1 Thursday, 11 June 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 Appearances. Mr. Harmon.
14 MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
15 everyone. Mark Harmon, Bronagh McKenna, and Carmela Javier for the
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
18 Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
20 afternoon to everyone in the courtroom. Mr. Perisic is represented today
21 by Milos Androvic, Tina Drolec, Daniela Tasic, Colleen Rohan, and our
22 interns are here, Katharine Marshall and Jason Keck, and
23 Mr. Gregor Guy-Smith and Novak Lukic.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic. We go through the
25 ritual, still bound by the declaration you made at the beginning to tell
1 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
2 WITNESS: MIODRAG STARCEVIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Just before we begin, Mr. Lukic, I guess because Mr. Starcevic is
5 not able to talk to anybody, he has sent word to the Chamber to say that
6 he would like to leave tomorrow if it is at all possible, and I don't
7 know -- it's not in my hands. It's not in the Chamber's hands. It's in
8 the hands of counsel.
9 Do you think can you give him that guarantee?
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned he most
11 certainly can because I'm going to complete my cross in half an hour
12 today. But I don't know if this is all that significant.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You wouldn't need the whole two session and the
14 whole day tomorrow too.
15 MR. HARMON: That's correct, Your Honour. I think we can
16 reassure Mr. Starcevic that can he go home tomorrow.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Starcevic, see I'm a
18 good lawyer, Mr. Starcevic. You'll get my bill.
19 Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I got no translation, Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I just asked to go into private
23 session, please, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
25 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
3 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Starcevic, if you recall yesterday, we
6 finished with a number of documents that referred to the procedure that
7 had to do with that person, Vujic, about whom there was a disciplinary
8 court of the VRS disciplinary court, and then we established that he had
9 been pensioned off by the Army of Yugoslavia. And you agreed with me
10 that it indicated that he - let me put this that way - was terminated
11 from active military service on different grounds which was stated in the
12 decision of the disciplinary court.
13 Now we're going to look at a document that you also looked at
14 with Mr. Harmon.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at document P2417,
16 under seal.
17 Q. Do you remember that you said for this document that you
18 established that this was also a sentence or a judgement by the
19 disciplinary court of the VRS, and there was a legal remedy involved
20 also, wasn't there?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then you also analysed for Mr. Harmon the sequence of events
23 as far as proceedings for Antic, Zoran. We also see the entire judgement
24 here pertaining to him?
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up a little bit,
1 please, so that we can see the particulars. This part is excellent and
2 can we please look at the same section in the English. Probably it's on
3 the next page.
4 Q. What it says here in the particulars as we say that in the legal
5 world, under number 2, about Antic, Zoran, at the time the judgement was
6 reached and that was on the 23rd of September, 1995, and in parentheses,
7 and it cannot be seen on the screen right now. This is something,
8 probably, that we can see, and it does say that in the document. That,
9 according to the particulars, he is currently at an unknown address in
10 the VRS from the 15th of March 1995 [as interpreted] -- from the 15th of
11 February, 1995 [as interpreted]. And then we have the dispositive or the
12 main body of the sentence where it states --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpretation said 1995. I read.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 15th of February,
15 1993. We apologise, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Madam Interpreter -- or
17 Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, no -- yes, yes.
19 Q. And it says, "Are guilty." Meaning specifically what it says at
20 the end of this first paragraph. The second accused or co-accused Antic,
21 Zoran, on 13th of March, 1995. Is that actually the date when he
22 actually left the unit of his own will -- wilfully?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. Simply speaking that is the day of his desertion? I'm using some
25 easier language; isn't that right?
1 A. I understand.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up, or, actually,
3 scroll down this B/C/S part of. The English version of the text does not
4 need to be moved.
5 Can we scroll down a little bit more, please, so that we can see
6 the heading of the document.
7 Q. Can you please confirm for me that this judgement was reached on
8 the 23rd of September, 1995. That is the day when the court practically
9 established his guilt; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. Compared to the previous case, Mr. Harmon did not show you a
12 single document which would indicate that that man appeared as a
13 serviceman in the Army of Yugoslavia. You didn't see any document
14 indicating that that man, after this point in time, when he deserted, was
15 in any unit of the Army of Yugoslavia or the Army of Republika Srpska; is
16 that correct?
17 A. It is possible. I don't recall that.
18 Q. Based on the assumption that this Mr. Antic, as well as based on
19 the assumption in the first case of Mr. Kosojevic, when he left that unit
20 of the Republika Srpska that he never went to any other unit of the Army
21 of Yugoslavia.
22 Would you agree with me that the person who has the duty to
23 establish, in administrative terms, the day that all the rights due
24 cease --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the question.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in order for rights to be
2 suspended or cease for somebody, there has to be established a ground for
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry -- apologise to the
5 interpreter. I'm going to have to repeat my question.
6 Q. Because my whole question was not recorded in the transcript, and
7 I don't want to paraphrase, I'm going to answer -- I'm going to repeat.
8 You would agree with me that if a certain person does not return to a
9 unit of the Army of Yugoslavia and left the unit of the Army of Republika
10 Srpska as established in this judgement, then the Republika Srpska has to
11 establish, in the administrative sense, that his status has ended -- the
12 status based on which he achieves or exercises his statutory rights.
13 A. Yes. In order for these rights to be terminated, a certain basis
14 or certain grounds are required.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at document
17 1D03-0129 on the screen, please. We still need to remain in private
19 Q. Can you please look at this document carefully, Mr. Starcevic.
20 I'm going to ask you about the contents, but I'm going to ask you
21 about the form. This is what Mr. Harmon also asked you about.
22 From this document, we can first see that it is dated the --
23 July 18th, 1995. I'm going to call it, and you're going to tell me if
24 you agree with that term that it is a letter or missive of the chief of
25 the General Staff of the VJ sent to the chief of the Main Staff of the
1 Republic of the Serbian Krajina; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, in its a form this is a letter. We could also say that it
3 is a recommendation, also, as well as a request.
4 Q. That's what I wanted to put the next question about. Based on
5 these contents and the way Mr. Perisic is addressing Mr. Mrksic, we can
6 see that from the words "kindly," and so on and so forth "influence," can
7 it be seen from this kind of address that there was any kind of
8 hierarchical relationship between Mr. Mrksic and Mr. Perisic and these
9 two armies?
10 A. This document does not indicate any form of hierarchy, because in
11 a hierarchy, you would not kindly ask somebody but you would issue an
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honours.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. I propose
16 that this document be tendered into evidence, Your Honours, under seal.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did --
18 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I don't see the relationship between
19 this document and this witness. Under the guidelines, I would object.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you throwing in the towel?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, no. I'm going to propose that
22 the document be tendered as a MFI, and then when we finish the
23 examination of Mr. Starcevic, I'm going to talk about my earlier remarks
24 in terms of Mr. Harmon, and I'm going to discuss my proposal.
25 I will probably propose that all of this be withdrawn, but, any
1 way, to follow the rules, I would now like to tender this document and
2 propose it for -- that it be marked for identification.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Harmon.
4 MR. HARMON: Well, my objection stand, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Even for marked for identification?
6 MR. HARMON: [Microphone not activated] It can be marked for
7 identification [Microphone not activated] defer the argument on this
8 until a later time.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would need to -- then I would
11 still need to state my position, if you agree.
12 Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Starcevic about that document which was a
13 warning or contained a warning, if you recall that. And he and he talked
14 about the form of that document, so in the same -- along the same lines,
15 I propose that this document too be tendered and marked for
16 identification, until we state our arguments on that whole matter.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's try to save time. Mr. Harmon said you will
18 argue this later. You will argue later, okay?
19 It's admitted and marked for identification. May it please be
20 given an exhibit number. Do you want it under seal or not under seal?
21 Under seal, we're in private session.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D125, marked
23 for identification, under seal.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The next document that I would like
2 to show Mr. Starcevic is also under seal, and I would like us to then
3 still remain in private session. This is 1D03-0128.
4 Q. Can you please look at this document, Mr. Starcevic, and then
5 after you look at it -- or when you need it to be scold up, just let us
7 Mr. Starcevic, this document, signed by the chief of the General
8 Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, and in its introduction, it refers to
9 security, and it also refers to BG, BG means [B/C/S spoken] readiness; is
10 that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's an order sent to the 1st Army Command of the air force and
13 the anti-aircraft defence. KS, do you remember what that is? Do you
14 recall what that is?
15 A. I'm not quite sure. I think it could be one of the corps.
16 Q. Perhaps if I were to tell you that these were special units, do
17 you perhaps know this abbreviation SBK, what does that indicate?
