Milosevic Finds Cruelty Irresistible: Accused jokes about witness's disability

Milosevic has a repertoire of approaches for cross examining prosecution witnesses. With international interlocutors, he is collegial. For nearly all Albanians, he was scornful. With those who are illiterate, impoverished or otherwise vulnerable, he is dismissive and abusive. If a witness is Serbian, Milosevic tries to woo him like a rejected lover. With some women, he attempts chivalry. Always in reserve is his unimaginable cruelty. That part of his repertoire was much in evidence when he cross examined Nikola Samardzic, former foreign minister of Montenegro.

Not untypically, he began with questions implying Mr. Samardzic had committed crimes, which the witness vehemently denied. Milosevic's strategy of belligerence and accusation paid off, however. The witness became angry, and the anger unsettled him. With Milosevic's constant refrain of 'why are you lying,' the witness began to appear less than truthful. In fact, he fell into the trap many witnesses do: believing they can control the facts known to them, omitting those that are inconvenient.

Mr. Samardzic was loathe to say anything negative about Montenegro's current President Milo Djukanovic, who is presently involved in an election campaign for his political survival. In 1991 and 1992, the period covered by Mr. Samardzic's testimony, Mr. Djukanovic was prime minister of Montenegro, while Momir Bulatovic, another rising star hooked to Milosevic, was President. On direct examination, the witness steered clear of any negative statements about President Djukanovic, despite the fact that he had made such criticisms in a statement given to the OTP in 2000.

It provided the opening Milosevic needed. He proceeded to read from Mr. Samardzic's earlier statement: 'As for why Bulatovic and Djukanovic embraced Milosevic's plan so enthusiastically, Bulatovic liked being President of Montenegro and that meant slavishly following Milosevic. Djukanovic was extremely ambitious. He saw himself as Milosevic's top deputy or ruler in an expanded Serbia.' Other criticisms of Djukanovic that Milosevic ascribed to Mr. Samardzic included: Djukanovic's brother was involved in smuggling weapons; he knew about paramilitary support facilities in Montenegro; he was extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Croat; he had close ties to the Republika Srpska leadership. The witness tried to disavow his earlier statement, claiming it must have been a mistake. Milosevic, for his part, played innocent and asked the witness why he was accusing President Djukanovic. Finally, the witness admitted, 'I wanted to avoid mentioning now what I said two years ago. But it is true (that Djukanovic and Bulatovic knew about paramilitary war centers in Montenegro).'

The prosecutor provided further rehabilitation of the witness on redirect examination. Mr. Nice: 'You said Djukanovic stands in opposition to the accused and you are not going to attack him . . . when you had said things about him in your statement. Is that your position?' Witness: 'Yes. That's it but not only that. There are some small errors in the statement from two years ago. I do not wish to attack Milo Djukanovic before this Court.' Despite his explanation, Mr. Samardzic's attempt to protect President Djukanovic affected his overall credibility. How much will be up to the judges.

To further discredit Mr. Samardzic, Milosevic secured a statement from Momir Bulatovic after the witness's direct testimony. Though the statement was unsworn, Judge May allowed Milosevic to use it for cross examining Mr. Samardzic. He warned, however, that Bulatovic's statement was not evidence unless he gives it before the Court. In his statement, Bulatovic expressed astonishment at 'Mr. Samardzic's complete misrepresentation of events.' He noted also that an important part of Mr. Samardzic's testimony was based on what Bulatovic, then President of Montenegro, told him as foreign minister. Specifically, he denied that the government of Montenegro with its generals met on October 1, 1991, to hear about a Croatian attack on Montenegro, which later turned out to be false, and to mobilize for war. Bulatovic claimed it was a commemorative meeting. According to Milosevic, Bulatovic also denied telling the witness that he changed his position supporting the Carrington Plan for a peaceful resolution of the Yugoslav break-up because Milosevic exerted pressure on him. Finally, Bulatovic states he is prepared to testify for the defense of Milosevic.

