Court Told Witness Left Village After Seselj Speech
Hague tribunal hears how Croatian in Serb village of Hrtkovci feared becoming a target.
Court Told Witness Left Village After Seselj Speech
Hague tribunal hears how Croatian in Serb village of Hrtkovci feared becoming a target.
A witness told judges at The Hague tribunal this week that he decided to leave his village after allegedly being named in a speech by Serbian nationalist politician Vojislav Seselj.
The anonymous witness said that he had not himself attended the speech, given on May 6, 1992 in the Serbian village of Hrtkovci. However, he said he heard from those who did attend that his name was on a list of Croats who, according to Seselj, should leave Hrtkovci.
“I was told that Mr Seselj had said that it was better for Croats from Hrtkovci to leave while they still had the opportunity to leave…or [they might have to] leave later with just bare necessities in a small bag,” the witness explained.
“What made you think that Seselj’s speech should be taken seriously?” asked Judge Frederick Harhoff.
“At that time, Mr Seselj was considered to be a prominent political figure in Serbia,” the witness said.
He added that he had heard about the armed wing of Seselj’s Serbian Radical Party, SRS, participating in fighting in Croatia “where executions happened”.
“I consider that the speech, in light of those two facts, does have considerable weight,” the witness said.
Seselj, who represents himself, remains the political leader of the Belgrade-based SRS.
Seselj is charged with nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for atrocities carried out between August 1991 and September 1993 in an effort to expel the non-Serb population from parts of Croatia and Bosnia. The charges include murder, torture, cruel treatment and forcible transfer.
According to the indictment, “a number of Croat residents” decided to leave Hrtkovci after the May 6 speech. The indictment alleges that after the speech, Seselj’s supporters and members of the SRS “began a campaign of ethnic cleansing directed at non-Serbs” in the village.
In addition, the indictment states that “homes of Croats were looted and occupied by Serbs” and Serbs displaced from other parts of the former Yugoslavia began occupying the homes of non-Serb residents.
The witness said that while there were never any “direct threats” against him, he had heard about the crimes committed in the Croatian town of Vukovar in November 1991, when nearly 300 Croats were executed by Serb forces.
“Such warnings could not be ignored,” he told judges. “I believed that in view of my ethnicity, I could be a target and so could my family, and that it was wise to take steps to remove that threat.”
He said that Seselj was a very popular politician during that time, and that he had seen “on TV or read somewhere” that Seselj stated that if Serbs were expelled from Croatia, then the same number of Croats should be expelled from Serbia.
“The term used was ‘humane resettlement of the population’,” the witness said. “There is no need for us to make comments on how resettlement can be humane.”
The witness said that as a result of the May 6 speech and its implications, he began arranging a property swap with “some unfortunate person” in Croatia. He said that he left Hrtkovci at the end of June 1992.
Since the witness was testifying for the court, the prosecution and Seselj himself only asked questions when the judges had completed their examination.
When it was her turn, prosecutor Lisa Biersay asked the witness about the arrival of armed Serb refugees in Hrtkovci.
“They started coming in individually and in smaller groups,” the witness said. “Armed men of intimidating demeanour started arriving in Hrtkovci even before the [May 6] speech, and after the speech they started coming in large numbers.”
Seselj grilled the witness on this point, asking where the men carried their guns.
“I saw pistols carried in a belt,” the witness said.
“That is not a threatening way to carry a pistol,” Seselj answered. “I often wear a gun when I’m not in jail but I always conceal it under my suit jacket.”
He then turned to the prosecution assertion that Serbs took over Croat homes.
“When you have disasters such as earthquakes or fires…is it not the case that houses not affected take in those whose houses have been destroyed?” Seselj asked.
“Yes, it’s normal for the authorities and citizens to do that,” the witness said.
Seselj insisted that his statements about Croats having to leave Serbia were only meant to be a “promise” about what would happen if his political party came to power, and he read aloud from sections of a related speech.
“Isn’t it clear that … I am not moving into action to put this into force before we come to power?” Seselj asked.
“Yes,” the witness responded.
Seselj then began a lengthy monologue on the concept of retorsion—or retaliation between states.
“You are giving an international law lecture to the entire courtroom,” Judge Flavia Lattanzi interjected.
“You have shown that you know me best,” Seselj said. “I am not lecturing anyone.”
He then tried to admit a large number of documents into evidence that had not been translated from Serbian into English.
