Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1732

 1                           Monday, 6 July 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The Accused Simatovic entered court]

 4                           [The Accused Stanisic not present]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom and

 7     those assisting us outside the courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon,

10     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-03-69-T,

11     the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             I'd like to deal with a few procedural matters before we invite

14     the Prosecution to call its next witness.

15             Mr. Knoops, we received a form in which Mr. Stanisic expresses

16     that he is not well enough to attend court.  The other boxes are not

17     ticked on that form, and especially not -- well, the waiver seems to be a

18     bit unclear because I think he told the staff of the UNDU that he did not

19     understand what a waiver was.  It comes as a bit of a surprise after

20     earlier having waived his right to be present.

21             Could you explain what happened.

22             MR. KNOOPS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Good afternoon.

23             Based on this waiver or non-waiver as you may say so, we inquired

24     at around 11.45 per telephone via the UNDU.  We were called back and were

25     able to shortly speak to Mr. Stanisic, and he confirmed to me during this

Page 1733

 1     telephone conversation that his intention was not to waive his right to

 2     be present.  Apparently due to a miscommunication or his illness he was

 3     not able to fully grasp that particular box, but in essence he -- his

 4     position is the same as last week.  That was confirmed by him to me.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Apart from that, if he would not have

 6     expressly waived his right to be present, the Chamber would understand

 7     the situation to be that he has not waived his right to be present.  But

 8     apparently his intention was to waive -- not to waive his right to be

 9     present.

10             I take it that you have discussed with him earlier, some

11     malcommunication you said, so you earlier discussed with him what a

12     waiver was and you again did this this morning.

13             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes, Your Honour, we did.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any need for you to -- in view of the

15     report we received from Dr. Eekhof to put further questions to

16     Dr. Eekhof?

17             MR. KNOOPS:  Well, Your Honour, it strikes the Defence that

18     Dr. Eekhof, in paragraph 2, reports that his mental state of mind is

19     agitated and depressed, and he's upset by certain circumstances.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to deal with those circumstances

21     separately, but from a medical point of view, please proceed.

22             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes.  Our question would be to Dr. Eekhof how this

23     would inter-relate to paragraph 3; namely, that his activities,

24     observations, and unimpaired intellectual capacities during consultations

25     he estimates that Mr. Stanisic is fit to participate in the proceedings.

Page 1734

 1     In other words, how should this fit with the observation in paragraph 2.

 2     It's also, by the way, the Defence observation set out in paragraph 2

 3     that the mental state of mind of the accused is even more depressed since

 4     certain events last week.

 5             I would like, therefore, to ask Dr. Eekhof how he estimates this

 6     new development in the light of the mental state of the defendant.  But I

 7     leave it to the Court to ultimately make the decision whether or not the

 8     Court feels fully informed or not fully informed to proceed or whether

 9     the Court deems it appropriate to seek further clarification from

10     Dr. Eekhof on this subject.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Knoops, since you left it in the hands of the

13     Chamber - I consulted with my colleagues - and the Chamber does not need

14     at this moment a further clarification on the relationship between what

15     is set out by Dr. Eekhof in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of his report of

16     today, the 6th of July.

17             Therefore, the Chamber will proceed.

18             I -- the following observation, I would like to make is the way

19     in which the parties communicate with the Chamber because there may be

20     some confusion about that.  There is no problem in communicating through

21     e-mail, but purely practical matters are just dealt with by e-mail.

22     Matters which are mainly of a practical nature but may have some impact

23     on the proceedings apart from only practical -- but which may have an

24     impact which goes a bit further than just practical matters can be

25     communicated through e-mail, but we'll then put it on the record by

Page 1735

 1     referring to those e-mails in court; whereas the purely practical matter

 2     might never be mentioned in court.  Then the third category is if the

 3     e-mails contain substance, not just a marginal effect on the proceedings,

 4     but if they are really of some substance, then the e-mail communication

 5     should be filed so that we have it formally on the record in its -- in

 6     exactly the formulation as used in the e-mail.

 7             This might clarify a bit perhaps the earlier confusion about

 8     additional questions which I said we should not discuss at that moment in

 9     court, were then communicated through e-mail but never were formalised in

10     a filing.  Now, the additional questions you would like the psychiatrist

11     to deal with in his next report are now filed.  There is an urgent motion

12     on that matter.

13             The Chamber would like to receive by Wednesday, close of

14     business, a response to this urgent Defence request for further

15     submissions of psychiatric medical expert.

16             Then there is an issue and this also relates to how to

17     communicate.  The Chamber received an informal communication by the

18     Stanisic Defence on some privacy concerns expressed by Mr. Stanisic.  May

19     I first of all take it the Prosecution has been copied on that?

20             MS. BREHMEIER-METZ:  Yes, we have received it.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Knoops, the present situation is, that there is

22     already expressed in this informal communication, there is a decision by

23     this Chamber, although not composed in the same way as it is now.  What I

24     actually understand is that Mr. Stanisic would prefer third parties not

25     to be mentioned in public filings, which could result in a motion to

Page 1736

 1     review the earlier decision -- I can imagine, for example, that an expert

 2     would be invited to deal with any matters which is related to third

 3     persons in annexes -- confidential annexes rather than in the reports

 4     themselves, reports which are public.  In view of what I earlier said

 5     about communications, the Chamber expects that if this is the kind of

 6     thing you'd like us to do, to file a motion so that we can decide on the

 7     matter.

 8             Then last thing, Mr. Jovanovic, and I'm addressing you.

 9     Sometimes ask a witness who doesn't speak English to take his earphones

10     off so as to avoid that he has to leave the courtroom when we are

11     discussing matters which are preferably not be discussed in the presence

12     of the witness.  Now, if you would address the Chamber under those

13     circumstances in B/C/S, then the effect of such a measure would be

14     totally lost because he would directly hear what you're saying.

15     Therefore, the Chamber invites you, either under those circumstances and

16     if you have difficulties in using the English language under those

17     circumstances, either to ask the Chamber to invite the witness to leave

18     the courtroom or to address the Chamber in the English language.  I just

19     express concerns that any effect of taking off earphones if you speak

20     B/C/S and if it's a B/C/S-speaking witness, of course is rather

21     ineffective.

22             If -- no, that's what I would like to say about that.

23             Most likely the Chamber will deliver this afternoon orally its

24     decision on the Prosecution's witness list, especially extension of it

25     with new witnesses.  These were the procedural matters the Chamber had on

Page 1737

 1     its mind.

 2             Any other procedural matters?  If not, the Prosecution's invited

 3     to call its next witness.

 4             MS. BREHMEIER-METZ:  Your Honours, may I introduce to you

 5     Mr. Adam Weber, who hasn't appeared before you in this case.  Mr. Weber

 6     is going to take that witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you very much.

 8             First of all, could a message be sent to the Detention Unit that

 9     the -- there's no further need to have Dr. Eekhof stand-by.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  It has been done already.

12             Mr. Weber, the next Prosecution witness would be ...

13             MR. WEBER:  Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours.

14     Adam Weber on behalf of the Prosecution.  The Prosecution at this time

15     calls Borivoje Savic.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and from the fact you use his name, I

17     understand that no protective measures are required?

18             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

20             The witness has been scheduled for three hours?

21             MR. WEBER:  That's correct.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And there's no other witness stand-by for

23     tomorrow?

24             MR. WEBER:  That's my understanding.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 1738

 1             Is there any reason as far as the Defence is concerned - of

 2     course you have seen the earlier statements which are not in evidence, we

 3     haven't seen them - that we would not conclude the testimony of this

 4     witness tomorrow?

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6             MR. JORDASH:  No, I think having discussed it with my learned

 7     friend I think we'll finish him tomorrow.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 9             Good afternoon, Mr. Savic.  Can you hear me in a language you

10     understand?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence the Rules require that you

13     make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,

14     and nothing but the truth.  The text is now handed out to you by

15     Madam Usher, and I would like to invite you to make that solemn

16     declaration.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I shall

18     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19                           WITNESS:  BORIVOJE SAVIC

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Savic.  Please be seated.

22             Mr. Savic, could you come a bit closer to the microphones.

23     Mr. Savic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber.  Mr. Weber is counsel

24     for the Prosecution.

25             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

Page 1739

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour.

 2                           Examination by Mr. Weber:

 3        Q.   Could you please introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.

 4        A.   My name is Borivoje Savic.

 5        Q.   What is your date of birth?

 6        A.   2nd February 1949.

 7        Q.   Where were you born?

 8        A.   I was born in Sljivova, municipality of Krupanj in Serbia.

 9        Q.   What is the highest level of education that you completed in

10     Serbia?

11        A.   I graduated from the secondary agricultural school in Sabac.

12        Q.   Where is Sabac?

13        A.   Sabac is also in Serbia.

14        Q.   After you completed secondary school in Serbia, did you move

15     anywhere?

16        A.   When I completed secondary school, I moved to Vinkovci which was

17     in the Socialist Republic of Croatia to continue my education at the

18     higher school for agriculture.

19        Q.   Did you complete your compulsory military service?

20        A.   Yes, I did, when I completed my secondary school.  In 1968, 1969,

21     and 1970 up to the 15th of January I served in the military.

22        Q.   What was your profession prior to 1990?

23        A.   I worked at the Vupik Vukovar agricultural combine as an

24     agronomist.

25        Q.   Did you become involved in politics in 1990?

Page 1740

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   What political party did you join?

 3        A.   I joined the Serbian Democratic Party, which was headquartered in

 4     Knin.

 5        Q.   When was the Serbian Democratic Party formed in Croatia?

 6        A.   The Serbian Democratic Party was formed on the 17th of February,

 7     1990, in Knin on the eve of the first multi-party elections in Croatia.

 8        Q.   What is the reason that you became involved in politics?

 9        A.   The political turbulences that were in place at the time.  I

10     believe that the Serbian Democratic Party was an option whose goal was to

11     use all reasonable and political means in order to calm the situation

12     down.  It was also a parliamentary party after the first elections in

13     Croatia.

14        Q.   When did you join the SDS party?

15        A.   In May 1990.

16        Q.   How did you join the SDS party?

17        A.   I participated and I was among the first who was involved in the

18     establishing of the board of the Serbian Democratic Party in the

19     territory of Slavonia and Baranja.

20        Q.   Did you personally meet anyone when you joined the SDS party?

21        A.   Yes, I met with the president of the party, Professor Draskovic.

22        Q.   Could we please have a clarification, sir, of that name.  Is it

23     Professor Draskovic or Professor Raskovic?

24        A.   I said Professor Raskovic, Jovan Raskovic.

25        Q.   Where did you meet with Professor Raskovic?

Page 1741

 1        A.   On the 3rd of May, 1990, during the process to establish the

 2     board of the Serbian Democratic Party in Belgrade.

 3        Q.   What role did Professor Raskovic request that you serve as part

 4     of the SDS board?

 5        A.   Actually, the initiative was mine.  From the very outset he told

 6     me that the SDS had tried but failed to spread across Slavonia and

 7     Baranja, that they did not have the time to continue, and that I should

 8     do whatever I could, but not to be disappointed if I, as well, failed.

 9     And he also told me that he was at my disposal, if I needed something to

10     contact him.

11        Q.   After this meeting with Professor Raskovic in Belgrade did you

12     have occasion to go to Knin on the 20th of May, 1990?

13        A.   Our following meeting was initiated by him, and it took place on

14     the 20th of May, 1990.

15        Q.   Who went with you to Knin?

16        A.   Mr. Goran Hadzic went to Knin with me as well as Drago Njegovan,

17     Milan Bukarica, and Pero Malovic.

18        Q.   What occurred when you first arrived in Knin?

19        A.   We met up in front of the municipality building in Knin, in the

20     parking-lot.  It was just a chance meeting.

21        Q.   And when you say "we," who are you referring to?

22        A.   I mean my group, the people who came with me, and

23     Professor Raskovic, who had arrived from Sibenik.

24        Q.   Did anything occur at that time?

25        A.   Professor Raskovic was accompanied by Mr. Milan Babic, president

Page 1742

 1     of the municipality of Knin or the Municipal Assembly of Knin, rather,

 2     and there was also my group, me and the people who were with me.

 3        Q.   Did you have occasion to then conduct a meeting?

 4        A.   We did conduct a meeting in the office of the president of the

 5     municipality in Mr. Milan Babic's office, in the building of the

 6     municipality.

