1 Monday, 29 June 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.26 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-03-69-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We had a bit of a late start, which was also caused by quite a
12 bit of confusion in relation to whether or not Mr. Stanisic had waived
13 his right to be present in court today. Let's start, perhaps, with that
15 The Chamber received recently an update report from the forensic
16 psychiatrist. The Chamber also received recently a new report on
17 gastroenterology as we requested to be provided on those points. This
18 morning, the Chamber received a weekly update report by Dr. Eekhof.
19 Although it is not visible from this report, the Chamber inquired into
20 whether Dr. Eekhof had seen Mr. Stanisic today, so as to be sure that the
21 weekly report would include any observations of today. Then the Chamber
22 received copies of a -- two forms, one in which Mr. Stanisic waived his
23 right to be present, although he did not feel well enough to attend
24 court, and the other one was the observations made in this respect, or
25 rather formal report by the UNDU staff.
1 Now, it turns out that the -- Mr. Stanisic made a mistake when he
2 declared that he would waive his right to be present in court; is that
3 correct, Mr. Knoops?
4 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, that is, indeed, the information we
5 received at 1.45 this afternoon.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one would expect the forms to be known by now,
7 having been used several times, but that's the situation. The Chamber,
8 meanwhile, asked the Senior Legal Officer to get in touch with the United
9 Nations Detention Unit, and we understand that Mr. Stanisic has filled in
10 the forms in such a way that he still feels not well enough to attend
11 court, that does not waive his right to be present in court and that he
12 does not wish to use the facilities to follow the proceedings through a
13 video-conference link. Is that also in line with your information,
14 Mr. Knoops?
15 MR. KNOOPS: That is correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 Under the circumstances as they are known to the Chamber by now,
18 the Chamber will proceed.
19 Yes, Mr. Knoops.
20 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, does the Chamber means with proceeding
21 that the Chamber's not willing to hear the comments of the Defence with
22 respect to the --
23 JUDGE ORIE: No one has asked me to give any comments on the
24 matter. If you would like to give comments --
25 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- you could have asked --
2 MR. KNOOPS: We did.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- to make such comments.
4 MR. KNOOPS: I explained that we would like to comment
5 procedurally on the presence of the accused before the start of the case,
6 if that is confusing, then my apologies.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, you mean at an earlier stage.
8 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may do so. Could you give us an indication
10 as to how much time you need?
11 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, just a few minutes, if Your Honours
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you mean now to express the position of the
14 Defence in view of starting the presentation of evidence by the
16 MR. KNOOPS: In light of the absence of the accused.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Knoops.
18 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 The Defence is in possession of the report of Dr. De Man and the
20 preceding report of Dr. Eekhof in which he acknowledged -- acknowledges
21 in his report of the 23rd of June that the general conclusion was that
22 the health problems present a great complexity. This was based on a
23 multidisciplinary meeting apparently which took place last week in the
24 detention unit.
25 This morning, we received the report of Dr. De Man, and in light
1 of this report, we have no other option than to ask the Chamber to
2 consider an adjournment of the proceedings, because we believe that the
3 defendant is not capable of either participants here in the courtroom or
4 through the videolink conference. The reason being that Dr. De Man
5 clearly states in his report that the defendant considers his present
6 life situation to be not worth living, and the examination shows sign of
7 a major depression. Notably, Dr. De Man observes that there is no
8 divergence between his opinion and that of his colleagues in Belgrade
9 in -- on this issue. And in light of these circumstances, although the
10 report we have to submit is not quite detailed of Dr. De Man, we think
11 it's not in accordance with the rights of the accused to continue on the
12 basis of this report.
13 Now, my colleague, Mr. Jordash, has indicated to the Chamber some
14 specific questions we would like to submit to Dr. De Man, which, in
15 detail, would go into the question of the effective participation.
16 This -- these questions were not taken into account and were not
17 addressed by Dr. De Man, but apart from that, we believe that this
18 information cannot be ignored in terms of its -- its I think very clear
19 conclusion. In other words, a defendant who is considering suicide I
20 think is hardly possibly to effectively participate in the proceedings.
21 So on the basis of this report, we as Defence felt obliged to
22 submit this application to the Court, or in the alternative, seek further
23 clarification of Dr. De Man as to his conclusions. We as Defence, we're
24 under the presumption that Dr. De Man would address the vital questions
25 in this case for our position, namely whether we can continue as Defence
1 in receiving any instructions, whether we can uphold a fair trial for
2 this defendant, and that's the reason why we have submitted those
3 questions to the Chamber. And now these questions were not taken into
4 account. We receive a general report of Dr. De Man, which in itself is
5 alarming, we believe, in itself; and in light of this report, we cannot
6 continue as Defence with a defendant who is -- who is thinking of
7 committing suicide and suffers from a major depression, and this is
8 directly the dilemma the Defence is facing like last year.
9 Apart from this whole situation of our position, we still believe
10 that on the basis of this report it cannot be said by itself that this
11 defendant is mentally fit to be present here today or participate through
12 the videolink, and this is, I think, exactly the purpose why Dr. De Man
13 was involved.
14 So our application to the Chamber is primarily to adjourn the
15 proceedings on the basis of this report. Secondly, in the alternative,
16 seek further clarification as to the ramifications of what Dr. De Man
17 means with the major depression, risk of suicide, the effects of sedative
18 medication which are now reduced. But all those indicators clearly
19 emphasise the presumption that this defendant is not fit to come to court
20 or participate through the videolink or effective participation.
21 This is our submission, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Knoops.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, microphone.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Brehmeier-Metz, would you like to make any
2 observations in response to the submissions by Mr. Knoops.
3 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Indeed I would, Your Honours. Good
4 afternoon, Your Honours.
5 The Prosecution would oppose the Defence application for an
6 adjournment of the proceedings, and the Prosecution does not agree with
7 Mr. Knoops's assessment of Dr. De Man's report. Indeed, there is nothing
8 in the Prosecution's view in either the gastroenterologist's report or
9 the most recent report of Dr. De Man to suggest that Jovica Stanisic
10 cannot participate in today's proceedings.
