1 Tuesday, 7 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused Simatovic entered court]
4 [The accused Stanisic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Due to the little time some Judges in this Chamber
7 have to meet between the morning and the afternoon sessions, we have
8 unfortunately a late start in this case.
9 And, Madam Registrar, this case is ... ?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
11 number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and
12 Franko Simatovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 Mr. Knoops, I was informed that you wanted to raise a matter,
15 procedural matter?
16 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour. I think it was still confusing in
17 the medical documents regarding the waiver because we received an absence
18 from court due illness document in which the right to waive to be present
19 in court is not actually crossed by the defendant --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KNOOPS: -- while the non-attendance document under
22 question 4, the English version does say that Mr. Stanisic is willing to
23 waive his right to attend court in person. It's my understanding that
24 Mr. Stanisic is not waiving his right to attend court in person, and I
25 personally will go tomorrow afternoon again to the UN Detention Unit to
1 speak about these two documents because I believe there might be
2 confusion in these two documents for the defendant. But it's my --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the most important thing, this is of course a
4 formality filled in. Most important for us to know is whether he waives
5 his right or not; he has never done that until now. If there would be
6 any change in his attitude, then we would certainly hear from you,
7 Mr. Knoops.
8 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Another matter, we also received -- apart from these
10 two documents, we received the medical report of today.
11 Have the parties any need to put any questions to Dr. Eekhof?
12 No need to put questions to Dr. Eekhof. I would, however.
13 Could we have a videolink with ...
14 Good afternoon. Dr. Eekhof, can you -- I see that the microphone
15 is switched off.
16 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] [Microphone not activated]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We can see your mouth moving, but we don't hear you.
18 Apparently the microphone is not on.
19 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] And now? Can you hear me now?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can hear you now.
21 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] Good afternoon.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Thank you for being stand-by. I
23 have a very, very short question for you. Under paragraph 2 of today's
24 report you state:
25 "During my visit of Mr. Stanisic today, his mental state of mind
1 was still agitated and depressed, although less than last Friday ..."
2 Now, it's my recollection that your last report was of yesterday,
3 which was a Monday. Is there any reason why you referred to Friday
4 rather than to yesterday?
5 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] Your Honour, there's a simple
6 reason. I visit him daily, but I only report once weekly as asked by the
7 Chamber. And at the moments where he has to appear in Court, I give an
8 expert report.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But yesterday we received a report, isn't it?
10 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] Yes, I gave a report yesterday too.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and was he still agitated and depressed,
12 although less than last Monday as well, or is the situation the same
13 as --
14 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] No, it's -- it is -- I referred to
15 last Friday because on Thursday there was --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] -- an incident which upset him and
18 agitated him. I saw him on Friday. He was very agitated and very active
19 even in his agitation. Yesterday he was still very agitated. Today he
20 seems to rest a bit in the situation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this further information. Dr. Eekhof,
22 thank you for remaining stand-by. The Chamber will determine whether or
23 not to proceed. Thank you very much.
24 MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] You're welcome.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We can close the videolink.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber decides on the basis of the report of
3 this morning, Dr. Eekhof's additional information, that we can proceed in
4 the absence of Mr. Stanisic.
5 Next matter -- perhaps before the witness enters the courtroom,
6 yesterday we ended in P18 with an invitation to the Prosecution, an
7 invitation to both parties. Any results?
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, we did have the opportunity to speak
9 with the Defence, both Defence, concerning this exhibit. It's the
10 Prosecution's position that the entire exhibit is relevant. It does
11 contain statements of an alleged co-perpetrator of the joint criminal
12 enterprise and discusses the activities and conversations with other
13 alleged members of the joint criminal enterprise during the relevant
14 period of indictment between 1991 and 1995. We believe that because of
15 this relevance the entire exhibit should be admitted. With that being
16 said, we did have the opportunity to speak with both Defence. We are not
17 able at this time, I believe it's fair to say, to agree to the admission
18 of the entire exhibit. We are willing to continue our conversations with
19 the Defence to see if a substantial portion can be agreed upon, and then
20 we would await any future instructions or decisions by the Chamber as to
21 whether or not the Chamber would like a further submission from the
22 Prosecution on this or would like to decide the matter based on its
23 review of the material.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, is -- what Mr. Weber said, does that
1 reflect the actual situation, that is, that you started discussions,
2 there was no agreement on the matter, and may I take it then under those
3 circumstances that the Stanisic Defence takes the same position as it
4 took yesterday in relation to admission of the video in its entirety?
5 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour. We reviewed yesterday the
6 transcripts, the 42-page transcripts, and we still believe there are many
7 portions which were not dealt by the Prosecution in chief with this
8 witness. So which are, in other words, outside the scope of the
9 testimony of this witness. But having said so, we are willing to sit
10 down with the Prosecution to look into the document again and find ways
11 to come to an agreement on certain portions. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Mr. Jovanovic, any further submissions in respect of this
15 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the time being
16 the same reasons I pointed out yesterday; however, in my conversation
17 with the OTP we came close to a possible solution. The proposal that I
18 submitted to the OTP is now expecting for me to submit in a written form
19 together with the identification of some of the documents that I wish to
20 tender and I wish for them to be admitted upon mutual agreement. I
21 believe that we have made some progress, but at the time -- for the time
22 being I can repeat my -- yesterday's position. It is possible that we
23 might reach an agreement, and I'll try and identify as soon as possible
24 the document that I would like to tender for admission, and I will inform
25 the OTP thereof as soon as possible.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
2 The Chamber would like to assist the parties in where apparently
3 no agreement yet has been reached and where apparently the positions are
4 still a little bit apart. And I'd like to give some guidance on behalf
5 of the Chamber to the parties.
6 First a general observation. In general any kind of
7 documents - and that would include videos - should be tendered in a
8 meaningful way in court through witnesses who are able to comment on
9 them. This allows for a proper contextualisation, without which the
10 Chamber is left to determine the relevance and probative value primarily
11 on the basis of the document alone. These considerations are especially
12 pertinent for documents of a technical nature for which the relevance and
13 probative value is not immediately apparent. So the general rule is
14 through a witness.
15 As far as tendering evidence from the bar table is concerned,
16 this often does not allow for proper contextualisation, as we have it
17 when admitted through a witness, which leaves the Chamber to determine
18 the material's relevance and probative value on the basis of the proposed
19 evidence alone. And in order to facilitate the admission process - and
20 I'm now talking about admission of evidence from the bar table - the
21 Chamber requests under those circumstances a joint submission of the
22 parties whenever a document, and that would include a video or one
23 document or a set of documents, is tendered without being presented
24 through -- to a witness, the tendering party should then submit a
25 document containing a short description of each exhibit as well as its
1 relevance to the indictment and its probative value if that's not
2 immediately obvious from the description itself. In case of bulky
3 exhibits with particularly relevant portions, a reference to those
4 portions is needed.
5 You could ask, Why a joint submission? Well, the Chamber would
6 also like to be informed in the joint submission of any comments and
7 objections that the opposing party may have with regard to each of the
8 tendered exhibits. And the tendering party should provide the Chamber
9 with the disputed exhibits.
10 You see, a more or less structured way of tendering into evidence
11 material which is not or not directly related to a witness through which
12 that evidence is presented. This is general guidance. I'll now give you
13 a very short provisional analysis of what we found yesterday. And of
14 course the Chamber has had now an opportunity to read the transcripts.
15 What we see, as a matter of fact, is that in the first
16 portion - and I think this goes until approximately page 19 - the focus
17 seems to be mainly on Eastern Slavonia; whereas on page 19 we move to a
18 totally different area, we move to Bosnia
19 Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Milosevic, we see a lot of things that are passing by.
20 Now, that first portion, that is apparently a portion on which this
21 witness can comment. To what extent exactly he can comment and where he
22 cannot comment anymore is -- of course we could not deal with that on a
23 line-by-line basis; we will take a rather general approach. What we also
24 see in this first portion, and that's repeated in the second portion here
25 and there as well, is relatively irrelevant portions such as the
1 background of the interviewed person, when he was -- whether he has ever
2 spent some time in jail, some rather personal dealings and evaluation of
3 the importance of his own position in all kind of matters.
4 Therefore, in the first portion we see some material which is
5 relatively irrelevant. We see a certain portion where in this interview
6 matters are dealt with on which the witness could comment. That would
7 therefore be a portion which would be appropriately tendered through this
8 witness. And then in the second part we find information on which, at
9 least from what we've heard now, we hardly could expect the witness to
10 give any comment on it. It seems not to be very meaningful to tender
11 that through this witness. Now, of course, then Prosecution could seek
12 to tender that from the bar table, but whether that's appropriately done
13 here or whether it would be more appropriate to tender this through a
14 witness who could tell us about what happened in Bosnia, who could tell
15 us about what happened in Zvornik, and therefore provide the context
16 which is needed in the preferred way to receive this evidence, that is,
17 through a witness. So at this moment the Chamber does not finally
18 express its views on whether -- well, let's say on from page 19, whether
19 it would accept it if tendered from the bar table or whether it would
20 insist on it being tendered through a witness. That is the result of a
21 provisional analysis of this document.
22 Now, what the Chamber would like the parties to do is that the
23 Prosecution further will look at that portion of the video which is most
24 likely to be considered appropriately admitted through this witness and
25 then to see whether we need all of that or whether there's some portions
1 which seem to be irrelevant. If an agreement could be reached on that
2 with the Defence, that would be appreciated by the Chamber, it would
3 assist the Chamber; if not, we'll hear what reduced video you'll tender,
4 and the Chamber will decide whether it, whether all of it or part of it,
5 will be admitted into evidence.
6 Mr. Weber, is that clear to you?
7 MR. WEBER: Yes. Thank you very much for the Chamber's guidance.
8 If it's okay with the Chamber, we would be happy to discuss that first
9 portion during the first recess and report back to the Chamber later
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Then the - if there's no other matter at this moment to be
13 discussed - the witness could be brought into the courtroom again.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
17 JUDGE ORIE: From your answer, I take it that you could hear me
18 in a language you understand.
19 Mr. Savic, I would like to remind you that you're still bound by
20 the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your
21 testimony, and you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash
22 is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.
23 Mr. Jordash, you may proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 WITNESS: BORIVOJE SAVIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Savic.
4 A. Good afternoon.
5 Q. Let me take you straight to the 10th of June, 1990. From what
6 you've told us you were instrumental in setting up the SDS board in
7 Vukovar; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And by August of 1990, am I correct that Mercep was the HDZ
10 president in Vukovar?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And --
13 A. I apologise, not the president of the HDZ but the secretary of
14 the Secretariat of National Defence, that's what its name was.
15 Q. And there was, is this right, a violent take-over of the
16 National Defence staff?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Just briefly, what was that about?
19 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you much because we did not
20 participate in power. We were newly established party after the
21 elections, and we did not hold any responsibility for any of the
22 activities that were taking place within the power in that
24 Q. So basically the HDZ were dominating all the positions, is that
25 correct, in Vukovar?
1 A. The HDZ took 16 per cent of the votes in the elections that took
2 place in April, and then there was the second round in early May.
3 However, after the elections the state started functioning as an HDZ
4 state. So all the activities that were taking place at the time went
5 along that line.
6 Q. So officials who were not part of that party were being forced to
7 leave their positions; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. And basically nationalisation was on the rise?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the fragmentation between the Croatians and the Serbians was
12 rising and widening; is that correct?
13 A. If you're referring to us locals, then that would be to a lesser
14 extent because us locals -- we tried to maintain good relations. The
15 pressure came from the side of Vinkovci and Osijek. We as locals were
16 rather close. For example, a lot of my friends were HDZ members and
17 people who were candidates were also HDZ members, and that fact did not
18 have any influence on our relations.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, may I just briefly intervene. I am not
20 a native English speaker. Therefore, I'd like to be assured that we --
21 that I understand your language in the same way as you intend to speak
22 it. You used the word "Croatians and Serbians." Now, from what I
23 learned now, but I could be wrong, is that if we are referring to someone
24 on the basis of his ethnicity not on the basis of to what state he
25 belongs, that we then talk about Serbs, whereas about anything Serbian
1 would be in relation to the state of Serbia. You used the word
2 "Serbians" where I thought that you would, in my understanding, wanted to
3 refer to Serbs, that is, to ethnical background of human beings. Now, if
4 I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected at this moment in my understanding of
5 the English. If I'm not wrong, you're invited to use the words in the
6 same way, that is, Croats for Croat ethnic background, Croatians for
7 people holding Croatian nationality; Serb for someone Serbian ethnic
8 background, and Serbian for linked to the state of Serbia.
9 MR. JORDASH: It's -- I think the simple answer to that is that
10 there isn't a simple answer, that the terms can be used interchangeably.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If that's the case, then we always have to
12 clarify what we are meaning if it's interchangeably used. Perhaps not
13 spend more time on it at this moment and try to find a way in court or
14 out of court, perhaps with the assistance of our interpreters or CLSS, so
15 to find a language that I always understand your words in the way you
16 pronounce them.
