Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13609

 1                           Tuesday, 7 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everybody in and around the

 7     courtroom.  Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-81-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Could we have the appearances

12     for the day, starting with the Prosecution, please.

13             MR. THOMAS:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

14     everybody in and around the courtroom.  Carmela Javier, April Carter, and

15     Barney Thomas for the Prosecution.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  And for the Defence.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good morning, Your Honour.  Chad Mair, Tina

18     Drolec, Oonagh O'Connor, and Gregor Guy-Smith appearing on behalf of

19     Mr. Perisic.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

21             Good morning, Mr. Kadijevic.  Just to remind you that you are

22     still bound by the declaration you made at the beginning of your

23     testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the

24     truth.  Thank you so much.  Mr. Guy-Smith.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 13610

 1                           WITNESS:  RADOJICA KADIJEVIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3                           Examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:  [Continued]

 4        Q.   Mr. Kadijevic, I had an opportunity to go over the transcript of

 5     the proceedings yesterday and in reviewing them I came across something

 6     which I believe may well be a translation error, and I'd like to

 7     double-check something with you.  Yesterday at page 13533, lines 7

 8     through 14, with regard to the question of what your responsibilities

 9     were while you were in the position of assistant minister of defence, you

10     stated:

11             "The main task in that position was to co-ordinate within the

12     sector for military economic activities in order to fulfill the duties

13     and obligations of the Army of Yugoslavia when it comes to funding

14     equipment and weaponry.  In order to complete my task, I was superior to

15     the Institute For Research And Development of the Army of Yugoslavia, and

16     it dealt with research and development as well as the development of the

17     special military industry, special-purpose military industry which was to

18     produce the equipment and weaponry needed for the military."

19             My question to you, sir, is with regard to the language that is

20     contained herein, in order to complete your task when you say you were

21     superior to the Institute For Research And Development, was that for the

22     Army of Yugoslavia, the Ministry of Defence?  Could you kindly explain

23     because I believe that it would have been for the development of the

24     Ministry of Defence?

25        A.   That was the most important research and development institution

Page 13611

 1     and it was on the strength and it was subordinated to the Army of

 2     Yugoslavia.

 3        Q.   When you say what was the most important research and development

 4     institution, what I'm trying to get an understanding of here is with

 5     regard to what you told us yesterday -- I'm told now that there

 6     definitely was a translation error, by my colleague who speaks B/C/S, and

 7     I was told that he said -- his answer was that it was subordinate to the

 8     Federal Ministry of Defence.  Once again I'm trying to get some

 9     understanding here as to whether that's the Army of Yugoslavia or the

10     Federal Ministry of Defence.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I suggest --

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'll ask the question again.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I suggest that when you are told that there

14     was a translation error, rather than tell us what the error was, get the

15     witness to repeat himself before you say what the error was.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure.

17        Q.   Could you repeat yourself, please?

18        A.   The Military Technical Institute, as the most important research

19     and development institution, was part of the Federal Ministry of Defence

20     and it was directly subordinated to it.

21        Q.   With regard to your duties in terms of the issue of research and

22     development, from what I understand of your testimony yesterday, would it

23     be fair to say that research and development involved the participation

24     of the special-purpose industries?

25        A.   The special-purpose industry only partially participated in

Page 13612

 1     research.  They didn't have staff for research.  There were exceptions.

 2     For example, the Crvena Zastava company, which had its own design

 3     institute.

 4        Q.   With regard to the specific issue of research and development,

 5     can you identify for us some of the facilities that were involved in

 6     research and development which you have testified were subordinated to

 7     the Ministry of Defence?

 8        A.   In addition to the Military Technical Institute which was the

 9     main -- most important institution for research and development, the

10     entire special-purpose industry implemented together with the institute

11     all of the projects that were designed.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter would kindly ask the witness to

13     either come closer to the the microphone or for his microphones to be

14     adjusted, please.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we help the witness, please.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I can provide an explanation.

17     The Military Technical Institute did not have any manufacturing

18     facilities.  It only had research facilities, and when it comes to the

19     development stage, it was done with the special-purpose industry, namely

20     with those companies that would later on, in the later stages of project

21     development, be involved in the manufacturing of the design product.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:

23        Q.   With regard to the the Military Technical Institute, between the

24     years 1993 and 1995 was the Military Technical Institute one body or a

25     series of bodies subordinated to the Ministry of Defence?

Page 13613

 1        A.   In the previous state there were three Military Technical

 2     Institutes.  The first one was of the land army in Belgrade --

 3        Q.   Let me stop you there, because you said "In the previous state."

 4     And when you say "In the previous state" I take it that you are talking

 5     about --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let him tell us what he is talking about.  What

 7     are you talking about when you say "In the previous state"?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the Socialist

 9     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where three different institutes existed.

10     The one was of the land army in Belgrade, the Air Force Institute, also

11     in Belgrade, in Zarkovo, to be more precise, and the navy institute,

12     which was located in Zagreb.  In 1993 there were still two institutes in

13     existence, the one of the land army and the other of the air force.  As

14     for the navy institute, only one department for shipbuilding was

15     established within the Military Technical Institute of the land army.

16     Later on, within the process of transformation in 1994, all the three

17     institutes were merged into one institute whose name was the Military

18     Technical Institute subordinated to the Ministry of Defence.  I apologise

19     if --

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:

21        Q.   Excuse me.  After 1995, did the institutes that had been merged

22     into the Military Technical Institute, the one Military Technical

23     Institute subordinated to the Ministry of Defence, did that change, after

24     1995?

25        A.   No, that didn't change.  That Military Technical Institute

Page 13614

 1     remained as one single institution.

 2        Q.   When I use the term "Military Technical Institute," since

 3     yesterday one of the things that was causing some confusion were

 4     acronyms, could you please give us the acronym for Military Technical

 5     Institute.

 6        A.   The acronym for that institute actually was made up of the first

 7     letters of each of the words in the title.  So the acronym was VTI.

 8        Q.   Now, I want to shift the discussion from the Military Technical

 9     Institute with the acronym of VTI subordinated to the Ministry of Defence

10     to the issue and subject matter once again of special-purpose industries.

11     With regard to the production that occurred between 1993 and 1995 of the

12     the special-purpose industries, could you tell us, first of all, whether

13     or not there were special-purpose industries that operated in the

14     Republika Srpska and the Republika Srpska Krajina?

15        A.   The special-purpose industry is actually one complex which leaned

16     on the Federal Ministry Of Defence when it came to the production of

17     weapons and military equipment.  Otherwise, those companies were an

18     integral part of the industry of the Republic of Serbia and the industry

19     of the Republic of Montenegro.  We dealt with their status together.

20     Those were not military companies.  They did not receive allocations from

21     the budget.  They were not subordinated to the Ministry of Defence, only

22     when it comes to --

23        Q.   Mr. Kadijevic, clearly you did not understand my question and let

24     me ask you my question again.  I'll put it slightly differently and

25     perhaps that will be of further clarification for you.

Page 13615

 1             After the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, you have told us

 2     that, at least geographically, special-purpose industries existed outside

 3     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  Now, my question -- and by

 4     "existed," I mean just that they existed, they were physically in other

 5     areas.  My question is, between the specific years of 1993 and 1995 could

 6     you tell us whether or not those special-purpose industries that were

 7     physically in Republika Srpska and the Republika Srpska Krajina were

 8     operating?  And I take it you understand what I mean by the word

 9     "operating."  Did they produce things or not, if you know?

10        A.   Of course I know.  All those companies that had existed before

11     the break-up of Yugoslavia and which were found in the territories under

12     the control of different forces, and in this particular case Republika

13     Srpska and Republic of Serbian Krajina, they kept those companies and

14     used them for their own purposes and there were even some civilian

15     companies which received new technologies, new equipment, in order to be

16     able to substitute for those things that could no longer be produced.

17        Q.   With regard to the special-purpose industry in the Republic of

18     Srpska, the Republic of Srpska Krajina and the Federal Republic of

19     Yugoslavia between 1993 and 1995, can you tell us whether or not those

20     special purpose industries could autonomously conduct their production

21     and maintenance of technical means or not?  Were they autonomous or were

22     they interdependent?  If you know.

23        A.   I know that those companies co-operated with the adequate

24     companies in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  Before the break-up of

25     Yugoslavia, all those companies belonged to one technological and

Page 13616

 1     technical complex.  When the country [Realtime transcript read in error

 2     "company"] was broken up, most of the companies still depended on

 3     co-operation with other companies from the former republics of the former

 4     Yugoslavia.

 5        Q.   I'm looking at line number 23.  It says here "When the company

 6     was broken up, most of the the companies still depended ..."  Is that the

 7     correct language there, "When the the company was broken up," or were you

 8     referring to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, when the country was

 9     broken up?

10        A.   Of course I was not talking about the break-up of any companies,

11     I was talking about the break-up of the country.  The companies remained

12     existing in that same state and they continued co-operating.

13        Q.   Yesterday when we were discussing the production of the

14     special-purpose industries within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, you

15     told us that there was a diminution of work that was contracted with the

16     special-purpose industry in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  To your

17     knowledge -- and I believe you used the term that sometimes they engage

18     in illegal means.  To your knowledge can you tell us, now once again if

19     you know, whether or not the special-purpose industry for the Federal

20     Republic of Yugoslavia independently contracted for the production of war

21     materiel outside of the authority of the Ministry of Defence or not?

22        A.   I believe that in your question there is an ambiguity in terms of

23     the end users of those products.  Let me try and answer.  When it came to

24     the requirements of the Army of Yugoslavia, companies couldn't and indeed

25     did not clinch deals with the army.  They did it with the Ministry of

Page 13617

 1     Defence.  And if they produced for other end users, they behaved as any

 2     other economic subjects, and when it comes to the authority over

 3     special-purpose industry, the Ministry of Defence had the control

 4     function.  It issued permissions.  And the production range and annual

 5     production plans were all within the hands of the management, so those

 6     companies were completely autonomous, completely independent from the

 7     Ministry of Defence.

 8             Their obligation towards the Ministry of Defence was to keep the

 9     same production range and they couldn't change it without the consent of

10     the Ministry of Defence.  For example, they could not destroy a

11     production line or sell it and say, this is something we will no longer

12     produce because the Ministry of Defence had invested its own resources

13     into the purchase of all those production lines and technological lines.

14        Q.   You have indicated on line 3, page 9, that their obligation

15     towards the Ministry of Defence was to keep the same production range and

16     they couldn't change it without the consent of the Ministry of Defence.

