1 Wednesday, 19 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Terzic.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: The cross-examination by Mr. Hannis will continue
9 in a moment. Please bear in mind that the solemn declaration to speak the
10 truth which you gave at the beginning of your evidence will continue to
11 apply to that evidence today.
12 Mr. Hannis.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: ZLATOJE TERZIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, General. I just have two or three more questions I
18 wanted to ask you in connection with the VJ Commission For Cooperation
19 with The Hague Tribunal. In some of the stories that were reported about
20 the commission, one of the allegations that was made was that the members
21 of the commission were being paid something on the order of 350 dinars per
22 hour for their work on the commission. Any truth to that?
23 A. I cannot remember exactly now, but it's probably around that
24 figure per hour. But on a monthly basis they received a maximum of 2 to
25 300 euros, so you can do your math. I don't want the wrong picture to be
1 created here. The commission was not a unit of the General Staff or of
2 the Ministry of Defence. There weren't any permanently employed people
3 there. Everybody worked there in addition to their regular duties. It
4 was only the secretary of the commission who was there every day and also
5 a typist who was a secretary at the time as well, and the rest met several
6 times a month whenever necessary; that is to say, when requests would come
7 in, to have them studied and to see who they should be forwarded to. When
8 the materials would arrive and the responses from the General Staff and
9 from the Ministry of Defence, then this was also supposed to be studied
10 and the proposals were supposed to be made for the Ministry of Defence and
11 the Chief of General Staff, and at first it was.
12 Q. Thank you, General. I think you've answered my question. Do you
13 recall at that time between 2001 and 2003, what was the average monthly
14 salary in Serbia?
15 A. No.
16 Q. This was a lot of money at the time, wasn't it?
17 A. That was the average hourly pay for professors at the military
18 academy. This had to do mostly with generals, so that is why they were
19 paid according to that criterion. I'm talking about professors who were
20 not permanently employed at the military academy.
21 Q. Now, I think you told us yesterday that most of the generals who
22 were on this commission with you were still active-duty. So was this 350
23 dinars per hour paid to them in addition to their regular military salary?
24 A. No. Only those who were not in professional service received this
1 Q. And how many of those were there?
2 A. I've already said yesterday, it was only General Gojovic, and I'm
3 not sure whether General Farkas was retired at the point when the
4 commission started working or whether he was retired later, I'm not sure
5 about that. Later on because of the growing needs that I started talking
6 about a few moments ago, that is to say giving elementary assistance to
7 people who turned to the commission, General Obrencevic was also engaged
8 and later General Milos Gojkovic as well. Before that, one of them was
9 the chief military prosecutor and the other one the president of the
10 military court. They only worked in connection with the persons that you
11 were asking for, seven accused, about 20 suspects, most of them were
12 required as witnesses and some did not really have a status. They turned
13 to the commission for this elementary legal assistance because they had no
14 one else to turn to. These three persons gave the elementary assistance
15 that was required.
16 Q. Who are you talking about in that answer when you say "these
17 persons didn't have anyone else to turn to," you're talking about accused
18 appearing before this Tribunal?
19 A. No, not the accused. We did not have any contact with the accused
20 at that time. It was only suspects and witnesses, mostly witnesses turned
21 to us because quite simply they were in a situation especially before the
22 law on cooperation with the Tribunal was passed, I mean at the time when
23 the state had not regulated its relationship with the Tribunal they were
24 in a very unpleasant situation. If they went to testify they would clash
25 with the law that made it incumbent on them to guard secrets and if they
1 didn't go they faced other risks. So then they turned to this commission
2 because they didn't really have anybody else to turn to.
3 Q. Well, in your earlier answer, page 3, line 11, when you were
4 talking about Gojkovic and others you said they only worked in connection
5 with the persons you were asking for, seven accused, about 20 suspects,
6 most of them were required as witnesses. So did they or did they not
7 provide some assistance to accused?
8 A. I repeat once again that the accused did not turn to the
9 commission, as far as I know, none of the accused then -- well, maybe I'm
10 mistaken, but none of the accused then -- well, I'm not sure now. I don't
11 know whether any of them were still at large, whether they were moving
12 about freely. I repeat once again it was primarily witnesses that turned
13 to us and some suspects.
14 Q. About --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Terzic, you did say seven accused, according to
16 our transcript.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No -- well, I mentioned that just in
18 the context of the Office of the Prosecutor looking for some 100 people
19 then, so I just classified them, seven accused, about 20 suspects; as for
20 the rest, most of them witnesses. But their status was not quite
21 regulated so I did not include the accused in this other category in terms
22 of providing legal assistance.
23 MR. HANNIS:
24 Q. Well, now you're talking about people that the Office of the
25 Prosecutor was looking for. Are you talking about providing assistance to
2 A. Of course not. As far as I know, there were only some accused who
3 were fugitives and still are; we did not render any assistance to them, we
4 didn't even have any contact with them.
5 Q. Didn't you or the commission provide assistance to Mr. Milosevic
6 in the preparation and presentation of his defence case before this
8 A. I already said yesterday, no.
9 Q. You're aware during his trial that many of his defence witnesses
10 brought in hundreds of documents and exhibits, many of which were
11 documents that were the subject of previous and long-standing OTP requests
12 for those very kinds of documents. You know about that, don't you?
13 A. I can say in part I did not follow the course of that trial and I
14 cannot say that I know in detail what it was that was going on. But
15 yesterday I said how the commission provided documents to anybody, the OTP
16 or the Defence, through the Ministry of Defence at first and then when the
17 national cooperation for cooperation with the Tribunal was established,
18 then through that national commission.
19 Q. Okay. Yesterday you said at page 15903, line 12 through
20 17: "Whenever we received a request from the OTP or from one of the
21 Defence teams for that matter, because the commission did not have any
22 documents we would write to all the tactical leaders in the Army of
23 Yugoslavia for them to inform us whether such documents existed to begin
24 with; and secondly, to inform us about their position as to whether these
25 documents could be forwarded or not."
1 In that answer when you say "the tactical leaders," who are you
2 referring to? Are you referring to the military commanders that were in
3 charge of troops during this various conflicts?
4 A. The documents were either in the archives of the Army of
5 Yugoslavia, that is to say those who were no longer used had already been
6 archived in the archives of Yugoslavia, or they were in organisational
7 units of the Ministry of Defence and the General Staff. These were
8 documents that were still being used, and we asked them for these
9 documents. Of course we asked for these documents --
10 Q. General --
11 A. -- From persons who were then in top positions.
12 Q. In top positions at the time of the request?
13 A. At the time of the request, people who were in top positions. We
14 were not sending this to particular persons but to organisational units;
15 that is to say, that documents are not sent to a person.
16 Q. Well, your answer said you would write to all the tactical
17 leaders. I assume that the tactical leaders are persons?
18 A. Yes, yes, yes. But correspondence takes place between two
19 institutions. I say send a letter to the personnel department. I do not
20 write to the head of the personnel department. Of course it is first the
21 chief of the personnel department that has to look at this document, and
22 then he assigns the person who's going to work on that document.
23 Q. So, for example, if in 2002 or 2003 the OTP was requesting
24 documents about the 3rd Army or, for example, the war diary of the
25 Pristina Corps, when you got that request, who would you write to, meaning
1 you as the commission?
2 A. That request would be sent at least to two addresses, one is the
3 military archives if that document had been archived, that is what the
4 archive has to establish; and then the second address would be the command
5 of the 3rd Army. There would be no one else.
6 Q. Okay. And your decision about whether or not the document would
7 be forwarded just depended on what the commander of the 3rd Army told you,
8 correct? If the commander of the 3rd Army said, No, I don't want you to
9 send that to The Hague, you would not send it?
10 A. I talked about that yesterday. You are referring to the commander
11 of the 3rd Army here. The commander would say in the response whether the
12 document exists or not, and he would provide his opinion if the document
13 does exist whether he believes that it can be submitted to the Office of
14 the Prosecutor or not. Yesterday I said that in many cases when the chief
15 or the commander would say no, that is to say when their opinion was that
16 it should not be provided, this would be discussed by the collegium of the
17 Chief of General Staff, and then we would suggest that these documents be
18 provided on the basis of our knowledge that this document is not of
19 essential interest of the national security of the country. And also we
20 received other materials, rather we would send materials provided that
21 they be given proper protection here.
22 Q. Can you give any examples where the commission overruled the
23 position of a commander who said documents should not be provided?
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you answer that. If you look at the
25 previous answer, Mr. Hannis, the discussion is not at the commission,
1 according to this, it's the chief of the collegium of the Chief of the
2 General Staff. So we seem to have got another body involved now.
3 MR. HANNIS: You're correct. And there's another correct I need
4 to follow-up.
5 Q. Let me withdraw that question right now, General, and ask you this
6 question. You said that first you would ask the commander whether or not
7 the document existed, but didn't you tell us he also checked with the
8 archives. So if the document exists in the archive, then the only thing
9 you're asking the commander is what his position is about whether the
10 document should be provided; and when I say "you," I mean either the
11 commission or the collegium. Which one is it that's deciding on the
12 commander's opinion about release of such documents?
13 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you did not exactly repeat what I said. In this
14 specific case that you asked about we would send an inquiry to the
15 military archives and to the command of the army. That is to the military
16 archive because we didn't know if it was archived or not; if it is
17 archived, then the military archives would give us an answer with regard
18 to that document and give us their opinion or position. If the document
19 had not been archived then the command of the 3rd Army would reply whether
20 this document exists or not and provide their position. Since I was
21 subordinated to the Chief of the General Staff, in principle military
22 organisations -- well, I could not and I did not have the right to send
23 any document to some other organ without the knowledge of the Chief of
24 General Staff. I think that is an answer to that question; that is to say
25 that the entire work of the commission was examined at the collegium of
1 the Chief of General Staff and also at briefings with the Ministry of
3 Q. So in our hypothetical situation when you got a request from the
4 OTP for documents from the 3rd Army, as I understand it you - and I
5 mean -- I take it in this context it's the commission - makes an inquiry
6 of, number one, the archive about whether or not the document exists; and
7 if it exists, you just said the archive would give you their position
8 about whether it should be released, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you would also make an inquiry from the tactical leader of the
11 3rd Army at the time of the request about whether or not the document
12 existed with them apparently and their position about whether it should be
13 released, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So in our hypothetical example, if the document is archived and
16 there's also a copy still with the 3rd Army commander, you'll have two
17 opinions then, one from the archive, one from the 3rd Army commander,
18 correct, about whether the document should be released?
19 A. Not correct. At the moment when a document is archived, all
20 copies are destroyed. So the 3rd Army could not -- I mean I'm talking
21 about normal -- well, I'm not going to rule things out for anybody,
22 including the 3rd Army, that they couldn't have done something against the
23 rules, but according to rules all of it should have been destroyed.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to speak into
25 the microphone and slower.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you also said to my colleague, or
2 rather, it was the collegium that had a discussion and the collegium not a
3 single time changed, amended the proposal of the commission. Every time
4 they accepted the proposal of the Commission, just like the minister of
5 defence did, just like the National Council did except in this one
6 particular case ...
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. -- I think the answer is sufficient.
10 Mr. Terzic, could you try, please, to speak a little more slowly
11 to assist the interpreters.
12 MR. HANNIS:
13 Q. General, who was the Chief of Staff of the General Staff of the VJ
14 at this time, between 2001 and 2003?
15 A. At the time when the commission existed, the Chief of General
16 Staff in the first period was Colonel-General Nebojsa Pavkovic, and later
17 on Lieutenant-Colonel-General Branko Krga.
18 Q. And at that time if there were requests of the OTP of documents
19 relating to the Pristina Corps and the 3rd Army with relation to events in
20 Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, General Pavkovic certainly would have a personal
21 interest having been the commander of those respective units at different
22 times in 1998 and 1999, correct?
23 A. I assume, yes.
24 Q. The last topic I want to ask you related to the commission. In
25 your work with the commission do you recall receiving any requests from
1 the OTP or from anyone for documents relating to a body called the Joint
2 Command or the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija?
3 A. I recall that there were such requests.
4 Q. And do you recall that the initial responses to those OTP requests
5 indicated that there was no such body for -- if there was such a body it
6 ceased to exist at the end of 1998, late 1998, maybe October, and it never
7 existed in 1999?
8 A. I beg your pardon. As far as this Joint Command is concerned I
9 first learned about it from an OTP request. According to the same
10 principle that I explained, I wrote letters and in keeping with the
11 answers received I sent an answer to you. I did not change anything. The
12 complete archives of the, or rather, the complete documentation of the
13 commission was archived, and in this documentation you can see every
14 answer provided by the commission on the basis of the replies received
15 from the tactical leaders in the archives; namely, every time an answer
16 was provided on the basis of the answers we were given. That was quite
17 understandable to me. "Joint Command" sounded illogical to me, and until
18 that moment, or rather, at that moment I did not try to check whether that
19 was correct or not or ...
20 Q. And do you recall whether any of those requests for the Joint
21 Command documents were discussed in the collegium?
22 A. All of them went there. I cannot remember whether at the
23 collegium -- let me just explain something.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the speaker
25 because other microphones are on in the courtroom. We're sorry.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Terzic, there's a problem hearing you, probably
2 because I've got my microphone on.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you please start that answer again and just
5 try to speak a little more slowly.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is to say all members of the
7 collegium received material for the collegium, and it is certain that that
8 question was in the materials. But now I cannot confirm to you with any
9 certainty whether there was a special debate at the collegium with regard
10 to that particular issue.
11 MR. HANNIS:
12 Q. Are you aware that the OTP was only able to obtain documents
13 concerning the Joint Command and Joint Command orders for the year 1999
14 after General Delic came to testify in the Slobodan Milosevic and he
15 brought with him, among his many documents, a document from the Supreme
16 Command Staff entitled: "Suggestions" from General Ojdanic. And in that
17 document it made reference to the Joint Command order of 15 April 1999.
18 It was only after that that we were able to get from Serbia documents
19 regarding the Joint Command in 1999. Did you know about that?
