Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 888

 1                           Monday, 28 April 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [Pre-Trial Conference]

 4                           [The accused Simatovic entered court]

 5                           [The accused Stanisic is not present]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 1.18 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Today in the absence of Judge Picard,

 8     Judge David and I sit pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.

 9             You will recall that the Chamber had required the registrar to

10     establish a videolink to allow the accused to follow the proceedings from

11     the UNDU were he not in a position to attend court.

12             My information is that the videolink is established.  May I ask

13     the court deputy to confirm whether that is so.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, as we can see on the screens,

15     the videolink is -- it's connected, it's running, although we don't see

16     the accused.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  Today, as indicated in the earlier

18     order of the Trial Chamber, we are going to hear first from Dr. Falke.

19     Dr. Falke's testimony will be heard in closed session.  I want to stress

20     that this is not to be taken as meaning that the Trial Chamber no long

21     adheres to its general ruling that evidence relating to the health of the

22     accused is to be heard in public session.

23             The Chamber has issued an order relating to the registrar's

24     request that Dr. Falke's evidence be heard in closed session and that

25     order makes it quite clear what the particular circumstances are, that in

Page 889

 1     the Trial Chamber's view, warrants that treatment.

 2             Let Dr. Falke be called, and we'll then move to closed session.

 3                           [Closed session]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 890











11 Pages 890-973 redacted. Closed session.















Page 974

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18                           [Open session]

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The Chamber is grateful for Dr. Falke's

20     testimony and the submissions of the parties.  We are particularly

21     grateful for the candid manner in which the doctor gave his evidence.

22     The evidence clarified many issues relating to the accused Stanisic's

23     illness and his attendance in court.

24             In light of the evidence as a whole, and in particular the

25     evidence given by the doctor that the trial could proceed with the video

Page 975

 1     conference link subject to close monitoring of the health of the accused,

 2     the Chamber rules that the trial will proceed with the video conference

 3     link.  However, the Chamber is sensitive to the evidence of the doctor

 4     that the video conference link could harm the health of the accused and

 5     for that reason, it will, by order, set in place a special regime for

 6     monitoring and reporting on the health of the accused.

 7             We will now proceed with the Pre-Trial Conference.

 8             I have a number of issues to deal with -- I'm sorry, I didn't see

 9     you, Mr. Knoops.

10             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

12             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, the Defence for Mr. Stanisic would like

13     to request the Court to reconsider an adjournment in light of the fact

14     that we will, by tomorrow, file an application under Article 20 of the

15     directive of assignment of counsel for the ICTY as adopted in the plenary

16     of June 2006 meaning that we, as Defence, cannot continue and we will ask

17     the registry with a motivated application for our withdrawal from the

18     case.

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let me just read what you said.  You said the

20     Defence is requesting the Court to reconsider an adjournment in light of

21     the fact that we will, under Article 20 of the directive -- you will file

22     an application to withdraw.

23             Well that is no basis for us not to continue with the Pre-Trial

24     Conference.

25             Mr. Groome.

Page 976

 1             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, what I wanted to address with the

 2     Chamber is just thinking in terms of what might be prudent at this stage.

 3     I was going to ask the Court and this would be just a suggestion is

 4     whether it would be important to notify Mr. Stanisic before we begin with

 5     the Pre-Trial Conference that we will be proceeding by video conference

 6     link and to give him an opportunity to go to the video conference link --

 7     video conference room now.

 8             Secondly, has the Court -- I think it's important that the Court

 9     state on the record that it has found that Mr. Stanisic is able to go to

10     the video conference link room and that his failure to go there is deemed

11     a waver waiver of his right to be present at the trial.

12             Those are just some suggestions about how since we are in

13     somewhat unfamiliar ground that we might make our proceeding more

14     certain.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Let me confer with the court deputy as to

16     whether Mr. Stanisic is aware of the decision that we had made.

17             The court deputy.

18             I had assumed that he would be aware of it but perhaps that

19     assumption is wrong.

