¹⁹⁰

Thursday, 4 December 2003

[Sentencing Proceedings]

(Open session)

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 8.35 a.m.

JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this courtroom. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number IT-01-42/1-S, the Prosecutor versus Miodrag Jokic.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Mr. Jokic, can you hear me in a language you understand? Could -- could someone assist Mr. Jokic to find the right channel for B/C/S.

Mr. Jokic, can you now hear me in a language you understand?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand.

JUDGE ORIE: Is it a matter of volume? Is it a matter of channel? Could someone assist.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can hear you, but I'm not receiving any interpretation.

JUDGE ORIE: What is the B/C/S channel? Do you now receive interpretation, Mr. Jokic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not loud enough.

JUDGE ORIE: It's not loud enough. Could you please adapt the volume.

Is it now loud enough? ¹⁹¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can barely hear you.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then this should be fixed first before we continue. Is there any -- is it a matter -- it could be the headphones as well. Perhaps we could exchange the headphones.

Mr. Jokic, are the new headphones any better? Or if one of the other units would be used.

Is this any better, Mr. Jokic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's fine now.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jokic, you now understand me -- you now hear me in a language you understand?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you very well.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jokic, before you could hear me, I wished good morning to everyone, so you've missed that. Good morning to you as well. Now, I see you can hear it. And Madam Registrar has called the case.

Please be seated. May I have the appearances. The Prosecution first.

MS. SOMERS: Good morning, Your Honours, Mr. President. For the Prosecution, Susan L. Somers, lead counsel; behind me, Ms. Gina Butler, Mr. Philip Weiner; to my right, Mr. Nicholas Kaufman and Miss Victoria McCreath.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Somers. And the appearances for the Defence.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, Ms. Somers. Eugene O'Sullivan, Jelena Nikolic, and Zarko ¹⁹² Nikolic for Mr. Jokic.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. The order of this hearing today, which is a hearing in which we'll hear the submissions of the parties and evidence relevant for sentencing will be the following: First, the Prosecution will shortly introduce its position in regard of sentencing; then - and I understand that it takes less time for the Defence to do the same - this would take approximately 40 minutes altogether; we'll then hear the testimony of witnesses called by the Prosecution, as far as I understand, two witnesses to be examined in closed session.

Ms. Somers, is that correct?

MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: And the parties agree on that, that it will be in closed session.

Then we'll see a video to be presented by the Prosecution. And then there'll be a victim's address, as far as I understand, and that all before we hear the first Defence witness, then, and we'll hear another Defence witness. We'll then -- it's announced that Mr. Jokic will make an oral statement, and finally closing arguments will be presented by the parties, Prosecution first and then the Defence.

I already announced at this moment that it may be that before we hear the first witness that we need a short break for reasons not related to this case, so that the parties are prepared that we might have a short additional break.

I do understand that the parties also agreed on this order. So ¹⁹³ if there's nothing else to be -- to be submitted at this moment, I could give an opportunity to the Prosecution to present its position in regard of sentencing, but I'll not do that until I first have briefly set out what this case is about.

This case is about the events that that happened the day after tomorrow 12 years ago, on the 6th of December, 1991, which was the shelling of the city of Dubrovnik, which caused the death of persons, which caused persons to be injured, and which caused serious damage to the old city of Dubrovnik.

Now, Mr. Jokic, you have pleaded guilty in relation to these events on six counts, as they are in the indictment. That is the case on which we'll hear the submissions of the parties on sentencing and on which we'll hear evidence in relation to sentencing.

MS. Somers, please proceed.

MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Following up what Your Honour has presented as introductory comments, inasmuch as the Trial Chamber has not had the benefit of a tremendous amount of background evidence, the Prosecution will take a bit of time to put into context the events underlying the factual basis to which Admiral Jokic has entered his plea of guilty.

The unlawful shelling attacks on the old town of Dubrovnik, this is focal point of this indictment, which occurred on the 6th of December, 1991, must be viewed as among the most shameful events in military history. Although there is little knowledge by those who perpetrated the criminal acts of the victims and of the objects, as it were - I don't ¹⁹⁴ mean it in a military sense - which were struck by the hundreds, perhaps up to a thousand projectiles, that came from JNA forces, the depravity of the act, the incredible recklessness interspersed with deliberate intent requires an examination of how such things could happen with career-military personnel the calibre of someone like Admiral Jokic. First, the images which are normally conjured up when one thinks of the shelling of the old town of Dubrovnik are images of buildings, of antiquity, of precious items being ruined. Of course, this is the case, but first and foremost we have to turn our attention to the fact that the old town of Dubrovnik was a living city, not a museum, and there were human beings whose lives were either ended or irrevocably altered by the events of the 6th of December, 1991.

What happened? After approximately three months of occupation of the areas surrounding the city of Dubrovnik, of which the old town is a part, both sides, the JNA and the Croatian defenders, were about to come to terms for a comprehensive cease-fire agreement which would end hostilities, although not necessarily end occupation. The negotiators for the parties deserve special attention. Representing the JNA was Admiral Jokic; representing the Croatian side were three high-level Croatian cabinet ministers. This is noteworthy in that most negotiations were held with local negotiators. The importance of this particular cease-fire, with its comprehensive aspect, cannot be underestimated. It's central to bear in mind.

One of the most essential aspects of the cease-fire which the Admiral had been involved in negotiating was the restoration of basic ¹⁹⁵ necessary commodity, such as electricity and water, for the population of Dubrovnik. The only glitch which did not permit, in the Admiral's judgement, allowing the signature on the page, as of the 5th of December, was an issue about inspection of vessels. Dubrovnik was besieged in the sense of encirclement with a blockade of its port and surrounded from all sides by forces under the control of the JNA.

In order to work out this particular detail, the Admiral indicated he would need to confer with persons higher than he in Belgrade. However, it was clearly understood by both sides that the cease-fire was effectively a done deal and would simply be consummated formally the next day, the 6th of December. Parties left with this understanding. Orders were passed down. And all sides -- both sides were to have been ready for the terms to have been implemented upon the working out of that last detail.

What happened, however, on the very early morning hours of the 6th of December was not an implementation of the cease-fire but, rather, an unauthorised attack, as the evidence suggests, by forces under the control of Admiral Jokic but not ordered by Admiral Jokic. The attack was from forces in the area of Zarkovica, which is the Croatian stronghold -- I'm sorry, the JNA stronghold in the high ground on Srdj, the Croatian high ground stronghold. The chaos which ensued from this unauthorised attack, at least unauthorised from the perspective of Admiral Jokic, was that a full-blown fire-fight ensued. Simultaneously or almost simultaneously with the attack on the Croatian defenders at Srdj was the opening of fire on the old town of Dubrovnik. ¹⁹⁶ I would like to take a moment and just allow a visual assist to see, if I may, a little bit about the layout of Dubrovnik. If I can ask my colleague to produce Dubrovnik general view 5 first on Sanction, which is the mode of presentation for all our visual aids. If I can be sure that everyone has it.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jokic, do you also have on your screen the picture just announced?

THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated] .

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Somers.

MS. SOMERS: In order to acquaint the Chamber with the layout of the old town, it is the promontory which is pictured in the centre of the image. It is clearly surrounded by water on both sides. And behind it, in the next shot, which I would ask my colleague to proceed to, Your Honours can see that behind it are the high grounds.

If we may proceed to yet the next photo, and the next, please; and the next, please.

The Chamber should have a fairly good picture of the bird's-eye view from the high ground to the old town of Dubrovnik. The lovely barrel-tile roofs that you see on the promontory are the structures within the ancient walls of the old town of Dubrovnik. When I mentioned a few moments ago that fire was opened from Zarkovica, I would ask now to present a picture of what the old town looks like from Zarkovica, which was the JNA high ground stronghold. Sorry. We'll go back one. This would be one angle -- can we return, ¹⁹⁷ please.

One who looks down from there, it has been said, can see coffee being drunk on the central dividing street of the old town, called the Stradun. I don't know if we'll be able to retrieve the particular photo -- I believe it is now -- is that correct? -- it is now in front of Your Honours. This is one of several views to indicate what it looked like to officers of the JNA.

If I can ask you then to show the next view. Among the ordnance used from the high ground just pictured is a weapon called a Maljutka, which is a wire-guided missile, a precision instrument. Weapons of this type were directed against the old town and in fact detonated there, along with mortars and other forms of artillery.

How did this come to pass? How did it happen that what should have been a cease-fire ended up in mayhem? There have been outstanding standing orders, directives, and other transmissions from the highest level of the Federal Yugoslav authorities as well as from Admiral Jokic and General Strugar that the -- his co-accused -- that the old town of Dubrovnik was not to be damaged, destroyed, attacked, or in any way molested. Despite the standing order, which has -- based in reason its cultural value, which is protected under the protocols of the Geneva Conventions and which is further evidenced by the UNESCO designation of world heritage site, which was granted to the old town of Dubrovnik, everything inside, including the walls, in 1979, no harm was to befall this demilitarised area.

Nevertheless, in October of 1991 circumstances surrounding ¹⁹⁸ shelling incidents were not investigated when the old town was in fact engaged by mortar. Despite the standing order -- and I must repeat that it is not suggested now that in October the particular units involved were under the direct control of Admiral Jokic. However, in area of responsibility it was clearly known that there was an engagement of the old town, it was communicated through internationals to the JNA officer at the command level, yet nothing was done about it. A standing order as serious as that was allowed to be violated with impunity. The message: It's okay.

Moving on to the month of November, some of the most aggressive shelling of the old town - not a stray round here, a stray round here, but aggressive, deliberate shelling of the old town occurred. Again, at this point in time involvement of units under the control of Admiral Jokic comes into play. What happens? No discipline, nothing. A stronger message: It may be on paper, it may be an order, but it's okay if you violate it.

The type of climate that was allowed to grow and dominate from the command of the 2nd Operational Group, which included the 9th Naval Sector, which was Admiral Jokic's command, fostered a disregard, a disrespect, and a permissible violation of certain orders with impunity. The message: It's okay.

Had a trial ensued, there would have been evidence presented of the nature of the sustained attack against the old town of Dubrovnik. I would suffice it to say that that is not part of the charge here; what is significant is that there was an awareness of the attack and nothing was ¹⁹⁹ done.

We fast-forward now to the 5th of December, where after this long period of hostility and occupation surrounding the area is wearing down, certainly, the JNA forces. The cease-fire should be brought into play. The importance of this particular event, as I have indicated to Your Honours, evidenced in part by the level of negotiation - that is, cabinet level from the Croatian side; Admiral Jokic from the JNA side - required that every eventuality should be foreseen, that nothing disrupt it. That would include making sure that any units which had been problematic in the past that could cause any possible disruption would be appropriately handled in the context of command. That did not happen. Units that had been involved in shelling of the old town before again engaged in the same activity. This time, however, the consequences were much more long standing and the duration of the assault went from the early morning hours until late in the day on the 6th of December.

