someone from [e{elj’s team. On the other end I got a man by the name of Dragan Tasi} who said that he was a member of the team assisting the preparation of Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. I said to Tasi} that I would like the two of us to meet and talk. 152. On my own initiative I met with Dragan Tasi} and I related to him in detail everything in connection with my contacts with the Office of the Prosecutor. After that, I gave Vojislav [e{elj’s team a statement in which I described in detail the pressures, the blackmail, the intimidation and all the other ways in which I had been maltreated by the ICTY. I had my statement certified in the District Court in Belgrade and I stressed that I agreed that Dr. Vojislav [e{elj could use it in proceedings before the ICTY. 153. Aware of my previous mistakes and gullibility, as well as because of the fact that I knew that I would have to appear as a witness in The Hague, I decided to offer to Vojislav [e{elj to be a defense witness in his case, which I also stated in the statement that I gave to [e{elj’s defense team. 154. After I had established contact with Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, all my troubles and fears were gone. All my contacts with the Office of the Prosecutor ceased, and, to my satisfaction, their pressures and blackmail also stopped. 155. From my very first contact with the team assisting the preparation of the defense of Vojislav [e{elj to date, I have given voluntarily and without duress a number of statements which Dr. Vojislav [e{elj has publicly used in the proceedings being conducted against him in the ICTY. 156. I have had all the statements that I have given to the team assisting the preparation of the defense of Vojislav [e{elj authenticated in court and I have considered them all public, for that is what they were. Certification of the signature on a statement in the competent court requires a verification of identity on the basis
78

of personal documents, to which I willingly consented, just as I agreed that the broad public could be acquainted with everything that I had said. 157. I never voluntarily accepted the protective measures assigned me by the Pre-Trial Chamber at the request of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, and I have publicly said so. 158. In the beginning, exposed to pressures and blackmail, I accepted the conditions of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor which used and abused my difficult living circumstances and that was one more reason why I wanted to speak publicly about it under my full name and surname. I never accepted to be VS-017 but Zoran Ranki}, a person with a name and a surname. 159. When I accepted to be a Trial Chamber witness in the case being conducted against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj before the ICTY, I insisted on testifying publicly, without any protective measures. I insisted on that from the very beginning of my negotiations with ICTY representatives in connection with this testimony. 160. On 11 and 12 May 2010, I testified as a Trial Chamber witness in the case being conducted against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. I testified in open session even though I knew that the trial would be transmitted by some television stations in Serbia. 161. From the moment I established contact with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, I began to feel like a free man again and to freely keep company with all those I used to socialize with, including members of the Serbian Radical Party. To all of them I recounted my whole experience with the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, including that I had been assigned a code name under which I was to have appeared in the courtroom. 162. I regularly attended various panel discussions and scientific gatherings organized by the Serbian Radical Party and which were devoted to the violation of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s human and procedural rights and his inadequate medical treatment in The Hague. 163. I never hid my identity. I spoke publicly for the media. At panel discussions and promotions of books written by Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and which are organized throughout Serbia, I spoke before several thousand people always under my full name and surname. I always also spoke about my experience with the Tribunal. At the large international gathering which was held on 19 September 2010 in the Sava Centre in Belgrade I addressed the audience by video link and I also attended it personally. attachments: 1. Photocopy from Novosti from KZ[ /press conference/ (Glamo~anin and Ranki}) 2. Photocopy of an article with the speech at the Trade Union Hall 3. Photocopy of text from the link of 19 September 2010 from the Sava Centre in Belgrade 30 november 2010 Statement given by Zoran Ranki} /signed/

acknowledgement I hereby confirm by my signature that I have read this statement written in the Cyrillic script, in the Serbian language, and that it corresponds in its entirety to
79

what I have said to Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi}, members of the Expert Team assisting in the preparation of the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj in proceedings before the ICTY. Witness Zoran Ranki} /signed/ OV I No. 153643/2010 This is to confirm that Zoran Ranki}, Belgrade, 43, Husinskih rudara St. In the capacity of person giving a statement, identity card number T 60904 has affixed his signature to this statement – acknowledged as his the signature on this document. The identity of the aforementioned person has been established on the basis of: identity card – passport. Certification stamp duty amounting to 710 dinars charged. First Lower Court in Belgrade 2 December 2010 Authorized official Jelena Gagi} /a signature/ /Stamp: Republic of Serbia First Lower Court in Belgrade/ /handwritten: Trade union hall 2008/ /beginning of text missing/ /.../ obliterate their tracks. When brother betrays brother, the scream of the scorched sun is in the iris undone. long live Vojislav [e{elj! long live Radovan Karad`i}! long live Serbia! Zoran Krasi}: I thank Mr. Lazi} and I call upon defense witness, Mr. Zoran Ranki}, to take the floor. Zoran Ranki}: Brothers and sisters, God bless you! A lot has been said before me, so that now I can only relate in brief what I have personally lived through and would wish no one, but, equally, I can tell you that they have not scared me one bit and from here I can address them but a single message – they can serve thousands of subpoenas on me, they can hold me in contempt of court, but I will not be their witness. They tried to kidnap me, they took me to The Hague, they held me in house arrest for two days, they blackmailed me and they offered me all sorts of things. A while ago I had a good laugh when the brother who spoke before me said – black women to cool me with fans in the Dominican Republic and all that. Slightly funny, but not really. Actually, it is rather sad, everything that they, this tribunal of injustice in The Hague, is engaging in. That is no court of justice at all. It never occurred to them, and they know that I had taken part in the war actions in Bosnia, and precisely in the area where the famous Naser Ori} operated, who, I personally know, burned over twenty villages and killed 1,600 Serb civilians, mostly old men and women. It had never occurred to anyone from the Tribunal at The Hague to call me to testify as a witness for the Prosecution in the case against Naser Ori}.
80

Why not? Well, because that is in fact not their aim. There only Serbs are put on trial, and exclusively Serbs are to blame for everything that had happened. The only other thing that I can say here is to greet all our Serbs who are currently in The Hague, unjustifiably, of course, and unjustly, and well, perhaps I too shall soon be joining them. A big greeting for all our indictees in The Hague. Zoran Krasi}: I thank Mr. Ranki} and I call upon Ms. Borka (Sreten) Milankov, advisor to the 1389 Serbian National Movement for Human Rights and Freedoms, United Nations expert on peace, democratization and human rights, and the initiator of a successful campaign in the French Parliament in 1999 for a ban on NATO overflights. Yes, please. Borka Milankov: Esteemed brothers and sisters, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, esteemed folks. It is an honor for me to attend this gathering today and to be able to present to you one truly non-governmental organization in Serbia, the 1389 organization. Many of you have perhaps heard of or attended the daily walks organized by this organization, and, besides us, a number of some other patriotic organizations. But what I wanted to say here today, in fact, concerns the 21st century and the media war. What I wanted to convey to you from my knowledge and working experiences in different international organizations, as we all are passing from the 20th to the 21st century with a particular perception of human rights, is that the existence of non-governmental organizations in a democratic society is very important in that context. Naturally, to the question of what that is like today in Serbia. Stop to the Tyranny from the hague! “Velika Srbija”, october 2010, no. 3415, pp. 30 and 31 /.../ Kosovo and Metohija. If we have to suffer that terrible injustice, and you cannot imagine a greater one, then at least let us not praise and even less glorify that bestial and unleashed force, whose representatives, some creatures without any morals, are sitting in Brussels and the ICTY. That at least we do not have to do. For it is not those who are the most righteous that win. It is always those who are the strongest. But, therefore, as long as a single upright person who is prepared to die for justice exists on this planet, like Vojislav [e{elj is, hope in fairness and justice will not perish. But, still, we have to address ourselves to what is happening in Serbia. The situation in Serbia today is the same or even worse than it was 150 years ago. About that time, Vladimir Jovanovi}, who is the father of Slobodan Jovanovi}, warned, I shall briefly quote, and the language is archaic. He said: “If sound patriotism does not unite spirits in thought, in wishes and actions for the emancipation of conditions on which the resolution of the national question depends, then no one will be able to forecast Serbia’s fate”. He was referring to the Serbian national question. Today, the situation in Serbia is exactly the same. Then Serbia was a principality, a vassal, something like an autonomous province in modern-day terms, within the Turkish Empire. Today, Serbia has fewer rights than a vassal entity. Even then there had been a struggle whether in Serbia the policy of the alien, the alien being Austria-Hungary, or the national one should be conducted. Simi81

larly today, the crucial question is whether you will be conducting the policy of the enemy of this people or a truly people’s policy. In other words, if there is no change of government in Serbia, today, 150 years after Vladimir Jovanovi} had uttered these words, no one can forecast with certainty what the fate of Serbia and its people will be. I could only conclude – definitely tragic. And in what form, it is better for us not to know, or not to see. Thank you for your attention. The office of the Prosecutor Kidnapped Me and held Me in Detention for Two Months Zoran Krasi}: Kidnapping and torture did not prevent Zoran Ranki} from refusing to falsely testify. Let us look at Zoran Ranki}’s statement. Video beam presentation: My name is Zoran Ranki}. I was deputy chief of the Crisis Staff from April 1991 until October of the same year, when the Crisis Staff was renamed the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party, i.e. the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I first met with ICTY investigators in August 2003, when I was, actually, interrogated by Mr. Paolo Pastore Stocchi, an ICTY investigator, in the presence of interpreter Marina Krsti}. Dissatisfied with my answers, at a certain point he, visibly upset, grabbed my statement, tore it up and told me that I was not exactly a saint myself, that they had something on me as well, so that, if I did not cooperate, in other words if I did not serve their purpose for an indictment to be brought against Vojislav [e{elj, they could do many things to me too. Even though I knew that I was absolutely clean in respect of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. in respect of Zvornik, still it embarrassed me to be blackmailed and maltreated in that way, although I realized that they were in fact trying to pin all the worst on Vojislav [e{elj through me in order to achieve the best effects for them. In the beginning of 2004, a certain lady Rita from Nepal interrogated me. She openly threatened me then that if I did not cooperate with ICTY investigators, there existed the possibility of my being delivered to Bosnia and Herzegovina, given the fact that, allegedly, they had some evidence against me in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although I knew that that was not true, I again realized that in actual fact that was serious pressure in order for me to testify against Vojislav [e{elj. In the autumn of 2006, prosecutor Mr. Daniel Saxon tricked me into going to The Hague, alleging that some of my statements had disappeared and that I was at risk of physical liquidation in Serbia. Even though I knew and personally felt that I was in no danger, I still had to go there. I was virtually kidnapped, they took me away by force, and I spent two months in house arrest there, where I was interrogated several times and subjected to pressure, always with the objective of my testifying against Mr. Vojislav [e{elj. As I did not want to testify, I employed a ruse to escape from the ICTY that same year, practically in December 2006. Later I reported to the team for the defense of Mr. Vojislav [e{elj. Although I had been offered residence in a third country and financial security, I nevertheless firmly decided not to testify in favor of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor. I was also aware of the fact that if I received a summons from the Trial Chamber of the ICTY, I would have to respond. That is exactly what happened, actually after several summons from the Trial Chamber, I
82

appeared before the Trial Chamber on 11 and 12 May 2010, and I testified under my full name and surname, for that had been my only condition for testifying as I did not want to be some nameless VS-017. The general public has probably watched that transmission and seen what my testimony was like. After that I had no contacts with the ICTY whatsoever. If Mr. Vojislav [e{elj should need me to appear as a witness for the defense, I am always ready to do that. [e{elj at the crossroads of Serbdom and Serbiandom Zoran Krasi}: In September 2008, the Prosecution again requested that a defense counsel be imposed on [e{elj. Rogue elements from the Serbian Radical Party tried to perpetrate a putsch which had been prepared in consultations with the US and British ambassadors. The aim had been for the Serbian Radical Party, as a markedly patriotic and nationalistic one, to vanish from the political scene, for the pro-Western oriented parties to occupy all of the spectrum and for [e{elj’s defense in The Hague to be weakened and hampered to the maximum. I give the floor to doctor of historical sciences Veselin \ureti}, a friend and fellow-combatant of Vojislav [e{elj’s from their Sarajevo days, who has pointed countless times to the fact that the president of the Serbian radicals has been a barrier to the implementation of the West’s policies in Serbia. \ureti} is one of the first dissidents of communist Yugoslavia, whose works have contributed to the sobering up of the Serbian nation. Dr. Veselin \ureti}: I have prepared two parts of my speech. One in Serbian and a short one in Russian. The one in Russian I shall retell you. I asked Zoran Krasi} to allow me to speak at some length and to allow me to take a rain check for several months, i.e. to promise me that I shall speak before 500,000 people when we go to meet Vojislav [e{elj. And he said to me: Why 500,000, why not a million? And then I remembered 1996, when Radovan Karad`i} told me: Veso, please speak in Banja Luka, there will be more than 50,000 people there. Actually, there were not 50,000, but we counted 120,000. Therefore, Zoran Krasi} is right. Brothers and sisters, as a historian, I shall not speak about legal modalities, I am not competent. As a historian, I have the right to perceive the position of Vojislav [e{elj in the context of Serbian history, in the most elementary, most superficial way, but I think that I shall make some points that can serve as some guidelines for the conduct of some political parties, especially national ones, such as the Serbian Radical Party is. Namely, I see my friend [e{elj at a crossroads between Serbdom and Serbiandom. Now you will see why. In 1804, Kara|orde stirred up a people’s revolution to liberate all Serb lands. He had a vision of Serbdom, you have read about it, and to cross over the Drina, and later he had the intention and received the support of even Bulgarian collaborators, and enlisted the support of Serb Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. It was only necessary for Napoleon’s terrible campaign to end, for Russia to be rid of its obligations and then to move on. However, after Kara|or|e, Serbdom was reduced to Serbiandom. I am not going to explain, it would take too long. Our second attempt, the great dukes Putnik, Stepa, Mi{i} and others, won victories under the standard of Serbdom, in 1912 and 1914 and 1918. What happened? Their Serbdom was submerged in an unformulated Yugoslavianism and was
83

later truncated by the Cvetkovi}-Ma~ek Agreement, when vital Serb lands were seized from us. Ergo, a new Serbdom attempt ended in truncated Serbiandom. Our third attempt, during World War II, the hapless General Mihajlovi}, faced with terrible challenges, the national challenges of the occupiers, the genocidal challenges of the Croats, the Muslims and the Albanians, responded with a Yugoslav option, a Yugoslav army in the Homeland. And Tito observed all of that, and, aided by his Serbian Russophiles, used Russia and provoked a conflict between Dra`a and the Serbian Russophiles, i.e. partisans, and accomplished the GreaterCroatian project, and that is this project that we have enjoyed for 50 years already. These fighters still think that I am some kind of a Chetnik ideologue, let them hear me, in two days I shall be speaking in Nova Varo{. The next attempt, when Serbdom was quenched because of Serbiandom, were the 90’s. The wretched Slobodan Milo{evi} embarked on a neo-Yugoslav, neosocialist option, and they on clear-cut nationalistic plans, and he got caught in a lurch between his Yugoslavianism and their nationalist projections, only for them to ultimately use the Western allies too, the same ones that Dra`a once had, and those who had been against us in World War II, and the ill-fated Russia which was in the hands of Yeltsin, Kozyrev, and others. The fourth abortive attempt when Serbdom got lost in Serbiandom took place in the 90’s. Why did I support this party and did not want to be a member of any party, even though I had had offers, and so on? Because I viewed it from the angle of this Serb option, and knowing that the moment Serbdom was reduced to Serbiandom, Serbia’s wings were clipped. And Serbia without wings is not Serbia and cannot defend itself. I thought that it would happen, that I would see that hapless friend of mine, that he would show up here, that he would learn what had happened with his Serb option, that yet again the Serb circle had closed in truncated Serbiandom. Today in the name of that Serbiandom they are closing our circles in Kosovo and Metohija. Brothers and sisters, I propose that we here note a state of occupation, to show our people and the world. To our people, so that they would know how to conduct themselves, for in conditions of occupation people clearly distinguish the important from the unimportant, freedom from non-freedom, while in our conditions everything is mixed up and we are not making any distinctions. Our nation is confused. I propose that we choose – that we make it patently clear – we are in a state of occupation.

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Last name: Miti} First name: Nenad Gender: Male
84

Mother’s name: Vera Nickname: Pufi Date of birth: 15 December 1959 Place of birth: Smederevo Address: no permanent residence, currently residing in \ure Dani~i}a 11/24 Telephone: none Ethnic origin: Serbian Religion: Atheist Language(s) spoken: Serbian, Swedish, some English Language(s) used in interview: Serbian Current occupation: disabled Former occupation: electrical machinery engineer Place and date of interview: Smederevo, 28 September 2010 Interviewer: Vjerica Radeta Names of all persons present during interview(s): 1. Vjerica Radeta 2. Dejan Mirovi} Witness’s signature /signed/ Initialed: 1. /signed/ 2. /signed/ /stamped/ witness Statement 1. My name is Nenad Miti}, my mother’s name is Vera, I was born on 15 December 1959 in Smederevo, I am an ethnic Serb, atheist, residing in Smederevo at a temporary address, \ure Dani~i}a No. 11/24, identity card No. 253026, issued by the Smederevo SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, JMBG 1512959760041. 2. My first contact with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal in The Hague occurred on 21 and 22 April 2004, and on that occasion I talked with investigator Thomas Akthens III. The interview took place in Jevrema Gruji}a Street No. 11, in the OTP office in Belgrade. In the course of the interview with the investigators I asked the prosecution for protective measures during my testimony. 3. In the course of the first interview with the investigators in 2004 and of the second, in 2006, I said I had no knowledge of any risk to my life, of any threats against me; I said there was no danger for me from any side, least of all from the Serbian Radical Party, because I have a great number of personal and family friends among the members of the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/. 4. When the OTP in 2004 took a statement from me, almost all the questions they asked me had to do with the Serbian MUP /Ministry of the Interior/, the chief of the State Security Service in the Republic of Serbia Jovica Stani{i}, the commander of the Special Operations Unit Franko Simatovi}, and my participation in the war from 1991 until 1995. 5. I would like to note the reasons that prompted me to ask the Prosecution to apply protective measures in my case during my testimony. First, I gave my first statement to the Prosecution only a year after the assassination of the Serbian pri85

me minister Zoran \in|i}, and in that period there was no rule of law in Serbia. No one was safe. The government in power at the time arrested and prosecuted all those who they felt was suspicious in any way. The public media told the Serbian public that the assassins who killed \in|i} were a criminal group belonging to the so-called Zemun clan, including some people from the State Security Service. Since I knew I would have to appear before the International Tribunal in The Hague as a witness against the highest-ranking officials in the State Security Service, I was afraid that the people from the Service might be a danger to me. I was thinking about the fact that I was completely unprotected, because if they had managed to kill the Serbian prime minister, despite the strong security, then it would not have been a problem for them to do it to me. 6. In addition, I was afraid that my CV would be made public, and in my youth I faced criminal charges and was sentenced to prison. I am disabled and my earnings are meagre, which means I am forced to take other employment in order to survive. Since I do programming and computer repairs, I was afraid that people might recognize me, that they might learn I had been in prison and that I had had problems with the law, which would reduce the number of jobs and my income. Since I live in a small town, this information would spread very quickly and my livelihood would be at risk. 7. I had an additional reason why I wanted to testify under protective measures. During the war, as a volunteer, I was wounded in the head and I lost an eye. I now wear an eye patch, which means that all the residents of my small town would notice that peculiarity and remember it. 8. I knew that in Serbia it had never been popular to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal and that it would be difficult for me to explain to each and every one that in fact I had to appear as a prosecution witness. I knew that my fellow citizens would be mistrustful of me and that they would be reluctant to let me into their apartments. To sum up, I had purely personal reasons why I sought to testify under protective measures, and I was motivated primarily by the fact that I must not jeopardize my future livelihood and survival in the town in which I was born and in which I live. 9. Ten days after I gave a statement to the OTP in 2004, Milorad Ulemek aka Legija surrendered to the police on 2 May that same year, and from that time on, I felt much safer. I believed that there was no longer any danger for me, at least not from that side. 10. When I met with the OTP on 20 September 2006, I spoke with the prosecutor Daniel Saxon and Marie Costello, and we did not discuss protective measures on that occasion. When I read the text of the statement, my initial intention was to decide against having protective measures because it was my assessment that now, when Milorad Ulemek aka Legija was under arrest, there was no longer any potential danger for me. I did not feel under threat, but I did not do it for private reasons, that has to do with my private business. 11. I repeat, my demand for protective measures has nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party or with Vojislav [e{elj. After all, I did not even know that I would ever be called to testify in the case against Vojislav [e{elj.
86

12. To prove that I never was in danger from anyone in the Serbian Radical party, I would like to note that I often attended the election campaign rallies held by that party. On two occasions, I attended the scientific symposia on the trial of Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal, where thousands of Serbian Radical Party members and sympathizers were in attendance. Both those events occurred before my testimony in The Hague. I also attended the last international scientific symposium on 19 September 2010 in the Sava Centre. Since those symposia were open to public, there was no obstacle for me to be there, although I am not a member of the Serbian Radical Party. 13. In December 2007, I got in touch with Zoran Krasi}, who is, as I learned from the media, the head of the Expert Team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj with his defense, and I was surprised to learn that I was on the witness list proposed by the OTP in the case against Vojislav [e{elj. I told Zoran Krasi} on that occasion that I was ready to testify for the defense at the trial of Vojislav [e{elj. On that occasion, I gave, signed and notarized before the Municipal Court in Smederevo a statement in which I stressed I wished to testify as Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense witness, that I do not wish to be contacted by the Prosecution any more, that [e{elj could use my statement publicly in his trial before the Tribunal and that my statement can be disclosed to the public. I notified Krasi} I was ready to speak publicly to the media if given an opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, there has never been such an opportunity. 14. On 8 August 2008, I gave my second statement to the team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj with his defense, in which I described all my activities in the areas of the former Yugoslavia affected by war between 1991 and 1995. I explained how I went to the front as a volunteer from Smederevo, who organized it, where I underwent training, when I left the Serbian Radical Party, who my commanders were, where and how I was wounded and where I was treated. 15. In this statement I again confirmed my unwillingness to testify for the Prosecution against Vojislav [e{elj, indicating I wanted to testify exclusively as a defense witness, if called by [e{elj. Again, as with the previous statement, I gave my consent for this statement to be used publicly before the International Tribunal in The Hague, to be made public or publicly disclosed. I am convinced that the ICTY is aware of the fact. 16. I would like to add that before testifying in the case against Vojislav [e{elj, where I was called to testify by the Trial Chamber, I notified all my friends and acquaintances that I would testify on 9 and 10 March 2010 under the pseudonym VS-1058. I have spoken about that after giving evidence; this has been in the public domain for a long time, and I have made it public myself. 17. I have given this statement voluntarily, without any pressure, blackmail or threat. I give my consent to the team assisting with Vojislav [e{elj’s defense to use it in public and disclose it publicly, and to Dr. Vojislav [e{elj to use it before the Tribunal for the purposes of his defense. in Smederevo 28 September 2010 Statement given by nenad Miti} /signed/
87

certification I hereby certify that I have read this statement in the Serbian language and that the claims made in the statement are true and accurate, and I confirm it with my signature. Nenad Miti} /signed/ /stamp on original/ OV I No. 7976/2010 This is to certify that Nenad Miti}, Smederevo, \ure Dani~i}a 11 in the capacity of a person providing a statement, identity card No. 253026, Smederevo PU /Police Administration/ personally signed this document – recognized the signature on this document as his own. The identity of this person was verified on the basis of his identity card-passport. Stamp duty has been paid in the amount of 870 dinars. Lower Court in Smederevo Date: 29 September 2010 Authorized official \or|e Klari} /signed and stamped/

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Last name: Mijatovi} First name: Dim~e Father’s name: Dimitrije Nickname: Lala (in Croatia), Umjetnik /Artist/ (in Bosnia) Slikar /Painter/ (in Kosovo and Metohija) Date of birth: 28 January 1959 Gender: Male Place of birth: Zrenjanin Address: Zrenjanin, Dr. Tihomira Ostoji}a No. 114 Telephone: Ethnic origin: Serbian Religion: Orthodox Christian Language(s) spoken: Serbian Language(s) used in interview: Serbian Current occupation: unemployed Former occupation: graphic design technician Date and place of interview: 8, 9 and 10 December 2010, Belgrade
88

Interviewer: Nemanja [arovi} Names of all persons present during interview(s): l. Nemanja [arovi} 2. Dejan Mirovi} Witness’s signature/signed/ Initialed: 1./signed/ 2. /signed/ witness Statement 1. My name is Dim~e Mijatovi}, my father’s name is Dimitrije, I was born on 228 January 1959 in Zrenjanin, I am residing in Zrenjanin, in Dr. Tihomira Ostoji}a Street No. 114, identity card No. 000408523, issued by the Zrenjanin PU /Police Administration/, JMBG /personal ID number/ 2801959850038, I am an ethnic Serb, Orthodox Christian by faith, citizen of the Republic of Serbia. 2. Over the past years, I have talked several times with the representative of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, and on a number of occasions, there was pressure and unpleasantness. In spite of my ill health and the financial problems I have faced, I have decided to fight off the pressure from the Prosecution and to refuse to give false testimony before the Hague Tribunal in return for minor privileges. 3. I am a man of Orthodox Christian faith, father of two children. Because of the moral tenets I have taught my children, it is my wish to serve justice regarding everything I was through during the war in the nineties, by presenting all the facts I can remember, in order to finally establish the full truth about the events. 4. I have so far notarized two statements in which I stated that I did not want to testify for the Prosecution as a Prosecution witness, but exclusively as a witness for the defense of Vojislav [e{elj and a witness of the truth. For the same reason, I give today this statement, without any pressure, and with a great desire to present the full truth. 5. Before moving on to the war in the nineties, I would like to describe my contacts with the representatives of the OTP. I believe it is important to know what kinds of pressure were brought to bear on me over the long years, and my only regret is that I did not find the strength earlier to fight them off and the wisdom not to trust them as much as I had. contacts with the Prosecution 6. The first meeting occurred in 2001. The OTP representatives first called me on the telephone and a few days later, I received a visit in my house in Zrenjanin from Jerry /?/ and Adisa Agi}, an interpreter from Sarajevo, who worked for some humanitarian organization, for some war veterans. During the first interview there was no major pressure on me; they tried to convince me mildly that it would be very useful for me to testify for the OTP. On that occasion, they invited me to come to Belgrade for further interviews. 7. However, since I refused, in October and November, I was visited by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, interpreter Adisa AGI], some German woman by the name of
89

Judit whose last name I cannot recall at this time, and another male, who I assessed to be the driver and bodyguard. I concluded that because he had the appearance of a soldier and I saw a military bag in the boot of the jeep they were driving as they drove away. I also noticed that he had a pistol under the jacket he wore. 8. On that occasion, they again tried to convince me to testify for the Hague Tribunal. As I did not want to do it, they told me they had recordings and documents regarding my stay and actions in Bile}a and Trebinje which allegedly were compromising for me, and that unless I “cooperated”, I could soon become an accused, not a witness. 9. I was interrogated for four days, which would have been exhausting for a man in perfect health, and because of my ill health, I found it very hard and at times I thought I could not take it anymore and would faint. 10. I was interrogated for days on end and I almost expired. The interrogation did not resemble a normal interview such as the one I am having now with the member of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team: it boiled down to intimidation and blackmail. They asked me the same questions countless times, exerting pressure on me to confirm what they wanted to hear. 11. Paolo Pastore got particularly angry with me and was particularly unpleasant when we talked about the events in Herzegovina because he could not establish any links between my stay there and Vojislav [e{elj, because the two of us did not have anything in common. 12. We talked through the interpreter, and the two who questioned me used some kind of a laptop computer, but I could not see or know what they were typing because they were doing it in English. They immediately let me know that unless I cooperated I would receive the official summons from the Hague Tribunal, and they offered me immunity from prosecution if I confirmed their claims. It was my impression that they did not care that much for the truth, because they did not ask me to say what happened and how, but they did most of the talking, reading out a prepared text and asked me to confirm it. 13. They promised that if I testified in public, in front of the cameras, I would be given protection: I would get a new identity, I would be moved to another state and I and my son Stefan would get financial security. However, I have two children from two marriages and I rejected the offer because I would not want to set a bad example to either of my children. 14. My refusal to testify was taken by the OTP representatives to mean that I could testify in closed session. That is why they offered me all kinds of options, just to get me to agree to testify. One of the offers was to testify as a secret witness, whose face and voice would not be broadcast at the trial. 15. For four days they mistreated me by showing me some pictures and recordings, the whole day long, for hours, asking me to show them what can be seen on them, which persons were depicted, etc. The recordings pertained to Herzegovina, and Kosovo and Metohija; just a few pertained to Croatia. They interrogated me about some locations in Slavonia, about Herzegovina and Kosovo and Metohija. 16. I told them several times I was sick, that I had undergone treatment and that I was receiving treatment at the time because I had to take medication con90

stantly, but they did not interrupt the questioning. After four days of interrogation, I was so exhausted and half-crazy that I was ready to sign that I had personally shot former US President Kennedy, just to put a stop to the agony of interrogation. Finally, I signed everything they gave me, but to this day I do not know what it is that I signed. As far as I can remember, the papers were in English, but as I have already noted, I did not look and I was not able to look at what I was signing; I merely wanted to put an end to it as soon as possible, without giving any thought to the consequences. 17. The second time I was interrogated in Belgrade, as far as I can recall it was in 2002. It was not a proper interrogation either, because they were showing me pictures and recordings and asking me to identify some persons who were Chetnik vojvodas /war leaders/, as they alleged. The recordings had to do with Herzegovina and Kosovo and Metohija, and practically none pertained to Croatia because Western Slavonia obviously did not interest them anymore, but they focused mostly on Vukovar. as they told me at the time, they had purportedly called me to check some parts of what I had told them earlier. 18. From the first contact onwards, they constantly called me on the phone and thus exerted constant pressure on me. I had an impression that I was under surveillance and that they knew what I was doing, where I was going, etc. 19. On one occasion, a police officer covering the area where I lived told me he had been officially tasked with checking up on me and coming round to my place. My feeling that the OTP representatives were keeping an eye on me was confirmed in the spring of 2007, when I changed my address. I sold the house in Zrenjanin in 12. vojvo|anske brigade Street No. 31, and bought another, smaller house, in Zrenjanin, in Dr. Tihomira Ostoji}a Street No. 114. Although I had not informed anyone from the OTP about the move, they were able to find me at my new address and called me on the landline in the new house. I concluded that they had me under surveillance because the telephone at the new address was not registered in my name. 20. Sometime in October 2007 I was summoned to come to the OTP office in Belgrade, in Jevrema Gruji}a Street. They were waiting for me at the bus station in Belgrade, or to be more precise, in the parking lot across the road, and when I got into their jeep, they covered my head with a jacket that belonged to a woman from the Hague Tribunal, who was in the same jeep. They told me they were doing it because they did not want anyone to see me entering their premises. I think they did that in order to scare me even more, to drive me crazy and to humiliate me, in order to make me do what they wanted me to do. However, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back and I decided not to take the humiliation and pressure anymore. On that occasion in the OTP office, I was questioned about Ratko Mladi}. 21. In December 2007, I was undergoing treatment in the Zrenjanin Hospital, in the Psychiatry Ward. One day, although I was in hospital undergoing treatment, the representatives of the Office for Cooperation with the Hague Tribunal found me and served me with the summons to appear in The Hague. That was when I made my final decision to get in touch with the Serbian Radical Party and through them with the members of the Team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj in the preparations for his defense.
91

22. I must stress that the representatives of the OTP constantly spoke about the danger I was in and the danger my children were in, although I never felt in any danger and I never received any threats from anyone. It was my impression that they were deliberately trying to make me feel unsafe and afraid in order to be able to exert stronger influence. After all the talks about threats, they offered me various kinds of assistance, including guarantees of safety for me, my children and family, good medical care, protective measures and financial aid. 23. However, they almost never assisted either me or my family, except once in November 2007 when a neurologist said I would have to do an MR scan. As I did not have money, I spoke to Judith Brand. After that, the OTP representatives came to Zrenjanin and gave me 150 Euros. Before they gave me the money I needed for my medical treatment, they made it a condition that I offer them guarantees I would testify against Vojislav [e{elj and hand over my passport. As I had no choice, because I urgently needed the money for medical treatment, I handed them my passport. 24. As far as the money I was given by the representatives of the OTP is concerned, those were mostly small amounts, i.e. just to compensate me for the travel and meals, and then some 10 to 20 Euros on top of that. This was a kind of compensation for time lost, for time I had to spend away from my child, etc, but they gave me firm promises that after the trial, if it went the way they wanted, I would receive adequate pay. 25. When they were happy with my cooperation and when I confirmed all their claims, they paid me back by buying some of my paintings for a hundred Euros or so, although it was my impression that they were not really interested in the paintings because they were giving me the money more or less without looking at the paintings at all. 26. I must say that I really regretted not having contacted the people from Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team; if I had done it earlier, I would have gotten rid of the guys from the Hague Tribunal, gotten rid of the fear and pressure I have been under all those years and I am sure my health would have been much better. 27. What the representatives of the Hague Tribunal who pressured me were like can be seen from the fact that Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me to sell him a painting of mine. I am a graphic designer and I paint. It was an oil painting, 1.40 by 1.50 m. He did not have the money to buy it at the time, and he took the painting and Paolo has yet to pay for the painting. I wanted to buy a computer with the money. 28. After I left the hospital, on 17 December 2007, I contacted a friend from the Serbian Radical Party from Zrenjanin and told him that the Hague Tribunal planned to call me as a Prosecution witness against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, that I did not want to testify, that I wanted to get rid of the pressure exerted by the OTP and that I wanted to testify as Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s defense witness. I wanted that in particular because I had never told the Hague Tribunal anything against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. I could not testify against [e{elj anyway, because I did not know anything about the charges against him and I did not witness anything that might incriminate him. 29. The people from the Hague Tribunal never told me what Dr. Vojislav [e{elj had allegedly done, but they wanted me to testify that Dr. Vojislav [e{elj had
92

issued some specific orders. I could never understand how they thought I could testify about that when I never heard or saw anything of the kind. The only conclusion I have been able to draw is that they wanted me to lie and that they did not really care if I really saw something or not, as long as I was willing to confirm what they wanted me to. 30. I did not want to lie, and I did not want to take the pressure and intimidation from the people from the OTP. That is why I decided to get in touch with the people from Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s Team and to give them a statement in order for the public and Dr. Vojislav [e{elj to be aware what I had been through and the lengths the OTP representatives were ready to go to. 31. I told the investigators several times in no uncertain terms that I had never been a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and that I had never gone to the theatres of war through the Serbian Radical Party, but as a volunteer, on my own, through my friends. first Time on the front 32. I went to the front for the first time on 14 September 1991. My sister worked in the Zrenjanin Municipality at the time. Many people were called up to serve in the reserve force at the time, but I was not because my sister used her connections at work to prevent it. When I learned that she had taken my name off the list of those who were called up to the reserve force, I went to the Municipality and signed up to go as a volunteer. I remember that on the same day I signed up, in the afternoon, I received a visit from my neighbor, a police officer, who brought me the call-up papers and that evening he sent me off to Novi Sad. 33. Some JNA reservists, who had also volunteered to serve in the reserve force, and I were transferred to a barracks in Novi Sad, by bus. I came as a civilian, in civilian clothes. The next day we were issued SMB /olive drab/ uniforms, but not weapons, and were transferred to Banja Luka, to the JNA Kozara barracks. As a JNA soldier, or reservist volunteer, I was with my unit in Western Slavonia until the JNA withdrew from there, I think it was in mid-December 1991. I remember that I went from Banja Luka to Zlatibor where I spent seven days with my child on winter holidays. From Zlatibor I returned to Banja Luka. 34. Since I was in the territory of Western Slavonia, I decided to transfer to the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Oku~ani and its environs. In May 1992, I spent a short time on vacation in Zrenjanin, and then I returned to the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. In June 1992, I was wounded on a position in the village of Donji Bogi}evci, municipality of Oku~ani. I was wounded in an attack by the Croatian Army, by a shell. I remember that I spent about a month and a half at home because of the wound and pneumonia. Since I made many friends on the front, in August 1992, some friends invited me to join them in Herzegovina. To be more specific, Miodrag Todorovi} from Dunavac invited me from Herzegovina. While I was undergoing treatment, he went to Bosnia and spent some time in Pale, in the area around Zvornik, etc. and then, following his invitation, I came to Bile}a. 35. From August to December 1992, I was in a unit that held the defense lines in the municipality of Stolac. From December 1992 to August 1994, I was in
93

a unit called the 2nd Light Infantry Brigade at the Bora~ko Lake, under the command of Boro Antelj. My unit leader was Baca Milo{evi}. 36. From August 1994 to April or May 1995, I was in Aran|elovac, where I got married. In April or May 1995 I again went to the Bora~ko Lake, and I remember that I returned to Aran|elovac in July 1995 because my wife called me to tell me she was about to give birth. My son was born on 6 July 1995 and that is how I remember all those details. 37. During my participation in the armed conflicts and wars from September 1991 until July 1995, I never served in any units that were not part of the JNA, the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina or the Republika Srpska Army. I never joined any unit as a member of the Serbian Radical Party or as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party. I was never sent to join any of those units by the Serbian Radical Party. I never talked to anyone from the Serbian Radical Party to express my wish to go to a front or a territory. At no point in time was there anyone in any of the units where I served who was officially or unofficially from the Serbian Radical Party; no one ever introduced themselves as being there on behalf of the Serbian Radical Party. I never received any orders or commands from anyone from the Serbian radical Party, nor did I ever report to anyone from the Serbian Radical Party. No unit in which I served was under the command of the Serbian Radical Party; they were under the command of the Army that controlled the territory in question. On the uniforms that I wore there never were any emblems or insignia of the Serbian Radical Party or of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. I never heard of any orders to kill and slaughter, nor was it tacitly approved. Not a single commander of any of the units in which I served was a member of the Serbian Radical Party, nor did any of my commanders have any contacts with the Serbian Radical Party, to my knowledge. 38. While I served in the military units, there were persons in those units who were sympathizers or members of various political parties. We seldom discussed politics because on the frontline it did not matter who voted for whom and who supported what party. No one ever came to a unit or served in a unit in an organized manner as a member of the Serbian Radical Party. I insist on this last point because in the units where I served no one ever asked anyone what party they belonged to. 39. I would see Vojislav [e{elj on TV but his appearances and views were never the reason why I signed up as a volunteer or why I went to the various fronts. The reason why I signed up as a volunteer in the JNA which was the only regular army at the time was because I could not accept the violent break-up of the state in which I was born and in which I grew up. Ninety percent of the people who were with me in the military units shared my views and did not want the SFRJ /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia/ to break up. 40. As far as I was able to see, nothing was recorded when I gave my statements and no one told me my statements may be recorded. From my present perspective, in my opinion the investigators from the Hague Tribunal did not record my interrogations in order to be able to alter my statements later as they saw fit. They merely typed things up on their laptop, but as far as I know, they typed in English, because Paolo Pastore Stocchi does not speak Serbian and could definitely not type and draft a statement in Serbian.
94

41. It is true that I did not join the volunteers because of my ethnic background, but I joined the JNA which was the only regular army in line with the Constitution that was in force at the time, and the volunteers that I joined could not be called “Serbian volunteers”. Additional proof that they were not “Serbian volunteers” lies in the fact that among the volunteers there were people from different ethnic communities, Hungarians, Slovaks, etc. 42. I would like to stress that I find the claim that anyone called us Chetnik volunteers to be risible. Whoever wrote that is really nuts. How could they call us Chetnik volunteers when we signed up in the JNA, when we wore JNA uniforms, when our weapons were distributed to us by the JNA officers and when we were under JNA command in Donji Bogi}evci? We went to Stara Gradi{ka for everything we required, from ammunition to doctors, and Stara Gradi{ka was under the exclusive command of the JNA, which is general knowledge. In that area, as far as I know, there were no units that were not under the JNA command and control. 43. I would like to note that I never heard of the village of Smiri}i – this is the first time I hear of it. There is a village called Smrti}i, but there was no base there. It was just another village like Donji Bogi}evci where I was stationed. We were not stationed in a military base, but in the houses. The claim that my commander was a “Chetnik commander” is nonsense because my military record booklet states the date when I joined the JNA reserve force and when I left, and the only command that existed on the ground at that time was the JNA command! 44. It is obvious that the investigators made things up and in their lies they tried to turn me and my unit into a Chetnik unit, purportedly under the command of a “Chetnik commander”, without me knowing that he was a Chetnik commander. After all, that would have been the first time for a “Chetnik commander” to wear a JNA uniform. I remember that a man who attended my interrogation told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that he should not try and convince me I knew someone if I did not know them. Unfortunately, I can see now that this did not prevent Pastore from putting together a statement as he saw fit, without taking into consideration my answers at all, and I was left looking stupid because I signed all that without going through it because I wanted the interrogation to end as soon as possible. 45. It is not true that I received any money from Oliver. I paid for the winter holiday I spent with my daughter with the money I received from the JNA: I gave cash to my sister and she paid the holiday from her account, on an installment plan. Before that, I received the money in Bosanska Gradi{ka and I sent it to my family care of a Muslim woman, Sabina, who ran a cafe in Gradi{ka across the road from the department store. 46. It is true that I became a member of the SRS but I never boasted of it; no one knew about it. I never even visited the SRS headquarters in Zrenjanin because I did not want anyone to know I was a member of the SRS. 47. It is true that the only Croatian “prisoners” that I saw were the ones who got into my truck in order to go home. This was in September, October and November 1991. At that time, there were quite a few Croats and Muslims who were doing their national military service in the JNA when the war broke out. Those soldiers, who were in JNA uniforms and had JNA military record booklets, often deserted their units. At the time, I was a truck driver in my unit. The military police
95

often let me cross the border without inspecting me because I would often cross the border and had a regular permit allowing me to cross the border from Donji Bogi}evci into Bosnia in order to get food, ammunition and other supplies. 48. Croats and Muslims who were deserting the JNA crossed the Sava river and left for Bosnia, where they were able to take a regular bus service to everywhere, Split, Zagreb, Doboj, or whatever place they were from. The only thing that mattered to them was to cross the Sava and reach Bosnia. I did not mind giving a lift in my truck to those soldiers who wanted one, and several times, when the military police stopped us, they would check everyone’s papers and detained soldiers who did not possess proper leave authorizations, which is standard procedure in any army. Such soldiers were brought into custody and then checks were made with their commands to see if they had gone away from their units. At that time, some soldiers tried to cross into Bosnia with a full set of weapons (rifles, ammunition, hand grenades). 49. A permit was needed in order to cross the border with weapons, containing the serial number of the weapon, which I always had. I never witnessed any abuse, least of all killing or slaughter of any prisoners. 50. I do not know anything about any minefields and the prisoners who were made to run through the minefields and chased through the woods. Such stories were circulated only in cafes, after the fifth round, but only by wanna be warriors who as a rule were the first to desert the army and run from the frontlines, and who turned into the bravest fighters and warriors after a few drinks in the bar. 51. An obvious example of how some of the claims in what purports to be my statement are nonsensical and contradictory can be seen in paragraph 13, which says that our commanders made us force the prisoners to walk into the minefields, or chase them through the woods, slit their throats, etc, while at the same time we did not know who the commanders were because we did not have an opportunity to see them since they were in a different part of the compound. How is it possible for someone to force us to do all those heinous things, and observe our reactions, while that same someone is not there at all and we never see that person because they are in a different part of the compound which does not exist anyway? I have to repeat that we were stationed in villages, in civilian houses, and there was no military compound there; consequently, there could not have been a different part of the compound in which the commanders were purportedly stationed. 52. I state that there was no training while I was stationed in Donji Bogi}evci. We literally learned how to shoot and how to survive as we went along. There could have been no training, given that we slept on the motorway the first two days before we entered the village. In Banja Luka, there was no training either; they just issued uniforms and weapons and put us on the trucks that took us to the front lines. 53. No one visited us apart from our relatives at times. I got just one visit from my sister and my late father, because it was a theater of war, not a place for pleasure trips, and it is not like people could just walk around as they wished. 54. As regards the uniform and caps, we were issued SMB uniforms and green berets; most of us removed the five-point star emblem from those. There were all kinds of insignia: some wore the five-point stars, some the Yugoslav Army emblems, some the cockades, and there were those who did not have any insignia on
96

their caps. This was the beginning of the war and we mostly shaved regularly and wore our hair short, much shorter than what we used to have in civilian life, primarily because of poor hygienic conditions; it was easier to keep short hair clean. 55. We were not known as Chetnik volunteers, nor was there any reason for it. Chetniks was the term used by the Zengas /Croatian National Guard Corps soldiers/ to describe us, when they wanted to disparage and taunt us. They used the term Chetniks to describe all those who fought against them, although there were still Hungarians, Croats and Muslims in the JNA units. 56. To prove that my purported statement was written by an idiot, because only a total idiot could write that we suffered huge losses and that Croats fired in the air. It was war, and everyone fired into the enemy, and we suffered the greatest losses at the beginning because, as I have noted, we had not undergone any training but had come straight to the front lines. 57. I must repeat for the umpteenth time that there were no Chetnik commanders or Chetnik volunteers. We had been told several times that we had to comply with the rules of war and that we had to be fair when taking enemies prisoner, and we complied, hoping they would treat us fairly if we ended up captured, God forbid. 58. I must stress that the equipment we had was the oldest there was. It is stupid to say that someone communicated with the SRS or the S^P /Serbian Chetnik Movement/ in Belgrade because it was not technically possible to establish contact with Belgrade using the obsolete radio equipment (RUP radio). 59. It beggars belief that the OTP investigators constantly claimed that I was a Chetnik and that my unit was a Chetnik unit. I will say this for the last time, and I will not say this again: I was not a Chetnik volunteer but a JNA volunteer, there was no Chetnik unit or Chetnik command: we were all under the sole control and command of the JNA. 60. I recall the incident in Dragali}, but it is not true that the members of my unit killed a mother and her two children and an old man without any reason. We heard shots while we were playing billiards. We were in front of a cafe, playing billiards, when the old man opened fire on us from an attic window. He hit a ball on the table and then we returned fire. At that time, we did not know who was firing, and later, when we entered the house, we saw it was a man of some 65 years. 61. We found the dead woman and two children in another yard, but they had been killed earlier. I assume that they had been killed by Croats out of mischief, as they pulled out of the village, because later on, when the bodies were removed and identified, the locals recognized them and told us the dead people were Serbs. 62. I want to say that in all the fighting, only the JNA units took part on our side. I do not know how it might be possible for the JNA to build a pontoon bridge and for the Chetniks to liberate villages and fight. No one ever told us or tacitly suggested that we should kill someone, be they enemy soldiers or civilians. Whatever happened, happened in combat, and never after the capture. 63. As I have already said, I knew Oliver and I am proud of it, but I never received any money from him, because his financial situation was rather unenviable too. The claim that Oliver wrote the receipt is particularly stupid, if purportedly I received the money: what kind of a receipt would it be then, and for what? I did not go to the front in Republika Srpska through the SRS or S^P, but, as I have already stated, I was invited to go there by the friends I had made on the front.
97

64. I have to say that I met Lazar Marjanski for the first time in my life in December 2007, when I got in touch with the Serbian Radical Party, seeking protection against further pressure from the OTP, and in order to be able to describe the kind of trouble I had had with them. I met Milorad Krsti} even later than Marjanski, it was probably in 2008, but definitely not in 1992 or 1993. 65. I have to explain in particular the reasons that prompted me to seek help from Vojislav [e{elj’s Expert Defense Team. It was preceded by a talk I had with the investigators about my paintings; they suggested to me in no uncertain terms that if I cooperated and gave what they termed “correct answers” they would buy every painting I brought them and pay 100 Euros each. At that time I was hurting for money and I lied deliberately in order to get the money. This was a tacit agreement between me and the investigators, who were aware of the fact that I was lying but they wanted a statement against [e{elj, and I needed the money. I thought that my statement would never be used and that my lies could not hurt anyone. When I signed up as a volunteer, I had not even heard of a Greater Serbia, and had hardly heard of [e{elj at all. 66. It is true that I had heard of some of [e{elj’s ideas, and that I liked some of them, but they did not influence me or my decision to remain on the front or return home. I assume that in my purported statement there are many things I never said. 67. For instance, I could never have said that [e{elj influenced me or anyone else as a drug, because I have never tried drugs and I do not use such language. We were ah adults, who were further hardened by our tour of duty on the front, and we could not be fooled or made to do whatever we were told like sheep. 68. As regards my stay at the Bora~ko lake, I have to say that I was a member of the Red Berets, where discipline was quite strict in every way, we all had the same uniforms, the same red berets, and we wore only the official insignia of our unit. All our supplies, uniforms, transportation, cigarettes and salaries, were provided through official unit channels, and this has nothing to do with the SRS. It beggars belief again that the prosecutors from The Hague again tried to fit in some Chetniks, Chetnik insignia and similar, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the truth. 69. I would like to say quite frankly that it is true that in 1993 I went to the SRS premises in Zrenjanin in order to seek financial help. However, they were very rude and told me they were not social welfare. I was slightly offended by that, but I calmed down later on, because, as I have already stated, I had joined the SRS; it is just that no one knew about it because I did not want to broadcast it lest I should have problems because of that, given that the Serbian Radical Party was in opposition, and was often attacked by the Milo{evi} regime. This was the first time I went to the SRS premises in Zrenjanin and it makes no sense to claim that in 1991 and 1992 I went to the front through the Serbian Radical Party. 70. I never stated that while we were under the command of the Red Berets, Balti} maintained contact with the SRS, and this is something that anyone who has ever served in the Red Berets can confirm. We were prohibited from being active in any party or speaking of any party, and in the Red Berets, any breaches of discipline were harshly punished; one could even get expelled from the unit, and no98

ne of us wanted that. That is why I and all the others who may have been members or sympathizers of various parties kept quiet about their party affiliations. 71. The Red Berets were an elite unit and all of us who served in it were proud of it. We often stressed the fact when we socialized and went out, because as the Red Berets we were much more likely to score with the girls and no one dared touch us when they saw the red berets. So, I never thought about Chetnik volunteers and I never felt like one. 72. I remember clearly a conversation with Paolo Pastore Stocchi about the action around ^elebi}i near Konjic. I remember each detail because the interview was particularly unpleasant because Paolo Pastore Stocchi wanted to make me at all costs to confirm that the man in the recording was the man I had met near Konjic. I told Pastore there was some similarity because of the long black hair, but that this was not the same man, because there was a considerable and obvious difference in height between the man I had met and the man in the recording (one of them was at least a head shorter). 73. Paolo Pastore Stocchi got incensed and insisted that I should identify the man in the picture, until a man who attended the questioning suggested to Stocchi to leave me alone, saying, “There is no use trying to persuade him if he could not recognize the man.” 74. There were other recordings on which Pastore asked me to identify some people I did not know then, and he even pointed at the screen with his finger, but the other man told him he should not be pointing the finger, that I should identify the people I recognize. 75. The school library was set on fire by the Muslim forces as they retreated towards Bjelimi}i, and as far as I know, the nuns that are mentioned there were not touched, but they in fact asked to be moved to the Croat territory, because at that time in that area, Croats and Muslims were at loggerheads and the nuns were not afraid of Serbs because they were Christians; they mostly feared Muslims. 76. At the time when I was near Konjic, the infamous Muslim units called the Black Swans operated there; they committed many crimes. I was in the Red Berets at the time, and there were no Chetniks there, or Chetnik units which could not be controlled by anyone; this is a blatant fabrication and plainly the result of the intention on the part of Paolo Pastore to establish some sort of link between everything that happened in the recent wars with Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, even when it is absolutely impossible. 77. It is not true that we in the Red Berets were allowed to wear beards; quite the opposite. We all had to shave regularly, and the only person in the whole unit allowed to wear a beard was Vekoslav Milovanovi}. Apart from the fact that shaving regularly is part of the usual discipline, we had to shave regularly in order to be able to put on gas masks easily, because we were afraid that chemical agents might be used. 78. As regards the claims that Ratko Mladi} had issued a verbal order that no civilian must leave the area alive, this is absolutely untrue. There were cases in which Muslims deliberately forced civilians, women and children to walk in front of the forward lines, in order to prevent us from advancing, but in such situations we had to be extremely cautious because there were peace-keepers everywhere
99

and any civilian casualties would be ruthlessly exploited in the media against the Serbs and we definitely did not want or dare to allow that. 79. It is not true that I visited the SRS premises in Belgrade whenever I went on leave from the Red Berets. It is true that I went to the Association of Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina a few times, because we received financial help there. I would like to note that we were granted leave seldom, and for very short periods, and I could hardly wait to go to visit my family and children and I definitely did not have the time to knock on doors in Belgrade. I had no reason to go to the SRS, particularly not after I was told in Zrenjanin that they were not a social welfare service, which offended me. 80. I want to note that I have never tried to hide from the people around me that I have spoken with the representatives of the OTP, that I have never wanted to be a protected witness with the pseudonym VS-014 or VS-whatever, and that I immediately told my family and all my friends that the OTP was exerting pressure on me and wanted me to testify for them. 81. I did this as a precaution, because as time went by, given the bad treatment I received at the hands of the OTP, the threats and pressure, I slowly began to understand that going public was the only way for me to protect myself and that the more people knew about my interviews with them, the safer I would be. That is why I said to all those who wanted to listen that the OTP had assigned this pseudonym, VS-014 to me, against my will. In the end, I have to say once again that I am astonished and dismayed by what is touted as the truth and as my statement. We have a saying that half-truths are often worse than outright lies. As for all the statements I have given the Expert Team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj with the preparations for his defense before the Hague Tribunal, I have given my permission for them to be used publicly and made public in Serbia and before the Hague Tribunal as historical proof that I have disclosed publicly my own name willingly, consciously and deliberately as a potential witness for the defense of Vojislav [e{elj, and not for the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal. in Belgrade, 10 December 2010 Statement given by Dim~e Mijatovi} /signed/

certification I certify with my signature that I have read this statement in the Serbian language and that every word contained therein is true and recorded in the manner in which I stated them to Nemanja [arovi} and Dejan Mirovi}, members of the Expert Team assisting Dr. Vojislav [e{elj with the preparations of his defense before the Hague Tribunal. Signature Dim~e Mijatovi} /signed/ /stamp on original/ OV I No. 158554/2010
100

This is to certify that Dim~e Mijatovi}, Zrenjanin, Doktora Tihomira Ostoji}a No. 114 in the capacity of a person providing a statement, identity card No. 000408521, personally signed this document – recognized the signature on this document as his own. The identity of this person was verified on the basis of their identity card-passport. Stamp duty has been paid in the amount of 870 dinars. First Lower Court in Belgrade Date: 10 December 2010 Authorized official Sne`ana Jovanovi} /signed and stamped/

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Last Name: Nova~i} First Name: Radovan Father’s Name: Ante Nickname/Alias: Goran Date of Birth: 30 June 1961 Address: Loznica, No Number, Vojvode Mi{i}a Street Telephone: Gender: Male Place of Birth: Sremska Mitrovica Ethnic Origin: Serb Religion: Orthodox Language(s) spoken: Serbian Language(s) Used in Interview: Serbian Current occupation: Disabled war veteran Former occupation: Textile technician Date and Place of Interview: 5, 6,7 and 8 December 2010 in Belgrade Interviewer: Gordana Pop-Lazi}, B. Juris. Names of all persons present during interview(s): 1. Gordana Pop-Lazi}, B. Juris. 2. Boris Aleksi}, B. Juris. Signature of witness: /signed/ Initialed by persons present: l./initialed/ 2./initialled/
101

witness Statement 1. My name is Radovan Nova~i}, father Ante, born on 30 June 1961 in Sremska Mitrovica, Republic of Serbia. I live in Loznica, at bb /no number/, Vojvode Mi{i}a Street, identity card number 161607 issued by SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/ Loznica, JMBG/personal identification number/ 3006961773627. I am a Serb by ethnicity, of Orthodox faith and a citizen of the Republic of Serbia. I have the status of a disabled war veteran. 2. I am giving this statement on my own initiative with the intention of describing everything that I know in connection with my participation as a volunteer in the war events in the area of Western Slavonia and other war-swept areas in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1991. I shall also describe how and under what circumstances my interviews with representatives of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor evolved, as well as /under/ what pressures, blackmail and threats on the part of investigator/s/ Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Sabine Shulz and Hildegard UertzRetzlaff. 3. The Expert Team assisting the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj in The Hague have drawn my attention to the fact that my statement must be truthful, that a clear distinction must be made between what I personally saw and what I heard, that false testimony is subject to criminal prosecution and that my statement will be publicly used in Serbia and before the International Tribunal in The Hague, to which I fully agree. contact with the office of the Prosecutor 4. I met with ICTY investigators for the first time on 1 and 2 August 2003. I was served the summons for the interview by the Loznica SUP. Afterwards one of the investigators called me on the telephone and asked me if I was willing to testify, but without specifying in relation to which facts. I agreed, because I thought that I had nothing to hide and I had no intention of fleeing, and why would I, seeing that I did not feel guilty. The investigators proposed that I come to Belgrade, but I refused because I am a hundred percent invalid and I had no intention of being at their beck and call. I proposed that they come to Loznica. 5. They called a day before and came to my flat in Loznica at the scheduled time. The interview lasted two days, 1 and 2 August 2003. The first day it was from 10.00 hours to 19.00 hours and the second day from 10.00 hours to 21.00 hours. I talked to an investigator by the name Paolo Pastore Stocchi and a young German woman whose name I did not actually know at the time. There was an elderly lady interpreting. They typed the entire interview on a laptop and, as far as I could notice, were not recording it. They inquired about a crime in Vo}in, about which I knew nothing, for I had not been in Vo}in at the relevant time. I did not get any minutes. I was worried, surprised and slightly scared about what it was that I was to testify about because I had never mentioned anyone as the perpetrator of any crimes. 6. I do not understand why Office of the Prosecutor representatives offered me asylum in a third country of my own choice, as I have a family. 7. The next time I met with ICTY investigators was on 10 August 2006. They had announced the encounter a month before. The interview took place in Belgrade, in some hole in Jevrema Gruji}a Street. They sent a car to pick me up which
102

also took me back home to Loznica. The interview lasted from 10.00 hours up until 20.00 hours. This time, in addition to Paolo Pastore Stocchi, there were also two interpreters, and, to my great surprise, also the lady prosecutor in the case against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, whom I used to see on television. It had never even remotely occurred to me that I might meet with this person, that I was such an important witness for them, but then I realized all the seriousness of the situation. This time they were better equipped. They had a video beam and cameras, they wrote down everything on computers, but I did not notice any audio recording taking place. 8. The questioning was very stressful and strenuous for me, in view of the fact that, being an invalid, it was very difficult for me to spend an entire day sitting down in a not at all pleasant setting before cameras and to maintain a level of concentration throughout to boot. I was so exhausted that I do not even know if they offered me a statement to sign. I could hardly wait for it all to be over. I know for a fact that they did not give me a record. They played the good host, they offered me coffee and asked me if I was tired, which they could easily see for themselves. 9. They offered me and my family to go abroad. I found that strange, because I had not in fact hid from them, nor did I feel threatened by anyone except by them. This time they made it patently clear to me that they wanted me to testify against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. Of course I refused that because there was nothing against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj that I could testify about. Then they offered me to be a protected witness, to choose the country where they would place me and my family and where we would be secure. 10. I have to state that after the first interview in 2003, I noticed that I was being watched and followed. For some 10 days or so I saw police outside my flat which was not customary. I experienced that as a form of pressure and intimidation. I perceived all that, plus the offered asylum in a third country, as a danger to me and my family, for I did not see why anyone needed to protect me and from whom. 11. I did not know what lay hidden behind that, for I do not believe them anything, least of all that they would be willing to protect me, for so many Serbs have died in The Hague under unexplained circumstances. I was not the only one who was worried, but so were my wife and son also, which particularly distressed me because I was unable to protect them, and I was also concerned that they had decided to pressurize me through my family into agreeing to falsely testify. 12. As I persistently refused to go to The Hague and testify against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, they tried to talk me into testifying via video link, and they revisited this topic every two to three hours during the interview. I kept telling them that if they had anything to indict me for to do so, but that I would not testify. 13. They asked me leading questions and guided me to give them the answers they wanted to hear, counting on the fact that much time had passed since those events and that it would be very difficult for me to recall with real precision the month or exact date of an event. I am sure that in such circumstances and under pressure I did make some mistakes, but now I can definitely claim that they added much to it themselves, for there is no way I could have forgotten some events or some people, whereas some that they mentioned I had never even seen. There was much improvising on their part there or misguidance to some conclusions on the basis of suggestions, photographs or documents that were shown to me.
103

14. It is correct that in 1990 I went to Ravna Gora to attend an annual gathering of the Chetnik movement, that with the group of people with whom I had arrived we joined the SPO /Serbian Renewal Movement/ group, but I do not remember whether Vojislav [e{elj was there then. 15. I was mobilized by the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ and a convoy of 300 vehicles set off for the theatre of war, but this convoy was stopped by women from Loznica who wanted to prevent their husbands and sons from going to the front. That was at the end of June 1991. With a group of reservists I then left the convoy for my unit had fallen into disarray and I went to Belgrade together with other two friends of mine. We spent three nights there and then we went to the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ where we met with Ljubi{a Petkovi} and Zoran Ranki} to enlist as volunteers. 16. We were turned down and we were told to go back and if stopped by the police to say that we were going to the barracks to return our weapons. We did so and after talking to the security officer in Loznica we did not have any problems. 17. I never said that we had spent three nights at SRS headquarters, nor were there conditions there for something like that. I did not feel like a deserter, although I had left my unit with my weapon. I wanted to go to the front to defend Yugoslavia, but I did not trust the supreme command. My unit was in disarray, and the media kept transmitting news about heavy losses. However, in the SRS they encouraged me to go back to Loznica and return my weapon. All this happened on 4 July 1991, and I remember it well because that day was a state holiday, Veterans’ Day. eastern Slavonia 18. As it was clear that I wanted to go to the front only as a volunteer, Petkovi} invited me to come to Belgrade and I did so after some two weeks. 19. We were told then, because there were other volunteers there too, that this group would be going to Slavonia. No one said to me either that it must or that it should. I was a volunteer and the decision was mine. We were not under any kind of pressure, nor were we people with a problematic past who had to escape from something. 20. I do not know how the ICTY investigators’ statement of 1 and 2 August 2003 came to contain that I had said that almost 80% of the volunteers who were with me had problems with the law or were alcoholics. As I had neither seen that statement nor signed every page of it, the ICTY investigators could have written whatever they pleased. The truth is that I had never said that, for it would have been a blatant lie, and then, as an honorable man who has no criminal record, I would never have allowed myself to keep such company. Of course there were exceptions, but they would always be sent back from the front, because they were a hazard to the entire unit. 21. I remember how on one occasion we were sent back from Borovo Selo because we had failed to announce our arrival on time, and the Territorial Defense Command had not been informed to which unit we had been assigned. The following day the mistake was rectified and we were sent to Prigrevica for training. In this connection I wish to say that this was not about lack of discipline on the part
104

of individuals but I believe that the ICTY investigators slipped something along those lines into my statement. 22. After having spent some ten days at the training centre in Prigrevica, we were dispatched to Ada near Marku{ica, where I stayed from mid-July until the beginning of August 1991. It is possible that for some reason it suited them to record the wrong time in my statement and it is possible that I misspoke on account of fatigue or the long temporal distance from the events they questioned me about. The document which I have and which is dated 4 July 1991, number 04-01/91, which is addressed to the Garrison Command in Loznica and which is signed by Ljubi{a Petkovi}, reminded me of the exact time I had turned to the SRS for the first time. I am convinced that the Office of the Prosecutor had this document, but they did not want to show it to me. 23. When of my own accord I left the unit with which I was, and Ada, I returned to Belgrade where I again met with Ljubi{a Petkovi} who was surprised to see me but he gave me no orders whatsoever along the lines of go back or anything similar. 24. Petkovi} could not in fact issue /me/ any orders, because I was a volunteer and I could go back whenever I wanted to. Upon returning to Loznica I heard that the SNO /Serbian National Renewal/ was organizing the transfer of volunteers to Tenja and so I went to Stara Pazova, and, with a group of volunteers among whom was the deputy of Mirko Jovi} in the SNO whose last name was Bastaja, I went to Tenja. That had nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party. western Slavonia 25. I went to Western Slavonia on 24 October 1991, about which there exists a document which I refer to in my statement as the document by which I was appointed the commander of volunteers in Western Slavonia. Namely, it could on no account have been in November 1991 as written in the statement given to the ICTY investigators, but they often pre-empted my answers and it is possible that I was misled. Why the investigators did that is known only to them. 26. Late October and early November is a period I am quite familiar with from this time distance, but it is important to know that we actually set out on our trip on 24 October 1991 by bus, on which were 20-odd unarmed men without uniforms, towards Bosanska Gradi{ka. 27. The bus had no police or military escorts of any kind. On that there also exists a written document which I assume the Office of the Prosecutor had. 28. During my stay in Western Slavonia I never saw Goran Had`i} for he had nothing to do with Western Slavonia. At that time Goran Had`i} was the prime minister of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja and he could not have been the representative of any civilian authorities in Western Slavonia. That is yet another in the series of untruths and illogical things slipped in by Paolo Stocchi and Hildegard Retzlaff, because it was probably of use for them if they meant perhaps to use my statement also in a case against Goran Had`i}. 29. On one occasion I came to Belgrade in order to talk with Ljubi{a Petkovi} and deal with a problem which had arisen between me and the volunteers who were in Oku~ani.
105