20                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21             My information is that Mr. Stanisic is not aware of the decision

22     that we have taken.  I had assumed that he would be and that assumption

23     is --  has proven to be wrong.  It goes without saying that he needs to

24     be informed of it and for that purpose, I'm going to adjourn for 15

25     minutes so that he can be informed.

Page 977

 1             We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

 2                          --- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  May I ask the court deputy whether the accused

 5     Stanisic has now been informed of the Trial Chamber's decision?

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, Mr. Stanisic has been informed.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.

 8             Mr. Groome, as to the point that you made, I would have thought

 9     that it followed quite clearly that the Trial Chamber's ruling was that

10     the accused Stanisic was well enough to follow and participate in the

11     proceedings by video conference link.  In that decision, we were very

12     much encouraged and felt supported by the doctor's evidence that he could

13     follow and participate in the proceedings by video conference link though

14     subject to close monitoring of his health.

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I believe it is clear and I withdraw my

16     suggestion.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  This is the Pre-Trial Conference and I start

18     first with disclosure and the translation matters.

19             Are there any disclosure matters that the parties wish to raise?

20             Mr. Groome.

21             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, could I just raise as a general point,

22     I've asked Mr. Gregory Townsend, the trial attorney, to take charge of

23     all disclosure matters throughout the trial so that is one of his primary

24     areas of responsibility, so I will ask him to address the Court.  I will

25     ask him to address the court I think he has some information about what

Page 978

 1     may be outstanding, if anything --

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. Townsend.

 3             MR. TOWNSEND:  Thank you, Your Honours.  With regard to

 4     translations and disclosure, we'd like to report that with regard to Rule

 5     65, proposed exhibits, Your Honour, there's approximately 80 outstanding

 6     translations, most of those 79 seem to be B/C/S into English.  With

 7     regard to statements under Rule 66, most of those translations have been

 8     done.

 9             Our audit shows none outstanding.  And we're making great

10     progress with the help of CLSS and DVU and that's the status report.

11     Thank you, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  As for the 80 outstanding, what is

13     the time estimate on that?

14             MR. TOWNSEND:  We would have to confer with CLSS for that

15     information.  We don't have that handy, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, please do and we need to proceed as

17     quickly as possible.  Thank you very much.

18             As far as agreed facts and adjudicated facts are concerned, we

19     have the Prosecution's motion, and I am to say that the Chamber will give

20     a decision in due course on those motions.

21             I come now to the important question of the time available for

22     the Prosecution case.  The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution

23     intends to present the evidence of 106 witnesses during an estimated 172

24     hours of examination in chief.  Among these witnesses are eight witnesses

25     now listed as 92 quater witnesses.  In total, the Prosecution therefore

Page 979

 1     is requesting 172 hours for examination in chief of 98 witnesses.

 2             Another witness's evidence, namely that of Witness Number 64 of

 3     the latest 65 ter witness list was admitted under Rule 92 quater in the

 4     case of the Prosecutor versus Martic.

 5             A number of matters which I'll deal with which will show how the

 6     time may reasonably be reduced.  There is one witness, an intercept

 7     operator in respect of whom the Prosecutor wants his evidence to be heard

 8     live so that he can authenticate and contextualise intercepts.  Now, if

 9     there is no dispute concerning the authenticity of these documents, there

10     would be no need to hear this witness viva voce.  I'm going to ask the

11     Defence whether they are contesting the authenticity of the documents.

12             Mr. Knoops, this is Witness 40.

13             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour ...

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Witness 40 on the 65 ter witness list.

15             Mr. Knoops, are you in a position to say?

16             MR. KNOOPS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  At this point, we are not

17     able to make an informed decision about authenticity of those

18     transcripts.

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, you should do so as quickly as possible

20     and let us know because this is quite readily a matter in which some

21     expedition could be achieved.

22             The Trial Chamber sees possibilities for further reduction of the

23     number of hours.  We note in particular that several witnesses are to

24     testify as linkage witnesses.  There are 42 linkage witnesses for a total

25     of 112 and a half hours for the Prosecution case in chief and we see no

Page 980

 1     need for such a high number of linkage witnesses.