17     With regard to the production range, first of all, would it be fair to

18     say, or not, that the production capacity of these facilities was greater

19     between 1993 and 1995 than the contract requirements of the Ministry of

20     Defence?

21        A.   During that period, and even during the existence of the SFRY,

22     the production capacities of the entire special-purpose industry

23     surpassed the requirements of the former state of the SFRY and the

24     exports that were envisaged.  They had been created as the result of a

25     desire to benefit from the period of favourable production and exports,

Page 13618

 1     and the trend was hoped to continue.

 2             When the country was broken up, all those capacities became too

 3     big because there was no longer export.  Bearing that fact in mind, the

 4     Ministry of Defence together with the special-purpose industry

 5     established the minimum capacities which were needed for the Army of

 6     Yugoslavia.  The surplus of production capacities, we gave them

 7     permission to convert their military purpose production in order to

 8     satisfy the needs of civilian production.

 9        Q.   With regard to the last statement that you've made, the surplus

10     of production capacities, which you say you gave them permission to

11     convert their military purpose production in order to satisfy the needs

12     of civil production, with regard to the issue of the surplus of

13     production capacities, to your knowledge did the special-purpose

14     industries in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia independently contract

15     with either the Republic of Srpska or the Republic of Srpska Krajina with

16     regard to the issue of the production of materiel that would be military

17     purpose production?  And by that I mean independent of the Ministry of

18     Defence.

19        A.   Such contracts existed back in the SFRY, and as a result of that,

20     these companies continued co-operating among themselves, not only in

21     Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbian Krajina, but also with the

22     Muslim Croat Federation.

23        Q.   Let's spend a moment on that particular issue, the Muslim Croat

24     Federation.  I'm not sure I understand precisely what you mean by that.

25     Could you explain what you mean when you say that these companies

Page 13619

 1     continued co-operating with the Muslim Croat Federation.

 2        A.   Perhaps I wasn't specific enough.  I meant the companies which

 3     were located in the territory within the Muslim Croat Federation.  To be

 4     more specific, there was a plant in Gorazde which produced certain parts,

 5     and then there was the plant producing ammunition in Konjic where

 6     companies traded raw materials among themselves without us knowing about

 7     that.  They simply took a pragmatic, practical approach to solving their

 8     problems and contacted each other.

 9        Q.   When you say "without us knowing about it," who are you referring

10     to?

11        A.   I was referring to the Ministry of Defence first of all, because

12     the Ministry of Defence had the jurisdiction to issue permits for

13     production and for exchange, movement of these goods.  It was the

14     Ministry of Defence.

15        Q.   You also had indicated that the companies continued to co-operate

16     among themselves, not only in Republika Srpska but Republic of Srpska

17     Krajina.  To your knowledge, did the special-purpose industry in FRY

18     privately contract with the Republic of Srpska Ministry of Defence, the

19     VRS, the Republic of Srpska Krajina Ministry of Defence, or the SVK?

20        A.   I think that there were contracts with all partners, starting

21     with the Ministry of Defence Main Staffs and the units at a lower level.

22     It was an unregulated system where the procurement and the movement of

23     goods was conducted among various participants.

24        Q.   With regard to the issue of movement of goods, yesterday I

25     believe we took a look at an example of certificates that were necessary

Page 13620

 1     for goods to be moved from one area to another.  I think they were called

 2     Certificate Of Passage.  What I'm trying to understand here is in order

 3     for the movement of goods to occur, for example, let's say between

 4     special-purpose industry and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the

 5     plant in Gorazde, how would those goods get there, if you know?

 6        A.   As far as I am aware, they did not use legal channels.  Directors

 7     of these companies would agree upon these transactions among themselves

 8     and involve local MUP organs to ensure unhindered passage.  They did not

 9     seek permits for these activities from the the Federal Ministry of

10     Defence.

11        Q.   You've used the acronym here MUP and you've said "local MUP

12     organs."  Could you please identify for the Chamber what the acronym

13     "MUP" stands for.

14        A.   MUP is the acronym for the Ministry of the Interior and their

15     organs, which are located all over the territory.

16        Q.   I understand that what you've just discussed with us would be at

17     best a grey-market and probably black-market activity.  What I'd like to

18     -- between the special-purpose industries and the organs that you've

19     identified.  I'd like to now discuss, if we could, what the proper

20     procedure and methodology would be for the purpose of obtaining goods

21     through the Ministry of Defence.  If you could just explain the

22     methodology and use, let's say, for example, if it's of assistance, the

23     Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Srpska making a request.  What

24     would the methodology be; how would that work?

25        A.   The specified procedure when it comes to delivery of military

Page 13621

 1     equipment within the FRY was as follows:  If Republika Srpska via its own

 2     Ministry of Defence approached the Federal Ministry of Defence with a

 3     request for armaments and military equipment to be delivered to them,

 4     specifying all the details, then, depending on the products that they

 5     sought, the Ministry of Defence would approach the companies within the

 6     special-purpose industry and inform them about the request for

 7     manufacture and delivery.

 8             Then these companies would draw up an offer.  They would say what

 9     they could manufacture, they would quote the price, and the dead-lines.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could, could we have P511 up on the screen,

11     which would be tab number 5 in your binder, sir.

12        Q.   Now, taking a look at this document, if we just take a look at it

13     for a moment and then I'll ask you a question after you've had a chance

14     to look at the entire document.

15        A.   Yes, fine.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Taking a look at this document, and if we can

17     scroll to the second page so that the Chamber is in a position to see the

18     entirety of the document and then we'll go back to the first page because

19     I don't want to dwell terribly long on this document.  If the Chamber

20     could note the document is signed by Minister Kovacevic, Republika Srpska

21     Defence Ministry.  If we could go back to the first page.

22        Q.   Is this generally an example of the kind of procedure that you

23     were just referring to as being the proper procedure that would exist

24     with regard to a request from the Ministry of Defence or from

25     special-purpose industries attempt to engage with some production

Page 13622

 1     contract that would include more than one?

 2        A.   This document is just one element of the transaction and it

 3     pertains to the procedure conducted in Republika Srpska.  This means that

 4     this company here, Pretis Holding, addressed its own Ministry of Defence,

 5     that is to say the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska, for

 6     permission to be issued to them to enter into barter agreement with the

 7     Kragujevac Institute for Repairs in order to repair -- to have some of

 8     their equipment repaired.  And in return, they offered some of the raw

 9     materials that could be used in some new manufacturing lines.

10             At the end of this document, you can see that the ministry which

11     issued the permission for this deal was the Ministry of Defence of

12     Republika Srpska, and they say that they would issue a permission for the

13     parity of prices in order to avoid any kind of misuse or abuse, any kind

14     of fraud, when such a barter agreement is concluded.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We can take the document off the screen.  If we

16     could now have P604 on the screen.

17        Q.   I am sorry, that would be tab 9 in your binder, sir.  I

18     apologise.  I'd like you to take a look at this document, if you could,

19     please.  My question to you:  Is this a document that falls within the

20     proper procedure or outside of the proper procedure with regard to the

21     special-purpose industry Pretis?

22        A.   It is evident that this document does not reflect the regular

23     procedure in Republika Srpska.  This is their document, coming from

24     Republika Srpska.  The director of the Pretis company writes to

25     General Mladic, asking that General Mladic contact General Perisic so

Page 13623

 1     that he could intercede on their behalf with the chief of the

 2     administration for military economic activities.

 3             Normally, the director of this company, Motika, would need to

 4     approach Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska and they in turn would

 5     need to contact Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

 6     and that would be the end of the procedure.

 7             If I may add here, General Mladic and General Perisic appear here

 8     as, to put it crudely, couriers who were supposed to be a contact for

 9     something that is neither within their jurisdiction nor could they deal

10     with it and resolve it.

11        Q.   Looking at this document, from this document can we conclude

12     safely that General Perisic - and I'm appreciative of your last answer -

13     that General Perisic has any authority or ability to be --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Carter.

15             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, I would object to the leading nature of

16     this question.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'll rephase.

19        Q.   Does the document as it stands there give us any guidance with

20     regard to the authority that General Perisic may or may not have in terms

21     of the particular request being made by Mr. Motika?

22        A.   One can see from the document that General Perisic did not have

23     any competencies and authorities in this matter, no.  He was asked to

24     contact the assistant minister for the military economic activity within

25     the Ministry of Defence, and that was below his position and below his

Page 13624

 1     responsibilities and competencies.  It would have been less of a mistake

 2     had this director, Motika, directly contacted this assistant federal

 3     minister for military economic activity.  That type of communication

 4     would have been acceptable, and the only deficiency in that procedure

 5     would have been that the two ministers of defence have no knowledge of

 6     what the lower organs were doing.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I now would like to take a look at a series of

 8     documents that I believe all touch upon the the same transaction.  And

 9     the first document is P1139.  Also included, to make life easier for all,

10     would be P1142, P--

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  There are six documents that all deal with the

13     same transaction, so I'm telling Mr. Registrar the documents that we are

14     going to be dealing with in terms of this entire transaction.  P1139 is

15     tab 13 in your binder.  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's deal with 1139 first, unless we are able to

17     look at them all at the same time.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That, unfortunately, we are not.  That is the

19     difficulty with the cyber world, or the electronic world.

20        Q.   Looking at this particular document, what I'd like to, do if we

21     could, is first of all, could you please tell us the date of this

22     document?

23        A.   The date is the 26th of January, 1994.

24        Q.   And when was this document received, because I believe there's an

25     indication of it being received in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

Page 13625

 1     General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.

 2        A.   Yes.  It was received by the General Staff of the Army of

 3     Yugoslavia, cabinet of the Chief of Staff on the 3rd of February, 1994.

 4        Q.   Now, before we go any further, is this document concerning a

 5     subject matter that you are familiar with?

 6        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with this.

 7        Q.   And could you tell us how you are familiar with the subject

 8     matter?

 9        A.   I was not familiar with the initial document, and based on the

10     correspondence on the first page, you can see that it was not addressed

11     to the Ministry Of Defence.  However, in the second document where the

12     ABHO administration, which was in charge of the substance CS, we see that

13     they received from the Federal Ministry of Defence information about what

14     had up until that time the federal ministry done concerning the

15     production and development of this substance.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe that we are going to need to turn to

17     page 3 of the document so that the Chamber is caught up with

18     Mr. Kadijevic in his explanation in hard copy.

19        Q.   I believe you mentioned ABH, I believe this is the document you

20     are referring to.  It's page 2, it's here.  Now, I'm looking at this

21     document and referring to paragraph number 2.  Is that what you are

22     referring to with regard to the Ministry of Defence being involved in the

23     production and development of this substance?