20 A. I'm not aware of that.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this
23 question is not quite correct. General Delic did not bring Suggestions,
24 as Mr. Hannis just said. Let us clarify that. He probably meant some
25 other document but not the document of the 15th of April.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I may have misstated, but it was
3 my understanding that we first became aware of this when there was a
4 reference to a Joint Command order. It may not have been in Suggestions,
5 it may have been in one of his combat reports with a reference to the
6 Joint Command. I apologise if I've misstated that.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
8 Mr. Terzic, you said that you remember these requests and you
9 remember the first response that was sent when Joint Command documents
10 were requested. What was the very first response sent to the OTP in
11 relation to requests for Joint Command documents?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, yesterday when I
13 started dealing with this issue, I pointed out that I'm only talking on
14 the basis of my memory after four and a half years. During the
15 preparations I did not look at a single piece of paper, there was nothing
16 to jog my memory, so it's very hard for me now to go into details and to
17 speak about this period of time because, quite simply, I do not remember.
18 If I'm not mistaken- but I'm not sure - the answer, the first one was that
19 these documents did not exist, that they were not there, but I'm not sure.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
21 Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
23 Q. All right, General, let's move on to another topic. I'd like to
24 show you --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you do that, you're now well in excess of
1 our traditional approach to cross-examination. Is it something that you
2 need to deal with that you're about to move on to?
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I wanted to deal with some of the
4 documents that he talked about in his direct exam.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: We're going to be talking about an extensive --
6 well, perhaps not. I've got to -- we've got to allow for the fact that
7 there's a statement in this case as well.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: I probably wrongly said that you are by now over
10 the limit. You're probably approaching the normal equivalent time. My
12 MR. HANNIS: I believe I am. Thank you, Your Honour. I'll try to
13 move quickly now.
14 Q. General, in document P1479, this is a Supreme Command Staff order
15 on volunteers dated the 7th of May, 1999, and I think you've seen this
17 A. I saw that document, yes.
18 Q. And I'd like to ask you about item number 10 which is on page 3 of
19 the English and page 2 of the B/C/S. This paragraph says in English: "I
20 prohibit admission of members of paramilitary units, groups, and
21 individuals already present in the zones of responsibility to VJ commands,
22 units, and installations as volunteers without prior completion of
23 procedures regulated by this order."
24 Now, as I read that, that sounds as though there were already some
25 volunteer -- or some paramilitary units or groups present in zones of
1 responsibility to the VJ. That's correct, isn't it?
2 A. Well, it's difficult for me to answer that question because an
3 order, once it's issued, was not sent to me. I was dealing with education
4 pursuant to a decision of the military top. So I can't really confirm or
5 deny this.
6 Q. And as I read that, that does not appear to be a blanket
7 prohibition to the admission of such paramilitary units as volunteers, but
8 rather that they might be admitted if the other procedures described in
9 the order were followed, correct?
10 A. Well, you can interpret that in that way, although there were
11 other interpretations possible, too.
12 MR. HANNIS: Next I'd like to show the witness Exhibit P1943,
13 which is a Supreme Command Staff document regarding problems related to
14 dispatching volunteers to the 3rd Army.
15 Q. And this is signed by Colonel-General Matovic. Have you seen this
16 document before?
17 A. I can't see it here.
18 Q. Well, I'm sorry --
19 A. But you didn't specify the time, the number.
20 Q. It should be up on your screen now. It's from the 20th of April,
22 A. Yes, I've seen this document.
23 Q. And it's talking about some of the problems regarding the
24 processing of volunteers in the Bubanj Potok facility. This relates to
25 the report of problems identified by the 3rd Army in its 10th of April
1 report. Do you know why it took ten days to deal with this rather
2 critical issue?
3 A. Well, if I'm not mistaken, the chief of the Supreme Command Staff
4 reacted on the 17th [as interpreted] of April when he ordered that certain
5 measures be taken. Among other things, I was ordered to take up the
6 training in the volunteer training centre, and on the 14th of April the
7 chief of Supreme Command Staff signed an order in which all the problems
8 related to the volunteers were put in. I got familiar with this document
9 because I didn't remember it in the proofing for my testimony here, and I
10 can consider that this document is an -- is an attempt on the part of the
11 tactical leader to operationalise this, although the military districts
12 were supposed to get all those documents from the army commander pursuant
13 to the order of the Chief of General Staff of the 14th. It is difficult
14 for me to comment because this is not a military document.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly be asked to slow down.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Terzic, you're being asked yet again by the
17 interpreters to slow down. You must bear that in mind. We cannot
18 continue this way unless you cooperate with us.
19 You referred there to something happening on the 14th of April.
20 Did you mean to say the 14th of April?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 14th of April the Chief of
22 General Staff signed an order, or rather, the chief of Supreme Command
23 Staff, he signed on order that exists in the documents that unified the
24 overall topic of the volunteers.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: We have your order, I was just -- your answer, I
1 was just checking that the date was correct.
2 Mr. Hannis.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. I see Mr. Visnjic on his feet, Your
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, page 16, line 7, the
7 witness said 11th of April and the transcript reads the 17th of April, so
8 the witness said the Chief of General Staff responded on the 11th of April
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
11 Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
13 Q. General, now I'd like to show you Exhibit P925. These are the
14 minutes of the collegium meeting of the VJ on 27 November 1998, and
15 according to the minutes you were in attendance. Do you recall attending
16 that particular meeting?
17 A. Yes. At that time I was not a member of the collegium of the
18 Chief of General Staff, and it is really difficult for me now to remember
19 whether I attended or not. I did attend some of the meetings when they
20 were dealing with the topic from my purview when that was education and
22 Q. I'd like to go to page 30 of the English, and I believe it's page
23 28 of the B/C/S. General, it does appear, according to the minutes, that
24 you were there and that you made -- you made a comment in connection with
25 something that, first of all, General Smiljanic had been talking about.
1 You see -- do you see that reference to General Smiljanic on that page in
2 front of you?
3 A. Could you please zoom in. It is impossible for me to read it.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. It's not up to my glasses, it's really illegible. The next
6 paragraph, yes.
7 MR. HANNIS: Actually, I've got a hard copy of that page I could
8 pass to the usher to hand to the witness, if that will assist.
9 Q. General, I'm going to hand you a hard copy. And near the middle
10 of that paragraph General Smiljanic is talking about staff war exercises
11 in the last two years. And he says: "Because we were not clear as to" --
12 A. Yes, I remember now.
13 Q. Okay. He says: "Because we were not clear as to the method of
14 work of the staff in preparing a decision of the Supreme Command ..."
15 And then you speak and you say: "General, the SRV," I don't know
16 what that stands for. Can you tell us what that acronym stands for. It's
17 translated into English as S or S with the diacritic full banana over it
18 as we say. SRV, what is that?
19 A. Staff war exercises.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. But here those who taped it and who typed it up later, they didn't
22 catch everything. I can clarify what it is that I meant.
23 Q. Okay. Let me read this and I'll ask you about that.
24 "General, the SRV at the level of the General Staff and an
25 exercise then showed that the organisation of the General Staff is not
1 adequate at all, the staff and the Supreme Command. Without us knowing
2 what we were doing for three days."
3 Can you tell us what the Supreme Command means in that context?
4 A. Yes, well in order to answer that question I talked about the
5 staff war exercise that was carried out ten years ago, sometime in 1987 in
6 I'm not mistaken, and I participated there. And from my point of view it
7 is correct during my participation in that exercise a great many people
8 didn't know what they were supposed to do, and that is why I made this
9 comment. And now you're asking me at that time what the word "Supreme
10 Command" meant. I was talking about the staff war exercise at the time
11 when the Supreme Command in 1987 was precisely defined, more precisely
12 defined --
13 Q. And in 1999 --
14 A. -- In the SFRY.
15 Q. Thank you. And in 1999 --
16 A. In 1998 and 1999, it doesn't really make much difference, the
17 constitutional provision was sufficient for me. Let me respond to your
18 question, but I need to clarify. The president of the FRY commanded the
19 army in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Defence Council. As
20 far as I know, there were no more detailed regulations defining the
21 Supreme Command and what it comprised, but in my mind I saw it as the
22 Supreme Command Staff. I think that I now answer your question.
23 Q. Well, maybe. You attended collegium meetings in 1998 and 1999?
24 A. Not all of them, only when training and education were discussed,
25 except after the beginning of the air-strikes and several days after that
1 I started being acting the chief of the administration for training and
2 manning and that's how I participated in the sessions of the collegium of
3 the Supreme Command Staff.
4 Q. Okay --
5 A. Not meetings but briefings.
6 Q. Let me go to the last document --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, before you leave that, I have to say I'm not
8 following this.
9 Why was this being discussed at this time, Mr. Terzic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's difficult for me to
11 remember now in the context, but it is obvious that
12 Lieutenant-General Spasoje Smiljanic, at that time, if I'm not mistaken,
13 he was the chief of the operations administration and he, of course, by
14 his office asked questions about the ability of the General Staff to deal
15 with the war situation, the wartime capabilities, not the peacetime
16 capabilities. And he proposed that some kind of a staff war exercise be
17 set up at the level of the General Staff. And I as a person who was in
18 charge of training at all levels and in all structures in the Yugoslav
19 Army, I supported that proposal.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you suggesting the start of your comment is
21 about 1987?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In 1987 a staff war exercise
23 was carried out at the level of the General Staff. At that time I worked
24 in the General Staff, I participated in that war exercise, and the
25 experiences I'm talking about come from that exercise. That's why I'm
1 talking about them here. I talk about those experiences in my
2 intervention here.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, propose that we listen
5 to the audiotape of the answer the General gave at page 19, line 24, 25,
6 and page 20, line 1.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: And why do you suggest that?
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Because I think that the witness's
9 answer differed from what is recorded in the transcript.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you say the answer was?
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I claim that the witness said, In my
12 mind I saw it as the Supreme Defence Council, and it says here
13 the "Supreme Command Staff."
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I think that will be enough for current purposes,
15 Mr. Visnjic, thank you.
16 But what I'm trying to understand, Mr. Terzic, is your suggestion
17 that your reference is to 1987. Are you suggesting that things were
18 disorganized in 1987?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The General Staff, at least in the
20 Yugoslav Army at that time rarely carried out staff war exercises, unlike
21 all other levels of command. I think that this is a similar occurrence in
22 all armies of the world, and at all other command levels there are quite
23 specific rules and instructions for their work if there is a war. For the
24 highest level of command, such instructions do not exist because they
25 would hamper the initiatives and the decision-making so that because those
1 things were carried out very rarely, in 1987 those people who were
2 employed at the General Staff in this three-day staff war exercise, they
3 did not really do all that well. In the meantime so between 1987 and this
4 year that is mentioned here, there were no staff war exercises, and I'm
5 trying to say that there had been a long time and probably again the
6 officers who were working at the General Staff again at the beginning
7 would not do that well, they would be a bit confused, and it would be
8 necessary to organize a staff war exercise for people to get some kind of
9 a refresher course and to be able to carry their wartime duties in a much
10 better fashion. I'm not talking about their peacetime duties.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: What I'm not understanding is that in the second
12 paragraph you go on to suggest the Supreme Command was organized the way
13 it was in 1987, which doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that you
14 had a problem with in 1987.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1987, according to the
16 constitution of the then-Yugoslavia, the former Yugoslavia, this issue was
17 quite specifically regulated. Here I'm talking about the same thing that
18 I said in my evidence here. In 1987 there were no specific regulations as
19 to what the Supreme Command was, and that is why I am making this
20 suggestion that this be regulated.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you saying clearly that this discussion is
22 not about recent problems but problems of 12 years before?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
25 MR. HANNIS:
1 Q. General, I suggest that that -- there's some problem with that.
2 General Smiljanic in the paragraph right above yours talks about at line 3
3 some experience by the staff war exercises of 1994, and he also makes a
4 reference to staff war exercises in the last two years. There were staff
5 war exercises between 1987 and 1998, weren't there?
6 A. In 1994, 5, 6 I was not at the General Staff, and even if
7 something like that existed, I really didn't know that. I didn't work in
8 the General Staff at that time.
9 Q. Okay. Let's move to the last document I want to ask you about,
10 this is P929. This -- the collegium session of the Supreme Command Staff
11 held on 9 April 1999, and you were listed as being one of the attendees.
12 Do you remember this collegium meeting on the 9th of April? There was a
13 directive that was issued as a result of this collegium meeting, yeah?
14 A. [No interpretation]
15 Q. And I would like to go to page 38 of the English and it starts at
16 the bottom of page 45 in the B/C/S. I have a hard copy of this as well,
17 General, that may help. And, General, I've highlighted in pink the bottom
18 of the page and the top of the next page the part that I'm going to ask
19 you about. But let me refresh your memory. Earlier in this meeting
20 General Krga and General Kovacevic and others are talking about what's
21 happened in the first 17 days of the NATO air-strikes and about the
22 current situation. And the general assessment I think General Kovacevic
23 says: "We can sustain another seven to ten days ..." This is based on all
24 kinds of logistical situations. And the discussion seems to be centring
25 around coming up with some proposals about what should be done, one of the
1 proposals is trying to go to the political leadership and have them pursue
2 the possibility of reach a negotiated settlement of the conflict. The
3 part I'm talking about General Ojdanic is speaking and he says:
4 "I mentioned that a conclusion should be given which will confirm
5 how that will affect the possibility of continuing the armed struggle,
6 particularly from the perspective of time, to conduct an armed struggle in
7 conditions of the predicted further course of the war. As for me, as
8 early as tomorrow I will ask the Supreme Command to thoroughly acquaint
9 itself," or themselves, "with this material regardless of how extensive it
10 is and I think it will not be very extensive. I will suggest that after
11 that in a group determined by the supreme commander," was how it was
12 translated, "in a previous discussion, the president briefed that group to
13 a lesser extent on the stands, assessments, conclusions, and proposals of
14 the staff of the Supreme Command as regards what should be done at this
16 From an earlier answer of yours, I understood you to be saying
17 that the Supreme Command during the time of war in 1999 was the Supreme
18 Command Staff; is that your position?
19 A. That's not what I said.
20 Q. Okay. What was your understanding about who made up the Supreme
21 Command during the state of war? We're clear that President Milosevic was
22 the supreme commander and we know that General Ojdanic was the Chief of
23 Staff of the Supreme Command Staff. But who were the members of the
24 Supreme Command?
25 A. Let me repeat once again what I've already said. As far as I know
1 the regulations on this issue, what the Supreme Command is did not exist
2 and I added that in my mind, that was my personal feeling, I always saw
3 the Supreme Defence Council as the Supreme Command, but I have no article
4 of any regulation or law to refer you to to corroborate that. That was my
5 personal feeling based on the constitutional provision that based on their
6 decisions the president commands the army.