11 The ailments that were described by the gastroenterologist have
12 been accommodated by the Chambers's decision on the trial modalities, and
13 Dr. De Man describes Mr. Stanisic as being, and I quote:
14 "cooperative, well-oriented, and quite alert, as showing no
15 evident disturbances of memory, no disturbances of perception and
16 judgement or thought disturbances, no hallucinatory experiences."
17 In fact, there is something in Dr. De Man's report that suggests
18 a district possibility that Mr. Stanisic is malingering and actually
19 trying to manipulate the expert's findings. Dr. De Man describes that he
20 was shown a UNDU recording that shows Mr. Stanisic moving around in his
21 cell without problems and that he seemingly applied a substance, possibly
22 cigarette ash, under his lower eyelids.
23 Initially when Dr. De Man visited Mr. Stanisic, he claimed that
24 he was too tired to proceed with the interview with Dr. De Man and that
25 claim seemed to be supported by, as Dr. De Man notes, the grey
1 discolouration under eyes. After a break, those marks were done.
2 The recording shown to Dr. De Man clearly indicates that the
3 discolouration was not a sign of Mr. Stanisic's claimed tiredness but
4 that he applied those marks himself in order to deceive Dr. De Man.
5 The Prosecution has since asked that the Registry make the
6 recording that was shown to Dr. De Man available also to the parties in
7 this case, and as soon as this request is granted, we will inform the
8 Defence accordingly so that they, too, can watch it. For today's
9 proceedings, though, I can only repeat what I said initially, namely that
10 there is no evident medical reason why Mr. Stanisic should not be present
11 in the courtroom or in the video-conference link room and that the trial
12 should proceed accordingly. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, any need to -- or Mr. Jordash, any need
14 to briefly respond to what was said by Ms. Brehmeier-Metz.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honours, just very briefly. The issue at
16 its simplest is that Dr. De Man's report is simply not detailed enough.
17 We will, in our respectful submission, keep coming back to the same
18 debate, because the psychiatric evidence we keep receiving doesn't
19 address the specific questions. We, the Defence, would, like everyone in
20 this room, like to get on with this trial. We, the Defence, are faced
21 with a psychiatric report, which despite our best efforts, doesn't
22 address the key fitness questions.
23 Now, if it be right that Mr. Stanisic was rubbing ash in his --
24 on his lower eyelid, then, yes, an inference arises of malingering, but
25 an inference also arises of simply odd behaviour that Mr. Stanisic would
1 think, one, that that was an effective route. Two, as I understand the
2 situation, Dr. De Man had a break, and when he returned the ash or the
3 greyness was removed. So if it was a ruse by Mr. Stanisic, it was a
4 rather ridiculous one, because he removed the ash before Dr. De Man came
5 back, knowing Dr. De Man was coming back.
6 So we keep returning to malingering, odd behaviour, and serious
7 depression. We, the Defence, are faced constantly with serious
8 depression and an inability to be able to approach the accused with
9 confidence, that when we do so, he understands what is occurring and can
10 participate in giving us instructions. So all we have been trying to
11 endeavour to do is get enough details so we can avoid these backwards and
12 forwards discussions with the Prosecution as to whether Mr. Stanisic is
13 malingering or not; and, two, know what we, the Defence, can do when
14 approaching somebody, and this isn't disputed it would seem, when
15 approaching somebody who appears to have suicidal thoughts. Do we keep
16 approaching him for instructions knowing that he may get worse and may --
17 it may increase his desire to commit suicide, or do we simply turn up to
18 court without instructions? It's that which the Defence are trying to
19 request the Court assist us with to a degree, to provide us with the
20 detail that would allow us to do our job.
21 Those are our submissions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
23 Before we continue -- yes, Mr. Knoops.
24 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, if I may assist the Court. I do fully
25 acknowledge the observations of the Prosecution, but if Your Honours may
1 also look at paragraph 2 of the report of Dr. Eekhof, it's saying, which
2 is never stated by him before, that the discrepancy between the physical
3 claims by Mr. Stanisic and the view of the -- of Dr. Eekhof, he said,
4 "can be explained by -- as neurotic behaviour." So in other words, we
5 can't exclude the possibility that we are dealing with a person who is
6 that ill that it also affects his abilities in terms of his non-neurotic
7 behaviour; and if the observation would lead to the conclusion that he is
8 putting cigarette ash on his face, it can very well be an exponent of
9 this neurotic behaviour, and that's why my learned friend says we, as
10 Defence, we simply would like to have further clarification as to the
11 level of participation and instructions this defendant can give us or not
12 give us before we can clearly provide him the best Defence as possible.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Just a few questions. Was there any medical report
15 over the last year which clearly, unambiguously, established that
16 Mr. Stanisic, at the time that report was made, was unfit to stand trial?
17 MR. JORDASH: Well, I -- since the accused -- since the trial was
18 adjourned last year, I don't think there has been a report which has
19 unambiguously stated that, but the question has never been asked. That's
20 the problem.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Has it been raised that he's unfit to stand trial by
22 you, by the Defence, because under the normal circumstances, a trial does
23 not start by establishing that someone is fit to stand trial. That's the
24 normal situation. And we have heard a lot of doubts expressed on whether
25 he was fit to stand trial, but is there any unambiguous motion to say --
1 declare him unfit to stand trial?
2 MR. JORDASH: Well, if I could answer that in this way, that
3 during the adjournment, we didn't seek to push that point because the
4 trial wasn't proceeding at that point. So we were keen to ensure that
5 Mr. Stanisic's treatment could continue without triggering off that
6 procedure which necessarily involves the Prosecution's instruction of
7 experts, the Defence instructions of experts, which would have
8 necessarily interrupted what we understood to be a fairly rigorous and
9 sensitive therapeutic regime in Belgrade
10 Upon -- at some point, the date escapes me, but two months ago or
11 so, Mr. Stanisic was then recalled. Think it's fair to say that was a
12 surprise to us and it was a surprise to the Prosecution, because the
13 Prosecution were not asking for him to be recalled for trial, they were
14 asking him to be recalled for diagnosis.
