1 Tuesday, 19 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This is
9 case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. This is
11 Tuesday, and I welcome the Prosecution, our witness, and Mr. Seselj, as
12 well as everyone in and around the courtroom helping us.
13 Before moving on to the examination-in-chief, I would like to tell
14 everyone that the Judges consulted each other regarding tomorrow's
15 hearing. I told you at first that we would sit in the morning, but very
16 unfortunately the Prlic case is sitting in the morning on a Rule 98 bis
17 ruling at 9.00, and therefore the hearing cannot start as planned in the
18 morning, but we could sit as of 12.00, and that way we could end up a bit
19 earlier than expected. So the hearing will continue tomorrow, and we will
20 start at 12.00. So we'll sit from 12.00 to 1.30. We'll have a short
21 break, a short lunch break, and we'll resume at 2.00 or maybe 2.30 p.m.
22 And we will sit until about 5.00 or 5.30. I wanted to say this.
23 Secondly now. On Thursday we will have a hearing in the morning
24 as planned.
25 So this is the programme that we have devised.
1 I will now give the floor to Prosecution. However, Mr. Seselj,
2 you want the floor?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just have two short observations,
5 Mr. President, and I think it's better that I warn you in time to avoid
6 any problems with the beginning of the testimony. I'm talking about
7 VS-034, that witness, now, the Prosecution has not provided me with a
8 statement of the 8th of March 2005 of that witness in the Serbian
9 language. I have it in English but English means nothing to me. They
10 also provided me with previous three statements by that witness in
11 Serbian, so the 8th of March, 2005 statement is what I need in the Serbian
12 language urgently, and pursuant to the rules, I should have had that at
13 least one month before the -- that witness comes in to testify, but I
14 won't mind and won't be angry if you give it to me tomorrow or the day
15 after and secondly I'd like to draw your attention to the following:
16 Yesterday I received a supplement to the report of the expert witness
17 Reynaud Theunens, and on one page, however, it does say that this was
18 omitted by mistake earlier but it's very important. I mean if you take a
19 look at that you'll see just how important it is for my defence. Now, I
20 consider that this kind of practice on the part of the OTP should be
21 stopped. I received this yesterday, just yesterday, and the witness
22 started his testimony last week in this Trial Chamber within the
23 frameworks of the examination-in-chief. So I think that that is
24 absolutely impermissible.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, I'd like to tell
1 Prosecution that there are two items that are raised by Mr. Seselj, that
2 one is very simple. Obviously the translation of the statement of the
3 March 8, 2005 is missing in B/C/S. So I'm sure you'll be able to give him
4 this document very quickly, maybe in the minutes to come.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour, we'll look into the disclosure
6 issue of the statement, and I'll get back to you on this as soon as I have
7 an answer, but I'm sure that this is something that we can take care of
8 during the day.
9 As for the issue of the report, it is correct that over the
10 weekend I realised that there was a paragraph missing from the B/C/S
11 translation of the report. So on yesterday morning we had the relevant
12 part translated and provided to the accused.
13 What is missing was the conclusion by the expert. This
14 conclusion, though, as far as I can see, is also part of the summary part
15 of the statement. So it's not as if there's something completely new that
16 is being brought to the accused's attention.
17 It is obviously regrettable that these sort of things happen, but
18 I don't think there's any prejudice to the accused on this issue.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The conclusion that is at
20 what page in the English version, please, could you tell us?
21 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour. It -- the conclusion is
22 regarding the command and control structure of the SRS/SCP, and it is on
23 page -- for some reason I only remember the B/C/S version right now. It's
24 the page 151. Page 53 in part 2. The paragraph reads:
25 "The existence of these reports," and here it talks about certain
1 reports back and forth to the war staff, "The existence of these reports
2 and their degree of details suggests that the SRS War Staff, in addition
3 to" --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker kindly slow down, please.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, you're being asked by the
6 interpreters to slow down.
7 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'll start that paragraph over again in a proper
8 speed. Sorry. "The existence of these reports and their degree of detail
9 suggests that the SRS War Staff in addition to a command relationship also
10 maintains a reporting relationship with the SRS/SCP volunteers
11 participating in the conflict."
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So as Mr. Seselj
13 says, this is an important item, this conclusion drawn on page 53 of the
14 English version should have been translated into B/C/S. Obviously there's
15 been a glitch in the B/C/S -- in the translation department. And you
16 discovered that this weekend, is that it?
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour. As I said, the contents of this
18 paragraph is included in the summary session of the report. So I don't
19 think the accused has been -- has not been informed about this particular
20 conclusion of the expert, but of course the conclusion should also have
21 been in this part of the report. That's obvious.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, you've
23 heard what the Prosecutor just said. He discovered this fact himself. He
24 discovered that this paragraph had been skipped in the B/C/S translation,
25 and as soon as he found that out, of course, he told you about it.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecutor says
2 that this provision is to be found in the summary as well. Possibly it is
3 there. I'm not going to look through the summary now, but the summary has
4 general conclusions by the author of the report. So it is possible that
5 that conclusion is contained therein. But I must be provided with the
6 full and complete report. It would be the same thing if the Prosecutor
7 were to say to me I could have read that conclusion somewhere else, in
8 some earlier testimony by this witness, somewhere in the press, perhaps,
9 or in a registrar bulletin or whatever, but I need to have the complete
10 report, not to have to think about it myself, to see whether something in
11 the -- is in the resume but not in the text of the report, whereas now it
12 appears that it is contained in the text of the report.
13 Secondly, Mr. President, in this report we have -- or, rather, the
14 report was supplemented twice, two supplements. One part was secret and
15 confidential and I was told that I could only receive it one month prior
16 to trial and then there were two supplements, and then prior to the
17 testimony itself there were two corrections made to the report and a large
18 number of corrections in two acts -- two documents that I was supplied
19 with, which testifies to the lack of seriousness in which this report was
20 prepared and this testimony of the witness was prepared, and the fact that
21 this witness is not sufficiently prepared is elucidated by the fact that
22 he said a moment ago that this supplement refers to page 151 of the report
23 in the Serbian, whereas here it says that this refers to page 162.
24 So there you have it. A very simple mistake testifies to the lack
25 of seriousness in the proceedings, and I think that is impermissible. I
1 have absolutely no idea whether I have been provided with the complete
2 report of this expert witness or not or rather one report is for me other
3 type of report with the different contents is for the Trial Chamber and so
4 on and so forth. I don't know where I stand. I don't know where I stand
5 with respect to this report because there is so much chaos thanks to the
6 representative of the OTP over there.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The question the
8 Trial Chamber must keep in mind is the following: The fact that this
9 sentence was not translated into your language, did this create prejudice
10 as far as you're concerned. Well, I didn't know that you were going to
11 raise this question, but this morning I was looking into the comments that
12 you gave us regarding the report, comments made by General Bozidar Delic,
13 and on this matter General Delic made ample comments on the connection
14 that existed between the Serbian Radical Party and the Serbian volunteers
15 integrated into JNA units. The conclusion of the expert was discussed at
16 length about your own expert, and therefore during cross-examination you
17 will be able to come back to this question.
18 Of course it is of the essence and everybody understood this, so I
19 don't think there can be any prejudice here because this is a question of
20 the essence. You knew exactly there was going to be mentioned in the
21 expert's report by the Prosecution and through Judges' questions, and you
22 can take a look at the prior transcripts. I myself dealt with this
23 question on several occasions. So I don't -- so the fact that four lines
24 were not disclosed in due time is very regrettable, and you're very
25 justly -- you should raise this, but I -- it is not a great prejudice to
1 you. It's not detrimental to you, because you know this question inside
2 out because it's at the very core of the problem.
3 Now, regarding the Prosecutor, as you know, the Prosecution teams
4 have changed on several occasions. There's a new team coming in, and we
5 can't ask this new team to be, you know, as -- as ready as the other ones.
6 Of course the Prosecutor is one and indivisible, but when you come to a
7 new case, you can't ask someone -- the newcomer, you know, to know
8 everything right away from the blue.
9 And I think the Prosecutor just found this out over the weekend.
10 He could have not just mentioned it, but being very honest and very
11 transparent, he informed you.
12 I think at that settles it. Let's now continue with the
13 examination in chief and give the floor to Prosecution.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is a formal and
16 material side of the problem here. The formal side of the problem says
17 that the Prosecutor has made an impermissible great mistake and it's not
18 the only mistake with respect to this report and the testimony of this
20 Now, I'm not interested in who is personally responsible from the
21 Prosecution. The Prosecution, as far as I'm concerned, is an institution.
22 Whether there's Christine Dahl or some other person is immaterial as far
23 as I'm concerned. I'm criticising the Prosecution as a body because of
24 their impermissible actions. Now substantially and materially you're
25 saying I have been prejudiced. Well, let me tell you, Mr. President, that
1 I can examine this witness in cross-examination even if I had not received
2 a single letter of the report. I understand the material better than the
3 Prosecution expert witness, so there's no doubt that this will not prevent
4 me from cross-examining this witness. However, I don't think there's any
5 reason for seeking justification all the time for the representatives of
6 the OTP, of the Prosecution. There are many of them, many people in the
7 prosecution they have been preparing for this five years I have not been
8 preparing for this for five years I started preparing only when I was
9 provided with the evidence pursuant to 65 ter those exhibits and that was
10 in October. And you know full well that I received the report of this
11 witness late. So they had five years. I did not have five years. They
12 are muddling through it. I have not been muddling through anything thus
13 far. So that's the crux of the matter. And I'd like to ask you to force
14 the Prosecution to avoid making mistakes of that kind and to tackle this
15 job more seriously. As far as I'm concerned, I will do my job
16 successfully even if I don't receive any documents.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. What you have said
18 is now on the transcript. In order to make sure this problem does not
19 occur again, I would like Mr. Mundis to really double-check that
20 everything that was sent in English to be translated into B/C/S and the
21 other way around, you know, be there in order to make sure no problem
22 crops up again. But let me restate my position.
23 Disclosure between the two parties, between the Prosecutor and the
24 accused, if the -- if Judges here were able to control the disclosure of
25 documents, I think we wouldn't have this problem, but the problem was this
1 was not set up earlier. We should -- there is no system to check whether
2 the documents are correctly disclosed between the parties.
3 Of course if Judges had a role to play here they would have been
4 there to check that the report in English had been fully translated.
5 Unfortunately, this is not the avenue that had been adopted at the time,
6 and that is the way it is, and now we have to live with it. But it -- I
7 just hope at that everyone tries to solve this at their own level.
8 Mr. Marcussen.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks to the very
10 efficient assistance ever our case manager I'm able to inform Your Honours
11 that the statement that the accused mentions of 8th of March was disclosed
12 on the 7th of January by our receipt number 153. So the statement that
13 has been requested has actually been disclosed and we'll disclose it again
14 if that facility states matters.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: In a language the accused under stands.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which language.
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: [Previous translation continues] ... [overlapping
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that simply isn't
20 true. I was given that statement only in English, and as soon as it
21 arrived I gave it to my legal advisors and they looked through it
22 thoroughly. They established that there were three prior statements in
23 Serbian plus that one only in English. If the Prosecution has it in
24 Serbian, then the problem is they didn't give it to me in Serbian. I
25 think it is high time for you to instruct the Prosecution to never, ever
1 again give me anything in English. I keep writing to the OTP, to
2 Mrs. Christine Dahl, about this. Little time passes and then they again
3 give me something in English on all subjects. This time it was only in
4 English as well.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, in the receipt is
6 there B/C/S mentioned? We'll take a look, please.
7 Over here, please.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My colleague has the language a
10 little bit. It says that in this document there is no mention of the
11 month of March.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm not really sure, but on the
13 first line -- first line of the third paragraph I see "December." So
14 where is there a reference to the statement of March? Could you please
15 show me where this is stated?
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, the -- there are two -- these what we
17 call ERN numbers mentioned. There are two statements mentioned, and the
18 one that begins -- the second item that begins with B/C/S and then there's
19 a number correspond to the B/C/S translation of the statement in question.
20 And I'll try to have the statement itself printed out. Your Honours if --
21 Your Honours I have it here a B/C/S version of the statement and if you
22 compare the numbers you'll see this is what has been can give it to the
23 accused straight away so he has another copy of it.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, so there is a
25 reference number B/C/S 03630263, 03650268. And it seems that this figure
1 correspond to the B/C/S translation. I think the best is to hand it over
2 to Mr. Seselj.
3 Very well.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: And now that we have the usher on her feet, maybe
5 I could ask for the distribution of this.
6 Your Honours, we have prepared a little table of conversion of
7 page numbers because there are big differences between the page numbers of
8 Mr. Theunens' report in English and in the language of the accused. So
9 just for reference purposes, here's a little table that enable everyone to
10 cross-reference the two versions. And this -- and this version has been
11 also for future reference uploaded into e-court as 65 ter number 2854E,
12 like "Echo." So this is just to assist everyone hopefully.
13 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]
14 Examination by Mr. Marcussen: [Continued]
15 Q. Now, Mr. Theunens, last week we ended the examination on the issue
16 of the acceptance of volunteers by -- by various structures of the SFRY
17 and the Republic of Serbia, and you testified that volunteers were
18 supported by the MUP and the Ministry of Defence of Serbia.