7 Q. And prior to the war, the Supreme Defence Council consisted of
8 President Milosevic, President Milutinovic, and President Djukanovic,
9 correct? Is that your understanding of who the members of the Supreme
10 Defence Council were?
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 Q. I'm sorry, I think we were talking over each other and your answer
13 was not interpreted. Could you say it again.
14 A. As far as I remember, these two [as interpreted] were in the
15 Supreme Defence Council.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Why was that question related to prior to the war?
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, because it was called Supreme Defence
18 Council before the war. It's the Prosecution's position that at least by
19 some once the state of war started it was called the Supreme Command.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thanks.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours.
22 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Zecevic.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: 25, 17 I believe the witness says that I know three
25 of -- that these three were in the Supreme Defence Council.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
2 I have no further questions, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic -- sorry -- Mr. Fila, why --
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I first seek your permission before I
5 ask the question definitely, as I did yesterday. My learned colleague
6 raised two issues that did not stem from the examination-in-chief and did
7 not bring the thing to its close. That's why I want to ask the question.
8 If you recall, a name of a high-ranking officer who was here was mentioned
9 in private session and we didn't get to hear what this was all about.
10 That's the first question I wanted to ask because he testified before this
11 court and I wanted to check what was going on. And the second issue is
12 the issue of the documents that appeared before this Court, as Mr. Hannis
13 said, he indicated that they were used by the Defence. There are
14 documents that are used by the Prosecution that are not from here and it
15 seems the Prosecution doesn't mind that. And I simply wanted to note that
16 both parties are exhibiting documents that do not stem from the official
17 cooperation, and I wanted the witness to clarify how that came to happen.
18 These are the two issues that I wanted to clarify, and if we can't do
19 that, I want to apologise for any time that was wasted.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I guess I don't have an objection. I'm
22 not sure what the concern is about. It was clear that regarding that
23 unnamed individual the issue was dealing with whether or not a waiver
24 should be issued for that person to speak.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: It was left hanging in the air.
1 MR. HANNIS: All right.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: I was conscious of that at the time.
3 MR. HANNIS: All right.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any reason why that should have been in
5 private session?
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, because there -- part of the answer was
7 a suggestion that the waiver was not being granted because it was their
8 view that that person had revealed state secrets. Now, I don't know
9 whether that exposes that person to some sort of prosecution in the
10 domestic jurisdiction, but that's why I asked for private session.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall allow you to deal with both matters,
13 Mr. Fila, and we'll go into private session so that you can deal with the
14 first one.
15 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation].
3 Q. Second question, General: As for your commission you heard from
4 the Trial Chamber and from the Prosecutor that some people said that this
5 was a commission that was, therefore, obstructing work and that you were
6 the anti-Hague lobby, and so on. At the Slobodan Milosevic trial the OTP
7 said when Geza Farkas testified that the commission tried to hide the
8 existence of different things like the Joint Command and whatever. And
9 finally the Prosecutor, Mr. Hannis, said to you that there were some
10 documents that came up with General Delic and perhaps some others that
11 were given to this Trial Chamber, apart from you. General, I'd like to
12 tell you something, let us just add something else to this story, the OTP
13 showed different documents here without stamps, without signatures,
14 without --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: This isn't the time for a speech. You must have a
16 specific question. Please, you're going to devalue any answer you get if
17 you give a speech to the witness about all the possible answers he might
18 give you. So let's cut to the chase. Get to the point.
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yeah, I'm about to wrap-up, Your
20 Honour. That wasn't my intention.
21 Q. Specific question, what is the difference between the documents
22 that you submit and all those various documents that keep showing up,
23 being submitted by the Defence, by the OTP, by an international
24 organisation, by such and such, whatever?
25 A. Documents that were copies that were sent through the commission
1 to the National Council for Cooperation with the Tribunal were marked on
2 each page which guaranteed their authenticity and reliability that they
3 were faithful to their respective originals. We, too, had information
4 that documents were following other paths, too, and we warned all the
5 Defence teams, those who were in touch with us and kept -- General Gojovic
6 also warned Mr. Nice that should the commission be required to acknowledge
7 a single document that didn't follow this regular route with no prior
8 verification, it would refuse to do that.
9 Q. Was it possible, and that is the key issue, that certain documents
10 that simply showed up, let's talk Defence documents, let's not rile the
11 OTP right now. Would it be possible to check their authenticity by
12 forwarding these documents to you now or then, and then you would tell us
13 whether this was a copy of the document in the original was supposed to be
14 stored in the military archives or perhaps still being used?
15 A. After General Gojovic's warning to Mr. Nice, we received over a
16 hundred documents with very specific information, state secrets, such and
17 such number, such and such a date, the header being this or that, and then
18 forward this to the OTP. Obviously the inference we drew based on this is
19 that in some way they had already received these documents; how, I have no
20 idea. In what form, I have no idea. Were those complete documents --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: How about trying to answer the you were being asked
22 which is: If there was a way which documents which don't appear to have
23 come from the commission were submitted they could now be verified?
24 That's the question.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that it's always possible
1 to verify this sort of thing, that shouldn't be a problem. There's the
2 archives, there's the documents, and it's always possible to verify, to
3 cross-reference and to contrast two documents.
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
5 Q. My last question: The Slobodan Milosevic trial, I think this
6 cropped up in this trial too once or twice or even three times or God
7 knows how many times, various notebooks have been turning up, MUP
8 notebooks but army notebooks, too. Well, now, a notebook, would that be a
9 document that is supposed to be in the archives of the military; for
10 example, a general's notebook?
11 A. If you abide by the regulations, each war log-book of that nature
12 gets a file number, it's filed away and is submitted into the archives.
13 Unfortunately, this rule was not always observed, at least not fully and
14 not in each case.
15 Q. So were we to show you a notebook, not you personally, show the
16 Yugoslav Army a notebook, would it be possible to ascertain whether the
17 original was still there or not?
18 A. There is no original or copy of a notebook unless somebody
19 actually makes a copy, there is the only the original as long as no copy
20 is made, and again this should have been filed away; if filed away, copies
21 can be made, if not filed away then --
22 Q. [No interpretation] --
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand the comment
24 made by Mr. Fila, after which Mr. Fila says:
25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I have no questions for this
3 witness. I'm just using this opportunity to make a suggestion to
4 Mr. Hannis. Perhaps he should check in his own documents the suggestions
5 that he mentioned from April 1999. It's a General Staff document, it's in
6 the OTP's possession, and it has been -- it had been for at least a year
7 before General Delic showed up for testifying in the Milosevic case.
8 Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Terzic, that completes your evidence; thank you
10 for coming to give it. You're now free to leave.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honour. Have a
12 great day.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our next witness is
16 Branko Zigic, and if I may just point one thing out to the Chamber.
17 There's a group of witnesses on its way, the next four witnesses, and
18 those will be in relation to the evidence of OTP witness, Lakic Djorovic.
19 We have tried to the extent possible to keep their chiefs down to a bare
20 minimum, and these are all 92 ter witnesses. Their statements have
21 already been admitted.
22 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, what is the exhibit number for this
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] 3D528, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Zigic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
6 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
9 I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
10 and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
12 You will now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of Mr. Ojdanic.
13 You shouldn't need any papers if that's what you're looking for. Just
14 leave it until you're asked to produce anything that's necessary.
15 Mr. Visnjic.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 WITNESS: BRANKO ZIGIC
18 [Witness answered through interpretation]
19 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. Can you state your name for the transcript.
23 A. Branko Zigic.
24 Q. What is your profession at the moment, Mr. Zigic?
25 A. I'm a retired military officer. I'm a colonel by rank.
1 Q. In 1999 during the war, what was your post and rank?
2 A. I was a colonel and I was chief of security of the Belgrade
3 military district headquarters.
4 Q. Mr. Zigic, did you speak an Ojdanic Defence team investigator?
5 Did you provide a statement to that person on the 5th of January, 2007,
6 that you signed?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what about yesterday evening when you arrived in The Hague,
9 did you go through that statement?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. If you were to testify before the Chamber about these issues,
12 would your evidence be identical to that stated in your statement?
13 A. Yes, to the letter.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. You would provide all the same answers to all the questions that
17 you were asked?
18 A. Yes, precisely.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to tender
20 this witness's statement as a 92 ter exhibit, and I have no further
21 questions for the witness, this is 3D528.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
23 Mr. Zigic, we'll -- we will put your statement -- we will put your
24 statement on the screen in front of you, and that's 3D528, and I'd like
25 you to look at paragraph 3. Now, could you read the first sentence of
1 paragraph 3, please.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I didn't know nor did Djorovic tell
3 me that the VJ General Staff for ethnic Albanian soldiers were being
4 blackmailed who resided in Belgrade and other parts of Serbia so that they
5 would not be assigned to war units. I should mention that as chief of the
6 security service in the military district, I" --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: That's enough. Could you read it again, please,
8 just read it slowly again.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I'm not aware, nor did Djorovic
10 inform me, that blackmail had been organized in the VJ General Staff for
11 ethnic Albanian soldiers living in Belgrade and other parts of Serbia, so
12 that they would not be assigned to war units."
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
14 Does any Defence counsel have cross? No.
15 Mr. Stamp.
16 You'll now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor, Mr. Stamp.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
18 Q. Good morning, sir.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. I'd like to ask you first briefly about the system in place. As
21 chief of the security section for the Belgrade military district, your
22 unit would sometimes get information about alleged criminal conduct by
23 soldiers --
24 MR. STAMP: I think there is something wrong with the mike. The
25 witness is indicating.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now it's fine. Thank you.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Your unit would sometimes receive information about alleged
4 criminal conduct by members of the VJ?
5 A. Is that a question?
6 Q. Yes, is that correct?
7 A. What concerned the military district command and the military
8 territorial units, that's what I was in charge of. I used my own
9 operative connections and channels to obtain information as to whether
10 anything was happening within or just outside the military district
11 command. If what Mr. Djorovic claims was really happening, it's possible
12 that I would have obtained information from a higher level, from the
13 security administration of the General Staff of the VJ or from the
14 security organ of the General Staff of the VJ. They would have indicated
15 that there was something going on, and I --
16 Q. We'll get to that. We'll get to that. I just wanted to know how
17 the system worked. Now, on the basis of the information you had, you
18 would do a preliminary investigation and on the basis of this
19 investigation you might present a criminal report to the military
21 A. Yes, that's correct. Perhaps the only thing that I would do is I
22 wouldn't express this as a possibility. The fact is that during the war I
23 filed over 20 criminal complaints and charges for crimes that were
25 Q. And the military prosecutor may apply that formal proceedings be
1 initiated against the alleged perpetrators?
2 A. Yes -- or perhaps additional information is sought if there is
3 something that remains unclear. If --
4 Q. But --
5 A. -- All the facts have not an ascertained, so as soon as one seeks
6 additional information one comes to me; that's how it worked.
7 Q. A formal investigation is conducted by a Judge?
8 A. Yes, but they asked me to obtain additional information, whatever
9 can be obtained in the field, one of my subordinate security officers or I
10 in person.
11 Q. Yes, in the course of the investigation they would of course ask
12 for assistance from members of the security sector. Now, the military
13 prosecutor sometimes could initiate proceedings or request that formal
14 proceedings be initiated on the basis of information that he received from
15 other sources apart from you or yourself; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So I see in your statement you say that: "The security service
18 submits information to the prosecutor so that an investigation may be
19 launched. It is illogical that the service would submit information to
20 the prosecutor for initiating proceedings and then request him to halt
22 You agree with me on the basis of what you just said that it is
23 possible that the military prosecutor and the prosecutor could have
24 initiated proceedings without the information coming from you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Djorovic mentioned some names. Do you know
2 Colonel Kracun?
3 A. My apologies. Kracun is a civilian. He's no colonel and he
4 wasn't from my unit. He was from the 10th VOG -- KOG from Belgrade. So
5 what Djorovic told you is not accurate [Realtime transcript read in
6 error "is accurate"].
7 Q. But you worked with him, didn't you? There were occasions that
8 you had to work with him?
9 A. I knew him by sight.
10 Q. Did you have occasion to work with him?
11 A. No, no, there was never any need for me to work with him. He
12 worked for the counter-intelligence group and he had nothing to do with
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, page 38, line 6, what
16 the witness said is what Djorovic told you is not accurate, and the
17 transcript reflects otherwise. I think that should be corrected. What
18 Djorovic told you is not accurate.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And if I may --
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Zigic, please.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, were you quoting from the evidence of
22 Djorovic when you described Kracun as lieutenant-colonel --
23 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, as colonel?
25 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. In fact his statement which is
1 Exhibit 2671.
2 Q. Major Djakonovic is your colleague or was your colleague at the
4 A. My deputy.
5 Q. In respect to the Tijanic case, you say that you received
6 information from Captain Zuzevic and you --
7 A. Zujevic, the late Zujevic.
8 Q. And you gave orders that Tijanic was supposed to be arrested
9 immediately if he was to appear and handed over to the military prosecutor
10 along with a criminal report. Was this order made on the basis of
11 preliminary investigation that you or your sector had conducted?
12 A. This order was made on the basis of the fact that I was certain
13 that General Pavkovic and General Lazarevic were not getting supplies for
14 the army in that way. They had their regular supply methods. I knew that
15 this was some sort of a shady deal and that they were ordering supplies
16 for their own personal benefit; and later on Djorovic made the same
17 request. Should I repeat?
