1 Monday, 6 February 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]
7 Re-examination by Mr. Black [Continued]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, Mr. Black.
9 MR. BLACK: Good morning, Your Honour. I have about ten more
10 minutes of redirect, I believe.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Black.
12 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much.
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Theunens.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. We are back for another week but you won't be there the whole
16 time, of course. Where we left off on Friday we were discussing some
17 documents that related to Skabrnja, do you remember that general topic?
18 A. Yes, Your Honours, I do.
19 Q. I'd like you to look at another document now which is 65 ter
20 number 1266, if this could be brought up on the screen. Mr. Theunens,
21 this is cited at footnote 334 of your report and I would, for the Court
22 officers' information I believe there is a problem on e-court. The
23 easiest way to retrieve this English version is L 0064363. There's just
24 problem in the connection between the translation and the original
1 We are currently seeing the B/C/S version on the monitor. It
2 would be helpful if we could have the English, please.
3 Mr. Theunens, which version do you see on the monitor in front of
4 you? Is that in English or B/C/S?
5 A. I have the English version in front of me, Your Honours.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you. I don't but that may well be my problem. Mr.
7 Theunens, what is this document, please?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Carry on.
9 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Theunens, what is this document?
11 A. Your Honours it says a statement of facts and I believe that we
12 started to discuss this document on Friday already. I don't have the
13 cover page in front of me so I don't know who took this statement. But
14 based on what I wrote in my report it has to be a statement taken by Major
15 Branislav Ristic or Lieutenant commander Simo Rosic about events in
16 Skabrnja, i.e., the alleged crimes that were committed in Skabrnja.
17 Q. And if you could look at the first paragraph of that statement of
18 facts, just tell us specifically the subject of this document, please.
19 A. The author describes or writes that he conducted an interview of a
20 JNA soldier, a private, whose name is Dragan Mitrovic and his duties
21 consisted of driving a BOV which is an armoured combat vehicle. It's
22 actually in -- an armoured personnel carrier. It looks a bit like a van
23 but then on four wheels, no windows, and it's used by the infantry among
24 others. And so Mitrovic, he took part in the combat operations in
25 Skabrnja and he witnessed also the killings of civilians by members of the
1 Territorial Defence and that has to be Territorial Defence of the SAO
2 Krajina and volunteers. And then further on, the author provides the
3 account of the events as they were witnessed by Dragan Mitrovic.
4 Q. Could you just read out or perhaps if it's easier to summarise the
5 last couple of sentences of that paragraph which begin, "As we entered the
7 A. Yes. There it states that when they --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Defence has objection,
10 Your Honour. This question shows us that the Prosecution raises an issue
11 that wasn't part of this expert report. The subject of the expert report
12 was the Territorial Defence and army of the Serbian Krajina, including the
13 relevant documents which pertain either to the armed forces of the SFRY
14 and the JNA or to the Territorial Defence of Krajina. I believe that by
15 putting such questions, the Prosecutor goes beyond the expert report, as
16 does the witness in answering such a question.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black?
18 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honour. This document was cited in the
19 expert report. As the witness just noted, it deals specifically with
20 Territorial Defence units, and the reason I'm going into it now on
21 redirect, Your Honour, is that on cross-examination, Skabrnja was dealt
22 with and the thrust of council's questions were to focus on Croatian armed
23 forces and, I would submit, an attempt to portray this as a regular armed
24 conflict maybe with collateral damage et cetera. So my point on redirect
25 is to go back and deal with Skabrnja in a little bit of detail as was
1 cited and provided in the report to make sure the record is clear on this.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you say this was already -- always part of the
3 expert report.
4 MR. BLACK: That's correct, Your Honour it was cited in footnote
5 334 of the report.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you said it is 65 ter 1226 -- 66.
7 MR. BLACK: 1266, correct, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The objection is overruled. You may
10 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Theunens, if you remember the question, I'd asked you to read
12 or summarise beginning where it says, as we entered the village?
13 A. Indeed, Your Honours. I remember the question. It states that
14 territorials and volunteers and some of them called themselves Chetniks,
15 they brought a group of 20 civilians from a cellar and one of these -- one
16 of them but I don't know whether the "them" refers to the civilians or to
17 the volunteers and TO, had a PAP and a PAP is an acronym for a
18 semi-automatic rifle. And apparently when you look further into the
19 document it's obvious that the "them" refers to one of the civilians. So
20 this civilian with the semi-automatic rifle, he was taken behind the armed
21 personnel carrier and shot. And subsequently an old woman and an old man,
22 they were lined in front of the armed personnel carrier, they had to lie
23 on the ground and then they were shot in the back of their head.
24 Q. And the next paragraph, please, could you just continue?
25 A. There, it's more of the same, so two other -- three men were taken
1 from a house, it's not specified what these men were doing or who they
2 were. They were questioned for a bit and then they were shot. And then
3 the witness, this JNA private who participated in the operations, also
4 stated in the interview that he had heard stories that they - and that --
5 the "they" refers to the volunteers and the TO, members - killed a woman
6 of 19 and an 18-month-old child but he didn't -- he emphasised that he
7 didn't see it himself.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY:: Sorry is that 8 or 18?
9 THE WITNESS: 18, excuse me. Sorry, 8 month, 8 month, I have an
10 8-month-old child.
11 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 And if we could turn to page 2 of this document briefly, please.
13 The next page, if we could look at that, please.
14 Q. There is a paragraph which begins, Mr. Theunens, "I saw
15 territorials steering a group," could you please tell us what's dealt with
16 in that paragraph?
17 A. Yes. This indicates that according to the private, members of the
18 Territorial Defence used local civilians as a human shield, so put them in
19 front of the vehicle in order to facilitate the advance.
20 Then, according to the witness, he says that the chief of the SJB
21 so the Public Security Service which it is actually the police, SAO
22 Krajina Police, Drazic, spoke to a captured civilian and then the witness
23 mentions that he -- according to the information he heard, this civilian
24 was also killed by the territorials or Territorial Defence.
25 MR. BLACK: Your Honour could this document receive a number and
1 be admitted into evidence, please.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence and may it
3 please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 118, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Theunens, I'd now like to ask you to look at Exhibit 107,
8 which was shown to you during the cross-examination.
9 If that could be put on the screen, please.
10 Mr. Theunens, this is -- what you see, of course, is the English
11 translation but of some handwritten notes by Lieutenant Colonel Bogunovic.
12 Do you remember seeing this document in cross-examination?
13 A. Yes, Your Honours. I remember seeing this document.
14 Q. And specifically, if we could scroll down just briefly to the
15 bottom of that first page, Mr. Theunens, you were asked questions about
16 Ustashas and ammunition that had been captured. Do you remember that?
17 A. Yes, Your Honours, I remember that.
18 Q. If we could turn now to page 3 of the English translation,
19 Mr. Theunens, you'll see near the middle of the page it talks about 20
20 November 1991, analysis of the mop-up operation. Do you see that?
21 A. I see that, Your Honours.
22 Q. If we could scroll down just a little bit more on the document,
23 just above where it says page 19, there are a number of bullet points.
24 Could you read the last two bullet points, please, Mr. Theunens?
25 A. It says, "Arsons and looting, less than in some of early
1 operations" and the second of the last bullet says "there were cases of
2 uncivilised killings."
3 Q. If we could turn to the next page of the English translation,
4 please? Under the heading Zoran Lekic, if we could scroll down a bit,
5 Mr. Theunens, could you tell us what's identified in the third bullet
6 point, please?
7 A. The third bullet point says, "Three civilians were transported
8 from the point 16 and killed in" the next word is illegible, and then it
9 says, "Needs to be investigated."
10 Q. And three bullet points down from that there is a bullet point
11 that begins the OB. What is said there?
12 A. There it says, Your Honours, the OB, which is the B/C/S acronym
13 for security organ or security officer should take steps to identify those
14 who committed crimes, robberies, and barbarities.
15 Q. Could we please turn to the next page of the English version?
16 Mr. Theunens, if you look under the heading Lieutenant Tadic, beginning
17 with the second bullet point, could you just look through that list of
18 bullet points and tell me if there is anything of note?
19 A. Yes, there is a reference first to people wearing Chetnik insignia
20 and it also says that they cannot be used for further operations, a Cedo
21 KV he tried to stop the killing but then they, and I assume that the
22 "they" refers to the same people who were wearing the Chetnik insignia
23 wanted to kill him. Then there is also further on a mention of a "he," he
24 kills a man as soon as he sees him. He kills dogs. And then at the end
25 there is a reference that some soldiers in the company started looting.
1 Q. If you could look down at the next group of bullet points after
2 where it says, page 22, there is a bullet point that says "more than 20
3 killed." And what's that in the next bullet point?
4 A. There it says, Your Honours, they were about to kill a woman and a
5 child saying Ustasha bastards.
6 Q. If you could go down slightly further on the page under the 2nd
7 Lieutenant, if you could look at the fifth line about POWs, what does it
8 say there?
9 A. POWs were beaten to death.
10 Q. Just so it's clear, what is POW an abbreviation for?
11 A. POW stands for prisoners of war.
12 Q. If we could look briefly at the next page, please, where it says,
13 2nd Motorised Brigade, what's mentioned in the first bullet point there?
14 A. It says that five to six conscripts, chronic alcoholics, they are
15 a loose cannon and they should be removed.
16 Q. And finally can we look at the next page in the English, please?
17 Mr. Theunens, if you'll look down the page a little bit as we scroll down,
18 under where it says, it 10 December 1991, could you please read out the
19 third and last bullet point?
20 A. The third bullet point, Your Honour, says, in Skabrnja, TO members
21 killed one elderly person each day. And that refers to 10th of December
23 MR. BLACK: That's -- I've finished now with document -- Exhibit
24 107, and the last topic could we see Exhibit 109, please?
25 Q. Mr. Theunens, do you remember seeing this document during your
2 A. I do remember seeing that document, Your Honours.
3 Q. And if we could please scroll down a bit. Thank you.
4 Mr. Theunens, what is addressed in paragraph 3? What's said there?
5 A. Your Honours, this was the report by Lieutenant Ernest Radjen who
6 was a military police officer and he describes the things he saw when he
7 at one moment in time entered Skabrnja. In bullet 3 or point 3 he says
8 that in the yard of a private house he found a man aged around 65,
9 civilian, two women aged around 65, 70, in the cellar of the house, three
10 elderly people and when we look at the beginning of the document these
11 people have all been killed during the operation.