19 Just to recapsulate, am I correct that basically the SFRY armed
20 forces came to accept the incorporation of volunteers and volunteer units
21 into its formations?
22 A. Indeed, Your Honours. What we see is that through these
23 decisions, 18th of August, 1991, Republic of Serbia decree on registration
24 of volunteers into the TO. Then in September 1991, an instruction from
25 the SSNO for the acceptance of volunteers into the JNA and then last but
1 not least the 10th of December order for the engagement of volunteers in
2 the SFRY armed forces during an imminent threat of war. And this was a
3 SFRY Presidency order.
4 So these decisions are intended to regularise the situation that
5 is already existing in the field both in order to ensure the subordination
6 of the volunteers to the SFRY armed forces as well as to regularise the
7 status of these volunteers, because by participating in the conflict, they
8 would be entitled to certain benefits, also compensation.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the three documents that the witness
10 has just referred to are included in binder 1 of the material that we have
11 received. They have Rule 65 ter number -- the first one has Rule 65 ter
12 number 438. The second one have 65 ter number 485, and the third one has
13 Exhibit number 7 -- sorry, 65 ter number 779.
14 The documents are described in detail in the expert's report, and
15 I would seek them admitted, but of course if Your Honours would like, we
16 can take a look at the documents. I'm a bit at Your Honours' disposal on
17 this issue. They are in -- it's about the middle of binder 1 you will
18 find these documents.
19 And maybe in e-court we could call up 65 ter number 438. It's
20 already up. Sorry.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have an objection.
22 I believe that each of these documents has to be identified clearly and
23 that the Prosecution expert has to say exactly what he thinks of each of
25 Speaking of the first one, 483, we see that it's a decree about
1 the inscription of volunteers into Territorial Defence. That's a decree
2 of the government of the Republic of Serbia. It has nothing to do -- it
3 can have nothing to do with the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party.
4 It refers to any volunteer who comes to the staff of Territorial Defence
5 and enrolls. All this has to be clarified with this witness. I cannot
6 waste time on it in cross-examination. It is the duty of the Prosecutor
7 to explain every document here.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Prosecution this document 483
9 what binder is it in.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: It is 438. If I said 483 then I was mistaken.
11 It's 438.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Marcussen, I've found
13 the document. It's a decree on the registration of volunteers in
14 Territorial Defence. The best would probably be to ask the witness
15 whether he knows this document. He can say, "Yes, I used it in -- to
16 prepare my expert report," and then you can ask for the document to be
17 admitted but, we need the witness -- in the minimum we need the witness to
18 tell us that he is aware of this document, that he knows this document.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN:
20 Q. Mr. Theunens, have you used this decree in your report?
21 A. Yes, Your Honours.
22 Q. And in brief what -- what does this document show?
23 A. This document starts with a short definition of the concept of
24 volunteers which is in line with what we discussed earlier. It also
25 explains then the procedure that will be applied to register these
1 volunteers, and there's no mention made of any party affiliation. So to
2 register these volunteers into the TO of the Republic of Serbia.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: And so, Your Honours, I'd like to --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One number, please.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number [overlapping
6 speakers] Your Honours, Exhibit Number P202. Thank you.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question, Witness. I do
8 not understand how in August 1991 registration could take place within the
9 TO. You said that right after that in September 1991 they were included
10 into the JNA. Then in December 1991, a few months later, they were --
11 there was the acceptance of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of
12 Yugoslavia. Therefore, I find these three decrees, these three documents,
13 rather strange.
14 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, in the preparation of this report, I
15 have tried to locate documents that would indicate to what extent this
16 first decree was being implemented or not, and I haven't found any
17 document to that effect. Now, that doesn't mean that such documents do
18 not exist. However, there may also be political reasons for this first
19 decree, because maybe it was an attempt by the authorities of the Republic
20 of Serbia to show that actually they stand behind the concept of
21 volunteers. What is strange then, as you have pointed out, that this
22 decree is adopted in August even though it is only in October that one of
23 the conditions for deployment of volunteers and for the registration of
24 volunteers is fulfilled; and I mean by that that it's only on the 3rd of
25 October, 1991, that the SFRY Presidency declares or observes the existence
1 of a state of immanent threat of war, whereas in Article 3 of the decree
2 we are discussing this conditions is explicitly discussed.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm listening to your
4 explanations and the questions put to you by my colleague and I'm having a
5 close look at this document signed on the 14th of August, 1991, and
6 following Article 2 I understand the following: Apparently people are
7 asked to register in the Territorial Defence if they have a special
8 status. By that I mean persons who do not have a military obligation.
9 And there's also an age-related condition that is applied here. We have
10 the age of 17 mentioned.
11 In this article we can see that the following persons can be
12 considered as volunteers. All men who are conscripts, and this applies to
13 both men and women but who do not have a specific assignment to a specific
14 unit. As a result, all those who have not been signed to a particular
15 unit may register with the Territorial Defence.
16 Witness, was that the system in place at the time? In other
17 words, were there registers at the Territorial Defence where volunteers
18 were registered if they fulfilled the conditions set out at Article 2.
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this decree only deals with the TO of
20 the Republic of Serbia. So it's not for the TOs of the whole SFRY. In
21 addition, the conditions you have read out are actually nothing more than
22 a -- than a further specification of the conditions that were explained in
23 Article 119 of the 1982 All People's Defence Law, which you can find in --
24 on page -- English page 9 of the report, meaning that volunteers are
25 people without military obligations.
1 Now, obviously people with military obligations, conscripts or
2 reservists, they would always be registered. Here we see an initiative to
3 register those who do not have military obligations.
4 I have not been able to determine whether this was, in military
5 terms --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me interrupt you. I'm
7 sorry, I do not agree with you. Please have a look at Article 2 of this
8 document. [In English] Conscription. [Interpretation] So here we have
9 registration of people subject to military conscription. By definition
10 these people are military people but they have not received any kind of
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. That is correct, Your Honour. I should have
13 been more specific. I was looking at it in the context of the
14 mobilisations that were ongoing and especially from the month of September
16 Yes, indeed we see an initiative to register those who have
17 basically not received wartime assignments in the JNA or who have no
18 military obligations any more.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're talking about an
20 initiative here, talking about this document, but let's assume for one
21 minute that this situation had prevailed before in the 1970s, in the
22 1980s, that automatically Territorial Defence units were supposed to have
23 registers where people -- whereby people were in a position to volunteer,
24 because before making statements, we have to make sure that this is a
25 unique situation. I am not in a position to check that, but you -- you
1 seem to be saying that this situation was out of the ordinary. But you
2 never know. This might have been something quite usual.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, based on the review I've done and I
4 mean the documents I've seen, this is an unusual situation, because there
5 was no requirement to register volunteers in the TO unless you do that in
6 view of your assessment of future developments where when a certain
7 situation arises where there is an urgent need for those volunteers that
8 you want as a pre-emptive move register them already before such a
9 development arises.
10 But again referring to Article 119 of the 1982 All People's
11 Defence Law, there is no information on the specific modalities for
12 registration or enrollment of volunteers into the armed forces. The
13 article specifies the three conditions but also says that in time of peace
14 volunteers can join the armed forces to participate in military exercises.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness, but here at the top
16 of this decree I see that mention is made to Article 2, item 2, and
17 Article 30, paragraph 1, on the law on the government of the Republic of
18 Serbia. Are you aware of that article? This decree has been passed as a
19 result of this law and of this paragraph apparently.
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I'm not familiar with the specific
21 details of the legal references you have mentioned but I would conclude --
22 I would assume that they deal with the formal aspects and the aspect to
23 issue this particular decree as defence matters are dealt with in the Law
24 on Defence of the Republic of Serbia.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we move on, I'd like to follow up on the
2 question put by Mr. Seselj in relation to the volunteers who were
3 registered with the Territorial Defence.
4 Do you know if any volunteers were seeking registration with the
5 TO by some sort of invitation from the political parties?
6 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have not come across such
7 information. The -- the role of -- actually, when political parties
8 become involved, it's they who are -- who are recruiting the volunteers.
9 But as we see --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Who is "they"?
11 THE WITNESS: Sorry, the political parties like the Serbian
12 Radical Party, the Serbian Renewal Movement. And what I've seen in such
13 documents I included in the report that in the case of the Serbian Radical
14 Party, there are contacts with the Serbian Ministry of Defence, for
15 example, to organise the payment of the volunteers.
16 As I mentioned earlier, the registration is -- is an important
17 legal measure, because if a volunteer goes somewhere in Croatia to
18 participate in the fighting, well, he has to quit his job or at least has
19 to be an arrangement with his job if he had a job. If he gets injured,
20 then there's to be some compensation. If he gets killed, well, maybe his
21 relatives are entitled to certain benefits, and without registration there
22 cannot be such benefits.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: True, but the issue is if you have any evidence of
24 the involvement of the political parties in the recruitment of volunteers
25 to the TO.
1 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honours. The documents I reviewed indicate
2 that the SRS volunteers or the volunteers that are being recruited by the
3 SRS are sent as separate, as they call it, detachments or groups to the
4 battlefield where they continue to have their own insignia or own
5 structure linking them to the Serbian Radical Party.
6 There are examples of JNA documents where they, for example,
7 mention that an SRS volunteer who was part of a JNA unit, apparently not a
8 separate detachment, was injured, but he's still identify as an SRS
9 volunteer, not as a volunteer or a recruit -- or a conscript.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: So are you saying that to the extent in which SRS
11 volunteers actually did register formally with the TO, they did so on an
12 individual basis? Is that what you're saying? So that we cannot see in
13 the registration whether any of the volunteers were linked somehow to the
14 political parties, including the SRS.
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the documents I have seen indicate
16 that SRS volunteers register with the SRS, with the political party.
17 Whether there was a subsequent registration with the Territorial Defence,
18 I cannot say because I haven't seen these documents.
19 The SRS, as is indicated in my report, keeps records of the
20 volunteers that have registered with them indicating or suggesting that
21 actually the SRS is doing the same thing as the recruitment officers or
22 registration officers would normally do.
23 As I mentioned, they are involved in the payment of the volunteers
24 in connection with the Serbian Ministry of Defence.
25 Now, I don't want to complicate matters, but some of these
1 volunteers when they are sent to the battlefield they become part of the
2 local Serb Territorial Defence. So in addition to the detachments I
3 mentioned in -- in my previous reply, when we look at Western Slavonia, we
4 see that local Serb TO in Western Slavonia, in the various areas, actually
5 consist to -- to a certain large or small extent of SRS volunteers who are
6 then considered members of the local Serb TO.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think we should leave it to the Prosecution to
8 continue now. Thanks.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN:
10 Q. I don't know if it is -- sorry?
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Before I give the floor
12 to Mr. Marcussen, I have an additional question.
13 You have a theory about these groups of volunteers, these grouped
14 volunteers. I'm not going to go into your theories. I'm just looking at
15 the document. And if I look at this document, what do I see? I see that
16 this decree of the 14th of August, 1991, no mention is ever made of the
17 involvement of political parties. There of could been an additional
18 article, Article 10 or Article X stating that as part of this registration
19 of volunteers political parties are invited to send their volunteers, and
20 nothing of the kind can be found in this document.
21 But if you have a look at this document, at the end of the
22 document you find that there is a form here at the end for the
23 registration of a volunteer with the date of birth, the place of
24 residence, the identity card number, and then the volunteer's supposed to
25 write in the date and to sign this form.
1 We are talking, therefore, about individual registration and not
2 of grouped -- group registration. At no point in this document is there a
3 mention of a political party, of a group-type registration. I'm sure
4 you've seen this document at the end, this sort of form at the end.
5 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours. To start with the last part
6 your comment, it is -- as I mentioned, I think, last week, it is only in
7 the SFRY Presidency order of the 10th of December that mention is made of
8 volunteer formations. And it's obviously also a correct observation of
9 the Presiding Judge that this decree does not make mention of political
10 parties. But if you allow me, I would like to draw your attention to page
11 53, English page 53 in part 2 of the report. This is in the section where
12 I discuss the activities of the SRS War Staff, in particular the relations
13 the SRS War Staff maintains with its volunteers.
14 In the middle of the page there is a title 5: "Record-keeping by
15 the SRS War Staff on SRS/SCP volunteers." And I quote Mr. Seselj there
16 from an interview he gives in November 1991, which is actually included in
17 one of his books published in 1993, and the actual interview corresponds
18 with 65 ter number 750, and there Mr. Seselj says:
19 "We keep a neat record of all those who have been sent to the
20 battlefield, of how long they stayed on the battlefield, under which
21 circumstances, and which battles they participated in, and all the rest."
22 So basically we see that the Serbian Radical Party is doing
23 similar activities as according to the decree we were discussing should
24 normally have been done by the authorities, by the Ministry of Defence or
25 its subordinate officers all over the territory of the Republic of Serbia.