15 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment you are explaining, perhaps, I do not
16 know yet where you're going, why things happened as they happened. My
17 question is simple, that is: Was there any unambiguous request for this
18 Chamber to establish that on the basis of the medical information
19 Mr. Stanisic is unfit to stand trial?
20 MR. JORDASH: I was just arriving at that point, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's good.
22 MR. JORDASH: Mr. Stanisic was recalled, and we have been
23 seeking, since then, to have a report deal with the very questions which
24 would be the basis of such an application. This is why we sent fairly
25 detailed questions to your legal officer, so that the report produced by
1 Dr. De Man would address the questions and we would know whether there
2 was a basis for fitness issue or not. If not, then we would have been
3 able to save court time by not raising the issue every time we get to the
4 start of a new proceedings, which we -- of course, irritates us and I'm
5 sure irritates everybody else too. It's that lack of information which
6 means we cannot let the point drop, nor can we pursue it.
7 Those are my submissions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Has the situation in relation to the major depression, has it --
10 are there clear signs that it has changed over the last three months?
11 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps I can answer that in this way, that I've
12 seen Mr. Stanisic, and Mr. Knoops, and other members of the team have
13 seen him, and I think it's fair to say that his observable symptoms from
14 a lay perspective appear to be getting worse, but whether they, in fact,
15 reflect a worsening of his condition, we don't know. We can only say it
16 as we see it as lay people.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, then perhaps I should have been more
18 precise in my question.
19 Do the medical reports reflect a considerable change, substantial
20 change, as far as the major depression is concerned over the last three
22 MR. JORDASH: In our -- in our submission, they would appear
23 to -- I think they appear to be slightly at odds with each other.
24 Dr. Petrovic appears to suggest the condition is the same as the
25 accused's condition was in Belgrade
1 there's been an improvement. Dr. De Man's latest report seems to be
2 ambiguous. On the one hand an improvement of judgement, but on the other
3 hand, new symptoms of suicidal ideation. So it's a rather mixed bag of
4 medical results in our submission arising from the lack of specificity of
5 the medical records, reports.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber decides that the request for an
8 adjournment of the trial at this moment is denied, and the reasons for
9 this decision will be put on the record soon.
10 I would now like to move to a matter which has not yet been
11 resolved, that is, protective measures for the witness to be called, and
12 I'd like to turn into private session, which I think in this courtroom
13 also needs the curtains to be pulled down.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 1560-1563 redacted. Private session.
16 [Closed session]
11 Pages 1565-1579 redacted. Closed session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. We have dealt with the
22 protective measures to be granted to the present witness --
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break, and we'll resume at 10 minutes
25 past 4.00, and we'll then actually start the examination of the witness.
1 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we proceed, Mr. Hoffmann, he'd like to inform
4 the parties already that a decision has been filed this afternoon in
5 which the motion for bifurcation of the evidence was denied.
6 Mr. Hoffmann, are you ready to proceed?
7 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness C-015, you'll now be examined by
9 Mr. Hoffmann. Mr. Hoffmann is counsel for the Prosecution.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Examination by Mr. Hoffmann:
13 Q. Witness, do you recall giving a statement to investigators from
14 this Tribunal?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that the document 65 ter 5030 be
17 brought on the monitor. This is a statement dated 10, 11 and
18 13 May 1999
19 Q. Mr. C-015, on the screen before you, you can see a document
20 purporting to be a statement given by you on 10, 11 and 13 May 1999. Do
21 you recall giving a statement on that day?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. If you look at the bottom of that page at the signature, do you
24 recognise this as your own?
25 A. That is my signature.
1 Q. And if we can --
2 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session, isn't it? Yes, because
3 you ...
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, I think some credit due on the part of
6 Madam Registrar is in place that what is now on the screen has not been
7 broadcasted. You should specifically ask for this not to be broadcasted,
8 but please proceed.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: I'm very grateful. If we could please go to page
10 10 of the same document.
11 Q. And again, Witness, I've asked you to look at the signature and
12 to tell the Court whether that's your signature.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could we now see, please, document 65 ter 5032 on the screen.
15 It's a statement given on 24 January 2001
16 JUDGE ORIE: And you wanted to add, And it should also not be
17 shown --
18 MR. HOFFMANN: Absolutely, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. HOFFMANN:
21 Q. And again, Witness, I ask you to look at the signature of -- on
22 that page, whether you recognise this as your own.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Just finally if we can go to page 6 of the English document, and
25 the same question would be for that page.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. There it is. Whether you recognise that signature.
3 A. Yes, that is my signature. I signed it.
4 Q. And, Witness, did you have a chance to -- prior to coming to
5 testify to review both of these statements?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. And did you have a chance to put down in writing any changes or
8 clarifications you made to those two statements?
9 A. Yes, there were a few corrections.
10 MR. HOFFMANN: Can I just ask that 65 ter 5029 be brought up on
11 the screen. That is, in fact, a table of clarifications that the witness
13 JUDGE ORIE: Also not to be shown to the public.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes. It should not be shown to the public.
15 Q. And again, Witness, if you look at that table, do you recognise
16 your signature at the bottom of that table?
17 A. Yes, that's my signature.
18 Q. And just for the completeness of the record, if we can go to the
19 last page of that document.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: The document should consist of three pages. If
21 need be and to expedite the proceedings, we do have a hard copy to be
22 shown to the witness if that would be easier.
23 And just for the record, Your Honours, we have provided the
24 Defence with that same table this morning through e-mail.
25 Q. And I would ask you, Witness, if you just look at the document,
1 at the signature of -- on each page and just quickly confirm whether it's
2 your signature.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Are these all the clarifications you wanted to make to the two
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And subject to these corrections in the document before you, did
8 your statements that you signed in 1999 and 2001 accurately reflect what
9 you told the Prosecutor's office at the time?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And final question: If you were asked the same questions today
12 that were asked in 1999 and 2001, would you give the same answers?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, at this point in time I would ask
15 that both the statements be admitted into evidence, that is, 65 ter 5030,
16 in the first place. That is the 1999 statement.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? Apart from the objections which
18 were raised against the use of 92 ter statements in general, which was, I
19 think, specifically with Witness C-015. That's already a while ago that
20 you responded to -- to several motions by the Prosecution to have 92 ter
21 statements introduced into evidence.
