1 Wednesday, 19 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 Good afternoon, everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 The witness will be brought into the courtroom. We'll wait for a
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Sliskovic. I would like to
16 remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you've
17 given yesterday at the beginning of your testimony, that you'll speak the
18 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 Mr. Knoops, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?
20 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 WITNESS: DEJAN SLISKOVIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Knoops: [Continued]
24 Q. Mr. Witness, the term "Red Berets" was a popular term in those
25 days, wasn't it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It was a term which was given by the people themselves to the
3 units who wore red berets, isn't it?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: Objection. It's vague. People, what people gave who
6 this term?
7 MR. KNOOPS: Well, the witness in his statement referred to
8 Red Berets a unit as -- commonly known as the Red Berets and popularly
9 known as the Red Berets, so I'll seek the clarification of the witness
10 whether this term properly or commonly was indeed reflecting the public
11 opinion in those days.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, what the witness could have observed
13 is how people behaved in his immediate surroundings, but then to -- I
14 don't think, as a matter of fact, he can tell us what the public thought
15 in general, but the point is rather clear to us, Mr. Knoops, that it was
16 not a well defined term. And it may have been used, as the Chamber heard
17 in quite some pieces of evidence, in different ways by different persons
18 on a different basis. If that is what you want to establish, then --
19 through this witness or at least if you would seek to elicit evidence,
20 then that can be done in a rather short way, I would say.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. A few questions on your assignment, Mr. Witness. It is your
24 testimony that Mr. Stanisic in those days held his office in the building
25 at Kneza Milosa Street 103; is that correct?
1 A. That was the address. It was in Kneza Milosa Street, but the
2 building was behind the federal SUP building. I never saw the number on
3 the building. I only know from documents that the address was
4 Kneza Milosa 103. That building was bombed later on.
5 Q. Witness, it was your statement in 2010 that Jovica Stanisic held
6 his office in that building. That was your statement in 2010,
7 Mr. Witness; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, I stated that. I stated that his office was in
9 Kneza Milosa Street number 103.
10 Q. Since 1992, Mr. Stanisic didn't held his office in that
11 particular building, but in number 92 which was the former federal SUP
12 building, is that -- can you confirm this?
13 MR. WEBER: Objection. Calls for speculation. It's asking since
14 1992. I believe that's outside this witness's base of knowledge in terms
15 of his dates of service in the Serbian DB.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know what the base of the knowledge is but
17 that of course can be explored. But sometimes people know things even if
18 they are not employed by that organisation at that point in time. So --
19 MR. KNOOPS: Maybe, Your Honour, I could reverse the question,
20 ask the witness.
21 Q. Do you agree with me that you just speculated that the office of
22 Mr. Stanisic was at number 103, while it was in reality number 92?
23 A. I know what the building looked like and where it was. I may
24 have been mistaken about the number. It could have been 102 or 103, but
25 I know exactly what building I'm talking about.
1 Q. I put it to you that Mr. Stanisic was from 1992 in another
2 building which was at the opposite of number 103, namely, 92 which was
3 the former federal SUP building. What is your comment on this
5 A. If you show me buildings with the one among them, I can recognise
6 it. I can tell you exactly what building I'm talking about.
7 Q. Behind building 103 there were two sub-buildings of the public
8 service and the DB. Can you confirm this?
9 A. I can only say that the building that we are talking about is
10 behind the building which houses the crime police, the same institution
11 that is in charge of co-operation with The Hague Tribunal.
12 Q. Leave it at this point. Mr. Witness, you were actually thrown
13 out of the DB, well, actually, can you confirm that you were never a
14 permanent member of the DB?
15 A. I signed a request to leave the unit.
16 Q. Yes, but can you confirm that your contract which you were given
17 was a part-time contract and therefore you were never an official member
18 of the DB?
19 MR. WEBER: Objection as to the characterisation on that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Knoops, you are putting a composite
21 question which hidden conclusions are contained. Because what you -- if
22 you ask the witness whether he had a temporary contract, that's fine, but
23 whether or not that makes him or doesn't make him a real member, an
24 official member of the DB is, of course, still to be seen. So if you
25 please start with the facts and ...
