Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2736

 1                           Wednesday, 20 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, to everybody.  Madam Registrar,

 6     would you please call the case.

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

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

 9     Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  A special afternoon to

11     you, Mr. Stanisic, we are pleased to see that you are in the courtroom

12     and that you will directly follow the proceedings now instead of through

13     a video conference link.

14             I was informed that you, Mr. Stanisic, would like to address the

15     Chamber briefly on health matters, and I was also informed that the

16     Simatovic Defence wanted to address the court in relation to the upcoming

17     witness.  Yes.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

20             MR. JORDASH:  We indicated we would also like to address Your

21     Honours concerning the next witness.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We've seen some correspondence in relation to

23     that and will later see what is appropriate to be dealt with prior to the

24     witness coming into court, and what would be appropriate to hear when the

25     witness is giving his testimony.  But let's first then -- it's on the

Page 2737

 1     record.

 2             Mr. Stanisic, the Chamber, and this is now put on the record, has

 3     received a letter.  The Chamber has sought through your counsel whether

 4     the content of the letter could be shared with other persons relevant for

 5     this matter.  We received an answer to that.  Whether this is an

 6     appropriate way of communicating with the Chamber is still a matter in

 7     which the Chamber has not finally made up its mind.  But if you want to

 8     address us on health matters you may do so, but there's no need to repeat

 9     what is already in your letter, and I can tell you that the Chamber is

10     giving some follow-up to that letter at this moment.  So, therefore, even

11     though we might not here be convinced that this is appropriate way of

12     communicating with the Chamber, we certainly did not ignore what you

13     wrote to us.

14             If there's anything in addition to what you've written that you

15     would like to bring to our attention, you have an opportunity to do so

16     now.

17             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours,

18     for giving me this opportunity to give you some additional explanations

19     concerning my letter.  [No interpretation]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not receive English translation on channel 4.

21             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Is it -- can you hear me,

22     Your Honour?  I'm on -- the mike is on.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I can now hear you.

24             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Okay.  Sorry.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please restart, Mr. Stanisic.

Page 2738

 1             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

 2     distinguished judges, I believe that you understand the reasons why I

 3     have addressed you in writing in connection with my treatment problems

 4     and, one could say, inadvertent but definitely negligent treatment which

 5     has led to acute thrombosis in my leg.

 6             You have, in my view, not been sufficiently informed of what has

 7     been happening to me.  That is why I have sought your protection and your

 8     understanding, your appreciation of the state that I'm in.  The -- there

 9     exists voluminous documentation of the military medical academy which is

10     an elite institution in Serbia where I was treated for ten years as well

11     as that of the Bronovo hospital and the Leiden University Clinic, they

12     all show that this is the third time that I'm encountering serious

13     problems with acute thrombosis of both legs.  The doctors treating me

14     here were aware of the fact that there existed the realistic danger of

15     serious complications of this kind ensuing and that they have been and

16     they are monitoring patients who have had serious forms of pouchitis or

17     ulcerous colitis, and they were aware that because of the [indiscernible]

18     of an organ in my abdomen, my colon, in a series of three of the most

19     serious abdominal surgery operations, my organism has been producing

20     complications in the kidneys for years, so that surgery had to be done in

21     that respect several times too.

22             They were aware that because of my protracted treatment with

23     antibiotics, corticosteroids, and cytostatics I also contracted

24     osteoporosis which is seriously endangering my spine.  The problem with

25     my spine has initially prevented me from attending the court sessions.

Page 2739

 1     In my letter, I have explained in detail everything that I had gone

 2     through in my cell during that period, living a life not dain [phoen] of

 3     man, because it was with great pain that I could at all reach the toilet,

 4     let alone do anything else.  They knew that I had been treated for

 5     depression for several years back and that in the meantime, I was

 6     additionally encumbered by personal problems, all this led to a state in

 7     which I could not nor had the will to leave the floor on which my cell is

 8     in order to go out for some fresh air.

 9             They could not see that my life had become relatively unbearable.

10     Although a number of physicians have been monitoring the state of my

11     health, two of whom are specialist physicians whom you have appointed and

12     who also visited me in Belgrade, and who are seeing me every five weeks

13     here at Scheveningen as well as well as Bronovo hospital specialists and

14     those from Utrecht and Amsterdam, none of them throughout this period of

15     eight months gave instructions for the anticoagulation therapy condition

16     to be checked.  Because of their utmost negligence in that respect, I

17     again have acute thrombosis, the etiology of which is unknown or is that

18     but the damages are known.

19             Even worse, I was returned from hospital to my cell and lived

20     there for two weeks without any kind of medical supervision at all,

21     simply they just administered a double dose of anticoagulation therapy to

22     me.  That's all.  Nobody took a blood test to see how very fine my blood

23     was in order to prevent any other serious complications from happening.

24     Believe me it was a very difficult time for me.  There was just this one

25     nurse there who upon my insistence drew some blood for testing that is

Page 2740

 1     after a couple of days and at my insistence, and I don't know what the

 2     results of the tests are.

 3             Judges, there is something else I wish to impress upon you today.

 4     I had no doubt that you would take my letter into serious consideration,

 5     but what am I talking about right now?  You are certainly not aware of

 6     the fact that endeavouring to inform you at any cost that my health

 7     condition has improved, in that endeavour, because of that, it is for

 8     nine months now that I have been for nine months now without a single --

 9     the exception of a single day, I've been -- I'm being administered

10     antibiotics, so which one?  Mitrodyosol [phoen] is very hard on the

11     organism.  That is of course administered so as to counter my principal

12     condition.  Even a layman knows that even when the infections are of the

13     most serious kind, one does not take antibiotics for a period of over six

14     weeks.

15             Also, without consulting my doctors who have been treating me for

16     over ten years, corticosteroid therapy was introduced and is being

17     administered to me although I received a treatment unsuccessfully for two

18     and a half years in Belgrade and because of the contra-indications of

19     which I had to recover for several years; namely, my physicians in

20     Belgrade were not consulted about all these therapies.

21             Nevertheless, I accepted the recommendation of Dr. Cazemier from

22     the Bronovo hospital in order to be given a new biological medication,

23     not wishing to obstruct the treatment or to create any doubt in my good

24     intention to leave this courtroom, although he himself told me that there

25     was no proof that this medication is efficient.  I wonder, Your Honours,

Page 2741

 1     whether anyone can tell me what are the consequences that such treatment

 2     can produce?  This treatment further involves in addition to all these,

 3     also strong anti-depressants, tranquillisers, analgesics, painkillers on

 4     a daily basis against the pain that I feel in the pouch and my kidneys

 5     and the spine.  All this while it is in the realm of medical ethics and

 6     the medical profession can be considered and reviewed in a medical way,

 7     but, your delegated doctor Mr. Oldenburg [phoen] has warned recently that

 8     it is dangerous to take antibiotics for so many months and that further

 9     administration of antibiotics to me is impermissible.  I'm not sure

10     whether you have gotten this report.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stanisic, I'm going to stop you here.  You are

12     entering into quite some details as far as your medical treatment is

13     concerned.  This Chamber is not blind nor deaf for what you wrote us, to

14     some extent it's repetitious what you told us.  Your counsel know exactly

15     where to go primarily if there are concerns about the way in which you

16     are treated because the medical care for persons detained in the United

17     Nations Detention Unit is not primarily within the scope of

18     responsibility of this Chamber.

19             If it has an impact on the proceedings, then of course the

20     Chamber will form its opinion about it.  So, therefore, as I said before,

21     we are giving some follow-up dealing with some of the matters.  You are

22     explaining to us because we cannot exclude that it may have an impact on

23     these proceedings, but to further listen to all the complaints you have

24     about the way which you are treated, giving us all kind of facts which of

25     course we can't verify.  Giving us opinions as to what should have been

Page 2742

 1     better done, that is not for the Chamber to do and I'm certain that

 2     counsel will assist you in addressing the right persons in asking for

 3     further or for a change in the medical care provided to you at this

 4     moment.

 5             Is there any matter with you would specifically address as far as

 6     we are concerned?

 7             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] I really tried to put down

 8     on paper and to make an effort in order not to repeat things, but what is

 9     of the essence for me and something which I think you should know is that

10     it is with trust that every week I sign a blank piece of paper which the

11     physicians will use to inform you about my health condition.  In an

12     inexplicable way, this is publicly known.  I don't know of any case of

13     this having happened to any inmate in the Tribunal.

14             What hit me the hardest is that in an inexplicable way, first it

15     was put on the Tribunal site, that is how it was publicised, my talk with

16     Dr. de Man your specialist, to whom I told the most delicate things about

17     my condition.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stanisic, that is a matter which is raised in

19     your letter and on which the Chamber is seeking follow-up.  So,

20     therefore, it is about whether you are sufficiently informed by doctors

21     and whether others are appropriately or inappropriately informed about

22     these matters that is an issue which is part of the follow-up by this

23     Chamber.  So that doesn't need to be repeated.  It was a matter which we

24     took up.

25             Any other matter?

Page 2743

 1             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can only

 2     tell you this, just my view that you cannot just treat this kind of a

 3     disease, these diseases in passing, and that an objective picture of my

 4     health condition cannot be gained in this way.  I respect this Tribunal

 5     and I wish to believe that I will be treated in a fair manner in this

 6     connection and that I will receive at least a single report on my health

 7     condition.  Over the past nine months I have not received a single report

 8     about what is happening with me.  The only information I get is from the

 9     newspapers.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Just to briefly respond to that.  There are

11     many reports that the Chamber received and that were filed available to

12     counsel, and they can communicate the content of those reports with you.

13     So that is just a short answer to the availability of reports.

14     Mr. Knoops and Mr. Jordash, I take it that you'll pay proper attention to

15     communicating with your client the content of medical reports that are

16     produced and are filed in this case.

17             MR. KNOOPS:  We do, Your Honour.  I think Mr. Stanisic is

18     referring to the reports of the treating doctors which is also part of

19     these submissions to the Chamber.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is another matter which, of course, is a

21     matter of patient/doctor relationship and it's a matter which we have

22     also briefly addressed in our follow-up.

23             Yes, Mr. Stanisic.  I'd like to conclude because you are

24     addressing matters which we have, I wouldn't say resolved, but at least

25     which we have included our follow-up on your letter.

Page 2744

 1             Any other matter which need to be addressed now to the Chamber

 2     which would be within the competence of the Chamber to say something

 3     about?

 4             THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  Thank

 5     you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Stanisic.  Needless to say that if

 7     you need a short break or if you have difficulties in following the

 8     proceedings, then, of course, you can always address us and that's, of

 9     course, a new situation since you are now in the courtroom which is

10     slightly different from being at a distance.

11             Then.

12             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, if I may?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Knoops.

14             MR. KNOOPS:  Just because we just observed that we didn't receive

15     medical report for today's session.  Can it be correct?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that there was a yesterday's report.  I do

17     not know whether the absence of the report, if it is absent, has to deal

18     with the matter that Mr. Stanisic wanted to come to court.  I mean, the

19     main purpose of the daily reports were to be informed about his health

20     condition where he considered that he could not attend court.  It's not

21     that if he attends court that we nevertheless would need to receive a

22     daily report.  I think it's mainly in view of where he claims to be

23     unable to come to court.  But we'll further discuss this matter.  The

24     situation has changed slightly.  But I have not seen a report.  And

25     Mr. Stanisic has not raised anything which would be specifically

Page 2745

 1     applicable today which would cause us to immediately ask for such a

 2     report.

 3             Then Simatovic Defence want to address.  Mr. Petrovic.

 4             MR. PETROVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of the

 5     Simatovic Defence I have a request to the Trial Chamber; namely,

 6     something that relates to the witness that is to appear today before this

 7     courtroom, and I will be very brief.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the number of the

 9     witness.

10             MR. PETROVIC:  [Interpretation] I will be brief.  The Trial

11     Chamber is well aware of the situation and the circumstances that this

12     team could not have any influence on.  In December as soon as the Court

13     went on winter recess, we started our preparations for the witnesses who

14     are coming up, especially those who have -- who can be called the linkage

15     witnesses.  Witness F-005, that is to appear, we have tried to

16     familiarise ourselves with his statement and to also find other documents

17     that may be relevant to his testimony.

18             Also, when once we familiarise ourselves with the contents of his

19     testimony, we addressed the state organs with a request that they provide

20     us with some evidence that might be relevant to his testimony and for our

21     cross-examination.  We are aware of the contents of his statement and we

22     have submitted this request for cooperation.  We've asked for a number of

23     documents, but we've only been able to obtain a fraction of what we have

24     requested, just a few documents that are relevant to his testimony, and

25     many others that are relevant have not been resolved to this day.

Page 2746

 1             Also, when we familiarised ourselves with the content of his

 2     statement, we realised that it was also necessary to conduct an

 3     investigation and explore various circumstances that he mentions in his

 4     statement.  We have attempted to get in touch with various individuals

 5     who might have some relevant information regarding the claims of -- that

 6     this witness puts forth.  However, because of the time that we had at our

 7     disposal and also the circumstances surrounding all that, and I mean that

 8     this was a period of several holidays, all these circumstances actually

 9     made it practically impossible for us to accomplish anything, or at least

10     not in a manner that would enable us to question this witness in an

11     efficient manner.