22 Mr. Jovanovic, you are arguing that it would be unfair to have a
23 written statement and at the same time have -- have oral testimony to be
25 And, Mr. Knoops, the Stanisic Defence had some other problems.
1 Any objections at this moment?
2 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.
3 Other than the ones that we have already stated.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Knoops.
6 MR. KNOOPS: No further objections at this point.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That means that the objections stand.
8 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please assign numbers to
12 all three documents. Let's start with the 1999 statement.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the statement 65 ter 5030 will
14 become Exhibit P2, under seal. Statement 65 ter 5032 will become
15 Exhibit P3 under seal, and 65 ter number 5029 will become Exhibit P4,
16 under seal.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And all three of them are admitted into evidence,
18 under seal.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours. And for the public
21 record, we also prepared redacted versions of each of the documents, and
22 we would ask that those be admitted as well into evidence. The 1999
23 statement is 65 ter 5031, as redacted version, the 2001 statement is
24 redacted as 65 ter 5033, and the table of clarifications in redacted form
25 is 65 ter Exhibit 5034.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has not been provided with those before.
2 It's mainly a matter of carefully checking whether the redactions are
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any observations from the Defence teams? If not,
6 the Chamber decides that they will be marked for identification so as to
7 enable the Chamber to have a closer look to it. Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As P5, P6, and P7, marked for identification,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: One of the thing we'll also consider, well, whether
11 all redacted versions will always have to be admitted into evidence
12 because the evidence doesn't change a bit. Of course, it's important to
13 have these exhibits to be made known to the public, but we'll further
14 consider that as well.
15 For the time being, they're MFI
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour. I would now ask that we
18 briefly go into closed session for a few remarks on the personal
19 background of the witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into closed session.
21 [Private session]
11 Page 1587 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 MR. HOFFMANN:
16 Q. Before I start with some questions regarding the events in the
17 region of Eastern Slavonia, I would like to show you a map from the court
18 binder of maps.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask the Court Officer to place map number 7
20 on the screen.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please refer to the 65 ter
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes. The 65 ter number is listed as CB-map 7.
24 Q. Witness, if you have a look at the map in front of you on the
25 screen, do you recognise this map?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What does this map depict?
3 A. Republika Srpska Krajina is shown on the map.
4 Q. Witness, is this an accurate and official map of the RSK at the
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Witness, I would like to -- you to indicate to the Court the
8 three areas of the Serb Autonomous Region of Slavonia, Baranja, and
9 Western Srem, and if you would take the pen with the Court Usher's
10 assistance --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have a code for the colour of marking? I
12 would like any marking to be made during this trial in one colour for the
13 Prosecution and another colour for the Defence, so as to be able to make
14 a distinction if any marking was made on the request of one party or the
16 Now, the choice is blue and red.
17 Mr. Hoffmann, any --
18 MR. HOFFMANN: No preference on my side, but to expedite, I would
19 go for red.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Red for the Prosecution.
22 MR. HOFFMANN:
23 Q. Witness, if you could mark the area of Baranja with a capital B,
25 A. This is where the Dunav flows into -- the Drava flows into the
2 Q. And if I could ask you --
3 A. Up towards the Hungarian border.
4 Q. And if I could ask you now to mark the area of Slavonia with a
5 capital S.
6 A. From the Danube River
8 Q. And finally, would ask you to indicate the area of Western Srem
9 with a capital WS.
10 A. From this narrowing here down to the border with Serbia. That is
11 the area of Western Srem.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. HOFFMANN: I'd ask that these markings be saved, and I would
14 tender this map with the markings of Witness C-015 into evidence.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be number?
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7 -- P8, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? Not to be expected. P7 it be
18 admitted into evidence, can be a part of the document.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: I think it's Exhibit P8, if I'm correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, P8. Yes, then I misspoke. I apologise.
21 MR. HOFFMANN: And I would ask, actually, the following map, which
22 is map 7A, just contains the translation of the text on this map, that
23 this would be included in the same exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's usually if an exhibit is admitted into
25 evidence, the translation is uploaded into e-court and is automatically
1 also admitted.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: Fine, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And I wonder why we needed the witness to find out
4 where these locations are on a map. It seems to be something you could
5 easily agree upon, and I do not think that this witness has any opinion
6 different on the matter than any other witness would have. So therefore,
7 it certainly would have been a matter to compromise upon if there was any
8 need to do so.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: We certainly will do so for the future,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
12 MR. HOFFMANN: I would now ask that we quickly look at map 18. It
13 has a similar 65 ter number, CB-Map 18. This is, in fact, just a closer
14 map of the region of the SAO SBWS.
15 Taking upon your suggestion, I would simply ask if there are any
16 objections from the Defence or whether we can simply tender this map into
17 evidence. It's just a matter of reference.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any disagreement that this map depicts what
19 was said already by Mr. Hoffmann a minute ago?
20 MR. KNOOPS: No objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
22 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then this map can be assigned a number.
24 Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P9, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P9 is admitted into evidence.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Now, Witness, in your statement from 1999, Exhibit P2, you do
5 mention a training centre in Erdut, and you say it was used for the
6 Territorial Defence, the TO, prior to August 1991.
7 What happened to that training centre after 1st August 1991?
8 A. When the centre was placed under our control, we took the weapons
9 from there, infantry weapons, rifles, M-48s. There were several
10 automatic rifles, protective masks also, Thomson guns - it's an old type
11 of weapon - and also a combat kit of 100 pieces of ammunition for each of
13 Q. And by whom was that training centre used after 1st August 1991?
14 A. After 1991, it was used by the police.
15 Q. Was it used by the police all the time in 1991, or was it later
16 used by other?
17 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, objection, leading.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please rephrase.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Well, then, I simply stick to the first part.
20 Q. Was it used by the police all the time in 1991?
21 A. The police did not use it that whole time. When Arkan came, he
22 threw the police out, and then he moved into the centre, and he was there
23 until the peaceful reintegration. And then three months later, the
24 Republic of the Serbian Krajina came back, and then he went to a
25 different location downstream of the Danube.
1 Q. Now, you have mentioned a person by the name Arkan. Can you tell
2 the Court his full name?