1 On the next page, English page 54, I have shown -- I have included
2 certain certificates that were issued by the Radical Party or the War
3 Staff to volunteers, to SRS volunteers.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Marcussen.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Theunens, just to maybe clarify the terminology. When you
7 talk about recruitment and registration, what exactly do you mean?
8 A. I mean by that that the procedure to -- when a person who declares
9 himself a volunteer presents himself, that he is registered into -- as far
10 as the decree is concerned into the TO of the Republic of Serbia. So as
11 the Presiding Judge mentioned, certain information will be taken. There
12 will also be certain checks to see whether the person has a criminal
13 record or not, medical checks to see which military duties the volunteer
14 can carry out or not and so on and so on, and then a file is constituted
15 which will then serve in order it assign this volunteer once he has been
16 accepted, to assign him to a particular unit where there is a requirement
17 for manpower on an individual basis.
18 Q. And would I be correct in suggesting that you are saying that that
19 is different from the issue of the deployment of the volunteers and their
20 resubordination maybe to various JNA units or their deployment under a TO
21 in some region?
22 A. Indeed, Your Honours. This is -- the deployment is the next step,
23 and following from my previous answer, using SFRY legislation as the basis
24 for my reply, volunteers would, after registration, be deployed to units
25 where that is need for such individuals. For example, if there is an
1 artillery unit which has a lack of -- of gunners, well -- and we see we
2 have a number of people who volunteer and they have the right background
3 and they have the right military training, they will be sent to that
4 artillery unit then.
5 One element I didn't mention is between the registration and the
6 deployment there can also be training -- or there should be training and
7 that will depend of the experience of the particular volunteer and also
8 the requirements of the units to which this particular volunteer or --
9 will be sent.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, if we could then briefly look at the next
11 exhibit, which is 65 ter number 485. This is an instruction on accepting
12 volunteers into the Yugoslav national army, JNA from the federal
13 secretariat for national defence. This document is cited or quoted in
14 extenso in part 1, page 89 of the expert report. That will be page 94 in
16 Mr. Theunens, very briefly what -- what role does this document
17 play in your report?
18 A. I have included this instruction, Your Honours, for the same
19 reasons that I have included the decree of the government of the Republic
20 of Serbia with the difference that here we're talking about the acceptance
21 of volunteers into the JNA. The instruction then mentions the conditions,
22 I mean, defines volunteers and mentions the conditions under which
23 volunteers can be accepted and also describes the procedure that will be
24 applied between when the moment that the volunteer presents himself to a
25 recruitment office and the moment of his deployment.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN: And, Your Honours, I'd like to ask for an exhibit
2 number for this. I ask this be admitted into evidence.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P203.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN:
5 Q. And now the third document that we talked about, 65 ter number 779
6 is referred to part 1 of the expert report page 92 and that will be in
7 B/C/S page 96.
8 Mr. Theunens, I believe that in your report you point out a change
9 in -- in the status of volunteers in this particular document. Could you
10 briefly explain us what -- why that document is significant?
11 A. This document is significant, Your Honours, because it is the
12 first document, or the first legal document that mentions the concept of
13 volunteer formations and that is done in paragraph or Article 7 of the
14 order. And even if I -- if I can read it out, it talks about volunteer
15 formations currently engaged outside the armed forces which as I commented
16 in the report is --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, sorry for interrupting,
18 but I do not agree with you, because in the decree dated 14th of August,
19 1991, it was stated that in peacetime it was possible to organise
20 formations and to conduct exercises together with the army. Therefore,
21 what you've just said is completely contrary to what we see in the decree
22 of the 14th of August, 1991, where such formations were already provided
23 for. It is provided for at Article 3, penultimate paragraph of Article 3.
24 In peacetime.
25 THE WITNESS: Maybe -- maybe there's a translation issue, Your
1 Honours, but as I read Article 3 of the August 1991 decree, it states --
2 it states that in peacetime and for training purposes persons from Article
3 2 of this decree can voluntarily join the military manoeuvres and other
4 forms of training of the units, headquarters, and institutions of
5 Territorial Defence.
6 The reference to units here is to units of the Territorial
7 Defence, whereas in the 10th of December residency order mention is made
8 of volunteer formations engaged outside the armed forces. The TO is one
9 of the two components of the SFRY armed forces.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, quite so. You're right.
11 But in terms of training, in terms of formation, as of the month of August
12 any volunteer, whether belonging to the JNA or the TO of the federal army,
13 that volunteer had the possibility of receiving training. That's what I
14 wanted to outline, to stress.
15 Yes. Please proceed.
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to tender 65
17 ter number 779.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P204.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I'd now like to move on to --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. At this
21 stage of the presentation of your case I have one question in order to
22 avoid any confusion.
23 At the time, Witness, one could be a volunteer with the TO, with
24 the JNA, or with the federal army; is that correct? And the federal army
25 was the JNA, of course.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, and that was actually what was
2 already explained in Article 119 of the 1982 All People's Defence Law.
3 However, as paragraph 7 of this December 1991 SFRY Presidency order shows,
4 there is actually a third option that exists, namely volunteer formations
5 currently engaged outside the armed forces. And the article continues:
6 "They are carrying out certain military assignments."
7 The next paragraph of Article 7 supports the conclusion that in
8 addition to volunteers in the JNA and the TO, we have also other
9 volunteers, because at second paragraph states that all individuals and
10 volunteer formations not included in the armed forces of the SFRY, in the
11 manner defined this order, shall be removed from the territory, and then
12 it's further explained which territory.
13 I would also like to draw your attention to paragraph 8 of that
14 order, the SFRY Presidency order of 10th of December, which states that:
15 "Lawful measures will be taken against persons found wearing
16 uniforms and insignia of members of the SFRY armed forces who have not
17 joined the armed forces of the SFRY in a way defined by law or regulated
18 their position in accordance with this order."
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as you're concerned, who
20 are these volunteers who are outside? Who are these people?
21 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honours, these are the people who are
22 actually discussed in -- further on in this -- or a bit earlier in this
23 section. These are namely people who are part of other formations,
24 sometimes -- I mean, some are called Serbian guard. Others are called --
25 call themselves Chetniks detachment. There is a group that calls itself
1 Dusan Silni. There are also groups known as Arkan Tigers or Dragan's men.
2 So various groups who are present on -- in the conflict zone and carry out
3 certain operations there.
4 Most of them are subordinated to the JNA, but from the documents
5 one can see at that there are sometimes problems with this subordination,
6 and even when these groups are formally subordinated to the JNA, they may
7 pursue their own agenda.
8 Just to finalise, in the report I also explain that people like
9 Arkan and Dragan, and that starts on page 80, English page 80, part 1 of
10 the report, Arkan and Dragan they based on information intelligence
11 collected by the military security organs enjoy particular relations with
12 the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia at the time of the
13 events described in the report.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I've understood you
15 correctly, these volunteer formations that are not part of the Serbian
16 armed forces, these would be paramilitary units.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour if you define paramilitary units by
18 units not foreseen in the law but who are carrying out military activities
19 and who are organised in military fashion, then I agree with you.
20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] These formations are operating in
21 non-compliance with this law. In other words, in an illegal fashion if we
22 bear in mind this order.
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it's important to take into account
24 that this order dates from the 10th of December, which is when you look at
25 the context of the conflict fairly late.
1 I remember from the testimony of General Vasiljevic in the
2 Milosevic trial that when he visited the Vukovar battlefield in November
3 he noticed some of these groups, and he was the chief of the security
4 administration within the SSNO, he felt the need to do something about it
5 so he wrote a document to the federal secretary for People's Defence,
6 Kadijevic, who then forwarded the information to the SFRY Presidency in
7 order to have something done about the situation. And that can explain
8 that this order is fairly late, 10th of December. So it can only have
9 effect for the future.
10 And as you see in paragraph 7, the last line that the order takes
11 effect within ten days of the order taking -- sorry, I mean paragraph 7
12 has to be complied with within ten days after the order coming into
13 effect, and the order comes into effect on the 10th of December, 1991.
14 So the order cannot address the situation that existed before, but
15 the fact that this is -- aspect is explicitly mentioned in the order
16 indicates that there was a problem. I mean, the aspect of volunteer
17 formations operating outside the SFRY armed forces.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is an essential issue we
19 are discussing. This text which is dated of December 1991, you seem to
20 establish a connection between this document and the Vukovar events, and
21 on listening to you I was wondering whether this was not a way of
22 regulating with hindsight the existence of some of the units that had been
23 on the battlefield.
24 So you are the expert. As far as regulating the presence of
25 paramilitary units, what is your feeling about this?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I agree with you. That is
2 exactly the measure that has been taken.
3 I was browsing through my report for -- there's a famous -- or it
4 became famous, a letter by the assistant commander for morale of the 1st
5 Proletarian Guards Mechanised Division, which was a unit which was active
6 in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem south of Vukovar and their Colonel
7 Eremija, the letter dates from October talks about crimes committed by for
8 example Dusan Silni as well as other groups, and in his letter, Eremija
9 suggests or asks the government of the Republic of Serbia as well as the
10 military authorities to act against such groups. So this again indicates
11 that there were groups operating which were not subordinated or at least
12 which even when they were subordinated or admitted by the JNA commander in
13 the area who is responsible then for his own responsibility and who
14 committed crimes and there was a lack of action in that situation.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, in military terms the scope
16 of Article 7, does this not mean that these volunteer formations that were
17 paramilitary unit are as of the date of this order placed under the
18 control of the JNA?
19 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour, but if you allow me, I
20 will clarify. During operations each commander has his zone of
21 responsibility as the term explains he is responsible for what's happening
22 in that area and in the JNA it was called zone of operations but its the
23 same concept. So the commander is the only one who can issue orders, and
24 he's -- as I said, he's responsible.
25 Now, if there are formations in that zone which are not
1 subordinated to him, he has to take measures to subordinate them, which is
2 also explained in this order, or to remove them, but he cannot allow that
3 there are groups active there doing certain things whereby these groups
4 are not subordinated to him because that creates chaos.
5 So to answer your question, at the latest, ten days after the 10th
6 of December, all volunteer formations have to be subordinated to the JNA
7 or they have to be removed.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, thank you. I propose now to move to
9 a different topic, namely --
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Before you move on to
11 another topic, I would like to know whether the Arkan's and Dragan's
12 volunteers, according to your knowledge, after December 1991, whether
13 these units were placed under the JNA or the Yugoslav armed forces.
14 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the activities of the Arkan volunteers
15 or Arkan's Tigers, also known as the Serbian Volunteer Guard, are
16 explained in the section on Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem in part 2
17 of the report, as well in the section on volunteers we are discussing, and
18 as far as Arkan is concerned --
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Given that we don't know whether
20 we are going to admit the report into evidence, could you please explain
21 this to us.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. So Arkan's volunteers or the
23 Serbian Volunteer Guard are active in the zone of responsibility of
24 operation group north in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, which is the
25 area north of the Vuka river by the Vuka cuts Vukovar in two parts. From
1 the information given by the commander of the 1st Military District was
2 the overall commander in the area, both of Operational Group north as well
3 as operational group south. He stated that everybody, including Arkan's
4 Serbian Volunteer Guard were subordinated to him.
5 However, on the lower level, and I've quoted a number of reports
6 by security organs of the JNA, there were sometimes problems between JNA
7 units in the area and Arkan where -- whereby, for example, these
8 lower-level security organs say, "Look. Arkan has no respect for the JNA.
9 He's committing crimes. He's involved in smuggling and looting, and we
10 have no control."
11 I've also quoted in the report an excerpt from a statement
12 General Andrija Biorcevic, the commander of the 12th Novi Sad Corps and
13 the commander of OG North; for the transcript 12th Novi Sad Corps, and
14 commander of OG north, made in January 1992 for the local TV where he
15 said, and I'm paraphrasing him, he said:
16 "Some people call the Arkan Tigers paramilitaries." He then says
17 these are not paramilitaries. They are actually good soldiers because
18 they continue when other soldiers refuse to carry on. And then so he says
19 we first show the area, and then the Arkan Tigers enter in order to kill
20 those who do not wish to surrender.
21 For what Dragan is concerned, Dragan had a training centre it or
22 established a training centre in Golubic, which is near Knin, and that's
23 in a totally different part of Croatia. It's in the Krajina. A training
24 centre where members of the police of Mr. Martic were trained.
25 According to a document I included in my report, the security
1 administration of the SSNO had intelligence that this camp -- or that
2 Dragan was supported by Jovica Stanisic and Frenki Simatovic who were two
3 senior officials of the state security of the Republic of Serbia in
4 establishing and managing organising that training centre. And this
5 document is 65 ter number 457, which you can find on page 80, part 1 of
6 the report, English page 80.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness. Now, when you
9 answered this question, you raise another issue.
10 Captain Dragan, who seemingly was in contact with Simatovic and
11 Stanisic. These people are in fact working for the Ministry of the
12 Interior, not for the Ministry of Defence. With this text we have in
13 front us, the armed forces are mentioned, the armed forces of the federal
14 republic. Do these armed forces also include the units of the MUP? And
15 if that is the case, who is the Supreme Commander?
16 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours. I understand the question.