 7        Q.   What was the subject of this meeting?

 8        A.   The subject of the meeting was the discussion about the

 9     establishment of the first party boards in the territory of Baranja and

10     Slavonia.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just interrupt you for a second.

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

14                           [Private session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 1743











11 Pages 1743-1750 redacted. Private session.















Page 1751

 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   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24                           [Open session]

25             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

Page 1752

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 2             You may proceed, Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:

 4        Q.   Did you participate in the formation of Municipal Boards in

 5     Grubisno and Podravska Slatina on 9 June 1990?

 6        A.   Yes, the Municipal Boards of the SDS were formed first on

 7     Grubisno Polje and Podravska Slatina on the same day, that was the

 8     sequence.

 9        Q.   After the formation of these Municipal Boards, did you have

10     occasion to be present at a meeting on 10 June 1990 in Vukovar?

11        A.   Yes, this meeting was held in Vukovar after the setting up of the

12     party's committee in Vukovar.

13        Q.   Who was present at the meeting in Vukovar on 10 June 1990?

14        A.   The newly-elected municipal board members were present:

15     Goran Hadzic, Milan Bukarica, Zeljko Djukic, Dr. Mladjenovic,

16     Slobodan Tripic, Ilija Djukic, Nebojsa Velic [phoen].  There was some 12

17     people there.  I might have omitted someone, but that's it.

18        Q.   What occurred at this meeting in Vukovar?

19        A.   Actually, I organised that meeting.  After the setting up of the

20     board, in view of the fact that the people who were -- who were members

21     of the new board were people who had never dealt in anything similar or

22     in any politics.  I just wanted to give them some guide-lines, to educate

23     them in a way, to tell them what further course of action we shall take

24     and what it will be that we will be doing, generally speaking.

25        Q.   Did you support anyone to become president of the SDS board in

Page 1753

 1     Vukovar on that date?

 2        A.   As I had worked very much on the preparations, I took it upon

 3     myself to appoint Mr. Goran Hadzic as president, and I allowed them to

 4     appoint -- make the other appointments in regular procedure themselves.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's remark:  Could the other

 6     microphone please be switched off, thank you, when it is not used.

 7             MR. WEBER:

 8        Q.   How did you know Goran Hadzic before 1990?

 9        A.   Goran Hadzic and I knew each other for a long time.  He was the

10     first person who accompanied me.  Otherwise his father used to work in

11     the same firm with me.  His wife was a teacher in Pacetin, the village,

12     so that we went back a long way.

13        Q.   What was your official position in the SDS party as of

14     10 June 1990?

15        A.   I was elected the Municipal Board secretary.

16        Q.   After the formation of the Municipal Boards in Slavonia, did you

17     become aware of any distribution of weapons or arming of the Serb

18     population?

19        A.   Well, there had been talk about the arming, the weapons, for some

20     time by then, which was considered normal, the situation being turbulent

21     as it was.

22        Q.   Were there any people who arrived in Slavonia after the formation

23     of the Municipal Boards that had not been present before that time?

24        A.   Well, yes.  We were a new party, simply a new phenomenon on the

25     scene.  Different envoys came from Vojvodina, Novi Sad, and Belgrade

Page 1754

 1     mainly with their proposals and different canvassing.

 2        Q.   Who were these people?

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Private session]

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 1755











11 Pages 1755-1757 redacted. Private session.















Page 1758

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, perhaps you repeat the question.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honour.  The Prosecution just wanted

 9     to note one transcript correction, page 23, line 1, the Prosecution

10     believes the name that was said was Petrovic.

11        Q.   Sir --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

13             MR. WEBER:

14        Q.   Sir, who was the local individual responsible for the

15     distribution of weapons in Vukovar?

16        A.   The first time weapon was offered to me, it was done by

17     Mr. Ilija Kojic.

18        Q.   Did you have occasion to have a conversation with Ilija Kojic

19     about the distribution of weapons?

20        A.   Yes, he invited me to his apartment.  I went there.  He offered

21     me weapons, and I asked him and I explained to him that I could see that

22     it was part of his activities, and I asked him not to use party members

23     for those activities because we, as a party, did not want to have

24     anything whatsoever to do with weapons.  I instructed him to find people

25     outside of the party to help him with his activities.  That was the gist

Page 1759

 1     of our conversation in his apartment, the conversation that the two of us

 2     had on that occasion.

 3        Q.   Did you ask him where he was receiving the weapons from?

 4        A.   I asked him, Where are these from?  Why?  And he told me that he

 5     had received weapons from Stanisic.

 6        Q.   When you refer to Stanisic, what is the full name of the

 7     individual for whom you are speaking?

 8        A.   We did not discuss that individual at all and what I just told

 9     you is all that he said to me at that time.  I assume he meant

10     Jovica Stanisic, but we did not take that part of our discussion any

11     further.

12        Q.   When did this conversation occur?

13        A.   Probably in the month of August 1990.

14        Q.   You mentioned that it was in the apartment of Ilija Kojic.  Where

15     is that located?

16        A.   Yes.  It's in an apartment block on the bank of the Dunav in

17     Vukovar, in the close proximity of the police building and the hospital,

18     maybe 500 metres away from the two buildings.  It's in down-town Vukovar.

19        Q.   You also mentioned that there were weapons present in this

20     apartment.  What did you see when you entered the apartment of

21     Ilija Kojic?

22        A.   Yes, he showed us a room with several rifles lying on the floor.

23     I really don't know much about weapons, so I wouldn't be able to tell you

24     anything about the types of weapons that I saw there.  But all the

25     weapons were old.  There was nothing brand new there.  And that would be

Page 1760

 1     the general characteristic of the weapons that I saw.

 2        Q.   What was the position of Jovica Stanisic at this time?

 3             MR. KNOOPS:  Objection.  The objection is two-fold.  First, there

 4     is no foundation; secondly, the witness testified that he didn't take the

 5     matter further with Mr. --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness said that he assumed it was

 7     Jovica Stanisic.  The Chamber will, on the totality of the evidence

 8     further, further form an opinion about that, and the objection is denied.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. WEBER:

11        Q.   Sir, do you need me to repeat the question?

12        A.   I believe that, at that time, Jovica Stanisic was already the

13     chief of the state security of Serbia, and I've already told you that

14     that activity was not a subject of my interest at all, and I didn't dwell

15     upon the issue too much.  I was never too curious as to know who was in

16     charge of that part of that activity.

17        Q.   Sir, who is Vukasin Soskocanin?

18        A.   Vukasin Soskocanin was my fellow worker.  He was a veterinary

19     technician, my colleague, and he was the president of the SDS board in

20     Borovo Selo.

21        Q.   How often did you speak with Mr. Soskocanin throughout the fall

22     of 1990?

23        A.   We had very good communication.  He was a very active person and

24     he worked quite hard, and as a result of that, we met quite often.

25        Q.   Did you have specific conversations with Mr. Soskocanin in

Page 1761

 1     October or November 1990 concerning his political views?

 2        A.   Our conversations were very specific and we always discussed very

 3     specific things, organisational issues, the party matters, the

 4     enlargement of the party, the party membership increased.  All our

 5     conversations revolved around that and were always with a specific goal

 6     in mind.

 7        Q.   Did you have occasion to have a specific conversation with him

 8     about any changes in his political views?

 9        A.   Since I followed the work of all of my fellow party members, I

10     noticed a change in his behaviour, and I inquired about that.  His

11     explanation was very simple.  He told me that he decided to assume the

12     role as the leader of the Serbian people.  And, I apologise, I was

13     familiar with the term because Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic had,

14     for months, been talking to me about the need to elect the leader for the

15     Serbian people.  They wanted to know who the leader would be because the

16     Serbian people were keen to have a leader.  As soon as he used the term,

17     I knew what he meant.

18        Q.   What was that?  What did he mean?

19        A.   I asked him for an explanation, and then he said that all the

20     people on the political scene -- not all the people on the political

21     scene have the characteristics of a leader, and his view was that I

22     should be that person, but he understood that I was not in favour of

23     that.  So after talking to some people who persuaded him to assume the

24     role, he decided to take it.

25        Q.   You've referred to being a leader of the Serbian people.  What

Page 1762

 1     specific position are you referring to?

 2        A.   The matters that we were involved with were purely political

 3     matters.  We received assurances from Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic

 4     that we should have a state-forming organ, as they called it, that the

 5     party is not best suited to assume that role.  However, the party was

 6     functioning quite well and, thus, people who were party members should be

 7     appointed into a new body that would be called a National Council.

 8        Q.   And this would be the National Council of what?

 9        A.   The National Council of the Serbs of Slavonia, Baranja, and

10     Western Srem.  That was what they offered by way of explanation.

11        Q.   Did you make a specific request of Mr. Soskocanin during this

12     conversation?

13        A.   I was familiar with all the circumstances, and I told him that it

14     was okay if he wanted to take that role; however, that I, myself, would

15     be at his disposal for consultations and assistance with all the matters

16     that might be necessary, bearing in mind that I had good contacts with a

17     lot of people and I cooperated well with them.  And I told him that I

18     agreed with him assuming the role if he had accepted the offer, however,

19     that I needed to be consulted on all his future activities and steps,

20     which he agreed to.

21        Q.   Sir, unfortunately we are limited in time.  If you could please

22     be mindful of the length of your answers.  Did you discuss about any

23     future trips that he may have to Belgrade?

24        A.   Yes, he did come to me one day and said that on the following

25     morning he was supposed to travel to Belgrade.

Page 1763

 1        Q.   Did he then have a conversation with you after he went to

 2     Belgrade?

 3        A.   Yes.  We had a discussion when he returned three days later to

 4     brief me about what had happened there.

 5        Q.   What was said in this conversation after his return?

 6        A.   He spoke in riddles, as it were.  He said that he went to see

 7     "Daddy," that everything had been agreed that Serbia would not be

 8     betrayers.  So I had to speak further explanations.  After each of his

 9     answers I asked him exactly who, how, when.  I had to seek clarification

10     in order to be fully abreast of what had happened.

11        Q.   What did he tell you?

12        A.   I asked him who he had seen.  He said Milosevic.  I asked him

13     what happened next.  He said, Milosevic deceived [as interpreted] me.

14     And when he received all the promises he said that he went to Batajnica

15     to speak to Vojislav Seselj because Vojislav Seselj was responsible for

16     further concrete offers.

17        Q.   Was there any discussion of an agreement at that time?

18        A.   No agreements were discussed.  The only thing that was said was

19     that he was in charge of providing concrete assistance.  I never received

20     any explanation as to what that meant in very specific terms.

21        Q.   On page 32, line 7, you said that:  "He said Milosevic."  What is

22     the first name of the individual you are referring to?

23        A.   I can't see any pages.  What are you referring to?

24        Q.   When you referenced that "he said Milosevic," what is the first

25     name of the person that you were talking about?

Page 1764

 1        A.   I meant Slobodan Milosevic.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, we are approximately at the time to have

 3     a break.

 4             Mr. Savic, we'll have a break of approximately 25 minutes.  I

 5     would like to already ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

 6                           [The witness stands down]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could you assist me -- no, I think I

 8     don't need your assistance.  I was wondering where to find something, but

 9     I found it meanwhile.  So therefore, I won't bother you with it.

10             We'll have a break and resume at ten minutes past 4.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, could I inquire about something while

15     the witness is being brought in?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so, Mr. Weber.

17             MR. WEBER:  With respect to any type of transcript corrections,

18     would the Chamber prefer us to submit a written request or make note of

19     it at the time or both.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, the transcripts are reviewed after the

21     court hearing, so most of the mistakes will be, first of all, done, not

22     many, but most of them will be easily detected afterwards.  If there is a

23     risk of real confusion, usually you find a sign in the transcript where

24     it is already clear that not the spelling is not correct or something is

25     missing.  If the transcriber really misses portion of the evidence, then

Page 1765

 1     she'll inform us.  If, however, there is -- no, we can -- what are we

 2     doing?

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If, however, there is no indication whatsoever that

 5     the transcriber may have misunderstood but there's a risk of confusion,

 6     then, of course, the Chamber would like to be alerted to it because then

 7     there might be a risk that this will not be subject to review overnight.

 8     And -- so therefore, it depends a bit.  Sometimes -- for example, if it's

 9     a small spelling thing, what also sometimes helps is that you just write

10     a little note so that it would be taken into consideration when the

11     transcript will be reviewed.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If at a later stage once the transcript is final, if

14     then there is a mistake, then a formal request should be made to have it

15     created.

16             MR. WEBER:  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, please proceed.

18             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would just note page 32, line 7, the

19     witness said "received" not "deceived."

20        Q.   Mr. Savic, before we broke you referred to all the promises that

21     were made to Mr. Soskocanin.  Did he tell you what promises he received?