1 MR. KNOOPS:
2 Q. Mr. Witness, can you confirm that you had only a part-time
4 A. My decision was the same as for the other members of the unit who
5 joined together with me. My contract was for one year.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, again I have some problems. I'm a bit
7 confused. You started your line of questioning with whether or not to be
8 a permanent member, then your next question was about a part-time
9 contract, whereas I do not exclude for the possibility that you wanted to
10 refer to a contract for a limited period of time, rather than limited
11 time during the week. Usually we call a part-time contract when you are
12 working 20 hours out of 40, and that's the reason why I use the word
13 temporary contract, and that's apparently what you had on your mind but
14 which may have confused the witness.
15 MR. KNOOPS: I am sorry, Your Honour, that's totally correct what
16 you say.
17 Q. Mr. Witness, can you confirm that you had only a limited
19 A. My contract reflected the decision that we can see on the screen.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Is it correct that you were thrown out
21 of the service because you had problems with your psyche, had
22 psychological stress and problems, and therefore you were not -- it was
23 not possible for you to remain within the service; is that correct?
24 A. Not correct.
25 Q. May I please confront you then with your statement of 2003.
1 We'll not call it now, but maybe you can just confirm that you actually
2 stated in 2003 --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Paragraph, Mr. Knoops?
4 MR. KNOOPS: Paragraph 20.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
6 MR. KNOOPS:
7 Q. Line 3. You say that due to minor injury receiving in training
8 and for psychological stress you went to the MUP doctor at the end of
9 February 1995. Can you confirm this?
10 A. Yes, I had very frequent nose bleedings, I suffered from
11 insomnia, and that's why I went to see the doctor.
12 Q. Is it correct that you left -- you had to leave the service while
13 you would like to stay because you had psychological problems in those
15 A. I left the service after drafting a request which started with
16 after Operation Pauk. I no longer wished to be a member of the unit even
17 of it's reserve forces. That was my request, and it was approved. Then
18 I went to Krsmanovic's office, I spoke to him, and he said, I'm sorry,
19 the chief has already signed the decision and you have to leave the unit.
20 Q. I put it to you, Mr. Witness, that your testimony today is
21 actually fueled by resentment and by revenge because you had to leave the
22 service while you would have liked to stay. What do you have to say to
24 A. Not correct.
25 Q. Mr. Witness, can you confirm that while you worked with the unit
1 you described, no crime whatsoever was committed?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Objection. Could we just have further foundation.
4 It's a rather broad question. He has testified to multiple parts of the
5 unit. I believe the witness can testify as to the crimes of whether or
6 not he observed any crimes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's a different matter.
8 MR. KNOOPS:
9 Q. Let me put it this way, that my first question is whether he
10 agrees that no crimes were committed by the unit he described yesterday.
11 A. Are you referring to the unit as a unit or are you referring to
12 something else?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, I think that crimes usually are not
14 committed by units but by persons, where earlier in your first question
15 no crime whatsoever was committed, was without any limitation.
16 Did you observe -- when you were a member of the unit you
17 described to us, did you observe any member of that unit to commit any
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if you are referring
20 to crimes committed in Serbia
21 JUDGE ORIE: Wherever. Members of the unit while you were a
22 member of the unit.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If shooting at a woman from a
24 sniper is considered a crime, then, yes, there were crimes committed.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If that woman is not a combatant but if that woman
1 is civilian, then there's a fair chance that, and I take it the parties
2 would agree with that fair chance, that that constitutes a crime.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. KNOOPS:
5 Q. Mr. Witness, in your statement of 2003 you have stated in
6 paragraph 13:
7 "I did not see the crimes being committed. The type of jobs I
8 was doing were attacks against the Bosnian 5th Corps, reconnaissance, and
10 Is that a correct statement?
11 A. Yes. As far as the sniper fire is concerned, when I came to the
12 dormitory, Commander Dragan Lestaric referred to one of our members and
13 stated that he had hit a woman, which means that I was not present during
14 the incident, but I heard about it.
15 Q. Apart from that incidents, Witness, is your statement correct
16 that no crimes were being committed by individual members of that unit as
17 far as you have seen or could have seen?
18 A. I was present when mortar fire was opened on civilians, but I
19 personally did not see anybody being hit. I could not have observed that
20 because of the distance.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, when you asked whether as far as the
22 witness had seen or could have seen, if you could have seen something but
23 you have not seen it, then, of course, it doesn't make sense to ask
24 questions about it if you want to establish what the witness observed.