17 Your question is basically answered by Article 104 of the 1982 All
18 People's Defence Law which you can find on page 10 of part 1 of the report
19 when I discuss the participation of the police in combat operations, and
20 the article, I summarise it, states that if in one of the three states, so
21 the police is carrying out military tasks for the armed forces, they were
22 placed under the authorised officer who direction military activities.
23 And that would be in most cases a JNA officer.
24 Now, the law is of course a de jure -- addresses the de jure
25 situation. The unit of Dragan or Arkan, these are obviously de facto
1 units, but we see -- and that's also something I have tried to show
2 throughout the report, that efforts are undertaken to legalise a de facto
3 situation when this de facto situation does not correspond which what has
4 been foreseen by the -- in the de jure context.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Marcussen, I really apologise for this, but
6 could you elicit from the witness, and I'll leave it to you, then, to tell
7 us whether the December order was effectively implemented vis-a-vis the
8 volunteer groups outside the armed forces? I think this was the crux of
9 Judge Lattanzi's question also, but I'm not sure of the answer that the
10 witness gave.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour. We will -- we will come back
12 to the situation in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in more detail later
14 Q. But I do think it is a good idea, maybe, Mr. Theunens, if you
15 could answer in brief this question. Based on the material you have
16 reviewed from the conflict in Croatia and in Bosnia, were this December
17 decree actually implemented?
18 A. Your Honours, for what Croatia is concerned I can be brief because
19 the conflict was more or less finished by then. I have seen one document
20 which is the western Slavonia section which covers the situation in
21 December in the area where the JNA commander in the area says, "Look, the
22 volunteers were not part of my formation." I haven't seen a second
23 document to counter that.
24 For what Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned, I can maybe reply with
25 one example, Bijeljina, when Arkan Tigers participated in the takeover the
1 city, the JNA corps commander of the 17th Corps rights in his report to
2 his superiors that Arkan does not allow the JNA tanks to enter the city,
3 so this would suggest or this indicated actually the order was not
4 implemented in Bijeljina. I apologise if I'm sometimes a bit extensive
5 but ...
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, Mr. Theunens mentioned in one of his
7 answers Exhibit number 65 ter number 457. I wondered whether we should
8 maybe admit that into evidence now that he's described that so Your
9 Honours can consult it when reviewing the record later on.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Exhibit 457. Don't we
11 have it?
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Sorry, this particular document was not selected
13 for the bundle of material that was included for the examination. As Your
14 Honours know, there are about 400 documents cited in the report and we
15 have selected around hundred just to make the exercise manageable.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But we can perhaps see it on the
17 screen, actually.
18 Yes, it's this one.
19 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Theunens --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 MR. MARCUSSEN:
23 Q. -- is this the document that you refer to?
24 A. Yes, it is, Your Honours. And if you go to the end, for example,
25 you will see the address list. So the last page. Just to show that it
1 was a document compiled at -- bit security organs at the SSNO, and it is
2 only released to very few people. So it says signed by Colonel Boskovic.
3 His title is indicated on the document and it's sent to army
4 General Kadijevic, and then there are six additional copies, which
5 looking -- I mean from the reliability of the source and the credibility
6 of the information, it is indeed an intelligence report, but before
7 information is sent to actually the highest, to the highest military
8 official, Kadijevic, the people who compiled the report have done their
9 checks and therefore I would consider this a reliable -- a -- the
10 information included in the report as credible.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One question regarding this
12 document. This document is addressed to General Kadijevic, and this
13 document mentions Captain Dragan, who seemingly would be Australian and
14 talk -- discusses his connections with the MUP. This is the conclusion --
15 what the conclusion of this document states.
16 I would rightfully have a question on this issue. If
17 Captain Dragan was part of the JNA or placed under the control of the JNA,
18 how is it that in the army reports are drafted about him?
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, first a short clarification. The title
20 or the name Captain Dragan is -- was something that was kind of invented.
21 He was never a captain. His real name was Dragan Vasiljkovic, and if I
22 remember well, he was a non-commissioned officer, a sergeant; but it
23 sounded better for the media like to have the title Captain Dragan so it's
24 just a title that he used, and he was allowed to use that by the people
25 who controlled him.
1 This dates from August 1991. At that moment -- for that time
2 period I haven't seen any information indicating that Dragan was under the
3 control or part of the armed forces. Actually, the documents shows that
4 Dragan has close relations with senior officials of the state security of
5 the Republic of Serbia, Stanisic and Simatovic, and also -- and that's
6 maybe something we will see with other documents.
7 The situation as it develops between summer 1991 and December 1991
8 there are more if I can call it that way de facto elements, and it seems
9 that at the same time that, for example, Arkan is being subordinated to OG
10 north and actually praised by the commander of OG north, Bejocevic,
11 members of security organs of subordinate units of OG north are compiling
12 reports highlighting actually the bad things Arkan does. So because of
13 this de facto nature of the situation it is difficult to draw one line in,
14 for example, the reporting that is being done.
15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have an objection
18 to placing this document among the exhibits.
19 First of all, this document shows that Captain Dragan did not form
20 the centre for training at Golubic, and the witness said that it was
21 established by Captain Dragan. You heard him say that a moment ago. The
22 document shows that Captain Dragan was engaged as an instructor in the
23 centre now the Prosecution has many documents where we see that the
24 training centre in Golubic was established by the police of the Serbian
25 Krajina. It's the police centre for training police training centre.
1 Secondly, this is a document of military security which no court
2 in Yugoslavia or in Serbia would recognise as a piece of evidence, as an
3 exhibit. This document -- by this document a struggle is being waged
4 against the police of Serbia because of the rivalry between two security
5 structures, the civilian and the military; and the Prosecution has these
6 documents, and they provided me with them; but I can't bring them all in
7 with me. The Prosecution has documents showing that Captain Dragan was
8 under the operative processing of the state security services of Serbia
9 from which we can see that Klara Mandic brought him and we can see that
10 Carla Mandic was suspected of being a Mossad spy in Belgrade. The
11 Prosecutor has that. Ask the Prosecutor to confirm or deny that, so if he
12 is presenting police documents, then the military security documents of
13 the military ones and civilian ones must be shown because we have a war
14 here between two security structures in which all foul play is allowed and
15 you will find documents where the military service suspects me of
16 collaborating with the civilian service and vice versa. The civilian
17 thinks I'm working with the military whereas I was processed by both those
18 services and the Prosecution has documents which show this, so I'm in
19 principle against any document of the security service being entered into
20 evidence because they are unreliable extremely so; and the military
21 security service was most intensively under the control of the League of
22 Communists, the movement for Yugoslavia, the generals party.
23 So this witness is not taking that into account and the situation
24 is highly complex. These are complicated matters.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this document, you have
1 examined this document as part of your expert report; is that right?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours. It's included on page 80. And
3 on page 81, I -- just to corroborate the information included in this
4 report, at least the information on the links between Dragan and the state
5 security of the Republic of Serbia I have included a letter Dragan sent on
6 the 8th of November to the command of the TO, the Republic of Serbia,
7 which is 65 ter number 7148, and in that letter Dragan states that he has
8 obligations towards the state security of the Republic of Serbia.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. To your knowledge
10 between the military security service and the civilian security services
11 was there a clash?
12 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have not studied that issue while
13 preparing the report. It is true through the course of 1991 but mainly in
14 1992, a conflict arises between, let's say, the Ministry of Interior of
15 the Republic of Serbia on one hand and the armed forces on the other hand
16 because in very simple terms, Mr. Milosevic, as the president of the
17 Republic of Serbia and his de facto powers is reinforcing the Ministry of
18 the Interior of the Republic of Serbia to the detriment of the armed
19 forces. And also certain senior generals who still believed in Yugoslavia
20 actually noticed that Milosevic, while executing his de facto powers, is
21 not necessarily pursuing the same goals, i.e., maintaining Yugoslavia, but
22 was pursuing other goals, but this is really very simple overview of a
23 very complex situation.
24 But again, I do not think at that an alleged conflict between the
25 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia and the state -- excuse me,
1 the military intelligence security services had any influence on the
2 contents of this report or orders I included in my report.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could we have a
4 number, please, exhibit number for this document.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Exhibit number P205.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In addition to the admission of
7 this exhibit, I would like to provide the following personal view: This
8 document is challenged by Mr. Seselj, but as far as I'm concerned, I can
9 see that this document has indications of reliability. This was signed by
10 someone whom one can identify. This person was part of the internal
11 services security services of the army. The addressee is
12 General Kadijevic. And furthermore, this document provides data and names
13 which are at -- at the heart of these proceedings, Mr. Babic,
14 Mr. Milosevic, Captain Dragan, which -- whose part he played in these
15 events will be mentioned again. The War Staff. So all these items are in
16 favour of the admission of this document. I find this relevant, but the
17 probative value of this document will be assessed once the Trial Chamber
18 has all the elements at hand.
19 This is what I wished to say to avoid spending too much time on
20 objections that could be repeated in the future. It is important to be
21 aware of the fact when the document does have signs of reliability, there
22 is no point of -- no point in dismissing the document.
23 It's now time to have the break. We shall have a 20-minute break.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's resume, and I
2 give the floor to the Prosecution.
3 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. I would like now to move to the issue of the SRS/SCP. So that
5 will be item 4 in the outline that I handed out last week.
6 Mr. Theunens, in your binder you have 65 ter number 1990. And
7 maybe we could call that up on the screen as well. That is the 1994
8 statute of the Serb Radical Party, Serbian Radical Party. You quote
9 Article 3 of this statute in part 2, page 30, B/C/S page 133, of your
10 report. And as the -- as the mission of the SRS, now, this particular
11 provision is from the 1994 statute. My question is based on the material
12 you have reviewed, have you formed an opinion about whether or not the
13 aims were the same prior to this statute?
14 A. Your Honours, formally when looking at the 1991 statute, these
15 aims were not the same; but in practice when looking at the role of the
16 Radical Party in the volunteers and the -- the goals these volunteers were
17 pursuing as well as the speeches of Mr. Seselj, I would conclude that the
18 goals as listed in the 1994 statute also existed in practice in 1991 and
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I would like to request the
21 admission of 65 ter 1990.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit P206.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But I have a question,
24 expert, please. I was quite interested by the symbols of the party on
25 Article 6 and 7 where we note that there is a flag that's 2 by 1 metres,
1 that there's even a anthem, Tomo Daleko, and there are symbols.
2 So among all these documents that you studied for these -- the
3 volunteers that are in the TO and the JNA and the so on, could you tell us
4 whether they had these symbols with them? Were there any banners? Did
5 they sing their anthem? Because if we assume there is a strong connection
6 between these volunteers and the party, then all the more. So forth fact
7 that this would be apparent in the unit, which is why I'm asking you the
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, in the report there are several
10 documents included where JNA officers complain that the volunteers do not
11 accept the uniform and more specifically, the five-pointed star because
12 it's considered a symbol of Communism, and that volunteers, in particular
13 SRS volunteers prefer to wear their own uniform and carry their own
14 symbols. Now I have not been able to establish whether the symbols worn
15 by the SRS volunteers were exactly the same ones as are described in
16 Article 7. There is no uniformity in the symbols that are worn by the
17 volunteers, in particular SRS volunteers. Some will wear the kokarda, the
18 insignia. Come will have the fur hat, others not. Some come with a
19 camouflage uniform which kind of looks like a camouflaged JNA uniform,
20 others not. So it's very heterogenous.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the witness also mentioned the 1991
23 statute of the SRS. It is the next tab in your binder and as the witness
24 mentioned it has 65 ter number 169. I was not intending to really go into
25 this document with the witness, but I was going to suggest that it be
1 admitted into evidence nonetheless for future reference on this point.
2 It's referred to in the report, of course, at page 30 or 133.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This document 169, did you look
4 into it when drafting your report?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes -- yes, Your Honour, but I haven't included it
6 in the report.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but you did look into it.
8 Therefore could we have a number please, Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P207.
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the next series of exhibits in your
11 binders that I'm going to go through I would like to request that we deal
12 with in private session. On the 2nd of October, 2006, Trial Chamber I
13 rendered a decision on Prosecution's motion concerning filing of expert
14 report with confidential annex and ex parte annexes. The decision granted
15 the prosecution, the late disclosure of Mr. Theunens' report and also held
16 that the report, if admitted should be filed under seal, the unredacted
17 report should be filed under seal, and the public will only have access to
18 a redacted version of the report. That is because a lot of the material
19 referred to comes from sensitive sources and the documents that I'm going
20 to go through are going to come -- are the same documents.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This deals with the witnesses
22 that have been granted protective measures or documents for which -- that
23 come under Rule 70, is that it?
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: They are witnesses who have protective measures in
25 this case indeed, and, yes, the documents have been sensitive and there is
1 a concern that revealing to the public the source of these documents could
2 put them in danger.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Then we want to deal
4 with this now. So let's move to private session for a few minutes.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 3773-3782 redacted. Private session
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are in open session. Please
5 ask your question to the witness, Mr. Marcussen.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN:
7 Q. Mr. Theunens, could you explain to us what this document is? Who
8 is it from, for a start?