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17             In total, the estimate of these witnesses would take 35 hours.

18     Within the list of witnesses on the joint criminal enterprise and as an

19     example only, many witnesses are to be called to testify on the role of

20     Milan Martic in the alleged joint criminal enterprise, in particular, in

21     addition to the evidence of Milan Babic, 92 quater; C-058 partial 92 ter

22     is to be called to testify for six hours exclusively on Martic's role and

23     his link with the DB.

24             Moreover, the link is Martic is also supposed to be one of the

25     main issues in the testimony of M-078, partial 92 ter, three hours.

Page 981

 1     Slobodan Lazarevic, partial 92 ter, four hours; C-013, partial 92 bis,

 2     two and a half hours; Radoslav Maksic, partial 92 ter, two and a half

 3     hours, and the same issue is also touched upon in the evidence of B-050

 4     who is live and is down for 7 hours.  C-015, partial 92 bis, two hours

 5     and Aleksandar Vasiljevic, partial 92 bis, five hours and others.

 6             The examination in chief for these witnesses is expected to last

 7     32 hours.

 8             While recognising that the witnesses are not expected to testify

 9     exclusively on the alleged link of Milan Martic with other members of the

10     joint criminal enterprise, the Chamber does see a significant amount of

11     cumulative evidence in the summaries of these witnesses.

12             Further examples of cumulative or repetitive evidence, at least

13     eight witnesses are supposed to testify, although not always exclusively,

14     on the organisation of structure of Arkan's Tigers.  Another eight

15     witnesses are scheduled to testify on the topic of the takeover of Dalj

16     and crimes other than the crimes in Dalj explicitly listed in the 92 bis.

17             The Trial Chamber has also observed that many witnesses are

18     listed as partial 92 bis or 92 ter and yet many of them are still

19     expected to testify for over an hour.

20             I have had much experience with this practice which, to me,

21     defeats the purpose of 92 bis or 92 ter.  It is reasonable to allow some

22     questions to clarify the evidence contained in the statement and the

23     Prosecution is strongly encouraged to limit the examination of 92 ter

24     witnesses to 30 minutes.

25             The Chamber's ruling is as follows:  The Prosecution will be

Page 982

 1     allowed to present the evidence of 90 witnesses considering the

 2     possibilities for reduction of examination in chief just mentioned, the

 3     Trial Chamber finds it in the interests of justice to determine that the

 4     Prosecution is to present its evidence within 130 hours.  This amount

 5     reflects the time available for examination in chief of the witnesses.

 6             Generally, each accused will be allowed 60 per cent of the time

 7     for examination in chief for its cross-examination, but applications may

 8     be made for an extension of that time.

 9             On the 19th of March, the Prosecution requested the Trial Chamber

10     to lift the ex parte status of certain annexes attached to several

11     motions pertaining to delayed disclosure of 16 witnesses.  Neither the

12     Defence for Jovica Stanisic nor the Defence for Franko Simatovic

13     responded to this motion.  In light of the fact that the material

14     relating to these witnesses has been disclosed to the Defence for both

15     accused, there is no need to maintain the ex parte status of the annexes

16     to the relevant motions.

17             The Trial Chamber therefore lifts that status in relation to the

18     documents listed in the annex to the Prosecution's motion.  A decision

19     will be given in due course on the other pending motions.

20             The scheduling of witnesses, the parties are to provide a list of

21     witnesses every Thursday to the greatest extent possible with the names

22     of the witnesses they expect to call the following week.  The Prosecution

23     will supplement that list with all known prior statements of the

24     witness -- of the witnesses that are relevant to the proceedings.

25             I am to say that the Chamber will make an order providing further

Page 983

 1     details about the scheduling of witnesses and the transmission of

 2     documents from one party to the other, both in the Prosecution's case and

 3     in the case for the Defence.