18 A. I think that that refers to the area of Slavonia and Baranja, and
19 it's the Slavonia Baranja Corps. And the SOB is actual territory of
20 Slavonia and Baranja, [B/C/S spoken] Slavonia Baranja.
21 Q. This Slavonia Baranja Corps was not part of the Yugoslav Army;
23 A. Judging by this order, it wasn't.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, you ask the witness about KS. Where is
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] You can see KSJ next to the title
2 which says order sent to the command of the 1st Army RV and PVO and then
3 KSJ. That means special units corps of Yugoslavia.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: KSJ I see. I didn't see KS. Thank you so much.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So what I said and what was not recorded on page 9, line 17, my
7 question about the SBO or, rather, SBK, that stands for Slavonia Baranja
8 Corps. And the witness gave an answer.
9 Now, in your answer, you said that it wasn't judging by this
10 order. Now let me ask you this: This document, even in visual terms, is
11 significantly -- makes a very clear distinction between two terms, "I
12 order," and the other is "I recommend" or "I command" and "I recommend"?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Now, in this portion which means -- which says that Mr. Perisic
15 gives an order, Item 1 reads as follows:
16 "Keep all current measures of combat readiness of the territory
17 of the FRY."
18 Now this is a classic example of an order issued by the chief of
19 the General Staff to his units deployed in the territory for which is he
20 responsible under the law.
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you just say this area is outside FRY? If it
23 is outside -- if it is outside the FRY, is it under his -- is it under
24 his area of responsibility?
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That was my next question, because,
1 with regard to this territory, he didn't issue an order -- let me ask the
2 witness about this. I'm not going make any suggestions in this respect,
4 Q. Now, in this part in which Mr. Perisic is recommending -- his
5 recommendation refers to the territory of Slavonia and Baranja district,
6 which is the territory outside the FRY, over which, under the Law on the
7 Army, he has no jurisdiction; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. And this recommendation can clearly be construed as a mode of
10 cooperation between two armies that have similar strategic positions.
11 A. Well, whether it was cooperation or not, but in any case, this is
12 not a binding document, which indicates that there was a desire to offer
13 assistance in resolving the situation.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for this document
15 to be marked for MFI, under seal.
16 MR. HARMON: No objection to that status, Your Honour. I have no
17 objection to that status.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The document is admitted into
19 evidence, marked for identification, and kept under seal.
20 May it please be given a number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D126, marked
22 for identification, under seal.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at one more
25 document? Or, actually, two, but while we're in private session; that's
2 This is also under seal.
3 Q. Yesterday we've seen -- we saw similar documents, but I chose to
4 show you this one again, because Mr. Harmon asked you about this letter.
5 This is a letter issued by the Army of Republika Srpska, judging
6 by what you see in front of you.
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. It was issued on the 8th of March, 2002. This is a decision
9 taken after the president of the Republic had issued a decree relating to
10 the persons for which he has jurisdiction, and in light of the rank of
11 Mr. Mladic, this was under the jurisdiction of the president of the
13 Would you agree with me that according to this decision until the
14 28th February 2002 --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Carry on. 2002.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. -- that Mr. Ratko Mladic, until that date, enjoyed the status of
18 an officer of the Army of Republika Srpska, according to this document,
19 and was serving there?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. Now, we can go back to an open session. This is going to be my
22 last question, and, as I promised, with this, I will conclude my
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into open session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
3 Yes, Mr. Harmon [sic] -- I beg your pardon, you -- sorry.
4 Sorry, Mr. Harmon.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have one more question, and for
6 that purpose, I would need document P2024 to be shown on the screens,
8 Q. This document is not chronologically in sequence with the
9 previous document, but I wanted to show it to you in an open session.
10 Can you please look at this document, sir.
11 You will agree with me, Mr. Starcevic, that this is another
12 document from the president of Republika Srpska as the commander in chief
13 of the Army of Republika Srpska.
14 A. Yes, I agree.
15 Q. There is mention here of the term that you also explained, which
16 means a placing an individual at the disposal, which means that this
17 particular person is still in the army but does not have a particular
18 post as per establishment.
19 A. Yes, one can say that. He is still in professional service but
20 is not discharging duties in any of the posts envisaged by the
22 Q. According to this document, judging by the date, Mr. Ratko Mladic
23 was still in the Army of Republika Srpska.
24 A. Yes, according to this document, that is correct.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Starcevic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have hereby concluded
2 my cross-examination.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.
4 Mr. Harmon.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Harmon:
6 Q. Mr. Starcevic, good afternoon.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 MR. HARMON: Can we just return to Prosecution Exhibit 2024 that
9 was on the screen a minute ago.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Starcevic, the date of this document is 8.11.1996 and
11 the effect of this document is that General Mladic is put at the disposal
12 of the VRS General Staff; correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. This document relies on the authority of Article 369 of the Law
15 on the Army of the Republika Srpska. Do you know the contents of that
16 law, by chance? Do you happen to recall what that is?
17 This is the Law on the Republika Srpska.
18 A. I think I can presume that this is an article of the law which
19 governs the methodology of placing someone at the disposal and the
20 duration of that. But I would really prefer to look at the law. I don't
21 want to talk about legal regulations offhand.
22 Q. If you will bear with me for a minute, I have the law in front of
23 me, and I just want to consult what that provision is, and maybe I can
24 assist you.
25 This is my question, Mr. Starcevic. Under the VJ law, when
1 someone is put at the disposal of the army, is there a finite period of
2 time on which they could remain at the disposal of the VJ?
3 A. Yes, there is, definitely a specified period, and if I remember
4 correctly, that period could not last longer than two years. Again, if
5 my memory serves me well, that could stretch over a period of five years.
6 Q. Let me -- let me come back to that in a minute because I will
7 have my colleague find the right provision.
8 It's my recollection, Mr. Starcevic, that somebody could be put
9 at the disposal in the VJ for a period not to exceed six months. I will
10 find the text, I will re-educate myself, and I'll show it to you to give
11 you the advantage of consulting with that text before you answer my
13 A. That was precisely the reason why I said that I am not in favour
14 of quoting something out of memory, because memory is not a good ally in
15 such situations.
16 MR. HARMON: Just give me a minute, if I could, Your Honour, to
17 consult with my colleague.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, take a moment.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. HARMON:
21 Q. I will find that provision in just a moment, Mr. Starcevic, on
22 the Law on the Army, and I will be back to you in a couple of minutes
23 with a question about this particular document.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon wanted to ask a question
1 relating to the Law on The Yugoslav Army and the one -- the article that
2 governs this particular matter is 63 in the Law on the Yugoslav Army. I
3 think this is what Mr. Harmon had in mind when he put this question.
4 MR. HARMON: Yes, that's correct. Let me --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, but this one is not Yugoslav law.
6 MR. HARMON: I understand. I want to start my question, first of
7 all, with the Yugoslav law. And if we could have P197 on the monitor for
8 the benefit of Mr. Starcevic and for the Court's benefit.
9 If we ... if you can go to Article 63.
10 Q. Mr. Starcevic, again, get me ask you a question. Is there a
11 period of time during which a person in the VJ can remain on standby, or
12 on -- at the disposal of the army?
13 A. Yes, there is an finite period and another proof that memory
14 cannot always be relied upon. You were right when you said that this
15 period was six months.
16 Q. Now --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute you're running ahead of me. Where
18 is the six months, and does standby mean putting at the disposal of the
20 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, at the bottom of the English,
21 Article 63, there is the term set forth.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
23 MR. HARMON:
24 Q. Mr. Starcevic, can you answer the Judge's question, whether
25 standby, the term standby is the same as being placed at the disposal?
1 A. Yes. It seems this is how it was translated, this term from our
2 legislature which is at the disposal, they translated it with the term
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you look at paragraph 2 of that article, would
5 a person who is, for any reason, unfit to perform his duty be at the
6 disposal of?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They would be placed at the
8 disposal, if they're unfit to perform the current duty, and there is no
9 possibility for this person to find him a suitable post corresponding to
10 their qualifications and capabilities.
11 MR. HARMON: Could we go back to the previous exhibit -- I'm
12 sorry, let me just get the right exhibit.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: P2024. P2024.
14 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour, but ... yes, thank you very much.
15 It's P2024.
16 Perhaps counsel can assist me. Could I have -- I'm looking for
17 the exhibit number for the Law on the Army of the Republika Srpska.
18 MR. LUKIC: P191.
19 MR. HARMON: Could I have P191 on the monitor, please.
20 Q. Now, the basis of putting General Mladic at the disposal was
21 Article 369.
22 MR. HARMON: Can we go to 369 of this ...
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you enlarge it, please. Thank you.