9 A. Your Honours, that is document from the command of the 1st
10 military district. If we could move to the last page we could see who
11 signed it, but --
12 Q. We can take a look at that. And what -- what is the contents of
13 this document?
14 A. The contents of the document actually it's the assistant commander
15 for morale and legal affairs or the 1st Military District who informs the
16 subordinate units of the 1st Military District command of the military
17 implications of the establishment of the state of imminent threat of war
18 by the SFRY Presidency and this decision is mentioned in the first
19 paragraph of the document on page 1.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, could we go back to page 1, please.
21 A. First paragraph. So the decision of the SFRY Presidency of 03
22 October 1991 establish the existence of an imminent threat of war --
23 imminent or immediate threat of war in the country, and so on.
24 Q. And the particular report is the same -- or the information is
25 sent out on the 7th of October.
1 A. Exactly.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'd like to tender that into evidence, please.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours -- Your Honours, Exhibit number P209.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: And for the reasons already mentioned, we'll then
5 need to go back into private session for the continuation of the
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One comment before we do so.
8 This document is dated October 7. The proclamation of the immediate
9 threat of war, dated from the 3rd of October, 1991, and so far we haven't
10 seen that document, have we?
11 THE WITNESS: No, we haven't, Your Honours. I'm just looking
12 whether I quoted it in my report, but I -- no, I --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a vital document. It's a
14 document that lays at the very heart of this issue.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since we don't have this in the
16 binder, I demand that the Prosecution give me that document immediately in
17 Serbian. I can't just look for it in my cell. The Prosecution is
18 duty-bound to deliver in binders all the documents they intend to handle
19 in cross -- in their examination-in-chief.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could your case manager look for
21 this document, document of October 3rd, 1991? It should be there
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, two things. One, we will provide
24 the accused with a printout of the document we're seeing on the screen.
25 Two, we will see if we have this document -- I mean, the
1 Prosecution doesn't have every single military document that have been
2 issued, so I'm not sure whether we actually have that document in our
3 evidence collection; but we'll make an effort to see if we can find it
4 and --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We'll hand over this
6 document to Mr. Seselj right now.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And one more thing, Mr. President.
8 I know for certain that the Prosecution has the set of documents of the
9 SFRY Official Gazettes of 1991 and the decision to proclaim a state of
10 imminent -- an emergency threat of war. It was probably published in the
11 Official Gazette and they have it all if they take the trouble to find it.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You should have it.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'm grateful to the accused for his assistance in
14 this matter.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We'll receive this
16 document later.
17 Let's go back into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 3786-3797 redacted. Private session
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
14 MR. MARCUSSEN: What I presuppose to do, Your Honours, is I will
15 adjust my examination so that we try not to reveal any confidential
16 details about this so we avoid going in and out of private session, which
17 means it will be a little more rudimentary what I will do with the
18 documents, but maybe as these documents are described elsewhere we can
19 proceed in this manner. And to ensure the confidentiality, the documents
20 themselves, I believe, are not going to be broadcast. Thank you.
21 Q. Mr. Theunens, is this a document you referred to in your report?
22 A. Yes, Your Honours, I do, on page 36 in the second part of the
24 Q. And am I correct in stating that this document illustrates a
25 change in the composition of the War Staff in December 1991?
1 A. Actually, Your Honours, the document provides an overview of the
2 members of the War Staff, whereby it also includes information on the, if
3 I can call it that way, the peacetime occupations of the members, their
4 position in the War Staff, as well as their participation in the conflict,
5 more specifically in Croatia, if there is such participation.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, objection. Where
7 does it say here that this is a list of the War Staff, a document of the
8 War Staff? It just says "List" here.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the title is "List."
10 There's nothing else.
11 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours, but when you go through
12 the document you will see that at the end of each paragraph where the
13 duties of the various people are explained, it says for the first
14 person "Chief of the War Staff," the second, "Deputy chief of the War
15 Staff," and I can continue. So for various people, in total nine
16 individuals, it mentions what their position in the War Staff is. There
17 may be other members of the War Staff, but again looking in context with
18 the previous documents we looked at, this allows me to conclude that this
19 is indeed a list of the SRS War Staff.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, this -- this document has been --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, I think
22 that you have to intervene at this point just for three persons from this
23 list does it say -- or rather just two persons does it say that they are
24 members of the War Staff? Whereas where the third is concerned, we knew
25 from a series of documents that he was a member the War Staff. As to the
1 rest, there's no data. So I think that you must step in. You must
2 intervene here. They must tell you what this document means.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in this list there is
4 somebody who is the head of this, and there is his deputy, and then we can
5 see that the other members hold administrative positions involved in
6 logistics, in secretarial work, and so on and so forth. So we are under
7 the impression that we have a list here which is -- refers to an entity
8 involved in logistical and administrative matters. The fact that two
9 people here are qualified as War Staff or deputy War Staff that's true,
10 but for the others, it seems to be more of an administrative role.
11 Wouldn't this list be a component of two institutions? One would
12 be the SRS with the Administrative Services and something specific about
13 it, because this -- this crisis cell would then have become the War Staff.
14 You then conclude that this entire list refers to the War Staff
16 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours. Now, that we've seen when
17 discussing military structures in the military staff there is also an
18 administrative part. And I wouldn't really consider this document as to
19 the -- from the quantitative aspect if it says for five or six people
20 there are administrative officers, I wouldn't necessarily draw the
21 conclusion then, Okay this has to be an administrative body, because in
22 particular the three first people on the list the names are also given --
23 were also given in 65 ter number 534 and 536, and there's a clear linkage
24 with the SRS War Staff. There's no doubt that the War Staff, as any other
25 staff, includes also administrative personnel.
1 MR. MARCUSSEN:
2 Q. Mr. Theunens, did you also in your report discuss, I believe in a
3 part, the use of military-type titles within the War Staff and within the
4 SRS? Is the document also relevant in that context?
5 A. It is relevant, in particular for the three first persons.
6 There's a chief of the War Staff, there's a deputy chief, and there's a
7 logistics commander.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are a military
9 expert. I'm sure you were struck like I was by the stamp we can see on
10 the document in B/C/S. That is stamp here, and this stamp, when
11 translated into English says "Main Board of the SRS."
12 Now, in military terms, if this War Staff has existed, then there
13 would have been the War Staff stamp or military -- or War Staff would have
14 been on the document. We have the feeling that this is the stamp of the
15 SRS which is used in all cases.
16 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honours, it's a stamp of the
17 Radical Party most likely an authenticated document. Now when we review
18 the other documents on the SRS War Staff, including my report, they are
19 not always as consistent as one would expect from military documents in
20 the layout. Sometimes the heading says SRS War Staff. Here the heading
21 says Serbian Radical Party. So it is not as -- as well organised as a
22 military organisation based on documents I reviewed.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you a military analyst, as
24 you have been working for years for the OTP, and as in addition you have
25 testified in a number of cases, I'm sure that you were struck by the fact
1 that this document bears a number which is 0512-7-91. Did you ever ask
2 yourself whether this was a general number that recorded the document?
3 Was this being registered by the president of the party, the
4 vice-president of the party, or just a typical War Staff registration
5 number? No, you didn't question that.
6 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I tried to establish what I would call
7 a logic in -- when comparing the various War Staff and Radical Party
8 documents we had, but I'm not able to draw any conclusions to that effect.
9 The only thing one can conclude from this report is that it's signed by
10 the chief of the SRS War Staff.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're not answering my
12 question. I addressed myself to the military analyst. You are such a
13 military analyst. You know as well as I do that in the former Yugoslavia
14 all the armies or the way in which the army operated. Operation on the
15 basis of registration numbers, and with these registration numbers we have
16 dates and we have figures which are evocative, which explain that
17 such-and-such an order, such a such a document pertains to a particular
18 topic, a particular area and so on and so forth.
19 It would have been interesting to discover as far as in document
20 is concerned whether you attribute to the War Staff, whether the
21 registration number is a specific War Staff number or whether it is a more
22 general number. Or perhaps it might be the 512th document of the SRS in
23 1991, or because of the figure 1 we have this might have been the first
24 document of the War Staff. Maybe you didn't think about it, but I have.
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I understand your question, and maybe
1 I misexpressed myself, but I tried to draw a similar conclusion as you did
2 to see whether the numbers allow to draw conclusions, but I have not been
3 able to draw such a conclusion.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you were unable
5 to. Fine.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, this particular document has been
7 marked for identification as P24 at this stage as it's referred to in the
8 report and has been discussed there. I would respectfully request that it
9 be admitted as such.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this brings us to the
11 question of relevance. A document that nobody seems to be able to
12 identify as to what it means and what it represents and when it was
13 compiled, for what reason, for what purpose, then how can it be said to be
14 relevant and to be admitted at all?
15 Of course I don't mind that it is admitted, but this is an
16 objection of principle.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The relevance pertains to the
18 SRS, because the SRS is mentioned in the indictment. So there is here a
19 modicum of relevance. What we will do in the future with this document I
20 don't know. This is something which we will see at the end of the day.
21 So let's have a P24 let's give it a number which was marked for
22 identification will be given an exhibit number.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But, Mr. President, if I don't
24 explain what this document means to you, who's going to explain it?
25 There's nobody that can explain the document except me, and I'm not going
1 to do it now. I'm not going to explain the document now.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may do it during
3 cross-examination or you can address this matter again and address the
4 document again during the cross-examination and say to the witness, "We
5 have a document with a list," and so on and so forth.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Marcussen.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P24
8 under seal.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: And I was alerted to the fact that I did not ask
10 specifically for P10 and 11 -- sorry, P210 and 211 to be placed under
11 seal. I was in the mode of private session from before. So I'd like to
12 ask that these two exhibits be admitted under seal, please.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] P210 and P211, registrar,
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. It's duly noted.
16 MR. MARCUSSEN:
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, in addition to the War Staff, were there other parts
18 of the SRS that became involved in recruiting and dispatching volunteers?
19 And I'm thinking particular in the context of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
20 A. There is a document included in the report, a report by -- or the
21 document is by Colonel Tolimir, chief of the intelligence security
22 administration of the VRS where he talks about the role of the Serbian
23 Radical Party in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the recruitment of volunteers.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: And, Your Honours, if you would follow me to the
25 next tab where we have Exhibit number 65 ter 796.
1 Q. I'll ask first, Mr. Theunens, is this a document that you have
2 looked at in your report?
3 A. Indeed, Your Honours. And this document mentions the same
4 individual, Nikodin Cavic, as is also identified in the report by
5 Colonel Tolimir.
6 Q. And -- and this document, Your Honour, is as you can see a request
7 from the War Staff that this person sign up volunteers for the more
8 effective dispatchment of volunteers.
9 I would like to request the admission of this document as well,
10 Your Honours, under seal.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 212 under seal.
12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Next if we could call up Exhibit number 65 ter
13 1974. And this particular document can be shown to the public.
14 Your Honours, that is published -- a document published by the
15 SRS. And if we look at the second page of the English translation, you
16 will see that it is a document which addresses what is called the basic
17 military organisation of the Serbian Radical Party volunteers. And what I
18 would like to ask the witness about is on page 3 if you would follow me
19 there and it's page 2 and 3 in the B/C/S version for the accused?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, the
21 Prosecutor is duty-bound to identify this document. He just said one
22 thing and that is that the document was published by the Serbian Radical
23 Party but he has to tell us what the Serbian Radical Party published. Is
24 it a party document or did the party publish it as somebody's book with an
25 author? So you must know what this is about. You must be told that.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, at the time you
2 were saying that I had the same question. Where does this document come
3 from? Do you have any information about it?
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour. I don't have it in memory,
5 though. Actually, maybe the witness might remember the particular source
6 of this document.
7 A. Yes, Your Honours. This document was published in part 10 of the
8 book in Sinisa Aksentijevic, "Philippics Lens of Chetniks Vojvoda," which
9 was authored by Vojislav Seselj and published in 1994.
10 Q. Mr. Theunens, on page 3 of the document there is a --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have here that book
12 and you can see the book is by Sinisa Aksentijevic who's there, and the
13 title is Dr. Vojislav Seselj in the camera lens of Aksentijevic and it's
14 the "Philippics Lens of the Chetniks Vojvoda." So it is not a book by me
15 it's a book about me written by Sinisa Aksentijevic based on his articles
16 that he wrote, quotations from my public appearances, questions he asked
17 me, and certain other documents that he published so I have to intervene
18 there to put that right because I don't want the Trial Chamber or the
19 public to be misled.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on listening to your
21 line 16 and 17 of page 77, I had the feeling that this book had been
22 co-authored by Mr. Seselj, and Mr. Seselj has just indicated that this
23 book, that he did not author this book and that somebody wrote a book
24 about him and about what he -- about what he had said, which is not quite
25 the same thing. What do you have to say to this?
1 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, we would have to see the book, but I
2 agree that it was co-authored, and my understanding is also that
3 Mr. Seselj is the editor of the book. I will check that.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 Mr. Seselj, the witness is telling us that you are a co-author to
6 this book and that you had the book published. From what I understood,
7 you are neither the publisher nor the author of this book.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I handed this book over to the
9 Prosecutor in the courtroom together with a set of 80 of my books in 2003.
10 That's when I handed this book over to the Prosecutor, and the Prosecutor
11 has had ample time to study the book carefully.