24        A.   Yes.  The Ministry of Defence, or rather, the administration for

25     research, development, and manufacture had begun this development

Page 13626

 1     programme together with the company called Miloje Zakic in Krusevac.  At

 2     this point in time it was in the final stage, this programme.

 3        Q.   Let me stop you there.  The company that you have mentioned,

 4     Miloje Zakic, was that a special-purpose industry or was that another

 5     kind of company?

 6        A.   Yes, this is a special-purpose industry company, although part of

 7     their facilities manufactured tires and various other rubber products for

 8     the civilian sector.

 9        Q.   Just for a moment, since you've now mentioned in two separate

10     places the fact that the Ministry of Defence had granted, and where

11     appropriate, a special-purpose industry could deal with civilian

12     production needs, and you mention once again this is a company that is

13     dealing with both military production needs and civilian production

14     needs, in looking at any particular document, can you tell whether or not

15     the facility, the company, is engaged in military production or civilian

16     production if it's not specifically identified?  Is there a way of

17     knowing that?

18        A.   It is not stated explicitly.  This here was a large company.

19     Later on they were renamed into Trajal Corporation, and they had several

20     segments and only one segment dealt with the special-purpose production

21     and we invested only in that segment of that company.

22        Q.   Let me tell you why I ask you the question, because you mentioned

23     tires and you mentioned that tires were being produced as a civilian

24     production.  Now, tires are something which have a universal need, both

25     for the military and for the civilian population, so with regard to those

Page 13627

 1     kinds of products that are -- can be equally applied to a civilian use or

 2     to a military use, how are we to determine whether or not the production

 3     that occurred happened from the civilian part of the plant or from the

 4     military part of the plant?  Is there a way of determining that by

 5     looking at any of these documents?

 6        A.   Based on this document we cannot establish that because we are

 7     not referring to the entire company, Miloje Zakic company, later on

 8     Trajal Company.  I agree that tires could be produced for the needs of

 9     the military but Trajal developed tires autonomously, and if the military

10     needed to purchase tires, then they bought it as regular civilian goods

11     rather than as military equipment.  They would conclude regular

12     commercial contracts with them to purchase these tires.

13             The tires were also purchased from a company called Tigar in

14     Pirot.  This portion that produced for special-purpose industry was

15     completely separate, and in some instances their facilities were

16     completely separate as well.

17        Q.   What I understand -- would that same situation be true if, for

18     example, the VRS was purchasing tires or the Republika Srpska MOD was

19     interested in purchasing tires?  Would they be engaged in the same -- if

20     you know, would they be engaged in the same kind of contractual

21     relationship which you just discussed here, which would be a regular

22     commercial contract?

23        A.   Irrespective of who the buyer was, those tires were on the market

24     and the Ministry of Defence did not have anything to do that.  They

25     couldn't issue permits, they could not ban the sale of those products.

Page 13628

 1     Those products were produced from the resources of the company and those

 2     tires did not enjoy the status of a military product.  Any other product,

 3     in order to become part of the military equipment or armament, had to

 4     undergo a procedure of testing, and if the testing criteria were met, a

 5     decision was issued which stated this particular piece of equipment,

 6     nomenclature number and so on and so forth, is hereby adopted as part of

 7     the armament and military equipment of the former SFRY and its armed

 8     forces and subsequently the Army of Yugoslavia.  Without that document,

 9     without the preceding prescribed procedure, no equipment could enjoy the

10     status of either military equipment or military armament.

11        Q.   I don't want to run through an extensive laundry list of items,

12     but take for example one other item, and that would be the production of

13     batteries.  Were batteries considered to be an item that would fall

14     within the regular commercial contract that you've discussed, or would

15     batteries fall within some other bailiwick?

16        A.   Krusik, based in Valjevo, had a department called Krusik

17     Batteries and that department produced all sorts of batteries for

18     different purposes, both domestic and foreign.  Only a few types of

19     batteries were exclusively for military use for some pieces of equipment

20     of Russian origin and those batteries were developed in order to replace

21     imports.  All the other batteries produced by that company were

22     commercial goods on the market and you could purchase those batteries in

23     any specialised shop selling batteries.

24             The Ministry of Defence, when it came to ordering batteries,

25     could order those directly without any special procedure.  The batteries

Page 13629

 1     produced by that company could be exported without any permits from the

 2     Ministry of Defence.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We can take this document off the screen.  If we

 5     could have up on the screen P1142.  And that's going to be tab number 14

 6     in your binder.

 7        Q.   At the very top of the document there's something that is

 8     handwritten.  Could you read that, please, for us.

 9        A.   "Not without the VSO," which means not with the permission of the

10     Supreme Defence Council.  And as for the signature, as far as I'm

11     familiar with the documents that I myself received, I would say that this

12     is the signature of General Perisic.

13        Q.   Taking a look at this particular document, could you please

14     explain to us what part of the process is occurring here in terms of the

15     request for the issuance of ammunition, mines, and explosives free of

16     charge.

17        A.   This document was preceded by an application of the Ministry of

18     Defence of the Republic of Serbian Krajina which was sent to the Federal

19     Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  You can see

20     from the document that a procedure was being put in place within the

21     jurisdiction of the Federal Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Defence

22     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

23             Since the Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of

24     Yugoslavia did not have at its disposal data about the possibilities and

25     capacities of the Army of Yugoslavia whether there were any surpluses or

Page 13630

 1     not, it addressed the office of the Chief of Staff, requesting the Chief

 2     of Staff's opinion with this regard.  And the General Staff then provides

 3     its position, which could be either positive or negative.  It informed

 4     the Ministry of Defence which thereby prepares a document for the Supreme

 5     Defence Council of the Army of Yugoslavia.

 6        Q.   With regard to this document, two other matters:  Could you

 7     please tell us what the date is of this document?

 8        A.   This document was registered with the Federal Ministry of Defence

 9     on the 6th of December, 1994.  It was registered with the office of the

10     minister.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, that document could be taken off the

12     screen.  Could we then please have P1143 up on the screen, which is the

13     next tab in your binder, which would be tab 15.

14        Q.   Now, the date of the last document, as you have testified and as

15     indicated on the document, was the 6th.  Can you tell us the date of this

16     document, please.

17        A.   The number -- or the date is 7 December 1994.

18        Q.   Okay.  And there is a line where it indicates what this is

19     regarding, and could you tell us what it's regarding.  By that I mean

20     just what it says there.

21        A.   As prescribed by the procedure, there is a --

22        Q.   Mr. Kadijevic, it says "Re" there.  What is it regarding, this

23     language?  I just want you to read the language, nothing more for the

24     moment.

25        A.   "Regarding your document highly confidential number 1005-3 dated

Page 13631

 1     6 December 1994."

 2        Q.   And as you understand this, is this referring to the document

 3     that we were just taking a look at?  By that I mean P1142.

 4        A.   This refers to the previous document, and if you collate the

 5     numbers, you can easily see that.

 6        Q.   When you say "collate the numbers," what number are you referring

 7     to?

 8        A.   I'm referring to the number which was registered with the

 9     Ministry of Defence, 1005-3, and also the date, 6 December 1994.  And the

10     two serve for a complete identification of the two documents.

11        Q.   In this document could you read what it says concerning the

12     position of the Chief of General Staff.

13        A.   The position of the Chief of Staff of the General Staff is that

14     the final decision should be issued by the Supreme Defence Council.

15        Q.   And since in this situation the Chief of the General Staff has

16     deferred the decision-making process to the Supreme Defence Council, what

17     needs to occur?  What does this document tell us has to happen?  I think,

18     looking at the document, it indicates what the following procedure should

19     be.

20        A.   Yes.  In the last paragraph it says in that sense it is required

21     that the use of military cabinet of the president of the FRY to the

22     necessary material in order to include the issue on the agenda of the

23     next session of the Supreme Defence Council.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Your Honour, this would be an appropriate time.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.  We'll take a

Page 13632

 1     break and come back at quarter to 11.00.  Court adjourned.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That document can be taken off the screen.  Thank

 6     you very much.

 7        Q.   If you could turn to tab 41 in your binder, sir.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And that would be 65 ter 561D.  If we could have

 9     that document up on the screen.

10        Q.   In your previous testimony you had mentioned the Ministry of the

11     Interior and the Ministry of the Interior having authority with regard to

12     certain matters.  I'd like, if you could, to first of all explain to the

13     Chamber, once again if you know, in general terms the types of authority

14     that the Ministry of the Interior exercised within the Federal Republic

15     of Yugoslavia.

16        A.   The Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia had

17     general competences as any other ministry of any other state, primarily

18     the safety and security of the citizens and their property as well as all

19     the material assets of the state.  The ministry maintains order in the

20     territory of the state.  That would be the general task of the Ministry

21     of the Interior.  Obviously there are also tasks regarding border issues,

22     the movement of hazardous matters, anti-fire protection, and all the

23     other areas where the Ministry of the Interior has a goal to play.

24        Q.   One of the themes that seems to be prevalent in your testimony is

25     the appropriate procedure that should exist as between a requesting party

Page 13633

 1     and a potentially granting party.  And I'd like you to take a look at

 2     this particular document and tell us if you can, recognising that it's

 3     addressed to the Ministry of the Interior, but tell us if you can if the

 4     procedure that is set forth herein is, in your estimation based upon your

 5     experience, an appropriate procedure?

 6        A.   This is not an appropriate procedure.  This is a forced

 7     procedure.  The initiator of the document, the person who requested

 8     certain resources or documents is not familiar with the address to which

 9     to write, and when they don't know that, they will most often write to

10     the office of the Chief of Staff and the logic is they will know what to

11     do and they will know who to forward this to.  This may be the result of

12     the fact that there is so many re-organisations and transformations and

13     change of competencies.  And whenever there is --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Carter.

15             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, I would argue that the witness is

16     speculating in regard to this document.  We have no indication that he is

17     familiar with the inner workings of the FRY, VJ, General Staff, nor the

18     Ministry of the Interior, and for him to then go into the mind of who is

19     actually writing these documents I think would be inappropriate.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, let me work with him for a moment.

22        Q.   In your work in the Ministry of Defence, did you have occasion to

23     have contact with the Ministry of the Interior for the Federal Republic

24     of Yugoslavia?