30. I did not know that in Oku~ani there was another Territorial Defense which was unconnected with Western Slavonia and which belonged to the 5th Banja Luka Corps. I thought that all the volunteers sent to Western Slavonia fell under my responsibility, but Petkovi} told me that this was a territory which I did not cover. Volunteers commanded by Slavko Mi{i} from Umka belonged to the Territorial Defense of Oku~ani which was under the command of active JNA officer Captain lst Class Rajko Narand`i}. 31. I did not have any problems with the volunteers and no danger threatened me on their part. It is possible that I spoke about my security to the ICTY investigators, but that security referred to the unsafe roads in Western Slavonia where Croatian forces often introduced terrorist groups. 33. /as printed/ Vojislav [e{elj visited us only once around 20 November 1991, and that was very well received by the fighters, because, as they said, he had had the courage to come and see the fighters at the very front line of combat. 34. It is not true that a large number of the volunteers under my command were criminals who had come to loot, rob and steal. Of the twenty who had set out with me to Vo}in by bus, I can say that half of them were intellectuals and that we set an example for all as a disciplined unit, which did soldierly workouts every morning, alcohol was most strictly forbidden and we had military skill drills constantly. I was proud of that, as I was of the fact that some of the volunteers went back if they did not like something about my command or the discipline which was obtained in the unit. 35. Never, not in a dream, could I have stated that the volunteers dispatched by the SRS, whom I commanded, were a bunch of criminals, rapists and murderers. Such morbid claims could have been put into my statement only by the ICTY investigators, because that is the basic contention which they have to prove, but they need false witnesses for that. Only, I am not one of them. 36. I remember that in the course of November 1991, a number of volunteer groups sent by the SRS War Staff from Belgrade arrived in Vo}in. We were informed on time of all groups sent by the War Staff and we received lists of those volunteers. 37. I remember that volunteers came from all quarters individually but also in organized and unorganized groups. 38. At the end of November, a group of between 15 and 20 volunteers who had not been sent by the SRS War Staff, arrived in Western Slavonia, and as they said that they had already been in Vukovar I accepted them, considering them already experienced. It soon turned out that they were undisciplined, that they were unruly, that they opened unnecessary fire at random in the middle of town and alarmed the townsfolk in that way. 39. After two days I expelled that group from my unit and sent them back to Stara Gradi{ka from where they had a safe road to Belgrade. In that group was also a person whose nickname I heard was Topola. That is all I know about him because he was with my unit for only two days and I sent him packing from my area of responsibility. 40. I am sure that Topola had not been sent to my unit by the SRS because he was not on any of the SRS volunteer lists.
106

41. When I talked to the ICTY investigators in 2003 and 2006, this Topola person was never mentioned, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi somehow managed to slip that into my 2006 statement. 42. My motives to fight as a volunteer were to defend Yugoslavia, innocent civilians and soldiers, because soldiers too were 18-year old lads then, doing their military service as inexperienced boys whose future and lives were yet ahead of them. I was of the view that if someone should go and defend Yugoslavia and the civilians, then those a bit older should go. To me the Yugoslav Army and Yugoslavia were what was legitimate and those who wanted out of it were secessionists for me. 43. My decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the SRS or Vojislav [e{elj. I am a patriot, I love my State and I felt that it was my obligation to defend it from those who wanted to dismember it, with civilians suffering in the process. Vojislav [e{elj’s speeches could not have influenced me, for my decision had already been made, but then he never said anything that I could not agree with. He always spoke like a true patriot, he evoked the noble traditions of the Serbian army, chivalry and valour, and these are virtues which criminals do not have. 44. Asked if I knew who Jovan Kuli} was, I said that I did not know who that man was, and I also know that there was a group of Mirko Jovi}’s, but I do not know how they got there, although I heard that their commander was one Bata Mihajlovi} from Dobanovci whom I had seen from time to time already in Tenja. 45. We were not on the same positions and in the same building with Mirko Jovi}’s volunteers, nor did we have a joint command, so that I could not have known anything about their behavior. That is the truth, and everything else that the investigators wrote in my statement is the investigators’ doing. I do not know why it was important to them to link my unit with Mirko Jovi}’s unit, but I could never have said that they were under my control or that Mihajlovi} was my deputy. 46. In connection with a work detail composed of Croats who did some manual labor and were then executed by firing squad, I have no first-hand knowledge except that I was told this by Mi}a Dobrilovi} Senka, who, incidentally, is a big liar and who falsely testified under protective measures in the case against Vojislav [e{elj on 1 and 2 April 2008. I recognized him immediately, even though he was testifying under protective measures. It is true, however, that he had been my bodyguard. That is all that I know about that and all the rest was slipped in by the investigators who embellished my statement in keeping with their needs. 47. I never talked with Ljubi{a Petkovi} about the incident concerning these people from the so-called work detail, nor did he ask me anything about it when we met in Belgrade. 48. As a matter of fact, I had gone to Belgrade for a talk with Ljubi{a Petkovi} in connection with uniforms and not about an operation to defend Western Slavonia. It is correct that for those reasons we were at the General Staff. Ljubi{a Petkovi} and I talked with General Stojanovi}, who at the time was the commander of the First Army. General Simovi} was the minister of defense of the Republic of Serbia, and I never was in the government /offices/, nor did I ever meet with him. I may have made a mistake, forgetting the fact that General Simovi} was the minister, and that we would have had nothing to talk about on that subject, and it is
107

possible that the investigators had asked me a leading question. To me these two surnames are similar and it is also possible that I was no longer concentrating, in view of the exhausting interrogation all that day. 49. It did not even remotely occur to me to chat with General Stojanovi} (and not General Simovi} as the investigators alleged) about strategy or to offer my opinion as to which place should be taken. Our meeting lasted for ten minutes at the most, and the only topic was uniforms. Everything written in my statement in connection with this is largely the creation of ICTY investigators. The truth is what I am saying now, without any pressures, fear or blackmail. 50. When I arrived in Belgrade around 1 December 1991, I spent the night in Belgrade, but it is not correct that after talking with General Stojanovi} and Domazetovi} who was also present, but not as the chef de cabinet but as the Chief of the Third Administration of the General Staff, I went to the SRS headquarters. 51. It is not true that at the General Staff I realized that the Army did not have a prepared plan for the Vo}in area and that I went to the SRS headquarters and tried to persuade some volunteers against going to Vo}in. I never received any military commands or orders from the SRS War Staff, nor did I have to report to them in any way. At the front I cooperated exclusively with the TO /Territorial Defense/, who were the only ones authorized to issue commands to me and I only had to leave the unit if I did not observe the rules. 52. We were certainly not an unruly gang or a group of adventurers, but a unit formed of volunteers, well militarily trained and under the command of the TO. 53. When I arrived in Belgrade, I did not even know that the withdrawal had already started, but the ICTY investigators obviously did. They had all the information and the chronology of events before them, and so they thought it logical to slip that into my statement, assuming that that is how I would have acted had I known that the withdrawal was under way. However, I did not know that. I was in Belgrade and I had no contacts at all with my unit, and had I had an inkling about it I would not in fact have come to ask for uniforms. 54. When I returned from Western Slavonia, I went home to Loznica to see my family and I had no more contacts with the SRS at all, and I did not have any information about what went on there anymore. Everything that is written in my 2006 statement and is not contained in my 2003 statement on this subject after my departure is only the arbitrary interpretation of Paolo Stocchi and Hildegard UertzRetzlaff. 55. I did not talk with the ICTY investigators about a certain Bata from Sekulinci in either 2003 or 2006. There was no way I could have seen or met one [vaba, mentioned by ICTY investigators, in Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s reception office in Zemun, as I had left the SRS already in December 1992. 56. I had my last encounter with [e{elj at Mt. Majevica when he came to see the volunteers. He recognized me, he asked how I was and I told him that I no longer was a member of the SRS. That was the end of our conversation. [e{elj delivered a speech at the Cinema Hall in Ugljevik in June 1993, but I did not even hear his speech. 57. I have no reliable information at all that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, when withdrawing from Western Slavonia in the beginning of December
108

1991, destroyed the volunteer training camp in Sekulinci and other auxiliary military structures. If someone had done that, it had been a legitimate act, for military facilities are never left to the enemy for his use and utilization. 58. I had contacts with Ljubi{a Petkovi} as the commander of the War Staff, and even though this title commander of the War Staff may sound as if he had something to do with developments on the front, that is not correct. Petkovi} could not have known that there would be a withdrawal of volunteers from Western Slavonia whereby the volunteers would have been put in danger, as the investigators wrote in the 2006 statement. He could not have been aware of this, so that this is pure insinuation on the part of the Office of the Prosecutor to make it seem that the SRS had some kind of a command responsibility. I repeatedly told the investigators that those were not the powers of the War Staff and that I turned to them only if we needed anything, as, for example, clothing or food. 59. The last time I got in touch with Petkovi} was in early 1992 when I turned down his invitation to possibly go to Bosanski Brod, and two months later, when I again refused to go to Mostar. I told Petkovi} that I did not want to have anything to do with them anymore. After that I went to the different front lines in Bosnia, but that had nothing to do with the SRS. Zvornik 60. As regards my arrival in Zvornik, it is correct that I went there On 1 May 1992 and that had nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party. It is not correct that I saw Zoran Ranki} there, nor is it correct that I stated that @u}a had any connections with the SRS. He was the commander of the “Yellow Wasps”, and they had nothing to do with the SRS. 61. In my first statement I said that after the arrest of @u}a’s group, all volunteers left Zvornik, but this referred only to those who belonged to the “White Eagles” and the “Yellow Wasps”. To my knowledge, Serbian Radical Party volunteers were not in Zvornik when I arrived there. To my knowledge, they had left Zvornik around Easter, and I arrived after Easter. At that time I myself was no longer a SRS volunteer. 62. I know nothing about the activities of a group of volunteers led by one Gogi}, nor do I know whether he had any connections and of what kind with the Serbian Radical Party. 63. When I arrived in Zvornik, I spent about three days with @u}a’s group, and when the “White Eagles” commanded by Zoran Obrenovi} aka A`daja arrived, I joined them, and from Zvornik we departed for Snagovo in order to liberate Kalesija. 64. I have heard about the case when one person from Loznica killed some Muslim women in Zvornik. I did not see that incident so that I cannot talk about it. I stayed in Zvornik for three days only and I do not wish to comment on someone’s misinformation. ilid`a and Majevica 65. In October 1992, Dragoslav Bokan arrived in Loznica and invited me that we go to Ilid`a as volunteers. I accepted his invitation, but this going to Ilid`a with Dragoslav Bokan had nothing to do with the SRS.
109

66. In March 1993, Despotovi}, a lieutenant colonel of the Army of Republika Srpska, called me and asked that I go to Majevica near Tuzla. Despotovi} was the commander of the 2nd Majevica Brigade. I went there, but I returned very quickly because it was too cold. In the meantime the commander of the lst Majevica Brigade was killed and was replaced by Despotovi}. Despotovi} called me again in May 1993 and asked that I go to Majevica. I went there and I stayed there in the period from May to 21 July 1993, when I stepped on a mine. 67. In that incident I lost my left leg up to above the knee and suffered a grave injury to my left elbow. I am a hundred percent invalid. They took me to hospital in Bijeljina and then to the Orthopedic Clinic in Belgrade. While I was in hospital for treatment, no one from the SRS came to visit me. 68. When I was at Majevica, I saw [e{elj when he came to see the SRS volunteers. He saw me and he recognized me. We went for lunch together. Pani}, [e{elj’s bodyguard, and other members of [e{elj’s leadership had lunch together with us. [e{elj asked me how I was and I said that I no longer was a member of the SRS. That was the end of our conversation. [e{elj delivered a speech at the Cinema Hall in Ugljevik. That was in June 1993. I was not in the hall and I did not hear his speech. 69. I remember well that at the beginning of the war in Croatia there was some tolerance on the part of the Serbian authorities so that some persons from Croatia entered Serbia with their personal and/or military weapons. From 1 October 1991, strict control was imposed at border crossings with Serbia, and automatic weapons would be seized at the border from all persons. Military officers who had a military permit could enter Serbia with that permit only with a pistol they had been issued within the military command. contacts with Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team 70. I got in touch with the team assisting in the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj for the first time on 15 March 2008, on my own initative. That is when I met with Gordana Pop-Lazi} and Vjerica Radeta. We had a talk about my motives for coming and I told them that I wanted to inform them about the fact that ICTY investigators had contacted me with the intention of my being a witness for the Prosecution, and a protected witness at that. 71. I had told the ICTY investigators that I could only be a defense witness for Vojislav [e{elj and that I did not agree to be a witness for the Prosecution under any conditions. I offered the defense team to give /them/ a statement in which I would to the best of my recollection explain everything about my war history, if that would be of use for Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. 72. We agreed that I was to draw up such a statement, and on 19 March 2008, I gave a statement in Zemun which I had the Fourth Municipal Court in New Belgrade certify. I gave the statement voluntarily at my own request, without pressure or blackmail, and consented that Vojislav [e{elj could use it for his defense before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. 73. I gave a second statement, also certified in court, on 31 August 2008, in regard to some facts that I had not covered in my first statement. 74. As I had told the team assisting in the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj before the ICTY that I was at their disposal, they asked to meet with me once again and
110

they later came to see me in order for me to clarify to them a number of other events, which I gladly accepted. 75. It was also on my own initiative that I gave a statement which I had the Municipal Court in Loznica certify, to the effect that I did not want to be a witness for the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor in the case being conducted against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. By this statement I also made it known to all that I was a potential witness for Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, and I submitted it to the team assisting in the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. Thereby I wanted to get the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor off my back and to let them know that I had gotten in touch with the other side, prepared to tell nothing but the truth. 76. It would be appalling if the statements which the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor call my statements, which I had never before had in my hands, were used in the case against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. I am sure that their statement/s/ abound in half-truths, incorrect data, deliberate misrepresentation of facts and of my words. I also gave an interview for the daily Pravda on 1 July 2008, in which I put forward my resolute stance that I could only be a witness for the defense. 77. Ever since I got in touch with Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, I have attended almost all scientific gatherings, symposia, rallies and anniversary commemorations organized by the Serbian Radical Party and the Committee for the Defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj devoted to the conditions of detention and the unfair trial of Vojislav [e{elj in The Hague. 78. At these gatherings my name was often publicly mentioned and that in the context of the abuse of witnesses by the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor or as a potential witness for the defense of Vojislav [e{elj. I never had any objections to that, on the contrary, it suited me for the media to be present at those gatherings and to record all that. I was also willing to personally address those meetings. 79. At these gatherings I talked to hundreds of members and sympathizers of the Serbian Radical Party from all over Serbia and to all of them I candidly related my bad experience with the ICTY investigators. I told them that I had been assigned the code name VS-050 under which I was to have testified as a witness for the prosecution, and, naturally, explained that I had refused it. I wanted as many people as possible to learn of this and I am grateful to the Committee for the Defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj for having acquainted the Serbian public with my statements. 80. In the course of Vojislav [e{elj’s trial in The Hague to date, I have repeatedly given statements to the team assisting the preparation of the defense and I never demanded from them not to disclose them. On the contrary, I gave my full consent that they could be used both before the ICTY as well as in the Serbian public, for I had never accepted to be a protected witness under a code name, as I have no reason to be ashamed of my name or of what I have given to [e{elj’s team in the form of certified statements. I believe that this statement too will be disclosed and I absolutely agree to that, for I have never been at risk from any quarters, and especially not from Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party. Statement given by Radovan nova~i} /signed/
111

attachment: – Photocopy of interview published in the daily Pravda on 1 July 2008. witness acknowledgement I hereby confirm that I have read this statement, that the assertions in the statement are correct and truthful, and as such I confirm them by my signature. Witness /signed/ OV I No. 156989/2010 This is to confirm that Radovan Nova~i}, Loznica, Vojvode Mi{i}a St. In the capacity of Person giving a statement, identity card number 161607 Loznica, has affixed his signature to this statement – acknowledged as his the signature on this document. The identity of the aforementioned person has been established on the basis of: identity card – passport. Certification stamp duty amounting to 710 dinars charged. First Lower Court in Belgrade, 8 December 2010 Authorized official Jelena \umi} /a signature/ /Stamp: Republic of Serbia First Lower Court in Belgrade/ /handwritten:/ 1 july 2008 Pravda Radovan Nova~i}, the former commander of the volunteers from Western Slavonia, resists the pressure exerted by the Hague Tribunal’s Prosecution and says: Against [e{elj? Not Even if My Life Depended on It! Believe me, I have never seen [e{elj kill anyone and I have never heard that he ordered anyone to be killed. That is why I am willing to testify in his defense only. Radovan Nova~i}, the former commander of the volunteers from Western Slavonia, spoke to Pravda about why he would not testify against [e{elj even if his life depended on it, all the things they offered him from The Hague for his testimony and why he believes the leader of the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ will be killed. The Hague investigators contacted Nova~i} for the first time four years ago, when they told him that he would be ordered to be a witness for the Prosecution against [e{elj. – After several conversations with them, I addressed the legal team assisting Dr Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. I wanted to get a legal opinion on whether I had to testify for them or not. Also, I wanted to help Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. • So, you do not want to testify at all? – I want to testify, but only as a witness for the defense, by no means as a witness for the Prosecution. • Why did they contact you? – I was the commander of the volunteers in Western Slavonia. There were 600 soldiers under my command. I am the only commander against whom no charges whatsoever have been raised.
112

• How did they get in touch with you? – They announced by phone that they were coming. What could I do? I waited for them to arrive and agreed to talk to them. They interviewed me two days, for almost 20 hours altogether. • What did they ask you? – Once they asked me if [e{elj had held any speeches in Slavonia. I told them he did. Then it was important to them to know if we were thrilled with his speeches. I confirmed this also. “So, you had an adrenaline rush?” they asked me at the end. “Yes”, I said, “we had an adrenaline rush”. There you see what is important to them, as if that was some sort of evidence against [e{elj! Believe me, it was ridiculous. I would have defended my State even without those speeches. • Did they threaten you with anything if you refused to testify? – They never threatened me, but they did offer me a great deal. • What are the things they offered? – Everything, short of becoming the President of the USA. They offered me money, new citizenship, to choose which country I would relocate to with my family, to be a protected witness. I refused all this. I told them I would not be a witness for the Prosecution even if I ended up in prison. We have spoken around seven times and I told them so each time. • When was the last time you spoke? – The last conversation with The Hague was truly ridiculous. They called me on my mobile about a month ago and asked me when I could drop by at their office. Like it was a question of me just crossing the street and that was it. Like they were asking me out to a cafe for a drink. I told them I would never go. Then they started persuading me in a nice way that I should come over. When they realized that I was determined not to show up, they told me they were sorry for wasting my time. • Do you see these calls as abuse? – Of course. They call me all the time, although I have told them so many times that I do not want to. It is not something I can do just like that: go there for a day and get it over and done with. I have a family I have to take care of. They would call me and take me there earlier and then ram things down my throat. • Why have you decided to testify for [e{elj? – Believe me, I have never seen [e{elj kill anyone and I have never heard that he ordered anyone to be killed. It is difficult for me to watch the torture he is being put through in The Hague. Do you know how many Serbs died in that dungeon? It is only Serbs that die there. Could it be an infectious disease which attacks only the Serbs and to which the Croats are immune? • Do you follow [e{elj’ s trial? – Whenever I can. I see how much the witnesses lie. One of my escorts was among the chief witnesses. He lied also. • What kind of a judgment do you expect? Do you think [e{elj will be acquitted? – I do not believe he will be acquitted, as this would not be in their interest. I think [e{elj will be killed in The Hague.
113

• Do you think they will call you from The Hague again? – They will call, for sure. They are probably going through my biography now, looking for something I did wrong. They will probably find that I crossed the street on a red light or that I double-parked. Then they will say: “If you do not testify, we will send you to Alaska.”. • So, there is no way you will go to The Hague? – I will go to The Hague only if it becomes a part of Serbia. • And what if they take you there under duress? – They said they would send a binding order, so that our guys can detain me and deport me to The Hague. None of this is going to be of any avail to them. I will not testify against [e{elj even if my life depended on it. Petar Latinovi} i Defended Yugoslavia • Who were you defending in the war in the territory of the former SFRY /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia/? – I was defending Yugoslavia. The old Yugoslavia, without borders, suited me. If it had been Europe, I would have defended it, too. And then what happened? Someone decided to secede from my state, contrary to the will of its citizens. A great injustice was done to us, the Serbs. croatia was allowed and helped to secede, while Republika Srpska could not? I will go to The Hague only when it becomes a part of Serbia if I had never met [e{elj, I would still have fought for Yugoslavia, my state only Psychopaths commit crimes • You had 600 soldiers under your command. What was the discipline like? – Discipline was at a high level. My fellow soldiers did not commit a single crime. There was neither anyone who wanted to, nor would I have allowed it. I am convinced that only a psychopath can commit murder, and there were none among the volunteers.

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Last name: Crnobrnja First name: Mile Sex: male Father’s name: Ilija Date of birth: 22 October 1954 Place of birth: ]eralije, Podravska Slatina
114

Address: Zemun, Viktora Star~i}a 15 a Telephone number: – Nationality: Serbian Religion: Orthodox Languages spoken: Serbian Language used during the interview: Serbian Current occupation: unemployed Previous occupation: lawyer Date and place of interview: 6 and 7 December 2010, Belgrade Interview conducted by: Vjerica Radeta, lawyer Names of all persons present during the interview: 1. Vjerica Radeta, lawyer 2. Dejan Mirovi} Witness signature /signature/ Initialed by persons present: 1. /signature/ 2. /signature/ witness Statement /signed and stamped on every page/ 1. I am Mile Crnobrnja, the son of Ilija and Mileva nee Srarija{. I was born on 22 October 1954 in ]eralije, Podravska Slatina municipality. I live in Zemun, Viktora Star~i}a 15a, personal identity card No: T 134629, JMBG/Personal Identification Number/ 2210954312501, lawyer, unemployed, of Serbian nationality, Orthodox. 2. I am giving a statement to Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi}, members of the Expert Team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. 3. Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi} warned me that I was under obligation to tell the truth and that I would be held accountable for any false allegations under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. 4. I will truthfully present all the facts and circumstances regarding my contacts with representatives of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution and representatives of the Expert Team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. contacts with hague Tribunal investigators 5. At the end of 2002, I was summoned by the Hague Tribunal office in Belgrade and asked to meet with investigators and talk about the suffering of the Serbs in Western Slavonia. I agreed to talk to them and we arranged to meet at my family home in Zemun. 6. I had my first interview with the Hague Tribunal investigators on 10 July 2002. I was interviewed by Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philippe Oberkne`ev, in the presence of interpreter Dana Todorovi}. The interview lasted from 09.30 to 15.00 hours.
115

7. We resumed the interview on 11 July the same year in the office of the Hague Tribunal in Belgrade, somewhere in Dedinje. I think it was in Jevrema Gruji}a Street. 8. The investigators initially enquired about the suffering of the Serbs in Western Slavonia and I talked to them about it. However, they started asking me various questions about crimes against the Croats in Western Slavonia. 9. I had no first-hand information about the crimes they asked me about and I told the Hague investigators as much. It was obvious that they were not satisfied with my answers, they were visibly angry, especially Paolo Pastore Stocchi. 10. In the office of the Hague Tribunal, Stocchi showed me a statement which was allegedly mine, but written in the English language. I believed that it contained information on the suffering of the Serbs in Western Slavonia and that proceedings would finally be initiated against those responsible for the crimes against the Serbs. 11. As I was convinced that the Hague Tribunal investigators were officials who were keen to establish the truth, and in view of the fact that I am a lawyer myself, I probably signed the statement, although I never saw the Serbian version. 12. Four years later, when I completely forgot about the interview with the Hague investigators, I was again summoned to the Tribunal’s Belgrade office. I went there on 16 June 2006 and spoke to investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi in the presence of interpreters Slobodanka Stefen and Goran [e}ibovi}. 13. Upon my arrival at the Hague Tribunal’s office, they showed me a “new” statement on a laptop, which they had written on the basis of our conversation four years ago. I had many objections to the statement, because I saw that it did not contain any information on the crimes against the Serbs which I had told them about, and because they entered the information on the crimes against the Croats which they had not obtained from me, or which they misinterpreted and thus the statement, which is allegedly mine, took on a totally different meaning. crimes against the Serbs in western Slavonia 14. Trouble started for the Serbs in the then Croatia when the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) came into power in the spring of 1991. The Serbs were being dismissed from jobs on a massive scale, intimidated, ill-treated and abused. It was the start of a period when the Serbs were being taken away to unknown destinations, killed, their houses blown up, shots fired at their windows at night, threatened and humiliated, all with the aim of making their lives unbearable. 15. I was employed as an operative in the Virovitica Police Administration at the time. I was harassed at work and demoted to a post which did not match my qualifications and experience. I noticed that they started to follow my movements. In fear for my personal safety, I decided to leave Virovitica with my wife and return to the family home in ]eralije. 16. In May 1991 a business in Jugovo Polje near Virovitica was blown up. It was owned by Serbs, An|elka and Nikola, I don’t remember his last name. In the same period a Golf, owned by a Serb, Milorad Obradovi} of Virovitica, was also blown up. One child was injured in the neck in an attack on a Serbian house. Fa116

milies of people in mixed marriages, i.e. of the Serbs whose wives were Croatian, were also targeted. 17. The Serbs were getting more and more afraid, and about 90% of the Serbian families moved out of Virovitica. They left their jobs, houses, flats, offices, and their only goal was to save their lives and families. It was the same in Podravska Slatina, Orahovica, Slavonska Po`ega, Daruvar, Pakrac and other towns in Croatia. 18. More than 20 people were killed in Slatina and Virovitica municipalities before the clashes. I named all the victims that I could remember. The following were killed: gynaecologist Miti}, someone called Mudrini}, an elderly woman called Ojki} from the village of Cabune, Kosti}, a bank director from Slatina, glazier Milutin Gunjevi}, Milan aka ^iger from Mikleu{e, Vito, a caterer from ^a~inci, painter/decorator Gojko Olja~a, someone called Kolund`i} from Aleksandrovac, the parents and sister of Mirko Vujani} from Aleksandrovac who were set on fire in their own home, and some others whose names I do not remember. The following Serbs were beaten before the clashes started: Rajko Lavrni}, Branko Labus and Du{an Manojlovi} who lost an eye. Serbian property was systematically destroyed. 19. I described to the Hague Tribunal investigators the armed attacks launched by the Croatian Defense Council (HVO) in 1991. 20. Several people were killed on 2 September 1991 in an attack launched by the National Guard Corps (ZNG) on the Serbian village of Jasena{ near Virovitica. I remember the name of Zdravko Milanovi}, a game-keeper. Several local people were wounded and more than half of the houses were set on fire. 21. Ahead of the Serbian religious holiday of Assumption, in the afternoon of 7 August l991, the Serbian places ]eralije, Balinci and Rijence were shelled. Apart from the local people, the Serbs who had fled towns were accommodated there. A man from Balinci was wounded in the shelling. 22. On 8 August 1991, members of the National Guard Corps opened fire from ]etekovac on Balinci, wounding a Serb, Du{an, whose last name I don’t remember. The HDZ armed the Croats in ]etekovac and attacks on Serbian villages became a daily occurrence, so on 1 October 1991 the Territorial Defense HQ in Podravska Slatina evacuated the women and children to Serbia. 23. Following a shelling, the Croatian forces attacked Balinci and ]eralije with BOV armoured /combat/ vehicles on 5 October 1991. Fifteen locals were wounded and a Serb, Jovica Buza~i}, was killed. From then on, these two places came under daily attacks which lasted until the exodus of the Serbs on 13 December 1991. 24. After the exodus of the Serbs from this area, their property was torched or looted. Twenty one Serbian villages in Podravska Slatina municipality were razed to the ground. Three villages were half destroyed and the Croats from Kosovo and Metohija were accommodated in the houses which had not been torched. 25. The Serbs who did not leave their centuries-old homes were brutally killed. Two old women, Jela Crnobrnja and Dara Stojanovi}, were killed with an axe in ]eralije, Boro Vu~kovi} was tied with a wire and taken to Podravska Slatina where he was tortured for kicks. I told the investigators that I heard that a reporter filmed it and the video was shown on some German TV channel.
117

26. As far as I know, no one was held accountable for these crimes, neither were any criminal proceedings initiated for the crimes. I accepted to talk to the Hague Tribunal investigators because I was convinced that an investigation into the crimes against the Serbs in Western Slavonia had finally been launched. crimes against the croats 27. The investigators asked me if I knew about the murder of the Vendel family from Vo}in, which allegedly occurred on 2 December 1991, and also about the murder of Veronika Amend, her husband and grand-son, which they told me occurred on 3 December 1991, and I told them that I knew nothing about this. 28. It is true that I was a police commander at the time, but it is also true that I did not receive any reports on these murders, so I could not undertake any operative action to this effect. 29. People in Vo}in kept saying that four young men from a so-called “work group” disappeared. I remember that Goran Sala~ and Ivica Bon were among them. The wife of one of them notified me of their disappearance and we immediately undertook certain operative activities in order to establish the truth about this incident. The young men allegedly went missing on 3 December 1991, while the exodus of the Serbs from this area was on 13 December, and unfortunately we did not have the time to find out in what circumstances the four young men had gone missing. 30. I heard from the locals about the disappearance of Branko Ili} who worked in a hotel restaurant in Vo}in. There was talk that he went missing at the end of August 1991, but we never received an official report on it. I heard about his disappearance by accident several days before leaving Western Slavonia. Volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party 31. I remember, and I told the investigators about it, that volunteers arrived in Vo}in area at the end of October 1991. They were staying at Lager Sekulinci, some 12 km from Vo}in. I did not know whether the volunteers belonged to any political party and neither did I ever ask them. 32. The investigators insisted that I tell them these volunteers were [e{elj’s men, i.e. Chetniks. I said I could not confirm that, but that it was true that all fighters, both local ones and volunteers, proudly called themselves Chetniks, but that the Croatian media called us Serbian Chetniks. 33. I remember that a group of volunteers, who were in Sekulinci, was led by Radovan Nova~i} whom I met in person. Nova~i} and his volunteers were under the command of the Territorial Defense and acted solely on the orders of their superior command. 34. This volunteer group arrived in Western Slavonia to help the threatened Serbs and their conduct was exemplary. They never provoked any incidents and were excellent fighters. 35. I remember that one volunteer group was stationed in Vo}in itself. It seems to me that they arrived in mid-October. I was outside the police station when they arrived in some colorful buses. They said they were Bokan’s volunteers, but I never met Bokan. They were accommodated in private houses. I also heard that
118

they were unhappy with the weapons they had been given and wanted to speak to Colonel Jovan Trbojevi}. This is all I know about them. 36. Paolo Pastore Stocchi enquired about [e{elj’s visit to Vo}in. I told him that I knew nothing about it, but that I heard from a colleague that [e{elj had been in Vo}in briefly around 20 November 1991. I was at home in ]eralije on that day, so I couldn’t have seen him had he been there. 37. The Hague investigators also asked me about some people whom I knew at the time I was living in Western Slavonia. I have no contact with these people on the whole since we no longer live in the same place as before, and I told the investigators as much, although I don’t know why they asked me this. 38. I later realized that the Hague Tribunal investigators only wanted to hear what suited them, hence they asked leading questions and tried to answer the questions instead of me all the time. I am probably one of many of whom they tried to take advantage in order to fulfill their task. contacts with [e{elj’s Defense Team 39. Like the majority of Serbs, I have been following closely Vojislav [e{elj’s trial before the Hague Tribunal. I noticed that in connection with Western Slavonia some witnesses of the Prosecution came out with a series of lies about the events in this area. It was clear to me that they were trying to lay false accusations against [e{elj and volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party in order to protect themselves and avoid personal responsibility. 40. I wanted to help Dr Vojislav [e{elj get to the truth. He is clearly doing well on his own, but I thought it would be useful if I were to give my modest contribution by telling the truth, although I did not know exactly what I could do. 41. True, I was afraid of the Hague Tribunal as I had a bad experience with the investigators who, during their questioning, treated me in a highly unprofessional manner. 42. On 3 April 2008, when the public media in Serbia reported that the Hague Tribunal had cleared Ramush Haradinaj of all the charges, I conquered my fear and immediately decided to get in touch with the people in [e{elj’s team who are helping him prepare his defense. 43. My first meeting with the people in [e{elj’s team took place the day after, on 4 April 2008. I said I wanted to tell the truth about my contacts with representatives of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution, and about the events in Vo}in in the second half of 1991. 44. The team members with whom I talked were very pleasant. They told me they were only interested in truth and I gave my statement that very day, had it certified by the 4th Belgrade Municipal Court and handed it over to the members of the team assisting in Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. 45. The same day, through my attorney Ilija [a{i}, I notified the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal that they should not count on me. I told them I did not want to be a witness for the Prosecution, but a witness for the defense, should Vojislav [e{elj need my testimony. I notified the Hague Tribunal that I contacted the Expert Team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense and asked the Tribunal not to disturb me any longer.
119

46. I gave my second statement to the Expert Team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense on 15 August 2008. I again had the statement certified in the 4th Belgrade Municipal Court. 47. I never wanted to testify under Code VS 031 which was assigned to me by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal. I am an honest family man who has no reason to be ashamed of anything in his life, and that is why I agreed that Vojislav [e{elj can use the statements I gave to his team in his trial before the Hague Tribunal. 48. I knew that Dr [e{elj would use my statements publicly and I was not bothered by that. On the contrary, I wanted him to use them so that the public can hear my truth. 49. While following Vojislav [e{elj’s trial, I noticed on several occasions that he refused to question a witness if the Trial Chamber wanted it to be in a closed session, and I knew that my statement would be read out publicly. As a lawyer, I know the importance of public court proceedings and I asked all my relatives and friends to follow the coverage of [e{elj’s trial in order to hear my statement, should [e{elj decide to use it. 50. Given that the Serbian Radical Party often organizes meetings dedicated to Vojislav [e{elj’s trial or the promotion of his books, I was happy to attend these meetings, duties permitting, and I always openly spoke about the Hague Tribunal’s intention to force me to testify as a protected witness with a code, which I refused. witness Summary 51. In the course of the talks with the Hague Tribunal investigators, I did not know at all that they intended to summon me as a witness for the Prosecution against any Serb, even Dr Vojislav [e{elj. All along I was convinced that they were gathering information in order to shed light on the crimes against the Serbs in Western Slavonia. 52. I was subsequently summoned by the investigators and told that I was going to be a witness for the Prosecution in the trial of Vojislav [e{elj. I said I did not want to, but they were insistent. 53. Since I graduated from the Law Faculty, I knew that I could be of no use to the Office of the Prosecutor as I did not level any accusations against either Dr [e{elj or the Serbian Radical Party volunteers in anything I had said, and there was nothing I could accuse them of doing. 54. I drew the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor to the fact that I mainly discussed the crimes against the Serbs with them, and that I spoke about possible crimes against the Croats on the basis of indirect information, mostly on the basis of stories told by people, some of whom I did not even know personally. I said that as a lawyer I knew that my testimony and the use of the statements I had given to the Office of the Prosecutor could not carry weight in court proceedings. 55. Since the Office of the Prosecutor insisted on my testimony, I began to doubt the credibility of my purported statements, remembering how Paolo Pastore Stocchi had frowned while listening to my answers, which clearly did not suit him.
120

56. I never saw the statements which I had given to the Hague Tribunal investigators and I am convinced that they do not contain what I had said. I confirm that what I wrote in this statement is the absolute truth and that no one coerced me or persuaded me to say what I did not want to. 57. I hope that Vojislav [e{elj will use the statement in the proceedings against him before the Hague Tribunal and I agree that they can be disclosed publicly. Belgrade 7 December 2010 Statement given by: Mile crnobrnja /signed/

I confirm that I have read this statement in Serbian, in the Cyrillic script, that it accurately conveys everything I told Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi}, members of the Expert Team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense in The Hague and I sign it as my own. Signature /signed/ OV I No. 157817/2010 /stamp/ This is to certify that Mile Crnobrnja, Zemun, Viktora Star~i}a 15a, in his capacity as person giving a statement, personal identity card No. T 134629 personally signed this document – acknowledged the signature on this document as his own. The identity of the above named was verified from: Personal identity cardpassport. The certification stamp duty of 710 dinars has been paid. The First Municipal Court, Belgrade 9 December 2010 Authorized official: Sne`ana Jovanovi} /signed and stamped/

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Last name: Dra`ilovi} First name: Had`i Zoran Sex: male Father’s name: Danilo Nickname: ^i~a Date of birth: 19 May 1947 Place of birth: Ranovac, Petrovac na Mlavi municipality, Republic of Serbia Address: Belgrade, Vidska 37 Telephone number: – Nationality: Serbian
121

Religion: Orthodox Languages spoken: Serbian Language used during the interview: Serbian Occupation: Retired officer Previous occupation: Air Force officer Date and place of interview: 5, 6 and 7 October 2010, Belgrade Interview conducted by: Vjerica Radeta, lawyer Names of all persons present during the interview: 1. Vjerica Radeta, lawyer 2. Boris Aleksi}, lawyer Witness signature /signature/ Initialed by persons present: 1. /signature/ 2. /signature/ witness Statement /signed and stamped on every page/ 1. My name is Had`i Zoran Dra`ilovi}, previously just Zoran Dra`ilovi}, my nickname is ^i~a. I was born on 19 May 1947 in a place called Ranovac, Petrovac na Mlavi municipality, Republic of Serbia. I live in Belgrade, Vidska 37, personal identity No. 002061249 issued by SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, Belgrade, JMBG 1905947710237. I am of Serbian nationality, Orthodox religion and a citizen of the Republic of Serbia. 2. I am giving this statement on my own initiative; I will describe everything I have learnt about the work of the War Staff, the procedure for sending volunteers to war-stricken areas in the former Yugoslavia since 1991, my meetings with representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal as well as pressure, blackmail and threats from investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Scholz 3. The members of the team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense in The Hague drew my attention to the fact that my statement had to be true, that I must make a clear distinction between what I saw with my own eyes and what I heard from others, that I could be held criminally responsible if I gave a false statement and that my statement would be used publicly in Serbia and before the International Tribunal in The Hague, to which I agreed without any reservations. 4. I first met the investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal in the spring of 2003, just before Dr. Vojislav [e{elj left for The Hague on the basis of the indictment of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. 5. In February 2003 I attended the Congress of the Serbian Radical Party where I met Dr Vojislav [e{elj. [e{elj asked me whether I had been summoned by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal. I told him that no one had summoned me, and he advised me to report myself and tell them that I was sent by [e{elj personally. I heeded his advice and went to the office of the Hague Prosecution in Belgrade. [e{elj went to The Hague the day after the Congress.
122

6. When I arrived at Jevrema Gruji}a 11 in Belgrade, where the office of the Prosecution was, I reported to security and told them I had come to give a statement. An investigator from Finland, whose name I do not remember, received me straight away. He was very surprised to hear that [e{elj himself had sent me. I had a brief conversation with this investigator. He did not have time for a longer meeting since, he said, he had to leave for The Hague immediately. In the course of this informal meeting, which probably lasted about five minutes, two people came into the room, a woman who said she was a translator and that her name was Dana Todorovi}, and that the man who came with her was called Paolo Pastore Stocchi, an Italian. 7. Several days before I went to the office of the Prosecution, my brother called me and told me that some Italian man had telephoned asking for me regarding an interview. Since my brother said that an Italian was looking for me regarding an interview I thought it was a reporter. When I was introduced to Paolo Pastore Stocchi, I realized that he was the Italian who had been looking for me, and that it was not for a newspaper interview. The word interview is usually used in journalism, while accounts or statements are used in the judiciary or by the police. 8. The interview with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Scholz was conducted in the Belgrade office of the Hague Tribunal on 25, 26 and 27 March and 1 April 2003. 9. During the interview, i.e. questioning, investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi was very unpleasant. He was insolent and he threatened me. At the start of the interview he told me in no uncertain terms that I would have to cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor or face a seven-year prison sentence and a fine of 250,000 euros, or possibly US dollars, I am not sure which currency he mentioned. 10. I was in a peculiar psychological state because of Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s threats, blackmail and intimidation, and I feared that he could really make them come true. I think that these circumstances made me lose my mind temporarily and caused temporary and occasionally total loss of concentration on my part. It is possible that in such a state I confirmed certain things which I was not even sure really happened, and I wrongly interpreted other things. 11. The investigators did not tell me in what capacity I was to give my statement. I did not know whether I was a suspect or a witness. This psychological pressure was an added burden which affected my concentration. 12. When I was giving my interview I did not notice any cameras in the room, and no one told me whether my attorney was supposed to be present. 13. After the interview I insisted on being given a copy of the statement. The investigators refused, explaining that I had no right to it. 14. Due to my poor concentration during the interview to the investigators, I said that I had been elected a deputy to the Federal Assembly in 1991, when in fact I had been elected in 1992. I clearly could not remember the information I would otherwise have remembered extremely well, as it was an important event in my life. 15. When we discussed Western Slavonia, Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me among other things that he had statements from other witnesses who had confirmed that in 1991, some members of the White Eagles /Beli orlovi/, led by Dragoslav Bokan, went to Western Slavonia with volunteers of the Serbian Radical
123

Party. I said I knew that a group of White Eagles under the command of Dragoslav Bokan had been in Western Slavonia, but that it was not the Serbian Radical Party that had organized it. I do not know how many volunteers of the White Eagles went there, how they travelled, where their positions were or whether they placed themselves under the command of the Territorial Defense or acted independently. I obtained this misinformation from some of our volunteers who had returned from the Western Slavonia front. I have to admit that to this day I do not know for certain who led the White Eagles unit and who led the Du{an Silni unit. I was not particularly interested in it at the time. 16. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that my statement should state that the White Eagles had gone /to the front/ in the organization of the Serbian Radical Party. He said that – if I did not confirm it – he would use against me some documents he allegedly had to accuse me. I told Stocchi that he could write whatever he liked, but that I would tell the whole truth when I testified. 17. When giving a statement to Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Scholz, I made a mistake out of ignorance and I associated Dragoslav Bokan with the Serbian National Renewal (SNO). I said that a group of his men from the SNO took part in the operation in Borovo Selo. It was a mistake since Dragoslav Bokan, as far as I know, was the leader of the White Eagles volunteer unit, while Mirko Jovi} was the chairman of the SNO and leader of the volunteers or group called Du{an Silni. 18. When we talked about the method of transport of volunteers to the warstricken areas in Croatia, I told the investigators that initially we transported volunteers in civilian buses provided by the Territorial Defense in the places where the volunteers were leaving from. Later on, the Association of Serbs in Croatia with its HQ in Belgrade provided buses for the transport of volunteers. From September or October 1991, the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ took over the transport and general responsibility for volunteers. The Serbian MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ never took part in the transport of volunteers. However, Paolo Pastore Stocchi said that he had such information and that he would include it in my statement. He threatened me again, saying I had to cooperate if I did not want to be accused of giving a false statement. 19. When we discussed the certificates which were issued to volunteers to justify their absence from work, I said that we issued such certificates only for the first two groups of volunteers who went to Eastern Slavonia in June 1991. Since some firms did not recognize these certificates, they were later issued by the Territorial Defense up until 1 October 1991, when the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) took over responsibility for volunteers. 20. When Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me if the nicknames Kvo~ka, Sikirica and Misirac meant anything to me, I replied that the nickname Sikirica was familiar and that the man with this nickname was at one time a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party, most probably from Aleksandrovac, a town in southern Serbia. I explained to Stocchi that I knew this man had later been killed in a clash with the police at Belgrade railway station, but that I did not know why. I also said that the nickname Kvo~ka was familiar, that I did not remember him that well and that he was probably from Belgrade.
124

21. I later learnt from the media that these were their last names, not their nicknames – Kvo~ka or Sikirica – and realized that Paolo Pastore Stocchi tricked me on purpose, making me say that these people were volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. The media reported that a certain Du{ko Sikirica and a certain Miroslav Kvo~ka were from Prijedor municipality, in the Republika Srpska. Du{ko Sikirica was the security commander in the Keraterm camp in Prijedor, and Miroslav Kvo~ka was a professional policeman at Omarska police station. Du{ko Sikirica was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and Miroslav Kvo~ka to seven years’ imprisonment by the Hague Tribunal. Du{ko Sikirica and Miroslav Kvo~ka from the Republika Srpska are totally unknown to me and they had never been volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. I learnt about them in the media, just like all the other citizens in the Republic of Serbia. I talked to the investigators about the persons with these nicknames who are from the Republic of Serbia. 22. Paolo Pastore Stocchi maliciously reformulated my statement regarding Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni. I said that Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni was the commander of the Leva Supoderica detachment in Vukovar in which our volunteers were, and I never said that Leva Supoderica was our unit. 23. As for the person nicknamed Topola, I told the investigators that I had information from some volunteers that this person appeared in battlefields of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I definitely never said that this person went anywhere in the organization of the Serbian Radical Party, not even to Vukovar. I remember a volunteer telling me at the beginning of 1992 that someone called Topola from Western Slavonia had asked him to get him enrolled in the Serbian Radical Party, but that he refused, explaining that new members were not enrolled on a battlefield, and that if wanted to, he could enroll in his place of residence. 24. The centre in Erdut, in the Republic of Serbian Krajina, had a similar or identical role to the Bubanj Potok barracks outside Belgrade. It was a collection centre from where volunteers were assigned to certain locations according to need. The collection centre for the training and accommodation of volunteers in Erdut was set up by the government of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja, and @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan was appointed chief of the centre. The Serbian Radical Party never had any influence over any nominations or appointments. When the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party found out that Arkan had been appointed commander of the Erdut centre, the dispatch of volunteers to this centre was halted. It was after the first group of volunteers had already been dispatched to Erdut. The War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party never cooperated with @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan. 25. Paolo Pastore Stocchi consciously and maliciously changed the order of words in my statement, or he omitted certain words on purpose, thus creating confusion, so my statement in connection with Arkan took on an entirely different meaning. 26. I told investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Scholz that in one part of Western Slavonia – Vo}in, Lipik, Pakrac and Zve~evo — the defense had been in the hands of the Territorial Defense under the command of Colonel Jovan Trbojevi}, that there had been no regular JNA army in that area and that volunteers had withdrawn from that part of Western Slavonia sometime between 5 and 8
125

December 1991. I also said that the other part of Western Slavonia had been part of the 5th Banja Luka, later lst Krajina Corps, and that volunteers remained in this area until 25 December 1991. Paolo Pastore Stocchi reformulated my statement and wrote that the Serbian Radical Party volunteers had remained in Western Slavonia until the end of December 1991, without specifying the zone of responsibility under the command of Colonel Jovan Trbojevi}’s Territorial Defense and the 5th Banja Luka Corps led by of General Vladimir Vukovi}. 27. When I talked about Radovan Nova~i}, I told the investigators that he was our volunteer in Western Slavonia from where he returned between 1 and 5 December 1991 never to return anywhere as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party. I later learnt that Radovan Nova~i} joined Dragoslav Bokan’s White Eagles in mid 1992 and went to Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was wounded there and had one leg amputated. I told the investigators that in April 1991 Nova~i} was our volunteer in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Livno area. This information was incorrect. In fact I had no reliable information about it, just some misleading information I heard from other people. Besides, when Paolo Pastore Stocchi questioned me I was under constant pressure due to the fact that he could accuse me; that is why I had a problem concentrating and connecting the events. 28. I told the Hague Tribunal investigators that in April 1990 Vojislav [e{elj was in Mali Zvornik, the Republic of Serbia, where he promoted the Serbian Chetnik Movement at a culture club, and that I did not attend the rally. It is true that I also mentioned the year 1992, but not in connection with the rally, but with the dispatch of volunteers to Zvornik. I was sick at the time and had not been going to the War Staff for about a month. When I got there, I received an unofficial report that Zoran Ranki}, with a group of volunteers, including someone called @u}a who had been expelled from the Serbian Radical Party in September 1991, went to Zvornik on his own initiative. I know, however, that Zoran Ranki} resigned from the War Staff in mid December 1991 and that he could not have been entrusted with any duties by the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. I know that the report on the departure of Zoran Ranki} and someone called @u}a was not true, and I subsequently learned that @u}a went to Zvornik on his own initiative with his brother Repi} and someone called Legija. The Muslim forces arrested them and released them a few days later. Paolo Pastore Stocchi mixed up all the information, I believe on purpose, and somehow linked the promotion of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in 1990 to the Serbian Radical Party volunteers and their dispatch to Zvornik in April 1992. 29. When I spoke with the investigators about Bijeljina, I mistakenly said that we had sent a small group of volunteers to Bijeljina in April 1992 at the request of our activist Mirko Blagojevi} from Bijeljina. It was a completely wrong information which was a result of confusion in my head. The only true thing is that Mirko Blagojevi} used to visit the Serbian Radical Party War Staff frequently at the time, hence I accidentally associated him with volunteers. 30. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked to which locations in BosniaHerzegovina we had been dispatching volunteers in 1992. I could not remember, but then I remembered the stories of some volunteers and said that, among other places, they had been sent to Br~ko, Modri~a and Doboj, although I was not sure if that information was correct.
126

31. Asked by Stocchi whether we sent volunteers to Bosanski [amac and who commanded that unit, I replied that a group of volunteers led by Sre}ko Radovanovi} from Kragujevac had been sent to [amac. At that time I did not even know who Lugar was, or that there was a person with this nickname. Only in 1993 did I come across someone nicknamed Lugar, not a volunteer, but a member of the Serbian Radical Party, from which he was expelled in 1994. 32. Up until the end of 1994, and perhaps in early 1995, the Serbian Radical Party also dispatched volunteers to the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. When I found out that a small group of volunteers joined Arkan’s unit in Obrovac I took immediate action and threatened the group with expulsion from the party. After this warning they immediately left Arkan’s unit. Our volunteers never cooperated with Arkan’s men. 33. I also had some information that another unit, popularly called Red Berets /Crvene beretke/, had been in the area. However, the unit had no links with either Serbia or the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. 34. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted in particular that I talk about Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Hrtkovci, and asked a lot of questions about it. I told him I did not attend the meeting, which is true, but I had information about it from some members of the Serbian Radical Party and the media which covered it. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that I confirm that Vojislav [e{elj on this occasion read out the names of some Croats who were allegedly supposed to be expelled from Hrtkovci. I replied that I knew that someone read out the names of certain Croats who were active in the Croatian Army and fought against the Serbs, but that it was not [e{elj. 35. While giving my statement to the Hague Tribunal investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Sabine Scholz I was very tense and frightened because of the threats that they could accuse me of war crimes or of giving false testimony. Regardless of the fact that my conscience is absolutely clear, because I know that I did not commit any crimes which would go against the international law of war, I could not remain calm and indifferent as I know that there are many innocent Serbs in the Hague detention who are either on trial or who have already been sentenced to long prison terms without their guilt ever being proven. 36. We had short breaks during which Paolo Pastore Stocchi tried to get closer to me, as a friend, in order to find it easier to persuade me that I should accuse Vojislav [e{elj. He kept saying that [e{elj allegedly did not trust me and I should not defend or protect him. Several times he openly offered that we become friends, go out together in the evenings or find some women and have a good time. 37. My last meeting with representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal was on 16 November 2007 in the Special Court for War Crimes, Ustani~ka Street, when I talked to Christine Dahl, senior prosecutor in the Vojislav [e{elj case. As before, I persistently repeated that I would never be a witness for the Prosecution against Vojislav [e{elj, and that I have already expressed my wish to be a witness for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. 38. I refused to talk to Christine Dahl but she was determined. She asked me lots of questions and tried to persuade me to become a witness for the Prosecution. She even told me that the amount of assistance I could get depended entirely on me. I saw this as an attempt to bribe me in return for a false testimony, and of course I rejected it.
127

39. When giving a statement to the Hague Tribunal investigators, I did not remember all the events which we discussed and which I was asked about. I am forgetful by nature, and I was under stress and frightened at the time, so it is possible that I could have made a mistake unconsciously or that the investigators took advantage of it and drafted a statement as they saw fit, according to a previously devised plan. 40. Since I knew I was forgetful, each time I left the Tribunal’s office I wrote down the questions the investigators had asked me, and I later checked to see if what I said was true or not. In this way I subsequently found out that parts of my statement were not true and that other parts were completely altered in view of what I had said. 41. The statement I gave to the Hague Tribunal investigators is for the most part an inaccurately conveyed conversation between me and the investigators, which gave a totally different meaning to what I had said and what in fact is the truth. Considering my problems with temporary loss of concentration, we spent three days on this statement, stopping for breaks whenever I needed them. We worked without pressure, suggestions or threats, and I can therefore declare that the content of this statement is the absolute truth. 42. I have been a member of the Serbian Radical Party since it was founded on 23 February 1991. Before that I was a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement from 1990. My membership never ceased and to this day I am a member of the Serbian Radical Party. All along I have been in contact with many members of the Party, including members of the Expert Team assisting in the preparations of Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. 43. In the summer of 2007 I officially contacted Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team with the intention of telling them about my experience with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal and that I wished to be a witness for the Defense. I gave them my statement, certified by the 4th Municipal Court in Belgrade, and agreed that Vojislav [e{elj could use it in the proceedings before the Hague Tribunal. Since I know that [e{elj insists on the trial being conducted in public, I knew that I agreed to my statement being disclosed to the public and I did it consciously. 44. In the meantime, I attended almost all seminars, symposia, meetings and anniversaries which were organized by the Serbian Radical Party and the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj in view of the conditions, detention and irregular trial of Vojislav [e{elj in The Hague. 45. My name was often mentioned publicly at these meetings in the context of witness abuse by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, or a possibility that I become a defense witness. I never had any objections to it, on the contrary, the media presence at these rallies suited me as they could record everything. I would have been happy to address these rallies in person, but unfortunately it was not possible for health reasons. 46. I talked to hundreds of members and followers of the Serbian Radical Party from all over Serbia at these rallies and I openly told everyone about my bad experience with the Hague Tribunal investigators. I mentioned that they had assigned a code for me to testify as a witness for the Prosecution, and I explained, of
128

course, that I refused. I wanted as many people as possible to know about it and I am grateful to the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj for making my statements public in Serbia. 47. During the trial of Vojislav [e{elj in The Hague so far I gave statements to the defense team several times and I never requested that they should not be made public. On the contrary, I fully agreed that they can be used before the Hague Tribunal and the Serbian public, since I never agreed to be protected witness No. VS-010, because I have no reason to be ashamed of my name or of my certified statements which I had given to [e{elj’s team. I believe that this statement will also be disclosed and I give my full consent. Belgrade 8 october 2010 Statement given by: had`i Zoran Dra`ilovi} /signed/

witness Statement I hereby confirm that I have read this statement, that everything in it is true and correct, and I sign it as my own. Had`i Zoran Dra`ilovi} /signed/ /stamp:/ /Certification/ number: 5731/2010 This is to certify that Ha`i Zoran Dra`ilovi} signed the document in person and confirmed the signature as his/her own. The identity of the /illegible/ was verified from his/her identity card, number 002061249 issued on ____ 19___ by ___ or by the following witnesses ____ whose identity was verified. Certification stamp duty of 710 dinars has been paid. First Municipal Court, Belgrade Date 08/10 2010 Authorized official /signed and stamped/

***
witness Statement witness information Last name: Lukovac First name: Miodrag Sex: male Father’s name: Milo{ Nickname: Miki, Lujo Date of birth: 25 April 1962 Place of birth: Sombor, the Republic of Serbia Address: Novi Sad, Du{ana Vasiljeva 30 Telephone number:% Nationality: Serbian
129

Religion: Orthodox Languages spoken: Serbian and Russian Language used during the interview: Serbian Current occupation: unemployed Previous occupation: policeman Date and place of interview: 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 December 2010, Novi Sad Interview conducted by: Vjerica Radeta, lawyer Names of all persons present during the interview: 1. Vjerica Radeta, lawyer 2. Boris Aleksi}, lawyer Witness signature /signature/ Initialed by persons present: 1. /signature/ 2. /signature/ witness Statement /signed and stamped on every page/ 1. My name is Miodrag Lukovac, son of Milo{, my nicknames are Miki or Lujo. I was born on 25 April 1962 in Sombor, Serbia, and I live in Novi Sad, Du{ana Vasiljeva 30. I am currently unemployed, personal identity card No. 000848583 issued by the Novi Sad SUP, JMBG 2504962810069, of Serbian nationality and Orthodox religion. I am married with two children. I am a citizen of the Republic of Serbia. 2. Over the past year Trial Chamber III of the Hague Tribunal, before which Dr. Vojislav [e{elj is being tried, has often mentioned the witness under the code VS-026. Considering that I am the witness who was supposed to testify under this code, which I disclosed a while ago, I am very interested in this trial for personal reasons. 3. I learnt from the media and from the coverage of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj’s trial in The Hague that another indictment had been filed against Vojislav [e{elj for contempt of court on the grounds that Vojislav [e{elj disclosed the identity of some protected witnesses and published their names in his three books whose titles have not yet been made public. 4. Since my name is mentioned in one of [e{elj’s books, I decided to contact the members of the Expert Team assisting in the preparations for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense and to offer my statement if my name was among the 11 witnesses whose identity Dr. Vojislav [e{elj had allegedly disclosed. 5. I met Vjerica Radeta and Boris Aleksi} in Novi Sad to give a statement. They told me that I could be held criminally responsible before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia if I gave a false statement and I agreed to it and accepted to give accurate description of everything I know and which is connected with the charges against Vojislav [e{elj in the Hague Tribunal. 6. I had already falsely testified as witness C-47 under the threats, pressure and blackmail of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal in the case against Slobodan Milo{evi}.
130

nata{a Kandi} 7. I remember that in the early summer of 2002 the secretary of the director of the Humanitarian Law Centre called me and told that that the Centre’s director Nata{a Kandi} wanted to speak to me, but without telling me what about. 8. I was happy to accept the invitation because I expected that Nata{a Kandi} could help me find a job, which was vital for me as I was unemployed and without any means of support. 9. I was unpleasantly surprised when in my own house in Silba{ Nata{a Kandi} told me – instead of offering me a job as I had expected – that I would have to cooperate with her with regard to the wartime events in the former Yugoslavia. 10. Nata{a Kandi} openly threatened me in my own home, saying that I could be handed over to the judiciary authorities of the Republic of Serbia for the war crime I allegedly had committed if I refused to cooperate with her. 11. The conversation with Nata{a Kandi} in my home in Silba{ lasted about two hours. She enquired about my participation in the war, the activities of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, Vojislav [e{elj, Slobodan Milo{evi}, Jovo Ostoji} and some other people she believed were involved in the wartime events from 1991 to 1995. The conversation was recorded, no notes were taken during the conversation and I did not sign anything. 12. At the end of the conversation, Nata{a Kandi} told me I had to go to Novi Sad to give a lengthier statement in which I was to give details of events that were familiar to me during the war in the former Yugoslavia and without my knowledge she arranged a meeting with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal. 13. I had a serious stomach operation shortly before, so Nata{a Kandi} sent a car of the Humanitarian Law Centre to fetch me and they took me to Novi Sad at the agreed time. 14. We stopped at a parking lot in Novi Sad. At the parking a man came out of a Jeep with CD plates, approached us and through an interpreter introduced himself as Paolo Pastore Stocchi He said he was expecting us as per agreement with Nata{a Kandi}, and that he was a UN employee. 15. I moved into the Jeep and we went to see attorney Olivera Frani~evi} who said she was from the Humanitarian Law Centre. 16. Paolo Pastore Stocchi talked to me in her office. Right at the beginning he threatened me by saying that I had to cooperate with him and reply to all the questions. Otherwise, on his orders, the Serbian police will arrest me and take me to The Hague where, he said, I would remember everything and sing like a bird. 17. Olivera Frani~evi}, attorney of the Humanitarian Law Centre, was in the office throughout the conversation with Paolo Pastore Stocchi. In her presence Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked questions and entered the replies instead of me directly onto his laptop. 18. At the end of the conversation which lasted about an hour, Paolo Pastore Stocchi reiterated his threat that I would have to cooperate with him or be swallowed by darkness. He made a point that he was from Interpol, that I would have to go to Belgrade where I would spend at least three days, and that it would be better if I went there of my own free will rather than be arrested and detained by the police.
131

19. When we finished our conversation, Paolo Pastore Stocchi did not ask me to sign any record. contact with the office of the Prosecutor 20. At the beginning of July 2002, employees of the Hague Tribunal asked me to go to Belgrade, Jevrema Gruji}a 11. As I was in a very poor physical condition after the operation, a vehicle of Nata{a Kandi}’s Humanitarian Law Centre was sent for me to take me to Belgrade. Nata{a Kandi} was clearly a close associate of the Hague Tribunal, supplying false witnesses. 21. I again met Paolo Pastore Stocchi in the office of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution in Belgrade on 13, 14 and 15 July 2002. It was the first time that he told me he was an investigator in the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal. Someone called Philippe Oberkne`ev was with Stocchi, and he also took part in the questioning. Like in Novi Sad, Paolo Pastore Stocchi himself dictated the answers, which were not true, to all the questions he asked me and recorded them onto his laptop. He never stopped threatening me that they would file an indictment for war crimes against me if I refused to cooperate, i.e. if I did not confirm and sign all his lies in the record. 22. I complained about the pain I felt after my stomach operation, so Paolo Pastore Stocchi went to a chemist and bought me a girdle which must be worn after such an operation, but I did not have it. I thought that Stocchi was humane, but I quickly realized that in fact he only wanted to ill-treat and torment me without having to listen to my complaints about the pain. 23. During my three days in Belgrade I feared all the time that they would arrest me and take me to The Hague. I suppose Stocchi noticed my fear, and in order to make it worse, he staged an incident and showed “concern” for my safety. He told me that someone allegedly photographed me from the neighboring building, that my life was now in danger and that he had to secure a helicopter to transport me to Sarajevo, allegedly for my own safety. Stocchi acted like a demented person who is supposedly concerned about someone’s life and he kept dialing some numbers. Regardless of the alleged threat against me, they let me leave the Prosecution office an hour later by myself, without any escort. Back then I thought it was all an act on Stocchi’s part, but nonetheless I was unable to rid myself of the fear. 24. During my visit to Belgrade I stayed in what was clearly a private flat which the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal rented for me and where members of their security also stayed, which was a warning to me not to feel safe and secure. 25. After three days of pressure, blackmail, intimidation, attempts of bribery and fear of indictment, I had to, that is how it seemed to me at the time, sign the statement drafted by Paolo Pastore Stocchi in the English language which I do not understand. When I signed the statement they took me back home to Silba{ in a vehicle of Nata{a Kandi}’s Humanitarian Law Centre. It seemed to me as if I temporarily lost my mind and in such a state I awaited my fate. 26. Several days later Geoffrey Nice, Prosecutor in the case of Slobodan Milo{evi}, arrived in Belgrade. They told me that I had to meet him at his request.
132