 4             May I ask whether the Prosecution has anything to raise?

 5             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour, just to clarify.  So with that

 6     listing, Your Honour means -- when Your Honour says supplement with

 7     statements, is the Chamber requesting that we provide those prior

 8     statements to the Chamber or just a list of the statements?  I'm unclear

 9     as to exactly what you would like us to provide on Thursdays aside from

10     the of witnesses we intend to call.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The intention that you would provide the

12     statements of the witnesses, not just the list.

13             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.  There is nothing further

14     that the Prosecution wishes to raise.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Now, may I ask Mr. Knoops for Stanisic whether

16     he has anything to raise?

17             MR. KNOOPS:  Thank you, Your Honour, nothing to raise.  Thank

18     you.

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  May I ask Mr. Jovanovic whether he has anything

20     to raise.

21             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  With

22     respect to the witness list, the Prosecution at this stage of the

23     proceedings will present every Thursday.  I want to know whether on that

24     list, there will be documents which are to be introduced through those

25     witnesses.  Will the list include the documents?

Page 984

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That will be set out in the order which the

 2     Chamber will make very, very shortly.  All those details will be set out.

 3     But yes, it will include the documents which the Prosecution intends to

 4     put to witnesses in its examination in chief, but there are other details

 5     to be attended to and I would rather do that in an order.

 6             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 8             MR. GROOME:  I apologise, Your Honour, there is one matter.  We

 9     will arrange the schedule of witnesses according to the calculations that

10     the Court has indicated with respect to cross-examination.  I've

11     requested several times and the Prosecution would appreciate if either

12     Defence counsel believes that they will use less time than that allowed

13     by the Court to please advise us so we can accelerate the appearance of

14     witnesses and so we do not have any lapses of unused court time.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, I ask Defence counsel to take that into

16     consideration and of course when the Defence is presenting its case, the

17     Prosecutor will also take that into account.

18                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

19             JUDGE ROBINSON:  That concludes the Pre-Trial Conference and

20     we'll now have the opening statement.

21             Mr. Groome.

22             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, could I ask for a short adjournment of

23     no more than 10 minutes to distribute.  We have copies of the statement

24     for the interpreters, the director as well as we need to load up the

25     exhibits we wish to show the Chamber.

Page 985

1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Ten minutes.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 6.20 p.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 6.34 p.m.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, your opening statement.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, before I begin, the Prosecution will be

 6     showing evidence during the course of this opening statement.  That can

 7     be viewed by the Chamber or by other participants in the court here today

 8     by pressing the e-court button on their panels.  We've also provided hard

 9     copies of the slides and the documents that we will show the Court so in

10     the event that we move past them too quickly, the Court has a copy that

11     it can read at its leisure.

12             Finally, Your Honour, during the course of this trial, the

13     Prosecution will be working with a number of maps, I've given the usher a

14     set of map books now, I've asked that they be distributed and they are

15     maps that will be important and relevant to the evidence over the course

16     of this trial.

17             With that, Your Honour, the Prosecution is ready to begin.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, please.

19             MR. GROOME:  Your Honours, perhaps one of the most shocking

20     pieces of evidence adduced at a trial in this Tribunal is a video

21     containing images of three men and three boys shot in the back, hands

22     bound tightly with wire.  Captured as they fled a fallen Srebrenica, we

23     watch them silently and with resignation walk to a spot where they will

24     be murdered one by one.  We watch their captors, some mocking the six in

25     their final moments, others demonstrating a demeanor more akin to a

Page 986

 1     routine task.  One is focused on capturing the executions on videotape.

 2             Here on slide 2 is a still from that video and in it we see the

 3     youngest Dino Salihovic moments before he is executed.  The world

 4     recoiled as the image was played repeatedly on news programmes.  The day

 5     will come in this trial when we will have to watch their death again, but

 6     not today.

 7             Today, I want to show you a different part of that video.  The

 8     video taken by the Scorpions on that occasion is approximately two hours

 9     long.