18 Q. No, no, I just want to know -- you conducted investigations into
19 these allegations about Tijanic, didn't you?
20 A. No, there was no need. The war was ongoing, there were war
21 profiteers, and I saw Tijanic as one such and that is why I ordered that,
22 to stop him from going to some other companies or some other units of the
23 VJ getting supplies, obtaining supplies, for himself because the army had
24 its own supplies. There was no need to go about it in this way. The late
25 Zujevic told me that he had both the stamps and the signatures of
1 General Pavkovic and General Lazarevic. I was certain that this was, in
2 fact, the case because I knew that these were honourable people and
3 patriots. I was absolutely positive that they would never have done such
4 a thing and that's why I decided to put a stop to this practice.
5 Q. You are going way beyond what I asked you. Can I ask you this:
6 Did you take statements?
7 A. Sir, there is absolutely no need to take any statement from a
8 security official. A security official can report to me in writing or
9 verbally. There is a report, not a statement; statements are taken when
10 errors are made.
11 MR. CEPIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
13 MR. CEPIC: I think that we have again error in transcript. Page
14 39, line 14 and 15, completely different sense. I can clarify or
15 Mr. Visnjic will clarify with additional questions, but I think that
16 witness's answer completely different.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it's been clarified in subsequent answers
18 that that remark could not possibly apply to Pavkovic or Lazarevic. So I
19 think we can proceed I think satisfactorily.
20 Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Well, did you receive the report in respect to Tijanic in writing?
23 A. No --
24 Q. Very well --
25 A. -- The late Zujevic, chief of security, in the Paola [phoen]
1 military recruitment office told me this in person.
2 Q. So am I to understand that the captain Zujevic told you something
3 about Tijanic and you ordered him to be arrested if he was seen and a
4 criminal record submitted --
5 A. Should he turn up again at any of the military recruitment offices
6 in Belgrade, that's what I said.
7 Q. Could you tell me what it is he was alleged to have done, what did
8 Captain Zujevic tell you that he had done?
9 A. He said that Tijanic had been coming to the Paola military
10 recruitment office to seek assistance for VJ units from the Pristina
11 Corps. Tijanic, he said, apparently was in possession of the stamps of
12 General Pavkovic and General Lazarevic, and that is why my reaction was
13 what it was. I knew that was a forgery and could by no means be true.
14 Q. So you are saying that you are not aware that Tijanic was ever
16 A. [No interpretation] --
17 Q. One moment, one moment --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, we're hearing nothing of the
20 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the interpretation now?
21 JUDGE BONOMY: But none of that answer has been translated.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. The question was: You said in your statement that you were not
24 aware that Tijanic had been arrested; is that so?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When persons are arrested on your orders, is there a system in
2 place for that to be reported to you?
3 A. Yes, but I was not in charge for all of Belgrade, only the
4 recruitment offices, or rather, the military district. As for security
5 organs in Belgrade, there are several security organs and military police,
6 too. It's not that I only had military police. I had military police
7 from the reserve, mobilised military police; I did not have active-duty
8 military police.
9 Q. Well, do you know if your unit, your sector, submitted any report
10 at all to the military prosecutor's office in respect to Tijanic?
11 A. I don't know about that.
12 Q. Well, is it possible that they could have submitted a report and
13 you would not know about it?
14 A. Perhaps it would have been possible because I was rather busy
15 concerning Bubanj Potok and the volunteers on the one hand. On the other
16 hand, at that time Colonel Milovanovic from the security department of the
17 1st Army got killed, so I was organizing his funeral for three days. I
18 was also engaged with regard to other activities. It is possible that my
19 deputy was informed about this and that he did not inform me about that,
20 that he forgot or something, but I was not.
21 Q. Very well.
22 MR. STAMP: Can we look at P2684 -- oh, I see --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that a different topic?
24 MR. STAMP: Slightly different, Your Honour. It would not -- be
25 convenient to break now.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll break at this point.
2 Mr. Zigic, we have to break at this stage for 20 minutes for
3 various reasons. Meanwhile, could you please leave the courtroom with the
4 usher and we'll see you at five minutes to 11.00.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, please continue.
10 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
11 The Exhibit Number is 2864, could we just have a quick look at
12 that. And if we could just look at the last page, that's page 5 in the
13 English version and I think that's page 2 in the B/C/S version -- well,
14 page 1 in the B/C/S version, actually.
15 Q. This, sir, is a response dated the 21st of March, 2007, to a
16 request for information sent by the Office of the Prosecutor here to the
17 relevant authorities in the Republic of Serbia.
18 MR. STAMP: Is this 2864? Could we go to the last page in the
19 English version, and that corresponds to the first and second page in the
20 B/C/S version.
21 Let's look at the first page in the B/C/S version first.
22 Q. You'll see, sir, that there are authorities of the Republic of
23 Serbia has indicated that from the records existing one Milovan Tijanic
24 was the subject of investigations filed by the military prosecutor --
25 prosecutor's office on the 25th of April, 1999, for the criminal offence
1 of breach of duty under Article 174, paragraph 3 of the FRY penal code and
2 for forgery.
3 So in respect to this person, did you not know that the military
4 prosecutor had initiated an investigation -- in fact, that
5 Lieutenant-Colonel Lakic Djorovic had initiated an investigation against
7 A. I did not know about that.
8 MR. STAMP: If we could move on to page 2 in the B/C/S and we
9 could remain on the same page in the English.
10 Q. You will see that the case was assigned a new number following the
11 end of hostilities, and ultimately the records of the case were destroyed.
12 What I'd like to ask you about that part is that it refers to a Milovan
13 Tijanic and it says: "From military post 9650 Pristina." Do you know
14 what 9650 means?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. You know that in the VJ in Serbia various military posts are given
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. One other thing, Mr. Zigic, in your statement you said that --
20 that Djurovic never approached you or requested any information that "I
21 did not give him if it was in the service's interest."
22 What do you mean when you say "in the service's interest"?
23 A. I don't understand what this is about.
24 Q. If you look at paragraph 6 of your statement, the last sentence --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: 3D528 you need on the screen.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. 3D528 --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Paragraph 6.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could it please be zoomed in.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Please read the last sentence of paragraph 6.
6 MR. STAMP: And that is page 2 in the English copy.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Please read it aloud, the last sentence in
8 paragraph 6.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me to do?
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I claim with full responsibility
12 that Djorovic never addressed me or asked for any information without me
13 having provided to that to him if this was in the interest of the
14 service," that is to say if it was in the interest of preventing crime or
15 proving that some criminal crime had taken place, nothing else, those were
16 the interests of the service. If I may proceed.
17 "Djorovic even had a meeting with my subordinate security organs
18 without me being present there, all of this with a view to speeding up
19 information flows and proving the commission of crimes more quickly
20 because the distribution of mail was impeded because they moved very
21 frequently and it was difficult to reach them by phone. So he could
22 communicate directly with security organs of lower-ranking units so that
23 they could file criminal reports more quickly, all of this with a view to
24 having a faster functioning."
25 MR. STAMP: I have in this further for this witness. Thank you
1 very much, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
3 Mr. Visnjic.
4 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zigic, two questions, one pertains to part of
6 your statement that was interrupted due to technical problems and this is
7 why --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]...
9 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, Mr. Visnjic. Please continue.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Djorovic, one of the questions that the Prosecutor put to you,
14 or rather, Mr. Zigic --
15 MR. VISNJIC: Serious mistake.
16 Q. [Interpretation] One of the questions that the Prosecutor put to
17 you, and you gave an answer, but please explain this to us in detail. In
18 addition to yourself and your own organs, who could have arrested
19 Mr. Tijanic in accordance with an arrest warrant, that is?
20 A. Any member of the security organs or the military police in the
21 territory of Belgrade, and I've already said. I had a police company from
22 the reserve that had been mobilised, and there was the military police
23 from the command of the 1st Army, there was the military police from the
24 corps, there was the military police from the defence command of the city
25 of Belgrade, from the armoured brigade, and so on and so forth, not to go
1 into the entire establishment.
2 Q. Thank you. Next question: As for your duties, did it -- did they
3 include that you should follow all the cases that the Prosecution was
4 dealing with and did you have to know about that?
5 A. No, only those where I filed criminal reports or my subordinate
6 security organs.
7 Q. Thank you. Third question: Did you ever in any way threaten
8 Djorovic or ask him to act in certain cases in a way which --
9 MR. STAMP: That doesn't arise. We have the statement of Djorovic
10 and his evidence as to what happened.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: How does that arise from cross-examination,
12 Mr. Visnjic?
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Well, in all sincerity, it doesn't,
14 so I will withdraw this question.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zigic. No further questions for you.
18 A. You're welcome.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zigic, that completes your evidence. Thank you
21 for coming to the Tribunal. You're now free to leave.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too. Have a nice day.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness is
1 Arsenije Katanic.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness is
3 Arsenije Katanic.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That's also going to be a 92 ter
6 witness. His statement was admitted into evidence as 3D530, 5-3-0.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Katanic.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President, good
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
12 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: You will now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf
19 of Mr. Ojdanic.
20 WITNESS: ARSENIJE KATANIC
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Katanic.
24 A. Good morning, Mr. Visnjic.
25 Q. Mr. Katanic, can you give us your full name and surname for the
2 A. Arsenije Katanic.
3 Q. Mr. Katanic, can you please tell us what your current occupation
5 A. Today I am a lawyer. I have my own law office.
6 Q. What was your occupation in 1999, during the course of the war
7 with NATO?
8 A. During the bombing I was an investigative judge in the military
9 court attached to the command of the military district in Belgrade.
10 Q. Thank you. Mr. Katanic, on the 18th of January, 2007, did you
11 give a statement to an investigator of General Ojdanic's Defence team, one
12 that you signed in your own hand?
13 A. Yes, that is correct. I did make a statement on the 18th of
14 January, 2007, and I signed it in my own hand.
15 Q. Yesterday when you arrived in The Hague, did you have a look at
16 the statement?
17 A. Yes, I had a look at the statement that I had signed on the 18th
18 of January, 2007.
19 Q. Could you confirm that if you testify before this Court, if you
20 were to testify before this Court and answer the same questions that were
21 put to you on the 18th of January, 2007, you would have provided the same
23 A. Yes, of course I would have provided the same answers because
24 basically that exactly corresponds to how I see things and how I remember
25 them in relation to what I stated on the 18th of January and what I
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is 3D530.
3 Q. Mr. Katanic, in your statement in paragraph 4 you say that no one
4 exercised any influence over you in relation to the case of an individual
5 by the name of Tijanic. I want to ask you something else. Yesterday when
6 we talked, you told me that during the war you had some serious cases that
7 you had to deal with and that nobody exercised any pressure --
8 MR. STAMP: I think it's going too far, leading.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, it is a very leading question. I
10 appreciate why you think exactly the same evidence would be given today,
11 but I think in court it should be given in the context of open questions.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, then since it was a
13 leading question anyway, perhaps I should withdraw it and I should let the
14 Prosecutor put his questions to this witness.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
16 Just before that happens, Mr. Katanic, the reference in paragraph
17 4 is to General Gojovic; is that right -- sorry --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it is similar, Mr. President,
19 but it is Gojkovic, there is a K in between. It is General Gojkovic. At
20 that time he was president of the supreme military court, not Gojovic.
21 Gojovic was at that time, as far as I can remember, discharging other
22 duties. At any rate, it is not the same person. General Gojkovic at that
23 time was president of the supreme military court. I have the statement
24 right here in front of me and it does say Gojkovic with a K.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 You'll now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor.
2 Mr. Stamp.
3 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
5 Q. Good morning, sir.
6 A. Good morning, sir.
7 Q. You conducted the investigations in relation to the allegations
8 against Mr. Tijanic?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Did you take statements from witnesses?
11 A. In that case, as far as I can remember, yes, but I cannot remember
12 specifically how many witnesses.
13 Q. Did you take statements from -- a statement at least from Tijanic?
14 A. From Tijanic, yes, of course -- well, look, Tijanic was brought
15 before me because I was an investigating judge. He was brought in by the
16 military police, and there was a request there by the prosecutor who at
17 the time was Mr. Lakic Djorovic, suggesting that he be remanded in
18 custody. Of course I could not have him detained or take any other
19 measures before I hear him. I conducted this hearing and he was remanded
20 into custody and a decision was made for an investigation to start. I can
21 also say that on the previous day Mr. Djorovic ordered me, he told me,
22 since he was the prosecutor, that it was a rather serious case and that
23 our court attached to the military command, the military court, primarily
24 dealt with Article 214 of the then-criminal code of the SFRY, and that had
25 to do with dodging the draft, military obligations, and this was not
1 directly related to Article 214. Somebody told, or rather, Djorovic said
2 that it was a more important case, a rather important case; however, when
3 the investigation began I saw that it was truly insignificant. It proved
4 to be a truly insignificant case. --
5 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
6 A. -- That is as much as I can remember.
7 Q. And much is in your statement -- much of what you said is in your
8 statement. One of the allegations against him was that he was in
9 possession of documents purporting to have come from the chief -- the
10 command of the 3rd Corps and the command of the Pristina -- the command of
11 the 3rd Army and the command of the Pristina Corps. Do you recall that?
12 A. I don't recall precisely. I know that he was suspected of
13 something of that kind and that I as the investigating judge did check
14 that. I sent memos in order to verify whether this was really authentic
15 because Mr. Tijanic looked - how should I put it? - he didn't look as a
16 person who would be able to do anything of any major importance for anyone
17 because he was in his mental and physical abilities not so good and he
18 couldn't do things even for himself, let alone help anyone else, and that
19 was what we were able to ascertain in the investigation. So the
20 allegations that he had some certificates and that he had been authorised
21 by anyone to gather any aid, that was all refuted. That was really very
22 frivolous charge at that moment.