22        A.   I have already stated that he was speaking in riddles, and when

23     he says "assistance," for example, you assume whatever you will.  We did

24     not have to go into any details.  All I heard from him was that Seselj

25     was in charge of the assistance and that all those things would go

Page 1766

 1     through him.

 2        Q.   What was the reason that Soskocanin went to see Seselj?

 3        A.   Because Milosevic, or rather, President Milosevic referred him to

 4     see him -- at least that's what he told me.

 5        Q.   Could you please describe your relationship with Ilija Petrovic

 6     and Ilija Koncarevic prior to January 1991.

 7        A.   Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic would turn up on the ground

 8     every day uninvited in the area from Ilok, which constitutes the entrance

 9     to Slavonia, all the way up to Beli Manastir.  Sometimes they introduced

10     themselves as the official representatives of the authorities in

11     Belgrade.  They offered their services, their assistance, something along

12     those lines.

13        Q.   Did either of them indicate to you who they were official

14     representatives of from Belgrade?

15        A.   Look, we're talking in very general terms.  The State Security

16     Services, President Milosevic, the Government of Serbia, that would be

17     that by and large.

18        Q.   When you're referring to State Security Services, are you

19     referring to the State Security Services of Serbia?

20        A.   Yes, yes.  All that time reference was to Belgrade and the state

21     institutions in Belgrade.

22        Q.   On 6 January 1991, did you have a meeting with Ilija Petrovic and

23     Ilija Koncarevic?

24        A.   Yes.  On the 6th of January, they came to my house.  It was

25     rather late when they came, sometime around 2200 hours or even after

Page 1767

 1     that, and they had a very concrete proposal.  The proposal was to

 2     establish the Serbian National Council of Slavonia, Baranja, and

 3     Western Srem.

 4        Q.   What were the details of this proposal that was made to you?

 5        A.   The Serbian National Council of Slavonia, Baranja, and

 6     Western Srem would be a state-forming council since a new state would be

 7     formed in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem according

 8     to them.

 9        Q.   Did they offer you any particular position?

10        A.   It was implied that one of the founders of the Serbian National

11     Council was also the president.

12        Q.   How did you respond to this proposal?

13        A.   I said that I did not believe in the idea of forming a new state

14     unit, that, in my view, the territories of the republics equalled the

15     future borders, and that I was not to take part in the establishment of a

16     future para-authorities in the territory of Croatia.

17        Q.   What do you mean by "para-authorities"?

18        A.   The National Council of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem would

19     have been the new government which would be in charge of all work in the

20     area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, meaning that it would have

21     to annul the Croatian government, the Croatian organs of authority, that

22     were already in the field and create new organs of authority.

23        Q.   Why -- what was the reason that you were opposed to the solution?

24        A.   The very fact that I had accepted the existing reality and the

25     existing borders -- because of that fact, I assumed that the new

Page 1768

 1     divisions that were being planned were impossible, unfeasible, especially

 2     given the way in which they went about implementing them.

 3        Q.   Did you communicate this to Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic

 4     on 6 January 1991?

 5        A.   Yes, we discussed that at some length in detail.

 6        Q.   On 7 January 1991, the Serbian National Council for Slavonia,

 7     Baranja, and Western Srem was formed in Sidski Banovci; correct?

 8        A.   In Sidski Banovci.

 9        Q.   Thank you, sir, I appreciate your correction.  After the

10     formation of the Serbian National Council for the SBWS, could you please

11     explain how the National Council functioned between January and March

12     1991.

13        A.   The proclamation about the setting up of the National Council is

14     in itself interesting.  It was published in the media in the evening that

15     the Serbian National Council had been set up in Sidski Banovci, a village

16     between Sid and Vinkovci, in which only the minister of information was

17     named, that was Ilija Petrovic, and no one else of the organs of the

18     council.

19        Q.   On 26 February 1991, did the Serbian National Council of the SBWS

20     adopt a declaration on sovereign autonomy of the Serbian people?

21        A.   Yes.  There was a number of decisions.  There was that decision

22     and a number of others were adopted, but, in fact, the Serbian National

23     Council did not exist.  It was only communiques that circulated, just

24     like the information about the creation of the Serbian National Council.

25     And I always -- was the one who always signed them as the minister of

Page 1769

 1     information.

 2        Q.   Who were these communiques between?

 3        A.   The key person or the key persons were, again, Ilija Petrovic and

 4     Ilija Koncarevic.  I asked for a founding act on the national -- Serbian

 5     National Council, and clearly I could not get one, for one did not exist.

 6     It was just them who featured as the signatories and the proclamation

 7     with a given content.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution and the Defence, prior

 9     to the proceedings today, did have the opportunity to discuss a couple

10     exhibits.  I believe there is an agreement at this time.  The Prosecution

11     would tender 65 ter 2628 into evidence.  This is the declaration of

12     sovereign immunity [sic] by the Serbian National Council for the SBWS on

13     26 February 1991.  We would also, at this time, tender Prosecution

14     65 ter 123.  This is the "Official Gazette" publication of the decision

15     appointing Goran Hadzic, president; and Ilija Kojic, minister of defence,

16     of the SAO SBWS on 25 September 1991.  And lastly 65 ter 2638.  This is

17     the "Official Gazette" publication of the Constitution of the SAO SBWS,

18     also adopted on 25 September 1991.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently no objections from tendering these

20     exhibits from the bar table, so agreement on that.

21             Madam Registrar, first 65 ter 2628 would be ...

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P15, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.  The next one P123 --

24             THE REGISTRAR:  That will become P17 Your Honours -- I apologise,

25     P16.  And lastly, 65 ter 2638 will become P17.

Page 1770

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P15, P16, and P17 are admitted into evidence.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             May I take it that there was an "Official Gazette" at the time

 4     for which entity exactly?

 5             MR. WEBER:  This was for the SAO SBWS.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's what I expected because there are a lot

 7     of "Official Gazettes" and borders changing all the time.  We need

 8     position in that respect.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe I misspoke at page 38, line 5,

11     I said "immunity."  I meant autonomy.

12        Q.   After the declaration of Serbian autonomy in the SBWS, did you

13     participate --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.  38, line 5 I don't see any

15     immunity mentioned there, so therefore to correct something -- oh, I see

16     it's line 4, sovereign -- yes, of sovereign autonomy.  Yes.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   After the declaration of Serbian autonomy in the SBWS, did you

20     participate in a meeting of the Executive Board and Main Boards of the

21     SDS on the 30th of March, 1991?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Where did this meeting occur?

24        A.   That meeting was held in Obrovac in the culture centre.

25        Q.   Who was present at this meeting?

Page 1771

 1        A.   The meeting was attended by Milan Babic, David Rastovic,

 2     Veljko Dzakula, Ilija Sasic, Professor Vojo Vukcevic, Mr. Goran Hadzic, I

 3     myself; Petar Stikovac, Marko Dobrijevic.  I cannot recall the names of

 4     the others, but there were other people present as well.

 5        Q.   What occurred at this meeting on the 30th of March, 1991?

 6        A.   The objective of the meeting was to try and find a solution to

 7     the problem with Milan Babic and the functioning of the Main and

 8     Executive Boards in Knin.

 9        Q.   What is the problem that you are referring to?

10        A.   The problem was primarily in respect of the Croatian authorities,

11     relative to the Croatian authorities.

12        Q.   What exactly was discussed?

13        A.   The fact that they had to accept talks at the highest level and

14     that by virtue of their offices and also that it was their obligation to

15     lead in trying to find solutions to political and other problems in the

16     area in which they were active.

17        Q.   Who was saying this?

18        A.   All these ideas were advocated as a rule by us who hailed from

19     Slavonia, and a certain group of people from Zagreb as well.  So that was

20     more or less the ratio of forces.

21        Q.   When you say "by us," are you saying that this was your personal

22     position at this meeting?

23        A.   Absolutely.

24        Q.   How was this position received?

25        A.   According to expectations, as expected -- in fact, it was

Page 1772

 1     rejected.  In fact, some of the positions were even further radicalised.

 2        Q.   By whom?

 3        A.   By Babic and his men.

 4        Q.   When you're saying "his men," who are you referring to?

 5        A.   I'm referring to people from the area of Knin and the vicinity,

 6     people active within the framework of the Serbian Democratic Party.

 7        Q.   What was their position at this meeting?

 8        A.   Well, their explanations were quite confusing and quite terse, to

 9     the effect that there would be no talk with the Ustasha, that they were

10     not in favour of talks.  One simply gained the impression that they

11     didn't know what they wanted and that they, in fact, did not know what

12     they were doing.

13        Q.   You mentioned that Goran Hadzic was present at this meeting.

14     What was his position?

15        A.   Goran subscribed to our position, the position of the other

16     group, the one from Slavonia.

17        Q.   Is this what he communicated at the time?

18        A.   Yes, yes.  We were all unanimous, all of us who came from the

19     area of Slavonia, we all were unanimous in our positions.

20             MR. WEBER:  Could clip 3 of Prosecution 65 ter 1932 please be

21     played for the witness.  It is V000-3865.  The time code reference is

22     1 hour 55 minutes and 39 seconds through 1 hour 56 minutes and 33

23     seconds.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, apparently you want us to look at a

25     certain portion of a video.  Are you going to tender the whole of the

Page 1773

 1     video or just this portion?

 2             MR. WEBER:  With respect to this exhibit, the Prosecution today

 3     is going to be seeking to tender clips.  We are, at a later point, going

 4     to be asking to admit the whole of the video, but with respect to 65 ter

 5     1932, we are only seeking to enter segments of it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That means that 65 ter 1932 is only this clip or is

 7     it the whole of the video?

 8             MR. WEBER:  It is not the whole of the video.  It is only a clip.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Only the clip you are playing.

10             Any text spoken on the video?

11             MR. WEBER:  There is text on the video; however, the Prosecution

12     would submit that the translation of the words actually spoken on the

13     video would be controlling.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Have the booths been provided with transcripts

15     of the spoken words?

16             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             Mr. Knoops?

19                           [Defence counsel confer]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we proceed as usually that if the speed of

21     speech is too quick to follow for the interpreters, that one of the

22     interpreters follows the original transcript to see whether the

23     transcript reflects what is said on the video; whereas the other

24     interpreter is then interpreting it into English and/or French and can

25     use the transcript as a reliable source being verified by his or her

Page 1774

 1     colleague.

 2             Please proceed.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The political Krajina was

 5     constituted on the territory of all Serbian municipalities who previously

 6     were part of the administrative territory of the Socialist Republic of

 7     Croatia.  Several referendums have been held in order to constitute the

 8     Krajina politically starting with the referendum on autonomy, the

 9     referendum on the unification of settlements, Serbian settlements in the

10     Krajina, and finishing with this last referendum on the 12th of May on

11     staying in Yugoslavia and on unification with Serbia and Montenegro.

12              "You can be sure that the leadership will by no means accept any

13     option where these areas have to remain in the Republic of Croatia.  We

14     said no a long time ago and our no will mean fighting to stay but we will

15     not allow ourselves to stay in Croatia."

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

17             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18        Q.   Do you recognise the first person who appeared in the video that

19     you were just shown?

20        A.   Mr. Milan Babic is on the first part of this footage who is

21     giving an interview in his office in Knin.

22        Q.   Do you recognise the second person who appeared in this video?

23        A.   The second person who appeared is the president of the Republic

24     of Serbian Krajina, Mr. Goran Hadzic.

25        Q.   Could you please describe the clothes that Goran Hadzic is

Page 1775

 1     wearing in the video?

 2        A.   Goran Hadzic is wearing a camouflage uniform of the Yugoslav

 3     Army.

 4        Q.   When you say "Yugoslav Army," are you referring to the JNA?

 5        A.   Or the JNA.  I don't know what was then.  Yes, the JNA.

 6        Q.   Does this video recording accurately depict the voices of

 7     Goran Hadzic and Milan Babic?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution, at this time, tenders only this clip

10     that was shown from Prosecution 65 ter 1932 into evidence.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections?

12             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, we still don't have the information as

13     to when this clip was broadcasted.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any information about it, Mr. Weber, you

15     could share it with Mr. Knoops.  When it was broadcasted or when it was

16     created?

17             MR. KNOOPS:  I understand it was a clip sent by the media.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You would like to know --

19             MR. KNOOPS:  So when it was admitted in media.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Any information about that, Mr. --

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, as the Defence has already indicated to

22     you, this came -- this clip is from a collection of B-92 programme

23     materials called "images and words of hate."  This was produced by

24     "Pravo, Slikus & Rec."  It's a -- recognised "Right Foundation,

25     Pictures & Words."  The clip has been authenticated by the witness, he

Page 1776

 1     has recognised who this was and where this was.  He's already

 2     established, for the record, that he knows these individuals very well

 3     and has had prior contact with them.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems not to be the problem.  Mr. Knoops would

 5     like to know when this was broadcasted.  There seems to be no challenge

 6     that it's Mr. Babic and Mr. Hadzic.

