1 Monday, 6 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Could we have the appearances
11 for the day, please, starting with Prosecution.
12 MR. THOMAS: Yes, good morning, Your Honours, and firstly an
13 apology for keeping everybody waiting for a few moments this morning.
14 I'd received wrong information that we were starting at quarter past, but
15 I apologise, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
17 MR. THOMAS: Barney Thomas, April Carter, and Carmela Javier for
18 the Prosecution.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. And for the Defence.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good morning, Your Honours. Gregor Guy-Smith,
21 Chad Mair, and Tina Drolec appearing on behalf of Mr. Perisic.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, we would call our next witness, if we could,
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: For the Court's information, the next witness is
3 General Kadijevic.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Surely. If I could have the court usher grab
6 this yellow binder for a moment so that the Prosecution can take a quick
7 look. I'll wait.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, you may be seated, sir.
13 Good morning to you, sir. Mr. Guy-Smith.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
16 WITNESS: RADOJICA KADIJEVIC
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: If the court usher would be so kind as to grab
19 the yellow binder the Prosecution has had an opportunity to review.
20 Examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
21 Q. Good morning, sir.
22 A. Morning.
23 Q. If you'd tell us your name and spell your last name for the
24 record, we'd appreciate it.
25 A. Good morning. My name is Radojica Kadijevic.
1 Lieutenant-General, retired.
2 Q. Since you are retired, would you prefer that I call you
3 Mr. Kadijevic or General? What is your preference, sir?
4 A. It makes no difference to me. Whatever suits you best.
5 Q. Very well. Probably during the course of our conversation today
6 I'll probably end up calling you both, so ...
7 How long have you been retired?
8 A. For 11 years.
9 Q. And prior to your retirement, for whom did you work, sir?
10 A. Before my retirement, I was assistant federal minister for
11 defence for military economic activities.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sorry, Your Honour, I was on the wrong channel.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I repeat?
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. No, it's fine. I have an opportunity to read it, it just took me
16 a moment. And for how long a period of time were you the assistant
17 federal minister for defence for the military economic activities?
18 A. I was appointed assistant federal minister in June 1995, and I
19 stayed in that position until April 1999.
20 Q. Prior to your appointment as assistant federal minster for
21 defence for military economic activities, what post did you hold, sir?
22 A. Prior to that I was chief of the administration for
23 investigation, development, manufacture of weaponry and military
24 equipment within the Ministry of Defence.
25 Q. And for how long a period of time did you hold that post?
1 A. I held the post of chief for research, development, and
2 manufacture from November 1993 until the following position that I took.
3 Q. And before you were the chief for research and development for
4 manufacture in the Ministry of Defence what post did you hold, sir?
5 A. Prior to that I was the chief of the navy and technical
6 administration within the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, and
7 prior to that, Yugoslav People's Army.
8 Q. And could you tell us what time-period you were involved in that
10 A. I held the post of the chief of the navy and technical
11 administration for five years.
12 Q. And if we were to go back in time, would that be then starting in
14 A. Yes. Upon completing the national school of -- for defence, I
15 was appointed chief of the navy and technical administration, which was
16 attached to the General Staff.
17 Q. And without going through each and every other post that you held
18 while you were working before your retirement, when did you first join
19 the military?
20 A. I first joined the army in 1992 upon graduating from the navy and
21 technical academy in Pula
22 the navy and technical academy for three years.
23 Q. I'm not sure whether or not you misspoke or you misheard but it
24 indicates that you first joined the army in 1992; is that correct?
25 A. I apologise, it was a slip of the tongue. It was in 1962.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: If it was the slip of the tongue, then did you
3 graduate in the navy and technical academy just prior to 1962? Because
4 you were interpreted as saying you first joined the army in 1992 upon
5 graduating in the technical academy -- in the navy and technical academy.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible that it was a
7 mistake. I applied and was admitted into the navy and technical academy
8 in 1959. The academy lasted three years and I graduated in September of
9 1962. According to our regulation, one is promoted into the rank of 2nd
10 lieutenant on the day one joins the JNA.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. When were you born, sir?
13 A. I was born on the 17th of April, 1940.
14 Q. And where were you born?
15 A. I was born in a place called Glavina Donja, municipality of Iv
16 Imotski, Republic of Croatia
17 Q. Did you ever serve in any other military organisations apart from
18 the JNA, the VJ, and the Ministry of Defence?
19 A. No, sir. I never served in any other organisation other than the
20 JNA, the Army of Yugoslavia
21 of Defence.
22 Q. Were you ever asked to or ordered to serve in any other military
23 organisations apart from the JNA, the VJ, and the Ministry of Defence?
24 A. No, nobody asked me to do that nor have I ever had problems with
25 that type of request. I was transferred from the General Staff to the
1 Ministry of Defence and I had regular promotions there until I reached
2 the position of assistant minister of defence.
3 Q. I'd like to spend a moment or two dealing with your duties from
4 June 1995 to 1999 when you were the assistant minister of defence. Could
5 you please tell us what your responsibilities were while you were in that
7 A. The main task in that position was to co-ordinate within the
8 sector for military economic activities in order to fulfill the duties
9 and obligations of the Army of Yugoslavia when it comes to funding,
10 equipment, and weaponry. In order to complete my task, I was superior to
11 the institute for research and development of the Army of Yugoslavia, and
12 it dealt with research and development as well as the development of the
13 special military industry -- special-purpose military industry, which was
14 to produce the equipment and weaponry needed for the military.
15 In addition to that, within the sector there was an
16 administration for procurement of military equipment and weaponry and
17 that administration procured within the country and also abroad whatever
18 was needed for the Ministry of Defence and the Army of Yugoslavia. In
19 order to ensure all of that, there was a department for quality control
20 of weaponry and military equipment as well as department for
21 standardisation and nomenclature in which ensured that everything was of
22 a good quality and given as such to the end users, and they also prepared
23 the system that was meant to service and repair that equipment.
24 In addition to this, there was also the field of international
25 military and scientific corporation and a lot of people within the
1 ministry and the army took part in this corporation. This corporation
2 was co-ordinated and headed by us, by my office.
3 Q. With regard to your duties when you were in the position of
4 assistant minister of defence, after Dayton, and we'll touch upon this
5 later in your testimony, were you also appointed to a commission dealing
6 with demilitarisation in the region and specifically with the
7 demilitarisation of FRY?
8 A. By way of a decision of the government of the Federal Republic
10 with implementing in full the Florence Agreement. Pursuant to the
11 decision of the prime minister of the federal government, the tasks of
12 both me and members of the commission were fully defined. We had no
13 opportunity to do anything else other than strictly implement the
14 agreement on disarmament that had been signed. In that position, or
15 rather in that capacity, I especially emphasised to other members of the
16 commission that I would never accept any sort of interference of politics
17 into the implementation of the agreement.
18 The federal government tasked us to report back to them each
19 month about the activities that we undertook and how they proceeded.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel be asked to switch off microphone
21 when not in use. Thank you.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will do my best.
23 Q. Thank you for that response. We'll have further discussion about
24 this particular endeavour later on in your testimony, but I thank you for
25 that response at this moment.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, you heard the request from the
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: I did.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH:
6 Q. I'd like to, at this point in time, based upon the answer that
7 you've given us, take a look at a document.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could please have D240 up on the screen.
9 Q. That will be the first document, the very first tab in your
10 binder, sir.
11 And this is a document called "Rules On The Responsibilities Of
12 The Organisational Units In The Defence Ministry." We discussed this
13 document and I understand that you are familiar with it. Could you
14 please take a look at Article" 15 of this document, which defines the
15 duties, sector for military economic activity, which I believe is on page
16 -- on page 9 of the English, I believe page 7 of the B/C/S. I believe.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record, B/C/S page number 8.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you very much. I do apologise. Page
19 number 8. Article 15.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 10.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH:
22 Q. Page 10 for you, yes. There is an electronic system, a hard copy
23 system, a B/C/S system, an English system; everything is differently
24 paginated but I'm sure we'll all get to the same page eventually.
25 Could you take a look at the Article 15, please, sir. If you
1 could, could you confirm for us if it is accurate that those were the
2 duties and responsibilities of the sector for military activity, economic
3 activity of the Ministry of Defence?
4 A. Yes, those were, in general, the tasks of the sector for military
5 economic activities.
6 Q. And with regard to the issue of the procurement administration,
7 could you take a look at Article 17.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: And that will be on page 10 of the English. And
9 I believe it's going to be in B/C/S and it's going to be page 9.
10 Q. Do you have the section entitled "Procurement Administration"?
11 Right above --
12 A. Yes, I have found it, and I have looked at it. These are general
13 responsibilities of the procurement administration.
14 Q. I'd like to spend a moment here. You indicated that between 1993
15 and 1995 your duties were as the chief of the research and development
16 administration, and if I am not mistaken, that also included the issue of
17 procurement. Is that accurate?
18 A. I don't think you are quite right because the administration for
19 research, development, and manufacture did not also deal with
20 procurement. The administration for research, development, and
21 manufacture mostly brought together all fields of scientific work for the
22 needs of the army of Yugoslavia
23 component parts.
24 In addition to that, this administration developed facilities for
25 special-purpose industry. They also developed new technologies, approved
1 various investments and investment plans, and they also drafted
2 regulations which dealt with the field that they were responsible for.
3 In addition to that, the administration also co-operated with
4 other military scientific institutions within the the Federal Republic
6 Q. With regard to the procurement administration, what, if any,
7 involvement did you have with the procurement administration during your
8 tenure as the chief of research and development?
9 A. I had none because these are two parallel administrations at the
10 same level. They co-operated closely between each other, especially when
11 it comes to procurement of new equipment. In those cases, people from
12 the research and development administration would get involved in
13 procurement of this new equipment in order to develop the necessary
14 regulations and paperwork, especially when it it comes to prices,
15 standards, and so on, whereas the procurement administration would take
16 care of the commercial part of those deals. So when it comes to such
17 activities, all sectors would co-operate, all sectors within the military
18 economic activity sectors, just as the quality control administration had
19 its staff both within the Ministry of Defence and within the military
20 industry. They were tasked with ensuring the appropriate standard of
21 equipment in all stages of manufacture so that --
22 Q. Let me ask you this: In reviewing Article 17, are you familiar
23 with those -- the tasks that are set forth with regard to what the
24 procurement administration was supposed to be engaged in?
25 A. Yes, I'm fully familiar with these tasks.
1 Q. And as I understand this, looking at the plain language here, it
2 says the procurement administration shall carry out the tasks that
3 pertain to supplying of the VJ with combat and -- I seem to be having
4 some screen problems, that's why you hear my sigh. My screen keeps on
5 going on and off. With combat and non-combat equipment. As such, 1, and
6 I shall not read them all, it says it "shall supply the Yugoslav Army
7 with the weapons and military equipment and other supplies, delivering
8 them to the army depots, procuring them from domestic sources, and shall
9 contract the repair of equipment and materiel." To your understanding
10 was that one of the main functions of the procurement administration?