12             Also, and this has to do with the overall situation that this

13     Defence team faces, we have, in view of all the thousands of pages that

14     we have been shown, we have only been able to actually review some of

15     those and we have also been unable to go through the documents, or

16     rather, the disclosed documents, we weren't able to really go through

17     them and find those documents that might be relevant and useful for the

18     cross-examination of this witness.

19             What we would like to request, Your Honour, is that we be allowed

20     to postpone the cross-examination of this witness until such time when we

21     can obtain the necessary documents and familiarise ourselves with the

22     large batch of documents that we were provided by the Prosecution.

23             We believed that we would be ready for that today; however, when

24     we actually explored them and when we actually looked at all the things

25     that we have been able to do, we realised that, in fact, we were and we

Page 2747

 1     are unable to cross-examine this witness in a proper way and efficiently,

 2     either today or at any time soon.

 3             So our request to the Trial Chamber would be to postpone the

 4     cross-examination by the Simatovic Defence team to be given some time to

 5     prepare so that we can do our job properly and that is why we are here.

 6     And I know, of course, that our request is not a simple one, but I do

 7     plead with you because we are really unable to cross-examine this witness

 8     efficiently and properly at this time.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, there's a request, would you like to

10     respond immediately or would you like to do that later today?

11             MR. GROOME:  Whichever pleases the court, Your Honour.  I can

12     give, I know in substance what the Prosecution's response is.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Or would it be better to first hear whether --

14     because the Stanisic Defence wanted to address the court as well to see

15     whether you can give a consolidated response later.

16             MR. GROOME:  Perhaps that is wiser, Your Honour.  We can defer

17     that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours, our application is --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, before I give you an opportunity to

21     address the Court, the Chamber has been informed about exchanges of

22     discussions between the parties where -- certainly we are to some extent

23     reluctant and hesitant to see what has been exchanged between the parties

24     at earlier stages of the proceedings.  We further have received the

25     queries you had, at least the Stanisic Defence had on its mind in

Page 2748

 1     relation to quite a number of documents, and also some information which

 2     gave us the impression that specific elements in relation to this witness

 3     are linked to more broader issues which are the subject of pending

 4     motions, and the Chamber is not inclined to deal with those matters; that

 5     is, form of the indictment, challenge to the form of the indictment which

 6     was not initially raised within the normal time frame.  We still have to

 7     consider whether good cause has been shown to raise the issue now,

 8     whether we still have to decide on matters raised if we would go to the

 9     substance of those matters.

10             The Chamber is not inclined to hear a mixed-up version of this

11     could not be used by the witness because we have received insufficient

12     notice of that and that and that, where that is the subject of pending

13     litigation, and I want you to be aware of that before you address the

14     Court, that we are very much inclined to look at the matters without them

15     being mixed up and that the procedural situation at this time is that we

16     have an indictment, we have a pre-trial brief, and we have a pending

17     motion on a challenge to the form of the indictment, et cetera,

18     et cetera.

19             So to introduce through the witness whether you have been

20     sufficiently put on notice of A, B, C, D, and E is not the way this

21     Chamber would like to deal with this matter.  I just wanted to tell you

22     this before I give you an opportunity to address the Chamber.

23             MR. JORDASH:  The difficulty, Your Honour, with my application

24     then is this, that it is an application to adjourn the cross-examination

25     on the issue of notice, and specifically on the issue of notice relating

Page 2749

 1     to training and who it is the Prosecution say was trained, and who it was

 2     the Prosecution say were the Red Berets, and this application arises

 3     because of disclosure of yesterday in which certain new information was

 4     adduced and that information -- basically information concerning the

 5     group Mice, who this witness will now say were trained by the Serbian DB,

 6     and that new evidence and the lack of notice to the Defence is

 7     inextricably linked to a degree with the wider issues of notice

 8     concerning who was a Red Beret, who was trained by the DB.

 9             So I can address the issue of new evidence but with difficulty in

10     terms of contextualising why it's problematic in terms of why we need

11     time to investigate.  But without touching upon the way in which the

12     Prosecution's case, we submit, has developed in terms of the Red Berets

13     and why this new evidence is so dangerous and why with need time is very

14     difficult to do without reference to the indictment or the pre-trial

15     brief.

16             If Your Honour would simply allow me five minutes to

17     contextualise why we want to adjourn in relation to the issues in the

18     indictment and the pre-trial brief and the notice therein, then I can

19     move very swiftly to the issue of what is particularly new but not

20     exclusively new, as that is contained within the whole of the argument.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, were you referring to proofing notes

23     when you said new information that came up yesterday?

24             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.  The proofing note which is ERN

25     number 0350-1756.

Page 2750

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that 14th of -- no, I've got only summary of

 2     additional information, 14th of January, but I have nothing --

 3             MR. JORDASH:  This is the one, 14th of January.  Sorry, it was

 4     disclosed to us on Friday I'm told.  I beg your pardon.  We have trouble

 5     getting it off the e-court and that was the problem, but it was disclosed

 6     on Friday last.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it was the -- okay.  Now, if anything new --

 8     first of all, the Chamber does not allow you to deal with the matters

 9     which are part of the pending litigation.  As I said earlier, we do not

10     want this to be mixed up.  The indictment is there.  At the time no

11     challenged the form of the indictment was raised.  It now has been.

12     Whether we will hear that or not is still to be seen.  We have the -- we

13     do not want litigation to be taken from where it belongs and then to put

14     in every place where it suits the party to raise the matter in a

15     different context.  So we are not allowing you to deal with that matter.

16     We'll certainly deal with -- we'll seriously deal with the motions filed,

17     first of all with the good cause as far as timing is concerned, and if

18     then still relevant with the substance of it.

19             As far as new information is concerned, it's not unknown that

20     sometimes new information comes up during proofing sessions.  If that new

21     information is of such a kind that after we've heard the evidence that in

22     respect of that new piece of information you need further time, then I

23     cannot exclude for the possibility that we would allow you, on that

24     specific subject, either to postpone or to recall the witness if further

25     investigations have been done.  That will be seen once we have heard the

Page 2751

 1     evidence of the witness and then also we'll decide whether such an

 2     opportunity will be given and whether that will be given in respect of

 3     the whole of the testimony or only on specific portions where you've

 4     indicated we need to check this or verify that.

 5             So, therefore, the -- any decision, and that's true for the

 6     application by Mr. Petrovic as well, any decision on postponement of

 7     cross-examination in its entirety or of the specific portions will be

 8     taken after the Chamber has further considered the arguments as

 9     Mr. Petrovic has already raised and which you, apart from the litigated

10     issue, have an opportunity to briefly explain to the Court, and then

11     we'll decide after the examination-in-chief whether any of the requests

12     will be granted or not.

13             So you have an opportunity now not to explain, again, the

14     indictment, et cetera, but any specific issues in relation to your

15     request to postponement of cross-examination, and again the Chamber will

16     not decide before we've heard the evidence of the witness.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I will of course, abide by Your

18     Honours' ruling.  I will reference only this in relation to the

19     indictment, one statement, and it will not be touching or certainly not

20     repeating the arguments in the motion before you, but the evidence which

21     is new which we seek to have with which basis our application to adjourn,

22     is that contained in the proofing note I've just referred to dated the

23     14th of January 2010, and there are two particular statements which we

24     are concerned with.  The first is the first row of page ERN 0673-4825.

25     And that's the statement at the bottom of the first paragraph there.

Page 2752

 1     "The name of the unit also changed frequently but the people were always

 2     the same."  This is a witness, as Your Honours know, who suggests he was

 3     part of a unit, and in his original statement he referred to that unit as

 4     the JSN, known by civilians as the Red Beret.

 5             Your Honours will find the reference to that in his first

 6     statement in which he, the witness, notes that the Red Beret unit of

 7     which he was part, and this is the statement of 2004, and it's ERN page

 8     number 0350-1758, and the witness there states that the Red Beret unit he

 9     was part of was called the JSN and it had a particular insignia.

10             The proofing note then changes the nature of that case

11     significantly.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I haven't found it.

13             MR. JORDASH:  All right, sorry.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us the paragraph number?

15             MR. JORDASH:  Paragraph --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That may assist.

17             MR. JORDASH:  -- 7.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Seven, yes.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Of that page.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes, I see it.

21             MR. JORDASH:  The JSN special unit.

22             And on Friday the proofing noted changed that and said no, that's

23     not the case, the name of the unit also changed.  And it changed

24     frequently.

25             Now, I reference the indictment at this point simply to highlight

Page 2753

 1     to Your Honours that the indictment refers to two units of Red Berets

 2     only and that's at page 4 -- sorry, paragraph 4 of the indictment wherein

 3     the special purpose unit of the MUP Serbia JATD and JSO are referenced as

 4     known as Red Berets.

 5             So first point I would make is this, that in his first statement

 6     the witness raises a wholly new unit, JSN, but I don't dwell on that for

 7     the moment in light of Your Honours' ruling.  But what I do dwell on is

 8     this, that now, only three days before, we are told that the unit that

 9     the witness was part of was in fact known by several names and those

10     names changed frequently.  A fact we have not had the opportunity to

11     investigate and we would like that opportunity.

12             The second point is this, it's the -- on the second page of the

13     proofing note, it's the -- of Friday, 0673-4826, and --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Second page.  Let me just check that.  I have to

15     find that because I have a one-page document but perhaps they have copied

16     only one side of it.  Is it double?

17             MR. JORDASH:  It's -- well, mine is two and a half sheets long,

18     but --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It seems that we are not talking about the same

20     document.

21             MR. JORDASH:  It begins with --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

23                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It now appears on our screen.  What the Chamber had

25     was a document which states confidential date 14th of January, and the

Page 2754

 1     heading being summary of additional information.  Now, it seems that you

 2     are talking about another document.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I'm talking about the document which

 4     is referred to in the one you've just mentioned.  At paragraph 1, the

 5     witness made clarifications and they were recorded in a separate

 6     document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Has that been disclosed to the Chamber or sent

 8     to the Chamber?  Mr. Hoffmann, wouldn't it have been appropriate to

 9     whatever is attached -- I've got -- and my staff tells me that this is

10     the only thing we received.

11             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, my understanding was that when we

12     sent this material to the Defence that we did copy the legal officer.

13     Right now, I can't exclude that we may have missed that.  It was

14     certainly our intention to copy the legal officer when providing these

15     documents.  At the same time, this document was uploaded into e-court.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but the Chamber has no access to e-court in

17     general terms.  I mean, as soon as it is released and if it is tendered

18     then the Chamber looks at it unless it is otherwise provided to the

19     Chamber.  But let's then have a look at it on ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we did receive proofing notes for another

22     witness, but not for this one.

23             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour, it has been uploaded to e-court.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  We have it now.  But --

25             MR. HOFFMANN:  I see that the Court Officer has just uploaded it

Page 2755

 1     now on the screen, on the e-court screen for your review.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm still a bit lost, I must admit, because

 3     the references you have made to paragraph 7, Mr. Jordash.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Paragraph 7 of the very first statement of the

 5     witness.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's first few lines.  Is that your --

 7     what you are referring to?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  I was referring, yes, to the first two lines

 9     referring to JSN special purpose unit.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It says that upon completion of the training

11     that he received camouflage uniforms and Red Berets with insignias and

12     then he describes what insignias there were.  That's it.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The description of -- let's -- one second.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber considers that we are better served by

17     first hearing the evidence as the witness gives it today and to hear any

18     clarifications or whether what we find in the proofing notes which is not

19     in evidence which is not available to the Chamber is whether he actually

20     means what he is saying there, and the Chamber is not inclined to start

21     argument for three hours before we hear the first five minutes of

22     evidence of the witness.  That is our approach of the matter.

23             Is there any other matter, Mr. Jordash, you would like to raise?

24     I mean, questions as whether in paragraph 7 he describes a uniform he has

25     been given or whether that was the permanent name under which he operated

Page 2756

 1     is perhaps a matter still to be explored.  And once we hear what he says

 2     about this, if he says the names changed frequently, was he referring to

 3     how they were perceived by the population, is it the nicknames that

 4     changed, was it the name of the unit?  I mean, all kind of questions

 5     which are better resolved by first of all focusing on the evidence the

 6     witness will give us.

 7             Any other matter at this moment, Mr. Jordash?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Well, there is one more piece of new evidence

 9     but --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MR. JORDASH:  -- I'm happy to deal with it as per Your Honours'

12     indication at the end of the witness's testimony.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if would you briefly indicate what it is, then

14     perhaps during the break we can consider to what extent it is

15     appropriately put as an circumstance which would oppose against even

16     starting to hear the evidence of this witness or to invite the parties to

17     cross-examine him on it.  So, therefore, if you briefly indicate what it

18     is, then.

19             MR. JORDASH:  This arises from the proofing note of Friday.  It's

20     on page 2 where --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could we have that on the screen.

22             MR. JORDASH:  It's the comment at the top of the page on the

23     left-hand column:  "I want to add that the group of Milan Ninkovic, also

24     known as Mice, was trained by Bozovic and his men sometime after the 3rd

25     of May 1992."