24 MR. HARMON:
25 Q. Now, Mr. Starcevic, under which subpart of Article 369 of the Law
1 on the Army of Republika Srpska was there authority to place
2 General Mladic at the disposal of the army?
3 A. That's Item 3 of this Article 369.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. To be more precise, paragraph 1, Item 3.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 Now, under the Law on the Army of the Republika Srpska, was there
8 an equivalent provision, as far as you know, as to how long a period of
9 time an officer, under Article 369, could you placed at the disposal of
10 the army?
11 A. I suppose there was such a provision, because placing someone at
12 the disposal is, in a way, in an unnatural order of things. If you
13 wanted to grant some legal security for members of the military, you have
14 to put a certain time-limit. And I suppose that this provision should be
15 sought in this law under the chapter that regulates the status-related
16 issues of military servicemen.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MR. HARMON:
19 Q. Prosecution Exhibit 2018, which you saw earlier, Mr. Starcevic,
20 was -- is that in private session, 2018?
21 MR. HARMON: Can we go into private session then.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
23 MR. HARMON: And could we have 2018 on the monitor, please.
24 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
2 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
3 MR. HARMON:
4 Q. 2018, which is the decision of, I believe, it was Mrs. Plavsic,
5 as I recall, relieving General Mladic of his professional military
6 service -- let me just wait to see the English text.
7 Is dated the 8th of March, 2002, about six years after he had
8 been placed on the disposal of the VRS.
9 Can you reconcile for us, Mr. Starcevic, the disparity between
10 him being placed on the disposal in 1996, his being relieved six years
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Scroll the English down, please.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot specifically say, because
14 I don't see the provision of the Law on the Army of Republika Srpska
15 limiting the length of time one can spend being at the disposal. I
16 assume it's similar to the provision in the Law on the Army of
17 Yugoslavia, but I'm just assuming that. In order to be sure, I would
18 have to see whether there is an limit on the period. One can do that
19 just like in the Army of Yugoslavia. If yes, then this is it a violation
20 of the law to the detriment or prejudicial to Mr. Mladic.
21 MR. HARMON: Could we go back to the -- P191, please, which is
22 the Law on the Army of the Republika Srpska, the VRS. And could we go to
23 Article 163, please.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you scroll the English, please.
25 MR. HARMON: Could you scroll down, or up in the English? We
1 need to see the entirety of Article 163. Thank you. Unfortunately, we
2 have the English version on two separate pages, but we're on -- the text
3 of the remaining part of 163 appears in the upper left-hand corner of the
5 Q. Mr. Starcevic, can you tell me in the Army of the Republika
6 Srpska if there's a limit on how long someone can be placed -- a soldier
7 can be placed at the disposal of the army?
8 A. Yes, this is an deadline, and, again, that is six months in this
9 law, again.
10 Q. So, again, can you reconcile, then, the disparity of
11 General Mladic remaining at the disposal of the VRS for six years? How
12 do you reconcile that in light of the statutory text that's before you?
13 A. This cannot be reconciled. This is it an evident violation of
14 the law.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I didn't want to interfere that much,
17 but, in view of this deadline, or term of six month, the witness was not
18 told whether he had returned to some duty or not. It is the assumption
19 of Mr. Harmon at some point, maybe, but only on that basis, perhaps, can
20 one give an answer to this effect.
21 MR. HARMON: I don't know if that is an objection or -- a speech.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know either --
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, know. What I mean is that the
24 way that Mr. Harmon put the question, whether his question was intended
25 to have him available from the point of it -- that he did not --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] I don't understand what
2 you are saying.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're asked to repeat it.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] According to the law, this period
6 that somebody is at the disposal somewhere else can be six month. If
7 Mr. Harmon is putting this question, he needs to put the assumption,
8 whether from the point in time the decision was made he was at the
9 disposal for these six years, and that he, then, never, in that time,
10 returned to any other establishment post. Perhaps we can seek an answer
11 to that question, otherwise we're in the sphere of speculation.
12 The position of Mr. -- if that is the position of Mr. Harmon,
13 and that is the witness's answer, then I don't have any objection to
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you have an objection to that then you must
16 adduce evidence to show that that period was interrupted. And unless you
17 can do that, what do we then do?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if that is the position
19 of Mr. Harmon. Was that Mr. Harmon's position, that he was never
20 returned to any kind of post or function.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you know what the position of Mr. Harmon is?
22 It looks like your objection is premature then.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, No, it seems to me that
24 Mr. Starcevic's answer could be difficult to understand, but, I mean, if
25 not then, really, I don't know.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any answer. I wish I could
3 MR. HARMON: I think that Mr. Lukic is saying there is no
4 evidence before this court that General Mladic -- one possibility that
5 could explain the six months is that General Mladic could have returned
6 to active duty in the VRS.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. My point is there is no evidence before this
8 court that he did return.
9 MR. HARMON: I agree, Your Honour. So I am happy with the state
10 of the record as it exists.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, if -- all right. Very well, I'm
12 not going to complicate.
13 MR. HARMON:
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Starcevic, for your assistance in that particular
15 matter. If we could turn --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, before you do turn, I have a problem. The
17 previous exhibit that was displayed that talked of standby --
18 MR. HARMON: Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- Mr. Starcevic, you answered my question by
20 saying that that person on stand by is at the disposal of.
21 Now, this one says when he is at th disposal of, he cannot be
22 assigned to another establishment post after an organisation unit or his
23 establishment post has been disbanded. He cannot be assigned to other
24 appropriate duty if it has been evaluated that he is partially fit for
25 active military service or unfit for the duty he is discharging.
1 Now, number 2 here contradicts number 2 in the standby rule. So
2 in fact, here, if you are at the disposal, you can't actually -- if you
3 are unfit or partially fit, you can't be the same person as number 2 as
4 you explained the position -- the position of the person in paragraph 2
5 of the other one.
6 So it is -- for me, it seems like these two laws contradict each
8 Do you have any comment on that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not quite sure that I
10 understood your position. All I would like to say is that in Item 2,
11 there are two grounds for placing at the disposal. One, is limited or
12 partial fitness for any kind of military service; partial fitness. This
13 implies that the person is fit to an extent. There is some extent of
14 fitness, and they are being placed at the disposal, because, at that
15 point in time, they cannot find a suitable post that this person would be
16 able to be assigned to.
17 The second grounds is that the person is unfit for the duty that
18 they are performing, and this does not necessarily have to be a health
19 issue. It can also be an issue of professional education, training, or
20 qualifications, of course, the problem of competence to perform specific
21 duties. A person can be appointed for a commander and is a bad
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we turn to the previous page of the English,
24 please. I just want to see where this article begins. Okay.
25 Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you.
1 Yes. Mr. Harmon.
2 MR. HARMON:
3 Q. Take this just a couple of steps further, Mr. Starcevic.
4 Do you have any information at your disposal that after
5 General Mladic was placed at the disposal of the VRS on 8.11.1996, he
6 returned to duty in the VRS?
7 A. No. I don't know anything about any details of the service of
8 Mr. Mladic, and I don't know him personally. I don't have any
9 information about these matters, no.
10 Q. Are you aware that General Mladic was indicted for the crimes
11 committed at Srebrenica and other crimes by this institution in 1996?
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection. I have an
13 objection to this question.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that this question exceeds
16 the framework or the bounds of my cross-examination.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You raised a question a couple of minutes ago.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You raised an objection, which -- wanting to say,
20 Was the six-year term broken or not broken?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No. But -- that, yes. But not the
22 fact that he put to the witness right now, whether he knows if he is
23 accused before The Hague Tribunal now. I don't think that there is
24 anything in my cross-examination that was put in relation to the very
25 last question that Mr. Harmon put to the witness.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Harmon.
2 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, it's a predicate to the next question I
3 intend to ask the witness.
4 Well, I think, in fact, Your Honours, I would like Your Honours
5 to take notice, judicial notice of the fact that General Mladic was
6 indicted by this institution in 1996.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not a notorious fact, Mr. Harmon.
8 MR. HARMON: Okay. Well let me put -- Your Honour, we have
9 before this Court as an exhibit, records of the indictment and records of
10 the correspondence that went to the Republika Srpska and that went to the
11 FRY notifying them of the fact of those indictments. I don't have the
12 exhibits before --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you give copies of those same documents to the
15 MR. HARMON: No, but --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Isn't that then a question of argument at the end,
18 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, what I want to ask, the next question I
19 intend to ask the witness is following.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe ask the next question.