 7             MR. WEBER:  The answer is I don't know the specific date.  It was

 8     a collection of media that was assembled by B-92.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             Mr. Knoops, may I take it that you'd like to receive that

11     information sooner or later, but is there any objection against admission

12     at this moment of being apparently an event which was video-recorded?

13             MR. KNOOPS:  If the intention of the Prosecution is only to have

14     the witness identify the two persons on the clip, we have no objection.

15     We do have an objection to the content of the clip, the absence of a

16     concrete date of admission to the media.  Because it also refers

17     obviously to some kind of uniform, and to the Defence, if course, it is

18     vital to know which period this clip was admitted to the media.  But in

19     terms of the identification by this witness of the two individuals, we

20     don't have objection for admission into evidence.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection against admission.

22             Madam Registrar, this video-clip, this portion, is separated from

23     anything else or is it still part of a broader ...

24             MR. WEBER:  It is still part of a broader collection of videos,

25     but we're just seeking admission of this clip at this time.

Page 1777

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But then, of course, you have to upload it as a

 2     separate item in e-court because otherwise the whole of the clip and then

 3     the Appeals Chamber at a later stage have to figure out exactly where

 4     your time starts.  That's not -- if you want to play other portions as

 5     well later, then -- so that we have the totally -- but it's difficult to

 6     admit into evidence a wider video which contains portions which we

 7     haven't seen which -- to which the Defence has not expressed itself.  So

 8     therefore, if you really want to limit it to this, or say, Later today we

 9     will play the other portions, that will be fine.  Then we'll finally

10     decide once we've seen everything, give an opportunity to the Defence to

11     object, and then admit the whole portion consisting of all clips played

12     today or tomorrow.  That's fine.  But we're a bit in doubt as to what you

13     intend to do with the other portions of the video which are apparently

14     one with this clip just played.

15             MR. WEBER:  Very well.  I'll tender them all together after

16     hearing the evidence on it --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But you would tender then a video containing all the

18     clips you have played, nothing more, nothing less.

19             MR. WEBER:  Understood.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Mr. Jovanovic, I was just -- still in talking terms of

22     bureaucracy -- or administrative matters.  Any ...

23             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  In

24     order to have a fully information in the further broadcasting of the

25     video footage, if I can assist my colleague from the OTP, this is

Page 1778

 1     allegedly footage from the collection of the B-92 TV studio.  At that

 2     time, the B-92 TV studio did not exist, irrespective of the fact that we

 3     don't know the exact date of the footage.  The journalist whose signature

 4     appears on the video, Vesna Jugovic, at that time, as far as I know, was

 5     a journalist of Radio Television Serbia.  So this is not footage of TV

 6     B-92.  This is in order to avoid any confusion, so that I feel that the

 7     OTP should provide us with all relevant data as to when the video was

 8     made and what was the date when it was produced and who was it produced

 9     by.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  If they have that information, I'm sure that they'll

11     provide it to you.  If they do not have that information, this might have

12     an impact on the evidentiary value of this video-clip.

13             MR. WEBER:  Understood.  Just for clarification, it is from B-92

14     broadcast.  It's a collection of other media broadcasted on that --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That's perfectly clear.

16             Mr. Jovanovic, what Mr. Weber said is that it was a collection of

17     media that was assembled by B-92, which of course is not the same as

18     created by B-92.  And if you say that B-92 existed at a later stage, then

19     it is already a first step to finding a date because you can't assemble

20     anything if you do not yet exist.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

22             And our decision on admission of the whole of it will be taken at

23     the end of all the -- all the clips played.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 1779

 1        Q.   After this meeting on the 30th of March, 1991, did any

 2     paramilitary groups arrive in the SBWS?

 3             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, that's leading question.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could you --

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the question does not call for anything

 6     more than directing this witness to a specific topic.  Any substance and

 7     information relating to this, of course I will ask open-ended questions

 8     about.  However, asking this witness open-ended questions may lead to

 9     many topics, and I'm directing his attention to a specific area.

10             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, there's no foundation for the term

11     "paramilitaries" yet laid.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please rephrase it in such a way that you

13     ask not about paramilitary but about any unit or any formation which was

14     armed.

15             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

16        Q.   After this meeting on the 30th of March, 1991, did any units or

17     formations of armed men arrive in the SBWS?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Who were these individuals?

20        A.   This was associated with the incident at Plitvice on the 31st of

21     March, 1991.  After that, a group of undefined - at least in my

22     book - undefined people came.

23        Q.   Did you later learn of a group of armed men that arrived in the

24     area of Borovo Selo?

25        A.   After the 31st of January, when I first went to Borovo Selo, it

Page 1780

 1     was evening, it was dark -- actually, it was 10.00 p.m., there was

 2     agricultural machinery placed as barriers at the entrance to the village,

 3     and on the farming machinery, as far as one could see in the dark, there

 4     were men in some black jackets.  It was motley crowd.  I couldn't say

 5     they were in uniforms, but they had scarves on -- protecting their

 6     facing, hiding their faces.  That is what I could see.

 7        Q.   What month did this occur in?

 8        A.   This was the 4th or 5th of March, 1991.

 9        Q.   Okay.

10        A.   Or might have even been the 6th of March.  A lot of time had gone

11     by.  After I arrived from Plitvice, when Mr. Boljkovac and his assistant,

12     Slavko Degoricija, then minister of the interior, and his assistant had

13     taken me along.  I talked to them and we he agreed that we should try and

14     deal with the situation in Slavonia --

15        Q.   Sir, sorry to interrupt you.  My question was just for the month.

16     Were you ever arrested with Goran Hadzic?

17        A.   It was not an arrest.  It was just the police control which was

18     part of a regular procedure and we were kept without any reason by the

19     police.

20        Q.   When did this occur, the incident with you and Goran Hadzic?

21        A.   On the 31st of March, in Plitvice.  On the 31st of March, 1991.

22        Q.   Was it before or after this time that you then learned of the

23     arrival of armed units or formations in the SBWS?

24        A.   After that, in the month of April -- I apologise if I misspoke

25     and said that it was in March.  It was actually in April 1991.

Page 1781

 1        Q.   Okay.  Do you recall that because it's in relation to when you

 2     and Mr. Hadzic had your experience with the police?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   How did you learn of the arrival of armed men or formations in

 5     Borovo Selo?

 6        A.   I went to Borovo Selo to talk to Mr. Soskocanin there.

 7        Q.   Where did this conversation occur?

 8        A.   In the local commune building, in the very centre of the village.

 9        Q.   What occurred during this conversation?

10        A.   I asked him - and I apologise for using this term - I asked him

11     precisely this, Who are the idiots standing at the entrance to the

12     village?

13        Q.   What was his response?

14        A.   He said that they had come across the Danube, in respect of the

15     provocations in Plitvice, and that they had arrived to defend the

16     village.

17        Q.   Did he provide you with any other information about who these men

18     were?

19        A.   I asked him whether that had anything to do with Seselj's

20     assistance, and his response was yes.

21        Q.   Was there anything else that was discussed at this conversation?

22        A.   I drew his attention to the fact that they were not in a position

23     to defend us, but rather that they were there to cause provocations, that

24     we would have to pay dearly, with our own lives.  This is exactly what I

25     told him.

Page 1782

 1        Q.   What was his response?

 2        A.   I also asked him whether there was any possibility for those men

 3     to be chased away.  He said very clearly, No, but I could tell just by

 4     the look of him that he was not very pleased either.

 5        Q.   Did you have occasion to have a phone conversation with Seselj on

 6     the 6th or 7th of May, 1991?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.

 8        Q.   Did you place the phone call?

 9        A.   Yes, I was the one who placed the phone call.

10        Q.   What is the reason that you called Seselj?

11        A.   Mr. Soskocanin went to Television Novi Sad for an evening show.

12     He gave me Vojislav Seselj's number, asking me to call him and arrange a

13     meeting with him.

14        Q.   What occurred when you called Seselj?

15        A.   I called Seselj.  I introduced myself to him.  I knew his voice.

16     And I told him that Mr. Soskocanin wanted to meet with him, that he had

17     gone to Novi Sad.  Seselj said, No problem, when he was aware of the date

18     and time he could call back; and if he wasn't there, his mother would be

19     there, and she could receive a message on his behalf.

20        Q.   On how many occasions have you personally met Seselj?  If you

21     could please just give an approximate number.  At this time you do not

22     have to recite each of the occasions.

23        A.   First, I avoided to appear with him on one show in

24     Studio Politika in Belgrade, and then we met on two occasions.

25             MR. WEBER:  At this time could the Prosecution please play

Page 1783

 1     another clip from Prosecution 65 ter 1932.  The time code reference for

 2     this clip is 1 hour 52 minutes and 28 seconds through 1 hour 52 minutes

 3     and 45 seconds, and again it's clip 2.

 4                           [Video-clip played]

 5             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The enemy will feel the revenge of

 6     the Serbian people.  We will not forgive as we did after the World War I

 7     and II.  The time has come to settle an old score.  The time has begun to

 8     revenge all Serbian victims and unite Serbian lands."

 9             MR. WEBER:

10        Q.   Sir, do you recognise the person who appeared in this video?

11        A.   There are several persons there.  The first image depicted

12     Vladika Filaret, and the second image depicted Vojislav Seselj.

13        Q.   Was there only one voice that was speaking during this entire

14     video-clip?

15        A.   I believe that I could hear only Seselj's voice.

16        Q.   You said you believe.  Do you recognise the voice of the

17     individual who is speaking on this video?

18        A.   I heard Seselj's voice.  The answer is yes.

19        Q.   Can you estimate, based on the physical appearance of Mr. Seselj

20     in this video, approximately when this video was ?

21        A.   It could have been the beginning of the 1990s.  I can't be any

22     more precise than that, but I can say with certainty that it was in the

23     early 1990s, and I can see that he was an MP in the parliament of Serbia.

24     So I suppose that this could have been in 1992 or in 1993.

25             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution, at this time, please play

Page 1784

 1     three clips from a different exhibit.  It's a BBC interview listed as

 2     Prosecution 65 ter -- it's Prosecution 65 ter 2853.

 3        Q.   Sir, if you could please wait until all three of these segments

 4     are played for you, and then I'll ask you some more questions.

 5             MR. WEBER:  It is ERN V000-6471.  The first clip is time code

 6     reference 7 minutes and 7 seconds through 7 minutes and 45 seconds.  The

 7     English transcript reference is page 3, lines 16 to 24.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I had contacts with the Serbs from

10     the Serbian Krajina region even earlier.  Anyway, I was born in Sarajevo.

11     My ancestors come from Serbian Herzegovina.  I was very well acquainted

12     with the local circumstances among the Western Serbs.  We found a common

13     language very quickly.  In 1990, I immediately joined the Serbian

14     Peoples' Rebellion.  Initially, it was called the Log Revolution.  It

15     included demonstrations, stopping traffic, and so on and so forth, until

16     a direct conflict took place which the Serbs were not to be blamed for

17     since the Serbs did not want to keep the Slovenians or the Croats in the

18     common state by force."

19             MR. WEBER:  The second clip is time code reference 15.06 through

20     15.43.  The English transcript reference is page 6, line 29, to page 7,

21     line 2.

22                           [Video-clip played]

23             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "In 1990, we were not acquiring

24     weapons.  We were only enlisting volunteers, and, occasionally, when

25     necessary, from time to time, we would send them to -- but those were all

Page 1785

 1     very small groups.  In 1991, we began organising volunteers on a larger

 2     scale and sending them to already-established front lines, particularly

 3     to eastern Slavonia here in the east of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

 4     Our volunteers proved themselves especially in the battle of Borovo Selo,

 5     which took place on the 2nd of May, 1991, when they defeated the stronger

 6     Croatian forces, Croatian police and parapolice forces."

 7             MR. WEBER:  The third clip is time code reference 1 hour 43

 8     minutes and 8 seconds through 1 hour 43 minutes and 52 seconds.  This is

 9     the very end of the video.  The English transcript reference is page 42,

10     lines 7 through 19.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "When Milosevic said several times

13     during a conversation, We gave them this and that, we gave them this and

14     that; for example, when he is criticising the situation there or the

15     disobedience of some of them, let's say, Milan Babic's disobedience.  We

16     gave them this, we gave them that, and so on.  It is what I personally

17     heard him say.  However, another thing, nobody else except him could take

18     such a decision.  Territorial Defence was strictly under his control and

19     so was the police.  Nobody else would dare take such a step and he

20     personally commanded the police and well through his men.  It was under

21     this -- his absolute control."