Page 2757

 1             I would put our position simply like this:  The indictment names

 2     two Red Beret units, the pre-trial brief does not name the Mice group as

 3     a Red Beret unit and neither does the opening, and neither did the

 4     witness in any of his statements until this statement on Friday.  Now the

 5     Prosecution suggests the Mice group was trained at the Red Beret camp and

 6     therefore as a consequence were a Red Beret group, as I understand the

 7     Prosecution case.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think what happens is that the Prosecution informs

 9     you about the fact that the witness raised this issue during proofing and

10     whether the Prosecution has changed its mind on these matters, or whether

11     in view of new information they want to seek leave to amend the

12     indictment.  I've got no idea how they procedurally want to deal with

13     that, but I do understand that this is new information for you, and it

14     might cause you to say that we need to further investigate that.  And

15     then on that specific issue, we'll certainly consider that as in relation

16     to any other issue you would like to raise with us.

17             MR. JORDASH:  The other issues, Your Honours, thank you for the

18     indication, Your Honours I can raise the other issues as they arise with

19     the exhibits.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I am -- the usual cause is to have sessions of

23     75 minutes, which would allow us another 15 minutes at this moment.  Who

24     is going to examine the witness?

25             MR. GROOME:  Mr. Hoffmann is going to take the next witness,

Page 2758

 1     JF-005, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Protective measures in place being face

 3     distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym JF-005 may be brought into

 4     the courtroom once it is confirmed that all the protective measures are

 5     well in place.

 6             Madam Registrar.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, may I take it that since there was

 9     some communication with the -- especially with the Stanisic Defence that

10     you'll intelligently use that new knowledge and seek to avoid any

11     unnecessary problems?  If you know what the other party has as its

12     problems, you sometimes can anticipate rather than seek further

13     confrontation on those problems.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:  Absolutely, Your Honours I'm not seeking

15     confrontation.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  For example -- just to give an example, if there

17     would be lengthy argument about whether or not a certain photograph is

18     something the witness could say something about it, then you could argue

19     that for ten minutes, you also could see whether there are any other ways

20     of getting this photograph into evidence as a bar table document or as an

21     agreed picture of a situation.  I mean, there are many ways that lead to

22     Rome or to whatever other place you'd like to go to.

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Witness JF-005.  Can you hear me in

25     a language you understand?

Page 2759

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter cannot hear the witness.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The interpreter cannot hear you.  Is there any ...

 3     Yes, can you hear me in a language you understand?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter cannot hear the witness.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  There still seems to be a technical problem because

 6     the interpreters cannot hear the witness.  If you -- if you have one

 7     moment, we have a technical problem.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness say something, please?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please say a few words so that we can test

10     the system?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know, but I can

12     follow everything that's being said.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Now the interpreters receive what you say.

14             Witness JF-005, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules

15     of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that

16     you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17     The text is now handed out to you by madam usher, and I'd like to invite

18     you to make that solemn declaration.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

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

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated.  Witness JF-005, you

22     will first be examined by Mr. Hoffmann, who is on your right, and

23     Mr. Hoffmann is counsel for the Prosecution.  You may proceed,

24     Mr. Hoffmann.

25             MR. HOFFMANN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 2760

 1                           WITNESS:  WITNESS JF-005

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3                           Examination by Mr. Hoffmann:

 4        Q.   Witness, the court has ordered certain protective measures with

 5     respect to you and your evidence here today.  These include the use of a

 6     pseudonym and face and voice distortion.  Therefore, I will not refer you

 7     to you by name but instead by your pseudonym JF-005.

 8             MR. HOFFMANN:  And I would ask that we first see 65 ter 5205 on

 9     the screen which is the pseudonym sheet.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Not to be shown to the public.

11             MR. HOFFMANN:  Yes, Your Honour, thank you.

12        Q.   And, Witness, I ask you to look at the pseudonym sheet in front

13     of you and direct your attention to where it says witness name, can you

14     confirm that this is your name?

15        A.   Yes, this is my name.

16        Q.   And is that also your date of birth on this sheet?

17        A.   Yes, this is the correct date of birth, as well as my first and

18     last name.

19        Q.   And did you, in fact, sign this sheet yourself with your

20     pseudonym?

21        A.   Yes, I did.

22             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this

23     pseudonym sheet into evidence under seal.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.  Madam Registrar, that

25     would be.

Page 2761

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P136 under seal, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted as such under seal.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. HOFFMANN:

 4        Q.   Witness, do you recall giving a statement to investigators from

 5     this Tribunal?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7             MR. HOFFMANN:  I would ask that we please see 65 ter 5184 on the

 8     screen, not to be broadcast.  It's ERN 0350-1756 to 0350-1768.  This is a

 9     statement dated 24 and 25 January, 2004.

10        Q.   Witness, on the screen before you is a document purporting to be

11     a statement given by you on 24 and 25 January, 2004.  Do you recall

12     giving a statement on these days?

13        A.   I do.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:  And if we can please go to the bottom of that

15     page.

16        Q.   And if you would please look at the signature, if that's yours?

17     That should be on the English original statement.

18        A.   Yes, that's my signature.

19             MR. HOFFMANN:  And if we can please go to page 12 of this

20     document in the English version.

21             There seems to be a problem in finding the last page of the

22     statement with his signature.  Given that he has confirmed that he has

23     given a statement on the date and confirmed his signature on the -- oh,

24     there we go.

25        Q.   Looking at this page, Mr. Witness, can you identify your

Page 2762

 1     signature on this page as well?

 2        A.   Yes, it is my signature.

 3             MR. HOFFMANN:  Thank you.  Then I would ask that we can see 65

 4     ter 5185 on the screen.  It's ERN 0672-5345 to 0672-5355.  It's an

 5     additional ICTY witness statement taken in May 2008 and finalised on 3

 6     and 4 November 2009.

 7        Q.   Witness, on the screen before you, you see a document purporting

 8     to be a statement given by you in May 2008 and finalised in early

 9     November 2009.  Do you recall giving a statement on these days?

10        A.   I do recall.

11             MR. HOFFMANN:  And if we can please go to the bottom of the B/C/S

12     original.

13        Q.   And I'll ask you if you recognise your own signature on this

14     document?

15        A.   Yes, of course.

16             MR. HOFFMANN:  And finally, if we can go to the last page of the

17     B/C/S document, that is page 11.

18        Q.   With the same question, whether you recognise your signature?

19        A.   Yes, that's my signature.

20        Q.   Witness, did you have a chance to review both of these statements

21     in a language that you understand before coming to testify?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And did you have a chance to note some additional clarifications

24     and corrections prior to your testimony in writing?

25        A.   Yes, we did make some corrections and we provided explanations.

Page 2763

 1             MR. HOFFMANN:  I would ask that we now see 65 ter 5206 on the

 2     screen.  It is ERN 0673-4825 to 0673-4827.  It is a statement provided by

 3     this witness on 14 January 2010 in relation to the two prior statements.

 4        Q.   Witness, if you look at this document in front of you, does that

 5     table include all the corrections and clarifications you wanted to make

 6     to the 2004 and 2009 statement?

 7        A.   I cannot see the entire text.  I should see the whole text.  Yes,

 8     that is it.

 9             MR. HOFFMANN:  And if we can please go to page 3, that is the

10     last of this document.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is that document.  That's

12     the document.

13             MR. HOFFMANN:

14        Q.   Did you, in fact, review this document in your own language and

15     then sign it with your own pseudonym?

16        A.   Yes, I did.

17        Q.   And with these clarifications contained in this document, would

18     you say that your two statements are accurate and true?

19        A.   Yes, they are true, but they need to be supplemented somewhat.

20        Q.   If you were asked the same questions today as you were asked in

21     2004 and 2009 with those additions that we've just seen, would you give

22     the same answers in court today here?

23        A.   Yes, of course.

24             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, at this point in time, the

25     Prosecution would ask that both the 2004 and the 2009 statement of this

Page 2764

 1     witness are admitted into evidence, that is 65 ter 5184 and 5185.  In

 2     light of protective measures ordered by this Chamber, we ask that the

 3     statements be placed under seal.  The Prosecution has produced redacted

 4     versions of both of the statements that could be made public.  Those are

 5     marked in e-court as 65 ter 5184.1 and respectively 5185.1.  At the same

 6     time, the Prosecution tenders the additional statement of 14 January 2010

 7     as it is part of his statement, which would be 65 ter 5206.  The last

 8     document itself does not contain any details of the witness or any

 9     sensitive information, therefore there is no additional redacted version

10     of this document.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness JF-005, you earlier said that the -- you

12     said they are true but they need to be supplemented somewhat.  Did you

13     refer to the additions and -- you had already made or are there any other

14     matters in those statements which are not accurate?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was referring to the already made

16     ones.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then that being clear, any objections against

18     submissions in evidence of the two statements and the -- I briefly call

19     it the proofing note?

20             MR. JORDASH:  In relation to the proofing note, the Defence do

21     oppose the admission of that for the reasons that it contains the

22     additional evidence relating to Mice which we would argue is new and

23     should be excluded before that statement is exhibited.  I won't, in light

24     of Your Honours' ruling develop that argument unless Your Honours invite

25     me to at this stage, but Your Honours have my point.

Page 2765

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The Simatovic Defence?

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we subscribe to what

 3     has been said by Mr. Stanisic's Defence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will decide on the all three together

 5     after the break but since the body of evidence which is contained in the

 6     two statements is not in dispute, there's no reason not yet to start the

 7     examination of the witness on that.  But since we need a break anyhow at

 8     this moment, it might be that the matter has been resolved before the

 9     examination -- the further examination even starts.

10             We'll have a break and we'll resume at 5 minutes past 4.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 3.35 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:  The Chamber indicated before the break that it

15     would decide about the admission --

16                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour, you had indicated before the break

18     that you would decide about the admission of the statements, the three,

19     and I would ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Both the 2004 and the 2009 statement, as well as the

22     additional information sheet are admitted into evidence.

23     Madam Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P137, P138 under seal, and Exhibit P139,

25     Your Honours.

Page 2766

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The first two, let me just check now, the statements

 2     under seal and the additional information as a public document.

 3             Please, proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.

 4             MR. HOFFMANN:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Part of the filed 92

 5     motion were number of related or associated exhibits that are discussed

 6     in the 2009 statement which is now Exhibit P138, and I would ask that

 7     those be admitted into evidence before we continue with the

 8     examination-in-chief.  We have prepared an updated table of that annex

 9     indicating which of those exhibits in the meantime have already been

10     admitted so they need not be admitted again.  I can maybe with the court

11     usher's help hand over those but that would be just for ease of

12     reference, if that assists the Court.  And there are copies for the

13     Defence as well.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I think there were specific objections also against

15     photographs, is that -- and other attached documents.

16             MR. HOFFMANN:  In the -- if I recall, in the initial response of

17     the Stanisic Defence of the 92 ter application, there were, in fact,

18     objections to one of the exhibits being 65 ter 5169, it's a collection of

19     photographs, where in fact prior to the filing of their response three

20     days before that in court with the agreement of both Defence teams, that

21     exhibit was actually admitted into evidence.  It's on page 4 of this

22     updated annex.  It's listed as item 13 in the annex to the 92 ter motion.

23     This is already an Exhibit, P87.  So I would think that --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that seems at least to be an answer to that.

25     You are not seeking that we admit it anymore.  Then on the other

Page 2767

 1     documents, shall we go through them one by one to see whether there are

 2     any.  Number 1, photo of uniform badge worn.  Any objections?  No

 3     objections.  Then number 3, Doboj payment list, 65 ter 4839.  No

 4     objections.  Number 5, payment list special unit in Doboj, 65 ter 5011.

 5     Any objections?  6 on the list is already in evidence.  7, 65 ter 3842,

 6     KDF file of Slobodan Katanic.  Any objections?

 7             MR. JORDASH:  There are objections to that exhibit, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Let me just find that.  I beg your pardon, no

10     objection.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Next one, 65 ter 4594, KDF application of

12     Goran Djuric.  No objections.  Next one 65 ter 4485, KDF file of

13     Makric [phoen], Mladen.  I hear of no objections.  Next one 65 ter 4574,

14     KDF file of Todic, Miromir.  No objections.  Next one, 65 ter 4680, also

15     a KDF file of a different person.

16             MR. JORDASH:  There is an objection to this one.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and that objection?

18             MR. JORDASH:  The objection is, as I understand this witness's

19     position, there's --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, before you explain, can we deal with that in

21     open session?  Let me see.

22                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Can we deal with it in further detail in open

24     session or should we move into private?

25             MR. JORDASH:  I think it's fine in open session, Your Honour.

Page 2768

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  The objection is simple.  It's an objection to

 3     authenticity.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  The witness himself has expressed doubt as to the

 6     authenticity of this document, and you'll find that, Your Honours, at

 7     page 0672-5345, which is the composite statement from the 2nd and 3rd of

 8     May, and the 4th of November, in which the witness at paragraph 35 states

 9     that he doubts the authenticity for two reasons.  One, that --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Jordash is inaudible.  Could he please

11     speak into the microphone.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, you are invited to speak into the

13     microphone so that the interpreters can hear you.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I beg your pardon.  The witness doubts the

15     authenticity for two reasons:  One, that it refers to the corridor being

16     open between Doboj and Belgrade and at a time when it was not.  And,

17     secondarily, the exhibit mentions or purports to mention Mr. Frenki

18     Simatovic, and the witness again notes that it's highly unlikely such an

19     application would have mentioned him at that time, which is mid-May of

20     1992.  In light of those reasonable, we submit, questions as to

21     authenticity, we object.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it seems to be more contesting the truth of the

23     content rather than authenticity, which of course is not the same.