12 Now, I can provide it to the Trial Chamber to have a look at and
13 you can see that the majority of the book is written by
14 Sinisa Aksentijevic, that he is the author of the majority.
15 Now, my quotations are under quotation marks, and you can see that
16 in certain fragments which have been translated.
17 Now, in English there are inverted commas where my quotations are
18 used. I can provide you with the original to see this for yourselves.
19 So on the book it says Dr. Vojislav Seselj in the camera lens of
20 Sinisa Aksentijevic. So it's how Sinisa Aksentijevic sees me and it's a
21 set of three books. The three book -- the first book was entitled well it
22 was number 51 it says Vojislav Seselj in the claws of the book of
23 Mirjana Bobic-Mojsilovic. She's a famous Serb journalist and she
24 conducted interviews with me and published a book.
25 The second book in the series is Vojislav Seselj under the lens
1 magnifying glass of Kostic, and she is a journalist in the sphere of
2 economics, and it is devoted to economic issues.
3 Now the third book in this series was by the editor-in-chief of
4 the paper Serbia, Sinisa Aksentijevic and it is a collage of his own
5 texts, my quotations, and sporadic interviews and talks with me and he
6 published a number of documents too. I can hand the book over. I have
7 another copy in the detention centre and you can have a look at it.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll take a look at this.
9 Please take a -- get the book and the Trial Chamber will take a look at
11 Witness, you heard what Mr. Seselj just said. It seems that three
12 books were written about him by different people regarding different
13 topics, but it's not because a book is written about you, but you're
14 necessarily the author or the inspiration of this book.
15 So what can you say to this? It is true that when you see the
16 first page there is his picture, and you could -- one could infer from
17 this that he is a co-author, but it seems that everything that's in the
18 book except what's in quotation marks comes from the author of the book.
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, if that is what Mr. Seselj states then
20 I'm willing to accept it. I think the most important is to see whether
21 the quotation in my report of this basic agreement, whether that agreement
22 is based on basic military organisations, whether it's authentic or not.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I think the break is coming up. We
24 might have passed --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely. It's time for the
1 break. And during the break we will read the book. So we'll have a
2 20-minute break.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The hearing is
6 resumed. During the break the Trial Chamber looked at the document. It
7 is a book written by someone else than Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj is asked
8 questions, and he answers these questions. There are also excerpts of
9 speeches. That's it. We cannot drought conclusion from this that
10 Mr. Seselj is the author of this book or the inspiration of this book.
11 This is somebody who wrote a book about Mr. Seselj using Q and As and
13 The Trial Chamber is now going to hand over the document back to
14 Mr. Seselj. If he wants to present it during the cross-examination he may
15 so, but then we will need a translation into English of the relevant
16 parts, because it is quite a large book.
17 Please resume. Please continue. We have just one hour left.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour. Before I request the
19 admission of this particular document, I would like to examine a number of
20 other documents with the witness.
21 Q. Mr. Theunens, the document we just talked about, so that is 1974,
22 on page 3 have an outline of various ranks used by the SRS maybe, or my
23 question is basically this: Based on the material you have reviewed, was
24 this particular structure of ranks ever implemented?
25 A. Yes, Your Honours. In particular, the orders from Radical Party
1 to proclaim certain people, certain volunteers to Chetnik Vojvoda, as well
2 as other SRS or SRS War Staff documents, show the use of military ranks,
3 sometimes preceded by the term "Chetnik." So for example they mention
4 Chetnik captain or Chetnik major.
5 JNA documents or VRS documents, however, they will use terms
6 like "Self-styled" or "So-called captain or lieutenant" when they refer to
7 these ranks which had been attributed by the SRS. And there is, for
8 example -- okay.
9 Q. If I may interrupt you?
10 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, what I propose to do now is just run
11 through quickly a number of other exhibits which reflect this -- reflect
12 this particular use of ranks. And if Your Honours would move with me to
13 Exhibit 1446, which is the next document in your binder.
14 Q. Mr. Theunens, is this a document you have referred to in your
16 A. Yes, Your Honours. I did refer to this document.
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: And Your Honours will note that in the first
18 paragraph of the actual text there's reference to platoon commanders, for
19 example, and it's a request that two persons -- three persons be promoted
20 to the rank of lieutenant.
21 Your Honours, if we move on to the next document, which is 65 ter
22 number 770, or --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have an objection.
24 The Prosecutor gave up too quickly on the previous document from the book
25 by Sinisa Aksentijevic, and I know full well why he gave that up so
1 quickly, because I suggested to the president of the registry to have
2 distributed the English translation of a statement made by
3 Captain Radoslav Suljagic, and I submit it for translation two weeks ago
4 in other words ample time and now he sees this document is untenable, why?
5 And now he's going away from it, why? Because in the document, we see
6 that the author relates back to events of 1984, and you can see the
7 document there on page 182, and it says the basic organisation of the
8 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. And from the text itself we can
9 see that he refers to experiences gained in 1984, in the third section,
10 and at the top erroneously, the author says that it is a document from
11 June 1991. So that's the main problem. And now the Prosecutor has
12 realised that and is trying to get away from the document.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, if I may. I -- it is -- I've not
14 requested the admission of the document yet. I've not looked at the
15 statement the accused is referring to. I am going to request the
16 admission of all of the documents that I'm going to be referring to in
17 this section of the testimony; but I think it's important that we try to
18 gain a certain momentum in the presentation of the evidence if I may and
19 if the accused would be kind enough to make his objections when I seek the
20 admission of the documents rather than comments on everything I do along
21 the way. Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, Mr. Marcussen.
23 You're right. But Mr. Seselj is talking about documents dealing with
24 events that did not occur in 1984, as we have in the English transcript
25 but in 1994; and it seems if that's the case you're mentioning events that
1 have nothing to do with 1991 or 1992. That's the crux of the problem.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, it's my understanding that the book
3 we discussed was published in 1994. The documents about the ranks was
4 published in 1994, and it's a document referring to the basic military
5 structure of the SRS, and the SRS was not in existence in 1994. Sorry, in
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, once again I refer to
8 paragraph 3 of this document where it says that the volunteers of the
9 Serbian Radical Party are continuing a patriotic tradition, and then in
10 the penultimate line it says that the Serbian volunteers and Chetniks in
11 the war from 1991 to 1994. So it's not only the book that was published
12 in 1994. We see that the document was written in 1994, because you can't
13 write a document in 1991 and then say we refer to the traditions from 1991
14 to 1994.
15 So the Prosecutor must not be allowed to mislead the public or the
16 Trial Chamber. That's what it says in this document if you look at it.
17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, my question to the witness was
18 exactly whether or not he -- based on the evidence he has reviewed has
19 seen the implementation of these particular ranks from 19 -- around the
20 time relevant to the indictment. There is no dispute that this document
21 was published in 1994. The question was this document was published in
22 1994. Have the witness seen any indication that these ranks were
23 implemented before and we're going through a series of documents now which
24 show they were indeed employed and that's the line of examination that
25 we're pursuing and I think that's entirely proper.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I think I found the
2 problem. It's not very easy to understand it. The objection and the
3 answer were not that easy to understand.
4 This document 796 which comes from the book that we've seen
5 earlier does mention ranks. This is on page 3 and 4. Well, it seems that
6 we have mention of the ranks of the volunteers.
7 Now, the question is whether this document that we have on page 3
8 was drafted in 1991 or in 1994, because then of course this is essential.
9 If it was drafted in 1990, 1991, then we understand why the
10 Prosecutor is showing us documents on this ranking, such as document 1446.
11 Witness, please, the document from the Serbian Radical Party which
12 establishes ranks, could you tell us what year it dates from?
13 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... from the book,
14 Your Honour, is that this document, the basic military organisation, is
15 published in 1994. However, what I've tried to show in the report is that
16 certain aspects of that document were already implemented in 1991. I have
17 information often ranks. I also have information on the use of military
18 names of structures in order to identify the SRS volunteer formations as
19 well as also, thirdly, the use of military terminology to explain the role
20 or to describe the role of volunteers. And these documents, for example,
21 say, well, Mr. X was in command of the SRS volunteer detachment in that
22 and that area, or he was a deputy commander, and related examples.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So if I understand
24 what you've just said, for you 1991 and 1992 is the period when this text
25 on ranks was already applied. Is that it?
1 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... we apply
2 something that is issued or that becomes public in 1994. What I tried to
3 say is that the information that is included in a document of 1994 is
4 actually already applicable in 1991, 1992, because ranks are being used.
5 Names of military structures are being used, and also military terminology
6 is being used. And whether it was published in 1994 or 1993 does not
7 change what was happening in 1991 or 1992.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I go along with what
9 you're saying, let's look at document 1446 where one person is proposed to
10 be promoted to the rank of lieutenant. Three persons are proposed to be
11 promoted to the rank of lieutenant. Let's imagine that the War Staff of
12 the Serbian Radical Party allows this, allows for this. I have the
13 following question thus: These three people who were maybe -- who maybe
14 belong to TOs, TO units or JNA units, how will these units translate their
15 new rank? Otherwise, these are political rank -- this is political
16 ranking a political favour and nothing else and they never become real in
17 the end. But how can you check as -- yourself that this was actually
18 implemented on the -- in the TOs or in the JNA or in the VRS.
19 THE WITNESS: I would verify that, Your Honour, by looking at JNA
20 or VRS documents that make reference to these people who have been
21 promoted by the SRS. And, for example, we see in at least one VRS
22 document where in connection to an individual Mitar Maksimovic who became
23 known as Manda, and this is in 65 ter 1523, so this is the Tolimir report
24 I believe we will discuss later; Tolimir writes about the self styled
25 captain. So this shows that the ranks are being used also in the field
1 but are not recognised as such by the JNA or the VRS even though the
2 volunteer who has that rank uses it. And when I return then to SRS
3 documents, there I notice that within these SRS volunteer detachments the
4 rank is important to establish the authority the particular volunteer has
5 among the other volunteers.
6 For example, this also applies to the title Vojvoda. From the
7 documents I have reviewed included in the report, it books clear that
8 Chetnik Vojvodas have a position of authority among the other SRS
9 volunteers and use that title even though JNA or VRS do not recognise the
11 Another example, for example, that's page 138 in my report, is
12 where mention is made of a Jovan Kulic, who is, according to JNA
13 documents, a self-appointed captain.
14 So I'm not sure whether that answers the question, Your Honour,
15 but that's --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. These are
17 self-proclaimed officers or captains. Very well. But they are part of
18 legal units. It's as if yesterday I self-proclaim myself as President of
19 this Tribunal. This would have no effect. I mean, my colleagues wouldn't
20 really care about it because there is already a president of the Tribunal.
21 Or if Mr. Marcussen self-proclaimed himself Prosecutor in chief. I mean
22 this would have no effect after all. So there is a difference between
23 self-proclaiming oneself and holding a rank in the army. There is a
24 distinction, what do you think of this?
25 THE WITNESS: To follow on the example you made about yourself,
1 the problem starts when there are people who will follow you, when or
2 Mr. Marcussen says, I am now the Prosecutor. Well, if there are people in
3 the OTP who will start following Mr. Marcussen and recognise this kind of
4 self-proclamation, then the problem starts, because then Mr. Marcussen
5 will have a position of authority over these people. And that is actually
6 the conclusion I draw from, on the one hand, the use of these ranks in the
7 SRS and they call it a Chetnik captain or SRS captain and on the other
8 hand the positions these people hold on the ground even though it's not
9 recognised by the JNA still within the volunteer detachment, these people
10 have authority.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the unit that is going
12 on the field, did it follow the orders of JNA commander or did it follow
13 the orders of those self-proclaimed commanders that had been proclaimed by
14 the Serbian Radical Party?
15 THE WITNESS: I can explain to you an example of Vukovar where we
16 have seen the structure of Operational Group south and then we had had a
17 number of assault detachments subordinated to Operational Group south and
18 then we had a number of assault detachments subordinated to Operation
19 Group south and these assault detachments consisted of assault groups;
20 were on the lowest level you would have in one sole group you would have
21 JNA soldiers of the Guards Brigade, members of the TO Serbia, as well as
22 the Leva Supoderica detachment and the commander of that Leva Supoderica
23 detachment, so a SRS detachment, Milan Lancuzanin also known as Kameni,
24 was the person who was recognised by the JNA officer in command of the
25 assault group as being the person in command of the volunteers. So the
1 volunteers unit is then actually a separate component of the assault
2 group. You could consider it as a separate company in a battalion,
3 whereas a traditional battalion consists of three companies, well there
4 would be a fourth company, a volunteer company, and the commander of that
5 company, of that volunteer detachment was someone with in a position of
6 hierarchy among the SRS volunteers who had been appointed a position by
7 the members of the Serbian Radical Party War Staff. Sometimes that
8 position was confirmed by the JNA, sometimes not. So it depends of the
9 area, and even though there is single command and control, the way how
10 this is being implemented in the field differs from area to area, i.e.,
11 that is that people with -- who have received authority from the Serbian
12 Radical Party war -- Serbian Radical Party War Staff use that authority
13 among their volunteers.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President; I'm
15 intervening because the witness is trying to mislead you by quoting a
16 concrete example. He said that Colonel Tolimir called Mitar Maksimovic
17 self-appointed captain. Mitar Maksimovic, Manda. He was not a volunteer
18 of the Serbian Radical Party. He was a local of Ugljevik in Republika
19 Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Yes, he was a member of the Serbian Radical
20 Party but he wasn't a volunteer which the party from Serbia sent to the
21 front, but as local inhabitant of his village he rose up to fight. So
22 that's a basic difference. And I don't think the witness should use this
23 kind of thing.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: This is a good example of cross-examination -- a
25 cross-examination point, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue.