10                           [Videotape played]

11             MR. GROOME:  The parts of the video that I want to show you this

12     afternoon, while at first appear less shocking.  Upon reflection are more

13     disturbing than the killings themselves because they reveal that the

14     perpetrators of these crimes were not rogue paramilitaries, not a band of

15     common criminals, no, the perpetrators of these crimes and the other

16     crimes charged in this indictment were a well-organised and equipped

17     group, part of the units of the Serbian DB, the State Security Service of

18     the Republic of Serbia.

19             Members of a unit that was well trained, well-equipped, well

20     paid, they had everything that they needed including a licence to clear

21     the land of unwanted peoples, a licence to commit murder.

22             What is now known about the special units of the Serbian DB has

23     left many Serbs wondering how it was possible that some of the most

24     grievous crimes committed during the war were committed in their name, by

25     men paid by the government, men in a unit administered by the State

Page 987

 1     Security Service of the ministry of internal affairs of Serbia more

 2     specifically, by Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

 3             Your Honours, this case in its simplest terms is an examination

 4     of the conduct of two of the people with primary responsibility for

 5     organising, training, funding, equipping, and directing members of units

 6     of the Serbian DB to perpetrate grievous crimes on the territory of

 7     Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the name of protecting Serbs and

 8     securing for them a land free from Croats and Muslims.

 9             Not too long ago, a Serb journalist posed a question in reference

10     to the special units of the Serbian DB.  "How did it happen that a group

11     of armed and dangerous men dared to shape the destiny of an entire

12     nation?"

13             Can I draw your attention to the video in slide number 4.  Here

14     in 1997, Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic celebrate their work forgetting

15     the suffering they occasioned while they pose with current and former

16     members of the special units.  The proud founders of that group of armed

17     and dangerous men that so dared to shape the destiny of an entire nation.

18             The tensions that fuelled the break-up of Yugoslavia and the

19     terrible interethnic violence that spared no one are still a subject of

20     scholarly and popular debate, a debate that lies outside the task that

21     the Trial Chamber begins today.

22             The Trial Chamber is not called upon to adjudicate these issues,

23     and I will spend little time on them here.

24             The focus of this trial is upon Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic

25     and the role they played in the commission of crimes in Croatia and

Page 988

 1     Bosnia.  The role they played in a plan to use violence to forge

 2     fundamental demographic changes on the territories of the former

 3     Yugoslavia.

 4             It is only right that we begin this task by spending a few

 5     moments to consider who these two men were at the outset.  What were the

 6     legal duties and what were the boundaries of their authority?

 7             Both Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic were employees of the

 8     Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia.  I will refer to

 9     this ministry throughout this opening by its Serbian acronym, M-U-P or

10     MUP.

11             The Serbian MUP's mandate is articulated in the Serbian law on

12     ministries which is reproduced here in relevant part on slide number 6.

13     Its legal authority is similar to other interior ministries in other

14     developed democratic societies.

15             In essence, it was responsible for the protection of citizens and

16     residents of the country and the regulation of borders, passports and

17     identity documents.  In short, the Ministry of the Internal Affairs, the

18     Serbian MUP was responsible for the safety and security of persons inside

19     of Republic of Serbia.

20             One of the administrative divisions of the MUP was the State

21     Security Service, the part of the MUP headed by Jovica Stanisic.  This

22     section was more commonly known by its Serbian acronym, the DB.

23             Slide number 7 shows Article 3 of the DB's rules, the article

24     which defines its mandate as one of collecting information, data, and

25     knowledge.  Information of general and counter intelligence, information

Page 989

 1     concerning extremism and terrorism.  And while it also included the

 2     collection of information about "forms of threats to the national and

 3     cultural-historical identity of Serbs who live outside of the Republic"

 4     of Serbia, it clearly sets the legal boundaries of what Mr. Stanisic's

 5     organisation was entitled to do, collect information.

 6             Let me now speak directly about Mr. Stanisic and his place in the

 7     Ministry of Internal Affairs.  Slide 8 contains a brief summary of his

 8     professional appointments.

 9             Jovica Stanisic would join the MUP in 1975.  His first position

10     there would be in the State Security Service, the DB.