24             MR. JORDASH:  But it's -- the content are unreliable and as such

25     to -- and unreliable to such an extent that it suggests these

Page 2769

 1     documents -- this document isn't authentic.  That's the way we would put

 2     our objection.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And any formal challenges to the authenticity,

 4     I mean appearance or?  So apart from the content.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Apart from the content we would submit there's no

 6     indicia of authenticity.  There's nothing which will indicate that it was

 7     authentic.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow, may I

10     just add something to what Mr. Jordash has already said and in full

11     support of he has already said.  This document, as far as I can

12     understand, is a document that has to be filled out by the person

13     applying for financial aid, so there is no way, nor has it ever been

14     checked that someone has actually filled out this form in order to have

15     some gain.  When this was filled out and how, no one has ever checked

16     that as far as I can understand the documents after reviewing them.  And

17     as Mr. Jordash has already said, and noticed, there are obvious problems

18     with the document and the problems arise from the way that the document

19     was created, and it was created by someone just putting forth some facts

20     without this ever having been checked by anyone else.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann.

22             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour, I think, as you indicated, there are

23     separate issues.  One is the authenticity and we have provided both

24     Defence teams about the origin of those documents, of all those Captain

25     Dragan Fund files.  Those were handed over at the headquarter of the

Page 2770

 1     Captain Dragan Fund in Belgrade to investigators of the OTP so that's, I

 2     think, about the authenticity when they come from.  The matters raised by

 3     the Defence, I think, are matters that are going to the weight to be

 4     attached to such documents, and I want to note that, yes, the witness

 5     makes some comments about that document but if you carefully look at what

 6     he says, he does question one of -- one part of the document, which is

 7     the certificate which is attached to it.

 8             My understanding of the procedure is that in fact persons who

 9     served in any unit could apply for funds.  They would fill out the

10     initial form, which is basically always the same in those files, and then

11     that gets to the Captain Dragan Fund in Belgrade where they then attach

12     some certificates or some decision-making notes.  But again, I think

13     those are matters that are going to the weight of this exhibit rather

14     than the admissibility.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's move to the next one.  This one is --

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow me.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

18             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow, Your Honours, just

19     one additional note.  The document by just looking at it we can see that

20     there is nothing in it that actually confirms its authenticity.  No one

21     has ever checked that.  There is no stamp on it.  There is nothing

22     showing its authenticity.  We only see that it was filled out in

23     handwriting and that is all that can be concluded from that paper.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we have it briefly on our screen, the 65

25     ter 4680.

Page 2771

 1             MR. HOFFMANN:  If I may add, Your Honour, one thing.  If we could

 2     look maybe at the last page in the B/C/S document, which I think is page

 3     7, it does include also a passport copy of the applicant.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber already indicates this, that 65 ter 4680

 5     will be MFI'd, a number later to be assigned.  I move on to number 12 on

 6     this list, which is 65 ter 44.  Any objections?

 7             MR. PETROVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for

 8     interrupting, my client has just pointed out something in relation to

 9     this previous document.  The particulars in the identity card differ from

10     those entered in the form itself.  Namely, the father's name is

11     inconsistent.  I just note it myself at this moment.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's have a look at this to start with.  The

13     father's name being Jefto in the personal details, and you said that

14     differs from?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for counsel, please.

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] On page 7 of the B/C/S, where we

17     have the photostatic copy of the identity card, please.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's just look at it.  The word --

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Actually, the last name is

20     different, it seems.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The problem is I can't see what ...

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It is the first word, Your Honour,

23     that has created this confusion.  Namely, Lukavac actually obviously

24     refers to the municipality, not to the surname.  If that is so, I

25     apologise and I withdraw my objection.

Page 2772

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Because I see both Dusko as apparently the first

 2     name and Drobic as apparently the family name, father's name Jefto.  So

 3     therefore it seems to refer to the --

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct.  I apologise,

 5     Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, for the other reasons but not then for

 7     the last reason invoked, the Chamber will MFI that one.  We had moved to

 8     12, which is 65 ter 44.  I didn't hear of any objections earlier, neither

 9     do I now.  Next one is 65 ter 4479 -- Mr. Jordash.

10             MR. JORDASH:  May I request that the witness take off his

11     headphones, please.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's first establish whether he understand or

13     speak any English.

14             Do you speak any English, Witness JF-005, or do you understand

15     English?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand it.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Which --

18             MR. JORDASH:  Perhaps, I'll try to deal with it without reference

19     to, if that's --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If you can deal with it in the presence of the

21     witness.  Of course, I do not know what you are going to raise and

22     therefore leave it in your hands at this moment.

23             MR. JORDASH:  The objection is this, that this Exhibit 4479, or

24     proposed exhibit, is the result of a request from the Prosecution at the

25     ICTY, a series of inquiries was made by the Prosecution of the Republika

Page 2773

 1     Srpska MUP and the report is purportedly in answer to those inquiries.

 2             The inquiries, Your Honours, will find at page 3, questions such

 3     as who were the members of the Red Beret, how was the unit formed,

 4     et cetera.  And this document purports to be in answer to those specific

 5     questions.  It is an either, we submit, an expert report, or it is a

 6     statement which ought to have been submitted pursuant to Rule 66 and the

 7     normal rules of disclosure, and it wasn't.  And it is, in our submission,

 8     wrong to try to introduce such a report which is effectively an

 9     investigation at the behest of the Prosecution which, because it's

10     introduced in this form, is almost impossible to challenge.

11             We don't know --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, if I may cut you short.  You are

13     referring to Rule 66, it appears to me that the main problem might be in

14     rules 92 bis, 92 ter.

15             MR. JORDASH:  I meant to say.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's what you meant to say.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, you say this document was produced at

19     the request of this Tribunal and for purposes of the proceedings before

20     this Tribunal, and for that reason admission into evidence should be

21     under rules 92 bis, 92 ter, or under Rule 89, but not through this

22     witness.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Precisely, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann.

25             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour, I think in the first place again on

Page 2774

 1     just a quick note on the authenticity, I think there is no issue because

 2     this is --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  It has not been raised.  Authenticity has not been

 4     raised, was it?

 5             MR. HOFFMANN:  Ah, yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, let's only respond to what was

 7     raised.

 8             MR. HOFFMANN:  On the issue on how and to tender this document, I

 9     would like to note and submit that previously, I think it was actually

10     the last witness we heard before the break, the Defence itself introduced

11     the document which is also on the Prosecution list, that was Exhibit D10,

12     which was also an official document in response on some queries from this

13     Tribunal to the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the matter of Debeli

14     and others.  It did also include matters of intelligence surveys or

15     summaries, analysis as to the massacres at Djakina [phoen].  So from that

16     point of view I would submit that we have already set a precedent even by

17     the Defence.  At the same time, we are happy to tender this from the bar

18     table.  We could also foresee that we --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't it true that in view of the character of the

20     objections, that tendering it from the bar table would even be worse

21     because what Mr. Jordash actually is saying is that, this document

22     contains all kind of results of what was explored and investigated, and

23     that it's unfair to introduce such a document which was prepared for

24     Tribunal purposes without having an opportunity to cross-examine the

25     author of it.  That seems to me to be the objection.  And then to say,

Page 2775

 1     well, we can bar table it, is not a real solution to the problem is it?

 2             MR. HOFFMANN:  I was about to add that in the final instance, of

 3     course the Prosecution could also call the person who signed this report,

 4     if the Prosecution would be allowed to call additional witnesses.  That

 5     is obviously a possibility.  But again, I want to note that --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  This is blackmail, Mr. Hoffmann.  Well, I say it

 7     with a smile.  It's blackmail saying, well, of course we could call that

 8     witness, but then you would have to allow us to call additional witnesses

 9     instead of using the amount of time granted to you in the best way.  You

10     say, well, if you want more, then you should give us more time.  That's

11     not exactly, I'm saying don't take me too seriously when I say blackmail,

12     but you understand what I mean.

13             MR. HOFFMANN:  Certainly, Your Honour.  But I think it's

14     certainly our case that we have taken note of the decision to limit the

15     number of hours that we are allowed to, the number of witnesses, but

16     that's exactly why we try to stay within those parameters and try to

17     introduce some of the evidence through witnesses.  If that is not

18     possible, then at least we might at some point ask for through the

19     respective motion for additional time.

20             For the time being, I would not like to spend much more time on

21     discussing this exhibit.  If need be we'll just mark it for

22     identification if the Chamber has still some doubts about whether or not

23     this should be admitted this way.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, especially the argument on D10, Mr. Jordash,

25     any response to that?  D10 being a similar situation where the Defence

Page 2776

 1     considered it apparently not unfair, that's the argument raised.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.  Well, the crux of our objection is one

 3     of unfairness.  Unfairness arising from a lack of ability of being able

 4     to challenge.  D10, nobody challenged it so of course no unfairness

 5     arise.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You would say if there's no wish to

 7     cross-examine why complain about not being able to cross-examine.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Indeed.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, it's, I think, a bit the same as with

10     leading questions.  A lot of leading questions are put to witnesses, and

11     then to say if there's an objection against leading, well, but you have

12     put leading questions to witnesses as well.  It depends on whether

13     there's any specific interest at any moment to use the option to object

14     or not.  Apparently here, Mr. Jordash does whereas you did not in

15     relation to D10.  Yes.  This document will be MFI'd for the time being

16     anyhow.

17             I move on, 65 ter 5168.

18             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

20             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Simatovic's Defence has an

21     objection to the last three documents, but I would be happier if I could

22     voice those objections without the presence of the witness.  They are

23     different objections to these three last documents, of course.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand that.  I suggest that in order

25     to avoid that the witness moves in and out, that I'll give you an

Page 2777

 1     opportunity prior to the next break and that is unless these three last

 2     documents that is 65 ter 5168, 65 ter 5015, and 65 ter 4493, could you --

 3     I don't know to what extent you want to specifically deal with them, but

 4     could you postpone that until after the next break?

 5             MR. HOFFMANN:  Certainly, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Madam Registrar - you have an opportunity,

 7     Mr. Petrovic, to deal with the matter in the absence of the witness - I

 8     invite you to already assign provisionally numbers to the documents as we

 9     find them on the list, under number 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, although

10     that one will be MFI'd under that number.  12, 14, with the note that 14

11     will be MFI'd as well.  15, 16, and 17, all three for the time being to

12     be MFI'd.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the numbers are assigned as

14     Exhibit P141 through P153.  Exhibits P148, P150, P151, 152, and 153 will

15     remain marked for identification.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the others, that is, therefore, P141,

17     P142, P143, P144, P145, P146, P147 are admitted into evidence.

18                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  P148 marked for identification.  P149 admitted into

20     evidence.  P150, P151, P152, and P153 marked for identification under

21     those numbers.

22             Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.

23             MR. HOFFMANN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24        Q.   Witness, in your evidence, you describe how you attended training

25     at Mount Ozren with the Red Berets in spring 1992.  Can you describe to

Page 2778

 1     the Court in a few words how you got recruited to the Red Berets at that

 2     time?

 3        A.   First of all, we did not know they were Red Berets, and we were

 4     recruited by the local political parties such as the SDS was.

 5        Q.   At that time were you told who or which unit did provide the

 6     training?

 7        A.   We did not know at that time.  We only later got this information

 8     after entering Doboj.

 9        Q.   And could you tell the Court what you -- later on when you

10     entered Doboj, around that time, what you learned about the unit and who

11     provided the training?

12        A.   During the training we did not know who was providing the

13     training.  When we entered Doboj, people were telling, and later we

14     actually learned, that the course was being provided by the state

15     security service.  What we were only told at the time was that we were a

16     special -- that they were a special unit.

17        Q.   Just for the record, if you refer to the state security service,

18     of which country do you refer to?

19        A.   At that time one could say that they were from Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina, but as the people who were providing the training were from

21     Serbia, one could say that they were from the Serbian state security

22     service.  In fact, I'm certain of that.

23        Q.   Can you tell the Court who personally was in charge of the actual

24     training on Mount Ozren?

25        A.   Radojica Bozovic was the founder.  Riki, Vuk, and Njegos

Page 2779

 1     were the instructors.

 2        Q.   Can you tell the Court where Bozovic was from originally?

 3        A.   According to the information that we had, he hailed from

 4     Montenegro.

 5        Q.   Would you be able to indicate on a map where the camp on

 6     Mount Ozren was actually located?

 7        A.   Yes, I am able to show you where the training camp was.

 8             MR. HOFFMANN:  I would ask that we see Exhibit P80 on the screen.

 9     That is actually map 30 from the court binder.

10        Q.   Witness, do you see Doboj in the middle of that map?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   And from there do you find the place you say the Red Berets had

13     had a camp at in spring 1992?