11 A. Yes, that was the basic function of the procurement
12 administration, although it had other tasks as well as listed in here,
13 and that's what they did, however this was the main task and that's hence
14 its name, the procurement administration. There was a time when the
15 title was expanded to the procurement administration, or rather, the
16 procurement of armament and military equipment.
17 Q. I'd like you to take just a brief look at number 6, where it
19 "It shall sell assets within its purview."
20 My question to you here, sir, is could you explain to us what
21 assets, if you know, were within its purview that it had the authority
22 and responsibility to sell?
23 A. The procurement administration, as I said, dealt with the sale of
24 armament and military equipment of different types. Primarily they sold
25 the surpluses of armament and military equipment, obsolete types of
1 armament and military equipment, and later on, when we were engaged in
2 the destruction of military technique pursuant to the disarmament
3 agreement, that technique was all cut to pieces and we sold raw
4 materials, iron and everything else. Whatever the Ministry of Defence
5 and the Army of Yugoslavia advertised as surplus, we in the
6 administration received documents and accompanying materials requesting
7 us to embark on the sale of such supplies because the administration for
8 procurement had staff that knew how to deal with such tasks.
9 Q. With regard to what you've just said, you indicated that it dealt
10 with the sale of armament and military equipment of different types. My
11 question: Who was the owner of that equipment and who had the right to
12 alienate that equipment?
13 A. The owner of all the equipment and armament in the Army of
15 pursuant to the Law on Defence; the government of the Federal Republic
17 Q. And with regard to the ownership interest and the right to
18 alienate property, what, if any, ownership or rights did the Yugoslav
19 Army have to sell, alienate, hypothecate, give, or transfer property?
20 A. The Army of Yugoslavia in that sense did not have any right to
21 dispose, or rather, alienate the property in any way. The Army of
23 equipment was obsolete and unnecessary, had the right to advertise it as
24 unnecessary and to propose that it be written off. When the decision was
25 taken that a piece of equipment was no longer necessary, such pieces of
1 equipment were forwarded to further procedure to the Ministry of Defence
2 which then made the decision to decommission or sell such a piece of
3 equipment, and the proceeds of such a sale were transferred into the
4 federal budget.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could now take a look at Article 23, which
7 deals with finance and budget administration. It will be on page 14 in
8 the English, and I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what page it will
9 be in B/C/S at this moment in the hard copy.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 16. 16.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
12 Q. Now, during the time that you were the assistant minister of
13 defence pertaining to economic activities, is Article 23 an article that
14 you concerned yourself with?
15 A. This article did not relate to me. There was a special
16 administration and the chief of that administration, who was directly
17 subordinated to the federal minister of defence. Obviously by virtue of
18 my position, I co-operated with the chief of that administration because
19 we had to co-ordinate activities in the implementation of certain
20 programmes. There was always a problem of the lack of resources, lack of
21 money, and our dynamics of investment in military capacities and the
22 adoption of new technologies is something that I had to co-ordinate with
23 the chief of that administration in order for the financial resources to
24 be able to follow the process of production and adoption and procurement
25 of new technologies.
1 Q. And with regard to the requirements that are set forth in this
2 particular article, are you familiar with these requirements?
3 A. I apologise, did you have the whole article in mind?
4 Q. I did.
5 A. I was familiar with all that because I co-operated with the chief
6 of the administration, I was in daily contact with him, we shared the
7 experiences, we shared each other's problems, so I was basically familiar
8 with the work and the scope of his work and activities, but I did not
9 have anything to do, I did not have any authorities with this regard.
10 Q. That's understood. And without going through each and every
11 article, would it be fair to say that you had familiarity and are aware
12 of the requirements that are set forth in this particular document?
13 A. Yes. One might say so. As I've already pointed out, I
14 encountered the same problems that the chief of the administration for
15 finances and budget had.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I ask for this document's admission. I'm sorry,
17 it's in, Your Honour. It's in.
18 Q. At the outset of your testimony you indicated that you were in
19 the JNA and you were also in the VJ and the Ministry of Defence. I'd
20 like to discuss with you for a moment, first of all, when did you cease
21 being in the VJ and become a member of -- I'm sorry, cease being a member
22 of the JNA and become a participant in the VJ? What year was that?
23 A. That happened in 1992, I suppose, after the transformation. The
24 process of transformation started in 1987 while the JNA was still in
25 place. We had a lot of transformation cycles. For example, the ones
1 after 1995 and then after 1996, everything that had been done up to then
2 was done in a haste. In practice it was proven that such a structure of
3 the Main Staff and the Ministry of Defence was not adequate because they
4 were not conducive to -- to the efficient of work of neither of the
5 organs. I apologise for having to add this as well: I believe that that
6 transformation was not such a clear-cut so as to enable one to know that
7 as of today, for example, one is a member of the Army of Yugoslavia.
8 Regulations that were in effect in the JNA continued to be used because
9 there were simply no new regulations in place.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, I think that answer goes far beyond
11 your question. If you could try and curtail the witness.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure.
13 Q. With regard to the system of defence, and by that I mean the
14 broad system of defence that existed before the transformation, could you
15 describe for us what that system was? And by that I mean at the high
16 level of the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the army,
17 before the transformation. Was it a unified system; was it a divided
18 system; how would you characterise that system?
19 And keeping in mind His Honour's admonition. It's early in the
20 day, I'll try to make my questions short, and if you would try to make
21 your answers short, I'm sure, among other things, we will please not only
22 ourselves but also the Court.
23 A. During the JNA period, the organisation of the Federal
24 Secretariat for the National Defence represented a single system that
25 also encompassed the General Staff and the entire JNA in depth. After
1 the transformation, there was a separation into two different
2 organisational units. First there was a General Staff which was
3 subordinated to the Supreme Council of Defence and the Federal Ministry
4 of Defence which was subordinated to the federal government of the
5 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
6 Q. Thank you. I want to turn our attention now for a moment in a
7 general sense to another subject you mentioned which is that of
8 special-purpose industries. And if you could describe for us, before the
9 transformation, a couple of matters with regard to.
10 Special-purpose industries. First of all, could you tell us if
11 you know approximately how many special-purpose industries there were?
12 A. In the SFRY there was a military industry and it was very
13 developed and it was part of the so-called Zinvoj association which dealt
14 with the military industry and production, and I believe that there were
15 120 companies in total which were members of that association, and they
16 are also outsourcing companies that were under the same umbrella. They
17 were all tied to the military economic sector in the federal Secretariat
18 of Defence. During the existence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
19 this was reduced to some 12 to 14 companies that belonged to the
20 special-purpose industry which were not well-defined and by inertia they
21 were leaned on the military economic sector of the Federal Ministry of
23 Q. Let me stop you there for a moment. With regard to the military
24 industry, when you use the term "military industry" are you referring to
25 the military -- a military industrial complex that produces military
1 products for sale?
2 A. There's a serious problem even today with regard to the
3 terminology separating military industry, military industrial complex,
4 special-purpose industry, but this is all the result of the inertia which
5 existed before. The system changed and the names persisted although they
6 don't reflect the current situation. Even in the new Law on Defence,
7 they are not defined as either special-purpose industry or military
8 industry. They are defined by the products they produce which are of
9 some special interest. There may be other civilian companies that they
10 have nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence or the military and they
11 still may be engaged in the production of the same products.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreter is having great difficulty keeping
13 pace with you. Can you slow down.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. I think I understand your frustration over the topic because it's
16 something that is of concern to you, and we all have a tendency, when
17 dealing with things that are of concern to us, to speed up in our answer,
18 so if you keep that in mind.
19 With regard to this issue, and I'm going to use the term
20 "special-purpose industry" if that's acceptable. With regard to the
21 issue of the special-purpose industry in the the SFRY, was the
22 special-purpose industry an integrated industry, was it a competing
23 industry? How would you characterise the industry before the break-up,
24 or as you've put it, transformation?
25 A. In the SFRY that industry was very well organised, exceptionally
1 organised, and was integrated into an association, and as a result of
2 that there was direct co-operation and there was no unloyal competition.
3 That association was a very complex organisation that also actively
4 sought out jobs and work for the association members. They even had
5 their own administration. And they were transformed into a very complex
6 body. I personally had a lot of problem with that body once that body
7 was abolished.
8 Q. During the period of time of the SFRY, was the -- were the
9 facilities that produced under the special-purpose industry located in
10 one republic, in one area or region of the former Yugoslavia, or were
11 they located throughout former Yugoslavia
12 A. During that period, the state policy dictated the deployment of
13 the military industry companies across the territory of the former state.
14 However, for strategic reasons, most of the military industry was
15 developed and located in Bosnia and Herzegovina and then in Serbia
16 After that, Croatia
17 behind. They had only very few available capacities and facilities which
18 enabled them to co-operate with the rest of the special-purpose industry.
19 Q. Are you familiar with a factory or special-purpose industry by
20 the name of Pretis?
21 A. Yes, of course I'm familiar with that name.
22 Q. Where was it located?
23 A. Pretis was near Sarajevo
24 Q. After the transformation, in what state or region was Pretis
1 A. Pretis remained in the territory that later on became Republika
2 Srpska. We are talking about huge facilities that could not physically
3 be moved.
4 Q. I'd like to take, if we could, for example, the production of a
5 tank. Could you tell us, if you know, approximately how many production
6 facilities in special-purpose industries within the former Yugoslavia
7 would be involved in the production of a single tank?
8 A. The production of a tank, which was a very complex piece of
9 equipment, required the engagement of a number of companies and
10 outsources. When the state leadership of the SFRY made a decision or was
11 in the process of decision-making for the production of a tank, the basic
12 problem was to establish who would be the final link in the production
13 chain. The political structure played a role in that and there was a
14 struggle for their own republic to take the lead.
15 When it was decided that the production would take place in
17 company, in order to make everybody happy, the outsourcing jobs were
18 assigned to companies from all the other republics in that Croatia
19 lot less facilities engaged as outsources in order to strike a balance in
20 the involvement of all the republics of the former Yugoslavia.
21 Q. Thank you for that answer. If I might, could you by any fashion
22 tell us the approximate number of different production facilities that
23 were involved in this? Five, ten, a hundred, two?
24 A. If my memory serves me well, because I also participated in all
25 that, I believe that a total of 120 companies from all over Yugoslavia
1 participated in that production process.
2 Q. Before the transformation, could you tell us, if you know,
3 approximately how much money was derived from military production in the
4 former Yugoslavia
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Derived by who?
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Derived from military production for the benefit
7 of the state. Actually, derived from military production, the gross
8 receipts from production. If he knows.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that most of the exports of
10 armament and equipment and the monitoring of the incoming flows from the
11 sale of equipment and military construction, the latter also being a big
12 source of income, most that was made from all that was about $2 billion
13 in one year.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. After the transformation and specifically in the calendar years
16 of 1993 through 1995, could you tell us, if you know, what the incoming
17 flows from military construction and sales of equipment in the Federal
18 Republic of Yugoslavia
19 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand your question properly. Are you
20 talking only about exports or are you talking about the domestic sales in
21 the former Yugoslavia
22 Q. I put my question badly. Let's deal with exports first and then
23 with domestic sales, unless it's easier to put them together for your
25 A. During that period there was no exports. What was done was
1 probably done illegally, unbeknownst to the Ministry of Defence, I
2 suppose. During that period there was practically no earnings from
3 exports, and when it comes to the deliveries to the Army of Yugoslavia,
4 those deliveries were at a very low level, not because the companies were
5 not able to produce armament and military equipment but because the
6 federal budget did not have enough allocation for the Ministry of Defence
7 and for the military. There was simply not enough money in the budget.