I would like to ask, if I could, to show a -- an image of just some of the weaponry. This is the type of weaponry that was at the disposal of the forces of the JNA, along with the wire-guided missile and the mortars that we have -- that we have described. And the use of them or abuse of them is firmly a matter that is subject to regulation by the commanding officers. What appears to have happened, according to the evidence, is that once the assault was so intense there was no introduction of any immediate order to protect, to preserve the old town, which by necessity would have certainly been implicated in any of the assault arising from this unauthorised attack by the forces under ²⁰⁰ Admiral Jokic.

The Prosecution submits, and the Defence has so agreed, that there is a causal, direct causal connection between the failure to impose the required discipline of previous incidents of shelling an old town in direct violation of orders and the incident of unlawful attack against the old town on the 6th of December. The failure of command was such that it aided and abetted what happened on the 6th. It was a foreseeable consequence of all that had happened. And the actual consequences were simply disastrous. Again, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and it was absolutely foreseeable that this could happen, and sadly it did.

In this indictment which has been amended, the Chamber is aware that there were two civilian deaths and three injuries. Perhaps the numbers seem small, but the area is small, and every life lost or injured is a major -- has a major consequence, not only for families but because they are lives. It is significant also to have a look, if I may, at what has been described as a dispersal map of projectiles which impacted in the old town on the 6th of December. I believe -- excuse me.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MS. SOMERS: It will be presented in Sanction, but if it would assist the Chamber to have a hard copy of it, I'm --

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Somers, we have seen a couple of photographs until now. Do we get hard copies of those shown to us? Because from what I've seen on my screen, there might be a huge number of photographs, but that those shown to the Chamber will be clearly identified so have at ²⁰¹ least one hard copy to be given to the registrar so that we know what selection you've made and what we've seen.

MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. The hard copies have been made and they will be provided.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MS. SOMERS: Thank you. The points of impact are shown, and it is evident that very few areas in the old town were spared. I will attempt to give the Chamber in the time allotted to me a bit of a walk-through of the old town to see what happened on the 6th of December, and then I will return to the issue of the Admiral's role in it.

If we can proceed, please, to show a series of historical photos from the date. This is an example from the date of a shell exploding in the old town of Dubrovnik.

If we can move on, please, to the next. Again, engaging the old town.

Next, please; the old town ablaze. Next, please. Next please. Next, please. Next. Next. One more, please.

We are now going to move briefly through some of the examples of the destruction of property violative of Article 3, also, of the Statute. I will not narrate, but it is clear that the shelling damage has hit the cupola of this particular religious monument.

Can we have the next photo, please. The inside of a structure. Next, please; no object appeared to have been spared. The amount of roof damage was quite significant, and of course ²⁰² the tiles were unique to Dubrovnik. And although repair has been possible, which we will show the Chamber, true restoration is difficult because of the nature of the structures, the materials that went into them, their age.

Next, please. Craters which were memorialised. The actual walls of the city were also impacted; although, their strength is evident. It should be emphasised that the -- some of the weaponry used, particularly mortars, are designed to kill people, will not destroy buildings. They will be incendiary in their result and they will kill people, but the use of them here was simply criminal.

Okay. If I can show some of the roof crater damage -- I'm sorry, the roof damage. The Onofrio fountain, a very well-known cultural object in the old town, suffered damage. And again, if the Chamber, when it has an opportunity to look carefully at the dispersal, will see that very few areas were spared.

If I can try -- I realise that Sanction has its slowness right now, but if I can move on to a couple of points. If we could move to the last -- these shots, if it's possible. I would then move in briefly to discussing -- these are some of the shots, the last shots taken by one of the deceased victims, Pave Urban. And there is a volume that has been published in memoriam of his last shots taken prior to his Delta. He was a young journalist who had returned to Dubrovnik to document the destruction to the buildings in his city.

Returning now to what Admiral Jokic did do after this broke out and continued. Although called to Belgrade to respond, the Admiral ²⁰³ displayed an unusual expression of responsibility at the time, right at the time of the incident, realising that it should not have happened. The Admiral notified both the Croatians and the internationals and expressed regret at the time, indicating that it was not an ordered attack and that there -- he would be requesting an investigation. The ability to resume negotiations that same day was, of course, limited, but the Admiral directed his attention, his energies, to trying to get the process back on track for the cease-fire to come into effect. But, of course, bringing to a halt the type of action that broke out on the 6th of December was not a process that was quickly accomplished, certainly not a result that was quickly accomplished. On the 7th, the next day, the negotiations did resume. There will be -- it will be -- I'm sure the Defence will perhaps pre-empt the same commentary I'm about to make, but it is clear that the Admiral put his energies into making sure that the cease-fire that he had an interest in assuring to be implemented was signed and implemented. The conduct of the Admiral that day has been made known to the Office of the Prosecutor, whereby it has been said that Admiral Jokic was sincere in his efforts; the negotiators were willing to resume negotiation with him, despite the incredible disaster of the day before; and the process did come to its conclusion.

At the end of it all, hundreds of structures were damaged. At the end of it all, two people died; an 18-year-old boy, young man, Mr. Tonci Skocko, and 23-year-old Pave Urban, lost their lives. Three persons were injured. And I will speak of them a bit later when I have a ²⁰⁴ charge to do the victim impact. It would be very difficult to give a proper eulogy this many years later, but it would certainly be required that the Chamber know something about these individuals, and I will so present.

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Somers, if I may interrupt you just for the order of this hearing. It was indicated to me that you would need approximately 35 minutes. Looking at the clock, you used 30 minutes until now.

MS. SOMERS: Yes.

JUDGE ORIE: And you announced what is still to be said. So may I ask you to try to -- because we'd like to follow a tight schedule. May I ask you to keep an eye on the clock as well.

MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. I just -- I wanted to make sure that I understood clearly that I would have a chance to get back into the victim impact subsequent, because this is effectively what I was told was the opening part to give the context to the plea and the understanding of the event.

So I will simply begin to conclude the opening remarks by indicating that despite what happened on the 6th, despite the incredibly serious nature of these unauthorised and unlawful attacks, no one was effectively disciplined from Belgrade; certainly not even the Admiral was disciplined. The atmosphere of impunity continued. The Admiral did require an investigation within his command to be undertaken. There was evidence that some action was taken, but insufficient to have yet again shown how seriously this should have been taken and really too late. ²⁰⁵ No one suffered a loss of rank. Some were promoted. The Admiral, however, it should be indicated, was involuntarily retired in May of 1992.

It is not difficult to conclude now, I hope for you, how this could have happened when the atmosphere, the climate of command was such that, effectively, anything went. Commanders whose troops, whose subordinate units are charged with operating weapons are responsible for what happens with those weapons. Judgement, reasonableness must govern. The underlying issue here was the absence of any actual sense of control over troops who had gone wild before and were to have repeated their actions.

A comment about the recommendation of sentence, which I will really discuss at the closing point of the hearing today: The Prosecution had recommended a cap of ten years as the appropriate sentence, in the absence of any mitigating factors. I submit to the Chamber that there are substantial mitigating factors in this case, and they have been outlined in the brief submitted by the Prosecution. And I'm sure that the Defence has also -- plans also to make it clear what they are.

It is significant that Admiral Jokic is the highest-ranking officer of what was the JNA to have pled guilty. It is, in my view, more significant that at the time of the event he recognised the fundamental wrong of the incident. And whatever ensued -- and again, the criminality of it is absolutely patent, but it is a very complex set of circumstances that seem to have prevailed in the command of the entire Dubrovnik ²⁰⁶ campaign, and this was one of the tragic consequences of the failure of command of that entire campaign, and in particular, as regards units that had access to weapons that could be directed and were directed against the old town.

The fact of the plea is very significant for reconciliation. A man of the admiral's background and level, rank, effectively holding himself before this Chamber and indicating that he accepts responsibility for acts of his subordinates, which is the essence of command responsibility, is a -- a factor that I think is very significant to bear in mind throughout this entire presentation.

I thank you for your attention on this point, and I will return at a later point to give more Prosecution evidence -- input.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Somers. Mr. Nikolic, I did understand that the Defence would need far shorter for its introductory -- its opening remarks in respect of sentencing. It was indicated to me that it would take some five minutes. Is that --

MR. O'SULLIVAN: That's correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan. MR. O'SULLIVAN: Mr. President, good morning to you and the members of the Trial Chamber. And good morning to my learned friends from the Prosecution.

I will be very brief in these opening remarks. My learned friend from the Prosecution has set out for us the context which brings us here today. I intend to address you at length at the close of proceedings ²⁰⁷ today during my final oral submissions. For now let me say that the Defence intends to call two witnesses during this hearing. First you will hear from retired rear admiral Pogacnik. Mr. Pogacnik and Admiral Jokic have known each other professionally and personally for over 20 years. Mr. Pogacnik was deputy commander to Admiral Jokic in the 9th Naval Sector in the mid-1980s. Mr. Pogacnik will testify about Admiral Jokic's career in the navy, his knowledge of Admiral Jokic's political and social views, and the circumstances which brought Admiral Jokic to Dubrovnik in October 1991.

The second Defence witness is Mr. Miroslav Stefanovic, a founding member of the political party New Democracy. He will testify concerning Admiral Jokic's political activities in Serbia in the 1990s and in particular the significant contribution Admiral Jokic made to the development of the New Democracy initiative for having FRY join Partnership for Peace.

And finally, Mr. President, Admiral Jokic himself will address the Trial Chamber.

And, Mr. President, those are my opening remarks.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan. If you'd just give me one second for -- to confer with Madam Registrar.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE ORIE: As I indicated before, it might be necessary to have a very short break. And since I would rather not interrupt any witness examination, if you would allow us two minutes to verify whether at this ²⁰⁸ moment we should have that break or that we'll do it after the examination of the witness.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE ORIE: I was informed that we have to take a break at this very moment. It's not entirely clear to us whether it would be three or five minutes or whether it would take a bit more time, so I would ask the parties to remain; stand by.

We'll adjourn.

--- Break taken at 9.23 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.00 a.m.

(Closed session)

(14 lines redacted) ²⁰⁹

(27 pages redacted) ²³⁶

(10 lines redacted)

(Open session)

JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber, to its regret, has to apologise again for the late start. Whatever may have distracted our attention not during the hearing but during the breaks will not ask our attention any more today. So you can expect that such things will not happen again today.

Since the moment when we went into closed session might not have been clear to the public, I'll explain to the public that, as I announced this morning, Prosecution witnesses would be heard in closed session, and that's what happened during the closed session, that is now over; we are in open session again.

I think it's up to the Prosecution now who wanted to show a video. Ms. Somers, is that correct?

MS. SOMERS: If I may, Your Honour, what I would do at this time is to present to the Chamber a phase that is normally called victim ²³⁷ impact.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MS. SOMERS: And the video covers part of that. It is as you -- it perhaps sounds a bit unusual, but it is the -- the impact of structural victims. And it, of course, shows some of the persons who were affected by the shelling.