14        A.   Yes, I can see that too.

15             MR. HOFFMANN:  Could I ask the court usher, please, to assist the

16     witness with a pen to mark the map.

17        Q.   Witness, I would ask you to mark the location of the camp with a

18     red cross and then sign the map at the bottom with your pseudonym and

19     today's date, please.

20        A.   [Marks]

21             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, I would tender this Exhibit P80 as

22     marked by this witness indicating the location of the Red Beret camp on

23     Mount Ozren in 1992 into evidence.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?  No objections.  Madam Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P154, Your Honours.

Page 2780

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P154 is admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. HOFFMANN:  And if I may just for the record, so that it's

 3     clear on the record, the witness put a red cross just north of the

 4     monastery on Mount Ozren close to Bosansko Petrovo Selo which is

 5     south-east of Doboj.

 6             I would then ask that we have the next exhibit, 65 ter --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  For one reason or the other the map is still on our

 8     screen although the marking has disappeared, I don't know whether this

 9     has any effect on -- has no fact on the evidence.  Please proceed.

10             MR. HOFFMANN:  If I could then have 65 ter 31 which is now

11     Exhibit P141 on the screen.

12        Q.   Witness, in your 2009 statement, Exhibit P138, at paragraph 6,

13     you refer to a patch that was used by your unit in Doboj 1992.  Is the

14     patch that we see on the screen now the one that you were, in fact, using

15     in Doboj at the times in 1992?

16        A.   Yes, it is one of them.

17        Q.   Were there other patches or insignias at the time that you did

18     use?

19        A.   No, this was the emblem that we used most of the time.

20        Q.   In your 2009 statement, and again that's P138, you refer to a

21     visit of Franko Simatovic to the training camp at Mount Ozren.  When you

22     mention Frenki Simatovic in your statement, are you in fact referring to

23     one of the accused in this case?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And apart from the one visit of Frenki that you witnessed

Page 2781

 1     yourself, were there other visits of Frenki Simatovic to Mount Ozren in

 2     1992?

 3        A.   Not that I know of.  There may have been.

 4        Q.   Have you heard of any such visits?

 5        A.   Yes, I did hear something.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to raise an

 8     objection, but I really cannot do it in the presence of the witness, and

 9     it has do with notifying what the Defences here find out about what the

10     witness statement will be.  The entire procedure, the investigation,

11     everything actually becomes irrelevant because things happen only once we

12     enter this court.  Actually, I have to elaborate on this to explain what

13     I'm saying because there are some things that I hear for the first time

14     and I have talked to him.  On previous occasions, it is impossible that

15     he hasn't been asked these questions before.

16             If you will allow me, I wish to say a few words in this

17     connection.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  It is not "I have

20     talked to him," but "he has been talked to on many previous occasions."

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness JF-005, we have a few matters now which the

22     parties would like to discuss in your absence.  Although initially I had

23     on my mind to do it just before the break, the list is growing.

24     Therefore, could you please follow the usher so that we can hear what the

25     parties want to bring to our attention.  And would you remain on standby.

Page 2782

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, let's deal with everything at the

 3     time.  You wanted to make submissions in relation to the last three

 4     exhibits and now apparently in respect of the line of questioning.  Could

 5     we first hear from you further details of the objections again 65 ter

 6     5168, 5015, and 4493.

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  As far

 8     as the first document is concerned, 5168, this document which has been

 9     tendered is a document where a number of vehicles are mentioned that have

10     been stolen by some individuals.  There are several vehicles mentioned

11     there.  I don't know exactly how many, three, four, or five, but in any

12     case not a large number of them.  In paragraph 40 of the statement, the

13     witness, and I'm referring to the statement of 2009, the witness mentions

14     2.000 vehicles, Volkswagon Golf II vehicles.  I cannot understand what

15     the connection and I cannot in any way reconcile these vehicles to 2.000

16     vehicles and this document that is being mentioned here.  I simply do not

17     see that this is the way to actually tender this document into evidence.

18     Perhaps there is another way that it can be done through this witness.

19             Then further on he says that I believe that this document is

20     authentic and that it is consistent with what I know about the events,

21     but in paragraph 40 he mentions 2.000 vehicle, whereas in this

22     vehicle [as interpreted] you can see that only a few vehicles are

23     mentioned.  So I cannot reconcile these two.  I don't see that this is

24     the way to do it, but of course, the Prosecution has other options and

25     other ways through which he may tender this document into evidence if

Page 2783

 1     they feel that it is relevant and of probative value.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me be short.  If someone says that 2.000 cars

 3     were taken, does that mean that they were all taken at the same time and

 4     dealt with in one report, or could it be that this report supports this

 5     testimony when giving at least one example of the report on stolen

 6     vehicles?  And more important, is this a matter going to weight or is

 7     there any admissibility issue involved?  Could you please start with the

 8     last one.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] As far as I see it, this is not

10     admissible through this witness, because the testimony of this witness

11     about his own personal knowledge and what we see here are inconsistent.

12     So it is -- perhaps I'm mistaken, but I feel that this is not the way to

13     do it.  They can either do it from the bar table or through some other

14     witness, but not through this witness.  That is the gist of my objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Where is the inconsistency?

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I understood this

17     correctly, they said that they had taken 2.000 Golf II vehicles.  This is

18     what is stated in paragraph 40 in the statement of 2009.  Whereas in

19     document 5168, totally different vehicles are referred to and there are

20     only a few vehicles, just a few vehicles and not all of them being Golf

21     vehicles, but different vehicles.  I can't recall all of them right now.

22     I remember there was mention made of a Mitsubishi or some other vehicles.

23     I can't say for sure.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have the document on our screen for a

25     second, that is 65 ter 5168.

Page 2784

 1             MR. HOFFMANN:  I would suggest that we go to the second page.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's be very practical.  First of all, I do not see

 3     an inconsistency if I say that 2.000 vehicles were stolen, that if we

 4     find a report in which it is reported that some vehicles including

 5     vehicles of that make were stolen, that that's inconsistent.  It may be

 6     examples, and that's really a matter of evaluation and weight of the

 7     evidence rather than admissibility.  Apart from that since you said,

 8     well, it can be tendered from the bar table, the objection seems to be an

 9     optical one.

10             65 ter 5015, Mr. Petrovic, what's the objection?  And could we

11     have it on the screen.

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a document,

13     you will see it in a moment, which to me it seems completely unclear as

14     to the source of this document.  Whether this is a telegram, who it is

15     being sent to, when it was sent, and what points to its authenticity.  So

16     none of these things are clear to me.  It would appear to have been

17     retyped, and I have to say that I'm completely confused when I look at

18     this document.  I simply don't understand any of it.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann.

20             MR. JORDASH:  May I, sorry to interrupt, may I add my endorsement

21     of that objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That's yes, although, you didn't reserve your

23     position at the time, but we have to decide on the objection anyhow, so

24     therefore it's now a Stanisic objection as well.

25             Mr. Hoffmann.

Page 2785

 1             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour, this document was seized in

 2     Banja Luka in February 1998 at the Ministry of Interior of the RS, the

 3     Republika Srpska.  As it stands these are two entries, log entries, of 3

 4     July 1992 at the relevant time.  They do mention Bozovic, they do mention

 5     his cooperation with the RS MUP, and when this was put to the witness, he

 6     made his comments that he made in the 2009 statement.  How much weight at

 7     the end to be put to it is one question, but it's certainly, in our view,

 8     authentic.  It's part of the witness evidence already in that that he

 9     makes comments on it, comments that we are not able to make because we

10     are not familiar with the circumstances, but the witness was.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you take us exactly to that part of his

12     statement.  You said the 2009 statement.

13             MR. HOFFMANN:  It's P13 --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Paragraph?

15             MR. HOFFMANN:  -- 8.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Which paragraph?

17             MR. HOFFMANN:  Paragraph 41.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  41.

19             MR. HOFFMANN:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Looking at another document it seems that both notes

21     are in relation to the above-mentioned illegal removal of cars from the

22     area, and it shows the cooperation between Bozovic and the RS MUP.

23     That's all he says about it.

24             MR. HOFFMANN:  Yes, Your Honour.  I'm not making a big point

25     about this one document, but it flows from the previous document in that

Page 2786

 1     in our view, and I think we are now almost in the final arguments here,

 2     whether or not that will help the Prosecution case, but it does

 3     corroborate the witness evidence where he says that the Red Berets were

 4     in the area and that they were looting and that they were taking cars

 5     away from that area to Serbia.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The problem is whether this could have been a

 7     document, you say it's part of a log.  I've seen a lot of log-books in my

 8     life, but they usually are in some kind of a format.  These apparently

 9     are two isolated entries in a log of which we have not even seen the

10     title page.  I don't know what the log is.  Could the witness explain

11     that, do you think?

12             MR. HOFFMANN:  I would not expect that he would be familiar with

13     the actual log because he didn't put that log together or has not seen

14     it, as is I my understanding.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then all his answers are not answers to the

16     authenticity of this document, were they?

17             MR. HOFFMANN:  No, on the authenticity, I refer to where the OTP

18     got this document from.  This information was provided to both Defence

19     teams and it was my understanding from the latest e-mail exchange that on

20     the authenticity of these documents there were no further issues.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. HOFFMANN:  But maybe I misunderstood.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, therefore, if you ask me to look at this

24     document to say what is this, well, this is about 120 vehicle, I could

25     answer a question as well, and it's relevant 3rd of July, so I would be a

Page 2787

 1     perfect witness for you, would I?  I mean, let's try -- the witness says

 2     that -- apparently that vehicles were stolen.  Now, you have provided us

 3     with a report in which theft of cars is reported.  What we now see is a

 4     document, you say it comes from a log.  A log of what?  It has dates on

 5     it and says that a convoy of 120 vehicles has passed in your direction,

 6     and now the witness can tell us not knowing what the log is, not having

 7     ever seen it before, that this indicates or that this supports, it's

 8     difficult to understand.

 9             MR. HOFFMANN:  To cut it short, Your Honours, I will not insist

10     on this particular document in the interest of time for the time being.

11     If it be marked for identification, we may come back to it at some point,

12     but I don't think that we have to spend more time on this, if I may.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps it should have been given more thought in

14     advance.

15             Next one, Mr. Petrovic.  65 ter 4493.  Perhaps we could have it

16     on the screen.

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document was

18     produced by actually printing it off of a website.  The website's name is

19  So as you will see in a moment, the contents of this

20     document is in fact a picture, someone's picture of a snap-shot and

21     history of this case as seen by an individual who then put it all in this

22     document.  Who was the father of the unit, who was the commander, who was

23     not the commander, and so on and so forth.  So in other words, this is a

24     web site print out.  I don't know who is behind this web site name,

25 and it's probably relevant, but what is especially

Page 2788

 1     important is that the witness says in paragraph 44 of his statement, his

 2     2009 statement, he mentions there the name of an individual who knows

 3     something about this site.  But what gives rise to concern according to

 4     me is that in his view, the history of the unit is truthfully and

 5     correctly presented on this web site page, but on the page we can see a

 6     whole series of -- a lot of information that has nothing to do with his

 7     statement.  But by accepting the content of this website, he in a way

 8     supports the -- his own claims by saying that they are truthful and

 9     correct, that the history of the unit is truthfully and correctly and

10     accurately presented in this site.  So it is not from his own experience.

11     And perhaps the author of this website could be called in as a witness,

12     but not this witness.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You say you do not know who is behind this web site,

14     the statement of the witness tells us that he knows.  So therefore to say

15     that you do not know -- of course we could examine him, and you could

16     cross-examine him on the basis of his knowledge, whether he -- this was

17     told to him by (redacted) but that's

18     not an admissibility or an authenticity issue.  Apparently, that's what

19     the witness tells us, is that this was published on the internet and that

20     he knows the person who published it and what his position was in

21     relation to the Red Berets.  All matters to be further explored, but not

22     a matter which is affecting the authenticity.  You may say that it should

23     not be believed what this person says.  That's a matter of weight and

24     matter of evaluation of the evidence.  But since the witness apparently

25     has some knowledge about the person who is behind it, it seems that

Page 2789

 1     authenticity is not a primary issue here, but he can be examined on it.

 2             Any further comments in this respect?

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my main concern is

 4     this, the entire history as perceived by someone else, he accepts

 5     claiming that it is true and accurate and that, in fact, is completely

 6     outside of his own knowledge and his own testimonies.  We will see that

 7     there's also a lot of talk on this website about Croatia and other

 8     locations which are not part of his testimony.  How can he claim that

 9     something is true and accurate if it is not -- if it is not something

10     that is his knowledge, so that is all that I would have to say.  I will

11     not waste any more of your time.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

13             MR. JORDASH:  May I just add a sentence or two in support and

14     really all I would submit is that the exact phrasing of the statement is

15     that the website is run by this particular gentleman.  It appears as if

16     the question reasonably must have been asked does this witness know who

17     wrote that particular statement, and the question must have been answered

18     that he did not.  All he knew was that the website was run by a

19     particular gentleman.  So in my submission, it does go to authenticity,

20     because the question and answer is staring us in the face that this

21     witness doesn't know who is the author of the statement.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Not to say that when further exploring the

23     statement, the evidence of this witness that an authenticity might not

24     arise.  It's well possible that if he says, well -- if he says I was

25     sitting next to him when he created the website, then the authenticity

Page 2790

 1     issue seems not to be prominently there.  However, there may be other

 2     circumstances in which the matter may arise.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  I suppose my objection is really that the

 4     Prosecution have failed to provide us with the material which would allow

 5     us to make a judgement.  If they'd asked the question, then it should be

 6     in the statement.  If they didn't ask the question, then we've in any

 7     event been denied the information.  I won't press the point, Your Honour.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Number 16 on the list, which is 65 ter 5015, is not

10     admitted into evidence.  And, Madam Registrar, the number given to it

11     was?