8 For a few years in a row, the participation, or rather the
9 allocation for the armament and military equipment was approximately 10
10 per cent of the budget. That was allocated for the army and the Ministry
11 of Defence. However, when it came to the reality of the facts, that was
12 even lower, much below the 10 per cent, because the budget allocations
13 did not follow the dynamics of the army requirements and the military was
14 therefore forced to prioritise differently and put emphasis on food,
15 clothing, and medical treatment. That's what the needs that they had to
16 meet first, and then if there were any surpluses, they could be allocated
17 towards the procurement of armament and military equipment.
18 Q. Obviously, as you've discussed, the number of special-purpose
19 industries that existed in the former Yugoslavia were diminished once the
20 creation of FRY occurred. Can you tell us, if you know, the number of
21 workers that were dependent in the former -- sorry, in the Federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia
23 that were -- how many were employed in that industry?
24 A. Companies from the list of the federal government that were part
25 of the special-purpose industry initially employed 30.000 workers and
1 later on 28.000 workers.
2 Q. And with regard to those 30.000 workers that were employed by the
3 special-purpose industry, if you know once again, was the Ministry of
4 Defence in a position to engage in sufficient contracts to keep those
5 individuals gainfully employed?
6 A. The Federal Ministry of Defence had only had funds coming in from
7 the budget in order to sign contracts with the companies from the
8 special-purpose industry. There were years when we had no contracts
9 whatsoever with some of the companies from that industry. Practically,
10 the federal ministry did not engage in any contracts with them sometimes.
11 Q. To your knowledge, did this constitute an economic problem for
12 the special-purpose industries in your country, the Federal Republic
14 A. It was wasn't just an economic problem, it was a social one as
15 well because many families depended on what those people earned in those
16 companies, so it was a political problem as well. And in addition to
17 that, it was a technological problem because they started falling out of
18 pace, there were no further investments, they could not modernise the
19 company, the manufacturing plants and so on, so that industry was
20 practically devastated and deteriorated greatly in comparison to what it
21 used to be prior to that.
22 Q. You indicated earlier, with regard to the issue of exports, at
23 page 21, line 1, you said during that period, and it was referring to the
24 period of 1993 through 1995, there were no exports, what was done was
25 probably done illegally, unbeknownst to the Ministry of Defence. And I'd
1 like to spend a moment or two with you on that particular aspect of your
3 With regard to the issue of exports, could you tell us what the
4 technically proper way for a special-purpose industry to engage in
5 exporting military goods would be? What is the procedure?
6 A. The sales of armament and military equipment, both in the country
7 and abroad, was regulated by law. The procedures were clear and fully
8 regulated. However, during the economic sanctions, these procedures were
9 not always complied with. Directors of companies, in order to ensure
10 survival for their companies, found other exporters rather than the
11 approved federal institution because they wanted to make sure that there
12 would be export and that their company would survive.
13 The exports that went via SDPER, the federally approved organ for
14 exports, were all legal. They went with appropriate approvals and so on.
15 However --
16 Q. Let me stop you there. You've used a -- you've used some letters
17 and we just need to understand what those letters are. You've used the
18 letters SDPER. Could you tell us what that stands for, please.
19 A. It stands for federal directorate for sales of goods -- of
20 special-purpose goods. This was the organ that existed back in the times
21 SFRY but at the time it was called Yugo Import. The federal government
22 issued a decision to establish a particular body that would deal with
23 these matters, and this was a body that existed within the federal
25 Q. You said that they went with appropriate approvals and so on.
1 With regard to the issue of exports, and specifically when you say
2 appropriate approvals, what kind of approvals are you referring to?
3 A. In order for the goods to be exported according to the law, the
4 federal defence ministry was responsible for authorising it, for issuing
5 permits for those transactions. These permits, among other things, were
6 needed for the customs to let such goods through so that these goods
7 could cross the border. In addition to that, the permits were needed for
8 the Ministry of the Interior to allow transport of such goods via the
9 state territory. It was all strictly regulated. All movements of such
10 goods were, and these goods could not be taken over without being checked
11 prior to that.
12 Q. With regard to the issue of export of material, you've mentioned
13 customs and you've mentioned the minister -- the Ministry of the
14 Interior. What involvement, if any, did the VJ have in exporting goods,
15 under the law?
16 A. Under the law, the Army of Yugoslavia and the General Staff had
17 no competencies when it came to exports of military equipment, military
19 Q. With regard to the issue of the Ministry of the Interior, what
20 specifically were the duties and obligations of the Ministry of the
21 Interior with regard to the export of military goods?
22 A. The Ministry of the Interior regulated only the transport and
23 movement of dangerous goods within the territory of our own country. No
24 transport could take place within the country from one special-purpose
25 company to the other special company to the army warehouses without there
1 being a prior approval issued by the Ministry of the Interior.
2 Q. And with regard to customs, what was customs' involvement with
3 regard to the exportation of military goods?
4 A. The customs played its standard role when it comes to any goods;
5 they checked entry and export of any goods to ensure that they had proper
6 documentation. The permits issued by the Ministry of the Interior was
7 sufficient to let these goods cross the border. If there were no
8 permits, the goods were not allowed to cross. Before such permits were
9 issued -- I forgot to tell you that, before export permits were issued,
10 the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was needed. Ministry of
11 Foreign Affairs, in accordance with its responsibilities, had to ensure
12 whether there was any resolution of UN Security Council restricting
13 importation of military goods. If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
14 thought that there were any problems, they would not issue their approval
15 and then no export permits would be issued at all.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I note the time.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take the break and come back at quarter to
18 11.00. Court adjourned.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. If we could -- if you could turn to tab number 6, which is P597.
24 One of the things we were talking about before the break was the movement
25 of goods. Could you take a look at what should be at tab number 6, which
1 is P597, which is entitled "Dispatch Note Number 115." Do you see that
2 document? Should be behind tab number 6.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could you tell us what this document is, please, sir?
5 A. By way of this document, the factory called Krusik Valjevo sends
6 goods, in this case it is the Drina Corps, headquartered in Vlasenica,
7 and this is a receipt that accompanies the goods.
8 Q. What involvement, if any, does the VJ have with regard to this
9 particular transaction?
10 A. In this particular transaction, the Army of Yugoslavia has no
11 role. Moreover, the Ministry of Defence has no role in this either.
12 Q. Take a look at the next tab in your binder, tab number 7, which
13 is P598. Could you tell us what this document is, please, sir.
14 A. This is a similar document, again a dispatch note, the Krusik
15 Valjevo factory, special-purpose factory, sends goods to a certain
16 military post in Vlasenica as well. The Army of Yugoslavia and the
17 Ministry of Defence had nothing to do with this transaction either.
18 Q. Could you now turn to tab number 22 in your binder.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Which is -- I apologise, which is OTP 65 ter 742.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it not yet admitted?
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: It is not. It's on our 65 ter list.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it going to be coming in as a Defence exhibit?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter OTP?
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: 742.
1 Q. I'd like to ask you some questions about this document. Could
2 you tell us who this document is coming from?
3 A. You mean tab 22?
4 Q. Yes, sir.
5 A. This document was used within the Army of Republika Srpska.
6 Chief of the technical service addresses the Chief of Staff of the Main
7 Staff of the VRS in this document. So this is a document that was used
8 between the Main Staff and one of the subordinate institutions.
9 Q. Can you tell us the date of this document, please?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Say that again.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH:
12 Q. Could you tell us the date of this document, please?
13 A. This document is dated 16 March 1994.
14 Q. In the text of the document, at least in the English translation,
15 it says: "For a repair of a T-55/a tank/(2 vehicles) and a 90 mm
16 SO/self-propelled gun/M36 B-1 (one vehicle) we are hereby asking you to
17 secure an approval through the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of
19 to the Ministry of Defence that is being referred to here, is that your
20 Ministry of Defence or some other Ministry of Defence, if you know?
21 A. I know that this is the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.
22 In this document they ask for approval that a certain equipment be
23 repaired in the repair shop in Hadzici in Republika Srpska, and if not
24 possible, then they ask that the repairs be conducted in Cacak in the
25 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The subordinate organ uses routine
1 channels to address the Main Staff so that the Main Staff can address
2 directly the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska, because the author
3 of this document was not allowed to directly contact the Ministry of
4 Defence of Republika Srpska. He had to go via the Main Staff.
5 Q. My question to you here is it says here, it says, we are hereby
6 asking you to secure an approval through the Ministry of Defence of
7 Republic of Serbia
8 Srpska or is it the Republic of Serbia
9 A. Republika Srpska only, because the repair facility is in Hadzici
10 and they seek approval because the Ministry of Defence had to approve the
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I move its admission.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, just before we admit it, let's just get the
15 record clear. The English translation here reads "through the Ministry
16 of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
17 Srpska." Is that what stands on the B/C/S version? Or in other words,
18 is the English translation incorrect?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the translation is
20 incorrect because the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
21 not exist at this point in time. Only the federal ministry of the
22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed at this period in time.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But my question specifically is what stands on the
24 B/C/S version? What is written on the B/C/S version?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version it says
1 Ministry of Defence of RS. "RS" stands for Republika Srpska.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: RS; they didn't write the full name.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The document is admitted. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
7 Exhibit D446. Thank you.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH:
9 Q. With regard to this particular document, what involvement, if
10 any, did the VJ have with regard to this transaction?
11 A. No. They did not participate nor could they have participated
12 given the methodology of work as it was done at the time.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could now see 65 ter OTP 810, which is tab
14 23 in your binder.
15 Q. Looking at the title of this document indicating Issuance Form,
16 in English it indicates at the very top:
17 "For the below-listed material property items received for
18 temporary use from the Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia
19 /handwritten/7296 Vlasenica." In B/C/S could you confirm that that is
20 what is written?
21 A. I can confirm that that is what it says.
22 Q. Thank you. With regard to this particular document, what
23 involvement, if any, if you know, did the VJ have with regard to the
24 temporary use from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
25 below-listed item, number one, which are bullets?
1 A. Yes, it is 7.62 round for an automatic rifle, and you see the
2 number 42.560 pieces. That is Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska,
3 and rounds were provided directly to the military post in Vlasenica,
4 and --
5 Q. Here is my question: As I look at the translation in English and
6 as I look at the language that is contained in the document at the top in
7 Latinised script in B/C/S, I see that it indicates there's some standard
8 language and then it says Ministarsivo Odbrane Republike Srbije; is that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That would be the Republic of Serbia
12 document says?