17 MR. JORDASH: I'll endeavour to make myself clearer.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. Am I correct, Mr. Savic, that by the summer of 1990 the members
21 of the HDZ were arming themselves in the Vukovar --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- region.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And this was visible for those who lived in that region, it was
1 fairly public?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. This arming was of criminals and the unemployed, amongst others;
4 is that right?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: [Interpretation] Everybody who --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Objection to the form of the question. It's vague to
9 ask the witness broadly his own context of what he thinks criminals
10 are --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear. The witness may answer the
12 question. The objection is overruled. If you need any further
13 clarification as what the witness understands from these terms, it can be
14 asked from him.
15 Could you please answer the question which was:
16 "This arming was of criminals and the unemployed, amongst
17 others," whether that is a correct statement.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All those who adopted new political
19 views and joined them were armed, irrespective of their profession and
20 the activities they engaged in at the time.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. And this arming also took place amongst those of Serb ethnicity?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in the summer of 1990 this arming was taking place through a
25 black market in weapons; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And this situation went on for several months, is that correct,
3 arming through the black market?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And what was this black market? Where were the weapons coming
6 from? And how were they getting to the various ethnic groups?
7 A. I said that we had established our party and that our intention
8 was to buffer all those things. I don't know how the weapons came,
9 through what channels, but I took my distance from the weapons. We never
10 wanted to fight fire with fire. We had other arguments on our side that
11 we wanted to use.
12 Q. Well, was this arming the kind of arming which led to old hunting
13 rifles falling into the wrong hands? Was it that kind of black market?
14 A. There was all sorts, but I don't know any details. I never had
15 the time to look into any details. Whatever I did I did without taking
16 weapons in my hands, only with my head on my shoulders, nothing else. I
17 was never interested in weapons.
18 Q. Mr. Witness, I am not accusing you of anything; if I do, then
19 I'll make it clear. I'm just trying to find out what you know.
20 Could I suggest to you that the weapons that you say you saw with
21 Ilija Kojic were obtained by him through that black market? Could you
22 give us your comment on that.
23 A. It's just a supposition. I can suppose that. However, in my
24 statement what I really wanted to say was that I wanted to ask Ilija not
25 to use our people and not to put them in a difficult position as to how
1 much weapons he was going to take and distribute, I wasn't interested in
2 that. I apologise to you. I'm really taking up your time because I
3 can't tell you anything specific about the arming because that was
4 something that I wasn't involved in. I didn't want to burden myself with
5 it. My style of work was completely different. It was completely
6 public, transparent, and civilised, and that part of my work could
7 perhaps be of assistance to you.
8 Q. Well, at that moment I'm interested in the arming, but you've
9 confirmed - is this right - that Kojic could have obtained those weapons
10 through the black market? You say it's a supposition but you suppose
11 that that could be right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Because when you went to his flat - if what you say is
14 right - you saw old weapons at his apartment; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, yes, correct.
16 Q. Old weapons which were -- no, let me start this again.
17 How many did you see approximately?
18 A. Five to six perhaps.
19 Q. So this was five to six
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And yesterday you -- you gave evidence that Kojic had suggested
22 to you that he'd received the weapons from Stanisic. Do you recall that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could you explain why a moment ago you were willing to accept
1 that he could have accept -- got them from the black market, if indeed
2 what you said yesterday was true?
3 A. Once again I will repeat that I was not focused on weapons at
5 Q. Could I suggest to you, Mr. Witness, that Ilija Kojic never said
6 to you that he'd received them from Stanisic.
7 A. You could.
8 Q. Well, I do, and I suggest that that was a fabrication on your
9 part, a late fabrication.
10 A. There is no need for me to make up things.
11 MR. JORDASH: Let me ask if the witness could be given, please, a
12 copy of his first statement dated the 16th of -- 16th to 17th of
13 December, 2002, incorporating I think also 3rd, 4th, and 5th of February,
14 ERN number 011G -- sorry, 0119-1905.
15 I'm presuming that will come up on the screen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to have it on the screen --
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I'm sorry, I beg your pardon. I'm just
18 getting used to the facilities.
19 Q. I think we'll need you to have a look at the B/C/S version.
20 Now, Mr. Witness, I just want you to have a look at the front
21 sheet there on the left side of the screen and just - if the screen could
22 go up to reveal the signature on the bottom left - could you have a look
23 at that. Is that your signature? Do you recognise that signature?
24 A. Yes, it is my signature.
25 Q. And you see the date of birth at the top. Is that your date of
1 birth, the 2nd of February, 1949?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. And --
4 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps the -- we could turn to the first page of
5 the B/C/S, please. Perhaps the next page.
6 Q. I just want you, Mr. Witness, to have a look and check just
7 quickly that you recognise this statement as your own.
8 MR. JORDASH: Next page, please, of the B/C/S.
9 Q. Does that look familiar, Mr. Witness?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, I don't know if you wish me to prove
12 the statement more than I have. I'm in Your Honours' hands, or I can
13 take him through very quickly the whole statement if it's the practice of
14 the Court.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER: We have no objection.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. Okay, Mr. -- Mr. Witness, I want you to turn to -- in the English
19 version it's page 6.
20 MR. JORDASH: And so what I want, if I can, is for the B/C/S
21 version to be turned to around page 6, and I'm looking at the bottom of
22 that where the sentence -- the paragraph that begins: "Around mid-1990
23 the distribution of weapons had already started ..."
24 Q. Can you indicate when you've found that, Mr. Witness.
25 A. I don't think it's on this page.
1 MR. JORDASH: Let's go the next page, I think.
2 Q. Is that it, two-thirds of the way down the page with the "1990"?
3 A. I'm looking at this now.
4 Q. Okay --
5 A. Yes, yes, I see it.
6 Q. Okay. Let's just read through that paragraph quickly.
7 "Around mid-1990 the distribution of weapons had already started.
8 At first it was done under the cloak of the SDS party, but naturally that
9 was done by the Serbian DB. For example, in Vukovar the man in charge
10 was certain Ilija Kojic who was a police officer. I came to this
11 information quite accidentally. One day Kojic came to look for me to my
12 house in Vukovar, but since he did not find me, I visited him later in
13 his apartment."
14 Is that, Mr. Savic, what you told the Prosecution?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Reading on.
17 "When I went there he asked me whether I needed any weapons.
18 Naturally I rejected, since I was against weapons and I knew that the
19 distribution of weapons was just going to bring trouble for the, let's
20 call them, 'short-sighted people.' I also warned Kojic, since he was
21 obviously connected to the weapons, not to connect the party with this
22 distribution. Kojic was not a member of the SDS ..."
23 Is that what you told the Prosecution, Mr. Savic?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the bit I'm particularly interested in is the following
2 "Since in Vukovar I was one of the most" -- sorry, "one of the
3 prominent people who meant something, I was against violence. I conclude
4 that Kojic must have had connections with the DB, since one cannot buy
5 weapons at the market and there had to be -- there had to have been
6 coordination with an institution."
7 Is that what you told the Prosecution?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So at that stage you were presuming DB connection; is that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And only later - I don't think we need to turn to it - but only
13 later in your visits to the Prosecution of the 11th February, 2008
14 you suddenly recall, if I can put it neutrally like that, that in fact
15 Mr. Kojic --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: I apologise for interrupting Mr. Jordash. But just
18 so we have a clear record, the date of the proofing note is the 11th of
19 February, 2008; however, it is indicated in the first line that the
20 interview was on the 20th of September, 2007.
21 Sorry to interrupt.
22 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon, sorry.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH:
25 Q. So basically five years after your first statement you meet the
1 Prosecution, and then you recall that in fact Kojic had told you that it
2 was Stanisic who had given you these five -- sorry, given him these five
3 old weapons; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. Can I explain?
5 Q. Please.
6 A. The first statement when I gave it, it was quite general. The
7 topic wasn't really known. We talked and it lasted for five hours, a
8 couple -- for five days, a couple of hours each day, and the statement
9 was given in the form that you can see in front of you. As for other
10 interviews, they were all centred on a certain topic so that essentially
11 what was added had not been made up. Simply, if one concentrated better,
12 if one put in effort, then one could be more certain in conveying what
13 happened on a certain occasion. That is my explanation.
14 Q. Thank you for that explanation. Let's move on.
15 Now, let's stay with this statement, the first statement we've
16 just been looking at. You -- actually, before we move on to that next
17 bit, your statement with the section we've just read, your general
18 statement, as you term it, noted that the supply of weapons was first
19 done through the SDS
20 part of the paragraph: "At first it was done under the cloak of the SDS
21 party ..."
22 A. Yes, yes. That's how it was said, that the weapons were
23 distributed under the aegis of SDS
24 Q. Right. And you were one of the key members of the SDS party at
25 that time? Thank you.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm -- I'm not quite certain that we
4 have no confusion here. We have two elements in that sentence. At first
6 took it from your question that you suggested to the witness that in the
7 beginning it was the SDS
8 weapons came from the -- that it was done by the Serbian DB. That was
9 the suggestion in your question. The witness more or less confirmed what
10 I find in his statement, and therefore I'd like to seek clarification.
11 Was there -- was this involvement of the Serbian DB, had it been
12 there on from the beginning, or did it start under the responsibility of
13 the SDS
14 it actually became the Serbian DB? Or was the Serbian DB involved right
15 from the beginning? Which of the two was it?
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I will try to explain it in briefest
17 possible terms. When the HDZ came to power, all policemen who were Serbs
18 were talked by the Serbian DB to leave police force, to not accept the
19 chequer-board flag, to not accept new employment. And the HDZ was
20 pressing to remove as many people from the police force as possible. We
21 had meetings with them trying to talk them into remaining, not leaving
22 police force because it was important for them to remain there -- oh, I
23 apologise, I spoke too much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. I would like to focus on the
25 distribution of weapons, whether on from the beginning the Serbian DB was
1 involved in the background, although it may have looked as if it was the
3 own that the Serbian DB became involved. That's the question, which of
4 the two situations -- descriptions reflects the actual situation?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So all the policemen who were left
6 jobless or were leaving police force went to Serbia. I don't know what
7 their fate was from then on. I suppose that one of their activities had
8 to do with weapons. They were involved with weapons. I gave you an
9 example of a situation where I was personally involved because I was
10 asked by Kojic and things happened as I have explained to you. I have
11 always tried to explain that the weapons were of less importance to us.
12 We tried to avoid it as much as possible in our work so the --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you again. Your statement was:
14 "Around mid-1990 the distribution of weapons had already started.
15 At first it was done under the cloak of the SDS party, but naturally that
16 was done by the Serbian DB ..."
17 Now, was it on from the beginning done by the Serbian DB, or had
18 there been a period in which the Serbian DB was not involved and where it
19 actually was the SDS
20 just want to understand the line I read in your statement. Could you
21 tell us?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really did not follow the
23 mechanisms and how that arrived. It arrived via people who were in the
24 police, and it was done in the way as described in the statement.
25 Everything relating to the weapons -- you have to understand that it was
1 a new system, new system of power, new system in every aspect, and they
2 were accepting everyone into police force. They were giving them
3 weapons. And whatever we did was termed as an anti-terrorist activity,
4 and whatever you did fell within some kind of a regulation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you again. Who are "they" where you
6 said "they were accepting everyone into the police force. They were
7 giving them weapons"?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Authorities, new Croatian
9 authorities which came to power after the elections.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I still have got no answer to my
11 question, my question being where you said that the distribution of
12 weapons had started but -- although it looked as if it was the SDS, it
13 naturally was done by the Serbian DB. Was that on from the beginning of
14 the distribution of weapons, or was it initially the SDS involved and not
15 the Serbian DB in the background? Or had the Serbian DB been involved
16 all the time?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the very beginning.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. How do you know that, Mr. Witness? Are you not speculating on
21 the basis that there were police officers leaving their jobs and they, in
22 some cases, had weapons?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know the distinction between the public service and the
25 state service? The DB on the one hand and the public service on the
1 other, do you know the distinction?
2 A. I wouldn't be able to define it.
3 Q. So what you're --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, again your last question:
5 "Are you not speculating on the basis that there were police
6 officers leaving their jobs, and they, in some cases, had weapons?"
7 The answer is: Yes.
8 Yes to what? Are you not speculating?
9 Yes, I'm not speculating.
10 Or was it: Yes, I am speculating on the basis of the reason you
11 gave. Or in some cases they had weapons?
12 To what is the yes? But that is a result of the way in which you
13 put the question to the witness.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. JORDASH: Let me try to clarify things.
16 Q. This was a period, as you've told us, when Serbian police
17 officers were losing their jobs in the Vukovar region; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. This was a period when police officers who were of Serbian
20 ethnicity were leaving their jobs and in some cases taking their weapons
21 with them; is that correct?
22 A. I mean, I can't be sure. I don't know. I simply don't know how
23 the hand-over was done. It could be the way you described.
24 Q. Okay. So wasn't the arming of civilians, Serbians and -- Serbs,
25 I should say, and Croats, done, as you've told us, through the black
1 market in the first place?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Objection, compound. If we could please deal with
4 this separately, the Croats as opposed to the Serbs, because I think
5 there's been separate testimony in terms of the arming of those two
6 populations. And he's given different answers to his knowledge base.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Matters become confused. Is it that Serb police
8 officers kept their weapons and handed them over; and if so, to whom? Or
9 is it that weapons came from any other source, black market, DB, you name
10 it, and then were -- so we have now in our questions and answers
11 apparently two distinct suggestions of flows of weapons going in one way
12 or the other. We really have to clarify that by very precise questions.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. What is your evidence of weapons supplied by the DB? Is it your
15 visit to Kojic?