Before that, I would like to offer some background to those persons who died on the 6th and the wounded.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the video is postponed until after your submission in respect of victims.

MS. SOMERS: Immediately thereafter.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MS. SOMERS: Following.

JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

MS. SOMERS: Mr. President, the most tragic part of the entire unfortunate incident is the loss of life and the damage to the lives of those who survived, either as loved ones or as injured victims. And I would take at this time an opportunity, albeit a number of years later, to have the privilege to tell the Chamber something about the persons whose names appear in the indictment, the amended indictment, so that they can understand who these people, these human beings were. I would ask, if I may, first start by age. And I want just to clarify to the Chamber in a pre-trial -- or a 65 ter Conference we indicated that we would request your indulgence to transpose the dates of birth shown in the indictment for the two deceased victims. And we will ²³⁸ start with a bit of background about a young person named Tonci Skocko. Tonci Skocko, a young civilian male, was only 18 years old at the time of his violent death from the human beings were. I would ask, if I may, first start by age. And I want just to clarify to the Chamber in a pre-trial -- or a 65 ter Conference we indicated that we would request your indulgence to transpose the dates of birth shown in the indictment for the two deceased victims. And we will start with a bit of background about a young person named Tonci Skocko. Tonci Skocko, a young civilian male, was only 18 years old at the time of his violent death from the shelling shrapnel on the 6th of December in the old town of Dubrovnik. Son of Mato, who has provided some insight into his son. He had aspirations to do many things which, of course, were cut short in the prime of his life. What happened was he was struck by lethal shrapnel as he ran back -- I'm sorry, as he had come outside of his father's grocery store, which was situated in the old town. He was in the company of another person who was injured, a person named Nikola Jovic, who is listed also as one of the injured parties in the amended indictment. The shrapnel, according to the medical examiner's report, pierced his chest and heart, and he died as a direct consequence of those wounds.

The photo has been provided by the family, and I am hopeful that he -- his family understands that the interests are represented by this representation -- by this particular photo representation. I'll wait till it's distributed to the usher, if I may. The second deceased victim mentioned in the second amended ²³⁹ indictment was an individual named Pave Urban, 23 years old at the time of his violent death from shrapnel injuries. There is a bit more that has been made known about his young life to the public because of his passion for photography. We have heard from his mother, who shall also appear as part of a video, which I will ask the Chamber to view, that her son was killed doing what he loved to do most, which was taking pictures. He was in the old town trying to capture for posterity the images of the vicious assault by the JNA forces and although at a distance, was hit by shrapnel that took his life. We were able to gather a little bit of information about the circumstances through a friend, a Mr. Ivo Djuric -- I'm sorry, Djuro Ivic, I beg your pardon, who was looking out the window of his apartment, and saw his friend, a journalist and photographer, Pave Urban, hit by a shell. He said he was hit at some distance, about 20 metres from the location where Mr. Ivic was, fell down, lay on his stomach, and after a time, although he was taken away by the ambulance, it appeared that he was lifeless and succumbed to his injuries then and there.

As I have mentioned earlier, in the photo you see placed on your screens is a photo of Pave Urban. A memorial album has been released which has the last shots taken prior to the death of Mr. Urban and is touching, poignant, and perhaps portrays more than my words can ever say about what was happening in the old town on that fateful day. I will move now to the persons who suffered injury. I have been provided photographs of these individuals so that you can see a little bit for yourselves. The first individual is Mr. Vlasica - is that ²⁴⁰ correct? - okay. And Mr. -- if I may tell you a bit about him. Ivo Vlasica, son of Ivanko, Marijana. Father of two, was 35 years old - three-five - years old on 6 December 1991. As a civilian, he had been working in a shop in the old town and was standing in the doorway of the shop. A shell exploded some 7 metres away, detonating on the terrace of a restaurant located at an angle from the shop. Because the old town is constructed as it is, an ancient town, its lanes are narrow and they are so narrow that shrapnel can ricochet back and forth between the walls of the old town. Bearing in mind that the old town is a living city full of people, residents, shop-keepers, the ricochetting shrapnel struck Mr. Vlasenica, going through his upper right leg with smaller pieces of shrapnel, hitting his feet and arms.

The next person is Mr. Mato Valjalo. Mr. Valjalo was born 18 May 1948. And on the 6th of December he was heading toward city hall along the main street, the main dividing avenue of Dubrovnik called the Stradun. He heard a shell hit behind him. He fell to the ground, lost consciousness, and when he regained consciousness found himself covered in blood, having observed pieces of shrapnel in his legs and arms and also having realised he suffered serious head injuries. Mr. Valjalo is a husband and a father of two daughters.

I regret that I do not have a photograph of Nikola Jovic, but I would like to be able to tell the Chamber something about him. Mr. Jovic, who was also injured during the shelling of the 6th, was injured in the same incident which resulted in the death of Tonci Skocko. Mr. Jovic was working in the shop of Mato Skocko, the father of Tonci Skocko, ²⁴¹ when the projectile detonated in the shrapnel hit Tonci and hit himself. His injuries were to the area of the chin and leg. He describes the shock, the shock that one senses and feels when confronted with this type of event, the horror of shrapnel, the horror of shelling. These are the human losses, and of course there's nothing that can be said further to bring these people back. We hope that their deaths are not in vain and that they are remembered by all who understand the futility of the action that happened in Dubrovnik that day. If I may turn for a moment to a video which we think will best portray the losses, the damage, the injury, as it were, to the living monuments, the objects, to Dubrovnik as an ancient, protected city. It would be, I think, more effective for Your Honours to see than for me to further narrate.

JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed to show the video to the Chamber.

MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

[Videotape played]

NARRATOR: -- north or the south, from east or west, she is never anything less than a finely balanced result of the work of both man's hand and his irrepressible spirit, tenacity, ingenuity, an imperative instinct for survival, wisdom and perseverance; all these have coalesced those, the dividing line, between two quite distinct civilisations. Through the long centuries, while other Croatian lands formed part of other states the skill of Dubrovnik's diplomats and the impregnability of its fortifications, guaranteed its independence and freedom and that it remained a republic of high international stand, both ²⁴² as a commercial power and as a significant maritime force. Many of Dubrovnik's citizens won world renown and world-famous artists travel to the city to enhance it still further through their industry and their works.

Dubrovnik is a monument city. Its medieval structure which grew out of the principles of the statute of 1272 have been preserved to this day. The focal point of it legal and administrative power, the seat of government, was the Ducal Palace. Another palatial building, Sponza the palace, once the State Mint and Customs and Excise office, today house it is city's historical archives, one of the richest of its kind in the whole of the Mediterranean. The ancient pharmacy in Dubrovnik was among the earliest to be established anywhere in Europe. All this is lovingly protected by the city's patron saint, St. Blasius, whose statues are to be seen on the city gates, on its walls, fortresses and other public buildings. Relics of the much-revered saint are housed in the cathedral's treasury.

In 1979, Dubrovnik, its priceless beauty, and the state of preservation of the city's monuments, was designated a world heritage site by UNESCO. Its singular beauty and charm has made Dubrovnik one of the best-known tourist destinations in the world, the traditional summer festival being one of its attractions.

It is said that streets with the elegance and allure of Dubrovnik's Stradun, the city's main thoroughfare, are to be seldom seen anywhere. This mirror of stone lives on through humanity's touch, through man's tread and his laughter. It abandons its to the casual ²⁴³ stroller.

During the most devastating attack on December 6th, 1991, something like 1.000 shells rained down on the old town within its walls and in the immediate vicinity. At the end of 1991, Dubrovnik was listed as an endangered world heritage site by UNESCO.

Spring has burgeoned once more. It is now 1995, and Dubrovnik is displaying its normal image. Details show that restoration work is underway. The city's clock tower shows the correct time, as usual. The cupola and the section of the stone tower which suffered direct hits have now been repaired. The roof of the Sponza palace have been restored and people are again able to use the flight of stairs called uzjezuits [phoen] or "alongside the Jesuits." The old well in the convent of St. Clare's Cloisters as well as a major part of the roof have also been restored. No longer is there a gaping hole to attack from the beauty of the great Onofrio fountain. Damaged sections of the stone balustrade of the bridge at Pula have been replaced.

During the shelling of Dubrovnik, 111 projectiles pounded Europe's-best preserved fortification systems. Today those magnificent walls have for the most part been repaired and sections are once again open to visitors. Disruption and serious damage was also inflicted on the Franciscan monastery and the Church of Friars Minor. To date the bell tower, the staircase leading to the entrance, and a section of the roof have undergone repair. Work on the roofs of the Dominican monastery in St. Dominic's church have been completed. The large cross that had once stood for centuries above the main altar had to be removed for ²⁴⁴ reasons of safety. Repairs have been carried out to the roof of the synagogue. The small Church of Sigurate, badly damaged by direct hits, also has also been restored following lengthy and detailed research. Part of the roof, gable and bead moulding of the roof of St. Joseph have also been repaired. The colour of the stone of the balustrade and the medallion of the Church of St. Blasius betray their renovation. Only time will mellow the varying nuances presently visible on the facade, the roof and the staircase. The chapel of the sacred heart located within Djordjik Minory [phoen] Palace has now been restored. During the worst of the shelling which occurred on December the 6th, 1991, was palace of the Dubrovnik festival at No. 1, Od Sigurate Street, was seriously damaged by fire. So far the site has been cleared and the roof replaced. Medallions on the first floor have been protected while work on the damaged stucco has revealed war murals dating from early periods. Repairs to residential buildings began even while Dubrovnik was still under siege. In the city's old core, about 70 per cent of roofs suffered direct hits. As a result of systematic restoration, more than half the damage has now been put to rights. The restoration and revitalisation of a town is not merely a construction enterprise. It is, in fact, the subtle art of adjusting historical entity to modern-day life, taking it step by step to ensure the preservation of its authenticity. It is first and foremost the enhancement of both the quality of life of the town and in the town. At the same time, it is the repayment of our debt to the past, which is bequeathed us so much wealth, and a sacred obligation to pass it on ²⁴⁵ enriched by our own efforts and our own times to future generations; for them to pass it on, and then on again.

[Videotape played]

MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, I believe that is the conclusion of the video, and that concludes the section on victim impact by the Prosecution.

Thank you very much.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Somers. The Defence would like first to call witnesses, as I do understand. Can these witnesses be examined in open session, or is there any need to go into private or closed session?

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, they can be heard in open session.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I then suggest, also looking at the clock, it was scheduled I think your first witness for some 40 minutes; is that correct? For some 40 minutes. That would bring us close to 1.00. And I would like to spend a few minutes, perhaps the last few minutes before the break, to give an opportunity to the parties to submit whatever they want to submit in respect of a request for a continued provisional release.

So therefore, Mr. Nikolic, if you're ready to call your first witness.