25        A.   Of course I had direct contacts with the high officials of the

Page 13634

 1     Ministry of the Interior.  For example, General Obradovic who also

 2     testified here in The Hague, he was a member of my own commission for

 3     disarmament.  Moreover, General Spasic was in charge of anti-fire

 4     protection, and together with him I personally dealt with the problem in

 5     Milan Blagojevic Lucani company after an incident that resulted in a

 6     number of dead and injured.  So we dealt with the problem together.  We

 7     communicated very often because we were the ones to approve the

 8     procurement of weapons for the Ministry of the Interior.  And they --

 9        Q.   Go ahead, you may finish your answer.

10        A.   And they also needed to co-operate with us, hence there was a

11     constantly opened channel of communication.  These two ministries, by

12     virtue of their tasks and duties, are forced to engage in very close and

13     constant co-operation.

14        Q.   Did you or did you not have experience with and familiarity with

15     the inner workings of the Ministry of the Interior?

16        A.   I'm not aware of any details, but while I worked at the General

17     Staff I co-operated and I assisted with the equipping of the special

18     brigade of the Ministry of the Interior.  I was directly involved in that

19     exercise.

20        Q.   With regard to requests that were made concerning materiel and

21     technical equipment, were you familiar with the manner in which the

22     Ministry of the Interior dealt with such requests when made?

23        A.   All the ministry's work was regulated by regulations both at the

24     federal level and at the republican level.  There were documents which

25     described the competencies of each of the ministries and person who was

Page 13635

 1     in charge of every -- of all the ministries had to establish an

 2     organisation that was also regulated and also discharge duties and tasks

 3     within their respective purviews.  As far as I know, the procedure and

 4     organisation is very similar in all the ministries.

 5        Q.   With regard to your knowledge and understanding of the General

 6     Staff of the VJ, did you have experience in working with the General

 7     Staff of the VJ from 1993 and after in your capacity as working within

 8     the Ministry of Defence?

 9        A.   I said yesterday that before 1993 I was in the General Staff of

10     the VJ.  I was the chief of technical administration, and I was

11     immediately subordinated to the organs of the General Staff.  That's why

12     I'm familiar with the technology and procedure of work in the General

13     Staff, both the internal organisation and competencies as well as

14     competencies vis-a-vis other republican federal organs.  When I joined

15     the Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that

16     co-operation was on a daily basis.  I cooperated with General Staff

17     constantly because we co-ordinated in order to draft plans and in order

18     to implement those plans.  The same applied to the preparations for the

19     next year's budget.

20        Q.   Page 25, line 1 you stated -- this is referring to the document

21     that's up on the screen:

22             "This is not an appropriate procedure.  This is a forced

23     procedure.  The initiator of the document, the person who requested

24     certain resources or documents, is not familiar with the address to which

25     to write, and when they don't know that, they will most often write to

Page 13636

 1     the office of the Chief of Staff and the logic is they will know what to

 2     do and they will know who to forward this to.  This may be the result of

 3     the fact that there is so many re-organisations and transformations in

 4     change of competencies of the -- and whenever there is --" and you were

 5     not in a position to complete your answer because an objection was made.

 6     Could you complete your answer at this time?

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Carter.

 8             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, again argue that the foundation has not

 9     been laid.  He has spoken in relation to the federal MUP.  We've not

10     discussed at all the entity or his understanding of the Republic of

11     Serbia MUP, and it's still speculation as to the writer himself.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.  It's a bit of a waste of time, but

14     fine.

15        Q.   With regard to --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think, Mr. Guy-Smith, that is an inappropriate

17     remark to make.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:

21        Q.   With regard to the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of

22     Serbia, yesterday there was a fair amount of confusion with regard to

23     which ministries existed in 1993, and specifically with regard to the

24     issue of the Ministry of Defence with regard to in fact the Republic of

25     Serbia.  During your dealings that you have just outlined, did you have

Page 13637

 1     occasion before the ministries in the Republic of Serbia were integrated

 2     into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as you testified to yesterday,

 3     did you have opportunity to have contact and experiences with individuals

 4     in the Ministry of the Interior for the Republic of Serbia?

 5        A.   I just gave you the names of two generals, Obradovic and Spasic.

 6     They were not from the Federal Ministry of the Interior but from the

 7     Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.  And when we had this

 8     accident in Lucani, the minister of the interior of Serbia was engaged in

 9     the investigation and finalising the procedure.  And the director,

10     although a colonel in the Yugoslavia army, was arrested as a result of

11     that investigation.

12        Q.   And were you, as you've answered with regard to the Ministry of

13     the Interior for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were you aware of

14     the procedures and workings that were utilized by the Ministry of the

15     Interior for Republic of Serbia in 1993?

16        A.   The Federal Ministry of the Interior had no special competencies

17     because the republics had taken over those competencies.  They were

18     mostly focused on protecting foreign diplomatic premises in Belgrade, and

19     in the beginning they had one brigade of the federal MUP.  It was the

20     republics who carried the bulk of the work and they had a completely

21     independent system of the Internal Affairs, both Montenegro and Serbia.

22        Q.   With regard to the Ministry of the Interior for the Republic of

23     Serbia, were you familiar with their inner workings in your experience?

24        A.   Only to the extent to which I had contact with them.  I

25     co-operated with them on the tasks that we carried out jointly.

Page 13638

 1        Q.   To your knowledge --

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, sorry, I just want to clear something here

 3     which I don't understand.  I think I might as well go to a page I can

 4     control.  Mr. Kadijevic, at page 29, line 7, let's go to line 8, you were

 5     asked:

 6             "Were you aware of the procedures and workings that were utilized

 7     by the Ministry of the Interior for the Republic of Serbia in 1993?"

 8             Your answer was:

 9             "The Federal Ministry of the Interior had no special competences

10     because the republics had taken over those competences."

11             Now, in 1993, which republics are you referring to in the

12     Republic of Serbia?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Republic of Serbia there was

14     just one republic, the Republic of Serbia, and the other member of the

15     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the Republic of Montenegro.  So FRY

16     consisted of two republics.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see, you confuse me.  You are taking me back

18     to yesterday's problem.  We are talking here about the Republic of

19     Serbia, now you are introducing the word "FRY."  I'm not quite sure, when

20     the parties talk about the Republic of Serbia, what they are talking

21     about.  Can you just tell me what you are talking about, because I really

22     don't follow you.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yesterday I tried to exclude

24     from the SFRY all the republics that had left, which left --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just hold it there.  We are talking here in 1993.

Page 13639

 1     What was the Republic of Serbia in 1993?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In accordance with the

 3     constitution, the Republic of Serbia in 1993 had two autonomous

 4     provinces, Vojvodina, Kosovo, and it had the central Serbia.  Those parts

 5     comprised the Republic of Serbia according to the constitution.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And are you saying then that the Federal Ministry

 7     of the Interior had no competences because all those competences had been

 8     taken by those three republics, by the two republics and that Vojvodina?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Vojvodina remained within the

10     composition of the Republic of Serbia.  As for the federal ministry, the

11     only competency it kept was the security they provided to the diplomatic

12     offices in Belgrade, and they had forces to provide that.  All other

13     competencies of the Federal Ministry of the Interior were taken over by

14     the member republics, republics members of the Federation, and those were

15     Serbia and Montenegro.

16             The Federal Ministry of the Interior remained in place only to

17     co-ordinate the work between the two republican ministries of the

18     interior.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:

21        Q.   Could you tell us, if you know, who did the MUP of Serbia buy NVO

22     from?  First of all, do you know what I mean when I say "NVO"?

23        A.   "NVO" stands for armaments and military equipment.  I have

24     already explained that something could be termed to be NVO only if

25     previously they -- those goods were put on the list of armaments and

Page 13640

 1     military equipment of the Army of Yugoslavia.  The ministry used some of

 2     the equipment that came from that list and they also had some other

 3     additional equipment that did not exist within the Army of Yugoslavia.

 4        Q.   When you say "ministry," because we've been dealing with a number

 5     of different ministries, which seems to be causing some level of

 6     confusion, the term that you just used there "ministry" refers to which

 7     ministry?  When you said, "The ministry used some of the equipment that

 8     came from that list," what ministry are you referring to?

 9        A.   Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

10        Q.   And when the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia

11     used some of the equipment that came from that list, where did they go to

12     to get that equipment?  Who did they request that equipment from?

13        A.   According to the procedure, they were supposed to request this

14     from the Federal Ministry of Defence, which is what they did; however,

15     there were cases when they would conclude contracts directly with

16     companies from the special-purpose industry using the same procedure used

17     by the Army of Yugoslavia.  That is to say, they would sign contracts

18     with them and purchase these products with their own money.

19        Q.   That is understood.  With regard to the document that is up on

20     the screen, the second paragraph states:

21             "Since their request does not come under the authority of the

22     Yugoslav Army General Staff, we are asking for your opinion, if you are

23     unable to grant the request within your authority."

24             Can you tell us, looking at this document - if you can that's

25     fine, and if you can't that's fine - why the position would be taken by

Page 13641

 1     the Yugoslav Army General Staff that this request does not come under its

 2     authority?

 3        A.   First of all, the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska

 4     from Bijeljina should not communicate directly with the General Staff of

 5     the Army of Yugoslavia.  There's no procedure that provides for that.

 6     The Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska was supposed to send its

 7     request to the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.  That

 8     was the proper channel that the ministries -- identical ministries deal

 9     with each other.  That is to say Ministry of the Interior deals with the

10     Ministry of the Interior.

11        Q.   Okay.  Is -- if you know, is that why this states that their

12     request does not come under the authority of the Yugoslav Army General

13     Staff because, as you just said, a Ministry of the Interior has to deal

14     with the Ministry of the Interior and not to deal with the General Staff?

15        A.   Yes, precisely so.  In this particular case, the General Staff

16     could have acted differently.  They could have sent back to the sender

17     this document, this letter.  That would not have been professional and

18     that would not have been fair, though.

19        Q.   And with regard to the language at the end of the sentence

20     dealing with granting their request within your authority, can you expand

21     at all on what the meaning of that particular language is in regards to

22     this document?  If you can, that's fine, and if you can't, that's fine.

23        A.   You mean the final portion of the second paragraph?

24        Q.   Yes.

25        A.   This portion means this:  If the republic Ministry of the

Page 13642

 1     Interior is unable to grant this request, then they were supposed to

 2     inform the office of the Chief of the General Staff so that they could

 3     respond to the person initiating this request and close the circle thus.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move the admission of this document.

 5             MS. CARTER:  No objection, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

 7     please be given an exhibit number.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 9     Exhibit D452.  Thank you.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Go to tab number 44.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If you could go to tab number 44 in your binder,

13     which would be 65 ter 704D.