21 MR. HARMON: Okay, I'll do that.
22 Q. Assuming, Mr. Starcevic, that General Mladic had been indicted by
23 this institution for genocide and other crimes, to your knowledge, would
24 an individual, who had such an indictment pending against them, be
25 permitted to maintain a position in the Army of Yugoslavia and in the
1 Army of the VRS.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that this, too, is outside of
4 the bounds of my cross-examination.
5 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, Mr. Lukic raised an objection to the
6 proposition that I put to Mr. Starcevic. He said there's no information
7 whatsoever before this Court that General Mladic returned to duty or
8 could have returned to duty. What I'm trying to establish with this
9 witness is whether there is a legal disability from him doing so, and
10 that might assist in answering, at least partially, the objection that
11 Mr. Lukic raised.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, I guess Mr. Lukic' objection - and he can
13 speak for himself - is based on the fact that in your question, you link
14 up this whole question of indictments, which he says he never asked
16 You know, I think if you can put your question in such a way that
17 you eliminate indictments, and you talk about Mr. Mladic's return to duty
18 in the six-year period, without referring to indictments, you probably
19 are not going to pick up an objection. I don't know.
20 MR. HARMON:
21 Q. Mr. Starcevic, would there be -- what limitations would there be
22 for General Mladic to return to active duty in either the VRS or in the
23 VJ? What would be those limitations? We've talked about fitness, one of
25 A. I've already said that the second reason could be unfitness, and
1 that could be practical, professional, or any other unfitness to perform
2 duties assigned.
3 If there is a legal decision in force against that particular
4 person, then he would not be able to return to duty, and that person
5 would be removed from duty, they would not be placed at the disposal.
6 So I think that, in that case, you would not be considering the grounds
7 or the option of placing at the disposal at all, but you would be
8 considering the option of having that particular person removed from
9 duty, which is a different form of grounds for not returning or being
10 removed from service.
11 Q. And when you say, just to clarify your answer, when you say "If
12 there is a legal decision in force against a particular person," what
13 type of legal decision are you referring to?
14 A. To be precise, I said if there is an legal indictment or a
15 charging document, and there is a document -- a differences in our legal
16 system between these two documents, then such a person would be removed
17 from duties until that case is resolved finally.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you still want to stay in private session.
19 MR. HARMON: At this -- yes, because I am now going to finish
20 with this line of questioning, Your Honour. I'm going to question
21 Mr. Starcevic about another exhibit that was shown.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 MR. HARMON: And is this --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Half past.
25 MR. HARMON: Half past. Thank you. Could we have D125, MFI,
1 under seal, on the monitor, please.
2 Q. We looked at this document a minute ago, Mr. Starcevic. This is
3 a document that is from General Perisic and it says to -- and the first
4 paragraph is directed to the Main Staff of the SVK. And it says:
5 "Please influence the political leadership of the Republic of
6 Serbian Krajina."
7 Let me ask you, Mr. Starcevic, have you ever seen such a similar
8 document requesting that a unit influence the political leadership of
9 another country?
10 A. I'm trying to remember, but I don't think that I've ever seen
11 such a document.
12 Q. Now, such -- let's look at this document on its face.
13 Could General Perisic have ordered the Main Staff of the Serbian
14 Army of the Krajina to influence the political leadership of a different
15 country? Could he have said this differently through an order?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we have order, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that there were any
18 grounds for him to send an order and that he couldn't have issued a
19 command or ordered the Main Staff of another army, the army of another
21 MR. HARMON:
22 Q. Okay. When you say -- just to finalise this, you don't think
23 there is any grounds for him to send an order, an order to influence
24 another state? Is that what -- that's the type of order I'm asking you
25 about. Could he have given an order to a subordinate unit to influence
1 political leadership of another state?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
3 Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think -- I think that this question
5 exceeds the bounds of my cross-examination. I did not ask Mr. Starcevic
6 about the content of the document. I also think that with this document
7 and this question -- in this question, Mr. Starcevic is being asked to
8 enter into the area of constitutional relationships, and I think that he
9 is less competent as an expert on the political leadership and those
10 matters, and that was not the topic of my cross-examination, and this is
11 the gist of my objection.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, can you give us a reference to where
13 you asked that question, because I'm having a different recollection of
14 your cross-examination on this document from what you are saying.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honour. I
16 would like it find it.
17 Pages 7 and 8. My question was -- page 6, line 20, this is what
18 my assistants are telling me. I'm asking about the form of the document
19 I think that the question that Mr. Harmon is putting now does not arise
20 from the questions that I put to the witness, so I -- I stand by my
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you look at paragraph -- page 7, sir, line 1
23 that's what I wanted to put the next question about. Based on these
24 contents, and the way Mr. Perisic is addressing Mr. Mrksic, we request --
25 see that from the words kindly and -- well, that's how it was interpreted
1 but it says, please, and so on, and so forth influence, can it be seen
2 interest of this kind of address there was any kind of hierarchical
3 relationship between Mr. Mrksic and Mr. Perisic in those hierarchical
4 relationship command and control.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Between the two armies, that was my
6 question. But I think that Mr. Harmon is now going for the relationship
7 and the influence on a different political leadership, on another
8 political leadership.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think, then, that the objection is semantic.
10 I'll overruled it.
11 MR. HARMON:
12 Q. So, Mr. Starcevic. Mr. Starcevic, can you -- you remember my
13 question? If not, I will repeat my question.
14 A. Yes, please.
15 Q. Okay. Could -- could General Perisic --
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, I do apologise, Mr. Harmon, but I
17 think this may become an issue at a later point in time. And,
18 unfortunately, Judge Moloto's ruling did not get on the transcript.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I did say clearly the objection is
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand it's not there, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I now appreciate.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: You mentioned that you thought it was a semantic
24 issue and you had overruled it, and I just -- I have a feeling this may
25 become an issue at a later point in time, and I do apologise to all the
1 parties for interrupting because this is not my witness.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. The objection is overruled, if the
3 record can show that.
4 MR. HARMON:
5 Q. I want to get you home, Mr. Starcevic, and we're not making much
6 progress in that direction. So let me ask this question.
7 A. [In English] Yeah.
8 Q. Could General Perisic have given a order to a subordinate unit to
9 influence the political leadership of another state?
10 A. [Interpretation] I'm trying to understand a command to one's own
11 subordinate unit, to influence the political leadership of another state.
12 I simply cannot understand that relationship. General Perisic had the
13 right to issue any kind of order or command to his units, to influence --
14 or to a unit of his to influence in -- to influence any kind of organ of
15 a country with which they were in conflict. If there is no conflict that
16 any kind of order of that kind is illegitimate.
17 MR. HARMON: Okay. I think I've finished with that line of
18 questioning, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we go into open session.
20 MR. HARMON: Open session.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into open session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. HARMON: This might be an appropriate time for a break,
1 Your Honour. Yes, it is.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 4.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Harmon.
6 MR. HARMON:
7 Q. Mr. Starcevic, I need your assistance to make a minor correction
8 in your earlier testimony, since you are here, and you're the only one
9 who can do that. I would like to direct your attention --
10 MR. HARMON: First of all, I would like to direct the Court's
11 attention to page 5545 of the transcript, line 21. Counsel, that's the
12 particular line I referenced earlier during the break.
13 Could I have the --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 5541?
15 MR. HARMON: Sorry, it's page 5545, line 21.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 5541, line 21. I'll do it again.
17 MR. HARMON: I will read the text of this, Your Honours, and
18 I'll --
19 Q. Mr. Starcevic, if I could have --
20 MR. HARMON: First of all, if I can have 197, Prosecution
21 Exhibit 197, on the monitor; and, specifically, I'd like to focus on
22 Article 181, please.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Starcevic, let me explain just what the topic of
24 discussion was. The topic of discussion that -- you gave the following
25 answer. We were talking about who had the authority, which persons were
1 authorised to bring persons before -- who had committed disciplinary
2 offences before a military disciplinary court and in your answer, starts
3 on page 5545 at line 18, you said:
4 "However, an officer who orders that a disciplinary investigation
5 be launched is not responsible or is not authorised to formally place the
6 perpetrator under the jurisdiction of a disciplinary court. Those powers
7 rest with the officers who are defined in Article 182."
8 MR. HARMON: And we scroll to 182.
9 Q. Do you see 182, Mr. Starcevic? Did you -- you're nodding your
10 head. Do you see the error that is in that --
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. What is the proper article that you should have referred to under
13 the circumstances -- under the -- in your answer?