23 Q. Your --
24 MR. STAMP: Sorry.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.
1 I'm confused at the moment about whether you're saying the charge
2 was a minor charge or the evidence showed that he was innocent. Because
3 we've had evidence from the head of the security of the Belgrade district
4 that this was a very serious charge.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at that time when I got the
6 case in my capacity as the investigating judge, I get the case, when I get
7 the request to conduct an investigation from the prosecutor, in this case
8 it was Lakic Djorovic, or when a criminal report comes in from the
9 military police, at that point in that document this was painted as a much
10 more serious offence, a much more substantial thing than it turned out to
11 have been the case. Afterwards, after the investigation was conducted and
12 all the evidence was gathered, it turned out later that there was no great
13 danger to the society involved in that case and there was no evidence that
14 would mean that this person would have to remain in custody.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: What was it that you ultimately established he had
16 done that was so minor?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the investigation was
18 completed, during the investigation as far as I can remember I questioned
19 a few witnesses and gathered all the necessary documents, and I completed
20 the investigation, submitting the file to the competent Prosecutor. After
21 a while, the Prosecutor decided not to prosecute and I was bound by the
22 law to put a stop to the criminal proceedings and to the investigation.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you not answer my question? What was it that
24 you ultimately established he had done that was so minor?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, during the investigation I
1 cannot draw any conclusions -- I don't know how your function -- your
2 system functions.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: If you can't answer the question, just say so; but
4 if you can help us by telling us what this very minor offence was, it
5 would be of great assistance in assessing the various versions that are
6 being presented to us.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, given that the investigation
8 was stopped and given that the prosecutor decided not to prosecute, the
9 evidence was so insignificant, it was impossible to use it to prove the
10 criminal offence. I can't remember what the criminal offence was, but the
11 evidence was so insignificant that the investigation had to be stopped.
12 The evidence and the entire case, everything that was said, everything
13 that was found and determined in that -- in the proceedings resulted in
14 this conclusion that I made that this was an insignificant case. And
15 after the completion of the investigation, the prosecutor formulated this
16 by saying that there was no need for any further investigation, and he
17 decided not to prosecute.
18 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Well, I would also interrupt here to ask you a
19 question, sir. Now, you remember quite details of the file, but you do
20 not remember the facts as to what were the allegations so that you came to
21 the conclusion on the basis of the record that the -- these were very
22 insignificant. I mean, it's -- you ought to know what were -- what was
23 alleged against him, what were the accusations, if you know everything
24 else on the file.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, perhaps it is my fault because
1 of the way in which I tried to explain this to you. This man Tijanic
2 stuck in my mind as an individual -- as a man of few abilities, of little
3 power, and this is why I remember him in that way, because the prosecutor
4 painted him in quite opposite colours, saying this is crime, abuse of this
5 nature or that, and that is why -- that's why I remember it because there
6 was this terrible picture, and once we got into the case it turned out
7 that there was nothing. That is why I remember the case. Now, if you
8 want to ask me what he was charged with, I don't know the details, but I
9 know that these were insignificant things.
10 JUDGE CHOWHAN: [Previous translation continues]...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's why I remember that.
12 JUDGE CHOWHAN: You don't know what was against him? I mean, it's
13 only then that we can find out if it was serious or not. Thank you.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: And the person you say who decided to withdraw the
15 charges was the acting deputy military prosecutor; is that correct?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. The procedure
17 is as follows. The prosecutor puts in a request --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Please, I don't need any more information than
19 simply an answer to the question that I'm asking you. Can you help on the
20 date that that happened?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I forgot. A lot of time has
22 passed. I know that the state of war was ended and I know that this case
23 was then put before a military court. It was no longer the wartime court
24 at the district command but it was then transferred to the military court.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: We have all that in your statement. If you can
1 just confine yourself, please, to answering the specific questions we're
2 asking you.
3 Mr. Stamp.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. How long did he remain in custody or in detention?
6 A. I can't recall that. I really can't recall that, but I don't
7 think it was a long time but I really can't remember. I know for sure
8 that he was in detention for a while and that he -- that a defence counsel
9 was appointed to him.
10 MR. STAMP: Can we quickly have a look at -- sorry.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Just give us a moment, please, Mr. Stamp.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
14 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at P2936.
15 Q. And while this is being brought up can I ask you about how long
16 would files in a case of this nature be kept in the archives before they
17 are destroyed?
18 A. Well, I really can't tell you. I am not the archive keeper. I
19 used to be a judge and now I'm a lawyer.
20 Q. Very well.
21 MR. STAMP: If we could look at page 1 of this document.
22 Q. And I could just tell you that document is a response from the
23 authorities of the Republic of Serbia in respect to a request that the
24 Office of the Prosecutor here made and it is dated the 17th of July, 2007,
25 and it indicates --
1 MR. STAMP: The English -- and I'm referring now to page 2 of the
2 English copy which corresponds to page 1 in B/C/S.
3 Q. That indicates that the court files were destroyed in 2003, the
4 files in respect to the case against Tijanic. When did you leave the
5 military service?
6 A. I left the military service in the year 2000, in September, about
7 a year after the air-strikes against my country ended.
8 Q. Do you know the circumstances under which these records, the
9 records of your investigation, were destroyed?
10 A. Of course not because, as I said, at that time I already had my
11 own law office. If I may, I can answer based on my recollection. I think
12 that this case was discontinued in 1999 already, I think by the end of
13 1999 that case was already discontinued. The decision on the
14 discontinuation became final, which means that in accordance with the
15 practice in the courts it was archived. I don't know what happened with
16 that case afterwards because this is outside of my purview.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. STAMP: If we could look at the last page of the document in
19 the English version, and I think that's the last two pages of the B/C/S
21 Q. With the help of the usher could I hand you a copy. These are the
22 records from a log-book if you look at the last two pages. What you have
23 there is a log-book referring to the case file and the destruction of the
24 file that was submitted to us by the authorities of the Republic of
1 A. Yes, you can see here 1999, I think it says the 1st of June, -- I
2 can't really read whether it's 2002 or 2003, and the destruction is in
3 2003. Yes, yes. So it was discontinued sometime in 1999 or --
4 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
5 A. What page? I don't know what page you're referring to.
6 Q. First page of the log-book you have there, the log-book is in
7 handwriting, it indicates that the charges dismissed in May 2000.
8 A. Well, approximately. I said by the end of 1999. It's possible
9 that it may have been in May 2000. I know that I was still at the court.
10 That case remained my case right from the beginning. I was the first
11 person, the first judge, to see Tijanic and I put a stop to the
12 proceedings. From the beginning to the end. I remember that the case was
13 discontinued. I remember that Mr. Djorovic was the prosecutor. I don't
14 know who the deputy was, but the prosecutor right at the beginning was
15 Djorovic and that was the case throughout the time when I was in the war
16 court, or rather, until he was transferred to the other post.
17 Q. Thanks. You have given me much more than an answer to what I was
18 asking. Now, if you look at item 5, items 4 and 5, you will see that it's
19 related to Milovan Tijanic, a sergeant first class. Is the sergeant first
20 class in the VJ, the person you described as being of limited physical and
21 mental abilities who couldn't do anything for himself?
22 A. Well, I think it was possible because he was in the reserve force.
23 The reserve force included so many different people that I as a judge saw
24 all kinds of people, from intellectuals to people of meager physical and
25 mental abilities such as Mr. Tijanic.
1 Q. But do you remember -- do you recall that he was a sergeant first
2 class? Do you recall that?
3 A. I really can't remember --
4 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
5 A. -- He looked like an ordinary reserve soldier. That was the
6 impression that I had. I don't recall any rank.
7 Q. It also says that he was from military post 9650 Pristina. Can
8 you tell us what the 9650 designates?
9 A. I can't recall that, but I assume that it was in the Pristina
10 jurisdiction. I was in Belgrade. I was a judge in Belgrade at the
11 military district command, and that was not the military post.
12 Q. Very well.
13 MR. STAMP: I have nothing further for the witness. Thank you
14 very much, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I have no questions, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
20 Mr. Katanic, that completes your evidence; thank you for coming to
21 the Tribunal to give it. You're now free to leave us.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, your next witness.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness is
1 Djordje Strunjas.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: And the statement number in this case?
3 MR. VISNJIC: 3D529.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Strunjas.
9 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
11 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
16 You will now be examined been behalf of Mr. Ojdanic by
17 Mr. Visnjic.
18 Mr. Visnjic.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 WITNESS: DJORDJE STRUNJAS
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Strunjas. Could you please --
24 actually, I can see that in your statement you retired in 2004 with a rank
25 of a colonel?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What were your duties in 1999 during the state of war?
3 A. In 1998 I was the deputy chief of the administration for
4 international arms control.
5 Q. And in 1999?
6 A. When the combat operations started at the beginning of the
7 aggression, I was transferred to Kumbor to the navy command where I worked
8 as a staff officer.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly be asked to move closer
10 to the microphone, please.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Just one moment, Mr. Visnjic.
12 Could you move closer to the microphone, Mr. Strunjas, it will
13 help the interpreters greatly. Thank you.
14 Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Your last name, Strunjas, it's relatively rare; am I right?
17 A. Yes, you're right.
18 Q. Could you please tell me whether in 1999 there were any other
19 persons with the same surname, Strunjas, working in the General Staff of
20 the Army of Yugoslavia?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Thank you. On the 11th of January, 2007, you gave a statement to
23 an investigator of General Ojdanic's Defence and you signed that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. After your arrival in The Hague were you able to inspect that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If you were to testify before the Court, would you have answered
5 the questions asked of you in the same manner, in the way that you did in
6 the statement?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to
9 tender 3D529, that is the statement made by this witness on the 11th of
10 January, 2007, and I have no further questions for this witness.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.
12 Mr. Strunjas, you'll now be cross-examined on behalf of the
13 Prosecution by Mr. Hannis.
14 Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I decided to just stay here
16 and ask my questions from this location.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
18 Q. General, you just said that you would answer questions today the
19 same as what you said in your statement from January 2007, and I note that
20 in your statement of January 2007 you said that you went to Kumbor on 6
21 May 1999. Is that when you first went to the navy, in 1999?
22 A. Well, that's what I just confirmed a minute ago.
23 Q. Well, the question was: "And in 1999 you said when the combat
24 operations started at the beginning of the aggression I was transferred to
25 Kumbor to the navy command where I worked as a staff officer."
1 You do know that the aggression started on the 24th of March,
2 1999, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So where were you between the 24th of March and the 6th of May,
6 A. I was in Belgrade. I was in Belgrade at the General Staff, but I
7 did not have any duties because the institution where I worked did not
8 have its wartime formation, wartime establishment, rather, we only had the
9 peacetime establishment. And until my wartime assignment was determined,
10 I was in Belgrade. This was a month, a bit longer than a month.
11 Q. Okay. Even though the war had started, you were sitting there for
12 several weeks before you got the a wartime assignment?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. I want to fill in some gaps in your background from your
15 statement. It says that you were in Pec between 1986 and 1989. Can you
16 tell us what your rank was and what your job was during that time?
17 A. I was a major. I was the commander of a motorised battalion.
18 Q. Which one, if you recall?
19 A. That was the 2nd Battalion of the 125th Motorised Brigade.
20 Q. And who was your immediate superior at that time?
21 A. My immediate superior is the late-Colonel Slavisoje Kosti [phoen].
22 Q. And from 1988 to 1994 your statement says you were in Pristina.
23 Can you tell us what your rank was and what your job was during that
25 A. Yes. I was lieutenant-colonel, and I worked at the corps command
1 as the chief of the operations centre, in fact.
2 Q. And who was the head of the Pristina Corps at that time?
3 A. The corps commander, unfortunately also no longer alive, his name
4 is Veso Srdjic.
5 Q. And you tell us from 1994 to 1999 you were with the General Staff
6 of the VJ, correct?
7 A. Yes, sir. I served in the operations administration of the
8 General Staff, and I held the rank of a colonel.
9 Q. And you held that job from 1996 until sometime in 1999 when you
10 went to work for the arms control administration?
11 A. I think there is a misunderstanding there, it was before 1994 and
12 1996 that I was with the operations administration, and from 1996 on I was
13 with the international arms control.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. You're right, I misread that. Who were -- who
15 were your superiors -- who was your superior officer when you were in the
16 operations administration until 1996?
17 A. Yes, General Simic.
18 Q. Miodrag Simic?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And from 1996 until 1999 when you went to the naval posting in the
21 arms control administration who was your superior?
22 A. Colonel Cedomir Gnjilanovic unfortunately, also, no longer among
24 Q. And what were your duties in the arms control administration?
25 A. At the time the arms control administration was in charge of the
1 implementation of state and military commitments based on the Dayton Peace
2 Accords, paragraph 4 of the accords, more specifically, which envisaged
3 certain military restrictions to be imposed on the warring parties.
4 Q. And between January -- let's say between the 1st of January, 1999,
5 and the 5th of May, 1999, before you went off to Kumbor, what -- can you
6 describe briefly for us what you did in your job on a day-to-day basis?
7 A. If that's relevant for these proceedings, I can explain that, sir,
8 briefly. First of all, I was not involved in any peacetime assignments
9 performed by my administration, but this was a wartime assignment and all
10 our commitments that stemmed from the Dayton Accords were frozen until
11 such time as combat operations had drawn to a close. I regularly reported
12 to work every morning. We worked in several different military facilities
13 and buildings, but I did not have any special assignment.
14 Q. Well, I guess I'm still a little bit at a loss. Let's say between
15 January 1st and the 24th of March, when the aggression started, what did
16 you do? You came in to work, but what was your work?
17 A. Well, we had our own internal plans, based on which we did some
18 work here and there. For example, educational assignments, we studied
19 certain things, we drew up certain things, but this would normally take no
20 more than several hours a day. I did not have any special assignment, but
21 I see that you're pressing me. Believe me, I would tell you if there was
22 something worth reporting.
23 Q. And between the 24th of March, when the aggression started, and
24 the first week in May, when you went to Kumbor, what did you do during
25 that time, the same?
1 A. The same thing, yes.
2 Q. Well --
3 A. There were many officers attached to these military institutions
4 that simply had no war establishment. We were awaiting our assignments,
5 and as you suggest, I was simply off duty for several weeks where I had
6 nothing to do.