16 A. Yes, for me, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. I'll leave it there for now. We'll come back to this
18 subject, but for now that will be fine.
19 I want to ask you now about your visit to JNA generals. Am I
20 correct that you had a meeting with Nenezic, retired colonel-general
21 during, 1990?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Am I correct that you met also at that same meeting Jovo Kokot a
24 partisan general from Western Slavonia?
25 A. As a matter of fact, those were not meetings. Those were my
1 regular visits to him at his home. His door was always open to me, and I
2 can tell you what the reasons for those meetings were.
3 Q. Well, I'm going to ask you some specific questions. Were those
4 generals the link with the JNA in the field at that time, the field being
5 in Slavonia
6 A. General Nenezic hails from a village between Vinkovci and Osijek
7 from Podrinje. He was certainly very close to his homeland and the --
8 and his activities and his presence was tied with the activities, but my
9 reasons were not of that nature. He indeed was connected to some people,
10 and he did things that he could and that he did, of course.
11 Q. And you also visited in 1990, having received a call,
12 Milan Karadzic; is that right?
13 A. Milun.
14 Q. Milun.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And he took you to see some JNA leaders in the region; is that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you were not in favour of what they were discussing or
20 deciding to do; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. They were discussing what?
23 A. Karadzic invited me to a meeting. He told me where the meeting
24 would be taking place, and he didn't mention anything about the subject.
25 When I arrived there and when I saw the location and when I asked about
1 the reasons, he said we were meeting with the military, and it was just
2 talking about current situation, current problems, and that was a subject
3 of every single meeting that took place at the time.
4 Q. Well, what were the generals discussing in relation to arming of
5 a population?
6 A. The subject was very general. The situation was so and so, it
7 was even worse than it is portrayed; we are monitoring the situation; we
8 can resolve things within the next 24 hours. This was what was said.
9 And then when it came to question time, and since I knew that they were
10 in daily communication with them, and I had a question which I put very
11 loud and clear. My question was what the role of the army would be in
12 the future war which was uncertain. I alerted them to the fact that I
13 would be speaking at the end of the meeting and that he we should forget
14 everything because nothing was true of what was said. What would be the
15 role of the army in the future war, and who would protect the Serbs in
17 role as people who were protecting the Serbs.
18 The response to that was as follows. They think that there won't
19 be any war. And if there is a war, the military would be the buffer
20 zone. And it was such a big word that they obviously took pride in using
21 it, and they asked me whether I was happy with the answer. I said not
22 only was I not happy, I was embittered because I perceived that as being
23 considered an idiot if they give me such an answer. And who is it who
24 told them that in a state where the army is supposed to be protecting the
25 internal organisation and the borders of a state, that in such a state
1 the military of that state could be playing the role of the
2 United Nations.
3 Q. And you accept this, don't you, that the JNA in fact took sides?
4 By 1991 at least the JNA were fighting on behalf of the Serbs; is that
6 A. No. It wouldn't be a good explanation if the military was to
7 protect the Serbs that had a majority in terms of the population of
9 military, who could have provided a reasoning or an explanation to that
11 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about a different subject for the moment.
12 Let me take you to when you were arrested. Was that early April of 1991?
13 A. On the 31st of March, yes.
14 Q. And am I correct that, as a result of that arrest, and the news
15 spread amongst the Serbs living in the area?
16 A. First of all, it was not an arrest. This was how it was
17 portrayed in the media to raise tensions. The action that took place in
18 Plitvice - and Mr. Goran Hadzic and I spent the night there - that action
19 took place in the early morning hours, and it was organised by the
20 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia
21 up --
22 Q. Can I stop you. I want a specific -- time is short, so I'm just
23 trying to focus you and me.
24 As a result of the experience in which the Croatians detained you
25 and Hadzic, passions in the area were inflamed, especially in
1 Borovo Selo; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And local civilian Serbians -- Serbs started setting up
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And arming themselves with black market weapons; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. Let's suppose so, yes.
8 Q. Old hunting rifles and the like?
9 A. It really depended on what people believed was an appropriate
10 thing to do.
11 Q. And it was around this time that the Seselj's men came into the
12 region; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, may I take you back. You asked: "Old
15 hunting rifles and the like?"
16 The answer was: "It really depended on what people believed was
17 an appropriate thing to do."
18 I have great difficulties in understanding this to be an answer
19 to what your question was, unless you'd say, Forget about the hunting
20 rifles, let's move on. Otherwise you should seek clarification.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Did you hear His Honour's comment, Mr. Witness? Some -- let me
23 put it -- let me break it down. Some people armed themselves with old
24 hunting rifles and black market weapons; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Some people went to the barricades generally in fear but unarmed?
2 A. Whatever you say about weapons, all I can offer is my
3 speculations. For 24 hours I was in the car travelling around Western
5 back-to-back meetings. Do you really think that in a situation like that
6 I was capable of giving weapons a single thought? The topic of armament
7 was not on the agenda of any of our meetings, and there was no single
8 meeting that I attended where I would allow anybody to raise that issue.
9 If anybody did the meeting would be abruptly stopped. My main goal was
12 JUDGE ORIE: Moving away from where we were. Mr. Jordash asked
13 you whether the Serbs started setting up barricades. Your answer was
14 yes. Then he asked you about arming. Do you have any knowledge of the
15 arms that were available to those who were at the barricades?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I learned about the
17 barricades three days after I got home from the prison hospital in
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me immediately stop you there. So the answer is
20 you don't have any personal knowledge about the weapons people had at the
21 barricades, even you have only hearsay evidence on whether the Serbs
22 starting setting up these barricades. You heard about it afterwards.
23 That clarifies to some extent the matter.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
25 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Let me ask you about something in your statement which you, I
2 think, have told the Prosecution.
3 MR. JORDASH: If I could please have ERN number, this is the
4 first statement again, ERN number 0119-1905 is what we looked at a moment
5 ago. If you could find the paragraph with Kojic in it, I want the
6 paragraph immediately below. If you look -- have you found it? It
7 starts off with: "In Western Slavonia ..."
8 A. Western Slavonia, yes.
9 Q. "In Western Slavonia there were many military emissaries. For
10 example, one of them was Jovo Kokot, a partisan general, who always used
11 to travel in somebody else's company, like, for example, Jevrem Cokic who
12 was the commander of the JNA Bjelovar garrison."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You told the Prosecution that?
15 A. Yes, or some other military personnel who were active in the
17 Q. Right. The Bjelovar garrison, where was that?
18 A. The Bjelovar garrison is in the city of Bjelovar, in the
19 direction of Zagreb
20 right-hand side of the road.
21 Q. Thank you. This was a large garrison with thousands of JNA --
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. And let me read on.
24 "Since I did not agree with the cooperation, with the
25 distribution of the weapons, but still people were keeping me informed,
1 for example, I found out that at the end of February 1991 leaders of SDS
2 were going to Belgrade
3 1991, which was Pakrac's attack date ..."
4 Now, I'm interested in --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- your connection in this paragraph between Kokot, Cokic, and
7 the cooperation and cooperation and distribution of weapons. Were you
8 making that connection there?
9 A. I had nothing whatsoever to do with General Kokot. General Kokot
10 was an old partisan general, and he moved within his privileged circles
11 for years. And we -- I had nothing whatsoever to do with him until he
12 appeared at that meeting at Tolek [phoen] house.
13 Q. You did have connections with Jovo Kokot, you've already
14 confirmed that to the Court. Can you -- is that right?
15 A. At that meeting, yes. At the meeting, but the meeting had been
16 arranged by Milun Karadzic, so Jovo Kokot was not somebody I had any
17 previous connections with.
18 Q. Am I correct that Kokot and other JNA generals within the SBWS
19 region were responsible for distributing weapons around this time, around
20 the time of 1991?
21 A. It is possible -- well, I suppose that's how it was. They were
22 military. There was some other more responsible people who came from
24 Q. Well, let's just deal with JNA for the moment. Let's deal with
25 the paragraph -- go two paragraphs down, please.
1 "The person I had spoken to" -- we're dealing with -- I'm going
2 to read the paragraph now.
3 "The person I had spoken in Belgrade to was Veljko Dzakula, and
4 to my surprise he was not against such initiatives."
5 This, Mr. Witness, was the initiative of arming the population;
6 am I right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And, reading on --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Objection. That's misstating the statement. That is
11 immediate reference to the paragraph before it, which does not describe
12 that --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, are you objecting against
14 the question or against the answer?
15 MR. WEBER: Objection to the characterisation in the question
16 because it mis-characterises the witness's statement.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- if there's any objection against the
18 way in which it is reflected, whether that's in a summary form or whether
19 in its original, you're invited to verify that on the basis of a literal
21 MR. JORDASH: I will, Your Honours.
22 Q. Let's go to the paragraph below before I deal with the paragraph
23 I'm really interested in. It starts off with:
24 "Dzakula and myself were talking about Pakrac, and he said that
25 the time had come for the people to raise rebellion. And the only thing
1 they needed, it was weapons."
2 And that was --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That was the initiative that you disapproved of that Dzakula was
6 A. Let me just explain. Veljko Dzakula was the president of the
7 regional board of the Serbian Democratic Party. And every two or three
8 days we met; none of our meetings were chance meetings. Veljko Dzakula
9 had gone to Belgrade
10 this word "action" is a term that you can interpret any way - an action
11 in Pakrac. And he did it of his own will. He decided to do that without
12 any previous consultations with anybody else.
13 Q. Let me ask you about the paragraph above that. You met Dzakula
14 in Belgrade
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if we look halfway through that paragraph it says this:
17 "When we met in Belgrade
18 the morning. I was trying to convince Dzakula that no cooperation should
19 be made in the distribution of weapons and in the cooperation with army
20 and not to take part into the distribution of weapons ..."
21 Is that correct? Is that what you told the Prosecution?
22 A. Let me just explain. I arrived in Belgrade, and I called
23 Dzakula's wife who resided in Belgrade
24 her that I was staying at Metropol hotel, and whenever he returned up at
25 home that he should head for Metropol hotel. That was the way things
1 happened. There was a continuity there.
2 Q. Mr. Witness, let me just try to focus you and me. Were you
3 warning or trying to warn Dzakula not to cooperate, firstly, in the
4 distribution of weapons?
5 A. That came after when he arrived -- or rather, we started talking
6 first, and then he informed me that he had agreed for Pakrac to vote for
7 its unification with the municipality of Knin
8 for its unification with the MUP and that people would raise. And he
9 also said, We will chase Ustasha from the MUP in their underpants. That
10 was his explanation. And then after that came our conversation that you
11 were referring to.
12 Q. Well, that -- thank you for the explanation, but you -- can you
13 try to answer this simply. Were you against -- you were against
14 Dzakula's initiative to distribute weapons, yes or no?
15 A. Yes, yes, yes.
16 Q. And you were against his cooperation with the JNA because --
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. And because that collaboration was about the distribution of
19 weapons in part?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock. Would this
22 be a suitable moment for a break?
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break of 25 minutes. We'll resume at
25 20 minutes past 4.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 3.55 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.27 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you may proceed.
4 Did you make any arrangements with Mr. Jovanovic about how to
5 divide the time available to you?
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I said I was going to try to finish within an
7 hour, and my learned friend said he would try to finish by the end of the
8 day. I think that was the best we'd got which came to finishing by the
9 end of the day --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but -- but you've taken more than an hour -- at
11 least if you look at clock time, it's different from net time. But let's
12 not waste further time and proceed --
13 MR. JORDASH: I'm going to go as quick as I can, for sure.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. JORDASH:
16 Q. Mr. Witness, let's try to focus and deal with the questions
17 shortly if you can. Just finishing off the issue about the arming by the
18 JNA, did Dzakula inform you that the plan was that the army would provide
19 the weapons and they would proceed to then seize territory between
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And this was early 1991, is that correct, when you were informed
23 of this? Sorry, did you say yes or no?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. And are you able to confirm this, that in the Vukovar
1 region in 1991 the JNA had approximately 15.000 soldiers?
2 A. Let's assume so if that's the information you have. It's just my
3 assumption. I don't know this for a fact. However, the figure is high.
4 Q. The number of JNA soldiers in the region was in the thousands in
6 A. Vukovar had very small barracks, and therefore the number is very
7 high. It could just be a combination of the Osijek and Vukovar
8 garrisons, the two together.
9 Q. And are you able to confirm this that available to the JNA at
10 that time was automatic weapons, machine-guns; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Rocket- and hand-held launchers?
13 A. We had quartermasters, that is to say, cooks --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last sentence.
15 MR. JORDASH:
16 Q. Could you repeat the last sentence, Mr. Witness, please.
17 A. In Vukovar we had quartermasters, cooks, and other auxiliary
18 personnel. There was no combat unit there. So this is why I know
19 nothing about how JNA units were armed.
20 Q. Okay. I might have misled you earlier with the 15.000. Was
21 there approximately 6.000 in the Vukovar region? Is that more likely
22 to -- 6.000 JNA soldiers?
23 A. I don't think so. The barracks is really small, up to 1500 max.
24 Q. Let me ask you this then: Are you -- do you have any information
25 on the volunteers who came into the region? Am I correct that they were
1 subordinated to the JNA or the TO in the region?