13 A. That's correct, yes.
14 Q. What involvement would the VJ have with regard to this particular
16 A. The Ministry of Defence did not participate, neither did the Army
17 of Yugoslavia
18 followed from the Territorial Defence.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would move its admission.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
24 Exhibit D447. Thank you.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: The next document would be 65 ter - this is once
1 again a Prosecution 65 ter number - 815, which is number 24 in your
2 binder, sir. I see the -- yes, now I see the English as well.
3 Q. Taking a look at this document, this document is entitled, in
4 English "Delivery Sheet Receipt Note." And it indicates at line number 4
5 that the sender of this document is the Republic of Serbia Ministry of
6 the Interior. And it's being sent to the Drina Corps command, which
7 would be found in box number 14, which would be the name and address of
8 the receiver. Do you see that, sir?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. With regard to the transaction, the transaction involves various
11 bullets and grenades; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What involvement, if any, did the VJ have with regard to this
15 A. The Army of Yugoslavia did not participate in this transaction
16 because this was not about property or equipment that was in the hands of
17 the Army of Yugoslavia at the time.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could now turn to 65 ter OTP 816, which
20 would be tab number 25 in your binder.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you want to do with --
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sorry, thank you so much, Your Honours. I'd move
23 its admission.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, it's admitted. May it please be given
25 an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this shall be given Exhibit D448.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Madam Carter.
4 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, actually, I was going to object to the
5 admission of the document. This -- and it seems that we are going to a
6 series of documents in which the witness is being asked to read in the
7 four corners of the document itself as opposed to having any direct
8 knowledge of the document of the transaction, he has given the general
9 competencies that were at issue of the various ministries, so I don't
10 think there's been an appropriate nexus between this witness and this
11 document or any documents of its kind.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would tend to disagree.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Bases for your disagreement, sir?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: We've had discussion with regard to his
16 competencies and authorities. If you want, I can fill it out further, if
17 the Chamber deems it necessary. Why don't I make life easier for
18 everybody, instead? I'll just fill it out a bit.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I can't hear you, sir.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I said why don't I fill it out a bit since there
21 seems to be some consternation or confusion, I'm happy to fill it out a
22 bit more.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: We understand, but the basis of the objection is
24 that the witness has nothing to do with this document, he doesn't know
25 the document. All he can say is that the VJ had nothing to do with it.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: That in and of itself is certainly relevant to
2 these proceedings. That in and of itself, based upon the kind of
3 evidence we have received here before, and specifically with regard to
4 such issues of material sheets, of which there have been legion material
5 sheets introduced by the Prosecution without the benefit of any oral
6 testimony whatsoever --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The problem being that you are making this witness
8 deny the involvement of the VJ with documents that the Prosecution has
9 not tendered. You are not dealing with documents that were tendered.
10 I'm not quite sure what then is the purpose here.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate that. The purpose is actually
12 twofold. One is that, by virtue of the position that the Prosecution
13 holds, and specifically that is not merely to convict but to see that
14 justice is done, they are to give to you a complete -- that being the
15 fact-finders -- a complete and full picture and understanding of the
16 evidence that exists with regard to their case. These documents which
17 were on their list which they were well aware of and are well aware of
18 and were created during the investigation of and preparation of the
19 prosecution of their case are indicative of something which is relatively
20 important with regard to the indictment as charged. And that is, that
21 material, supplies, and specifically such supplies as ammunition, stemmed
22 from other parties and organs apart from the party that they claim was
23 responsible for such supply, that being the VJ. Evidence that
24 establishes such a position and establishes such reality is not only
25 relevant, but is of assistance to the Trial Chamber when it has to make a
1 determination in dealing with the liability of General Perisic as a Chief
2 of Staff of the VJ, and specifically with regard to specific issues
3 concerning the conceptual basis of aiding and abetting.
4 Therefore, I think that there are not only a myriad bases upon
5 which the document is not only relevant but important, but in the fair
6 administration of justice and in fairness to Mr. Perisic's right to
7 trial, this kind of evidence need be considered by the Chamber, and the
8 Prosecution, I would hope and would think, would not resist such
9 information if it takes its duty seriously, and that is to give a full
10 and complete picture to the Chamber of the situation at hand, which I
11 think is something which has been recognised not only by the decision of
12 law of this Tribunal but had been recognised by the decision of law of
13 courts in jurisdictions throughout the world for eons.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure whether -- I would hate to go
15 into dialogue with you. You know, as I understand the charge of aiding
16 and abetting, it presupposes certain actions taken by the perpetrator,
17 and to prove aiding and abetting, it is not -- it's not necessary to
18 enumerate the actions of the perpetrator because it is understood that
19 the perpetrator did perpetrate the crime. What I do find of crucial
20 importance and relevance to a charge of aiding and abetting are the
21 actions of the aider.
22 Now, you are making -- you are casting aspersions on the
23 Prosecution to say they should have told -- put before the Chamber
24 exculpatory material. Now, that would be exculpatory if it was not
25 aiding and abetting. If it is aiding and abetting, it is known that
1 there will be some actions by the perpetrator, but the concern here is
2 with the aider and abetter.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour, I understand --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me also finish. I gave you a chance to
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the fact that the VJ had nothing do with these
8 documents, does not negate the allegation that the VJ may or may not have
9 had something to do with some other documents of a similar nature. So
10 I'm not quite sure how helpful these documents are for purposes of aiding
11 and abetting.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand what you've said, and I think that
13 to the extent you've articulated part of the analysis in aiding and
14 abetting, we would probably have no disagreement, but the analysis of
15 aiding and abetting goes further than that, and one of the things this
16 Chamber is going to have to determine is the issue of substantiality.
17 And with regard to the issue of substantiality there's going to be at
18 some point some analysis that the Chamber will have to go through, or I
19 assuming would go through, with regard to all of these materiel lists,
20 all of the requests, all of the orders, and what the results of them are.
21 And at some point in time you are going to, I think, make a determination
22 one way or the other as to whether or not the body of that information
23 substantiates the Prosecution's position that these -- that that
24 information and that body of information was sufficient to meet the
25 definition of aiding and abetting.
1 Now, if you have other information and you have other affirmative
2 information that shows that supplies were being given to the Republika
3 Srpska, to the VRS, and to the Republika Srpska Krajina, the SVK, and
4 they were receiving arms, they were receiving ammunition, they were
5 receiving the means of war and they replied upon those means and those
6 arms and that ammunition in order to either, A, prosecute the war, or, B,
7 engage in the perpetration of crimes, and I am not suggesting they did
8 but for the purposes of the discussion we are having right now, then that
9 information is critical to your determination as fact-finders, because
10 you are going to have to make a determination as to whether or not it's
11 substantial or not.
12 For example, here specifically, since we are specifically dealing
13 with the issue of ammunition and an issue that we've talked about for
14 close to two years, on and off, if you are dealing with the issue of
15 ammunition and you have the ability to learn that ammunition came from
16 other sources in large measure during the relevant period of time, one
17 would think that certainly would impact upon the decision-making process
18 that you go through. It certainly would be part and parcel of the
19 analysis that you engage in, is our submission.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. In that event, I hear what you say. Can I
21 make a suggestion then. If perhaps it is your intention to tender all
22 the information relating to other sources of supply other than the VJ in
23 order to shorten the proceedings, are you not going to be giving us all
24 those all in one batch and then let's see them, rather than go one by one
25 like this?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would be one fashion. First of all,
2 unfortunately, I'm certainly not going to tender all the information
3 relating to other sources, I just want to make that clear, because --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then we don't --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to give you -- I'm going to give you as
6 much as I can in the same fashion as the Prosecution has given you as
7 much as they can. Because ultimately what is going to happen here,
8 factually speaking, is you are going to be asked to infer certain things
9 based upon a body of factual information that you have.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure, I understand. I'm with you. I'm with you.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to your suggestion, if I could have
12 but a moment, because I have no desire to lengthen anything whatsoever in
13 terms of the trial. So if I could have but a moment.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just make a ruling on the objection
15 before you do that. The objection is overruled.
16 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, may I ask the grounds in regards to the
17 overruling? Because my objection was never a relevance objection, it was
18 a particular nexus between this witness and the document itself. So it
19 seems the discourse that has been had isn't responsive to my immediate
20 objection that there's no nexus between this individual sitting here
21 before us today and the document itself. And I feel if we are going to
22 be batching them, that I'll have the same running objection.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might quickly respond. By "quickly" I mean
24 quickly. Under the guide-lines 30, I think that we cannot only find
25 guidance but support for the position that has been taken, which says the
1 Trial Chamber shall begin any analysis on the admissibility of evidence
2 by recalling 89(C) of the Rules, which provides that: "A Chamber may
3 admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value."
4 In Rule 89(D) of the Rules which provides that: "A Chamber may
5 exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
6 the need to ensure a fair trial."
7 I think that guideline more than adequately covers the particular
8 situation we are in.
9 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, while the Prosecution is aware of Rule
10 89(F) that says relevant information should become before the Chamber,
11 the Chamber has always required that there is a nexus between the witness
12 and the document that's being tendered. This isn't a bar table motion,
13 this isn't another witness in which the document can be spoken to. This
14 witness doesn't have those competencies, and so what we are seeing here
15 today is as opposed to using the appropriate vehicle in order to tender
16 these documents into evidence, the Defence has chosen a witness who has
17 no relation to them and are seeking to elevate their status -- taking a
18 General of his great means and trying to elevate his status by having him
19 comment on them, which I don't think is an appropriate use of the Court's
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are talking about the Court's time. Madam
22 Carter, what I do notice in this situation is that the Defence seeks to
23 get the witness who was involved with procurement to tell the Court
24 whether or not the VJ had anything to do with these documents. Now, if
25 the Defence were to tender these documents by way of a bar table motion,
1 they would not have anybody who would confirm. It would have to be
2 testimony by the counsel to say the VJ had nothing to do with these
4 MS. CARTER: Yes, Your Honour --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I understand that indeed there is no nexus
6 between the documents and the witness and it looks -- it seems to me as
7 if the purpose is precisely to state that lack of nexus.
8 MS. CARTER: Respectfully, Your Honour, if the the witness was a
9 procurement officer, that would be a much different question. The
10 witness was specifically asked on page 10, starting at line 7:
11 "With regard to the procurement administration, what if any
12 involvement did you have with the procurement administration during your
13 tenure as the chief of research and development.
14 "A. I had none because there are two parallel administrations at
15 the same level."
16 This General is not in procurement. However, he is being used in
17 such a fashion. He worked parallel.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, because we dealt with the
20 procurement, I'd forgotten that the witness said he had no connection
21 with procurement.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, you see, unfortunately Ms. Carter is bolder
23 in her assertion than she necessarily should be because that was dealing
24 with a particular period of time, and since we are talking about the
25 general issue of procurement, that is a slightly different issue.
1 But I would like to -- I would like to remind all of us of some
2 words that were spoken but a few days ago on the 15th of July by
3 Mr. Harmon in which he was having some resistance from the Defence with
4 regard to the issue of some documents and we were dealing with procedural
5 matters, and Mr. Harmon took the position that in the fairness to the
6 Prosecution and in order to have a fair trial there are times when the
7 substantive issues that exist override procedural concerns.