14 A. 181.
15 MR. HARMON: That corrects the mistake, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Starcevic.
17 MR. HARMON: If we could have -- actually I want to focus on the
18 special purpose industry. You testified yesterday about the special
19 purpose industry. Mr. Lukic asked you a number of questions specifically
20 relating to -- under whose jurisdiction the military industries for the
21 manufacture of weapons and military equipment was, and you said that that
22 fell under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence. Do you recall
24 A. Yes I do.
25 Q. And then you were shown Defence Exhibit 114, which was the decree
1 on the adoption of the Law on Property for the Federal Republic of
2 Yugoslavia and that Article 39, in that law, defined what movable items
3 for special purposes included, that included weapons military, equipment
4 to be used by the Ministry of Defence and the Yugoslav Army; correct?
5 A. Probably. I cannot see that.
6 Q. Okay, well --
7 MR. HARMON: Could we have Defence Exhibit 114 on the monitor,
8 please, and can we focus on Article 39.
9 Q. This is the article that Mr. Lukic directed your attention to and
10 defines in the first sentence what movable items were and under whose
11 authority this is -- this material is -- falls under. The jurisdiction
12 under whose -- let me start again.
13 Who can distribute this material, who can manage and maintain
14 this material; is that correct?
15 A. Well, yes. This article, in its entirety, yes. But you were
16 referring only to paragraph 2, where it specifies these assets, and
17 paragraph 2 speaks about who is entitled to dispose of it.
18 Q. Who is entitled to dispose of it?
19 A. Under this law, it is the federal minister for defence, and the
20 federal minister for internal affairs.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you that clarifies it.
22 Now, let me ask you, within this framework of what we're talking
23 about, do the special purposes, the military industry production plants
24 fall within this set of articles we have been talking about?
25 A. Yes. Basically those were the facilities used by the MOD. But
1 they are not governed by this article, because this article refers only
2 to movable assets, whereas plants and other facilities are immovable
4 Q. But they're under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence;
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Now, was the special production plant, Krusik, one of those
8 special production facilities that fell under the jurisdiction of the
9 Ministry of Defence?
10 A. I think yes. I cannot be quite positive here, because basically
11 all these companies were of a mixed nature. In other words, the
12 companies that were involved both in civilian production and partly with
13 the protection of military equipment and weapons. But I think that this
14 particular part that was involved in the production of military equipment
15 and weapons, the federal Ministry of Defence had jurisdiction, or, to be
16 more precise, a specific directorate within the ministry.
17 MR. HARMON: Can we go into private session.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do so, how was this article
19 implemented, sir, being controlled by two ministries, either or both of
20 them? What happens in the case of contradictory instructions from the
21 ministries or duplication of instructions? It is not even saying that
22 they must act in concert, it's just ...
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that the law
24 indicates that this is about the equipment being used, according to
25 paragraph 1 of this article, by the MOD for the purposes of defence, and,
1 on the other hand, the federal ministry of internal affairs for security
3 Therefore, each of these ministers was in charge of portion of
4 the assets that was being used for its specific jurisdiction. For
5 example, the MOD would procure, distribute, and make use of the assets
6 intended for defence of the country, including the army; whereas, the
7 minister of internal affairs would carry out of same activities but with
8 relation to the assets required by the police and other law enforcement
9 agencies or security-related entities.
10 Therefore, it seems to me that there was no overlapping there.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 You were asking for?
13 MR. HARMON: Yes. Could I please have 65 ter 9519 on the
15 Are we in private session?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are? We are not.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are not in private session.
19 MR. HARMON: Yes I wanted to go into private session.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
22 MR. HARMON: Yes, sir.
23 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
1 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
2 MR. HARMON:
3 Q. Mr. Starcevic, take a minute, if you would, to read the document.
4 I'll identify it for the record.
5 MR. HARMON: This is a 2 September 1995 document that emanated
6 from the Main Staff of the Army of the Republika Srpska. In the -- the
7 person's name whose appears at the lower left-hand side is General Ratko
8 Mladic. And the document is directed to the General Staff of the
9 Yugoslav Army, chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army
10 personally, and it is a request for support to purchase 40 FAB, 275s, in
11 brackets, (air bombs).
12 Q. Now, I want to direct your attention, Mr. Starcevic, to the last
13 two lines in the text. That reads:
14 "Since the director of the military production at Krusik RO
15 requires approval from you, please allow us to purchase the above
16 quantity of FABs."
17 Now, Mr. Starcevic, if the Ministry of Defence was in charge of
18 the weapons and the distribution of those weapons, then on what authority
19 was General Perisic required to give his consent? What was the basis for
21 A. I have to underline that I'm not completely competent to discuss
22 this topic. But, as I understand it, one should make a distinction
23 between disposing of and procurement of items that are intended for
24 defence of a country, and, on the other hand, the sale of weapons and
25 military equipment to someone outside that particular country.
1 If I remember correctly, in order for the special purpose
2 industry to sell its products that are of interest for defence, it
3 required approval from certain organs in the state. Judging by this
4 letter, it seemed that the approval of the General Staff was also
5 required, but I'm not sure about that. I only understand this to mean
6 that the sales of equipment or military equipment and weapons to anyone
7 was subject to certain international obligations undertaken by the
8 country. And that was precisely the reason why the special purpose
9 industry could not, without appropriate approval, sell these items on the
10 free markets.
11 Q. All right.
12 MR. HARMON: Could we go into public session.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute. If you say, sir, that there are
14 certain international obligations, how does the Chief of Staff of the
15 General Staff get involved in political, international obligations? This
16 person's area of responsibility, as I understand it, is with the army --
17 at home? I would imagine that is a political thing, minister of
18 industries, and other people.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said that I am not very
20 comfortable in this particular area. This is not my expertise. But I
21 can only offer my understanding of this issue.
22 I said that, based on general information that I have, for every
23 purchase abroad, an approval of a higher organ is needed. And as far as
24 I know, the same situation prevails in the Republic of Serbia today. I
25 suppose that this kind of approvals from higher instances in -- in
1 reaching the final decision is up to one single organ. This is how I
2 understand this, but I said I have this reservation regarding my limited
3 knowledge about this specific area.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me put the question slightly differently:
5 From your knowledge of the Law on Defence, and the Army of the
6 former Yugoslavia, is there any provision in there that would require the
7 Chief of Staff of the General Staff to give approval for exportation of
8 military equipment from the former Yugoslavia to an outside country?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are no such provisions in the
10 laws that you have cited. This is governed and regulated by another law
11 relating to the production of military equipment.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Harmon.
13 MR. HARMON: Could that document be --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MR. HARMON: Could that document be admitted and given an exhibit
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May it please be given a number and admitted into
19 Do you want it under seal?
20 MR. HARMON: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Under seal.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2427, under
24 MR. HARMON: We can go into public session.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into open session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Can he just move into --
5 MR. HARMON: Private session again.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- private session for a short while.
7 MR. HARMON: Yes.
8 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 Judge Picard has just brought it to my notice that, in fact, this
12 request is addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the Republika Srpska,
13 not Serbia.
14 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, the translation that I have says --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: In the translation indeed.
16 MR. HARMON: The translation that I have it says it is to the
17 General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, and then in brackets it says:
18 "Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army personally."
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we have that on the screen again please.
20 Sorry about this. I know you want to go home.
21 Oh, yeah, to the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, chief of the
22 General Staff -- okay. Where did you see ...
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the Judge.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm so sorry. You may remove the document, and we
2 can move into open session.
3 MR. HARMON:
4 Q. Mr. Starcevic I want to direct your attention and counsel's
5 attention --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, the Registrar is --
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
10 MR. HARMON: Technology, too much credit. I think I can push a
11 button and we can quickly do it, but it's --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: It has got to go on record that we are in open
14 MR. HARMON: I understand.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MR. HARMON:
17 Q. Mr. Starcevic I want to direct your attention to some questions
18 and answers that you gave yesterday. I'm directing counsel's attention
19 to the answers that are in -- and questions found at pages 6876 to 6879
20 of the transcript.
21 You were asked by my colleague Mr. Lukic where and I quote:
22 "There was a severe and fierce civil war raging in 1992 all the
23 way through the year in which the Dayton Accords were signed."
24 And you said: "Yes, unfortunately, that was the case."
25 And then Mr. Lukic asked:
1 "Would you agree with me that that represented a permanent danger
2 of the war spilling over into the territory of the Federal Republic of
4 Your answer was:
5 "I may draw some conclusions on that, but I can agree with you
6 that posed a danger in relation -- in two relations between Yugoslavia
7 and the war-torn zones. And if I may add this, I think that up until the
8 official recognition of the new states, Croatia, Slovenia, and later,
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that was, in essence, a civil war in the former
11 Now, in your answer, you appeared to be making a distinction,
12 Mr. Starcevic, a distinction up until the official recognition of the new
13 states and it being a civil war. What distinction were you trying to
14 make in respect of this answer, if any?