Geoffrey Nice said I did well signing the statement as they had already prepared an indictment for war crimes against me, but that they would not activate it because of my good cooperation with the Office of the Prosecutor. Geoffrey Nice did not tell me for which crimes I had been indicted, but he said that the charges in the indictment were incontrovertible. 27. When we talked in July 2002, Paolo Pastore Stocchi ignored everything I said. He was the one who both asked and answered the questions and recorded the answers on his computer. I intervened several times and said it was not true, but Stocchi responded with threats and blackmail. He insisted that the truth was everything which he included in my statement and added that we Serbs were all Mafiosi and that I would have to accept the statement as my own or face indictment for war crimes. Mali Stapar and novi @ednik 28. Based on the questions and answers prepared in advance, Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me for form’s sake whether I knew Aleksandar Nikoli} from Sivac, who owns a restaurant in the neighboring village of Mali Stapar which, he alleged, Vojislav [e{elj often frequented in 1990. 29. I told the investigators that I knew Aleksandar Nikoli} and that I knew he owned a restaurant, but that I had never been there. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that it was not true and that he had information that I had been in the restaurant with Vojislav [e{elj in 1990. 30. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me he knew that in 1990 [e{elj was on a tour of Vojvodina to recruit volunteers, that allegedly I talked to him in Aleksandar Nikoli}’s restaurant and enquired as to whom I needed to speak in order to join the Serbian Radical Party. Vojislav [e{elj, according to Stocchi, told me that he had two representatives for Subotica, one was Milan Stojanovi} from Novi @ednik and the other one Bo`idar Vuji} from Subotica. I knew that all of this was a lie, but Stocchi was persistent in his lies and insisted that they be part of my statement. 31. It is true that I have never been to the above restaurant, not even in 1990, just as it is true that I never met Vojislav [e{elj. It means that I could not have obtained from Vojislav [e{elj the names of the activists through whom I could have allegedly joined the Serbian Radical Party and that it was the truth. It is also true that the Serbian Radical Party did not exist at the time and that I only met Milan Stojanovi} and Bo`idar Vuji} in the summer of 1991. 32. I never told the investigators that the day after the non-existent meeting with [e{elj I went and talked with Stojanovi} and Vuji} and that we agreed to set up a branch of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica. This too is one of the lies planted by Paolo Pastore Stocchi since everyone knows that the Serbian Radical Party was formed on 23 February 1991 at a founding assembly in Kragujevac. cooperation with the Ministry of the interior 33. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that I say in my statement that in early 1991 I recruited my police colleagues and other citizens in northern Ba~ka, especially in Subotica, Kanji`a, Mali I|o{, Bajmok, Ba~ka Palanka and other smaller places, and enrolled them in the Serbian Radical Party. I was surprised to see in suppo133

sedly my own statement, while testifying in the case of Slobodan Milo{evi}, that Stojanovi} and Vuji} enrolled about 450 citizens, of which I personally enrolled 300. This is yet another lie which Paolo Pastore Stocchi used since it was impossible in large towns with a majority Serbian population for so many citizens to join an opposition party in such a short time. It was especially impossible in multinational communities such as these. It is also a lie that Vojislav [e{elj used to sign the Serbian Radical Party membership cards which were allegedly distributed to new members. First of all, there were no such membership cards, and I know that such cards are signed by the secretary general. I had to confirm all these lies because Stocchi threatened me with an indictment for war crimes. 34. When I was giving my statement to the investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philippe Oberkne`ev, Paolo Pastore Stocchi had a list of names in front of him of all officers of the Ministry of the Interior and State Security in Subotica and the northern Ba~ka district, and he asked me if I knew any of them. 35. I knew these men and that is what I told Stocchi. I said that Radovan Kne`evi} had been chief of the district SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/ of northern Ba~ka, Nikola Ivo{evi} chief of the operations service, Mirko Zinaji} independent inspector and chief of the transport police, Milan Jerinki} secretary of the district SUP of northern Ba~ka and Ljubomir Markovi} and Ljubomir Radi} were officers in the state security operations service. 36. When I disclosed to the investigators the names of the officers I remembered, Paolo Pastore Stocchi demanded that I confirm in my statement that they were all members of the Serbian Radical Party except for Radovan Kne`evi}. 37. I told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that it was not true, because party membership had been banned in the army, police, judiciary and education. Besides, the Socialist Party of Serbia had absolute power in Serbia in 1991 and Vojislav [e{elj was an only elected deputy of the Serbian Radical Party to the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia in the second half of the year. The Socialist Party of Serbia appointed officials to all the posts and I am certain that all those who said they belonged to another party would be left without a job. 38. Paolo Pastore Stocchi did not acknowledge any of my objections or explanations. He was adamant that I would have to confirm his allegations in my statement and before the Tribunal when I testified. Since he threatened me with the indictment for war crimes for the umpteenth time, out of fear I did everything he asked to avoid arrest. I believed at the time that it was the worst thing that could happen to me.. 39. I was an ordinary policeman and I was never close to Milan Jerinki} and Radovan Kne`evi}, and they would never entrust me with a task outside the chain of command. They would definitely never order me to recruit volunteers or new reserve policemen of exclusively Serbian nationality. It is a pure fabrication and a lie, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi demanded that I confirm that in my statement if I wished to remain a free man. 40. I hereby state that my superior officers did not know about my political engagement, as I engaged in such activities solely outside my working hours and I never discussed it with them.
134

jovo ostoji} 41. I became acquainted with Jovo Ostoji} from Prigrevica near Apatin at his home in 1992, but I never, not even then, talked to him alone. I know that Jovo Ostoji} had been a member of the Serbian Democratic Party led by Jovan Ra{kovi} before the war. I heard from some people that in 1991 there was a camp in Prigrevica for the training of volunteers under his supervision. I cannot confirm its existence as I had never been there. 42. I told Stocchi this, but he did not want to accept the truth yet again. He reiterated his threat with the Hague indictment and forced me to confirm that I used to meet Jovo Ostoji} in 1991, that he was a member of the Serbian Radical Party, that Vojislav [e{elj ordered that volunteers be recruited and organized and that Ostoji} allegedly said that preparations were in place for an attack on Borovo Selo. 43. I tried to convince investigator Stocchi that everyone knew that the attack on Borovo Selo on 2 May 1991 was not launched by the Serbian, but by the Croatian side and that Borovo Selo with its majority Serbian population had been under Serbian control since the start of the war, and that an attack on one’s own people was impossible. Paolo Pastore Stocchi just waved his hand in response to all my objections and said that I was not cooperating enough and not telling the truth, since some witnesses told a completely different story, and that he would record in the statement the things he knew about. Subotica Rally 44. I found out from the media and official notes which we used to receive as members of the police that the Serbian Radical Party held a rally in Subotica in September 1991 and that Vojislav [e{elj spoke at the rally. 45. I did not attend the Subotica rally because I was not in Subotica that day, and in line with the rules of the service I could not publicly expose myself. 46. Under the pressure and blackmail from Paolo Pastore Stocchi that I should look after myself and my family, I had to confirm all the lies he asked me to, and which referred to the Subotica rally. 47. Before we started discussing the Subotica rally, Paolo Pastore Stocchi showed me a recording of some comedy series which had been shown on Politika TV as far as I remember, and was called Maksovizija. It showed a clip of Vojislav [e{elj making a joke at the expense of the Chetniks in front of a large audience. 48. From the recording I was shown I was supposed to confirm that I attended the rally in Subotica and that I heard Vojislav [e{elj saying that the Chetniks would poke the eyes of the Croats with rusty spoons and forks. This could be heard in the recording, but it was a jovial reply to the presenter’s provocative question. I know that Vojislav [e{elj made reference to this whole program in one of his books and this was obviously presented to me out of context. 49. Although I was not at the meeting, I am sure that Vojislav [e{elj would not say anything like that before 5,000 people, many reporters and TV crews. Besides, I am sure that such a statement, had it existed, would have turned up in the headlines of all newspapers and that it would be publicly condemned. I have never heard myself or through someone else, or read that Vojislav [e{elj said any135

thing similar, and I also never heard him say that all Croats and Hungarians should be expelled from Subotica and Vojvodina. 50. Fearing the indictment for war crimes, with which Stocchi kept threatening me, I confirmed everything in connection with the rally in Subotica I was asked to. At his insistence I confirmed that after the rally I had a private meeting with Vojislav [e{elj at Milan Stojanovi}’s house in Novi @ednik and that the following men were present: Milan Jerinki}, secretary of the intermunicipal SUP, Bo`idar Vuji}, chairman of the Subotica municipal board of the Serbian Radical Party, and Nikola Ivo{evi}, chief of the SUP operations service. Paolo Pastore Stocchi threatened that I would have to confirm it before the Tribunal and that I would have to say that Vojislav [e{elj had told us at the alleged meeting that we would either kill or expel non-Serbs. 51. I had not met Zoran Dra`ilovi} before the crisis staff of the Serbian Radical Party was formed. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that Zoran Dra`ilovi} was the commander of the Chetnik movement in Yugoslavia. I was confused by this piece of information and I wondered what Vojislav [e{elj’s role was if Dra`ilovi} was the commander and who was subordinated to whom. I know that Zoran Dra`ilovi} was the deputy chief of the War Staff and that he was appointed to this post after the resignation of Zoran Ranki} in mid-December 1991. SRS/S^P /Serbian chetnik Movement/ organization in Vojvodina 52. When I talked about the leadership hierarchy in the Serbian Radical Party I never brought the SRS in connection with the police, i.e. the state security service. I did not mention any particular structure or chain of command in the War Staff or the Serbian Chetnik Movement either in Belgrade or in Vojvodina. Paolo Pastore Stocchi wanted to demonstrate that the entire political work of the Serbian Radical Party and its War Staff had been under the control of the police and the state security service. I never said that and I always knew it was not true. 53. Paolo Pastore Stocchi changed his previous story and he placed Vojislav [e{elj as number one in the structure of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and not Zoran Dra`ilovi}, who in my opinion was just an ordinary member of the S^P and was never Vojislav [e{elj’s deputy. I saw in my purported statement, which I was shown during the testimony in the Milo{evi} case, some tables which were totally unclear to me and I did not know what they meant. I mentioned the names of Jovo Ostoji}, Zdravko Avramovi}, @ivan Vasi}, Milan Stojanovi} and Sr|an, only as party activists in 1991, which is not what was said in the statement of Jovan Glamo~anin. 54. I never told the investigators that Maja Gojkovi} was the chairman of the Serbian Radical Party in Vojvodina, but that she was one of the five deputy chairmen. I know that the Serbian Radical Party did not have an organized structure at the level of the Provinces. I only said that Maja Gojkovi} was from Vojvodina, more precisely from Novi Sad. 55. As for Jovan Glamo~anin, I said that he was a coordinator and I never said that he was Vojislav [e{elj’s deputy because I know that there was no deputy party chairman post at the time. I am sure that I did not mention Ljubomir Radi}
136

as being the chairman of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica and I never said that he was an employee of the state security of the Republic of Serbia. 56. There was no chain of command in the Serbian Radical Party in the Ministry of the Interior either at republican or regional level. Paolo Pastore Stocchi made up that MUP officials Milan Jerinki}, Radovan Kne`evi}, Mirko Zinaji} and Nikola Ivo{evi} had been members of the Serbian Radical Party and that they represented some chain of command in the police of the Northern Ba~ka District. It is true that I mentioned all these men in my conversation with the investigators, but not in the way that was written in my statement. I am sure that Paolo Pastore Stocchi could not have made such a mistake and not know which ones are members of the Serbian Radical Party and which MUP officials. He clearly linked the Serbian Radical Party with the MUP on purpose, as he noticed I was terrified of the indictment for war crimes and that I would probably not put up a great deal of resistance, i.e. that I would agree to everything. 57. I confirm that I did not say there was a picture of a skull on the back of the membership card of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, just as I did not say that volunteers received some sort of ID cards when they enrolled. I told the investigators that every citizen who wished to join the Serbian Chetnik Movement, and later the Serbian Radical Party, only needed to fill in an application form, and fulfill the following conditions: be of age and accept the Statute and Program of the party. Members of the party were not under obligation to participate in the war and volunteers did not have to be party members. 58. I remember telling the investigators that the volunteers in Subotica sometimes trained on state property and it was an open space which the police and sometimes the army used for training, but that civilians also had access for sport and leisure. I told them that it was not an army training ground, but a general open training ground for sport and leisure where volunteers sometimes carried out physical exercises. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted on including in my statement that it was an army training ground and that we had to obtain permission from army and police authorities for the training of volunteers to use firearms. This, of course, was not true, as neither the volunteers in Subotica nor elsewhere had any firearms. 59. Paolo Pastore Stocchi advised me, when I testify as a witness in the trial, to say that volunteers had been told to go and fight against the Croats, and that the task of my unit was to fight against communism. Such a statement would allegedly be a mitigating circumstance. 60. I clearly remember that I only once went to the War Staff in Belgrade; it was when I arrived with a group of volunteers from Subotica who were supposed to be sent to the Bubanj Potok barracks. I don’t remember the date, but it was definitely before 1 October 1991. I did not meet [e{elj then or later, neither have I ever seen him, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi wrote in my statement that I had lunch with Vojislav [e{elj. I don’t know if this was a translation mistake or a malicious lie by investigator Stocchi. 61. During the interview with the Hague Tribunal investigators in July 2002 in Belgrade, I said that I went only once to the front as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party, but that I went several times on my own initiative. It is true that we used Subotica Trans or Elektrovojvodina buses for our transport to the front. I ne137

ver said that we had military or police escort on our way to the front. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted on that being included in my statement since, he claimed, he saw police vehicles in some video clips which showed volunteers going to the front. We were in charge of the buses ourselves and Zoran Dra`ilovi} had nothing to do with it. Under all the pressure, blackmail and threats, however, I unfortunately agreed that all these lies become part of my statement. The fear of indictment for the war crimes I did not commit was stronger than the truth. financing 62. I knew nothing about the financing of the Serbian Radical Party. When I first talked to investigators Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Philippe Oberkne`ev, I said that some better-off citizens and private businessmen used to come to the Serbian Radical Party municipal board in Subotica, offering humanitarian aid to help care for the refugees. The humanitarian aid offered referred to accommodation, items of personal hygiene, food, heating firewood, medicine, clothing and similar. No one offered us financial aid. 63. I remember Paolo Pastore Stocchi listening to me, and then he threw me an icy look, leaned into me and told me I was lying. He showed me some papers but would not let me read them; he told me they had the documents showing that the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica had a registered company Radikal Komerc which realized a large income. He claimed that the companies Lukas and its owner Ljuban Luki}, Spas and its owner Mom~ilo Raji} and the state firms @eljezni~ar and 29. November in Subotica financially supported the Serbian Radical Party. I heard about these companies and I know for certain that they did not take part in the financing of the Serbian Radical Party. 64. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that Milan Stojanovi} was in charge of raising funds in Subotica for the Serbian Radical Party. When I said it was not true, Stocchi said he had ample evidence and that I would have to confirm it in my testimony if they decided that I should testify against Vojislav [e{elj. 65. Investigator Stocchi asked me to confirm that Milan Stojanovi} and Jovan Glamo~anin took 3,000 West German marks from the party treasury which had been set aside for the funeral of some fighters who were killed in Petrinja, and that they allegedly bought food for Vojislav [e{elj with this money. I said this could not be true, as there was never that much money in the party treasury. Besides, people lived on 10 to 20 marks a month, and Jovo Glamo~anin had no authority over the Subotica municipal board. Paolo Pastore Stocchi said that this had to be put in the statement, “full stop”. 66. In order to avoid being tried in The Hague for war crimes, I agreed that Stocchi should put in my statement that some private firms had to run a racket and finance the Serbian Radical Party and the war in Croatia, otherwise they would go up in the air. appointment of Vojvodas (military leaders) 67. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that shortly after the fall of Vukovar [e{elj appointed 16 new vojvodas in a church near Valjevo. As I knew nothing about it I believed him, and he showed me cuttings from some daily newspapers and a vi138

deo clip where you could see something like this. I later found out that the appointment of the vojvodas had been in the Kne`ina monastery on Mt Romanija in the Republika Srpska in May 1993. 68. Paolo Pastore Stocchi showed me photos in which I was supposed to recognize some people and confirm their names. I obeyed, just as I did for everything else. I was surprised to see in my statement, during my testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi}, that I allegedly said how the vojvodas stood by the Chetnik flag on which a pistol, a knife and a hand grenade were placed. Neither is this true, nor did I ever say it. alleged conversation with [e{elj in 1993 69. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that there were many potential prosecution witnesses who confirmed to him that lootings and murders were commonplace among volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party and that I would testify to that effect at the trial. 70. Paolo Pastore Stocchi was furious and did not accept my true statement that I only once went to the front as a Serbian Radical Party volunteer and that I went there several times independently. He said I had to confirm in my statement and later in my testimony that right from the start and up until the end I had always been a volunteer who went to the front through the Serbian Radical Party War Staff and that I saw all the crimes which he was keen for me to describe. I had a choice, to lie or to be tried for war crimes. I chose to lie. 71. Paolo Pastore Stocchi was adamant when he told me that he would put in my statement that I met Vojislav [e{elj in February 1993 in his office in Belgrade, on Francuska Street and that [e{elj told me that when we go to Skelane, we have to kill all Muslims, including the civilians, the women, the elderly and the children. He allegedly gave us this monstrous instruction in the presence of some [vaba from Smederevo and Zoran Dra`ilovi}. Since I am a policeman by profession, I knew that this was the worst crime possible, but I did not dare oppose him so as not to tempt my own fate and be indicted for false war crimes. And they threatened that this would happen and that an indictment awaited me either in The Hague or in Serbia. I tried to convince Stocchi, that it was impossible since the headquarters of the Serbian Radical Party was still on Ohridska Street in February 1993 and that it was moved to Francuska at the end of the summer of 1993, while the War Staff was moved to Pariska Street at the end of October the same year, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi would not listen or correct his own mistake, which is in fact recorded as mine. 72. I clearly remember that we also discussed this subject during my second meeting with representatives of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution in Belgrade in early November 2002. I then met investigator Vladimir D`uro and the prosecutor in the Milo{evi} case, Geoffrey Nice. Geoffrey Nice added to this an even more unimaginable lie – that during my alleged conversation with Vojislav [e{elj in his office two police generals were present, Luki} and \or|evi}, and that they did not react to [e{elj’s instruction that all Muslims should be killed, including the civilians. Nice also said that the statement would say that [e{elj ordered that babies in
139

their cots be killed, as well as all the Turks, and that there should not be a single cat left alive. 73. Geoffrey Nice then promised that no indictment would be filed against me if I confirmed this and that I would be able to choose in which country I wanted to live with my family. He promised me another identity and citizenship and enough money for me and my family. 74. I clearly remember that during the preparations for my testimony in The Hague against Slobodan Milo{evi} I told prosecutor Daniel Saxon that I had never seen Luki} or \or|evi} in my life and that I would not be able to recognize them. Daniel Saxon told me: “We’ll give you photos, you’ll have to memorize them and identify them.” 75. Considering that I saw how lies and crimes were being fixed, it was clear to me that I really ought to be afraid of them, that what they make me do to others they most probably make others do to me. Once again I was overwhelmed by fear which totally paralyzed my mind, and my power of judgment was reduced to the minimum. Out of fear I agreed to confirm everything they asked me to. ov~ara – Vukovar 76. I spent a long time trying to convince Paolo Pastore Stocchi that I was not in Vukovar prior to 1 December 1991 and that I had no knowledge about the events at the Ov~ara farm. Investigator Stocchi told me that the crimes in Ov~ara had been committed by the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) and Serbian Radical Party volunteers who were under the command of Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni. He asked me to confirm that I heard about the murders of the Croats in Ov~ara at least from some people. In as state of fear, I remembered that I knew someone called Stevo @ivkovi} from Vukovar and I lied that he had spoken to me about it. Vojvodina and hrtkovci 77. I have no knowledge of any meeting which took place in Milan Stojanovi}’s house in Novi @ednik in May 1991. Under Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s threat of the indictment for war crimes, I had to say that a private meeting had been held in Milan Stojanovi}’s house in May 1991 and that the following were present: Vojislav [e{elj, Milan Stojanovi}, Bo`idar Vuji}, Milan Jerinki}, Nikola Ivo{evi} and I. 78. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that they had the information and the statement of someone who attended the meeting, who allegedly confirmed that Vojislav [e{elj said that the Serbian Radical Party took over power in Hrtkovci by force, replacing a Croat who had been the president of the local commune, and they immediately renamed the village as Srbislavci. According to Stocchi, Vojislav [e{elj mentioned Ostoja Sibin~i}, saying that he was already putting pressure on the Croats and forcing them to move out, and that the state institutions such as the army and police were already sacking the Croats and Hungarians. According to Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s story, [e{elj told us at the meeting to throw grenades at Croatian and Hungarian houses, to physically attack them, threaten them over the telephone, smash their windows and mark their houses with a cross, creating an atmosphere of fear wherever they are, in the streets, at a stadium, in shops or some
140

other public place. I have never heard such a thing, not even as a policeman, but I confirmed it nonetheless. 79. Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me he knew that I took part in the intimidation and expulsion of Croats, but that they would not prosecute me for this crime if I confirmed to the Tribunal that Vojislav [e{elj had issued the order to us in Hrtkovci to kill some Croats, and that a Catholic priest had already been killed over there. In my statement, he even described the way in which I had threatened a group of Hungarian hunters in the village of Hajdukovo, on the orders of SUP secretary Milan Jerinki}, which of course had nothing to do with the truth. 80. Fearing the indictment and because of Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s threats, I had to sign a false accusation against Bo`idar Vuji}, confirming that Bo`idar Vuji} and some Serbian Radical Party members in both Hrtkovci and Subotica were marking non-Serbian houses, that some Croats and Hungarians were expelled and hand grenades thrown at others. I confirmed a total fabrication, that about 70% of the non-Serbian population had been expelled from Hrtkovci and that the police allegedly participated in this expulsion, escorting them to the border. 81. I categorically state that all this is connected with the alleged meeting in Milan Stojanovi}’s house in Novi @ednik, and the instructions which we allegedly received from Vojislav [e{elj are a complete lie and fabrication which I could not oppose due to pressure from Paolo Pastore Stocchi. I never attended this meeting, just as I never set foot in Hrtkovci before 2008, but in view of incessant threats with the indictment for war crimes I was forced to confirm the lies as demanded of me by investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi. Year 1992 and the catholic cathedral in Subotica 82. Since I am a policeman by profession, I remember that I found out from some colleagues and from the official police bulletin in April 1992 that an unidentified person had planted an explosive device of low intensity at the entrance to the Catholic cathedral in Subotica. I clearly remember that the explosion did not cause any visible damage, and no one was killed or wounded. This is all I knew about the Catholic cathedral at the time of my conversation with the investigators and I told the Hague Tribunal investigators the truth. 83. Paolo Pastore Stocchi shook his head and told me I was lying, that I did not tell him the whole truth and that he had information that the Catholic cathedral in Subotica had been blown up. He said that Vojislav [e{elj, through Bo`idar Vuji}, issued the order to blow it up and that the order was carried out by the Serbian Radical Party members, mentioning someone called Nikola Bojani} in particular. 84. I contradicted Paolo Pastore Stocchi and told him that several days after the incident I walked past the Catholic cathedral and saw that it was completely intact and our official police bulletin had no report that the cathedral had been blown up, only that an explosive device had been planted at the entrance, the damage to which had been negligible. 85. Paolo Pastore Stocchi said I was lying again and he would put in the statement all the facts known to him. He ordered me to confirm, in a possible testimony before the Hague Tribunal, that the cathedral had been blown up on the orders of Vojislav [e{elj. Despite my saying that the perpetrator of this crime was ar141

rested and tried, and that it was proven that he had no connections with the Serbian Radical Party, Paolo Pastore Stocchi threatened me with the war crimes indictment for the umpteenth time so I had to confirm this lie and save my skin, as I then believed I was doing. 86. In May 1992 I learnt from an official police bulletin that a Hungarian national had planted a homemade explosive device in the Svetozar Markovi} school in Subotica and that a passer-by was slightly injured. 87. Paolo Pastore Stocchi demanded that I confirm in my statement that I was present in the office of the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica when Bo`idar Vuji} and Nikola Bojani} talked about the alleged explosion and that the Serbian Radical Party members planted the explosive in a Hungarian school on Vojislav [e{elj’s orders. 88. Following Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s incessant threats and warnings that they would indict me for war crimes, I almost gave up and I hardly resisted his lies after that, looking forward to leaving the office of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution and prepared to sign whatever they come up with. Distribution of weapons in novi @ednik and Ba~ka Palanka 89. I remember saying to the Hague Tribunal investigators that in the summer of 1992 weapons were distributed in Novi @ednik to the reserve police force who had been mobilized, which was totally legitimate. There was no discrimination against the non-Serbian population during the mobilization and the distribution of weapons. 90. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi wrote in my statement whatever came to his mind. He wrote that weapons were distributed to the Serbian Radical Party, the Socialist Party of Serbia and other persons exclusively of Serbian nationality. When we discussed this topic, Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that he had information that a number of Hungarian and Croatian policemen started handing in their resignation, and I am now stating that it was not true. 91. Paolo Pastore Stocchi made up the story that the SUP deployed snipers on a silo in Novi @ednik and allegedly they intimidated citizens because the snipers were pointing at the Hungarian villages ^antavir and Orum. 92. I did not witness the distribution of weapons to the reserve police force and I do not know how these weapons got to Novi @ednik, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi said that it had to be written in my statement that I was there in person and that I saw how the weapons were distributed to the SRS and the SPS /Socialist Party of Serbia/ members. Pressure, Blackmail, intimidation and Bribery 93. During my first meeting with the Hague Tribunal investigators in July 2002, investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi mainly asked questions and gave answers himself, entering the answers into my statement. Whenever I tried to resist, he would tell me that they had not yet decided whether I would be indicted for war crimes. Even though I was sure that I did not do anything against the Geneva Convention, I was afraid that they might find at least two witnesses who could falsely accuse me.
142

94. Paolo Pastore Stocchi threatened me with an indictment for war crimes and from time to time offered a move to a third country, a new identity and financial support for me and my family. 95. I remember being invited in November 2002 to the office of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution in Belgrade and that I talked to prosecutor Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro at the time. 96. When Geoffrey Nice read my statement of July 2002, he said it was good and that they now had irrefutable facts for the indictment against Vojislav [e{elj for joint criminal enterprise. He threatened that I must not change my statement during the testimony, and insisted that I add new lies and confirm that I heard from Zdravko Abramovi} and Jovo Ostoji} that Vojislav [e{elj and Mihalj Kertes went to Ba~ka Palanka in 1991 and distributed weapons to the Serbs. 97. I remember that during my conversation with Daniel Saxon in The Hague, he told me he would take me to the courtroom as a witness for the Prosecution against Slobodan Milo{evi} and that it was not sufficient to tell the judges that someone had told me so, but that I needed to say I had seen it with my own eyes. When I told prosecutor Daniel Saxon that I had nothing to do with Milo{evi}, he replied: “You will, you’ll see.” 98. During a break, when I went out for a cigarette, Daniel Saxon came up to me and said in the presence of investigator Hildegard that they had some video clips confirming his assumption and that I had no reason to fear anything because Vojislav [e{elj and Slobodan Milo{evi} would never get out of prison. 99. Fearing the indictment with which they incessantly threatened me, I agreed to confirm it even though I have never seen [e{elj, Kertes, Zdravko Abramovi} or Jovo Ostoji} together anywhere, not even in Ba~ka Palanka. 100. When I met Geoffrey Nice in Belgrade in November 2002, he told me that he had information that the army dispatched weapons to Novi @ednik through the MUP and that weapons were distributed to the Serbian Radical Party members. He claimed that the distribution was carried out by SRS members Milan Stojanovi} and \or|ija Leki}. I knew nothing about this, but on the orders of Geoffrey Nice I had to say I was familiar with it, but that the weapons were distributed without my knowledge. 101. The meeting with Geoffrey Nice and Vladimir D`uro in 2002 lasted one day, after which I returned home to Silba{. 102. At the end of 2002, one or several unidentified persons fired several shots with automatic weapons at my house in Silba{ during the night, but no one was injured. The following day I found 15 casings outside the house and immediately called the Victims and Witnesses Unit and told them about the incident. 103. Since no one knew that I was in contact with representatives of the Hague Tribunal Office of the Prosecutor, I suspected that it was them and our police who staged the incident to put additional pressure on me and intimidate me. 104. The incident made me more frightened and that is why I contacted the Victims and Witnesses Unit, and they came several hours later. They enquired about the incident and in the end took my passport and the passport of my spouse. 105. Several days later, Andrea from the Victims and Witnesses Unit telephoned and said that they would move me and my ex-wife to a safe place on 9 January 2003.
143

106. On 9 January 2003, Andrea came with another employee to my home in Silba{. They told us to take only the bare necessities and get ready for the journey fast. We did as we were told and got ready quickly, got into a van which waited for us, carrying only our personal effects, and went to an unknown destination. After an hour of driving, they took us to a hotel where we spent the night and the next day we continued on the way to Belgrade airport. They took all our documents at Belgrade airport and told us not to say anything, they would deal with everything at the passport control. When we landed two hours later, Andrea told us that we were in The Hague. My spouse and I realized at that moment that we had been kidnapped and transported outside the Serbian border without our knowledge or the knowledge of the Serbian authorities, i.e. the police. 107. Employees of the Victims and Witnesses Unit of the Hague Tribunal, Andrea and a Brit, I think his name was Bob, took us to a flat in a place called Zoetermeer. 108. Only at that moment Andrea told us that we were safe and gave us 300400 euros each for food. The Hague Tribunal would cover all the other expenses. 109. Before they left us, Andrea and Bob told us not to draw too much attention to ourselves, adding that we would receive about 700-800 euros per person each month, but that we could not return to Serbia. 110. The next day they brought us our new documents, i.e. health insurance cards with new identities. From then onwards I was no longer Miodrag Lukovac but Bojan Kuvalo, and my ex-wife was Marija Kuvalo. 111. Paolo Pastore Stocchi came to see us after the employees of the Victims and Witnesses had left. He told me: If you do not confirm the statement you have given us, you will bear the consequences, answer for the crimes and be in prison together with Milo{evi} and [e{elj.” I told Stocchi that it was not my statement but his and that sooner or later he would be made accountable for forgery. Paolo Pastore Stocchi just laughed ironically and said: “We have information that they are looking for you in Serbia to kill you, so there is no going back for you.” I am not sure whether it was Andrea or Paolo Pastore Stocchi who told me that there were many officials of the Serbian state security in Holland who would be looking for me to kill me since I allegedly know a great deal as I was a policeman. 112. I spent about a year in Holland and in this period they changed my identity and accommodation twice. 113. Shortly before moving to the second location, Paolo Pastore Stocchi came to see us and I was surprised to hear him say that I was to be a witness for the Prosecution against Slobodan Milo{evi}. He said he would soon start to prepare me for the testimony, and once again said that I would have to stick to the statement I had given in Belgrade. 114. Representatives of the Hague Tribunal Office of the Prosecutor sometimes tried to win my favor in a nice way. They promised, were I to fulfill their requests, that I would be given permanent residence in a country of my choice, a flat, employment, a new identity for me and my family, financial support and free health care. However, if I did not agree to cooperate and accuse Milo{evi} and [e{elj, I would be held criminally responsible for war crimes and end up in prison. 115. After such terrible daily threats I think that few people would resist and choose the worse option for them and their families.
144

Preparations for Testimony in the Trial of Slobodan Milo{evi} 116. I clearly remember all the suffering and agony I went through in April 2003 while being brainwashed daily for over a month in preparation for the testimony in the case of Slobodan Milo{evi}. About a dozen investigators and prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal questioned me, of whom Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Daniel Saxon, Reynaud Theunens and the German woman Hildegard excelled. Since I suffered from a toothache during these preparations, a doctor from The Hague gave me a valium injection and extracted five of my teeth, after which I was completely drowsy and incapable of giving any meaningful statement. 117. When the preparations started, they gave me a map of the former Yugoslavia and asked me to mark some of the hotbeds of clashes between the Serbs and Croats and between the Serbs and Muslims. They asked me to tell them which were the units and in what part of the front they were deployed. I told them that I do not have such extensive knowledge about the things which interest them. They showed me some documents, saying that they belonged to the Serbian Radical Party, and forced me to confirm their authenticity. The documents mainly referred to some orders issued by the chief of the Serbian Radical Party War Staff, Ljubi{a Petkovi}, whose signature and the party’s stamp I could not confirm as authentic, but I did it nonetheless. 118. I was stunned that I now had to confirm that Ljubi{a Petkovi} was the chief of the War Staff, and during the questioning Paolo Pastore Stocchi had asked me to confirm that the chief was Zoran Dra`ilovi}. 119. I never heard about Ljubi{a Petkovi} during the war, although he was a member of the Serbian Radical Party. I do not know what his duties were, and in particular I do not know what his signature is like, but due to the threats that I would be indicted for war crimes when I testify, I confirmed that I recognized his signature. 120. During the preparations for the testimony the prosecutors showed me photos of Ratko Mladi}, Milan Marti} and other politicians and army and police officers. Finally, they showed me photos of police generals \or|evi} and Luki} whom I saw for the first time then, and told me to memorize their faces well as I would need to identify them as persons who allegedly were in the War Staff office in Belgrade before I left for Skelane. 121. Since I was terrified that they would kill me, I agreed to give a false testimony in the case of Slobodan Milo{evi} and confirm whatever they asked me to. 122. Prosecutor Daniel Saxon told me to relax a little, not to worry about anything, and that if I testify well he will ensure that I be moved to a third country with all possible benefits. 123. I think that what I did is not moral, but I tried to justify it to myself – that I did it because I lost my job after an operation and was left without any means of supporting myself. If I add to it enormous pressure and threats that I could be indicted for the war crimes which I never committed, I had no other choice but to give a false testimony and save my skin at least until some better times come. 124. After my false testimony in the Milo{evi} case I obtained a new identity from the Tribunal, as well as a fully furnished flat of about 60 square metres in Norway, 4000 euros to buy everything I need and a garage. Shortly after I moved
145

to Norway I received a new personal identity card, a driving license, I bought a car, got a passport for all EU countries, but was also banned from entering Serbia and Montenegro. flight to Serbia from norway 125. I clearly remember that in the summer of 2005 Paolo Pastore Stocchi called me and told me that I had to go to The Hague from Norway to prepare for a testimony in the case of Vojislav [e{elj. 126. I had hardly any strength left in me, I had a guilty conscience because of my false testimony against Slobodan Milo{evi} and I knew I could not do this all over again against Vojislav [e{elj, so I decided to flee to Serbia despite the warnings that I was banned from returning there. 127. I fled to Serbia from Norway with only my personal effects, leaving behind everything I had received from the Hague Tribunal. 128. Despite all the problems I had at the border crossing due to a ban on entering Serbia and the risk about which I had been warned by employees of the Hague Tribunal Prosecution, I was happy to have returned to my homeland. 128. /number as printed/ I became familiar with the contents of my purported statement for the first time in Norway. I obtained the statement from a person in the translation service. Two years ago I saw my testimony before the Hague Tribunal in Milo{evi}s case in a book published by Nata{a Kandi}’s Humanitarian Law Centre. contacts with Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team 129. Since the Prosecution instilled so much fear in me, telling me that I would be in danger in Serbia, I kept a low profile on my arrival and followed the developments. When I was reassured that they had been lying to me, I contacted the team assisting in Vojislav [e{elj’s defense with the intention of telling them everything I had experienced from the Hague Tribunal Prosecution, and telling them that the Prosecution planned that I should falsely testify against Vojislav [e{elj. 130. I made the decision after meeting a friend from Novi Sad who is a member of the Serbian Radical Party and whom I asked to get me in touch with the defense team. 131. Petar Joji} called me about 10 days later, when I gave my first statement on all the circumstances about the contacts and the pressure, blackmail and intimidation I was subjected to by the Prosecution, especially by Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon. 132. I gave several statements to the defense team relating to my participation in the war of 1991. Since I assumed that I would have to appear as a witness in Vojislav [e{elj’s case, I told the defense team members that I wished to be a witness for Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. 133. I was also prepared to appear as a witness of the Trial Chamber as soon as the complicated heart operation was behind me, but the Trial Chamber did not heed my request to testify at my own risk, not even via a video link. 134. I regret that the Trial Chamber did not give me the opportunity to talk before the Serbian and world public about all the pressure, blackmail and intimidati146

on I had been subjected to by the Prosecution and due to which I had been forced to falsely testify against Slobodan Milo{evi}. The Trial Chamber did not give me the opportunity to correct the mistake I have had on my conscience for seven whole years. 135. I am not a member of the Serbian Radical Party, but I regularly follow Vojislav [e{elj’s trial in The Hague. Today I have a lot of friends among the Serbian Radical Party members and I never felt threatened despite the fact that they know that I testified in Milo{evi}’s case under codename C-047. 136. Over the last four years, whenever my health allowed it, I attended election campaign meetings of the Serbian Radical Party. I went to at least four rallies organized by the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj. I even spoke at some local rallies, I gave an interview to Pravda in which I disclosed my name and told the public about the pressure which the Hague Tribunal Prosecution exerted on me. Via a video link I addressed people in the meeting which the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj organized at the Sava Centre on 19 September 2010 and which was attended by about 7,000 people. I mentioned the code VS026 which had been assigned to me without my approval, as a witness in the proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj. 137. I consider all the statements which I gave to the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj to be public documents, and I gave my consent for them to be made public, used and published both in Serbia and before the Hague Tribunal. novi Sad, 10 December 2010 Statement given by: Miodrag lukovac /signed/

attachments: – copy of the interview to “Pravda” – copy of the statement from the video link on 19 September 2010 I personally read the statement in the Serbian language and in the Cyrillic script, which I gave to the members of the Expert Team assisting in the defense of Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal, Vjerica Radeta and Boris Aleksi}, and I am satisfied that it is the truth, and I have no objections to it. Witness /signed/ OV I No. 39207/2010 /stamp/ This is to certify that Miodrag Lukovac, Novi Sad, Du{ana Vasiljeva 30, in his capacity as person giving a statement, personal identity card No. 000848583/09 personally signed this document – acknowledged the signature on this document as his own. The identity of the above named was verified from: Personal identity cardpassport. The certification stamp duty of 230 dinars has been paid. The Lower Court, Novi Sad, 10 December 2010 Authorized official Dejan Mi}in /signed and stamped/
147

“Pravda”, 24 april 2008, pages 10-12 i will not give false evidence against [e{elj In a statement certified by the Novi Sad Municipal Court on 19 April 2008, Miodrag Lukovac described in detail the actions taken against him by prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal to make him give false evidence against Slobodan Milo{evi} and Vojislav [e{elj. “Pravda” publishes the statement of Miodrag Lukovac in full. nata{a Kandi} I, Miodrag Lukovac, son of Milo{, born in Sombor, Republic of Serbia, on 25 April 1962, personal identity card number 285998 issued by the Subotica SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, personal identification number 2504962810069, mechanical technician by profession, Serb, Orthodox Christian, resident in Novi Sad, speaker of Serbian. Since I personally feel the injustice meted out by the Hague Tribunal to Slobodan Milo{evi}, and now to Dr Vojislav [e{elj, the Serbian people and me, guided by my conscience and God’s justice I have decided to contact the Expert Team assisting in the defense of Dr Vojislav [e{elj and say how the injustice is meted out in The Hague. I contacted Petar Joji}, a member of the Expert Team, and hereby state the following: – I do not want to be nor will I be a false Prosecution witness before the Hague Tribunal against Dr Vojislav [e{elj under any circumstances, or against any Serb. I want the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, Dr Vojislav [e{elj and the Trial Chamber of the Hague Tribunal in charge of the Dr Vojislav [e{elj case to be informed of my decision. I also want the general public at home and abroad to be informed of my decision. I can be and want to be only a Defense witness for Dr Vojislav [e{elj. /photograph/ I was not able to give this statement earlier for justified reasons, since I was first kidnapped and taken to the Netherlands, transferred to Norway, and after that I was gravely ill. I had six operations on my internal abdominal organs, and I suffered a serious heart attack on 20 October 2007 and had to undergo open-heart surgery, which has left me in very poor health and I am not able to stand any physical or mental exertion. I have many medical documents about my state of health. In October 2002 Nata{a Kandi}’s secretary from the Humanitarian Law Centre called me to tell me that Nata{a Kandi} would come to me in the next few days. A few days later Nata{a Kandi} came to my place in Silba{ with a driver, who drove a red Zastava with Fond za humanitarno pravo /Humanitarian Law Centre/ on its side. When Nata{a Kandi} came into my apartment, she introduced herself, saying that she was from the Humanitarian Law Centre. We had not met before. /facsimile of the statement/ Dangerous threats At the beginning of the conversation Nata{a Kandi} told me that I had to cooperate with her, because if I refused to cooperate, I may be called to account before organs of the state. During the conversation, Nata{a Kandi} asked me whet148

her I had been in the Chetnik movement. Then she asked me whether I had been to the front, and where, and whether I knew Slobodan Milo{evi}, Vojislav [e{elj and Jovo Ostoji}. After the conversation, which lasted an hour, Nata{a Kandi} left my apartment but immediately informed me that attorney Olivera Frani~evi} from Novi Sad would contact me and I should go to see her. A couple of days later, a woman phoned me from this law firm and told me that a driver was coming to pick me up and drive me to the law firm for an interview. That is what happened; the driver took me to the law firm. As soon as I reached the building housing the law firm, I saw a jeep belonging to a foreign embassy and a man standing next to it. This man greeted me, but in English. We entered the building and went upstairs together to an office which had the sign Humanitarian Law Centre on the door. As I had told Nata{a Kandi} that I had lost my job and that I had no means to support myself, I thought that she was calling me about a job. However, when I came into the office, I saw Olivera and a man who introduced himself as Paolo Pastore Stocchi, his interpreter and Olivera’s secretary. Pastore Stocchi said that he was from the UN and that he wanted to speak with me about the front. I reacted immediately: what does an Italian have to do with us in Serbia? In a very rough and rude way he told me that I had to answer the questions he was going to ask. First he asked me whether I was Milorad Lukovac, a Chetnik commander from Subotica. As soon as I started talking with Stocchi, he asked me whether I knew Jovo Ostoji}, Maja Gojkovi}, Vojislav [e{elj and Slobodan Milo{evi}. I said that I knew some of them and knew others from the media. He asked me what each of them had done, where they had been, what their function had been and how well I knew them personally. First we talked in general and then he went on to ask questions about specific locations and fronts. At first I refused to talk about it, because there was no reason for me to talk about this, but Pastore threatened to have me arrested by our authorities and have me transferred to The Hague and that I would have to “sing” there and recall everything carefully. As I had undergone serious abdominal surgery, and I was holding on to my abdomen because I was in serious pain, Stocchi was so impertinent and persistent that he had already bought an abdominal support belt, probably at a pharmacy, and brought it to me, saying, “This will now make it easier for you!”. Realizing that I was being seriously threatened and that there was a danger of being arrested by the DOS /Democratic Opposition of Serbia/, and that I had already been wounded in the arm, I ended up in a very difficult and dangerous situation, in view of these two operations, one on my arm, the other on my abdomen. Scandalous Statement Pastore went on questioning me about the front, where I had been, what I had done, what I had seen, where Jovo Ostoji} had been, where Vojislav [e{elj would go, whether we had gone to the front, when we had been, what we had done and where we had been issued with weapons. Pastore both asked and answered the questions, to which I objected, but to no avail. Pastore continued asking questions and providing precise answers on my behalf, dictating everything for the record that was kept.
149

The interview lasted for about one hour, and Paolo Pastore Stocchi dictated for the record through the interpreter and only chose to enter into it what he said himself. When I said, what is this, what an outrage, Pastore replied that the Serbs are mafiosi. I said, and what do you call the Italians then, are they the mafia, and this caused a verbal exchange and a heated argument. This was how the interview ended. I must add that Pastore told me that he worked for Interpol, all with the aim of intimidating me and threatening that he could take me to The Hague. Pastore Stocchi ordered me to sign the statement which he had dictated himself, otherwise the Serbian authorities would arrest me and then he would interview me again, and I could also disappear without a trace. As I realized what sort of monsters and bullies I was dealing with, I was forced and compelled to sign the statement with that content although it was not my statement; it was simply a dictation of questions and answers provided solely by Pastore Stocchi. It is a perfect example of a forgery, because it is not my statement and Pastore Stocchi should be called to account for this. After this statement, Pastore Stocchi told me that I had to come to Belgrade for three days and that security organs would escort me and that I would be arrested unless I agreed to cooperate. After several days I received a telephone call from Belgrade and was told that a car would come to pick me up and that I would be absent from home for three days. I did not know where they were going to take me. A car with diplomatic number plates came. This driver took me from Silba{ to Belgrade, to Jevrema Gruji}a Street number 11, which was guarded by our police. When I entered the building, a policeman searched me. As far as I could tell he wore a UN uniform, because I recognized the markings. They led me into an office and Paolo Pastore, a woman called Andrea, who introduced herself as a security officer and a police officer from Interpol, and interpreter Dita were already there. From this large office we went into a small office, where a camera had been set up and turned on. Paolo Pastore, who only then told me that he was an investigator of the Hague Tribunal, and the interpreter went inside with me. The interview started again with various questions, and the questions and answers had been prepared in advance. They especially asked me about whom I knew, again Milo{evi} and [e{elj, about the Chetnik movement, whom I knew, where I had been, what I had done and where I had been at the front. Again I refused to answer those questions, but Pastore asked questions and answered them at the same time, mentioning names of people from the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ whom I did not know. nothing about [e{elj Since I have nothing to do with Vojislav [e{elj with regard to the front, with regard to anything concerning the SRS, because our volunteers did not go to the fronts independently, nor did they operate independently on the front. At the front our volunteers were under the command of the Territorial Defense and under the command of the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/. I never heard Dr Vojislav [e{elj say that Muslims and Croats should be killed: kill anything that moves, women, children, old women and men, children in cradles, dogs and cats, nothing must stay alive!
150

Paolo Pastore Stocchi said these words and presented this to me, and these are not my words. God forbid that I could ever even think, let alone say such a thing! I was continuously questioned in that building for three days. On the third day, Pastore Stocchi told me that somebody from the terrace had photographed me and recognized me and that a helicopter was corning to take me wherever he says, and I understood that they were going to transfer me to Bosnia. On the third day Richard Nice arrived. He also treated me badly, behaving like a sheriff, insulting and demeaning me. I was forced to sign the statement under duress and pressure, but I wish to point out that my health was very poor, since I had undergone operations, and I have medical records that confirm this. After spending three days in Dedinje, they took me back home by car, but gave me a telephone number which I was to call if there were any problems. /photograph/ One night in late 2002, somebody fired a burst from an automatic weapon outside my house in Silba{ and a bullet pierced a window in the hall but, fortunately, nobody was hurt. The following day I found about 15 bullet casings outside the house and I assume that it was done by the State Security to intimidate me. The day after this incident I called the number they had given me. An interpreter answered and I told them what was going on at my place. They told me to remain calm and that they would come. A few hours later Andrea came with an interpreter and we talked about it. Then they took me and my wife’s passports away with them. Transport to the netherlands As far as I remember, on 4 January 2003 Andrea called to tell me that she would come to me on 9 January and that I should be ready. On 9 January 2003 precisely, a van stopped outside my house and an unknown man who said that he was Finnish. They also said that my wife should get ready. Andrea ordered us to get into the van and go with them. We did not know where they were taking us. The van brought us to a hotel, where we were told that we would stay the night there and in the morning we would see what they intended to do with us next. The next day they woke us up early and instructed us to get ready. Once more the van took us in an unknown direction and when we were near Sur~in airport we saw that it was the airport in Sur~in. Andrea told us to keep quiet and that they would deal with everything. We remained silent and at one point they simply took us to an aero plane. We did not go through any customs or border formalities. We boarded the plane and it took off. We arrived at a foreign airport, I did not know where or why. We were only told that we were in the Netherlands. A car with diplomatic number plates was waiting for us at the airport and an interpreter was in the car. We drove for about one hour and arrived in a place called Zoetermeer. Andrea put us up in an apartment in a building, told us that we were now safe and secure and gave us about 300-400 euros in cash per person for food. At the same time she said that they would pay for our accommodation and all the expenses of our stay in the apartment. Neither I nor my wife had any documents. We were also told that there was no way back and that there were many intelligence officers from the Serbian DB /State Security/ who were going to look for me and kill me. We were told this by
151

both Andrea and an Englishman called, as far as I remember, Bob. We were also told that from that moment my wife and I were going to receive 700-800 euros a month in cash. I can freely state that my wife Marija and I were in effect kidnapped and abducted and escorted to the Netherlands by force without our consent and against our will. new identity The day after we arrived in the Netherlands and were put up in the apartment, Andrea came with an interpreter and they told me that they had decided that my name from now on would be Bojan Kuvalo and my wife would be Marija Kuvalo. We received health insurance cards in these names. Investigators of the Hague Tribunal then told me that I was the main witness in the proceedings against Dr Vojislav [e{elj for war crimes. I immediately told them that I did not know of any war crime or criminal offence committed by Dr Vojislav [e{elj. They replied, “You gave a statement and you will be held responsible”, adding that I would also be held responsible for crimes and spend time in prison together with [e{elj and Milo{evi}. I said to them, “You can stuff the statement, it is not my statement, it is Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s statement, because he wrote it and composed it, because he asked questions and answered them himself, for which he should be held criminally responsible.” I and my now ex-wife continued to live in the apartment. I went to see a doctor because of my serious state of health. Their doctor once asked the interpreter whether I was a Croat or a Muslim, and the interpreter said that I was a Serb, to which the doctor said: “Serves him right”. I spent more than a year in the Netherlands. At one point they moved me to another apartment in a small place near Leiden. While I was in the first apartment, unaware that I would be a witness against Slobodan Milo{evi}, investigators of the Hague Tribunal came to the apartment and told me that I was going to be a Prosecution witness in the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi} and that they would start with the preparations for the testimony in the next few days. I was astonished and surprised, /wanting to know/ what my connection with Slobodan Milo{evi} was, to which they replied, “You will see what connection you have, we will prepare you”. Trumped-up lies They tried in a nice way to win me over to cooperate with the investigators and accuse Slobodan Milo{evi} and Vojislav [e{elj of war crimes and if I refused to testify, I would be held criminally responsible in The Hague and end up in their prison. They prepared me by taking me every day from the place where I lived to the Hague Tribunal headquarters. They would bring me into a large room, I would sit on one side and on the other side, about a dozen people sat at the round table. Photographs of Karad`i}, Mladi} and other compatriots, Serbs accused of war crimes, hung on the office wall. I recall that attorney Saxon and their so-called experts came every day.
152

Most questions were asked by Paolo Pastore Stocchi, American Dan Saxon, a Canadian and others. The preparations went as follows: they would take a map of Yugoslavia which was on the table and my so-called statement which I do not acknowledge as my own, because they had constructed it in advance around some locations and some alleged events. They asked me specific questions about all the fronts which were situated and took place throughout Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija. They asked questions about which units and whose were at which front, who had sent them and who had commanded them. To that I replied in the negative, saying that I knew nothing about it. They would then give me documents, allegedly from the General Staff and from the Serbian Radical Party. I always replied in the negative, saying that I had no information and knew nothing about the documents. They constantly put pressure on me to agree to testify against Milo{evi} and [e{elj with such combinations and constructions as they put forward and devised. I had no choice. I felt like a sacrificial lamb and to avoid being liquidated, I had to agree to give false evidence and present facts which are not correct or true. This pressure and method of preparation went on continuously for a month and a half, so that I physically learnt their story by heart, which I had to reproduce and present in court. i ask for forgiveness My testimony in the proceedings against Slobodan Milo{evi} was a false testimony which I had to give under duress, blackmail and pressure and I still cannot get over the fact that it came to that. I want to go to his grave and ask him for forgiveness in the presence of a priest, because I am a believer, Orthodox Christian, Serb, and this will torment me until the day I die, but I did not want it, I was forced and brought into a situation that if I had not spoken and testified, they would have killed me, and they would have done it, as they surely did to Slobodan Milo{evi}. I still do not feel safe and secure in my country. Every day I live in fear of these so-called democrats, who are great friends of the Hague Tribunal, because the Hague Tribunal threatened me with the current authorities in Serbia. After the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}, I was transferred to another place and another apartment. I saw that the Hague Tribunal and the Prosecution had some documents from our security organs, the military and the police, most of which were forgeries. I also saw that documents used as evidence against Slobodan Milo{evi} did not correspond, because the same document had two different versions which the Prosecution manipulated, using the evidence as it suited them. After the trial of Slobodan Milo{evi}, both my wife’s father and mine died, but they did not let us go to their funerals, which represents an utter lack of humanity and disrespect for us and our parents. I remember that they told my wife and me, while we were in the Netherlands, that we could choose a third country where we could live and stay. But my ex-wife and I fought and tried to stay and go back home to Serbia. While we were in the Netherlands, my wife and I had no identity documents and had no chance to run away and go back home. Against our will and without our consent, investigators
153

of the Hague Tribunal – the victims and witnesses service, forced us to agree to go to Norway without allowing us an opportunity to choose a country. As we were in a hopeless situation, we had to accept Norway. asylum in norway In the second half of the year they told us to pack and took us by plane to Oslo, the capital of Norway. They transferred us from Oslo to a place called Asker og Baerum, where we were given an apartment. We were then told that we had been given political asylum and that we would not live like other asylum seekers in centers, but like Norwegian citizens. We were given new identities (first and last names) once more. My ex-wife and I were now called Nolan – Miodrag and Marija Nolan. We were given travel documents, a driving license and all documents like other Norwegian citizens. We received regular monthly payments for taxes and utilities, and this monthly salary was about 12,000 kroner per person. In May 2005 my wife and I agreed to separate and go our own ways. In mid-2005, Hague Tribunal investigator Paolo Pastore called me and told me that I had to go to The Hague to prepare to testify against Dr Vojislav [e{elj. I immediately contacted a doctor, told him about my health problems and said that I would not be able to travel or endure such preparations. The doctor even wrote a report on my health and concluded that I could not travel to The Hague or endure the preparations in this condition. A few days later Paolo Pastore called me again to The Hague. I said that I could not go to The Hague and that I had medical documentation about my health and that I would not be able to go for a couple of months until my condition was stable. As I wanted to go home, I even went through the preparations, despite the fact that I was constantly under PST /Nonvegian Secret Service/ police surveillance as if I were the greatest terrorist in the world, as we Serbs are generally viewed as a people. I bought a car and I had a travel document and a driving license. Return to Serbia In mid-September 2005, Paolo Pastore called me again, this time specifically ordering me to show up at the airport in Oslo on 10 October 2005, where two security officers would be waiting for me to take me from Oslo to The Hague by force, or they would come to my apartment to arrest me if I failed to appear at the airport in Oslo. My wife, who was in Serbia at the time, managed to send me by bus some clothes and a bank card which had some foreign currency on it. In the morning of 27 September that year I left my apartment, met the bus, took the clothes and the card and went back to the apartment. I had already packed my personal belongings in the apartment. I took them, locked the apartment, put the things in the car, started the car and set off through Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and BiH. To my great astonishment and disappointment, I travelled from Norway without any trouble or obstacles all the way to a border crossing between Serbia and Republika Srpska, on the Serbian side of the Ra~a crossing, I was arrested by our, Serbian police. They took me to the Sremska Mitrovica KPD /Pe154

nal and Correctional Facility/, where I spent the night, and then released me. I now live in Novi Sad, at the above address. What I can tell you is that I worked as a member of the police in Subotica and that I established my own detachment Jovan Nenad Crni – a Serbian Chetnik movement. It was in 1991, while I served in the internal affairs organs. The establishment of my own detachment has nothing to do with the SRS, its volunteers, the Serbian Chetnik Movement or Vojislav [e{elj. I want to state categorically that I never organized or led SRS volunteers to any front in Croatia, BiH or Kosovo and Metohija. Rallies in Subotica As for rallies organized by the Serbian Radical Party in Subotica where Dr. Vojislav [e{elj was a speaker, I can say that I did not attend any of the rallies in Subotica nor could I take part as a police officer because, according to the law in force at the time, police officers could not and were not allowed to have any involvement with political parties or any political affiliations. I myself did not hear nor was I told by anyone who was at the rally that Dr Vojislav [e{elj said that he would poke out the eyes of Croats with knives and forks. Nor did he say that we would kill all Croats and Hungarians, all non-Serbs, or that we would expel them. I never came across Dr. Vojislav [e{elj in @ednik. I never attended any meeting in Novi @ednik with Vojislav [e{elj, Jerinki}, Stojanovi} or anybody else. I have no information that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party or the Serbian Chetnik Movement were trained in Subotica. I never went to Belgrade to talk or meet with Dr Vojislav [e{elj, or anybody called Dra`ilovi} or Petkovi}. I would also like to add that I have no information that the Serbian Radical Party received any aid from any natural person or legal entity. I state under substantive and criminal liability that I am not aware that volunteer detachments killed Muslims, Croats or any other non-Serbs, or that Dr Vojislav [e{elj had ever ordered such a thing. I was never present nor do I have any knowledge of the Serbian Radical Party distributing weapons in Serbia to its members, sympathizers or anybody else. As for Hrtkovci, which is in Ruma municipality in Vojvodina, I do not know whether Dr Vojislav [e{elj held any rallies there, whether he ever went there. I am also not aware that anyone was expelled from there, killed there or had anything stolen. I have no idea if or when Dr Vojislav [e{elj went to Hrtkovci. I want to add that I did not see any non-Serbian houses in Subotica and Hrtkovci marked with a cross, nor did I ever hear that Dr Vojislav [e{elj had ordered explosive to be planted beneath the Catholic cathedral in Subotica. I never heard this from anyone. As for Hrtkovci, I want to say that I have never been in Hrtkovci, apart from driving through this village in my car in July 2007. As for planting explosive devices beneath a Hungarian school and the cathedral in Subotica, I only have official information, because I worked for the Subotica SUP at the time, but I have reliable information that neither Dr Vojislav [e{elj nor the Serbian Radical Party had anything to do with the planting of the explosives. I also want to say that Dr Vojislav [e{elj has nothing to do with Milan Jerinki}, a former chief of the Subotica SUP; Serbs, Vojislav [e{elj or the Serbian Radical Party never expelled, intimida155

ted, ethnically cleansed, killed, robbed or raped anyone in the AP /Autonomous Province/ of Vojvodina. I know that a Croat called Marinko Magda, who used to be a member of the Foreign Legion and was later a member of the Ustasha organization in Bajmok, shot and killed five Serbs, including a bedridden woman, who was shot in the head. This Croat, who was legionnaire and a member of the Ustasha organization, also killed three Serbs in Pali}, including a child. In order to avoid being tried and sentenced in Serbia, Marinko Magda fled to Hungary and we have information that he committed a triple murder there, which is why he is serving a prison sentence there. He committed these murders in Hungary in order to avoid being handed over to the Serbian authorities and given a sentence he deserves. Medication poisoning I would also like to say that I am not aware that the Serbian Radical Party had any command structure or chain of command. I have no knowledge of Serbian Radical Party volunteers from Vojvodina, from Northern Ba~ka District in particular, being transferred by buses to Bubanj Potok near Belgrade, nor that they went from Bubanj Potok to anywhere else, nor that they were given arms or uniforms in Bubanj Potok. As for Vukovar, during the war I never stayed or went to that territory, and I was only there in 1985 on official business when as a member of the national police I escorted a person to the court in Vukovar. I never went to Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina until 2005, when I passed through on my way back from Norway, but I did not stop in these parts on my way to Serbia. I must point out that they attempted to poison me with a medication called Trodon in the Netherlands and Norway. While I lived there I was given around 700 Trodon pills, which I did not take because I knew how harmful they were for me. They constantly gave me this medication, but I did not take it since I knew it would be dangerous for me. I would also like to mention that the American Dan Saxon, a Prosecution attorney, said that neither Slobodan Milo{evi} nor Vojislav [e{elj would leave the prison alive. Saxon told me this before Slobodan Milo{evi} died, and he also said many nasty, offensive and insulting things about Slobodan Milo{evi} and Dr Vojislav [e{elj. I give this statement voluntarily, without any coercion or threat and I consent to Dr Vojislav [e{elj using it for his defense before the Hague Tribunal.