11             Although throughout 1991, Mr. Stanisic was nominally the deputy

12     head of the DB, the evidence in this case will show that during this

13     period, he was the de facto head of that organisation.  And on the 31st

14     of December, 1991, with the intervention of Slobodan Milosevic, he

15     assumed the position of head or chief of the DB.

16             As you can see from slide number 9, Mr. Stanisic had the

17     responsibility of implementing the mandate of the Serbian DB.

18             I would also like to point out the penultimate paragraph which

19     states, "Organises the execution of tasks and affairs within the

20     competence of the division in conditions of emergency, imminent threat of

21     war and war."

22             Although there was conflict in Croatia and Bosnia from 1991 until

23     1995, Serbia never declared a state of emergency, or imminent threat of

24     war and thus this paragraph never became effective during the period of

25     this indictment.

Page 990

 1             Let me now turn your attention to the career of Franko Simatovic.

 2             Slide number 10 is a brief summary of his resume.  He would join

 3     the DB three years after Stanisic in 1978.  He worked in the section

 4     responsible for gathering intelligence.

 5             As you can see from this description of Mr. Simatovic's job on

 6     slide number 11, he was primarily charged with implementing projects to

 7     gather intelligence, data, and information about threats to Serbia.

 8             While the mandate extends to collecting information about

 9     perceived threats to ethnic Serbs living outside of Serbia, it does not

10     provide for any forcible intervention outside the country.

11             As I have said, the internal laws of Serbia are similar to other

12     modern democratic states, laws designed to circumscribe the activities of

13     a governmental organ with precision and maintain a balance of power.

14             They are there to ensure that the authority of the state is not

15     misused.  While ideologically, Stanisic and Simatovic identified with

16     Slobodan Milosevic and his goals for the Serb people, the laws of Serbia

17     prevented them from deploying their personnel as a fighting force outside

18     Serbia's borders in Croatia and Bosnia.

19             When Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declared independence, the

20     presence of the Yugoslav army there was no longer considered legitimate

21     by the international community.

22             It became necessary for Milosevic to create a paramilitary force

23     that could be deployed covertly outside Serbia and outside its laws.  A

24     paramilitary force that could be used in combat as well as in the

25     commission of the crimes necessary to implement Milosevic's goal of

Page 991

 1     creating ethnically pure areas in Croatia and Bosnia.  The State Security

 2     Service already engaged in covert information gathering was a logical

 3     place to create such a special unit.

 4             If the state is going to engage in criminal conduct, it will use

 5     its he secret service to engage in that conduct.

 6             Your Honours, throughout the course of this opening, the

 7     Prosecution will introduce you to some of the people who are central to

 8     this case.  Each of the people we speak about in this way is a core

 9     member of the joint criminal enterprise with Mr. Stanisic and

10     Mr. Simatovic or was a prominent member of the units of the Serbian DB.

11             One of the people the Chamber will hear a great deal about is

12     Slobodan Milosevic.  It has always been the position of the Office of the

13     Prosecutor that he was the central driving force behind this joint

14     criminal enterprise.

15             The Prosecution will tender in this trial -- will tender evidence

16     in this trial showing the close working relationship that the two accused

17     had with Mr. Milosevic.

18             In October 1998 when Stanisic was dismissed by Milosevic, he gave

19     a public statement which can be seen here on slide number 12.  In that

20     statement, Stanisic states that he executed his duties within his

21     constitutional and legal powers.  The Chamber's adjudication of this

22     indictment will test the accuracy of this statement.

23             He also made clear that he had aligned him testify with

24     President Milosevic in the early 1990s an arrangement that a careful

25     analysis of Serbia's law is a circumvention of the legally defined chain

Page 992

 1     of authority in that country.

