Prosecutor Continues Hard Hitting Cross Examination of First Defence Witness

Geoffrey Nice completed his hard-hitting cross examination of Prof. Smilja Avramov, first Defence witness by eliciting her admission that significant parts of her testimony were not based on her personal knowledge, but on what she had heard or read.

The Prosecutor began his second day of cross examination by attacking the witness's statement that Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman did not agree to redraw the borders of Bosnia at their March 1991 meeting in Karadjordjevo. 'You don't know what passed between the two presidents at the meeting, do you?' he asked. No, she said, she did not attend the meeting and did not know its content.

Turning to the witness's statement on direct examination that Ante Markovic, the last Prime Minister of Yugoslavia (SFRY), ordered federal troops into Slovenia, Nice confronted Prof. Avramov: 'You know that is not true. Constitutionally, he had no power to do so.' Though she skirted answering Nice, she responded directly to the question when put by Judge Kwon, 'Quite certainly he did not. . . .' When Nice asked if she could deny Borisav Jovic had sent the Yugoslav Army (JNA) to Slovenia, she also admitted a lack of information about that. 'I had nothing to do with the top organs in the counrty.'

Milosevic intervened, however, when Nice asked if she'd read about Markovic travelling to Ljubljana (Slovenia) to stand in solidarity with Slovenes during the threatened JNA airstrikes. 'Mr. Nice is confusing the witness,' he protested, citing allegations he advanced during the Prosecution's case to the effect that Milan Kucan (President of Slovenia) accused Markovic of starting the war against Slovenia. Judge Robinson reminded the Accused that he could have the opportunity to question the witness in re-examination, per the Court's order, though Milosevic has so far refused to participate in that manner.

Nice then challenged the witness's statement during direct examination that no Croats were harmed in Serbia, citing testimony from Prosecution witnesses about attacks on Croats in Subotica and other parts of Vojvodina. Backing down, she responded, 'You are asking questions about things I didn't take part in. I can only say what I heard or read.' She may have regretted her testimony during direct examination on matters where she lacked personal knowledge.

On direct examination, Prof. Avramov told the Court that the reason for annulling autonomy for Vojvodina and Kosovo in 1989 was to remove their ability to veto matters concerning Serbia. 'Wasn't the reduction of their autonomy going to serve the Accused's policies and the extension of his control?' Nice asked. 'No, Sir. You can't personalize the extremely difficult situation the state was facing.' She added that she didn't know whether Milosevic took his position alone or with the direction of Parliament.

Getting her to agree that paramilitaries have a destabilizing effect on a society, the Prosecutor asked if she knew 'what conceivable purpose the Accused might have had in establishing the Red Berets in May 1991.' Milosevic interrupted her 'I'm not certain,' shouting his protest that Nice was 'deluding' the witness. He insisted the Red Berets were not established until 1996 as part of the State Security Service. Nice cited Franko Simatovic, head of Special Operations in Serbia's State Security Service, as his authority for the earlier date. Prof. Avramov again replied that she was not involved in that segment of policy. However, she insisted that a state has the legal right 'to take maximum steps' to defend itself. In response to Judge Robinson's direct question whether she was testifying that self defence was the reason for establishing the Red Berets, she said, 'It could be the case under certain circumstances,' rather curiously citing U.S. Marines who are attached to US embassies, as another example, though one she didn't approve of.

Nice quickly followed up by asking if Serbia or Yugoslavia was the internationally recognized state at the time. 'Yugoslavia,' she replied. 'Was Serbia being threatened by its neighbors' in Yugoslavia, he persisted? 'Was Croatia threatening to invade Serbia, was Slovenia threatening to invade Serbia . . . ?' The witness had to admit that what she identified as a rebellion that turned into a civil war was against Yugoslavia. 'Serbia had no grounds for acting in purported self-defence,' Nice concluded. Nevertheless, Prof. Avramov insisted that it did: 'In a situation where part of Yugoslavia seceded contrary to law and took armed action against the state, then Serbia, as a constituent part, had a right to defend itself.' Administering the coup de grace, Nice pointed out that May 1991, the date the Red Berets were formed, predates the secession of any republic.

Turning to her testimony that the Carrington Plan's support for forming independent states ended any chance for a political settlement, thereby leading to war, Nice asked, 'Can you offer any explanation, justification for attacks on Dubrovnik or Vukovar before the Carrington Plan?' There were instances of attacks by both sides, she said. When pressed, she offered that though Dubrovnik was demilitarized, Croatian forces did enter. That brought an outraged response from Nice: 'The Serbs had absolutely no entitlement to it[Dubrovnik] . . . . I still want to know in this court whether there was any justification for the attack on Dubrovnik.' The Professor avoided his question. 'We're not talking about Dubrovnik. We're talking about Yugoslavia.'