2 A. In the period of time that we're dealing with, there were no
3 volunteers. Once the war broke out the volunteers appeared, and they
4 came both under Territorial Defence and under JNA depending on what
5 interpretation people gave.
6 Q. Okay. So let's break this down a bit. In -- the volunteers
7 started coming to the region at what point? Was this in 1991?
8 A. The first volunteers appeared in Borovo Selo. As for the rest of
9 the area, it was blocked, and there were no changes there. They appeared
10 during combat which took place in late 1991.
11 Q. And were these the SRS
12 Seselj's men?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And am I correct that in fact the reason that they came into the
15 region was that the TOs in the region were making official requests
16 directly to the SRS
17 A. I don't know about mechanisms that were used to arrange for the
18 presence of volunteers.
19 Q. So you don't know why or how the SRS volunteers came into the
21 A. No.
22 Q. I suppose you know why, but you don't know as to who made them or
23 sent them to Borovo Selo?
24 A. I can't even tell you why.
25 Q. Let me just see if I can trigger your memory.
1 MR. JORDASH: Can I have a look, please, on the screen at
2 Exhibit 3906 -- ERN B/C/S 0116-9412.
3 Q. Would you have a look at this exhibit, please, Mr. Witness, and
4 have a quick read and see if you've seen it before or it reminds you of
5 anything you recall.
6 A. I see the document for the first time. I can see that it
7 involves Podravska Slatina, which is Western Slavonia. It was sent to
8 the Radical Party, Ohridska Street, the 12th of October, 1991. That's
10 Q. Well, I'm suggesting, Mr. Witness, that this is the way in which
12 in --
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to object to the question, then I'd
14 rather first hear the question.
15 And could the witness wait to answer the question once it has
16 been completed.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. I'm suggesting that the way in which SRS volunteers came into the
19 region was that local JNA or TO leaders, commanders, in - I want to keep
20 it simple - local JNA or TO commanders made official requests directly to
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: Objection, foundation. If we could have some
24 specificity as to what region we are talking about. For the past page we
25 have just been talking about a general region. The witness has now
1 identified a separate area in that document.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I think it would be appropriate to lay
3 some foundation, because the witness earlier said that he had no idea
4 about the mechanisms, and you'd say you would trigger, not to refresh his
5 memory, but apparently trigger his memory, which is -- well, let's see --
6 let's again ask the witness, having looked at this document, if anything
7 comes back into his mind of which he has personal knowledge. Let's avoid
8 that we invite the witness to do the exegeses of documents which is for
9 the Chamber to do.
10 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
11 Q. Let me -- if, Mr. Witness, you are unable to assist as to who
12 sent or requested SRS
13 won't ask you any further questions on that subject. Are you able to
14 assist the Court on that subject?
15 A. We can see in the heading that it says SAO Western Slavonia,
16 Krajina --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to answer the question and not to
18 start interpreting the letter. That's exactly what we'd like to avoid.
19 So could you please answer the question that was put to you by
20 Mr. Jordash. Whether you could assist us from your own knowledge as to
21 who sent or requested SRS
22 you any knowledge about it? Who asked? Who did send them?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is obvious that it depended on
24 one unit to the next, one town to the next. It was all individual. All
25 of them had their own individual mechanisms. As for the area of
1 Podravska Slatina which is mentioned here, I don't know anything about
2 that region.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the witness -- you tell us that it would be
4 different from one unit to the next. Tell us about one unit. Who asked
5 them to come, and who did send them? And tell us what unit you are
6 talking about. And then we'll move to the next one which may be
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll tell you this. First of all,
9 this is a completely new territorial entity for me, SAO Krajina,
10 Western Slavonia, I know nothing about that --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking you about this. You said it would be
12 different from one unit to another, and you do not know anything about
13 Podravska Slatina. Fine. You apparently know that it went not the same
14 way for all units.
15 Now, tell us what you do know, that is, give us one example of a
16 unit who asked them, and who did send -- who asked for their appearance,
17 and who did send them? You may choose whatever unit you have any
18 personal knowledge about.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, then I'll choose Vukovar. I
20 can only tell you about Vukovar. During that period of time there was
21 the government of Slavonia
22 calls were sent to the volunteers, then it means that the same would have
23 been applied by the government of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem
24 But I don't know of a single document of a similar content that was sent
25 from Vukovar.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about documents at this moment. You
2 said it was different from one unit to another. I just want to hear from
3 you what you know about one example. Because if you say, This is
4 different from that, then you apparently have some knowledge of the two,
5 otherwise you couldn't compare them.
6 Now, do you know of any unit, who requested that they would come,
7 and who did send them? If you know.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. During that period of time I
9 was in Belgrade
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, even if you're in Belgrade you sometimes can
11 know something. But do you know, or do you not know? Because in
13 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
14 JUDGE ORIE: You have no knowledge that. Let's then move on.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no knowledge.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Savic.
19 Let me ask you -- I'm going to try to short-cut things. Let me
20 ask you to turn to the first statement again, ERN number 0119-1905. And
21 in the English version it's on page 15 -- sorry, let's go -- my page 16,
22 and the paragraph I'm looking at is the paragraph which starts with: "I
23 am not aware ..."
24 There doesn't seem to be a B/C/S counterpart. Here we go. I'm
25 looking at the paragraph at the top for Your Honours.
1 "I am not aware that the SRS had a War Staff in Belgrade
2 Can you find that in the B/C/S version, Mr. Savic? Do you have
4 A. No. I can't see it.
5 Q. Can you see it now?
6 JUDGE ORIE: What portion would you like the witness to see?
7 MR. JORDASH: The English part is: "I'm not aware that the SRS
8 had a War Staff in Belgrade
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. JORDASH: This is --
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's two paragraphs above the "weapons and political
12 parties" heading.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yeah.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And I thought ...
15 MR. JORDASH: This --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it now.
17 Q. Just have a quick read of that paragraph, and let me ask some
18 quick questions to try to shortcut things.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer these questions, yes
23 or no? Ilija Petkovic was a member of the SDS board in Markusica; is
24 that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Petkovic was also a member of Seselj's volunteer unit; is that
3 A. He was commander of the War Staff.
4 Q. And am I also correct that Milan Lancuzanin, also known as
5 Kameni, was the leader of the volunteers in Vukovar in 1991?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the questions are posed. It says
9 Petkovic. And in the section of the statement, there's actually
10 references to two different Petkovics. If we could please have the first
11 name from the witness.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, would you follow that suggestion.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I will.
14 Q. Just going back to Petkovic, Mr. Savic. Ilija Petkovic was a
15 member of the SDS
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Milan Lancuzanin was the leader of the volunteers in Vukovar in
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was he a member of Seselj's SRS party?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Was he a member of the SDS
23 A. No.
24 Q. If you look at the paragraph below, the one we just looked at
25 with Ilija Petkovic contained within it, and it says in the last two
2 "In Western Slavonia
3 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it -- yes, we have to move to the next page.
4 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon, sorry.
5 Q. Sorry, Mr. Witness, can you see the next sentence beginning: "I
6 remember" --
7 A. Yes, I can see that, yes.
8 Q. The last two sentences:
9 "In Western Slavonia Veljko Vukelic was in charge of the TO, and
10 they agreed with the JNA and nothing could be done without the approval
11 of the JNA."
12 Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. "Logistics, weapons, everything was under the control of the
16 Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. "This applied in all the areas." Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER: Objection as to foundation. And if we could just
22 have the time-period that's being referenced here.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, apparently you took statements where
24 time-periods are not addressed properly. Is that ...
25 MR. WEBER: If we could just have the witness clarify what
1 time-period is he talking about, this being run through the JNA.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. JORDASH: I was going to get to that point.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. This applied in all the areas. Which areas are you referring to?
7 A. We spoke about Slavonia
8 things changed very quickly. At one point in time --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Whether things changed depends on when they
10 happened, and that's what Mr. Jordash will ask you questions about.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. When was it that the logistics, weapons, everything for the war
13 that was now taking place, when was -- let me start that again.
14 When was it that -- when the logistics, weapons, and everything
15 was controlled by the JNA in the areas you've just mentioned?
16 A. Until the conflict broke out.
17 Q. When do you put that?
18 A. As soon as Seselj's volunteers appeared, everything fell apart
19 and everybody would put themselves under their command because they
20 clearly said that they were against the JNA and they were under the
21 control of the State Security Service.
22 Q. So just remind me, if you would, Seselj came at what point in
24 A. Which area do you have in mind?
25 Q. Well, when do you say everything changed? What was the date, the
1 best you can do now?
2 A. Once the conflict broke out and once the volunteers of the
3 Serbian volunteer party appeared, everything changed. As events were
4 taking place in different locations, they would go there. There isn't a
5 specific date or something that we could point to.
6 Q. Well, are we talking about 1991?
7 A. All of it is 1991, yes.
8 Q. Beginning, middle, or end of 1991 when Seselj came? When did it
9 change in Vukovar, that the JNA were no longer in control of the
10 logistics and supplies and so on?
11 A. I left Vukovar on the 2nd of May after the events in Borovo Selo.
12 The left bank of the Danube
13 police had it under its control. Therefore, the arrival of all
14 volunteers, mostly volunteers, went under the control of the police. If
15 they didn't let somebody through, that person couldn't cross.
16 Q. Isn't it the case that you were in Vukovar on the 18th of
17 November, 1991?
18 A. That was already November, end of combat. It's possible that I
19 can't remember the date, but once the combat was over I came to Vukovar.
20 Q. Well, I'm suggesting that the combat wasn't over and you attended
21 on the 18th of November. So could that be possible? Before the
22 massacres -- there was a -- do you know of a meeting on the 18th of
23 November involving Hadzic and a number of civilian authorities? Do you
24 know of a meeting --
25 A. In Vukovar?
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. You mean in Vukovar?
3 Q. In Velepromet.
4 A. In Velepromet that was towards the end of combat, yes -- or
5 rather, I heard that there was a meeting.
6 Q. And am I correct that that meeting involved Prime Minister
8 A. Yes, Hadzic was there as was Arkan, Slavko Dokmanovic I think,
9 and other people from the establishment.
10 Q. And JNA leaders such as Colonel Vuzic; is that correct?
11 A. You mean Vuzic?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. I don't know. I don't know the details. I am not clear about
14 Vuzic. I don't know who that person is. But as for Arkan and for Goran,
15 Slavko Dokmanovic, and I don't know who else, yes, they had a meeting.
16 At the time I was at the staff in Sid.
17 Q. And you're aware, aren't you, that on the 20th of November there
18 were crimes committed by the JNA at the Vukovar Hospital, in
19 collaboration with paramilitary groups; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So we know, don't we, is this correct, in November 1991, at that
22 point paramilitary groups are acting under the subordination of the JNA?
23 Am I correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And throughout 1991, I suggest, Seselj's volunteers, when they
1 came into the region, were attached to various TOs and various JNA
2 commanders, a unity of command; am I correct?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Who was Seselj and his volunteers working with? Can you name the
5 people who was working with or the group?
6 A. Why would the military and volunteer -- units of volunteers have
7 singled out Leva Supoderica as a special unit? And that would be your
8 answer. Seselj's people were a special unit, the so-called
9 Leva Supoderica headed by the so-called Kameni, Lancuzanin.
10 Q. Yes. And Lancuzanin, I suggest, was subordinated with Seselj's
11 volunteers with the 1st Assault Detachment, 1st Military District; is
12 that right? Could that be right?
13 A. No, I can't confirm this. However, Leva Supoderica, as a special
14 unit, was there in the area.
15 Q. Okay. If you can't confirm that, then I'll leave it and ask
16 another witness. Can you confirm this, that Soskocanin, who you referred
17 to yesterday as getting shot, was he a TO commander at Borovo Selo in
19 A. Yes, he was appointed by the newly establishment administration
20 of SBWS as the commander of the Territorial Defence there.
21 Q. So he would have had access to the JNA supplies, wouldn't he?
22 A. No. That was the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and
23 Western Srem, as it was already known at the time. And if I may assist
24 you with something --
25 Q. Let me ask you this: Would he have had access to TO weapons and
1 supplies -- local TO weapons and supplies?
2 A. Well, let's assume so. He was its commander, so one would be
3 able to assume so. But that's already -- that's again May 1991.
4 Q. Yeah.
5 A. On the one hand we have November, and on the other hand we have
7 Q. Well, what happens in November? What are you suggesting was the
8 change in November?
9 A. We were talking about the previous ratio of forces,
10 Leva Supoderica on the one hand and others, I don't know. And if we're
11 talking about Soskocanin, then we have to talk about the month of May,
12 about a new ratio of forces on the ground. This is what I'm saying.
13 Q. I'm not sure I followed that. Just briefly, in May of 1991
14 Soskocanin is the TO commander of Borovo Selo, and in November is he
15 still a commander?
16 A. He was assassinated on the 15th of May.
17 Q. So what's the -- who takes over as commander?
18 A. Badza was the one. Radovan Stojicic, the assistant minister of
19 state security of Serbia
20 Q. So you think he was the assistant minister of the state security?
21 Are you sure about that?
22 A. [No verbal response]
23 Q. Could I suggest that he was a part of the public security,
24 distinct from the state security? Do you know that distinction?