3 A. That is Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan.
4 Q. And who was that Arkan, Zeljko Raznjatovic?
5 A. I remember him from football matches of the Red Star
6 Crvena Zvezda. He was arrested once in Croatia, and then he was
7 released. This is also what I remember. And I remember him coming to
8 Tenja. And as I said before, when he later chucked the police out and
9 he, himself, moved into that facility.
10 Q. In what relation did Arkan stand to the JNA, the Yugoslav Army?
11 MR. KNOOPS: Objection, leading.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the proper way of asking this question.
13 Was there any relation, and then to next question, what that relationship
14 may have been.
15 Now, I'm just checking on whether there's anything already in the
16 statement about this.
17 Mr. Knoops, is there any relationship between Arkan and the JNA?
18 MR. KNOOPS: In such a specific way it was not asked to the
19 witness in the statement, as I recall.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No. But if in the statement as a basis for
21 accepting that there was a relationship, then there's no need to object
22 against leading.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann, but perhaps you do it, since we have
24 not found yet the --
25 MR. HOFFMANN: If I may assist. It's actually in the 1999
2 JUDGE ORIE: In the 1999 statement.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: And page 3 of the English and the first full
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. HOFFMANN: There is reference to the training centre it, and
7 there is reference to the JNA, put it that way. It says that:
8 "Weapons, ammunition, and other equipment was brought in to the
9 training centre from the JNA storage."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so -- well, of course, you could say if it was
11 brought in, it doesn't mean that there is a relationship but let's -- and
12 of course, we have to get used to each other.
13 Mr. Hoffmann, of course, to ask who Arkan is, if that was already
14 in the statement is totally superfluous, because the statement says
15 exactly who this witness thinks Arkan was. At the same time, let's not
16 be over-technical.
17 The leading, if it comes to a point where it would really be of
18 importance, then, of course, there's nothing against objecting. However,
19 if the route for the question already found in the statement, it could
20 hardly still be considered a question which is based on an assumption
21 which is not yet established, because this is already in evidence.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. HOFFMANN:
24 Q. Witness, if you answer that question. In what relation did
25 the -- did Arkan stand to the JNA?
1 A. No -- no relation. In a word, they just didn't get along.
2 Q. Was there any relation between Arkan and the local Serb
4 A. At that time I wasn't there, so I can't say, but where he was,
5 the local population received him quite well.
6 Q. Can you tell the Court who Mile Ulemek was?
7 A. Mile Ulemek is a member of Arkan's guard.
8 Q. What about Milorad Stricevic?
9 A. Milorad Stricevic is a person who appeared in our area and
10 introduced himself as Colonel Milorad Stricevic. And there was also, at
11 that time, a man in Belgrade
12 for National Defence, by the name of Stricevic until he was actually
13 detected, and then he transferred himself to Arkan's unit as a colonel.
14 Q. Now, in your 1999 statement, Exhibit P2, at page 5 in the English
15 version, you refer to Mile Ulemek and Arkan in the relation to the arrest
16 of a few Croats from Klisa in October 1991. Can you tell the Court what
17 happened to these people?
18 A. Can we please moved into closed session?
19 JUDGE ORIE: We move into closed session. We rely that -- upon
20 you, Witness C-015, that --
21 [Closed session]
11 Page 1596 redacted. Closed session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Witness, we are now in open session
2 MR. HOFFMANN: And I would ask the Court Officer to place 65 ter
3 number 1881 on the screen for the witness. It is a report from the
4 commander of the Dalj police station to the minister of the interior of
5 the SAO SBWS, dated 23rd September, 1991. Its subject is the hand-over
6 of prisoners from the Dalj police station.
7 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, before the Prosecution is able to
8 submit this document to the witness, we believe that there should first
9 be made a foundation for introducing this document, as per also the
10 guidelines in the Perisic case in paragraph 27.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, I hope you'll forgive me that I have
12 not -- I think, as a matter of fact, I saw that you had you had an
13 agreement during a recently-held meeting in which reference was made to
14 the -- to the Perisic practice, which I'm not. And you said paragraph
16 Yes. Would that oppose against having this document being
17 tendered from the bar table as well? Because often we find the direct
18 link with the witness is not there, which would even cause a party to
19 tender it not through a witness at all. Because apparently your problem
20 is that it should not be tendered through this witness. Would there be
21 any objection against it being tendered without a witness? Is there any
22 concern about authenticity, or is there any ...
23 Apart from another matter, you referred to -- yes. You pointed
24 at that under this rule to have it introduced through this witness that a
25 basis should be -- foundation should be laid for that. So apart from
1 what the alternatives would be, Mr. Hoffmann, if you're able to lay such a
2 foundation, you're invited to do so. If not, we'll see what other
3 options there are.
4 MR. HOFFMANN: I was to ask the witness about the document, which
5 I think would lay the foundation. I'm asking him --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. HOFFMANN: And I don't have the Perisic guidelines at hand
8 right now, but --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, you say before it's submitted. Does
10 that mean in your view the witness should not even see the document in
11 order to establish what the foundation is for this witness to testify
12 about this document?
13 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour, because that would amount to
14 refreshment of memory, leading the witness by a document which is not
15 authored by him.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, you can do it perhaps without showing
17 it to the witness, and -- although the Chamber might not be
18 over-technical, let's see where we go. Could you ask the witness such a
19 question which would establish a link between him and this document.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: I will certainly try, but I would have thought that
21 the practice in this Tribunal is actually that he's allowed to have a
22 look at the document and then talk about whether he knows the document
23 and the content of the document, but I'll try to -- obviously without
24 then referring even to the content of the document, to ask him about it.
25 It seems to me, honestly, rather time-consuming. And in addition, I
1 would like to note that this document has been previously admitted. So
2 it seems to me that there is a presumption that it's been found --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, I take it that it has been admitted in
4 another case.