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P152, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It is, therefore, now to be marked as not admitted.

14     65 ter 5168, 65 ter 4493, which had received I think P151 and P153 are

15     admitted into evidence, and the rest remains as it was.

16             Mr. Petrovic, you also wanted to object against the line of

17     questioning, let me just find again.

18             MR. HOFFMANN:  In the meantime, if I may, Your Honour, there was

19     one mentioning of the name of the person allegedly operating this

20     website.  I know that this witness asked us for the redacted version of

21     his statement, that the name be redacted, and I would ask that we also

22     redact the name from this proceedings --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's always better to first ask to go into

24     private session before you make this kind of observations.

25             Madam Registrar, the name was mentioned several times, could you

Page 2791

 1     make the appropriate redactions.

 2             Mr. Petrovic, the line of questioning was challenged, let me find

 3     it --

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to try and explain this.

 7     My objection does not refer so much to the line of questioning of my

 8     learned colleague.  It is -- has to do with how the Defence team has been

 9     informed and notified of what the substance of the examination of a

10     witness will be.  All these statements that have been exhibited today

11     were taken in order to be used against these two accused, Mr. Stanisic

12     and Mr. Simatovic.  The first statement from 2004 -- the first assumption

13     is that our colleagues, the Prosecution as conscientious and serious

14     people, have asked this witness, have you, witness, seen Mr. Simatovic,

15     that is only to be expected and I'm quite certain that my colleagues have

16     asked this question also in 2004.  In 2004 there is no reply to this

17     question.  The witness does mention Mr. Simatovic.  He says that somebody

18     mentioned him, referred to his name --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please, if you are referring to statements, always

20     give us the page and paragraph number so that we are able to follow

21     exactly what your references are.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I will do that.

23     Your Honour, the 2004 statement, paragraph 18.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please slow down for the benefit

25     of one and all.

Page 2792

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In 2009 paragraph 12, after five

 2     years in other words --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the 2009

 5     statement, paragraph 12, five years later this story appears.  It says, I

 6     saw him personally once and that he came to the camp on Mount Ozren.

 7     That is in paragraph 12.  He was interviewed in 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, a

 8     couple of days ago, in fact, and today the witness said that he had heard

 9     about some other visits as well.  That is page 44 and 45 today.  And to a

10     quite leading question in fact.  He knew of this one visit and then today

11     he said yes, I did hear something, meaning about some other visits as

12     well.

13             As we are in a difficult situation as it is, but how can we

14     proceed under these circumstances when first from a state of there have

15     been no visits by Simatovic, now we have come to a state of multiple

16     visits by Simatovic.  So we have not been notify of what the testimony

17     will be.  I'm quite certain that colleague Hoffmann has asked him about

18     this and has put down, has jotted down what he asked him about today, and

19     these things are actually putting us in this state of quandary now.

20     Thank you, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, Mr. Petrovic -- Mr. Hoffmann, to try

22     to make matters simple, what actually Mr. Petrovic is saying is that the

23     statements are to some extent inconsistent, and that when you put

24     questions to the witness that the inconsistency even grows because there

25     comes more.  Now, apart from whether this would not give a brilliant

Page 2793

 1     opportunity to Mr. Petrovic for cross-examination, of course the first

 2     question is whether you would disagree that there is some inconsistency

 3     and that it may be a bit difficult if the statements would be

 4     inconsistent in a certain respect, that you could have them admitted both

 5     under Rule 92 ter that is attested as to the truth.

 6             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour, I try to be very brief.  In the first

 7     instance, in the 2004 statement, that is Exhibit P137 at paragraph 18, it

 8     did read:

 9             "Rajo Bozovic told us that the chief would come, and I suppose it

10     was Frenki Simatovic who was the commander of the special units of the

11     Serb NDP."

12             Now, obviously this is not particularly clear which is why when I

13     met the witness I did ask him about it.  The initial meeting we had was

14     in 2008.  A draft statement was taken because of the timing and that was

15     all explained in the various litigations on the issue of when and how to

16     add this witness to the witness list.  I have taken a draft statement and

17     submitted that to the Defence teams in 2008 as a matter of notice,

18     although the witness at the time did not have a chance to review it.

19             In this draft 2008 statement, just as in the final 2009 statement

20     which is now Exhibit P138, he especially refers to paragraph 18 of the

21     old statement and then clarifies that he had seen him once.  And, in

22     fact, to add that in the 2008 draft statement, it also included the

23     sentence that he did hear of other visits of Frenki Simatovic to

24     Mount Ozren.

25             Due to an interpretation mistake, this one sentence was left out

Page 2794

 1     when it was translated into B/C/S which was then used during the final

 2     interview.  In any event, the Defence since the early days had notice of

 3     it and since 2008 had notice that he also talked about that he heard

 4     about other visits.  For me, it's clearly a matter of cross-examination I

 5     really wonder how much more time you want to spend on possible ways of

 6     cross-examination rather than to expect them to do their job during

 7     cross-examination.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, there's no need to assist me in conducting

 9     this trial and giving suggestions as to what I should say to the other

10     parties.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The explanation given leads the Chamber to decide

13     that the objection against -- well, it's not clear against what exactly

14     the line of questioning or the way in which the Prosecution proceeds is

15     denied.

16             We will have a break, but before doing so --

17             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honour --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Hoffmann?

19             MR. HOFFMANN:  Just one procedural matter, if I may, quickly

20     raise.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. HOFFMANN:  It wasn't clear to me if, for the statements,

23     already the redacted versions were already admitted as well or if that is

24     to be decided later, but?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I -- again, I must say after quite a long

Page 2795

 1     recess, I have to check again with the Registrar how we dealt with the

 2     redacted statements, whether they were just to be filed or whether they

 3     had to be admitted into evidence.  Just it's not clear on my mind

 4     anymore.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, if I may just add because Mr. Hoffmann

 6     isn't aware of this, but the press people downstairs have made a

 7     complaint to our press office saying they are finding it impossible to

 8     follow what's happening today without a redacted copy of the statement,

 9     so it's really conveying their request and their frustration at being at

10     a loss as to what's happening.  So if the Chamber were able to decide

11     over the break about whether redacted versions could be tendered, I think

12     they would greatly appreciate that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and my concern is that we have the same

14     evidence twice there, one apparently not for the purposes of this

15     proceedings but for the outside world, and I wonder whether there are any

16     other ways to resolve that problem.  I'll further briefly discuss the

17     matter.  There is -- there may be other ways of achieving the same goal.

18             I also would like to urge the parties to be -- to show some

19     self-restraint in objections.  For example, to say that the names are

20     different, then we look at it and they turn out not to be different, I

21     think that this should have been verified by that counsel before raising

22     the matter.  The argument in relation to procedural matters, and I give

23     another example, having long arguments on a document and then to say

24     well, we would not oppose against admission as a bar table document, of

25     course could have been shortened quite a bit by saying, although we find

Page 2796

 1     it inappropriate that this is introduced through this witness, we

 2     nevertheless do not object against admission, although a bar table

 3     submission would have to be preferred.  That's three lines instead of two

 4     pages.

 5             The Chamber is primarily focusing on hearing evidence in this

 6     case and seeks a fair balance between procedural matters necessarily and

 7     appropriately be raised and spending its time on hearing the evidence.

 8             We will have a break and we'll resume at 5 minutes to 6.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, are you ready to continue?

13             MR. HOFFMANN:  Yes, Your Honour.

14        Q.   Witness, if I may refer you to your 2009 statement which is

15     Exhibit P138.  In paragraph 31 you stated that in May 1997 you have been

16     present at a ceremony in Kula in Serbia.  Do you recall that?

17        A.   Yes, I do recall that.

18        Q.   Can you explain the Chamber what the Kula camp was?

19        A.   It -- it wasn't a camp, it was sort of a command of the special

20     operations unit.

21        Q.   Can you give us the official title of the unit at the time in

22     May 1997?

23        A.   The special operations unit, or the unit for special operations.

24        Q.   And the correct abbreviation for that would be JSO; is that

25     correct?

Page 2797

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And to what organ or official body, if any, did this unit belong

 3     to.

 4        A.   It belonged to the state security department, the state security

 5     as we referred to it.  The state security service, as we referred to it.

 6             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, I will now play a couple of clips

 7     from a video that has previously been admitted as Prosecution

 8     Exhibit P61.  I want to note just for the clarity that we can see on the

 9     clips that we will play a time code that is actually on the screen which

10     at times differs about 1 second from the time code that is seen on the

11     Sanctioned file.  Whenever I do refer to the time codes in the next

12     questions, I do refer to the time code as it is shown on the video

13     itself, in white font.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Has the transcript been provided to the booth?

15             MR. HOFFMANN:  We did provide the transcripts to the booth.  I

16     see them nodding.  We have marked the individual clips by numbers, and we

17     will start the first clip at 1 minute 14 and stop again at 1.20.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "How are you?

20             "Good, am I one of them?

21             "Certainly not one of the veterans, excuse me, veterans."

22             MR. HOFFMANN:

23        Q.   Witness, do you recognise either of the two men that we can see

24     in this frame at 1 minute 20?

25        A.   I do, I recognise the first person.

Page 2798

 1        Q.   Can you tell the Court who that is?

 2        A.   The first person is Radojica Bozovic.

 3        Q.   Again, just for the record, you refer to the right person on this

 4     shot?

 5        A.   The first person on the right-hand side.

 6        Q.   Is that the same Rajo Bozovic whom you mention in your statement

 7     as being the leader of the Red Beret unit you served in Doboj?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   We will continue until 1 minute 25 seconds.

10                           [Video-clip played]

11             MR. HOFFMANN:

12        Q.   Witness, again there are two men in this shot, one with glasses,

13     do you recognise either of these men in the frame at 1 minute 25?

14        A.   Dragan Opacic.

15        Q.   Which one of the two is he?

16        A.   The one on the right-hand side.

17        Q.   We will then play a second clip which starts at 5 minutes 50 of

18     the original tape and pause again at 6 minutes 36.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Mr. President:  Special operations

21     unit of the state security service of the Republic of Serbia is ready for

22     inspection.  Unit commander Colonel Milorad Lukovic reporting.

23             "Hello Lukovic."

24             MR. HOFFMANN:

25        Q.   Witness, you see three persons in this shot at 6 minutes 36.  Do

Page 2799

 1     you recognise the three men on this screen shot?

 2        A.   I do not.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Oh, sorry.  Interpreter's correction:  "Yes, I

 4     do."

 5             MR. HOFFMANN:

 6        Q.   Can you tell the names of the three persons starting from the

 7     left side?

 8        A.   The first person on the left is Jovica Stanisic.  Next to him is

 9     Slobodan Milosevic, and behind them you can see Milorad Ulemek.

10             MR. HOFFMANN:  We then play a third clip, we continue at 12

11     minutes of the original tape and pause again at 12 minutes 20 seconds.

12                           [Video-clip played]

13             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Go ahead.

14             "Mr. President, allow me to -- how it -- where it originated and

15     what it means now ... at ease."

16             MR. HOFFMANN:

17        Q.   Witness, just for the record, you see one person on this screen

18     at 12 minutes 20 seconds, who is that?

19        A.   Franko Simatovic.

20             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, we will play now a longer clip which

21     runs until 19 minutes 29.  It shows the accused, Franko Simatovic, giving

22     a speech in Kula.  Once this has been played, I will address certain

23     questions with this witness.  This is still part of what is marked for

24     the booth as clip 3.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 2800

 1             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Mr. President, we thank you for

 2     accepting the invitation to attend the ceremony marking the anniversary

 3     of the formation of the special operations unit of the state security

 4     service.  It was constituted on the 4th of May, 1991, at the time of the

 5     break-up of the former Yugoslavia and since it emerged has constantly

 6     worked to protect national security in circumstances where the existence

 7     of the Serbian people was directly jeopardised throughout its entire

 8     ethnic area.  Its combat operations were anti-terrorist, directed at

 9     preventing war crimes, mass retaliation, and genocide.

10             "From the first moment of its existence and establishment, the

11     unit has passed through a heroic epic, and its path has been one of the

12     most difficult ones in the history of the struggle.  Due to the

13     international circumstances familiar to us all, we were forced to operate

14     in a complete secrecy.  And despite wartime conditions:  Fighting with

15     Croatian and Muslim troops, the presence of numerous United Nations

16     international forces - later IFOR and SFOR - and numerous instruments of

17     foreign intelligence services in the field where the unit is not.  The

18     contribution of the special operations unit is enormous.  Forty-seven

19     soldiers were killed and 250 wounded in combat operations at 50 different

20     locations.