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia Since 1991 witness Statement witness information Name: Gaji} Nickname/Alias: Aca
156

Address: Belgrade, Jelenka Mihajlovi}a Street No. 12 Telephone: Date of Birth: Belgrade Gender: Male Ethnic Origin: Serb Religion: Orthodox Current occupation: Unemployed Former occupation: Graphic engineer Language(s) spoken: Serbian, some English Language(s) written: (if different from spoken) Date of Interview: 12,13,14,15,16, 25 and 26 October 2010 in Belgrade Interviewer: Vjerica Radeta, lawyer Interpreter: Language(s) used in interview: Serbian Names of all persons present during interview(s):Vjerica Radeta, Dejan Mirovi}, MA Witness signature: /signed/ Initials of those present: /signed/ /signed/ witness Statement 1. My name is Aleksandar Gaji} and my nickname is Aca. I was born to father Nikola and mother Vera on 28 July 1962 in Belgrade, where I still reside at Jelenka Mihajlovi}a Street No. 12. My personal ID card No. X-328630 was issued by the Belgrade SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, personal identification number 2807962714046. I am a graphic engineer by occupation, currently unemployed. I am a father of two children, a Serb by nationality, an Orthodox, and a citizen of the Republic of Serbia. 2. I am giving this statement to Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi}, who are members of the Expert Team assisting in preparing the defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. 3. I made the decision to make this statement when I saw on the Serbian Radio and Television that a new indictment has been issued against Mr. Vojislav [e{elj for contempt of court. In the statement of reasons of the new indictment the Trial Chamber stated that Vojislav [e{elj had disclosed the identity of 11 protected witnesses in his book the title of which has not been revealed. 4. As I have read nearly all books published by Vojislav [e{elj, I concluded that the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal must have based its indictment for contempt of court on the book titled “Christine Dahl, the Hague Turkey Without Feathers” /O~erupana Ha{ka ]urka Kristina Dal/, as this is the only book that mentions some 20 names, one of which is my name. 5. I have been forewarned by Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi} of my obligation to speak the truth because I could also be charged with contempt of court if I failed to do so, and of the fact that the statement I am about to give could be used against me.
157

6. In this statement I will describe in detail all my activities as a volunteer during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 onward. I will describe, according to the best of my knowledge and recollection, what I have witnessed personally and what I have heard from others. I will also describe all my contacts with the representatives of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, and provide details about blackmail, threats and intimidation as well as bribery I was offered from investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi and prosecutor Daniel Saxon. I will also explain everything I said, although I didn’t know it at the time, what I know about certain events as well as why I have presented them differently. I will also note what has been added to my statement by the investigators without my knowledge, as well as the untruths I have deliberately told the investigators, either by mistake or because I was coerced and blackmailed. contacts with the office of the Prosecution 7. The Office of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal contacted me through protected witness VS-033, who testified as a witness for the Prosecution in the criminal proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj. Witness VS-033 falsely testified against Vojislav [e{elj, I know this because he was a schoolmate of mine and a friend of my family who had given my name and cell phone number to the investigators of the Hague Tribunal without my knowledge or permission. 8. I gave my first statement for the Hague Tribunal to investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi on 24 and 25 May and then on 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 June 2004. The interview with Mr. Stocchi took place in the ICTY Liaison Office in Belgrade at Jevrema Gruji}a Street No. 11. 9. During our first meeting, Paolo Pastore Stocchi first conducted an informal conversation with me in which he told me he was aware of my difficult family and financial situation and poor health. He said that all that could be taken care of if I agreed to be a witness for the Prosecution in criminal proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj. He emphasized that if I decided otherwise, I would continue to live in Serbia in poverty and poor health with no income. He also said there was a possibility that an indictment would be issued against me for the crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although this informal conversation was not recorded in my statement, it did scare me so that while I was giving my statement I felt the effect of Stocchi’s remark as I would that of a threat or coercion. 10. When investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi told me that he was well aware of my situation I realized that my friend and witness VS-033 in proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj had already told Stocchi everything there was to know about me and about the problems I had at the time. 11. It is true that at that time my family situation, health and financial circumstances were very difficult and that I was on the verge of poverty. In 1993 I divorced my wife and had to use the limited income I had to support my two underage children and my sick mother. To survive, I had to sell half of the house I was living in. My children have since come of age and found their own path in life, and I remained living with my mother who only has a small pension. 12. When I began giving my statement, investigator Stocchi did not tell me whether I was giving the statement as a witness or an accused. I gave the statement
158

without the presence of an attorney but do not remember whether the interview was recorded or not. I know that Dana Todorovi} acted as an interpreter. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi only told me that I was giving the statement for the purpose of prosecuting Vojislav [e{elj, but I did not actually understand what that meant. 13. I gave a total of three statements to the prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal. I gave my 2nd statement to Paolo Pastore Stocchi on 3 and 4 August 2005, and my 3rd statement to Stocchi and prosecutor Daniel Saxon on 14 and 19 June 2006. 14. My last contact with the prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal was on 20 November 2008, when Christine Dahl came to my house with police, something I will describe in detail further in this statement. 15. The first statement I gave to Stocchi in Serbian was read back to me from a laptop by interpreter Dana Todorovi}. After that they gave me a printed copy of my statement in Serbian and I signed it, although I did not read it, because I trusted them. 16. While taking my statement, Paolo Pastore Stocchi repeatedly told me to be careful and that whether or not I would be charged with war crimes or forgiven and awarded with a new identity, a transfer to a third country and financial support until the end of my life depended on the quality of my statement. He promised me that I would be able to take my two dogs with me and receive the best medical care possible, including surgery I needed at the time. 17. After asking all questions pertaining to my life prior to the conflict, investigator Stocchi moved on to questions related to the activities of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in 1990, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), the War Staff of the SRS and some other questions. [e{elj, Dra{kovi}, jovi} and the Serbian national Renewal, 1990 18. When I talked about the beginnings of organizing the multiparty system in Serbia in 1990, I made a mistake when I said that Vojislav [e{elj, Vuk Dra{kovi} and Mirko Jovi} established the Serbian National Renewal (SNO). I found out much later that Vojislav [e{elj never had anything to do with the Serbian National Renewal and that only after Vuk Dra{kovi} was expelled from the SNO, did he and Vojislav [e{elj form the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO). Because Vuk Dra{kovi} had great ambitions to be in charge, and for some other reasons I am unaware of, Vojislav [e{elj and Vuk Dra{kovi} went their separate ways. Since Vuk Dra{kovi} enjoyed the support of the regime at the time, it was hard to prove which party was the legal successor of the SPO. Although the majority of people on the Main Board supported Vojislav [e{elj, he did not want to fight over the ownership of the Serbian Renewal Movement and instead stepped out and formed the Serbian Chetnik Movement (S^P), which I joined right away. 19. When I talked about the people who were at the time active in the S^P, I made a mistake when I said that Vojin Vuleti}, one of the founders of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, committed suicide. I gave this misinformation to the investigators of the Hague Tribunal because it is what I heard from others. I later learned that Vojin Vuleti} was thrown out of the Serbian Radical Party in 2002 because he had embezzled party funds. I also learned that right after being thrown out of the
159

SRS he joined the Democratic Party (DS) and died of natural causes, namely stable angina. I got this accurate information from Vojin Vuleti}’s wife, who at that time worked at the same company as me. Today the information is also available on the Internet, and I am convinced that the family of deceased Vuleti} could also provide a pathologist’s report if necessary to prove it. Ve}e Vojvoda (The council of Military leaders) and 1991 20. I do not understand how my statement can include information that the Council of Military Leaders was founded in March 1991 as the supreme command of Chetnik units headed by Vojislav [e{elj, as well as that the Chairman of that Council was Mom~ilo \uji}, who was at that time residing in California, USA. When I gave my statement in 2004, I knew that there was only one Chetnik military leader whose name was Vojislav [e{elj. This is a well-known fact which confirms that there could not have been anything like a Council of Military Leaders. After Vojislav [e{elj, 18 other military leaders were granted the status of vojvoda /Serbian Chetnik term for military leader/ at a ceremony held at the Kne`ina monastery in Romanija in mid-May of 1993. This information can also be found in the records of the Serbian Radical Party as well as on the Internet. I remember well that we did not discuss the topic in 2004, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi had obviously included this misinformation in my statements from 2005 and 2006 without my knowledge. 21. When giving my statement in 2004, I told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that for a period of time I worked as a security guard on the premises of the SRS and the War Staff, and that I occasionally went outside the building as Ljubi{a Petkovi}’s personal escort. I never said that Zoran Ranki} and Branislav Vaki} from Ni{ were also Petkovi}’s bodyguards like me. When I talked to the investigators of the Hague Tribunal in 2006, and when they presented me with my alleged statement, I told them that I did not say anything to the above effect in 2004 because I knew that Zoran Ranki} was the deputy chief of the War Staff, and that Branislav Vaki} was a volunteer in Vukovar at the time. After my intervention and after reviewing some documentation showing that Zoran Ranki} had resigned from the position of deputy chief of the War Staff in mid-December of 1991 and a receipt confirming Branislav Vaki}’s participation in the war, the Prosecution revised this part of my statement. ljubi{a Petkovi} and contacts with the Serbian MuP (Ministry of the interior) and SDB (State Security Service) 22. When I talked about Ljubi{a Petkovi}, Paolo Pastore Stocchi showed me some newspaper articles and told me that Ljubi{a Petkovi} had been thrown out of the Serbian Radical Party due to some accusations that he had been collaborating with the State Security Service. I told them I knew this was the reason he had been expelled from the party but that I most certainly did not tell them that he was meeting with the representatives of the State Security Service in the federal MUP building because I knew that there was a lot of animosity between the MUP and the State Security Service. As far as I recall, the federal police was under the con160

trol of the Federal Prime Minister, Ante Markovi}, who was a Croat by nationality, and who worked hard on Croatia’s separation from the SFRY /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia/, while the police of the Republic of Serbia was under the control of the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. It is not true that Ljubi{a Petkovi} had asked me and a friend of mine called Milan Dobrilovi} to join the Red Berets on Mount Tara, and most definitely not in 1993. This was impossible since Milan Dobrilovi} had been expelled from the Serbian Radical Party in 1992 because of rally organizing, which he personally confirmed as a witness in The Hague, while Ljubi{a Petkovi} was not the chief of SRS War Staff in 1993, so he could not have had any authority at the time. 23. Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that my statement should include that the decision on sending volunteers to the front was made by Jovica Stani{i} and Franko Simatovi}. Although I knew this was not true I confirmed it because I was afraid of having an indictment issued against me. 24. Since I was afraid of a possible indictment, I supported my false statements with additional lies about things that Milan Dobrilovi} had supposedly told me. Although I knew that at the time there were no Red Berets I lied that I knew at least two volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party who had joined the Red Berets. I mentioned a man called Vojkan aka Pacov /the Rat/ and stated that he had gone to Republika Srpska, even though I knew that Republika Srpska did not exist at the time. I have never met volunteer Slavko Mi{i} from Umka, but I said in my statement that he was the commander of a group of volunteers in Western Slavonia and had been expelled from the Serbian Radical Party because of the crimes he committed. A review of available documentation shows clearly that no crimes have been committed in Western Slavonia or the territory under the command of Slavko Mi{i}, a member of the Oku~ani TO /territorial defense/, which I knew at the time but was told by Dobrilovi} to accuse Slavko Mi{i} of committing a crime because he was in a conflict with Radovan Nova~i}. 25. I know that the Serbian Radical Party and its War Staff did not collaborate with the police, and can testify to it in particular for the time I worked there as security. It is widely known that the Red Berets did not even exist at the time. 26. In one part of my statement when I talked about Vojislav [e{elj I claimed that he was on good terms with the army, the police and the State Security Service. I received this misinformation from a friend of mine called Milan Dobrilovi}, and the reason I passed it on to the Hague investigators is because I trusted Dobrilovi} at the time. 27. I have never seen Goran Had`i} on the premises of the Serbian Radical Party but I told the investigators that I did because I did not think there was anything wrong with that lie. 28. Milan Dobrilovi} told me in an intoxicated state that when I talk to the investigators I should tell them that he, Milan Dobrilovi}, had given to Ljubi{a Petkovi} certain documents that supposedly confirm Vojislav [e{elj’s involvement in the smuggling of weapons to Muslims and Croats. I did say it although I did not think it could be true since Milan Dobrilovi} could not have obtained those documents even if they existed.
161

Borovo Selo 29. When asked by investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi to describe events in Borovo Selo in early May 1991, I said that I had not been there, which is true, but I made a mistake when I said that the War Staff had been established at the time whose seat was in Ohridska Street in Belgrade. Today, based on available documentation, it can be easily verified that the War Staff was only established on 1 October 1991, and that in May 1991 the seat of the SRS was in Milutina Boji}a Street. Because of this, my statement that Vuka{in [o{ko}anin had visited Vojislav [e{elj in Ohridska Street in Belgrade and personally asked him for volunteers is also wrong. At the time I was not providing security at the War Staff or to Ljubi{a Petkovi}. 30. When I discussed Borovo Selo with Stocchi and Daniel Saxon in 2006, prosecutor Saxon inserted into my statement that SRS volunteers and units of the Du{an Silni detachment attacked Croatian policemen from an ambush. Since I did not know what the truth was and Daniel Saxon presented me with articles from Croatian newspapers which I believed, I agreed. Everything else that I stated about Borovo Selo was information I had received from other people. 31. I performed the duties of a security officer at Ohridska Street for a very short time but never at the old SRS address in Milutina Boji}a Street, where the party had its seat until September 1991. 32. In spite of knowing that the SRS did not lose a single volunteer in Borovo Selo, I told investigators that [e{elj did not want to see a widow who came to seek help. I only said this to see how investigators would react and whether they would offer me transfer to a third country since at that time I had no income. I remember well that only one volunteer was killed in Borovo Selo and that he belonged to Mirko Jovi}’s Serbian National Renewal. I do not remember his first name but I know for certain that his last name was Mili}. Vukovar 33. In response to investigator Stocchi’s question about my first visit to Vukovar, I mistakenly said that it took place in July and August of 1991. In July or August of 1991 I went to Borovo Selo and other places in the surrounding area with a group of friends who did not belong to the Serbian Radical Party or its crisis staff. Based on documentation available to The Hague Tribunal and the Office of the Prosecution it is easy to establish that the first group of SRS volunteers went to Vukovar in mid-October 1991. I have confused my visit to Borovo Selo, which had nothing to do with the SRS, with my visit to Vukovar, and have therefore stated that it was organized by the SRS and that we used four or five civilian buses. 34. As a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party I went to Vukovar for the first time in mid-October 1991. It was an organized visit and we used four or five civilian buses. The leader of that group was Zoran Ranki}, deputy chief of the War Staff. 35. A day or two after our arrival in Vukovar I recognized Radovan Stoji~i} aka Bad`a among the people there and immediately left SRS volunteers and joined his unit.
162

36. I have known Radovan Stoji~i} Bad`a since 1979, when I was 17 years old and he was a policeman in the area where I still reside. We have become close in the meantime because we saw each other regularly at Vatrogasni Dom where we both attended martial arts training. 37. Since I immediately abandoned the group I arrived with, I was never entered into the records of volunteers of the Leva Supoderica detachment to which we had been assigned. Among all the volunteers who arrived in Vukovar I was the only one who joined Radovan Stoji~i} Bad`a’s unit; I did not have a group of volunteers with me as I told the prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal. 38. When I joined the unit under the command of Radovan Stoji~i} Bad`a all my obligations toward the Serbian Radical Party ceased and I was aware that I would lose my status by leaving the unit to which I was assigned, and that I would no longer enjoy the protection of the Serbian Radical Party. People who belonged to the unit under Bad`a’s control, and which I voluntarily joined, were not allowed to have any party affiliation. 39. I remained in Vukovar until 19 or 20 November, before leaving to see my uncle in Darda, and finally returning to Belgrade on 23 November 1991. I mistakenly told investigator Stocchi that I remained in Vukovar until the end of December 1991. 40. During my stay in Vukovar I was able to see various groups and individuals, but do not know if they were volunteers or locals. There was a lot of misinformation in Vukovar about certain groups and individuals. I did not see him but Daniel Saxon told me during our interview in 2006 that Mirko Jovi} was also there with his Du{an Silni detachment, as were Beli Orlovi (The White Eagles) headed by Dragoslav Bokan and other units with the location of whose positions I am not familiar. I did not mention Mirko Jovi} or Dragoslav Bokan in 2004, but I believed Daniel Saxon and he put into my statement from 2006 that the two of them were in Vukovar. 41. I know for certain that all SRS volunteers belonged to the Leva Supoderica detachment but I do not know anything about their activities because our positions were in another part of town. 42. I heard from people I did not know that right before the beginning of the liberation of Vukovar @eljko Ra`natovi} Arkan had also arrived in Vukovar with a group which was not in the immediate vicinity of the Leva Supoderica detachment, so that they did not cooperate with the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party in the operations for the liberation of Vukovar. 43. During my questioning in 2004, Paolo Pastore Stocchi asked me if I knew Slobodan Milivojevi} aka Topola, and I replied that I knew him by sight because we had met in Vukovar two or three times. We were not friends and I have never talked to him. As far as I remember, Topola was already in Vukovar when I arrived with the first group of SRS volunteers from Belgrade. I do not know if he was open about his political affiliations but like everyone else he associated himself with the Chetniks. 44. When asked by investigator Stocchi whether I knew Milan Lan~u`anin aka Kameni, Slobodan Kati} or anyone with the nickname of Belgija, Spaske or
163

^i~a from Kru{evac, I said that those nicknames sound familiar but that I do not know anything about those men. I do not know which unit they belonged to. 45. Since Paolo Pastore Stocchi did not like my statement he threatened me that I had to be honest and confess to all the crimes I witnessed or else he would charge me with participation in those crimes. After this I became terrified because I believed that he could do something like that. It occurred to me that this was the War Crimes Tribunal we were talking about, which had been established by the United Nations Security Council, a body with the logistical support of the entire world, including our own treacherous DOS /Democratic Opposition of Serbia/ government. I believed they could arrest me anytime and send me to The Hague. I was less afraid for myself and more for my children and my sick mother. Since I knew that the Hague Tribunal could have me arrested overnight I decided to collaborate to save my life, thinking little about others I was accusing, and hoping secretly that my statement would never be used in any court proceedings. 46. After the system shut down in my head and fearing greatly for my life I told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that I had witnessed a man called Spaske committing a murder in Vukovar. In order to make my story as convincing as possible I even described the event. I said that Spaske had brought before me and some ten other soldiers a member of the National Guards Corps /ZNG/ who was 18 or 19 at the time and then shot him with an automatic rifle. After that ^i~a, who was probably from Kru{evac, went to the basement to cut the throat of another Croat. 47. I have never witnessed this incident because I have never met ^i~a from Kru{evac or a man with the nickname of Spaske, but I was familiar with their nicknames. I do not know which unit they belonged to or whether they were an independent group. I would like to add that members of a special unit like ours did not have any contact with the other units nor did we sleep close to them. 48. I also told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that the Leva Supoderica commander once arrived in our unit and asked a group of about ten volunteers to come with him to kill some prisoners, and that we refused, but that I had later heard from Topola that those prisoners had been killed. This is also a complete lie. First of all, Kameni did not have the authority to take us anywhere because we belonged to a special unit of the Serbian MUP, which had nothing to do with Territorial Defense. Secondly, the Leva Supoderica detachment was about 10 kilometers away from our unit. Thirdly, I told Stocchi that Kameni did not have access to the positions and the location of our unit. 49. The unit I belonged to was completely detached from all other units. We were positioned in a cornfield near Lu`ac, while the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party and the Leva Supoderica detachment were stationed near the Territorial Defense staff. 49. I told Paolo Pastore Stocchi in 2004 that Ljubi{a Petkovi} had appointed Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni to the position of commander of the Leva Supoderica detachment and that Ljubi{a Petkovi} and Vojislav [e{elj were directly responsible for the events in Vukovar. I do not know why I said that but it was not true. After giving my statement to the Office of the Prosecution in 2004, I learned that Milan Lan~u`anin was from Vukovar and that he belonged to the Serbian Democratic Party rather than the Serbian Radical Party. I also learned that he was appoin164

ted by the Vukovar Territorial Defense prior to the arrival of the first group of volunteers from Serbia, not by the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party or Ljubi{a Petkovi}. During the interview with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon in 2006 I corrected this mistake but I do not know if they entered the correction into the new statement because I have never seen any of the statements I gave to the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, even though I signed them. 50. During my questioning in 2004, investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi showed me the indictment issued by the Special War Crimes Tribunal of Belgrade for crimes committed at the Ov~ara farm in Vukovar. He showed me the names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes and told me they had recently been arrested. As I have heard about this in the media as well, I believe that some people from that list actually committed crimes. 51. Paolo Pastore Stocchi then began to put enormous pressure on me to describe events at Ov~ara and name the perpetrators. He told me that this was a test and that if I fail they would save me a chair next to [e{elj’s in The Hague. I took this threat so seriously that I lost my voice for a moment and began to think quickly about how to get out of that situation. 52. Since I did not know anything about Ov~ara until 1995, and was aware that Slobodan Milivojevi} aka Topola had been killed in a car accident, I tried to provide some second-hand knowledge by saying that Topola had told me about it and in this way at least partially satisfy investigator Stocchi and save my own skin. 53. Milan Dobrilovi}, who was never in Vukovar, told me that Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni, commander of Leva Supoderica detachment, and some volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party who were in his unit, committed the crimes at Ov~ara. I again mentioned the same people who I said participated in the alleged murder of a Croat because I did not know anybody else. I told investigator Stocchi that I heard this from Topola but that was not true. The trial for war crimes that had been committed in Vukovar was held at the Special Belgrade Tribunal, and it was established with a final verdict that none of the SRS volunteers were responsible for them. 54. I named Topola, Belgija, Kameni, Spaske, ^i~a from Vinkovci and ^i~a from Kru{evac as the perpetrators of Ov~ara crimes. Stocchi told me he had information that a man called Milan Buli} from Novi Sad and Nada Kalaba from [id participated in those crimes. I assumed his information was accurate and agreed that they add it to my statement. 55. When discussing Vukovar and Ov~ara, I stated at one point that Topola was convicted by a Bosnian court for war crimes and the murder of 87 people in Zvornik when he was a volunteer of the SRS. This is not true, but I heard it from Milan Dobrilovi} and repeated it during my interview with the investigators, even though they did not ask me about it. I later learned that Topola was arrested on 29 July 1992 and that criminal proceedings against him have been discontinued due to lack of evidence. He was released from detention immediately, and I heard in the media that an investigation for establishing responsibility for crimes in Zvornik has been going on for years at the Special Tribunal in Belgrade, and that Topola was not one of the suspects. This information can be verified in the court records of the Special Tribunal in Belgrade, as well as with the Bijeljina Public Security Service, which arrested and questioned Topola on 3 August 1992.
165

56. I have never had any immediate knowledge of the possible contacts between Ljubi{a Petkovi} and the chief and deputy chief of the Vukovar Territorial Defense, nor did I know that they had been appointed to those positions by Petkovi}. I also heard these untruths from Milan Dobrilovi}, and I believed him at the time because we were friends. I later realized that he was deliberately lying to me in order to get even with some people. He wanted to create an association between Ljubi{a Petkovi} and the DB /state security/ of Serbia and link him to war crimes. I am convinced that he was doing it to harm Vojislav [e{elj because he had come to an arrangement with the Hague Tribunal. 57. For my statement to appear as convincing as possible I told investigators that I had stolen from the office of Ljubi{a Petkovi} some confidential military documents with words “military secret” or “strictly confidential” printed at the top. I did this at the urging of Milan Dobrilovi} even though I knew that he had stolen those documents from Colonel Jovan Trbojevi} in Western Slavonia. He gave me the documents and told me to hand them over to Paolo Pastore Stocchi and tell him I had stolen them from the office of Ljubi{a Petkovi} or rather the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. Dobrilovi} told me that he had many other documents like this, which he had buried in the ground, and was planning to use when he testifies as a witness for the Prosecution at the trial against Vojislav [e{elj in The Hague. I am not familiar with the contents of those documents because I have never read them. [e{elj in Vukovar 58. When 1 spoke with investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi in 2004 about Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Vukovar, I said that it was in September or October of 1991. However, in 2006 Daniel Saxon showed me some video recordings and said that the visit had been on 13 November 1991, and I confirmed that. I also said that volunteers, the Territorial Defense and reservists of the Yugoslav People’s Army had been assembled, that [e{elj had been given a report and that I was in that formation and only about 15 metres distant from [e{elj. I said that during Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Vukovar volunteers sang nationalist songs for [e{elj and that he met with Slavko Dokmanovi} in Vukovar, and that I heard from others that he had passed by the bodies of dead Croats. It is true that I did not see [e{elj in Vukovar and so I could not have heard whether he yelled at our group because we had not completed the task of expelling Croats. I made up the whole story because of my fear of being indicted. jagodnjak 59. After the liberation of Vukovar on November 20 or 21 I went to visit my relatives in Darda. That is a village between Jagodnjak and Beli Manastir. I did not go there as a volunteer but for a day or two to rest and to visit my relatives. I returned to Belgrade on 23 November 1991. 60. Everything that I told Stocchi in connection with Jagodnjak is pure fantasy. I stated that the Serbian Radical Party sent me with a group of around 25 to 30 volunteers to Jagodnjak in March or April of 1992, where I allegedly stayed around a month. I picturesquely described an incident that did not happen, becau166

se I believed that with lies I would escape their threats and pressures. I told Stocchi that immediately before our arrival a Croatian sabotage unit had raided the Gypsy settlement in Darda and massacred the Gypsies, killing a large number of civilians. To this day I do not know how I managed to make all that up. Zvornik and Skelani 61. I have never been to Zvornik or Skelani before, and I said that to Paolo Pastore Stocchi. Everything I said concerning Zvornik and Skelani was based on disinformation that I had received from Dobrilovi}, which I also told Stocchi. 62. When in 2004 I spoke with Stocchi, he did not mention to me that Vojislav [e{elj had visited Mali Zvornik in March or April of 1992, but Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon examined me concerning this in 2006. Although I said that I had not been present, they insisted that I at least tell what I heard from others. As I was ready to comply with all their demands, I concocted a story that I had heard this from Zoran Ranki}, Branislav Maksimovi}, Miroslav Vukovi} ^ele and others who had allegedly been present and heard [e{elj say that we would fight against the Muslims. I am sure that such a rally was not held in 1992 because it would have been very dangerous. 63. When I spoke with Stocchi in 2004 I said that a group of volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party went to Zvornik a few days before Zvornik was liberated. At that time I was not at the War Staff and I did not know who went to Zvornik, but once when Milan Dobrilovi} was drunk he told me that among others Predrag Milojevi} Kinez, Marko Ljuboja, \or|e [o{i}, Belgija and Topola had been in Zvornik and that their commander had been Vojin Vu~kovi} @u}a. Later I found out that some of these people had actually been in that area and that they had gone there on their own initiative. Some of them joined a unit of the SNO whose positions were at Snagovo, and some joined the @uta Osa /Yellow Wasps/ unit, which had nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party. I knew that Vojin Vu~kovi} @u}a was expelled from the Serbian Radical Party in September of 1991, and that Zoran Ranki} left the Serbian Radical Party in mid-December of 1991. Despite this I myself connected them to the Serbian Radical Party because I was required to do so by investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi, who presented me with some documents, alleged statements by other witnesses and newspaper articles. I did not look at anything of what Stocchi showed me because I was already ready to sign anything he wanted me to, only to get myself out of their clutches. 64. In 2004 I told Paolo Pastore Stocchi that I had never been in Zvornik and that I did not personally know about any possible crimes in Zvornik, but that I had heard some unverified stories as well as information from the public media. I lied and said that I had heard from Topola that volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party and the @uta Osa unit had killed a large number of Muslims in Zvornik and committed other crimes in the ^elopek cultural centre, in the brick kiln, at the Ekonomija farm and in the Technical School, as well as that a camp for women had existed in Zvornik in which one of the guards had been my neighbor Branislav Maksimovi} Brzi. Topola had never told me what I stated, that he, some ^i~a and Kinez, who had not even been in Zvornik, had competed to see who would cut the throats of the most people. I told this monstrous lie because Paolo Pastore Stocchi
167

informed me that they had information that I had cut the throats of some Muslims in Tesli} and that they would look the other way if I testified that [e{elj’s men had committed crimes in Zvornik. At that moment I did not see any other way out and so, fearing an indictment, I said that after Zvornik had been liberated those volunteers came to the War Staff to celebrate and bragged to [e{elj, Petkovi}, Dra`ilovi} and other volunteers about how many Muslims they had killed. Although that was not true, I said that [e{elj had not reacted to their stories, that he left quickly and that Ljubi{a Petkovi} had stayed with them, that they then had some drinks and dispersed. 65. I was never in Skelani nor do I have any information about what happened there. I assume that not a single war crime occurred there and that not even they /the Hague investigators/ had anything to impute to Vojislav [e{elj and the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, and so they did not ask me many questions concerning Skelani. They only asked when and how many volunteers had been sent to Skelani. I had no information about that, but I nevertheless said that I remembered one case when without the knowledge of Ljubi{a Petkovi} I took from the War Staff a document of the Ministry of Defense of Republika Srpska of 3 February 1993 that was allegedly needed by one volunteer from the Serbian Radical Party so he could get some assistance from the state. The event that I fabricated concerned a member of the Army of Republika Srpska, the Roma Vladimir ^omor, who had been in Skelani and who had personally given me his military record booklet so I could help him enter certain data into the military record booklet. I did not steal any documents from the office of the War Staff, and I certainly could not have stolen anything from Ljubi{a Petkovi}’s office because at that time he was not even the chief of the War Staff. Tesli} and Te{anj 66. In August of 1992 I went with a few friends as a volunteer to the area of the Tesli} municipality. My departure to Tesli} had nothing whatsoever to do with the Serbian Radical Party, and could not because the Serbian Radical Party, as far as I am aware, never sent volunteers to that area and there certainly is no proof that there were any volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party there. I lied and said that my friends and I were sent to Tesli} as volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party and that we joined the Tesli} Brigade there of the Army of Republika Srpska, out of fear that the ICTY or the Serbian government would accuse me of participating in the activities of paramilitary formations. My fear was greater because of the fact that I had commanded that group. In the statement that I gave to investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi in 2004, I did not say that Topola later joined my group, but the investigator insisted on that, and at that time I was accepting everything he requested of me. It is interesting that he was not interested in whether Topola came himself, who sent him and how he knew that we were already in Tesli}. Although I stressed to Stocchi several times that I only saw Topola in Vukovar in passing and that I never spoke with him, he stubbornly insisted that I mention him at all the locations where I had been and to state that he went as a volunteer from the Serbian Radical Party. I do not know why that was so important for him, and at that time I did not even think about it, but only confirmed everything they wanted me to. I
168

also told investigator Stocchi that all Serbian forces had been placed under the command of the Army of Republika Srpska, including the state security of the Republic of Serbia and the Red Berets, whom I claim were not in that area. Paolo Pastore Stocchi insisted that I confirm that those Serbian services were also in Tesli} only on account of the fact that I had said that Radovan Stoji~i} Bad`a had made it possible for me to pass through the border crossing. 67. In describing the event concerning an ambush of a group of VRS soldiers by the Mujahidin on Mt. Crni Vrh in Tesli}, I said that volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party were there too, but I knew that they were not, which is what I claim today. When I described that event I alleged that in a wood we found three VRS soldiers whom the Mujahidin had decapitated, and that Vlado Vida~ek was still alive and that he was later transported to Belgrade and operated on at the Urgent Care Clinic, where he died on December 7, 1992. 68. My friend Milan Dobrilovi} and I visited Vlado Vida~ek in the Urgent Care Clinic and just before his death he told us to throw a grenade at the mosque in Belgrade as an act of revenge. We did that in order to fulfill his last wish. 69. In the hunt for Mujahidin that we organized in the area of Te{anj we managed to free three of our volunteers, whereas the Mujahidin took the others to Te{anj and killed them. However, I told Stocchi that when we liberated Te{anj we found 10 to 15 mutilated bodies of dead soldiers and that those were bodies of volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party. This of course was not true; I knew that then because the Serbian Radical Party never had volunteers in that area. 70. When I spoke with investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi in 2004, Stocchi did not mention a visit by Vojislav [e{elj to positions held by the Serbian volunteers and the Army of Republika Srpska in Sarajevo. However, when I spoke with Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon in 2006, they demanded that I confirm this. Daniel Saxon showed me some newspaper reports about an alleged visit by Vojislav [e{elj to Sarajevo and requested that I confirm that [e{elj had visited positions on Mount Grbavica, at Zlad{te, in Vrbanji Most, Vogo{}a, Had`i}i and Ilija{. I did not know anything about that visit, and I did not even read those newspaper articles that Saxon had with him but I nevertheless confirmed that it was true. The fact that I did not know about all those places and had no idea whether they had been under Serbian control at the time tells best just how nonsensical that statement of mine was. Vojkovi}i 71. In November of 1992 I went with my friend at the time Milan Dobrilovi} to Vojkovi}i in Republika Srpska. He asked me to keep him company, to go with him as he visited his family. Namely, Milan Dobrilovi}’s father had been born in Crna Rijeka near Vojkovi}i, in the immediate vicinity of Sokolac, and Dobrilovi} had family there. Although I had been in Vojkovi}i on a private visit, I told Stocchi that I had gone there in a group of fifteen volunteers and that the Serbian Radical Party had sent us. I also said that Topola was with us for a while and that he came with the volunteers Brne, Vujo Zlatar and Boro Kraji{nik. This was an outand-out lie. First, Milan Dobrilovi} had been expelled from the Serbian Radical Party earlier because of a political rally he had organized in Belgrade, and so the169

re was no way he could have been a volunteer from the Serbian Radical Party. I mentioned Topola as I did every time because Paolo Pastore Stocchi requested that I do so. Besides that, I had said that Brne, Zlatar and Kraji{nik were volunteers from the Serbian Radical Party and that they had allegedly gone to Vojkovi}i with Topola, but I knew that this was not true and that it was impossible for the simple reason that none of them was from Serbia, which can be easily verified. The Mosque in Belgrade 72. Dobrilovi} and I returned from Vojkovi}i at the end of November 1992, and during our personal visit to Vojkovi}i there was no fighting. Immediately after our arrival in Belgrade, we visited Vlada Vida~ek at the Urgent Care Clinic. He told us that his last wish was for the two of us to throw a grenade at the mosque in Belgrade. One day after our visit the nurse told us that Vlada had passed away. Milan Dobrilovi} and I were shaken by his death and decided to make his wish come true. 73. In the afternoon of 8 December 1992, Milan Dobrilovi} came to my house in an intoxicated state and with an explosive device he had already prepared. From my house we headed toward the mosque and at around 18.00 hours threw the explosive in the yard of the Belgrade mosque. The glass windows of the mosque shattered as a result of the explosion and several houses around the mosque sustained minor damage. 74. The police did not arrest us for this crime until 19 April 1996. 75. At the trial in Belgrade we defended ourselves by falsely testifying that Vojislav [e{elj allegedly found out about the operation and sent a member of the Serbian Radical Party Vojkan @ivkovi} to tell us that we should cause a massacre of Muslims with the operation and kill all those who survive the explosion, and that we would have enough time to run away because our police would not intervene timely. I repeated this previously conceived lie before investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi as well when he was taking my statement in 2004. I know for certain that Vojislav [e{elj would never allow such a crime and would most definitely not ask for such a favor Milan Dobrilovi}, an expelled member of the party. Sarajevo 76. I went to Sarajevo in the fall of 1993 with a few of my friends who lived in Sarajevo or the surrounding area and were in Belgrade at the time. I knew some people in Sarajevo so that was another reason I went there. In Sarajevo we joined Slavko Aleksi}’s unit, which had positions at the Jewish cemetery. I remained there until November 1993, when I returned to Belgrade and never went back to the battlefield. Not a single crime occurred during my stay in Sarajevo. Milan Dobrilovi} and Topola were not with me at the time, and I did not have the opportunity to meet Branislav Gavrilovi} Brne nor did I know a man whose surname was Pandurevi}. 77. In 2004 I told investigator Stocchi a story about my stay in Sarajevo which I had made up and which is completely inaccurate. I told him that I went in a group of about ten volunteers and that the SRS/S^P had organized our trip. I also told him that I had been assigned to the unit of military leader Slavko Aleksi}. As abo170

ut the other locations I told him that I saw Brne, Topola, Boro Kraji{nik and Vujo Zlatar in Sarajevo. 78. There was a girl from Sarajevo in Slavko Aleksi}’s unit whose name was Milena or Ana—I do not remember her surname—whose father had been killed by the Muslims while she herself had been raped multiple times at the beginning of the war. She had been captured and exchanged and was at that time a soldier of exemplary conduct. Since I lived under constant fear of the Hague indictment, I invented a horrifying story about this 25-year-old girl. I said that she was a sniper, that she killed Muslims with great precision regardless of whether they were civilians or soldiers. I also told Stocchi that once when I was with her she had killed five civilian men from a distance of about 150 to 200 meters. I described the girl as a cold-blooded murderer with no feelings or emotions, who was pale and had a look full of hatred. To this day I cannot figure out why I invented this lie and what I wanted to prove with it besides earning Stocchi’s trust and discouraging him from indicting me. Srpske Kuke 79. I told investigator Stocchi many untruths about my stay in Sarajevo. I told him that we received orders to participate in the operation of liberating Srpske Kuke, a hamlet between Sarajevo and Podromanija. I lied again that Branislav Gavrilovi} Brne, Topola and his group, \or|e [o{i} aka ^i~a, a man with the nickname of A`daja, and a group from Pazova in Serbia that had allegedly been sent by Dragoslav Bokan and Vinko Pandurevi}, participated in the operation. Proof that I lied lies in the fact that A`daja was killed as early as 1992 during the breakthrough from Snagovo to Kalesija near Zvornik, which I learned later. It is true that I have never seen Vinko Pandurevi} in my life, nor did I know his function, so I said that he was the MUP commander of Republika Srpska from Sokolac, while in fact he was a military officer with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and commander of the Zvornik Brigade of the Army of Republika Srpska. This information is publicly verifiable. 80. I told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi that Bokan’s group was called the White Eagles /Beli Orlovi/ and that Goran Stojkovi} from the suburbs of Belgrade was commander of that who had promised each volunteer if the operation was successful that he was going to give them a Golf II vehicle from the Sarajevo TAS factory. I also said that after Bokan failed to keep his promise after one successful operation the members of the White Eagles wanted to kill him so he escaped to Belgrade. None of this was true because the White Eagles were not stationed in the same area as me. I know that Milan Dobrilovi} had contacts with the White Eagles and their commander Goran Stojkovi} because he was a volunteer in the unit and received 1,000 German marks and a Golf car from the Sarajevo TAS factory as compensation. Dobrilovi} stated the same thing when he testified as a witness before the Hague Tribunal. 81. When describing the alleged attack on Srpske Kuke I lied to Paolo Pastore Stocchi that the attack had begun as usual with artillery fire after which we attempted to encircle the area, and that my group, the White Eagles and Topola’s group participated in the operation. I also said that during the operation Vinko Pan171

durevi} prevented a group of civilians, mostly elderly men, women and children, from leaving the territory where the fighting was going on. 82. Although I knew that there was no attack on Srpske Kuke, I told investigator Stocchi that after our units entered the village the local Serbs who survived the attack told Topola that a Muslim hodja had raped innocent and underage Serbian girls between 12 and 16 years of age, and that he had been captured with 10 or 15 Muslims civilians and that somebody had asked Vinko Pandurevi} what to do with them. Pandurevi} allegedly said that they could do what they wanted with them because the operation was a success. I said that local Serbs from the village demanded revenge, eye for an eye, and that Slavko Aleksi}, Brne and Topola first forced the locals to leave and then brought the prisoners from the basement and took them somewhere where they were shot without any witnesses. This crime never happened, but for my story to be as convincing as possible I said that I had watched the execution from a distance of about 100 meters and that Goran Stojkovi} and I complained because we thought it would have been better if the prisoners had been exchanged. 83. Of all the crimes I invented and told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi because of my fear of indictment, the most monstrous one is the alleged murder of a Muslim hodja. I said that hodja was the only who was not killed right away and that he begged them to spare his life and that in return he would give them money and all three of his beautiful daughters. I claimed that Slavko Aleksi} and others present did not listen to his pleading but had found a rusty drill and sulphuric acid from a car battery which they had shown to everybody. We allegedly assumed what would happen, so my group and Goran Stojkovi}’s group argued with Aleksi} and others. I said that there was nearly an exchange of fire but that we withdrew in the end. I also described that hodja continued to beg for his life but that they did not listen and instead tied him to a chair. I used my imagination when describing how four men held the hodja while Topola drilled holes in his knees with the rusty drill before they poured sulphuric acid over his wounds. Since the hodja fainted several times they had to pour water over him to bring him back so that they could keep torturing him. They forced him to sing Chetnik songs in that state and at the end killed him. I said that I did not see the murder but heard a shot from a distance of 20 to 30 meters. An ambulance arrived a few minutes later to transport the wounded, and a civilian truck took the Muslims who had been shot, including the hodja, in an unknown direction. 84. The monstrous crime I described has never happened anywhere and I now claim that I have never witnessed such a crime. I would like to explain why I invented all those crimes and stated them in my statement when I was under the influence of threats made by the investigators. A few years before my meeting with the investigators, Slobodan Milivojevi} aka Topola was the best man of a married couple from Belgrade, and that couple was on friendly terms with Milan Dobrilovi}. Milan Dobrilovi} and Topola often saw each other and socialized at the apartment of Topola’s friends. Since Dobrilovi} was often drunk and unable to control his actions he often caused trouble. During one social gathering at the apartment of the couple who chose Topola as their best man Dobrilovi} was drunk and very rude and started shamelessly hitting on the wife in the presence of the husband. All
172

those present warned Dobrilovi} several times to stop his rude behavior but failed to make him see reason. Topola was so agitated that he stood up and slapped Dobrilovi} so hard that he fainted. After this Dobrilovi} told me he would like to get even with Topola because he insulted him. Milan Dobrilovi} was a neighbor of mine, a schoolmate and a friend with whom I spent most of my time so he had a strong influence on me at the time. I trusted him unconditionally and in a way envied him although I know today that I shouldn’t have. He asked me to help him in getting even with Topola and demanded that I accuse him of the most heinous crimes before the investigators. He personally helped me invent the most monstrous crimes. Since he came up with the idea of connecting Topola to [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party I realized that he actually wanted to accuse [e{elj of war crimes through me. 85. From the statement I gave to The Hague Tribunal it is obvious that I always mentioned Topola when talking about locations at which I was present and that I mostly identified him as the perpetrator. Milan Dobrilovi} had a pathologic hatred for Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party, so at his request I always stated that Topola and I went to the battlefield as volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. I did not recognize the trap I had caught myself in and was not aware that I was accusing Vojislav [e{elj with the false statements I made under the influence of Milan Dobrilovi}—this was never my intention. 86. When I described Branislav Gavrilovi} aka Brne to investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi I said that he was a man of the same height as me, around 175 centimeters, somewhat on the heavy side, and that his eyes made one think that he was constantly on drugs. When I first saw him at a public rally organized by the Serbian Radical Party in 2007, I was shocked. He was around 2 meters tall, weighed about 130 kg and it was clear at first glance that someone like him could never have taken drugs. 87. I told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi that after all the events in Zvornik and Skelani in 1992 a horrible massacre was committed against the Muslim population of Bratunac and that the soldiers of the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ and the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party killed most men between the age of 18 and 60. I told Stocchi that I was not in Bratunac personally but had obtained this information from Topola, who had allegedly been sent to Bratunac with the Chetnik volunteers by the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. I claimed that Topola had discussed the massacre at the War Staff with Ljubi{a Petkovi}, who immediately informed [e{elj about it. 88. I did not get the misinformation I stated about Bratunac from Topola but from Milan Dobrilovi}. I later learned that no Muslims were massacred in Bratunac, only Serbs. It is a fact that 3,276 Serbs were killed in Bratunac and the surrounding villages, and at that time the JNA was not in the area because it had withdrawn on 19 May 1992. war Booty 89. When I gave my statement to Paolo Pastore Stocchi in 2004 I did not have any information regarding some kind of war booty received by the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. I heard from Stocchi that during 1992 war booty con173

sisting of some 500 kg of silver had arrived at the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party from Vi{egrad, and that that silver had to be distributed among the members of the Serbian Radical Party. Stocchi also told me that a conflict broke out between Petkovi} and [e{elj over the distribution of war booty, which resulted in Petkovi}’s exclusion from the Serbian Radical Party. When we discussed the topic Stocchi showed me some newspapers articles and told me that some volunteers had brought a safe with valuables to the War Staff. However, when I talked to Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon in 2006, Stocchi changed the name of the town from which war booty had supposedly come and said that it was Mostar, not Vi{egrad. I confirmed what Stocchi and Saxon had told me although I had no information about the alleged war booty and did not frequent the premises of the Serbian Radical Party at the time because I was stationed in Tesli} from August 1992 to November 1992 and after that in Sarajevo. To be honest, I did not find the story about war booty convincing then either, because I knew that inspections at border crossings with Serbia were very rigorous and that it would have been impossible to bring 500 kg of silver to Serbia, and especially a safe with valuables. The fact that Ljubi{a Petkovi} was expelled from the Serbian Radical Party in November 1993 rather than in 1992 also proves that the above is not true, and the reason was not any kind of war booty but a suspicion that he collaborated with state security service of the Republic of Serbia. This is verifiable information since the media covered Petkovi}’s expulsion from the party. camp in Mali Zvornik 90. As far as I know there were no prisons in the territory of the Republic of Serbia, or rather there were no camps, to use the official term of the Hague Tribunal, which would have been exclusively used to detain Muslims or Croats. In the building where Milan Dobrilovi} lived and where his mother lives now, also lived our mutual friend Branislav Maksimovi} aka Brzi who is in my statement referred as Slobodan for reasons I am not familiar with. In one conversation Dobrilovi} told me in confidence that he wanted to get even with Maksimovi} but he did not tell me why. I heard from my neighbors that someone had reported Branislav Maksimovi} to the police and that during the search of his apartment they had found a hand grenade. I think Dobrilovi} was responsible for that. 91. I wanted to do Milan Dobrilovi} a favor so I agreed, at his insistence, to accuse Branislav Maksimovi} aka Brzi. Following Dobrilovi}’s instructions, during the interview with the Hague investigators I stated lies about my then friend Maksimovi} and accused him of raping Muslim women. Since I did not know where Maksimovi} was a volunteer I agreed to say that the crimes occurred in Fo~a and Vi{egrad, because that is what Paolo Pastore Stocchi suggested to me in 2004. However, in 2006, when it was established that there were no volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party in Vi{egrad or Fo~a, Stocchi and Saxon told me the rapes had actually occurred in Mali Zvornik and that Maksimovi} was a volunteer in that area. I confirmed this lie just as I confirmed all other lies, although I knew that this was impossible since Mali Zvornik was in Serbia. 92. Following Milan Dobrilovi}’s instructions, I stated that in 1992 and 1993 Branislav Maksimovi} Brzi often spent time on the premises of the Serbian Radi174

cal Party bragging about being a guard at a prison camp in the area of Mali Zvornik where rapes of Muslim women were going on and in which he also participated. I told Stocchi that Vojislav [e{elj, Ljubi{a Petkovi} and 20 or 30 other volunteers participated in those crimes, and that [e{elj and Petkovi} did nothing to punish Maksimovi}. I later learned that in May 1992 Branislav Maksimovi} Brzi was a volunteer in the White Eagles and that they held positions in Snagovo in the immediate vicinity of Zvornik, so that he never did spend any time in Mali Zvornik. I now claim that no prison, camp or detention unit ever existed in Mali Zvornik, and that this fact can easily be verified with the competent authorities of the Republic of Serbia. The camp in Sombor 93. I have falsely confirmed that in addition to the camp in Mali Zvornik there was also a camp in Sombor. This was another fantasy invented by Dobrilovi} who wanted Vojislav [e{elj to be accused of mistreatment, torture and inhumane treatment of civilians of Croat nationality. 94. In 2004 I told investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi that I obtained information in 1994 that there was a camp for Croatian civilians in Sombor where they were physically mistreated and tortured. Following Milan Dobrilovi}’s instructions, I identified Jovo Ostoji} as the camp commander. To make this lie as convincing as possible I told Stocchi that members of the Vukovar territorial defense and the Serbian Radical Party were members of the command of that camp, and that I had seen Jovo Ostoji} several times on the premises of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade talking to [e{elj and Petkovi}. In order to convince investigators of the existence of a camp in Sombor, I said that I had seen a report on TV about the mistreatment of prisoners at that fictitious Sombor camp and even interviews with victims who had survived the torture. Everything I stated regarding the so-called camp in Sombor was a lie and can be verified with competent authorities of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Republic of Serbia. When I discussed this and other topics with the investigator and the prosecutor, I was unfortunately unaware how much harm my statements would cause to other people. I was only concerned with my own well-being and the irrational need to indulge Milan Dobrilovi} who urged me to do all this and kept persuading me that the only way to protect myself from being imprisoned for many years was to falsely accuse others. other Questions 95. Since I only spent a short time as a security officer at the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party and as Ljubi{a Petkovi}’s personal escort, I hereby state that MUP buses were never used to transport volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party to what were war-stricken areas at the time. I am certain that civilian buses also transported us when I went to Vukovar. I told the Prosecution that we were occasionally transported by MUP buses but that was a mistake. 96. I have never seen Ljubi{a Petkovi} in the company of officers of state security, and I knew that MUP special units were then stationed on the River Tara. I have no proof that Ljubi{a Petkovi} participated in war operations with state security service or that he had any kind of agreement about sending volunteers to the
175

ranks of the Serbian MUP. In this respect, at Milan Dobrilovi}’s insistence, I gave investigators a false statement although I did not quite understand why Dobrilovi} was insisting on it when he had known Petkovi} for more than 40 years. 97. I had a distant relative who was employed by the Serbian DB /state security/ in Kosovo and Metohija, but I had not seen him in a while and would not be able to recognize him now. I used the existence of this relative to tell Stocchi that I had heard from him about the Serbian Radical Party sending volunteers to the front through the Serbian DB as well as that [e{elj and Milo{evi} got along perfectly and that their conflict was only a farce for the public. I also lied that my relative advised me to take some compromising material from the premises of the Serbian Radical Party for my personal safety so that I could later use it to blackmail them, and that Slobodan Jovi}, former chairman of the Belgrade city board, collaborated with the Serbian DB. I also said that Jovi}’s wife, Paska Jovi}, had been killed by members of the Serbian Radical Party in her bookstore. This misinformation had been used for manipulation purposes in the media, and it seemed logical to me to believe Dobrilovi} when he told me about it—it never occurred to me that he actually wanted to accuse [e{elj personally of that murder. 98. I told investigator Stocchi that we did not have to return the weapons that had been assigned to us by the Serbian Radical Party after our arrival at the front. This was obviously not true as nobody in Serbia was able to say that they had a receipt for return of weapons. Besides, body searches were mandatory at border crossings to Serbia. hrtkovci 99. As for the expulsion of non-Serbian population from Hrtkovci, I have absolutely no knowledge of what went on there. I lied that I was at the seat of the Serbian Radical Party in Ohridska Street in Belgrade when Ostoja Sibin~i} and Rade ^akmak had allegedly come to seek approval from Vojislav [e{elj to expel Croats and ethnic Hungarians. The best example of Paolo Pastore Stocchi’s work methods is that I gave him a letter stating that I was on the battlefield from 21 November 1991 until 1 August 1992, and quite clearly could not have been on the premises of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade in May 1992. Despite this undeniable evidence that I physically could not have been in Belgrade, Stocchi accepted as accurate my fictitious story about the people I had seen at the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. christine Dahl 100. My last meeting with the investigators of the Hague Tribunal was on 20 November 2008, when Christine Dahl, the prosecutor in the case against Vojislav [e{elj, demanded to speak to me. She called me on the phone with the help of an interpreter and I told her that I was barely able to move, was bed-ridden and recovering from surgery after being discharged from the hospital about ten days before. But she was persistent and wanted us to meet at all cost and said that she would come to my house with the police if I could not come to their office. I told her she could come and that she did not need police because she would see for herself that I had undergone a surgery and was unable to walk. Already at 13.00 hours se176

veral police Jeep vehicles were parked in front of my house, and as my neighbors told me later, they blocked the entire street I live on within a matter of minutes. The street was blocked for both vehicles and pedestrians. At the beginning and the end of the street was an intervention police vehicle with several police officers, and there were three police and two civilian vehicles with more than 30 police officers in uniforms and civilian clothes in front of my house. Three police officers in civilian clothes entered my house and introduced themselves as Christine Dahl’s personal security. They searched the entire house and after that Christine Dahl entered my room and found me in bed. She insisted that I should observe the existing court order and appear before the Hague Tribunal and said that she would postpone my testimony for as many days as I needed to recover from surgery. We talked for about half an hour and the conversation was recorded by means of a dictaphone. Paolo Pastore Stocchi was with Christine Dahl, and after they turned off the dictaphone he became very arrogant and rude. He had a deep frown on his face and cynically asked me where were the Radicals /members of the Serbian Radical Party/ now, where was Petar Joji}, where were the reporters, and finally told me in a threatening manner that I ought to know what fate awaits me. nata{a Kandi} 101. I first met Nata{a Kandi}, the director of the Human Rights Fund in the summer of 2007. I went to that meeting with my then friend Milan Dobrilovi}. I also met her once in her apartment and three or four times in the offices of the foundation. I never went to see her on my own, Milan Dobrilovi} was with me every time and he was also the person who put me in touch with her. I remember that she telephoned Christine Dahl in my presence and offered to be a witness for the Prosecution who would testify about Hrtkovci in the case against Vojislav [e{elj. I believe she did this to persuade me to agree to be a witness for the Prosecution in the case against [e{elj. Nata{a Kandi} was interested in all crimes she had heard of, mostly Vukovar and Zvornik. She concluded that the Serbian Radical Party, Vojislav [e{elj and Ljubi{a Petkovi} were responsible for all crimes that had been committed during the war. I did not notice whether she had a statement I had given to the Prosecution in front of her, but I realized from her questions that she was very familiar with it. Every time we met, Nata{a Kandi} pressured me and tried to persuade me to accuse Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party of the most serious war crimes. My last meeting with Nata{a Kandi} took place in December 2007. Blackmail, Pressure, Threats and Bribery by the /hague/ Prosecutors 102. From the first day I came into contact with the representatives of the Office of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Daniel Saxon exerted pressure on me, blackmailed and intimidated me and tried to bribe me into agreeing to be a witness for the Prosecution and charging Vojislav [e{elj with war crimes before the International Tribunal in The Hague. In 2004 I was only in contact with Stocchi, and in 2006 with him and Daniel Saxon. I cannot remember when they threatened me the most, that is at which point they exerted the greatest pressure on me. In truth, their threats were constant, and they would utter
177

them when we were discussing crimes that had been committed in Ov~ara, Zvornik, Sarajevo and other places, when they insisted that I should confirm that Slobodan Milivojevi} aka Topola was present during all those incidents and personally participated in them. I tried to disagree with some of their claims, but they immediately warned me and threatened me that an indictment for contempt of court would be issued against me or that I would be charged with crimes I allegedly committed near Tesli} in Bosnia. Occasionally they tried to put me at ease by being friendly to me and by telling me not to worry because they were prepared to give up on the indictment against me, were willing to solve my financial problems, change my identity, move me to a third country of my choice where I would be financially secure and cover the cost of my medical treatment. They even went as far as to suggest that I could take my two dogs with me. In 2006 Daniel Saxon told me that they could have me transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina even before my testimony, and that a large house was already waiting for me on Mount Ilid`a near Sarajevo and another smaller one for my dogs. After testifying I would be able to go to a foreign country of my choice. At that time, probably due to my difficult situation, I believed their stories, and only later realized that they were only using me and taking advantage of my situation as well as my obvious fear of possible imprisonment. contacts with the Defense Team 103. When I realized I was only a toy in the hands of the Prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal and when I no longer had to tolerate blackmail, threats and pressures from the officers of the Prosecution or my former friend Milan Dobrilovi}, I decided to seek the legal assistance of attorneys who are working on Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. I wanted to tell them the truth about the conduct of Hague prosecutors and inform them that I want to be a witness for the defense at the trial of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. 104. I first met with the team preparing the defense of Vojislav [e{elj in midJanuary 2008, at my personal request. Already on 17 January 2008, I wrote a statement and had it certified at the 4th Municipal Court in Belgrade, informing the Defense Team and the Trial Chamber deliberating in the case against Vojislav [e{elj that I had given a statement to the Prosecution under duress, under threat, under coercion and under blackmail, and that I wanted to be a witness for defense not the Prosecution at the trial against Vojislav [e{elj. 105. I met with the members of the team preparing the defense of Vojislav [e{elj multiple times, and I gave them a statement on several occasions. Vojislav [e{elj used those statements with my permission in proceedings before the Hague Tribunal. Most of my contacts with the Team were with attorney Petar Joji}. I claim that I have never experienced any unpleasantness, have never been threatened or blackmailed by members of the Defense Team, the Serbian Radical Party or a third person. 106. For all statements I had given to [e{elj’s expert defense team I also gave a permission to be used publicly before the Hague Tribunal, as well as before the world public. Prior to contacting the Defense Team, I decided to testify in public before the Hague Tribunal as a witness for defense with my full name. All my
178

relatives, friends and acquaintances knew that the Hague Tribunal had assigned me a code name witness VS-034, because they planned for me to testify as a protected witness. Since I was persistent in my refusal to testify as a witness for the Prosecution against Vojislav [e{elj, the Tribunal decided to summon me as a witness of the trial chamber. This was acceptable to me because I believed that they would enable me to testify publicly under my full name and that I would finally be able to state the truth before the world and thus clear my name. I was scheduled to testify as a witness of the trial chamber on 30 March 2010, and I informed all my relatives, friends and acquaintances about it. I told all of them that I would testify in public and asked them to watch the recording of the trial session on Serbian Radio and Television because I was proud of myself, and also because I wanted to help the trial chamber unveil the truth and reach the right decision. Unfortunately, the trial chamber deprived me of my pleasure to testify publicly, and this statement is therefore the only way I can help unveil the truth about the abuse of power on the part of prosecutors from The Hague. 107. In all the statements I had given to the Defense Team I emphasized that I want to testify publicly as a witness for the defense of Vojislav [e{elj. I informed the Trial Chamber of my decision by fax on 21 January 2010. I am sorry that the Trial Chamber did not allow me the pleasure of testifying publicly even though I explicitly asked for it. I claim that there was no justified reason for them to deny my request to testify in public, because I have no reason to hide my identity. That would only make sense if I had agreed to the Prosecution’s blackmail to testify falsely against Vojislav [e{elj, but since I was prepared to speak the truth, I insisted to share it with the public, especially since a large number of people knew that I was witness VS-034 since I talked about it publicly. 108. Since I stopped socializing with Milan Dobrilovi}, my circle of friends has widened. I began to spend time with some members of the Serbian Radical Party, and have attended rallies and political gatherings with them, which were part of the election campaign or were intended to mark the anniversary of Vojislav [e{elj’s imprisonment in The Hague. I regularly attended scholarly gatherings organized by the Committee for the Defense of Vojislav [e{elj and promotions of [e{elj’s books. I twice spoke at the meetings of the Palilula Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade. I always introduced myself with my full name and explained that the Hague prosecutors had planned for me to testify under the code name VS-034, which I refused. My video-recorded statement was aired before 7,000 people at the Sava Centre in Belgrade on 19 September 2010. The gathering was dedicated to the abuse of witnesses by the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal in proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj and I personally attended that magnificent gathering. 109. I gave two interviews to the Pravda /Justice/ daily, on 9 and 18 April 2008. I gave both interviews under my full name and allowed myself to be photographed. In the interviews I discussed what kind of pressure, blackmail and threats the Prosecution of The Hague Tribunal used to force me to give a false testimony. The interviews I gave to Pravda were published before Vojislav [e{elj’s book “Christine Dahl, the Hague Turkey Without Feathers,” and it is therefore clear that Vojislav [e{elj did not disclose my identity in that or another book, because I have done so myself.
179

110. Since the public knows that [e{elj insists on the trial being open to the public, I knew that every statement I give to [e{elj’s defense team would be made public and I agreed to that. As a result, I consider all statements I have given or will give to the Defense Team public documents, and they can be used publicly and made public in any form. witness Background information 111. Milan Dobrilovi} and I are neighbors, we live in the same part of Belgrade, in Karaburma, only 100 meters away from each other as the crow flies. We attended the same elementary school, the Stevan Duki} elementary school in Karaburma. After completing elementary school we enrolled in the same high school, the 7th Belgrade grammar school. After the first two years of high school, I transferred to the school for graphic design and Milan Dobrilovi} to a school for civil engineering. After completing compulsory military training, we both got married and went our separate ways. But our address remained the same. We renewed our friendship and began to socialize a lot in 1990. In the middle of 1991 we started talking about going to the front as volunteers. I first went to Borovo Selo as a volunteer on my own initiative in July 1991, and Milan Dobrilovi} went to Western Slavonia in mid-October. We have never spent any time together on the front, except for a few days when we were privately visiting some relatives in Vojkovici, a village where his father was born. Although this was a war zone, there was no fighting there at the time of our visit. 112. During 1992 Milan Dobrilovi} organized a rally called “We are no war dogs,” at which he uttered certain accusations against the leadership of the Serbian Radical Party and Vojislav [e{elj, as a result of which he was expelled from the Serbian Radical Party. 113. After we stopped participating in the war, Dobrilovi} and I socialized more than before. It was at this point that I noticed that he often consumed large quantities of alcohol. Although I am an anti-alcoholic, this did not bother me at first, because Dobrilovi} was the only person I socialized with. He also began to demonstrate aggressive behavior more often when he was drunk and was often very unpleasant. 114. On his initiative, and after the death of our fellow soldier, on 8 December 1992, we threw an explosive device of small impact in the yard of the Bajrakli mosque in Belgrade. We also committed a number of other crimes which resulted in our arrest and sentencing in 1996. 115. In 1993, Dobrilovi}’s wife left him and I underwent divorce the same year. I remained alone with two young children and a sick mother. I could not go out much because of my children, and Dobrilovi}’s company was thus valuable to me. He helped me get over my divorce, which was otherwise difficult for me. 116. I now see that Milan Dobrilovi} was abusing our friendship because every day he would fill my heart with hatred toward the Serbian Radical Party and Vojislav [e{elj. He invented war crimes I have never heard of and accused Vojislav [e{elj of them, as well as the leadership of the Serbian Radical Party and the War Staff. I am not sure I believed everything he said, but he did have a strong influence on me.
180

117. Since he was the only person I socialized with and was helping me through some difficult times, I was prepared to do everything for him that he asked me to do. 118. I don’t recall how Dobrilovi} came into contact with the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, but I know that he was very happy about it. He acted as if he had won the lottery ticket and started persuading me to do the same. He told me the time had come for him to get even with all those who had wronged him, and urged me to start thinking the same way. Dobrilovi} gave his statements to the prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal in early May 2004, and it was at this time that he gave them my phone number. Paolo Pastore Stocchi immediately called me on the phone and I gave my statement in the second half of May 2004. 119. When Milan Dobrilovi} finished giving his statements to the prosecution he came to see me and told me that he resents Topola because he had slapped him some time ago and that we should wrongly accuse him of the most serious war crimes and that I should make some up if necessary. His accusations were mostly directed against Vojislav [e{elj, the Serbian Radical Party and Ljubi{a Petkovi}, and he would constantly repeat to me that we should do whatever it takes to put them behind bars. 120. He told me I would be crazy to refuse the conditions the Prosecution was offering because I would not get another chance to change this wretched life in Serbia. He was persistent in trying to persuade me that I would be able to resolve all my problems, especially medical and financial ones, by telling lies. 121. At the time I had already lost my job, had no income and my health was seriously compromised. In order to survive I had sold half of my house and was starting to wonder whether I did in fact have any future in Serbia. 122. I gave up when Paolo Pastore Stocchi reiterated everything Dobrilovi} had been telling me for days. So I listened to Milan Dobrilovi} and doubt that I was aware of the inhumane nature of my actions toward innocent people, and most likely did not dwell on it much. I accused all those that Milan Dobrilovi} had asked me to accuse. However, I could not find peace afterwards, was haunted by my actions for a long time and did not sleep well. When I was no longer able to endure the struggle with my conscience I summoned up the courage and in early 2008 went over to the Serbian Radical Party and told them the whole truth, because I am a Serb and an Orthodox after all. 123. I am prepared to undergo any questioning or tests, including a polygraph, to prove that everything I have said in this statement is true. As is the fact that I spent a maximum of 48 hours as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party before arriving in Vukovar, where I immediately joined the unit of Radovan Stoji~i} Bad`a. My visits to Borovo Selo, Tesli}, Sarajevo and Vojkovi}i have nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party. Slobodan Milivojevi} aka Topola was never with me in any kind of unit, not even anywhere in my immediate vicinity. I have never seen the other people I mentioned, i.e. Branislav Gavrilovi} Brne, Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni, Slavko Mi{i}, Belgija, ^i~a from Kru{evac, Vojkan @ivkovi}, Jova Ostoji} and Goran Stojkovi} anywhere at locations where I was present as a volunteer.
181

124. To make complete peace with myself I want Vojislav [e{elj to use this statement publicly in proceedings before the Hague Tribunal and it seems to me that this is the only way I can apologies to all those I have harmed by stating untruths in the statements I have given to the prosecutors of the Hague Tribunal by mistake and under threat, blackmail, and other forms of coercion. 125. I hereby enclose the copies of my interviews to prove that I have given them to the media under my full name and before the publication of the book “Christine Dahl, the Hague Turkey Without Feathers.” in Belgrade, 28 october 2010 Statement given by aleksandar gaji} /signed/

With my signature I hereby confirm that I have read this statement written in Serbian and that it contains everything I have stated before Vjerica Radeta and Dejan Mirovi}, who identified themselves as representatives of the Expert Team assisting in the preparation of defense of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. Signature /signed/ OV I No. 134735/2010 This is to certify that Aleksandar Gaji}, Belgrade, in the capacity of the person giving a Statement, ID No. X328630BGD, has signed the above document acknowledged his signature on the above document. The identity of the above-named was verified on the basis of: Personal ID - passport. Administrative fee was charged in the amount of din 710.00. First Lower Court in Belgrade Date: 29 October 2010 Authorized official: Jelena \umi} /signed and stamped/ Publication: “Pravda” Date: 9 April 2008 Headline: Nata{a Kandi} Recruited a Criminal Author/ Agency: Page: Subject: [e{elj Aleksandar Gaji}, a former member of a special police unit, speaks about VS 033, a false witness for the Tribunal nata{a Kandi} Recruited a criminal VS 033 attempted to convince his friend and comrade in arms to give false testimony and then to “go live where pretty black women are”. Aleksandar Gaji}, a future witness for the defense of Vojislav [e{elj before the ICTY and a former member of a special unit of the Serbian police, claims that the
182

director of the Human Rights Fund, Nata{a Kandi}, “made arrangements for the protected witness for the Prosecution VS-033 to receive personal papers and a passport despite the fact that he has been wanted for seven years for the illegal possession of weapons”. “VS-033 is my friend from childhood and was for a short time my comrade in arms on the Croatian battlefront. In his testimony before the Tribunal he told a series of untruths”, says the forty-eight-year old Gaji}. The first contact with The hague “The contradictory statements that he made would not be told by a three-year old child. We have known each other since elementary school and we were nearly inseparable. It hurts me that this has happened. I also feel sorry for his children. Sometime around 2004 he contacted representatives of the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecution and gave them my telephone number. I had no idea. At first I did not want to talk to them, but I was interested in whether they were really interested in the truth about the crimes by both sides. I spoke with the prosecutors Daniel Saxon and later with Christine Dahl, but very quickly it became clear that they were only interested in charging volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party and [e{elj. That was their goal. The interview lasted more than ten hours, and several days in a row at that. They even told me the standard story for volunteers that I would be indicted too if I did not testify, but it didn’t work. I don’t even know today what my statement looks like. Christina Dahl flipped out last summer when I gave her a T-shirt with an image of Vojislav [e{elj on it and told her that I did not want to be a witness”, Gaji} told Pravda. The prosecution, according to his words, wouldn’t accept a negative answer. As the beginning of the trial of the president of the radicals drew near, the pressure was ever greater because of the lack of witnesses. insults at the Table “I had arguments with VS-033 about this the whole time. I have witnesses who will vouch for the fact that he said Who gives a fuck about [e{elj? Let’s fix his ass and go somewhere where black women live at my table. I think that at that time alcohol was already taking its toll on him. In the summer of last year he took me to Nata{a Kandi}. She has a very nice apartment near the Temple of Saint Sava and as far as I could tell she only lived with a cat. I could not understand why, but that woman pathologically hates [e{elj and considers him the greatest criminal to have ever walked the earth. That first meeting was strictly protocol. My friend VS-033 introduced me as a potential witness for the Prosecution and she visibly became enthusiastic. He even teased me later that she was hitting on me. Once she even invited us over to get some information so she could be a guest on some television show on an equal footing with Aleksandar Vu~i},” Gaji} tells with a smile. Nata{a Kandi} wanted to sit with the former special policeman and work out even the smallest details of his testimony, since he had nevertheless on 12 December last year received a summons to testify before the ICTY. The start of his testimony was scheduled for 10 January this year.
183

Documents for a wanted Man “She began to call me more and more often. VS-033 and I went to her place a few times. I stressed that I had never been with the volunteers and that I had no personal knowledge of their activities. She asked me about the role of some people and was interested in the Leva Supoderica detachment, but I had nothing to do with them; she was also interested in Veliki Zvornik, but I was not even here during the war. She said that she had reliable information and that I, as far as I could tell, needed only to confirm all that hearsay. I told her clearly that I did not wish to testify. VS-033 said the same idiotic things that he stated in his testimony last week,” Gaji} said. As VS-033 had been wanted for seven years for weapons possession, he requested help from Nata{a Kandi} to get his personal papers, claims Gaji}. The attorney for the Humanitarian Law Center went with him to the police and after someone’s intervention VS-033 received his papers. “Some time earlier he had even been detained because of the warrant for his arrest, but he was freed as soon as he called in the investigators. It had not even taken an hour,” Gaji} said, adding that the prosecution witness Goran Stopari} lived at her place for three months before he was transferred to The Hague. Blackmail and offers When the pressure became unbearable, he contacted the defense team of Vojislav [e{elj. “Up to the beginning of the trial everything was proper. Then the pressure was suddenly increased, various people would call and offer everything conceivable — from a new identity to material support to the end of my life. A team that protects witnesses even came to take me to Bosnia and Herzegovina. On January 17 I contacted [e{elj’s defense team and told them that I wanted to testify about these events. During the three months prior to his departure, VS-033 avoided contact with me. We met for the last time after the New Year when he had requested that Nata{a Kandi} provide transportation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, whence he later left for The Hague. After the first day of his testimony he sent me two text messages, although he was not allowed to do so. She also called me that day to ask whether I was watching the trial. I said I did not want to talk.” /Boxed texts:/ VS-033, Drunk he blew up a mosque and the wrong car Aleksandar Gaji}, together with VS-033, placed explosives on the Bajrakli Mosque, but after serving his prison term asked the head of the Islamic community for forgiveness. “I did that to honor a dead comrade on the battlefield. Later VS-033 wanted to blow up some Albanian’s car, but he was so drunk that he placed the explosives under the wrong vehicle. Serbia is my country and as a sincere nationalist I would never take sides against a Serb. I would not be able to leave my house for shame. I did everything with the ICTY on my own initiative. I worked on them expertly and conned them until I learned their intentions. No one from the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ had any idea that I existed until I contacted them.
184

The Prosecution is apparently investigating who revealed the identity of VS033 but after the first sentence they realized that that would be half of Karaburma and 90 percent of the volunteers, because he went around talking about everything.” Silly giving the icTY the Run-around In the presence of witnesses, VS-033 contacted ICTY investigators and claimed that he had seen Ratko Mladi}. “Once he reported to them that he had allegedly seen him at Ta{majdan. /Illegible/ police jumped on /illegible/ He laughed and told how Vojislav Ko{tunica and the head of the VBA at the time Svetko /Illegible/ were probably going crazy. Then he lied about seeing him at Top~ider. He lied when he reported that he called from my house because as you see the telephone is guarded by my /illegible/ dog Bad`a”, Gaji} said. “Pravda”, 18 april 2008 Special Unit Member Aleksandar Gaji} Detained After Talking to “Pravda” Thorn in Tribunal’s Side The inspector asked me if Vojislav [e{elj had anything to do with the bomb under Dejan Anastasijevi}’s window Planting DNA as Evidence The former special pointed out that there was a possibility of his DNA being used to plant evidence: – It is possible that they will try to plant this on me because it is their goal to discredit me as a witness and prevent me from defending [e{elj. Even in theory, I could not have done what they suspect me of. They probably also want to take revenge on me because I exposed them. On the eve of my arrest I received information that all kinds of thing lay in store for me because of my testimony, and you see what happened. I became a thorn in their side. former member of a special police unit, aleksandar gaji}, was detained only hours after Pravda made public the fact that he had refused to give false evidence against Vojislav [e{elj before the hague Tribunal! Gaji} (40) exposed the lies of protected witness VS-033 for our paper last week. According to his assertions, the director of the Humanitarian Law Centre, Nata{a Kandi}, deliberately recruited false witnesses and those with a criminal past to testify against the leader of the Radicals. “I simply became a thorn in their side. Now they want to discredit me because I exposed them. They want to prevent me from testifying for [e{elj. It is known who ordered this,” said Gaji}, and went on to describe the search: “It was around 10 o’clock when someone started shouting ’Gaji}’. I walked out and saw three jeeps of the intervention police and 15 men with guns at the ready in front of the yard. One of them started ranting: ’Don’t move and take the dogs away!’ I said: ’How can I tie the dogs if I do not move!’ As soon as I had tied my dog Psiho /Psycho/, one of them caught me by surprise and pushed me against the car. They were allegedly afraid I might have explosive on me”, said Gaji}.
185

According to him, during the search of the house, the police wreaked complete havoc. “The amount of hatred was incredible. It was not a search, it was ransacking. They pulled my wardrobe apart and broke my heater, while the inspector kept provoking me: ’Do you have objections to the work of the police? What kind of a warrior are you if you don’t have weapons?’ You cannot imagine what my house looked like. My entire family was mistreated. They tossed the search warrant on the ground only as we were leaving.” After the ransacking, Gaji} was taken away for a lie detector test and it was only then that he found out why he was taken into custody. “I am suspected of having to do with over 40 explosions over the past year. All of a sudden?! I have not even stolen an egg. There was a decent guy who asked me the questions: Did I lay the explosive near the Be`anija FK /Football Club/ stadium and the Zodijak cafe? Did I know who put a bomb under the window of journalist Dejan Anastasijevi} and did VS-033 and I have anything to do with it? I realized what they actually wanted when the inspector of the Fifth department, which deals with terrorism, asked me if [e{elj had anything to do with it”, said Gaji} Publication: “Velika Srbija” Date: october 2010 Headline: Stop to the Hague Tyranny! Author / Agency: The Hague Tribunal was founded to judge only the Serbs, forcing people to give false testimony /.../ problematic people who have no family, no address, and who are likely to thwart the investigation. How can one fear that a professor, a family man, an eminent person, a wellknown person will not appear before the court and has therefore been held in custody for seven years without solid grounds. A breach of this standard alone would satisfy the condition for a request for Vojislav [e{elj’s release from custody. I don’t believe that our mass media present an objective picture of what has been happening here. The 5th of October only confirmed the fact that the Big Brother is present in this area and has control of everything on earth, from the mass media to the Tribunal. This is why I insist that this committee try to inform about this meeting, from the volume and dignity of the people present to what has been said here, in order to give an accurate presentation of the opinion of the professional community, namely, that the trial is over and that, in a way, the countdown of closing arguments has started, arguments to which both the Prosecution and the court are entitled. If it fails to do so, and the Tribunal is already giving importance to some minor, banal, secondary trials and neglecting this one, the Tribunal should be disqualified in a dignified manner through major institutions, such as the International Lawyers’ Association and other similar institutions which defend the freedom and rights of the man. I thank you with dignity for having listened to me. Good luck. nata{a Kandi} Pressured me to give false Testimony Zoran Krasi}: Aleksandar Gaji} was prepared to present publicly the connection between the /OTP/ and the judges of the Hague Tribunal. Let us see what Aleksandar Gaji} said in his statement.
186

Video beam projection: The OTP of the Hague Tribunal contacted me in 2004 through protected witness VS-033, who agreed to the conditions for giving false testimony against Vojislav [e{elj and accused him of war crimes. This witness connected me with Nata{a Kandi}, who also pressured me to give false testimony and accuse Mr. [e{elj of some alleged war crimes. I was never given the opportunity to read the statement that I had given to the Hague Tribunal because I believed that what I signed was true. I still don’t know what this statement looks like. During the interview, the Hague investigator Paolo Pastore kept repeating that I had to be their witness, corroborate all the allegations of the indictment and falsely accuse Mr. [e{elj, or I would be accused of some alleged crime that had been committed in Tesli} and, as he said, be put next to Mr. Vojislav [e{elj in the Hague courtroom. In 2006 the Hague investigator Paolo Pastore and the then prosecutor Daniel Saxon threatened me with an indictment again, but also offered once again to transfer me to a third country, provide me with medical treatment, change my identity, and even transfer my two devoted dogs, best friends of mine, in exchange for a false testimony. In 2008, after a surgery that I had had, Paolo Pastore and the then prosecutor Christine Dahl even visited me in my home and tried to persuade me again to give false testimony against Vojislav [e{elj, also threatening to accuse me, saying that I would testify under protection measures as VS-034, which I didn’t accept and told them time and again that I can only appear as a witness for the defense of Mr. Vojislav [e{elj. Given that I persevered in refusing to be a witness for the Prosecution, the Hague Tribunal issued a binding order for me to appear in the courtroom as a witness for the court. I went to The Hague then at the summons of the Trial Chamber. I was prepared to testify publicly, but for some reason the Trial Chamber did not allow me to do so, and I wanted to relate all the details of the manner in which I had been pressured, what the Hague OTP and the regime in Belgrade had done. This all resulted in me being thrown out of the courtroom because I didn’t want to give false testimony against Mr. Vojislav [e{elj and the volunteers. They insisted on having me testify as witness VS-034, but I do have a first and a last name. I am Aleksandar Gaji} and I can say that nobody, not even the Hague power, has managed to force me to give false testimony against Vojislav [e{elj, because we are all sons of freedom. [e{elj a Dangerous adversary of the Puppet authorities in Serbia Zoran Krasi}: In the absence of serious elements for the charges against Vojislav [e{elj, the OTP of the Hague Tribunal resented his “incendiary” political speeches and accused him, in the 21st century, of the long warmed-over verbal delict. With us here today is Professor Mirko Zurovac, an eminent Serbian ethical, always prepared to contribute his knowledge to the heroic battle of Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. Professor Mirko Zurovac: Honorable Jadranka [e{elj, dear friends. Not for a moment did I have any illusions regarding the character of the so-called International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The moment it was founded it became clear that it was in no way an institution of the law but a political creation in the service of the force and injustice which exposes to ridicule the man’s
187

need for justice. It was clear from the beginning to anyone who wanted to see this that it had been founded in order to put on trial the military and legally elected political leadership of all Serbian countries. Why? Because it led its people in its just struggle for survival and its dearly paid freedom. As you already know, they are all still alive there if they haven’t been murdered. This makes it clear as to who is sitting in the Hague Tribunal, what its judges and prosecutors are like. They want to judge only the representatives of the Serbian people, while the real criminals, Yugoslav secessionists and their foreign abettors and protectors who founded this court and who have been running it from its foundation to this day will simply not be put on trial. An illustration for this is the case of Naser Ori} or Ramu{ Haradinaj...