25 So the "could have seen" seems to me -- for me not comprehensible as a
1 matter of fact.
2 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
3 Q. Apart from the incident described, Mr. Witness, did anyone tell
4 you about any other incidents?
5 A. I can't remember.
6 Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Witness, you weren't at the front line
7 of the operation you described yesterday; is that correct?
8 A. We had been driven away on several occasions, and we did fire
9 from snipers, so it's very difficult for me to define what the front line
10 was or what it wasn't.
11 Q. As a matter of fact, you weren't engaged in any direct combat
12 against the 5th Bosnian Corps or any other adversaries; is that correct?
13 A. If using optic sights is not considered to be that, then the
14 answer would be no, I didn't.
15 Q. So you were, in fact, only involved in optic sights and guarding
16 the premises of the unit, not being engaged in direct combat; is that
18 A. I did not participate in close combat, no.
19 Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Witness, in your 2003 statement in
20 paragraph 15 you have stated that the nature of your work -- "... of our
21 work did not lead us to the front line battles, and I can't say who was
22 digging the trenches there."
23 Was that a correct statement?
24 A. I don't remember having mentioned trenches. Could you please
25 show me that part of my statement where I said that.
1 MR. KNOOPS: Yes. Could P440 be, please, pulled up.
2 Paragraph 15.
3 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please look at paragraph 15, third line:
4 "The nature of our work did not lead us to the front line
5 battles, and I can't say who was digging the trenches there."
6 You found it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You agree with this?
9 A. I know that there were trenches, but I wasn't there when they
10 were being dug so I don't know who dug them out.
11 Q. No, the question is, Can you confirm that you were indeed not
12 involved in direct combat at the front lines?
13 A. I'm really not sure about this definition of a front line. I did
14 not participate in the fighting against the 5th Corps. I was not with
15 the group of combatants who were engaged in those fights.
16 Q. So when you have stated in paragraph 13 of your statement that
17 you were doing jobs like attacks against the Bosnian 5th Corps, you lied
18 to the investigative Prosecution, isn't it?
19 A. No, I did not lie. I simply didn't know how to answer. I didn't
20 know what you meant when you use the term "front line." I may have been
21 mistaken in the way I define front line.
22 Q. Well, it's your terminology, Mr. Witness, but we move on. So,
23 actually, your only job was to guard the communication centre in which
24 Mr. Stanisic resided temporarily; is that correct?
25 A. I was deployed in the communication centre. I stood guard there.
1 And from time to time the commander would take us on missions with him.
2 Q. These missions only involved reconnaissance and surveillance; is
3 that correct?
4 A. No, I was with them when we -- when we fired with the
5 shoulder-fired launcher, and later on I fired with sniper rifles and
6 machine-guns. We fired at people who were moving, those who were armed,
7 those who were not armed.
8 Q. Mr. Witness, you never testified about this. I put it to you
9 that you never shot one single bullet at another person?
10 A. I disagree with you.
11 Q. As a matter of fact, I say to you that your description of the
12 training you underwent is totally incorrect. You say that at your
13 training centre was infantry, parachute training, artillery, and diving
14 centre, is that correct, did you testify about that earlier?
15 A. We had diving training which started at the swimming pool in
16 Tasmajdan in Belgrade
17 for a medical examination at the institute for security, or rather, it
18 was a military medical institute where we went for medical examinations,
19 but due to the surgery that I had had, I did not have the parachute
20 training. As for the infantry training, I had that at the Surcin
21 Airport, and we were also taken to the security institute where we had
22 training in firing, in sharp shooting, and we also went to the training
23 grounds where we also had shooting training.
24 In addition to that, we had training in mountain climbing, but
25 only some members had that kind of training.
1 Q. Did you receive a diving certificate?
2 A. I don't know whether they were issued, but the training was as
3 Tasmajdan swimming pool. And it was terrible. Half of the members of
4 the unit did not know how to swim. And there are some members who are
5 now working in gendarmerie who are divers and who had been given a
6 certificate. I personally did not receive a certificate.
7 Q. You were not -- you failed the test; is that correct?
8 A. I don't know how this training was envisaged, because while we
9 had diving training, our members guarded the pool and the area around.
10 There were also instructors, and I don't know who and how was supposed to
11 issue certificates.