The Momir Bulatovic of the October 2002 statement is the one that emerged in 1991 when he buckled under pressure and threw in his lot with Milosevic. It was a fateful decision, as was Milo Djukanovic's to move away from Milosevic and carve out an independent and oppositional position. While Djukanovic defeated Bulatovic for President of Montenegro in 1997, Bulatovic gained prominence as a named, though unindicted, co-conspirator of Slobodan Milosevic in his ICTY indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Kosovo. The prosecutor provided the opportunity on redirect examination for Mr. Samardzic to add one additional significant fact about President Djukanovic: that he met with President Stipe Mesic of Croatia in Cavtat on the Croatian coast in 2000 where he apologized for the death and destruction Montenegrins perpetrated in Dubrovnik. Not only is this an important admission of responsibility, it supports the case against Milosevic that Croatia was not the aggressor in Dubrovnik.

Milosevic's use of Bulatovic's statement in cross examination also served to show Mr. Samardzic how vulnerable his testimony makes him. Milosevic used current newspaper articles to emphasize the point. A Montenegrin newspaper (Pobjeda) article quoted Zoran Kovacevic's allegations that Mr. Samardzic had prevailed upon him to steal a 'small trailer' for him during the war. Mr. Samardzic denied it, stating he didn't even know the man. He added, 'I'm truly astounded by what Pobjeda wrote this morning. These are terrible deceits. . . .' Milosevic, enjoying himself, remarked, 'You're truly affected by it.'

Milosevic produced other documents to discredit the witness. One tactic was to quote from statements Mr. Samardzic made before October 1991, when he still thought the JNA was 'the army of his childhood' protecting the Yugoslav people from Ustashe aggression. Milosevic's purpose was to make the witness appear to be lying when he said he had criticized the JNA for aggression against Croatia. Quoting from a pre-October 1991 statement of the witness, Milosevic asked why he was saying something entirely different now. Several times Mr. Samardzic protested that Milosevic was trying to trick him. Though it appeared to irritate the Court, there was truth in it.

For example, Milosevic quoted from the witness's comments at The Hague Conference of 19 September 1991 about the tragedy of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Croatia during both world wars and his conclusion that 'without resolving the Serb issue in Croatia there can be no resolution of the crisis.' Milosevic then asked, 'Why are you saying something entirely different now as to the cause of the war?' In fact, he hadn't testified to 'something entirely different.' As Mr. Samardzic attempted to explain, 'That is not the case. I am prepared to say Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, through the fault of their then leadership, were victims of a great tragedy in both world wars. It is equally true that Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo suffered a great misfortune through your policies and your actions.'

Milosevic produced two additional documents he alleged Mr. Samardzic had authored. Both included conclusions that Croatia was carrying out a present-day genocide against the Serbs. The witness called them forgeries and denied ever having said such a thing. While his name was typed on one of the documents, he explained that it might have been authored by someone else in the foreign ministry; it did not bear his signature.

Even as Mr. Samardzic explained each new attempt to discredit his testimony, he grew angrier, causing Judge May to intervene at one point so that everyone could 'calm down.' While his angry responses played into Milosevic's strategy, underscored by the repeated mantra of 'why are you lying,' in the end Milosevic discredited himself. He simply could not resist one last cruelty. Milosevic's final question was, 'Mr. Samardzic, do you know the Serbian saying that people who lie have short legs?' Mr. Samardzic is a diabetic who has had both legs amputated.

After raising the issue with the court in private session, Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice stated, 'To speak of legs to a man who has lost his is astonishing and inexcusable.' The Court agreed, calling it 'vulgar abuse.' Milosevic's statement also reflects negatively on his entire cross examination, showing it for what it was: a no holds barred attempt to discredit a vulnerable witness. From the moment Mr. Samardzic first showed his vulnerability to Milosevic by becoming angry, Milosevic went for the kill, exploiting every weak point. He clearly enjoyed himself, often laughing and ridiculing the witness. In the end, however, his hubris brought him low.

Moreover, Milosevic proved unable to sway the witness from several key points: Bulatovic, as President of Montenegro, took his orders from Milosevic, who, as a result, controlled policies in Montenegro; Milosevic decided, or at least significantly influenced, who would rule the rump Yugoslavia, as well as Montenegro; the JNA was involved in war crimes in Dubrovnik; Yugoslav forces attacked Dubrovnik without provocation, itself a war crime; Milosevic scuttled the Carrington Peace Plan, which all republics except Serbia had initially accepted. Milosevic, despite his strategic -- and often unethical -- cross examination, still has much to answer for. The prosecution continues to build its case.