***
international Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of international humanitarian law committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. witness Statement witness information Last name: Jovi} First name: Nenad Gender: male Father’s name: Radomir Nickname: Ne{o Date of birth: 2 October 1957 Place of birth: Radalj village Address: Radalj village Municipality: Mali Zvornik Telephone: / Ethnic Origin: Serb Religion: Orthodox Language(s) spoken: Serbian Language(s) used in interview: Serbian Current occupation: unemployed Former occupation: driver Date and place of interview: 26, 27, 28 and 29 October 2010 in Mali Zvornik Interviewer: Vjerica Radeta Names of all persons present during interview: 1. Vjerica Radeta 2. Boris Aleksi} Witness’s signature: /signed: Nenad Jovi}/ Signatures of those present: 1. /a signature/ 2. /a signature/ /each page of the Witness Statement bears a stamp in the upper left corner and handwritten initials N. J. at the bottom/
188

witness Statement 1. My name is Nenad (son of Radomir) Jovi}, born on 2 October 1957 in Radalj village, Mali Zvornik municipality, residence in Radalj village, ID card No. 31091, issued by the Mali Zvornik SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/, JMBG / Personal Identification Number/ 0210957774118, a Serb, an Orthodox, a citizen of the Republic of Serbia, unemployed. 2. I am giving this statement to Vjerica Radeta and Boris Aleksi}, members of the Expert Team that is helping prepare Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. In this statement, I will describe in detail, to the best of my recollection, the events that I know of which refer to the war period beginning in 1991 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. I will describe accurately what I saw, witnessed and heard in person and what I heard from other people. I will describe the conduct of the investigators and the prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal and of other persons who pressured me, blackmailed and intimidated me in order to make me accept to be a witness for the Prosecution and accuse Vojislav [e{elj of the most severe war crimes. 3. At the beginning of the conversation that was carried out at my initiative, Vjerica Radeta and Boris Aleksi} told me that the statement that I was giving must be true, that it would be used before the Hague Tribunal, that it was public and that it could be used against me pursuant to Rule 77 A of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence should I give false testimony. Vjerica Radeta told me that giving false testimony was punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine of up to EURO 100,000, or by both penalties cumulatively. 4. I have repeatedly and persistently refused to be a witness for the Prosecution against Vojislav [e{elj in the proceedings that are being conducted against him at the Hague Tribunal, so the Tribunal decided that I should be a witness for the Trial Chamber, to which I agreed. Given that I made my identity public long ago, I insisted that I testify at The Hague without protection measures. I refused to have my face or voice altered, or to be coded as VS-032, which the OTP tried to impose on me as their false witness. The Trial Chamber accepted this and so on 6 and 7 July 2010 I testified in public under my full first and last name. 5. I have had several encounters with the OTP of the Hague Tribunal. In 2003, we met five times in all. On 10 and 11 July, I talked to Rita Pradhan and Predrag Doj~inovi}. On 14 July I spoke to Stephan Marguet and Gary Sexton, and on 15 July with Stephan Marguet and Brett Simpson. On 28 September 2003, interpreter Jasmina Pavlovi} read to me, in the presence of Rita Pradhan, a statement that I had allegedly given to the investigators. After that, on 18 and 19 October 2006, I met with Rita Pradhan and Melissa Pack. In 2007, on 21 September I met with Christine Dahl and Paolo Pastore Stocchi, and on 1 October with Christine Dahl, Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Peter Milford /?Brace/. /?Bany/Hogan and /?Roel/ Versone. Departure for Tenje 6. When in 2003 I spoke to representatives of the OTP of the Hague Tribunal, I made a mistake when I said that when I had first gone to the battlefield as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party in August 1991, we left from Francuska Street in Belgrade. The truth is that we left from Milutina Boji}a Street. I made the mistake because I don’t know Belgrade well. I have never told the investigators that
189

the party leadership forced anyone to go to the Croatian battlefield. At a meeting of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party held in Mali Zvornik, I personally proposed that we go to the battlefield as volunteers but nobody forced us to do so, and whoever didn’t want to, didn’t have to go. 7. In Belgrade, we waited for two or three days until transport was organized and contacts for transfer to Croatia established, and then I saw Vojislav [e{elj occasionally on the party’s premises. I never heard [e{elj say that volunteers had to join the Serbian Radical Party and I know that this was not an obligation. I don’t know why the representatives of the OTP wrote this in my statement, because I have never said that. I do know that only men who had done their military service could join the volunteers, men who were prepared to respect the discipline and obey the commands of the superior officers. 8. I remember that Vojislav [e{elj once told us that we had to hold ourselves bravely, that we should make the Serbian and Chetnik soldiers proud, and that, in accordance with Yugoslav laws, we should take care of how we treated civilians and prisoners of war, given that we had all done our military service and were familiar with these regulations. I said this in 2003 during my first encounter with the investigators of the Hague Tribunal, but Rita Pradhan inserted into my statement, without my knowledge or my consent, the claim, which she alleged to be mine, that nobody had warned us how we were to treat civilians and that we only knew that we were to chase the Croats from Staro Tenje. 9. In my alleged statement it says that I said that Vojislav [e{elj had a crucial role in my decision to join the Serbian Chetnik Movement. This, of course, is not true, I have never said that. In line with the family tradition, I was always a Chetnik supporter and in 1990, when I became a member of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, I never had the opportunity to listen to Vojislav [e{elj promote the movement in towns all over Serbia. At that time, the Serbian Chetnik Movement was not registered and the mass media did not give it any media space. 10. The group of volunteers of which I was a member was taken to Staro Tenje by Zoran Ranki}. I assert that we all respected discipline and that none of us were extreme. We didn’t go to the battlefield in order to chase the Croats, but to help the Serbs to defend themselves from the new genocide and Ustasha slaughter. The Prosecutor inserted into my statement that the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party had evicted the non-Serbian population, which is a notorious lie. I have never said something like that and I even could not have, given that some members of our unit were also Croats. 11. I told investigator Rita Pradhan of Nepal that I had seen Arkan with a group of about ten men go past me in Tenje, but that I didn’t know where they had been positioned, they didn’t have a contact line with the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party on the front. 12. I explained to Rita Pradhan that the animosity between Vojislav [e{elj and Arkan was general knowledge. The fact than [e{elj had publicly criticized Arkan in Belgrade was reflected also in the relationships in the war-engulfed areas, so the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party didn’t have any contact points with members of Arkan’s guards. The local population of Tenje told us that Arkan’s men behaved in an extremely arrogant manner, were brazen and insolent to all locals, including the Serbs. They were also said to have modern weapons and uniforms.
190

13. In mid-August 1991, my wife informed me that our five-year-old daughter was ill and asked that I return home immediately. I was worried about the child and I went back home to Mali Zvornik. I made the mistake of not reporting to my commander, although I knew that this was mandatory. I remember that the Commander of the Territorial Defense, Jovo Rebra~a, gave me the permit to cross over to Serbia. When I arrived home, I saw that my child was healthy and my wife told me that she had been afraid for my life and had made up the child’s disease knowing that this would definitely make me come back home. 14. Three or four days later I returned to Tenje, but I didn’t find my unit there; Jovo Rebra~a told me that they had changed their positions on his order, for strategic reasons. I decided not to look for them and to remain as a volunteer in the Territorial Defense of Tenje. I was aware that I had violated the rule stipulating that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party were not to leave the unit without authorization. I knew that this was reason enough to be expunged from the records and that the Serbian Radical Party would no longer be held responsible for any crime that I did as a volunteer. This rule also applied to all volunteers who left for the battlefield in the organization of the Crisis, or War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. In connection with this, investigator Rita Pradhan wrote a lie in the statement that I had given in 2003, namely, she wrote that I had said that I had decided to leave the unit in which I had come and join the Territorial Defense because my former group had been chased from the territory of Tenje. 15. I know that in 2006 I didn’t speak to the investigators about the reasons for my joining the Territorial Defense, so I was surprised when, while I was giving testimony, I noticed that Rita Pradhan had written in my statement that I had left the unit due to the fact that some individuals were undisciplined and that some volunteers who had arrived there with me went looting or got drunk. 16. Rita Pradhan wrote in my statement of 2003 that at the end of August or the beginning of September, during my 15 days’ leave, I had visited the headquarters of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade and that I had spoken to Vojislav [e{elj. This is probably her free interpretation, because I said that I had wanted to meet with [e{elj but this was not possible because [e{elj was not in Belgrade. 17. It is true that I left for the battlefield in the organization of the Serbian Radical Party and its Crisis Staff only once. It was when we went to Staro Tenje at the beginning of August 1991, and this was also my first visit to the war-stricken territory. After that, I have never again been a member of the Serbian Radical Party. Darda, Baranja 18. At the end of October 1991, the secretary of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Mali Zvornik came to see me and proposed that I join a group of young men from Bosnia and Herzegovina who intended to go to Darda in Baranja in order to gain some experience, because it was presumed that a war could soon break out in Bosnia. 19. I discussed this idea with Janko Laki} again and he told me that I should definitely go with them because I already had some experience. Laki} also told me that this trip was organized by Dragan Spasojevi}, of whom I had never heard before, so Laki} explained that Spasojevi} was from the police.
191

20. Spasojevi} also organized transport from Mali Zvornik to Darda, and later on also the back trip to Mali Zvornik. Civilian buses of the hydro-electric plant in Zvornik were used for the transport. I confidently claim that the Serbian Radical Party had nothing to do with my departure for Darda. 21. I stayed in Darda for about 20 days and as there were no combat actions apart from an occasional exchange of mortar fire, I returned home to Mali Zvornik on about 27 November 1991. 22. After my return to Mali Zvornik, Dragan Spasojevi} contacted me again and proposed that I be a member of his personal security team. I agreed and from December 1992 to the beginning of March 1993 I accompanied Spasojevi} to Darda on several occasions, for various reasons. Zvornik 23. I know that on 3 April 1992 Muslims set up barricades to the approaches to the town of Zvornik, these were preparations for an armed conflict. After that, the Serbs set up their barricades at a distance of mere 200 to 300 metres from the Muslims’. As I was Dragan Spasojevi}’s personal escort I knew that the action of liberating Zvornik would begin on Bairam 1992. 24. The operation of liberating Zvornik was launched on 8 April 1992 at about 06.00 hours. As a member of Dragan Spasojevi}’s personal security team, I participated in this operation. An Arkan’s group also participated in this operation, it consisted of about 40 volunteers, a group of about 15 police officers from Bosnia and Herzegovina and a number of inhabitants of Zvornik and the surrounding villages. The participants in this operation wore various insignia, there were some cockades, of course, and the men who wore them called themselves Chetniks. 25. Investigator Rita Pradhan reformulated my statement and thus gave it an altogether different meaning. She added in the statement that [e{elj’s Chetniks also participated in the attack on Zvornik together with Arkan’s group. I didn’t say that and this is not true, I assert this as one of the participants in this action. I am certain that there were no [e{elj’s Chetniks on the positions on which I was together with Arkan’s men. I cannot rule out the possibility that some volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party were in Zvornik, but I didn’t see or recognize any, and I don’t know on which positions they may have been. 26. Rita Pradhan changed many things in my statement of her own will and made a statement that fit the needs of the Hague Tribunal. I have never said that the attack on Zvornik was carried out under the command of @eljko Ra`natovi} aka Arkan, I said that Arkan had commanded his group and that the whole operation had been led, according to my information at the time, by the Crisis Staff of Zvornik municipality. 27. As a member of the reserve police formation I had to patrol the town at night. During a night patrol I saw between 20 and 30 bodies of people killed during the liberation of Zvornik. I don’t know, and I never said that I knew, whether these were the bodies of Muslims or Serbs. I know that there were also civilians among them and that they were all males, in their pockets we found some /hand/ grenades and various other weapons. Rita Pradhan tendentiously wrote that I said that there had been about 200 to 300 bodies of Muslims, which is absolutely a lie which I have never uttered.
192

28. During the operation of liberation of Zvornik, I didn’t see the @ute Ose /Yellow Wasps/ unit or their commander @u}o. I was wrong when, in my statement, I connected Zu}o with the operation of liberation of the town of Kula, a territory that is part of Zvornik municipality. I had seen him for the first time then. 29. It is true that there was a group of men who controlled the crossing over the bridge that connects Mali Zvornik in the Republic of Serbia with Zvornik in Republika Srpska. I know that members of this group called themselves Chetniks and that they abused the fact that they were controlling a border crossing. It was rumored that during search they forced women to take off all their clothes, and took their money from some. However, the truth is that this was an unofficial group made up of inhabitants of Zvornik, Mali Zvornik and the surrounding villages. I think that this was a group of criminals, and as far as I know, they were not part of Arkan’s men, the Crisis Staff or the Serbian Radical Party. We arrested this group and chased them from Zvornik by order of Dragan Spasojevi} immediately after Spasojevi} found out about their criminal acts. I know that the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party had already been withdrawn from Zvornik when this group terrorized the civilians. oTP’s Pressures, Blackmails and intimidations 30. I cannot remember when, in which situations and with respect to which questions the investigators threatened, pressured, blackmailed or offered a bribe, in doing which Rita Pradhan was in the forefront. 31. At the beginning, Rita Pradhan tried to gain me over for cooperation in an elegant manner and was very kind with me. When she rehashed that this was not going to happen as easily as she had expected, she changed her attitude and approach to me. 32. While I was giving my statement to the investigators of the Hague Tribunal, I didn’t know at all in what capacity I was doing that. They didn’t tell me whether I was an accused, a suspect or a potential witness in a trial. They frequently asked me to accuse someone of a war crime, but I still didn’t know to what purpose they were asking me to do that, namely, if this was perhaps necessary for them to accuse me. 33. The conduct of Rita Pradhan was truly specific. At times she would kindly tell me: “Don’t be afraid, speak freely, get it off your chest, you’ll feel better, and we’ll be grateful to you.” However, she was frequently impertinent and when she wasn’t pleased with my answer, her kindness vanished and she started to threaten me, saying that I had better tell the truth if I didn’t want to end up in jail. She threatened to accuse me of war crimes for the alleged killing of 300 prisoners near Velika Kladu{a. I kept repeating that we had let these prisoners go, but she kept saying that somebody had killed them and that she would charge me with that. 34. When Rita asked me questions referring to some concocted war crime, she made use of bribery, blackmailing and intimidation. She claimed that the OTP was prepared to fulfill all my requests provided that I agreed to corroborate something that I didn’t know and accused someone of a war crime. She threatened that if I refused to do so, I would have to face the possibility of having an indictment issued against me for war crimes in Zvornik. She mentioned that a war crime had
193

been committed in Drinja~a, that some members of my unit had committed it and that all of them had already been arrested. 35. After each threat that she uttered, Rita Pradhan stressed that I could be amnestied from all that if I testified and accused Vojislav [e{elj, Simatovi} and other accused Serbs who were in The Hague. 36. Rita Pradhan insisted that I testify against Vojislav [e{elj and promised to transfer me to the Netherlands, where I would spend six months to prepare myself for giving the testimony, saying that I would have to learn by heart a previously compiled statement. 37. Rita promised to take me to the courtroom every day to enable me to follow Vojislav [e{elj’s trial behind a curtain or a one-way glass in order to overcome the nervousness and be better prepared to appear before him as a witness for the Prosecution. In exchange for this service, she promised to transfer me to a third country and said that I should not be afraid because Vojislav [e{elj would remain in prison while I would be spending the money that they would have given me. 38. I asked Rita if I would be able to take someone with me if I agreed to their conditions and she enthusiastically replied affirmatively. She turned serious when I said that what I wanted to take to a third country was the grave/s/ of my late sister, my late wife and my late grandfather, a solunac /Salonika Front veteran; patriot/. She retorted that this was not possible and that the very next morning I would fly with her to The Hague, where I would “sing” like a canary. 39. I remember well that in 2003 Rita Pradhan tried to plant a statement that I had allegedly given, but which I had not read, and have me sign it. We argued then and I headed towards the exit, intending to leave the premises of the Prosecutor’s Office, of which I also informed her. Rita Pradhan told me: “Go, you are a free man, but when you pass through the door, I will call your police and tell them to arrest you and put you in the Central Prison, and then you will pray God that I should come and bring this statement to you to sign. Because I am very busy and I don’t know when this will be possible.” This incident occurred in the presence of another investigator and interpreters Milan Kosanovi} and Dana Todorovi}. 40. This threat made me retreat as a sign of reconciliation, and she told me that I should also think of my children, that I should sign that statement that had already been written and then I would get a free six-month stay in a hotel in the Netherlands in the company of pretty women. One of those present added that I would also be able to use their services at the expense of the Tribunal. 41. When in 2003 I spoke to the investigators of the Hague Tribunal, I didn’t mention at all that I had seen a group of [e{elj’s Chetniks in Zvornik. It was only in 2006 that Rita Pradhan insisted on inserting in my statement that I had allegedly seen a group of [e{elj’s Chetniks on the bridge while I was transferring wounded Dragan Da{i}, and that a man of that group called Pejo ordered that a shell be fired at a bus that was blocking the pedestrian bridge. This incident concocted by Rita Pradhan was inserted in my statement although I had never said this. 42. When in summer 2006 I was temporarily working in Montenegro, Rita Pradhan called me and told me that she had issued a sort of mild wanted notice for me in order to locate me. This information greatly upset me because I was not on the run but had only been temporarily employed there. Moreover, the OTP also
194

had the number of my fixed telephone and Rita could have found out my whereabouts through my family. I was panic- and fear-stricken at the very thought of what would have happened to me if, pursuant to Rita’s wanted notice, [iptar /Albanian/ or Montenegrin police officers had captured me in Montenegro. It was only much later on that I found out that neither Rita nor anyone else from the Office of the Prosecutor were entitled to issue a wanted notice and that this was the exclusive competence of the judges. Given that I was ignorant in legal matters, I believed her and realized only later on that this was yet another in a series of pressures exerted on me. janko laki} 43. Janko Laki} is my fellow citizen and I met him in August 1990 when the first promotion gathering of the Serbian Chetnik Movement (S^P) was held in Mali Zvornik. At the time, Janko Laki} was the secretary of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Mali Zvornik. 44. In January 2007, Janko Laki} came to my place and proposed that we go to the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) and speak to someone from the Expert Team which was helping prepare Vojislav [e{elj’s defense. I told him that I was willing to go but that I was sick and was not fit for longer journeys. Laki} told me that he knew Novak Savi}, a radical of Loznica, and that he will arrange with him our transport to Belgrade in a car. A few days later Novak Savi} took the two of us to Belgrade. 45. In Belgrade, we spoke to members of the Team Vjerica Radeta and Gordana Pop-Lazi}. We gave statements in separate conversations and returned to Mali Zvornik. Given that our conversations were recorded on a dictaphone, they told us that we would be called again when the text was typewritten in order for us to read and sign our statements and certify them in court. 46. During the conversation, Vjerica Radeta and Gordana Pop-Lazi} were really very correct and there were no pressures, threats or blackmailing. Novak Savi} took us back to Mali Zvornik, but he was not present in the room when Janko Laki} and I were giving our statements separately. 46 /number as printed/. A month later, they called us and we arrived in Belgrade on 2 March 2007. We took our time to read our respective statements and as we had no objections, we signed them and certified them at the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade. 47. In summer 2007, Janko Laki} called me and started persuading me to change my statement that I had given to Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, saying that I should agree to be a witness for the prosecution. Under Janko Laki}’s pressure, and fearing for my own life and the lives of my family members, I wrote a statement by which I withdrew the statement given to Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team, and agreed to speak again to the OTP of the Hague Tribunal. 48. Under Janko Laki}’s influence, in late September 2007 I gave a false statement to Christine Dahl and Paolo Pastore Stocchi, I said that members of Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team Vjerica Radeta and Gordana Pop-Lazi} had pressured, blackmailed, intimidated and offered a bribe to me.
195

49. In the statement that I gave to the OTP, I said that a member of the Serbian Radical Party from Loznica, Novak Savi}, had threatened me, that there had been a lot of body guards on the premises of the Serbian Radical Party and that I had not felt safe and secure. I also said that the statement did not correspond to the truth and that I had been offered to be sent to Russia until the Hague Tribunal completed its work. None of this is true and I said that because Janko Laki} had threatened that someone would liquidate me unless I did so. 50. My fear of Janko Laki} and his threats was absolutely justified. In fact, immediately after the end of the war, Janko offered me the opportunity to earn some money, which would mean a lot to me given that I was unemployed at the time and I had to feed my family. He gave me about 100 kilograms of iron nails for concrete and told me that he would debit me with 50 convertible marks per kilogram, saying that I was to pay him back 20 and could keep the remaining 30 convertible marks per kilogram of nails for myself as my gain. After he had sold himself to the Hague Tribunal OTP, he started pressuring me as well, and threatening me. He demanded that I pay him for the 100 kilograms of nails at a price of 50 convertible marks per kilogram if I refused to agree to cooperate with the OTP. I didn’t have the money he asked me for, so Laki} started to threaten that he would take my house and the lot, and throw me and my family on the street. He also said that this was not all and that he could engage some people to kill me. 51. I agreed to withdraw the statement given to Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team because I knew that there were good reasons to fear Janko Laki}. I knew that in a civil suit for a debt owed to him by Stevan Tadi} of Radalj village he had obtained the latter’s catering establishment with the outbuildings. Under coercion I acknowledged owing him 3000 convertible marks, and he said that he could relieve me of my alleged debt if I accepted to join him in the struggle against the Serbian Radical Party. 52. On 6 and 7 July 2010, I publicly testified about all the pressures, blackmailing, intimidations and bribery on the part of the Hague Tribunal OTP and Janko Laki} as a witness for the court in the proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj. Public appearances and Statements given to Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team 53. I have given four statements to the team that is preparing Vojislav [e{elj’s defense, namely, on 29 January 2007, on 7 December 2007, and on 14 and 20 August 2008, and on none of them did I put a disclosure ban. On the contrary, I said that they could be used publicly, both before the Hague Tribunal and in the Serbian public, because I didn’t accept any protection measures or a pseudonym. 54. In the meantime, on 8 December 2007, I gave an interview to the Pravda /Justice/ daily, under my full first and last name, in which I described in detail to what kinds of pressure, blackmailing, intimidation and threat I had been subjected by the investigators of the Hague Tribunal and Janko Laki}. 55. Besides that, I frequently attended some scientific gatherings on the subject of the Hague Tribunal and Vojislav [e{elj, which were organized by the Serbian Radical Party and the Committee for Defense of Vojislav [e{elj. My name was also mentioned in these gatherings, with my approval.
196

56. The last time that I participated in a public gathering was in September 2010 at the Sava Centre in Belgrade, where I sent a message via video link in front of over 7000 people present. 57. I have never requested any protection measures from the OTP and my identity was not revealed by Vojislav [e{elj. The OTP imposed on me protection measures against my will and designated code VS-032 for me. My name was first disclosed and my identity revealed on Foks Television on 29 November 2007, when Nata{a Kandi} disclosed it in a program called Recite Narodu /Tell the People/. 58. I cannot remember the exact date, but I know that in 2007 and 2008 I attended scientific gatherings on the Hague Tribunal and Vojislav [e{elj in the Dom Sindikata /Trade Union Centre/ and the Sava Centre in Belgrade. At the scientific gathering held in the Trade Union Centre, which was packed with people, I spoke about the pressure and torture that the investigators of the Hague Tribunal had exposed me to. The gathering was followed by both the press and the electronic media and I’m sure that they have stored the recordings in their files. 59. In 2008, the Committee for Defense of Vojislav [e{elj held an assembly in Zemun, in the Zemun Municipal Hall. I attended this assembly and signed a document certifying my accession to the Committee for Defense of Vojislav [e{elj of my own free will. 60. In my intention to speak about all this in public and to introduce myself, as I had done before, with my full first and last name, on 7 December 2007, I organized a press conference at which I informed the public about the blackmails, threats and pressures imposed on me by representatives of the Hague Tribunal OTP. The general public was informed about this conference through the mass media. The conference was even broadcast in the leading news program, the primetime TV news, on the First Channel of the Serbian Radio Television, and the next day all the press in Serbia reported on this. 61. Although I am not a member of the Serbian Radical Party, I participated in the pre-election gatherings of the Serbian Radical Party at the beginning of 2008 in various towns across Serbia. I remember being in Novi Sad, Sremska Mitrovica, Loznica, and in the final pre-election gathering in the Arena in Belgrade. 62. For over ten years now, on each 12 February I have attended the celebration of the Patron Saint of the Serbian Radical Party, Sveta Tri Jerarha /Three Holy Saints/, held in the premises of the Party’s Municipal Board in Loznica, at the invitation of the President of the Municipal Board and Novak Savi}. The celebration is attended by members and supporters of the Serbian Radical Party and I have never experienced any inconvenience there. Everybody that I could see there knew about my contacts with the Hague Tribunal OTP, I always spoke openly about the problems I had had with representatives of the OTP, and it never even crossed my mind to replace my first and last name by a number and thus conceal my identity. 63. I am sorry that I didn’t manage to oppose the threats, pressures and blackmails of the Hague investigators and later also those of Janko Laki}, so when I finally did, I had the irresistible urge to speak about this in public. All under my full first and last name.
197

64. I spoke about everything that had happened to me in connection with the Hague Tribunal OTP in every place, among my relatives, friends, in cafes, in the shops. All those who know me knew that the OTP had designated a code for me, under which I was to give testimony, and that they had done this without my consent. After all, as a witness for the court I testified in public under my full first and last name although the judges offered me the opportunity to give testimony under a code or with my face and voice altered. 65. As regards my public appearances, all under my full first and last name, I hereby attach photocopies of the interview that I gave to the Pravda daily and the journal of the Serbian Radical Party, Velika Srbija /Greater Serbia/, which carried a transcript of my presentation at the Trade Union Centre and my video messages /sent/ from the gathering at the Sava Centre. Mali Zvornik 2 october 2010 Statement given by: nenad jovi} /signed/

certificate I hereby certify with my signature that I have read this statement, which has been written in the Serbian language, and that it fully corresponds to the words that I uttered in the conversation with Vjerica Radeta and Boris Aleksi}, members of the team that helps prepare the defense of Vojislav [e{elj before the Hague Tribunal. Signature /signed: Nenad Jovi}/ OV I No. 10595/2010 This is to certify that Nenad Jovi} in his capacity as the person giving a statement, number of ID card signed this document in his own hand - acknowledged his signature in this document. The above-cited person’s identity was established on the basis of: JD card passport... Tax duties amounting to 230 dinars duly collected. Lower Court in Loznica Date: 2 November 2010 Authorized official Smiljana Vuki} /signed and stamped/ “Pravda”, 8 December 2007 Nenad Jovi}, the Witness Manque of the Hague Tribunal: I will not Lie against [e{elj They promised me money, employment, and the relocation of my family to a safe destination in exchange for testifying against the leader of the Radicals Aleksandar Vu~i}, the general secretary of the Serbian Radical Party, has said that the Hague Tribunals Prosecution continues pressure against and blackmail of potential witnesses in the trial of the leader of the Radicals. Vu~i} also introduced the Tribunal’s witness manque, Nenad Jovi}.
198

never against the Serbs “I was interviewed several times at the Hague Tribunal office by various psychologists, expert witnesses, psychiatrists and other experts and the interviews would last up to 14 hours. They threatened me and exerted pressure on me and my family all the time, but I will never speak against [e{elj or against any other Serb”, said Nenad Jovi}, of the village of Radalj near Mali Zvornik, who was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution, against [e{elj, on 13 December. “Vojislav [e{elj is a patriot and a Serbian hero who is defending Serbia and the Serbian people at the Hague Tribunal. Although I am a poor man, and I have three children, I would never falsely testify for money, because money comes and goes and honor is there to stay, which is why, even if I knew something, and I do not, I would never say anything” said Jovi}. jovi} called us of his own accord Vu~i} explained that he had heard about Nenad Jovi} as a potential witness for the prosecution from Nata{a Kandi} on Fox TV. “Nenad Jovi} called us and said he had no intention of being a witness for the Prosecution and that he could appear only as a witness for the defense at the Hague Tribunal, but through his lawyer whom he had given power of attorney. The Tribunal investigators are trying to find, at any cost, anyone who could say anything against Vojislav [e{elj and they are assisted in this by the Prosecutor’s Office for War Crimes in Serbia, a part of the Ministry of the Interior and some nongovernmental organizations”, said Vu~i}. \.P. The hague’s order is a Tectonic Disturbance “Instead of looking for serious evidence of the causes of the events in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Tribunal is trying forcibly to obtain statements against [e{elj through pressure, blackmail, threats and by falsifying statements, but they will fail in this,” Vu~i} said, adding that “the Tribunal’s Trial Chamber can issue a binding order for Nenad Jovi} to appear at the trial but this would cause ’a tectonic disturbance’ at the Hague Tribunal”. i will Testify for [e{elj I have spoken to representatives of the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal five or six times. They interviewed me and asked me to be their witness in the proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj. Of course, I did not agree to this. The list of witnesses whom the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal intends to put on the stand in the continuation of the trial of Vojislav [e{elj caused a heated debate at an administrative session of the Trial Chamber. On this list, there are several individuals who are no longer among the living, but also those who have been registered as witnesses for the defense. Nenad Jovi} is one of them, who himself had no idea that he was on the list until he heard the Prosecutor read the number he is under while listing the witnesses he was planning to call in the forthcoming period.
199

“I am a member of Vojislav [e{elj’s defense team and I have been registered as a witness for the defense in his trial before the Hague Tribunal. Despite this, the Prosecution announced me as its witness. I was extremely surprised and upset when I heard this”, Jovi} said to Pravda. He said he contacted representatives of the Prosecution for the first time in 2002. “I spoke to representatives of the Prosecution five or six times. They interviewed me and asked me to be their witness in the proceedings against Vojislav [e{elj. Of course, I did not agree to this”, said Jovi}. Pressure from The hague He said he addressed the Serbian Radical Party and the legal team assisting Vojislav [e{elj’s defense for help. “I placed myself at their disposal and said that I would be a witness for the defense if required. They agreed to this and we informed the Prosecution on several occasions. Despite this, the pressure on me continued”, Jovi} explained. He went on to say that representatives of the Prosecution continued calling him and even told him that he had better respond to their summons or a warrant for his arrest might be issued. “They said that I had better respond to the summons than to have the police come and take me into custody until someone from the Prosecution had interviewed me”, said Jovi}. Requests from The hague According to Jovi}, representatives of the Prosecution exerted all kinds of pressure on him. “Of course, they did not threaten and blackmail me directly, but in a subtle way. They tried to break me, primarily mentally”, Jovi} said. He said that they told him what they wanted from him during the first meeting. “They wanted me to be a witness for the Prosecution in the case against Vojislav [e{elj. They promised me that, if I agreed, they would relocate me with my family to a country of my choice and that they would find me a job”, Jovi} explained. He went on to say that when the Prosecution realized that he would not accept their offer, it changed its tactics and started exhausting him mentally. “The meetings with them became longer and longer. They would go on for four or five days and the interview would go on for fourteen hours in one go, with 15 minute breaks. They were trying to wear me out so that I would get sick and tired of it all and agree to their offer,” Jovi} recalled. The former policeman says that, at times, they even directly “advised” him to agree to testify against [e{elj and, in so doing, make it easier on himself. They literally asked me to give false evidence against Vojislav [e{elj. They told me that they would write a statement for me to sign and learn by heart. They told me that I would be put up in a hotel for six months and that I would have time to learn what was written in the statement. They even told me that I could use
200

all the hotel facilities and that I would have escort girls. I could not believe what I was hearing”. Jovi} described his meeting with representatives of the Prosecution with astonishment. Special Preparation Jovi} also told us that The Hague offered special training for the witnesses for the Prosecution. In order to be prepared as well as possible and to avoid stage fright and fear during their testimony, potential collaborators are offered the possibility of attending the testimonies of other witnesses where they could watch how they give testimonies through the glass. “I told them that I would not lie and that I do not accept their offer”, said Jovi}. After these instructions, Jovi} turned to the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/ and [e{elj’s defense team. “There are three statements I have given, which I sent to the Office of the Prosecutor through Vojislav [e{elj’s legal defense team, in which I informed them that I was a member of the team and a witness for the defense. The statements have been registered and certified in the Fourth Municipal Court”, Jovi} said. However, after this, the Office of the Prosecutor sent him a subpoena to testify. “I replied to their arguments and explained that I was a witness for the defense. That was the fourth time I was making it clear to them that I could not be their witness”, Jovi} said. He stressed that he wanted the Prosecution to leave him alone and to stop pressuring him because he did not want to be their witness, which he made perfectly clear to them. “I do not want to lie and testify the way they tell me to. I will show up at the Tribunal, but only as a witness for the defense, because I want to tell the truth”, Jovi} explained. They asked me to testify against Vojislav [e{elj. They promised me that, if I agreed, they would relocate me with my family to a country of my choice and that they would find me a job. Of course, they did not threaten and blackmail me directly, but in a subtle way. They tried to break me, primarily mentally. I do not want to lie and testify the way they tell me to. I will show up at the Tribunal, but only as a witness for the defense, because I want to tell the truth. They told me that I would be put up in a hotel for six months and that I would have time to learn what was written in the statement. They even told me that I could use all the hotel facilities and that I would have escort girls. Pressure exerted through nata{a Kandi} Speaking about the manner in which the Hague Prosecution exerts pressure on witnesses, Jovi} says: “The entire interviewing process is a very painful experience for me. But what was the worst for me, or what the worst blackmail was and what hit me the har201

dest was when Nata{a Kandi} told Fox TV that I was a protected witness for the Hague Tribunal. Prosecutor Christine Dahl sold me to Nata{a Kandi}. Or they saw that I did not want to be a witness for the Prosecution and wanted to take revenge by publishing my name. This is how I interpreted it, that they would publish my name and then my people would take revenge on me. And this is more or less what happened. This had an impact on my family, most of all on my child who goes to the third class of primary school. The other pupils kicked him and insulted him on account of this. They told him he was a traitor and that his father was a traitor. Dom Sindikata, 20 September 2008 The hague Tribunal has Decided to Kill [e{elj Krasi}: The Hague is hoping that by imposing a defense counsel on [e{elj it will provoke him to go on a new hunger strike which would kill him. The indictment hangs by a thread and everything that has been cited in it has no foundation. Not even the basics were checked. The Prosecution is disappointed and they cannot handle his defense. The Hague Tribunal is determined to go all the way in its clash with Vojislav [e{elj. Determined to neutralize the defense of the leader of the Radicals, the Hague prosecutor’s are trying to force imposed counsel on [e{elj. In his address to the Prosecution, Vojislav [e{elj recently told them he had seen through their intentions. “I will not allow this, because in that event I will no longer be alive”, [e{elj said, pointing out that the trial would end quickly in this scenario. The head of the defense team for the leader of the Radicals, Zoran Krasi}, is convinced that [e{elj will defend his interests with his life. “From the legal point of view, a defense counsel cannot be imposed on Vojislav, because he said at the start that he would defend himself. These are desperate measures by the Prosecution, which has, to put it mildly, lost the plot. If they do decide to take this step after all, Vojislav would not appear in the courtroom. He is a man of principle and persistent in his fight for the truth. It is possible that The Hague is hoping that such a move on their part would make [e{elj go on another hunger strike and die. They would celebrate this at home and abroad”, said Krasi}. Asked if he feared that the same that happened to Slobodan Milo{evi} could happen to [e{elj, Krasi} said: “First of all, whoever goes to The Hague stands the chance of not leaving it alive, but where [e{elj is concerned, there is simply no room for fear. He is a professor of law, has a PhD and I have no doubts that he will triumph over the Tribunal.” In his words, the Prosecution is now desperately struggling to remedy the debacle with the 27 witnesses for the Prosecution, whom [e{elj “drove into the ground”. “The indictment hangs by a thread and everything that has been cited in it has no foundation. Not even the basics were checked. The Prosecution is disappointed and they cannot handle his defense. He is steeped in the science and each one of his…
202

/handwritten at the top of the page/: /beginning of the document missing/ ... the situation, for Vojislav [e{elj to return to Serbia. I honestly believe that they made a mistake in their evaluation, but only time will show. Finally, I would only like to conclude... There should no longer be any doubt that the Hague Tribunal represents a systematic and planned destruction of the security of the Republic of Serbia. Also, in the global geo-political arena the Hague Tribunal should serve as an example to all those freedom-loving countries and their leaders of what could happen to them if they tried to defend their people or their territory, or did not listen to the advice of their Western mentors, primarily the United States of America and the European Union. It should serve as an example to all freedom-loving people and countries of what might happen to them. And finally, I would like this gathering to be the start of a concrete initiative within the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, I would like us to launch a legal procedure to vacate the Law on the Cooperation with the Hague Tribunal. We have the legal experts here, we have the strongest opposition party, we know that the majority in power probably won’t accept it, but it’s important that we launch a counterattack in the Assembly at all levels. Thank you. Zoran Krasi}: Thank you. I would now like to call Mr. Nenad Jovi}, the witness for the defense of Vojislav [e{elj, one of the most noble people I have ever had the opportunity to meet. nenad jovi}: Dear ladies and gentlemen, hello and may the Lord be with you. We all know how much time has passed since our Serbian hero, Prof. Vojislav [e{elj, was imprisoned and how long the trial against him has been going on. I, Nenad Jovi}, am a witness for the defense. Dr. Vojislav [e{elj has a very difficult time there. They are now trying to impose an attorney on him, take away his right to consult with his defense team over the phone, and deny him his family visitation rights. I ask myself only this: Why doesn’t Chief Prosecutor Brammertz, in his report to the United Nations, also describe the conduct of the Office of the Prosecution toward Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, and why doesn’t he describe how his investigators identify witnesses against Vojislav [e{elj. And it would be very easy for him to obtain this information, because he’s had it for a while. If he is already so good at reading, he could have read the large number of personal statements and documents I have sent to the Hague Tribunal under full criminal and legal responsibility. In those statements, which have been confirmed by the Tribunal, I described in great detail how I was blackmailed by the Hague investigators, how they threatened me with an indictment against me, told me I would be arrested and detained at the Central Prison before being transferred to the Hague, where I would start singing like a canary for them. They even told me I was in contempt of court and would be punished with a prison term of seven years and a fine of EURO 200,000. I received more cheerful offers as well, if I could joke a little, such as, and I quote: “Jovi}, we will give you hotel accommodation for six months, you will be surrounded by pretty girls while you are there, so that you can take advantage of the services they provide.” They even offered me money, and all that in exchange for signing a previously typed statement against Prof. Vojislav [e{elj.
203

They don’t know that I would sooner share with him the prison sentence they’ve already prepared for him, that I would share with him all his troubles and take at least half of his burden on me. I would never give a false testimony because justice can only be achieved by truth. The Prosecution is in crisis because they have to justify the money they received from the United Nations for the purpose of obtaining evidence. The Hague investigators have spent that money on driving around in Jeeps and partying in hotels all around the former Yugoslavia. Because of this they don’t have a single important witness against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. They enjoyed themselves and partied too much to have time to look for one. Even if they had tried, they wouldn’t have found him, because Dr. Vojislav [e{elj is innocent, which is why they can’t have witnesses against him. So go ahead, Mr. Chief Prosecutor Brammertz, report this truth urgently to the United Nations, and you could be proud because you will be able to clear your name of all the dirt that your investigators have thrown into the face of the Tribunal. May long live Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and greater Serbia! Zoran Krasi}: Thank you, Mr. Jovi}. I now call attorney Dragoljub Toma{evi}. Dragoljub Toma{evi}: Dear friends, all scholarly gatherings that have been held over the last six years to discuss the conduct or rather misconduct of the Hague Tribunal in the case against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj have demonstrated its uncivilized and unlawful nature, which continues to this day with undiminished force. Dr. Vojislav [e{elj has been a victim since the very beginning, because the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal won’t allow him to completely develop the argument of his defense. Above all, it prevents him from exposing the Tribunal’s deceit regarding false witnesses and other types of quasi-evidence mentioned by some distinguished people who refuse to give false testimony even at the risk of personal harm, and we had the opportunity to hear some of them today. The Prosecution continues to employ the strategy of obstructing, prolonging and preventing Dr. [e{elj from conducting his own defense, although he had recently obtained the right to do so at the cost of his life which he had put on the line in order to exercise his right to defend himself. The Hague Prosecution realized that time is on their side, and contrary to the internationally recognized right to a fair trial, its uses is position and blatantly violates all general and specific rights of the accused to have a just and a fair trial. The Hague Prosecution has a rigid practice and attitude of disregarding the fact that the accused doesn’t acknowledge the defense counsel that has been assigned to him, the only thing that matters is that counsel is assigned so that it can control and obstruct the defense of the accused in this manner. That strategy has been used before in the case against Dr. [e{elj, but he managed to circumvent it, as did the late President Milo{evi}. It is more than obvious that through the Tribunal the Prosecution carries out... violates the principle of equality of parties, or equality of tools that should be at the disposal of defense. Those include the right to adequate defense, to necessary time and conditions, which the Hague Tribunal doesn’t respect. One example are the difficulties that Dr. [e{elj and his legal team have experienced in the form of having all of his rights obstructed that I mentioned earlier. By obstructing his defense the Hague Prosecution violates Dr. [e{elj’s rights
204

and forces the Tribunal through procedural traps to... so that he wastes his precious time, energy and health protecting his basic rights instead of using the limited time he has on preparing his defense, or as efficiently as possible. It is more than obvious that this quasi-institution does not even respect its own Statute because there is no full equality of parties, the trial is moving forward with incredible... /end of the document missing/ /beginning of another document, also missing/ “Velika Srbija” /greater Serbia/, issue 3415, october 2010 SToP the Tyranny of the hague Tribunal! ... When asked whether he knew that in 1993 Americans were also unaware of the Dayton Agreement, Tani} replied that the question was completely unfair. Judge May, who presided over the trial at the time, twice expressed his concern about the acceptability and evidential value of this witness’s testimony. As another example I will mention the false testimony of Ibrahim Rugova, who was protected thanks to President Milo{evi}, both he and his family. It was in fact Lamberto Dini who, at the request of President Milo{evi}, ensured leniency and protection for Rugova, and Rugova later lied in court. When after the lst day of testimony, we asked President Milo{evi} to confront him with lying and ask him to take a more traditional oath, the way that ethnic Albanians do, President Milo{evi} said: “The poor guy, when I saw him crossing and uncrossing his legs under the table, I wanted to hand him a glass of water.” So there you are, that’s how Ibrahim Rugova testified. Yet another example 1 would like to mention to support my claim that the Prosecution’s false accusations are based on an encyclopedia of lies is the testimony of Miljazim Ta~i, a relative of Ha{im Ta~i, who stated and confirmed that his cousin had described how he had survived a shooting with a light machine gun from a distance of eight meters without being injured or even receiving a scratch, and that three bullets had pierced his jacket, sweater and shirt. When answering President Milo{evi}’s question on how he survived being shot with a light machine gun from a distance of eight meters, he stated: “The Lord saved me.” Another example to illustrate this encyclopedia of lies is the testimony of the ethnic Albanian woman Rahmana D`evahiri, who testified that she had been raped by the Serbian forces, and about the wide range of things they used. This is how she describes the person who raped her: “I would describe him as a very tall man, about 2 meters, with a shaved head, but otherwise blond. He was so blond that he looked handsome with those dark eyes. He pretended not to be him, but we recognized his voice and his blond hair.” First he is bald, then blond-haired. No comment necessary. Finally, since we don’t have much time, we should note that Dr. [e{elj is on the right path to refute all the false charges of his indictment. Had the inquisitors from the Hague known that Dr. [e{elj would persevere in defending himself, as did President Milo{evi}, trust me, they would never have issued this false indictment; now they can’t find a way out of the maze they find themselves in. This fake alley of the damned of the modern times has the power of all the great powers, it has money, a well-paid apparatus of associates both here and there, but it doesn’t
205

have the truth as its ally, the truth is in the hands of Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. When truth is your ally, then justice is possible and within reach. It is justice that keeps our country and cities together. Freedom for the president of the Serbian Radical Party, Dr. Vojislav [e{elj! They demanded that I learn by heart a pre-written statement against [e{elj and sign it as my own Zoran Krasi}: Nenad Jovi} has been the target of unprecedented pressure and blackmail on the part of the Hague investigators. Let us look at Nenad Jovi}’s statement. Video-beam: My name is Nenad Jovi}. The Hague investigators assigned the pseudonym witness 032 to me without my permission or knowledge. Since I did not want to sign the statement they offered me in 2003, Rita Pradan told me that she could grant me amnesty for the crimes I allegedly committed. We are talking about some imaginary 300 Muslims who were killed in Kladu{a, some victims in the area around the town of Zvornik, that she could grant me amnesty for all those if I was willing to testify against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj and read, or learn by heart, a statement they had previously written for me. So not to give my own statement but to read aloud a statement they had put together against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj, which I would learn by heart, and in exchange I would get what I described earlier: hotel accommodation, girls and a sum of money, as she put it: “While you are spending money in one of the third countries, Dr. Vojislav [e{elj will be in prison as well as all others against whom you will testify.” In other words, they were directly focusing on Vojislav [e{elj and coercing me to lie. What hurt me the most is when after 15 hours, 14-15 hours of questioning she would say: “Think of your children for a moment, just think of your family for a moment.” I was immediately afraid that one of their people was at my house, from God knows which force, which department, and that they could hurt my family. So one night I escaped from the apartment they had assigned to me. I am very proud, I didn’t succumb to the blackmails, threats and bribery of the Hague Tribunal. I am also proud and my heart is full of joy if my testimony helped expose the falsehoods of the indictment against Dr. Vojislav [e{elj. The Prosecution fabricated evidence Zoran Krasi}: The Hague Tribunal never planned the international standards to be observed during the trial against Vojislav [e{elj. He was only granted the right to defend himself after 28 days of hunger strike and 46 months of detention. You will now hear from Sava An|elkovi}, a distinguished Serbian attorney who recognized Vojislav [e{elj or rather his righteous struggle for freedom already in his days as a dissident. A doyen of Serbian advocacy, an advocate of human rights and liberties, he will now present his view of the Hague tyranny. Sava an|elkovi}: It is a great honor for me to attend this gathering because I believe this is an important day, and a significant date in the history of defense of our distinguished friend, Mr. Vojislav [e{elj, before the Hague Tribunal. I would therefore like to thank the organizers who have found it suitable to convene this gathering now, and to all of you for coming. Do not expect that you will find anything about today’s gathering in the electronic media tonight or in the printed new206

spapers tomorrow. But those who think that all this will remain among us who are present here and that nobody will ever find out what was said here is wrong. One part of the professional public, the attorneys with whom I am in contact, believe that all the evidence related to the indictment has been presented before the Hague Tribunal, and that the Prosecutor has said everything he wanted to, had to or was allowed to say. Because of this, the professional public, to which I think I also belong since I participate in various... /end of the document missing/

207

iV
april 2011 BcS original received on the 23rd of february 2011. filed confidential as per President’s office recommendation (14/04/2011) international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia case number: IT-03-67-T To: President of the ICTY, Judge Patrick Robinson Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Date: 23 February 2011 Submission: 467 THE PROSECUTOR v. Professor VOJISLAV [e{elj PRofeSSoR VojiSlaV [e[elj’S MoTion To inSTigaTe cRiMinal PRoceeDingS foR giVing falSe TeSTiMonY againST PRoSecuTion wiTneSSeS in caSe iT-03-67-T The office of the Prosecutor: Mathias Marcussen The accused: Professor Vojislav [e{elj The expert Team assisting the Defense Zoran Krasi} Gordana Pop-Lazi} Dragan Todorovi} Petar Joji} Vjerica Radeta Momir Markovi} Elena Bo`i}-Talijan Mirko Blagojevi} Vesna Mari} Jadranko Vukovi} Ognjen Mihajlovi} Miroljub Ignjatovi} Filip Stojanovi} Ljubi{a Petkovi} Dejan Mirovi} Marina Toman Nemanja [arovi} Ljiljana Mihajlovi} Boris Aleksi} Aleksandar Martinovi} Nata{a Jovanovi} i. introduction In this Motion Professor Vojislav [e{elj requests that the President of the ICTY, in accordance with his powers, ensure the instigation of criminal proceedings against a large number of people who, as witnesses in Case IT-03-67-T, te208

stifying under solemn declaration in court, knowingly and willfully gave false testimony, which gives reasonable grounds to suspect that they committed the offence punishable under Rule 91 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”). Considering that the chronology of the eight-year trial of Professor Vojislav [e{elj has long been widely known, the Introduction provides only the information important for this Motion. On 15 January 2003, the Prosecution brought an indictment against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and it was confirmed by a Duty Judge on 14 February 2003. Professor Vojislav [e{elj voluntarily came to The Hague on 24 February 2003 and he has been in detention continuously for eight years. As early as 26 February 2003, Professor Vojislav [e{elj informed the ICTY that he would defend himself in person. After four years of forced imposition of defense counsel, Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s right to defend himself in person was reinstated for the second time pursuant to the Decision of the Appeals Chamber of 8 December 2006. In his initial appearance in court on 26 February 2003, Professor Vojislav [e{elj presented his position and informed the ICTY and the public that all the Prosecution charges against him are false and that they are based on false testimonies given by potential witnesses for the Prosecution. In March 2007, Professor Vojislav [e{elj requested that Trial Chamber III (“Trial Chamber”), in accordance with Rule 77 of the Rules, instigate and execute proceedings for contempt of the Tribunal against Carla Del Ponte, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and Daniel Saxon as there were reasonable grounds to suspect that they committed the offence of contempt of the Tribunal, because they knowingly and willfully interfered with the administration of justice by devising a system, ordering and encouraging investigators of the Prosecution subordinate to them to threaten, intimidate, inflict injuries and offer bribes to potential witnesses so that they would agree to give false testimony against Professor Vojislav [e{elj as witnesses for the Prosecution. That motion was neither denied nor dismissed, but rather, pursuant to the Trial Chamber’s Order of 15 May 2007, it was decided that the final decision would be issued after the completion of the main trial, concerning the charges of war crimes against Professor Vojislav [e{elj, but that Professor Vojislav [e{elj has the right during the trial to cross-examine witnesses about threats, intimidation and other improper actions to which potential witnesses were subjected by the Prosecution. As of 15 May 2007 and during the presentation of the Prosecution evidence and testimonies of witnesses in court between 7 November 2007 and 29 June 2010, the Trial Chamber Judges obtained first-hand details which eventually led them to issue the Decision of 29 June 2010. In the Decision of 29 June 2010, the Trial Chamber concluded that Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s allegations of threats, intimidation and other pressure put on witnesses by the Prosecution were even more substantiated. In the first phase of the trial when the Prosecution evidence was presented, starting from 15 January 2008, during Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses, the Judges and the public had an opportunity to see for themselves that a large number of witnesses, even under solemn declaration in court, gave false testimony during the course of evidence. False testimonies of wit209

nesses do not contribute to a fair trial whatsoever. That is why giving false testimony is prohibited and punishable in all legal systems, and in that regard there is Rule 91 of the Rules. ii. applicable law The applicable law before the ICTY in case there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a witness has given false testimony is Rule 91 of the Rules, which reads as follows: “Rule 91 (False Testimony under Solemn Declaration) (A) A Chamber, proprio motu or at the request of a party, may warn a witness of the duty to tell the truth and the consequences that may result from a failure to do so. (B) If a Chamber has strong grounds for believing that a witness has knowingly and willfully given false testimony, it may: (i) direct the Prosecutor to investigate the matter with a view to the preparation and submission of an indictment for false testimony; or (ii) where the Prosecutor, in the view of the Chamber, has a conflict of interest with respect to the relevant conduct, direct the Registrar to appoint an amicus curiae to investigate the matter and report back to the Chamber as to whether there are sufficient grounds for instigating proceedings for false testimony. (C) If the Chamber considers that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against a person for giving false testimony, the Chamber may: (i) in circumstances described in paragraph (B)(i), direct the Prosecutor to prosecute the matter; or (ii) in circumstances described in paragraph (B)(ii), issue an order in lieu of’ an indictment and direct amicus curiae to prosecute the matter. (D) The rules of procedure and evidence in Parts Four to Eight shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under this Rule. (E) Any person indicted for or charged with false testimony shall, if that person satisfies the criteria for determination of indigence established by the Registrar, be assigned counsel in accordance with Rule 45. (F) No Judge who sat as a member of the Trial Chamber before which the witness appeared shall sit for the trial of the witness for false testimony. (G) The maximum penalty for false testimony under solemn declaration shall be a fine of 100,000 Euros or a term of imprisonment of seven years, or both. The pavement of any fine imposed shall be paid to the Registrar to be held in the account referred to in Rule 77 (H). (H) Paragraphs (B) to (G) apply mutatis mutandis to a person who knowingly and willingly makes a false statement in a written statement taken in accordance with Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 quater which the person knows or has reason to know may be used as evidence in proceedings before the Tribunal. (I) Any decision rendered by a Trial Chamber under this Rule shall be subject to appeal. Notice of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days of filing of the impugned decision. Where such decision is rendered orally, the notice shall be filed within fifteen days of the oral decision, unless
210

(i) the party challenging the decision was not present or represented when the decision was pronounced, in which case the time-limit shall run from the date on which the challenging party is notified of the oral decision; or (ii) the Trial Chamber has indicated that a written decision will follow, in which case the time-limit shall run from filing of the written decision.” As for the specific cases covered in this Motion, Rule 91 (C)(ii) of the Rules should be applied to the criminal prosecution of persons for giving false testimony, and in that respect the President of the ICTY should appoint a relevant Trial Chamber. iii. facts as the basis for instigating proceedings This part of the Motion will present the facts on the basis of which it can be easily established that all the persons included in this Motion are Prosecution witnesses who, testifying under solemn declaration in court, knowingly and willfully gave false testimony. Testimony is false when the factual assertions made about an event do not correspond to, or do not give a true picture of what actually happened. It is impossible to expect that people who were present at an event have exactly the same story about the event. So there are differences in perception and they reflect individual preferences and characteristics of each individual, but anyone claiming to be an eyewitness to the event or a participant in the event must give the same testimony about the place, time, participants and definitely the action they witnessed. With regard to that, it may happen that witnesses are confused, imprecise, or that they fail to pay attention to some details, which can lead to doubt, but doubt can be removed by the fact that there are other evidentiary means, so putting the witness in that context can show some removable deficiencies of testimony. With regard to the crime of false testimony, in addition to untrue factual assertions, there is the requirement of knowledge and intent to present something the witness knows is not true. That is, in fact, how you discover the rationale, motive or reason for someone to give false testimony in court. A person’s motives and reasons show us why false testimony is given. Motives and reasons may vary, and some are given here as an illustration. Hatred of the Accused who belonged to the enemy side is probably present in all the witnesses called to testify, because they are victims of the enemy side, and a member of the enemy side is sitting opposite them. The conviction of the Accused at any cost to justify the opposing side for its participation in the armed conflict. The image created in the media is that the Serbs are guilty and the establishment of the Hague Tribunal was justified. Witnesses are rewarded because they are on the side that established the Hague Tribunal. Witnesses agree to give false testimony to free themselves from the pressure, threats, intimidation and blackmail coming from the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal and a whole system of nongovernmental organizations and institutions subordinated to, or serving the Tribunal. Resolving personal problems of day-to-day existence abroad, if they testify in favor of the Prosecution. Avoiding personal responsibility, if witnesses agree to be false witnesses for the Prosecution. The fact is that the Prosecution became interested in Professor Vojislav [e{elj in late 2002, and that the Indictment brought against him is not the result of evi211

dence collected from 1991 and the end of 2002, but the result of a political trial of Serbia and the Serbian people, who are allegedly on the path to the European Union and NATO. This is acknowledged by Carla Del Ponte in her book, saying that Zoran \indi}, the Serbian Prime Minister, at a meeting on 17 February 2003, asked her to take [e{elj and never bring him back. When Professor Vojislav [e{elj is faced with the facts that some witnesses gave statements to relevant organs in their territories from 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and all the way to 2001 and that they never mentioned the words [e{elj, [e{elj’s men, Serbian Radical Party volunteers or any other word that could have connotations of Professor Vojislav [e{elj, and then the same people in 2003, 2004 and all the way to 2008 or a few days before appearing in court, in statements given to Prosecution investigators, said that they suddenly remembered the details and allegedly they were more specific about what they said, for example, in 1992 or 1993, enough just to insert some of the words such as [e{elj or [e{elj’s men, then it can be noted with certainty that one of the motives for testimony listed above is at work. When some witnesses are trying to prove that now in the courtroom they remember the events that took place 17 or 18 years ago better than they faithfully described them one month or half a year after the event, when they gave their first statement, then one of the motives listed above is at work. When a witness testifying in court against Professor Vojislav [e{elj simply forgets what he said in his testimony about the same event in other proceedings in The Hague or before a national court, where he did not even bother to say the words such as [e{elj, [e{elj’s men or Serbian Radical Party volunteers, then one of the motives listed above is at work. There are many witnesses who testified in court against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and who, despite the cautions and calls from Professor Vojislav [e{elj and the Judges to rethink their testimony, in view of the other evidence presented about a particular event, continued giving false testimony, which is an obvious proof that one of the motives listed above is at work. The motives listed above undoubtedly prove that the witnesses knowingly and willfully gave false testimony. When the witnesses who spoke publicly and did not hide their hatred of Professor Vojislav [e{elj, and whose testimonies in other cases, court judgments in The Hague or before other national courts were not accepted as reliable, appear in court as witnesses against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and repeat their previous testimony, which had been assessed as unreliable, embellished for a specific purpose so that if the previous one was not reliable, this new and embellished testimony would be acceptable only because it is against Professor Vojislav [e{elj, then it is clear that these witnesses are actually proud of being false witnesses with impunity. So anything goes against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and everyone is protected, because they are not held criminally responsible for false testimony. There is little benefit for international law if false testimony is only dismissed as unreliable, without criminal prosecution of false witnesses. That is why this motion is not about the unreliability of witnesses and their testimonies, but rather about giving false testimony knowingly and willfully. The content of false testimonies that the witnesses gave in court before the Trial Chamber Judges are presented in separate sections as a systematic whole, individually for each witness, with their full names and dates when false testimony was
212

given in court or in statements given to the Prosecution. The content of false testimony is given, and somewhere it is said what it involves, and it is established that the testimony is false compared to the true account of events. 1. witness VS-015, goran Stopari}, testified in court on 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24 january 2008. During the examination-in-chief of this witness, the Prosecution was guided by previous preliminary statements the witness had given to Prosecution investigators. The witness marked the examination-in-chief by making excuses for not being able to remember the exact date, and sometimes the period, for the assertions he was making. In this way he tried to portray himself as allegedly not being able to specify correct dates and periods, but it did not prevent him from talking about allegedly some events and in the system of prosecutor’s questions and continuous answers the witness created a negative context of fictitious events and the presence of Professor Vojislav [e{elj at these events or some kind of participation and connection. Taking into account the time frame of the charges in respect of Hrtkovci and Vojvodina, 6 May 1992 and several (three) subsequent months, and the fact that the witness was at other locations at the time (as the witness asserts in his testimony), then it can be easily concluded that some information which is not contentious and which is known, by testifying that he was present or that somebody else told him, the witness, in effect, gives false testimony. That is the case with the Lasta estate agency and the case with a person whom the witness knows, Predrag Milanovi}. The rally and Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Kukujevci village at the time not covered by the Indictment, with his false testimony the witness connects the owner of the Lasta estate agency (who was not in Kukujevci at all) and Professor Vojislav [e{elj in order to create the impression among the Judges that there was some kind of connection between the agency and Professor Vojislav [e{elj and that it was at the time relevant to the Indictment. At the hearing of 15 January 2008, asked by the Prosecutor about Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Vukovar, “What do you remember him talking about?”, the witness gave false testimony containing the following assertion: “I remember that we, a group of men who were there in Prvomajska Street, took him to show him the dead there, four members of the National Guard Corps and three or four Croatian policemen from the MUP /Ministry of the Interior/, whom we had liquidated the day before. I know that [e{elj said jokingly, Why don’t you burn the corpses, you might catch a disease. I heard that in passing. Later on he went and tried to fire shots at a house across the road. Of course, he couldn’t see any enemies there, but as a symbolic gesture he fired shots in the direction where the Croatian forces were.” The witness tendentiously, that is, knowingly and willfully, misinterpreted the meeting there and the words uttered by Professor Vojislav [e{elj. It was not a joke, but rather through his question, Why don’t you burn the corpses, Professor Vojislav [e{elj expressed concern that there could be contagion because of decomposing bodies or that dogs or other animals could tear the bodies apart. So it is false testimony that contains an untrue assertion, and the witness did it deliberately to portray Professor Vojislav [e{elj as a man who, even when it concerns enemy bodies, shows hatred of the Croats, the hatred in a joke in bad taste.
213