22             MR. WEBER:

23        Q.   Do you recognise the person that is depicted --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  One -- after a video is played could you always wait

25     for the translation to finish.

Page 1786

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   Do you recognise the person that was depicted in this video?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Who was the person that was depicted throughout this video?

 6        A.   Mr. Vojislav Seselj.

 7        Q.   Does this video accurately record the voice of Vojislav Seselj?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders

10     Prosecution 65 ter 2853 into evidence, the entire video.  It is the BBC

11     interview from -- of Vojislav Seselj from March 1995 provided by BBC.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

13             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, Defence has no objection when it

14     concerns the admission into evidence of the clip in so far that the

15     witness is able to identify the person on the clip and his voice.  The

16     Defence objects to the admission into evidence of the clip in terms of

17     its content because, first, there is no relationship shown between this

18     witness and the clip or the author of the speech in question.  Secondly,

19     the clip reflects double hearsay; namely, the author.  The speaker in

20     this clip is referring to another person and testified or at least says

21     "I heard him saying ..." et cetera.  So it's a form of double hearsay and

22     we think it should not be admissible, especially not while there is no

23     relationship with this witness and that particular clip or exhibit.  In

24     other words, the identity and voice is not objectionable for the Defence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Knoops, you are creating quite a bit of

Page 1787

 1     problems because we admit it into evidence and if there's a clear

 2     indication of what the Prosecution wants to prove with that, then, of

 3     course, you could rely on any limitation in the use and the weight to be

 4     given to the evidence in accordance with what is said by the Prosecution.

 5             Now, as far as the person is considered, Mr. Weber, was there any

 6     dispute about who appeared and whose voice it was we heard, as far as

 7     Mr. Seselj is concerned?

 8             MR. WEBER:  None whatsoever.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That means ten questions without any purpose and a

10     matter to be agreed upon between the parties, isn't it?

11             MR. WEBER:  If that could be done, yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well, it should have been explored before we

13     looked at it.

14             Second, content.  Is there any dispute that Mr. Seselj is saying

15     these things?

16             MR. KNOOPS:  We're not disputing that Mr. Seselj is saying these

17     things.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then of course we'll --

19             MR. KNOOPS:  What --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any authority which tells us -- because you

21     were talking about content.  I come to your last point in a moment.

22     Content, you say it should not be used for evidence of the content.

23     Well, the first content is that he said these things apparently.  That's

24     content.  What words did he use on this video-clip?  Now, to what extent

25     what he said is in accordance with what happened or whether he gives

Page 1788

 1     opinions, et cetera, is to be seen in the context of all the evidence the

 2     Chamber will have heard at the end of the case.  But to say, We can't

 3     accept it for the content, well the first content is that he said it.

 4             MR. KNOOPS:  Well, Your Honour, our point is, first of all, this

 5     clip or these three clips are apparently from a wider broadcasting clip.

 6     We don't know whether the context is correct, that's first of all.  And

 7     secondly, and this is exactly my point, Mr. Seselj is putting things on

 8     this clip such as "I heard Milosevic saying" and "he was in absolute

 9     power of," and we have fundamental objections that through this witness

10     who has no first-hand knowledge on the issue of the content of this

11     speech, this clip is being tendered while Mr. Seselj is also relying on

12     another source.  It's a form of double hearsay and the --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, any authority which -- I mean, there's a lot of

14     case law on hearsay in this Tribunal, mainly saying if it's hearsay,

15     especially if it's double hearsay, see if you can find anything better --

16             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and second, be very careful in evaluating such

18     evidence.  I, however, am not aware of non-admissibility case law in

19     relation to hearsay or double hearsay.

20             MR. KNOOPS:  Well, in the Perisic guide-lines, you find some

21     interesting remarks of the Trial Chamber.  First, in relation to -- in

22     relationship between a witness and a document which is to be tendered;

23     and secondly, what amounts to hearsay.  We're conscious that the Court

24     accepts hearsay as such but this is a form of double hearsay, and the

25     Defence has a principal objection that the Prosecution, later on,

Page 1789

 1     although it is saying, We simply want to tender these exhibits for

 2     identification of the person and his voice --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't hear them saying that at this moment.

 4             MR. KNOOPS:  Well, if that's the restriction, we don't have an

 5     objection.  But our point is that the Defence could not be -- the

 6     Prosecution should not be allowed to rely on those clips for its content

 7     basically because of the reasons I just laid down, and I believe the

 8     Perisic guide-lines are clear in this regard.  If there is no

 9     relationship between this witness and the clips, the Court can decide not

10     to allow these documents -- especially we still don't know any date when

11     these clips were broadcasted.  We have no --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That's another matter.  This moment you raised three

13     issues in your objection.  The first was just identification, which was

14     useless for the Prosecution, I think, to bring; the second is content.

15     Content, the first thing being that the content of the video-clip is what

16     the person speaking says; and the third one was about hearsay.  The

17     Perisic guide-lines, although we do not ignore their existence are not

18     binding this Chamber per se.  When I was asking about legal authorities,

19     I was inviting you to give us case law in which under similar

20     circumstances a video-clip was not admitted into evidence for the third

21     reason you gave.

22             MR. KNOOPS:  I refer to paragraph 27 of the Perisic guide-lines,

23     and the paragraphs 26 and 27 of those guide-lines, including the best

24     evidence rule, we still don't have explored whether this witness is the

25     best way to introduce these clips, we don't know --

Page 1790

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The first thing to explore is whether there exists

 2     the best evidence rule in this Tribunal.

 3             MR. KNOOPS:  That's, of course, for Your Honours to decide.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. KNOOPS:  And with respect to hearsay evidence, implicitly I

 6     believe Your Honours could deduce from paragraph 37 of the Perisic

 7     guide-lines that while hearsay evidence is admissible, the Court ruled in

 8     that situation, it might be different with situation we deal here with.

 9     There is a witness who has no relationship with the exhibit.  There is a

10     person speaking on the clip, and that person refers to another source.

11     And the Prosecution, apparently, intends to tender that information

12     through these three stages into the evidence.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We can't say -- it seems to me that we can't say

14     under the circumstances here there's no link whatsoever with the

15     testimony of the witness.  Whether you find that sufficient link is not a

16     matter.

17             Any further objections, Mr. Knoops?

18             MR. KNOOPS:  We do agree there is a link between this person and

19     the person on the clip, but not between the person and the content of the

20     clip; namely, the content of the speech.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             Mr. Jovanovic, any objections?

23             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  No

24     objections.  If the video-clip was broadcast and tendered for

25     identification of the person and voice of the individual, and in this

Page 1791

 1     particular case Mr. Vojislav Seselj speaks about the events in

 2     Borovo Selo which coincides with the testimony of the witness, so I don't

 3     have any objections in this sense.  I would just like a clarification

 4     whether what is being tendered is just one portion of the BBC interview

 5     or the entire interview?  Because as far as I know the --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that Mr. Weber clearly expressed that the

 7     three clips he played, all being part of a BBC together, make one exhibit

 8     which he tender into evidence.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Correct, the entire exhibit.  We were just showing

10     clips for the basis of establishing authenticity.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The exhibit that you tender, is that more than the

12     three clips we have seen?

13             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And how must -- how can the Chamber decide on -- is

15     that then tendering from the bar table, which introduces a new element,

16     that is that the words of Mr. Seselj were recorded -- I do not know

17     whether any other persons do appear on the -- or is it all one big

18     interview?

19             MR. WEBER:  It is all one big interview that was a sit-down

20     interview by the BBC of Mr. Seselj.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. WEBER:  The date, which has been indicated previously, was

23     March 1995.  Now, with respect to the exhibit, we are tendering the

24     entire interview as --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Which is how long approximately?

Page 1792

 1             MR. WEBER:  Approximately an hour and 40 minutes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  One hour and 40 minutes, which means we have seen

 3     approximately 5 per cent of what we're supposed to -- I'm not saying that

 4     it's -- couldn't be done, but I'm just trying to define in what situation

 5     we find ourselves.

 6             MR. WEBER:  If I may.  As Your Honour noted right at the outset

 7     when I asked these questions and tendered, we'd be happy to agree to

 8     these things and have them admitted; however, in the absence of

 9     agreement, we do have to spend time in court and present the exhibits to

10     a witness who can actually authenticate and identify who the person is

11     that is speaking in the video.  That is the reason this was presented to

12     the witness.  We are offering it for its full content.  We submit this is

13     admissible.  It's relevant.  It's relevant, the clips that were played,

14     with respect to this particular witness's testimony that is already noted

15     by Defence.  There is a nexus between this witness and Mr. Seselj.  He

16     has explained his history of personally meeting Mr. Seselj and

17     recognising his voice.  He was clear and unambiguous of his recognition

18     of Mr. Seselj.  This is an unedited interview by a charged co-perpetrator

19     of the joint criminal enterprise.  We submit that it's relevant, and we

20     would seek to enter the entire video --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You say it's unedited.  How do you know, from what

22     appears, that it's unedited?

23             MR. WEBER:  There's -- it's a continuous video.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's not the same as unedited, is it?

25             MR. WEBER:  I understand.

Page 1793

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, when it's the Prosecution's intention

 3     just to have confirmation that this is Mr. Seselj and his voice, why then

 4     tender one hour and a half of the same material?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not what Mr. Weber tells us.  Mr. Weber tells

 6     us that we showed this video to this witness because his testimony is

 7     related to events Mr. Seselj is talking about as well, and apart from

 8     that, this witness is able to recognise the face and the voice of

 9     Mr. Seselj.

10             Now, there are three levels:  Who is this who speaks?  Do we know

11     who it is?  Second is:  What does he say?  And third is:  What is the

12     relation between what he said and what other people say or what we learn

13     from other evidence?  I do understand that if Mr. Weber says that he

14     tenders this video for its content that he specifically refers to level 1

15     and level 2, that is:  Who's speaking?  And second:  What is he saying?

16     And that the third level, whether there's any relation between what

17     Mr. Seselj says, whether he's reading a fairytale or whether he's telling

18     us things which have a relation with evidence this Chamber will hear,

19     that's still open, I take it, Mr. Weber, and I take it that, at the end

20     of the case, that you would like to draw our attention to the -- to the

21     links between what is said in this video and what happened on the ground

22     as told to us by other evidence or by other witnesses?

23             MR. WEBER:  That's correct.  And ultimately the Prosecution --

24     it's for the Chamber to decide the weight to be attributed to this piece

25     of evidence with respect to that third factor which has just been noted.

Page 1794

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             One additional question:  Mr. Jovanovic, you said we should know

 3     whether it's broadcasted.  Now, whether a video is broadcasted seems to

 4     be relevant if you want to establish that the public had an opportunity

 5     to view it.  When I'm talking about the three levels, the first level

 6     being:  Who is it?  Do you recognise his face?  Do you recognise his

 7     voice?  Is -- therefore, it's irrelevant for this broadcast.  Second

 8     level:  What is this person saying?  Also whether it's broadcasted or not

 9     is unrelated to what the person says.  Even if you put it on the shelf

10     and never broadcast it, these, nevertheless, are the words apparently

11     recorded of things he said.  For this third level:  The link between what

12     happened and what we learn from other evidence, it may or may be

13     irrelevant whether it was broadcasted or not.  Broadcasting appears to be

14     specifically relevant if you want to establish that not only the person

15     who made the video and not only the person who spoke on this video, but

16     that the public in more general terms could have known about it because

17     it was broadcasted.

18             I'd like to very clearly always identify what we are talking

19     about, and I have not heard anything in relation to this BBC clips what

20     the relevance of it being broadcasted is.  Could you explain?

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

22     objection was about the showing of the first video-clip.  I only said

23     that we should have complete data about a video-clip, when it was made,

24     who made it, and whether it was ever broadcast; however --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there, if you're talking about the

Page 1795

 1     first clip, we have two 65 ter numbers, the first being 1932, which is

 2     the one assembled by B-92; and we have the second series consisting of

 3     three clips, being the BBC, that's 65 ter 2853.  Now, your objection, as

 4     far as broadcasting is concerned, did it relate to the three BBC clips or

 5     did it relate to the two until-now played B-92 clips?  Because at this

 6     moment, we're only discussing admission into evidence of the three BBC

 7     clips.  So I'm asking you what the relevance of this being broadcasted or

 8     not being broadcasted would be for admission into evidence.