14        Q.   I'd like you to take a look at this document, and after you've

15     had an opportunity to look at the document, I believe the document is a

16     number of pages long.  It's three pages in English, it may be only two in

17     B/C/S.  After you've had a chance to take a look at this document, do you

18     recognise this document?

19        A.   Yes, I do, because I held it in my hands.  This is the plan for

20     implementation of the conclusion of the 21st session of the Supreme

21     Defence Council.

22        Q.   And with regard to this plan, were you or were you not present at

23     the 21st session of the Supreme Defence Council?

24        A.   No, I did not attend a single session of the Supreme Defence

25     Council.

Page 13643

 1        Q.   And with regard to this plan being predicated on the conclusions

 2     of the 21st session of the Supreme Defence Council, how did you become

 3     aware of what those conclusions were?

 4        A.   Based on the conclusions of the Supreme Defence Council, the

 5     Ministry of Defence as a competent organ vis-a-vis certain conclusions

 6     received this document.  The office of the minister of defence drew up a

 7     document based on this and sent it to various organs within the Ministry

 8     of Defence indicating who is supposed to carry out which task and within

 9     what time-limit.

10        Q.   And could you tell us what the date of this document is, please?

11        A.   This document is dated 29th of July, 1994.

12        Q.   If you could turn to the next page, please, which is entitled

13     "Plan," which is the plan itself.  And taking a look at item number 3,

14     which indicates some involvement with the Russian Federation, could you

15     explain to us what was occurring with regard to item number 3.

16        A.   Item 3 reads:

17             "Assess possibilities for importing weapons, military equipment,

18     and spare parts from the Russian Federation, charging it to the current

19     balance, and propose a way to perform the task."

20        Q.   With regard to item number 4, could you explain to us what is the

21     plan with regard to item number 4.

22        A.   Item 4 reads:

23             "Pursuant to the proposal of the Federal Ministry of Defence on

24     co-operation with the People's Republic of China, the Supreme Defence

25     Council decided to accept the proposal of the Federal Ministry of Defence

Page 13644

 1     with the requirement that the interests of the Federal Republic of

 2     Yugoslavia be protected with an adequate contract concept.  The contract

 3     should oblige the People's Republic of China not to provide information

 4     on the MPG 1200 horsepower to Pakistan."

 5        Q.   And could you explain to the Chamber, if you know, why the

 6     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was concerned about being protected with

 7     regard to a contract that was being entered into with the People's

 8     Republic of China as it related to Pakistan?

 9        A.   The Federal Ministry of Defence developed the motor and fuel

10     group of 1200 horsepower, which was an improvement on the Russian model

11     which had 1000 horsepower and it was used for tank 72 and M-84 tank.

12     When a number of countries learned of this technical improvement of the

13     tank motor which enabled it to have a much better performance, there was

14     suddenly a great surge in demand for this motor of 1200 horsepower.  We

15     had a request from the Federal Republic of China and from Pakistan.

16             The Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued us permission to

17     co-operate with the Federal Republic of China, whereas there were certain

18     conditions in relation to co-operation with regard to Pakistan.  And we

19     were not given subsequently green light to continue negotiations.  By way

20     of this conclusion, the Supreme Defence Council allowed us to engage in

21     negotiations with the People's Republic of China concerning the motor of

22     1200 horsepower.

23        Q.   Taking a look at the next paragraph, I'd like to focus your

24     attention on the following sentence, which is the second sentence in that

25     paragraph, that says:

Page 13645

 1             "No direct agreements and deliveries of NVO can be made and

 2     special-purposes industrial enterprises cannot deliver or sell NVO to

 3     anyone without the approval of the SMO with the exception of planned

 4     deliveries for the VJ."

 5             Now, you previously, I believe, defined each of these acronyms,

 6     so there should be no confusion.  I'd like for you to explain the very

 7     last clause in that sentence which is, "with the exception of planned

 8     deliveries for the VJ."

 9        A.   This formulation is perhaps a clumsy one.  This is how it was

10     drawn up in the office of the federal minister for defence because it

11     says in addition to planned deliveries for the Army of Yugoslavia where

12     we do not issue separate permit because we had negotiated this ourselves,

13     we, the Ministry of Defence.

14        Q.   Thank you.  In looking through this document, there's another

15     acronym here that exists in all but one of them which is, under the

16     responsible party, it says SVPD of the SMO.  Could you please define that

17     acronym for us.

18        A.   This is an acronym for the sector for military economic activity

19     of the Federal Ministry of Defence.  The Ministry of Defence had a number

20     of sectors, this is how it was organised, so this was the sector for

21     military economic activity.

22        Q.   And for purposes of completion of understanding, there is another

23     acronym in this document, and that's in paragraph number 2 and that's

24     UFiB of the SMO.  Could you please tell us what that acronym stands for.

25        A.   This is an acronym for administration for finance and budget.

Page 13646

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.  I would move its admission.

 2             MS. CARTER:  No objection, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

 4     number.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 6     Exhibit D453.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 9        Q.   I'd like you to now go to tab 45.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Which is 65 ter 814D.

11        Q.   First of all, when it comes up, the document is entitled, at

12     least in English, "Session Agreement."  And I'd like to know whether or

13     not you are familiar with these types of documents.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Could you please tell the Chamber what a session agreement is?

16        A.   This is an agreement whereby a contractual party transfers a debt

17     on to another third party with which it negotiates a new deal.

18             MR. THOMAS:  I am sorry --

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would appreciate the assistance of --

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

21             MR. THOMAS:  I am sorry, Your Honours, I have nothing on my

22     screen and I'm struggling to find the document.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That's what I was just about to comment on.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Welcome to the club.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I was just about to say that I would appreciate

Page 13647

 1     the assistance of the technical staff in making black screens have some

 2     kind of image.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's been reported to the technical staff and I

 4     can tell you I'm also in the same boat.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  You beat me to the punch, Mr. Thomas.  I am a bit

 6     hard-pressed to continue.  I'm going to be dealing with a number of --

 7     directly dealing with documents for the moment.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  To what extent does that inconvenience you,

 9     Mr. Thomas and Madam Carter?  I have no way of knowing what we are

10     talking about.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm also informed that Mr. Perisic is without

12     screen.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think he is the most important person here.

14     Mr. Lukic -- Mr. Guy-Smith, I'm sorry, with the hard copies are you not

15     in a position to carry on?

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I still have the same problem for Mr. Perisic.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the document also be provided to the

18     interpreters, please.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam court usher.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Does everybody who has to see the document now

22     have it before them?

23             THE INTERPRETER:  We do, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  I assume that if you do, all

25     the other booths have, and a nod will help me from this booth.  You do

Page 13648

 1     have it?  Thank you so much.  Mr. Guy-Smith.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

 3        Q.   You were explaining what this type of a document was and you

 4     indicated on page 38 at line 10:  "This is an agreement whereby a

 5     contractual party transfers a debt on to another third party with which

 6     it negotiates a new deal."

 7             Now, looking at paragraph 1, there is a name there, could you

 8     read it and tell us if you recognise that particular name.

 9        A.   The name is the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska at Pale.

10        Q.   I believe that's item number 2.  Item number 1?

11        A.   Under 1 is the [indiscernible] production in Uzice and the

12     abbreviation at the beginning stands for the First Partisan and that was

13     the name of that particular factory.

14        Q.   Okay.  Looking at this particular document, are you familiar with

15     this particular transaction?

16        A.   I was not familiar with this particular transaction because it

17     involved the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska and the First

18     Partisan company in Uzice.

19        Q.   In your experience in the Ministry of Defence for the Federal

20     Republic of Yugoslavia, did you engage in like contracts with other

21     special-purpose industries?

22        A.   Yes, the Ministry of Defence, or rather, its administration for

23     procurement, which was in charge of all contracts, also negotiated

24     session deals with various suppliers and producers.  This is an aspect of

25     business which is put in place in order to make payments or receive

Page 13649

 1     payments for the services provided.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move the admission of this document for

 3     the limited purpose of an example of a session agreement since the

 4     witness has indicated that he has no familiarity with this specific

 5     transaction, but is familiar with the document and the purpose of these

 6     types of documents.

 7             MS. CARTER:  As an exemplar, I have no objections, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  It's admitted.  May it please be given

 9     an exhibit number.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that document shall be assigned

11     Exhibit D454.  Thank you.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:

13        Q.   Tab number 48, good sir, which will be 65 ter 983D.  I'd like you

14     to take a look at this document and then I'll discuss it with you.

15             Could you first of all tell us the date of this document.

16        A.   The date is 29 July 1994.

17        Q.   And the author of this document is who, sir?

18        A.   The author of this document is at the office of the Ministry of

19     Defence, in its final version, and the document was, drafted or rather,

20     prepared by the sector for military economic activity.

21        Q.   I'd like to take a look at the second full paragraph, which I

22     believe starts off with the language, "Regardless of how the situation

23     develops ..."  Could you read -- could you read the first sentence.

24        A.   "Irrespective of the developments, the federal government has to

25     redistribute resources in the federal and republican budgets in order to

Page 13650

 1     provide an additional 35.300.000 dinars to finance the adopted measures

 2     and procure materiel and technical equipment necessary to raise the

 3     combat readiness of the Yugoslav Army."

 4        Q.   Okay.  And were you at all involved in this particular concern,

 5     which is the need to redistribute funds for the procurement of materiel

 6     and technical equipment to raise the combat readiness of the Yugoslav

 7     Army?

 8        A.   The sector for military economic activities, together with

 9     administration for finances and budget, we were aware of the surpluses of

10     the special-purpose industry and we arrived at the amount of 35.300.000

11     dinars which corresponded to the request of the General Staff of the Army

12     of Yugoslavia for the procurement of the most necessary means in order to

13     raise the combat readiness of the army.  Those are not normal

14     requirements.  Those requirements were meant to meet just the minimum

15     needs of the Army of Yugoslavia.

16        Q.   If we could now turn to the next sentence, which I believe starts

17     with the language, "Engaging these funds ..." could you please read that.

18        A.   "The Federal Ministry for Defence will engage these and the

19     financial resources provided by the Republika Srpska and the Republic of

20     Serbian Krajina, to service their needs, will organise the production and

21     procurement of materiel and technical equipment."

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would ask this document be marked for

23     identification, and the reason for that is that two places in the English

24     there's the word "earmark."  The first time Mr. Kadijevic said that the

25     federal government must "redistribute" an amount, and the second time he

Page 13651

 1     used the word "provided."  And earmarking and providing and earmarking

 2     and redistributing are vastly different concepts, so I think if we could

 3     have this marked for identification, because this document needs to be

 4     double-checked with regard to the issue of translation.  Other than that,

 5     I move its admission.

 6             MS. CARTER:  No objection to the MFI status, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  The document is admitted.  May it

 8     please be given an exhibit number and marked for identification.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

10     Exhibit D455 marked for identification.  Thank you.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Tab number 49, please, which would be 65 ter

12     984D.