15 A. Unfortunately, it will take a long time for me to give you a
16 complete explanation, but I will try and do my best to put aside that I'm
17 a professor and give you the shortest possible answer.
18 As someone who is engaged and involved in international law, I
19 can say that everything that started at the time in the former Yugoslavia
20 had the nature of a civil war, and all the conflicts initially were of
21 that nature, until certain point in time. The decisive moment occurred
22 when certain states or republics were internationally recognised. But in
23 most cases, that also coincided with the cessation of hostilities.
24 Let me remind you, for example, that the conflict in Slovenia had
25 already stopped. That, at the time when Croatia was recognised as an
1 independent and separate state, also the conflict ceased, that the war
2 lasted in Bosnia-Herzegovina; but that, pursuant to the decisions of the
3 authorities in charge, the remaining part of what used to be the SFRY
4 actually withdrew from those areas.
5 Unfortunately, this did not bring an end to the war in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, because the civil war went on there, but without the
7 involvement of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
8 Therefore, it was a civil war among warring parties in the
9 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 And, finally, the event that we mentioned, just occasionally and
11 superficially, but we mentioned it several times, and I think was the
12 case of the infamous Operations Flash and Storm also had elements of a
13 civil war between the official armed forces of Croatia and the forces of
14 the Army of the Serbian Republic of the Krajina.
15 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you saying Croatia had not been recognised by
17 the time of Operation Storm as an independent state?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what I'm saying.
19 I'm only saying that the conflict was ragging in the territory of that
20 state and that it was an internal conflict between two forces within one
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
24 MR. HARMON:
25 Q. Focussing on Bosnia just briefly, if, in fact, forces from an
1 outside country were involved in that conflict, would the
2 characterization of the conflict be different?
3 A. It is not easy to give a simple answer to this question, because
4 there had been precedent before that conflict. Let me just remind you of
5 the case of Nicaragua without going into broadcast discussions about this
6 particular case.
7 It is necessary for the intensity on interference and involvement
8 for it to justify the conflict to be characterized and considered as
9 international one. Speaking about Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is difficult to
10 say that this level of intensity had been achieved, particularly after
11 the well-known judgement rendered by the International Court of Justice.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a yes or no, would you say the current war in
13 Afghanistan is international or civil, with the involvement of the US in
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The war in Afghanistan has both
16 types of features. That is what we experts in international law are
17 trying to define, what internationalised conflicts are. That is to say,
18 they initially start as internal conflicts, but with the involvement of
19 third parties, they become internationalised. There is it no doubt that
20 the level of involvement or the degree of involvement into what,
21 initially, was a civil war in Afghanistan is really close to the point
22 when it can be considered as an international one. However, one has to
23 bear in mind another fact and that is the involvement of the UN in
24 keeping with the UN charter, and that has a tremendous effect on the
25 ultimate formulation and definition.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 Mr. Harmon.
3 MR. HARMON: Could with we have Defence Exhibit 121 on the
5 Q. While that is getting on the screen, Mr. Starcevic, you were
6 shown a number of documents yesterday including this document that will
7 appear on the screen, and you were asked whether --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm told that document is confidential,
9 Mr. Harmon.
10 MR. HARMON: Okay. If we can go into private session.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
12 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
10 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
11 MR. HARMON: Yes, thank you.
12 Q. When this document comes on the screen, Mr. Starcevic, I'd like
13 you to orient us through this document.
14 This is a page from the personnel file of Dragomir Milosevic, and
15 I'd like to focus your attention on -- and this is the VJ file of
16 Dragomir Milosevic. I'd like to focus your attention on the fourth box
17 down on the left, and the one that says that he was transferred for the
18 needs of the service to be Chief of Staff and ZK.
19 On what basis was Dragomir Milosevic transferred to the unit
20 that's mentioned in there, which is the 30th Personnel Centre, in
22 Do you see that on the -- do you need that enlarged,
23 Mr. Starcevic?
24 MR. HARMON: Can we enlarge the fourth box down.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would be good. Because it
1 is not really all that legible.
2 MR. HARMON: Same on the English, please. I don't think that
3 quite did it. Let's try again, if we could.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that fourth square.
5 MR. HARMON:
6 Q. Can you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And on what -- what basis was Milosevic, Dragomir Milosevic,
9 transferred to the 30th Personnel Centre in Belgrade?
10 A. Well, I can just restate what it says in the document.
11 Basically the grounds for his transfer are the needs of the
13 Q. Now, I have a hard copy that might make it easier. If I could,
14 with the consent of counsel, give Mr. Starcevic the hard copy, and it
15 might assist him and I can --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
17 MR. HARMON: Yes.
18 Q. What I'm interested in, Mr. Starcevic, is -- there's that fourth
19 box down that says he was transferred. On the far right-hand side, on
20 what basis was that transfer regulated?
21 A. Could you please tell me what you mean when you say "the fourth
22 box"? The fourth total or the fourth one that is filled in?
23 Q. Yeah, from the top to the bottom.
24 A. [In English] One, two, three, four. This one.
25 Q. The one that says, "Transferred for the needs of the service to
1 the Chief of Staff" --
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. -- and then I'm direct your attention, Mr. Starcevic --
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. -- all the way to the right-hand side on that same line and
6 asking you on what basis his status was regulated?
7 A. [Interpretation] From what I can see here, the basis is an order
8 of the NPU, meaning, [B/C/S spoken], the Chief of Staff of the personnel
9 administration, and then it's dated the 15th of February, 1994.
10 Q. Now, if we can go down to the next box where there is text that
11 says: Placed on the disposal from the date of the announcement of the
12 FRY president's decree.
13 He is placed at the disposal of which unit?
14 A. At the disposal to the Main Staff of the 30th Personnel Centre,
15 the general of -- the staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.
16 Q. And, finally, in the last box, it indicates that he ended his
17 professional service based on his own request to exercise the right of an
18 old-age pension, and a presidential degree ended his service; is that
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: And who is that?
21 MR. HARMON: I'm sorry, presidential decree of the federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia, presidential decree gives the number. It's dated
23 the 19th of December, 1996.
24 Q. That is what ended officially his service in the VJ; is that
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. All right.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does this whole document talk about one person?
4 MR. HARMON: Yes, sir. This is the document -- this is from the
5 personnel file of Dragomir Milosevic.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MR. HARMON: Now, could we take a look at the next document,
8 P1756, please. With the consent of the Court against I have a hard copy,
9 it might assist Mr. Starcevic. I can show him this.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker speak in the microphone,
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are requested to speak into the microphone.
13 MR. HARMON: I said I shared his same problem seeing it in the
14 monitor. That's why I have hard copies.
15 Q. Mr. Starcevic, this document is a document from the Main Staff of
16 the Army of the Republika Srpska, dated the 3rd of August, 1996. It
17 relates to General Milosevic, and it's a proposal to put him at the
18 disposal. It is directed to the command of the 30th Personnel Centre,
19 and it indicates that because of the reorganisation in the Army of the
20 Republika Srpska, his establishment post had been abolished, and there
21 was no adequate post in which to place him. And then it says in this
22 document, at the last paragraph, it says:
23 "Based on the above, and in accordance with Article 63, Item 1 of
24 the Law on the Army of Yugoslavia, it is necessary to regulate his status
25 by putting him on the disposal."
1 I'm just curious, Mr. Starcevic, earlier today, actually, we
2 looked at Article 63 of the Law on the Army, and we also looked at the
3 equivalent provision, Article 163 on the Law on the Army of the Republika
4 Srpska. Can you assist me, why would a VRS document putting
5 General Milosevic on disposal in the VRS rely on an Article in the VJ law
6 and not on the Law of the Republika Srpska?
7 A. It's difficult for me to say. I can just draw some conclusions
8 which I am afraid may not be relevant because these are the reasons that
9 the person signing this document is guided by. I really cannot
10 understand why.
11 Q. Would it make a difference, in your view, if the reliance on this
12 law, if General Milosevic was a VJ officer as opposed to a VRS officer?
13 A. This is one of possible conclusions, but just on the basis of
14 this document.
15 Q. Okay. Now if we could take a look at P15 -- 1757.
16 Again, I have a -- no, I don't, unfortunately.
17 Unfortunately, Mr. Starcevic, I can't assist you on this. You
18 will have to rely on the document in front of you on the screen. I don't
19 have a hard copy.