I did understand from the 65 ter meeting that last week the statement of the second witness was not yet read by the Prosecution. I take it that meanwhile the statement has been provided so that the ²⁴⁶ Prosecution could prepare for the second witness. And at that time, it was expected that there would be no cross-examination. After having read the statement of the second witness, has this changed, Ms. Somers?

MS. SOMERS: Based on what was written, no, Your Honour. And we'll see if it comports with what --

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. Well, Mr. Nikolic, you may call your first witness, and that will be ...?

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Marjan Pogacnik. Your Honours, I would like to request assistance if possible, if I could have this plastic pulpit for the papers to be moved from the Prosecution desk to our disk here because we don't have it.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's a shared asset between the parties.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, you escorted already the first witness. And that's fine. No -- please.

Yes, Mr. Nikolic.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I would like to notify you that Ms. Jelena Nikolic will be questioning our first witness, Mr. Marjan Pogacnik.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Pogacnik, before giving evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that ²⁴⁷ you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May I invite you to make that declaration of which the text has been handed out in your own language to you by the usher. Yes. Please proceed.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Pogacnik. You'll first be examined by Ms. Jelena Nikolic, Defence counsel. The Defence has called you as a witness.

Please proceed, Ms. Nikolic.

WITNESS: MARJAN POGACNIK

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Examined by Ms. Nikolic:

Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Pogacnik. Could you please tell your name?

A. My name is Marjan Pogacnik.

Q. Could you please tell the Court where you were born and when.

A. I was born in Ljubljana in 1941.

Q. Can you please tell us whether you speak, read, and write the Serb and Croatian language well --

A. Yes.

Q. -- bearing in mind the fact that you are of Slovenian ethnic origin.

A. Yes, I read, write, and speak it well.

Q. You can then provide your answers in that language. ²⁴⁸

A. Yes, I can.

Q. Could you please tell us about your education after the elementary and secondary school.

A. After I graduated from the secondary school in Ljubljana, I studied at the Naval Academy in Divulje. After I graduated from the naval military academy, I specialised for submarine service. And then after 1973 until 1976. I graduated from the command and Staff College in Belgrade. And then in 1979 and 1980 I graduated from the command and staff school in Belgrade.

Q. In 1985, to which post were you appointed?

A. In 1975, in July, as a naval officer I was appointed to the post of the chief of staff. At the same time I was the deputy commander of the 9th Naval Sector in Boka.

JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt. The question in translation was about 1985. The answer in translation - I'm not saying that the original answer was the same - was about 1975. Could you please clarify whether we have a translation problem or whether there's a misunderstanding between you, Ms. Nikolic, and the witness.

MS. NIKOLIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will try. [Interpretation] I will try to clarify this issue.

Q. In my question, Mr. Pogacnik, I referred to 1985 in July. In fact, my question referred to 1975 and now I want to clarify whether it's 1985 or 1975.

A. It was in 1985.

Q. Were you in the same class at the Naval Academy as Mr. Jokic? ²⁴⁹

A. No. I was five years younger, which means that Mr. Jokic was the ninth class and I was the fourteenth class in the Naval Academy.

Q. Could you please tell us how do you know Mr. Jokic, since when.

A. I have known Mr. Jokic since our -- my graduation from the academy. I got to know him better when we came to the naval port of Lora as submarine officers where we took part in submarine exercises in the islands around Split and Vis.

Q. When did you start seeing him more often, and in fact to cooperate with him as a officer?

A. We started seeing each other more often in the 1980s, when I, as the commander of a submarine unit, cooperated with Mr. Jokic to improve the submarine service.

Q. Do you know when Mr. Jokic was first appointed the commander of the 9th Naval Sector in Boka?

A. I do know it quite well, and I remember that he was appointed in 1983.

Q. Do you know until when he remained in that post?

A. He remained there until 1989.

Q. You told us that you were appointed in 1985 the chief of staff of the 9th Naval Sector in Boka.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. In that period, you were in daily contact with Mr. Jokic.

A. Yes.

Q. He was your commander at the time; is that correct?

A. Yes. In fact, he received me in his capacity as the commander, ²⁵⁰ and until my -- the time when I left the naval sector in Boka we were in daily contact during the working hours and, if necessary, also in our free time. We were in constant contact.

Q. On what terms -- in fact, what was your relationship like with Mr. Jokic, in view of the fact that you were the chief of staff and he was the commander of the naval sector at the time?

A. First of all, I have to say that in his capacity as a commander he welcomed me there, he helped me in the first six months to learn the ropes of the chief of staff and his deputy. And when he realised that I did learn my craft, he started training me for the post of the commander of the naval sector.

Q. Are you familiar with the career of Mr. Jokic as a naval officer? And if yes, how come?

A. Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. When I became a young officer, he was already well known as an excellent officer. Whenever he was a commander, that unit was always the best, first a commander of a torpedo boat or a patrol boat. And then he was also a commander of a destroyer in Split. He was an example for all of us young officers.

Q. Do you know how Mr. Jokic treated his subordinate officers and his superiors?

A. Yes, I do know. He was, first of all, very humane. He was a very professional soldier. He asked his subordinates to show full responsibility, but he also showed understanding for any problems, not only as an officer regarding his subordinates but he also inquired about their families. He was interested in their families. ²⁵¹

Q. Since you were very often in contact with him in those days, are you familiar with the political views of Mr. Jokic in late 1980s and early 1990s?

A. Yes. He was always of a Yugoslav orientation. He was always opposed to any improper behaviour. He was always for full equality of all nations and ethnic groups. That was his main point, what he really believed in. He never expressed any nationalist views.

Q. In the 1990s, there was the one-party system in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia at the time. Could you please tell us what this party was and were you, as officers, members of this party?

A. Yes, that was the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. And all of us officers in the Yugoslav People's Army, as of 1969, were in fact forced to become members of that party.

Q. Were you present at a congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in late 1990 in a delegation together with Mr. Jokic?

A. Yes. Although I was never involved in politics, I always held command posts. At that time, I was elected by my sector at the time, which was in Pula, to act as a delegate at the well-known 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, where I met Mr. Jokic.

Q. Why is it 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia important?

A. Well, at the 14th Congress, Yugoslavia began to break up. And in fact, the League of Communists stopped functioning after the 14th Congress.

Q. Since the Yugoslav crisis in the party was the topic of the ²⁵² congress, what was the official standpoint of the JNA as regards the resolution of the conflict?

A. The official standpoint to have JNA was that Yugoslavia should be preserved.

Q. How was the standpoint reflected in the course of the 14th Congress?

A. It turned out that the standpoint was not in fact correct because members of the delegation of the JNA voted the same way as the delegates of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. And what was the stand that you and Mr. Jokic supported and how did you vote at the 14th Congress?

A. We, as the only delegates from the delegation of the Yugoslav People's Army, voted differently from all the others. First of all, we voted in favour of the lifting of the economic blockade of the Republic of Slovenia, and we also voted in favour of the acceptance of the resolution on the confederal structuring of Yugoslavia. We did that because we saw that this was the only way to find a peaceful resolution for the crisis in Yugoslavia and for possible peaceful parting of ways of the Republics of the Yugoslav Federation, who would perhaps then form their own states.

Q. Does this mean that your stand -- your and Mr. Jokic's stand was opposed to the warmongering policy which was already in the wings at the time?

A. Yes, we were absolutely opposed to any war. We were in favour of a peaceful way to part ways. ²⁵³

Q. Admiral, I would now like to go back to the 9th Naval Sector. Do you know who was the commander of the 9th Naval Sector in 1990 and in 1991, when hostilities had already begun in the area of Dubrovnik?

A. I know that very well. It was late Komodor Krsto Djurovic.

Q. Did you know Komodor Krsto Djurovic, the late Komodor Krsto Djurovic?

A. Yes. We attended the academy at the same time. We knew each other from 1959 and we served in various submarines together for 15 years. We were friends and our families were also on good terms.

Q. Do you know what happened to Mr. Krsto Djurovic, the commander of the 9th Naval Sector in early October 1991; and how did you come to learn that?

A. About this alleged helicopter accident -- the reason why I say "alleged" is because I never believed it was an accident -- I heard about it through the media and also from his relatives.

Q. What did you hear, that Mr. Djurovic had died?

A. Yes, that he died in a helicopter accident.

Q. Did you hear later who was appointed the commander of the 9th Naval Sector a few days after the death of Mr. Djurovic when the operations around Dubrovnik were in full swing already?

A. Yes, I did know about that. I knew that Mr. Miodrag Jokic was appointed to that point again.

Q. As a long-term officer and someone who knew the situation in the navy and one who knew the military sector in Boka and Mr. Jokic, what was your reaction when you heard that Vice-Admiral Jokic had taken over the ²⁵⁴ duties -- had yet again taken over the duties of the 9th VPS, the 9th Naval District?

A. I was really surprised for a number of reasons. First of all, as a commander of the VPS for many years, when he left that duty, he could have expected a position of far greater responsibility in the JNA. In my opinion, he was fit for a greater -- a more important position. I think that this was a means of demoting him. And when I asked myself why he had been appointed, I came to the conclusion that in fact they didn't have a more experienced high-ranking officer, since the commander who took those duties at that time was going to have an enormous and very responsible task. He was going to have to receive all the units and the equipment and institutions of the VPS at the time. That means the Pula naval sector, the Sibenik naval sector, the fleet, Vis, Lastovo and Losinj, which were naval strongholds; the academy, the hydrographic institute, et cetera. There were other institutions as well, enormous amounts of equipment, of ammunition and other technical means, not to mention the men and the families from all of those sectors. And Mr. Jokic had to provide these men and these families, had to make it possible for them to live a normal life, as they say.

Q. Could you please explain to the Judges what happened to the 5th Naval Sector and the 8th in autumn 1991. Why was the commander of the 9th VPS appointed these duties, apart from having other duties?

A. Well, first of all, let me explain what happened. In September, all those units were already getting prepared to leave the peacetime locations because of pressure from the outside, and especially in the ²⁵⁵ case of Istria, which is an area I know well, they wanted to avoid fighting there. And

Mr. Jokic, as commander of the 9th VPS, of the Boka VPS, which is where all those units and all that equipment were directed to, he was not just the commander, he was also a commander of that garrison and he was responsible for taking in these men, for deploying those units and for providing them with accommodation.

Q. Given that you have known Mr. Jokic for many years, can you tell us whether you know what Admiral Jokic's family situation is.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is Mr. Jokic married and does he have any children?

A. Mr. Jokic is married. He has two daughters. The names are Sanja and Tanja. All I can say that -- is that he always behaved in an exemplary manner as a father. He took care of his family. He brought them up very well. But I would say that he was always worried about the health of his youngest daughter above all, his younger -- youngest daughter was called Tanja.

MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further questions.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Nikolic. Ms. Somers, is there any ...?