12 Q. So you were just there to guard the swimming pool; is that
14 A. No. I did not guard. I was together with the other members of
15 the unit, and we had diving training. This is a very particular kind of
16 a swimming pool. It had depths of 5 metre, and we were taught the basics
17 of diving.
18 Q. Mr. Witness, you -- it is your testimony that the unit was also
19 equipped with a helicopter unit; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, it did have helicopters. It had helicopters of the Gazelle
21 type and Ranger type.
22 Q. And you mentioned two pilots in your statement. Can you recall
24 A. One was nicknamed Michael and the other one Leki [phoen].
25 Q. Are you familiar with the name Vukovic?
1 A. You know what, had you asked me this six years ago or prior to
2 that, I probably would have remembered some names. I know that one of
3 our helicopters was repaired at the Surcin Airport
4 was next to the facility where we were stationed. It was next to the
5 second hangar.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sliskovic, could you please focus your answers
7 on what was asked. You were asked whether you are familiar with the name
8 Vukovic. The simple answer could have been, I don't remember any person
9 of that name at this moment, rather than to tell us where the helicopters
10 were repaired, which was not asked.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. KNOOPS:
13 Q. Mr. Witness, you testified -- you stated that one of those
14 helicopters went down because the pilot hit a tree; is that correct?
15 A. Yes. I heard that while I was at the forward command post. We
16 were told that one of the pilots was injured or fell casualty. I don't
17 know which one that concerned, and that he was hit by Maljutka and that
18 as a result of that, the helicopter went down.
19 Q. Can you confirm that this was a Gazelle helicopter?
20 A. Yes, I'm sure that it was a Gazelle helicopter.
21 Q. I put it to you that there was no helicopter unit, that the
22 helicopter unit was part of the Operation Pauk in the command of
23 General Novakovic?
24 MR. KNOOPS: And I ask to pull up the Pauk diary, page 4.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the witness can tell us what he meant by
1 "and that he was hit by Maljutka" before we continue. What is Maljutka?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that it was hit by
3 Maljutka, but based on what I heard, he grazed with the Maljutka that was
4 on the helicopter some tree, and as a result of that, the helicopter went
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. None of the Judges knows what Maljutka or a
7 Maljutka is. If there's anyone who could assist us, then we'd be glad.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe if the witness were asked,
9 What were the weapons on the helicopter, that might get to the heart of
10 the matter.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is Maljutka a weapon?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just for the information of the Court,
16 it's page 7 of the B/C/S version that I believe Mr. Knoops is going to be
17 pulling up. He read in page 4, that's the English version.
18 MR. KNOOPS: It's P235. Page 7 in B/C/S, the fourth entry from
19 above, at 1240 hours.
20 Q. You see, Mr. Witness, saying that a Gazelle helicopter crashed
21 and exploded with Vukovic, the pilot, was killed. Can you agree that it
22 was not a helicopter you referred to in your statement?
23 A. I can't answer that question. I said that I had heard that a
24 helicopter went down and the reason why it went down. As for this, what
25 is written here, yes, it could be consistent with what I have said.
1 Q. Mr. Witness, you mentioned several times the name Pauk. Could
2 you please explain what Pauk was?
3 A. Pauk, I have heard of that term while I was there, while I stood
4 guard at the forward command post. Pauk was an operation that was
5 carried out in the territory where we were stationed at the time.
6 Q. Can you confirm this was the only operation in which you were
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you confirm that Pauk was actually an operation on the basis
10 of a joint command between the VRS and the Serb army of the Krajina with
11 the forces of Fikret Abdic?
12 A. As for how this operation was commanded, I know that all of these
13 mentioned people, all of these command officers, came to the command post
14 in Magarcevac. And as for how the command was organised, I couldn't tell
15 you that.
16 Q. Do you know that General Mile Novakovic was the commander of this
18 A. No.
19 Q. If we put to you that last week General Milovanovic, the Chief of
20 Staff of the VRS, former Chief of Staff, testified that General Novakovic
21 was in command of the units that were resubordinated to the Pauk command.
22 If that's his statement, have you any reason to dispute this statement?
23 A. I don't know Mr. Novakovic, therefore, I cannot comment on his
25 Q. Are you familiar with General Milovanovic? You know who he is?
1 A. I have heard of him.
2 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt this statement of Milovanovic
3 that Novakovic was in command of all the units which were resubordinated
4 under Pauk? Please, yes or no.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Can you confirm that Petrova Gora, the place where you allegedly
7 stayed, was not the headquarters of Operation Pauk?