25 A. Okay. I admit that I am not aware of the difference. In any
1 case he was a high -- a police official of the Republic of Serbia
2 was appointed as commander of the Territorial Defence in Borovo Selo as
4 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Savic. So when you use the term "state
5 security," then you could be referring to the public security or the
6 state security? You don't really make -- or are unable to make a
8 A. Well, he didn't -- they did not make a clear line among
9 themselves either. Their jobs intertwined, so it's really difficult for
10 me to know because I think they didn't either.
11 Q. Fair enough, Mr. Witness. Let me move quickly, and I'm going to
12 try and finish the next -- the end in the next ten minutes or so, so I
13 hope you can help me. Let me first of all turn quickly to your statement
14 again. We look again, if you would, at the paragraph we looked at before
15 dealing with Lancuzanin. Have you found that? Have you found that,
16 Mr. Savic?
17 A. I'm looking. Yes, I've got it.
18 Q. Okay. What I'm interested in is the sentence here, the first two
20 "I remember that Ljubisa Petkovic was wearing a camouflage
21 uniform. I do not recall whether he had some insignia on it. At one
22 point Petkovic was replaced as commander of the volunteers and publicly
23 accused by Seselj of being a DB agent ..." but this happened in 1993.
24 Is that correct?
25 A. I do not remember the year; however, this was the schedule of
1 events, the commander of a War Staff of a party. A party has a
2 War Staff, if you will, and the commander is somebody from the state
3 security, and that is the gist of the matter. Ljubisa Petkovic was a
4 member of the state security --
5 Q. And the point is this, that Seselj was unhappy about that because
6 he believed Petkovic was working for the DB; is that correct?
7 A. Well, it was a pure manipulation. Seselj was also working for
8 the state security, but the moment when the manipulation took place is of
9 no consequence.
10 Q. Well, if that's your answer, we can move on from that. I want to
11 ask you quickly about Arkan. You claim to have seen him in a restaurant
12 and you say that he told you he worked for Stanisic. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And why did you ask him the question? You said yesterday you
15 wanted to make sure it was not Milosevic. What was the logic of that?
16 A. In order to -- Arkan put more questions to me than I to him.
17 However, when we started that conversation, I followed my style. I
18 always used to ask people very direct questions --
19 Q. Mr. Witness --
20 A. I simply asked him --
21 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm trying to finish. Why did you
22 ask him? Why were you keen, or why did you want to make sure he did not
23 work for Milosevic?
24 A. Since the service as a service worked for Milosevic, it was
25 really of no consequence who was whose boss there.
1 Q. So why did you ask him then, if it was of no consequence?
2 A. Because it mattered. I explained to him why I'm talking to him.
3 I told him that I understood what he was doing, I knew why he was doing
4 it, but that our goals were completely different to put it simply.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Just request that the witness be allowed to finish
7 his answer. They're open-ended questions, and the witness is attempting
8 to provide a full answer for the next question.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just. Yes, I would not under all
10 circumstances, whether the witness is providing a full answer to the
11 question, or whether he's providing a very full answer which is not
12 totally unrelated to the question is now and then to be determined.
13 The -- you may proceed, Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
15 Q. Okay. Let me ask you a different question. You gave evidence
16 yesterday that you'd seen Bogdanovic the day before seeing Arkan; is that
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. Bogdanovic had -- if you're telling the truth, Bogdanovic had
20 said to you -- Bogdanovic had said to you, We gave you Arkan. So you
21 knew from the day before that Arkan's boss was Bogdanovic. So why did
22 you need to ask Arkan who his boss was the next day?
23 A. I believe that at the time Bogdanovic did not really deal with
24 that. In my mind Bogdanovic was a very reasonable man. I held him in
25 very high esteem, and I thought that he was a person of high integrity.
1 He was an MP and a president of a committee, I believe.
2 Q. That's right. He was -- he wasn't the minister of interior when
3 you met him, was he?
4 A. Not at that point in time, no.
5 Q. But he was suggesting to you that he was in control of Arkan,
6 wasn't he? That's what he was suggesting to you.
7 A. When he said, We have given you Arkan as commander, how I could
8 interpret it. I believe that it was a decision that had been reached
9 previously, that he was put abreast of that decision, and that he
10 conveyed the message to me. I believe that this had been agreed
11 previously while he was a member of the service, while he was involved in
12 that. That's how I interpreted his words. That's how I understood him.
13 Q. Okay. If that's your answer. Could I suggest that you never had
14 a conversation with Arkan in which Arkan said he had a boss called
15 Stanisic. And that, frankly, is a fabrication.
16 A. I had a meeting with Arkan upon his invitation, which means that
17 I was not the one who called the meeting. I did not seek him. I did not
18 call him. He wanted to have a word with me, we met, and things at the
19 meeting transpired as I stated in my statement. And I can also give you
20 a list of all of my other meetings with him. In any case, I never sought
21 to meet him. I never called any meetings with him at my initiative.
22 Q. Okay. Let's ask, please, for your first statement again to come
23 onto the screen, 0119-1905. And I want to turn to page 23 of the English
24 version, and the second-to-last paragraph of the English version speaks
25 of this meeting you had with Arkan. Could you find that in the B/C/S,
1 please, Mr. Savic. Can you see that?
2 A. Nothing's happening on my screen.
3 Q. I think it's coming, Mr. Savic.
4 MR. JORDASH: Could I just consult with my learned friend,
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. JORDASH: Okay. Are we there?
8 Q. This was your --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. This was your account five years ago. We can look at what you
11 said then about the meeting with Arkan.
12 "We greeted each other, and Arkan said to me: 'Brother, I turned
13 out as being a thief and criminal to your eyes.' I said to him: 'A
14 bigger thief and criminal is the one who told you that.' That was all we
16 A. Yes, that's how I'm reading it. Yes, that's what it says here.
17 Q. The point being: Nothing about Stanisic. That was a recent
19 A. Yes, yes. Here you can't see it. However, when I provided my
20 first statement, that statement was provided in very general terms. And
21 the person who recorded the interview -- the version that I provided is
22 truthful, and the way my sentence was interrupted here, I can only assume
23 that the person who was recording my words omitted some of my words. The
24 recording clerk and myself looked at all the pages, but we did not pay
25 attention to every detail on every page. And that is the only thing I
1 can offer by way of explanation why the words have not been entered into
2 the record of my interview.
3 Q. So if what you say is correct, then, you never said to the
4 Prosecution, That was all we said. Logic dictates then the Prosecution
5 must have put that in if you didn't. Are you saying that?
6 A. The ending of the statement doesn't make much sense to me. This
7 last sentence is not making any sentence. It's not logical.
8 Q. Okay. Let's leave it at that. Could you just confirm that the
9 first time you mentioned Arkan having the conversation where he told you
10 he worked for Stanisic was on the 4th or 5th of July, 2009, when you
11 spoke to the Prosecution --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: I just want to be clear for the record. He has
14 mentioned the conversation dating back to 2002, so if we could just be
15 clear in the form of the question being asked as to what is being said.
16 MR. JORDASH: Well --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- let me just -- yes, that seems -- it's again
18 a composite question which creates possibly confusion. If you would
19 please split it up.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Just -- Your Honour, I don't want to belabour the point. I just
22 want to give you a chance to deal with it. You did mention the
23 conversation with Arkan. In your first statement, you never mentioned
24 him referring to Stanisic until the 4th or 5th of July of this year, did
1 A. To be honest, I really don't remember when I was interviewed.
2 However, the gist of all the interviews was the same. I can't remember
3 exactly when I provided interviews and what exactly I said, but there's
4 no single reason for me to add something or fabricate something.
5 There -- if I were to go over the same grounds three times, I'm sure that
6 I would change the sequence in my telling the story. It would never be
7 the same, and that's the only explanation I have.
8 Q. Fair enough. Let's move on. Two more short subjects. One is
9 your references yesterday to Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic. You
10 mentioned yesterday that they were from the authorities in Belgrade
11 State Security Services, Milosevic, the Government of Serbia. Do you
12 recall that evidence?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. JORDASH: Could I ask for statement -- it's the proofing
15 note. ERN number 0632-1753, please. I beg your pardon. If you could
16 just give me a moment.
17 Q. If you look at the first page, the paragraph 4, this is --
18 reflects a meeting you had with Klaus Hoffmann from the Prosecution on
19 the 11th of February -- sorry, it's a meeting you had on the 20th of
20 September, 2007. And looking at paragraph 4, do you have it, Mr. Savic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now it says: "Koncarevic and Perovic" --
23 A. Petrovic.
24 Q. Is that supposed to be Petrovic?
25 A. Yes, Petrovic, right.
1 Q. So I'll read it in that way.
2 "Koncarevic and Petrovic were agents of the Serb
3 military security ..."
4 Is that what you told the Prosecution then, that they were agents
5 of the military security, not the state security?
6 A. If that is how it is stated here, then yes.
7 Q. That's -- is that correct?
8 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether you said it. There are two
9 possibilities. Either that it's correctly reflected in this document, in
10 that case you said it; or it's incorrectly reflected in this document,
11 and that's then because you didn't say it. Did you say that Koncarevic
12 and Petrovic were agents of the Serb military security?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can I offer something
14 by way of explanation, very briefly.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'd first like to have an answer to my
16 question, and then if there's any need to further explain, I'd like to
17 hear your explanation.
18 But first, do you remember whether you said that these two
19 persons were agents of the Serb military security?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then if there's any need for further explanation, I
22 leave it to Mr. Jordash to ask you questions about that.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my answer's yes.
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. And you understand the distinction between the military service
2 and the state service? Do you understand that?
3 A. I'll try and explain. All was so intertwined. When Petrovic and
4 Koncarevic introduced themselves, first they said that they were from
6 that any way you want. There was no major difference between the
7 military and State Security Service -- or at least I did not see it. It
8 was a combination or a mixture where both services were so interconnected
9 it was not possible to make a distinction between the two of them.
10 However, the fact is that whatever they did was the job of the state
11 security, the establishment of the National Council, the establishment of
12 powers, that would fall within the purview of the state security. And I
13 agree, I accept, that what is stated herein is what I said at the time.
14 Because they all hid behind each other, and it was such a melange, such a
15 mixture that it was very difficult for me to make any distinctions,
16 although I was involved and I spoke to them. I can only imagine how
17 difficult it must be for you to make that distinction.
18 Q. And difficult also to make the distinction between military
19 police, and also public police as well I suspect; is that right? Yeah.
20 A. If an agent comes and if he knows that people will line up with
21 the military, then they say, We are from the military service. If
22 somebody comes and knows that people don't want to line up with the army,
23 they say, We are from the state security. If we go back to the period
24 where all that happened and when you fast-forward and see how things
25 ended, you will see that all of that is the consequence of all the
1 combinations and all the things that they did hiding behind each other.
2 The commander of the military district was running after Arkan and
3 staging all sorts of shows together with him, the shows which would have
4 been funny if they were not tragic. When we're talking about those times
5 and everything that was happening at the time, it's really difficult to
6 know who was who. They said one thing and did another. The only thing
7 that was under control was people being victimised and plundered and
8 property looted. Everything else was of no consequence at all.
9 Q. Right. And on the same subject, I mean you met Dragan --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, so we are now approximately 25 minutes,
11 I think, past the time where you said that you would finish in
12 ten minutes. I notice that you consulted with Mr. Jovanovic. We need to
13 have a break soon. Will you finish within the next couple of minutes or
14 not? Otherwise we have to discuss how to proceed.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour, I can finish in two minutes
16 because --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm looking at the clock. Two minutes means
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. On the same subject, you met Captain Dragan at some point in
22 1992; is that right?
23 A. On the 4th of August, 1992, when Captain Dragan was expelled from
24 Knin, the first person who saw him and received him in Belgrade was me.
25 I met with him in the office of Brana Crncevic at about 10.00. Brana
1 said that Captain would come, and he himself was going to see Milosevic
2 to see what to do about him. He arrived accompanied by Sasa Medakovic --
3 Q. Sorry, I'm against the clock, so I've got to cut you short. Can
4 you confirm that Dragan said to you that he had not realised he was
5 working in Golubic for the DB? Can you confirm that's what he said?
6 A. Right now it's very hard. I would have to really make an effort
7 to remember all that. But since I suppose that the office was bugged, I
8 didn't really talk to him a lot. I let him do most of the talking, and I
9 would occasionally put a question to him about the kind of work that he
10 did over there and --
11 Q. Mr. Witness, it's a very straightforward question. Did Dragan
12 say to you that he had been removed from Knin and he was not aware that
13 he was being used by the Serbian DB, yes or no?
14 A. I think no. I don't think we even talked about those things.
15 Q. Well, let's pull up the same statement, please, that was -- we
16 had, the proofing notes. [Microphone not activated].
17 -- we can't. I'm referring -- well, maybe you'll accept it from
18 me, Mr. Witness, that in the proofing notes from your time with
19 Klaus Hoffmann on the 20th of September, 2007, that's what it says.
20 Could you have said that to Klaus Hoffmann?
21 A. If that's what it says in the statement, then, yes, I said that.
22 But I would like to see it to remind myself of it.
23 Q. Fair enough.
24 MR. JORDASH: Could the statement be pulled up, please --
25 MR. WEBER: If it would expedite things, the Prosecution would
1 agree that the proofing note states:
2 "Dragan had no clear idea why he was removed from Knin nor was he
3 aware that he was being used by the Serbian DB ..."