MS. SOMERS: Just one question, if I may.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed. Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:

Q. Good afternoon, Admiral. How are you? Mr. Pogacnik, can you I ²⁵⁶ understand if you've had prior meetings with the Office of the Prosecutor, prior meetings And I'll turn your attention back to, let's say, June of 2002. If you could indicate that, please.

A. Yes. I had contact in July of that year. I saw Ms. Somers in Ljubljana and Mr. Wiley.

Q. Would that be Mr. Wiley? Is that the name you're referring to, Wiley?

A. Wiley. I apologise.

Q. And at that time, did you also indicate that based on your experience and knowledge you would be equally agreeable to rendering any assistance necessary to the Office of the Prosecutor if it were needed?

A. Yes, that's correct.

MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Somers.

[Trial Chamber confers] Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pogacnik, I would have one question for you, that's the following: You told us about how you and Mr. Jokic voted at the 14th Congress of the Communist League. Were these votes public votes? Would you give your votes aloud or were these secret votes? Could you explain how the -- briefly how the voting procedure was.

A. This was a public vote. Every delegate received green and red card, and when it was time to vote the green card meant that the proposal was being accepted and the red one meant that it was being rejected. This was all very visible, especially in the part where the delegates in ²⁵⁷ uniform were sitting.

Now, we were immediately criticised afterwards on the spot, because we hadn't conducted ourselves in a disciplined manner, in accordance with what our representative in the Presidency of the Congress had expressed. It's because we had shown a card which was not identical to one that he had used. That's what the situation was.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer, Mr. Pogacnik. This, then, concludes your evidence in this sentencing hearing. I'd like to thank you for having come a -- from a long distance and having answered the questions of both the parties and the Bench. Mr. Usher, would you please escort the witness out of the courtroom.

You are excused, Mr. Pogacnik.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE ORIE: I would like to first raise one procedural issue before we would turn into private session in order to discuss the provisional release issue.

Ms. Somers, I noted that the Chamber has been provided with the statements of persons, for example, you referred to Mr. Ivic, who told us about Pave Urban. These statements are mainly redacted. Could you give us some clarification, first of all, on whether the Defence is aware of how they were redacted and also what is the specific reason for this redaction. Could you please address that matter.

MS. SOMERS: Yes. Yes, of course, Your Honour. These statements ²⁵⁸ were in fact redacted with the express consent and at the request of the Defence. The statements are broader than issues that would concern this particular second amended indictment, and in the interests of justice, we wanted to narrow and focus them. Accordingly, all redaction was done literally sitting with the Defence and with their full -- with mutual agreement.

JUDGE ORIE: So it is that the other parts may have been relevant for other cases but it's mainly on the basis of relevance that you took out parts of it.

I take it, since no one jumps up, that Ms. Somers has -- has expressed what is the view of the Defence? Yes.

Having said that, I would like to turn into private session. And for the audience, I already indicate that once private session will be finished, we'll have a break for approximately 1 hour, and we'd like to resume, then, at 2.00, I think, but we first will deal with the issue of provisional release during a private session.

(Private session)

(8 lines redacted) ²⁵⁹

(23 lines redacted)

(Open session)

JUDGE ORIE: This is the moment I think that the Defence could ²⁶⁰ call its second witness. The second witness would be ...?

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] The second witness, Your Honours, is Mr. Miroslav Stefanovic.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Mr. Stefanovic, I take it? Mr. Stefanovic, before giving evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text of this declaration will be handed out to you by the usher. And may I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated, Mr. Stefanovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: The Defence has called you as a witness, and you'll be examined by Mr. Nikolic, Defence counsel for Mr. Jokic. Please proceed, Mr. Nikolic.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: MIROSLAV STEFANOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Nikolic:

Q. [Interpretation] My name is Zarko Nikolic. I'm the Defence counsel for Admiral Jokic, and I will be examining you for about 20 ²⁶¹ minutes. We have heard your name, but for the record I would like you to state your full name.

A. My name is Miroslav Stefanovic.

Q. Where were you born, Mr. Stefanovic?

A. I was born in Lige [phoen] in Serbia.

Q. When was that?

A. In 1947.

Q. Can you please tell us about your education.

A. I graduated from the faculty of architecture in Belgrade.

Q. That means that you are an architect, you have a degree in architecture.

A. Yes.

JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, both you, Mr. Nikolic, and you, Mr. Stefanovic, since you're speaking the same language, if you do not make a small pause between question and answer, the interpreters will not be able to follow it and we might not hear your testimony, Mr. Stefanovic. So would you please keep that in mind. Please proceed.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will make sure that I keep it in mind.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So will I, Your Honours.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you please tell us, what did you do in your profession?

A. I mostly did designs of buildings and also construction of buildings, but also some infrastructure. I mean, interior design of ²⁶² buildings and also some really serious projects of infrastructure. This is mostly what I did.

Q. In your work so far, have you received any awards?

A. Yes. I received several awards at public competitions in architecture and also some other awards in my profession. So I can in fact perhaps boast a bit and state that I was quite successful in my work.

Q. Can you please tell us, what is it that you do today? Where do you work? And what kind of work do you do?

A. I own a company that deals with engineering and design, which is named Kolubara, and it also has in its possession several other companies which also deal with designs, architectural design and construction work. I have a full-time job in the Assembly of the State Commonwealth of Serbia and Montenegro, but I still deal with architecture, and this is indeed my plan; I intend to do work in architecture until -- for the rest of my life.

Q. From your previous answer, it -- one could conclude that you are an active -- you have an active role in politics and in society.

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of a political party? And if yes, which one?

A. I am the founding member of a party which was called New Democracy until March this year, and now it is called Liberals of Serbia.

Q. Can you tell us, when was -- when was New Democracy founded?

A. In 1990.

Q. Please tell us, when was the multi-party system introduced in ²⁶³ Serbia?

A. It began officially in 1990, when parties were allowed to be registered. But to a certain extent we did have some attempts to launch the multiparty system as early as in 1989.

Q. Apparently you got really interested in that process. You said that you were one of the founders of the New Democracy Party. Could you please tell us, what were the ideas and the platform of New Democracy?

A. I will try to be brief. I will just state two or three basic goals in our platform. First of all, it was a pronounced pro-European orientation of our party; we still abide by it. The second part has to do with the economy. Our approach is very liberal, emphasising the role of the market economy. And the third aspect, which is equally important, is human rights.

Q. Very briefly, who were the members of New Democracy?

A. Who were or who are members?

Q. Well, who are members?

A. Well, the founders of New Democracy had two wings: The first was the Social Democratic Union of Youths, which in 1990 split from the Socialist Youth union - that was the reformist wing of the youth movement in Serbia. And the second part consisted of the rest of us, who were a bit older at the time. We wanted to achieve change, and we had some movements for cities, as we called them at that time, that propounded ideas that I just discussed with you. And together with those young people, we set up this party.

First of all, the current Minister of Interior was there. He was ²⁶⁴ the president at the time. Myself, a large number of people who are still members of the Liberals of Serbia party, but also a large number of people joined us later on.

In 1992, then, that was when Mr. Jokic joined us officially. I say officially because there had been unofficial contacts between us before that.

Q. The point of my question was to indicate whether people who were members of New Democracy had a democratic bent.

A. Even more than that. Not only did they have a democratic bent, they also had a liberal bent. I have to stress once again the three segments: Pro-European orientation, our main goal being for us to become members, full members of the European Union, which is our final political goal in that respect; then also the economy which would be the same as the economy that exists in European Union, with the same conditions that exist there; and I also want to stress that right from the beginning we always paid a great deal of attention to human rights and the respect for human rights in Serbia and in the wider region.

Q. As a representative of New Democracy, you were an assembly -- a deputy in the Federal Assembly.

A. In 1990, at the first free election -- well, conditionally speaking, free elections, as free as they could be at the time -- I was elected as a deputy in the Federal Assembly. In 1996, I was re-elected. In 1998, Mr. Milosevic -- in fact, it was in 1990, after the war, Milosevic took away my mandate because he forced the results. And then in the well-known September elections in 2000, when Milosevic's regime ²⁶⁵ was toppled, I was re-elected a deputy. And this spring, when the Commonwealth of Serbia and Montenegro was set up, I was again elected as a deputy in the Assembly of the Commonwealth, and this is where I still am.

Q. Do you know Admiral Jokic?

A. I know Admiral Jokic.

Q. Since when have you known him?

A. I have known him for a long time by sight only, but as for any closer contact and cooperation with him, that began in 1992, when he became officially a member of New Democracy Party.

Q. So Admiral Jokic was a member of New Democracy Party.

A. Yes, he was, and he was quite an active member of the party.

Q. You said that Admiral Jokic was an active member of the party. Do you mean by that that he took part in the drafting and implementation of certain programmes of the party?

A. Yes, I do. That's what I mean. And I can tell you what is it that Admiral Jokic had taken such an active part in. Admiral Jokic was the chairman of our board for defence and security. The board dealt with the issues that are self-evident from its name. And Admiral Jokic was one of the persons that -- in fact, he was perhaps the main propounder of the idea that our country should immediately, after the Partnership for Peace programme was set up, to join this programme and later on that it should join NATO. I believe that he really did a lot of work on that, trying to achieve that as the chairman of the board, and we discussed this issue at length. This would then be part of his activity. I ²⁶⁶ believe that this was the most important part. And I hope that we will see it realised, at least as far as the Partnership for Peace programme is concerned, and I hope that we will not have to wait long until we join NATO. That was the first part.

The second part concerned the reform of the military, which also was linked with the joining of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, of Partnership for Peace and NATO, and also the reform of the police force. We all know what it was like in Milosevic's time. Admiral Jokic had quite radical ideas about the reform, both of the military and of the police force. According to me they were quite positive, and it would have been quite nice had these reforms been put into place, the reforms that Admiral Jokic and his group from the New Democracy had put forward. And I believe that had this happened, I believe that our country would have fared much better, our poor country.

Q. This initiative by the New Democracy Party, the Partnership for Peace programme, is it the consequence -- direct consequence of the Dayton Peace Accords?

A. I wouldn't say so. The official request was submitted immediately after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, but the discussions and talks that I mentioned earlier began immediately after the setting up of the Partnership for Peace. I believe it was in 1993 or 1994. So I wouldn't really make much of the connection between the Dayton Peace Accords and this initiative, although the Dayton Peace Accords gave us some kind of a hope that things would improve that it would be easier to achieve things. ²⁶⁷

Q. This initiative of yours to join the Partnership for Peace programme, did you want to push it through the Federal Assembly?

A. Yes. I submitted a draft decision on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia joining the Partnership for Peace programme. It was on the 9th of January. And I have to state that I did write this text myself but it was done after lengthy discussions with Admiral Jokic and the board that he chaired. I think that the person behind the ideas expressed in this text is Admiral Jokic.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask that the draft decision be placed on the ELMO. I have copies of the original in B/C/S and of the English translation for the Bench and the registry and the Prosecution, and I would like to ask the registrar to give a number to this document.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, could you please assist Mr. Nikolic.