12 Q. And where was this?
13 A. This is in -- this is in Skabrnja, Your Honours.
14 Q. Could we look at the second page, please, of the English
15 translation? Mr. Theunens, I won't ask you of course to read out all the
16 different paragraphs of this document but could you look at paragraphs 5,
17 6, 7, and 8 and tell us what's being addressed in these paragraphs?
18 A. Your Honours, all these paragraphs mention people that have been
19 killed during the operation in Skabrnja and the details who these people
20 are. Most of these people are elderly, at least they are above 50, and it
21 includes both men and women, and in some cases it explains not how the
22 people were killed but Radjen makes an assessment on use of mortars, use
23 of tanks, and provides additional information.
24 Q. Does the document refer to the status of these dead people as
25 being combatants or non-combatants in any way in any of the entries?
1 A. If I remember well, and we can see that, for example, in bullet 9,
2 Radjen makes assessments and he concludes that young men must have been
3 ZNG members, so combatants. Now, for the others he states civilians and
4 if I remember the document well, most of the people killed and described
5 in Radjen's report are civilians.
6 Q. Okay. And we have looked at a few paragraphs. Do other
7 paragraphs in this document contain similar information?
8 A. Indeed, Your Honours, I think from paragraph 1 to 11 it's always
9 the report talks about killed people, most of them civilians, and then at
10 the end, paragraph 12 he Radjen talks about the presence of military
11 equipment in the garage and then further on he talks again about victims,
12 mainly civilians.
13 Q. Could we look at the last page, please? The last paragraph, in
14 fact. What's addressed there, Mr. Theunens?
15 A. Radjen there states that according to his observations, no signs
16 of violence or mutilation were noticed on the bodies except nor one body,
17 where -- of a man who was wearing a ZNG uniform, whose right ear had been
18 cut off.
19 MR. BLACK: Thank you very much, Mr. Theunens. Your Honour, I
20 have no more questions.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Theunens, at page 640, line 25, 25, rather,
25 counsel for the OTP, Mr. Black, asked how being a member of the OTP
1 affected your analysis, either in the analytical process or in the reports
2 you prepare, and you gave the system that you employed. Counsel for the
3 Defence went to the issue of your integrity in the compilation of the
4 report and your conclusions at the end of the day. Having regard to the
5 fact that your brief is from the office of the OTP and your focus is, as
6 contained in their brief, you've been an officer or a member of that
7 department, how did this affect your treatment in -- of your work in
8 compiling the report, in respect of collection, your analysis and your
9 findings in the report or conclusions at the end of the day? And as to
10 how you treated the parties herein.
11 A. Your Honours, it is correct that I'm a member of the OTP. Now,
12 when asked this question by Mr. Black, I explained the intelligence cycle
13 to explain actually in order to make clear how intelligence analysis is
14 being done. And actually, the only steering or the only guidance, if I
15 can explain it like that, is done in the beginning by -- in the direction
16 phase. So I received my tasking for drafting this report from a senior
17 trial attorney who works for the Office of the Prosecutor and that was
18 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and she told me in quite general terms that she wanted
19 to have a report on the military structures in the entity known as the SAO
20 Krajina and later the RSK and the relation between these structures and
21 Milan Martic. Now, with this tasking I first drafted a table of contents
22 of issues I believed or topics I believed that were relevant for that
23 purpose and I showed that to Mr. -- excuse me, to Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff and
24 that must have happened sometime I think before summer 2004 or at the end
25 of summer 2004. I was lucky that I had drafted already the report for the
1 Milosevic case and that much of the background material I could take from
2 the Milosevic case. So that was the direction.
3 Secondly, of course, I went to collect information and it is
4 correct that I only consulted the databases as they are in use in the
5 Office of the Prosecutor. But, of course, the databases and the evidence
6 available to the Office of the Prosecutor covers a very wide area of
7 topics. It's not only evidence against one party because, of course, my
8 colleague, I have a colleague who writes a report about Croatian Operation
9 Storm, for example, he will look for information in the same database. In
10 addition, I was very lucky that I could participate in document search
11 missions in Croatia and there, of course, we have no guarantees that the
12 Croatian authorities who had seized the documentation during the military
13 operations in 1995 kept all the information they seized in the records and
14 gave it to us. It may well be that they have selected certain material
15 from there. That's something we have to accept. But again that was not
16 really a problem because during the collection process, the information
17 that was selected again based on the purpose of the report, it was obvious
18 there was also Rule 68 material that I came across material that addressed
19 crimes committed by other parties. I came also across material that
20 included detailed information on the Croatian military operations between
21 1991 and 1995, and if it was Rule 68 then it was disclosed. If it was
22 information that was, let's say, relevant for a colleague much mine who
23 would draft a report on the Croatian operations I gave it to him.
24 So then I drafted the report, I started my analysis, keeping in
25 mind the tasking. It's not a conflict analysis. It is an analysis of the
1 organisation, role, structure of one party in a conflict as well as the
2 relations between this party and one individual, Milan Martic. I think a
3 first draft was finalised sometimes in fall 2004. That was then sent to
4 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and she only had some comments on the layout and, of
5 course, spelling and issues like that but at no moment in time did I get
6 any guidance from somebody in the Office of the Prosecutor or somewhere
7 else that I had to write that Martic did this or Martic did that. It came
8 from the documents and, I mean, it's up to you of course, Your Honours, to
9 judge the value of the document and to see whether it answers the
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, but I wanted to ask you directly, having
12 regard to cross-examination, would you, in compilation of the report, have
13 exercised prejudice or preference against any party in the compilation of
14 your report?
15 A. I would certainly not exercise prejudice or preference because
16 that would affect the credibility of the report.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Theunens.
18 My next question is: Bearing in mind the constitution and the
19 laws of the defence in relation to the Minister of Interior and the
20 Minister of Defence or those ministries, would there have been a conflict
21 of interest in terms of both of those ministries residing in one person,
22 in the operations concerning the army and warfare? Or in any other way
23 that's material to your report?
24 A. Your Honours, I believe you are referring to the situation that
25 existed in the entity known as the SAO Krajina from early August or even
1 end of July 1991 onwards until the end of 1991. My conclusion is that a
2 distinction needs to be made between the de jure situation, i.e., as it is
3 specified in the law, the laws you have mentioned, as well as the
4 constitution, on one hand, and on the other hand the de facto situation.
5 When we look at the documentation that's available for that time period
6 and more specifically the number of decisions that are being taken by
7 Milan Babic and the number of laws that are being issued, one gets the
8 impression but I admit that is more a political analysis which is not
9 really the subject of my report but, for what it's worth, one gets the
10 impression that the situation is not 100 per cent clear, i.e., that Babic
11 tries to impose his authority and therefore tries to rely on laws and
12 decision, i.e., on de jure measures in order to confirm or impose his
14 There is a section in my report which starts at the bottom of page
15 95, in the English version, which talks about or the title is, "The power
16 struggle between Milan Babic and Milan Martic." I have used that title
17 because from the documents I came across that described the de facto
18 situation, i.e., the situation as it is on the ground basing myself on
19 reports of operations we had on specific orders, there, one sees that
20 there could well be a conflict of interest and that even if Milan Martic
21 was a ministry -- was Minister of Interior, that he also issued orders to
22 the Territorial Defence. And that gives the impression that there is a
23 difference between the de jure and a de facto situation, at least during
24 the latter half of 1991, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Were the Territorial Defence not de jure under the
1 Ministry of Interior?
2 A. Your Honours, the Territorial Defence according to the documents I
3 reviewed, they were part of the SAO Krajina armed forces and they were
4 subordinated to the president of the SAO Krajina. That's the de jure
5 situation. And if I can find the exact reference, this is, for example,
6 discussed on page number 90, where we discussed the decision by the SAO
7 Krajina government on the 1st of August 1991, to adopt a law of defence of
8 the Republic of Serbia, and in that decision, there is also a reference to
9 the armed forces, in Article 6 of that decision. It says that the
10 president of the government of the SAO -- of the Serb autonomous region of
11 Krajina is by his position commander of Territorial Defence, i.e., armed
12 forces of the Serb autonomous region of Krajina. The only question that
13 could be raised but I think that should be raised by the person who took
14 the decision or by a legal expert, is that in the 1st of August 1991
15 decision, there is a difference between the wording of paragraph 5, where
16 the armed forces are defined, and it says it's the armed forces consist of
17 the Territorial Defence and the police, and then in Article 6, when the
18 authority of the president of the government is established, there, it
19 says he's commander of the Territorial Defence, i.e., armed forces. There
20 is no explicit mention made in Article 6 of the 1st of August 1991
21 decision to the police or the forces of the Ministry of Interior.
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: There is just one last question, and that has to
23 do with the international laws of war which you spoke to, touching and
24 concerning the manoeuvres of war and how persons, civilians, property, et
25 cetera, were to be dealt with in the act of warfare or threat of war.
1 What I want to know is this: Can one act outside of the laws of war,
2 lawfully and, if yes, under what circumstances? For example, when can the
3 commander or deputy commander or somebody in charge of a unit of troops go
4 outside of the laws of war? And I'd also like to relate it, for want of a
5 better word, to the foot soldiers on the ground. Could they go outside of
6 the laws of war, international laws of war, properly?
7 A. Your Honours, I'm not aware of any circumstances where people,
8 either soldiers or officers, can go outside of the international laws of
9 war. I remember that there is, of course, a stipulation for protected
10 facilities, that certain facilities have to be protected but then if these
11 facilities are misused by the other party for military purposes then again
12 this is being dealt with by the international laws and customs of war and
13 they say that under those circumstances, a protected facility will lose
14 its protection but it's -- there is a whole range of articles that deal
15 with it. But again, that's why we have international laws of war. It is
16 to cover each eventuality or each situation that can arise during a
17 conflict. So there cannot be any justification for not abiding by these
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And there is no discretion given to a person or
20 an officer confronted with circumstances on the ground that would be
21 permissible for him to act in a manner contrary to international laws of
22 war, then?
23 A. Your Honours, I'm not a legal expert but from my training and
24 education, I have never learned that as an officer, there were
25 circumstances where I would be allowed to judge myself whether I should
1 abide by the laws or not.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: That's what I wanted to know. I'm very grateful
3 to you. Thank you, Mr. Theunens.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Theunens, can I just ask one question? What is
5 the difference between RSK and Republika Srpska?