4 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
5 Q. Do you still wish to see it, Mr. Savic, or will you accept that
6 we can -- you would still like to see it?
7 A. That's my conclusion. That wasn't uttered by Captain Dragan.
8 This is my conclusion.
9 Q. Fair enough. Okay. Last question is this: Could I just suggest
10 to you that you never had the conversation with Medic about Stanisic
11 being his boss in the same way you didn't have it with Arkan and you
12 didn't have it -- let me stick with Medic. You didn't have it with him,
13 I suggest.
14 A. The conversation had to do with the context described in the
15 statement. Slobodan Medic and I talked upon his invitation, and it was
16 in the context described by me. And he also said that I should be in
17 charge of that entire project. And I clearly stated that I didn't want
18 to do that because I don't know whether they recorded this in the
19 statement. I didn't want to create the government of Slavonia, Baranja,
20 and Western Srem and deal with agricultural land. Yes, it is true, we
21 met and we had that type of conversation, just like with Arkan.
22 Q. Okay. Well, we'll agree to disagree.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Since Mr. Jordash just finished, I just wanted to
2 raise one matter, exhibit --
3 JUDGE ORIE: In the presence of the witness?
4 MR. WEBER: Yes. Exhibit 3906 was used with this witness. We
5 did object to foundation just because it wasn't clear at the time of the
6 witness's testimony; however, the Prosecution did inform Mr. Jordash that
7 we would not oppose, and we would agree to the admission of the exhibit
8 before today. So I didn't know if Mr. Jordash intended on tendering it,
9 but I just wanted to let him know that if he does intend to, we would
10 have no objection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 MR. JORDASH: I think that was the exhibit the witness didn't or
14 wasn't able to comment on, I think.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 3906 was the ... ?
16 MR. WEBER: The witness's own personal knowledge of it was
17 limited; however, if counsel is seeking to tender it, we're not going to
18 object to it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and apparently you're not?
20 MR. JORDASH: No, not at this stage. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So it's fine to know that you would have had
22 an objection if it would have been tendered. That's useful information
23 for the Chamber to think over during the next break. We'll have a break
24 of 20 minutes, and we'll resume at five minutes to 6.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 5.58 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savic, you'll now be cross-examined by
3 Mr. Jovanovic. Mr. Jovanovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
4 I take it that you have together calculated that there may be
5 some time needed for re-examination as well.
6 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is with regret
7 that I have to say that I will not be finished within the one hour that
8 we still have remaining today.
9 JUDGE ORIE: There is no way -- I left it to the parties to
10 divide the time. Mr. Jordash consulted with you.
11 Mr. Jordash, were you informed that by taking so much time that
12 we would not finish the witness today. He would have to stay here for a
13 week. I think I was quite clear at the beginning yesterday. It can be
14 finished -- the witness we conclude for the testimony tomorrow? The
15 answer was yes.
16 MR. JORDASH: There has been some delays. That's been the
17 problem. And the way in which --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think the guidance of the Chamber was 80 per cent
19 to 100 per cent approximately from the time taken in chief. I can tell
20 you that there were far more delays yesterday. So therefore, even if the
21 Prosecution has taken slightly more time, I think, than announced, you
22 certainly did far more than ...
23 And I saw you halfway consulting. If there was any way that you
24 would not conclude the testimony of this witness today, I should have
25 been informed, this Chamber should have been informed about it, not just
1 to say, Well, time is not something to talk about, is to be used.
2 Mr. Jovanovic, I give you two seconds to consult with Mr. Jordash
3 on the matter, but --
4 Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution anticipates only ten minutes for
6 re-examination, no more. I believe we used two hours and nine minutes in
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Until now, two hours and nine minutes for the Office of the
10 Prosecution. Defence until now one hour and 54 minutes. I think the
11 guidance was quite clear, 80 to 100 per cent of the time taken in chief
12 for both teams together. The Chamber is not -- of course we could say
13 next time 50 per cent each, but we thought that where the matter was
14 clear enough that you could -- you could divide the time, leave to
15 Mr. Jordash if he has a greater interest in dealing with certain matters.
16 The Chamber wants to -- one second, please.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is 6.00. The Simatovic Defence has 50 minutes
19 for further cross-examination, and then there will be eight minutes left
20 for Mr. Weber.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Jovanovic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Savic, you were shown the statement that you
25 provided to the OTP in 2002, and you confirmed that the statement
1 contains your signature; am I right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you please now look at the B/C/S version of your statement
4 page 26, 27, and 28, the three last pages of the statement.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please refer to a 65 ter
7 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The ERN 0119-1905-0119-1932.
8 Could we have the B/C/S version starting with the title "miscellaneous."
9 "Razno," R-a-z-n-o, page 26. Yes. Again the page is in English, not in
11 Your Honour, will you allow me to read from the statement in
12 order to save time?
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... it depends --
14 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now it's okay. Now we've got it.
15 Thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Savic, it says here -- or rather, what you said was
17 interpreted as follows:
18 "I decided to give my statement to the International Criminal
19 Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
20 involved in all events from the very beginning. It was completely clear
21 to me that an arbitration for war crimes committed in these territories
22 would require an institution of the international community. Therefore,
23 the Court existed in my mind long before the International Tribunal was
24 set up, and I decided to testify even at that time."
25 Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Am I right in saying that you embarked on providing the statement
3 with all seriousness?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 28
6 containing the witness's signature.
7 Q. Here it says that this statement was read back to you in the
8 Serbian language and that it contains everything you said to the best of
9 your knowledge and recollection; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now please be
12 shown page 3 in the same statement, page 3 in B/C/S, please. The next
13 page, please. Yes.
14 Q. Mr. Savic, the last two paragraphs on the page. It says in the
15 statement in the penultimate passage:
16 "The Chetniks followed Vojislav Seselj, the partisans
17 Vuk Draskovic and war profiteers followed Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan.
18 Furthermore, since I had a lot of meetings and talks with people from the
19 JNA, I arrived at a conclusion that the role of the JNA was to monitor
20 the activities of the extremists and maintain peace. One cannot speak
21 about the Chetnik Movement and militant forces without mentioning the
22 role of the military security and the military because that was part of
23 the authorities. That coordination was hidden, but it functioned really
24 well obviously."
25 Did you say that?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Page 4, please, paragraph 1.
3 "It was never my intention to meet with representatives of the
4 military, but they came to me, to talk to me. I had contacts with
5 partisans and generals, for example, with Jovan Krkobadic who was a
6 member of the Association of Serbs in Croatia, furthermore, with
7 Radojica Nenezic, lieutenant-general retired, who hailed from Ada, a
8 place between Vukovar and Osijek
9 partisan general from Western Slavonia. They were some kind of advisor
10 to the JNA and provided a link between the JNA and people in the field."
11 Did you say that?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Thank you very much.
14 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 7, please. Paragraph 4 from
15 the top of the page.
16 Q. "I asked Veljko Dzakula, asking for him to explain to me what the
17 next step would be and what he meant when he said that people had to
18 start an armed rebellion. It occurred to me to mention the use of arms
19 when we're talking about a political solution. He said that the army
20 would carry out its activities from the Hungarian border to the highway,
21 whereby cutting off the Western and Eastern Slavonia from Zagreb
22 create a buffer zone of sorts."
23 Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. On the same page, the penultimate paragraph:
1 "I had my spy in Western Slavonia, and I was aware of the meeting
2 between the SDS
3 those were only briefings. Ilija Sasic and Veljko Dzakula attended the
4 meetings regularly and Milun Karadzic occasionally, and the last person
5 was the secretary of the SDS
6 started towards the end of 1990."
7 Did you say that?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: I know we're translating back from the B/C/S
11 statement; however, just so we're clear his actual statement says "I had
12 my informant" not "I had my spy," in the English version.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that seems to be a translation issue.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that they do not have the
15 English translation of the correct page on the screen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore whether the one is the correct
17 translation, or the other one is still to be seen. But it's on the
18 record now. We'll later deal with the way in which now the
19 cross-examination takes place. Let's -- in order not to further lose
20 time, Mr. Jovanovic, you may proceed.
21 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. On page 8, paragraph 1, it is stated:
23 "Dzakula responded that everything was organised in Belgrade
24 without any explanation as to who organised it. Dzakula said that the
25 military would provide weapons and that they would take the territory
1 between Hungary
2 Is that what you stated?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic, is my recollection wrong that this
5 was read already to the witness at an earlier stage? Why read again to
6 him and ask whether he said this, where it's my clear recollection that
7 this portion was already read to him, if I'm not mistaken. Isn't it? Or
8 is my recollection wrong?
9 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you're right, but I
10 want to hear very specific answers from the witness because after
11 providing his answers, he said that he was confused and he simply did not
12 make a distinction between people who were in the field at the time and
13 who worked for what service. And in this statement it seems that he
14 stated everything very explicitly, and I'm just asking for him to repeat
15 the same things in the same way.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] In other words, the statement
18 that he provided originally does not contain any ambiguities.
19 Q. On page 10 below the title "National Council, Slavonia, Baranja,
20 and Western Srem," second paragraph.
21 "At the very outset when the party first was established, I
22 tasked Soskocanin with establishing a group of 200 people who would
23 provide the members of the party with security and prevent any
24 provocations that might happen in such an environment."
25 Is that what you said?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. Did you indeed give order for 200 men --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- to establish a group of 200 people who would provide security?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Page 12, the penultimate paragraph.
7 "Jovo Ostojic across the Danube established communication that
8 he, himself, controlled. He worked on behalf of the SRS, the Serbian
9 Radical Party. He provided security for volunteers and arms who were
10 being transferred from Vojvodina across the Danube."
11 Did you say that?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Page 14. The title is: "Meetings with Seselj." Third
14 paragraph. "Matic," I believe we are talking about Branislav Matic,
15 Beli, "Matic was a member of the Serbian guard Vuk Draskovic, which was a
16 parallel structure together with Arkan's Serbian Volunteer Guard."
17 Did you say that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Page 15, paragraph 1:
20 "Let me explain Seselj's offer in the territory of Slavonia
21 Baranja, and Western Srem, it was very difficult to establish any
22 association without me. Kertes, Bogdanovic, Petrovic, Obradovic told me
23 that personally, and the following party that was established in Krajina
24 was the SRS
25 the great help of the RSK Army that had itself been set up by the JNA and
1 by the government in Belgrade
2 And in this same paragraph it reads: "... the army was always
3 actively involved in the elections in the Krajina."
4 Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. On the same page now, something that you've already spoken
7 about - and I'm now asking for a more precise answer - you were talking
8 about Ljubisa Petkovic, and you said that you met him in the Government
9 of the Republic of Serbia
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that on that occasion he was wearing a camouflage uniform.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. He was the chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 Page 16: "Weapons and political parties."
17 "After the establishment of the SRS in Krajina in May 1992,
18 Rade Leskovac was appointed the president of the SRS of Republika Srpska
19 Krajina ..."
20 And I'm not going to go on reading the whole thing. Just one
21 thing from the same paragraph.
22 "The army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina provided the SRS
23 with financial support, logistics, weapons, and everything else. For
24 example, people like Jovo Ostojic when they went to the front line in
1 on the other hand the SRS
2 VRSK ..."
3 Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Third paragraph, same page.
6 "Holding a place number one, the first major distributor of
7 weapons was the League of Communists Movement for Yugoslavia ... "
8 Explain to us what is the League of Communists Movement for
10 A. The League of Communists Movement for Yugoslavia was a league of
11 communists which was set up within the framework of the JNA.
12 Q. Thank you. Who led that movement, that party?
13 A. I believe it was General Mirkovic.
14 Q. Thank you. In that same paragraph we have stated:
15 "For instance, Ilija Sasic would receive weapons from them," this
16 is a reference to the League of Communists Movement for Yugoslavia, "and
17 the first volunteers were sent to Western Slavonia. The person who was
18 in charge of the distribution of weapons in Western Slavonia was
19 Nikola Kaloper ..."
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just seek one point of clarification. I
23 think a portion which was just read to the witness about the League of
24 Communists Movement for Yugoslavia
25 was led by Mira Markovic, whereas now we find a name which is quite
1 similar, although apparently another person, General Mirkovic. Was that
2 a mistake at the time when Mira Markovic was mentioned or -- could you --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the first designated
4 chairman of the party was General Mirkovic. However, things changed so
5 fast that we don't know how long whose tenure lasted, who did what, who
6 had what role, what function, et cetera, so that it can be seen as --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Was the movement at any later stage led by
8 Mira Markovic or is that name a mistake?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That movement was in fact not
10 established at all. Materials were distributed in the army for the
11 setting up of the party, et cetera, but it all came to naught and youths
12 sprang from it in fact later. So it is very hard to define where one
13 began and the other ended, what was transformed into what from what. It
14 will take 50 years of trials for that to be determined.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jovanovic.
16 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. The last paragraph on this same page.
18 "We both knew the retired JNA General Radojica Nenezic ..."