Madam Registrar, I do not know whether specific numbers will be given for sentencing purposes, but ...

THE REGISTRAR: It is possible, Your Honour, to give them a number for the sentencing hearing.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think since we received also some photographs that finally numbers related to the sentencing hearing will be appropriately given to these documents.

Yes, you may distribute.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I would just like you to have a look at the document and tell us ²⁶⁸ whether this is the draft decision that you spoke about a minute ago.

A. Yes, it is; that's the draft decision that I mentioned.

Q. The following question about this document, about this draft decision is: Can you briefly tell us whether this decision contained clear arguments as to why such a decision was essential for the state. Why it was essential to adopt such a decision?

A. If you look at the situation from our present situation, from this perspective, I think that this text, the first and second paragraph in this text, shows that it's very clear that at the time we realised that if we failed to change something in our state and in our policies, if we failed to change our way of thinking, the result would be certain terrible things, which unfortunately happened.

Could I read out the first two paragraphs?

Q. Yes, briefly.

A. "Our country and our people are at an important crossroads today. The selection -- the path that we select will determine our destiny for a very long period of time. It is now the right and unique moment to select a path that over the course of several decades will bring us to a state of welfare and not some new and perhaps even worse war. That, above all, requires a decision as to with whom we will proceed and as to where we will go and as to who our partners will be and who we will have mutual interests with."

Q. Since we have given this document to the Trial Chamber and to the Prosecution, they will be able to read through the entire draft decision. Just one more thing about this document: Can you tell us, what ²⁶⁹ happened to the draft decision in the Federal Assembly?

A. Unfortunately, the -- it's just like to say a few things about certain constitutional matters before I address that issue, some matters that are very important. A deputy had the right to suggest a law or a decision - a decision is more or less the same thing as a law - and in a certain period of time, a fairly short period of time probably, because I requested that this be dealt with as a matter of urgency, it was necessary to forward this to a chamber and the deputies had to discuss the decision.

This draft decision, regardless of the fact that, as I said, it was a constitutional duty, never -- was never received by the Chamber, in spite of the fact that I and my party insisted on this happening. So by the 5th of October, 2000 it didn't -- it wasn't submitted to the chamber of the Yugoslav parliament.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Microphone not activated]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you - and if you did - did you present this draft decision for the Partnership for Peace to the public at large?

A. Yes, my party did this. It was done on several occasions through public discussions, but there were also some discussions about this in the media. We attempted to inform the public of this in the greatest possible detail.

Q. At these discussions, when this decision was presented, did Admiral Jokic participate in these discussions? ²⁷⁰

A. He didn't just participate in these discussions. He was one of the main speakers and interpreters of this draft decision. He spoke about its importance, its meaning, et cetera.

Q. Could you single out a panel discussion in particular?

A. Well, I don't know how many of them there were exactly. The Admiral, Admiral Jokic probably knows. There were many of them in Serbia. But I would single out one that took place in February. I think it was the 27th of February, 1996, in the Belgrade Sava Centre, and a large number of ambassadors and military representatives from embassies participated in it, especially from the European Union countries and member states of the Partnership for Peace and members of the NATO pact. There were quite a lot of non-government organisation representatives. I think there were perhaps even over 50 participants in those discussions. I also remember that there was -- that the American and British ambassadors were present, as well as the Italian ambassador, the OSCE ambassador. But a lot of time has passed; I can't remember all of them. But there is a list of all the participants.

Q. Thank you. In connection with this matter, would I be wrong to say that all the democratic forces in the world correctly understood the initiative of New Democracy, but the government in power at the time was not interested in such a democratic procedure at that time?

A. Mr. Nikolic, you are correct. This was supported not only by the democratic forces in the country and in the world and by all people of goodwill, but as the government in Serbia and Yugoslavia didn't have any understanding for many other things, it didn't have any understanding for ²⁷¹ this matter either. Three years prior to this we had this terrible war, and unfortunately we were -- I think it was in 1999.

Q. This initiative from the 1990s, did it become something that was discussed again?

A. Yes, it did, immediately after the 5th of October, when Milosevic fell from power. We participated in this activity too, but there is a new proposal that we have submitted now. I think that part of our work that concerns the Partnership for Peace is something that we have completed in 1996, so we suggested that the Assembly should take a decision about entering NATO. That proposal didn't -- wasn't discussed by the Assembly either because at that Assembly we had the Socialist People's Party of Montenegro, which was a partner of the government. Such were the circumstances. It was a partner at the federal level, and they didn't allow this to go forward. For a certain period of time it was one of -- it was Mr. Milosevic's partner and they probably thought about things in the same manner.

But in the meantime, when the joint state of Serbia and Montenegro was formed, the relationship of force between those two states was changed and the decision was proposed on joining the Partnership for Peace. I think this will be discussed in the future. Mr. Gobas [phoen], when he was in Montenegro, said that we would be received into this Partnership for Peace in May, when there was a meeting of the Partnership for Peace in Istanbul.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we just show the witness this -- could this document be placed on the ELMO. I have a copy for the ²⁷² Trial Chamber and for the Prosecution and for the registry.

JUDGE ORIE: Would you please assist Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Usher.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could you please answer briefly by saying yes or no. The text that you have before you, does it show that joining the Partnership for Peace is one of the priorities of the democratic powers right now?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. We have also mentioned the year 1996. Was there anything that was characteristic of this year, anything important that happened in that year too?

A. As far as I can remember, yes. That was the year in which elections for the Federal Assembly were held, as I have already said, and there were also the local elections for the assemblies of towns and municipalities. The Serbian Liberals -- or at the time, the New Democracy Party -- participated in those elections on its own, independently, not with any other groups. On one side you had the SBS and the JUL. After the elections, Slobodan Milosevic's regime falsified the results, and this resulted in large-scale demonstrations throughout Serbia, which finally resulted in the Council of European intervening. As far as I can remember, the former Spanish President appeared, Mr. Gonzales, I think, from the European Union or the European Council. And there were discussions according to which the real results should be accepted and at the time the opposition took over most of the towns in Serbia and we participated in some of -- in the government of some of the towns. The demonstrations were very important at that time. ²⁷³

Q. Do you have any direct information as to whether Admiral Jokic participated in those demonstrations?

A. Yes. Because at the time, Mr. Jokic became a little angry with us because, as I said, we participated in the elections on an independent basis and as a party we did not participate in those demonstrations because at the time we were in a coalition with the SPS, on the one side, and the republican government. But on the other side we participated on an independent basis in the elections, and this didn't cause us significant damage. Not many of our votes were stolen from us. And Admiral Jokic and other groups thought that we should participate in that as a party.

We did condemn the falsification of the results, but we didn't take active participation in the demonstrations. But we did tell our members that they could participate in the demonstrations if they wanted to, and

Mr. Jokic participated on a daily basis, as far as I know. But I would see him at these protest marches, as we called them, at the time.

Q. Thank you. You said that in September 2000 you became a federal deputy again, a deputy in the Federal Assembly. And with regard to this matter, do you know when the law on cooperation with The Hague Tribunal was adopted?

A. I know that this -- passing this law caused a lot of trouble. It was adopted about -- in April 2002, about that time. The main problem, with regard to this law, was caused by one of our partners in the elections in 2000. It was Mr. Kostunica who caused the problems. He ²⁷⁴ didn't want to vote for that law. And a more serious problem was that the party I have already mentioned, the Montenegro Party, the Socialist National Party, didn't want to vote for it; this was Mr. Bulatovic's party. So this law was just barely adopted in 2002, around April 2002.

Q. When did you find out that an indictment had been issued by The Hague Tribunal against Admiral Jokic?

A. I don't know the exact date. It was late autumn 2001. So it was sometime before the law was adopted.

Q. Witness, it was 2001; October or November?

A. I don't want to lie, but I can't remember the exact date.

Q. But at the time the law had not yet been adopted.

A. No, it hadn't.

Q. Thank you. Do you know whether Mr. Jokic's decision to surrender was taken on a voluntary basis?

A. Yes. Yes, he decided to surrender on a voluntary basis. He alone took this decision. And I know this for certain.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Stefanovic. I have no further questions.

A. Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. Are there any questions by the Prosecution for this witness?

MS. SOMERS: If I may ask just for one point of clarification which wasn't terribly evident. Perhaps it was just a -- a question of getting a date.

Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Stefanovic, when in 1992, the month in 1992, ²⁷⁵ when the Admiral became part of your party?

A. Unfortunately, no.

Q. Can you tell --

A. But there are documents that show when this took place, documents that my party has. So it wouldn't be difficult to find out.

Q. Perhaps you can then just help me understand. Were there very many other high-ranking members or former members - depending on the month - of the JNA who were attracted to your party?

A. There were two other high-ranking officers who entered the party, who joined the party, but that was a little later.

Allow me to clarify something. In 1992, it was terrible -- in 2002, it was a terrible year for the opposition. We were an opposition party, and under the pressure of Slobodan Milosevic's regime. I want to emphasise this fact. Mr. Negovanovic and Dobrivojevic also joined. Those were the high-ranking officers who were also members and are still members of the Serbian Liberals. They were in the party too.

Q. If I understand you correctly, then, it was a relatively uncommon event for persons from the JNA to join your party. You were not speaking of vast numbers of former high-ranking JNA officers. So it's somewhat unusual to have this kind of membership in a very democratically oriented party; is that a fair statement?

A. Yes, it was more than just a matter of personal courage if one was a member of a party which was pro-European, which was in favour of liberal economic policies and in favour of human rights. And in 1992, at that time, to become an active member of such a party, especially for ²⁷⁶ high-ranking officers for the former JNA that, showed great personal courage in my opinion, and we were very content to see Mr. Jokic join us at the time. And he also accepted to be president of the committee and he represented us in public.

Q. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Stefanovic.

MS. SOMERS: No further questions.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stefanovic, I would have one perhaps additional question to you perhaps related to the last question of Ms. Somers. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE ORIE: You told us that you do not exactly remember in what month in 1992 Mr. Jokic joined your movement or party. Do you remember whether he joined as still an active member of the armed forces or whether he was already out of function at that time? I mean, did you receive an active member of the forces or someone who had involuntarily retired?

A. I really cannot remember whether he was an active-duty serviceman at that time. But I do know that he did retire involuntarily; perhaps one could even say that he was punished.

Had I known that you would be asking me such questions, I would have brought Mr. Jokic's admission certificate. But it shouldn't be a problem. This document could be submitted to the Court if it's necessary at a later date.

JUDGE ORIE: "Necessary" is perhaps a big word. But if the parties could agree that there's any document which establishes the date ²⁷⁷ of -- of membership, if there's any document. Of course, it -- it could be of some importance for the interpretation of the facts, because it might not be exactly the same whether you joined the party after involuntary retirement or -- I mean, causal relationships might go in different ways. I'm not saying that you could adduce that from those documents, but perhaps you could exclude some certain causal relationships by having dates.