6 A. Your Honours, these are -- the names used for two Serb -- two
7 different Serb entities that were declared as a result -- or I wouldn't
8 say as a result but during the conflict. RSK refers to the Republic of
9 Serbian Krajina which is a continuation of the SAO of the Serb autonomous
10 district of Krajina. Serb autonomous district of Krajina was declared end
11 of 1990 and also the people who declared that entity decided that or,
12 yeah, decided about the area, the territory that would be covered by this
13 SAO Krajina, territory within the Republic of Croatia. At the end of
14 1991, the decision is adopted to transform the SAO Krajina into an RSK
15 which means that also Serb-declared territories in Western Slavonia and
16 Baranja, Eastern Slavonia would join and that, just if you could call it
17 unification, was formalised in April 1992. So this covers the RSK.
18 On the other hand, Republika Srpska the Bosnian Serbs, I believe
19 it was in the course of end of April 1992 or at least before the 12th of
20 May 1992, they declared their Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and this became later known under the acronym RS
22 Republika Srpska.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Theunens.
24 There was a document, the last document that Mr. Black dealt with
25 in his re-examination. I don't think it was admitted or anything was done
1 to it. Do you want anything done to it, Mr. Black?
2 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I'll be corrected by the Court officer if
3 I'm wrong but I believe that was Exhibit 109 which had already been
4 admitted into evidence.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 MR. BLACK: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions arising from the questions from the
8 Bench? Mr. Black?
9 MR. BLACK: Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no
12 questions. However, I would like Exhibit 711 from the OTP 65 ter list to
13 be tendered as a Defence Exhibit. I don't know if I've done so already.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic. Yes, we
16 sort of had it in mind that we should ask about that.
17 Document Exhibit 65 ter number 711, it will be admitted into
18 evidence as a Defence Exhibit and may be given an exhibit number, please.
19 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 119, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
21 That's it. Thank you very much, Mr. Theunens. Thank you very
22 much. You may stand down and you're excused from further attending court.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black?
1 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, the next witness will be called by my
2 colleague, Ms. Anna Richterova. We'll just switch places with him and
3 then she will proceed.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: Good morning, Your Honours, I haven't introduced
6 myself officially yet. My name is Anna Richterova. I am a new member of
7 the Prosecution team. And I would like to call the next Prosecution
8 witness, Radoslav Maksic.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much Mr. -- Ms. Richterova.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: RADOSLAV MAKSIC
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Maksic.
17 You may proceed, Ms. Richterova.
18 Examination by Ms. Richterova:
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Maksic. Could you please state your full name
20 for the record?
21 A. Radoslav Maksic.
22 Q. With the Court's permission I would like to read the background
23 information which are not I assume in any dispute.
24 You were born on 27 of August 1939 in Grbice, Kragujevac?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You attended military academy, command staff academy, and the
2 national defence school?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In 1981, you were the class head at the military academy?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. From 1985 to 1987, you were the head of the training section in
7 the department for operations and training in the staff of the Belgrade
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Between 1987 and 1988, you held the same position in the
11 operational section of the department for operations and training in the
12 staff of Belgrade?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Between 1989 and 1993, you were the chief of the department for
15 operations and training in the staff of the Belgrade corps?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Maksic, in the second half of 1991, did you receive some other
18 assignment outside of Belgrade?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you tell us, can you tell the Court, what was it?
21 A. In late September 1991, I went to Krajina as chief of the
22 operations department of the Krajina TO staff.
23 Q. May I show the witness the document, 65 ter number is 1233.
24 Do you have this document in front of you on the screen?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. This document is dated 20th of September 1991, and was issued by
2 the Federal Secretariat for National Defence. Can you tell us what this
3 document is about?
4 A. It's not dated the 28th of September but, rather, the 20th of
6 Q. Yeah, it must have been wrongly translated because I stated 20th
7 of September.
8 A. I apologise.
9 Q. Can you please state what this document is about?
10 A. This document states that among others, I am sent over to the
11 Territorial Defence staff of the Serbian autonomous district of Krajina,
12 to the Knin garrison.
13 Q. Can we scroll down a little bit the document? Can you see on this
14 page other people who were assigned to go to the Krajina region?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who was it?
17 A. Colonel Kasum, Dusan, son of Obrad. Colonel Maksic, that's me.
18 Colonel Milos Pupovac.
19 Q. Can we please go to the second page?
20 A. Lieutenant Colonel Aleksandar Vuletic.
21 Q. We can see that there are more names. How many people altogether
22 went to Krajina?
23 A. In this first order, only three persons went pursuant to this
24 first order.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
3 please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 120, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA:
7 Q. Mr. Maksic, before September, when you received the document about
8 your new assignment, did you talk to someone from Krajina regarding this
9 new assignment?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. Who do you speak -- who did you speak?
12 A. In late June or early July, I talked to president of Krajina,
13 Milan Babic, who asked me to come to Krajina in order to organise the TO
14 Defence units of Krajina.
15 Q. What was your initial reaction to this?
16 A. Initially I refused to go. However, subsequently I changed my
17 mind and accepted to go to Krajina.
18 Q. What made you change your mind?
19 A. I was in service in a unit which had 70 or 80 per cent of the
20 Territorial Defence men, and I was known as some kind of an expert for
21 Territorial Defence issues. Therefore, I wanted to help to organise the
22 Territorial Defence of Krajina, which, according to Babic's words, was
23 split and disorganised.
24 Q. When you say it was split, split between what?
25 A. Well, the Territorial Defence was organised via units, squads,
1 platoons, and companies. However, when the 9th Corps was mobilised as
2 well as the police forces, manpower from these units went into those
3 units. Therefore, the Territorial Defence did not exist as an
4 institution. There were only staffs and there were some elderly people
5 who were not fit for military purposes.
6 Q. According to the law, could you be transferred to this position in
7 a different republic?
8 A. In accordance with the then-law, it was possible. However, it was
9 an exception. Commanders of territorial staffs and in the republics and
10 in provinces, in this case we had such a commander in Krajina, all of
11 these people were active-duty officers.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to show the witness 65 ter Exhibit
14 Q. Do you have this document in front of you?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we have the English version of it, please?
16 MS. RICHTEROVA:
17 Q. This decision is dated 30th of September 1991 and it is decision
18 on appointing of Lieutenant Colonel Ilija Djujic to the position of
19 commander of the Serb autonomous region of Krajina Territorial Defence.
20 A. I can just see the preamble, not the text itself.
21 Q. Would you be so kind, please, and scroll down a little bit with
22 the document?
23 Can you see it now?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is it correct that he was appointed to this position?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Do you know the reason why Ilija Djujic was appointed to this
4 A. Ilija Djujic hailed from Knin. He was a general in the former
5 JNA, Lieutenant General. He was quite a prominent person. At that point
6 he was retired and it was believed that he was the one who could do the
7 most in order to organise the Territorial Defence of the SAO Krajina. It
8 was believed so because he knew both the people there and the territory.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
12 please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 121, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you.
16 I would like to show the witness a document, 65 ter 154. Can we
17 scroll down this document a little bit?
18 Q. This document doesn't bear any number. However, as you can see,
19 it states the various positions of people who were supposed to be members
20 of this staff. Can you please read -- do you please agree that the
21 positions as stated in this document, these people really held?
22 A. That's precisely so.
23 Q. And according to this document, you were appointed as the head of
24 the operative educational department?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you -- just briefly stated, what were the tasks of the
2 commander of the staff? The primary tasks?
3 A. Commander was in charge of the staff, or rather the TO units,
4 through the TO staff of Krajina. He also planned combat operations, was
5 in charge of mobilisation, training, logistics, and all other issues which
6 contribute to combat readiness of a unit. He did this via his organs or
7 departments. He also maintained communication with various institutions,
8 such as president of the republic, commander of the 9th Corps, Minister of
9 the Interior, and other organs which had an impact on the preparation and
10 organisation of the Territorial Defence.
11 Q. And you, as the head of the operative educational department, what
12 were your tasks?
13 A. Commander of the unit for operations and training organised,
14 planned, carried out and monitored training, planned combat operations,
15 potential combat operations, and proposed them to the commander.
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
19 please be given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 122, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: Before I start with another document, I think
23 it's the time for a break so we don't stop in the middle of the document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. If it is then convenient to take a break at
25 this stage we will do so. Court will adjourn and we'll come back at
1 quarter to 11. Court adjourned.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Ms. Richterova.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA:
6 Q. Witness, before we start talking about the activities of TO and
7 your role in the staff, I would like you to explain the Judges the
8 structure of TO. When you gave the statement, you also prepared a chart,
9 and I would like -- I would like the usher to show you the chart, and I
10 have copies for the Judges and the Defence. I have to apologise because
11 this chart hasn't been translated yet but it's being translated. We will
12 have it very soon.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can we place it on the ELMO? That's perfect,
15 like this.
16 Q. Can you see it?
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honours, do you have it on your screens?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, not on my screen. Yeah, we now have it.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA:
20 Q. Because we do not have the translation, can you please slowly read
21 and indicate on the hard copy what are you reading? First of all, do you
22 recognise it as a chart which you prepared?
23 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Can you tell us what exactly we can see on this chart?
25 A. It says here, "Organisational Chart of the TO Staff in Krajina,
1 the 1st of September 1991," and then the following, "Ministry of Defence
2 of Serbia assists and organises the establishment of the Krajina TO Staff
3 via the Serbian Republic of Krajina." This staff is composed of zone
4 staffs. One such staff being in Banija, the next one in Lika, and the
5 third one in Kordun. These zone staffs had all municipalities
6 subordinated to them and consequently municipal staffs were subordinated
7 to them as well.
8 Here on the chart, you cannot see that Banija and Kordun or the
9 second and third zone were merged into one staff. Zone staff for Lika and
10 Northern Dalmatia was a single structure.
11 On the other hand, the Ministry of Interior of Serbia, or rather
12 the Ministry of Police of Krajina were linked to the Ministry of the
13 Interior of Serbia.
14 Q. When you said that a Ministry of Interior of Krajina was linked to
15 Ministry of Interior of Serbia, what do you base this statement on?
16 A. I base it on the technical assistance that it received from the
17 Ministry of Interior of Serbia, the assistance provided to the police of
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: What you did want to say, Ms. Richterova, is that
20 the witness said the Ministry of Police of Krajina is linked to the
21 Ministry of Interior of Serbia, not the two interior ministries. You said
22 the Ministry of Interior of Krajina was linked to the Ministry of Interior
23 of Serbia but here it said the Ministry of Police of Krajina was linked to
24 the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can the witness just clarify that point, which is
2 which, what is linked to what?
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Maksic, can you please clarify what is the correct statement?