 9             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this refers to the

10     BBC interview lasting one hour and 45 minutes.  As far as I understood my

11     learned friends from the Prosecution, they want the whole recording

12     admitted.  That interview by Vojislav Seselj encompasses his

13     interpretation, or rather, he spoke --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic, my simple question was:  What the

15     relevance is of this BBC video being broadcasted, yes or no, for the

16     admission into evidence?  I'm not asking about whether what Mr. Seselj

17     said is true or not true, personal views -- that was not my question to

18     you.  My question was relevance of this being broadcasted or not being

19     broadcasted for our decision to admit into evidence this BBC video

20     which -- of which three small portions were played and of which the

21     Prosecution seeks to be admitted into evidence, the whole of it close to

22     two hours.

23             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise.  There

24     may have been a misunderstanding.  I did not object to the BBC clip,

25     i.e., I did not say anything about the interview being broadcast or not.

Page 1796

 1     My objection with regard to the BBC interview is this:  Vojislav Seselj,

 2     who the witness identified, is heard talking about many other things

 3     apart from those that the witness is testifying about, which is Slavonia

 4     and the events in Borovo Selo.  For example, Vojislav Seselj also

 5     mentions events in Zvornik, and this particular witness has nothing

 6     whatsoever to do or had nothing whatsoever to do with those particular

 7     events.  There may have been a misunderstanding with regard to the fact

 8     whether the BBC interview was ever broadcast or not, and I apologise if I

 9     have been the cause of the misunderstanding.

10             What I'm saying is that the interview, lasting one hour and 45

11     minutes, depicts Vojislav Seselj talking about many other things and

12     locations that are not connected with the testimony of this witness,

13     which would rule out the video-clip as material for admission, except for

14     the part talking about the events in Borovo Selo.  That's why I am

15     objecting to the whole interview being admitted evidence and I'm not

16     objecting to the three video-clips, shown earlier today in the courtroom,

17     being admitted into evidence.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Final question to both Defence teams, and the

19     Chamber will take its time to decide on the matter.  Last question:  If

20     this would have been tendered - and to some extent, of course, it is

21     tendered from the bar table - just to say these were the views Mr. Seselj

22     expressed at the time when this video was -- when this interview was

23     held, so as to consider this together with all the other evidence to see

24     what the probative value of it is.  What would be your position?  Because

25     to some extent, this BBC - and that's not the same with the B-92 - is to

Page 1797

 1     a greater extent tendered from the bar table.  That is, this is what was

 2     said at the time by Mr. Seselj which has some relevance in the context of

 3     the matters this Chamber has to decide upon.  Would that -- what would be

 4     the objections?  Because 95 per cent of it is tendered from the bar

 5     table.

 6             Mr. Knoops.

 7             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honours, as Your Honours has formulated it, we

 8     would have no objection to the tendering of these three portions.  But we

 9     still maintain our objection that when it contains words of the person on

10     the clip saying, I heard from that person some information, in our view

11     it would not be permissible or admissible in terms of double hearsay.

12     These are objections to the form of hearsay would still stand.  But in

13     principle -- and Mr. Seselj gives his views on a certain situation, of

14     course, we would not object to the tendering of that information.  Of

15     course, not when the witness can identify the name and the voice of that

16     particular person.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. KNOOPS:  So a portion of our primary objection would remain,

19     namely, the double hearsay standard.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  So the double hearsay --

21             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- as such remains, whereas even the whole of the

23     video being tendered from the bar table does not meet any objections, but

24     you would say that if there's any double hearsay --

25             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes.

Page 1798

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- elsewhere in this video, then we would, for the

 2     same reasons, exclude those portions.

 3             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes.  And, of course, I also concur with my learned

 4     friend, Mr. Jovanovic, that the clips should only be admitted as shown in

 5     court and not insofar as the remaining of the one hour, 45 minutes

 6     contains.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, there of course is an issue.  If I say

 8     "tendered from the bar table," I mean to say that you put an exhibit

 9     before the Chamber even if a witness has not testified about it as a

10     contemporaneous or contemporaneously-created document or video so as to

11     consider it on the basis of its content.  That could be a document, that

12     could be a series of documents.  So I have some difficulties in

13     understanding how you say that you would not oppose against tendering it

14     from the bar table, whereas the -- I would say the specific element in

15     tendering from the bar table is that it has not been shown in full.  It's

16     just made available to the Chamber on the basis of the content itself, in

17     this case, a video showing Mr. Seselj, where Mr. Seselj says all kind of

18     things.  We will later have to decide whether what he says is personal

19     opinion, is true, is in any relation with the events on the ground.

20     We'll have to find out what it actually is, and that's what we call

21     evaluation of evidence.

22             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, if it may assist the Chamber, in

23     paragraph 23 of the Perisic guide-lines the Court addresses the tendering

24     of evidence from the bar table, and the situation what they refer to

25     bulky exhibits or exhibits with bulky portions is addressed, saying that:

Page 1799

 1             "The tendering party should file a table containing a short

 2     description of each exhibit, as well as its relevance and probative value

 3     if not immediately obvious from the description.  In case of bulky

 4     exhibits ..."

 5             And I think we can draw the analogy with bulky video-clips, with

 6     particular relevant portions, a reference to those portions is needed.

 7             So I take from this decision that it's not an automatic mechanism

 8     that in terms of tendering evidence from the bar table the Court has to

 9     accept full video-clip --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, we do not have to accept.  There's no

11     question about that, Mr. Knoops.  What I'm talking about is whether there

12     are obstacles to admission, and now -- but it's a new argument you're

13     raising now.  You say it's bulk material, which is -- first of all, these

14     are guide-lines in one case, and apparently is more about admissibility

15     policy rather than admissibility as legal standard.  But I do understand

16     you say this material is too bulky to be admitted in this way.

17             MR. KNOOPS:  Well, Your Honour, I hope you see the consequence.

18     If this conduct of the Prosecution should be allowed, the Defence is

19     forced to cross-examine every witness on the contents of video-clip of

20     one hour, 45 minutes, although it has no relevance to the case or there

21     is no relationship with the witness.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether that is the consequence depends on what you

23     want to establish in cross-examination.  Until now, we have nothing more

24     than in examination-in-chief that the Prosecution says:  We want to put

25     before the Chamber this piece of evidence in which the Chamber can see

Page 1800

 1     what the position was at the time as expressed by Mr. Seselj.  There's

 2     nothing more, there's nothing less.  If you want to cross-examine the

 3     witness on that -- then, of course, we'll follow your cross-examination,

 4     and we'll finally find out whether it assists the Chamber in its work.

 5             But I see your last argument was it's too bulky and will take up

 6     too much time in cross-examination.

 7             Mr. Jovanovic, anything further to add, and specifically in

 8     relation to my question to have this admitted as being tendered from the

 9     bar table.  That goes beyond the portions played and only about the BBC.

10             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If it is the intention of the OTP

11     to tender the entire video footage from the bar table, then we need, I

12     think, additional information as to what the video footage contains in

13     relation to the places which are of relevance to this case and which

14     Mr. Seselj also mentions in his speech.  So more information is required

15     on that in order for this exhibit to be admitted from the bar table.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, is there anything you'd like to add?  I'm

17     not encouraging you to spend much more time on it, but since all the

18     objections, I think it's fair that --

19             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would prefer not to spend this much

20     court time on matters such as this.  If it would be possible to agree to

21     these things, we would.  We -- there's no apparent objection to the

22     authenticity of this video at the time, that it is Mr. Seselj throughout

23     the video.  With respect to the bulkiness of this exhibit -- the

24     transcript's only 42 pages.  There's much more voluminous material that

25     comes before this Chamber on a daily basis.  The volume of material that

Page 1801

 1     is provided to the parties is of much greater volume.  This is not bulky

 2     or voluminous material.  Furthermore, this was provided to the Defence on

 3     April 25th, 2008.  They have had this entire 42 pages of this interview

 4     for an extraordinarily long period of time, to review it and be familiar

 5     with it.  This witness has particular knowledge about the clips, those

 6     that were shown to him.  To avoid having to repeatedly have the same

 7     conversation with every witness that comes and to establish particular

 8     relevance of each clip, would not be in the interests of judicial

 9     economy.  It's clear who it is.  Mr. Jovanovic very pertinently pointed

10     out there is discussion of Zvornik.  That is also relevant to this case.

11     Now, is the Prosecution, when the video is clearly Mr. Seselj throughout

12     with every witness, supposed to show the video -- that portion to the

13     witness just to merely establish, again, that it's Mr. Seselj.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not needed because the parties agree that

15     it's Mr. Seselj, unless the parties make a difference and want to say

16     that Mr. Seselj is in the first minute but not in the 10th minute or not

17     at the 20th minute.  So that is agreed upon so that will cause us no

18     problems.

19             Any further?

20             MR. WEBER:  No.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If not, the Chamber will consider the matter but

22     will first take a break.

23             We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.

24                           --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.

Page 1802

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Savic, that's how lawyers operate in courtrooms.

 2             For the parties, the Chamber has considered the matter.  The

 3     whole of the video will be marked for identification.  The Prosecution is

 4     invited to consider whether we really need the whole of the two hours in

 5     terms of relevance, importance, probative value.  At the same time, the

 6     parties, Prosecution and Defence, are urged to see whether they can reach

 7     any agreement on a reduced portion to be tendered.  The Defence, of

 8     course, is aware of the context of the whole of it.

 9             At the same time, the Chamber or at least members of the Chamber

10     will read the transcript overnight.  I already can tell the parties that,

11     as I said before, that this is not material which is inadmissible, but

12     whether we'll admit anything more than the three portions, we'll first

13     have a look at the whole of it and again, you're invited to see whether

14     you can reduce; you're invited to see whether you can agree on the

15     matter.  And if we are informed about an agreement, we'll consider that

16     agreement; if there's no agreement, the Chamber will decide.  That's --

17     and for the time being, the whole of the video, almost two hours, will be

18     marked for identification.

19             Madam Registrar, the 65 ter 2853 of which three smaller portions

20     were played, BBC interview with Mr. Vojislav Seselj would receive ...

21             THE REGISTRAR:  It will become Exhibit P18, marked for

22     identification, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

24             Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 1803

 1        Q.   Did you have occasion to meet with Goran Hadzic on the 7th or 8th

 2     of May, 1991?

 3        A.   Yes, I did.

 4        Q.   Where did you meet?

 5        A.   On the left bank of the Danube, on the other side from

 6     Borovo Selo where there was a ferry, a ferry crossing.

 7        Q.   Was anyone else present with Mr. Hadzic?

 8        A.   As I know, all -- as I do not know all of the people, there was a

 9     new face that I noticed.

10        Q.   Did you have occasion to have a conversation with Mr. Hadzic

11     about this new person?

12        A.   Yes, I asked him who that was and he said, That is my body-guard.

13        Q.   Did you later learn who this body-guard was?

14        A.   After that I went to the office of the mayor of Backa Palanka,

15     Ljubo Novakovic and I asked him who Goran Hadzic's body-guard was.

16        Q.   What did Mr. Novakovic tell you?

17        A.   He told me that he was from the DB, and that his name was

18     Lazar Sarac.

19        Q.   When you say "DB," what are you referring to?

20        A.   Yes, these were expressions that were used.  I was referring to

21     the State Security Service.

22        Q.   Did you also then, after this initial meeting, have occasion to

23     personally interact with the person who you learned to be Lazar Sarac?

24        A.   Yes, after a while I met with Lazar Sarac, and it turned out that

25     he knew me better than I knew him.

Page 1804

 1        Q.   During the course of these meetings, did -- was the name of

 2     Lazar Sarac confirmed to you by Lazar Sarac himself?

 3        A.   Yes, it was, yes, and also that he worked for the DB.  That was

 4     no secret at all.

 5        Q.   Did you have a conversation with someone in the spring of 1992 in

 6     relation to the subject of unification of agricultural property?

 7        A.   Yes, I did, and I was aware of this initiative to amalgamate all

 8     the farming land in this stretch from Sid to Vukovar or better to put it

 9     from Tovarnik to Vukovar.

10        Q.   Who was this individual that you had a conversation with?

11        A.   I just had a chance meeting in Sid with Slobodan Medic, who

12     already then was leading a formation known as Skorpioni.  They were

13     stationed at Djeletovci to protect the oilfield, at least that is what

14     they said.

15        Q.   What was discussed at this meeting?

16        A.   At his invitation for a drink, he said that he had something to

17     tell me, and he started telling me how he had been to see the boss the

18     day before and that they had talked about me.