Could the parties agree on providing the Chamber with a document which would establish that date?

Ms. Somers.

MS. SOMERS: Absolutely, if it's convenient for the other side.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So then it's -- the Chamber would then accept such a document, even if provided after this sentencing hearing. And I take it that if that document, of which of course we might not even know what it looks like -- if there would be any comment to be given on, I would say that both parties can write down their comments on the document. For example, if it say that is it was in 1957, it certainly must be a mistake; so whatever comment. And the Chamber would like not to receive that document and any additional comment until both parties have showed to each other what comment they would like to make on that document. Is that clear enough as guidance?

MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Stefanovic, this concludes your evidence in this court. I'd like to thank you for having answered all questions, questions of the ²⁷⁸ parties, also the questions of the Bench. I'd like to thank you for having come that far way to The Hague. You're excused. Mr. Usher, you could escort Mr. Stefanovic out of the courtroom.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and goodbye.

[The witness withdrew]

[Trial Chamber confers]

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nikolic, the Chamber apologises for conferring for a short while.

Did I understand well that this would be the moment where Mr. Jokic would like to make a statement, which would be an unsworn statement although under the control of the Chamber? And I take it that you have explained to Mr. Jokic that it's up for the Chamber to assess whether this statement would have any probative value, even if we are talking about sentencing rather than about convictions; nevertheless, the probative value will be assessed by the Chamber. I take it that you've discussed this with Mr. Jokic, and that you, Mr. Jokic, do fully understand what your position is at this moment.

I add to that that no questions can be put by the Prosecution in respect of this statement.

MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is all correct, and I will not be repeating what I have already said. I just wanted to propose at this moment that you give the floor to Admiral Jokic.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I thought it my duty to at least clarify once and forever the procedural situation. ²⁷⁹ Mr. Jokic, you have an opportunity now to make a statement. Please proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, Madam Prosecutor, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you.

Two years ago, immediately after the indictment was made public, I surrendered to the organs of the Tribunal in order to face the allegations and for the truth to come out. At that time, in my state, there was no legal framework for the cooperation with the Tribunal. None of the officers against whom indictments had been issued had not surrendered, and the public opinion was against such an act. Together with my Defence team and with the minimal assistance provided by the organs of the state and of the military, I thoroughly investigated and examined the allegations in the indictment and my individual and objective responsibility. I was aware of my command responsibility for the acts of my subordinates in combat and for the failings and mistakes in the exercise of command over troops. At the same time, I felt the need for us as a responsible society to openly and sincerely face the war crimes that have been committed. I believed that it was important to start cooperating with the Tribunal and that despite all the opposition and lack of understanding in the public somebody should definitely start the process of accepting the responsibility of asking forgiveness of the victims and, as the final goal, of achieving reconciliation with the environment. Your Honour, there are two reasons why I'm here today: The first ²⁸⁰ is my personal conviction that as a commander I have a moral and personal obligation to accept responsibility and to ask forgiveness for the acts of my subordinates, even though I did not order them; the second reason is the awareness of the fact that my admission of guilt and repentance and remorse are more important than my personal fate. On the 6th of December, 1991, two people were killed, three people were wounded and substantial damage was caused to civilian structures and to cultural and historical monuments in the old town of Dubrovnik. The fact that these lives were lost in the area for which I was responsible will remain etched in my consciousness for the rest of my life. I am ready to bow before all the victims of this conflict, regardless of the side they were on, with the dignity of a soldier. Furthermore, although I had already done that in the course of the shelling itself over the radio, and afterwards I did it again in person, I feel the obligation to express my deepest sympathy to the families of those who were killed and wounded and the citizens of Dubrovnik for the pain and all the damage that was caused to them by the unit under my command.

I see my regret as a prerequisite for reconciliation and the coexistence of various peoples in this area.

Your Honour, I have been a professional soldier my whole life. As such, I have abided by the officers code trying to serve my profession and my country honourably. That is why I stand here before you, in hope that my act will contribute to the final reconciliation and that it will enable the people in this area to live together and that it will also ²⁸¹ create a possibility for my people not to bear the burden of guilt now and in the future.

Thank you very much, Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jokic. We will continue now with the closing arguments of the parties on sentencing.

Ms. Somers, the Prosecution, the first party to give its views.

MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. I would like to again direct Your Honours' attention to the very important contents of a statement, the second statement, to which we have made reference from September of this past year and strongly recommend that its contents be looked at. I think it will provide insight into events, insight into persons, and I think particularly insight into the thinking, then and now, of Admiral Jokic.

Moving on. It is clear, of course, under the jurisprudence of this Tribunal that the gravity of the offence is the principal consideration in sentencing. We have made it clear that of course the gravity of the consequences of unlawful attack are great in the -- with the resulting deaths and injuries and widespread destruction. We have also tried to do that which is not always easy, which is to assess whether everything that was believed to be correct in the Prosecution's theory was correct, and it has not been necessarily an easy road. Admiral Jokic has made that road clearer. Our job is to get to the truth, and it has been a process of getting to the truth, or at least a much better understanding of what really happened that has perhaps been ²⁸² one of the best by-products of this entire process, which of course is not a happy process for anyone.

The absolute senselessness of the attack on the 6th of December defies comment. It stands by itself. The Admiral has acknowledged the same. There is no justification for it, not from him, really not from anyone who has an understanding of what was to have happened that day really and what happened ultimately.

It is very important to try to look at sentencing practices, in the eyes of the Prosecution, not so much from the objective possibilities of what one could end up with, as it were, but sentencing as a very personalised process. One looks at the entire picture, at the man or the woman who is the centre of the proceeding. It is evident, in our view, that the bare charges would certainly sustain the recommended sentence, and that is of course the understanding that both the Defence and we entered into it. It was at all times made clear that evidence of mitigation would be the centrepiece of this particular hearing and of all evidence to go before the Chamber, as well as the balance that must be struck so that this type of conduct does not happen again and that there is a deterrent value to whatever sentence the Chamber sees fit to pronounce. We recognise that it is a matter which is soundly within the discretion of the Trial Chamber.

It is clear from much of what was heard today that the incidents themselves have and continue to circulate in the Admiral's consciousness and it is likely that they will stay with him until his days are over. It is equally clear that the victims and their families, and particular ²⁸³ through families of the decedents, will have to live with the same consequences with different explanations circulating in their beings. The purpose, again - and this Chamber is well familiar with the jurisprudence of sentencing - would suggest that taking the gravity of the offence, which indeed is present, particularly where he who lets go of a weapon and allows a projectile to fire without knowing exactly who will be hit bears perhaps sometimes a heavier responsibility than a one-to-one face-to-face crime. It's the distance, the sanitisation, that perhaps adds a dimension of horror to the crime.

Having said that, we have heard that at the time the Admiral recognised that it had been done wrongly. Did that make it any better or easier for those persons whose children were killed? No. Does it -- did it help at the time Dubrovnik? No. Did it contribute to anything at the time? No. Except -- it kept the dialogue going because of the responsibility which the Admiral demonstrated for the acts of his subordinates. It is noteworthy that the Croatian counterparts recognised that and deemed his resumption of negotiations as sincere. A very difficult position for both parties, the distress level being at perhaps its apex.

Having said all of this, it is clear that this is perhaps a case of first impression in the Tribunal, as stated earlier, the Admiral is the first and the highest-ranking JNA officer to have entered into a negotiation without really trying to seek any type of "yes, but, yes, but"; he has simply indicated, "Yes. It happened and this is way it happened and I take responsibility for it." ²⁸⁴ The guidance that our jurisprudence offers will rest with this Honourable Panel. We have hoped that bringing in some of the witnesses - and I am not at liberty, of course, to discuss in public session some of the issues that were discussed - but that this bringing in of witnesses has provided a beneficial background and understanding of some of the points that I'm sure were lingering in the minds of all of the Judges. We are hopeful that this may be the first of a number of, shall we say, initiations of recognition of the need to be responsible, and perhaps not so much that the work of the Tribunal will be rendered easier but, rather, that the work of reconciliation, which is the ultimate goal of the Tribunal, will be furthered.

There is little, I think, to comment on that has not been raised. The level of cooperation of the Defence, I would like to bring to the Chamber's attention, it has been, indeed, a difficult time for both sides, and there has been absolute cooperation, in terms of working together to make this particular proceeding run seamlessly. There has been no, we use the term, "stone-walling" by attempts to side-step anything that should have been brought to the Chamber's attention. This is a full, transparent body of what we know about the events and the role of the Admiral in the events. And it has been a long way in coming out. The comment that Mr. Stefanovic made I found very telling. Whether or not the Admiral had retired or whether he was still at the end of his service, association with parties which stand for principles which at the time were not necessarily in the -- the forefront or high on the list of popularity with governments going through wars I think is ²⁸⁵ significant. The comments by the Prosecution's witnesses I think will also indicate that the type of factors, the thinking outside the box, as one would say, was also evident in the course of discussions with the Admiral.

Again, no one can undo the horrific damage done; no one can change the lives of those affected. No one can necessarily make Dubrovnik, the old town, what it was prior to December 6th, and nor can anyone try one try to justify anything that happened. It has been a very complex process to get an open picture of what happened, and I hope we are well on the way to presenting it, as clearly the case is not over in other parts of the Tribunal. But it is very important that those persons from the Croatian side and those persons from the former JNA side make a concerted effort to establish or help us establish the true record, and it can only serve to further the goal of the reconciliation which was so much an issue, particularly in the areas effected and in this indictment. I thank the cooperation of the Chamber's staff. It has been -- the process of the plea agreement generally is not an easy one, and we have -- I'm sure I speak for the Defence -- found a very welcoming assist from staff members, and we appreciate it. And we hope that in the future, should we have further types of negotiations along this vein, we're confident that the fairness of the Chamber and the assistance will continue.

I thank you very much. I'm hopeful that the presentation on behalf of those who lost has been conveyed adequately so that, albeit you didn't have a full trial to look at, that was not the purpose of the ²⁸⁶ exercise; it was so that you could understand the parameters and the depth of what happened. Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Somers. Mr. O'Sullivan.

MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. President. The Trial Chamber has had the opportunity to read the written submissions filed by the parties on the 14th of November.

JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt you for one thing. If there would be at any moment any need to go into private session because you'd like to discuss parts of the evidence presented in closed session this morning, please indicate so and we'll decide.

MR. O'SULLIVAN: I will advise you, yes.

JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. MR. O'SULLIVAN: And today witnesses for the Prosecution and the Defence have appeared before you. We have just heard from the Prosecution and prior to my friend's eloquent speech, Admiral Jokic addressed you. At the conclusion of this hearing, a person of good will can only be struck by the senseless, unjustified, and illegal tragedy which occurred in the old town of Dubrovnik on the 6th of December, 1991, claiming two lives, injuring three others, and causing damage and destruction to the most vulnerable part of the city, known as the "Pearl of the Adriatic."