At the hearing of 16 January 2008, at the Prosecutor’s request, the witness looked at paragraph 55 of his statement from 2006 to refresh his memory about when he was present at the rally. Having refreshed his memory, the witness said, “I said that it was the summer of 1991. That was what I said then, but I can still not guarantee that it is absolutely correct,” and then there came the Prosecutor’s question, “Do you remember the speech given by Mr. [e{elj?” which the witness answered by giving false testimony, “At the time Mr. [e{elj had a speech that was always the same, it made no difference whether it was given in [id or Kru{evac. At that moment he focused on the socio-political situation facing us, the threat of war that already started or was about to start, of the new Croatian Democratic Union. So during those few months the speech was the same, regardless of the venue”. The witness placed the speech in the summer of 1991 at the football stadium in [id, and there was no rally, but for the Prosecution it is important that Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s speech is the same. Of course, the witness distanced himself from the part of his written statement that Professor Vojislav [e{elj greeted those present with a Hitler salute, by raising his arm, and the witness even expressed his astonishment that it was in his statement, since he never said this to investigators and he would never say anything like that, but he signed the statement. There followed a question by the Prosecutor, “Did he give any suggestions that the Croats should be expelled?” and the witness gave false testimony, “At that moment he used some similar terms, but at that moment he had to do that. No, he didn’t have to, he simply said that. At that moment there was already an enormous influx of refugees into Serbia. He said something similar, I can’t quote Mr. [e{elj, later he was in favor of a principle of retortion”. The witness placed his allegations in the context of paragraph 55 of his written statement from 2006 allegedly about a rally that Professor Vojislav [e{elj held in the summer of 1991 at the football stadium in [id, where the witness was also present, and it is a widely known fact that this alleged rally was not held in the summer of 1991. In almost the same way the witness interpreted the rally in Kukujevci village with statements containing false testimonies. Asked by the Prosecutor, “Do you know whether there were any activities of Radical Party members encouraging the Croats to leave Vojvodina?” the witness gave false testimony, “I can’t talk about Vojvodina, but I can talk about my municipality, which is in Vojvodina. Some members of the Serbian Radical Party, and some who were not members, had some activities in the villages of Kukujevci, Sot and Gibarac, they simply went to those villages, to those cafes, sometimes they threatened some people. I know about the cases when people went, maltreated some people, sometimes the police intervened, and sometimes not.” Asked by the Prosecutor whether Predrag Milanovi} went around villages and abused people and whether the witness could give an example of how Mr. Milanovi} abused people verbally, the witness gave false testimony, “You see, he received authorisation from Milan Petri}, he was authorized in writing to go to such and such man, to such and such businessman and ask for help for the Radical Party” and “So then he, that was one way, the Croats understood this as maltreat214

ment, extortion of money. Legally it was not extortion, but that was what they considered it to be, or that Albanian.” Asked by the Prosecutor about the summer of 1992 and whether Predrag Milanovi} was one of the members of black trios, the witness gave false testimony containing this assertion: “That’s what they called themselves, yes. He was a kind of leader of a black trio, I don’t know. And I never mentioned it to you that black trios were something compulsory in a statute. I told you that in [id municipality some people simply called themselves black trios, alluding or recalling some black trios that existed in the past, in our history, which were established and led by a man called Apis.” Asked by the Prosecutor whether he was offered a position in these black trios, the witness gave false testimony, “Yes, I wouldn’t call it a position. They did not offer it to me explicitly, I was a member of the Serbian Radical Party, in that section we already had lists of each platoon, just in case, God forbid, there had been a widespread war, we would have already been self-organized and reported to army units somewhere. In those lists and among those members of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, I was the commander of a platoon, that place was assigned to me.” As for Predrag Milanovi}, the witness gave a series of false testimonies that Milanovi} told the witness how he went around villages, even Hrtkovci, to put pressure on the Croats to move out. Asked by the Prosecutor, “Did Mr. Milanovi} beat up the Croats in Hrtkovci?” the witness gave false testimony, “According to his statements, yes.” Asked by the Prosecutor about Predrag Milanovi}, “Did he tell you that he extorted money from the Croats in Hrtkovci?” the witness gave false testimony, “He mentioned such things.” Asked by the Prosecutor, in connection with the summer of 1992 and Gibarac village, did Mr. Milanovi} tell you about the visit he paid to the Kopi} family, the witness gave false testimony containing this assertion: “Simply he started that story to tell me: do you know that your schoolmate has moved away? When I was a young man I played football with that man. In that context, knowing that I knew him, he told me that he went to their house, I can’t remember the details now, I can’t right now, if you have anything else that I remembered earlier, you can ask me. But that was it, in fact, simply something mental, plus the inhabitants of Gibarac village knew Milanovi} as a prominent, I can’t say Radical or Chetnik, but rather nationalist who, in a way, also proved himself on the front.” Asked by the Prosecutor, in connection with the summer of 1992 and Gibarac village, did the Kopi} family leave after Mr. Milanovi}’s visit, the witness gave false testimony containing the assertion: “I can’t tell you whether it was in the next two or three days, I don’t know, but they are not in the village now, they have left the village.” Asked by the Prosecutor, in connection with the summer of 1992 and Gibarac village, do you know whether a hand grenade was thrown into their (Kopi} family) yard, the witness gave false testimony containing the assertion: “I think that once a hand grenade was thrown into their yard and once it was thrown into a man’s place in Sot village.”
215

Professor Vojislav [e{elj cross-examined the witness on 22, 23 and 24 January 2008. During cross-examination the witness tried to relativise the false allegations from previous written statements given to Prosecution investigators and false testimonies given during examination-in-chief by the Prosecutor in court. At the hearing of 24 January 2008, during cross-examination in court, it was established that during examination-in-chief on 15 and 16 January 2008 the witness gave a series of false testimonies about a meeting in 2003, after the arrest of Miroljub and Stanko and the agreement between Kameni, Ceca and Kinez, and in relation to the events at Ov~ara. The witness invented everything, and the proof of that is that Ceca was arrested in January 2003 and Stanko and Miroljub after March 2003. The witness also gave false testimony about an alleged meeting with Ratko Mladi} near Livno in the spring of 1992. With regard to the witness’s testimonies which Professor Vojislav [e{elj said were false during cross-examination, the Prosecution subsequently investigated some statements of the witness, and the Prosecution confirmed Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s assertion that Goran Stopari} gave false testimony. Professor Vojislav [e{elj received all that from the Prosecution in writing and he said in court that he had received it so that it would be noted in the transcript during the hearing of 16 April 2008. Simply the facts subsequently established by the Prosecution prove that the witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimony and the only question that remains is the criminal responsibility of Goran Stopari}. 2. witness VS-013, Mladen Kuli}, testified on 4, 5 and 6 March 2008. During the cross-examination on 5 March 2008, with regard to his work in the municipal organ of Territorial Defense attached to the Secretariat of National Defense of Podravska Slatina, the witness gave a series of false testimonies. “I worked until June 1991, 1971, I’m sorry”, and asked whether he burst into the police station and disarmed the policemen, the witness said, “It’s not correct”, and asked whether he was drunk, the witness said, “It’s not correct”. Asked whether he was arrested and put in prison because he had burst into the police station, the witness said, “I was detained in 1991, but not like that or because of that”. In connection with his bursting into the police station, asked whether he was sent to a psychiatric hospital for forced treatment for alcoholism, because psychiatrists established that he was totally unaccountable for his acts under the influence of alcohol, the witness said, “It’s not correct”. Although the Judges tried to help the witness to get out of the situation and not to deny it in advance, in the end the witness shyly and almost unnoticeably admitted it, saying that he had problems with alcohol, but apparently in 1991, which was again false testimony, because everything was related to 1971. In his statement given to Prosecution investigators in 2002, with regard to the establishment of the SDS /Serbian Democratic Party/ the witness /said/ that he did not like the people who joined the SDS, because they were people who joined to form a kind of gang. Despite the fact that the witness did not contest that he had signed such a statement given to Prosecution investigators, during cross-examination he distanced himself from the word “gang”. In this way the witness opened not only the question of giving false testimony (in a written statement or during the course of evidence in court), but also the question of how authentic are the written statements given to Prosecution investigators.
216

Asked about the crime in ]etekovci in September 1991 in which he took part, the witness made a series of false assertions that criminal proceedings were conducted against him in Bjelovar in 1995 for armed rebellion, and that he was acquitted of the charges for the crime in ]etekovci because of insufficient evidence. In fact, the witness defended himself in Bjelovar by accusing Bora Luki} and Mile Crnobrnja, because he knew that Bora Luki} was killed back in 1994 and Mile Crnobrnja had moved away a long time ago. In his answers to the questions about his statement given to Prosecution investigators on 14 November 2007 and the assertion that he was once on the premises of the Serbian Radical Party, the witness gave a false statement concerning the location of the Serbian Radical Party headquarters in Belgrade, Ohridska Strict, saying that it was somewhere above Zelena Pijaca /green market/. The witness also gave false testimony about a conversation which he allegedly had with Ljubi{a Petkovi}, and he particularly lied about Ljubi{a Petkovi}’s appearance. During the cross-examination on 6 March 2008, everybody had a chance to see clearly that there was no limit to the lies that the witness could tell. In his written statement given to Prosecution investigators, the witness included Jovan Kuli} among Serbian Radical Party volunteers, and when he was shown a statement of Colonel Trbojevi} during cross-examination, the witness said that he assumed that Jovan Kuli} belonged to a group of Serbian Radical Party volunteers. Simply, the witness had an opportunity and he used that opportunity to put all sorts of things in his written statements or during testimony in a context with Professor Vojislav [e{elj with authority, and when he was cornered by evidence of the same facts, then the witness simply admitted that it was what he had heard or assumed, forgetting that he previously asserted that he was well-informed about everything. If there had been no cross-examination, this witness was prepared to present all the lies as the truth with authority. He was able to testify against widely known facts. He presented Du{an Peki} as the federal minister of the interior, although the whole SFRY /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia / knew that it was Petar Gra~anin. With regard to the court proceedings in Bjelovar in 1995, the witness also gave false testimony that his defense in those proceedings was provided by the UN, but, in fact, it was the US Embassy in Zagreb. The witness also gave false testimony about Rajko Boji~i}, whom he accused of the murder of four young Croats in December 1991, and he lied knowingly and willfully about this, although he knew very well that Boji~i} and the witness left Vo}in on the same day. Trying to cover up his false testimonies, the witness made a scene to avoid reading the statement and deny an answer to questions about Paja Baljak’s statement which had been sent to the Defense. During cross-examination, Professor Vojislav [e{elj could not use the statement of Slobodan Bosanac, who was convicted at the trial before the court in Bjelovar in 1995, because the Judges protected the witness from questions and from establishing in court that all the witness’s previous statements were a collection of false testimonies.
217

The witness’s false testimonies include his assertion that he was the vice-president of the SAO /Serbian Autonomous District/ of Western Slavonia from 1 June 1991 to 30 April 1993, even after he corrected the date to 1 June 1992 to 30 June 1993, because there was no such organ, which is also contradictory to the historical facts from an annex to the Indictment (as of February 1992, there was only the RSK /Republic of Serbian Krajina/). Apart from establishing that it was false testimony, this was an opportunity to establish that there was a great difference between the witness’s statement in Serbian and English, because dates had been left out in the statement in English. The witness also gave false testimony that he was authorized to sign the Daruvar Agreement in March 1993 and that was why the authorities of the Republic of Serbian Krajina arrested him in September 1993. The witness also gave false testimony presenting his wife, namely, he said that his wife and daughter were in Belgrade, but in his written statement he said that he heard incorrectly about volunteers from his wife (Jelena Rado{evi}) who worked in a health institution and who was also a Prosecution witness. Allegedly on the basis of information from others, and it turns out that everyone rushed to confess to him, the witness gave a series of false testimonies, which the Judges could see for themselves in court. Although the Judges asked the witness several times during cross-examination to go back and answer the questions which they noticed were left unanswered, the Judges never cautioned the witness that he could be held accountable for giving false testimony once he made the witness’s solemn declaration. The witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimonies during questioning in court and very ineptly tried to present all the lies he told as his confusion, or he tendentiously pretended that he did not understand the questions. He also testified in the Milo{evi} case and gave a series of totally different testimonies about almost the same questions, but after he was shown what he had said before, he noticeably tried to correct himself and adapt his testimony in court to the written statements which he had given to Prosecution investigators. This witness is not an eyewitness, but rather a forty-third-hand witness. Without touching on the relevance and probative value of his evidence, the whole system of false testimonies proves that this is a man who was prepared for one story and tried to get away with it. Not only did he not get away with his account of the events, but also it will remain recorded forever that he gave false testimonies. With his answers the witness proved what the true motive for a series of false testimonies was. The witness now lives in Podravska Slatina, he is a member of a number of non-governmental organizations and other institutions allegedly dealing with the return of the Serbs. In 1993 the witness secretly negotiated with the Croatian authorities and that was why the authorities of the Republic of Serbian Krajina arrested him. In 1995 the witness was arrested and taken to court in Bjelovar not only because of armed rebellion, but also because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he took part in the crime in ]etekovci village in September 1991. In the court in Bjelovar he defended himself by accusing others, and when he gave a statement as an accused, he insisted that the co-accused leave the courtroom so that no Serbs would hear what he said in his defense. The US Embassy in Zagreb intervened to acquit him,
218

as a token of gratitude for what he previously did and what they were planning for him to do. He took part in other two operations in which crimes took place, so he has a vested interest in accusing others of all the crimes, and if he cannot do it directly, he can say that he heard it from someone who committed them. He also demonstrated his ability to give false testimony by accusing of the crime in Vo}in those people who left Vo}in with him in a convoy a few days before the crime was committed. To cover up his role, it was easiest for the witness, using hearsay, to pin all the blame on members of two families from neighboring villages and, even better, on Serbian Radical Party volunteers, although he knew very well that there were no Serbian Radical Party volunteers at the place where the crime in Vo}in took place. His private life and family circumstances which he tried to hide during his testimony are the best proof that the witness tried to testify with authority and cover up giving false evidence, which fully corresponds to the existence of knowledge and intent to give false testimony. 3. witness VS-1013, edib omerovi}, protected witness, testified on 25 and 26 March 2008. At the hearing of 25 March 2008 the witness gave false testimony which was basically presented as his opinion based on the information the witness gave as facts known to him. It must be pointed out in the introduction that the false testimony does not refer to the opinion of the witness, but to his representation of facts which are false, and the untrue facts that the witness presented are as follows: “Everything started with the arrival of Dobrica ]osi}, Vuk Dra{kovi}, you (Professor Vojislav [e{elj), with the acceptance of Bora \ordevi} into the Academy, and I would link this to Branko ]opi}’s’ suicide. At the time I was in secondary school, I didn’t understand it then, but as far as you remember, I think it was on the news at the time that he called a press conference where he said that a plan was being prepared for all non-Serbs to be killed, after which he was declared mad and he committed suicide. I think he jumped off a bridge, not into the water but on to the ground beside the water.” The witness gave false testimony that in the hands of Major Toro he “saw a black military ID which said that he was a member of [e{elj’s army”. Later the witness apparently remembered and embellished his previous false testimony with a new one, “It said the Serbian Radical Party and there was a two-headed eagle on it”, specifying that it was a black booklet whose format and shape resembled a military booklet. Of course, all this is an embellishment of the first statement that he gave in 1993 and 1996. This witness was prepared for testimony by the BH Intelligence Service and that was why in each new statement he embellished the initial statement, which was originally his. Faced with these facts, during cross-examination the witness relativised his initial statements with the qualifications that he apparently thought it was like that, that he had heard it from someone, that it seemed to him that he had seen or heard something, and with similar excuses. It must certainly be borne in mind that through this witness the Prosecution tried to link Professor Vojislav [e{elj to persons who committed crimes by having the witness identify all these persons as [e{elj’s men or, as the Prosecution is trying to impose, members or the Serbian forces who are implicitly in a joint criminal enterprise. The witness showed
219

persistence in defending the truthfulness of the listed false testimonies and there he demonstrated that there was intent and knowledge that these assertions were false, and that is why they are included in this criminal report. 4. witness VS-1015, fehim Dautovi}, protected witness, testified on 26 and 27 March 2008. During examination-in-chief and cross examination, the witness gave a series of false testimonies, namely, the first time in court he fully embellished his previous statements, which did not contain the words [e{elj or [e{elj’s men. Faced with contradictions that could not be justified, trying to stop the cross-examination of the witness and thus prevent the public from finding out that the main details of the witness’s oral testimony differed significantly from his previous statements, the Prosecutor clearly presented the Prosecution’s position: “Then the question should be put that this is quoted from a document from 1993. His testimony today was different and that’s why there is confusion. We are talking here about the statement from 1993 by which the witness does not stand today, and it is quoted as if the witness said it today.” This situation was clear to the Judges, so the Presiding Judge noted: “Wait, Mr. Marcussen, you’re saying that the witness does not stand by what he said in 1993. This is not what I understood at all, you are interpreting it like that. The question is as follows: Who is this Vojvoda? In 1993, the witness said that he was called Repi}. The Accused is telling us that this man Repi} is in fact Du{an Vu~kovi}, who was tried and convicted for the crimes committed. This is what I understood, but maybe I misunderstood it.” So under immense pressure and instructions from the Prosecution, the witness gave false testimonies, without being able to explain why 14 years later the statement was changed to add that it was about [e{elj’s men. As it was perfectly clear in the courtroom what the situation was about, Professor Vojislav [e{elj said the following: “Mr. President, I have obtained everything I wanted from this witness, if you do not want to see that and if you did not draw that conclusion, that’s up to you, I’m not interested in that. I have proven that this witness, his suffering, his ordeal and sacrifice have been exploited and that his current statement does not reflect the real situation. His first statement is truthful and everything else was just an artificial embellishment, and I have nothing personal against this witness, I have presented my counter-evidence and I have shown it here convincingly and what matters to me is that the public will certainly understand that this innocent witness has been exploited for some political goals. I’m not going to ask him any more questions. I finished my cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. VS-1015, for helping me do what I wanted to do even without your intention.” 5. witness VS-033, Milan Dobrilovi}, protected witness, testified on 1 and 2 april 2008. Asked by the Prosecutor as to when, and to what address, he went to join the Serbian Chetnik Movement and the Serbian Radical Party volunteers, the witness gave a false statement that he went to Ohridska Street, that it was in July 1991, and that Zoran Ranki} told him that he would be called when enough volunteers were
220

ensured for Western Slavonia. In the court files there are documents submitted by the Prosecution that only on 12 October 1991 was it discovered that volunteers were needed for Western Slavonia, so it could not have possibly be done in July 1991, and the Serbian Radical Party did not even use the offices in Ohridska Street in July 1991. Asked by the Prosecutor about the certificate that served as evidence of participation in armed conflict and as evidence for the purpose of some benefits, the witness gave false testimony that the certificates were issued by Ljubi{a Petkovi}, or the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party. All the certificates were issued by the Territorial Defense, and as of 1 October 1991, the date from which all benefits for both the reserve force and the volunteers are recognized, the certificates were issued by the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/. The certificates were valid until the withdrawal of the JNA from Croatia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina. Besides, there is no certificate of participation in armed conflict issued by Ljubi{a Petkovi} or certificate with the stamp of the Serbian Radical Party and signature of Ljubi{a Petkovi} on the basis of which somebody can receive benefits. Of course, all this should be assessed in relation to the period when the witness was a volunteer. Asked by the Prosecutor to explain from where the volunteers left for Western Slavonia and where the buses were parked, the witness gave false testimony that they left from 27. Marta Street, in the immediate vicinity of the Botanical Gardens, where the buses were allegedly parked. In response to the same question of the Prosecutor, the witness went on adding to his false testimony that some volunteers were drunk and openly spoke about the purpose of their leaving as volunteers. The group of volunteers, including the witness, who went to Western Slavonia on 25 October 1991 and all other groups of volunteers left from Ohridska Street, where the buses were parked. After all, the video footage played in the courtroom showed that volunteers left for Western Slavonia from Ohridska Street, which can be recognized based on parts of Ohridska Street in the footage, and that Ljubi{a Petkovi} spoke to the volunteers. Asked by the Prosecutor as to who from that area met and greeted the volunteers when they arrived in Bosanska Gradi{ka, the witness gave false testimony that they were met and greeted, among others, by Goran Had`i~. The Prosecution knows how much the witness lied, because Goran Had`i} was the Prime Minister of Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja at the time, and Goran Had`i} had no connection with Western Slavonia in October 1991, nor was there a territorial connection between Western Slavonia and Eastern Slavonia. It was for the first time only during the proofing with the Prosecution that the witness gave false testimony that Veljko D`akula was also present on that occasion in Bosanska Gradi{ka, but he did not mention that in his statements from 2004 and 2006. Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj as to whose president was Goran Had`i} at the time, the witness gave false testimony that Goran Had`i} was in the Government of Western Slavonia, and it was such a big lie that even the Prosecutor passed in silence over it, without trying to help the witness to change his testimony. Asked by a Judge whether anyone else apart from the Serbian Radical Party sent volunteers to Western Slavonia, the witness gave false testimony that all the volunteers went through the Serbian Radical Party.
221

Asked by a Judge whether all the volunteers had done military service in the JNA, the witness gave false testimony that they had not and that there were also criminals among volunteers, but he did not give any examples. Asked by the Prosecutor as to who Radovan Nova~i} spoke to over the telephone from Western Slavonia and who he met when he came to Belgrade, the witness gave false testimony that Nova~i} spoke over the telephone with Vojislav [e{elj and that he met him (Vojislav [e{elj) in his office in Belgrade. Asked by the Prosecutor how often Nova~i} travelled to Belgrade for meetings and what was the purpose of the meetings in the War Staff, the witness gave false testimony that he and Nova~i} came to Belgrade every ten days primarily to report to Vojislav [e{elj, as the supreme commander, which was how the witness referred to him. According to Radovan Nova~i}’s statement which is in the transcript, during his stay in Western Slavonia from 25 October to 3 December 1991, he and the witness came to Belgrade only once and he never met Professor Vojislav [e{elj. During the course of evidence the witness gave false testimony that he received instructions from Ljubi{a Petkovi} to pay attention to Radovan Nova~i} so that he would not put the volunteers in an awkward position, because Nova~i} was half-Croatian. During the course of evidence the witness did not mention that he saw Ljubi{a Petkovi} when he left for Western Slavonia. The witness gave false testimony that he was an eyewitness twice when those present or employed in Ohridska Street reported to Professor Vojislav [e{elj, and they did it by stepping out of the line, standing to attention and reporting. None of the witnesses questioned, except Witness Dobrilovi}, said this. The witness gave false testimony that one Muslim, who was a Serbian Radical Party volunteer, had his throat cut in a school in Oku~ani by one of these volunteers, and added that it was the reason why Nova~ic came to Belgrade to speak to [e{elj, to inform him about this case, because the JNA did not want to do any investigation. With regard to this crime, the witness accused “Topola”, whom, as the witness asserted, Nova~i} had expelled from Western Slavonia a few days earlier. According to Radovan Nova~i}’s statement, which is in the transcript, who the witness said knew about the murder of one Muslim in Oku~ani and went to Belgrade to personally inform Dr Vojislav [e{elj about it, Radovan Nova~i} had no information about the murder of one Muslim in Oku~ani. Oku~ani are on the other side from Vo}in, where Nova~i} was, he did not come to Belgrade about that, and he never met Dr Vojislav [e{elj. Radovan Nova~i} confirmed that he knew that Zuhdija Kova~evi}, a Serbian Radical Party volunteer, a Muslim, was killed in combat on 5 December 1991, together with another five Serbian Radical Party volunteers, who were Serbs. The witness gave false testimony that he saw “Topola” after that in the Serbian Radical Party headquarters in Ohridska Street, with some volunteers. The witness gave false testimony that the group of volunteers with whom he went to Western Slavonia had not been warned about discipline and treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. The witness gave false testimony that “Topola” started causing problems on arrival and that Radovan Nova~i} immediately sent him back to Belgrade.
222

During cross-examination, asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether it was true that the witness had stated that the Serbian Radical Party received 1,000 German marks for each volunteer from the Territorial Defense and the Serbian State Security, the witness said that he had heard it on the front from the commander of a village in Western Slavonia, but he did not say which village, or the name of the commander, trying to cover up his false testimony. Since he was caught lying, asked why he told this to the prosecutors only in 2006, and not in 2004, the witness said that he did not remember, and maybe he said it, but the prosecutors did not enter it into the statement. The witness gave false testimony that General Milan Gruji} was the person who provided weapons for volunteers. The witness gave false testimony that, together with Radovan Nova~i} and Ljubi{a Petkovi}, he spoke with four JNA generals in the city command and that Air Force General Stevanovi}, whom they asked for aircraft support, was also present. Asked by the Prosecutor as to what he knew about Ljubi{a Petkovi}’s contacts with the State Security Service, the witness gave false testimony that Petkovi} once took him to a certain Simon \ureti}, who he said was a military intelligence officer. As for questions regarding Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s visit to Western Slavonia and his only speech to the volunteers, the witness gave false testimony that Vojislav [e{elj said that everyone should be killed, but that they should not loot. Asked about the killing of several Croats in Vo}in in mid-December 1991, the witness gave false testimony linking the volunteers, [vaba and Zoran Mi{~evi}, and apparently he learned about the killings of civilians in Vo}in from a lad called [ilja. The witness also gave false testimony that he returned to Western Slavonia around 14 December 1991, that he pulled out all the volunteers and that he demanded that Colonel Trbojevi} arrest and punish the perpetrators of the crime against Croatian civilians. The witness invented all this, because all the volunteers from the territory of Western Slavonia controlled by Colonel Trbojevi} had left this territory by 6 December 1991. At the time the witness was in Belgrade, and on the basis of the travel authorisation it can be established that the witness indeed travelled to Western Slavonia on 13 December 1991. The witness could go only as far as Oku~ani, because the local residents withdrew on 10, 11 and 12 December 1991, and there is a document about it among the exhibits, so at the time, on 14 December 1991, the Croatian armed forces occupied the territory which was not safe to enter. Besides, Colonel Trbojevi} was not in Western Slavonia at the time the witness asserts, therefore the witness gave false testimony that he had met him and asked him to punish the perpetrators of the crime or expel him from the territory. Asked by the Prosecutor when he last spoke with Ljubi{a Petkovi}, the witness gave false testimony that they spoke in December 2007, and during crossexamination, when Aleksandar Gaji}’s statement was put before him, the witness was caught lying and he admitted that he spoke with Petkovi} in late March 2008 and that he personally called Gaji} and Petkovi}. This is a good example for esta223

blishing that the witness knowingly and willfully told lies, and when he realized that he had been caught lying, he simply admitted it in order to relativise the situation, because those who proofed him for testimony counted on these admissions being corrections of a small imprecision about what the witness knows, while preserving other lies told by the witness which he did not subsequently correct. Asked by the Prosecutor whether insignia other than cockades could be bought freely, the witness gave false testimony that Serbian Chetnik Movement membership cards in various colors could be bought and the witness would later take them to Zoran Dra`ilovi}, who would sign and stamp them. With regard to travel authorisation number 1291, registered under number 765 on the 65 ter exhibit list, the witness gave false testimony that he and Nova~i} received the document in Banja Luka and that it was signed by General Antun Tus. As the witness’s assertion was incredible, Professor Vojislav [e{elj reminded the witness that the document says the Podravska Slatina Territorial Defense and it was impossible that Antun Tus, a Croatian Army general, signed the document. Besides, Tus is a Croat, and Croats do not use the Cyrillic script. The witness continued testifying falsely that he and Nova~i} interpreted the signature as Tus. During cross-examination the witness gave false testimony that a State Security officer was apparently with the volunteers in Western Slavonia and that Ljubi{a Petkovi} was often in contact with State Security officials. The witness said nothing about this in his statement given to the Prosecution in 2004, and he added this only in his statement from 2006. The witness gave false testimony when he asserted that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was planning to kill Radovan Nova~i} and that Radovan Nova~i} was planning to kill Professor Vojislav [e{elj. The witness gave incredibly false testimony that Professor Vojislav [e{elj, during his visit to Western Slavonia in November 1991, received a brown and blue briefcase with money from Colonel Trbojevi} and Zoran Mi{~evi}. The witness gave false testimony that he knew about the beating of former members of the Serbian Radical Party, done by Zoran Dra`ilovic with a group of members of the Serbian Radical Party, but he could not name any case or give any name, rather he continued to testify falsely that he had heard it from some volunteers who were members of a group with whom the Serbian Radical Party allegedly shared premises in Preradovi}eva Street, with an informal group or the Serbian Volunteers Fund, whose member was the witness. The witness gave false testimony when in 2004 he told the Prosecution that the transport of volunteers to Srebrenica by helicopter was organized with the Serbian State Security and the Special Operations Unit, also known as the Red Berets. Since the Prosecution also found this assertion made by the witness in 2006 incredible, it did not refer to that, because it knew that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was in prison in Gnjilane at the time, in July 1995. During cross-examination it was clear to everyone that the witness gave false testimony that allegedly Professor Vojislav [e{elj, through Vojkan from the Serbian Radical Party Security Service, ordered to attack Muslim worshippers in the Belgrade mosque with automatic rifles.
224

Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj as to when the witness was last in contact with Aleksandar Gaji}, the witness gave false testimony that it was one or two months ago. Since the witness sent a text message to Aleksandar Gaji} a few hours before his testimony, that is, on the night between the two days of his testimony, Professor Vojislav [e{elj read the number of the mobile phone from which the message was sent, so the witness finally changed his mind and admitted to having sent only one message, and later he admitted that there were two messages, although he also claimed that it was not his mobile phone. The statement sent by Aleksandar Gaji} is the best proof that the witness, induced by Nata{a Kandi} and the promised benefits, was prepared and agreed to give false testimony against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. The list of false testimonies of this witness also includes his assertion that Ljubi{a Petkovi} had informed the witness and Aleksandar Gaji} about the sequence of witness testimonies, but the fact is that neither the Prosecution nor the Trial Chamber Judges knew when each witness would testify. The witness’s colorful criminal record proves that he is always ready to give false evidence: He admitted that he threw a makeshift hand grenade at the Belgrade mosque in December 1992, that he was discovered only in 1996, when he was arrested, and a large quantity of explosive and ammunition, a pistol, an automatic rifle and other objects were confiscated during the search of his apartment. He admitted to the following crimes: 1. On 10 September 1993 in Vojvode Milenka Street, outside building number 19, in front of a window of Femi Abdurmahani, an Albanian, they set up and activated 200 grams of explosive; 2. On 1 February 1994 in the Vi{nji~ka Banja neighborhood, in 110. Nova Street, near number 33, he planted dynamite under Milorad Popovic’s car, assuming that the car’s owner was a [iptar /Albanian/; 3. On 27 April 1993 in 29. November Street, near number 128, he planted an explosive device under the vehicle used by Januz Enimaj which caused great material damage after explosion; 4. On 26 may 1993 in Pop Stojanova Street number 13, in the yard of St Anthony’s Catholic church in Belgrade, he planted and activated an explosive device, which caused great material damage; 5. On 13 January 2000, while serving a three-year prison sentence for the crimes he committed, he escaped from prison; 6. He committed many crimes of aggravated theft and document forgery, that is, identity card forgery. The witness completed his repertoire of false testimonies with the false assertion that, during a meeting with Gaji} and Petkovi} in a baking house in December 2007, Gaji} told him that Ljubi{a Petkovi} was planning to kill Paolo Pastore Stocchi. This is only a part of false testimonies given knowingly and willfully by this witness, who not only did not conceal his hatred of Professor Vojislav [e{elj, but also gave false testimony in almost every opportunity and with regard to every detail, ignoring the fact that all of that can be easily exposed. Simply the witness be225

haved as if he was absolutely protected and he could say anything that would serve to accuse Professor Vojislav [e{elj, because someone obviously guaranteed the witness absolute protection from prosecution for giving false testimony. 6. witness VS-1014, fadil Kopi}, 92 ter witness, testified on 9 april 2008. The witness was a victim of torture in some facilities in the territory of Zvornik municipality after 5 May 1992 which was committed by persons who were tried in Belgrade. None of the persons identified as responsible for the torture has any connection with Professor Vojislav [e{elj or the Serbian Radical Party volunteers and the charges against Professor Vojislav [e{elj in respect of Zvornik. The testimony is absolutely irrelevant with regard to time and persons. In such a situation, the question is rightly asked as to what the Prosecution wanted to achieve through this witness. The answer to this question was given by the witness, as well as by the Prosecution. The witness gave a statement to Prosecution investigators in July 1997 and it was presented as a 92 ter statement. Although the witness acknowledged the statement he signed as his, during his testimony in court the witness asked to correct several allegedly wrong words, which was supposed just to strengthen the credibility of the witness, because if the witness had been proofed, then it could have been corrected in the real 92 ter statement. The Prosecution needed the witness to confirm only a few words, such as [e{elj and [e{elj’s men. With regard to that, the witness gave false testimony that the people who beat him told him that they were [e{elj’s men, that they considered [e{elj as God and that it was the Muslims’ fault that they did not vote for [e{elj. It follows that the witness did not invent this but his torturers told him so. The problem with this witness is that his torturers who were tried in Belgrade for the location of Zvornik had no connection with Professor Vojislav [e{elj, which was noted in the judgments of the court in Belgrade. The Judges saw for themselves that the testimony of the witness was false with regard to the identification of the White Eagles insignia carried by his torturers and the alleged connection between the White Eagles and Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Considering that this witness enjoyed the hospitality of Nata{a Kandi} during his testimony in Belgrade, then it is perfectly clear why they devised this witness and one or two sentences that he was supposed to say as convincingly as possible. If the persons who allegedly told the witness that they were [e{elj’s men did not say that and distanced themselves from that at the trial before the court in Belgrade, where they were indicted and convicted, then the witness, knowingly and willfully, gave false testimony, taking into account how he was obtained as a witness and all the logistics that Nata{a Kandi} provided to the witness and his wife in Belgrade. 7. witness VS-1062, Safeta Bilali}, protected witness, testified on 10 april 2008. The witness gave a statement to the Intelligence and Security Service of the BH Federation in Tuzla on 3 February 2003. She denied the statement in court, but Professor Vojislav [e{elj received the witness’s signed statement from the Prosecution. In the statement the witness described the details of the events in which her
226

husband and two sons died, but she did not mention [e{elj’s men anywhere in the statement. Although it was clear to everyone in the courtroom that it was the real statement of this witness with her signature, then simply the conclusion is drawn that during the course of evidence in court the witness gave false testimony that [e{elj’s men took her out of the shelter and, as she asserted, saved her from Arkan’s men, who were shooting detained men from the shelter. Embellishing her false testimony, the witness resorted to describing the difference between [e{elj’s and Arkan’s men, that good [e{elj’s men saved civilians from bad Arkan’s men who were killing civilians, and the witness knew this because [e{elj’s men wore camouflage uniforms, while Arkan’s men wore black uniforms. This is all an embellishment that differs significantly from the first statement of this witness. As this lie was exposed during cross-examination, the Prosecution tried to alleviate this situation to some extent through one of the subsequent witnesses, allegedly an eyewitness who was a few kilometers away on a hill, from where he saw with his binoculars that people were being shot dead, but since a lie cannot be absolute and ideal, this witness also had to embellish it in his own way, so they all wore camouflage uniforms. Both witnesses gave false testimonies, and if both did not lie, then one of the two witnesses certainly gave false testimony. 8. witness VS-007, \or|e neznanovi}, protected witness, testified in closed session on 15, 16 and 17 april 2008. During cross-examination on 16 April 2008 the witness said that he volunteered to be a Prosecution witness against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and that on 21 June 2003 he was transferred abroad through the Hague Tribunal. At the trial of the Vukovar Three, the witness said that in his youth he had problems and that in connection with the crime his wife was hurt, she fell down the stairs awkwardly and broke two fingers, that he was charged with grievous bodily harm and not with attempted murder, because the charges were changed to grievous bodily harm during the trial. To show the Judges in the courtroom how big a liar the witness is, almost the entire case file was read out regarding the event when the witness attacked his wife and her lover with an axe and when he broke her arm with the axe. At the trial of the Vukovar Three, when defense counsel did not have these documents, the witness asserted that there had been an accident and that his wife slipped awkwardly, fell down the stairs and broke two fingers, while all the court documents show that the witness was lying and that he was accused of attempted murder, convicted and imprisoned for attempted murder, and that he was spared a longer sentence by the psychiatrist’s finding that there was significantly diminished mental responsibility, not significant to exclude criminal responsibility, but significant enough to impose a short sentence. In response to a whole series of questions and documents put before him about his colorful criminal past before courts in Republika Srpska and Serbia, the witness said that it was all a set-up and fabrication in order for the witness to be transferred from the police in Br~ko to the National Security Service in Bijeljina. Towards the end of the set of questions about criminal proceedings and the wanted notice, asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, “Is this a forgery or original?” the witness said, “Forgery”, asked again, “And this is a forgery”, the witness said, “It’s your forgery”, asked again by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, “My forgery?” the witness
227

was explicit, “Yes”. After the witness explicitly said this, it is concluded, first, that the witness justified the whole criminal file from several criminal cases by giving false testimony that it was a set-up and fabrication so that he would move to the National Security Service in Bijeljina and that it was the way to cover up for the transfer to Bijeljina, and then in the end the witness went on giving false evidence that it was all Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s forgery. In the end the judgment was shown and the witness admitted to having been sentenced by a final judgment to a prison term of one year on 5 May 2004, and instead of going to prison, the witness contacted the Hague Office to be a protected witness, a hireling who goes to live nicely in a Western country at the expense of the United Nations. Professor Vojislav [e{elj requested that the Judges oblige the Prosecution to investigate and check all this, just as it subsequently did with regard to witness Goran Stopari}. In Ruma, proceedings were conducted against the witness for electricity theft, a wanted notice was issued in April 2005 and the trial was scheduled for 2008, and the witness was a protected witness and under the protection of the Hague Tribunal. Asked about the criminal proceedings for electricity theft, the witness continued giving false testimonies, telling Professor Vojislav [e{elj, “Shame on you for devising all that”. With regard to this testimony of the witness, Professor Vojislav [e{elj requested that the Trial Chamber: “Since I devised all this, it is now up to the Trial Chamber to make a move, so it will see whether I really devised it or not. Mr. Neznanovi}, this matter no longer concerns either me or you.” The witness made a false assertion that on the orders of the National Security Service of Republika Srpska in September/October 1996 he went to the Croatian Embassy in Belgrade to record the premises to prepare the murder of the Croatian consul in Belgrade. In connection with this assertion, the witness said that he had said all this during an interview with Prosecution investigators, but this part is not in the written statement and there is no feedback that the Prosecution checked whether the witness was in the Croatian Embassy in Belgrade at all and whether he spoke with Ko{uti} about the trick subject of how to get hold of Karad`i} and Mladi}. The witness continued making simply incredible assertions that, in agreement with the embassy, one of the heads of the State Security, Zdravko Musta}, was going to come, but the witness later gave up on that. The culmination of false testimony was the witness’s assertion that he has two children from his first marriage, and he said that he does not acknowledge paternity of his child Zdravko from his second marriage, although there are court decisions. The Judges noticed that the lie was enormous and they put before the witness that he concluded the marriage in 1988 and that the child was born in 1990. With regard to his alleged participation on the Vukovar front, the witness showed his full readiness to tell pathological lies. He saw Kameni for the first time in Vukovar, but then in the second statement it was in [id. First somebody nicknamed Tito was in command of the execution by firing squad in Tovarnik, in the second statement Kameni was in command, and in the end it turned out that there were two separate executions by firing squad. You can say that these are all one lie after another.
228

In the Vukovar Three case, this witness said that his military ID had been burned and he could not show it, but during testimony in the Pro fes sorVo ji slav[e {elj case his military ID appeared, and when Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked him, “Has your military ID been burned?” the witness hastily said, “No, it has not,” and it remained recorded in the transcript from the trial. That was why a lawyer was present in the courtroom who made sure that the Trial Chamber made a decision that the witness did not answer the question how it was possible that in one case the military ID was burned and in another case this military ID appeared, all for the purpose of avoiding the witness’s self-incrimination for false testimony. In effect, the witness’s false testimony was confirmed and as such, as false, it can be used in both court proceedings. The culmination of the lie told by the witness was also about the stamp on the picture glued to the military ID. First the photograph of the witness was taken a month before he went to do his compulsory military service, so when he was asked how come that he had the uniform before he left, the witness said that the photograph was taken one month after he started his compulsory military service. Then the question arose about an obvious forgery, namely, which stamp was put on the photograph, whether it was the stamp of the military post where he went to do his compulsory military service. The witness was totally confused there and he lost track, because he could no longer control his pathological need to lie. It was clear to everyone in the courtroom that it was a forgery. A stamp from Belgrade was used for a military post from Pula, or a stamp from Ruma was used as the confirmation of service in the Guards Brigade, and on top of that they used the number of the military post that ceased to exist in 1981. A simply incredible assertion that in Vukovar they used a stamp from Ruma. The group of false statements includes the documents that the witness was at the same time in both Western Slavonia and Eastern Slavonia, in Aljma{, until January 1992. As for Western Slavonia, he had a Territorial Defense certificate with the stamp of the SAO of Western Slavonia. The witness also fell into lies about the pass from the Vukovar front signed for Kameni, the commander of Leva Supoderica, by Major @uni}, as Kameni’s deputy, with the stamp of the military post from Belgrade that ceased to exist in 1981. Incredible assertions that a major was a captain’s deputy? The culmination of the lies of this witness is the testimony about the existence of Desna Supoderica and the Second Guards Brigade in the Vukovar Three case and the attempt at defending those lies in court before Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Everything the witness said about the Vukovar front is an absolute lie. The witness was shown the statement of Branko Orlovi}, with whom the witness was a volunteer through the Novi Sad Command in Miklo{evci in November and December 1991. The witness could not help giving a series of false testimonies, so in the Vukovar Three case he said that the payment for almost a month that he allegedly spent on the front was about 700 German marks and that he could buy furniture for this money. That the witness was a simple thief on the front was shown in the written statement of Nenad Jovi}, who the witness said he knew, adding that Nenad Jovi} was threatening his mother.
229

The witness also lied about the date he joined the Serbian Radical Party or that he had burned his membership card – he joined only in 1997 and quit soon afterwards. On the basis of the Serbian Radical Party record file that Professor Vojislav [e{elj sent to the Judges, it can be established that the witness told a lie. The witness also lied that he was the president of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Ruma, because the witness could not have been that, there was neither the president of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Ruma nor a section of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Ruma. There is a written statement of Savo @arkov that there was no Serbian Chetnik Movement in Ruma. Asked by the Judges to clarify this situation, the witness said that he had handed over the documents about it to Prosecution investigators, and a representative of the Prosecution in court said that no such thing existed. The witness continued telling a series of lies that Ostoja Sibin~i} was the president of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Hrtkovci. The Trial Chamber Judges know very well that Ostoja Sibin~i} was a member of the Serbian Renewal Movement at the time and that he was never the president of any local or municipal board of the Serbian Radical Party, and that Ostoja Sibin~i} did not read out any list at a Serbian Radical Party rally in Hrtkovci. The witness was caught lying also on the basis of the statements of Savo @arkov and Blagoje Dudi}, who was the president of the Local Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Hrtkovci and who was in charge of the rally in front of his house on a tractor trailer. When photographs of witnesses were tendered into evidence, he could not tell when the photographs had been taken and he kept on coming up with different years, and when it was established that his conjectures were simply impossible, he accepted 1993 or 1994, but there remains an enigma, noted also by the Prosecutor in his comment that it seemed to him that the witness said that the first photograph was from 1996. During the testimony of this witness, his defense counsel had to intervene for the second time, requesting that the witness not answer questions so as to avoid self-incrimination for giving false statements for which he should be criminally responsible. The witness concluded his false testimony with the assertions that he was also a member of the Serbian MUP, namely, the regular police in 1998, which he had never said before his court testimony either at trials or in his written statements given to Prosecution investigators. As far as this witness is concerned, it is clear that he knowingly and willfully gave a number of false testimonies to justify his status of protected Prosecution witness, his transfer abroad and the obvious avoidance of criminal responsibility, because he had a colorful criminal record for offences in Serbia and Republika Srpska. This witness is a real example of what the Prosecution is prepared to resort to, and on what kinds of witnesses an institution of interactional justice is counting in proceedings before the Hague Tribunal. 9. witness VS-1120, \uro Matovina, testified on 13 and 14 May 2008. The testimony of this witness as a professional police officer and official, who was not called as an eyewitness or an expert witness, but rather as someone who
230

knew the facts through investigation after the event, requires precision and knowledge based on the collection of all the evidence. So this witness must not give arbitrary or vague testimonies, and it must be taken into account that he is certainly competent to give testimony before courts. That is why it goes without saying that knowledge and intent were always present in this witness when giving testimony. In his statement given to the Prosecution in 2002, the witness said: “On the night of 12 and 13 December 1991, 43 civilians were massacred in Vo}in by Serbian forces while they were retreating. The massacre was committed by the White Eagles paramilitary unit from Serbia”. Asked by the Prosecutor about this event, the witness gave false testimony that the massacre of civilians in Vo}in was committed by the White Eagles and [e{elj’s men. To justify his false testimony, since the witness had lists of Serbian Radical Party volunteers, statements of victims and witnesses to the massacre, and maybe later he dealt with someone accused of participating in that, when asked additional questions whether he could identify, check and establish the name of at least one Serbian Radical Party volunteer who was on the list of Serbian Radical Party volunteers and took part in the crime, the witness said, “No.” So, during his testimony in court, the witness added the words [e{elj’s men specifically for these proceedings conducted against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. With regard to demonstrations outside the police station in Podravska Slatina, the witness gave false testimony that the main goal of the demonstrators outside the police station was to take the police station. The witness falsely portrayed the demonstrations outside the police station, that there was a rampaging mob, that many were drunk, that they were shooting, that they wanted to take the police station, and then suddenly the same witness, together with other two policemen, went through the mob without any danger for himself and saved a man who had angered the mob, because he was trying to drive his car through the mob for the second time and hurt many demonstrators, about ten people, and he saved him, adding another false testimony that his stomach was torn open and his bowels were on the asphalt. In his 2002 statement, the witness said, “According to the memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences there was an imaginary line of borders for a Great Serbia that spread from Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica and this was an unfortunate coincidence for the Croatian people who live in this area.” Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked the witness whether he had ever read the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the witness gave false testimony that he had, and when Professor Vojislav [e{elj noted that the witness was lying, that there is no mention of Greater Serbia and the Karlobag-Karlovac-Virovitica border in it, the witness said that it was not true that he was lying. With regard to the quotation from the witness’s 2002 statement, “In order to make the idea of Great Serbia real, the areas in this line were populated with rural Serbs from Bosnia. When was the memorandum of the Serbian Academy written”, the witness in court repeated his false testimony from the statement and said, I do not know exactly the date when the Memorandum was written. It is true that the Memorandum was written in 1987 and has never been completed, and the witness gave false testimony that rural Serbs from Bosnia were populated along this line in order to make the idea from the Memorandum allegedly about Greater Serbia come true.
231

This witness was well-prepared for giving false testimonies and that was why in response to all the questions about the persecution of the Serbs, exchange of property between the Serbs from Podravska Slatina and the Croats from Vojvodina, destruction of Serbian property and killings of the Serbs, he said that he did not know, he heard about it, people were talking about it or proceedings were initiated against unknown perpetrators, but he was a police inspector who had to investigate all this and it was his duty to know. 10. witness VS-1106, asim ali}, testified on 15,20 and 21 May 2008. The witness gave false testimony that the people, Muslims from Zvornik, spontaneously broke into a depot and armed themselves, concealing the fact that he took part in it as one of the organisers. As the witness was first the commander of the police station in Sapna, and then the chief of the police in this place, asked about the fact that all the Serbs from this municipality and all the villages were expelled or killed at-the time the witness was a high-ranking police official, the witness gave false testimony first that these places had always been Muslim and that there were no Serbs there, then that the Serbs had left, and when a Judge said that he was surprised by the answer of such a high-ranking police official, the witness finally admitted that there were Serbs in the villages that Professor Vojislav [e{elj mentioned, but they was cleansed in military operations. Since there was too much evidence that the witness had taken part in and commanded attacks on the Serbs also after 22 May 1992 in the territory of Sapna and Vozu}a on Ozren, he tried to put all the blame on the Muslim military units of the 2nd Corps, counting on preserving his credibility as a witness in this way so that he could present other lies about the events in Zvornik. Asked about the capture of four men on the Muslim barricade near Karakaj, the witness gave false testimony that two of them had membership cards of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and membership cards of the Serbian Radical Party at the same time, but another witness, eyewitness Alija Kapid`i} /said/ that all four men had only Arkan’s booklets. The witness went on giving false testimony by asserting that the fourth man arrested was Zvezdan Jovanovi}, repeating the false assertion he made in the Belgrade trial for Zvornik, although he never mentioned Zvezdan before, in his preliminary or other statements. It is simply incredible that a professional police officer does not know the names of the arrested people he questioned. The witness gave false testimony that the four men arrested were questioned also in the afternoon in the police station in Zvornik and that they were not beaten up in the police station in Zvornik. On 10 May 2006, during testimony in Belgrade, the witness was caught lying in court, which was noted on pages 41 and 42 of the transcript from the trial in Belgrade, which was why the witness refused to answer any further questions concerning the obvious contradictions in the testimony of this witness. In connection with this situation, the witness defended himself in the courtroom in The Hague by asserting that during the questioning in the courtroom in Belgrade they had instructed him that he did not have to answer the questions that he was not sure about and the questions that would compromise him or something similar. So this is a witness who had the experience of false testimony, that is, a proven false witness.
232

The witness gave false testimony that he personally drove Colonel Ta~i} and then escorted him in a service vehicle from the barricades to the Zvornik Municipality building. During his testimony the witness often gave clear answers, not hiding that he was an authority and that he knew a lot, and when during cross-examination he ended up in a situation that other evidence and witness statements or previous testimonies in transcripts from previous trials called into question the testimony of this witness, witness, Ali} would admit that he suddenly remembered both the events and the people, all with the aim of relativising the lie he had previously told. The witness applied the same tactics during false testimony when his previous statements from 1997 were read out to him in court, in which he clearly described some situations and events, which he repeated during examination-in-chief, but, put in a tight spot by other evidence, he changed or relativised these assertions. During the cross-examination of this witness, the synchronization between the witness and the Prosecution was seen at work. Namely, whenever the witness was put in a tight corner to admit that he had lied or to answer in a way that was different from the one that had been prepared in advance, the Prosecutor intervened with objections so that discussion about the objections would develop, and the goal was for the question asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj to be forgotten or for the witness to avoid answering the question after resumption. The testimony of this witness is a textbook example of how you come to false testimonies in a synchronized way and constitutes an obvious example of, knowingly and willfully, giving false testimony somewhat relativised in respect of form, with the goal of preserving the essence. 11. witness VS-051, Bogdan Vuji}, protected witness, testified in closed session on 28 and 29 May 2008. During the cross-examination by Professor Vojislav [e{elj on 29 May 2008, the Judges finally found out, after the third testimony of witness Bogdan Vuji} at the Hague Tribunal, that the witness retired on 1 January 1991, that he was reactivated with his rank of colonel on 18 October 1991 (in the reserve force), and that there is no official document or paper of the security organ, or entry in the military ID, about his reactivation. The witness described this situation by saying that he, as a retired JNA colonel, was in effect a volunteer as of 18 October 1991. In the official response of the National Council for Co-operation with the Hague Tribunal to the request from the Expert Team assisting Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s defense for files regarding three officers, as far as the witness is concerned, there is only information about his active military service until 31 December 1990. So the witness is not listed as a reactivated retired JNA colonel in the official records, nor is there any information about his engagement in the JNA in 1991, as an active officer, as a reserve officer, or as a volunteer. This only confirms the argument of Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s defense that Bogdan Vuji} and Slavko Tomi}, as retired JNA colonels, together with active Colonel Bogoljub Kijanovi} and Slobodan Sto{i}, were on a special mission of the military security organ under the command of General Aleksandar Vasiljevi} and that there are no traces of their special engagement in the JNA records and archives from that period.
233

The witness described that his task was to carry out the evacuation of people, the transport of captives from Velepromet, and during his testimony he used the opportunity to repeat the story that he had learned by heart and emphasize that he had problems with the last bus with captives which he sent to Sremska Mitrovica. He repeated that his fellow colonels had abandoned him and that he alone, helped by the threat of using the military police, emptied the last hangar in Velepromet. The witness said that problems for him were caused by Marko Crevar and Topola, who were present beside the military policemen by the entrance to one hangar in Velepromet, and Topola later caused an incident in the last bus. It is interesting how the witness described Topola, that he had a JNA helmet with a five-pointed star and white shoulder straps used by the military police. Taking into account that the witness is a retired security colonel with 30 years of experience, it is clear that his testimony and detailed information presented through a memorized story, which is basically aimed at focusing on the chronology of what the witness did, rather than direct answers to questions asked by the Prosecutor, Professor Vojislav [e{elj or the Trial Chamber Judges, prove that the witness knowingly and willfully, while giving testimony, avoided giving answers and telling everything he knows, so his testimonies are essentially false, no matter how comprehensive or true they may appear to be, or that they contain half-truths. Being a professional, the witness is trained and taught to keep spinning his story to avoid concrete answers. How is it possible that Colonel Slavko Tomi}, as the group leader and witness’s superior, left Velepromet, and the witness, as his inferior, stayed and carried out the evacuation task? The situation was similar with active Colonels Kijanovi} and Sto{i} and other active officers who left Velepromet. The order they received in the command in Negoslavci obliged Tomi}, Kijanovi} and Sto{i} much more than the witness, and it turned out that only the witness completed his task scrupulously. Many details concerning the military hierarchy can be interpreted to mean that, in fact, the scene in Velepromet on 19 November 1991 during the evacuation was, in fact, a staged event and a prelude to something that was obviously being prepared to happen at Ov~ara. It is obvious that the witness knew in advance what was going to happen and that was why he prepared his testimony which essentially has no significance for the charges against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. That was why during his testimony the witness simply boasted that he had not made any mention of Professor Vojislav [e{elj or Serbian Radical Party volunteers in his written statements and testimonies. The only insinuation present during the testimony of this witness was an attempt at making a connection between Professor Vojislav [e{elj and Serbian Radical Party volunteers, on the one hand, with Topola, but adorned with JNA and MUP uniforms for potential charges against Professor Vojislav [e{elj of abuse and murder in Velepromet. Of course, this is possible only if some other evidence for Vukovar manages to show that Topola was a Serbian Radical Party volunteer, which the Prosecution failed to do. Then you reach another conclusion, that describing Topola in a JNA military police uniform makes sense for charges against Mrk{i} and [ljivan~anin, who can be participants in a joint criminal enterprise with Professor Vojislav [e{elj through some science fiction combination.
234

Asked why three security colonels were needed to help the Guards Brigade in Vukovar, in addition to the presence of two military police battalions, transport units and General Krmari}, the assistant for logistics, the witness did not give a concrete answer, but rather kept spinning his chronologically memorized story about the event, and he did not say why three aged, retired security colonels (he, Vuji}, and Tomi}) were sent to Vukovar, or how it was possible that the Guards Brigade with one colonel, Mrk{i}, liberated Vukovar, and immediately after the liberation there appeared one JNA general, a Croat, Jerko Crmari} (with the task of carrying out the transport of captured Croats to Sremska Mitrovica) and several security colonels who spent just under two full days in Vukovar. In avoiding an answer that would contain what the witness knows and what he must be familiar with, at one point the witness told Professor Vojislav [e{elj, “Sre}ko Borisavljevi} had no courage to confront Topola, your...” Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, whose, whose, the witness replied, “I did not say, I am sorry.” It is the best proof of what kinds of tricks the witness used during his testimony to conceal the truth and everything he knows very well but must not say. After an intervention of a Judge, the witness finally answered the question why three security officers, two of whom were allegedly reactivated retired security colonels, were needed in Vukovar. The witness said: “To use their authority to resolve problems that might arise during separation.” Asked by Judge Harhoff whether they had been informed about the problems in Velepromet before coming to Velepromet and who had informed them, the witness said, “Your Honor, when we were informed about the situation in the zone of responsibility of the 1st Guards Brigade we were not informed about any such potential problems,” which is contradictory to the answer the witness gave to the previous question of Professor Vojislav [e{elj. In a deliberately broader answer to Judge Harhoff’s question, the witness said, “As for the situation in Velepromet, we were told that civilians, women, children and the elderly were mixed there, that there were members of the Territorial Defense and the Territorial Defense Staff there, and that a military police unit of the Guards Brigade was securing the area. We were not told anything about potential problems that might arise in that area, except that Major [ljivan~anin, when we were already on our way there, said – do not be surprised if the Chetniks cut people’s throats.” So there is the official information that there were no problems and there is the allegedly unofficial information, such as Major [ljivan~anin’s remark after the meeting. During cross-examination the witness so obviously avoided mentioning the name of General Aleksandar Vasiljevi}, and when he had to mention it because of the answer to a question he was asked, the witness represented it as a provocation and said that he would not answer. When you have such a qualified witness, who professionally used techniques of investigation and questioning of the accused over many years, then his testimonies need to be interpreted differently from those of other witnesses who do not have such skills. The witness found it difficult, he did not dare or he was still afraid of confirming even the rules of the military hierarchy, and it involved a very simple situation that Colonel Slavko Tomi} in Sremska Mitrovica had a telephone conversation with General Aleksandar Vasiljevi} or his deputy Simeun Tumanov, and one of the two ordered that their group with the witness report to Colonel Ljubi{a Petkovi} in [id.
235

The witness kept insisting on his chronologically memorized story that he spent 27 hours in Vukovar, from about 20.00 hours on 19 November 1991 (he arrived in Velepromet at 23.00 hours) to 24.00 hours on 20 November 1991. Although he had been questioned several times and he had testified in Belgrade, during his testimony in the Vukovar Three case the witness said for the first time that when he was leaving the command in Negoslavci to go to Velepromet, Major [ljivan~anin told him, “do not be surprised if you see the Chetniks cut people’s throats at Velepromet.” Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj and asked the same question by Judge Antonetti, “Why did you return on the night between 20 and 21 November, without previously ensuring that the last group of captives was escorted to the camp in Mitrovica?” the witness avoided answering by saying that he had done his part, that there was no equipment, and finally put all the blame on the Guards Brigade, emphasizing that it was an elite unit. Probably in this emphasis on its elite nature, to which some people objected, there are some reasons for the events at Ov~ara. The witness tried to avoid answering the question as to who decided to hand over about 200 captives to the civilian authorities in Vukovar, because he first indicated that it was the command of the Guards Brigade, and when he was asked whether it could have been done without a written document from a relevant judicial organ, the witness kept prating on about how prisoners of war are prisoners of a state, and not of a unit or a commander. Asked whether Goran Had`i} and Vojin Su{a came to the Sremska Mitrovica prison, the witness confirmed that they did and added that the camp commander, Colonel Yugoslav Maksimovi}, who died in the meantime, knew the details. The witness did not answer the question how it was possible to come to the camp and carry out investigation without any trace of it, nor was there an answer to the question who allowed it. The witness got entangled and entered a system of answers to the question whether he returned his official security organ ID with broad police powers when he retired. The witness did not return his official ID and continued giving false testimony that he was under no obligation to return the ID, which is unacceptable under military regulations. The witness avoided answering the question how it was possible that he had never submitted a report to his superiors on what he did in Vukovar also in the period when he was a reactivated security officer from October to December 1991. He asserted that he was under no obligation and that his superiors did not ask him to submit a report. So the witness showed that his whole engagement, traces and evidence seem to be found only in the records on questioning of prisoners in Sremska Mitrovica. The witness said that General Aleksandar Dimitrijevi} asked him for a report for the first time only in 1997. The witness could not answer the question why nobody from the JNA showed any interest on 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 November and in December 1991, or years later, in the fate of about 200 prisoners whom the JNA handed over to the civilian authorities in Vukovar. Asked whether he saw any officer in air force uniform, the witness said that he saw a colonel who was the commander of the unit that escorted the buses and
236

transport, that he saw him from the distance of 10 or 15 meters, but he did not know his name. It is simply incredible that the witness handed over the prisoners to an air force officer as the commander of the unit that carried out the transport, without knowing the name of the officer or his unit. Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, “did the witness hear from anyone that Slavko Tomi} and Bogoljub Kijanovi} were at Ov~ara? Did you hear it from someone?” the witness said, “I heard it from them, Mr. [e{elj.” The witness finally said it after avoiding giving this answer for a long time, probably because Kijanovi} had previously threatened the witness not to talk about it. So according to the testimony of this witness, on 20 November 1991 Colonels Tomi} and Kijanovi} were at Ov~ara and made lists of prisoners. During the cross-examination of this witness, Professor Vojislav [e{elj presented an argument supported by facts, the chronology of events and the scope of the conspiracy orchestrated by General Aleksandar Vasiljevi}, and the only comment the witness made to this was that he did not know. It is incredible that the witness did not know about it, considering that he confirmed that he knew about subversive operations organized by General Aleksandar Vasiljevi}, such as Opera and Labrador, about the exchange of prisoners with Croatia, and about the years of silence about Ov~ara. In addition to many details and facts presented by this witness which are true, this witness knew much more as a first-hand witness and as a professional, and he withheld answers to many questions or demonstrated that he avoided giving concrete answers, constantly aware that there was something he must not testify about at all. This reflects his knowledge and intent that he gave false testimonies. False testimony is not only a factual assertion that is not true, but also I do not know, and the witness knows, I was not there, and the witness was there, and any other way of withholding truthful answers or assertions that correspond to what really happened. 12. witness VS-1055, halid Masnopita, protected witness, testified on 4 and 5 june 2008 The witness gave his first statement on 6 December 1992 to the State Security Service of the Muslim-Croat Federation, the same re-typed statement to the war Crimes Investigation Centre in 1993, and he spoke with investigators of the Hague Tribunal from 14 to 16 June 2004 and gave a statement that was essentially just a supplementary statement to the one from 1992. During questioning in court the witness gave false testimony that the police in Ilija{ municipality were not divided, and when the question was repeated and paragraph 12 of his witness statement from 2004 given to the Hague investigators was read out to him, in which he said that “When the Serbs formed their own police force in Ilija{, the Muslims and the Croats decided to do the same and the police station was to be located in Lje{evo. At the time of the split the Serb police had given us (Muslims and Croats) half of the ammunitions they had. Contrary to the Serb police we were not organized at all. We didn’t know who to put in charge, what to do in case of attack, etc. We decided that our Police commander was to be Omer Spahi} who lived in Ilija{. We described over the phone all the problems we had, like not having enough staff to do the job, what to do in case of an attack, etc.”
237

the witness gave new false testimony in court, “I have absolutely no idea about it and when I said it, I did not mean it in my name.” During the course of giving evidence the witness gave false testimony that Vasko Vidovi} came with 20 Chetniks from Knin. The witness used the fact that five volunteers together with Vasko Vidovi} attended the funeral of Samir Margeti} in late 1991 to make subsequently a false assertion that Vasko Vidovi} came with 20 Chetniks, and it was at a totally different time, in June 1992. Instead of stopping with the lie, the witness fell even deeper with an additional false testimony that Vasko Vidovi} stayed in Ilija{ with the group of 20 Chetniks. Asked by a Judge where those 20 Chetniks from Knin were housed, where they slept, the witness gave false testimony that it was in Vasko Vidovi}’s house in Podlugovi, and when he was shown that in the statement given to the Prosecution in 2004 the witness said that they had been put up in various apartments, the witness continued guessing, that you could put it like that, and then the witness repeated that they were upstairs in the house of Vasko’s parents, above the restaurant, just to maintain the lie created back in 2004. The witness gave false testimony that Vasko Vidovi} drove a whole train with JNA oil from Viso}a to Knin, and he knew about this from the book entitled llija{ki Nemanji}i, written by Velibor Ad`i}, a former Judge of the Municipal Court in Ilija{. The book really contains exact information about this transport, but there is no name of Vasilije Vidovi}. The witness gave false testimony that the Muslims in Lje{evo had no weapons in either May or June 1992. Asked whether he knew that the Muslims from Lje{evo were requested to hand over their weapons, the witness said, “I said that they had handed over their weapons, the police part, and that everything was duly handed over, we spoke about it yesterday.” With regard to the fighting in June 1992 in Lje{evo, the witness gave false testimony that the Muslims were not armed, and when it was shown to the witness that three Serbs were killed on that day during the fighting in Lje{evo – Miodrag Vukovi}, Novo Ra{evi} and Budimir Stani{i} – the witness gave false testimony that he did not know, and as the witness falsely asserted that Novo Ra{evi} had taken part in arresting the witness, he was totally lost in his lies and even the Judges had to intervene with the question whether Novo Ra{evi} had arrested the witness and was subsequently killed in Lje{evo, which proves that the Muslims were armed, or Novo Ra{evi} was killed before the witness was arrested, so the witness falsely asserted that Novo Ra{evi} had arrested him. The witness gave false testimony that when he was captured and went out of the cellar of the house, he was captured by Vasko Vidovi} and his four Chetniks, whom he recognized: Vlajko Lizdek aka Vlaja, Novo Ra{evi}, Novo Pani} and Ranko Dra{ki}. The witness gave false testimony about the man who entered in uniform and introduced himself as an officer of [e{elj’s Guard. The witness gave false testimony that Vasilije Vidovi} wore eyeglasses in Lje{evo at the time and they were exactly like Dra`a Mihailovi}’s, he imitated Dra`a Mihailovi}.
238

The witness gave false testimony that officer Dragan Josipovi} was the commander of the garrison in Visoko. The witness gave false testimony that Vasilije Vidovi}’s brother-in-law is a distant relative of the Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi and that his last name was Gaddafi. The witness gave false testimony that Vasilije Vidovi} destroyed not only the mosque in Ilija{, but also all mosques in the area of Ilija{ municipality, that is, Lje{evo, Viso}a and so on. 13. witness VS-1018, Perica Koblar, testified on 10 and 11 june 2008. During examination-in-chief, the witness talked about his being wounded in Sarajevo “while on a combat assignment” and asserted that the certificate of wounding was issued by his 101st Motorized Brigade. Professor Vojislav [e{elj challenged the certificate presented by the Prosecution, because the stamp bore an old Serbian coat of arms. He drew the attention of the Trial Chamber to the fact that the certificate had no basic official markings, that is, it had no basic information. To confirm that the witness was lying, Professor Vojislav [e{elj explained what the stamp of the Federation looked like. Testifying about military operations on Bjela{nica and around Sarajevo, the witness said that these were military operations of the Army of Republika Srpska and Chetnik units. The witness gave false testimony that Chetnik units were under the command of Vojislav [e{elj, although it is common knowledge that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was only the president of an opposition party and that he had no military powers. Commenting on the statement that the witness gave to the Muslim organs in 1994, Professor Vojislav [e{elj drew the attention of the witness that he said at the time that the bunkers on Golo Brdo were useless, and during his testimony he asserted that the bunkers were fortified. In his 1994 statement, the witness asserted that the shelling of Golo Brdo lasted 40 minutes, and in court he asserted that it lasted between two and three hours. He also asserted that the bunkers had no firing slits, and in court he testified that firing slits were facing the positions of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the 1994 statement, this obviously false witness asserted that these bunkers were not for combat at all, but rather they were used as a shelter. When he testified about Hamaluki}, Kraji{nik and Kahrimanovi}, who were killed, the witness gave contradictory information, but during cross-examination Professor Vojislav [e{elj managed to make him admit that an autopsy of the three bodies was performed, although initially he asserted that he did not know about it. In a statement given to Prosecution investigators, the witness asserted that Robert Kahrimanovi} was killed by a soldier of the Army of Republika Srpska who did not belong to Brne’s unit, and during cross-examination he asserted that he did not know who had killed him. The Judges had an opportunity to establish how false the testimonies given by this witness were. The witness also gave false testimony with regard to Rusmir Hamaluki}, because he asserted that he was not there when the latter was killed, so he did not know who killed him, and in a statement given to the Prosecution he asserted that one of the Chetniks fired a volley into Rusmir.
239