19        Q.   How did you respond to this information?

20        A.   I asked him, Who is your boss?  And he answered, Jovica Stanisic.

21        Q.   I think you've referenced this in part, but who is

22     Slobodan Medic?

23        A.   Slobodan Medic set up a unit which had for its objective the

24     protection of the oilfields at Djeletovci, they said, and at the same

25     time they pursued these other jobs.  But at any rate they were armed,

Page 1805

 1     they were uniformed, and they were equipped as a unit.

 2        Q.   What was the name of this unit?

 3        A.   Skorpioni.  They had a patch on their overalls, an emblem of the

 4     scorpions.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could we please go into private session.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

 7            [Private session]   [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]

8             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in private session, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             MR. WEBER:  The reason the Prosecution requested to continue the

11     proceedings in private session is because the next exhibit is subject to

12     a currently pending Rule 54 bis application by the Republic of Serbia.

13     The Prosecution maintains that this exhibit should not be placed under

14     seal and the related testimony should be public; however, due to this

15     pending motion, we requested the discussion related to this today be held

16     in private session.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objection to dealing with the matter in private

18     session?

19             MR. JORDASH:  No objection with this caveat, but we're not sure

20     which exhibit we're referring to.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but then that will appear from the next

22     question, I take it.

23             Yes.

24             MR. WEBER:  Mr. Jordash is correct.  Could the Prosecution please

25     have page 2 of 65 ter 4822.

Page 1806

 1        Q.   Sir, can you see the exhibit before you?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Could you please take a look at this document and let the Court

 4     know if you are personally familiar with the subject of this exhibit.  If

 5     you need to see a different portion or need to continue reading, if you

 6     could please let us know.

 7        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with the subject.

 8        Q.   How are you familiar with it?

 9        A.   From a conversation with Mr. Medic and otherwise.  There was an

10     intention for the complete arable land to be merged and placed under

11     control, and this was to a view of controlling the overall production.

12        Q.   Is the information in this DB report consistent with your

13     conversation with Slobodan Medic?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. WEBER:  Could page 3 of the B/C/S version of the exhibit

16     please be placed on the screen.  If we could please have it remain on the

17     same page of the English version, though.

18        Q.   Sir, directing your attention to the fifth line from the top,

19     this is in the second paragraph of the English version in italics, does

20     this exhibit discuss the consolidation of a particular agricultural plant

21     to which you were employed?

22        A.   Yes.  Since all the arable land, or maybe 90 per cent of it

23     between Tovarnik and Vukovar, was land that my combine was in charge of

24     and worked on.

25        Q.   What is the name of the company that is referred to, to which you

Page 1807

 1     were formerly employed?

 2        A.   Vupik Vukovar.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the

 4     English version and page 4 of the B/C/S version of this exhibit.

 5        Q.   Sir, what is the name of the operative on this report?

 6        A.   Lazar Sarac is the operative in question and the signature is

 7     his.

 8             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution tender 65 ter 4822 into evidence at

 9     this time.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

11             MR. JORDASH:  No objection.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, that would be exhibit number ...

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P19, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Exhibit P19 is admitted into evidence.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. WEBER:  If we could please return to open session.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We return into open session.

18             The exhibit just admitted in private session is admitted under

19     seal.

20             Please proceed.

21                           [Open session]

22             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

24             MR. WEBER:

25        Q.   Directing your attention back to May 1991, did you have occasion

Page 1808

 1     to go to the Serbian parliament in Belgrade?

 2        A.   Yes, I did.

 3        Q.   When did you make this trip?

 4        A.   On the 15th of May, 1991, upon the invitation of the speaker of

 5     the parliament, Pavic Obradovic, that's when I went for the last time.

 6        Q.   Did you attend a meeting when you arrived in Belgrade?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Who was present at this meeting?

 9        A.   The meeting took place in the parliament of the Republic of

10     Serbia.  According to my estimate, it was the group of MPs of the

11     Socialist Party of Serbia, that's who -- that is who attended the

12     meeting.

13        Q.   Could you please provide us with the names.

14        A.   Pavic Obradovic, Boro Petrovic, both vice-presidents; and I

15     believe that the president of the legislation committee,

16     Radmilo Bogdanovic, was there; or Bojovic was also there, also an MP;

17     Bato Zivanovic was there; and also some others who I didn't know, or at

18     least I didn't know their names, but I know they were there.

19        Q.   What was the reason you were called to Belgrade for this meeting?

20        A.   The reason was the liquidation or assassination of Soskocanin,

21     Vukasin on that same day at 10.00 in the morning.

22        Q.   I believe the -- it's correct on the transcript.  After this

23     meeting did you have occasion to speak with anyone?

24        A.   Yes, after the meeting, we went to Mr. Obradovic's office.  I,

25     myself; Radmilo Bogdanovic himself; and three or four other men whose

Page 1809

 1     names I did not know.

 2        Q.   What was discussed when you met with these individuals?

 3        A.   At the meeting which proceeded, I expressed my dissatisfaction

 4     with the whole situation, and I offered some solutions that might have

 5     helped us, and I'm referring to the territory of Slavonia.  And then in

 6     the office, Radmilo Bogdanovic and I were involved in the discussion that

 7     everybody else only listened to.  I simply asked him why he kept on

 8     sending us thieves and criminals to our neck of the woods.

 9        Q.   How did Mr. Bogdanovic respond to this?

10        A.   He said this, Don't you think that some day I will be taken to

11     task for what I'm doing today?

12        Q.   What was said after that?

13        A.   He saw that I was excited or at least thought I was.  He tried to

14     calm me down, and then he said to me, We gave you Arkan as commander, we

15     gave you Martic as the head of police, talk to them and try to deal with

16     the problems that you're facing.

17        Q.   When you said that they were sending you criminals and thieves,

18     who were you referring to?

19        A.   People who were being sent to us, but at that particular moment

20     when he mentioned Arkan, I said, No criminal will ever be my commander.

21     And I will stay here in Belgrade.  And as for you, you can go over there

22     together with him.

23        Q.   When you say "him," who are you referring to?

24        A.   I was referring to Arkan.  What I meant was if you're sending

25     Arkan over there as my commander, then you may as well join him.  I,

Page 1810

 1     myself, don't need a commander.

 2        Q.   After your conversation with Radmilo Bogdanovic on the 15th of

 3     May, 1991, did you meet Arkan while in Belgrade?

 4        A.   Yes, I did.

 5        Q.   Sorry, where did this meeting occur?

 6        A.   In a cafe called Trozubac in Nusiceva Street across the street

 7     from the Matica Iseljenika, which was an NGO headed by Brana Crncevic,

 8     and I was involved in the work of that NGO in terms of looking after and

 9     assisting refugees.

10        Q.   How many days after your conversation on the 15th of May with

11     Mr. Bogdanovic did this meeting with Arkan occur?

12        A.   On the following day.

13        Q.   What was said between you and Arkan when you met in the Trozubac

14     cafe?

15        A.   An acquaintance of mine took me there, saying, A friend of mine

16     wants to meet you.  I entered the cafe, and Arkan was sitting there in a

17     corner.  We greeted each other.  That was our first encounter.  At the

18     very beginning me said to me, For everybody else I am a hero, and only

19     for you I am a criminal and a thief.

20        Q.   What did you say back to him?

21        A.   I said, Yes, I said that.  But whoever conveyed that to you is an

22     even bigger thief and criminal.

23        Q.   What was said after that?

24        A.   After that I asked him this, Okay, if you're not a thief and a

25     criminal then tell me what you are.  I appreciate what you do.  I know

Page 1811

 1     what you do.  I understand what you do.  And there will be a price to pay

 2     for that.  What I'm interested in is my house, my property, and my

 3     status.

 4        Q.   Did you have occasion to ask him any particular question at that

 5     time?

 6        A.   Yes.  I asked him a very concrete question.  I told him this, I

 7     know that everybody is working for somebody.  Tell me who your boss is.

 8     I want to make sure it's not Milosevic.  He replied, Why are you asking

 9     me, you should know?  And I said, No, I don't.  And then he said, Jovica

10     Stanisic.

11        Q.   Have you ever personally met Jovica Stanisic or Franko Simatovic?

12        A.   No, never.

13        Q.   Who is Brana Crncevic?

14        A.   Brana Crncevic was the president of the association of Serb

15     immigrants.  His office was in Nusiceva Street.  For a while every time I

16     came to Belgrade, I shared his office.  And he asked me to raise funds

17     for the association because there were already refugees and they had to

18     be assisted.  And I did that.  I went to various companies.  I did all

19     sorts of fund-raising with various donors.  And all I raised, all the

20     assistance I raised was transferred to the association.

21        Q.   How often would you speak to him throughout June and July 1991?

22        A.   Every day.  We shared the same office.  He left around 11.00

23     every time, explaining that he had to go to President Milosevic.  Every

24     time he was about to leave, he told me what I'm supposed to do.

25        Q.   When you say "around 11.00 every time," you referring to how

Page 1812

 1     often a basis?

 2        A.   Every day.  Every day when I was in the office.

 3        Q.   How often would it be that you were in the office?

 4        A.   It depended on my other obligations, but it was very frequently,

 5     almost every morning.

 6        Q.   Where exactly was the office of Brana Crncevic located in 1991?

 7        A.   The name of the street was Nusiceva.  I can't remember the

 8     number.  In any case, it's in the very centre of Belgrade between the big

 9     department store and casino hotel.

10        Q.   Where is this in relation to the office of Slobodan Milosevic at

11     the time?

12        A.   Not far.  President Milosevic's office was not even a kilometre

13     away from there, also in the centre.

14        Q.   Did you have a conversation with Crncevic in June or July 1991,

15     in which he provided you with a piece of paper?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Where did this conversation occur?

18        A.   In his office.

19        Q.   Could you please explain what occurred in this conversation.

20        A.   I said to Brana that on the following day I was headed for Erdut,

21     although I was not allowed to go to Erdut, I was clear on that, there

22     were a lot of warnings coming my way to that effect, but I wanted to see

23     his reaction to my words.

24        Q.   What was his reaction?

25        A.   He told me to say to Arkan to call Sele on the phone.

Page 1813

 1        Q.   How did you respond?

 2        A.   I asked him to give me that in writing because I had so much to

 3     do and so much on my platter that I was afraid that I would not remember

 4     what he told me.

 5        Q.   After you informed him that you would not remember this, what did

 6     Brana Crncevic do?

 7        A.   He took a piece of paper that was on his desk and he wrote with a

 8     pencil something to the effect Arkan to call Sele on the phone.  I don't

 9     know whether he signed the piece of paper or not.

10        Q.   Did he write this piece of paper in your presence?

11        A.   Yes, in my presence.  I was standing right by the -- his desk

12     while he was jotting the words down, waiting for him to be over so I

13     could take the piece of paper with me.

14        Q.   Are you personally familiar with the handwriting of

15     Brana Crncevic?

16        A.   If I saw it, I assume I would recognise it.

17             MR. WEBER:  Could Prosecution 65 ter 2882 please be placed before

18     the witness.  Could the Court Usher please enlarge the top half of this

19     exhibit on the screen.  Actually, if we could please have page 2, the top

20     half of that portion.  And the top portion in the -- the very, very top

21     portion of the English version.  If there's any way we could please have

22     the B/C/S version cropped so the writing at the bottom of the page is not

23     displayed.

24        Q.   Sir, do you recognise this exhibit?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 1814

 1        Q.   What is this document?

 2        A.   It's the piece of paper that Brana produced where you can see

 3     clearly Arkan to contact Sele this evening by phone.

 4        Q.   Is this the piece of paper that you were referring to that was

 5     provided to you in June or July of 1991?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Did you keep this piece of paper in your possession until you

 8     provided it to an ICTY Office of the Prosecutor investigator?

 9        A.   Yes, I did.

10        Q.   When you provided the document to the Office of the Prosecutor,

11     at that time did the investigator write any markings on this exhibit?

12        A.   I can't remember.

13        Q.   Are there any markings on this exhibit which did not appear when

14     Mr. Crncevic provided it to you?

15        A.   What I see up here 99-2 -- MM-VK-01 and 011-91-934.  That piece

16     of paper was completely blank.  It was an A4 format piece of blank paper

17     so these things did not exist.

18        Q.   The writing that you referred to, is this the writing that is

19     darker at the very top of the exhibit?

20        A.   It is.

21        Q.   And also I take it the -- the type-face numbers that appear in

22     the upper right-hand side of the exhibit were also not there when

23     Mr. Crncevic provided it to you?

24        A.   No, no, it was a blank piece of paper.

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would like

Page 1815

 1     a screen capture of the top portion.  We are only tendering in the top

 2     portion of this exhibit.  We are not seeking to admit the lower half of

 3     the exhibit at this time.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objection?  Although it's puzzling me a bit --

 5             MR. WEBER:  I'd be happy to explain, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 7             MR. WEBER:

 8        Q.   Sir, is this exhibit that appears before you a photocopy of one

 9     or multiple exhibits -- or one or multiple documents?