7 Q. Okay. Can you tell me where geographically are the military
8 sectors of Zemun - I'm sorry, my pronunciation is not very good - Zemun?
9 A. Sir, I don't know.
10 Q. Palilula?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Novi Belgrade?
13 A. I know Novi Belgrade as a city, but not the military district.
14 Q. How about a military sector? I understand there's a difference
15 between a military district and a military sector; is that not correct?
16 A. Yes, yes, I understand that. Military district is higher up than
17 the military sector. Where was the command of the Belgrade military
18 sector, I don't know. I suppose it was at Nemanjina Street number 9, but
19 I can't be certain.
20 Q. And aren't these three sectors, Zemun, Palilula, and Novi Belgrade
21 all within the greater military district of Belgrade?
22 A. I assume so.
23 Q. Did you have -- in your position, did you have any contacts or
24 dealings with VJ security officers or personnel -- including colleagues
25 and former academy classmates, et cetera?
1 A. Of course, yes.
2 Q. You told us that you're the only person named Strunjas on the
3 General Staff, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I don't know, sir, is it -- is it a rare name or a common name?
6 Are there other people with your family name in the VJ at that time?
7 A. Well, I think there was another one, yes.
8 Q. And do you know what rank he held and where he worked?
9 A. No, not really. We're not related. I don't know. I wasn't in
10 touch with that person. We didn't know each other, but I heard of someone
11 by that name, Strunjas, who I think was working somewhere around Uzice in
12 a place called Kremna. I think that's where he worked, but I'm not
14 Q. Do you know what rank he held?
15 A. I assume he was my junior, bailiff lieutenant, a captain maybe.
16 Q. Now, do you know what VJ body or what administration in the VJ
17 would have information about Albanian soldiers in the VJ or in the VJ
18 reserve. Who was responsible for that? Who kept those kind of records?
19 A. Well, the question is not very specific; nevertheless, I believe I
20 know what you're trying to ask me, and I hereby inform you that any
21 information on military conscripts, any military conscripts not just
22 ethnic Albanians, is something that is normally in the possession of
23 military sectors. They have all the relevant documents, files, personal
24 files, records in relation to all military conscripts, not just ethnic
1 Q. Okay. Is that information that is accessible by members of the
2 General Staff of the VJ?
3 A. Accessible to some, I suppose. There are sectors within the
4 General Staff that in functional terms deal with mobilisation, organizing
5 the army, and they probably have access to that, but in my career and in
6 the posts that I held, I never had anything to do with that type of
8 Q. Okay. You first heard about the allegations of Colonel Djorovic
9 about you allegedly being involved in some sort of ring extorting or
10 blackmailing Albanian members of the VJ or conscripts? You first found
11 out about that, when, in January of this year?
12 A. Yes, and I was surprised and embittered. I felt that way for a
13 while. This really affected me. I would never have done anything like
14 that nor did I, indeed, do anything like that.
15 Q. You don't know Colonel Djorovic at all, do you?
16 A. No, no.
17 Q. You -- so you -- since you don't know him, I assume that you know
18 of no prior grudge or bad dealings that would be a motive for him to
19 accuse you of something you didn't do?
20 A. It might be, but I never worked with him, never met him formally
21 or informally, and I can't quite understand why my name was dropped in
22 that particular context.
23 Q. Well, that's why I asked the question, sir. I can't quite
24 understand why if you didn't know him and there was no prior grudge, why
25 would Colonel Djorovic come here under oath and say he had information
1 about you being involved in such a thing and how would he pick your name
2 out of all the possible names in the world? Do you have any explanation
3 for that?
4 A. I don't understand. As a witness, I can only tell the truth, I
5 can only tell you about facts, and I cannot base my evidence on
6 speculation or assessments as to why someone might do this or might not do
7 that. It is under oath that I'm telling you this. I was never involved
8 in anything like that nor could I possibly have been.
9 Q. Well, I understand your answer to be that you were not, but you
10 say you could not possibly have been. I suggest to you, sir, that you
11 could have been because you didn't have all that much work to do during
12 that time-period, based on your description of your job. You were in
13 Belgrade, you were part of the General Staff which you told me was a body
14 where there were people who might have access to that kind of information.
15 So in terms of opportunity to commit the alleged crime, you did have the
16 opportunity, didn't you?
17 A. Well, in addition to the fact that there is the time-frame, a
18 time-line for this, that is true. The only coincidence is the time-frame,
19 but everything else you're saying is untenable. None of the other
20 conditions had been met and these allegations are anything but true.
21 Q. Well, you mentioned the time-frame, that's the other thing that
22 strikes me as interesting, sir, is that in Colonel Djorovic's statement he
23 indicated this information came to him in April or May. And in your
24 statement you were -- perhaps you just simply weren't asked, but you
25 didn't mention where you were between January of 1999 and May the 6th of
1 1999 and you didn't mention it when Mr. Visnjic first asked you a
2 question. So are you trying to hide what you were doing between January
3 and May of 1999?
4 A. No, quite the contrary. I'm being entirely sincere and I didn't
5 have an establishment function at the time, but I did report to work every
6 morning. I spent all this time with the people I normally worked with,
7 and I was always there. I could have been checked upon by my superiors by
8 whichever units were in charge of preventing crimes such as the one that
9 is being insinuated here.
10 Q. Just one final question then. Can you give us the names of the
11 people that you dealt with on a daily basis during that time-period? Just
12 give us the names of three or four people that you were working with every
13 day between January and May of 1999.
14 A. I can name a number of people, those were people from my
15 administration, and I will give you a couple of names. For example, my
16 colleagues Colonel Radomir Vujkovic, Colonel Milun Ljubicic, Dragan
17 Todorovic, Captain Dejan Adamovic.
18 Q. That's good. Thank you.
19 MR. HANNIS: I don't have any other questions, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
21 Mr. Visnjic.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no questions.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Strunjas, that completes your evidence; thank
25 you for coming to give it. You're now free to leave the courtroom.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
3 MR. VISNJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. [Interpretation] Our next
4 witness is Milos Spasojevic. His statement is 3D532.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Spasojevic.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
11 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I read this?
14 I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
15 and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: You will now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf
19 of Mr. Ojdanic.
20 Mr. Visnjic.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 WITNESS: MILOS SPASOJEVIC
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Can you state your name for the record, sir.
3 A. Milos Spasojevic.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. You're welcome.
6 Q. Mr. Spasojevic, on the 9th of January, 2007, did you speak to an
7 Ojdanic Defence team investigator, following which a statement was drawn
8 up that you signed?
9 A. Yes, that is true.
10 Q. What about yesterday, following your arrival in The Hague, did you
11 go through that statement?
12 A. Indeed I did.
13 Q. Were you to be asked the same questions before the Trial Chamber
14 now, would your answers remain the same as those provided in the statement
15 that you signed?
16 A. By all means.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Your Honours
18 this is Defence Exhibit 3D532 and I have no further questions for this
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.
21 Mr. Spasojevic, you will now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor.
22 Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Spasojevic. Your statement says from your
1 graduation from law school from 1984 to 2005 you worked at the supreme
2 military court and the military court in Belgrade. Can you tell us how
3 your time was spent between 1995 and May of 1999 at the supreme military
4 court; what was your work there?
5 A. Your Honour, Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, between 1994, May more
6 specifically, you mentioned 1995, but in actual fact this period started
7 in May 1994 to 1999, I worked with the -- I was a lawyer and I had a law
8 practice in Belgrade.
9 Q. Okay. Were you not a member of the military? Did you have a
10 private law practice? I don't understand.
11 A. Yes, precisely. I was not a member of the military. I had my own
13 Q. Okay. And so when your statement says you worked at the supreme
14 military court and the military court in Belgrade, does that mean you
15 appeared before that court representing soldiers?
16 A. Specifically, but my statement you must see it in a different
17 light. As of 1986 and all the way until 1994, May 1994, throughout my
18 time with the military I did work for the supreme military court and the
19 Belgrade military court. I appeared before those courts also after this
20 when I had my own private office. But when I talked about me working for
21 the military -- supreme military court and the Belgrade military court, I
22 meant the period between 1986 and 1994, I was professionally involved with
23 those two institutions.
24 Q. Okay. Well, I'm confused because your statement says you
25 graduated from the law school in 1984 and then it says from then until
1 2005 "I worked at the supreme military court and the military court in
2 Belgrade." Now, from 1984 until 1986 what were you doing?
3 A. This is the period that I spent working with the Skopje military
4 court, it was a "stage." Prior to my assumption of a position within the
5 military judiciary to the military court, this was a "stage" at the Skopje
6 military court.
7 Q. You may need to help us out with what this was at the Skopje
8 military court. I hear you saying something that sounds like "stoj" but
9 we're not getting an interpretation and I don't know what it means.
10 A. Having obtained my diploma at the faculty of law and having
11 started my work as a lawyer, I was already a professional military person
12 in the infantry. I took my degree at the faculty of law and I asked to be
13 transferred to a legal job. They allowed this, but according to the
14 procedures at the time you had to do an internship, some sort of practical
15 experience, work, before you assumed an appropriate post within the
16 military judiciary, and this is precisely the sort of "stage" or
17 internship that I did in Skopje at the time.
18 Q. Thank you. That clears that up. So did you go to law school
19 while you were in the military?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. I guess I should have started -- when did you first join
22 the military?
23 A. I first joined the military on the 14th of July, 1974, having
24 completed the military school for land forces, ground forces, in Sarajevo,
25 the 1st Garrison where I served was in Bitolje. I'm not sure if you want
1 me to elaborate on that or not, if so, please state so, that's 1984; and I
2 graduated. Is that the period you're looking into, sir?
3 Q. Your answer was translated as you joined the military on the 14th
4 of July, 1974, correct?
5 A. Yes, after graduation.
6 Q. And then you told us I think from May 1994 -- well, up until May
7 1994 you were in the military; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then you had a private law practice until I think May of 1999;
10 is that right? Did you retire from the military in 1994 or go on reserve
11 status or what?
12 A. Yes, precisely. On the 31st of April, more specifically, or the
13 1st of May, 1994, which I can't quite remember, but I think it was on the
14 31st of April, 1994, I filed a request to terminate my professional
15 military service. Obviously I became a reservist from that moment on in
16 theory and I started my own private law practice. On the 24th of March,
17 1999, when the attack on Serbia and Montenegro began, I volunteered, since
18 at the time I did not have an actual war assignment, I volunteered, as I
19 say, to the military court in Belgrade because I had earlier worked for
20 that court and I now wanted to do something there during the war that I
21 was qualified for. I was told that the court was fully manned at the time
22 under the war establishment and that my involvement was not needed. I
23 then asked to be given another duty that I was qualified for. I am a
24 lawyer, after all, so I went to the legal administration of the defence
25 ministry and I was awarded a position there. If necessary, I can go
1 further into this.
2 Q. No --
3 A. What else I did throughout that time.
4 Q. I have some other questions.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I have maybe 20 more minutes. I don't
6 know if you want to break or press on.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: I think we should break, Mr. Hannis. What we shall
8 do -- just give me a moment.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Spasojevic, we need to have a break at this
11 stage for half an hour. Could you please leave the courtroom with the
12 usher and return again -- you'll come back again at five minutes to 1.00.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Spasojevic, you say in your statement that you knew
20 Lieutenant-Colonel Djurovic from before. Do you recall when you first met
21 him and under what circumstances?
22 A. Well, in view of all the time that's gone by, it would be
23 difficult for you to get an accurate answer from me now to that
24 particular question from me now but I will try to remember as much as I
25 can. It is possible that it was approximately in 1990 or 1991 in this
1 building in Mirijevo 12.58.54 where I live, this is part of a
2 neighbourhood. These are apartments that were provided to the military.
3 His best man lived this, his name was Mirko Kujacic. He was a lawyer,
4 too. He worked at the supreme military court at that time together with
5 me, and on one occasion he introduced me to Lieutenant-Colonel Djurovic.
6 I think that he then worked at the legal administration of the Ministry of
7 Defence, and if I remember correctly it is quite possible that that was
8 our only contact of this nature.
9 During the course of our work we did not have any contact; that is
10 to say that officially we never had any contacts at any point in time.
11 Q. All right. So you never had any difficulties or disagreements or
12 problems with him prior to May of 1999; is that fair to say?
13 A. No, no.
14 Q. When you were appointed in May 1999 to your position to be the
15 military prosecutor for the Pristina Corps; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Who picked you for that job?
18 A. I don't know if I can give you a precise answer to that question.
19 This is a question that has to do with personnel, and that is decided upon
20 by organs at the General Staff, those that have to do with the appointment
21 of such personnel in the military.
22 Q. Do you know if that was a new position at the time or were you
23 replacing someone who had previously been doing the job?
24 A. As for this position, or rather, this duty, I replaced the person
25 who discharged that duty before me.
1 Q. Do you recall who that was by name and rank?
2 A. Captain Djordjevic.
3 Q. Do you know his first name?
4 A. I cannot recall right now. Before this particular duty, he worked
5 at the military court in Nis. I did not have personal contact with him,
6 so I cannot recall his first name.
7 Q. Do you know why he was leaving that position, was he being kicked
8 out or was he being promoted or did he -- did his term run out? Do you
9 know why there was a need for him to be replaced?
10 A. I can just assume what the reason might have been why he was
11 replaced from that particular post. Since this replacement took place
12 immediately after the control that was carried out by the chief of the
13 legal administration of the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and
14 Montenegro, so I assume that perhaps they were not fully satisfied with
15 his work. I would like to note that this is just an assumption on my
17 Q. Who was the chief of the legal administration at that time when
18 the control was carried out?
19 A. Lieutenant-Colonel-General Radomir Gojovic.
20 Q. And did you ever see a written report of that control that was
21 done prior to Captain Djorovic leaving the position?