2 MR. MARCUSSEN:
3 Q. Mr. Theunens, now if we follow on in the -- in the binder, 65 ter
4 number 770, which is also P25, Mr. Theunens, is this another document
5 which you have referred to on this particular point? I know many of these
6 documents you referred to in many different parts of your report, but on
7 the issue of use of ranks, what does this document tell us?
8 A. Your Honours, this document is a request to promote a number of
9 people who were identified as warriors, so it shows, first of all,
10 structure for example Petrova Gora TO detachment the use of military
11 terminology to express the authority like it talks about Chetnik commander
12 and then obviously it also shows also rank.
13 Q. And if we go to the next document which is 7601 [sic], what we
14 have here is a certificate from the War Staff to Branislav Gavrilovic.
15 And Your Honours will see that this document again certifies that he was a
16 commander of a group of volunteers. And 761, if you turn the page, is a
17 similar document with respect to Miroslav Vukovic.
18 Oh, in line -- on page 89, line 20, I think there's a problem
19 misspoke there. The 65 ter number reference should be 761.
20 Your Honours, the witness has referred to the promotion of a
21 number of people to Vojvoda and --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe we could have this last
23 document on the screen, because it's interesting, because it was actually
24 signed by Mr. Seselj.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour. The two last ones I've
1 shown, I believe -- no, sorry. Sorry. Excuse me. Only 761.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, had you looked into
3 this document in the preparation of your report?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, I did, and it's included in my
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What conclusions do you draw
7 from the examination of this document?
8 THE WITNESS: I will be very brief. It shows the use of military
9 terminology in the sense that a person is given authority here by
10 Mr. Seselj, and his title is deputy commander of volunteers. It also
11 shows that these volunteers are operating in a separate unit. And to
12 return to what we discussed earlier today, it also shows that the Serb
13 Radical Party or the War Staff are keeping records of what volunteers are
15 MR. MARCUSSEN:
16 Q. And -- and maybe if we -- to go a little more --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, I think
18 that you should caution the witness and tell him that he can't mislead you
19 in this fashion. On the -- on the document, it says certificate that
20 somebody was a commander whereas the witness is saying that I issued
21 authorisation on the basis of this piece of paper. I just assert that he
22 was a commander of the volunteers during that period of time. So it's
23 just a certificate. I'm not giving authorisation. So he's misleading you
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm looking at this certificate,
1 Witness. If you review it very carefully without drawing any conclusions
2 one way or the other, if you try to remain very objective when assessing
3 this document, you find that someone called Vukovic was the deputy
4 commander of volunteers on the territory of the Serbian district of
5 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem from the 4th of June to the 2nd of
6 December, 1991. This document is signed by two persons.
7 We have a certificate stating that this person named Vukovic was
8 the deputy commander of volunteers. That's what we can see when reading
9 this document. But you draw further conclusions from the review of this
10 document, don't you?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, because it is signed by the
12 president of a political either as well as -- okay, in this particular
13 case as chief of the War Staff. So at least the document shows that --
14 that Mr. Seselj and the chief of the War Staff have the authority to issue
15 such certificates. Now, these are not the kind of diplomas I think you
16 get for attending a course somewhere or a certificate of achievement,
17 because from documents that I have reviewed where the payment of
18 volunteers is being discussed, the time period spent on the battlefield is
19 essential in order to determine which allowances the volunteers are
20 entitled to. So this document would then show that the SRS -- SRS War
21 Staff have the authority to issue such certificates to certain volunteers.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me take another example.
23 Let me take the Belgian example. Let's assume that we have a Belgian
24 soldier who is a member of environment association, and he asks the
25 president of this association to deliver him a certificate stating that he
1 is a member of the association, and then the president of this association
2 would probably write a certificate stating, "I certify that such-and-such
3 person who is a captain," and so on and so forth, "served in this -- this
4 country from that date to that date." What would you say then?
5 THE WITNESS: I would first try to find out what the service was
6 about. If he's serving somewhere was a volunteer, as a deputy commander
7 of volunteers, that would indicate to me that he's accomplishing military
8 tasks, and it would be rather -- second point would then be it would be
9 rather unusual for the president of an environmental association or the
10 president of political party to issue such certificates, because we are
11 dealing with military matters, and the use of military force is indicated
12 by law and not by individual political parties or movements.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, if you would again go to the next
14 tab in your binder we have 65 ter number 1841, and this document can be
15 broadcast to the public.
16 Q. Mr. Theunens, I believe this is one of the documents you referred
17 to in your report on the issue of appointments of Vojvodas; is that
19 A. That is correct, Your Honours.
20 Q. And as we just talked about Mr. Vukovic, if Your Honours go to
21 page 2 of the document you will see Mr. Vukovic mentioned here and his
22 time -- the places here served are being mentioned in this particular
24 You will also, if you turn to the next page, under item 6 see
25 Mr. Gavrilovic being mentioned.
1 Q. Mr. Theunens, if you turn to the next document, 2030.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. You're
3 going too fast. Let's have a look at document 1841, dated 13th of May,
4 1993, and signed apparently by Mr. Seselj.
5 By this document a number of Vojvodas are proclaimed. Several
6 individuals are going to be promoted to the title of Vojvoda. I'm trying
7 to count how many there are. Ah, 16. Sixteen people are going to be
8 proclaimed Vojvoda, including this Vukovic person we mentioned earlier on,
9 and we can find him at number 5.
10 Please -- okay. This is a proclamation by which these people are
11 named Vojvoda. Do you see the introduction to this document? Can you see
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What conclusion do you draw from
15 reading this?
16 THE WITNESS: That Mr. Seselj considers himself in the position to
17 reward certain volunteers for their role in the conflict, which he defines
18 the role, and I'm reading it: "Exceptional merits in this war, great
19 courage and demonstrated war skills of the most prominent Chetnik
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] They are proclaimed Vojvodas.
22 What are the implications of such a proclamation?
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, these implications are similar as what
24 we discussed with the use of ranks or Chetnik ranks or SRS ranks by the
25 war staff. That is that the volunteers, the SRS volunteers who are
1 proclaimed Vojvoda are confirmed in a position of authority within the SRS
2 War Staff and the SRS volunteer detachments and also use this title during
3 operations even though this title is not respected which the JNA or -- the
4 JNA did not exist any more in 1993, but by the VRS or the SVK in Croatia.
5 But still like as we see in Sarajevo, when the VRS commander complains
6 about the behaviour of certain SRS volunteers, they will use the term
7 Vojvoda but within quotation marks to show that they don't recognise it.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Amongst these 16
9 individuals who were proclaimed Vojvoda, did you try to find out what
10 consequence this had on their personal situation, on their personal status
11 within the armed forces? Did it bring them anything or was this a purely
12 honourary title for them that they could brag with?
13 THE WITNESS: For example, Your Honours, looking at the first one,
14 Slavo Aleksic, well he, when we studied -- looked at the situation in
15 Sarajevo, Aleksic is the commander of a unit known as the Novo Sarajevo
16 Chetnik detachment. He's in Novo Sarajevo so Grabovica in command of a
17 number of volunteers and this is based on the VRS Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
18 documents I reviewed. He is recognised in that position. He is
19 considered the commander. He's not being removed. He is the person they
20 talk to when they have tasks or operations to conduct within the Novo
21 Sarajevo Chetnik detachment.
22 The same applies to other volunteers. Milan Lancuzanin, we have
23 to go back in time then, but he was the commander of the Leva Supoderica
24 TO detachment and was respected as such by the members of the Guards
25 Motorised Brigade in Vukovar.
1 Srecko Radovanovic plays a leading role in the local Serb TO in
2 Western Slavonia. Okay. Sometimes this refers to events prior to the
3 proclamation to Vojvoda, but the proclamation to Vojvoda confirms the
4 position of authority, and the people who received the title use it in
5 their -- while carrying out their duties in charge of SRS volunteers.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but very quickly let's go
7 back to number 1, to the number 1, to Aleksic, who is a commander in
8 Sarajevo. He was appointed commander, but who appointed him? Was he
9 appointed to this position by the army, or was he appointed by Mr. Seselj?
10 Because this sentence here doesn't mean anything. He was appointed and so
11 on and so forth. He may have gone up through the ranks, as is customary,
12 without the SRS having to interfere, to help his promotion.
13 If we look at Kameni, it's the same if you read what's written
14 here about him. Did his promotion through the ranks -- does he have to --
15 or is it because of the SRS or is it because of what he did at the head of
16 this unit?
17 That's the problem we have. We, the Judges, find it difficult to
18 establish the link, because -- between the title of Vojvoda that is given
19 to someone and the practical implications of such title in the field.
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, to -- to start with Slavko Aleksic,
21 based on the documents I have reviewed, Aleksic had no military rank nor
22 military experience or significant military experience, which means that
23 he was appointed to the position he held by the SRS or an organ of the
24 SRS. And even if he was not appointed, because there are examples where
25 individuals say, "I am now the commander of this detachment," he is
1 recognised and confirmed in that position by the SRS War Staff or the SRS.
2 In the section on Sarajevo in part 2 of the report, I've included
3 a few documents which indicate that Aleksic is on the pay list of the
4 local police, local Serb police, as a reserve policeman.
5 Now, Lancuzanin, Lancuzanin was already a person with a --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me interrupt you once again,
7 because you are giving us an additional detail that's only confusing
8 matters. If this Aleksic was paid by the Serbian local police, that would
9 mean that the SRS controlled the police and the operation of the police
11 THE WITNESS: I don't think we can draw that conclusion, Your
12 Honours, and I apologise if I contribute to confusion, but I just want to
13 highlight how complicated the situation is.
14 It is not as straightforward as it would be in the French, Italian
15 or Danish army or in Belgium where you're a member of the armed forces,
16 full stop, and there are procedures for promotion. There are procedures
17 for discipline. There are procedures for anything.
18 Here we see that obviously in the SFRY things were clearly
19 regulated by law, SFRY armed forces with JNA, TO, we had police forces
20 but then in the conflict structures split according to ethnic lines. We
21 have a local Serb TO in Croatia. The Croatians organise their own forces.
22 The same that happens to the police. The same happens in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And in that situation, we also see that political
24 parties are establishing -- or at least organising groups which could be
25 considered armed groups. Sometimes it's just to recruitment of volunteers
1 but at other times it's really creating paramilitary forces. And these
2 forces are acting in the field, most often under the command of the JNA as
3 far as Croatia is concerned, and then Bosnia-Herzegovina JNA and -- or
4 VRS, but there are sometimes different situations. And this is what I've
5 tried to highlight in the report.
6 Now, what I can say in relation to the SRS Vojvodas or Chetnik
7 Vojvodas is these are all people with a position of authority among the
8 volunteers. They are commanders on the field of these volunteers and are
9 respected as such both by the volunteers as well as the armed forces, JNA
10 or VRS they are operating with even though there are situation where is it
11 seems that the volunteer detachment has its own agenda, that's why there
12 are so many documents included in the report. Or senior members of the
13 SRS War Staff are promoted to Chetnik Vojvoda.
14 Whether it changes something in relation to their position of
15 authority they already had is difficult to ascertain but at least among
16 the SRS volunteers a Vojvoda has significant authority and even charisma.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection. Mr. President, this time
18 maybe my objection is not appropriate. You will be the judge of that and
19 if you say it is not appropriate I'll withdraw it, but I think great
20 confusion is being created here because the witness obviously and
21 sufficiently well knows certain things, so it would be best if he could
22 clarify first of all which one out of these 16 Chetnik Vojvodas was a
23 volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party that was sent by the party to the
24 front line and who is a local resident of the place where military
25 operations were taking place and subsequently joined the Serbian Radical
1 Party and then subsequently was proclaimed by me a Chetnik Vojvoda because
2 of his merits during the war. This distinction has to be made first lest
3 we create an even greater confusion if you think my objection is
4 inappropriate, I will withdraw.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your objection is quite valid.
6 You could raise it during cross-examination, but what I'm concerned about
7 is to address the heart of the matter.
8 Now, among those 16 people it's very difficult to tell which ones
9 were initially members of the SRS and which ones as part of action
10 undertaken by the SRS were sent off as volunteers to fulfil military
11 obligations. So we may be confronted with a situation -- with a situation
12 where local people during the conflict become members of the party without
13 the SRS having initiated in a form of conversion and something that may
14 have changed their military position, and afterwards they're rewarded by
15 being given the title Vojvoda.