21             "We are proud of the unit's level of professional training, which

22     meets the highest international standards, and the unit has never

23     experienced defeat.  One of its most recent successes was its engagement

24     in the freeing of 400 UNPROFOR hostages in Republika Srpska, which met

25     with a very positive response in the international community and made our

Page 2801

 1     country's position stronger.  One of the units's most successful actions

 2     in our territory was the capturing of the national guard corps terrorist

 3     group caught in the Apatin area in 1993.

 4             "Mr. President, allow us to inform you briefly about the unit's

 5     history, its combat record, present situation, and function.  When it was

 6     formed, its core was made up of members of our service, Republic of

 7     Serbian Krajina police, and volunteers from Serbia.  The second war

 8     service intelligence administration, which was also set up at the time,

 9     included a special team for offensive and logistical support of the

10     special operations unit.

11             "From the 12 October 1991, in battles with armed Croatian police

12     forces in the zones of Benkovac, Stari Gospic, Plitvice, Glina,

13     Kostajnica, and others, the unit provided important support in the

14     liberation of all areas of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.  Around 5.000

15     soldiers were engaged in these battles and their actions were

16     co-ordinated by the unit command and an intelligence team from the second

17     administration.

18             "In May 1991, an air helicopter squadron was formed which

19     transported tonnes of special shipments, equipment, troops, and machinery

20     from the improvised airfields of Medeno Polje, Petrovac, Velika Popina,

21     SRB, and Udbina, and carried out numerous complex tasks while war

22     operations were ongoing.

23             "In September 1991, a part of the unit was transferred to Serbia,

24     where it's reconstruction was conducted and high quality professional

25     training organised.  These two units were involved in operations in

Page 2802

 1     Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.  Twenty-six training camps

 2     were for Special Police units of Republika Srpska and the Republic of

 3     Serbian Krajina were also formed in that period.  In the Republic of

 4     Serbian Krajina in Golubic, Dinara, Obrovac, Gracac, Plitvice, Sumarice,

 5     Petrova Gora, Licki Osik, Benkovac, Lezimir, Ilok, and Vukovar and in RSK

 6     in Banja Luka, Doboj, Samac, Brcko, Bijeljina, Trebinje, Visegrad, Ozren,

 7     and Mrkonjic Grad.

 8             "Units of Serbian were involved in six large joint operations in

 9     Eastern Slavonia, the corridor at Brcko in the Drina, Sarajevo, and

10     Maglaj operations.  In Western Bosnia, the unit was the backbone of

11     Fikret Abdic's army with around 15.000 soldiers who freed most of Cazin

12     Krajina.

13             "Also in 1992, they began building and securing a network of

14     small air fields in Bosnia-Herzegovina and also forming a combat

15     squadron.  Around a thousand combat, reconnaissance, transport, and

16     humanitarian flights were made from the airfields in Bratunac, Skelani,

17     Sokolac, Rogatica and others.  In mid-spring of last year, it retreated

18     from these parts with complete equipment and machinery, helicopters, and

19     aircraft.  Throughout that period, its operation remained undetected,

20     despite NATO's sophisticated equipment and intensive investigation by a

21     number of foreign intelligence services.  The unit's humanitarian

22     activities throughout the entire period are also substantial.

23             "One of them was the promotion of Captain Dragan's Fund, which

24     employs 150 wounded persons and cares for over 2.500 children of soldiers

25     killed, and also mediates in the employment of around 6.000 socially

Page 2803

 1     deprived persons, for the most part.  After the end of war, in the area

 2     of the former Yugoslavia, the special operations unit was demobilised and

 3     its numerical strength was, of course, adapted to present conditions and

 4     obligations.  With a new organisation, which began effective in the

 5     service as of May of last 36 years, the unit was reduced to 593 members

 6     which operates at 75 per cent of strength.  The current reserve force is

 7     of company strength, made up of former soldiers who are trained to

 8     maintain a constantly high level of combat readiness.  Part of the

 9     special operations unit organisation are units to battalions, companies,

10     and platoons, and also a helicopter squadron.  In addition, tactical

11     services providing logistical, medical, intelligence, and

12     counter-intelligence support are also part of the unit.

13             "The centre in which we are now bears the name of

14     Radoslav Kostic, a distinguished member of this unit who was killed three

15     years ago in Western -- the service took over this building in February

16     1995 in a very damaged condition, and prior to that, from 1999, it had

17     served as a refugee reception centre.

18             "You will have the opportunity to see that we have managed to

19     build a modern centre with training grounds, a firing range, a heliport,

20     dispensary, hangars, and other facilities.  Due to functional needs, we

21     have planned the construction of a number of tactical facilities, and

22     some of them have already been put into operation.

23             "Mr. President, the special operations unit is in the stage of

24     being trained for operations against terrorism and other forms of

25     jeopardising the country's security.  It represents an important

Page 2804

 1     contribution to the elimination of all potential threats to the national

 2     and state security of Serbia, which is mobile and professionally capable

 3     of acting quickly and efficiently in any part of the country or abroad.

 4     Thank you.

 5             "Would you like to have a look?"

 6             MR. HOFFMANN:

 7        Q.   Witness, Frenki Simatovic has given the date of the founding of

 8     the unit as 4 May 1991.  Do you have any comment on that particular date

 9     given by the accused Frenki Simatovic?

10        A.   According to what I know, I believe that at that time the camps

11     began to be established and the training started, but what other members

12     told me in casual conversation was that it had been established much

13     earlier, perhaps that was correct.

14        Q.   In his speech, and that would be at page 9 of the English

15     transcript, we can find the following quote from the accused Frenki

16     Simatovic:

17             "And since it emerged has constantly worked to protect national

18     security in circumstances where the existence of the Serbian people was

19     directly jeopardised throughout its entire ethnic area."

20             Witness, what does that term mean to you?

21        A.   To me, it means that in a city or in a region where there are the

22     Serbian people or where there is a Serbian majority.

23        Q.   Do you understand the accused referring to areas within the

24     Republic of Serbia?

25        A.   No, no, actually he was referring to places outside the Republic

Page 2805

 1     of Serbia.

 2        Q.   Can you be more precise in what you understand these areas would

 3     be that he referred to?

 4        A.   For instance, the Knin Krajina, Banja Luka, to be more specific

 5     Doboj where there is a Serbian majority, in municipalities where there

 6     was a Serbian majority.

 7        Q.   The accused Simatovic has listed a number of locations, and that

 8     is to be found on page 10 of the English transcript, like Benkovac, Stari

 9     Gospic, Plitvice, Glina, Kostajnica, where he claims that the unit had

10     battles with Croatian forces from 12th October 1991 onwards.  Could you

11     tell the Court where these areas are?

12        A.   These locations are in the area of the Republic of Serbian

13     Krajina.

14        Q.   Did you ever hear from any of your colleagues in the Red Berets

15     or the JSO about actions they had participated in this region?

16             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to, maybe I've missed the disclosure, but I

17     don't know if this has been disclosed, this aspect of the witness's

18     evidence?  I didn't appreciate he was going to go into issues relating to

19     these various areas.  Maybe I've missed something in the statement.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, could you -- apparently Mr. Jordash

21     misses the link between what he expected to be the testimony on the basis

22     of these statements.  Could you help him out.

23             MR. HOFFMANN:  Certainly, Your Honour.  For instance in the 2009

24     statement at paragraph 17 it does refer to the witness talking to Bozovic

25     and the other instructors, Vuk and Riki, about their experience and their

Page 2806

 1     first training in Golubic in 1991.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- Mr. Jordash, Golubic is, from what I know,

 3     is in the Serbian Krajina.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  That's right, Your Honour, and it's the question

 5     was asked about actions in particular locations.  What my learned friend

 6     has just referred to is evidence relating to training at Golubic.  What

 7     my learned friend is asking about, it would appear, is military

 8     operations of this so-called special unit.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann.

10             MR. HOFFMANN:  It is clearly the Prosecution's understanding that

11     not every piece of the expected testimony has it to be disclosed line by

12     line.  This clearly falls into the general evidence that has been

13     disclosed previously.  We have this part of Frenki Simatovic speech

14     already in evidence, and I'm just questioning this witness about his

15     knowledge about it without going in any further detail.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll see how it further develops and see whether it

17     goes into such detail as it would have been unfair for the Stanisic

18     Defence not to be aware of the type of questions you are putting to the

19     witness.  So you may proceed, but this is not a green light forever.

20             MR. HOFFMANN:

21        Q.   Witness, may I just repeat my question.  Did you ever hear from

22     your colleagues in the Red Berets, and/or the JSO, about actions they had

23     participated in this region that we just heard about from

24     Frenki Simatovic and the RSK?

25        A.   Yes, there was talk about it, but I have no information about

Page 2807

 1     specific actions.

 2        Q.   And is what Mr. Simatovic in his speech says about the --

 3     generally about the actions in the Croatian Krajina consistent --

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to object.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Shall we first listen to what the question is before

 6     we object.  Please do not answer the question yet, Witness.

 7             Yes, continue.

 8             MR. HOFFMANN:

 9        Q.   Witness, I was just about to ask you whether what you heard from

10     your colleagues if that is consistent with what Mr. Frenki Simatovic says

11     in his speech about the actions in the Croatian Krajina?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

13             MR. JORDASH:  The objection stands, Your Honour.  At the heart of

14     the Prosecution case is this alleged unit and its crimes committed in

15     these locations, and my learned friend is seeking to elicit the core of

16     the case which he clearly has discussed with the witness previous and has

17     failed to disclose it to the Defence but is seeking to just take

18     advantage by eliciting it in open court.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann.

20             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, at this point in time --

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

23             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to supplement

24     very briefly.  A few rows above, the witness said there was talk about it

25     but I have no information about specific actions.  I believe that puts an

Page 2808

 1     end to that particular line of questioning.  That that is all that

 2     Mr. Hoffmann can elicit from this witness on that score.  Anything else

 3     would be leading him on.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, not necessarily, but Mr. Hoffmann, it's clear

 5     that the witness says the only thing I heard a bit -- we have seen on the

 6     video and heard on the video what Mr. Simatovic was claiming.  In what

 7     direction are you going?  If you say, well, this witness would confirm

 8     that others were talking about that, well, then, it gives some support,

 9     but I would say the real weight of what was said is found in the video

10     rather than by a witness who says that he heard other peoples talking

11     about it.

12             So, therefore, I'm wondering what the purpose is to seek rather

13     general and weak support for something which seems to be at least at

14     first sight to be a very focussed explanation of what the unit had done.

15             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, the content of this video and the

16     speech of one of the accused in this case seems to be a matter of

17     contention, especially interpretation of that speech.  That is why I am

18     exactly going down the road that you have just indicated.  We have a

19     witness who was a member of the unit, who talked to colleagues of the

20     unit, and we have general comments of the accused, and he can confirm

21     those --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that's --

23             MR. HOFFMANN:  That's it.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we've heard from the witness now that he heard

25     others talk about it without any further specifics.  That's where we are.

Page 2809

 1     What else is there?  I mean, put a question and there was an objection to

 2     leading in this respect, put your next question to the witness and see

 3     what it brings; although, I wouldn't say that it's the expectations

 4     expressed by Mr. Petrovic are without any merit.  So please proceed, but

 5     let's be very precise in our questioning.

 6             MR. HOFFMANN:

 7        Q.   Witness, if I just repeat my question.  You have just said that

 8     you talked to some of your colleagues in the units about the events in

 9     Croatia.  You have heard what Frenki Simatovic said about -- generally

10     about the actions in the Croatian Krajina.  Does what you heard from

11     other unit members match to what you heard from Frenki Simatovic?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we have really to know whether it matches or

13     not.  If I say the summer of 1998 was a brilliant summer, and if in

14     another statement it says the weather was good at the beach, all kind of

15     details, and then to say to match it, doesn't give us any further

16     information.  If you are seeking matching points, you should ask the

17     witness exactly at what points what he heard from his colleagues was

18     matching with what he saw on this video.

19             Could you please answer that question.  You said you didn't

20     receive any further details.  I think you said -- now, what you heard

21     here, is there anything in this which was told to you by your colleagues

22     as well, and if so, what details there were?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, one can conclude from this

24     speech that it does actually correspond to that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You are not invited to draw conclusions from

Page 2810

 1     the speech.  What did they tell you?  You earlier said that without

 2     giving any details this is what they -- some of it was told to you.  Now,

 3     what did they tell you exactly?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for instance, they told me

 5     where the first camp had been established, how the training went on, how

 6     they grew, and new camps were being established, how the Republic of the

 7     Serbian Krajina was being defended and so on.

 8             That they were defending the interests of the Serbian people in

 9     Krajina.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Anything else?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also the place names.  They

12     mentioned the places where these camps were, but a lot of time has passed

13     in the meantime and I can't recall them all.  It's been 17 years or so.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.

15             MR. HOFFMANN:

16        Q.   Witness, you just mentioned the camps that Frenki Simatovic talks

17     about.  Are you personally familiar with any of the mentioned training

18     camps?

19        A.   Well, they said that the system was the same as at the Ozren

20     camp, that they were established in the same manner and that the training

21     that was conducted there was the same.