5 A. It's the same thing. I just used a different term. Ministry of
6 the Interior of Krajina was linked to the Ministry of the Interior of
7 Serbia. In my chart I put down Ministry of Police. It should read
8 Ministry of the Interior. It's the same thing.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like this document to be tendered into
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document will be admitted into evidence. May
13 it please be given an exhibit number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 123, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: To continue with the structure of the TO, I would
17 like to show the witness another document. It is 65 ter number 1854.
18 Your Honours, do you have English version on your screens?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. We now have an English version. Thank you.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: This document is from the 3rd of October 1991.
21 Can we go to the paragraph 2?
22 Q. Please, Mr. Maksic, can you read what is stated in paragraph 2?
23 A. "Pursuant to the order of the Prime Minister of SAO Krajina,
24 active Colonel of the JNA Vujaklija, Rade is hereby appointed commander of
25 the 2nd and 3rd operative zone for Banija and Kordun whereas Tarbuk Milan
1 is hereby appointed Chief of Staff." Tarbuk Milan is a retired Lieutenant
3 Q. Does it reflect correctly the situation when you were in Krajina?
4 A. Whether item 2 is correct? Yes, pursuant to the order, Rade
5 Vujaklija, active duty JNA colonel, was appointed commander of the
6 operational zone for Banija and Kordun and in fact Milan Tarbuk was also
7 appointed, and I believe it was in early December that he assumed the
8 position of the Minister of Defence of Krajina. As for this document,
9 this is a circular, and the -- its purpose was to inform all the municipal
10 TO staffs of these appointments to the Republic TO Staff. This one in
11 particular pertains to the Glina municipality, as far as I remember, and
12 all the TO commanders and presidents of municipalities received this
14 Q. This document says that 2nd and 3rd Operative Zone, which was for
15 Banija and Kordun, had one commander. What about the 1st zone?
16 A. The 1st zone, that one being Dalmatia and Lika zone had the TO
17 staff which was at the same time the staff of the zone itself.
18 Q. So can you tell us --
19 A. The two zones, that's to say.
20 Q. Can you tell us who was the commander of this 1st Operative Zone?
21 A. The commander of the 1st operations zone was the Krajina TO Staff
22 Commander, General Ilija Djujic.
23 Q. If we can move to the paragraph 3, first sentence, and it says "a
24 stand was taken at the level of the SAO Krajina government" --
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I have an
3 objection. I believe that my learned friend Prosecutor should allow the
4 witness to see what is contained in the document. That's to say to quote
5 from the document. And then let the witness make his conclusions. She
6 should take it the other way around.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. Richterova?
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: I can do it this way as well.
9 Q. Mr. Maksic, please can you read the first paragraph -- the first
10 sentence of the third paragraph?
11 A. "At the level of the SAO Krajina government, therefore, on the
12 level of the government, not the staff, the position was taken to the
13 effect that the SAO Krajina Prime Minister should appoint the commander
14 and the Chief of Staff of the TO municipalities and commanders of TO units
15 with his order, which is in accordance with the standard procedure in the
16 army, because the SAO Krajina Prime Minister appoints commanders of zone
17 TO staffs and these in turn appoint commanders of municipal TO staffs.
18 Therefore, this particular provision here is contrary to the standard
19 procedure in the army.
20 Q. Mr. Maksic, to your knowledge, was this procedure implemented?
21 A. This was not implemented.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
25 please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 124, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to show the witness document 65 ter
4 number 193. Can we scroll down, please? Thank you.
5 Q. This document is dated 14 of November 1991. Can you please have a
6 look at the document and tell the Court what this document is about?
7 A. Sava Radulovic, reserve major, was commander of the TO staff in
8 Knin. He was relieved of his duty because of his age, and was transferred
9 to the Republic TO Staff of Krajina as an administrative officer. He was
10 replaced by a person whose name I cannot recall. I believe he was a gym
12 Q. Mr. Maksic, can you tell us who signed this decision and please
13 can you scroll down?
14 A. It was signed by Prime Minister Milan Babic.
15 Q. And as you stated, he was a commander of municipality Territorial
16 Defence, is it correct?
17 A. The municipal Territorial Defence in Knin. Since at the time
18 Babic was president of Knin municipality, it was within his competence to
19 do that.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
23 please be given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 125, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 MS. RICHTEROVA: Just for completion I would like to show the
2 witness document 65 ter number 194. Can you please scroll down?
3 Q. This document is dated 14 of November 1991. Can you please tell
4 the Judges what this document is about?
5 A. This document reads that Slavko Ozegovic is appointed commander
6 instead of Slavko -- I don't remember his family name. So he is appointed
7 commander of the Territorial Defence of Knin municipality. This again is
8 in accordance with the regulations in force at the time.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: You can see, Your Honours, that the translation
10 wrongly stated the name of this person as "Okegovic" instead of Ozegovic.
11 We will request a revision of this translation.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ozegovic.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: How is Ozegovic spelt?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] O-Z-E-G-O-V-I-C.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MS. RICHTEROVA:
17 Q. Was Milan Babic authorised to replace a commander of municipality
18 Territorial Defence from other municipality other than Knin?
19 A. At the time, Milan Babic was also president of the Republic of
20 Serbian Krajina and president of Knin municipality. Therefore, he was in
21 a position to do that. At the same time, he had the power to remove other
22 commanders of Territorial Defence of other municipalities in agreement
23 with the presidents of the respective municipalities who were also
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
3 please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 126, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: I have one more document which I would like to
7 show the witness, and it is 65 ter number 1239.
8 Q. This document is dated 5th of October 1991. Can you please read
9 the heading of this document?
10 A. "To municipal staffs of Territorial Defence and Municipal
11 Secretariats for National Defence of Gracac, Donji Lapac and Korenica."
12 Q. Now I would like you to read the first sentence of this document.
13 A. "According to our information, in the areas of your
14 municipalities, there is an initiative" - I'm not sure, I cannot read this
15 word - "for the establishment of a special operative zone for the
16 Territorial Defence in your municipalities. Based on this we wish to
17 inform you that pursuant to a directive of the Prime Minister of the
18 Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, number" - I can't make it - "of
19 the 10th of August 1991, the operations zones were set up of the
20 Territorial Defence of the SAO Krajina, namely, first zone, Dalmatia-Lika,
21 for the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac and
22 Korenica. Second, Kordun for the municipalities of Vojcic, Vrgin Most and
23 Slunj, and the third Banija for the municipalities of Dvor on the Una,
24 Glina, Kostajnica, Petrinja, and Sisak. I would like to -- the document
25 to be scrolled up a bit so I can see who signed the document.
1 Q. Can we scroll it down? Can you read who signed this document?
2 A. Yes. It was signed by Milan Babic as the person responsible. Can
3 we scroll the document up again to the beginning, please?
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can you scroll it up, please?
5 Q. Can you explain to the Judges the significance --
6 A. Yes, yes. Thank you. You see, nowhere in the text does it say
7 who launched such an initiative. This is Milan Babic's reply but one
8 cannot make out who it is addressed to or, rather, who launched the
9 initiative, whether some of the presidents here or a third party.
10 Q. Mr. Maksic, this document is addressed to the municipal staffs of
11 these three municipalities, Gracac, Donji Lapac and Korenica?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. To your knowledge, is -- does this document reflect the situation
14 as it was?
15 A. No. I've seen this document recently. There was no reason why
16 these three municipalities should be singled out as a separate zone within
17 a zone, because they were already part of a zone. Knin, Benkovac, Gracac
18 and Donji Lapac, these municipalities were part of the Dalmatia-Lika zone.
19 So now, as part of Dalmatia-Lika zone based on someone's request - we
20 don't know who put forth such a request - they are to form part of a new
22 Q. Mr. Maksic, based to your knowledge of the situation in Krajina at
23 the time you were there, what was the purpose of this letter?
24 A. I can only conclude that, and I don't have any firm base for that,
25 the municipalities in Banija, Lika, Kordun and northern Dalmatia, and I'm
1 not sure which ones in particular, were divided. Some favoured Milan
2 Martic, others favoured Milan Babic. One of them enjoyed greater support
3 in some municipalities, the other in others. There could have been no
4 other reason, from a military perspective, to establish a separate zone
5 within a zone.
6 Q. When you said that some municipalities favoured Milan Martic,
7 others favoured Milan Babic, can you explain what exactly you mean?
8 A. I mean by that that some municipalities supported Mr. Martic's
9 concept about how the TO and the Krajina army were to be organised,
10 whereas others -- other municipalities supported Mr. Babic's concept on
11 the same matter. That's to say there were two concepts there. First,
12 that the Ministry of the Interior should be competent for the entire
13 police force and the army in Krajina, whereas Babic advocated following
14 idea, that the police and the army should be separate entities, each
15 performing their own tasks, which was normally the case. And that was the
16 gist of it.
17 Q. To your knowledge, do you know which concept materialised?
18 A. Out of these two concepts, and this is something one can deduce at
19 a later stage, after the withdrawal of the 9th corps, that Milan Babic's
20 concept prevailed because the TO units which were left behind after the
21 withdrawal and were properly [Realtime transcript read in error
22 "probably"] organised were separate from the Ministry of the Interior,
23 although they had similar tasks. Still, they had separate commands and
24 cooperated along the principles along which a Ministry of the Interior and
25 an army usually cooperate. The same -- there was an attempt to do the
1 same thing in Serbia in 1992 and 1993, that the Ministry of the Interior
2 should take over the powers of the army and the army would be given some
3 peripheral tasks.
4 Q. Mr. Maksic, you stated now, after the withdrawal and were
5 probably -- I'm sorry, "Babic's concept prevailed because the TO units
6 which were left behind after the withdrawal and were probably organised" -
7 doesn't make too much sense - "were separate from the Ministry of the
9 What do you mean that TO was separated from the Ministry of
11 A. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. The TO and the Ministry of
12 the Interior of Krajina were never a joint body. They never had a joint
13 command. However, there was this idea to unite the two into a single
14 armed force.
15 Q. And whose idea it was?
16 A. I don't know whose idea it was but there was an attempt to realise
17 the idea through the Ministry of the Interior. The setting up of the
18 municipal TO staffs and the units which were supposed to make part of the
19 staff, and these were manoeuvre units active throughout the territory of
20 Krajina, was not advocated by anyone. The 9th Corps and the -- and
21 General Djujic and the Minister of the Interior all obstructed this idea.
22 First of all, they didn't want a TO staff to be set up. What was in place
23 was not even a staff up until December 1991, because it numbered four
24 members, and they did not have a single TO unit. They tried to establish
25 some units like in Benkovac, a brigade, a battalion in Kistanje which was
1 there from before. Then there was some units at the strength of a company
2 but they were all automatically resubordinated to the 9th Corps which
3 commanded over them. Therefore, the staff did not have a single unit, not
4 even of the smallest strength, not even a single courier.