5 The issue, apparently, is, and Mr. Knoops says this is not the
6 way in which this document should be introduced. Admission in another
7 case, maybe under different circumstances, with a different witness, with
8 a different level of relevance, different probative value. We are in the
9 very early stages of this proceedings, and apparently you want -- you
10 intended to show to the witness a piece of correspondence addressed to
11 the minister of the interior of the Autonomous Region Eastern Slavonia,
12 Baranja, and Western Srem with -- in relation to the hand-over of
14 Witness C-015, are you familiar with correspondence of the kind
15 as I just mentioned, that is, hand-over of prisoners, 1991? Are you
16 familiar with documentation in relation to such transfer or hand-over of
18 A. Well, if you allow me, in order to really resolve this problem
19 very quickly I should like you -- ask to move into closed session, and I
20 can clarify everything regarding these documents, and it will be quite
22 JUDGE ORIE: We can move into closed session.
23 [Closed session]
11 Pages 1601-1602 redacted. Closed session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 Any questions in relation to this document other than what the
17 witness told us already, Mr. Hoffmann? And please keep in mind that this
18 might be a sensitive issue in terms of protective measures.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes. I'm aware of that.
20 Q. Witness, just what you told us about what happened to these
21 people and how they were killed, how did you learn about it? And again
22 if you feel that the answer to that question would reveal your identity,
23 we would have to go back into private session. The question would be how
24 do you know?
25 A. I will have to mention names.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we return into closed session again.
2 [Closed session]
11 Pages 1605-1607 redacted. Closed session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.
7 MR. HOFFMANN: And I would ask that the next document be placed on
8 the monitor, which is 65 ter number 355.
9 Q. C-015, I would ask you to look at the document in front of you.
10 It is an Official Note of the Dalj police station regarding incidents on
11 the premises of that police station on 4, 5 October 1991. Do you
12 recognise this document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Are you familiar with the events described in this document?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How do you know about these events as described in the document?
17 A. The person who wrote the statement told me that. I had the
18 opportunity to spend some five or six years together with him.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: If we can go on the B/C/S version to the bottom of
20 the page, and in English to page 2.
21 Q. If you look, Witness, at the persons who drafted that report, are
22 you familiar with those two names?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what about the recipient of that report, which is listed on
25 the left side at the bottom of the page under number 2? Do you recognise
1 that name?
2 A. Can we zoom in a little bit, please?
3 Q. That would be the bottom part of the document, in the left
4 corner. The second last line --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness C-015, is your problem that you can't read
6 it, or is it a problem that you have to think about whether you --
7 apparently Mr. Hoffmann is referring to what appears after 2, Mr. Hoffmann,
8 where it reads "komandantu specijalne," and then can you read what then
10 A. I cannot see now. I don't have my reading glasses.
11 Unfortunately, they are up there. I didn't bring my reading glasses with
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could that line -- first of all, could we have the
14 whole screen with the B/C/S.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is it clearer to you now? Could even be enlarged a
17 little bit more.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then repeat your question, Mr. Hoffmann.
20 MR. HOFFMANN:
21 Q. Again, Witness, if -- under number 2, can you tell us whether you
22 are familiar with the name that is mentioned there?
23 A. Yes, I am familiar with the name.
24 Q. And who is that person?
25 A. He came to us. He was in charge of setting up police stations in
1 our area. He had come from Serbia
2 set up police stations in places where the police stations existed
4 Q. Would you say that this report is correct and in line with your
5 own knowledge of the events?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, I would tender this document 65 ter
8 355 into evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, before I ask whether any objections,
10 "your own knowledge" is a rather ambiguous term in evidential -- in the
11 evidential context. What is my own knowledge, that you are named
12 Mr. Hoffmann? They told me. I've got no idea finally, and if I verified
13 it, it's hearsay, which doesn't make it unreliable. What do you mean by
14 this is a rather -- is a document with quite a few elements in it. When
15 you say, "Is this in line with your own knowledge," do you mean hearsay
16 reports on the same events, and if so, is it done by the same persons or
17 by other persons? Because if the same persons who apparently gave this
18 information told this witness the same story, that's different from
19 knowing from other sources than those persons that the same. So I think
20 it would be worthwhile to briefly explore that, because otherwise we
21 might draw wrong conclusions.
22 And I see the document now for the first time, apparently the
23 witness not. I would like to read through it to see whether ...
24 Perhaps while I'm reading you put -- if you have any questions to
25 the witness, but ...
1 MR. HOFFMANN:
2 Q. Witness, you told the Court before that you had talked to the
3 chief of the police station, Cizmic, about these events. Do you have any
4 other source of information regarding these events on 4 and 5 October
5 1991, in the Dalj police station?
6 A. I said that before. I don't have anything other than that and
7 what I said before.
8 Q. Maybe if you go to the last paragraph, Witness. There is
9 mentioning that a number of persons are missing since then.
10 MR. HOFFMANN: Maybe we can zoom in a bit on this last paragraph
11 for the witness to see.
12 Q. Have you been involved, witness, with any involvement with
13 finding any of these persons or follow-up on these persons? And it may
14 be that for this answer we again have to go into private session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Should we go into closed session, Witness C-015?
16 Then we'll move into closed session.
17 [Closed session]
11 Page 1612 redacted. Closed session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 We were about to hear whether there were any objections against
5 admission into evidence of this document.
6 Mr. Knoops.
7 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, we object to this document being
8 tendered as evidence because it contains various forms of double hearsay
9 which in all reasonableness could not be within the knowledge of this
10 witness. For instance, first page, at the second paragraph whereby
11 reference is made to several telephone calls. It's at the end of
12 paragraph of three, and more in particular, in page 2 where in the
13 fourth, fifth, sixth line mention is made of a conversation that was
14 heard, or at least words which were heard and which were attributed to an
15 institution. I'm not reading that out for the record, but you'll find it
16 on page 2, from the fifth line onwards.
17 So if the Court would admit this document at all, we would submit
18 that these portions could not be admitted, because there is no relation
19 between the witness and the contents of those two portions in the
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic.
23 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The same reasons, Your Honour,
24 that were stated by my colleague.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: If I --
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considered the objection to be rather to
3 wait for this contemporaneous document, which, of course, will be
4 considered in the context of the totality of the evidence.
5 The objection against admission is, therefore, overruled.
6 Madam Registrar, this would be number?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P11, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P11 is admitted into evidence.
9 It's time for a break, Mr. Hoffmann. We will have a break of 20
10 minutes, and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 6.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 5.52 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, you may proceed.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour. In the interests of time,
15 I will skip a couple parts of the examination-in-chief, because as I
16 think Your Honour indicated, most of those things are to some extent
17 covered in the statement. I would, therefore, go now to show a
18 video-clip. It is 65 ter 4718. The clip is taken from the video
19 ERN V000-3788, and it's starting at minutes 30:15 of the original tape.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any spoken text on it?