22        Q.   Do you understand the reference to Mount Ozren being the same

23     place that you were trained at?

24        A.   Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, is my recollection right that there

Page 2811

 1     was no reference to Mount Ozren, but to Ozren?

 2             MR. HOFFMANN:  That is correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, well, then you are adding something.  I mean,

 4     to say is the reference to Mount Ozren the same as what was earlier

 5     considered to be Mount Ozren, if the only thing which was said was Ozren,

 6     of course you answer the question yourself and of course the witness is

 7     supposed to give evidence and not you, and I and invite you to be very

 8     precise on these matters.

 9             One additional question, Witness JF-005, you said:  "Well, they

10     said that the system was the same as at the Ozren camp."  Who is "they"?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The people who were our

12     instructors.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:

15        Q.   Frenki Simatovic also mentioned a camp location at Golubic in the

16     Republic of Serbian Krajina.  Is that the same or another place as you

17     mentioned in your 2009 statement at paragraph 4 where Bozovic, Vuk, and

18     Riki had been trained in 1991?

19        A.   Correction, they were trained.  That's -- that is the place.

20        Q.   Do you have any personal knowledge of any other of the camp

21     location that were mentioned besides from the one in Doboj and Ozren?

22        A.   There was a camp in Banja Luka, in Samac, in Brcko, there was a

23     small camp in Teslic.  Yes, there were some other camps.

24        Q.   Have you seen those camps personally or did you hear about them?

25        A.   Well, I did see the Banja Luka camp myself, but as for the

Page 2812

 1     others, I had heard about them, but there is no reason for me to suspect

 2     or not to believe that they existed.

 3        Q.   Further on, Mr. Simatovic has referred to, and I quote, "new

 4     organisation" of the unit.  Are you familiar with this term or this new

 5     organisation?

 6        A.   Well, probably he just referred to the re-organisation within the

 7     unit itself.

 8             MR. KNOOPS:  Your Honour, sorry to interrupt, Mr. Stanisic

 9     requests leave to use the mens' room but he has no objection if we

10     continue.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then leave is granted, and if he has no objection,

12     we'll also continue.

13             Mr. Hoffmann, you may continue.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:

15        Q.   Frenki Simatovic has mentioned a special operation unit

16     intelligence and counter-intelligence support.  Do you personally know

17     anything about the way in which the unit's intelligence and

18     counter-intelligence support functioned?

19        A.   I personally was not involved in that and I do not know how it

20     functioned.  I know what I was told by others, but as for the inner

21     workings of the intelligence or counter-intelligence service, I really

22     don't know about that anything, and I wasn't there.  I wasn't present

23     myself.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter is not sure of the last words

25     that the witness said.

Page 2813

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat your last words because the

 2     interpreters were not sure that they caught them.  You said "I really

 3     don't know about that anything" and then what were your words following

 4     that phrase?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was not my job description.  I

 6     wasn't involved in the workings of that so I didn't have any personal

 7     knowledge of that.

 8             MR. HOFFMANN:

 9        Q.   Witness, in your answer you just said that you know what I was

10     told by others, can you tell the Court what you heard about the

11     intelligence or counter-intelligence support from other members of the

12     unit?

13        A.   That they were deployed in other agencies as well.

14        Q.   Can you give an example if you heard of any such example?

15             MR. JORDASH:  I'm really sorry to leap up.  My learned friend

16     appears to be reading from a document, none of this has been disclosed.

17     We had no idea the witness was going to discuss the counter-intelligence

18     support unit of this special unit.  I'm not sure what notes my learned

19     friend has, but they clearly have arisen from an interview with the

20     witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann.

22             MR. HOFFMANN:  I will skip this question and move ahead.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please move on.

24             MR. HOFFMANN:

25        Q.   Witness, why do you think it was Frenki Simatovic in particular

Page 2814

 1     who made this speech to President Milosevic and the others at this award

 2     ceremony?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned colleague

 5     is now asking the witness to speculate as to why something was done by my

 6     client.  He is asking this witness to speculate.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, asking the witness to speculate, but I would

 8     agree that we need a factual foundation for any opinion because you are

 9     seeking an opinion.

10             Is there anything known to you which would allow you to tell us

11     why it was Mr. Simatovic in particular who made that speech?  I'm not

12     asking you to speculate on these matters, but whether there is anything

13     to your knowledge what explains why it was Mr. Simatovic?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, because he was

15     the founder of the unit, the first person who founded this unit in 1991

16     when it was established.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And what's the basis for that knowledge?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the basis of this knowledge

19     is that all the previous instructors who were there, who were there in

20     1995 and 1996, they said that he was the founder of the unit, as the

21     concept itself.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So you were told this and that you can't -- you have

23     no other knowledge of fact why it was Mr. Simatovic which had to give

24     that speech at that time?

25             Mr. Hoffmann, I'm wondering what the question could tell us, but

Page 2815

 1     we want knowledge of facts rather than understanding of what others said

 2     or what would have been logical.

 3             You may put the next question to the witness.

 4             Mr. Petrovic.

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I just

 6     need to intervene in the transcript.  Line 7 -- not everything that the

 7     witness said was translated.  There was something else that the witness

 8     said in the Serbian language but that was not interpreted and that is not

 9     in the transcript.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Line 7 of page 77?

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, page 77, between

12     lines 4 to 7, so in that reply of the witness there was some additional

13     information that was not interpreted.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I'll read to you what is found in those

15     lines and could you please then tell us what you said in addition to what

16     I read.

17             "Well, the basis of this knowledge is that all the previous

18     instructors who were there, who were there in 1995 and 1996, they said

19     that he was the founder of the unit," and then it says, "as the concept

20     itself."  Could you tell us what you told us in addition to what I just

21     read?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I said that he was not

23     personally there in the territory but that he was the founder of the

24     unit.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic, this meets your --

Page 2816

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.

 3             MR. HOFFMANN:  We will continue to play clip 3.  So it's the same

 4     clip still, and we go until 19 minutes 59.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hoffmann, one of the things I'm wondering.  You

 6     are supposed to -- not to lead this witness and there have been

 7     objections about it.  First, to show what someone else told us and then

 8     to say is this what you know as well.  Wouldn't it be appropriate to do

 9     it the other way around, to ask the witness anything you know already is

10     on the video, and, of course, the witness for the sequences to follow is

11     not aware.  Then ask him what he knows about it and then look at it

12     whether there's any need to play it again because then we know what the

13     witness can tell us rather than that the witness gives his observations

14     on whether it's consistent with what others told him because the answers

15     are there already.

16             So I would invite you to do it the other way around.  Put

17     questions in relation to what you know to be there and then to see what

18     that brings us.

19             MR. HOFFMANN:  Okay.  The following parts of the clips are just

20     basically footage, and I'm just going to ask the witness about what is

21     shown on the footage.  I think insofar that should cause no concern.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if it's not about -- if it is about who is

23     there or could you locate that, if it's no further speeches, I have no

24     problems, but if it would be further speeches to be confirmed as to the

25     content by the witness, then I would oppose.  Please proceed.

Page 2817

 1             MR. HOFFMANN:  We'll then play -- continue to play clip 3 and

 2     we'll play it until 19 minutes 59.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "What about these?  They don't have.

 5             MR. HOFFMANN:

 6        Q.   Witness, during the time that you were at Kula did you have

 7     occasion to be in the room shown on this video?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And who are the people whose pictures are appearing on the wall

10     here?

11        A.   Members of the unit who were killed.

12        Q.   And can you tell us where the flags that can be seen at the

13     bottom of the screen shot were coming from?

14        A.   Those were the flags that had been captured during combat.

15             MR. HOFFMANN:  We will continue the same clip until 20 minutes

16     28.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. HOFFMANN:

19        Q.   Witness, can you tell the Court what is on this plaque shown on

20     this screen shot at 20 minutes 28?

21        A.   I believe that this is the unit's anthem.  Yes, it is, the anthem

22     of the special operations unit.

23        Q.   Did you ever personally receive such a plaque?

24        A.   Yes, I do have it somewhere.

25             MR. HOFFMANN:  We continue with this clip until 20 minutes 46.

Page 2818

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "These are the places where we ..."

 3             MR. HOFFMANN:

 4        Q.   Witness, at this screen shot at 20 minutes 46, can you tell us

 5     what the item on the wall is?

 6        A.   It's a map depicting the places where the training camps were.

 7             MR. HOFFMANN:  We then play clip 4 which starts at 22 minutes 12

 8     seconds of the original tape and we pause again at 22 minutes 38.

 9                           [Video-clip played]

10             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Mr. President, dear guests, let us

11     pay tribute to Deputy Minister Radovan Stojicic, Badza, by observing a

12     minute of silence.  Glory to him.  Glory."

13             MR. HOFFMANN:

14        Q.   Witness, we've just heard Jovica Stanisic asking for a minute of

15     silence to honour Radovan Stojicic aka Badza.  Do you know who that

16     person was?

17        A.   Yes, I know he was a police general.

18             MR. HOFFMANN:  We will then continue with clip 5, which starts at

19     40 minutes 44 seconds of the original tape and stop at 40 minutes 55.

20                           [Video-clip played]

21             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "They are the best.  They have

22     reason to ...  Good-bye."

23             MR. HOFFMANN:

24        Q.   Witness, just for the record, we look now at the time code 40

25     minutes 56.  Who are the two men who just shook hands?

Page 2819

 1        A.   Franko Simatovic and Slobodan Milosevic.

 2             MR. HOFFMANN:  And we continue until 41 minute 10 seconds,

 3     please.

 4                           [Video-clip played]

 5             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Thank you, Radojica, all the best.

 6     Great heros."

 7             MR. HOFFMANN:

 8        Q.   Witness, can you tell us who is now shaking hands with Milosevic

 9     if you can tell at 41 minutes, 10 seconds?

10        A.   I see there Radojica Bozovic and Slobodan Milosevic.

11        Q.   And we are still talking about the same and one Rajo Bozovic as

12     before?

13        A.   Yes, it is the same Rajo Bozovic who was at the Ozren camp.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:  Okay.  We have one last short clip and that is

15     clip 6.  It starts at 43 minutes, 15 seconds, and we stop again at 43

16     minutes, 25.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. HOFFMANN:

19        Q.   Witness, can you tell the Court what Jovica Stanisic is doing in

20     this clip?

21        A.   He is greeting -- exchanging greetings with Captain Dragan.

22             MR. HOFFMANN:  And we continue until 43:51.

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I'm proud to present you with ..."

25             MR. HOFFMANN:

Page 2820

 1        Q.   Witness, do you recognise the person that Captain Dragan goes to

 2     after receiving the gift from Jovica Stanisic shown at 43 minutes, 51

 3     seconds?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   Just for the record, can you tell the Court who he is?

 6        A.   Franko Simatovic.

 7             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, in light of the time, I would rather

 8     pause here before I move into a new area?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if there's no area which you could cover within

10     the next 6 minutes, then we'll have an early adjournment.

11             Could you give us an indication as to how much time you'd still

12     need.  The Chamber is aware that in the beginning of today some

13     additional time was take by matters of a procedural nature.

14             MR. HOFFMANN:  There are maybe four or five documents that I want

15     to show to the witness, and then about two clips of total 2 minutes with

16     some additional questions on those clips.  Depending on how far we go

17     ahead with those documents, we'll have some basic questions, I think that

18     could be done maybe in a half an hour tomorrow afternoon.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you'd certainly finish within the first

20     session, is that --

21             MR. HOFFMANN:  That would certainly be my aim.  And if I just

22     maybe -- I don't know where the Defence stands at the moment, but it may

23     be worth that if we meet outside the courtroom just to look at the four

24     documents that I have at hand if we can expedite the discussion tomorrow

25     in court.

Page 2821

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Make your aim a reality, Mr. Hoffmann, I would

 2     say then.  That's for at least the Chamber is expect you to do.

 3             I think the parties would need some guidance as to the start of

 4     the cross-examination.  The Defence teams are invited that the request

 5     for postponing cross-examination as a whole is not granted.  Therefore,

 6     the Defence teams are expected to cross-examine the witness and the

 7     Chamber will then see whether there will be any further request for more

 8     time for further preparations or for a recall of the witness once you

 9     have exhausted all the possibilities that are there, and the Chamber

10     certainly in considering such a request will expect the party to show

11     good cause why the matter which -- the matter on which the witness cannot

12     be cross-examined on yet, why it was impossible to prepare for that

13     issue.

14             This may serve as guidance for the parties.  I do not know

15     whether any arrangement has been made as to who will start.  You may have

16     considered who is the first one not to start, but because that seems to

17     be the common position of the Defence teams, but now you'll have to

18     consider who will start the cross-examination.  And the Chamber would

19     then hear from you.

20             Witness JF-005, we'll adjourn for the day and I'd like to

21     instruct you that you should not speak with anyone or communicate in any

22     other way with anyone about your testimony, whether that is testimony

23     you've given today or testimony still to be given in the days to come.

24             We will adjourn and we resume tomorrow, Thursday, the 21st of

25     January, quarter past 2.00 in this same Courtroom II.

Page 2822

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

 2                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st day of

 3                           January, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.