 2             Mihajl Kertes like Jovica Stanisic was born in Backa Palanka.  He

 3     was the head of the security department in one of Serbia's largest banks

 4     the Dafiment bank and secured the financing, or in part secured the

 5     financing for Jovica Stanisic to create the special units of the Serbian

 6     DB.

 7             I would like to play an intercept for you in slide 13 we hear

 8     Kertes and Karadzic talk about the problems Mr. Stanisic is having with

 9     his direct lawful superior, a man by the name of Mr. Janackovic

10     suggesting that Milosevic's trust in Janackovic was misplaced.

11                           [Intercept played]

12             MR. GROOME:  We hear Kertes saying that Milosevic has given both

13     him and Stanisic carte blanche.  I would like to show you a clip from a

14     video we will refer several times in this opening, the video was taken

15     during an awards ceremony at the Radoslav Kostic centre in Kula Serbia in

16     May of 1997.  Many of the people who are behind the formation of the

17     special units Serbian DB and supported its activities in Croatia an

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina attended.

19             During this particular clip, Jovica Stanisic is giving Milosevic

20     a tour of the facility and handing out awards to those who played a

21     prominent role in the unit.

22                           [Videotape played]

23             MR. GROOME:  As you saw, Mr. Stanisic gives both Milosevic and

24     Kertes awards on behalf of the special units of the Serbian DB.

25             The Prosecution's case is broader than simply the relationship

Page 993

 1     between Slobodan Milosevic, Mihalj Kertes, Jovica Stanisic, and

 2     Franko Simatovic.  The Prosecution will establish in this trial that the

 3     crimes charged in the indictment were perpetrated as part of a collective

 4     criminal effort, as part of a joint criminal enterprise.

 5             It is the Prosecution's case that Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic

 6     were willing members in a core group of persons who shared the intent to

 7     remove large populations of non-Serbs, mostly Muslims and Croats, from

 8     their homes and land by force, by perpetrating the crimes of murder and

 9     persecutions.

10             In some cases, their lands were targeted because they lay in

11     areas in which Serbs were a majority; in other cases, their lands were

12     targeted because the land was necessary to bridge disconnected

13     concentrations of Serbs; in other cases, their land was targeted simply

14     because it was considered a necessary acquisition in order to secure the

15     success of the overall plan.

16             The crimes perpetrated during the conflict are of a magnitude and

17     of a scale that challenge our ability to comprehend them in the detail we

18     need in the context of a criminal trial.

19             It can be equally difficult to conceptualize the large group of

20     people who must necessarily work with a common purpose towards

21     realisation of those crimes.

22             Each person in this collective, having a different contribution

23     to make, having a different position and role to play in the overall

24     enterprise.

25             I submit this diagram on slide on number 15 as one way of

Page 994

 1     conceptualizing this core group of perpetrators.

 2             While it is certainly an oversimplification of the joint criminal

 3     enterprise, it is a starting point as we progress through the trial the

 4     Court will become aware of the nuances in the relationships between these

 5     core members that I cannot capture in a simple diagram.

 6             The vertical columns represent going from left to right, core

 7     members of the joint criminal enterprise who were Croatian Serbs, in the

 8     middle column, Serbs in Serbia proper, and on the far right column,

 9     Bosnian Serbs.

10             Looking horizontally at the diagram, the top row represents those

11     core members who were in the military, the middle row, those who held

12     governmental positions, were political figures, or whose contribution is

13     best characterised as political, and the bottom row those participants

14     who worked in the respective MUPs of the three regions.

15             As you can see, Mr. Stanisic appears in both the political and

16     the Ministry of Internal Affairs boxes.  This is because his role in the

17     joint criminal enterprise extended beyond his job in the State Security

18     Service as you will hear on this next intercept I will play.  In it, his

19     actions are in some cases best characterised as political.

20             In the intercept on slide 16, you can hear Jovica Stanisic and

21     Radovan Karadzic discussing Milan Babic, a prominent leader of the

22     Croatian Serbs in the Krajina.

23                           [Intercept played]

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, it's 7.00, and I think we have to

25     adjourn.

Page 995

 1             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And we resume tomorrow at 1.15 p.m.

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.

 4                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th of April,

 5                           2008, at 1.15 p.m.