16 So as you can understand, you are an expert witness. The
17 situation sometimes can be very complex. Do you stand by what you've
18 said, or do you wish to change your conclusion somewhat?
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, it is indeed correct that there are
20 locals among the volunteers, so people who lived in the area where they
21 then established a volunteer group with or without the support of the
22 Serbian Radical Party. As well as people who were sent from other areas
23 to the particular conflict zones.
24 For example, I mean --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Again the example of Kameni, for
1 instance. He comes from Vukovar. So he wasn't sent by -- because he was
2 already on the spot.
3 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... Lancuzanin I
4 have included in the report documents from the SRS War Staff or at least
5 one document indicating that he is the commander of the Leva Supoderica
6 detachment, and I'm just trying to locate the document. Or at least that
7 links the Leva Supoderica detachment to the -- to the SRS. It's a Velika
8 Srbija article.
9 Now, when we look for example at Branislav Vakic, he's number 3 on
10 the -- on the Vojvoda proclamation order on number 24. It's on the second
11 page. Branislav Vakic was born in Nis. Nis is a city in southern Serbia.
12 And there you see the CV according to the SRS.
13 Now, the information I reviewed in preparation for the report and
14 as for example an article on war days of Branislav Vakic shows that he's
15 being sent by the SRS or the SRS War Staff to the various combat zones;
16 it's not that individual decides that tomorrow I go and fight in Vukovar
17 because he needs -- he doesn't go on his own. He needs military
18 equipment. He needs to have a uniform. He needs to be authorised to
19 enter the war zone. Once he's there he needs to be supported logistically
20 with food, ammunition, if necessary fuel, and so and so on; so it's not
21 individuals who decide about I'm going to defend or I'm going to fight for
22 a certain cause now this is part of a bigger set-up. Therefore, the SRS
23 War Staff. And there are other people were from the location where they
24 were born. If we go, for example, to number 5, Miroslav Vukovic. He's
25 born in Cacak. Cacak is located in -- in Northern Serbia.
1 Branislav Gavrilovic is indeed born in Sarajevo but we know that he's also
2 active if Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and also in Brcko. So
3 other areas than just the location where he was to defend his own area
4 where he was born.
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, as -- as you have surely noticed,
6 the last part of the second part of the report has quite a detailed
7 overview of all the relevant crime bases and pattern bases where these
8 matters are discussed by the expert in great detail. I hope we'll be able
9 to cover that part during the testimony as well, but there's extensive
10 information on these issues in that part of the report.
11 With leave of the Court, I would maybe move on to the -- the next
12 exhibit, which is 2030, which is another document referred to by
13 Mr. Theunens in his report. It's -- it's another of these Vojvoda
14 appointment documents. As we have dealt with the other one in detail,
15 maybe we don't need to -- I wasn't intending to go so much into this one
16 but rather to ask the witness about the following document, which is 2038,
17 which also relates to the issue of Vojvodas.
18 Q. But Mr. Theunens, could you tell us what this document is and what
19 it shows. It is order number 156.
20 A. Your Honours, this is an order by Mr. Seselj whereby he strips
21 three individuals of the title of Vojvoda. These individuals are
22 mentioned in the document as well as the reasons why Mr. Seselj took the
23 decision to remove the title of Vojvoda of these people.
24 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, in the interest of time I was not
25 going to cover the issue of ranks any more but move on to the issue of
1 reports received by the War Staff. If there's no questions from the Bench
2 to the witness about the use of ranks, I would like to request the
3 admission of the exhibits that we have been discussing.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could we have exhibit
5 numbers, please.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: I can just read out what the 6 at that ter numbers
7 were they were 1974.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, P213.
9 MR. MARCUSSEN: 1446.
10 THE REGISTRAR: It's P214.
11 MR. MARCUSSEN: Which has to be places under seal.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Under seal.
13 MR. MARCUSSEN: And then 770, which is P25 which has been marked
14 for identification, but I'd like to request the admission full admission
15 of the document at this stage and under seal.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be Exhibit number P25
17 under seal.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: Then 65 ter number 760, again under seal.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Exhibit number 215.
20 MR. MARCUSSEN: 761.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P215.
23 MR. MARCUSSEN: And --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: I'm just reading out a number of exhibit numbers
1 if I can complete that maybe you would be kind enough to raise the other
2 issue afterwards; then we have had 65 ter number 1841 which can be public.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours that will be Exhibit P217.
4 MR. MARCUSSEN: We've had 2030 which can be public.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P218.
6 MR. MARCUSSEN: And then 2038 which.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours Exhibit P219.
8 MR. MARCUSSEN: And I believe the accused had an objection on the
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what did you want to
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I strenuously oppose that any of
13 these documents be under seal. I insist that you accept the solution that
14 you had accepted a moment ago, not to mention the source of the document
15 but to speak publicly and openly about the contents because the documents
16 are public by their very nature. I'm not interested in how the
17 Prosecution got the documents but the contents is important to me, and
18 they are important to the public. They are originally public. None of
19 them bears the mark confidential. The Serbian Radical Party has some
20 confidential documents but these are not that type. We even have rules
21 and how to treat confidential documents. These ones are open. Don't make
22 them secret.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
24 continues] ... that.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I believe we have just been in
1 public session discussing these documents and that was exactly your --
2 your request.
3 Now, if it facilitate matters, what I can propose is we, the
4 Prosecution, can redact the parts of these documents once we have reviewed
5 what is being said on the transcript of this, and we can place them
6 without the part that identifies the source. So at a later stage we can
7 essentially have a public version of these documents put on record if that
8 facilitate in avoiding these kind of issues coming up all the time.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Your idea is quite
10 attractive but may come up against the following difficulty: As these
11 documents are already well-known documents, they've been published
12 somewhere, let us assume that someone wishes to compare these public
13 documents with the redacted documents and the person then realises that
14 some of the names have been redacted, the person will understand straight
16 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour. I think the main concern
17 would be to redact the part that I showed you in private session, which is
18 a very clear indication of what the source is. I'm just floating this for
19 Your Honour's consideration to facilitate matters. We don't need to
20 decide on it now maybe.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Bench will reflect on it and
22 will not take a decision right now, but I would like to get back to the
23 document 2030 and order number 156, where seemingly four people have had
24 their title of Vojvoda taken away from them. I have read the reasons
25 which have been put forward why these people have lost their title, and
1 the last reason is something which attracted my attention.
2 One of them or several of them would have been recruited by the
3 services of the MUP. It seems that a Vojvoda who has been recruited by or
4 who is working for the Ministry of the Interior is sufficient reason to
5 mistrust the person in question.
6 What do you have to say about this?
7 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, this -- this applies in particular to
8 number 3 on the list, whereby, and this is public knowledge at the time,
9 whereby Mr. Seselj suspected that person of having, yeah, particular
10 links, i.e., that he was collecting information for the state security of
11 the Republic of Serbia. And I remember that there was at a time when this
12 person was kicked out of the War Staff a press conference whereby this
13 person more or less had to make a confession about his ties with the
14 Serbian Radical Party -- excuse me, with the state security of the
15 Republic of Serbia, with Mr. Seselj sitting on his left or his right side.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This event indicates that in the
17 Republic of Serbia there were power struggles or between the political
18 parties, the MUP, and the Ministry of the Interior. There was a struggle
19 to exert influence; is that right? Can you confirm this.
20 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... and more
21 specifically that the competent services, i.e., the State Security Service
22 was aware that certain political parties were organising, I mean,
23 recruiting, organising, dispatching volunteers and also involved in arming
24 them, and that from the legal point of view it made sense to keep an eye
25 on that even though it seems that it took some time before there was any
1 action against these activities. This is not dealt with in my report, but
2 I remember that it's only after a political conflict arises between
3 Mr. Seselj and Mr. Milosevic sometimes in October, November 1993 that the
4 competent authorities in Serbia start with the arrest of volunteers, and
5 they're all arrested -- or most of them are arrested on the ground of
6 illegal possession of firearms, and they're released quite soon. So
7 whether it's part of a bigger struggle I haven't looked into these --
8 these aspects, but I can -- I can confirm what I just said.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now we have four minutes left,
10 Mr. Marcussen. You have the floor.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President, if you
12 allow me. You as the Trial Chamber instructed the Prosecution a while ago
13 to make available to me documents they got from the government of the
14 Republic of Serbia for which certain protective measures were requested.
15 It's a large number of documents attesting that the security service kept
16 me and my advisors under surveillance and persecuted us in a way in the
17 time relevant for the indictment.
18 These documents would be important to me in tomorrow's
19 cross-examination of this witness, because they refute the theory of joint
20 criminal enterprise involving me and Slobodan Milosevic and some others.
21 On one hand, it is obvious that we were persecuted by the police, and
22 the -- on the other hand, we were supposed to be in league with them.
23 We got some documents from the Prosecution so far, but there is a
24 whole set we haven't received.
25 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour. To -- to address that issue
1 first. As Your Honour know, there is a request for protective measures of
2 these documents that is pending before the Trial Chamber. The Prosecution
3 has taken steps to allow us to disclose all of these documents under Rule
4 66(B) to the accused. What has been done is a letter has been sent to the
5 relevant authorities, and we're waiting for an answer from the authorities
6 on the issues of protective measures. As soon as we have clarified that,
7 we hope to be in a position to provide the documents to the accused. The
8 documents were provided to us with restrictions, and we're not at this
9 stage in a position to give them to the accused.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I've understood you
11 correctly, the Republic of Serbia sent you some documents. You are asking
12 the Republic of Serbia the permission to disclose these documents to the
13 accused. Is that right? Is that what you're telling us? And that if
14 the -- if Serbia says yes, you will disclose the documents. If Serbia
15 says no, then you are bound by the rules of Rule 70, i.e., when one of the
16 party discloses documents to -- discloses documents it has the monopoly of
17 these documents; is that right.
18 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes. The documents were provided with a certain
19 number of clauses as to what cases the documents could be used in and
20 requesting the Prosecution to notify the Republic of Serbia of the
21 Prosecution's intended use, so we have notified the Republic of Serbia of
22 our intention to disclose these documents. Because of the protective
23 measures that have been requested, we think it's appropriate to give the
24 Republic of Serbia a certain amount of time, a limited amount of time to
25 respond to us if there are any concerns about disclosure of any of these
1 documents. As soon as we have that response, we're prepared to disclose
2 the documents to the accused.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Seselj, you have
4 understood that for the time being, unfortunately, as far as you're
5 concerned, the Prosecutor cannot disclose those documents because the
6 Prosecutor is bound to its commitment to the Republic of Serbia. So the
7 Prosecution is awaiting the response of the Republic of Serbia. So even
8 if you feel that this may stand in the way of your cross-examination,
9 that's the way things stand. If the Republic of Serbia had disclosed
10 nothing whatsoever, then of course this would not even be mentioned today.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecution gave
12 me a list of those documents. According to my information, my knowledge,
13 the Republic of Serbia provided those documents unconditionally, and then
14 subsequently minister Rasim Lajic got the idea that he should request
15 protective measures from these documents. Originally they were given to
16 the Prosecution unconditionally.
17 Yesterday again I addressed to you a written submission requesting
18 that you should make these documents completely public and to enable me to
19 use these documents in the cross-examination of this witness and the
20 following ones. I think it concerns 800 or 900 documents.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, from what I
22 understood, when Serbia had sent you the list of documents the Republic of
23 Serbia had clearly indicated that some of these documents were sensitive
24 documents, because this -- these could have repercussions on the people
25 mentioned in the documents themselves.
1 I believe that that is what was said in the message. And you are
2 telling us that you put the question to the Republic of Serbia again and
3 you asked them which documents could be disclosed to Mr. Seselj. Is that
4 right? Is that how things happened?
5 MR. MARCUSSEN: I think we have taken a slightly more assertive
6 line. We have informed the Republic of Serbia of our intention to
7 disclose these documents and requested the Republic of Serbia to revert to
8 us in case there are any concerns, and we're waiting for this response and
9 I'll be happy to check today on the status of -- of this, because as I --
10 we already indicated I think we have already indicated that we would
11 [overlapping speakers] disclose these documents.
12 And on the issue of cross-examination, maybe the -- that is if
13 once the accused receive the documents and could show good cause for this
14 the witness can be called back.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In any case, you have all
16 afternoon to phone Belgrade and tell them that you need a response
17 urgently because Mr. Seselj might find it useful to have those documents
18 in his possession. This could be settled very quickly. Maybe there are
19 other concerns, but there is a trial ongoing and this does require all and
20 everyone's attention.
21 So we now have to adjourn. I would prefer to continue, but
22 unfortunately I can't.
23 There are other people perhaps who may wish to use this courtroom.
24 We shall meet again tomorrow at 12.00. The hearing will last an hour and
25 a half. Then we shall have a break at 1.30, and an hour's break to enable
1 Mr. Seselj to have something to eat, the interpreters, and maybe the
2 Prosecutor as well, as then we will resume at a quarter past 2.00.
3 So see you tomorrow.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day
6 of February, 2008, at 12.00 p.m.