8 And I'm only mentioning that because I trust that at least with
9 regard to this team it's a unified team. Whether or not the
10 Prosecution's office chooses to be unified or not really depends, I
11 think, on what the issues are that are presented at the Tribunal. At
12 least with regard to this issue, one would think based upon, as I said
13 before, and I was casting no aspersions whatsoever but rather
14 articulating a well recognised and historically understood legal
15 principle with regard to the duty of the Prosecution that, in terms of
16 the interests of a fair trial --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: They turned the documents to you pursuant, I'm
18 sure, to Rule 68, that's why you are in possession of them?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, no. Definitely not Rule 68. They were
20 tendered under Rule 66. If it was tendered under Rule 68, it would be,
21 as I'm sure you can appreciate, in a much different kind of situation. A
22 Rule 68 document by definition is exculpatory. This was not tendered
23 under Rule 68, it was tendered under a different Rule, therefore they
24 obviously found it at some point to be inculpatory. But I am not going
25 to get into, at this moment, the niceties of that particular theme.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The point is that they tendered the documents over
2 to you.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: At least --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: At least they didn't withhold, and I'm not
6 suggesting that they did. Whether or not --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are talking about what Mr. Harmon said
8 sometime in July, Mr. Guy-Smith. As we can understand, we are not going
9 to be able to remember that. What was the ruling of the Chamber on that
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: On that occasion, the Chamber let Mr. Harmon
12 proceed with the introduction of, I believe it was --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give us a specific reference of that
14 occasion on the transcript?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure. It would be pages 12808 et seq., and this
16 was in regard to the interest of General Kovacevic. Mr. Harmon said,
17 "Your Honour --" at line 15 on page 12808:
18 "Your Honour, we did not call General Kovacevic to testify. We
19 did not make the -- we did not introduce these documents obviously until
20 he came. I think the interest of justice is something that we must put
21 above all in terms of the technicalities of whether or not we introduce
22 these or not."
23 Then he went on with the reason why he felt these documents to be
24 relevant. So I mean, one would hope that there would be equal
25 application when dealing with such things as the interest of justice.
1 With regard to the view here, and I'm dealing with this in a slightly
2 different fashion just for the moment, with regard to the view that the
3 Prosecution would take as regards to the interests of justice. If one
4 forwards an argument in which they advocate treatment which they put
5 under the rubric of the interests of justice, then one would assume the
6 self-same party would accept that, especially when dealing with something
7 as we are dealing with here. And once again, I cast no aspersions.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you read us the ruling of the Chamber.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, the ruling of the Chamber is: "The Chamber,
10 Moloto dissenting, will grant your application, Mr. Harmon."
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
12 MS. CARTER: Respectfully, before the Chamber considers, I'd like
13 to point out that the very same language the Defence is relying upon
14 today is the same language that they have sought for the Chamber to
15 reconsider. So it's not as simple as simply reading out a transcript
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The objection is upheld, Judge Picard dissenting.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH:
21 Q. With regard to the document that is presently up on the screen,
22 could you tell me, are you familiar with this document? And I don't mean
23 the specific document here, but the type of document that it represents?
24 A. I'm familiar with it because I personally filled out documents
25 with the same contents throughout my military career.
1 Q. Could you tell us, if you could, how many of these documents you
2 filled out throughout your military career?
3 A. That pertained mostly to the beginning of my military career when
4 I supervised equipment and warehouses or handed it over to warehouses for
5 the needs of the service.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe Ms. Carter has something to say.
7 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, I would object to the Defence trying to
8 rehabilitate this document. The witness has been present for the entire
9 legal arguments in relation to the issues with this particular document.
10 To now allow him to answer and be rehabilitated on it would be
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would tend to agree with that.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would tend to disagree with the notion of
14 rehabilitation because I'm not seeking to rehabilitate. Based on that
15 particular grounds, since we are dealing with issues of procedure, there
16 is an anticipation here and that anticipation is that I'm going to seek
17 to tender this document again and ask for reconsideration. That is not
18 my intention. If that was my intention, then perhaps the objection may
19 have some purchase independent of whether it's relevant or not. Since
20 that's not my intention and the document is up on the screen, I'm using
21 it for descriptive purposes and to establish a record with regard to this
22 issue and the manner in which it has been treated.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: It seems -- [Microphone not activated].
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- we are all at cross purposes. I've been
2 advised that the document [Microphone not activated] 815 was admitted and
3 the objection came when 816 was sought to be introduced and that 815 is
4 448, is D448. Is that our common recollection of the situation?
5 MS. CARTER: Yes, Your Honour. I had had -- my attempt was to
6 object prior the ruling taking place, however, I was only heard once the
7 exhibit number had already been given. So my microphone was on, I had
8 intended to object, however, procedurally the number was given prior to
9 my objection being heard.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was it.
11 MS. CARTER: Yes, Your Honour.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I think we better roll back the tape, then,
13 because that's not my memory of what occurred. My memory may be
14 incorrect. I think what she did object to is the document that is
15 presently up on the screen. That's what the fight has been about. She
16 did not object to the document beforehand. Otherwise, we would have had
17 had the same spirited conversation we just had with regard to that
18 document that we've just had with regard to this document.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you saying -- that was my feeling too, that
20 815 wasn't given a number, but the Registrar says it was.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I thought we have been fighting about 816 this
22 entire time. I didn't think we were fight being 815. I thought -- I
23 didn't think we were fighting about D448, as I understand it to be. I
24 thought we were fighting about this document here, the one that's up on
25 the screen --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that 816?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Then, I am sorry then, can I just sort
4 of --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Wait a minute, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me.
6 The document on the screen is 815.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I thought.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is the document that we've been fighting
9 about. That's true. My apologies. I was a tab off in my book.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Then if it is -- if a ruling was on that
11 815, the document -- you can't carry on talking about it again. You can
12 talk about documents of similar nature --
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't understand why I can't continue talking
14 about this document independent of the issue of whether or not it's been
15 admitted or not. I know of no rule under the guide-lines or other rule
16 that disallows that. But if that is the Court's -- if that's the Court's
17 ruling with regard to this particular document, then I will abide by the
18 Court's ruling because I have no desire to disrespect the Court.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any response to that, Madam Carter?
20 MS. CARTER: I leave it to the Court's discretion.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Guy-Smith.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH:
23 Q. You indicated that during the beginning of your military career
24 you filled out a number -- you indicated at page 43, line 1, that in the
25 beginning of your military career when you supervised equipment in the
1 warehouse or handed it over to warehouses for the needs of services, you
2 worked with this particular document. And I asked you if you could tell
3 us about how many of these documents over that period of time you filled
4 out. That may be a kind of a silly question because I assume that it
5 falls in the neighbourhood of a substantial number of documents, but can
6 you guesstimate for us how many of these you filled out, how familiar you
7 with this form?
8 A. It was a huge number because while I was on a ship for three
9 years, whatever I requested, be it spare parts, fuel, any other equipment
10 or any surplus that I had to return, was accompanied by this document.
11 So anything I received and anything I gave back was accompanied by this
12 document. There was no other way to do it.
13 Q. And with regard to this particular document, was it necessary in
14 your experience or was it not necessary in your experience to identify
15 the sender and the receiver of the transmission? Was it necessary to
16 identify the sender and the receiver of the transmission?
17 A. In order for this document to be in order, it had to be fully
18 filled out and the sender and the receiver had to be indicated clearly,
19 the document had to be signed and stamped. When I sent something, I
20 always had to sign the document, had to indicate what I needed, what
21 quantities, et cetera, and by doing so, I automatically took upon me and
22 the ship where I was the responsibility, I was answerable for these
23 goods, and the warehouse that delivered these goods to me was no longer
24 answerable for the goods, it was no longer in their hands, so at any
25 point in time it could be established where the goods and equipment were.
1 Q. You indicated in your answer that it had to be -- there were a
2 huge number, whatever you requested be it spare parts, fuel, or other
3 equipment or any surplus that I had to return, was it necessary in
4 filling out this document that the area, which I believe is on the one
5 that's up on the screen which is OTP 815, that the nomenclature number
6 and type of supplies be clearly indicated so that all of the parties that
7 are involved in the transaction know precisely what is being requested
8 and what is being sent?
9 A. Precisely so. For example, if spare parts were issued, if I
10 failed to indicate the nomenclature number, and sometimes I didn't know
11 the number but the warehouse person would know the number, and unless
12 that number was clearly indicated, then the goods could not be given to
14 The same thing happened when I returned goods. If I was
15 returning something that was no longer in good repair or was something
16 that was decommissioned, the nomenclature number had to be indicated so
17 that the records would be clear and accurate about what was issued, what
18 was returned, what was used up, and so on.
19 Q. Thank you. For purposes of clarity and to perfect the record
20 with regard to this particular document, which is 65 ter OTP 815, could
21 you tell us what the form number is of this document, please? Is there a
22 form number on the document? I see at the top of the document a form --
23 it says "Form MP-20." I don't know whether that's the form number of
24 this document.
25 A. Which document should I be looking at, 815 or 816?
1 Q. 815. I believe it's in the upper right-hand corner.
2 A. It says 21/7-2-9.
3 Q. Up above that it says "O-b-r --" I honestly can't read it myself,
4 I don't know what the word is. It's up at the very top in the right-hand
5 corner. It says Obr and then MP-20.
6 A. Yes, in the upper right corner it says form MP-20. This is the
7 number of the form. Each form had a number.
8 Q. And this is the form number for delivery sheets of -- the form
9 number that was used for delivery sheets with regard to such items as
10 ammunition and other military assets that would be delivered; is that
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. I'm now going to move to the next tab in your binder, but before
14 you comment on it, that would be 65 ter OTP 816. Before you comment on
15 it, since this document is similar to the document that we were just
16 discussing except it's entitled a receipt sheet as opposed to a delivery
17 sheet, so that we neither offend the Chamber nor upset the Prosecution,
18 wait until the Prosecution has had a moment to review the document to see
19 whether or not they believe that it will draw an objection or not. So if
20 you would just wait for a moment.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: But it's still called MP-20.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: It is. As is every delivery sheet that we've
23 seen in this trial for some many months.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you saying a delivery sheet and a receipt
25 sheet share this number MP-20?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I am. And I believe that an examination of
2 the evidence that has heretofore been introduced in this case will
3 establish same.
4 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, although the document itself appears to
5 be dated at a time that the General was still chief of the navy and
6 technical administration, however given his general knowledge about
7 delivery sheets such as this, we won't object.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH:
10 Q. I would first of all like you to take a look at box number 4, and
11 in box number 4 it has the name of the sender. Could you please read
12 that as it is written in Latinised script? Just read what it says,
14 A. Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I note just for the record, Your Honours, with
16 regard to the English receipt sheet the English translation suffers from
17 something that we went through with a previous witness, I believe it was
18 with General Kodzopeljic, with regard to the fact that on occasion there
19 was a discrepancy between the B/C/S and the English in terms of either
20 the inclusion of information or the exclusion of information, and here,
21 if we look at the English version, we will note that the name and place
22 of sender has been left blank. I'm pointing it out for the record.