8 A. In the communications centre where we were, I think that this is
9 where the centre of this operation was.
10 Q. Did you see General Novakovic or somebody with the name in that
12 A. I never saw General Novakovic, even on a picture. Perhaps he
13 came there and I wasn't aware that it was him.
14 Q. Mr. Witness, in the centre you described, was there a radio
15 intercepting group also known as RPG?
16 A. I know of an RPG term. It is an anti-tank hand-grenade. As for
17 the communications centre, it was equipped with some powerful equipment
18 of German manufacture. And our vehicles for communications were right
19 next to the building. But I couldn't really tell you what kind of
20 equipment they had. I know that one of the vehicles was involved in an
21 ambush near Raca several days prior to that, and that --
22 JUDGE ORIE: You are doing the same. You were asked whether
23 you -- whether there was a radio intercepting group. You are straying
24 away from what is asked. Are you aware that there was a radio
25 intercepting group in the centre you described?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were our signalsmen there,
2 but I don't know what exactly they did.
3 MR. KNOOPS:
4 Q. Mr. Witness, the command post of Novakovic was in
5 Siroka Reka [phoen] and not in Petrova Gora. What do you have to say to
7 A. I don't know. I was at the forward command post at Siroka Reka
8 for a while but at that time I was there only with the members of my
9 unit. We were all housed in one house. That's all I can tell you about
11 Q. Mr. Witness, I put it to you that the unit you were part of was a
12 small unit to provide security to the surveillance tasks of the DB, i.e.,
13 Mr. Stanisic, which was formed on an ad hoc basis just to provide
14 security to the reconnaissance units who were there?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER: Objection. Compound. The Prosecution doesn't have
17 any opposition to each of those individually, but together ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could we try to take it step by step, Mr. Knoops.
19 MR. KNOOPS:
20 Q. Mr. Witness, can you agree that the location you just described
21 was just a communications centre?
22 A. I cannot.
23 Q. But you testified earlier that you were not engaged in any direct
24 combat and that you were there to protect the premises; isn't that
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Is it correct that you were asked to go there to provide
3 protection to the members of the DB who were there to administrate
4 electronic surveillance or any other form of surveillance or
6 A. Our task was to secure the facility and to protect the chief of
7 the service. I'm now referring to the group of people that was with me.
8 Q. Mr. Witness, is it correct that initially the SAJ, S-A-J, of
9 Badza was supposed to provide this security?
10 A. I'm not aware of that.
11 Q. Is it correct that because of the shortage of men within the SAJ,
12 you with your colleagues were sent there to provide additional protection
13 to the members of the surveillance unit?
14 A. These are the questions to which I cannot provide and answer
15 because I did not attend the meetings when these matters were decided.
16 Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Witness, Mr. Lestaric was a member of
17 the public security service, wasn't he?
18 A. Dragan Lestaric came from the special anti-terrorist unit to this
19 other unit, and he was our instructor. Later on, our commander.
20 Q. My question is, Is it correct that he remained a member of the
21 public security service?
22 A. I don't know about Lestaric. I saw him perhaps two years ago,
23 but we did not discuss this.
24 Q. Mr. Janko Keric [sic], he was a member of the public security
25 service and he remained as such; is that correct? Sorry, Keres.
1 A. Janko Keres is also one of the former members of the SAJ who
2 transferred to the anti-terrorist unit. He was one of the instructors
3 giving training. And then after the unit was disbanded, I think he went
4 to work for the security service of the minister of the interior.
5 Q. But he also, like you, provided security to the surveillance
6 unit; is that correct?
7 A. Janko Keres wasn't with us the entire time. I don't know what
8 tasks he was assigned.
9 Q. But at --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: Just before we proceed, if we could have it clear on
12 the record, because I believe there might be other references later on in
13 the transcript. Keres is spelled K-e-r-e-s. I see it's being referred
14 to between page 18, line 13 through line 21.
15 MR. KNOOPS:
16 Q. But at the moments you were with Mr. Keres, can you confirm that
17 he also, like you, provided security to the surveillance unit?
18 A. We were divided into two groups. He was not in the group where I
19 was, so I don't know what kind of assignments he had.