13        Q.   Have you had an opportunity to take a look at this document,

14     Mr. Kadijevic?

15        A.   Yes, I've had an opportunity to do that.

16        Q.   First of all, can you tell us the date of this document.

17        A.   The date is 5 August 1994.

18        Q.   And this document, as I understand it, was signed by a gentleman

19     by the name Sava Pustinja.  Do you know that gentleman?

20        A.   Yes.  At that time Lieutenant-General Sava Pustinja was the chief

21     of sector for military economics activity and on this particular occasion

22     he was acting on behalf of the federal minister of defence, who was

23     absent.

24        Q.   Could you please read for us the very first paragraph.

25        A.   "Please find enclosed a decision by the federal government on a

Page 13652

 1     cessation of political and economic relations with Republika Srpska."

 2        Q.   Perhaps I'm a bit confused.  The document that we just were

 3     looking at that's been marked for identification is dated the 29th of

 4     July 1994.  And it seems what this document is in fact talking about

 5     economic relations with the Republika Srpska, and here, about a week

 6     later, there seems to be an about face on this issue.  Do you have any

 7     knowledge about what happened here?  Can you help us out at all in terms

 8     of what happened with regard to this document dated the 5th of August,

 9     1994?

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Carter.  Sorry, Mr. Kadijevic.  Yes,

11     Madam Carter.

12             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, while the end of the question is

13     certainly not leading, I would argue that having Defence counsel compare

14     and contrast two separate documents and then ask the witness to do the

15     same thing is an inappropriate use.  It's leading.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I fail to understand the objection in the manner

18     that it's been put because I think that Ms. Carter misapprehends the

19     question itself.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, am I wrong to say that the previous

21     document was a session between Republika Srpska and a company in the --

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, the last document we discussed was the

23     document that we MFI'd because there were two issues concerning the word

24     "earmarked."  That was the last document.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But that was --

Page 13653

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It's a document between the Federal Ministry of

 2     Defence -- it's a document about the Federal Ministry of Defence for the

 3     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  It has nothing to do with Republika

 4     Srpska with regard to any interactions as between them.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, but what did it deal with, I'm sorry, I still

 6     don't --

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It dealt with redistributing 35.300.000 dinars to

 8     finance adoptive measure and engaging these funds and funds provided by

 9     the Republika Srpska for their own needs, that the Federal Ministry of

10     Defence will organise the production and procurement of materiel and

11     technical equipment.  So this is a document, this was a ministry --

12     Federal Ministry of Defence of the FRY internal document, discussing what

13     they are going to be proceeding to do.  The next document is a Federal

14     Ministry of Defence document in which there's an indication that there's

15     going to be a cessation of political and economic relations with

16     Republika Srpska and my question is can you be of any help here?  Can you

17     be of any help here?  There's a week in between these two documents, can

18     you be of any help?  I don't see anything particularly leading about

19     that.  They are two --

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Two acts that occurred, can you help us out?

22     That's what is going on.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, okay.  The objection would be

24     overruled, Madam Carter.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The time period is very short and

Page 13654

 1     it is obvious that they were convergent positions in the state leadership

 2     and the Ministry of Defence.  The previous document was the result of

 3     work and preparations that had been going on for months in order to

 4     secure funds from the federal government.  The process took its course.

 5             The second document, however, was the result of the opinion of

 6     the Supreme Defence Council and political leadership that sanctions

 7     should be imposed on Republika Srpska, which means all the activities

 8     that had been going on or should have been launched had to be stopped.

 9     So this is a complete stop of all the activities, not only the ones that

10     the previous document dealt with, but all the other economic activities

11     as well.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I move its admission.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

14     number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

16     Exhibit D456.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could go to tab number 51.  65 ter 1041D.

19        Q.   If you could first tell us the date of this document.  It would

20     be up on the -- yes, excellent.

21        A.   The date is 22nd December, 1992.

22        Q.   Now, I'm looking at this document and I'm wondering if you could

23     be of any help with regard to the very last paragraph, which starts off:

24             "We did not ..."  First of all, if you could read that so we know

25     what it says.

Page 13655

 1        A.   "We did not receive the above materiel as per agreement 13-12/92

 2     of 14 December 1992 because the payment has not yet been made."

 3        Q.   Okay.  And with regard to the issue of payment, can you tell us

 4     who payment was to be made to?

 5        A.   Clearly the payment was to be made to Krusik, the special-purpose

 6     industry in Krusik, which was the producer of the said materiel and

 7     equipment.

 8        Q.   And the payment was to be made by?

 9        A.   It arises from the document that the payment was to be made by

10     the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, its logistics sector, the

11     logistics part of the Main Staff was to make the payment.

12        Q.   With regard to the kinds of examples that we've discussed in

13     terms of contracts between special-purpose industries and other entities

14     such as armies or ministries of defence, is this an example -- and if you

15     can say, fine, if you can't, that's fine as well -- is this an example of

16     such a negotiation and transaction?

17        A.   Yes, this is an example of a transaction, although the contracts

18     had to be signed by the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska, however

19     what happened there was that whoever had the funds and resources entered

20     into procurement deals.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I note the time and I would move its admission.

22     I should probably do that in reverse order.  I would move this document's

23     admission, and I note the time.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

25     please be given an exhibit number.

Page 13656

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 2     Exhibit D457.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  We'll take a break and come

 4     back at half past 12.00.  Court adjourned.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Go to tab number 52 in your binder, sir, which is 65 ter 1124D.

10     I'd like to have you take a look at this document, if you could.  And my

11     first question to you after you've looked at the document is, are you

12     familiar with this document itself?

13        A.   Yes, I am.

14        Q.   And how were you familiar with this document, sir?

15        A.   I was involved in drafting this document for the federal minister

16     of defence.

17        Q.   Looking at the document that we have in front of us and going to

18     the very last page, if we could.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Which would be page 3 in the English.  I think

20     it's page 3 also in the B/C/S.  You have it in hard copy.

21        Q.   Could you tell us whether or not this document was signed?

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I guess this is page 4, I apologise.  5, 5.

23     Thank you, Mr. Mair.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document was not signed.  This

25     is simply a draft.

Page 13657

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 2        Q.   With regard to this draft, were you present at the time that the

 3     agreement and co-operation between the federal government of the Federal

 4     Republic of Yugoslavia and the government of the Russian Federation was

 5     signed?  Were you present at the signing?

 6        A.   Yes, I was present and I was a member the delegation headed by

 7     the federal minister of defence, Pavle Bulatovic.

 8        Q.   In reviewing this draft, can you tell us whether, to the best of

 9     your recollection, whether this draft embodies all that was contained in

10     the final agreement that was signed and whether or not there were any

11     additions or deletions that were made to it?

12        A.   As far as I remember, this draft was co-ordinated with the

13     Russian side, and when the time came for the two ministers to sign it, it

14     had already been fully agreed upon by the two ministers and they

15     initialled it.  I think it was done in four copies; two in Russian, two

16     in Serbian.  That's what I remember.

17        Q.   And can you tell us the date of the signing of this agreement, if

18     you remember?

19        A.   I've already had trouble with years, as you could see here.  I

20     usually need to link an event to something that happened in my personal

21     life, so let's say that it was in 1997.

22        Q.   Okay.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move its admission.

24             MS. CARTER:  Given that the document is supposed to have been

25     entered into well after our indictment period, I would ask the relevance.

Page 13658

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, our indictment period seems to cover before

 3     1993 up to and including the year 2000.  We've had myriad documents that

 4     have been introduced that come well before the time that General Perisic

 5     became Chief of Staff of the VJ in the late summer/early autumn of 1993,

 6     and documents well after he had left the government entirely; documents

 7     in 1999, 2000, 2001, and I believe you even have documents in 2004.  This

 8     document shows the continuing work that this gentleman did and the

 9     continuing nature of the co-operation that existed as between the

10     Ministry of Defence for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Soviet

11     -- Russian Federation and I take it it's relevant on those grounds.

12             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, while many of the documents do

13     post-date our indictment period, they generally tend to be tied back to

14     events that are relevant to the indictment period.  Now, Mr. Guy-Smith

15     has made an implication that this somehow addresses a continuation of a

16     relationship.  However, there's been no foundation laid for a

17     continuation argument to be made, so unless he can tie it back to the

18     relevant time-period, I would still object to its relevance.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I could have but a moment, there was a

20     document that we saw earlier today that dealt both with the Russians as

21     well as the Chinese, certainly within the indictment period.  It was one

22     the paragraphs, so give me a moment, I'll --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think I can't remember that document but --

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  D453.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My only problem actually, Mr. Guy-Smith, is if you

Page 13659

 1     could tie it down to the case before us, that would help me.  I'm not

 2     quite sure how it ties up with the case itself.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I really can't take it any further at this point

 4     in time, Your Honour.  And rather than counter with a discussion about

 5     the number of documents that this Chamber has admitted through bar table

 6     and through other means that are well outside the indictment period which

 7     have myriad difficulties, I think evidentially and with relevance, I'll

 8     leave my submission as to where it is and abide by your ruling as it may

 9     be.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The objection is upheld.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.  Could we please have your tab number

14     54, which will be 65 ter 1169D.  Let me take that back, let's do this a

15     slightly different way.  If we could take that document off the screen.

16        Q.   And if could you go to tab number 55 in your binder.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And pull up 65 ter 1198D.

18        Q.   If you could take a look at that document.  And initially while

19     we are waiting for the English to come up, could you please tell us the

20     date of this document.

21        A.   The document has the date of 1st of June, 1998.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And could you tell us what the document -- right now

23     I'm still dealing -- I'm still dealing with first page.  Could you tell

24     us what this letter refers to.

25        A.   This letter comes from the Krusik holding company and in this

Page 13660

 1     letter they request that the debt owed by military post Vlasenica Han

 2     Pijesak be settled, that is to say, that this military post owed money to

 3     the Krusik company.

 4        Q.   Okay.  So now we have two dates; we have the date of 1998 when

 5     the letter is sent concerning an overview of the claims as of the 31st of

 6     December, 1997.

 7             Could you go to the next page, please, sir.  The next page

 8     indicates -- and you've already indicated who the debtor is.  Before we

 9     go any further, where is Han Pijesak geographically located, if you know?