23 Also, if I'm not mistaken, if we could go down to the very bottom
24 of the English page, please. As I understand it, this is a translation
25 that was created by the Office of the Prosecutor and is not an official
1 translation. I mention that because at the bottom it says "OTP/DVU."
2 Just for purposes of clarity.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't see the OTP/DVU.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: If you look at the very bottom of the page,
5 left-hand side.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH:
8 Q. The name and place of the recipient, if you could read that for
9 us in Serbian, please. That would be at box 14.
10 A. Number 14?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. It says "Command of the Drina Corps."
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: And looking at the types of materiel that are
14 involved here, as I understand it, the materiel that is involved, if we
15 could go down to the -- stay on the same page in the B/C/S and move to
16 the next page in English, please, so that the Chamber has an opportunity
17 to view what materiel supplies are being sent by the Ministry of Defence
18 of the Republic of Serbia
19 Q. I'm looking at this list and I'm doing this generically. It
20 would be fair to say that this list is comprised of mortars,
21 rocket-launchers, mines, and bullets, bullets for a number of different
22 types -- bullets of different types; 7.62, 7.9, 1.22; various types of
23 bullets. Is that fair?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, continuing with -- that's sufficient. That's sufficient.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would move for its admission.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You indicated that you are not objecting?
3 MS. CARTER: No, I'm not, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
7 Exhibit D449. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH:
10 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please switch off his
11 microphone when not using it. Thank you.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise. Too many pieces paper in front
13 of me at the moment but I'll be more mindful of that. If we could now
14 look at 65 ter OTP 818, which is going to be tab number 27 in your
16 Q. And before you make any comments with regard to this document,
17 I'm going to take the same position that I took with the last document.
18 I don't know whether or not, after review, this will draw an objection or
20 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would just again note,
21 in relation to the date, this far predates this witness's direct
22 knowledge of it, however I have no objections to him talking about these
23 forms generally.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH:
1 Q. With regard to this document, I'd like to go through the same
2 exercise that we went through in the last document. Could you please
3 tell us, looking at the Serbian version of this, who the sender is and
4 who -- first of all in box number 4, and who the receiver is in box
5 number 14.
6 A. The sender is the minister of defence of the Republic of Serbia
7 and the receiver is the command of the Drina Corps.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would, for purposes of the record, make the same
9 comments that I had made with the previous document: In the English
10 translation both the sender's name once again is non-existent and this is
11 again an OTP translation, not an official translation.
12 Q. With regard to the types of materiel that are being discussed in
13 this particular document, could you tell us what types of materiel they
14 are, please? Just generally, would it be fair to say we are once again
15 talking about bullets, mortars and grenades?
16 A. Yes, precisely so. That's what is written on this sheet.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would move this document 's admission, please.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
21 Exhibit D450. Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: 65 ter OTP 820, which will be 28 in your binder.
24 And I would go through the same exercise I've gone through before, so
25 that we don't engage in unnecessary argument. I don't know what the
1 Prosecution's position is with regard to this document.
2 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, until the witness is allowed
3 opportunity to show that he does have some relation or some knowledge
4 about this document, we believe that it would be premature to provide any
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well.
7 Q. First of all, could you tell us whether or not you can -- it may
8 be a bit difficult. Can you read the very top of the document. In
9 English I have the statement: "Receipt for the above-mentioned military
10 property received for temporary use from Republic of Serbia Defence
11 Ministry." I don't know if that reads the same in your copy in B/C/S at
12 the very top of the document. If you could just say yes or no, if it
13 does, that's fine.
14 A. No, it says here: "Receipt for the above-mentioned military
15 property received for temporary use from the Ministry of Defence of the
16 Republic of Serbia
17 Q. And with regard to the items that are listed there, once again,
18 are those items -- would it be fair to characterise those six items as
19 grenades, mines, and ammunition for --
20 A. Precisely so. This comes from the ammunition arsenal which was
21 used by the Territorial Defence.
22 Q. Now, you've mentioned the Territorial Defence, which is something
23 that I think we'll briefly touch upon after the break because I'm looking
24 at the clock and I think His Honour is too.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith. We'll take a
1 break and come back at half past 12.00. Court adjourned.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Right before the break you mentioned the Territorial Defence.
7 Could you briefly describe to the Chamber what the Territorial Defence
9 A. In keeping with the constitution of the former state of the SFRY,
10 and in keeping with the strategy of defence, each republic had a
11 Territorial Defence, which was an army parallel to the Yugoslav People's
13 Q. With regard to this parallel army, as you've discussed it, called
14 the Territorial Defence, did this army have its own military equipment,
15 its own supplies, or were those supplies part of the former JNA?
16 A. It was not by chance that I mentioned the word "parallel" because
17 at the beginning, at the outset, we had armed forces which had two
18 components; the Territorial Defence and the Yugoslav People's Army.
19 However, in practice and subsequent events showed that those two
20 components of the armed forces were broken up and went each its own
21 separate way. The Territorial Defence was equipped and financed by the
22 republics. Each republic allocated, in keeping with the law, a certain
23 amount of money, it established its own units, and in practical terms,
24 those units were subordinated to the republican leaderships.
25 Q. And just a minor point of clarification. You indicated the
1 Territorial Defence was equipped and financed by the republics. With
2 regard to the Territorial Defence being equipped by the republics, what
3 kind of equipment did the republics supply to the Territorial Defence?
4 A. The republics financed the needs of the Territorial Defence. It
5 was not that each republic bought what they wanted. There was a system
6 in place for the procurement of all republican territorial defences and
7 there was a system co-ordinated with the then Secretariat For National
8 Defence and the equipment was not of an offensive nature, of the same
9 nature as the JNA had. It was primarily for the mass defence of the
10 territory and the protection of the population, production facilities,
11 and the like. That was the main purpose of the Territorial Defence
13 Q. I'm now returning to the document we've been discussing, OTP 65
14 ter 820. With regard to this particular document, can you tell us what
15 involvement, if any, the VJ had with regard to the types of military
16 property that are indicated here?
17 A. I did not understand your question, sir.
18 Q. Surely. Was -- to your knowledge, if you are looking at this
19 document, can you tell us whether or not this document involved the VJ in
20 any fashion?
21 A. This document does not imply the participation of the Army of
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'd move its admission.
25 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, I think we find ourselves in the same
1 position we were this morning; there's not been a link made between this
2 witness and this document. We are no longer dealing with the MP-20
3 delivery slips and all the witness has been asked to do is confirm the
4 contents of the document itself.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm not going to go through the long argument
7 that we went through before. I believe that a sufficient basis has been
8 established and, interestingly, the Prosecution previously did not object
9 to one of the self-same documents.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I -- with respect to 815, as I understood it,
11 the ruling was that the objection was upheld, Judge Picard dissenting,
12 and I've now been told that 815 is D448. This is what confuses us. I
13 still don't understand, because it looks like the decision is going to go
14 along the same lines.
15 Mr. Registrar, you gave us to understand that 815 was D448 and at
16 the time when the ruling came out I noted that the objection was upheld,
17 Judge Picard dissenting. And if the objection was upheld, it would then
18 mean that it was not admitted.
19 THE REGISTRAR: It will be corrected. Thank you, Your Honours.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to the situation we are in now, which
21 is a slightly different document, this is an MP-32 document, not an MP-20
22 document, we had a discussion about a previous document which was 65 ter
23 TP 810 which became D447, for which the Prosecution did not object. This
24 is the self-same type of document. And it was on that basis that I -- it
25 was on that basis that I proceeded with this particular document.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Having not had an objection levied previously,
3 otherwise I would have handled this document in an entirely different
4 fashion. But if we want to have disparate views with regard to the
5 self-same document in terms of evidence, so be it. The record will be --
6 will ultimately end up being a dog's breakfast in that regard for your
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is a dog's breakfast because at that time when
9 you tendered 810, the Prosecution didn't object and if now they are
10 objecting to the admission of this one and they have a valid objection,
11 it should be upheld because this is where the objection first comes. But
12 if it is not upheld, it must be upheld -- it must be dismissed on the
13 basis that the document is admissible, not because a previous one was
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate that. As I said to you before,
16 rather than go through the entirety of the argument I posited before, in
17 order to save time --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You repeat it by reference.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm repeating it by reference and I'm relying
20 upon the fact that when this document -- when the self-same document --
21 excuse me, when a similar document essentially identical in nature was
22 proffered for admission, there was no objection. So I add that on to --
23 I add that on to the argument that was made before, because clearly what
24 is happening is we are getting disparate positions taken. But as I said
25 before, you know, the dilemma will be ultimately at the end in the terms
1 of analysis that we all have to go through and the kinds of evidence we
2 rely upon and whatever errors may or may not exist as a result of the
3 disparate views that have been taken.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then in that event, the objection would then be
5 upheld, Judge Picard still dissenting.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well. If we could now turn to --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record, Exhibit D448 is hereby
8 withdrawn from the court record and will be marked not admitted. Thank
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we please have 65 ter OTP document again
12 822, which will be tab 29 in your binder, sir.
13 Now, with regard to -- the document isn't up on the screen yet.
14 With regard to this document, I trust I'm understanding Ms. Carter's
15 position correctly and this is a document that she would not be objecting
16 to, this being a delivery sheet, but before I proceed any further, I wish
17 to make sure and have some confidence in that position. I'm only doing
18 this to save time with regard to argument.
19 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, as to this document, similarly to the
20 other MP-20 forms, we acknowledge that the witness has some general
21 competence to testify in regards to them. I would just note yet again
22 that the date of this is well before the witness takes the position in
23 which he had contact with them.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Carter.
25 Mr. Guy-Smith.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
2 Q. With regard to the document that's presently before you, could
3 you tell us, please, looking at item number 4, the name of the sender?
4 A. The sender is the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
5 Q. The receiver, looking at box number 14?
6 A. The receiver is the command of the Drina Corps.
7 Q. And the types of military product that are being transferred here
8 are generally bullets, mortars, projectiles for rocket-launchers, and
9 grenades; is that fair?
10 A. That's correct. And this is materiel from the supplies of the
11 Territorial Defence of the Republic of Serbia
12 Q. And with regard to what you just said, what involvement, if any,
13 did the VJ have with regard to this particular transaction?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Carter.
15 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, I would object to speculation on this
16 point. This witness wouldn't have been in a position -- in August of
17 1993 he was still with the navy technical institute. To have him
18 actually speak to this specific transaction and what the VJ's involvement
19 was would exceed his competency.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Let me rephrase.
22 Q. With regard to the matters concerning the Ministry of Defence for
23 the Republic of Serbia
24 existed as between requests for particular military resources and the
25 methodology that was used by the Ministry of Defence for Serbia in terms
1 of accommodating those requests?
2 A. A slight digression before that, if I may. As a desk officer in
3 the navy and technical administration, before I became chief, I was in
4 charge of diving, sabotage, and other types of equipment. I was directly
5 engaged and I helped the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Serbia
6 with regard to the procurement of the equipment. I'm familiar with the
7 depot where that materiel was stored. So I'm very familiar with that
9 On the other note, the Army of Yugoslavia did not have anything
10 to do with this particular matter. The only thing that may be similar or
11 the same is the calibre of the rounds that were procured.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I move this document's admission.