5 Q. We will talk about this a little bit later. I would like to
6 finish with this particular document.
7 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can we scroll down to the last paragraph?
8 Q. And please, Mr. Maksic, can you read the last paragraph of this
10 A. "Hereby we wish -- I wish to inform you that as technical organs,
11 you should caution those responsible that all the activities and setting
12 up zone and municipal TO staffs must be in accordance with the regulations
13 of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina and that all your
14 suggestions on these activities should be addressed to the commander of
15 the TO of the SAO Krajina, Lieutenant General Djujic, Ilija."
16 I was kept abreast of the events at the time. We did not receive
17 a single suggestion to that effect. Perhaps General Djujic did. But we
18 were never shown anything of the sort, Kasum and I. And I was there until
19 the 27th of December and none of this materialised. There is this one
20 question that comes to my mind: Who was behind all of this? And who is
21 Mr. Babic sending this answer or this reply to? Whether it's to the
22 presidents of municipalities or -- please, go ahead.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maksic.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, can I just ask a question?
2 Mr. Maksic, I noticed that this document is said to be signed by the
3 president, Mr. Milan Babic. The prior two or three documents that we
4 have -- that have been tendered in so far, he is titled, "Prime Minister."
5 Does this make any difference?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's the same thing.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The document will then be admitted into
8 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 127, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honours, meanwhile, we received the
12 translation of that chart. I would like to distribute it and include it
13 into evidence.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the English version of the chart please be
15 admitted into evidence and be given an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 128, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 MS. RICHTEROVA:
19 Q. Mr. Maksic, you stated that the creation of the staff was
20 obstructed, you were not able to -- you didn't have enough manpower. To
21 your knowledge, what was the purpose of creating of this staff, this Main
22 Staff of the TO?
23 A. I suppose that the establishment of the TO staff of SAO Krajina
24 sometime in September or in October was supposed to represent a
25 preparatory step for accepting the units of the 9th Corps, once the 9th
1 Corps relocated from that area, because most of the members of the 9th
2 Corps of the JNA had been mobilised from that area. Those people were
3 supposed to remain in that territory and that staff was supposed to
4 recreate those units to turn them, transform them, into new units and to
5 create a new structure and so on.
6 Then there was another aspect, which I came to realise only later,
7 which is that Milan Babic was supposed to counterbalance Mr. Martic. I
8 think that this thesis is quite a reasonable one. Mr. Martic had armed
9 men under his command. He had policemen, whereas Babic had only political
10 power in his hands. Usually the one who has arms and weapons under his
11 command is the actual authority. Therefore, Babic wanted to threaten Mr.
12 Martic, telling him that he would create an army of his own. It was my
13 impression that Babic did that in order to spite Martic.
14 Q. Mr. Maksic, what was the position of Milan Babic in relation to
15 the Main Staff of the TO, or better say the authority of Milan Babic?
16 A. He was the Supreme Commander of the TO staff, as a Prime Minister
17 of Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina and he was the only one authorised
18 to issue orders to the TO staff. It existed only on paper and it had only
19 three or four of us as its staff members, without any units.
20 Q. Did you receive any orders from Mr. Babic?
21 A. We received orders in principle from Mr. Babic to establish units
22 of the Territorial Defence. However, he didn't provide any terms and
23 conditions for us in order to do that. We had no financial or any other
24 resources to establish these units. Whatever was fit for military
25 service, whoever was fit for military service, went to serve either in the
1 Ministry of the Interior or in the 9th Corps of the JNA.
2 Q. Mr. Maksic, I would like to briefly talk about the relationship
3 between the SAO Krajina TO and the Ministry of Defence of Republic of
4 Serbia. Was there any relationship?
5 A. I did not understand your question. Would you please repeat it?
6 Q. Was there any relationship between Main Staff of SAO Krajina and
7 Ministry of Defence of Republika of Serbia?
8 A. Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia had a general who
9 served as a coordinator. That was General Kuzmanovic. He was in charge
10 of coordinating the work of the TO Krajina Staff and the Ministry of
11 Defence. He was replaced later on by General Djordjevic. We communicated
12 exclusively through him and very seldom at that. We mostly sent requests
13 for materiel supplies, communications equipment, other types of equipment,
14 weapons, and so on. We sent requests. These requests should still exist
15 somewhere in the archives in their written form. They were sent as early
16 as August. I think that during that time, Mr. Banatic [phoen] was Defence
17 Minister. I'm not so sure about that. These requests were later repeated
18 but we received nothing that was requested by us. I can't say nothing,
19 because we received several telephones, maybe five telephones, including
20 field telephones, but they were quite outdated and practically unusable.
21 This is how it was up until the 27th of December 1991. I don't know what
22 happened afterwards.
23 Q. Mr. Maksic, I would like to show you a document, 65 ter number
24 1283. And under this number, there are, in fact, three documents. I
25 would like to show only document which bears in B/C/S ERN number 02076715.
1 This document is dated 16 of December 1991. Can you have a look at this
2 document and tell us to whom this document was addressed?
3 A. It was sent to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.
4 They are asking for reinforcements of staff units. This is a request for
5 receiving such reinforcements.
6 Q. Mr. Maksic, is this an example of request for equipments?
7 A. Yes. I was preparing to leave on the 16th of December. That was
8 in 1991.
9 Q. Can we --
10 A. At that time -- may I continue?
11 Q. Yes, please. I only want to scroll down this document, for you to
12 see who signed this document.
13 A. It was signed by Colonel Milos Pupovac. He came, I don't know
14 what date it was, I don't know whether he came a day or two earlier or
15 perhaps even three days, and he immediately sent a request for this
16 equipment, for replenishment, asking for the equipment listed in this
17 document. I told you that this request was sent back in August, perhaps
18 even July, if I'm not mistaken, when Mr. Martic was Defence Minister. And
19 such requests were simply copied down and resent. However, this has to do
20 with something else. They are sending a request here to replenish staff
21 units which in fact did not exist at all. At this point in time, on the
22 16th of December, there was not a single unit within the TO Staff. They
23 existed only on paper. There were plans to establish units under such and
24 such circumstances, and this equipment was needed for these units. There
25 is also another explanation possible, that the 9th Corps, after leaving
1 the area, it was supposed to leave the area, resubordinated this or left
2 it to these units. So this is not clear to me at all.
3 Q. Mr. Maksic, you mentioned that you didn't receive anything. Who
4 was responsible to equip these local TO units?
5 A. Local TO units were supposed to be equipped by municipalities,
6 rather the presidents of municipalities. There were local units and
7 manoeuvre units. Let me give you a brief explanation. Territorial units
8 are linked to the territory of a municipality and if there are any combat
9 operations to be carried out, they can be carried out only in the
10 territory of that municipality. Municipalities purchased equipment and
11 weapons using their own funds. In addition to these units, there were
12 also manoeuvre units which were larger units, size of battalion or
13 brigade. They were intended to act in the entire territory of Banija
14 Lika, Kordun, and Northern Dalmatia or, for example, Serbia. There
15 existed such units in Serbia as well. So the territorial units, which are
16 municipal units as we used to call them, were supposed to be equipped and
17 armed by presidents of municipalities. As for the manoeuvre units, which
18 were larger units, they were supposed to be equipped by the government of
19 the Republic of Krajina or rather the president of Krajina via the TO
21 Q. Mr. Maksic, all these TO units which join 9th Corps, were they all
22 equipped with weapons, ammunition, everything what they needed?
23 A. I don't remember the date but I think that in early 1991, in the
24 entire territory of then still unified Yugoslavia, an order was issued
25 stipulating that all equipment, all weapons in the depots of Territorial
1 Defence was supposed to be transferred to the JNA. JNA was given
2 jurisdiction so to speak over that equipment. So whatever they had was
3 now in the possession of the JNA. However, it is true that all
4 territorial units which were organised in the form of platoons and so on
5 had their weapons and equipment. Those which did not have an assignment
6 did not have weapons and equipment. When the mobilisation of the 9th
7 Corps was carried out, a large number of these TO units became a component
8 of the 9th Corps because there was simply not enough men. Therefore, some
9 TO units ceased to exist because they joined battalions, platoons,
10 companies, of the 9th Corps. They were mobilised into them and, in such
11 way, transformed. Those which did not join the 9th corps became
12 Territorial Defence units based on the capabilities of a municipality. If
13 a municipality was a small one, it had a small unit. If it was a large
14 one, it had a large unit. Some TO units became units of the Ministry of
15 the Interior and then whatever was left was used to establish Territorial
16 Defence units, and as I said it depended on the resources in a
18 Q. Mr. Maksic, I will stop you here. You said some TO units became
19 units of the Ministry of the Interior. Can you explain this a little bit
20 further? How did they become units of the Ministry of the Interior?
21 A. You see, in 1991, the mobilisation system which was known until
22 then ceased to exist in the territory of Krajina. The 9th Corps was not a
23 Serbian corps; within the 9th Corps, there were Croats serving there.
24 They went wherever they went. And then all of a sudden, I don't know the
25 exact percentage, 10, 20, 30 per cent or something along those lines, was
1 missing. That was the percentage of personnel missing. In order to bring
2 up the numbers to the establishment strength, they had to mobilise people
3 who were present in that territory and those were people of Serb
4 ethnicity. Once those units, certain units, were disbanded in order to
5 reinforce the JNA units, some people wanted to join police units and some
6 wanted to join the JNA units.
7 Q. Not to forget, I would like to tender the document which we were
8 talking about into evidence?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is tendered -- is admitted into
10 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 129, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA:
14 Q. Mr. Maksic, you mentioned at the beginning of your testimony, when
15 I asked you about your tasks, that your tasks were planned, carried out,
16 and monitored trainings, plan combat operations, potential combat
17 operations, and propose them to the commander.
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. I would like to talk now a little bit about the relationship
20 between the TO and the 9th Corps. The 9th Corps was the unit which
21 operated on which territory?
22 A. The 9th corps was in charge of all combat operations in the
23 territory of Northern Dalmatia, Lika, but mostly Northern Dalmatia.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to show the witness a document 65
25 ter number 2053. This document is dated 26 of October 1991.
1 Q. Can you please read the first -- the heading or the initial part
2 of this, above order? Above the order? Yeah.
3 A. "Lately, certain commands following the mobilisation and completed
4 preparations of certain war units are moving those units at their own
5 initiative. They are relocating and resubordinating these units. In
6 order to ensure efficient command and control, as well as rational and
7 planned use of units, I hereby order." Shall I read on?