21 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The transcript has been provided to the booth?
23 MR. HOFFMANN: It has been.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I, again, to the extent that the speed of
25 speech is such that it's impossible to follow that one of the
1 interpreters verifies whether what is said appears on the transcript and
2 that the other one takes the time necessary for interpretation.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. HOFFMANN: Okay.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I have -- where do I hear the English translation?
7 I see it on the screen, but that's, of course, not on the transcript, and
8 since the French translation is on channel 5, we have an incomplete
9 record if we have no English translation. I don't know what channel I
10 can receive that either --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, the English booth does not usually
12 read if the English is on the screen. We usually get a printed-out
13 transcript then we can read. The way it is now, it is just too fast for
14 us to follow and to verify that it actually is the translation of what is
15 being said.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- I would say that is more or less the
17 same for you as it is the French booth. So, therefore, the system and I
18 think we try to do it in this way during the opening statement, the
19 system being that one of interpreters checks whether the spoken words are
20 the same as the words written and that then that means from B/C/S into
21 English, and that the other interpreter just interprets rather than read
22 what appears to be a translation of which, of course, the accuracy is --
23 well, thought to be established.
24 Would that possible, because the French booth is apparently able
25 to --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Well, Your Honour, the actual speech in B/C/S
2 is too fast to be simultaneously interpreted. So we can read if we have
3 the transcript, but at this pace it is not possible to verify that it
4 will be an exact simultaneous translation. It's just too fast.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there an original transcript, that means
6 B/C/S, provided to the booth?
7 THE PROSECUTOR: My understanding is all the booths were provided
8 with a B/C/S original transcript and the English transcript.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I then invite the English booth to verify whether
10 the words spoken in B/C/S are the words as they appear in the B/C/S
11 transcript, and that the other interpreter then interprets from the
12 written B/C/S version. It's not then a simultaneous translation, and it
13 may take two or three or four or five minutes longer. I also invite the
14 Prosecution, if it's a very lengthy video-clip, then to stop half so that
15 we can catch up. But if not, then the translation, I do understand that
16 that's also how the French booth does it, is then a translation from a
17 transcript in B/C/S which been checked upon whether it's an accurate
18 transcript of the words spoken.
19 Could we restart. If there's any further observation, I would
20 like to hear. I would very much like to resolve the problems in --
21 together with you than --
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Let me just -- for the information of the booth,
23 the relevant clip in the transcript can be found on page 3, both English
24 and B/C/S transcript.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that might assist they know where to find it on
1 the transcript, because otherwise you start --
2 MR. HOFFMANN: Again, my understanding was that we did provide
3 those transcripts with an indication where the clips are.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Everybody tries to do their utmost best, and is this
5 workable the way in which I suggested it?
6 THE INTERPRETER: We can do our best, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- I'm -- that's what we know. Let's
9 [Video-clip played]
10 THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] Reporter: Krajina is solemnly
11 celebrating the day of security. On this day three days ago, the first
12 large gathering of people and mass protests again the Croatian leadership
13 took place in Knin. The result of those events was a petition signed by
14 the policeman of the then-Knin Public Security -- Security Station
15 refusing obedience to the pro-Ustasha authorities in Zagreb and refusing
16 to wear markings worn by Ustashas 50 years ago while committing genocide
17 against the Serbian people. The central celebration took place in Knin.
18 Milan Martic, minister of the interior, spoke at the formal events
19 stressing at the end of his speech that the chequer-board flag can be in
20 Knin only over our dead bodies. Among speakers addressing the gathering
21 were Goran Hadzic, President of the Knin Municipal Assembly. On the
22 occasion of the day of security of the Republic of Serbian Krajina
23 were issued Serbian rebellions now prizing decorations, medals for
24 courage, and certificates of gratitude issued."
25 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that you even tried to keep up with it. I
1 do not mind if your translation finishes one minute after that. That's
2 would not be no problem because I --
3 THE INTERPRETER: The problem was that we actually didn't find
4 the right place in the transcript, so we just had to go by what was on
5 the screen, so we did our best to follow the pace there.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then next time I'll invite the party who presents
7 such a video-clip with a transcript to clearly indicate before we start
8 where the beginning is to be found. I, nevertheless, admire the way you
9 did it.
10 Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Witness C-015, this was a television report of a ceremony on the
13 RSK security service day on 5 July 1993
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 Q. Can you tell the Court, just judging by the footage that you saw,
17 where this ceremony was held?
18 A. This was held in Knin. This was the former JNA hall. It was
19 then renamed the police hall, the police of the Republic of Serbian
21 Q. Did you in person attend this celebration?
22 A. That one, no.
23 Q. On this video footage did you recognise any of the people
24 attending the ceremony?
25 A. Yes. I recognised Goran Hadzic. I recognised Milan Novakovic,
1 the late Babic. Mr. Stanisic is there also, I believe, Goran Hadzic.
2 Q. You say you believe Mr. Stanisic was there. If it helps you, we
3 can certainly replay the clip if there is any doubt on your side whether
4 he was there or not.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any dispute about the persons appearing and
6 whether Mr. Stanisic is among them? If so -- if there's no dispute,
7 then -- Mr. Jovanovic.
8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to ask
9 another question of a procedural nature. If the witness says that he did
10 not attend the celebration, the presentation of a video -- of the video
11 footage of some celebration means that it is possible in the future to
12 show anyone any video-clip and ask for a comment. The witness, namely,
13 clearly said that he did not attend it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: But he may recognise features we are unfamiliar with
15 but he is familiar with. If you'd show me a video of a mountain, I might
16 not know what mountain it is, while someone who is living close to the
17 Mont Blanc
18 recognises the Mont Blanc
19 comment apparently from the answers of this witness, we learn that he is
20 familiar with the location. Apparently, if you disagree, you can
21 cross-examine him on the matter, and, apparently, he recognises quite a
22 number of persons. Whereas, Mr. Hoffmann now tells us would we have to
23 show it again in order to see whether Mr. Stanisic is there, but,
24 apparently, Mr. Knoops does not seem to challenge that one of the persons
25 shown during this meeting is Mr. Stanisic.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But if there's any Simatovic challenge of
4 Mr. Stanisic being shown, then of course we would like to hear so that we
5 can play it again. I see Mr. Simatovic, although he's not giving
6 evidence, is nodding no, and this is understood as instructing counsel
7 not to challenge the presence of Mr. Stanisic. Is that well-understood?