Your Honour, a person of goodwill seeks the truth and honesty. He attempts to demonstrate integrity, respect for authority, and honour in his dealings with others; he treats others fairly and respectfully. ²⁸⁷ He is prepared to recognise his faults and failings; and in the face of adversity, he will accept the consequences of his actions in a courageous, forthright, and dignified manner. A person of goodwill will ultimately judge others and ask to be judged based on individual conduct and the content of his character.

Admiral Jokic is a man of goodwill and a proud career naval officer whose admission of guilt for the events of the 6th of December, 1991, must be measured against what you have heard about his life, his character, his values, and his personality.

The Chamber now knows much more about the man who pleaded guilty before you in August.

Through the testimony of retired Rear Admiral Pogacnik, you know that Admiral Jokic was a respected naval officer. Both men have known each other professionally and personally for over 20 years. Mr. Pogacnik was the deputy commander to Admiral Jokic in the 9th Naval Sector in the 1980s. Their zone of responsibility in the Adriatic included the Municipality of Dubrovnik. He described Admiral Jokic as a capable and fair commander who was respected and respectful to both superiors and subordinates. Admiral Jokic was considered a successful career naval officer who through hard work earned the respect of his men and who attempted to solve problems as they arose through dialogue. On a more personal level, Mr. Pogacnik knew Admiral Jokic to be a dedicated family man. He never knew Admiral Jokic to be a nationalist, and quite to the contrary, as an officer of JNA Admiral Jokic described himself as a "Yugoslav," not in terms of ethnic or religious identity. ²⁸⁸ The two men sat together at the fateful 14th Congress of the League of Communists - the final congress of the League of Communists - which marked the beginning of the end of Communism, the SFRY, and the JNA. Admiral Jokic favoured a peaceful solution to the political crisis facing his country, and indeed Mr. Pogacnik and Admiral Jokic were the only members of the JNA delegation to vote in favour of the continued confederal order within the SFRY and a peaceful solution to the looming crisis.

The Trial Chamber now knows the circumstances surrounding the assignment of Admiral Jokic to Dubrovnik on the 8th of October, 1991, for on the 5th of October that year, Krsto Djurovic, the commander of the 9th Naval Sector, was killed when his helicopter went down. Admiral Jokic was ordered to replace Djurovic. He never sought the appointment and never asked to return as commander of the 9th Naval Sector. But after the death of Djurovic, Admiral Jokic was the obvious choice, since he had been the chief of staff of the 9th Naval Sector between 1977 and 1980 and the commander of the 9th Naval Sector between 1983 and 1989. Your Honour, on those fateful days in Dubrovnik in December 1991, Admiral Jokic worked closely with Mr. Davorin Rudolph, the Croatian Minister for Maritime Affairs and Minister Of Foreign affairs, who was in Dubrovnik to work on the withdrawal of JNA from Croatian territory. When the delegations headed by Mr. Rudolph and Admiral Jokic met in Cavtat near Dubrovnik on December 5th, they agreed on an immediate cease-fire and on a mechanism to improve the lives of the citizens of Dubrovnik. On the 6th of December at approximately 1400 hours, Mr. Rudolph ²⁸⁹ received the radiogram from Admiral Jokic which contained an apology from Admiral Jokic for the shelling of the old town of Dubrovnik which was taking place on that day. Mr. Rudolph read out the first text of the apology on the radio to the citizens of Dubrovnik.

The following day, December 7th, Mr. Rudolph and his delegation again met in Cavtat, near Dubrovnik, with Admiral Jokic, during which a final agreement and cease-fire was concluded. We say it was no small matter and a reflection of the man's character that Admiral Jokic secured the anchoring rope on Mr. Rudolph's vessel when he arrived in Cavtat. During this meeting with Mr. Rudolph, Admiral Jokic stood and in a visibly sincere manner apologised for the events of the 6th of December. Mr. Rudolph considered Admiral Jokic a willing, sincere, and genuine negotiator. He believed that Admiral Jokic negotiated in good faith and that his apology, his conduct in both face-to-face talks and his gestures during negotiations accurately reflect Admiral Jokic's character and demeanour.

As the Prosecution acknowledges, the radiogram sent by Admiral Jokic to Mr. Rudolph on the 6th of December demonstrates his sincere remorse. In addition, we submit that the conduct of Admiral Jokic between the 5th and the 7th of December, in relation to Mr. Rudolph, should be considered benevolent acts, which were Admiral Jokic's attempt to change and improve the course of events. Admiral Jokic's good faith negotiations with Mr. Rudolph, which resulted in the final agreement and cease-fire, saved lives, misery, and the destruction of property. Since that time, Admiral Jokic has participated in other ²⁹⁰ endeavours and activities which demonstrate his constructive social and political outlook. Mr. Stefanovic, the founding member of New Democracy, testified to these activities. As you heard Mr. Stefanovic say, New Democracy was a European-looking political party, based on liberal democratic platforms of free trade, political institutions, and respect for human rights. And Admiral Jokic was the president of the Board for Defence and Security, a consultant on military issues. He contributed significantly to the initiative for having FRY join Partnership for Peace and worked on proposals for the reform of the military and of the police. And you also heard that, in particular, Admiral Jokic was a public spokesman, an advocate in public forums organised by New Democracy concerning these initiatives.

Although in a private capacity, we say that the participation of Admiral Jokic in street demonstrations in Belgrade in 1996 is significant. Here was the presence of a former senior JNA officer in the streets demonstrating against the regime.

The Trial Chamber is quite familiar with Admiral Jokic's attitude towards this institution. As you know, he has voluntarily surrendered to this Court on the 12th of November, 2001. He was the first officer of the former JNA from Serbia to do so - and this, as you have heard, without the framework of the law on cooperation between the FRY and the ICTY. We say that the surrender of Admiral Jokic reflects his character and personal integrity as a man and as a soldier and his respect for authority and orders of this Tribunal. And through acts of voluntary surrender, Admiral Jokic gained the support and respect of others in ²⁹¹ government.

Your Honours know that while on provisional release, Admiral Jokic's conduct has been exemplary. The commander of the UNDU reports that Admiral Jokic always conducted himself appropriately in full respect for staff and regulations. When Admiral Jokic was granted provisional release to Serbia in February 2002, he remained there, in full conformity of the guidelines imposed by the Trial Chamber. And when Admiral Jokic was allowed to travel to Montenegro to a medical institute for rehabilitation, again he remained in full compliance where the terms and conditions. And most recently, as you know, Admiral Jokic has continued to be in full compliance with his provision release conditions which you granted following his guilty plea in August.

The jurisprudence of this Tribunal recognises that a plea of guilt by an accused has value and merit for the process of international criminal justice. Admiral Jokic's guilty plea and admission of guilt demonstrates his honesty. We say that his acknowledgment of the crimes and personal accountability will continue to rendering justice to victims, deter others, provide a basis for a reconciliation, and it will preclude revisionism. Entering a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of the trial makes a considerable contribution to the public advantage and work of this Tribunal.

The Trial Chamber in the Plavsic case accepted that acknowledgments and full disclosure of crimes are very important when establishing the truth in relation to such crimes and that, together with acceptance of responsibility for these wrongs, it will promote ²⁹² reconciliation among the people in the former Yugoslavia. In particular, the plea of guilt and acknowledgment of responsibility of Admiral Jokic as a high-ranking officer in the former JNA extends to the core mission of this Tribunal, to restore peace and security to the region through accountability and reconciliation.

The sincerity of his conduct and remorse cannot be in doubt. He first expressed it in the radiogram sent to the Croatian minister on the 6th of December, 1991. Admiral Jokic repeated his apology face to face with the minister the following day. And again today, in this courtroom, Admiral Jokic has expressed his regret for the tragic events of the 6th of December, in his hope for a better future.

Mr. President, at this time I would like to go into private session for a brief moment.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. O'Sullivan, before doing so, I'm looking at the clock. We might run out of the tape in the next five to ten minutes. I deprived you already from a break between the argument of the Prosecution, because a break was planned in between, but since we are certainly not behind schedule, if you would prefer to have a break at this moment, fine. If you'd say I'd rather finish now, then I don't know how much time is left, Madam Registrar.

Thirty minutes there? So we could finish. I see that the tapes have become longer.

MR. O'SULLIVAN: We'll finish very soon.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll turn into private session.

(Private session) ²⁹³ Pages 293 redacted, private session

²⁹⁴

(19 lines redacted)

(Open session)

JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again, as far as I can see on my screen.

Please proceed, Mr. O'Sullivan. MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Let me conclude by saying that in addition to reviewing the ²⁹⁵ sentencing briefs filed by the parties, the Chamber has now had the benefit of hearing the evidence presented by the parties at this sentencing hearing. Admiral Jokic pleaded guilty and acknowledged his responsibility for his actions as commander of the JNA 9th Naval Sector for the events that occurred in the old town of Dubrovnik on December 6th, 1991, the unlawful shelling of the old town.

At the conclusion of this hearing, you know about the situation in which Admiral Jokic found himself some 12 years ago in Dubrovnik. You know what he did. You know what he failed to do, and that he did not do enough. And against the acknowledgment of responsibility, there exists substantial mitigation in the case of Admiral Jokic: His admission of guilt; his substantial cooperation with the Prosecutor; his expression of remorse; his voluntary surrender; his conduct while in detention and on provisional release; his advanced age; his conduct at the time of the crimes and after the crimes; his personal and family circumstances; his good character; his acknowledgment of the facts and the consequences of his admission of guilt, which support the Tribunal in achieving its fundamental goals: Establishing the truth, rendering justice to victims, deterring further crimes, restoring peace and security to the region through accountability and reconciliation.

The significance and symbolism of any sentence imposed on Admiral Jokic must be placed in the light of his conduct, positive and negative. It must be seen in regards to its potential impact on the decisions of other accused and unknown perpetrators to come forth and face justice. In the end, Your Honour, we say that any sentence imposed on Admiral ²⁹⁶ Jokic should be less than two years of imprisonment.

Those are my closing remarks.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan. Mr. Jokic, much has been said today. You addressed the Chamber. Is there any other issue you would like to raise at this very moment which will be the last moment to address the Chamber before we'll deliberate?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to briefly address the parties. A sentencing hearing serves to assist the Chamber when the Chamber has to determine sentence. The Chamber feels that the parties have avoided to present stereotypes or stereotypical positions which are not always of great assistance for a Chamber when a Chamber has to determine sentence, but have impressed the Chamber in what seems to be a true effort to give the assistance the Chamber needs.

Before closing this hearing, I would like to go into private session for a very short moment.

(Private session)

(7 lines redacted) ²⁹⁷

(8 lines redacted)

(Open session)

JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there's nothing any more that the parties would like to raise at this very moment. I don't see any reaction, so I take it that's true.

The Chamber will deliberate. The Chamber will deliver a sentencing judgement in due course, presumably not before the recess, the December recess. We stay adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.45 p.m.