10        A.   Han Pijesak is in Republika Srpska.

11        Q.   Okay.  With regard to the debts that are owed, what calendar year

12     are the debts owed from?

13        A.   On the second page, in the overview of debts, you can see that

14     this money was owed based on invoices from 1994.

15        Q.   Could you explain to us why this particular company, which is the

16     -- as I understand it, looking at the first page, the holding company for

17     Krusik Valjevo, would be having you involved in debts owed to them for

18     invoices in 1994 in 1998?  Why would the Ministry of Defence for the

19     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia be involved in debts owed by Han Pijesak

20     which is geographically located in the Republic of Srpska?

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before the witness answers, for me to be able

22     to follow, Mr. Guy-Smith, maybe it might be mentioned on the previous

23     page, where is the federal government of FRY mentioned in this document?

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Federal Ministry of Defence.  If I said federal

25     government, I misspoke myself.  I said why would the Ministry of Defence

Page 13661

 1     for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it on the previous page?

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  On page 52 at line 9 and 10.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I see what you are saying at page 52 but my

 5     question arises precisely from what you said, page 52.  What is the basis

 6     for saying the witness is involved in this case together with the

 7     government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?  And I'm trying to find

 8     out if there's something I missed on the first page.

 9             Can we have a look at the first page of this document, please.

10     Thank you.  Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  My pleasure.

12        Q.   My question was, could you explain to us why this particular

13     company, Krusik Valjevo, would be having the Federal Ministry of Defence

14     for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia involved in debts owed to them by

15     military post 711 Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, which is geographically located

16     in the Republic of Srpska, those debts being debts that were incurred in

17     the calendar year 1994?

18        A.   These activities that gave rise to the document I'm familiar

19     with.  I personally ordered to the procurement administration to send a

20     request to all companies within the military industry of money owed to

21     them by various entities.  Everybody that they had a contract with.

22     Because they claimed to us that they couldn't continue working because

23     they had a lot of uncollected debts.  Such a formulation did not mean

24     much for us, for the ministry.  This is why we ordered them to make a

25     list of all debts owed to them, partners, contracts signed, et cetera.

Page 13662

 1             You can see that in their document they refer to the order issued

 2     by the Ministry of Defence administration for procurement, based on which

 3     they produced this document.  And only when they put together all of the

 4     documents needed did they come up with this overview of all money owed to

 5     them based on which we had discussions with the federal government.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I move its admission.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted into evidence.  May it please be

 9     given an exhibit number.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

11     Exhibit D458.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:

14        Q.   If you go to tab 58 of your binder, which would be 65 ter 1203D.

15     If you could take a look at this document.  This is a -- if I understand

16     it, a different organ which is the -- as the document reads, Ministry of

17     the Interior Special Brigade of the Biljana police.  Once again it's

18     dealing with invoices in 1994.  First of all, in a general sense, in

19     relation to the document we've just seen, is this a similar type of

20     document concerning the same subject matter or is this something

21     different?

22        A.   It's a similar document but the other debtor in this particular

23     case, the Special Brigade from Bijeljina owed to Krusik money based on

24     various contracts dating back to 1994.

25        Q.   Could you please tell us geographically where Bijeljina is.

Page 13663

 1        A.   Bijeljina is in the north-east of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the

 2     territory of Republika Srpska.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move this document's admission.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

 5     number.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 7     Exhibit D459.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:

10        Q.   What was the name of the street that the Ministry of Defence and

11     the Chief of Staff of the VJ was located on?  What was that street

12     called?

13        A.   It was and still is the so-called Nemanjina Street, which we

14     colloquially refer to as Drina.

15        Q.   Why do you colloquially refer to that street as Drina?

16        A.   We called it Drina because very frequently between -- very

17     frequently the General Staff and the Ministry of Defence had different

18     views about various issues and co-operation.  These problems arose mostly

19     because the competencies were not strictly defined and divided, on the

20     one hand, and on the other hand, the personnel of both General Staff and

21     the ministry was not experienced enough to work in such high

22     institutions.  They didn't know the proper methodology of work and this

23     is why frequently there were disputes and other problems.

24        Q.   And what is the significance of it being called "Drina"?  Why

25     does that have any particular kind of significance?  I'm thinking of some

Page 13664

 1     kind of --

 2        A.   Yes, this was a connotation of disagreement between the

 3     leadership of Republika Srpska and the leadership of the Federal Republic

 4     of Yugoslavia.

 5        Q.   Now, that's one connotation of disagreement.  And as between the

 6     MOD and the VJ General Staff, what would the connotation of disagreement

 7     be with regard to Drina Street?  Would it be the same as a disagreement

 8     between, as you said, the leadership of Republika Srpska and leadership

 9     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or would it be different?  Are you

10     once again talking about disagreements as between two bodies?

11        A.   No, it's not the same connotation.  In this particular case,

12     something else was at hand, whereas in the other case it referred to the

13     political disagreement between the leadership of two countries.  In our

14     case, the disagreement arose when the ministry and the General Staff were

15     re-organised as a result of which an institution that used to work in a

16     unified way before was split into two parts, and as a result of this

17     split and of the fact that these two institutions became completely

18     independent of each other, problems arose.

19             The General Staff was linked to the ministry -- to the Supreme

20     Defence Council, whereas the Ministry of Defence was linked to the

21     federal government, and it took a lot of effort and a lot of co-operation

22     to resolve problems at various levels.  The Federal Ministry of Defence

23     had to communicate with the Chief of General Staff, and then all lower

24     levels had to communicate among themselves, and this communication and

25     co-operation was required on a daily basis in order to keep things going.

Page 13665

 1        Q.   I promised you at the outset that we would discuss further the

 2     issue of demilitarisation.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we please have 65 ter 3387D, which is -- I

 4     believe it's -- which is a document which is not in your binder, but it's

 5     been translated in e-court, so you are going to have to look at this

 6     document on the screen.  Okay.  I'd like you to -- it's a number of

 7     pages, if you could quickly flip through it on the screen if we could

 8     because I don't need to go through the entirety of the document with you,

 9     chapter and verse, but if we could just have him go through the document

10     quickly on the screen, look at each page to see whether or not he is

11     familiar with this document.

12             I just realised something, that it runs into a fair number of

13     pages.

14        Q.   Let me ask you this question in a slightly different fashion.

15     Did you -- were you -- you told us previously that you were involved in

16     the demilitarisation process post-Dayton.  Were you aware of the

17     agreement that was entered into on the subregional arms control by the

18     Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe Mission to

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

20        A.   I was familiar with that agreement.  It was signed by Minister

21     Milutinovic in Florence.

22        Q.   And I think you gave us a brief description at the outset of your

23     testimony that you were appointed the chairman of the commission which

24     was tasked with implementing in full this agreement.  Can you tell us who

25     was on the commission with you?

Page 13666

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly switch off all unnecessary microphones.

 2     Thank you.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, the federal

 4     government issued a decision appointing a commission consisting of nine

 5     members altogether.  I was appointed as the president of that commission.

 6     On behalf of the General Staff, the commission had General Kodzopeljic as

 7     a member.  He was the chief of the technical administration of the VJ.

 8     The Ministry of the Interior was represented by General Stevanovic.  The

 9     Ministry of the Interior of Montenegro was represented by an inspector

10     whose name I can't remember at the moment.  The Ministry of Justice of

11     the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was represented by a member as well.

12     And as I sit here, I can't remember all of the members, but I'm sure that

13     there was a total of nine of them.  I'm sure of that.

14        Q.   Very well.  With regard to your answer on behalf of the General

15     Staff, you indicated the commission had General Kodzopeljic as a member.

16     Was that as a member of the General Staff of the VJ that he was

17     representing?  Was that the General Staff that you were referring to or

18     were you referring to some other General Staff?

19        A.   Precisely so, the General Staff of the VJ.  At that time he was

20     the chief of the technical administration of the VJ General Staff.

21        Q.   With regards to the efforts to demilitarise, can you tell us, if

22     you know, what if any involvement General Perisic had in terms of the

23     demilitarisation process after Dayton?

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly switch off unnecessary mikes, thank you.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, General Perisic played a very

Page 13667

 1     important role in the implementation of this agreement.  First of all,

 2     General Perisic issued an order to all the subordinate bodies to get

 3     involved to the extent required by the commission within their respected

 4     remits.

 5             Secondly, General Perisic issued an order to set up a commission

 6     for the control of the disarmament agreement.  That administration was

 7     comprised of people who were appointed by establishment and they were

 8     there to control the implementation of the agreement and those people

 9     were inspectors who, pursuant to OSCE plan, went to the Republic of

10     Croatia, to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to Republika

11     Srpska in order to perform spontaneous or plan controls of the

12     implementation of this agreement per stages.

13             Like-wise, the administration took it upon themselves to organise

14     the receipt of inspectors from the Republic of Croatia, from the Muslim

15     Croatian Federation, as well as from Republika Srpska whenever they came

16     to control our units and depots.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move for the admission of the last

18     document, please.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted into evidence.  May it please be

20     given an exhibit number.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

22     Exhibit D460.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Finally, could we have 65 ter 3386D up on the

25     screen.  I have this document in English, Your Honours.  I do not have

Page 13668

 1     this document in B/C/S.  It comes from the Yugoslav Daily Service 1997,

 2     February 20th.  We still don't have it in B/C/S and we will -- I'm going

 3     to read portions of this document to him.

 4        Q.   This is a newspaper report entitled Yugoslavia Successfully Meets

 5     All Arms Reduction Obligations.  It starts off by saying:

 6             "OSCE co-ordinator for the realisation of the agreement on

 7     subregional arms control, General Piero Bonabella paid a three-day visit

 8     to Yugoslavia at the invitation of Yugoslav government official

 9     Lieutenant-General Radojica Kadijevic, the defence ministry said on

10     Wednesday."

11             Did you have such a visit with General Bonabella?

12        A.   I did indeed.  I invited him and he came.

13        Q.   It goes on to say, and I'm not being to read the entirety of the

14     second paragraph:

15             "General Bonabella said the OSCE believed Yugoslavia

16     exceptionally successfully carried out all of its obligations from the

17     plans for inspection and reduction of excess arms envisaged under the

18     first phase of the Florence agreement."

19             And with regard to this language here, the Florence agreement is

20     what you were talking to us about at the beginning of your testimony; am

21     I correct in my understanding?

22        A.   Yes, precisely so.

23        Q.   I'm going to go to the last paragraph, which says:  "During the

24     visits to Yugoslavia, General Bonabella also visited certain Yugoslav

25     Army premises and saw that all tasks planned by the agreement were being

Page 13669

 1     realised with expert skill and responsibility, the statement said."