20 All right.
21 A. [In English] It's okay.
22 Q. Mr. Starcevic, this is the presidential decree that the Federal
23 Republic of Yugoslavia presidential decree that ended
24 Dragomir Milosevic's service in the VJ; is that correct?
25 A. [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.
1 Q. This document, dated 19 December 1996, is dated five weeks after
2 the decree of Mrs. Plavsic appointing General Milosevic to the command
3 of the 7th Corps. Do you remember we had earlier seen that date on D121?
4 A. I think that I do remember, but I'm not exactly connecting the
6 Q. Okay. Well, I don't want to make this process any longer.
7 Perhaps we can stipulate with counsel, or I could ask that D121 --
8 MR. HARMON: Could D121 be placed on the monitor again.
9 We have to go into private session.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm trying to see the 19th of December, 1996, in
11 this document before we move it.
12 MR. HARMON: It's at the top, Your Honour, third line down from
13 the --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Okay. I can see it. Thank you.
15 MR. HARMON: Just to show you the temporal relationship between
16 this document and D121. We have to go into private session, we put
17 this --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
19 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
18 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
19 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 822 on the monitor,
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit number?
22 MR. HARMON: P822.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. HARMON:
25 Q. Mr. Starcevic, this is the document that you saw yesterday. This
1 is the legal -- the judgement of the legal proceedings that took place in
2 the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade. You were asked by my colleague,
3 Mr. Lukic, whether or not in the text of this document the court, when it
4 made its decision awarding Mr. Milosevic damages, whether they had
5 considered any documents from the VRS. And after reviewing this
6 judgement, you said you couldn't see any such documents being placed in
7 the record.
8 Do you remember that?
9 A. Yes, I think that is what I said.
10 Q. And, in fact, this litigation was a litigation between the --
11 Mr. Milosevic and the state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; isn't
12 that correct?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. And if Mr. Milosevic was a member of the VRS, Federal Republic of
15 Yugoslavia, if that was in their interest, could have introduced that
16 sort of evidence, couldn't it?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: What sort of evidence?
18 MR. HARMON: Evidence that Mr. Milosevic was a member of the VRS.
19 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Starcevic?
20 A. I assume so, yes.
21 Q. In fact, if you look at this judgement, if you look at it
22 carefully, neither Mr. Milosevic nor the state asserted that
23 Mr. Milosevic was a member of the VRS.
24 And let me direct your attention, if I could, to page 3 of the
25 English version; and in the B/C/S version, that would be found ... I
1 believe that is on page 3 as well. In the English version, let's -- if
2 we can scroll up, please, and I hope that, in the B/C/S version, this
3 same text, starting at the bottom, which says:
4 "The plaintiff, Dragomir Milosevic, was heard as a party to these
6 I believe -- do you see that equivalent text, Mr. Starcevic?
7 A. Yes, on the next page.
8 Q. Okay. What this -- what -- what this text says is that
9 Mr. Milosevic was a member of these -- was heard as a party to these
10 proceedings, and what he said was that:
11 "Before the establishment of the state of the SRJ, professional
12 JNA officers who originated from Serbia were invited to state in writing
13 whether they wanted to return to Serbia -- since that -- that since he
14 had been born in Serbia, in Murgas, Ub municipality, the plaintiff
15 stating in writing that he wanted to live and work in Serbia as a
16 professional soldier and was accepted so that he was assigned to VP 3001
17 Belgrade, but a decision was made in the form of a written order that, as
18 a member of the military -- this Military Post, he would serve in
19 Sarajevo as a member of VP 7598."
20 Now, Mr. Starcevic, let's see what the state asserted in this
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. HARMON: If we go to page 8 in the English version; and page
25 3 of the -- page 6 of the B/C/S. I'm referring to - let me see - the top
1 paragraph in the English.
2 Q. And for your purposes, it should be the -- I can direct your
3 attention -- should be the bottom paragraph in the Serbian -- in the
5 In this it says that:
6 "Evidence was presented in written form primarily a report." And
7 gives a confidential number of Military Post, 3001 Belgrade, and it gives
8 a date which states that according to the data from the official records
9 of 1790 Belgrade:
10 "Major-General Dragomir Milosevic, retired, was a member of the
11 former JNA and the Army of Yugoslavia without interruption from 27
12 July 1960 to 31 December 1996 when his professional military service was
13 terminated at his own request, to exercise his right of old-age pension,"
14 and it goes on.
15 So if we go back to this judgement, let me ask you,
16 Mr. Starcevic, as a lawyer, had Mr. Milosevic been a member of the VRS
17 and not a member of the VJ, would he have been able to entertain his
18 lawsuit in the Belgrade municipal court?
19 A. No, no, he would not.
20 Q. Okay.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The next paragraph deals with what you two
22 gentlemen are talking about.
23 MR. HARMON: The next paragraph, indeed, Your Honour, it does.
24 It's part of the judgement.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No objection [Microphone not activated].
1 MR. HARMON: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Objection that is being considered in that next
4 MR. HARMON: Okay, yes. Thank you.
5 Q. Now, sir, let me turn to some different documents, if I can. You
6 were shown some documents that related to General Mladic's special
7 compensation for service in special circumstances. The first document
8 you were shown was P741, and if we can have that on the monitor please.
9 This document you're familiar with, you have seen now at least
10 twice in these proceedings, Mr. Starcevic. This is the decision of
11 General Perisic on determining the task and territory where services are
12 performed under special circumstances. Let me just -- just to reorient
13 you a little bit. If we could go down to the -- up -- scroll up a little
14 bit on the B/C/S version, yes, and we could focus on the last
15 paragraph in English.
16 This -- you're familiar with this document, Mr. Starcevic.
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. You will see in terms of defining where service is performed
19 under difficult circumstances, it sets forth five sub-points, the fifth
20 sub-point being the territory where members of the 30th and
21 40th Personnel Centres are in service. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now let me show you some decisions that we also looked at -- you
24 looked at with Mr. Lukic. The first part --
25 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 1810 on the
1 monitor, please.
2 Q. And I want it clarify a point with this document and one of your
3 answers you gave to Mr. Lukic. It's found at page 6957, lines 16 to 21.
4 So this document that's in front of us -- before I turn to the
5 testimony that you gave, before I turn to the testimony, this document is
6 the decision of the Military Post 3001, awarding General Mladic special
7 compensation. And this really has -- the decision reflects or
8 concentrates on three different bases or three different compensations.
9 You will see in subpart A the amount of 20 per cent; subpart B,
10 there is an reference to compensation -- increases compensation, there is
11 a reference to Article 24 in the decision of the Military Post 3001, and
12 it gives a date and refreshes number; and in -- thirdly, it gives an
13 amount of four per cent basic increase in salary.
14 Now my first question to you is: In the preamble, it sets forth,
15 does it not, on what basis this decision is founded? Is that -- what is
16 that basis on which this decision is founded, according to the preamble?
17 A. That's Article 156 of the Law on the Yugoslav Army and the
18 decision of the Chief of Staff which governs the methodology of
19 exercising the rights --
20 Q. Okay --
21 A. -- in question.
22 Q. Now, if you could go to the second page, please, of this
23 document, you will see that under subpart B of this, when it refers to --
24 the second part which is the second paragraph in English. I hope it
25 appears in your document; it may not, actually.
1 Does it -- do you see in your text, Mr. Starcevic, the increase
2 of compensation stipulated under B, and I think we've found it now.
3 Now, you were asked the following question by Mr. Lukic, and this
4 is where I need the clarification.
5 You were asked the question:
6 "And under B, it says the basis for issuing this decision by
7 Military Post 3001 is a decision of the commander of Military Post 3001;
8 am I right? "
9 And your answer was, "Yes."
10 Let me ask you this question: Mr. Starcevic, is that what this
11 says or does this subpart B say that the increase in compensation, under
12 B, in the disposition of this decision has been recognised as he is
13 serving with the unit covered by the decision of the commander, and it
14 goes on.
15 Is the decision -- do you understand my question, Mr. Starcevic?
16 There is an slightly different meaning between the two. I'm just seeking
17 out what is the correct meaning of this. Was the decision to award
18 compensation under B based on the decision; or was it because he was
19 serving in a unit that is covered by the decision?
20 A. Well, I find it hard to understand your question. In the
21 statement of reasons that you referred to, it says that this increase,
22 stipulated under sub-item B, has been granted due to the fact that he was
23 carrying out his duties in the unit that is covered by the decision of
24 the commander of the VP 3001.
25 Therefore, this is only an explanation of this increase that was
1 granted under subparagraph B.