8 Q. And please read the order number 1.
9 A. "Resubordination of the TO units in the territory of the area of
10 responsibility of the 9th Corps shall be conducted only upon my special
11 order or approval." Shall I read on?
12 Q. Yes, please. Now read 2 and 3.
13 A. "Commanders of regiments or brigades may resubordinate and
14 relocate units within their composition upon my approval."
15 Let me explain a principle that is in use here. Whatever is
16 subordinated to you may not be resubordinated by you to somebody else.
17 Here, in this document, we see that the corps commander subordinated some
18 units to the command of a regiment or a brigade and then commander of that
19 regiment or a brigade can resubordinate that units to another regiment or
20 brigade. The commander here is hereby banning any such action in the
21 future, saying that it may not be done.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that we need English
23 translation on the screen.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the principle of
25 resubordination of the TO units. The JNA units were the only ones who
1 were authorised to carry out combat operations in a certain zone and all
2 units which were in that zone were subordinated to the commander. It is
3 possible that certain operations in a certain area may be carried out by
4 the Ministry of the Interior and that, if -- and that if -- however, if
5 there were any JNA units there or TO units, then all of them had to be
6 subordinated to the commander of the largest unit. So no matter whose
7 unit it was, if it was the largest, then all other units had to be
8 subordinated to the commander of the largest unit.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
12 please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 130, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: Before we adjourn I would like to show the
16 document, one more document. I'm sorry, it's 65 ter number 2057.
17 This document is dated 19 November 1991 and it says "Disposition
18 of Forces."
19 Q. If you could read the initial part? Starting in connection with
20 your document.
21 A. Let me first say something. There are many such documents,
22 similar to this one, which failed to mention the addressee. We don't know
23 who this document was sent to. It says at the top, "Command of the 2nd
24 tactical group" and so on, and then this document has to do with the
25 disposition of forces. It says, "Forwarded" but it doesn't say forwarded
1 to whom. "Pursuant to your document," such and such, "dated 19th of
2 November 1991, we hereby send the disposition of forces to you."
3 What we should ask ourselves is who is this document intended for
4 and who was it sent to? Then we can draw conclusions on who was in charge
5 for that area of responsibility. It says here the TO detachment M --
6 Q. If you could read the part with the first slash, dash, just, no
7 can you please scroll up? Yes. It starts with, first Z-O-D-T-O-M. So
8 the whole part.
9 A. That means the first joint detachment of Territorial Defence M.
10 It's known as M, the detachment. It is to control the roads which go from
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina over through the Korana river to Slunj, with the
12 following disposition. The first platoon goes there and so on. I don't
13 know anything about this. This document is not familiar to me.
14 Q. Mr. Maksic --
15 A. What I heard -- I apologise.
16 Q. I have one specific question about this document. And it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This is in relation to assignment of TO units to military
19 operation, their assignment to the respective military units. What would
20 be the right procedure if a command of a military unit wanted to use a TO
22 A. The unit would ask the commander to resubordinate the given TO
23 unit and once it is resubordinated to that particular person, he will then
24 issue orders and tasks to the TO unit, because all TO units can be
25 resubordinated to a different commander, but not the command itself. All
1 of its units can be resubordinated. If you look at what it says here, the
2 1st joint TO detachment and all the other units, they have all been
3 resubordinated but not the staff.
4 Q. Mr. Maksic, you said the unit would ask the commander. Which
6 A. Of these units. I don't know who this document was intended for.
7 It says delivered but delivered to whom? Which area of responsibility is
8 this? And why is this being delivered?
9 Q. Mr. Maksic -- Mr. Maksic, you meant the unit would ask the
10 respective TO commander?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He cannot order resubordination. He
16 can merely ask for approval that these units be resubordinated to him.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection to this
18 document being tendered into evidence. The witness stated that he didn't
19 know anything about the document, that he wasn't familiar with the
20 document, that he didn't know who it was sent to or why. He cannot grasp
21 the significance of the document. We submit that the document should not
22 be admitted into evidence on the basis of this.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. Richterova?
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: The purpose to submit this document was to show
25 the subordination of TO units to the army units, in this case it was
1 command of the 2nd Tactical Group which is part of 9th of --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, the objection is that because the witness is
3 not able to cast any light on the document, it should not be admitted.
4 What's your response to that objection?
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: The witness doesn't know anything about this
6 document. I agree with this. However, he knows the way how the TO units
7 are assigned to the military units. So this is just an example of one of
8 the assignments of TO units to the military unit.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but you are telling us that it is one of the
10 examples. The witness has not said it is one of the examples. The
11 witness says he doesn't know anything about it. If the witness has to
12 tell us how units are subordinated, can't he do so without using this
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: He can do. I don't have any objection not to
15 tender this document into evidence.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Fine. Then can we mark the document for
17 identification and then we'll deal with it later.
18 We are five minutes into our time. Shall we adjourn? We will
19 come back at half past 12.
20 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we continue, Ms. Richterova, if that
23 document that you were dealing with can be given an MFI number, please.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be Exhibit number or
25 MFI number 131.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA:
4 Q. Mr. Maksic, just for the sake of clarification, many times during
5 your testimony you mentioned these TO units existed only on paper. Which
6 units, which TO units, did you refer to?
7 A. I was referring to the units of the TO Staff of Banija, Lika and
8 Kordun. I meant those of the TO staffs in Krajina. There were municipal
9 units; however, the Krajina TO staff as such did not have a single unit.
10 Q. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify this point.
11 Before the adjournment, we talked about various units which were
12 subordinated to the 9th Corps of the JNA. Which unit could participate
13 during this -- these operations above those military units? You mentioned
14 TO. Were there some other units which could participate in these
16 A. There were JNA and TO units, including the units of the Ministry
17 of the Interior, if any, and where necessary.
18 Q. When such an operation was in the preparation stage, were there
19 any meetings?
20 A. All the prospective participants in an operation would first meet
21 to present their own possibilities and thus conduct coordination, and then
22 they would agree on the time and the area where the operation would be
23 carried out and then the person in charge of the operation would plan
24 combat activities and work on the combat documentation.
25 Q. If police units were involved in such an operation, who would be
1 present during a meeting on behalf of these units?
2 A. First of all the units of the Ministry of the Interior were not
3 able to be resubordinated to the JNA units without prior approval of the
4 Minister of the Interior. Such meetings were attended by an organ of the
5 Ministry of the Interior. Where the operation at hand was of higher
6 significance, the Minister of the Interior may have attended the meeting
7 as well or his representatives in charge thereof. In the ministry, they
8 also had a person in charge of operative matters, planning, and so on.
9 Therefore, the Minister of the Interior could appoint his representative,
10 who would have a certain remit of powers, and that would be it.
11 Q. Would Minister of Interior of aware of the main goal or main task
12 of an operation? And I will be more specific. In case that a police unit
13 participates in this operation, would the Minister of Interior be informed
14 about the main goal of this operation?
15 A. When an operation was thoroughly planned out, commands or orders
16 would be written detailing duties of all the participants. Such
17 documentation would also be delivered to the Minister of the Interior, in
18 so far as he had to be informed of the participation of his units. He may
19 have been sent an entire order or only a part of it. For instance, the
20 commander of an operation would issue an order that was addressed
21 specifically to the Minister of the Interior which would detail the role
22 and the duties of the units that were sent by the minister. Other matters
23 that were not of direct interest for the Minister of the Interior would be
24 left out.
25 Q. Mr. Maksic, to your knowledge, what would be the role of these
1 units, police units, or TO units, during such operations?
2 A. One must distinguish between the police units and the TO units.
3 For instance, the TO units at the strength of a detachment or a battalion
4 could take part in combat activities at the front, forward end, as we put
5 it, whereas police units or units of the Ministry of the Interior secured
6 the implementation of the operation, either by securing roads or buildings
7 or areas. Where companies or units of higher strength were involved, they
8 could also take part in combat activities in the first echelon, but this
9 happened seldom.
10 Q. When you said either by securing roads or buildings or areas, what
11 do you exactly mean by "securing areas"?
12 A. I meant the securing of bridges, saddle passes, or crossroads, or
13 other such features. They could also secure areas from possible ambushes,
14 sabotage actions. They could also provide personal security. And that
15 would be it. There may have been some other tasks that I am not aware of,
16 because I am not that familiar with all the tasks that police units could
17 carry out in terms of providing security.
18 Q. Mr. Babic -- Mr. Maksic, were you present or did you attend any of
19 the meetings or briefings of the 9th Corps of JNA?
20 A. Yes. I can't remember exactly but I attended three or four
21 meetings where normally an analysis would be carried out of the duties
22 performed heretofore, and then they would also deal with prospective
23 tasks. Such meetings were fixed for selected groups of people, depending
24 on what the subject matter was. For instance, we would attend only a part
25 of the meeting dealing with matters that we were in charge of and then we
1 would leave them to discuss other matters. For instance, activities
2 carried out by the 9th Corps at the time constituted a state secret and I
3 did not hold such a position that would enable me to be privy to that.
4 This was true also for all the other ones.
5 Q. During these meetings you were present, were Milan Martic present?
6 A. Yes. Milan Martic attended two or three meetings, because these
7 meetings had to do with the engagement of some of the units of the
8 Ministry of the Interior.
9 Q. Now we are talking about some of the units of the Ministry of
10 Interior. To your knowledge, what was -- what was these units? What
11 units were within the Ministry of Interior?
12 A. As far as I know, every town had a police station and certain
13 number of police officers, in charge of protecting and providing security
14 for the citizens and fighting crime in an area. The Ministry of the
15 Interior had an intervention unit as well, I don't know what its strength
16 was, which was ready to be used whenever necessary and wherever necessary.
17 Q. Who was this intervention unit subordinated to?
18 A. The intervention unit was subordinated to the minister, or to the
19 person designated for that person by the minister.
20 Q. This intervention unit, was it called always in -- I withdraw.
21 Was there other -- I will withdraw my questions.
22 These police units in municipalities, who was their superior?
23 A. Every municipality had a commander of the police station.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can I show the witness a document, 65 ter 7-8?
25 Q. Do you have the document on your screen?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. This document was issued before you came to Krajina. Can you --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you read what this decision is about?
5 A. "Decision on the setting up of special purpose units of the MUP of
6 the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, called the Krajina Police,
7 which are placed within the competence of the Ministry of the Defence."
8 May I proceed?
9 Q. No. I have one specific question. What was this special-purpose
11 A. These are units for special activities, in charge of fighting
12 sabotage groups.