20 Q. Okay. Mr. Slobodan Stakic, he was and is a member of -- or he
21 was at that time a member of the public security service; is that
23 A. Slobodan Stakic was my instructor, and he was with us out in the
24 field. He and other members of the SAJ also transferred to JATD.
25 Q. But at the time you were with Stakic, he too provided security to
1 the surveillance unit? Please answer the question with, Yes, No, or I
2 don't know.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Miroslav Kurak, he was in those days a member of the public
5 security service; is that correct?
6 A. Miroslav Kurak is also a former member of the SAJ who transferred
7 to JATD of the MUP of Serbia
8 Q. Do you know whether he was part of the security group to provide
9 protection to the surveillance unit at the moment you were with him?
10 A. He was a driver, and he spent a lot of time with the chief.
11 Q. So, Mr. Witness, it is true that the members you mentioned in
12 your statement including the former members of the SAJ were assigned to
13 primarily provide protection to the surveillance unit of the MUP there;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Not all.
16 Q. There were no combat actions in which they were engaged, isn't
18 A. Even if that were the case, they were still great professionals
19 in that they wouldn't talk about that.
20 Q. So you can agree with me that these members, like the members of
21 your unit, were not involved in any active combat?
22 A. If you are now referring to the unit members who were with me,
23 some of them perhaps were involved, and as for the reserve forces, they
24 definitely participated in these operations. And I'm here specifically
25 referring to Desimir Butkovic.
1 Q. Did you see that yourself?
2 A. I talked to Desimir Butkovic. He had come to the unit at the
3 same time with me, and he had some previous experience. He was assigned
4 to the team of Rajo Bozovic out in the field.
5 Q. But you never witnessed any of these operations yourself; isn't
7 A. No, I wasn't present there.
8 Q. Because you remained in the two camps you described, Petrova Gora
9 and Tara, just for the insurance of protection of surveillance; is that
11 A. We did not provide security at Tara to anyone who was involved in
12 observation. At Tara
13 Q. You were not involved in any combat operations in Tara; isn't it?
14 A. The Tara
15 forest. And part of the artillery was deployed at this centre at Tara.
16 Q. I put it to you that the unit you described was not equipped with
17 an artillery unit, and this unit was part of the Operation Pauk led by
18 General Novakovic?
19 A. That's not true.
20 Q. As a matter of fact, the person you described, Mr. Bozovic, was
21 in the command of General Novakovic appointed by Mr. Abdic?
22 A. I'm not sure that that is true.
23 Q. Can you confirm this or you don't know?
24 A. Even if somebody was able to engage Rajo Bozovic, that person
25 would have needed to have the consent of the chief of the state security.
1 Q. Do you know that Mr. Rajo Bozovic was never ever a member of the
3 A. I don't know whether Mr. Bozovic was a member of the service or
4 not. I just know, or rather, I saw him in Western Bosnia. I know that
5 he was in charge of the reserve forces of this unit.
6 Q. Mr. Bozovic was never in charge of the reserve units. He was
7 commander of Tactical Group 3 under command of General Novakovic. Can
8 you confirm this?
9 A. Are you referring to the tactical group or technical group?
10 Q. Tactical group.
11 A. As for Mr. Bozovic, I know that he was in charge of the part of
12 the unit which was part of our reserve force. That's all I can tell you
13 about that. I cannot either agree or disagree because I'm only telling
14 you things to the extent that I know them.
15 Q. Mr. Vukovic came as a volunteer to the area and participated
16 under the command of General Novakovic to fight the 5th Corps. Can you
17 confirm this?
18 A. I don't know how this was done in technical terms. I'm still
19 convinced that Rajo Bozovic was the commander who was appointed by the
20 state security services.
21 MR. KNOOPS: Can we please look at the Pauk diary again. In
22 particular, the English version page 5 and page 10, the B/C/S version --
23 perhaps if Mr. Weber is so kind to assist the Defence with the B/C/S.
24 Page 5 of the English version and page 10 of the English version.
25 MR. WEBER: Counsel, can I have the time of the entry you are
1 looking for just so that I can find it on the page?
2 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, it's entry 16 November 1994. 1540.
3 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please look at entry 1540 in the left
4 side. You see that Mr. Bozovic requests fire on the following sectors.
5 You see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you agree with me that this request from Bozovic was addressed
8 to the Pauk command?
9 A. What we can read in the book called Pauk, I don't know who he was
10 addressing here.