14 MS. CARTER: No objection to the admission, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
18 Exhibit D451. Thank you.
19 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Before this document is removed
20 from the screen, I have a question for the witness. Under box 4 it
21 states that this equipment comes from the Ministry of Defence from the
22 the Republic of Serbia
24 to one of the other documents. Is this also the case? Are we talking
25 here about Serbia
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where the confusion
2 comes from. It is clear that the Republic of Serbia
3 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia whereas Republika Srpska is in the
4 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I really don't want to create any
5 confusion. The two are not in any direct connection. They are not
6 administratively connected at all. They are two completely different
8 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Yes, I realise that, that's why I
9 asked the question. But at one point in time the document stated RS, you
10 said it could only be Republika Srpska, whereas the translation said
11 Republic of Serbia
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how things are
13 translated. I'm reading B/C/S documents and it's spelled out, the
14 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
15 supposing things.
16 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Fine, your answer is perfect.
17 Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, as at the 23rd of August, 1993, did the state
19 of Serbia
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The state existed and together with
22 two were the components of one and the same state and the Supreme Defence
23 Council was composed of the president of the Federal Republic
25 Three members, three people were members of the Supreme Defence Council
1 of the former state.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, now, let me tell you where the confusion
3 comes. The confusion comes where you told us earlier that Republic of
5 not exist, it was the FRY at the time. That's what you told us earlier,
6 sir. Now you are saying the state of Serbia at this date existed with
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, at that time it was not called Serbia, it was
10 called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so we are -- at least I understood
11 you to mean that where we see Republic of Serbia
13 a different position in answering Judge Picard.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think perhaps there's a bit of confusion. I
15 don't think he is taking a different position. Let me see if I can
16 clarify the record.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please clarify the record because a number of
18 documents --
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Understood, understood.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but a number of exhibits have come in since
21 that last explanation where the Republic of Serbia
22 written and we need all that to be cleared.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Let me see what I can do for you.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH:
1 Q. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was comprised of what
2 constituent parts?
3 A. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was comprised of the Republic
4 of Serbia
5 was Slobodan Milosevic and the president of Montenegro at the time was
6 Momir Bulatovic, as far as I can remember.
7 Q. With regard to the issue presented upon the formation of the
8 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, did the Republic of Serbia
9 you've said, did the Republic of Serbia
10 A. The Republic of Serbia
11 SFRY and it continued existing thereafter. All the republics existed
12 from the year 1945.
13 Q. With regard to the existence of the Republika Srpska, can you
14 tell us when the Republika Srpska first came into existence?
15 A. If my memory serves me well, and I must say that I'm not always
16 good with dates, I believe that they proclaimed its existence on the 9th
17 of January, 1992, or perhaps 1993. No, it was in 1992.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I noted that Judge Picard was shaking her head so
19 I'm gathering that I'm not getting to a point of clarification for her.
20 With that in mind, I'm going to continue to try to get to a point of
21 clarification for her because I have no desire to waste the time.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do that, and I think this is the reason
23 she is shaking her head, taking into account the answer to the previous
24 question where the witness says the Republic of Serbia
25 take note of that answer and then look at page 28, line 21 to 24 where he
1 then -- where he said --
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I am aware of that, Your Honour, I --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- did not exist.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I am aware of that, Your Honour. I'm going to
5 get us to that point. It seemed to me essentially what we had to do
6 first was engage in some kind of a basic history understanding as to what
7 existed and what did not exist at what period of time, with that in mind,
8 because I think that is of some assistance because I think there are
9 matters actually which in fact the Court can take judicial notice of and
10 something that we've discussed repeatedly here. But I wanted to get
11 some clarification with regard to that first and then address the
12 specific language that's contained there that is causing the Chamber
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: It looks like the witness wants to say something,
15 Mr. Guy-Smith. I don't know whether you want to let him say it or not.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, because I want to make sure I'm on track.
17 Could you do me a favour, please, and please put D446 back on the screen.
18 Thank you.
19 Q. Now, your response to this document I think is what has generated
20 the present confusion that we are involved in, so I'd like to go back and
21 take a look at this document. What is the date of this document?
22 A. The date is 16 March 1994
23 Q. Reading the B/C/S version of the document, could you please read
24 the second line, starting with the word "Da." Just read that line out
25 loud, please.
1 A. "The Ministry of Defence of the Republika Srpska ensure consent
2 for the overhaul in the Hadzici RZ or in the Cacak TRZ of the following
3 pieces of equipment."
4 Q. Stop right there. Now, when we were talking about this document
5 before, you were asked the following question, and I'm going to truncate
6 my question starting at line 16 on page 27. I said:
7 "In the text of this document --" then I listed it out, and then
8 I asked the following question:
9 "With respect -- with regard that your Ministry of Defence or
10 some other Ministry of Defence, if you know."
11 And your answer is as follows, and here is where the confusion is
12 right now:
13 "I know that this is the Ministry of Defence of the Republika
15 And then you go on and say some things, then at line -- at line
16 -- sorry, at line 1 --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: 21.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH:
19 Q. Then you go on and you say at line 21, and in response to a
20 question of Judge Moloto's, sir:
21 "Just before we admit it, let's just get the record clear. The
22 English translation here reads: 'Through the Ministry of Defence of the
23 Republic of Serbia
24 stands on the B/C/S version, or in other words, is the English
25 translation incorrect?"
1 Please. Now, your response to the Judge was:
2 "Mr. President, the translation is incorrect because the Ministry
3 of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
4 Only the Federal Ministry of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed
5 at this period in time."
6 So you have told us that there was the Republic of Serbia
7 the question that I think logically follows from the confusion that has
8 been created is as follows: Did the Republic of Serbia
9 to continue to have a Ministry of Defence after the formation of the
10 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
11 A. The Republic of Serbia
12 Ministry of Defence, and the first minister of defence was Admiral Jokic.
13 I know the man. Later on he was an accused here in The Hague and he was
14 convicted. When Serbia
15 of the minister of defence were quenched in these two republics and the
16 duties were transferred on to the federal minister of defence, hence only
17 the Federal Ministry of Defence existed and although the republics
18 existed, they did not have their respective Ministry of Defence. They
19 transferred their defence ministry and their Ministry of Foreign Affairs
20 on to the federal state.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think that takes care of one part of what may
22 be the confusion. I think therein lies another question, and I'm picking
23 this -- I have a question but I think you may have a different question,
24 so I will -- I'm happy to see whether or not your question is going to
25 take care of my question, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. If you want me to ask, my question was
2 going to be, when you answered here to say that the Ministry of Defence
3 of Serbia
4 to the area that is today called Serbia
5 was a republic of the FRY?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you then saying that the VRS Main Staff is
8 being requested here to supply these goods through the ministry of Serbia
9 in Serbia
10 you have just told us that when you said the Ministry of Defence of
12 republic within the FRY. It's confusing even more.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I hope it is confusing even less, but I
14 think that it is reasonable and logical to, and I am not saying assume
15 but to find, that when you have the Latinised letters MORS, that you are
16 referring to or one is referring to the Ministry of Defence for the
17 Republika Srpska. I think that is a particular kind of nomenclature that
18 we have seen throughout these proceedings. With that in mind and my
19 assumption would be -- now I'm making an assumption by reading the
20 English translation -- that the English translation is incorrect, which
21 is independent of the issue -- which is independent of the issue that he
22 has raised. I believe that the English translation should properly read,
23 "secure an approval through the Ministry of Defence of the Republika
24 Srpska for a maintenance in RZ," and continuing with the language
25 therein. That would, to me, be a logical and consistent translation
1 based upon what we have seen for close to two years in terms of the
2 document itself.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear what you say, Mr. Guy-Smith, and
4 unfortunately the situation here is that whereas that's how I understood
5 the witness at page 28, now when he speaks latterly, he is no longer
6 stating the same position. At page 28 he said the Republic of Serbia
7 not exist at that time. Now he says Republic of Serbia
8 existed, has always been there.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think this is where we may be a bit --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And for me, it looks to me like when he says
11 Republic of Serbia
13 state. And yet when he said earlier, at page 28, that the Republic of
15 as a country.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour. If I might, Your
17 Honour, I think this might be where some of the confusion lies. He said
18 at line 21:
19 "Because the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
20 the Republic of Serbia
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Naturally, naturally.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia
23 not exist. But he has just told us that at that time the republics used
24 to have their own financing and procurement, equipment of arms to the TO.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Through which ministry?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, we haven't discovered through which
3 ministry, if any ministry. I think part of -- I think part of the
4 dilemma is as follows, which is that it's part of what we have been
5 attempting to do for you. During the transitional period it is not
6 either reasonable, logical, or in fact accurate to assume that there were
7 hard and fast - I'll put it in those terms - organs, and we've talked
8 about this as a transitional period or transformation period, and I think
9 that you will find, and I don't want to put these words into the
10 witness's mouth, but it's one of the things that we are going to talk
11 about later --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please don't.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- talk about later, which is really what is the
14 state of affairs? And I think that an attempt to rigidly define some of
15 these things won't work terribly well and it other places it will work.
16 But is that is obviously the nature of a conflict-torn area.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith. Madam Carter, do you
18 have any contribution to make to this discussion?
19 MS. CARTER: No, Your Honour. In the context of what you have
20 been speaking about, you covered the contribution I was going to make
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Guy-Smith, you may proceed.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH:
24 Q. Is there something that you wish to say?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. What do you wish to say, sir?
2 A. Just what we have already said. I don't understand the confusion
3 because everything is evident. I simply said that at that time in 1994
4 there did not exist the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
5 However, the republic itself did exist. You can see it based on the
6 document which is on the screen. This institution here writes to the
7 Main Staff of the VRS. Neither in Serbia nor in Yugoslavia
8 a Main Staff. There was no such institution within Serbia or Yugoslavia
9 which is to say that this is a document emanating from Republika Srpska.
10 So this institution is writing to its Main Staff, asking them to address
11 their request to the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska because the
12 repair facility, the service facility in Hadzici, is located in Republika
13 Srpska. So this was their internal institution, internal relations, it
14 was a completely internal transaction within Republika Srpska. And I
15 don't see what is confusing here.
16 Q. Thank you for that answer.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear that answer. I would like the witness, if
18 he could, to give us an answer similar to that with respect to the
19 document that raised Judge Picard's issue.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well. And which document is that?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought it was D451. The last document that was
22 on the monitor --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. The last document that was on
25 the monitor when Judge Picard asked --
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perfect.
2 Q. If you could go to tab 29 in your binder. Tab 29. You may well
3 still be there.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we could have it on the --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have it up on the screen, that would
6 be -- it's now D451.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. The name of the sender.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH:
9 Q. This document, unlike the document that we were looking at
10 before, does not have the Latinised letters of MORS. It has something
11 written I think both -- letters and something written out. So looking at
12 the name of the sender, could you tell us what it says in box number 4?