13 Q. And what is the difference between a special-purpose unit and an
14 intervention unit, as you mentioned?
15 A. The difference is almost non-existent. All special purpose units
16 are in fact intervention units for specific periods of time. When there
17 is such need, intervention units or special purpose units can be set up.
18 Normally, their tasks overlap by 80 per cent. Intervention units can be
19 used to prevent rebellion or to restore law and order or to maintain law
20 and order during rallies or demonstrations, whereas special purpose units
21 can perform these tasks as well, although this is not their primary
23 Q. So what was the primary purpose of this unit?
24 A. As I've said, their main purpose of special units, you mean,
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. They are tasked with fighting infiltrated sabotage groups,
3 arresting and taking into custody enemy sabotage soldiers.
4 Q. Which of these units, to your knowledge, participated in the
5 military operations?
6 A. I don't know. You see, it says on the 29th of 5th -- of May, on
7 the third session, they discussed the setting up of these special-purpose
8 units of MUP, of the SAO Krajina which are to be called the Krajina
9 Police. What follows is actually something that should be called into
10 question. They are placed within the competence of the Ministry of
11 Defence. Now, this may be due to some regulations that they passed in
12 Krajina that I am not aware of but I'm not sure.
13 Q. This is my further question. So please just answer -- always
14 answer my question so we don't overlap our questions and answers.
15 To your knowledge, was this special-purpose unit placed under the
16 authority of the Ministry of Defence?
17 A. I don't know. I don't know anything about that.
18 Q. In the Article 1 -- I'm sorry, it says also under this decision,
19 that this special-purpose unit to be called the Krajina Police. Is -- was
20 this special-purpose unit called the Krajina Police, to your knowledge?
21 A. That's what it says here.
22 Q. Was it called like this?
23 A. Yes. While I was there, it was called the Krajina Police.
24 Q. The various police units, how they were called?
25 A. I don't understand the question.
1 Q. The Krajina Police was the only name which was used to refer to
2 police units or were there some other names which were used with the
3 police units?
4 A. For as long as I was there, and I speak only about that period, we
5 called it the Krajina Police, pursuant to the constitutional law of
6 Krajina. However, this must not be taken out of the context. This took
7 place on the 29th of May 1991. The only armed forces of Krajina were the
8 Krajina Police. There was no Territorial Defence at the time.
9 Q. And in -- at the time, when you were already in Krajina, at the
10 end of 1991, were there other -- you mentioned that there were other
11 police units in each municipality. Is it correct?
12 A. No. Every municipality had its police station, and a number of
13 police officers who took care of the security of the citizens, their
14 private property, fought crime, and so on.
15 Q. And you also mentioned that there was always a commander of this
16 police station in respective -- in a respective municipality. Is it
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 Q. Who were these commanders subordinated to?
20 A. The Ministry of the Interior of Krajina.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the Minister of the
22 Interior of Krajina.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA:
24 Q. Could members of these police station, policemen, participate in
25 any operations by the 9th Corps of JNA?
1 A. In theory, they could. But in practice, in view of their
2 strength, level of training for such activities, they could not really
3 take part in these activities, and I mean these municipal police
4 structures, except for the Krajina Police, this particular unit that we
5 discussed a minute ago.
6 Q. So Krajina Police was the unit who could participate in these
7 military operations?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you know how many members had this -- approximately, had this
10 Krajina Police?
11 A. No. I don't know.
12 Q. You don't know -- I ask approximately. Was it ten, 100, 1.000?
13 A. Whatever number I said would be unreliable. This would be my
14 assessment without any basis in what the situation was in reality.
15 Q. We were talking about this possibility that -- and you stated
16 it -- that either TO units or Krajina Police units would participate in
17 joint military operations. Is it correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you also stated that they all were subordinated to the only
21 A. The same principle applied both in the army and the police. All
22 the army personnel is subordinated to the Minister of Defence. The same
23 is true for police commanders who are subordinated to the Ministry of the
25 Q. When such a police unit is assigned to a task during a joint
1 operation, who would be the superior of this police unit?
2 A. I don't understand the question. When --
3 Q. If there is a joint operation, during which police units
4 participate together with regular army, who would be the superior of this
5 police unit during this operation?
6 A. Whoever is designated by the Minister of the Interior or somebody
7 authorised by the Minister of the Interior. There are two possible
8 options there. If the police unit is resubordinated to the JNA units,
9 then the commander would be the JNA commander. However, if the police
10 simply acts in cooperation or in concert with the JNA units, then the
11 police units would be under the command of the designated commander of the
12 Minister of the Interior.
13 Q. So we have these two variants. If this police unit was
14 subordinated to the commander of the JNA unit, who would be responsible in
15 case they learn that such a policeman committed a crime during this
17 A. Commander of the unit to which the police unit was subordinated.
18 So the commander of the operation is responsible for each individual who
19 participates in that operation, be it a policeman or a soldier. If the
20 unit is resubordinated.
21 Q. Then you had this second variation, when the police unit only acts
22 in cooperation or in concert with the JNA units, and you say --
23 A. Then the commander of that unit would be responsible.
24 Q. You said that police units would be under the command of the
25 designated commander of the Ministry of the Interior, is it correct?
1 A. Yes, yes. If -- if they are acting in coordination, but if they
2 are acting in the situation where the unit is resubordinated then it's
3 different. Of course, a police unit would have its commander designated
4 by the Minister of the Interior but if the police unit is resubordinated
5 to the JNA unit, then the overall JNA commander would be responsible, and
6 if we have that type of a situation, and if a crime is committed under
7 those circumstances, then the commander of the operation would be
8 responsible, be it police or the military, because he is the one who plans
9 and carries out the operation, and he is the one who is responsible for
10 each individual participating in the operation.
11 Q. Mr. Maksic, now let's talk about this situation, that it is the
12 JNA commander who is responsible for this overall operation, and he has
13 also this responsibility to punish. What about if this commander fails to
14 punish a member of the police unit who participated in this operation?
15 Does Minister of Interior, as a superior, has any duty if he learns that a
16 police officer committed a crime?
17 A. No, he's not authorised to punish that policeman, at least based
18 on then rules but also based on current rules. What he has to do is to
19 warn the commander of a unit, saying that such and such policeman did this
20 or that, and if no measures are taken, then he needs to inform his own
21 commander in order to ensure that this person will be prosecuted,
22 depending on what kind of an offence it was, whether it was a breach of
23 discipline or a crime, an act which was committed while he was a member of
24 a certain unit, which took part in the operation. Since the Minister of
25 the Interior was not the commander of the operation, nor was the person
1 designated by him, then they cannot be held responsible for a crime
2 committed by a policeman who was resubordinated to a certain commander. A
3 commander is always responsible for acts of his subordinate, regardless
4 of what structure they are coming from, whether it's TO or another
6 Q. Mr. Maksic, I would like to talk a little bit about the
7 relationship between Milan Martic and his Ministry of Interior. And he
8 was a minister, he was a member of government. Milan Babic was president
9 of that government. What was -- to your knowledge, did Milan Babic had
10 any authority over the Ministry of Interior?
11 A. Yes. Based on the organisation of the government, because
12 Minister of the Interior and all other ministers are all members of the
13 cabinet, of the government.
14 Q. And based on your knowledge, did Milan Martic respond to Milan
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did Milan Martic follow orders receiving from Milan Babic?
18 A. The relationship between Milan Martic and Milan Babic was well
19 known, both then and later. Simply speaking, they didn't have a normal
20 type of communication.
21 Q. What do you mean by --
22 A. While I was --
23 Q. What do you mean they didn't have a normal type of communication?
24 You said that --
25 A. While I was there, for the duration of three months, I almost
1 never saw them. Actually, not almost; I never saw them together. I never
2 saw them discussing something, agreeing on something and deciding
3 something together. I personally insisted with Babic that they establish
4 some kind of a normal communication because they, the two of them, were
5 the greatest authority figures in Krajina, political authority figures.
6 However, somehow they could never agree on anything. Since I spent more
7 time with Babic, I would frequently try to convince him to do something
8 properly to ensure that their relations become reasonable ones. Once or
9 twice, I'm not sure, I spoke briefly with Mr. Martic, and I gained an
10 impression that it was Milan Babic's fault for the fact that their
11 relations were what I've just described.
12 Q. You said that you spoke briefly with Milan Martic. Can you tell
13 us what did -- what did you discuss with Milan Martic?
14 A. We spoke briefly. Once we spoke about the staff. Mr. Martic
15 warned me that I should talk to Babic about it to see what his intentions
16 were, to try to reason with him. I tried to do that. Unfortunately I
17 didn't succeed.
18 Q. You said that Mr. Martic "warned me that I should talk to Babic to
19 see what his intentions were." Can you be more specific when you talk
20 about intentions? What kind of intentions do you have in your mind?
21 A. To put it simply, I can't now quote my words, nor Mr. Martic's
22 words. We wanted them to get together and discuss, define the problems,
23 resolve these problems, and then act in unison at the political scene of
24 Krajina. I tried to convince Babic many times. In this, however, he was
25 quite narcissistic in particular, did not accept anybody else's opinion
1 but his own. Therefore, as I said, unfortunately I did not succeed in
2 this. I now have to qualify my answer. Perhaps there are things I don't
3 know about. Perhaps they met without me knowing about it. I usually knew
4 quite a lot but it is also possible that there were things I didn't know
5 about. It's possible that they met during various cabinet meetings and so
7 Q. Mr. Maksic -- Mr. Maksic -- it's exactly what the Judges want to
8 hear, only what you know, not what would be your speculation.
9 Can you tell the Judges whether Milan Martic shared any
10 information with the SAO TO?
11 A. No. I tried two or three times via Mr. Martic's assistant, truth
12 be told it is possible that they did not convey this to him. I tried to
13 get in touch with him and didn't succeed. We received certain reports
14 every night at 8 p.m., and then we would send it to the Ministry of the
15 Interior. Whether that ever reached Mr. Martic or not, I don't know. The
16 reports were supposed to be sent to us by the Ministry of the Interior as
17 well and we never received a single one. I think that they didn't take
18 the TO staff seriously because there were so few of us, just two or three,
19 and they looked at it in a deprecating way. And this is my opinion.
20 Q. And to your knowledge, did -- when you are talking about these
21 information, this reports, to your -- and again, only whether you know
22 whether Milan Martic sent these situation reports to Milan Babic?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Do you know whether Milan Martic and his subordinated units,
25 whether they had possibilities to receive information, whether they had
1 established communication system?