“This is an ambush and Seselj is a master at it,” Biersay contended.
“I am the greatest master at The Hague tribunal, and the prosecution has been aware of that,” Seselj said. “That’s why they can’t get the upper hand with me.”
Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
The anonymous witness said that he had not himself attended the speech, given on May 6, 1992 in the Serbian village of Hrtkovci. However, he said he heard from those who did attend that his name was on a list of Croats who, according to Seselj, should leave Hrtkovci.
“I was told that Mr Seselj had said that it was better for Croats from Hrtkovci to leave while they still had the opportunity to leave…or [they might have to] leave later with just bare necessities in a small bag,” the witness explained.
“What made you think that Seselj’s speech should be taken seriously?” asked Judge Frederick Harhoff.
“At that time, Mr Seselj was considered to be a prominent political figure in Serbia,” the witness said.
He added that he had heard about the armed wing of Seselj’s Serbian Radical Party, SRS, participating in fighting in Croatia “where executions happened”.
“I consider that the speech, in light of those two facts, does have considerable weight,” the witness said.
Seselj, who represents himself, remains the political leader of the Belgrade-based SRS.
Seselj is charged with nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for atrocities carried out between August 1991 and September 1993 in an effort to expel the non-Serb population from parts of Croatia and Bosnia. The charges include murder, torture, cruel treatment and forcible transfer.
According to the indictment, “a number of Croat residents” decided to leave Hrtkovci after the May 6 speech. The indictment alleges that after the speech, Seselj’s supporters and members of the SRS “began a campaign of ethnic cleansing directed at non-Serbs” in the village.
In addition, the indictment states that “homes of Croats were looted and occupied by Serbs” and Serbs displaced from other parts of the former Yugoslavia began occupying the homes of non-Serb residents.
The witness said that while there were never any “direct threats” against him, he had heard about the crimes committed in the Croatian town of Vukovar in November 1991, when nearly 300 Croats were executed by Serb forces.
“Such warnings could not be ignored,” he told judges. “I believed that in view of my ethnicity, I could be a target and so could my family, and that it was wise to take steps to remove that threat.”
He said that Seselj was a very popular politician during that time, and that he had seen “on TV or read somewhere” that Seselj stated that if Serbs were expelled from Croatia, then the same number of Croats should be expelled from Serbia.
“The term used was ‘humane resettlement of the population’,” the witness said. “There is no need for us to make comments on how resettlement can be humane.”
The witness said that as a result of the May 6 speech and its implications, he began arranging a property swap with “some unfortunate person” in Croatia. He said that he left Hrtkovci at the end of June 1992.
Since the witness was testifying for the court, the prosecution and Seselj himself only asked questions when the judges had completed their examination.
When it was her turn, prosecutor Lisa Biersay asked the witness about the arrival of armed Serb refugees in Hrtkovci.
“They started coming in individually and in smaller groups,” the witness said. “Armed men of intimidating demeanour started arriving in Hrtkovci even before the [May 6] speech, and after the speech they started coming in large numbers.”
Seselj grilled the witness on this point, asking where the men carried their guns.
“I saw pistols carried in a belt,” the witness said.
“That is not a threatening way to carry a pistol,” Seselj answered. “I often wear a gun when I’m not in jail but I always conceal it under my suit jacket.”
He then turned to the prosecution assertion that Serbs took over Croat homes.
“When you have disasters such as earthquakes or fires…is it not the case that houses not affected take in those whose houses have been destroyed?” Seselj asked.
“Yes, it’s normal for the authorities and citizens to do that,” the witness said.
Seselj insisted that his statements about Croats having to leave Serbia were only meant to be a “promise” about what would happen if his political party came to power, and he read aloud from sections of a related speech.
“Isn’t it clear that … I am not moving into action to put this into force before we come to power?” Seselj asked.
“Yes,” the witness responded.
Seselj then began a lengthy monologue on the concept of retorsion—or retaliation between states.
“You are giving an international law lecture to the entire courtroom,” Judge Flavia Lattanzi interjected.
“You have shown that you know me best,” Seselj said. “I am not lecturing anyone.”
He then tried to admit a large number of documents into evidence that had not been translated from Serbian into English.
“This is an ambush and Seselj is a master at it,” Biersay contended.
“I am the greatest master at The Hague tribunal, and the prosecution has been aware of that,” Seselj said. “That’s why they can’t get the upper hand with me.”
Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