13 A. Under 4 it says an acronym, Ministry of Defence of the Republic,
14 that is an an acronym, and then Serbia
15 Q. When you say Serbia
16 record, could you tell us what the letters are. Unlike before where we
17 had an acronym, now we have a name, a full name. Could you tell us what
18 the letters are in fact?
19 A. S-r-b-i-j-a.
20 Q. To your knowledge and your experience in living in the region,
21 did RS ever stand for Republic of Serbia
22 A. Acronym RS was used for Republika Srpska, not for the Republic of
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question to you was going to be which
25 geographical unit within the former SFRY does this Serbia here refer to?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This refers to the entire area
2 except for Montenegro
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The entire area of the former SFRY? My question
4 was to which geographical unit within the former SFRY does this Serbia
5 here refer?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This pertains to a geographical
7 unit within the the SFRY. If we exclude the Republic of Slovenia
8 Republic of Croatia
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess it excluded Croatia as well.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that under number 2. In
13 that case, the interpreter didn't interpret it. I mentioned it after
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm with you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I started from the west.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think I can be of some further assistance to
18 all of you -- I think I can be some further assistance to all of you with
19 asking of two questions.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm quite happy that the first Serbia was RS
21 Republika Srpska, this one refers to Serbia as we mean Serbia
22 I just don't know where the cutoff comes.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think that's where I'm probably going to and I
24 want to make sure -- or to the extent that I can, I want to make Judge
25 Picard happy too here with regard to this particular issue for purposes
1 of clarification.
2 Q. If you could take a look at the document, please, could you tell
3 us the date of this document, General? Looking up in the upper
4 right-hand corner, do you see the date of this document?
5 A. Yes, the date is the 23rd of August, 1993.
6 Q. And you had mentioned to us in your testimony that there came a
7 time when the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
8 its competency to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and ceased to exist.
9 Now, as you sit here today, can you tell us whether or not it would be
10 accurate that the Ministry of Defence for the Republic of Serbia
11 until the end of 1993 or not?
12 A. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia officially came into existence
13 on the 27th of April, 1994, when the constitution was adopted in the
14 federal parliament. However, prior to that time, as the political elite
15 had decided to establish such a state while the constitution was being
16 written, the ministries of defence in the republics which formed the
17 Federation slowly ceased to exist, because it couldn't be done overnight,
18 and then they completely ceased to exist once the Federal Republic
20 republics dying out was a process.
21 The date of 27th of April was celebrated as the statehood day,
22 the day when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was founded. The Federal
23 Republic of Yugoslavia
24 Q. I understand that. And looking at line 24, you have the date as
25 the 27th of April, 1994. Is that accurate, 1994?
1 A. I think that this is when the FRY was created and when the
2 constitution was passed and other laws and regulations. I'm not a
3 hundred per cent sure.
4 Q. We've heard the date previously of 1992, so that's the reason I'm
5 asking the question.
6 A. They started functioning to some extent but they did not manage
7 to pass the constitution and other laws and regulations, so for awhile
8 there was a transition period. I may not be the best person to ask for
9 the date, but I remember that we had numerous problems in our work
10 because the set of laws and regulations that we needed in order to work
11 was not yet in place at that time.
12 Q. Thank you. I'm going to try to move to an area where hopefully
13 we will not fall into the muddle of confusion but can deal with things
14 that are relatively simple.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: And in that regard if we could please have up on
16 the screen P1201, which would be tab 26 in your binder, sir -- I'm sorry,
17 tab 16 in your binder.
18 Q. I'd like to start at the very top of this document, and at the
19 very top of this document it indicates in English on the left-hand side
20 "army post office number 1089-30." As I read this document, this
21 document is referring to an army post office. Am I correct in my
22 assumption there?
23 A. Yes. This document was registered with the military post
25 Q. And what military post is that?
1 A. This is the military post which was the procurement
2 administration within the Ministry of Defence.
3 Q. And how do you know that?
4 A. I know that for a number of reasons, the main one being that I
5 used to work in the Ministry of Defence and this administration was a
6 parallel administration to the one where I worked. I worked with them
7 every day. While I worked at the General Staff each request for
8 procurement had this military post indicated on it. I know this because
9 I signed all of those documents.
10 Q. Could you tell us the date of this document?
11 A. The 29th of March, 1994.
12 Q. And what is the subject matter of this document? I'm looking
13 once again just at the very top where in English it says "Delivery of
15 A. This is an accompanying letter enclosed with the document it was
16 sent with. Military post 1089-30, which is the procurement
17 administration, sent a contract on a loan. And this was the accompanying
18 document. This document also indicates to which military posts it was
20 Q. And who are the the contracting parties with regard to the loan
21 of 42.72 tonnes of TNT?
22 A. The contracting parties were research, development, and
23 manufacturing administration on the one side and the Ministry of Defence
24 of Republika Srpska.
25 Q. And the research, development, and manufacturing administration
1 on the one side is part of what organ? Is that part of the VJ, part of
2 the Ministry of Defence, part of the Ministry of the Interior? Who does
3 the research, development, and manufacturing administration belong to?
4 A. Research, development, and manufacturing administration was part
5 of the military economic sector of the Federal Ministry of Defence.
6 Q. And what involvement, if any, if you know, did the research,
7 development, and manufacturing administration of the military economic
8 sector of the Federal Ministry of Defence have with the VJ in terms of
9 negotiating contracts?
10 A. Could you be more specific, please.
11 Q. Surely. Did the VJ have any involvement in this contract?
12 A. No. No, except for the administration for research, development,
13 and manufacturing and the administration for procurement. Both of them
14 are part or were part of the Ministry of Defence.
15 Q. Thank you. Looking --
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand what the answer
18 says when it says, "No. No, except for ..."
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's what my concern is right there.
20 Q. I asked you the following question, which is :
21 "Did the VJ have any involvement in this contract?"
22 And you said: "No. No, except for the administration for
23 research, development, and manufacturing and the administration for
24 procurement. Both of them are part or were part of the Ministry of
1 So let me ask you the question again, which is, did the VJ have
2 any involvement in this contract?
3 A. No, the VJ did not participate in this contract. They did not
4 conclude the contract with the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.
5 However, later on it appears as a participant in the stage of the
6 delivery of the materiel to the place where it would be stored.
7 Q. I understand. That's not my question at the moment. Looking
8 again at page -- at the very first page, it says at the very bottom of
9 the very first page, on the right-hand side:
11 another word and then there's a signature. Could you tell us what it
12 says where it says "PO
14 A. This means that the document was signed under the authority of
15 the chief of that particular administration.
16 Q. Okay. And when you say "under the authority," PO, the next word
17 is "Ovlascenju." Sorry, I probably made a mess of the way its pronounced
18 in Serbian. What is that word after PO? Ovla? Looking at the document.
19 A. The main role of the chief of administration or any other body is
20 to sign documents. In this particular case this means that this person
21 was authorised --
22 Q. Excuse me, I'm asking you a very straight question right now, a
23 very particular question here, which is what does that say? Specifically
25 read it in Serbian, please.
1 A. Under the authority of the chief Lieutenant-Colonel Stanisa
2 Bakic, which means that the chief of that administration authorised that
3 person to forward this document and that he was authorised to sign it and
4 to stamp it. And that's it. This person who signed the document was not
5 the decision-maker in this case.
6 Q. The English translation reads "PO of Chief of Staff." Would that
7 be an accurate translation?
8 A. No.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before this page disappears, can I just clear one
10 little point. You answered earlier when you were asked about the VJ
11 involvement, you said: "No, the VJ did not participate. However, later
12 on it appears as a participant in the stage of the delivery of the
13 materiel to the place where it would be stored." Can you show us where
14 that appears? Where it appears that the VJ is a participant, from the
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the document was drafted or
17 when the contract was concluded and when the decision was taken on the
18 loan, the VJ did not participate because it wasn't its materiel and they
19 were not the decision-maker, but when the --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to stop you. I'm asking you not about
21 the conclusion of the contract. I am asking you about the delivery. You
22 say it appears that the VJ was involved in the delivery of the materiel.
23 I just want you to tell us from this document where we can see that
24 involvement of the VJ in the delivery.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at the left bottom
1 corner, there are the addressees, the first one is military post 8634-3
3 chief of sector is hereby allowed to follow the progress of the events.
4 And then the army appears, military post office 9808, that's the 608th
5 Logistics Base. And there's also military post office 9808-6 which is
6 the Lunjevica depo near Gornji Milanovac. That is the base depot, and
7 they were supposed to act on the contract and deliver goods from the
8 federal commodity reserves. Not from the military commodity reserves but
9 from the federal commodity reserves, that the base was in charge of
10 safeguarding explosives pursuant to the same regulations which were
11 binding upon the military. And this was due to the fact that the
12 materiel in question was hazardous, that's why the military looked after
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could turn to the next page.
15 Q. Earlier in your testimony, if I'm not mistaken, you indicated
16 that as the chief of research and development you were authorised to
17 dispose of or otherwise alienate raw materials. I just want to make sure
18 I'm correct in that regard.
19 A. You are absolutely right.
20 Q. Now, with regard to the raw material that is being discussed in
21 this contract, in one of your recent answers you indicated who the owner
22 was of this material or where this material came from. And who is the --
23 if looking at Article 2 of this particular contract, does that indicate
24 the kind -- who is the owner of the raw materials, and by that I mean the
25 language here which says federal material reserve?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And who is the owner of this raw material?
3 A. The owner of this raw material is the federal government.
4 Q. Now, as I understand this document, this document is a contract
5 in which a price was set for the value of this material which is found
6 above Article 2 in which it says, at least in English, total value of the
7 contracted goods, subject of this loan, according to this contract,
8 calculated by creditor at the price of 4,85 n dinars per kilogram, is,
9 and there is the amount of 207.192 n dinars. Now, for purposes of our
10 understanding, who is the creditor that calculated the price of these raw
12 A. The price of the material was calculated by the procurement
13 administration which was otherwise tasked with determining all the
14 prices. The pricing of the goods purchased, the goods sold, as well as
15 the price of a working hour in the service.
16 Q. And with regard to the procurement administration, are you
17 referring to the Ministry of Defence or the procurement administration
18 that we have been discussing throughout the day?
19 A. Yes, yes, precisely so, I'm talking about the procurement
20 administration of the Ministry of Defence.
21 Q. There are a series of other parts of this contract, but I'd like
22 to just get to Article 7 in the contract here, which deals with dispute
23 resolution. In the event of a dispute with regard to this particular
24 transaction, where is the jurisdiction to be found under Article 7?
25 A. According to this contract, it will be the military arbitration
1 with the Federal Ministry of Defence that will be in charge. That was an
2 organ, a body that was in existence and a body that was in charge of such
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would be moving on to another subject, so it
6 may be an appropriate time.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kadijevic, unfortunately we are not done with
8 you. You'll have to come back tomorrow. Just to warn you that while you
9 are on recess between now and tomorrow, you are not supposed to discuss
10 this case with anybody and least of all the Defence until such time as
11 you are released from further testifying. The case is going to stand
12 adjourned to tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning in the same courtroom here.
13 Court adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of
16 September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.