19 I believe that you are referring to Ilija Sasic and yourself?
20 A. I am referring to Nikola Kaloper.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 17, penultimate paragraph.
23 Q. "One day in July 1991 before the mentioned meeting in the League
24 of Communists, the Movement for Yugoslavia
25 home in Dedinje, Belgrade
1 to me as his old friend and associate. The following day I was invited
2 to see Kaloper in his office in the SKPJ building in Belgrade. You could
3 only enter the building by producing your ID and a check as to who you
4 were supposed to meet with there. In Kaloper's office I saw a large
5 number of journalists who had escaped from Croatia and some people from
6 Podravska Slatina ..." and then you mention a number of names. And then
7 there is a sentence in that same paragraph.
8 "On that occasion Kaloper told me that in Western and Eastern
10 had been distributed." Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. On page 18, the first paragraph, you stated:
13 "In order to reach Bobota one has to ferry across the Danube
14 raft. Kaloper and General Nenezic were accompanied by the Novi Sad JNA
15 Corps because Kaloper was reporting to Novi Sad Corps command, and
16 General Bratic [phoen] who was the corps commander was in charge of
17 transport and security ..."
18 Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. On the same page, paragraph 3, third paragraph.
21 "At a certain point Dusan Pekic a JNA general, was retired who
22 was also the vice president of the association of Serbs from Croatia
23 live in Serbia
24 issues. Dusan Pekic became the contact person in the association for
25 people from Slavonia
1 war operations. Once in 1991 I saw outside the seat of the association
2 Jovo Ostojic who was loading uniforms into a van. Dusan Pekic set up a
3 centre for the training of volunteers in Prigrevica [phoen]. And
4 Jovo Ostojic was the commander. The president of the association was
5 Professor Vucinic, whose first name I do not know. And the
6 secretary-general was Rodojkovic [phoen], a JNA retired general whose
7 first name I do not know."
8 Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In the next paragraph:
11 "People from Knin joined the association at whose head was the
12 mayor of Knin Milan Babic who was their president and mentor."
13 Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Page 19, second paragraph.
16 "Pekic was one of the men who organised work in the field and who
17 whole-heartedly supported Slobodan Milosevic ..."
18 Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Page 22 under the title: "Serbian Volunteers Guard and similar
21 issues" -- and related issues.
22 "It was from Radmilo Bogdanovic that I heard for the first time
23 about the decision for Arkan to become the commander for Slavonia,
24 Baranja, and Western Srem. This decision was taken by the Serbian
25 parliament on the 15th of May, 1991 ..."
1 Is that correct?
2 A. No, something is incorrect. The date is not right. The 15th of
3 May was the date when I was in parliament. No decisions were adopted nor
4 had they anything to do with this.
5 Q. It was not adopted on that day, or it was not adopted at all?
6 A. No. This is a typo. The 15th was the day when I was in
7 parliament. No decisions were taken on that day, and it was the time
8 when I found that he was coming out -- he was the commander.
9 Q. But are you referring to an Assembly decision. Can I then
10 conclude that that decision had been taken prior to the 15th of May when
11 you were in Assembly?
12 A. I believe this is not a decision which is generally taken by
13 parliament, and it has nothing to do with the 15th of May.
14 Q. I will ask you what I asked you in the beginning --
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you take a break -- I would say if you take a
16 breath, then you would allow our interpreters and our transcriber to take
17 a breath as well. Would you take a breath now and then.
18 Mr. Weber, you also want to take a breath?
19 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour. I just wanted to be clear the
20 statement that's been quoted, it references no decision of the Serbian
21 parliament. I believe this is being placed to the witness out of
22 context. It's from -- on the English version page 22, it's underneath
23 the section entitled "Serbian Volunteer Guard" in the very first
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: There is a discrepancy
1 between the translation and the original.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It is -- you've heard the comments of the
3 interpreters, that there is a discrepancy.
4 Could you please slowly put the same issue to the witness again,
5 Mr. Jovanovic.
6 And may I ask, the statement was taken -- perhaps I should ask
7 the witness.
8 You were speaking your own language when you gave that statement;
9 is that correct, Mr. Savic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So we are in a situation where the original is the
12 English, and then it has been apparently re-read to him in his own
13 language, which can create some discrepancies now and then.
14 Would you please put again to the witness slowly the passage
15 Mr. Weber referred to, Mr. Jovanovic.
16 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. "It was from Radmilo Bogdanovic that I first heard about the
18 decision for Arkan to become commander for Slavonia, Baranja, and Western
19 Srem. The decision was adopted by the Serbian parliament on the 15th of
20 May, 1991 ..."
21 A. A typo in my view because it is illogical. It is illogical to
22 associate these two. First of all, this is not and should not be a
23 parliamentary decision. This is not a matter decided by the Assembly, so
24 this is a typo, and this is the only way in which I can interpret it.
25 The sentence itself does not make sentence nor fits into the context.
1 Q. Was this statement read out to you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. When it was read out to you, did you notice what you are now
4 calling a typo?
5 A. No, I did not.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think the --
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- testimony of the witness is clear. He has
9 pointed at the logic of the whole matter and -- yes, Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Just, the statement actually states not the decision
11 happened on the 15th of May, 1991, it says in reference to when
12 Radmilo Bogdanovic informed him of this decision, that this passage of
13 information, the actual quote says:
14 "This happened on the 15th of May, 1991, in the Serbian
16 That's what the statement says.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, you say that there is a --
18 could we ask the witness to look again at only those three lines in his
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm looking at them.
21 It is not within the purview of the Assembly to adopt these decisions.
22 The meeting was after 1700 hours, at which time the parliament adjourns.
23 It works until 1700 hours. So we met after that time, after
24 1700 hours -- 1500 hours. I was there until 10.00, and there is -- it
25 doesn't make any sense to make a connection between the Assembly and
1 this. I can only treat it as a typo.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic, apparently the witness does not
3 confirm the accuracy of this part of his statement. You may proceed.
4 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Savic, on several occasions when you adduced some new facts
6 in relation to what you had said before, you said that you strained your
7 brain, that you managed to remember some things. Can you remember the
8 function, the office that Radmilo Bogdanovic held at that time within the
9 Assembly? You did say that he was in charge of a committee.
10 A. I believe it was the legislative or security committee.
11 Q. So the parliamentary security committee. You allow for that
13 A. Yes, I do allow for that possibility.
14 Q. Mr. Savic, to -- a question by my colleague. You said -- you
15 replied in relation to an encounter between you, yourself, and Arkan in
16 the Trozubac cafe in Belgrade
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. So in your statement you said what my colleague quoted, it ended
19 with you saying, That was all that I said. And then subsequently when
20 you were talking with the OTP some six or seven years later, namely, you
21 recalled that you had also asked Arkan who he worked for.
22 A. Yes, that is correct.
23 Q. The Emigrant Society of Serbia that you worked for is in
24 Nusiceva Street
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And the Trozubac cafe is just outside the entrance to the
2 Emigrant Society?
3 A. Yes, just on the opposite side of the street.
4 Q. That was in May, this event was in May?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. At that time the cafe had an outside garden. Am I correct?
7 A. Yes, you are correct.
8 Q. Where did you see Arkan, inside or outside?
9 A. Inside. There is a bar inside when one enters the cafe, and then
10 there are some tables to the right-hand side, and that is where I saw
12 Q. Inside?
13 A. Yes, inside, in the cafe.
14 Q. Please if you can recall, how big a space are we talking about
15 inside Trozubac, the Trident cafe, and are there chairs and tables
17 A. Indeed, there is a space around the bar. Now whether there were
18 chairs or stools, we were not sitting in fact.
19 Q. So Arkan was not sitting when you saw him inside?
20 A. I think he was standing at the bar -- he was at the bar, and we
21 talked at the bar.
22 Q. Was Arkan alone at the bar?
23 A. He was not at the bar. He was in front of the bar. I believe
24 that there was no one of his men -- in fact, I don't even know who the
25 man was who brought me there, but we actually went out from the office,
1 crossed the street, and entered the cafe.
2 Q. But did you used to sit outside that cafe when you went to the
3 "matica," to the Emigrant Society?
4 A. Yes, whenever I had time for a cup of coffee, I would be there,
5 maybe outside in the garden, not inside.
6 Q. And Arkan used to come there also as a rule?
7 A. I did not see him there for any time long or many times, but this
8 was after I was released from the prison hospital in Plitvice and his
9 arrival from Zagreb
10 sort of a context of those events.
11 Q. Did you know the owner of the Trozubac cafe?
12 A. No, although people said that he was -- that it was in the -- in
13 fact Arkan's cafe.
14 Q. Had you heard that he was a friend of his who was the owner of
15 the cafe?
16 A. Yes, the ownership was associated with Arkan. I believe that in
17 a name it was -- the papers were in the name of somebody else, but it was
18 a -- people said that it was Arkan's.
19 Q. Could anyone hear your conversation?
20 A. I wasn't paying attention. There was nothing missing or
21 secretive. There was no need for us to be isolated from the rest of the
23 Q. So there was nothing secretive about the conversation in which
24 you were asking Arkan whom you met for the first time, as far as I could
25 understand you, who he was working for, and he answered you apparently
1 that he was working for Jovica Stanisic. And you don't see anything
2 secretive about that?
3 A. No, I don't.
4 Q. Other people could hear that?
5 A. Why not? Whoever who was there. There was no mysticism, no
6 secret, no secrecy about that conversation. It was a normal conversation
7 that would have taken place with anybody else whom you've met for the
8 first time.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. Not at all.
11 Q. And now I'm going to ask you something about the meeting you had
12 with Ilija Kojic. You've already spoken about that. Your meeting was in
13 Vukovar. The weapons that he was talking about, did he offer them to you
14 personally, or did he offer you weapons, a larger quantity of weapons?
15 A. No, he offered a piece to me personally. He said, You're moving
16 about a lot. You have to be protected, and something along these lines.
17 It was done in -- with the best of intentions. It was not a deal of any
19 Q. So this was just for your personal security?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Not at all.
22 Mr. Savic, did you know Trifun Ivkovic [phoen]?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was his function or position?
25 A. He was working at the motel on the highway. I don't know what
1 his position was, and after that he was the head of the prison in
2 Sremska Mitrovica.
3 Q. Did you sometimes go to the Sremska Mitrovica prison?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. What was the occasion?
6 A. I didn't go to the prison. I went to the hotel which was also
7 affiliated with the prison.
8 Q. Why did you go?
9 A. To have coffee. On the way to Sabac where my mother lives I
10 would often stop there, and I was in the office when he was the head of
11 the prison there.
12 Q. Did you ever go to Trifun's office when Croats from Vukovar were
13 detained in the prison in Sremska Mitrovica?
14 A. I was not in the office. I was there one morning having coffee
15 in the hotel, and there was a group of lawyers from Vukovar -- they were
16 actually judges. I knew them all. And in the next room, the room
17 behind, there was Trivo with some police officials. He took me into the
18 room, introduced me to everybody there, and that's how the meeting ended.
19 Q. I did not mean a visit to the prison in Sremska Mitrovica. Were
20 you there at the time when Croats from Vukovar were detained in the
22 A. You mean in the prison?
23 Q. Yes, in the prison.
24 A. No, I never visited the prison at that time, never visited the
25 prison, no.
1 Q. Mr. Savic, do you know Emil Cakalic, the hygiene inspector from
3 A. I believe that he knows me better than I know him, yes.
4 Q. So how did he get to know you?
5 A. He never really met me, Emil Cakalic, never did, never.
6 Q. Did you ever interview him about the activities of the HDZ in
8 A. Emil Cakalic was not even a member of the HDZ.
9 Q. However, this is what he's claiming. But did you ever interview
11 A. Why would I interview Emil Cakalic when I had friends in the HDZ
12 and I knew everything about want HDZ? I don't really know what I could
13 be talking about with Emil Cakalic.
14 Q. Did you ever beat Mr. Cakalic?
15 A. No.
16 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would, with the
17 agreement of the OTP, and we've already discussed that, I would like to
18 show the witness a document that was disclosed by the OTP pursuant to
19 Rule 68. I have it in hard copy, and I have left enough copies for the
20 OTP, the Trial Chamber, and the interpreters. With your leave I would
21 show the document to Mr. Savic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The fact that you have sufficient copies for
23 the interpreters is an alarming message.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you want to quote one or --
1 MR. WEBER: Just --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic. Yes, because you still have six
3 minutes left, so reading the whole of the document would --
4 MR. WEBER: There is no agreement from the OTP with respect to
5 this exhibit. It has just been -- it was provided. We received notice
6 that it may be used about five minutes before court started today. So we
7 have not agreed to anything regarding the admissibility of this exhibit.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Jovanovic said that he had discussed the
9 matter with the agreement of the OTP, so he's seeking that agreement, he
10 would like to show it to the witness.
11 Is that well understood?
12 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against putting it to the witness?
14 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: If I may interfere, Your Honours. The
15 parties have agreed that if certain allegations are put to witnesses, the
16 parties will not say what they base their allegations on. And I believe
17 this is a case in that Mr. Jovanovic is not acting in accordance with to
18 what he has agreed upon previously.
19 JUDGE ORIE: This is a document, an Official Note, apparently not
20 prepared for the proceedings before this Tribunal or -- no, apparently
21 not. It was produced 16th of May, 1992.
22 What would you like to do with the document, Mr. Jovanovic? I
23 mean, this is a document, apparently an Official Note. An Official Note,
24 from what I understand, are usually taken if someone is interviewed.