The witness obviously gave false testimonies and that is why his testimonies are contradictory, because he knows very well the truth that they were killed by hand grenades during the attack. The witness also gave false testimony regarding the markings with skull and bones, and he did not mention that in any of his statements, which proves that the witness was prepared to be a false witness and that was why he testified in this way. 14. witness VS-1057, Safet Sejdi}, testified on 12, 17 and 18 june 2008. The witness was a member of the Army of Republika Srpska. After the Dayton Agreement the witness stayed in the territory that was allocated to the Muslim-Croat Federation and the BH Army beat him up because throughout the conflict he was a soldier of the Army of Republika Srpska with war service recorded in his military ID, which he handed over to the Muslim authorities. To prove himself to the new authorities, the witness agreed to knowingly and willfully give false testimonies, some of which were incredible. The witness gave false testimony denying the certificate of the Ministry of Defense of Republika Srpska, Vogo{}a Department, with all log numbers and a date from 1994, which confirms that witness Sejdi} was a member of the Army of Republika Srpska from 4 April 1992 and that he was issued with this certificate in order to “exercise the right to social and health insurance for himself and members of his family, namely, wife Kadira, son Edin and daughter Eldina, and may not be used for other purposes”. The Prosecution sent this document to Professor Vojislav [e{elj. The Prosecution also sent to Professor Vojislav [e{elj the statement of Meho Osmanovi}, who the witness asserted is an honest man, given to the State Security Service Sector of the Ministry of the Interior of the Muslim part of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, where on page 17 Meho Osmanovi} says, “I categorically state that Safet Sejdi}, son of Kasim, born in 1969, although he is a Muslim, took an active part in the fighting in the Chetnik units of the Intervention Platoon of the Semizovac Battalion. He took part in the fighting on the @u~ hill and in some fighting at the above localities in 1993 and 1994. I personally saw him carry a PM84 /”sower of death” light machine-gun/, and I heard that Vasko Vidovi}, because of his good actions in the Chetnik units, called him to come over to him, that is, to join the unit under his command”. This statement totally compromised all the false assertions of witness Sejdi} that he was not in the Army of Republika Srpska, that he was later forcibly taken in to join the Army, that he did not receive any pay or assistance, that he had no health care coverage, and that he went to Sarajevo and unwillingly stayed in Semizovac, although the Muslims in the surrounding villages did not want to take him into their homes. The witness gave a false statement declaring that even his father Kasim was a liar, who gave a statement to the Security Services Centre in Sarajevo on 14 March 1996, at the time when the Muslim army had already taken Ilija{, Vogo{}a and Ilid`a, in which Kasim asserts, “My son, Safet Sejdi}, born in 1969, was mobilized into the Army of Republika Srpska by the Chetniks in 1994 and issued him with an M84 light machine-gun (seja~ smrti /sower of death/) and he went to the lines on the @u~ hill, towards Vi{njica, and others. In 1995 he held the lines on Li240

pa facing Srednje. He stayed in the Serbian army until February 1996. He received cigarettes and occasionally a salary.” The witness gave a whole series of false testimonies that he did not know Dragan Gavri}, Mujo and Faruk D`afi}, or Miroslav [piri}, a neighbor who sent the following statement: “I am one of the unfortunate people who believed that peace had been made and that the situation would go back to normal. But on 13 May 1996, members of the BH Army led by Nail Gajevi} brutally beat up me and my wife. They even broke my left leg and two ribs, which has been documented, and I have to add that after their arrival, after Dayton, members of the BH Army completely devastated the Serbian cemetery and destroyed the tomb of my son, whom Safet Sejdi} mentioned. Safet Sejdi} was maybe worse off than me. He was also brutally maltreated and beaten by the same people, which I heard from Sejdi}’s mother Raza, so Sejdi} had to spend a couple of months in hospital because of the beating and he is lucky to be alive. Considering the beating to which Sejdi} was subjected, I am not surprised by his testimony.” Since the witness gave false testimony that he joined the Serbian unit in Semizovac in 1994 because he was threatened, coerced and afraid, he was shown a photograph from the summer of 1993 showing that he was a soldier of the Army of Republika Srpska and a statement by Ninoslav Kaurinovi}, son of Ante, Croat, Roman Catholic, who came to Belgrade to give a statement, because he wanted the truth to be known. The witness gave false testimony that the mosque in Semizovac was destroyed by aircraft, half of the mosque, and then it was finished off by Vasilije Vidovi}. It is enough to say that there had never been a mosque in Semizovac to see the weight of the false testimony of witness Sejdi}. The witness gave false testimony that soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska, that is, Serbs, maltreated him, held him, beat him, threatened to rape his wife, cut his children’s throats and kill them. The witness invented all this to justify himself and curry favor with the Muslim authorities because of his membership in the Army of Republika Srpska. Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether he knew Dragan Gavri}, nicknamed Kele, who asserts in his statement that he slept in the dormitory of the Intervention Platoon of the Semizovac Battalion in a bed next to the bed of the witness, the witness said that he did not know this man. It is an obvious example of giving false testimony in court, because the witness was shown his statement given to the Prosecution in 2006, where the witness admits that Kele was with the witness in the Intervention Platoon. Caught lying, the witness threatened Professor Vojislav [e{elj in court in front of the Judges and the public with the following words, “I would also give my life, but I would get rid of you for good.” The witness gave false testimony in court about the attack on the Ni{i}i Plateau in late 1993 and early 1994 (the correct date is 8 November 1993), and in his previous five statements he never mentioned the gathering of the Serbian army before the attack on the Ni{i}i Plateau attended by Radovan Karad`i}, Ratko Mladi} and Professor Vojislav [e{elj.
241

The most despicable lie the witness came up with was that Vasko’s deputy raped his mother. He invented it on the spur of the moment, he probably did it accidentally. The Prosecutor noted it and entered it in his statement from 2006. The Prosecutor himself did not believe him, because otherwise the Prosecutor would have used it during the examination-in-chief and moved into closed session. Not even the Prosecutor believed him, because it is something terrible, and the Prosecution knows that it is not true. At one point he did it accidentally, because he is miserable, he must constantly justify himself before the Muslim side that he was forced to join the Serbian army and he is prepared to do anything in that regard. The hatred he showed towards Professor Vojislav [e{elj is, in effect, just a mask concealing his weakness and his position. Why did the Prosecution send this statement when it is not relevant in the statement? How come that it is in a 92 ter statement? The Prosecution expected that it would go through into the file, and over and done with it. His mother was raped, and nobody raped his mother. Witness Sejdic would not have been one of the best soldiers in his unit if any Serb had previously raped his mother. The witness gave false testimony that [e{elj’s mercenaries were in Vasko’s unit, and when he was given a list of soldiers from Vasko’s unit to show at least one of these [e{elj’s mercenaries, the witness could not answer. The witness gave false testimony when he described Vasilije Vidovi}. With regard to his personal weapons, he never carried a short-barrel rifle, but only a revolver, he is not aware of any saber, because he would have not been able to get into any vehicle from his unit with it, he never wore any military fatigues, and there were no crossed sabers on the traditional flag that they carried, but rather there were clearly visible crossed bones. Nobody ever saw Vasko Vidovi} with the saber the witness mentioned. Asked how come that Vasilije Vidovi} had the saber, what was the purpose of the saber in war and what could he do with it, except that it would have been in the way of a man who was wounded 13 times and who limped visibly, witness Sejdi} went on giving false testimonies: “Well, ask him, I think that if he wanted to cut someone’s throat, he would use that saber. In Crna Rijeka, he cut the throat of a Muslim man who was a hauler. He cut off his head and put it on a stake, and in the end he shouted – finally I got rid of this man. I guess that he harmed him before the war, so he was happy to have cut off the man’s head.” Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether he saw Vasilije Vidovi} cut off the head, the witness said, “I didn’t see him cut off his head, but I saw that he put the head on a stake and he said that.” The witness continued with new false testimonies, “then he took the head and put it on the hood of his jeep to show off when he went through Semizovac, Svrake and other places, so that they would see what Vasko Vidovi} had done.” Since it was a plastic skull on the jeep, Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked the witness whether the skull wore a blue United Nations helmet, and the witness went on with false testimonies that there was no helmet. The witness gave false testimony about an alleged human shield consisting of Muslims from the labor detail during the fighting on @u~. Later the witness admitted that there were also Serbs in the labor detail.
242

The witness gave false testimony that he did not receive any payment while he was in the labor detail, although he was shown a written document that both his salary and the salary of others in the labor detail was 20% smaller compared to soldiers. This motion has listed only a part of false testimonies of this witness, because listing every false testimony of this witness would be almost the whole transcript of the testimony of this witness. 15. witness VS-1069, fahrudin Bili}, testified on 2 and 3 july 2008. Fahrudin Bili} was questioned as a Prosecution witness, and what he should be questioned about and what the Prosecution intended to prove through this witness is stated in the Indictment, the Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief and the summary of the testimony of this witness based on his previous witness statements. This witness neither testified nor was he planned to testify in any other proceedings either in The Hague or possibly before a national court for events between April and 13 June 1992. Leaving aside all apparent ambiguities and confusion that was constantly present regarding the testimony of this witness in court, starting from what is left and what is right, which is why it is no wonder that halfway through his compulsory military service he was discharged as unfit to do compulsory military service, in the end there remained only a few sentences that the witness had to argue as his testimony as an eyewitness. Although confusing, and at times so impossible that it bordered on mental incompetence, there remained the false testimony given by the witness in court that the JNA and the Serbs shelled from Podvele`je the eastern part of Mostar where the Serbs, Croats and Muslims lived. Neither the Judges nor Professor Vojislav [e{elj managed to persuade the witness to think about whether it was possible. Simply, the witness received the task from the Prosecution of insisting on his testimony at any cost and that persistence, doggedness, obstinacy and deliberate absence of any logic, which the witness did not even try to conceal or moderate, simply force you to characterize his testimony as giving false evidence knowingly and willfully. After the witness’s assertion that he identified [e{elj’s men by their dialect, several times the witness persistently argued his false testimony that he recognized [e{elj’s men because all of them had long beards and they were always sharpening their knives when he saw them. However, the witness said that one of allegedly [e{elj’s men, whom he had the chance to observe the longest and with whom he spent some time in the shelter, had no beard but kept sharpening his knife and rarely left the shelter, because he had fallen in love with the daughter of the person who had the keys to the shelter. So the Prosecution prepared this witness so that at any cost what is left from his testimony is the part that there is at least some evidence that [e{elj’s men were also present in Mostar until 13 June 1992, and it does not matter what they looked like or what they did. It is important that [e{elj’s men were there and that Professor Vojislav [e{elj can be responsible for everything that any Serb has done. So regardless of the irrelevance and probably lack of any probative value of this testimony, it is requested that criminal proceedings be instigated against this
243

witness because he knowingly and willingly gave several false testimonies referred to above. 16. witness VS-1105, himzo Tuli}, protected witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 16 july 2008. In his statement which the Prosecution used as a 92 ter statement, the witness said that 15 or 30 days before the war Vojislav [e{elj stayed overnight at Bo{ko ^erani}’s house in Zvornik, which was in the town centre, in Bra}e Stefanovi}a Street. During his testimony in court the witness corrected his allegation, he checked it later and it was not true, and the witness believed the rumors and that was why it was in his statement. The requirement for 92 ter statements is that the witness acknowledges them as his and confirms that he would say the same if testified orally. When you have a situation that the witness disavows a part of his written statement, doubts are understandably raised about whether everything contained in the statement can be admitted under Rule 92 ter and be an adequate substitute for oral testimony? The witness wrote and published a book entitled Zvorni~ka Sirat-]uprija /Zvornik Sirat Bridge/, which contains the testimony of this witness about the events in Zvornik, but there are also testimonies of other people with whom the witness talked while he was a refugee in Vienna. The witness admitted that he got in contact with journalists of the Belgrade-based weekly Vreme, Mr. [varm and Jovan Dulovi}, who gave him a lot of information, and the witness has pictures of the unit lined-up, without weapons, disarmed. Dulovi} told the witness that immediately after disarming and photographing, both those who disarmed them and those who were disarmed went to a big cafe restaurant near Mali Zvornik and drank themselves silly. So, in effect, the photographs were taken only for the sake of public. Jovan Dulovi} is a witness whose testimony was not accepted in the Vukovar Three case, and in the case against Professor Vojislav [e{elj it was recorded that he testified in connection with Vukovar, but not Zvornik, although he was an accredited correspondent from Vi{egrad who boasted that he knew about the events in Zvornik. So Himzo Tuli} admitted that a proven false witness, Jovan Drulovi}, was the source of some information that he published in his book about Zvornik. The witness is prone to hearsay interpretation. With regard to the testimony of this witness, the Prosecution counted on the witness repeating one or two sentences on the basis of which some connection could be made with Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Considering that the witness has written a book about these events and that he has done research, regardless of whether he is a direct witness or hearsay witness, this witness has a much greater responsibility when testifying. This witness simply could not resist the temptation, so he knowingly and willfully gave false testimony that @u}a’s Yellow Ants were also one of [e{elj’s units, that @u}a said this to the witness, and the witness added that @u}a had said that he belonged to Mr. [e{elj’s special units – [e{elj’s men /{e{eljevci/. All false testimonies of Himzo Tuli} are the result of his intent and they were given knowingly in order to help the Prosecution. In a statement that he gave to the Prosecution on 16, 20 and 21 September 1996, Himzo Tuli} asserted that 15 or 30 days before the war Vojislav [e{elj stayed
244

overnight at Bo{ko ^erani}’s house. And that @u}a’s Ants were one of [e{elj’s units. After his plan was thwarted, when questioned during testimony on 16 July 2008 under Rule 92 ter, Tuli} relinquished a part of his statement that 15 or 30 days before the war [e{elj was in Zvornik and stayed there overnight. Although he never said that in his statement given to the Prosecution, Himzo Tuli} said that he personally saw @u}a and that he told him that he was one of [e{elj’s men. On 8 January 1993 he gave a statement to the Muslim authorities and then he identified @u}a as one of Arkan’s men. It is obvious that this witness lied, that he is malicious and that both his statement given to the Prosecution and his testimony are just rumors and regurgitation. 17. witness VS-1022, jasminka Ploski}, protected witness, testified in closed session on 17 july 2008. While giving testimony, the witness used the term [e{elj’s men several times, but not as her own knowledge, that is, not as if she saw and heard or concluded that they were [e{elj’s men, but always someone else told her or someone else introduced himself as one of [e{elj’s men. The witness said that Mile Peji} aka Zmija told her at the Bora~ko lake that they were [e{elj’s men and that Petar Divjakovic told her at the same location that he was one of [e{elj’s men. During questioning the witness added that, when they were set free, Radovan Soldo told her, go, go only straight, do not go left towards the ^obanovo Polje locality, towards the main road there, it’s full of [e{elj’s men, if [e{elj’s men catch you, not even God will save you, if they catch you, do not betray me, because they will kill me too. The witness asserted that a shepherd gave her a similar warning not to go towards Svinjarina village in Podvele`je, because [e{elj’s men were there. So [e{elj’s men were never in places where crimes occurred, but it turns out that the [e{elj’s men who were known to the witness by name were afraid of some [e{elj’s men from another location. When you have a hearsay witness, there is a real problem of finding the boundary, whether it was really like that, namely, whether the witness really heard it as second– or third-hand information or it involves giving false testimony knowingly and willfully. Of course, this motion should not deal with an assessment of whether such a testimony corresponds to the facts which can be established through other evidence, but rather whether it raises doubts about knowingly and willingly giving false testimony based on the I-heard-it-from-someone-else principle. That this involves knowingly and willfully giving false evidence is definitely confirmed by previous statements of this witness. During cross-examination, the witness was shown previous statements given to various organs, and in connection with the event about which the witness testified, namely the statements of 18 November 1992, 28 February 1995, 2 September 1995 and 31 March 1996, where the witness does not make any mention of the term [e{elj’s men. In two statements from 1999, the term [e{elj’s men is mentioned with regard to Podvele`je, and then suddenly in a statement from 2000 there is the detail with Petar Divjakovi}, that he said that he was one of [e{elj’s men, and the embellishment in a statement from 2004. Many pieces of evidence shown to the witness by Professor Vojislav [e{elj that there were no [e{elj’s men in the locations where crimes occurred, clearly called into question the certainty of the witness’s previous assertions,
245

but the witness insisted that it was like that, that others told her and that she believed that it was exactly as others told her and that she testified like that. The witness simply invented the term [e{elj’s men, although she knows very well everything about the crime and she identified all the persons she thinks are responsible. She testified in the Kraji{nik case, and the Prosecution decided not to call her as a witness in the Milo{evi} case. The witness does not hide that it is important for her and that she will not give up testifying against anyone whose charges include Mostar and Nevesinje, and if she is not allowed to testify, it does not stop her from speaking in public. However, when she spoke in public, she did not mention [e{elj’s men. As an employee in an organization that searches for victims, she knows all the details very well, such as the subsequent information that, for example, there were no Serbian Radical Party volunteers in the Nevesinje and Podvele`je area on 4 July 1992, and that no Serbian Radical Party volunteer was ever at the Bora~ko lake. Witness Jasminka Ploski} gave many details about how the Prosecution obtains witnesses for the locations of Mostar and Nevesinje, especially about witness VS-029, Vojislav Dabi}, who testified on 26 and 27 January 2010. It is simply impossible that witnesses Ploski} and Dabi} gave contradictory statements about the agreement on testimony and that you do not conclude that they gave false testimonies. 18. witness VS-1024, ibrahim Kujan, protected witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 22 july 2008. A witness statement of 8 October 1998, with a correction from 12 June 2004, has been admitted. In the 92 ter statement there are many incorrect assertions that the witness put forward as his knowledge on the basis of what he heard from someone or what people were talking about or what the witness assumed and they are not the subject of this motion, because they are not related to the events of which Professor Vojislav [e{elj stands accused. Taking into account the proceedings conducted against Professor Vojislav [e{elj in respect of Nevesinje, it is clear that the Prosecution insisted that the witness repeat only one sentence in the statement and in the courtroom. Obviously the witness knowingly and willfully agreed to repeat the false testimony from the statement that he gave in 1998 and supplement it with new lies from paragraph 20 of the statement from 2004, and this false testimony reads as follows: “The forces that carried out those attacks were the local police, members of the Kara|or|e Unit, Chetniks from Serbia and Montenegro, and Arkan’s and [e{elj’s units which arrived in Nevesinje in late 1991. I personally saw them, they socialized with Savi}, the chief of police. They had special insignia, they wore red berets and had insignia with white eagles.” The witness gave false testimony that the Kara|or|e unit belonged to [e{elj’s men and that the unit comprised only the local people who joined [e{elj’s men. Arkan’s men were never in the territory of Nevesinje, nor were there any [e{elj’s men in this place. The assertion that [e{elj’s men and Arkan’s men wore red berets is something absolutely incredible, and it is not true that Arkan’s men also had white eagles, because Arkan had his special insignia.
246

19. witness VS-061, niko Kraljevi}, protected witness, testified on 24 and 25 September 2008. During cross-examination on 25 September 2008, asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj how it was possible that in the first written statement that the witness gave to Prosecution investigators in 2004, in paragraph nine, the witness said that six people from outside had visited him, that they were armed, and during examination-in-chief the witness said that he did not see their weapons, and in the 2004 statement the witness did not say that they had beaten him, while in 2006 in a written statement given to the Prosecution, he said that they had beaten him up and broken his jaw. The witness did not relinquish his written statements from 2004 and 2006, but to justify his testimony he went even further, so he said that in July 1991 he underwent an examination in hospital in [abac, where he received help, but it was not recorded in the hospital, and he did not even have an x-ray, although he asserted that his jaw had been broken. The witness also gave false testimony that the Serbs from Croatia voluntarily left Croatia, which refers to urban places where there were no armed clashes in July 1991, and that they went from Croatia at the call of one man. No matter how much at first sight this assertion of the witness seemed to reflect some symbolism, he kept insisting on the assertion that the Serbs left Croatia at the call of one person, that is, they listened to this person. Considering that the witness did not name the person who called on the Serbs to move out of Croatia and that the very idea that there was such a call is contradictory to widely known facts, it can only be concluded that the witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimony despite additional questions by the Judges, who found it strange that the witness said that. In response to Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s question in connection with the rally in Hrtkovci on 6 May 1992, that Milan @ili} read out the names of the Croats from Hrtkovci who had moved out of Hrtkovci and joined the National Guard Corps in Croatia, before the rally, and whether the witness knew about it, the witness gave false testimony that he did not know about it. Even if by any chance the witness did not know all the details, he must have known about Mladen Ra{o, who he said was probably a relative of Klara Ra{o, at whose place the witness lived in Hrtkovci, and he certainly knew that, considering that during his testimony he simply boasted that in Croatia he socialized with Croats who had moved out of Hrtkovci. Since in his written statements and during examination-in-chief the witness pointed out that the Croats were increasingly moving out of Hrtkovci (the number of people leaving increased) after Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s speech, and especially after the murder of Mr. [tefanac (the murder took place two months later), the witness was shown paragraph 32 of his statement from 2006, which contains only one sentence: “The murder of Mijat [tefanac has never been solved.” The witness kept insisting on that answer, and he must have known that the police case of the murder of [tefinac was resolved on the same day, 29 June 1992. As the Judges also caught the witness lying in court, in his characteristic manner he started apologizing and trying to use apologies to justify himself for the lies he was telling, but he could not hide that probably in 2004, at the latest, he knew everything in detail, which is even more strange because he signed the statement with lies in 2006.
247

During cross-examination the witness had an opportunity to read parts of the book TheHrt kov ciAf fa irandtheUs tas haWho reNa ta {aKan di} in front of the Judges, so independently of the part of the book that was shown to him to talk about, the witness commented on what he saw in the book at that moment: “Your Honours, if I may just say here, the information for Mr. [e{elj about Nikola Kraljevi}, it is not Nikola but Niko, I am not known as Niko, that’s my name, and [ljivo is my nickname, and the date of birth is also wrong, it says 2 July, but I was bom in 1951.” In paragraphs 30 and 31 of his statement from 2006 the witness definitely stated to investigators that he should have been the victim, and not Mijat [tefanac, that the murder of the witness had been planned, because they considered him to be an Ustasha priest and five Chetniks came to kill him, and it simply follows that they mistook [tefanac for him, because they looked alike. In addition, the witness asserted that he had to hide in a corn field and that these Chetniks were looking for him at Klara Ra{o’s address where he lived. All these assertions of the witness are false testimonies which he gave in order to complete the picture of the events in Hrtkovci as ordered by the Prosecution. Certainly the culmination of the lies of the witness is his statement that the parish house and church in Hrtkovci were looted with the intention of presenting that also as pressure on the witness, and the whole case was resolved immediately and the Croats who did it were called to account. The witness knew all that but he did not tell that to Prosecution investigators, allegedly because they did not ask him whether the theft had been resolved. This goes to prove that the witness has his system of “trying to get away with it”. So you put the blame on Professor Vojislav [e{elj, but if the witness is caught lying, then his excuse is that investigators did not ask him, or something else. That is why the question arises as to what kind of witness he is and what can remain of his testimony when, under the weight of evidence, he changed and moderated his false testimonies concerning the most important questions of the charges in respect of Hrtkovci against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. No matter how hard the witness tried, he did not manage to get away with his false testimony given to Prosecution investigators in paragraph 38 that he temporarily took refuge in Hungary (Mohacs) or found temporary shelter, and in effect he was only travelling through Hungary, where he only stayed overnight, on his way to Croatia. The situation is almost the same with regard to the list of 805 people from Hrtkovci to whom the witness issued copies of birth and marriage certificates, and the witness gave the list to the priest Marko Kljaji}, who published it in his book How My People Died, the book dedicated to Franjo Tu|man, and the heading says that it is a list of Croats who had to move out of Hrtkovci under pressure, threats and by force. Although the witness distanced himself from the allegations in the book that it is a list of people driven out of Hrtkovci, there is a clear impression that it was not exactly as the witness portrayed it. Simply the witness withdrew his statement during testimony only after he was shown that many people from his list still live in Hrtkovci and have never moved out. Only after it was shown to him did the witness express his astonishment that his fellow priest could falsely represent the
248

list that the witness had sent to him. After all, it is nothing new when it comes to this witness who has a system of “trying to get away with it”. 20. witness VS-038, Zoran Petrovi}, protected witness, testified on 1 and 2 october 2008. The witness had serious problems with the organs of authority for years, because he is intensively involved in criminal activities. The witness has a large criminal record, and he needed the status of Prosecution witness against Professor Vojislav [e{elj in order to be granted Croatian citizenship, move to Croatia and resolve his family problems. All this goes to prove that the witness agreed to give false testimonies knowingly and willfully in order to justify everything he had done to resolve the problems that bothered him. The witness gave false testimony that the Serbian Radical Party sentenced him to death. The witness gave false testimony that the Novi Sad Corps publicly called up anti-aircraft defense reservists. The witness gave false testimony that he was a member of Pivarski’s unit in Zvornik, with the intention of making any connection between Professor Vojislav [e{elj and Serbian Radical Party volunteers and Pivarski and people from his unit who were sentenced for the crimes in Zvornik. Except for this assertion of the witness, there is no evidence that the witness was in Pivarski’s unit. When the witness was shown documents from the Valjevo Centre of the Serbian State Security Service from December 1992 about the Yellow Wasps as a criminal group, the witness kept insisting on his previous false testimony, “I still declare that I was a member of Pivarski’s group and that I was with the people I described in my statement. I stand by it, it is the truth and it cannot change anything, that is the way it is,” and in the end, after so much evidence that the witness was openly telling lies, the Presiding Judge noted, “Then why did professionals, who work on investigations, make this document listing members of the group who are, in effect, criminals, and there they mention you as well, that is the problem we are facing.” The witness was shown a document sent by the Prosecution to Professor Vojislav [e{elj on 29 September 2008, a report by the Pan~evo Centre of the State Security Service, dated 25 February 1993, on the activities of members of the Serbian Guard and other persons involved in paramilitary organizations, which contains information about the witness and all his activities. The witness gave false testimony that his mother received telephone threats in Pan~evo because she is a Croat and that he informed Zoks, who made one telephone call from Zvornik and stopped all calls and provocations. The witness gave false testimony that in the second half of 1992, as a Serbian Radical Party volunteer, he provided security for the bauxite mine in Milici, that he had a membership card of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, and he proved to everyone that his readiness to give false testimonies knew no limits when he wrongly described Zoran Dra`ilovi}. Simply, from his initial statement the witness kept embellishing his false assertions in each next statement, and at the end of the cross-examination it was difficult to listen to how many false assertions could be made by one witness under instructions. During the questioning of this witness, truthful assertions least frequently sprang forth from this witness’s mouth.
249

21. witness VS-1133, franjo Bari~evi}, testified on 14 and 15 october 2008. During the cross-examination on 14 October 2008, Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked the witness whether he spoke with a Prosecution investigator twice and whether both times the witness told the investigator that Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked at a rally in Hrtkovci that children from mixed marriages be killed. The witness confirmed it, and then in response to the question that contained the witness’s recorded answer, “He said (Vojislav [e{elj said) that mixed marriages should be broken and children killed,” the witness continued giving false testimony, “That is what I heard.” The witness allegedly heard what Professor Vojislav [e{elj did not say and the witness did not have any reservations whatsoever, or a possibility of doubt, but rather he kept insisting on false testimony. The text of the whole speech of Professor Vojislav [e{elj and the text of the speeches of all the participants at the rally in Hrtkovci were published a long time ago and these words are simply not there. The witness is an eyewitness who attended the rally, so he is not a hearsay witness, which goes to prove that he knowingly and willfully gave false testimony. The witness also gave false testimony that he joined the Serbian Radical Party in Hrtkovci in 1990 and that the Serbian Radical Party opened its branch in Hrtkovci, but the Serbian Radical Party did not exist in 1990. The witness also gave false testimony that Aleksa Eji} was the president of the local branch of the Serbian Radical Party in Hrtkovci, but he has never been a member of the Serbian Radical Party, which the Judges could see for themselves, because Eji} was questioned as a Prosecution witness. The witness also gave false testimony that members of the White Eagles were at the rally in Hrtkovci, allegedly that was how they introduced themselves to the witness, that they came on a bus that was parked in the street where the witness lived, that they wore black uniforms and carried weapons, that the difference between them was that some wore shoes and others boots, that they carried weapons while they were in the mass of people attending the rally, and that they provided security for Professor Vojislav [e{elj. The witness also gave false testimony that a meeting was organized in the Hrtkovci local commune a few days before the rally, because of the problems facing the refugees, and that allegedly the refugees asked Professor Vojislav [e{elj to come and that was why he came on 6 May 1992. The witness also gave false testimony that at the rally in Hrtkovci on 6 May 1992, Professor Vojislav [e{elj read out a list of people who should move out, and when he was asked to clarify whether anyone ever saw Professor Vojislav [e{elj reading any speeches, the witness only reinforced his false testimony, adding, “The people heard who should move out and how, whether it was read out or said from memory, but it came out of your mouth.” The witness gave false testimony that he had to move out of Hrtkovci under pressure, but during cross-examination it was discovered that he was the first to go to Jak{i}evo village near Slavonska Po`ega, where he found a house and land and exchanged them for his property in Hrtkovci. In that context, the witness also gave false testimony that his interests were harmed in the exchange.
250

The credibility of this witness was destroyed during cross-examination, which was the conclusion also reached by the Judges, who, knowing the details of this case (documents and witnesses previously questioned), kept trying to help the witness not to give so obviously false testimonies. 22. witness VS-1134, Marko Kali~, 92 ter protected witness, testified on 15 october 2008. witness Marko Kali} was planned to be a protected witness under Rule 92 ter for the location of Hrtkovci. The witness was not present at the Serbian Radical Party rally on 6 May 1992 because, as he said, he had more important work to do on his arable land. So the priority for the witness was arable land, work and economic security, rather than political or other independence, or even the alleged fear that the Croats had of the Chetniks and Professor Vojislav [e{elj. In an assessment of the false testimonies of this witness, difference should probably be made between what the witness stated as his personal knowledge, he saw and heard, and what somebody else told him about an event. It would make sense if this was an impartial witness, or a witness who had not been previously prepared by Croatian organs and Prosecution representatives. So we come to the crux, how successfully the witness can reproduce the story that he must repeat in court. The situation is somewhat different when a 92 ter witness enters the courtroom only pro forma to say, “I swear, I said everything that is written down and if I had to say it again I would repeat everything that has been written down, because it corresponds to what I saw and heard, and I repeat, I swear.” That was exactly what the appearance of this witness in court looked like, and lie is what is most important for the Prosecution and what they mostly need this witness for. That is why it can be said that the witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimonies which were read out by the Prosecutor as the witness’s own testimonies, and the witness confirmed that before the Judges. It is best to quote those false testimonies: “The arrival of those refugee Serbs was organized by the SRS /Serbian Radical Party/.” “The local SRS must have had help from the people in high positions in Belgrade.” “In early 1992, the witness saw armed Chetnik groups meeting in a cafe in the centre of Hrtkovci.” “The Croats were scared because of the presence of those Chetnik volunteers in their village.” “[e{elj came to Hrtkovci on 6 May 1992. During his speech, [e{elj read out a list of names, publicly, and said that the Croats would have to leave with only plastic bags in their hands. Other people informed the witness that [e{elj had read out a list of names of respectable Croats who should be expelled. [e{elj also said that children from mixed marriages should be killed.” 23. witness VS-018, jelena Rado{evic, 92 ter witness, testified on 23 october 2008. The witness gave a statement to Prosecution investigators on 15 August 2006, which was presented as a 92 ter statement and was changed for a specific purpose in comparison with the previous statement of 30 May 2001.
251

The witness gave a false statement that in early October 1991, in front of the [umarija company in Vo}in, she saw the arrival of seven buses with volunteers and that a couple of days later she spoke with the commander of those volunteers, Radovan Nova~i}, who was from Loznica. Considering the description of the volunteers whom the witness saw in early October 1991 and the fact that the Prosecution tendered evidence that Serbian Radical Party volunteers came to Vo}in only on 25 October 1991, it is simply impossible that the witness spoke with Nova~i} before 25 October 1991. Of course, when you act knowingly and willfully upon Prosecution requests, then the seemingly harmless inaccuracy comes as no surprise, but it is a big lie that Nova~i} was the only commander and officer with whom the witness spoke. The witness gave false testimony asserting that Serbian Radical Party volunteers were in Vo}in, and they were in the Lager Sekulinci outside Vo}in. The witness needed this initial false assertion as a connection with an alleged Serbian Radical Party volunteer Ivan from Pan~evo, who joined the volunteers as a minor in order for his prison sentence to be reduced, as allegedly for each month on the front his prison sentence was reduced by four months, who was in the infirmary because of hepatitis (he caught hepatitis in Banja Luka, where he spent 14 days before coming to Vo}in), where the witness worked, and Radovan Nova~i} came to take this volunteer two or three days later. Giving this false testimony on the orders of the Prosecution, the witness told another lie, that this fictitious Ivan had the insignia of the Serbian Volunteer Guard on his sleeve. In this way the Prosecution tried to make a connection between [e{elj’s men and Arkan’s men in order to justify the false charges against Professor Vojislav [e{elj, who is called to account for the acts of any member of the “Serbian forces”. Under instructions from the Prosecution, the witness knowingly and willfully made a link via Radovan Nova~i} with all the volunteers and in that regard she gave a number of false testimonies. In her 92 ter statement, the witness asserted that Radovan Nova~i} was the commander of [e{elj’s volunteers and gave false testimony that Radovan Nova~i} told her so. Asked by the Judges in court, the witness changed it and said that it was not Radovan Nova~i} who told her, but somebody else asked him and the witness heard Nova~i}’s answer. The witness gave false testimony that volunteers became arrogant after Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s visit and the killing of Croatian civilians started, that is, most Croats were killed within two weeks after Vojislav [e{elj visited Vo}in. The witness gave false testimony that in late November or during the first two days of December 1991, Vojislav [e{elj came to Vo}in, that she saw several vehicles parked outside the command building and a volunteer standing there, who told the witness that [e{elj was in the command building. Asked by a Judge whether she saw Vojislav [e{elj, the witness said that she did not, and then she explained how some people were saying that Vojislav [e{elj had come to Vo}in, and the volunteer outside the building was no longer there. As soon as a question was asked to check whether the witness was telling the truth, the witness denied everything she had said before. That is why it is perfectly clear why the Prosecution insisted that this witness should fall under Rule 92 ter. This witness was not able to
252

repeat allegedly her 92 ter statement, because the statement had been drafted by the Prosecution, and the statement contains the testimony that the Prosecution expected, but the statement has nothing to do with the witness. So the witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimonies in her 92 ter statement and when she gave oral evidence in court, because she had the orders from the Prosecution not to deviate from her statement, and the witness was probably not aware of the consequences of giving false testimony. In addition, a considerable part and number of testimonies of this witness which the witness presented as something she heard, people were talking about and so dn, are also false testimonies given in support of the false testimonies descried in this motion, but they were presented as harmless inaccuracies or irrelevant details of some events. Considering that witness Jelena Rado{evic is the wife or common-law wife of witness Mladen Kuli} and that she received a lot of information from him, it must be noted that the testimonies of the two witnesses are very contradictory with regard to the main details. 24. witness VS-016, Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka, protected witness, testified in closed session on 28 and 29 october 2008. During the course of giving evidence the witness gave false testimony that Professor Vojislav [e{elj, when he was in Vukovar, held a kind of political rally and told the people, gave speeches and said that no Ustasha would leave Vukovar alive, “and it was in Nova ulica outside the Leva Supoderica headquarters and people were around.” The witness was shown a part of his statement given to Prosecution investigators, “He came a couple of times, I think that he was there in mid, late October and he was there in November. And before the liberation of Vukovar, when he gave a statement on TV, no Ustasha would leave Vukovar alive. Major Te{i} led him through Vukovar, through our part of Nova ulica that we had liberated, there is a photograph of that.” Since these are two different statements and assertions, the witness concluded that it was best for him to say that he said nothing like that to Prosecution investigators in his 2005 statement, recalling the fact that there was no electricity in Vukovar and that they could not watch TV, so he could not say that it was on TV. Testifying in the Vukovar Three case, the witness said that Professor Vojislav [e{elj gave the speech in front of Stanko Vujanovi}’s house, which was the Third Company’s headquarters, Captain Radi}’s headquarters, and he did it while he was leaving a meeting in the headquarters. The witness said that Professor Vojislav [e{elj “held a meeting with officers in Captain Radi}’s headquarters and that the witness saw him enter Stanko Vujanovi}’s house, which was Radi}’s Command,” and the witness allegedly knew all this because he was in the yard. This is false witness testimony, because it did not happen at all, and it is false testimony from the point of view of the statement of witness Jovan Dulovi}, who was allegedly on the staircase of that house and heard, through a door that was left ajar, the same sentence like witness Petkovi}, which was allegedly said in the room where Professor Vojislav [e{elj had a meeting with officers and, on top of that, witness Petkovic emphasized that he did not even see the journalist, witness Dulovi}, there. The two Prosecution witnesses are simply in dead heat as to who lies more, Petkovic or Dulovi}.
253

Asked whether Kameni went back when he saw that they turned off the asphalt road into arable fields at Grabovo, the witness gave false testimony, “No, Kameni came back together with Stanko Vujanovi}, so it was an hour after that.” Asked whether he saw the argument between Stanko and Kameni, the witness gave false testimony that there was no argument. Asked whether he knew that immediately after that Kameni left Ov~ara very angry, the witness gave false testimony that it was not true that he left Ov~ara, and asked how long Kameni stayed at Ov~ara, the witness gave false testimony, “after I came back from my pit, after the second round I saw him hitting the prisoners inside.” Asked whether anyone from the group of prisoners at Ov~ara was released, the witness said four men who were taken to Velepromet, and asked whether he heard of Vilim Karlovi}, the witness said no, and asked whether the witness released any prisoner at Ov~ara, the witness said no. When a question was put to him that Vilim Karlovi} testified in court and asserted that Spasoje Petkovi}, that is, the witness himself, released him from the group and that Karlovi} gave a gold ring in return, took a gold ring off his hand and gave it to Spasoje Petkovi}, the witness gave false testimony denying all that, justifying himself that he was not in a position to save anyone. So now we have a situation that either witness Spasoje Petkovi} was lying or Vilim Karlovi} was lying. Asked whether a few days after that crime the witness gave a statement for the Belgrade-based newspaper Intervju, published on 29 November 1991, and said that on that day it did not matter for him whether he would kill a man or a chicken, and then told the journalist, “I could kill you if you got on my nerves”, the witness gave false testimony that he did not say that and that the journalist added that. We reach the conclusion that even when the witness talked about his repentance and fear, that he was under orders and had to shoot three people using a rifle that had not been issued to him as a soldier, the witness tried to adapt the facts with the aim of avoiding his criminal responsibilitv. The witness is a policeman in Serbia even today when he has the status of cooperating witness. He was recruited into the police after Vukovar, where he did his compulsory military service, and in Vukovar he took part in shooting and killing the prisoners at Ov~ara. The witness admitted that he gave a false statement to Judges in Novi Sad on 1 August 2003, which goes to prove his propensity to say all kinds of things to avoid his criminal responsibility. The witness admitted that he was arrested on 4 November 2003 (his defense counsel was Kalanj) and that he gave false testimony on 27 November 2003 and in that testimony he said that he did not know Major Vuka{inovi}. The witness confirmed that an indictment was brought against him on 4 December 2003, because he organized the killings at Ov~ara with Vujovi} and Vujanovi}. The witness admitted that he replaced his defense counsel Kalanj and that his father engaged attorney Branko Du{i}, and that he gave a statement before MUP officers on 18 December 2003, then he gave a statement again before an Investigating Judge, and after that he was given the status of co-operating witness. The witness admitted that his father holds the rank of reserve lieutenant colonel and works at the Ruma Department of the Ministry of Defense, and that his father found a new attorney, and it has to be noted that it was a turning point and
254

the witness was given the status of co-operating witness in order to repeat the story about Ov~ara in courts and trials. Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether the witness was criminally prosecuted between 1991 and 2003, the witness said no, and then he remembered and said that he showed excessive use of force during one intervention and that it was a disciplinary violation or offence. When a policeman gives this answer, then it is clear that it is not unawareness or ignorance, but rather a devised way of avoiding a truthful answer. That is why the question arises as to what the witness was trying to cover up. When the witness was asked to explain what it was about, he started with an innocent story to cover up the following: “the Judgment says that you twisted his right arm behind his back and, holding him by the collar, pushed him out of the disco club into a corridor, where you pushed him into the door frame, and then you hit him on the left side of the neck with your hand and punched him in the stomach and chest, pushed him to the concrete floor and, wearing your shoes, and they are an instrument that can inflict serious bodily injuries or seriously damage someone’s health, you went on kicking him in the head, legs, back and chest, inflicting on the injured party light bodily injuries in the form of contusions on the head and body, swelling and hematoma of the upper lip, skin abrasions on the back and dislocation of the right elbow.” The Judgment and the innocence with which the witness described it are the best illustration of the criminal nature of the witness and the fact that he really has reasons to give false evidence. Like in that interview, the journalist added it, and talking about excessive use of force, he forgot to mention the Judgment and described the act as harmless, although the Judgment sentenced him to six months in prison, suspended for one year, probably just because he is a policeman. It is interesting that attorney Branko Du{i} is defense counsel for both witnesses Spasoje Petkovi} and Bo`o Latinovi} and that both are co-operating witnesses in the proceedings for Ov~ara before a Belgrade court and in the proceedings against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. As for the kind of witness he is, the best illustration are the facts the witness admitted and confirmed in court that before his testimony in the Belgrade trial, he received all the statements of the accused and witnesses through attorney Du{i} and used them during his preparations for testimony. If that could be done in Belgrade, why not in The Hague? Based on the statements of this witness, who was given the status of co-operating witness in Belgrade, other persons were arrested and indicted, which means that without this witness and his testimony no suspicion would have fallen on Kameni, Kinez, Ceca, Mare and Kati}. No Ov~ara witness who testified in the case against Professor Vojislav [e{elj mentioned that these persons took part /in the events/ at Ov~ara. Since this witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimonies in the Ov~ara case in Belgrade and the Vukovar Three case in The Hague, Professor Vojislav [e{elj showed to the Judges the relevant parts of the Judgments in the above cases, where it was established that the Judges did not give credence to the testimonies of this witness. It was established that the witness falsely testified about the role of Captain Radi}, his own weapons, the time of arrival and duration of stay at
255

Ov~ara and other details which completely discredited the witness. He is a serial liar who does it knowingly and willfully, counting on saving himself thanks to his status of co-operating witness from criminal responsibility for his participation in the shooting and killing carried out at Ov~ara. 25. witness Vesna Bosanac, 92 ter witness, testified on 4 and 5 november 2008. Paragraph 16 on page 4 of the Prosecution Motion for admission of the written statement of Dr Vesna Bosanac pursuant to Rule 92 ter says the following: “The 92 ter statement by Dr Vesna Bosanac does not deal directly with the acts of the Accused. This statement does not mention the name of Vojislav [e{elj even once, nor does it broach the issue of members of the SRS or the [e{eljevci.” Vesna Bosanac testified before the ICTY in the Slavko Dokmanovi}, Slobodan Milo{evi} and [ljivan~anin, Mrk{i} and Radi} cases. During the course of testimony in all the above cases, including the testimony in the case against Professor Vojislav [e{elj on 4 and 5 November 2008, Dr Vesna Bosanac gave false testimonies several times after making a solemn declaration that she would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Vesna Bosanac confirmed in court that the allegations in her statement were true and correct. While she worked as the director of the hospital in Vukovar, Vesna Bosanac deceived the local and international public about the real situation in Vukovar and the Vukovar hospital. Every day she faxed false information to the Croatian Government, the Ministry of Health and European Mission observers about an alleged threat to the hospital, the sick and wounded in the hospital, keeping quiet about the causes of occasional military attacks on the hospital itself. According to witness statements, Croatian snipers and mortars, which sowed death across the free Serbian parts of Vukovar, were positioned on the roof of the Vukovar hospital and therefore, under such conditions, the building did not have to be spared. After all, the JNA never had the intention of destroying the hospital, but rather the military capabilities on the hospital roof which threatened the security of the Serbian people. In his testimony and statements given to military and investigative organs of the Republic of Serbia, surgeon Mladen Ivankovi} said that only two air bombs fell on the hospital, one of which did not explode. Dr Mladen Ivankovic added that he was present during a conversation between a person named Kusta and anesthesiologist Rebu from Zagreb, and that Kusta asked why they allowed fire to be opened from the roof on aircraft and that everybody would be killed because of that. Dr Mladen Ivankovi} added that the hospital roof was not marked with a red cross, which Vesna Bosanac lied about during her testimony. In his statement, Dr Mladen Ivankovi} said that two red crosses were in the hospital yard, but the guns positioned in the park in front of the hospital and in the yard of Elektro Slavija behind the hospital fired at the Serbian positions and aircraft. Before Investigating Judge Zvonko Pavlovi} in Sremska Mitrovica, on 29 November 1991, Vladimir Edemi, a doctor from the Vukovar MC /Medical Centre/, also confirmed that armed Croats climbed the hospital roof, from where they kept firing at aircraft and killing Serbian civilians from sniper rifles.
256

On the basis of all video recordings, including a conversation between [ljivan~anin and doctors from the European Mission of 19 November 1991, it can be clearly seen that the hospital building in Vukovar suffered negligible damage and that Vesna Bosanac lied when she asserted before the Judges in court that the hospital was shelled by heavy artillery and air bombs every day, and that the hospital and Vukovar were pounded daily by more than 1,000 shells. During her testimony, Vesna Bosanac asserted that carrying and bringing weapons in the hospital was not allowed, but some Croatian and Serbian witnesses asserted before investigating military organs in Sremska Mitrovica that Vesna Bosanac favored one political party, that she greeted the Croats with a V-sign, and that almost all the Croats carried weapons. Vesna Bosanac was under obligation to tell the Judges that her son Damir, aged 18, was a member of the Croatian Guard, but she knowingly and willfully kept quiet about it. As for the behavior of the medical staff and Vesna Bosanac towards the sick and wounded Serbs, Vesna Bosanac told another lie that the treatment was exactly the same. In her statement given to investigative organs under number KI 506/92, Olga Gedo{evi}, a Serb, said that she was seriouslv wounded, that she received very bad treatment from the medical staff and that they did not even want to dress her wounds. In her statement she added that some Serbs who had to be released disappeared overnight. In her statement, Olga Gedo{evi} also confirmed that members of the Croatian Guard walked around the hospital carrying rifles all the time. In his statement, Dr Mladen Ivankovi} confirms that three wounded JNA soldiers were in the Vukovar hospital, that they were treated well and that they were kept as an example for the public that the medical staff treated wounded enemy soldiers properly. Vesna Bosanac gave false testimony before the Judges about the number of persons treated in the hospital, which relates to civilian and military victims of war, especially to the period after the liberation of Vukovar. According to a statement of Josip ^ovi}, a Croat, a witness whom the Prosecution decided not to call, most local members of the ZNG who defended Vukovar had no uniforms, but rather wore civilian clothes. On the basis of the statement of this witness, it can be concluded that persons carrying small arms cannot be considered as civilians or civilian victims of war. This information largely confirms the fact that the ratio of wounded civilians to wounded military personnel in the hospital, which Vesna Bosanac presented to the Trial Chamber and the public, is not correct. When Vukovar was liberated, and Croatian paramilitary units remained encircled, they decided to change to civilian clothes and hand over their weapons to the military authorities as civilians. A large number of witnesses confirmed this fact before investigative military organs in Sremska Mitrovica, and there is video footage in the documentary Stamp of the Times showing several hundred people handing over their weapons on the day Vukovar was liberated. Josip ^ovi}, a Croat, confirms this in paragraph 10 of his statement given to the Prosecution and adds that he saw that some Croatian policemen and some lo257

cals who took part in the fighting in the town and around the hospital, took off their uniforms, changed to civilian clothes, threw away their weapons, and some hid in the hospital disguised as sick or wounded. Vesna Bosanac also gave false testimony that she had heard Professor Vojislav [e{elj say over the radio that Vukovar would be razed to the ground. In connection with that, Professor Vojislav [e{elj never gave such a statement. 26. witness VS-1131, Milorad Vojinovi}, 92 ter witness, testified on 5 and 6 november 2008. The statement of this witness presented under Rule 92 ter is the statement of 11 September 2008. The witness did not remember this statement, but he mentioned that he met the Chief of the Security Administration in 2008. This was a very interesting situation and this was the first time that, at the mention of the words “statement from 2008”, a 92 ter witness had no recollection that he talked to the Prosecution, but he simply had an immediate recollection of a meeting with the Chief of the Security Administration in that year. Probably the meeting with the Chief of the Security Administration dominated the thoughts of the witness when he entered the courtroom, the witness was obsessed with the meeting, so in the courtroom he reminded himself that he must not forget it, that he had an obligation regarding that meeting which he must not forget. After all, it is clear how officers, even retired officers, treat the undertaken obligations and orders, so the detail that he did not remember a statement given to the Prosecution, but he remembered a meeting with the Chief of the Security Administration in 2008, sufficiently illustrates that the witness undertook his testimony as an order to obey and a task to carry out. So there is no room for illusion or misunderstanding of the Prosecutor’s question. Since the Prosecutor insisted on admitting some evidence through this witness, the situation that was created spoke much more of the manner of work of the Prosecution and what they are ready to do to prepare witnesses. The witness was shown a universal form of a war diary, which the witness recognized as a form and barely remembered that the Prosecutor had previously shown it to him during the preparations for testimony. Asked by the Prosecutor to show an entry in the war diary that was shown to him, the witness hardly managed to find the page where it was recorded, and the witness read out, “4 October, 14.30 hours, it says: about 40 volunteers came from Belgrade; they were sent to the 2nd Motorized Battalion.” Judge Antonetti noticed that something was wrong and made a comment, “But the problem is the following, Mr. Ferrara, 4 October here comes after 6 October, and from the military point of view, I think that’s impossible. Why is that so?” Everybody in the courtroom was shocked, and the Prosecutor said, “I have no idea.” Since the Prosecutor had an ingenious idea to ask the witness to explain it, there was even greater astonishment, the witness said, “No, I cannot confirm the authenticity of this document, because at that time I had not yet arrived in that area, but I can only read what it says here, what you are asking me to do.” Truthful testimonies of the witness are given here deliberately as a kind of preparation to reinforce the witness’s testimonies that were to follow, so that nobody would suspect that those testimonies were false.
258

The same situation occurred with regard to a document of 22 December 1991 reporting on the death of two soldiers from the Territorial Defense in Vukovar, and the witness said that he did not know that the document existed, that the event did not happen, but in the end it turned out that the purpose of the document was that in the Serbian version, Milan Lan~u`anin Kameni was presented as a captain, and in the English version made by military experts of the Prosecution, and not the translation service, the word captain was missing. In addition, the Prosecutor kept insisting on tricking the witness into admitting that the Leva Supoderica detachment existed in December 1991. The witness explained precisely that his unit, the 80th Motorized Brigade, came to Vukovar on 7 November 1991 and that it was in an area without active military operations, and the witness took over command in Vukovar on 25 November 1991 when the Guards Brigade returned to Belgrade. The witness knew the details of the resubordination of the units that were found there to the witness’s command, but during his testimony he kept quiet about it and therefore he gave false testimony, because he did not mention that all the units found there and the Territorial Defense, regardless of the actual situation, were resubordinated to him. It means that the Leva Supoderica detachment was disbanded already on 17 or 18 November 1991, and the few people who stayed because they were from Vukovar or some who wanted to stay could not be considered as members of the already non-existent Leva Supoderica detachment by any means. Simply the name Leva Supoderica lingered on in the jargon as a memory of who fought where until 18 November 1991 and that is why it is no surprise that Kameni no longer had the insignia of a JNA captain. When the witness knew that, but kept quiet about it or openly avoided telling the truth, it can be considered that he gave false testimony. The witness prepared for the testimony about the events at Ov~ara and confirmed that as part of his unit, the 80th Motorized Brigade, in Sotin he had one unit, one command and the second command that was only just based at Ov~ara. So on 20 November 1991 Ov~ara was a zone of military and command responsibility of the witness. At Ov~ara, the witness had one subordinate who was the commander of the unit based at Ov~ara. Under military rules, the witness was the most responsible JNA serviceman for everything that happened at Ov~ara and it is impossible that he did not know what happened at Ov~ara, and especially he cannot treat Ov~ara as if he did not care what happened. With regard to the importance of the command at Ov~ara, in response to a question from a Judge, the witness said, “It was not originally planned to be there, but because of some other problems I set it up at Ov~ara. It stayed there with the approval of the organ of the superior command.” When a witness keeps quiet, avoids or fails to answer a question about an event at which he was present or about which he subsequently learned or he had known about it by virtue of his duty, essentially he does not respect or violates the obligation that he undertook by making a solemn declaration, which in the proceedings before the Hague Tribunal reads as follows, “I solemnly declare that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” With regard to that, the witness gave a series of false testimonies. It is simply incredible that the witness, who attended meetings every day between the commander of Operations Group
259

South in Negoslavci and officers, unit commanders, does not know their ranks and names. It is incredible that the witness, who testified in the Ov~ara case in Belgrade, was in contact with defense counsel for Mrk{i} and [ljivan~anin and the Prosecution as, in the end, a Prosecution witness in the Vukovar Three case, does not know the names of the officers he saw and spoke with at Ov~ara, where the witness had his unit and place in his zone of responsibility. Whether the witness gave false testimonies, or how many, during the course of giving evidence in court under Rule 92 ter must be established also in relation to testimonies of other persons as witnesses and the established facts. The fact that the Judges decided that this witness appear in court under Rule 92 ter, and there is no person more responsible for the events at Ov~ara on 20 November 1991, goes to prove that the Trial Chamber Judges, with their decision, saved the witness from ending up in a situation where Professor Vojislav [e{elj would cross-examine him. 27. witness VS-1119, julka Maretic’, 92 ter witness, testified on 6 november 2008. The witness’s written statements given to Prosecution investigators, the summary of the testimony read out by the Prosecutor that the witness attested that it would be her statement if she were to be examined, are dominated by the witness’s false testimony as follows: “Later, when the army came from Serbia, they introduced themselves – we are [e{elj’s men, others introduced themselves as Arkan’s men, so we were afraid of them and we ran away from them and we accused them of causing us a lot of trouble.” Asked by the Presiding Judge, “Madam, you told us that soldiers arrived in Vo}in on 19 August 1991. What I would like to know about these soldiers, could you tell me again, who were these soldiers?” the witness repeated her false testimony, as follows: “I can’t distinguish between them. I know that they went through our street, they introduced themselves, we are [e{elj’s men, ’we are Arkan’s men’, but we don’t know who brought them there, who sent them or who received them. That was something we were not supposed to know, nor did we dare ask about that.” Asked by a Judge whether she personally heard one of the soldiers say, “I am one of [e{elj’s men” or “I am one of Arkan’s men”, the witness said, “He said it in front of me, and I went out to talk to them, I said that I was from Serbia and that they should not touch us. Then he said: I’m also from Serbia, I’m a [e{elj’s man, and if another came up: I’m one of Arkan’s men, so they pointed that out, but I did not dare talk to them for too long. We immediately moved away and ran away, we hid ourselves, so that we would not be in contact with them even through conversation, and we were afraid, you know.” The witness was prepared by the Prosecution and that was why she kept repeating her false testimony knowing that she was guaranteed protection, because Professor Vojislav [e{elj does not cross-examine 92 ter witnesses. The witness gave her first statement on 12 February 2001 in Slatina, and subsequently under the then Rule 92 bis, probably an authorized officer of the Registry went to Vo}in and asked the witness in the police station to confirm her signature, to confirm the content and her signature. The witness made a declaration confirming the veracity of her written statement, which was signed by Prosecution in260

vestigators, an interpreter of the International Criminal Tribunal, the presiding officer Frederick Swinnen, and the witness, under Rule 92 bis. The third document is dated 6 September 2002 and it changes some things significantly. Everybody noticed that the witness is not a Serb but a Bulgarian, she confirmed that some things were committed by local Serbs, she was more categorical than before and allegedly she added in the end what she repeated in court, that some of the soldiers who arrived from Serbia said that they were [e{elj’s men, and others that they were Arkan’s men. The format of the statement is such that it cannot be admitted into evidence, because there is no information about who took the statement, or under which circumstances, nothing, only a note that this was supplementary witness statement. The witness confirmed her signature on that paper, but in court the Judges could establish her intellectual and social position and that different manipulations were possible. That is precisely where you find the circumstances proving that the witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimonies, because the Prosecution counted on the testimonies of this witness somehow fitting into the pattern which the Prosecution had in mind referring to this witness in the Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief. 28. witness VS-1093, alija Kapid`i~, protected witness, testified on 12 november 2008. The witness gave testimony that from an elevation under Kula Grad through his binoculars he saw uniformed persons take out Sabit Bilali} and his two sons and shoot them dead in the Hrid neighborhood in Zvornik, and he described the uniformed persons as people in camouflage uniforms with hoods over their heads. The witness said that he assumed that they were Arkan’s men, because they had the same uniforms like the four uniformed soldiers captured the day before at the Muslim barricade at the entry into Zvornik from the direction of Karakaj, who wore camouflage uniforms and had booklets saying that they belonged to some Arkan’s units, they all had pistols, cowboy Colts, American-made, which only JNA generals carried, they had handcuffs, they had thin wire, thin steel wire which, as they explained to the witness, was used for the silent liquidation of enemies, and so on. On page seven of his statement given to the Prosecution, the witness asserted that the distance between him and Zvornik was 500 meters as the crow flies. If the distance was two kilometers in the ideal projection, the straight line between the place where the witness was and the Hrid neighborhood must be greater and the distance between him and that place cannot be two kilometers, but rather, in accordance, with the Pythagorean theorem, it is much greater. The witness could not recognize Sabit Bilali} and his two sons from that hill, unless he watched them through a telescope. The witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimony that he saw and recognized both the victims and the perpetrators of the crime in the Hrid neighborhood from that hill. The witness did all this knowingly and willfully and certainly on the orders of the Prosecution to correct not only defects, but also false testimonies of witness Safeta Bilali}. Namely, witness Safeta Bilali}, presented as an eyewitness to this crime, testified that the shooting was carried out by Arkan’s soldiers, whom she described, based on her personal encounter, as wearing black clot261

hes, while witness Kapid`i} said that a distinguishing feature of Arkan’s men were camouflage uniforms, the same as those worn by the four men captured the day before. Simply, since there are such big discrepancies between the two witnesses whom the Prosecution presented as eyewitnesses, at least one of the two witnesses gave false testimony. 29. witness VS-1136, Katica Pauli}, testified on 19 november 2008. The witness tried to give as many false testimonies as possible. She announced that at the beginning of cross-examination, saying that Professor Vojislav [e{elj is an evil man. The witness knowingly and willfully gave false testimony saying that Slavko Mira{i} told her that he was a member of the Serbian Radical Party (he has never been a member of the Serbian Radical Party), when it was widely known in Hrtkovci that he was a member of the Serbian Renewal Movement at the time. In comparison with her statements previously given to the Prosecution, during cross-examination the witness invented the case of the old woman Kata Francuz, her house that was sold, the refugees who moved in and the problems that the buyer of the house allegedly had to move the refugees out. The witness could not answer why she did not say this to the Prosecution earlier, instead of surprising the Judges, the Prosecutor and the public in court. The witness did not even know the name of the old woman Kata’s son, with whom she socialized every day. Simply the witness invented a lie on the spot. The witness gave false testimony that she saw [e{elj’s army in black uniforms with ammunition belts, traditional Serbian caps and cockades at a rally. The witness gave false testimony that Hungarians were mentioned at the rally. During cross-examination, asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether he said at the rally that all children from mixed marriages should be killed, the witness gave false testimony, “I heard it with my own ears that you said that mixed marriages should be dissolved.” The witness also gave false testimony that Professor Vojislav [e{elj read out a list of names of the Croats from Hrtkovci who should be expelled, and she was so imbued with hatred that she simply hissed with anger for being caught lying. She did not dare move her eyes off the screen and it was hatred, rather than any reasonable testimony, that came out of the witness. The witness continued giving false testimony. Asked “How do you know that Ostoja Sibin~i} gave me rather than anyone else the list of names that was allegedly read out at the rally?” she said, “And who else, he was the main organizer in Hrtkovci,” and asked of which party Ostoja Sibin~i} was a member at the time, the witness said the Serbian Radical Party. No matter how much the witness insisted on the story that she moved out of Hrtkovci under pressure, during cross-examination she admitted all the details about the move and that her husband and child stayed until her child finished school in Sremska Kamenica, and there was a memorable detail that during the proofing the Prosecution showed the witness the Judgment of the Court in Ruma, because of absence, on the basis of which [piri} finally managed to register as the owner of the house in Hrtkovci and thus remove any defects, because the witness
262

tried to cheat [piri} in the exchange. Despite pretending that she was surprised to see the Judgment for the first time, in the end the witness admitted that the Prosecution had showed her the Judgment. The witness helped the Judges understand how the story repeated by Prosecution witnesses was created, namely that Mijat [tefanac was killed by the refugees whom he had allowed to live in his house. The witness was also precious for the Judges to find out that the local priest, Prosecution witness Niko Kraljevi}, has a propensity for alcohol and singing under the influence of alcohol. Witness Katica Pauli} is the best example of a witness who can, because of hatred, tell lies knowingly and willfully, only to spite Professor Vojislav [e{elj as much as possible. 30. witness VS-1028, Mirsad juki}, protected witness, testified on 9 December 2008. The witness left Bijeljina in April 1992 and persistently fought abroad (in four foreign countries) to receive a residence permit, which he received on 25 May 2007. In 2004, the witness telephoned the Prosecution in The Hague from abroad and applied to be a Prosecution witness against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. He needed the status of a witness to receive permanent residency in a foreign country, because virtually from 1992 to May 2007 he could not secure permanent residency, and temporary residence was extended not only thanks to his wife, but also interventions from the Hague Tribunal that he was an important Prosecution witness and this proves that the witness had the knowledge and intent to give false testimonies from the start. The witness gave false testimony that he saw Mr. [e{elj and Mr. Blagojevi} in early March 1992, that they were saying that they would exterminate the Muslims, that they would kill them unless the Muslims were loyal to the Serbs and that they would expel the remaining Muslims to Turkey and Croats to Croatia. He heard it in the Serbia cafe, when the witness drank coffee near Blagojevi} and [e{elj, who were sitting at the bar, about four meters away from them, so he heard it very well. The conversation took place in the afternoon and there were between 10 and 15 people in the cafe at the time. The witness obviously overheard them saying something about Bijeljina, so he made his false construct and gave false testimony that in March 1992 Professor Vojislav [e{elj was in Bijeljina and spiced it up with the story of his lover Suada, a nurse from Bijeljina. The witness created this construct because it was no secret that Professor Vojislav [e{elj gave a lecture in the Srbija cafe in Bijeljina on 9 December 1990. The next time he visited Bijeljina was on 23 February 1991, immediately after the assembly in Kragujevac, and the third time he only passed through Bijeljina in early April 1991 on his way to Knin, accompanied by Maja Gojkovi} and Aleksandar Stefanovi}. Mirko Blagojevi} joined them in Bijeljina. The next time he visited Bijeljina was only on 21 March 1993, when the Serbian Radical Party held a rally in front of the Bijeljina Municipal Assembly. The witness continued adding new false testimonies that the units which were to take part were mentioned: Arkan’s units, the Yugoslav People’s Army units, reservists, volunteers and, of course, local Serbs who were in the Serbian Radical Party. The witness got so lost during testimony that he challenged and denied widely known facts, with constant outbursts of hatred.
263