 2             Did General Bonabella, visit when he was with you, various

 3     Yugoslav Army premises with an eye towards making a determination whether

 4     or not the tasks planned by the agreement were being carried out?

 5        A.   Yes.  As a host, I took him to the Knezevac logistics base in

 6     Belgrade to which APCs had been transported, together with a number of

 7     combat vehicles.  According to the plan, they were supposed to be

 8     destroyed or decommissioned.  All those APCs were lined in several rows

 9     and General Bonabella asked me whether the APCs were in a good working

10     order.  And I told him, General, sir, they all came on their own in a

11     good working order, pick any one to check if you wish.  And then he told

12     me that he had been a member of armoured units, that he was familiar with

13     APCs.  He chose an APC that he wanted to inspect, he got into it, he

14     started the engine, and to avoid any doubts, he picked another one and

15     started it again, and when he was convinced that what we had told him

16     before we had set off for the logistics base he was happy.  I offered him

17     to check any of them although we were under no obligation to keep them in

18     good working order.  Our obligation was to destroy them.

19             The General Staff did everything; they prepared everything, they

20     transported APCs by train, by road.  They transferred them all to the

21     logistics base and made them available to inspection.  Having showed his

22     satisfaction, General Bonabella promised me and finally delivered on his

23     promise when the Republic of Italy helped the Federal Republic of

24     Yugoslavia to carry out the decommissioning of the weapons.  They did

25     that by sending us special equipment for cutting steel and men who used

Page 13670

 1     that equipment.

 2             We received the equipment and we were very grateful to General

 3     Bonabella and the Republic of Italy and we expressed our gratitude

 4     accordingly.

 5             Now, if it means anything, for the second inspection, I went to

 6     Belgrade and transported all the military envoys from Belgrade to Nis by

 7     plane to the Stevan Sindjelic barracks in Nis where there were weapons of

 8     war to be decommissioned.  All the pieces of equipment and APCs for

 9     decommissioning had been brought there and all the military envoys were

10     convinced that they were all there, ready for decommissioning, and on

11     that same evening, together with all of them, I returned to Belgrade on

12     the same plane.

13             When it comes to the decommissioning of those pieces of

14     equipment, I have to be honest and say that we received assistance from

15     the USA and also two colonels came from Vienna, from OSCE.  They came to

16     talk to me.  When they realised that we had problems with budgetary

17     allocations in order to decommission the equipment, they decided and they

18     transferred to us $200.000 via an Austrian bank, and that helped us to

19     decommission the equipment.  We carried out all of our obligations on

20     time without any objections on the part of either the OSCE members who

21     came for inspections or any of the inspectors from the neighbouring

22     republics.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move the admission of the last document.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

25     please be given an exhibit number.

Page 13671

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 2     Exhibit D461.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 5        Q.   You have given us some information with regard to General

 6     Perisic's efforts in terms of the demilitarisation process.  Would it

 7     have been possible for the demilitarisation process to have occurred

 8     without the active participation and involvement of the Chief of the

 9     General Staff of the VJ?

10        A.   In order to answer your question, sir, I need to say a few

11     sentences.  When General Bonabella came to Belgrade for the first time

12     and when I first met him, I explained to him the way we saw we could

13     execute our task.  At first he was taken by surprise.  He did not believe

14     that we would be able to carry out the task the way we wanted because he

15     had been involved in a similar task in Italy and he had 700 men at his

16     disposal, and they had a lot of problems, that they encountered a lot of

17     difficulties during the performance of the task.  In our case we opted

18     for a different concept; we decided to use the existing military

19     organisation rather than establish new bodies, train new men, and even if

20     we had established a new unit, we would have had to engage in daily

21     correspondence with the General Staff to allow us to perform certain

22     tasks.

23             We didn't do that.  We used the existing organisation, especially

24     technical administration and maintenance depots, we used all those

25     because General Perisic had issued an order and made it possible for us

Page 13672

 1     to carry out our tasks in a timely and planned manner.  If that hadn't

 2     been done, not even one-tenth of the task could have been carried out.

 3     That's how we managed to reduce the cost upon the state to a minimum.

 4     The resources of the army made it possible for the tasks to be

 5     accomplished.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I thank you for your time and your candour,

 7     General.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 9             Madam Carter.

10             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, in light of the numerous topics that

11     we've covered today, the Prosecution would request an early recess in

12     order for us to actually narrow down the number of exhibits that we were

13     going to show the witness as well as some of the topics that he has

14     covered has required a review of a number of new documents that I need to

15     undertake before I can adequately cross-examine the witness.  So we would

16     ask for an early break.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  This poses a bit of a procedural problem.  I

18     certainly would not in the first instance object to the notion of a --

19     excuse me, Your Honour, I apologise.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You don't seem to be well yourself, Mr. Guy-Smith.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I've been better.

22             I certainly would not object to an early termination of today's

23     proceedings, but Ms. Carter introduces a new issue and that is that "a

24     review of a number of documents that I need to undertake before I can

25     adequately cross-examine the witness."  If the Prosecution is presently

Page 13673

 1     in possession of documents that they intend to use, then I would

 2     appreciate that we receive that list now and that no new documents be

 3     added to that list because the procedure is such that we get a list of

 4     those documents that are going to be relied upon by the Prosecution at

 5     the time that they begin their cross-examination.  What will occur is we

 6     are now going to have a hiatus for some period of time which will change

 7     the nature of the procedure that's being used and I think constitutes an

 8     unfair advantage with regard to the cross-examination of this particular

 9     gentleman.

10             However, if what Ms. Carter is asking for an early break and she

11     can send to us those documents that they intend to use with the

12     cross-examination and we are limited to those documents, then I have no

13     objection to the idea that we proceed, otherwise I would take the

14     position that we should proceed with the cross-examination at this point,

15     at least start it because that will fix the procedural integrity of the

16     cross-examination.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, I'm not quite sure the Chamber is

18     aware of the kind of documents that Madam Carter is going to produce.

19     What Madam Carter is asking for at this stage is just an early

20     adjournment and if at the time when she begins her cross-examination she

21     comes with documents that the Defence is of the view that it needed

22     advance notice of and didn't get it, I guess the Defence would have

23     recourse to rules of procedure.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The difficulty is this, Your Honour:  Until

25     cross-examination starts, the documents are not sent to us.  They are

Page 13674

 1     sent to us by e-mail.  We'll have them immediately.  If Ms. Carter at

 2     this point would direct Ms. Javier to send us those documents identified

 3     for cross-examination, in event there are additional documents which are

 4     used tomorrow, then we are in a position to raise the very issue you are

 5     talking about.  Otherwise, we are not in a position to raise the issue

 6     because we have no idea what documents are going to be used because we

 7     haven't been given notice of those documents and wouldn't be until the

 8     cross-examination began.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Isn't that something that you can discuss with

10     Madam Carter?

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would prefer to have the formality of the list

12     sent to us, because once I have the list, then there won't be any --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But that formality sounds like something you can

14     discuss with Madam Carter outside court.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Technically I could, but if she says no -- and

16     she may actually say yes, but if she says no, then I'm left in the same

17     position I'm concerned about being in, which is why I'm raising the issue

18     now.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If she says no now, what can the Court do?

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Then I can say that I object to the idea of a

21     early termination and I suggest we proceed and use the additional 20

22     minutes that we have so we don't -- 25 minutes that we have so we don't

23     waste precious court time, at which point I would immediately get the

24     list and we would use that period of time.  I'm trying to reach some kind

25     of accommodation here, the accommodation being allowing her time to

Page 13675

 1     prepare in a fashion more than she would normally get as well as ensuring

 2     my client's rights that he has notice of that, which is going to be

 3     contemplated by the Prosecution being used.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Carter.

 5             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, first and foremost, I'd like to take

 6     this opportunity to discuss the procedure that Mr. Guy-Smith has just

 7     spoken to.  In respect to delivery of documents, it is a bit rich for

 8     that argument to be made with this specific witness.  We were entitled to

 9     the exhibit list for this witness on Thursday evening.  We didn't receive

10     the first list until late afternoon on Friday.  We received additional

11     documents later that day.  We received additional documents over the

12     course of the weekend.  So for Mr. Guy-Smith to stand here today and cast

13     aspersions, I find completely inappropriate.

14             Now, as to the documents that we have in hand, the documents that

15     I'm referring to, I do have a much bloated list for him because we had

16     to, to use a very home-spun phrase, shoot blind in many of the topics

17     because we had such a late start of actually having the exhibits from

18     this witness.  And on top of that, the documents that I'm looking for are

19     documents [indiscernible] that are already in our system, either on as

20     admitted exhibits or as exhibits that were on our 65 ter list that have

21     been brought to my attention from our investigators during the course of

22     these proceedings.

23             So I'm not seeking to bring in loads of material that the Defence

24     has not been able to see or would not have time to adequately prepare

25     for.  So I'm just merely asking to be able to tailor this examination in

Page 13676

 1     order to reserve court time for the things that are truly at issue.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Two things arise.  One is that I would appreciate

 3     Ms. Carter sending me the list, whatever it may be, bloated or otherwise;

 4     and second of all, and I'm normally not in a position where I spread my

 5     personal life on the record, but Ms. Carter is well aware of the fact

 6     that I have been hopitalised during this period of time right before this

 7     witness came and I apologised profusely then for the tardiness which was

 8     a result of my own personal indisposal.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, it does seem as if this whole question of

10     disclosing the list or not disclosing the list is an issue that is

11     usually regulated between the parties by the parties themselves.  It has

12     never been where, whenever the parties have come to the Court, the Court

13     has always encouraged the parties to settle it between themselves, and I

14     think I encourage the parties now to continue to do that.  There are a

15     number of issues that have been raised, there's a tit-for-tat argument

16     here and then there's the argument of hospitalization over which the

17     Trial Chamber will not be in a position to adjudicate or even resolve in

18     the next 15 minutes.  I think the only way we can do it is to grant the

19     early adjournment and the parties can discuss the matter amongst

20     themselves outside court and try to get the list, if they can get it, and

21     unbloat it if it's bloated, and do whatever is necessary.

22             Mr. Kadijevic, once again we haven't finished with you.  We need

23     you to come back tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning, same courtroom.  And

24     again you are being reminded not to discuss the case with anybody, least

25     of all the Defence counsel.  The court adjourns to tomorrow 9.00 in the

Page 13677

 1     morning, Courtroom II.

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.28 p.m.

 3                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day of

 4                           September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25