11 MR. KNOOPS: Could you please go to -- that's page 10 of the
12 British version. The entry is 0622 hours.
13 Q. You see that an order has been issued by the Pauk command for
14 co-ordination of the 2nd Battalion with Bozovic. You read that,
15 Mr. Witness?
16 A. What time-period are you referring to?
17 Q. 0622.
18 A. If Rajo Bozovic was the only Bozovic who was there.
19 Q. Yes. Do you know -- you do know him -- it's the nickname Kubak?
20 A. I never heard anybody being referred to as Kubak.
21 Q. Kobac, sorry.
22 A. I heard the nickname Kobac. It was one of our officers who
23 mentioned that nickname.
24 Q. And he referred to Rajo Bozovic with the name?
25 A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure whether his nickname was Kobac or
1 whether he was only known as Bozovic, but in any case, that nickname is
2 attached to him.
3 Q. Mr. Witness, do you agree that according to this entry 0622,
4 orders were being given by the Pauk command to Rajo Bozovic?
5 A. You are asking me whether a decision was made; is that the
7 Q. No, my question is whether you agree with me that this entry
8 reads that an order was issued for co-ordination of a certain battalion
9 with Rajo Bozovic?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, if you want to ask the witness whether
11 he agrees what the text says, then it's a useless question because the
12 Chamber is able to read. If you are suggesting to the witness that the
13 6.22 entry says that the order was issued, then that's apparently not
14 what the text says. Now, if the witness knows anything about it, fine,
15 let him testify about it. But there is a question mark. The question is
16 whether an order has been issued for the co-ordination. That's clearly
17 what it says in, whether you call it British or English, that's what it
19 Now, this raises, perhaps, some questions as who puts this
20 question, would it have been General Novakovic, because "delivered by"
21 says that column. Well, a question delivered by is -- so, therefore, if
22 the witness knows anything about it, fine. If you want to seek the
23 agreement of the witness what it reads, then there's no need to do that.
24 And at least if you are seeking confirmation by the witness on a rather
25 dubious reading of what it says, because it does not say that an order
1 was issued. It says "Has an order been issued?" That's a question.
2 If I would leave it to that for the time being, then please
4 MR. KNOOPS: Yes. Maybe we can pull up 65 ter 4222.
5 Q. Mr. Witness, please look at the right side of the B/C/S version
6 at the end of the document. You see the name Radojica Bozovic? You
7 agree, you can see it?
8 A. Yes, I can see Radojica Bozovic in block letters.
9 Q. And you also see the name Kubak -- Kobac. Kobac.
10 A. Yes, it does say Kobac.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I have -- is on our screen what you are asking the
12 witness at this moment, because I have difficulties in finding it. Let
13 me just check. Radojica Bozovic is -- let me just see where I find that.
14 Oh, that's it. Yes, it's the handwriting, the handwritten part. Yes.
15 Now I -- let me just see. Yes. Yes, I've deciphered the handwriting
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. KNOOPS:
19 Q. Mr. Witness, this document is signed or co-signed by Mr. Bozovic
20 as the Tactical Group 3 commander of Operation Pauk. So I put it to you
21 that -- I put it to you that you lied about Bozovic being commander of
22 the reserve forces of the unit you described?
23 A. The signature on this document means nothing. First of all, I
24 don't know how Bozovic signed his name. I'm not a signature expert or a
25 handwriting expert. So I can't say anything with any degree of
1 certainty. I can't say whether the document is authentic or not. I've
2 never seen this signature before.
3 Q. Can you confirm that Mr. Ramiz Rizvic, he is the signatory on the
4 left side, was the second in command of Fikret Abdic forces?
5 A. No, I can't confirm. Maybe that officer came with Fikret Abdic
6 later, but I've never seen this name before.
7 Q. It's a Muslim name though?
8 A. It does appear to be a Muslim name, yes. I have a friend who is
9 from Gora and -- from Gorenje, and his name is very similar, if not the
11 Q. Mr. Witness, could you confirm that Mijovic, Mr. Mijovic, was in
12 the tactical group of Bozovic?
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: I think that counsel is moving on. This is a
16 Prosecution document. I don't know if because counsel feels there was a
17 lack of a foundation or not, but the Prosecution has no objection to just
18 tendering this document at this time. It states that there was a TG 3 as
19 part of the Pauk operation. Whether or not that's separate than the
20 reserve force of the JATD, I believe, is a matter to be determined.