2 A. Yes. They had excellent communications. I need to speak -- I
3 need the interpreter to speak up a little bit. I have trouble hearing
5 Let me repeat. The question was whether the Ministry of the
6 Interior and its units had good communication channels between them; is
7 that right? Was that your question? Did they have good communication
8 channels; is that right?
9 Q. Yes. My question was, yeah, whether they had well-established
11 A. Could you put the volume down a little bit, please?
12 There are two questions in your question. Did they have good
13 communication channels or good communication equipment? What is your
15 Q. Okay. Let's start with communication equipment.
16 A. Yes. Excellent communications equipment, as compared to the ones
17 that the Krajina staff had, as well as the police battalion of the 9th
19 Q. How do you know this?
20 A. Because I saw several times their radio stations. They had quite
21 a long range. The sound was clear. I'm not sure I'm finding the right
22 terms right now. So at all times, and in all locations, naturally with
23 some limitations depending on the weather and the geography of the
24 terrain, they were able to establish communications throughout the
1 Q. Mr. Maksic, just go back at the beginning of your testimony, when
2 you mentioned this assistance from Ministry of Interior of Republic of
3 Serbia, and you mentioned that they provided some equipment. Do you know
4 where this communication equipment came from?
5 A. The units of the interior of Krajina had identical or similar
6 communications equipment as the police of the Republic of Serbia. I
7 suppose that -- not that I suppose; I know that some of the equipment was
8 provided by the Republic of Serbia, in form of an assistance. It was
9 provided to the Ministry of the Interior of Krajina and it was a natural,
10 normal thing.
11 Q. Talking about the Ministry of Interior of Republic of Serbia, did
12 you ever see anybody from this ministry coming to Krajina?
13 A. I didn't see a single police official whom I knew, and I knew
14 about a dozen of them. I never saw any of them in Krajina. However, we
15 should distinguish between the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia and
16 state security service. These are two different institutions. Several
17 days after my arrival in Knin, I was invited to attend a meeting, Djujic,
18 Kasum, and I were invited. Mr. Martic was present as well, as was
19 Mr. Frenki, whom I didn't know. The name didn't mean anything to me and I
20 simply wasn't interested in the person. However, Kasum and I and Arsa
21 [phoen] who was in charge of the staff communications, were told just
22 before the meeting started, that we were not needed there except for
23 Djujic. On another occasion, Stanisic was present there as well. This
24 didn't mean much to me because I was not familiar with the police and
25 security services. I met Stanisic maybe just once or twice prior to that
1 in a meeting. And then once in Korenica, when there was an incident
2 there, I think that President Bozanic was there. I went there to check
3 something and I met Mr. Martic there and Mr. Frenki. However, I did not
4 attend any meeting, did not take part in any discussions with the
5 associates of Mr. Martic, whose names I don't know. They addressed me as
6 chief. I
7 called them policemen. And we exchanged a few words and then I went back.
8 Q. We have to clarify here certain points. When you said Mr. Frenki,
9 do you know the whole name of this person?
10 A. No. Later on I heard his name. It was mentioned in the press and
11 in other places. I can't remember his name right now. It escapes me.
12 Maybe later on I will remember it. I have it written down somewhere in my
14 Q. Is this --
15 A. In hotel.
16 Q. Is this name Frenki, is it a second name, first name, or just how
17 this person was called?
18 A. No. That's a nickname, as far as I understood, it's a nickname.
19 He has a full first and last name.
20 Q. And then you mention one Stanisic. Do you know his first name?
21 A. Jovica Stanisic. I think that he is from that area, Dalmatia or
22 Lika or somewhere there, but he hails from that area. At the time he was
23 either deputy or chief of the state security service, and they --
24 Q. When you state at the beginning of your statement that "we have to
25 distinguish between Ministry of Interior and state security service
1 because they are different entity," what do you mean that they are a
2 different entity?
3 A. They deal with different things. State security service has one
4 task and police, which is within the Ministry of the Interior, has a
5 different task.
6 Q. Is state security service within the Ministry of Interior or
7 outside of the Ministry of Interior?
8 A. Outside of it, although, after the 5th of October - I don't know
9 if this is important - it became a component of the Ministry of the
10 Interior, but prior to the 5th of October of 2000, state security service
11 was linked to the president of Serbia, whereas the police was under the
12 Ministry of Police. It is true that they have a lot in common, that there
13 is quite a significant overlap in exchange of information, analysis and
14 processing of information. They also sometimes perform joint operations,
15 take joint measures, and it is difficult to draw a line that would
16 separate them strictly. Usually, what is known to the state security
17 service is not known to police.
18 Q. Mr. Maksic, only if you know, who was superior, who was superior,
19 to this state security service? Did they have any separate ministry? Or
20 who was the superior of this state security service?
21 A. Formally and legally speaking --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Maksic, Defence counsel is on his feet.
23 He would like to say something before you answer.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. We are
25 now delving into the area of responsibility of the Ministry of the
1 Interior. This witness is not competent either in view of his background
2 or his experience to deal with this. If we are now talking about how this
3 was structured, organised, who was subordinated to whom, this is something
4 beyond the competence of this witness. He can only speak about things
5 that he is familiar with personally. I think that questions should be
6 directed to him bearing this in mind.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: How do you know that he's not competent,
8 Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I listened to his biography and
10 based on that I realised that Mr. Maksic was a military person and he only
11 worked for the military. Now he's faced with questions about the Ministry
12 of the Interior, state and public security, and how this was regulated
13 legally. This has to do with a lot of legal issues, and not factual ones,
14 so this is the basis for my objection.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I wasn't aware of any legal questions that he was
16 asked. I thought he was just being asked about his knowledge of the
17 Ministry of Interior and I think if he doesn't know he will tell us he
18 doesn't know. What he knows, he can answer. Can't he do that?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 Do you have any response any way to this objection, Ms.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes. Mr. Maksic --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just hold on, Mr. Maksic.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Mr. Maksic stated that these two people were from
1 the state security service. It's obvious that he knows about the
2 existence of the state security service. He link it with the Ministry of
3 Interior, so I simply want to know whether he knows who was the superior
4 and exactly, Your Honour, as you stated, he can answer either yes or no.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. The objection is overruled. You may
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wish to add something to what
8 his -- to what counsel for Defence had to say. May I?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The counsel is quite right, as is
11 his honour. I am not discussing legal matters here. I'm presenting what
12 I saw and what I know. But how these matters are regulated under the law
13 is something I don't know anything about. Therefore, I speak only of
14 things that I saw.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the witness meant
16 "counsel," probably for the OTP.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then stick to that,
18 Mr. Maksic. Answer what you know, which you saw, which you observed with
19 your own senses. And where you don't know, tell us you don't know.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA:
22 Q. So I would like to repeat my question, whether you know who was
23 the superior of this State Security Service in Serbia.
24 A. At what point in time?
25 Q. And I'm referring to the end of 1991, when you saw Frenki and
1 Jovica Stanisic in Krajina.
2 A. I don't know. I do have that information but I haven't prepared.
3 I wouldn't know who was head of state security at the end of 1991.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to show the witness document 65 ter
5 number 207. This document is dated 28th of November 1991, and if we could
6 scroll down to the part we can see the decision? Yes. Thank you. Can we
7 go a little bit up? No, no, no. So we can -- yes, thank you.
8 Q. Please, can you read what this decision is about?
9 A. "Decision on the relief of duty of the commander of the Territorial
10 Defence of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina. Ilija Djujic,
11 Lieutenant General retired is hereby relieved from the duty of commander
12 of the Territorial Defence of the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina on
13 his own request. This decision shall become effective on the date of its
14 issue. Statement of reason. Ilija Djujic, Lieutenant General,
15 retired" --
16 Q. Thank you. I just wanted to know what this document is about.
17 Does it reflect correctly the situation as it was at the time?
18 Was he relieved from the duty?
19 A. This document has not been compiled properly but this doesn't
20 matter, really, at this stage. It doesn't have a number. But Milan Babic
21 is lying, if I can put it that way, because Ilija Djujic did not ask to be
22 relieved of duty. He wasn't ill. And can you scroll it down, please?
23 Because this statement of reasons here is not true at all. General Djujic
24 was not really active and he agreed with late Tomo Vukovic and I'm not
25 sure whether he went along the same lines as with Milan Martic, about
1 taking over units of the 9th Corps, the weaponry, and the infrastructure.
2 That's to say barracks, gas stations, depots, whatever the 9th Corps had,
3 he espoused this idea of taking hold of all this and we absolutely agreed
4 with him. However, he was able to see the commander of the 9th corps
5 whenever he wanted to. He discussed these matters with him, and they
6 probably agreed on this matter. Babic must have heard about this and
7 removed him, not because of his health condition or age, because even
8 after his removal from duty, he remained active, working in his vineyard
9 and so on. He kept going to -- coming to the staff and he tried to pursue
10 some sort of defence policy of Krajina. This -- Babic's statement of
11 reasons does not reflect the truth. That's what I meant when I said that
12 Babic was lying. And that's all I have to say about this.
13 Q. So the correct thing is that Ilija Djujic was relieved of his
15 A. Correct. Because of disagreement as to the concept of Krajina's
16 defence, because of his disagreement with Babic, and not because of his
17 illness. He is not ill today. He is I think in a much better health
18 condition than I am.
19 Q. Did Ilija Djujic stay in Krajina?
20 A. Yes. He hails from there, he has a house and all the outbuildings
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maksic.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to tender this document into
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document is admitted into
1 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 132, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: I have another document which I would like to
5 show the witness. It's 65 ter number 206. This document is dated 28 of
6 November 1991. If we could scroll down so we can see the decision. Thank
7 you. That's it.
8 Q. Mr. Maksic, could you please read the decision?
9 A. You mean the text below "decision"?
10 Q. Yes. I mean the text below the decision.
11 A. "Prime Minister Milan Babic." Oh, you mean the text above
12 that? "Number 1, Radoslav Maksic, Colonel, is hereby appointed commander
13 of the Territorial Defence of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina.
14 Number 2, this decision shall become effective forthwith." It says --
15 there is a typo.
16 Q. Mr. Maksic, did Mr. Babic had authority to appoint you to this
18 A. No.
19 Q. What do --
20 A. It was solely the chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav army
21 who had the authority to appoint me to a post.
22 Your Honour, could I have a break just for a minute, please?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may have a break. Maybe we might as well take
24 an early break and maybe might come back.
25 Court adjourned and we will come back at what time?
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: This is it.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, that's it. We are adjourned for the day.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yeah.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m., to
6 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of February,
7 2006, at 9.00 a.m.