22 A. Captain Djordjevic [as interpreted] was duty-bound in relation to
23 this control to compile an official report about the work of the
24 prosecutor. If you are referring to that document, I haven't seen that
1 Q. I was actually --
2 A. I beg your pardon, the control had to do with the regular control
3 under such circumstances. In addition to that prosecutor's office, at the
4 same time control was carried out of the prosecutor's office in the
5 military district in Pristina and both courts that functioned in Pristina
6 at the time; that is to say the military court attached to the corps
7 command and the one attached to the other command. So it wasn't a
8 targeted control; it was carried out at all the others that I mentioned.
9 Q. And I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that there was some sort of
10 report written about that control about all of those courts; and if there
11 was, that's the document I'm asking if you ever saw?
12 A. I haven't seen such a report.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I assume -- well, I assume that this kind of report was compiled
15 by the organs who had carried out the control, but this report was not
16 accessible to me.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: That's --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was referred to.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: That's good enough. You've answered the question.
20 Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
22 Q. Sir, if you'll try and give me short answers, I'll try and speed
23 this up and get to it shortly. You mentioned in paragraph 3 of your
24 statement, you say when you arrived in Pristina that you - and I think you
25 mean you and Colonel Djorovic - were not called by the state security
1 organs as Djorovic says in item -- paragraph 32 of his statement. Are you
2 saying that you were never called by state security organs after your
4 A. It is quite certain -- well, I mean as far as this statement is
5 concerned, Mr. Djorovic's statement, it is quite inaccurate. It
6 absolutely does not correspond to the truth. I stand by the statement
7 that I gave in writing. May I just clarify that there is something very
8 illogical in this statement in view of the position of the prosecutor and
9 the position of security organs. According to the Law on Criminal
10 Procedure, or rather, the criminal code of the Republic of Serbia that was
11 in force then, security organs are functionally subordinated to the
12 military prosecutor, and the military prosecutor is the one who engages
13 for the purposes of uncovering crimes and prosecuting crimes he engages
14 organs of the military police inter alia. So it is totally unusual and
15 not customary for security organs to address the military prosecutor and
16 to call him; that can only happen in a private context but not certainly
17 in an official context.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: So now can we go back to the question that was
19 asked. Were you never after your arrival in Pristina, never ever
20 contacted by state security organs?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was contacted not by state
22 security organs but by military security organs; however, only with a view
23 to my service and certain cases where this was necessary, but not in the
24 context referred to by Lieutenant-Colonel Djorovic. The nature of our
25 work, I don't know if you understood the first part of my answer, the
1 nature of the work between the military prosecutor and the security organs
2 is such that by virtue of their work they communicate and there were such
3 contacts every day practically.
4 MR. HANNIS:
5 Q. Well, sir, in paragraph 32 of Colonel Djorovic's statement it
6 doesn't appear to me that he's saying you were contacted in connection
7 with your duties as prosecutors; it just says: "As soon as we were
8 arrived, we were called by state security organs and they were located in
9 an apartment of some expelled Kosovo Albanians."
10 Now, you go on in paragraph 3 to say: "We were not offered any
11 flats that used to belong to Kosovo Albanians that had been expelled."
12 I don't read anything in Colonel Djorovic's statement to be
13 claiming that any such offer was made. I'm curious why you're saying you
14 weren't offering any flattings; Djorovic is not saying that you were. Did
15 you misunderstand that or is there a problem between the translation
16 between the B/C/S and my English version?
17 A. In my response I did not refer to any offer pertaining to
18 apartments. If that was your understanding, then it has to do with
19 inadequate interpretation. Your previous questions did not pertain to
20 apartments or something like that.
21 Q. Well, let me hand you the B/C/S version of your statement and ask
22 you to read it, maybe it is a translation problem, it's paragraph 3 and
23 it's the second sentence.
24 A. May I read it?
25 Q. Please.
1 A. Are you referring to this sentence: "I lived at my deputy's,
2 Dragan Zivica's" -- is that the part you're referring to?
3 Q. No, it should be the sentence prior to that, if my English is
5 A. "Prior to our arrival in Pristina we were not called by the
6 security organs, the DB organs," is that the part you're referring
7 to. "Upon our arriving we were not called by the security organs" as
8 Lakic Djorovic claims in his statement, in paragraph 32, "we were not
9 offered any flats of expelled Kosovo Albanians."
10 Is that part you're referring to?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. "I lived at my deputy's Dragan Zivica's and Djorovic was taken by
13 his co-workers" --
14 Q. That was translated as saying: "We were not offered any flats
15 that used to belong to Kosovo Albanians ..."
16 My question is: Why did you say that? Djorovic doesn't say in
17 his statement that you were offered flats belonging to expelled Kosovo
18 Albanians; I'm curious why you put that in your statement?
19 A. Probably that is the way the question was presented to me, or
20 rather, that he had stated something like that. I don't know. What I
21 stated is quite certainly correct. During my stay in Pristina, I never
22 lived in a flat of some expelled -- well, first of all, I don't even know
23 who was expelled, let us be clear on that, but I certainly did not live in
24 that kind of apartment. If I stated something like this, I certainly
25 stand by what I said. This is an integral part of my statement and I
1 assume it was written up this way because this kind of question was put to
2 me on the basis of Lieutenant-Colonel Djorovic's statement. He had
3 probably stated something like that.
4 Q. I'm telling you, sir, I'm looking at paragraph 32 of his statement
5 and he does not state that. When you were interviewed on the 9th of
6 January, 2007, were you shown Colonel Djorovic's statement and in
7 particular paragraph 32 or was it just described to you by the person who
8 was doing the interview or do you remember?
9 A. I think that his entire statement was not shown to me. As far as
10 I can remember now, only parts of his statement were shown to me and then
11 on the basis of that I compiled my own statement. As a matter of fact, I
12 can say that I am sure that his entire statement was not made available to
13 me so I did not write my statement on the basis of his comprehensive
14 statement. It is parts of his statement that were put to me.
15 Q. And one of the parts that was put to you was paragraph 32,
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it would
21 be fair if paragraph 32 of Djorovic's statement were to be shown to the
22 witness in its entirety, because as far as I can see, as this paragraph
23 continues, Djorovic does mention something that has to do with apartments.
24 So perhaps that can be brought into -- P2671.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: You can deal with that in re-examination,
1 Mr. Visnjic.
2 Please continue, Mr. Hannis.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
4 Q. Paragraph 4 of your statement deals with the issue of a common
5 grave or a mass grave in Orahovac, and you say that you didn't know
6 anything about that and so you couldn't have known anything about a case
7 related to a common grave. Sir, would you allow for the possibility that
8 Colonel Djorovic may have sent a file to you concerning a mass grave in
9 Orahovac, but you either did not receive it or you may have forgotten
10 having seen such a file. Is that possible?
11 A. No. I and Lieutenant-Colonel Djorovic were carrying out duties in
12 two separate prosecutor's offices. He was in the prosecutor's office
13 attached to the military district of Pristina only for a few days, four or
14 five days. I cannot give you the exact timing, but it's not more than
15 four or five days. In view of the nature of the work and the jurisdiction
16 of this prosecutor, or rather, both of these prosecutorial jobs, we could
17 not cooperate because the military district command prosecutor and the
18 prosecutor at the corps command are quite different and they have
19 different powers. I remember that time well, those few days while he was
20 there, I remember that we did not have contacts of this nature; that is to
21 say he never submitted to me any kind of document, or rather, a file.
22 Q. Where were the two of you housed? Were you in the same building
23 or were you in separate buildings? What was that situation?
24 A. We were housed in separate buildings.
25 Q. How far apart, both in Pristina I take it?
1 A. Both buildings were in Pristina -- well, say 500 or 600 metres
2 away if I'm able to tell.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. The prosecutor's office of the corps was at the misdemeanours
5 court in Pristina. At one point in time it was opposite the building of
6 the Museum of Kosovo, and the military district prosecutor's office was in
7 a business building, a commercial building, in the centre of Pristina. At
8 that time when Mr. Djorovic was prosecutor, this prosecutor's office where
9 I was a prosecutor and his prosecutor's office, during those three months
10 changed locations in Pristina several times because of the possibility of
11 being bombed.
12 Q. In paragraph 5 further connected to this Orahovac common grave
13 case you mention that Djorovic could not have returned such a file to you
14 and you base that in part because of the case number that he refers to,
15 and you mentioned the case number which had the letters or the initials KV
16 number 106/99. You tell us that the mark KV is a court code for the case
17 and means "in camera." Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What would the initials or letters be for a prosecution code case
21 A. It would be VTK.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. If it has to do with a known perpetrator; if it's perpetrator
24 unknown then it's KTN. At any rate, KV is a designation for a court file,
25 a court case that is decided upon and that is discussed by a criminal
2 Q. I seem to recall having seen the initials KR on some court-related
3 documents; what would that stand for?
4 A. KR is a designation that could be borne by prosecutor's cases and
5 court cases depending on the stage of the proceedings involved. This is
6 before the indictment is issued. At any rate, it has to do with criminal
7 cases. So it is prior to the investigation stage, too, if it came to the
8 court on the basis of a criminal report.
9 Q. And what would you or personnel in your office have done if you
10 had received delivered to you a file with the letters KV on it, meaning it
11 was an in camera court code case? Would you have kept that file or would
12 you have passed it on to the court as something you shouldn't have?
13 A. I did not say and I don't know why you understood me that way,
14 that this was something I was not supposed to have. The question is a
15 hypothetical one because it does not pertain to a concrete case. How I
16 would act if I got a particular case file depended on the content of that
17 case file itself.
18 Q. The reason I ask that question is in your statement at paragraph 5
19 discussing this court code the English, the last sentence says: "That
20 means that even if there had been such a case, it could not have been with
21 the prosecutor, but with the military court, which Lakic Djorovic, as a
22 lawyer, should know."
23 Now, I understood your last answer to mean just because it has
24 those letters "KV" on it doesn't mean that you couldn't have it for some
25 purposes; am I misunderstanding you?
1 A. In view of the fact that Lieutenant-Colonel Djorovic said that he
2 submitted a case file with this designation to me, I said in that context
3 what I had said; that is to say that this is a case file that is marked as
4 a court case which does not mean that at some point in time it cannot be
5 in the prosecutor's office. It can certainly be in the prosecutor's
6 office during a certain stage of the proceedings once the criminal chamber
7 passes a decision with regard to a particular case. This decision is most
8 often based on a request submitted by the investigating judge. After such
9 a decision of the criminal chamber, the case is returned to another stage
10 of the proceedings, most often to the investigation stage, because it is
11 the investigating judge that is the one who submits to the chamber the
12 case for it to make an appropriate decision at that stage. I'm saying
13 that it is strange, how come this case would be in the prosecutor's office
14 in view of the stage of the proceedings involved. I did not rule out the
15 possibility that it could not be in the prosecutor's office at any point
16 in time; it can certainly be in the prosecutor's office at a certain stage
17 in the proceedings but not as put by Djorovic.
18 Q. Okay. Two other matters in your statement I want to ask you
19 about. In paragraph 6 you talk about the incident where Colonel Djorovic
20 allegedly beat up his deputy. I just want to confirm that your
21 information about that is second-hand. You weren't present when that
22 event occurred, you didn't see it yourself. All your information is based
23 on what you heard from other people or read somewhere else, correct?
24 A. After this incident, the very next day after the incident --
25 Q. I'm sorry, sir, do you not understand my question? Can you just
1 say whether that's correct or not?
2 A. Yes, I understand your question, but I feel that I need to
3 clarify. The injured party -- well, I was not there at the scene where it
4 happened, I was not present at that incident, but the injured party, the
5 person who was injured by Lieutenant-Colonel Djorovic, who was his deputy
6 at the time, he was the deputy prosecutor at the time, that person, the
7 injured party came to see me in my office the next day after this
8 incident, and he told me himself what had happened in actual fact.
9 Q. Thank you. With regard to paragraph number 7 you say while you
10 were in Kosovo you never drove cars seized from Kosovo Albanians, that you
11 and other organs in the prosecutor's office used vehicles with civilian
12 plates on the roster bearing Yugoslav Army markings, and then there's a
13 question, work papers, and all the necessary documents.
14 Sir, you don't have personal knowledge of where the vehicles you
15 were driving came from prior to your being given control of them, do you?
16 You don't know who might previously have owned the vehicle that you were
18 A. The vehicles that we used, we at the court, came from the sources
19 that I stated here because the data about the vehicles were given to us by
20 the officers from the corps command who were in charge of those affairs.
21 The transport and traffic service officers, they issued appropriate
22 documentation needed for us to use those vehicles during the state of war,
23 so I have first-hand information that those vehicles were -- belonged to
24 known owners. Some of the vehicles, this is not something that I spoke of
25 in my statement, some of the vehicles came from the fleet of the Pristina
1 municipal court, those vehicles had been seized in the course of criminal
2 proceedings against persons who committed certain crimes, and then in
3 accordance with the law the court seized those vehicles because those
4 vehicles had been used in the commission of some crimes. But if you will
5 allow me, I think that it was just one vehicle and it was a Mercedes that
6 had been placed at the disposal by Mrs. Nada Tokovic, who was the
7 president of the Pristina municipal court, so she placed that vehicle at
8 our disposal for our use. I can't recall which one of the judges, but it
9 was just one vehicle.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. HANNIS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
13 Mr. Visnjic.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Exhibit 2671, page 9
15 in B/C/S, could we just clarify one thing relating to a series of
16 questions asked by Mr. Hannis.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Spasojevic, while we're waiting for this
19 document to come up --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it 2671?
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. Page 9 in
22 English, that's paragraph 32.
23 Q. Mr. Hannis asked you about the portion of your statement where you
24 say that allegedly, or rather, I'm trying to find it here, that the state
25 security organs did not call you and that you were not offered any flats
1 that offered to Kosovo Albanians who had been expelled. Now I want to ask
2 you, I don't know if you can see in front of you paragraph 32. Can you
3 see it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Would you kindly start reading from the second sentence, starting
6 with: "As soon as we arrived ..."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you please read it for the record. We need the exact
10 A. "We were called by the state security organs and they were located
11 in an" --
12 Q. Could you just read a bit more slowly starting with "as soon as we
13 arrived ..." And then until the end of this sentence.