8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, certainly.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] But it's the reporter that's
11 actually saying where the place is, where it is being held.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You can cross-examine the witness on how familiar he
13 is with the location, and whether he's just repeating what the reporter
14 says, or whether he has any personal knowledge of that location.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour. Actually, following on the
17 discussion I would tender this clip into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be number?
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit Number P12, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? No objections. Then P12 is
21 admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
22 MR. HOFFMANN:
23 Q. Witness C-015, when I ask you whether you did attend this
24 ceremony you said no, but another one. Was there any other celebration
25 or ceremony that you attended?
1 A. Yes. I attended another celebration. I went to see those people
2 in my area who were at the school, but as I told you before, I'm not
3 going to talk about it because it was not part of my statement.
4 Q. I was actually referring -- or let me rephrase my question,
5 Witness. Did you ever see Jovica Stanisic in person, at any time, in the
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. At what occasion did you see him?
9 A. I saw him on several occasions, but I repeat, we have talked
10 about this. This is not in my statement, and I'm not going to talk about
11 it. I do not wish to talk about it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You are under an obligation to answer questions.
13 It's not for the witness to decide what questions he wants to answer and
14 what questions he doesn't want to answer. So, therefore, I invite you,
15 if need be in closed session, if there's any -- if you would have any
16 problem of the kind we discussed earlier, but it's not that you and
17 Mr. Hoffmann together decide what questions will be answered.
18 May I invite you to answer the question.
19 MR. HOFFMANN:
20 Q. Maybe I'll rephrase it, Witness.
21 A. All right then.
22 Q. Let me just rephrase my question, Witness C-015 when looking at
23 this footage I did ask you whether you attended the ceremony in Knin, you
24 said no but you did attend another similar meeting. Do you recall any
25 such meeting in the area of Knin?
1 A. Yes, I do recall that.
2 Q. Can you tell us more about that meeting? Who was meeting, and
3 who was present?
4 A. Well, all right. If you insist, I'll tell you where I was. I
5 went there, as I said, to tour the area, the people in the school, and
6 Golubic. This is a place near Knin where policemen were being trained.
7 You know that we were at war and that we did not have the necessary
8 police personnel, so a training centre was set up there where one had
9 existed previously in the former Yugoslavia
11 I went there. I visited my people there. After I had visited
12 them I left, and I -- there you have it.
13 Q. Did you, at any time, meet one of the accused in the area of
15 A. It was then only, and I saw Jovica Stanisic on that occasion, but
16 I never talked to him, never throughout this period, and throughout this
17 period of my testimony, I had never talked to him. I had talked to the
18 late Badza. We were on quite good terms, and I never had an occasion to
19 talk with Mr. Stanisic. I only saw him there then.
20 Q. At that time did Jovica Stanisic give any speech?
21 MR. KNOOPS: Leading question.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: I'll rephrase.
23 Q. Witness --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
25 MR. HOFFMANN:
1 Q. -- C-015. You said you have met or seen the accused, Stanisic,
2 in Golubic. Do you remember anything that was said either by him or
3 about him?
4 A. Yes. This was the time when UNPROFOR had forbidden us to have
5 our own army so that we had to have police forces, because in UN
6 protected zones there could be no more troops but the police only.
7 Mr. Stanisic called all of them. The commanders of the police stations
8 were present there in the area where the UN was deployed, and he told
9 them in very nice words how they should conduct themselves. He spoke in
10 professional terms, how they should comport themselves, vis-a-vis the UN,
11 how they should look and behave like policemen, especially those who had
12 been properly schooled and trained. So he said nothing apart from giving
13 them the instructions how they should comport themselves and how they
14 should cooperate with the UN.
15 Q. At that meeting that you just described where Stanisic spoke, did
16 anyone else speak at that occasion?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us who?
19 A. Martic did.
20 Q. And would you tell the Court what Martic said.
21 A. Now, here again this is something that I did not say in my
22 statement, and now he's making me say what he had said. Mr. Judge, do I
23 have to say that?
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you know what Mr. Martic said during that
25 meeting, the Chamber would like to know the answer to the question, which
1 was: What did Mr. Martic say at that occasion?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will respect your decision, but
3 this was not the way it was with the statement, but I shall abide by your
5 Martic said that present with us was his only and first
6 commander, Mr. Jovica Stanisic, called the "icy one," and he gave him the
7 floor then, and then Jovica said what I said before, that he had said.
8 MR. HOFFMANN:
9 Q. Witness, did you ever see, at any time, the accused -- either of
10 the accused in the area of the SAO SBWS?
11 A. Yes, I did. I saw Jovica Stanisic.
12 Q. Can you tell us when and where that was?
13 A. I do not remember the time, but it was in Erdut.
14 Q. Do you remember roughly when that was? In the early 1990s, in
15 the late 1990s?
16 A. I do not remember. It was on two occasions, but I was not
17 present at either of these two meetings.
18 Q. Do you know with whom Jovica Stanisic met at these occasions?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, could we first try to clarify.
20 You were asked whether you ever saw, at any time, the accused,
21 either of the accused, in the area of the SAO SBWS, and then you said, "I
22 saw Jovica Stanisic." A few lines further down, you said when asked when
23 it was, early the 1990s or late 1990s, you say, "I do not remember. It
24 was on two occasions, but I was not present ..."
25 My question is: If you're not present, how can you see someone?
1 This is by any other ways? Did you see it on television? Is it --
2 what -- how do I have to reconcile your two answers that you saw
3 Mr. Stanisic and, at the same time, that you were not present?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can we please move into private
5 session and then I will tell you?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's -- we move into closed session.
7 [Closed session]
11 Pages 1626-1640 redacted. Closed session.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.54 p.m.
21 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day
22 of June, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.