10        A.   What I see -- what I see on my screen is a single document.

11             MR. WEBER:  If the Court Usher could please show the full

12     document.

13        Q.   Sir, with respect to the page that now appears before you, is

14     this one or multiple documents?

15        A.   These are two documents.

16        Q.   And did you have occasion to create a photocopy of these two

17     documents together when you provided it to the Office of the Prosecutor?

18        A.   Yes, I did.

19        Q.   And with respect to the top portion, is it an accurate copy of

20     the note that Brana Crncevic provided to you in 1991?

21        A.   It is.

22        Q.   With respect to the bottom portion, were you provided that at a

23     different time than the note that was given to you by Mr. Crncevic?

24        A.   Yes.  There are some lines there in the bottom portion.  This is

25     a piece of paper that was actually torn out of a notebook.

Page 1816

 1        Q.   What notebook was it torn out of?

 2        A.   Some small agenda notebooks that people use to jot notes down on.

 3        Q.   Who provided this bottom portion to you?

 4        A.   General Radojica Nenezic did, he gave me this document.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, who copied it, two documents in one copy?

 6             MR. WEBER:  It's the witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I beg your pardon?

 8             MR. WEBER:  My understanding it's the witness.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You have copied two documents into one document?

10     Yes.

11             Is there any way to separate them again?  I mean, it's rather

12     complicated to have half a page admitted into evidence.  If the parties

13     would agree that this is a photocopy of -- then -- because it's even more

14     complex because we have not only the top and the bottom, but the original

15     is two pages where apparently the back side is also again perhaps another

16     document, where there appear to be no lines on it.  And then we have in

17     reverse order we have what transpires from the back.  Is there not any

18     way to have this text admitted into evidence on --

19             MR. JORDASH:  Perhaps I can assist.  I think at this moment in

20     time I will probably want to ask the witness about both aspects.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's even -- so he had a very lucky hand

22     when he combined the two documents?

23             MR. JORDASH:  Indeed.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  So then I take it there's no objection of admission

25     into evidence of whatever portion of the document.

Page 1817

 1             Mr. Jovanovic, would you share that?

 2             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours, but I

 3     think we would be well advised to also see the first page of the

 4     document.  This is the second page of the document which contains these

 5     two contents.  So it would be of assistance if we could see the first

 6     page.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] But I agree to the admission of

 9     the second page but if we could please also see the first one.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber -- well, you can see it, of course, the

11     first one in your e-court system, at least I've got it on my --

12     Mr. Weber, perhaps this assists in new judicial economy where we put all

13     the documents together in one document.  Any objection against just

14     having admitted as copied by this witness?

15             MR. WEBER:  No.  And as to the other page, I believe that it

16     doesn't reflect the actual note that was given by Mr. Crncevic, but that

17     is investigator's notes and things of the nature.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we have a document on which -- is that

19     contested by the Defence that the handwritten text "Arkan to contact Sele

20     this evening by phone," that it's the testimony of this witness that that

21     was the only thing written on this document when he received it for the

22     first time?

23             MR. JORDASH:  It's not contested.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No, not contested.

25             Then let's try to keep matters simple.  You're tendering the

Page 1818

 1     whole of the document.

 2             Madam Registrar, that would be number ...

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P20, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  P20.  Now I say that makes matters simple.  I've got

 5     one problem that the -- not the whole of the document is translated.  I

 6     see that the back of the document is apparently not translated because

 7     I've got a one-page document in English, and I've got a two-page document

 8     in the original.

 9             MR. WEBER:  With respect to the second page in the original, is

10     that in English itself?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No, as a matter of fact, the page we have on our

12     screen now is the second page of the document.

13             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  On the first page you'll find the BS-PPS-MM-VK-01,

15     this is the -- as far as, I see that it's apparently handwritten --

16             MR. WEBER:  I believe there's nothing to be translated from this

17     page.  It's the investigator's notes, initials, date, and then --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it should have been translated in B/C/S then,

19     but let me see whether it's -- yes, it's not translated now in B/C/S.

20     That's the consequence.  But it seems that these are handwritten notes by

21     someone who apparently dealt with the document.  Can we ignore that

22     portion?

23             MR. WEBER:  We do have a B/C/S translation available for it.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic.

25             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honours, the fact

Page 1819

 1     that in the B/C/S version the text in English is handwritten.  That is

 2     what is confusing.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  It certainly is handwritten, and it appears to be a

 4     translation of what is written in Cyrillic on the other side; and then a

 5     small comment added that another part -- it's more or less telling us

 6     what you find on the flip side of the document.

 7             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  Someone wrote in his hand

 8     in the English -- actually, hand wrote a translation of the text from the

 9     other page and translated it into English by hand.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's move on.  No party objects against

11     admission, and it's clear what the witness told us about the document.

12             Had I asked already for a number, no yet -- we have, and it is

13     admitted into evidence.

14             Mr. Weber, I would like to issue a decision which might be of

15     interest to the Prosecution, and, therefore, would like to, at this

16     moment, stop the examination of the witness.

17             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the only thing I had left was actually

18     to tender Prosecution 65 ter 1932 into evidence, the two clips, that's

19     it.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's it and then you would have concluded your

21     examination-in-chief?

22             MR. WEBER:  That's correct.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then those are the two clips, that's the B-92

24     collection and it does not contain anything more than those two clips?

25             MR. WEBER:  We will -- it does actually contain more than the two

Page 1820

 1     clips.  We are not tendering anything more than those two clips.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Than those two clips.  Then we do it as follows.

 3             Madam Registrar, can you please assign an MFI number for

 4     65 ter 1932.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P21 marked for identification,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             We'll decide on the matter once you have uploaded the

 9     reduced-size version containing only the two clips.

10             Are there any objections against admission into evidence of those

11     two clips, nothing else, combined in one exhibit?  That's the B-92.  I do

12     understand that in order to fully evaluate that more information would

13     certainly be helpful.

14             Any objection, Mr. Jordash?

15             MR. JORDASH:  No objections.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then no objections from Mr. Jovanovic, which means

17     that once the right version is uploaded in e-court, the decision will be

18     that it's admitted into evidence.

19             Mr. Savic, this concludes your examination-in-chief.  Tomorrow

20     you'll be cross-examined by counsel for the Defence or perhaps the

21     Chamber may have some questions for you as well.  I instruct you that you

22     should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that is

23     testimony you gave already today or whether this is testimony still to be

24     given tomorrow.  We'd like to see you back tomorrow afternoon in this

25     same courtroom at quarter past 2.00.

Page 1821

 1             Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Savic out of the

 2     courtroom.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to read the following decision.  It is

 5     the Chamber's determination pursuant to Rule 73 bis (C) of the Rules and

 6     a decision on Prosecution motion for leave to amend its Rule 65 ter

 7     witness list.

 8             On the 5th of June, 2009, the Prosecution filed its amended and

 9     consolidated witness list pursuant to the Chamber's instruction of the

10     2nd of June, 2009.  In its filing, the Prosecution requests the Chamber

11     to re-evaluate the order of the 28th of April, 2008, which limited the

12     Prosecution to present its case with 90 witnesses within 130 hours for

13     examination-in-chief.  The Prosecution argues that in contradiction with

14     Rule 73 bis (C) the Pre-Trial Judge did not give the Prosecution a chance

15     to be heard before determining the number of witnesses and time available

16     for the Prosecution.  The Prosecution requests the Chamber to allow for

17     the presentation of ten additional witnesses within the allotted

18     time-frame of 130 hours of examination-in-chief.

19             The Chamber considers that for purposes of Rule 73 bis (C) the

20     Prosecution has now been heard.  The Chamber has considered the request

21     by the Prosecution and has re-evaluated the assessment made by the

22     Pre-Trial Judge on the 28th of April, 2008.  Taking into account in

23     particular the Prosecution's submission that the proposed ten additional

24     witnesses would not affect the set time of 130 hours of

25     examination-in-chief and having considered that six out of the additional

Page 1822

 1     ten witnesses are sought to be tendered pursuant to Rules 92 bis and --

 2     it should read to Rule 92 bis and would, if called for cross-examination,

 3     due to their expected testimony only add a small amount of time for

 4     cross-examination to the overall length of the case, the Chamber grants

 5     the Prosecution's request to present evidence of an additional ten

 6     witnesses within the allotted time-frame.

 7             On the 6th of May, 2009, the Prosecution requested leave to add

 8     one witness to its Rule 65 ter witness list.  The Stanisic Defence

 9     responded on the 20th of May, 2009, objecting to the motion.  The

10     Simatovic Defence did not respond.

11             The Prosecution submits that the proposed witness would give

12     additional evidence on the role of the Red Berets, which cannot be

13     elicited from any of the crime base witnesses already on the witness

14     list.  It submits that it became aware of the witness's evidence in the

15     summer of 2008 but waited with its motion until an official ICTY

16     statement could be taken on the 15th of April, 2009.

17             The Stanisic Defence submits that the Prosecution did not fulfil

18     its obligation pursuant to Rule 65 ter (E)(ii)(d) of the Rules, in that

19     it did not provide the Defence with a final list at least six weeks prior

20     to the Pre-Trial Conference.  The Stanisic Defence further submits that

21     the Prosecution failed to advance a reasonable justification for this

22     late addition.

23             Pursuant to Rule 73 bis (F) of the Rules, the Chamber may grant

24     any motion for an amendment to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter witness list

25     if satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice.  In this

Page 1823

 1     respect, the Chamber must balance the Prosecution's duty to present the

 2     available evidence to prove its case with the right of the accused to a

 3     fair and expeditious trial and the right to have adequate time and

 4     facilities for the preparation of their defence.  The Chamber will

 5     consider whether the proposed evidence is prima facie relevant and

 6     probative and whether the Prosecution has shown good cause why it did not

 7     seek to add the witness to its witness list at an earlier stage.  Good

 8     cause may exist where the witness has only recently become available to

 9     give evidence or where the relevance of the evidence has only recently

10     become apparent.  The Chamber will further consider the burden placed on

11     the Defence by the late addition of a witness to the Rule 65 ter witness

12     list.

13             The Chamber finds that the testimony of the proposed witness,

14     given his unique position to provide certain evidence, is prima facie

15     relevant and of probative value.

16             As for good cause shown, the Chamber has learned from the

17     submissions that the Defence was served with the statements and testimony

18     of the proposed witness to Bosnian authorities in September and December

19     2008, respectively.  Furthermore, according to the submissions from the

20     Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence, the Prosecution notified the

21     Defence on the 16th of January, 2009, of its intention to add the

22     suggested witness to its witness list.  Nevertheless, the Prosecution

23     only succeeded in taking an official statement from the witness on the

24     15th of April, 2009.  Considering the significant impact an interview

25     with a possible witness might have on the decision on whether or not to

Page 1824

 1     request leave to amend the witness list, the Chamber finds that the

 2     Prosecution has shown good cause on why the request was not made earlier.

 3             The Chamber further considers that the Defence has been on notice

 4     for more than three months that the Prosecution would seek to add this

 5     witness to the witness list.  Balancing the Prosecution's duty to present

 6     the available evidence to prove its case with the right of the accused to

 7     a fair and expeditious trial, the Chamber finds that it is in the

 8     interests of justice to add the proposed witness to the Prosecution's

 9     witness list.

10             On the 2nd of June, 2009, the Chamber stated that the Prosecution

11     should further explain why the addition of the proposed witness would

12     warrant an increase in the time of examination-in-chief available to it.

13     This can be found at transcript pages 1382, 1397, and 1398.  The

14     Prosecution has not submitted any further specific arguments to that

15     effect.  The Chamber, therefore, decides that the Prosecution should

16     present its case within the allotted time of 130 hours, even with the

17     addition of the proposed witness.

18             Accordingly, the Prosecution's motion is granted and the number

19     of witnesses the Prosecution may call and the time available to it for

20     presenting evidence is set to 101 witnesses and 130 hours respectively.

21             This concludes the Chamber's determination pursuant to Rule 73

22     bis (C) of the Rules and its decision on the Prosecution motion for leave

23     to amend the Rule 65 ter witness list.

24             I first wanted to thank interpreters, transcriber, and all those,

25     including security, assisting us for forgiveness at least, that's what I

Page 1825

 1     hope to get, to go seven minutes over the time set.

 2             We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday,

 3     the - I have to look - the 7th of July, quarter past 2.00, Courtroom I.

 4                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of

 6                           July, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.