2 Q. That's the clarification I was seeking.
3 Now, if we could go to the third document that was shown in this
4 case to you; I just want to identify which unit that was.
5 MR. HARMON: If we could go to P2046, please.
6 Q. This is the decision, Mr. Starcevic, that was referred to in the
7 previous document, and which -- in which unit was General Mladic serving
8 at the time he received this special compensation? If you refer to --
9 under the words "decision," paragraph 1, it would give you the answer to
10 that question.
11 A. Military Post 7572, Sarajevo.
12 Q. All right. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Starcevic.
13 If we can turn to a different document.
14 MR. HARMON: If I can have -- let me just check.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. HARMON: Can we go into private session, please.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
18 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
25 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
1 MR. HARMON:
2 Q. Could we look at two documents you looked at, Mr. Starcevic.
3 MR. HARMON: P363 is the first document.
4 Q. Mr. Starcevic, you were asked some questions about particular
5 words that appeared in this particular document, those words being found
6 in the second paragraph under certificate. And the words you were asked
7 about was: He was wounded carrying out combat activities securing the
8 SRJ state border.
9 Now, Mr. Starcevic, one of the questions that you were asked by
10 Mr. Lukic was --
11 MR. HARMON: I'm sorry, before we do that, could we also take a
12 look at Prosecution Exhibit 557.
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 MR. HARMON: I'm sorry to bounce around like this, Your Honour.
15 I'm told this document is under seal. So we have to go back into private
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Page 7082 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
3 We will take a break and come back at a quarter to 6.00.
4 Court adjourned.
5 --- Recess taken at 5.17 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Harmon.
8 MR. HARMON:
9 Q. We're almost there, Mr. Starcevic.
10 Let me ask you, in your earlier testimony, Mr. Starcevic, you
11 indicated that there were three situations under Yugoslav Army law where
12 persons in the VJ could be sent abroad. One was -- they could be sent to
13 diplomatic or consular offices; second, they could be sent to duties
14 relating to international agreement, peacekeeping, for example; and the
15 third was, they could be sent for education.
16 My question, Mr. Starcevic, is when VJ soldiers are sent abroad
17 to participate in peacekeeping operations, who has the disciplinary
18 authority, the sending state or the receiving organisation?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What Mr. Harmon has put to the
21 witness now is related to the examination-in-chief and not to
22 cross-examination. I would appreciate a reference to my
23 cross-examination, otherwise, I have an objection to this line of
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Harmon.
1 MR. HARMON: I'll withdraw the question, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MR. HARMON: I have no further questions Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Starcevic, thank you very much.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see a smile on your face, Mr. Starcevic.
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE DAVID: Mr. Starcevic, at the beginning of your testimony,
10 on page 14, lines 21, 22, on the 8th June, the Prosecution has presented
11 you in Exhibit 1827 a so-called warning.
12 You said at page 15, lines 13 to 17, in relation to this
14 "It does not have the legal significance of a warning. It is a
15 colloquial act or document, advice, proposal, or recommendation."
16 Later on, you said, in response to Judge Moloto's question, at
17 page 18, line 1 to 6:
18 "Warning is, in a way, a question of good service or an advice.
19 Perhaps there could be some influence on the quality of the relationship
20 between the person who is issuing the warning and/or the side that is
21 issuing the warning, and the side that does not adhere to the warning."
22 My question, Mr. Starcevic, is the following: How this
23 colloquial act or advice or recommendation fits into the functions given
24 by Article 175 of the Yugoslav Army to the commander in chief when speaks
25 this article of regulation, order, instructions, and other documents as
1 part of the responsibilities or authority of the chief of General Staff
2 of the army?
3 Is that clear, my question, to you?
4 A. Yes, sir, it is clear.
5 But I'm afraid that, when you quoted the first answer, either I
6 was not accurate or there may have, perhaps, been some misunderstanding
7 in terms of interpretation, I didn't mean to say, as I have been quoted,
8 that it does not have a legal significance of a warning.
9 What I simply wanted to say was that a warning does not have a
10 legal significance or a legal character or nature. That was the essence
11 of what I wanted to say.
12 Therefore, a warning is not a document envisaged by the law, nor
13 does it require a proper legal procedure to be issued. There is no such
14 category as a warning among the powers vested in the chief of General
15 Staff or any other officer that is authorised to command, and precisely
16 for that reason, this is not a legal document but, rather, a colloquial
17 document issued by someone who is giving a warning to another person is
18 probably wishing to help in solving a problem, or to draw this person's
19 attention to potential adverse consequences in the event of this warning
20 not being heeded.
21 JUDGE DAVID: So, Mr. Starcevic, your conclusion is, if I
22 understood well your answer, that this act does not enter into the
23 enumeration or comprehensiveness of Article 175.
24 Is that correct or ...
25 A. That's correct.
1 JUDGE DAVID: My second question: You have said yesterday
2 something that, perhaps, I would like you to elaborate in relation to
3 this document.
4 You said at page 86, line 2 to 6:
5 "The crux of the problem is legal status in factual situations,"
6 referring yourself to the understanding of many -- many orders or
7 commands, et cetera, that should be, if I understood you, not only from a
8 formal viewpoint from the letter of the law but from the factual
9 structural situation.
10 Could you elaborate? I don't want to confuse, you but it
11 interested me very much your characterization, you know? Or a principle
12 of interpretation, which is to say, the crux of the matter is legal
13 status in factual situations.
14 Could you apply this construction, I will call it your
15 theoretical construction, Mr. Starcevic, to the problem inside?
16 A. I should probably be made aware to what question I gave that
17 answer. What was the question, I would like to know.
18 JUDGE DAVID: If I'm not mistaken, you were clarifying certain
19 situations of regulations and these positions that needed some
20 articulation between what the norm [phoen] said and what the particular
21 situations of the case was.
22 My question, in this regard, has to do with the factual effects
23 of a warning. Could you, in your experience, elaborate what could be the
24 factual effect of a warning if you, in the circumstances that you knew,
25 beyond the lack of legal validity, you already hint when -- into the
1 problem when you said influence, you know, you said here exactly:
2 "Perhaps there could be some influence on the quality of the
3 relationship between the person who is issuing the warning and -- or the
4 side that has issued the warning and the side that does not adhere to the
6 Page 18, lines 1 to 6.
7 A. I think that now I understand your point.
8 So, even though a warning does not have any legal foundation or
9 significance - in other words, the one who issues it, cannot invoke any
10 authority under which he is entitled to give this warning, because this
11 kind of authority simply does not exist.
12 Therefore, the consequence of issuing such an order --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, such a warning.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- does not constitute a legal
15 obligation to the receiving side. However, in a factual situation, this
16 may lead, even to a deterioration of the relationship between the issuing
17 party and the receiving party of the warning and if the receiving party
18 ignores this warning.
19 I'm trying to think of an example to explain this in a more
20 simple and easier way. If, for instance, within the framework of
21 cooperation between police forces between two countries, these
22 relationships are not legally regulated, but, nevertheless, the police in
23 one country acquires intelligence that, for example, in this other state
24 a terrorist group is being active and making preparations for committing
25 a terrorist act. In the country which is sending the warning, the only
1 possibility that they have at their disposal is just to send a warning to
2 the police of another country of what is in the offing. If the police
3 does not take this warning seriously, at least to such an extent to
4 launch an investigation and eventually this terrorist act does happen,
5 one can imagine that this will affect the quality of relationships
6 between the two parties.
7 So that is what I meant when I say that in a factual situation, a
8 warning may result in a deterioration of relationships, and, quite vice
9 versa, if a warning is heeded and adhered to, can improve these
11 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much, Mr. Starcevic.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Another example of the factual situation, would it
14 also be that if the warning is not heeded, the consequences against which
15 the person is being warned might eventuate, in which case, there may be
16 tragedy; or if they are heeded, that tragedy may be avoided. That would
17 be --
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Any questions arising?
20 MR. HARMON: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions arising, Mr. Lukic?
22 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 Mr. Starcevic, thank you so much. You have come here twice in
25 this case. We thank you so much for the time you have given to the
1 trial. We've come now to the end of your testimony. You are excused.
2 You may stand down. Please travel back home well. I hope you have some
3 rest before you start your duties back home.
4 Thank you very much.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Harmon.
9 MR. HARMON: That concludes our evidence for this week. We have
10 no additional witnesses for today or tomorrow.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. In that event, then, the case stands
12 adjourned to Monday, the 15th of June, at quarter past 2.00 in the
13 afternoon, Courtroom I.
14 Court adjourned.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.00 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of June,
17 2009, at 2.15 p.m.