31. witness VS-065, Bo`a latinovi} – [tuka, protected witness, testified in closed session via video link on 8 and 9 january 2009. This witness was subsequently included on the list of Prosecution witnesses, although he did not even mention Professor Vojislav [e{elj in his preliminary statements. This witness is also a co-operating witness in the Ov~ara trial conducted before the court in Belgrade. Since the witness did not mention Professor Vojislav [e{elj in connection with the charges, through this witness the Prosecution tried to make a link between Serbian Radical Party volunteers and the persons who participated at Ov~ara, although it is widely known that at the time of Ov~ara all Serbian Radical Party volunteers had returned to their homes in Serbia. During examination-in-chief the witness said that Damnjan Samard`i} said in the hangar that one prisoner was a Belgian journalist and although everybody doubted that Samard`i} was telling the truth, and proof of that doubt is the detail that Buli} hit Samard`i}, after that Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka grabbed the alleged journalist and took him out of the hangar. The witness said that they heard later that Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka allegedly immediately killed the Belgian journalist outside the hangar, but nobody heard the shot because a power generator was on. During cross-examination, asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether the man was a journalist or foreign mercenary, the witness said that, in his opinion, the man was a foreign mercenary, but he did not say that during examination-in-chief. The witness can obviously give false testimonies and accuse Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka freely and without any hesitation, because both Latinovi} and Petkovi} are cooperating witnesses in Belgrade and protected witnesses in The Hague and no matter what they say, they shall not be held criminally responsible. The guarantee that they cannot be prosecuted for the crimes they committed gives them security to say all sorts of things, accuse others, describe events in line with instructions from the Prosecution and, if necessary, correct their testimony. From the start they have been able to modify their testimonies as the need arises and they do so knowingly and willfully, because they apparently enjoy absolute protection. The status of protected witness does not mean that there is no liability for giving false testimonies. During examination-in-chief the witness said that after some time Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka and Nada Kalaba took a prisoner out, Nada’s boss from the Nama department store, who was also killed, that the witness thought that Nada Kalaba killed him, but he could not confirm that because he had not seen it, because he had heard about it. As this detail was also present at the trial in the Ov~ara case before the court in Belgrade, during cross-examination Professor Vojislav [e{elj showed the witness a document about the confrontation between the witness and Nada Kalaba in the Special Court for War Crimes, where Nada Kalaba confirmed that she had recognized her boss in the hangar and that she may have kicked him once, that after that Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka took her former boss out of the hangar, and when she later went out of the hangar, Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka had already killed the boss. So with regard to this detail, the witness first said that he thought that Nada Kalaba did it, then that he did not personally see it, but he heard about it, and in the end, faced with other evidence, that he did not know who had done it, and before his testimony in The Hague he testified about the same event several times and he even confronted Nada Kalaba in court. So the wit264

ness had a task of giving false testimony in court and he did not give it up, because obviously it is a requirement for the status of protected witness. During examination-in-chief, asked whether he saw Kameni in the hangar, the witness said yes, but he did not specify the time when Kameni came. During cross-examination, asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj about the time when Kameni came to Ov~ara, the witness gave false testimony that it was still daylight, but it was probably dusk. It is beyond contention that Kameni was in Belgrade on that day, that he drove one person to hospital for shrapnel to be taken out of his cheek and that he returned to Vukovar when it was already dark. That the witness knew about this very well is proven by the fact that during testimony in the Ov~ara proceedings in Belgrade, the witness said that he saw Kameni in the barracks grounds on the same day, and then during confrontation with Kameni, he corrected himself and gave another testimony that he actually saw Kameni in Velepromet, at a JNA petrol station around eight o’clock in the morning, where he got petrol. The time when Kameni really came to Ov~ara is a very important fact not only for the Ov~ara case, but also for the trial of Professor Vojislav [e{elj, because through Kameni the Prosecution is trying to make a link and establish any responsibility of Professor Vojislav [e{elj for Vukovar and Ov~ara. During cross-examination Professor Vojislav [e{elj reminded the witness that his statements in the court in Belgrade differed from the statements of witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka in several different aspects, although both were co-operating witnesses in the court in Belgrade and protected witnesses here in The Hague. During confrontation the witness said that a certain Dragica from Novi Sad lined up a group of 20 or 25 soldiers and before the arrival of the first tractor, she went with them on foot to Grabovo, while Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka asserted that Dragica went with him in a car to Ov~ara. During the confrontation between witness Latinovi} and witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka in Belgrade, witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka stood by his statement that a certain Ru`ica Markoba{i} was killed in front of the hangar, while witness Latinovi} said in court that the latter was shot and killed by the pit at Grabovo and that Zoran Da{i} shot at her. We have two persons who are co-operating witnesses in the trial in Belgrade, and at the same time protected witnesses in the trial in The Hague, who as participants in the commission of a crime and as eyewitnesses gave completely contradictory statements about the same event. In the trial of Professor Vojislav [e{elj these witnesses appeared as the mainstay of international justice and the struggle to establish the truth. That was why they received the status of co-operating witnesses and protected witnesses, and in them they found the fundamental need that it would be to the benefit of justice and truth if they were not criminally prosecuted for the crimes to which they confessed, because their allegedly truthful testimonies should result in the criminal prosecution of those who are the most responsible. In other words, it means that these witnesses are requested to give false testimonies, because Professor Vojislav [e{elj should be convicted on the basis of their testimonies. In the trial in Belgrade, witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka gave testimony that he was by the pit with a group of prisoners, that he took part in the killing, that he came back from Ov~ara before the shooting finished, that he went to Captain Radi} in the headquarters and found Kinez there. In the same trial in Belgrade, wit265

ness Latinovi} gave testimony that Kinez stayed by the Grabovo pit until the end of shooting. The two witnesses were confronted in the trial in Belgrade and they stood by their testimonies. Witness Latinovi} did the same during his testimony in the case against Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Considering that, through the Ov~ara case in Belgrade, the Prosecution is trying to make a link for Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s responsibility in The Hague, these differences in the testimonies of protected witnesses prove that one of these two witnesses, or both, gave false testimony. During the cross-examination of the witness, Professor Vojislav [e{elj proved that it was not an accidental contradiction between the statement of this witness in the Ov~ara case and the testimonies of witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka. Asked as to who threw dead prisoners into the pit, witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka asserted that dead prisoners were thrown into the pit by five or six prisoners who arrived with the new group on a tractor trailer, and then they would be shot and killed, and it went on again and again. With regard to that, witness Latinovi} made an assertion that the same two prisoners always stood by the pit and threw the dead into the pit. During examination-in-chief, in connection with the shooting and killing of prisoners, witness Latinovi} asserted that he saw a young half-dead man by the pit, he thought the man’s name was Veber, who probably went into dying convulsions, and whenever he moved, \orde [o{ki} stabbed him with a knife. In connection with this, in the trial in Belgrade witness Latinovi} asserted that [o{ki} stabbed a prisoner with a knife until he died, and in the same trial in Belgrade, witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka asserted that Topola cut the throats of three prisoners by the pit. Considering such great discrepancy and contradiction between the testimonies, the dilemma about which of these witnesses gave false testimony in Belgrade and in the trial in The Hague, or whether both gave false testimonies, was resolved by the autopsy report and testimony of expert witness Davor Strinovi} that all the victims at Ov~ara were killed by firearms. During examination-in-chief, asked what Kinez did and what his role was, witness Latinovi} gave false testimony that Kinez was standing by the pit with a Colt and shot at those who were still showing signs of life. Experts established that no traces of pistol bullets were found at Ov~ara, or the pit where the shooting and killing took place. In the case before the Belgrade court, witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka admitted that he was by the pit in Grabovo, and that he saw Kinez by the pit only after the third group of prisoners arrived on a tractor trailer. Witness Latinovi} gave false testimony in court before the Trial Chamber Judges that he did not see witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka by the pit in Grabovo. In connection with these false assertions, there was a confrontation and witness Latinovi} and Predrag Milojevi} aka Kinez took a polygraph test, but Professor Vojislav [e{elj has no access to the test results. During cross-examination Professor Vojislav [e{elj showed the witness a part of the transcript from the confrontation in Belgrade, where Predrag Milojevi} aka Kinez told witness Latinovi} that witness Latinovi} could not have seen him, or saw him only for the 15 minutes that he was with Kameni there, and that witness Latinovi} was making it up and lying, because Predrag Milojevi} aka Kinez cal266

led witness Latinovi} “Bloody Bora” in the Politika newspaper and that was why Latinovi} wanted to take revenge on Milojevi}. Despite a large number of witnesses and the accused, only co-operating witnesses in the Ov~ara case in Belgrade, who are at the same time protected witnesses for the Prosecution in the case against Professor Vojislav [e{elj in respect of Vukovar, witness Bo`a Latinovi} and witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka made the assertion in their statements and testimonies that Predrag Milojevi} aka Kinez was at Ov~ara. To see that these are obviously false testimonies of these witnesses, it is enough just to recall that witness Latinovi} did not even mention Predrag Milojevi} aka Kinez when he was questioned in the police and gave a statement before an Investigating Judge. Both witness Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka and witness Latinovi} gave false testimony about the make of the revolver and the calibre of ammunition, although in the end he admitted that he knew in advance of the autopsy results confirming that no bullets of this calibre were found in the victims (no 38 special or 45 millimetre bullets). During the testimony of witness Latinovi} in court, the Presiding Judge also expressed doubts about the veracity of his testimony, saying that the statement of witness Latinovi} was contradictory to the findings of the expert, and asked by the Judge whether he saw Kinez load his pistol, the witness said that he did not, because he did not pay attention. Professor Vojislav [e{elj also read out to the witness a part of the transcript from the confrontation in the trial in Belgrade, where Predrag Milojevi} aka Kinez told witness Latinovi} that he was lying and that he had never seen him by the pit, and witness Latinovi} confirmed the assertions made by Kinez. That witness Latinovi} gave false testimonies and contradictory answers to questions also in the trial in Belgrade is confirmed by the transcript read out by Professor Vojislav [e{elj which relates to the position of the Presiding Judge in the trial in Belgrade, who drew the attention of witness Latinovi} to the fact that one day he said one thing and another day he said something else, and noted that “five minutes ago you said that he was not there, but when a document was shown to you, then you said, yes, he was there”. Asked by the Presiding Judge how it happened that he was in the firing squad and killed someone, for the umpteenth time witness Latinovi} gave false testimony that he had to do it, because Stanko Vujanovi} ordered it, and all the others who were at Grabovo had to take part in the execution. During cross-examination Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked the witness whether the Judge in Belgrade asked him if anyone was forced to be on the firing squad and shoot at the prisoners, and then witness Latinovi} said that there was no coercion, which was contradictory to what he said to Judge Antonetti. So this witness simply spreads false testimonies at every step of the way. During cross-examination witness Latinovi} admitted that he changed his statement given to the police because he made a deal and became a co-operating witness. Asked why he decided to be a co-operating witness, Latinovi} gave false testimony, “for the truth to be known”. The proof that this is also false testimony is found in the fact that witness Latinovi} obstructed the court in Belgrade from fin267

ding out the truth for more than a year, and over the past 12 years he has had so much time and so many opportunities to tell the truth to anyone. This quantity of false testimonies can be given only willfully and by someone fully aware of the false assertions he makes. It comes as no surprise, because this is a double-protected witness who was provided that kind of protection precisely to be able to tell lies without any consequences. 32. witness VS-008, nenad \ura{kovi}, protected witness, testified in closed session on 13 and 14 january 2009. Before appearing in court, witness Nenad \ura{kovi} made it clear who he was, what kind of witness, and what you could count on when it came to his expected testimonies. At the start of the hearing, and before the witness made a declaration, the Prosecution sent to Professor Vojislav [e{elj a record of witness proofing, which says that witness \ura{kovi} categorically requested that the Hague Prosecution ensure the relocation for him and his family. The witness made it perfectly clear and requested that, and if he was not guaranteed relocation, he said that he would not testify or he would testify in line with the content of the statement he gave to members of the Expert Team assisting Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense. So the witness made it clear that he would testify as the Prosecution wanted him to do if he was guaranteed relocation, but if he was not guaranteed relocation, the witness would either not testify or testify in line with the statement he gave earlier to Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense. It means that \ura{kovi} could be a witness for the Defense if he was not enabled to relocate abroad, but he could also be a witness for the Prosecution if he was guaranteed relocation. So the witness made it clear how he treated his knowledge and that the veracity of his testimony would depend only on whether his relocation and protection abroad were secured. Testimony in court under oath was the simplest job for the witness to enable him to resolve some of his needs concerning day-to-day existence. The witness was guided by his own interests and needs concerning day-to-day existence and his wish to improve his social position, and not by the obligation stemming from the solemn declaration, “I solemnly declare that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Since the Prosecution counted on \ura{kovic as a witness who would give false testimony, and it learned that the witness informed Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s Defense Team about all the contacts that the witness had with Prosecution investigators and that contempt proceedings were instigated against the most responsible Prosecution officials, then the Prosecution thought that it would be better to give up false witness \ura{kovi} and that by sending the record of witness proofing, where the witness said that he wanted to strike a deal over how he would testify, the Prosecution would remove the suspicion of contempt. In effect, apart from his honest and truthful insistence on relocation under the conditions he requested, everything else that witness \ura{kovi} testified about was false testimony. It is difficult to list all the lies that the witness told during questioning in court in closed session. The Judges decided that the witness testify in closed session simply for the public not to hear the pack of lies told by the witness, and not because the witness had not been relocated abroad and other protective measures were needed.
268

During the cross-examination of the witness on 14 January 2009, the witness gave false testimonies that he had worked for the State Security Service, that the Service sent him on mission to Paris, France, that he had a driving license for 20 years, that the Service sent him on mission only to France, but in his previous written statements he listed a number of Western European countries (England, Germany, Italy, searching for Ustasha and Chetnik terrorists) and showed an obvious discrepancy with what he had said to Prosecution investigators in his previous statements. With regard to the question whether the witness had been found criminally responsible, he gave false testimony, “I had, for misdemeanors, after 1980, two or three times because of drinking, alcoholism, yes, I was fined.” Asked specific questions whether the witness was sentenced and sent to a juvenile correctional centre for the crime under Article 250 of the Criminal Code, pursuant to Judgment number Km 198/66 of 2 December 1966 by the District Court in Belgrade, whether he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, pursuant to Judgement number K 448/67 of 28 November 1967 by the District Court in Belgrade, the witness denied it, and the Judges could see the extent of his lies on the spot by looking into an official document of the Office of the National Council for Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia number 1/0-7/66-07 of 12 February 2008. The document says the following about witness \ura{kovi}: “Nenad \ura{kovi}, son of Borivoje, born 22 January 1949 in Zemun, Personal Identification Number 2201949710095, registered in operative criminal records of the Belgrade Police Administration. Between 1958 and 1986, several criminal reports were filed against \ura{kovi} for the crimes of issuing a bad check under Article 172, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY. Then the aggravated theft under Article 250 of the Criminal Code of Serbia, trading with gold money, foreign currency and hard currency under Article 167 of the Criminal Code of Vojvodina, the crime of aggravated theft under Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, taking a motor vehicle under Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia and receiving stolen goods under Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia.” The letter also lists some misdemeanour proceedings. He has a criminal record and prior convictions: he was sent to a juvenile correctional centre; he committed the crime of aggravated theft in 1967 and was sentenced to two years in prison; he committed the crime under Article 250, paragraph 1, again aggravated theft, pursuant to Judgment number K 331/6 of 1 August 1969, he was sentenced to a prison term of two years and six months; committed the crime under Article 172, paragraph 1 of the KZ /Criminal Code/ of the SFRY, Judgment number K 1575/86 of 26 September 1986; Judgment by the First Municipal Court in Belgrade, imposing a fine of 8,000 dinars and a two-year suspended sentence; he committed the crime under Article 167, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Vojvodina, Judgment number K 583/83 of 23 April 1983 by the Municipal Court in Vr{ac imposing a fine of 6,000 dinars; several crimes under Article 165, paragraph 1, Article 166, paragraph 1, Article 184, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Serbia, Judgment number K 2132/85 of 4
269

March 1987 by the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade, imposing a fine of 15,000 dinars. Since the witness did not do his compulsory military service, and it is beyond contention, then simply the witness could not have been in some situations about which he gave false testimony during the course of evidence, such as that he had a military ID booklet and that he was employed in the State Security Service. The witness continued giving false testimony despite the warning and detailed explanation that his assertions were impossible. The witness was born with poor vision and it progressed to blindness, so he went to primary school for blind children and later enrolled in secondary school for blind people, who were mostly trained to work as switchboard operators. That was why everything that the witness said during his testimony about what he saw was a lie and fiction, which he packed in order to resolve problems concerning his family, life and day-to-day existence. So the witness’s clearly manifest personal interest proves that he gave false testimonies knowingly and willfully both during the course of evidence and in his previous written statements given to Prosecution investigators. The witness also gave false testimony that he had wartime assignment as a reservist (and he did not do compulsory military service) in Top~ider. That this was a terribly big lie was sufficiently illustrated by the fact that two elite units were in Top~ider, where those who had not done compulsory military service could not be assigned, and only those reservists who were known to be the most capable in the whole reserve force were assigned there. The witness invented that the Serbian State Security formed the Serbian Radical Party and in that invention he said that senior officials of the State Security were members of the Serbian Radical Party. He invented that the Serbian Radical Party headquarters was in Madridska Street no. 2, and having been warned that it was Ohridska Street, the witness went on insisting on the name Madridska. The witness invented that in May or June 1991 he joined the Serbian Radical Party without having taken his membership card. The witness invented that he came to the Party headquarters and totally lied about all the details of the appearance of the room, the tables (the tables were arranged into a horseshoe shape, then not into a horseshoe shape, but rather into a T shape, and in the end there may have been a large round table), and especially about the speeches that Professor Vojislav [e{elj allegedly gave to the volunteers in the office. The witness testified falsely, starting from his registration with the Serbian Radical Party, deployment to the Bubanj Potok barracks, issuing of personal weapons (he could not even tell the name of the rifle) and the culmination was that he took part in the fighting to liberate Mirkovci for several days in September 1991. The witness invented all that, because he had once probably heard about Mirkovci village. The lies of this witness have no limits. He asserted that he had taken part in the liberation of villages from Mirkovci to Vukovar. These were Serbian villages, Serbs were in them, and there were certainly no armed clashes in this territory after 15 September 1991. In order to get out of his lie, the witness tried to mention a village called Belo Brdo, but he only showed that he went on lying and just listing
270

the names that he had probably once heard, that there was a place called Belo Brdo, but there is no such place along the Erdut – Osijek road, which does not even merit a comment. Asked which unit he joined, the witness gave false testimony that he was under the Serbian Radical Party, that is, he wanted to stop telling much bigger lies in addition to having admitted, in effect, that he did not know about platoons, companies or other forms of organization. The witness lost track of his lies so much that he even placed Major [ljivan~anin in Mirkovci during the alleged liberation of the villages between Mirkovci and Vukovar. The witness continued with incredible assertions, claiming that commanders of SRS volunteer units had a meeting with Arkan and putting it in the context of Eastern Slavonia, and when he was told that it was impossible, the witness referred to Obrovac and 1993. So one lie followed another. The witness asserted that he was in Vukovar, he heard of Kameni, but he did not know who he was. Incredible, any newspaper reader knows more about the fighting in Vukovar than the witness who is the key evidence of international justice. It is even more unusual that the Trial Chamber Judges were just silent observers of his false testimony, although they knew from testimonies of previous witnesses that the assertions made by witness \ura{kovi} were absurd. The witness falsely testified about Dalj and Trpinjska cesta, simply every word was a false testimony. The witness lied that Chetnik vojvodas were in Vukovar, although he could not give the name of any of the vojvodas. That this was an impossible assertion of the witness was illustrated by the fact that first vojvodas were proclaimed in May 1993. The witness falsely testified that volunteers, while in the JNA, did not receive soldiers’ pay but rather a pack of cigarettes each. There was no end to his lies. The witness also asserted that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was in a village near Vukovar and that there was a TV footage, so probably there remains the suspicion that the Prosecution is hiding this footage. With regard to the witness’s alleged participation on the front near Obrovac, Benkovac and other places in February 1993, the witness lied about everything (place, time, events, consequences, deaths, Arkan’s presence and so on), and he may have ended up there as a volunteer who registered with the office of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and came to the area of Knin and its surroundings. The documents sent by the Prosecution prove that the witness was not wounded, but rather that he was ill, which was why he coughed, and it turned out that he did not see because of a cataract. Other documents show that the witness applied to exercise his rights as a disabled war veteran only in 2002, and that he was not granted this right because he was not injured in the war at all. Considering that the witness gave absolutely false testimonies in court, trying to prove that he remembered all the lies from written statements prepared for him by the Prosecution, and that he made his testimony conditional on relocation, it follows that if he really did not reach an agreement about his relocation and if he did not relocate after his testimony, then the whole operation was to exclude the public from the testimony of this witness so that the public would not find out about the trickery used by the Prosecution. Because of false testimonies given knowingly and willfully and the fact that both the Prosecution and the Judges know that this is a false witness, it is necessary to instigate criminal proceedings against this witness.
271

33. witness VS-1035, ekrem Rami}, protected witness, testified on 28 and 29 january 2009. Professor Vojislav [e{elj put a question to the witness and noted that the witness gave statements in 1997 and 2001 and made no mention of Vojislav [e{elj, the Serbian Radical Party or Mirko Blagojevi} in any of the two statements, and then suddenly, just before his appearance in court, on 2 September 2008 the witness spoke about Mirko Blagojevi}, and he read out to the witness a part of paragraph 26 of a statement in which the witness gave false testimony that “all the police staff in Bijeljina knew Mirko Blagojevi} and his brother as criminals a long time before the conflict. Mirko Blagojevi} was a member of the SDS, that is, the Serbian Democratic Party, and one of [e{elj’s men.” This gains particular weight because the Prosecution initially sought the admission of this statement, signed by the witness, under Rule 92 ter, knowing that Professor Vojislav [e{elj does not question such witnesses. In response to the question put to him, the witness tried to correct one detail, that SDS should be SRS, and that Blagojevi} and his brother were criminals, in the end it turned out that some policemen knew that and told him about it, although there is no judgment, nor were any proceedings conducted. Since this was obviously false testimony of the witness, in the end the Prosecutor tried to ease this with direct questions about the conviction and criminal prosecution of Mirko Blagojevi}, and the witness tried to relativise his obviously false testimony by denying any convictions at home or abroad and denying any criminal prosecution at home or abroad. Therefore the witness knowingly and willfully gave the above false testimony, and when he later relativised his testimony during cross-examination, allegedly correcting everything that had been added in the statement from 2008, it was obvious that, with additional questions, the Prosecution gave up on this witness, because the strategy of “try to get away with it” was frustrated, as they could not get away with anything. 34. witness VS-1066, fedahija hasanovi}, testified in closed session on 3 and 4 february 2009. The witness gave false testimony that about 750 Muslims were taken by three trucks from Klis village to the technical school in Karakaj. The witness gave false testimony that about 750 Muslims were put in a 10 metre by 15 metre room. The witness gave false testimony that 550 survivors from the hangar were put on three buses of the Drina Trans enterprise on 5 June 1992 to be taken to Pilica. The witness gave false testimony that they were taken by two-tone trucks from Pilica, and then corrected himself and said they might have been three-tone trucks, that 64 detainees got on one truck, after which the truck was covered by a tarpaulin. Professor Vojislav [e{elj informed the Trial Chamber that he intended to relativise the figures presented by the witness as an obvious exaggeration, while the witness persisted in defending the truthfulness of these false statements. Regarding the witness’s claims presented during evidence-in-chief and crossexamination, Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked a large number of questions on the basis of a statement which the witness gave to the Muslim organs in Tuzla on 17 June 1992, which was submitted and tendered into evidence. The witness added
272

the words [e{elj, [e{elj’s men and so on to his testimony in the courtroom for the first time. It was therefore necessary to establish what had happened for the witness to start talking about [e{elj and [e{elj’s men after 17 years. In order to get himself out of the situation, the witness made yet another false statement by saying that “he didn’t know what the [e{eljevci /[e{elj’s men/ were at the time, until he realized later on that Chetniks were the [e{eljevci, and he thinks that he used the word Chetniks in his statements.” We need only quote the question and remark made by the Presiding Judge: “So you needed 17 years to think about that and conclude that the Chetniks were in fact the [e{eljevci?” The witness gave evidence as a Prosecution witness in the Milo{evi} case and Professor Vojislav [e{elj pointed out to the witness that some of his replies to the same questions during his testimony in the Milo{evi} trial were diametrically opposed. The witness persistently made false statements, even when it was not necessary to do so because the witness was presented his previous statements in which there was no mention of [e{elj or [e{elj’s men. Regarding the witness’s statement given to Hague investigators in 1996 which has no mention of [e{elj of [e{elj’s men, the Presiding Judge read out to the witness what the witness said in his statement in 1996: “I think that the soldiers who were in the SMB /olive drab/ uniforms were part of the regular JNA forces, while the soldiers in camouflage uniforms were the local Chetniks.” Therefore, this is what you said in your statement, it is very precise. Therefore, local Chetniks, who are these men, according to you, to your opinion, who were these local Chetniks?” Proof that the witness knowingly and intentionally gave false testimony is his reply to the Presiding Judge’s remark. The witness said: “Local Chetniks are the Radicals, i.e. members of the Serbian Radical Party, which exists to this day in Bosnia and Herzegovina and they are called [e{elj’s men. This is what it says when we go to the polls – [e{elj.” A few minutes before this, the witness said: “I didn’t even know which party you were leading, and if I had known that Chetniks were in fact your Radicals I would have probably said so.” Therefore, the witness does not conceal it, he is proud of repeatedly making false statements and openly claims that he can adapt whatever he says in the courtroom to fit into his original statement from 1992, both Vojislav [e{elj and [e{elj’s men. In the courtroom, the witness expressed open hostility and hatred towards Professor Vojislav [e{elj and the natural consequence of this seething hatred is the serial production of false testimony. In one such moment, when it was obvious to everyone that he was giving false testimony, the witness said, “In fact, I will no longer reply to your questions.” During cross-examination, it emerged that in the proofing of the witness, the Prosecution coached the witness to mention a name as being that of one of [e{elj’s men. However, during cross-examination, the witness did not rise to the occasion and failed to mention the name. After that, from the Prosecution’s material, it emerged that the witness failed to rise to the occasion in making a false assertion, but in his recollection it did not bother him at all to declare a man called Milo as one of [e{elj’s men, without giving a single reason, all the more so since the timing of events does not fit with the indisputable point in time until which volunteers of the Serbian Radical party were far away, at a completely different location.
273

It is obvious that the Prosecution asked the witness, in view of his status as a victim, to give false testimony in the trial against Professor Vojislav [e{elj and say things he had never even thought of before with regard to [e{elj and [e{elj’s men. 35. witness VS-2000, amir Seferovi}, protected witness, testified on 4 and 5 february 2009. Professor Vojislav [e{elj cross-examined witness Seferovi} on 5 February 2009, primarily about the circumstances of whether a rally of the Serbian Radical Party was held in Mali Zvornik in March 1992 since this allegation made by the witness was the basis for all the charges in relation to Zvornik. Asked whether the witness had said that a rally had been scheduled to take place in the open and “when we saw how many people gathered, we asked to take it to a closed space”, the witness confirmed that this was the case which constitutes a false statement by the witness. The witness said that a fight broke out after the rally, as people were coming out of the Cultural Centre in Mali Zvornik. He said that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was hit and that the witness saw Professor Vojislav [e{elj on television the next day and his head was bandaged. During crossexamination, he changed his statement to say: “I don’t remember saying yesterday that I saw it on television, but it was in the media, perhaps in a newspaper, but your photograph with a band-aid on your left temple or, now 1 don’t know exactly which side it was, and your bandaged arm,” which constitutes a repetition of the witness’s false testimony. In all his statements to the Prosecution investigators and during his testimony, the witness presented his possible presence at a rally of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Mali Zvornik in August 1990 as actually being at a rally of the Serbian Radical Party in Mali Zvornik in March 1992. The rally in Mali Zvornik was not held in March 1992, but in August 1990, but in his testimony the witness described the rally of 1990, adding concoctions to it. Therefore, this is the only witness who says that the rally was held in March 1992. Apart from that witness who gave false testimony, there is not a single person, document or other piece of evidence which proves in the slightest that any sort of gathering of the Serbian Radical Party was held in Mali Zvornik in March 1992, or that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was there or that there was any unrest or fighting, as described by the witness. Since this witness was presented as the Prosecution’s key witness for all charges in connection with the location of Zvornik and his factual story was used as the foundation for the testimonies of other witnesses about Zvornik, the assessment of this witness’s testimony is very important. The witness also gave false testimony about other circumstances in connection with the location of Zvornik, i.e. statements which do not fit with the books published by Muslims from Zvornik about the events in Zvornik and the statements of other witnesses who gave evidence, not even in connection with details about certain witnesses who gave evidence previously about these persons. However, his false testimony about other circumstances has helped to unquestionably establish that, besides his obvious hatred of Professor Vojislav [e{elj made evident while he was giving evidence, the witness was in fact consciously and deliberately telling lies in the courtroom. If there was any suspicion that the witness might have made a mistake when he said that the 1990 rally was held in 1992, four documents which Professor Vo274

jislav [e{elj submitted to the Judges and the Prosecutor as evidence on 11 February 2009 only further confirm that Seferovi} was consciously and intentionally giving false testimony. The documents are as follows: The first document (that a gathering was properly registered in the Cultural Centre, not in the open) dated 30 July 1990, that the Mali Zvornik police station, which is its old name, issued a certificate to confirm that a public gathering of the local branch of the Serbian Chetnik Movement had been registered with this organ for 3 August 1990, from and to a certain hour, in an auditorium of the Cultural Centre in Mali Zvornik; The second document is a contract, which could have been drawn up only on the basis of a police confirmation that the gathering had been registered. The Cultural Centre was not supposed to sign a contract about a rally with a political party without confirmation that the rally had been properly registered with the police. The contract was signed by the Director of the Cultural Centre, represented by Slobodan Gavrilovi}, and the President of the Local Board of the Serbian Chetnik Movement in Mali Zvornik, Janko Laki}. Therefore, the contract was for the use of the large auditorium of the Cultural Centre with a seating capacity of 201, not 80 as the witness falsely testified, and it also mentions the public-address system and the money to be paid for the use of the auditorium. In the third document, the Cultural Centre has been renamed as a Library since cultural centers had been abolished in the meantime as a relic of the cultural concept from the communist period. A certificate issued on 9 February 2009 to certify that, according to available documents, the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party did not organise any promotions of the Serbian Radical Party in the premises of the Mali Zvornik Cultural Centre in the period between 1 and 31 March 1992 and that the seating capacity of the auditorium is 221. Therefore, there was no gathering of the Radicals in the Cultural Centre in March 1992. The fourth document, issued by the Mali Zvornik police station on 9 February 2009, certifies that “After having checked the records of received requests for 1992, it has been established that there were no requests from the Serbian Radical Party to hold a public gathering in the territory of Mali Zvornik municipality in the period between 1 March and 31 March 1992.” In presenting these four documents, Professor Vojislav [e{elj said that “my legal adviser Zoran Krasi} found a video recording of the whole rally at the Cultural Centre held on 3 August 1990 and he is prepared to bring the recording personally, if so requested by the Trial Chamber, and for the recording to be shown here in the courtroom in his presence. The duration of the video recording is about an hour and 40 minutes. Therefore, you would be able to see for yourselves what was said exactly at that gathering in 1990, i.e. whether the interpretation of all that talk about a ’Greater Serbia’ was consistent and completely true. I also expect the Prosecution to present its material evidence that the Serbian Radical Party held any rallies or public gatherings in Mali Zvornik in March 1992.” 36. witness VS-1029 alija gu{ali}, testified on 4 March 2009. The witness gave false testimony that he attended a rally of the Serbian Radical Party which Vojislav [e{elj held in Bijeljina a few months before the war and that there was a fight at that rally.
275

The witness gave false testimony that Mirko Blagojevi} was in hospital and that he stabbed the witness, who was in a hospital bed, with a bayonet. The witness gave false testimony that he was discharged from the Bijeljina hospital on 9 April 1992 by Arkan personally and that Arkan protected him from Mirko Blagojevi}. Although it is difficult to list all the false statements made by this witness because his testimony appeared to have been given out of pure spite, his allegation that in the Batkovi} camp a short Serbian soldier forced the witness to kneel and that the Serbian soldier hit him over the head with a large rock, weighing five to six kilograms, was quite unbelievable. The witness gave false testimony that the Serbian authorities took his wife, brother and his brother’s daughter to the JNA barracks and put them in a freezer. It is difficult to list all the false statements made by this witness, but if one looks at his statements and the trial transcript, one can only ascertain that these allegations are simply beyond belief, and one can only wonder what the Prosecution thought it would achieve with this witness. 37. witness VS-027 jovan Dulovi}, protected witness, testified in closed session on 7 and 8 july 2009 via video link from Belgrade. Jovan Dulovic gave evidence as a Chamber witness. He was first questioned by the judges, then by the Prosecutor, and finally by Professor Vojislav [e{elj. The witness more or less managed to repeat most of his false allegations made in earlier written statements, which he gave to investigators of the Prosecution, and his false testimony in the Milo{evi} and Mrk{i} cases and the Ov~ara trial in Belgrade, in that he often mentioned his poor state of health with regard to his memory. Professor Vojislav [e{elj questioned the witness on 8 July 2009 and it was then that the witness’s false statements were discredited once and for all. The witness consciously and intentionally said he did not recall which Belgrade secondary school he graduated from because from the very question he concluded that Professor Vojislav [e{elj knew everything and that his best defense would be to say I don’t know or I don’t recall, which fits in with the previously reported medical problems. Professor Vojislav [e{elj reminded the witness that he had to leave the Sixth Belgrade Grammar School because he was a very bad student and that it was only later that the witness completed his secondary education by attending evening classes. Naturally, the witness did not recall this, either. The witness intentionally and consciously continued to give replies that he did not recall his first job in Transjug of Rijeka, saying it was Trans Rijeka, and then he said his first job was in Politika Ekspres. In the same manner, the witness avoided giving a truthful reply about his work in the Renault factory in France. The witness tried to conceal everything in order for it not to be disclosed that he did ordinary jobs in Transjug Rijeka which did not require any qualifications, that he was a secondary school drop-out, that he only enrolled at a university but did not attend any classes at all, that he worked in France as a plain manual worker at the Renault factory, that he returned to Belgrade where he was employed as a journalist in Politika Ekspres, although the job of journalist required a university degree. Quite simply, by refusing to answer questions or by making up excuses, the witness tried to prevent the judges from finding out the truth that the witness only started working as a ro276

okie journalist at the age of 36 and was immediately working on very serious topics; he got the job at the recommendation of the JNA Counter-Intelligence Service since he acquired his writing skills from writing informer’s reports during the several years that he lived in France. The witness denied all this, citing, among other things, the health problems affecting his memory, which nevertheless returns selectively. Usually, in cases of this cerebral disorder which the witness claims to suffer from and uses as an excuse, the person has very good recollection of events from his early youth but forgets events which took place five, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. The case of witness Dulovi} is a completely reverse medical phenomenon. In his case it is the opposite: he has completely erased everything from his youth and only remembers things which happened over the past 20 years, or rather 18 years, as he boasted to the judges during cross-examination. Journalist Branko Prelji} and newspaper photographer Tomislav Peternek were in Vukovar and publicly said about witness Dulovi} that he lied about everything he testified about in the Milo{evi} case, the case of the Vukovar Three, and at the Ov~ara trial in Belgrade. When this was pointed out to him, witness Dulovi} made an obviously false statement by saying: “Believe me, I don’t know a thing about it.” That might well have passed as an excuse if Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s previous question had been about a private chat among a few people, far from the general public. However, Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s question referred to a courtroom situation, before judges, and that is why everything was read back to the witness according to the transcript: “All right, when you were confronted about what Peternek said about you in the Vukovar Three trial, you said that ’Peternek is lying like a dog,’ that is what you said. Do you remember?” Even after he was shown the official documents of The Hague Tribunal from the Vukovar Three case, to the above question asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, the witness said “You added that”. Therefore, this witness has demonstrated that he is a pathological liar. To what extent is this witness prepared to give false testimony? Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj when he met General Aleksandar Vasiljevi}, the witness tried his best to avoid answering, although he was presented proof in the form of a statement given by Aleksandar Vasiljevi} that they met on 13 October 1994, as testified by Aleksandar Vasiljevi} on 26 January 2005 at the Ov~ara trial in Belgrade. Asked whether Aca Vasiljevi} suggested to the witness to write about the crime at Ov~ara in Vukovar and whether he suggested to the witness during this conversation that the main culprits were Mile Mrk{i}, Veselin [ljivan~anin and Miroslav Radi}, the witness said that this had not been suggested to him. Professor Vojislav [e{elj pointed out to the witness a part of this witness’s testimony in the Vukovar Three trial: “During this conversation, Vasiljevi} expressed a poor opinion about [ljivan~anin and that [ljivan~anin did not send a single report from Vukovar during the combat operations.” To Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s question: “You were in Vukovar from 9 October to 9 November, you went to Belgrade and came back after Vukovar had already fallen. Is that right? And you were in Vukovar when Ov~ara happened,” the witness denied it, but when Professor Vojislav [e{elj told him that he did not con277

test this reply given by the witness, the witness flinched and started to say no, because he was afraid that he had fallen into a trap since he has lost track of all the testimony he had previously given in the numerous trials. In order to avoid answering questions about the suggestions of General Aleksandar Vasiljevi}, the witness continued to make confusing but essentially false statements and finally made it possible for people to discover the correctness of the thesis of Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s defense about a staged crime in Ov~ara. In response to the question and statement of Professor Vojislav [e{elj that “There was a crime in Ov~ara, Vukovar, and 200 people were shot dead. As a journalist you knew about this crime but you did not tell anyone anything, you did not write about it. Why didn’t you, as a journalist of Politika Ekspres, try to write an article about the crime which took place at Ov~ara because you had all the information about the crime the day after it happened,” the witness admitted he was involved in a plan devised by Aleksandar Vasiljevi} and confirmed this by saying: “Because it was my assessment that such things were not written even by the more serious newspapers at the time.” This statement should be put in the context of his claims that he was at Ov~ara the day after and he heard what had happened but did nothing to write an article for his newspaper about it. The witness gave false testimony that he was fired from the Politika Ekspres daily. While he was in Vukovar in 1991, the witness wrote very many articles which appeared in Politika Ekspres which were all in support of the JNA, the territorial defense forces and the volunteers. Just the day before he had said that he stood behind every single one of his texts and that they were not edited, but during the cross-examination by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, he forgot everything he had said in court the day before so as not to answer a direct question when he changed his viewpoint about the events in Vukovar. By doing this, the witness put himself in such a position that within 24 hours he had changed his statement given under oath in the courtroom, and thus obviously gave false testimony. Although he tried to avoid answering the question as to whether it was known and whether he made arrangements with Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka over their testimonies about Ov~ara, in many trials the witness got lost in his own lies, and proof of this is to be found in the court files and the testimonies of others. The witness’s diary which was tendered as evidence gave him away. In his diary, the witness wrote that Professor Vojislav [e{elj held a meeting with JNA officers in the house of Stanko Vujanovi} and, among other things, said that “not a single Ustasha should get out of Vukovar alive”, while Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka said that after this alleged meeting, Professor Vojislav [e{elj came out of the house and told the soldiers, volunteers and territorial defense men who were gathered there that not a single witness, i.e. “not a single Ustasha should get out of Vukovar alive”. Therefore, no matter how much the witnesses Dulovi} and [tuka tried to arrange it, there was still a discrepancy. Professor Vojislav [e{elj reminded the judges that [tuka said this in court before the Trial Chamber judges, when Professor Vojislav [e{elj came out of the house of Stanko Vujanovi} and stood on the steps, addressing the soldiers with the following words: “Not a single Ustasha must get out alive”, while witness Dulovi} said under oath in court before the same judges that he was eavesdropping through a door that was ajar and that Professor Vojislav
278

[e{elj was inside and told officers that “Not a single one must get out of Vukovar alive”. The witness gave false testimony about other details, too, about which there can be no debate because they have been noted in the court record. Testifying in the trial of the Vukovar Three, Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka said that witness Dulovi} came to see him in Ruma because [tuka was not from [id as witness Dulovi} said on 7 July 2009 when he testified before the judges and today as well, but from Ruma. The persistent denial of witness Dulovi} raised the question of which one of the protected witnesses was lying – either [tuka or Dulovi}, and they had discussions before they testified on the orders of Aleksandar Vasiljevi}, and they obviously overlooked the fact that the only telephone number and address written in witness Dulovi}’s diary was the telephone number and address of witness [tuka. Witness Dulovi} got so lost in the web of his own lies that he guessed about having written down [tuka’s contact details in his diary back at the time of Vukovar. The objective of all the false testimony given by witness Dulovi} intentionally and consciously in the courtroom was that the witness and General Vasiljevi} subsequently realized that something was missing and in order to supposedly amplify the role of Professor Vojislav [e{elj in the alleged instigation of the crime, because the concept was that [e{elj was in Vukovar on 13 November, he held a meeting with the officers, ordered them that not a single Ustasha must get out alive, and because of that, seven days later, they shot dead 200 prisoners. That was the concept to lift the blame from those who were responsible for the crime which was covered up by the Military Security Service for three years, and when this proved to be insufficient, then a solution was found for the witness to add and make a subsequent entry into his diary. When it was necessary to compare it to the original for the umpteenth time, the link broke. Since the judges confirmed that everything was clear to them, there was no need for the witness to reply. Asked by Professor Vojislav [e{elj whether the witness knew that after his testimony in the case of the Vukovar Three that the Trial Chamber said it was not convinced of the sincerity or reliability of witness Dulovi} primarily because of his claims about the meeting in Stanko Vujanovi}’s house, the witness said he was not aware of this, and continued to behave as he did during his testimony, refusing to give answers so as not to get bogged down in more lies, stumbling from one lie to another. The witness was caught lying to the judges about the subsequent entries in his diary at the suggestion of General Aleksandar Vasiljevi} and this was established in other cases at the Hague Tribunal and the Ov~ara trial in Belgrade, with regard to the names of volunteers, reservists and events involving them, Jelenko Slatinac’s article in Politika Ekspres, and in admitting that during his testimony in the previous trials he had before him his diary upon which his testimony was based. The witness repeated his previous statements about large-scale looting and went overboard with his allegation that Arkan had taken wine from Vukovar, which happened in Erdut. The witness continued making allegations that Arkan was in charge in Vukovar, which meant that no one could take anything out of Vukovar without Arkan’s permission. When Professor Vojislav [e{elj asked him whether he had mixed up Vukovar with Zvornik, the witness was even more adamant that it was not Zvornik.
279

The witness got so lost in his web of false testimony that he made up a bridge over the Danube near Vukovar. In the trial of the Vukovar Three, following the judges’ request, he could not draw the layout of Stanko Vujanovi}’s house, and when he was asked about this by Professor Vojislav [e{elj, the witness said this was not true, and the witness practically said that the court transcript from the trial of the Vukovar Three, where this was established, was lying. During cross-examination, the witness continued giving false testimony in connection with /^ele/, Zvornik and other details showing that, even when confronted with undisputable proof which refute his statements, the witness persists in giving false testimony. During the testimony of this witness, the Prosecutor asked that the witness’s press pass allowing him to report from Vi{egrad from 13 April to 15 May 1992 be tendered into evidence, which constitutes proof that the witness could not have been in Zvornik during that period, as he claimed, since the distance between Vi{egrad and Zvornik is several hundred kilometers. 38. witness VS-029, Vojislav Dabi}, testified on 26 and 27 january 2010. Vojislav Dabi} wanted to seek asylum in the Netherlands after testifying in the trial of Vojislav [e{elj and that is why he lied to the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber, fabricating a story that he had been beaten up by unidentified persons before he travelled to the Netherlands and gave evidence. He claimed that he did not dare go back to Serbia because he feared for his life. He told the Prosecution that he had received threatening messages on his mobile telephone during his stay in the Netherlands. For this reason, the Special Court for War Crimes in Belgrade was instructed to check Vojislav Dabi}’s allegations. The Special Court for War Crimes in Belgrade established that no one had physically attacked Vojislav Dabi} prior to his trip to the Netherlands, but that while under the influence of alcohol he had slipped and fallen in front of his flat. Vojislav Dabi} lied about receiving threatening messages on his mobile telephone. Namely, representatives of the Special Court for War Crimes in Belgrade established that Vojislav Dabi} instructed some of his friends in Novi Sad to make these threats. Dabi} asked his friends to keep sending him threats because he needed these threats in order to be granted asylum. These facts were disclosed at one of the status conferences. Witness VS-1022, protected witness Jasminka Ploski}, testified in closed session on 17 July 2008 and in response to Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s question, she replied as follows: “You know what, contact Vojislav Dabi} who is from Mostar, who does not dare come to Mostar, and is living in Novi Sad.” Professor Vojislav [e{elj replied that he actually had his statement there, and the witness said that she knew that Professor Vojislav [e{elj had the statement and that she supposed and even in fact knew this, and what Vojislav Dabi} had told her. Professor Vojislav [e{elj informed the witness that in his statement Vojislav Dabi} had said that Jasminka Ploski} was putting pressure on him and that she was trying to blackmail him over the fate of his mother and sister in Mostar and that he had to give false testimony on behalf of the Prosecution in the Hague. Witness Jasminka Ploski} replied “he didn’t tell you that he came to me and had coffee, that he sold his flat to me, and the story about the fate of his mother and sister – that is
280

just pure fabrication on his part.” Professor Vojislav [e{elj repeated Vojislav Dabi}’s claim that his mother and sister remained in Mostar and that he was forced to sell his flat to Jasminka Ploski}. Incredulous, Jasminka Ploski} replied: “Oh come on, he didn’t gift it to me, how, and what does he have to fear?” In response to the reply that Vojislav Dabi} cannot live in Mostar, witness Ploski} said, “He was the one who told us about the Tele}a Lastva mass grave, it was him, who was it who made him do it? Do you know why, he requested asylum from the Hague Tribunal but was denied, he also asked for money, but he did not get any, and that is why he gave up. And I can tell you that he brought us photographs of Chetniks who were involved in killing Bosnians and Croats at Uborak. I have the photographs, I have it in his handwriting, he wrote down and marked each individually. He asked for money from me and from others and he requested asylum from the Hague Tribunal, to testify, to have a nice flat and a good salary and he would testify against anyone they wanted.” 39. witness VS-1067, Rinaldo Kova~evi} aka Rino, protected witness, testified on 2 february 2010. The witness gave false testimony in the courtroom that he received threats from close associates of Professor Vojislav [e{elj – Dragan Samard`i} and Drago Tamind`ija, and then the witness supposedly corrected himself to say that he was not certain about Samard`i}, but that he was certain that Drago Tamind`ija was Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s associate. The witness gave false testimony that, together with other Serbs from Mostar and Vrap~i}i, persons nicknamed Sre}ko, Bosanac and Vranjanac, who the witness said were volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, took part in the shooting of prisoners in June 1992 in Mostar, Uborak and Sutina. The witness gave false testimony that as a suspect during questioning in 1996 he told police and the investigating judge in Mostar that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party allegedly took part in the executions. The witness did not say this because on the basis of his statement criminal proceedings were launched later in Mostar against a number of persons and none of them were volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. The witness gave false testimony that he told the police of a foreign country, where he was arrested for committing several crimes in 1998, the names of persons who were volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party and who allegedly took part in the executions in Mostar in June 1992. The witness was shown the police report from the foreign country and the witness’s statement in which it mentions only local Serbs from Mostar and Vrap~i}i as executioners in Mostar in June 1992. This witness’s testimony will also be remembered forever by the fact that the Prosecution concealed important documents, and the documents which it did submit to Professor Vojislav [e{elj it did not submit to the Trial Chamber Judges which fits into the Prosecution’s scenario in this case, that it is a fabricated indictment, that evidence is being fabricated, and that the Prosecution is concealing evidence which supports the defense. In order for the witness to somehow cover up his false testimony when faced with other evidence during cross-examination, and particularly by the fact that volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party withdrew from Mostar together with the JNA on 19 May 1992 and that Oliver Denis Baret was wounded at a rally in Podgori281

ca on 25 May 1992, the witness continued to give false testimony, by saying “Vranjanac appeared only in June when Mi}o Dra`i} and the other, what’s his name, Oliver, disappeared.” Therefore, the witness only appears to have acknowledged that he supposedly made a mistake, but stuck to the part of his false testimony that this Vranjanac person and some others were volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. During cross-examination, the witness explained in detail and practically changed his mind about many assertions contained in his preliminary statements given to Prosecution investigators. In fact, all those preliminary witness statements were a fabrication of the Prosecution investigators. In view of the extensive criminal history of this witness, he must have been forced by the Prosecution to stick firmly by his statements in the courtroom, which were here explained as being false, and he could only have done it intentionally and consciously. 40. witness VS-1033, isak ga{i, protected witness, testified on 10 March 2010. The witness testified about the Br~ko location, and he was proposed as a model witness in view of his behavior. The witness testified in four trials at The Hague and nowhere, not in one testimony in these four trials, did he make a statement or set out an allegation that Mirko Blagojevi} on 29 or 30 May 1992 was at the Luka camp. The case is similar with previous statements of this witness. Quite simply, as the day when he was supposed to testify grew closer, his statements were built up in the sense of making claims that Mirko Blagojevi} visited Luka. This witness will be remembered only for requesting protective measures in the case against Professor Vojislav [e{elj, yet not requesting them in the previous trials. This witness will also be remembered for the fact that the Prosecution compiled his statement and sent it by mail on 11 December 2008 with instructions to go to the notary and certify his statement after signing it. This is a unique case in the practice of the Hague Tribunal. The Prosecution needed this witness for several sentences in connection with Mirko Blagojevi}. Since the witness got caught up in an operation of sorts in the build-up of his statement for the needs of the Prosecution, during cross-examination the witness was given the opportunity to re-examine his knowledge, observations and recollections, but the witness persisted in falsely testifying that he was taken to Luka on 26 May 1992, and that he was speaking about what he had seen at Luka, and that this was on 29 or 30 May 1992, and then Mr. Mirko Blagojevi} and his entourage were at Luka. The false testimony pertains not just to the date, but also to the description of events concerning the alleged Radicals who maltreated prisoners at Luka. Thus, all previous statements and testimony given in other cases prove that the witness consciously and intentionally gave false testimony. False testimony was also given by potential Prosecution witnesses who did not give evidence in court, but did give written statements to Prosecution investigators, and these statements were provided to Professor Vojislav [e{elj. Rule 91 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence also pertains to written witness statements, and thus these potential witnesses, too, are the subject of this motion for instigation of criminal proceedings.
282

41. Potential Prosecution witness VS-1135, Vesna Kljaji}, gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify. In her statement given on 9 and 11 November 2002 to an investigator of the Hague Tribunal, Paolo Pastore Stocchi, Vesna Kljaji} made many false statements because of which Professor Vojislav [e{elj requests criminal charges to be brought against her for making false statements, since she signed it herself. Concerning a rally of the Serbian Radical Party held in September 1991, on page 3 of her statement, Vesna Kljaji} said that Professor Vojislav [e{elj said at the rally that “we must settle accounts with the Ustashas and the Hungarians”, that only Serbs could enlist as volunteers, and that in his speech he incited violence, by not using the word Croats but Ustashas, who had to be killed and expelled from Serbia. The Prosecution has the full text of the speech at the rally in Subotica and the judges can see for themselves that Professor Vojislav [e{elj did not mention Hungarians at any point in a negative context. Vesna Kljaji} gave false testimony also with regard to the citizens who could enlist as volunteers. It is not true that only Serbs could enlist as volunteers because it is a well-known fact that there were Hungarians, Croats, Muslims, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Roma and persons of all other nationalities enlisted. Professor Vojislav [e{elj never said that Croats should be killed and he was right when he said that Ustasha paramilitary formations had to be expelled, but he did not say that they should be killed either in Subotica or anywhere else in Serbia. Professor Vojislav [e{elj never equated Croats with Ustashas. On page 5, Vesna Kljaji} makes an arbitrary accusation against Professor Vojislav [e{elj by saying that she knew that [e{elj’s S^P /Serbian Chetnik Movement/, Dra{kovi}’s Guard, Arkan’s Tigers and Jovi}’s men, i.e. Bokan’s Beli Orlovi /White Eagles/ committed crimes, without specifying a single crime or naming a single victim. In her statement, Vesna Kljaji} accused Professor Vojislav [e{elj of a murder in Hrtkovci, saying it happened several days after Vojislav [e{elj’s visit, even though the murder was solved, the perpetrators were tried and found guilty, and it was proved that Professor Vojislav [e{elj and the Serbian Radical Party had nothing to do with this murder (if referring to the [tefanec murder). Furthermore, in her statement Vesna Kljaji} said that two of [e{elj’s men allegedly killed each other in Hrtkovci because of a house, which is an absolute lie because that never happened and furthermore Vesna Kljaji} could not give the names of these persons. Continuing with her lies, Vesna Kljaji} said that there were horrific crimes against Croats in the area of Ba~ka and Srem in the Republic of Serbia in 1991 and in 1993, without citing a single case or mentioning the name of a single victim. Vesna Kljaji} knew that refugees who settled in Serbia had nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party, but she links them up purposefully and with bias to Professor Vojislav [e{elj, knowingly and consciously making a statement that [e{elj’s volunteers from Croatia and Bosnia were moving into houses in Croatian villages.
283

In order to corroborate her lies about the role of volunteers in the armed clashes, Vesna Kljaji} told investigator Paolo Pasture Stocchi that during 1995, while travelling to Novi Sad, she met a volunteer whose name she does not mention, who allegedly told her that volunteers killed enemy soldiers who could not escape during the war in Croatia and Bosnia. The Serbian Radical Party never took part in the distribution of weapons anywhere, but Vesna Kljaji}, when prompted by the investigator, confirmed in her statement that the Serbian Radical Party distributed weapons to Serbs in Novi @ednik village. In connection with the distribution of weapons, Vesna Kljaji} cites information obtained from the DSHV /Democratic League of Croats in Vojvodina/, but it is indicative that this information appeared in her statement after Miodrag Lukovac allegedly gave his statement where he also mentions the distribution of weapons in Novi @ednik, which he later recanted. In her statement, Vesna Kljaji} went on to say that between 1991 and 1996, Croats and Hungarians in Vojvodina were constantly exposed to threats from the police to leave Serbia, that grenades were thrown at the houses of Croats, that several families were murdered in order to force the others to leave Serbia, and that the church in Va{ica was razed to the ground, which is why she decided to leave Serbia. That Vesna Kljaji} was making yet another false statement with regard to this issue can be seen in the fact that Croats and Hungarians enjoyed all civil, human and ethnic rights during the said period and took part in all elections. It is not true that the police exerted pressure on non-Serbs to leave, nor is there a single known case of hand grenades being thrown at the houses of Croats. It is a blatant lie and pure fabrication that several Croatian families were murdered and it is indicative that Vesna Kljaji} does not mention a single family by name. The Serbian Radical Party and Professor Vojislav [e{elj did not persecute Catholic priests and have nothing to do with the church in Va{ica. In connection with the book on the persecution of Croats from Vojvodina written by Catholic priest Marko Kljaji}, which was cited by Vesna Kljaji}, this book was the source of debate before the judges and Professor Vojislav [e{elj proved in court that the information contained in the book was pure fabrication. Information about who Vesna Kljaji} was and why she gave her statement to the Prosecution was described and backed by evidence in the book entitled The Hrtkovci Affair and the Ustasha Whore Nata{a Kandi}. 42. Potential Prosecution witness VS-1002 Muhamed Bi~i} gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify. In his statement to the Hague Prosecution between 22 and 24 February 1995, on page 3, he describes Lugar and says that Lugar was the deputy of Dragan \or|evi} aka Crni who, he says, was the commander of [e{elj’s group. He also claims that Lugar himself told him this. However, neither Dragan \or|evi} aka Crni nor Lugar were in any way connected to the Serbian Radical Party, which Professor Vojislav [e{elj managed to prove, among other things, during the cross-examination of witness Nenad Miti} on 9 March 2010.
284

During the cross-examination of this witness, Professor Vojislav [e{elj recalled that the Prosecution also mentioned that there had been negotiations between the local authorities in [amac and a group of people who were already there as part of the JNA 17th Tactical Group, for them to go back and receive pay to fight in the [amac area. The witness confirmed that he knew that there had been talks and that Lugar and some others went back there at their own initiative. This was confirmed by presenting documents of the Command of the 2nd Posavina Brigade, an infantry brigade from [amac, dated 1 December 1992. In this document, a group of 13 officers of the Army of Republika Srpska reports on the events in [amac and poor relations between the Army of Republika Srpska and the local authorities in [amac. Among other things, they claim that the civilian authorities, under the leadership of the Presidency and some government members, decided to engage volunteers from Serbia. First under the control of Debeli, and in the stage of implementing their arrival, command is taken by Crni. The decision defines the price of waging war at 50,000 German Marks per member on condition that Ora{je is taken and that considerable war booty is found there. There were about 30 volunteers, although a promise was made for over 700. The witness confirmed that the local authorities first had Sre}ko Radovanovi} in mind, but since he declined, they then approached Dragan Dor|evi} aka Crni. The witness confirmed that this was in no way connected to the Serbian Radical Party and that this might have been the reason for Lugar to return to [amac at his own initiative with a group of men. In examining witness Nenad Miti}, the Trial Chamber tendered into evidence for the Prosecution an article published by the Kragujevac newspaper Svetlost, after Lugar’s death, in which the journalist wrote that Slobodan Miljkovi} aka Lugar led a unit which was a part of the volunteers sent from Croatia to Bosnia by the Serbian Radical Party of Kragujevac. He said that the President of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party at the time, Tomislav Nikoli}, denied these stories that the Radicals had organized the transfer of Lugar’s volunteers across the border of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and confirmed that they went there at their own initiative. 43. Potential Prosecution witness VS-1141, josip Tkalac, gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify. In his statement given to Prosecution investigators on 27 September 2002, there are grounds to bring charges against him for false testimony which he gave and signed in the presence of Investigator Paolo Pastore Stocchi and Interpreter Romina Prvono`ac. In his statement, Josip Tkalac said that he was present at an open-air rally of the Serbian Radical Party in Hrtkovci, held near the petrol station on 6 May 1992. In connection with the rally, Josip Tkalac gave false testimony by saying that the rally was attended by Chetniks with long swords and that he heard the following: “I heard [e{elj saying in his speech that all Croats should be expelled from here, that the whole area from Virovitica to Karlobag will be ours (Serbian), and that
285

wherever there is even just one single Serb, that place is Serbia. [e{elj also mentioned that all children of mixed Serbian and Croatian marriages should be killed.” Josip Tkalac gave false testimony that from that day on, life for him and other Croats in Hrtkovci became unbearable and that he and other Croats were under pressure from Serbs to leave and move to Croatia. He identified persons putting this pressure on them as Serbs from Croatia, who allegedly claimed to be [e{elj’s men. The fact that this witness did not tell the truth may be proven by document ERN 0455-5195-5203 (BCS) submitted by the Prosecution and which is included in the list of evidence. The document pertains to Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s speech, entitled “The vital importance of the May elections” which was published in Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s book TheDe vil’sAp pren ti ce–TheCri mi nalRo man Po peJohnPa ul11. 44. Potential Prosecution witness VS-045 aleksandar gligorijevi} gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify. Aleksandar Gligorijevi} gave two statements to Prosecution investigators: the first one on 11 December 2002, on 15 January and 7 May 2003, and the second on 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 July 2003. In his first statement to Investigators Tore Soldal and Mi{el Stefanovi}, Aleksandar Gligorijevi} made no mention of the Serbian Radical Party, Professor Vojislav [e{elj, Chetniks or volunteers. In his first statement, Aleksandar Gligorijevi} made several false assertions regarding his involvement in fighting in Bosnia. Gligorijevi} said that on 17 November 1992, he was sent to perform his compulsory military service and within two months he was sent to Bosnia, even though it is not standard practice to send young recruits into combat. Apart from that, at that time, recruits took the oath only after two or three months, which is an additional reason to show that the witness gave false testimony. In his statement, Aleksandar Gligorijevi} makes accusations against the Yugoslav Army and Mile Mrk{i}, claiming that it was he who issued the order to clear all villages of Muslims which, according to his statement, meant “to kill everyone and take no prisoners.” Aleksandar Gligorijevi} said that right after 10 January 1993 he was transferred to Kremna village near U`ice and that they returned from Bosnia 20 days later. According to his statement, during those 20 days, they took between eight and ten Muslim villages at a distance of about 25 km from the Drina river, killing over 1,000 people. He lied in connection with this, claiming that they were ordered not to take prisoners and that they killed everyone who surrendered. In his statement given to investigators on 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 July 2003, Aleksandar Gligorijevi} suddenly remembered that as a high-school student and a minor, in the summer of 1991, he reported to the headquarters of the Serbian Radical Party in Smederevo and signed up as a volunteer. He went on to say in his statement that as a volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party he was transferred to Tara, that with other 100 volunteers he was quartered in the Omorika Hotel, that he underwent 10 days of training supervised by the special forces of the Serbian MUP /Ministry of the Interior/, after which he was taken to Mirkovci.
286

Through several witnesses, the judges established that the Serbian Radical Party did not register a single potential volunteer who had not completed his compulsory military service. As a member of the Democratic Party, in his statement which was signed by him, Aleksandar Gligorijevi} lied that, among other persons, he saw Professor Vojislav [e{elj at a celebration three or four days after the fall of Vukovar. The Judges and the Prosecution have information and video footage which confirm that Professor Vojislav [e{elj was visiting Banja Luka, western Slavonia and the Knin Krajina at the time. The Prosecution’s potential witness, Aleksandar Gligorijevi}, also lied that upon his return from the front, on the basis of a certificate issued by his JNA commander, he received pay like all other volunteers at the Serbian Radical Party headquarters. Both during the fighting and afterwards, the Serbian Radical Party never made payments to volunteers for their participation in armed combat. iV. legal remedy sought In this motion, Professor Vojislav [e{elj requests the President of the ICTY, in accordance with his authority, to appoint a responsible Trial Chamber which will, pursuant to Rule 91 (C) (ii) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, issue an order in lieu of an indictment and then instruct the amicus curiae to prosecute in the case Prosecutor vs. Professor Vojislav [e{elj, case no. IT-03-67-T, since there are strong reasons to believe that witnesses consciously and intentionally gave false testimony, which is punishable under Rule 91 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, against the following Prosecution witnesses: 1. Witness VS-015, Goran Stopari}, testified on 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24 January 2008; 2. Witness VS-013, Mladen Kuli}, testified on 4, 5 and 6 March 2008; 3. Witness VS-1013, Edib Omerovi}, protected witness, testified on 25 and 26 March 2008; 4. Witness VS-1015, Fehim Dautovi}, protected witness, testified on 26 and 27 March 2008; 5. Witness VS-033, Milan Dobrilovi}, protected witness, testified on 1 and 2 April 2008; 6. Witness VS-1014, Fadil Kopi}, protected witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 9 April 2008; 7. Witness VS-1062, Safeta Bilali}, protected witness, testified on 10 April 2008; 8. Witness VS-007, \orde Neznanovi}, protected witness, testified on 15, 16 and 17 April 2008; 9: Witness VS-1120, \uro Matovina, testified on 13 and 14 May 2008; 10. Witness VS-11106, Asim Ali}, testified on 15, 20 and 21 May 2008; 11. Witness VS-051 Bogdan Vuji}, protected witness, testified on 28 and 29 May 2008; 12. Witness VS-1055, Halid Masnopita, protected witness, testified on 4 and 5 June 2008;
287

13. Witness VS-1018, Perica Koblar, testified on 10 and 11 June 2008; 14. Witness VS-1057, Safet Sejdi}, testified on 12, 17 and 18 June 2008; 15. Witness VS-1069, Fahrudin Bili}, testified on 2 and 3 July 2008; 16. Witness VS-1105, Himzo Tuli}, protected witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 16 July 2008; 17. Witness VS-1022 Jasminka Ploski}, testified in closed session on 17 July 2008; 18. Witness VS-1024, Ibrahim Kujan, witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 22 July 2008; 19. Witness VS-061, Niko Kraljevi}, protected witness, testified on 24 and 25 September 2008; 20. Witness VS-038, Zoran Petrolia, protected witness, testified on 1 and 2 October 2008; 21. Witness VS-1133, Franjo Bari~evi}, testified on 14 and 15 October 2008; 22. Witness VS-1134, Marko Kali}, witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 15 October 2008; 23. Witness VS-0I8, Jelena Rado{evi}, witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 23 October 2008; 24. Witness VS-037, Spasoje Petkovi} aka [tuka, testified in closed session on 28 and 29 October 2008; 25. Witness Vesna Bosanac, witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 4 and 5 November 2008; 26. Witness VS-1131, Milorad Vojnovi}, witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 5 and 6 November 2008; 27. Witness VS-1119 Julka Mareti}, witness under Rule 92 ter, testified on 6 November 2008; 28. Witness VS-1093, Alija Kapid`i}, protected witness, testified on 12 November 2008; 29. Witness VS-1136, Katica Pauli}, testified on 19 November 2008; 30. Witness VS-1028, Mirsad Juki}, protected witness, testified on 9 December 2008; 31. Witness VS-065, Bo`a Latinovi}, protected witness, testified on 8 and 9 January 2009 via video link; 32. Witness VS-008, Nenad \ura{kovi}, testified in closed session on 13 and 14 January 2009; 33. Witness VS-1035, Ekrem Rami}, protected witness, testified on 28 and 29 January 2009; 34. Witness VS-1066, Fedahija Hasanovi}, testified in closed session on 3 and 4 February 2009; 35. Witness VS-2000 (formerly 1104) Amir Seferovi}, protected witness, testified on 4 and 5 February 2009; 36. Witness VS-1029, Alija Gu{ali}, testified on 4 March 2009; 37. Witness VS-027, Jovan Dulovi}, testified in closed session on 7 and 8 July 2009; 38. Witness VS-029, Vojislav Dabi}, testified on 26 and 27 January 2010;
288

39. Witness VS-1067, Rinaldo Kova~evi}, protected witness, testified on 2 February 2010; 40. Witness VS-1033, Isak Ga{i, protected witness, testified on 10 March 2010; 41. Potential Prosecution witness VS-1135, Vesna Kljaji}, gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify; 42. Potential Prosecution witness VS-1002, Muhamed Bi~i}, gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify; 43. Potential Prosecution witness VS-1141, Josip Tkalac, gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify; 44. Potential Prosecution witness VS-045, Aleksandar Gligorijevi}, gave a written statement to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution changed its mind about getting this witness to testify. Number of words /in original/: 41,766 Professor Vojislav [e{elj /signed/ (Drawn up by Zoran Krasi}, member of the Expert Team)

289

content
i Motion by Professor Vojislav [e{elj Seeking that the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Initiate Proceedings for Contempt of Court against the Prosecutor’s Office of the Tribunal in the Hague ...................................... ii Notice by Professor Vojislav [e{elj to Trial Chamber III of Unlawful Conduct of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ................ iii Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s Rule 65ter Motion ........................................... iV Professor Vojislav [e{elj’s Motion to Instigate Criminal Proceedings for Giving False Testimony against Prosecution Witnesses in Case IT-03-67-T .......................................................

3

22 38

208

290