25 What's the purpose of this document to be used at this moment?
1 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is about the
2 functions that the witness has held of which he's never spoken. He has
3 testified before you about being the head of the SDS board in Vukovar and
4 also that he was an employee of the Serbian emigration society in
6 functions --
7 JUDGE ORIE: One second. If he had other functions, why not ask
8 the witness whether he had those functions. I mean, if he has not spoken
9 about it, I do not remember to have heard a question, Have you mentioned
10 by now all the functions you ever performed? If there is anything you
11 think that the information is not complete in relation to the functions
12 he may have had, why not ask the witness? Even without the statement --
13 or you may find in this statement the relevant information for you. But
14 let's first ask the witness, and then if then he says, I've never had any
15 function, and if others say he had, then it would be time perhaps to look
16 at the statement and say, But others have said you had. Could you just
17 ask the witness about the functions you said he had never spoke before.
18 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will ask the witness this.
19 Q. Did you ever hold any functions that applied the duty to
20 interview witnesses and abusing them in the process?
21 A. No.
22 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I now read just one paragraph
23 from this Official Note to the witness, Your Honours?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that would be on what page? Because you
25 have now asked him. What page of the document?
1 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The penultimate page in B/C/S as
2 well as in English. The penultimate pages in both versions, the
3 penultimate paragraph. Just one sentence is the last paragraph, and I
4 would like to read to the witness the paragraph above that last sentence
5 on the penultimate page.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But perhaps first -- function which applied to duty
7 to interview witnesses and abusing them in the process is something -- I
8 never heard of such a duty, and I wonder whether this is a mistake or
9 were you serious? I can imagine that someone would ask another person
10 whether he abused someone, but whether he was performing a function that
11 applied the duty to interview witnesses and abusing them in the process.
12 The question is unclear to me. Let me say it this way.
13 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can rephrase.
14 Did he de facto have the authority to act in that way?
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- apparently, Mr. Savic -- a
17 Mr. Emil Cakalic provided a statement which is referred to in an
18 Official Note. In this Official Note he was reported to have said that
19 on the 14th of December, 1991, that he was taken for questioning for the
20 first time, and when he entered the room, he saw Goran Hadzic and
21 Borivoje Savic.
22 First question: Did you on the 14th of December, 1991, question
23 Mr. Borivoje Savic [sic]?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, I made a mistake. Whether you questioned
1 Mr. Cakalic.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't. I have a
3 very simple explanation. I've already discussed that with the
4 authorities in Croatia
5 JUDGE ORIE: I just -- my first question was whether you
6 questioned him, yes or no. Were you present on that date --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You were present not with him on that date in one
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I never ever, absolutely never
11 interviewed anybody, and I can provide a simple explanation to avoid any
12 further confusion in anybody's mind.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
14 Mr. Jovanovic.
15 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My last
17 Q. Mr. Savic, the invitation you received or the summons you
18 received by the Croatian court, why were you summoned?
19 A. I believe it was the war crimes court, I believe that's its name.
20 First of all, Emil Cakalic and I provided two interviews about that to
21 the newspaper of "Vecernji List."
22 Q. You asked about -- I'm asking you about the summons. You've
23 already answered the Judge's questions.
24 A. I was summoned, and I explained what this was all about. My
25 conclusion was that Emil was a professional witness, that he had been
1 prepped and served on the platter to say what he did. And the Croats
2 answered that Emil Cakalic had been prepared in The Hague, and that's
3 where he had been told to say what he did, and that was the end of that
5 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Savic. Very well.
6 A. Not at all.
7 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
8 tender this document for admission as exhibit, and I have no further
9 questions for this witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: We'd object to its admission. The authenticity of
12 this exhibit -- the witness has not confirmed that these events ever
13 occurred, or the reliability of the exhibit is also highly suspect. We
14 would note that Mr. Cakalic has testified before the Tribunal on the date
15 of 16th July, 2003
16 different occasion, on pages 14, 17, 61, and 62, Mr. Cakalic under oath
17 denied that this witness, and repeatedly affirmed -- that he was not
18 beaten by this witness. So there is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be marked for identification. The
20 parties will have an opportunity to further make submissions on the
21 admission of this document because we're now finding other sources.
22 Mr. Jovanovic, you might have other responses to that as well.
23 We have no time to deal with that today. You have asked the questions.
24 It will be marked for identification. The parties will have an
25 opportunity to make further submissions on whether or not this document
1 should be admitted into evidence.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3, marked for identification,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And it keeps that status for the time being.
5 Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic. This concludes your testimony.
6 Mr. Weber, could you be -- please be as short as reasonably
8 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Weber:
10 Q. Mr. Savic, you were previously asked, and this is located on page
11 49, line 25, through page 50, line 2, of the transcript from today. You
12 were asked about Badza. And the question to you was:
13 "So you think he was the assistant minister of the state
14 security. Are you sure about that?"
15 I believe you were nodding your head at the time. The transcript
16 did not record a verbal response from you. Could you please answer that
18 A. I know that he was in a very high position in the Minister of the
19 Interior. I don't know what the title of that position was. I wouldn't
20 be sure. The fact is, however, that he had been -- that he was appointed
21 the commander of the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and
22 Western Srem.
23 Q. There were a number of paragraphs that were read from your
24 statement. During the reading of these paragraphs, there were sentences
25 that were skipped in the reading of it. I just want to confirm with you
1 that in page 15, the third paragraph from the top, did you state in your
2 statement of 2002:
3 "I did not believe, and I have never seen the RSK army as a
4 separate entity from the JNA ..."
5 Did you also say that?
6 A. I'm sorry, I did not understand your question. Could you repeat
7 or rephrase.
8 Q. You were --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, does this arise from cross-examination?
10 And even if portions are read to the witness, is this a matter you could
11 not have raised in chief?
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was allowing the -- I was not
13 objecting to counsel as he was reading the paragraphs in order to allow
14 him to go through it, but he skipped sentences that were pertinent. And
15 in the context of what was read to him, I believe it's unfair to let the
16 record stand if a sentence was skipped.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I can't say that I immediately have a recollection
18 of what was in the context of this portion being read. So in view of
19 this explanation, I allow you to verify this with the witness.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. Sir, you were asked questions on cross-examination about segments
22 of your 2002 statement. Do you recall those segments?
23 A. Yes, and I confirmed them.
24 Q. Can you confirm in your 2002 statement you also stated in the
25 third paragraph of page 15:
1 "I did not believe and I have never seen the RSK army as a
2 separate entity from the JNA ..."
3 Did you also say that in your statement?
4 A. It would be illogical for a non-existent state to have its army.
5 Q. Sir, my question to you was: Was that also in your statement?
6 A. If it is in my statement, I adhere to it.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I don't know if we can reach some
8 agreement maybe between the parties. I do not want to carry this witness
9 over into next week, but there's two sentences that were not read. If we
10 can agree to the fact that they are in the statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And a question was put already whether he gave
12 that statement in all sincerity. The portions you would like to refer
14 MR. WEBER: It would be in the English version, page 15. It's
15 the paragraph -- third paragraph from the top, second line, last sentence
16 was skipped: "I do not believe, and I have never seen the RSK army as a
17 separate entity from the JNA ..."
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but why not just ask him -- apart from what you
19 said in your statement, did you believe, or did you ever view the RSK
20 army as an entity separate from the JNA? If you could just say yes or no
21 to start with.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. I'll just put it to you then. You were asked questions about the
2 related to Mr. Ostojic and the VRSK and the providing of weapons by them.
3 Did you also indicate, and is this correct:
4 "Under normal circumstances the army has the control over the
5 army weapons, but all of a sudden these weapons were distributed through
6 political parties and certain individuals."
7 Is that a correct statement?
8 A. Well, the political parties did not have the resources to be able
9 to have weapons which to distribute. So those who had the weapons
10 actually manipulated the weapons because no party had the resources with
11 which to provide weapons.
12 Q. Is it fair to say all weapons weren't being distributed through
13 the military?
14 A. No.
15 Q. No, it's not fair to say that or -- could you please be clear in
16 your answer.
17 A. Not all the weapons were distributed through the army.
18 Q. Okay. On page 59, line 20, you were asked a question about a
19 date in which you had a meeting with Captain Dragan. You referenced the
20 4th of August, 1992; however, the Prosecution notes in your proofing note
21 you indicated the 3rd or 4th of August, 1991 --
22 MR. JORDASH: Objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: The witness has given his evidence. In our
25 submission, it's not for the Prosecution to go back to his written
1 statement to bring out an answer that they'd prefer.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I earlier asked you, Mr. Weber, how this arises from
3 cross. Is there any specific link to a portion read to the witness
4 earlier by Mr. Jovanovic?
5 MR. WEBER: There is page 59, lines 20 through 23, this was
6 referenced. All I'm going to put to the witness was: What is the
7 correct date?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is that something we should -- why not verify with
9 the witness, Mr. Jordash?
10 MR. JORDASH: Only -- I suppose I'm -- I don't have a -- I'm
11 objecting out of principle in a way because --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, fine. Let's be very practical. I -- if a
13 principle would obstruct us to know the exact date, then perhaps we
14 should apply the principle in such a way that we would know about the
15 exact date.
16 You may ask the question, Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER:
18 Q. Mr. Savic, this meeting that you had with Captain Dragan, did it
19 occur on the 4th of August, 1992; or the 3rd or 4th of August, 1991?
20 A. 1991. It was 1991.
21 Q. When you were being interviewed in 2002, what case or what was
22 the focus of the questions that you were asked by the Office of the
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic.
25 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object. In no
1 previously given written statement of this witness is a purpose indicated
2 to the effect for what case he's giving testimony. So this is knowledge
3 of people who can be potential witnesses before this Court. So witnesses
4 should not be concretely specified which case they are supposed to give
5 testimony for so that they focus on that, so that when they give
6 testimony in other cases they can adduce a host of other facts. The
7 statement, in fact, does not indicate that it was given for any other
8 case but this one. It is being used for this case. That is what I'm
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether that is a valid objection is another
12 What's the relevance of the question, Mr. Weber?
13 MR. WEBER: If -- the witness has been questioned extensively
14 today --
15 JUDGE ORIE: So what we can -- we can ask him whether he was
17 Were you told in what case your statement -- to the benefit of
18 what Prosecution's case your statement was taken?
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, he gave multiple statements. Can we
20 just be clear --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
22 MR. WEBER: -- the 2002 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: The 2002 statement I wanted to refer to.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it was not stated, it was not
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. During the course of the interview, was there a particular
3 accused that you were being asked questions about in 2002?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- the Chamber can read in the statement if you
5 would tender it for those purposes, or you could agree with the Defence
6 on what questions were put. What we are doing at this moment is that we
7 are not -- this statement is not tendered into evidence, and everyone
8 tries to get the best out of it; Mr. Jovanovic does so; you do so.
9 That's not the way to proceed, as a matter of fact. Please proceed to
10 your next question, and we'll finish in one or two seconds -- well,
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. When you were interviewed in 2002 and 2003, was the focus either
14 of those interviews Jovica Stanisic or Franko Simatovic?
15 A. No.
16 MR. WEBER: Nothing further.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weber. We have got one minute left.
18 Is there any urgent need to put another question to the witness?
19 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic, of course the Chamber would have
23 reconsidered its decision to grant 15 minutes only if it, at the end,
24 would have considered it to be unfair. What happened is that the joint
25 Defence assured the Chamber that we would conclude the evidence of this
1 witness today. And then suddenly, although the Chamber could personally
2 observe that there was communication and apparently consultation between
3 the Defence teams, was confronted at a very late stage with a conclusion
4 that we could not -- that you could not finish your testimony today.
5 That was at a time when the Defence had taken already two hours and
6 46 minutes I think. The OTP had taken two hours and nine minutes. The
7 guidance of the Chamber was that the parties would get I think it was
8 80 to 100 per cent of the time in chief, which would mean a little bit
9 less than two hours. Now, you got approximately 50 per cent of a little
10 bit less than two hours. The Chamber has further allowed you to conduct
11 cross-examination in a rather extraordinary way which gave you the
12 advantage of obtaining -- of having in evidence quite a bit more than you
13 would under normal circumstances have obtained.
14 At the same time, I announce to the parties that the way in which
15 we proceeded today is not the way we are going to proceed in the days and
16 months -- days, weeks, and months to come. Whether we'll deal with this
17 in open court or whether the parties will be invited soon to further
18 discuss what we expect, for example, division of time between the Defence
19 teams. If you can't agree on it, fine, the Chamber will just say
20 50 per cent for you, 50 per cent for you, but not the way in which it was
21 done. Another observation is, Mr. Jovanovic, there would have been
22 technical different ways of having into evidence certain portions of the
23 statement that should have been properly prepared. We could have seen
24 whether it would have been possible to have admitted portions of the
25 statement under Rule 92 ter. But reading here and having everyone out of
1 breath after 15 minutes is not the way in which we'll proceed.
2 At this moment, Mr. Savic, I would like to thank you very much
3 for coming to The Hague
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I said I would like to thank you very much for
6 coming to The Hague
7 consultation with my colleagues, that the Bench has no further questions
8 for you. I wish you a safe trip home again.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume
11 on Wednesday, the 15th of July, in Courtroom I, at a quarter past 2.00 in
12 the afternoon. We stand adjourned.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of
16 July, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.