Nice turned the witness's attention to the substance of negotiations over the Carrington Plan in fall 1991. Serbia was the sole republic opposing the plan, he asserted, until Momir Bulatovic, President of Montenegro, was pressured to change his position. The Plan would have created a confederacy, Nice maintained, with each state/republic having what practically amounted to sovereignty. Milosevic had insisted on special rights for Serbs in states where they were a minority, e.g.g Croatia and Bosnia, but he was unwilling to extend that right to other minorities because he could not accept autonomy for the Kosovo Albanians. Prof. Avramov would not agree that the Plan envisioned a confederacy because it set out a procedure for obtaining final status, but did not establish it.

The witness agreed with Bulatovic's conclusion that this was the right time for a solution to the Yugoslav crisis, but disagreed with the proposal for resolving it. In an impassioned tone, Nice demanded of the Professor, 'Had Serbia, the sole party not to agree, agreed on 18 October [to the Carrington Plan] and the parties moved to form a confederacy with special rights for Serbs [where they were in the minority], all the people who have died since 18 October 1991, thousands of them, and all the people forced from their homes would not have suffered, would they?' He continued, 'Though the attack on Vukovar had started, the massacre had not taken place, those people would have survived and so, years later, would the people of Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Brcko -- all would have survived, Professor Avramov, if Serbia had signed.'

This brought in intervention from Judge Robinson who questioned the fairness of the question, suggesting it involved 'some very big leaps.' Nice refused to agree. 'Only this leap,' he addressed the Judge, 'that if peace had been established and there had not been more violence, people would not have died.' Judge Bonomy then expressed his view that it wasn't helpful on the issue of the Accused's criminal responsibility. Milosevic once again interrupted, calling Nice's question abusive.

Nice was undeterred. He addressed the witness: 'All of you at the conference [with knowledge and experience of the Balkans] knew there was a potential for criminal violence of the worst kind if this matter wasn't settled.' 'Yes, quite,' she admitted, responding it was why she opposed withdrawing the JNA to barracks.

The Prosecutor characterized the root of the problem in Serbia's opposition to the Carrington Plan as its long held desire to have all Serbs living in one state. When the Professor mentioned the London Agreement of 1915 that established the first Yugoslavia, Nice said he was grateful because Karadzic and Milosevic discussed it in an intercepted telephone conversation on October 29, 1991, at the time negotiations on the Carrington Plan were taking place. It provided for all Serbs living in one state and was what the two Serb leaders wanted it the current situation. Nice followed up with another map that matched the 1915 one, but was produced by a Chetnik named Moljevic in 1941 -- before the Serbian genocide of WWII. It showed that the Serb desire to live in one state (where they had control) was not based on fear resulting from the WWII genocide, as the Professor had testified.

Nice showed clips from 'Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation' to counter the witness's testimony that Milosevic was obsessive about the preservation of Yugoslavia, that he always sought a peaceful solution and did not attempt to incite mass popular opinion. The clips showed Milosevic speaking at various rallies. In one, he says, 'There is no price or force on earth that can stop the people of Serbia or the leadership of Serbia in a fight for their cause.' The witness admitted that she was not privy to what happened at the highest echelons of Serbian power, seriously undermining her testimony about Milosevic's intentions and his lack of power. She also admitted that her only knowledge of Milan Babic and Milosevic's relationship came from official documents. She testified yesterday that Babic would not let anyone, including Milosevic, tell him what to do.

Prof. Avramov ended the cross examination with an emotional statement that she had never considered herself a Serb until Serbs [presumably in Croatia] were attacked, killed and expelled en masse and they asked for help.

Earlier Judge Robinson had advised Milosevic that, if he wanted to seek the Court's leave to ask questions on re-examination, the Court was inclined to grant it. Milosevic would not, protesting once more that the Court had taken away his right to represent himself. At the end of cross examination, Defence Counsel Steven Kay questioned the witness.

Reading from notes on the Carrington Conference dated October 25, 1991, Kay provided the witness an opportunity to rehabilitate her testimony about Milosevic, the peacemaker. 'President Milosevic could not accept the shelling of Dubrovnik, which could not be justified,' the notes read. He never sought to achieve his aims through force, she agreed, appearing to fault a breakdown in JNA discipline, individual acts of revenge and the presence of mercenaries for violence committed by Serbs.

As Kay took his seat, Judge Robinson once again reiterated to Milosevic that the Court was disposed to allow him to question the witness if he were to request it. Milosevic protested, 'Had I conducted the examination in chief many questions would have been raised that your appointed lawyer was not about to raise. . . .' 'That is exactly why the Chamber designed the order the way it did,' Judge Robinson responded. The Court wanted to make it clear that 'at all stages the Chamber is allowing you an opportunity to participate.' But, since participation was not going to be on Milosevic's terms, the Accused refused to participate. Nothing short of letting him represent himself would satisfy Milosevic.

The Court directed Mr. Kay to call his next witness. The testimony of James Jatras, former staff to the Senate Republican Foreign Policy Committee, will be examined in CIJ's next report.