14 A. "We were called by the state security organs and they were located
15 it an apartment of some expelled Kosovo Albanians."
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we then move to page 10,
18 that's the next page in B/C/S, and could we scroll up a little bit. Next
19 page, please.
20 Q. Could you please read the first sentence there.
21 A. "I saw with my own eyes the apartment which was taken over by them
22 from expelled Kosovo Albanians."
23 Q. Thank you. And now could you read the sentence starting with "I
24 didn't want ..."
25 A. "I did not want to stay in these apartments and Spasojevic took me
1 to a house which was said to be a Serb house."
2 Q. Thank you. In your statement in paragraph 3 you said: "We were
3 not offered any flats that used to belong to Kosovo Albanians who had been
5 What you just read, does that correspond with some interpretation
6 that might present at the first time -- at the same time the question that
7 you provided an answer to?
8 A. What I've just read is Mr. Djorovic's statement, and I've already
9 said that it is entirely incorrect. We were never called by any state
10 security organs and we were never offered any accommodation in private
11 homes, and I never offered him the kind of accommodation that he's talking
12 about. So this is completely incorrect. This is just an insinuation,
13 nothing more than that.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
18 Mr. Spasojevic, that completes your evidence; thank you for coming
19 to give it. You're now free to leave.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think we broke the
24 record and I don't want to push the envelope any further and to set new
25 standards in this institution, but my colleague, Mr. Sepenuk, would like
1 to raise some issues and our next witness will be ready tomorrow morning.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk.
3 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. We have a witness
4 scheduled for this Friday, Radomir Gojovic, and we did not put
5 Mr. Gojovic's name on the witness notification last week, because quite
6 frankly we expected to have him next week, but he has very pressing
7 business all next week in Belgrade --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not a problem for us, Mr. Sepenuk.
9 MR. SEPENUK: Well, it's a problem with Mr. Hannis, that's why I'm
10 bringing it, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
12 MR. SEPENUK: So we put him on for this Friday because he must
13 leave for Belgrade on Saturday. Mr. Hannis objects to this because we did
14 give late notice and there's no question we gave late notice because we
15 didn't expect to have him. I think Mr. Hannis was told informally on
16 Monday, we gave informal notification on Tuesday and we filed our formal
17 notification yesterday, and -- but Mr. Hannis says he's unable to get the
18 necessary work done for the cross-examination. I will say this is a 92
19 ter witness. We will be introducing the testimony from the Milosevic case
20 and the exhibits introduced in the Milosevic case, and that's a very major
21 portion of the points we're making through Mr. Gojovic. There will be
22 additional material, but it's essentially the Milosevic material with
23 certain other matters stressed. But in any event, I believe Mr. Hannis
24 wants to object to -- I think Mr. Hannis has suggested we do the direct
25 and we save the cross until a future time.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: When will Gojovic again be available?
2 MR. SEPENUK: He would be available on the 3rd or 4th of October.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: And you have no other evidence available on Friday?
4 MR. SEPENUK: We do, as a matter of fact, we have one other
5 witness scheduled for Friday.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: But not for the full day?
7 MR. SEPENUK: Not for the full day.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Nothing can be advanced to fill the time?
9 MR. SEPENUK: Not as I understand, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, yes, I did object. We got an e-mail
12 that was sent at 9.45 p.m. on Monday and I didn't see it until Tuesday
13 morning, indicating that they wanted to add Mr. Gojovic as a witness for
14 this week. He is a significant witness, Your Honour, probably the primary
15 issue going to the issue of lack of punishment. He did testify in the
16 Milosevic case. Although I think there are only ten exhibits noted on the
17 notification for him, the -- the materials are substantial. I think his
18 prior testimony is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 pages of
19 transcript. The exhibits -- I don't know how many pages there are because
20 when I tried to open that document listing the Slobodan Milosevic exhibits
21 I was unable to open it yesterday. So I'm not sure how many pages that
22 is. In total it's about 600 pages because we've been preparing for about
23 ten other witnesses this week, Your Honour, of whom two we learned
24 yesterday, I guess, are not going to be called at least this week. I find
25 myself in a very difficult position trying to be ready and do a
1 professional job of cross-examination on Friday. I know we have two
2 witnesses schedule for tomorrow and then in addition to Mr. Gojovic on
3 Friday we do have witness Pantelic scheduled. So it may not even get to
4 be that problem, but I did want to alert Your Honours if we did and if you
5 expect me to complete and conducted my cross-examination on Friday I found
6 that I should alert you that I would be asking for some leave in that
7 regard because of the late notification and the amount of material.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: The problems confined to cross-examination so it
9 can be dealt with if and when it arises.
10 MR. HANNIS: Indeed and I wanted to give you a heads up on the
12 JUDGE BONOMY: And it may be that its only part of the
13 cross-examination that's affected by this.
14 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: However, this does give us an opportunity to look
16 at the more general question of time. We know, I think, enough about how
17 things are going now to review the situation, and I would welcome some
18 guidance from counsel about this. We had assumed that there would be
19 ongoing discussions among Defence counsel about the allocation of time,
20 indeed we've said that that should happen.
21 Now, Mr. Visnjic or Mr. Sepenuk, I don't know who's principally
22 dealing with this, has there been discussion in which you have broad
23 parameters agreed about the use of the hours that are available for the
24 presentation of the Defence case?
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no, but we knew that
1 the first two Defences would take up less time than planned, but we didn't
2 have any further consultations than that.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's a real problem because we've obviously
4 proceeded under a misapprehension. Of the 500-and-odd hours estimated by
5 the Defence, we allocated 240, and that means that somewhere between 40
6 and 50 per cent of what was anticipated was allocated -- in fact, it's
7 little more than 40 per cent. And had we been applying -- or were we to
8 apply that to the original estimate of your case, you could find that next
9 week might be your last week, subject of course to Mr. Ojdanic giving
10 evidence and you've got him scheduled for a week.
11 Now, we have to be conscious of the interests of the later accused
12 as well as the interests of your client, and as far as I can see you're
13 about, apart from the evidence of your own client and the expert listed,
14 you're only about a third, not quite a half way through the witnesses.
15 Now, we appreciate your demonstrating serious efforts to cut down the time
16 in court and to present the evidence in writing, but it may be coming a
17 bit late in the day in your case and that's why it has to be addressed
19 If parties are not able to reach broad agreement on the division
20 of time, then we will have to do it for you; and you'll appreciate our
21 reluctance to do that unless it's absolutely necessary.
22 Mr. Ackerman.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I -- it may be less of a problem than
24 you think. The Pavkovic Defence presentation will take significantly less
25 time than the Ojdanic presentation, mostly because we would have had to
1 call some of these witnesses if he hadn't done so, and by the same token
2 we're putting on some witnesses that the Lazarevic Defence would have had
3 to call had we not done so. So all those things are working in your
4 favour, Your Honour. Let me finish -- go ahead, you always get to
5 interrupt. You're the Judge.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: No, please go ahead. I'm happy to listen to
7 anything you think needs to be said first of all and then I'll come back.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: And then the other thing our -- the bar table
9 motions that we're all trying to get dealt with, because that would keep
10 us from having to show a bunch of documents to witnesses and I can move
11 through my witnesses really rapidly if I don't have to introduce documents
12 through them and can get them admitted through the bar table. So we're
13 all trying I think really hard to move us into that 240 hour time-period
14 that you have set out. And I don't see a major problem developing,
15 although the Lazarevic and Lukic Defences may disagree with me. But I
16 would hope that that is not such a rigid time-period that the interests of
17 justice are overcome by rigidity and timing that that would keep justice
18 from being done in this case and I don't think that is the case.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there are three things to be said there. And
20 one is that it's a generous allocation bearing in mind what happened in
21 the Prosecution case and was designed -- or was based on the anticipation
22 that there would be great deal of coordination, discussion of the time
23 involved among the various parties, and the use of writing to -- in all
24 the areas where that's appropriate. And it's clear -- this is simply a
25 basic statement. It's clear -- it was clear in the Prosecution case, it's
1 clear in Mr. Visnjic's case that there are things which could have been
2 done in writing which haven't been done and they wouldn't have caused any
3 prejudice. So that's number one about the length of time.
4 Number two is that your first point about the witnesses being
5 apparently reduced because of the way in which the case is being presented
6 doesn't really fit the picture I have because there are virtually no
7 witnesses in common -- in fact, if there were a couple at the beginning
8 then that was resolved. So your witnesses, although they may be giving
9 evidence that's helpful to other members of the military, are your
10 witnesses. They do not arise in common with the others.
11 Your third -- the third point that needs to be made is to say that
12 we welcome greatly the efforts to have the documents presented at the bar
13 table and we are giving currently active consideration to that.
14 So I don't think what you've said reassures me entirely about the
15 division of time. Mr. Visnjic's original estimate is a bit longer than
16 yours, and if you were saying to me you're going to be a lot shorter than
17 your estimate, that's fine, but we initially expected you to be at least
18 50 per cent shorter than your estimate before this exercise started. You
19 can see that if you just look at the basic figures.
20 So you can see it seems to me there's been a bit of burying heads
21 in the sand on this one and we can't allow it to continue. We have to
22 address it in fairness to everyone.
23 Just looking broadly, this is off the top of my head as a broad
24 indication of the sort of thing that we anticipated might happen, the
25 Lukic team have estimated something that would take six months. They've
1 always said to us they thought their case would take three months. So
2 they're probably -- if they can do it in three months, they'll fit in
3 probably just under half of the number of hours that they've actually
4 estimated, that's a very broad brush.
5 There are three military people here, there must be a great deal
6 in common, and therefore we anticipate that their case can be looked at to
7 some extent as an entity, and you've just confirmed that, but by no means
8 an entire entity, each one has its own interest. So we don't expect the
9 whole military case to be the same as the Lukic case but we don't expect
10 it to be three times the Lukic case. You can see the broad indication.
11 Now, if we could be assured that by the end of this year we will
12 be close to finishing the military case, fine, but that's not the picture
13 that's building up just at this minute.
14 MR. ACKERMAN: Perhaps I neglected to give you an estimate. It
15 would surprise me a great deal if the Pavkovic takes -- case takes two
16 weeks, and I think that would certainly put you in a position where the
17 military case would be finished by the end of the year, should, but our
18 case is not going to be very long, provided we can get the bar table
19 documents taken care of the way we want to.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: This is a very useful exercise.
21 Now, Mr. Visnjic, I know that you've been looking for information
22 about figures that hasn't been given to you as yet, but taking into
23 account even today's time which in your case is no more than half an hour
24 I imagine, you've done about -- just over 19 hours of examination, if that
25 helps you, but the hours you've allocated to the witnesses yet to be heard
1 in your case, apart from your client and the expert, is 37 hours, twice as
2 much as you've already used. And you've used two and a half weeks. So
3 you have another five weeks plus your client and then there's the expert
4 evidence later. Now, that doesn't fit in even with Mr. Ackerman's
5 schedule. He's, clearly, doing as the first two accused did and focusing
6 on things that are crucial. But you have a different approach as far as
7 we can see.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can give you an
9 estimate, some kind of an estimate now as to when our case would end if
10 that means anything to you. I assume that we will call all the evidence,
11 apart from General Ojdanic's testimony, before the break that is
12 anticipated for the 8th, by that I mean all the witnesses including
13 possibly the expert. Now, of course that would depend on the length of
14 the cross-examination, but I believe that we should be able to do all that
15 before the break starting on the 8th. I don't know how many hours that
16 would take, but if we're talking about 19 to 37 hours, I think we will
17 have a -- we will be able to do a lot of progress. The only reason why I
18 need a break, and that's why I would like to ask you for two, three days
19 before General Ojdanic's evidence, lies in the fact that we practically
20 were unable to consult before the beginning of our Defence case, and
21 that's why I would like to ask for an adjournment of a couple of days to
22 be able to consult with him about his evidence. But his evidence will
23 take substantially less time than indicated in our initial assessment.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: You -- I can't let that last remark pass. You had
25 a great deal of time to consult. That was part of the approach that this
1 Chamber has taken to the preparation for and presentation of the case.
2 Were you going to say something, Mr. Hannis?
3 MR. HANNIS: Just to advise Your Honour that we have a difficulty
4 with the Defence military expert because we don't have the English
5 translation of his report yet, and frankly it would be nice to have that
6 in hand before General Ojdanic testifies.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
8 One of the -- let's be sure we're on the same wavelength here,
9 Mr. Visnjic. You have two and a half weeks -- less, you have two weeks
10 and two days to the break, one of them is not a complete week. Now, you
11 can only -- your examination-in-chief is going to be no more than eight or
12 nine hours in each of these weeks. So you're -- with the best will in the
13 world continuing the way you're continuing, you'll do another period
14 slightly less than you've done so far in your case. Now, are you saying
15 you will complete the other witnesses other than the expert and
16 Mr. Ojdanic by then?
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Microphone not activated]
18 JUDGE BONOMY: We may then have to consider his position and --
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Including the expert, I meant
20 including the expert -- [In English] Yes.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: There is a problem if the translation's not
22 available and you're saying you'll do it even with the expert which is
24 We would regard the break as your obvious time to ensure that
25 you've done -- had adequate consultation with Mr. Ojdanic. We would not
1 be contemplating any additional time off than that, and we would also
2 hope -- you've estimated eight hours in his case and I think you should be
3 trying to adhere to no more than that. The one person, above all, we are
4 extremely anxious not to restrict in giving evidence is an accused who
5 chooses to do so. I think we see that as a different position from other
6 evidence; on the other hand, one has to be realistic about it and there is
7 a limit to how many things any accused person can deal with specifically
8 in any detail in a case like this. So we hope you'll bear that in mind in
9 deciding how to present his evidence, but we are conscious of that as a
11 Now, if anyone else has anything to say, please say it now,
12 because we will have to reflect on this. This has been very useful and
13 very encouraging - I speak for myself in saying it - it sounds encouraging
14 because it sounds rather different from what I had anticipated before
16 Very well. We shall adjourn now and resume at 9.00 tomorrow.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day of
19 September, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.