21 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, we'd like to tender the document as an exhibit,
22 Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
24 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D59, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: D59 is admitted into evidence.
1 Could I -- Mr. Knoops, are you done with the document?
2 MR. KNOOPS: This document, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because you put to the witness that it was
4 signed by Mr. -- what we see is that there is a name which is blackened
5 out, then there seems to be a signature that is what you usually consider
6 to be a signature which apparently starts with the letter K and might
7 well be - I'm not saying it is - but might well be the signature of
8 Mr. Kobac. Then I find handwritten in block letters the name of
9 Mr. Bozovic and his first name written in a way which is quite uncommon
10 for signatures, that is, divided over two lines, that is what I hardly
11 ever have seen in my life as being a signature. And then to put to the
12 witness this document is signed by Mr. Bozovic is really not something
13 that assists the Chamber.
14 Let's be critical on what we are looking at and let's -- and then
15 to conclude that, therefore, the witness has lied, I'm not saying whether
16 he tells the truth or not, but on the basis of this, to suggest to him
17 that he lied -- there may be other reasons, I'm not saying that you may
18 not have good reasons to believe that this document was signed, but do
19 you have any documents, other documents signed by Mr. Bozovic, where it's
20 a two-line signature rather than a one-line signature?
21 MR. KNOOPS: Well, we have the impression that the Prosecution is
22 not disputing that this is a document signed by Mr. Bozovic.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you have an impression of that, let's check
24 that. Mr. Weber, is this a document signed by Mr. Bozovic? Is there any
25 dispute about that?
1 MR. WEBER: I believe there's a signature on that document. The
2 witness has offered his testimony and lack of knowledge of this. We do
3 not dispute that it's an authentic document. I believe the block
4 lettering is not the signature of Rajo Bozovic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So there is dispute about it. It is apparently a
6 signed document of which the authenticity is not disputed, but where the
7 name in block letters is not considered to be the signature of
8 Mr. Bozovic. So what you put to the witness is in dispute. I don't know
9 how important it is, perhaps it's not important at all, but I'd rather
10 have a --
11 MR. KNOOPS: Well, you know, it would be in contradiction also
12 with the other evidence of the Prosecution, namely the Pauk diary.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we are not discussing at this moment -- the
14 only thing I'm doing is asking you to -- before you put to the witness
15 that this document is signed by, then to have a good reason to do that.
16 If you have other reasons, fine. Put them to the witness. Ask whether
17 the witness knows anything about it.
18 Again, an examination of a witness is not trying to put together
19 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle on the logic, but on what he knows. And if you
20 put to him that the document he is looking at is signed by Mr. Bozovic,
21 then there is not much reason at this moment to assume that it is. His
22 name appears on it, that seems to be clear. Whether it's signed or not
23 is a totally different matter. The first impression I would have is that
24 it's signed by Mr. Kobac.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. KNOOPS: Yes. I believe, Your Honour, that the witness
2 already confirmed that Kobac was the alias of Bozovic. So I could ask it
3 again if the Court wishes to -- anyway, to lay that foundation.
4 MR. WEBER: That fact is not in dispute.
5 MR. KNOOPS: Okay. Then we move on.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's not in dispute. Nevertheless, where do we find
7 it so that we can verify that Mr. -- we don't have to -- you said the
8 witness already ...
9 MR. KNOOPS: I just asked him, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then I missed it at this moment.
11 MR. KNOOPS: In the cross-examination. I just asked him.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
13 MR. KNOOPS:
14 Q. Mr. Witness, can you confirm that the term "tactical group"
15 referred to in this document pertained to Operation Pauk under command of
17 A. I heard of the term "tactical group." However, I asked you
18 whether you were talking about a technical group or a tactical group
19 under 3. That's what I asked you.
20 Q. We are speaking about tactical group.
21 A. I suppose that this is indeed the case, that there was a
22 Tactical Group 3 as well as a Tactical Groups 2 and 1.
23 Q. And can you confirm that these tactical groups were under command
24 of Operation Pauk, i.e., the Pauk command led by General Novakovic?
25 MR. WEBER: Objection. It's asked and answered, and it's been
1 gone over a couple of times. Witness has indicated he doesn't know
2 whether or not the structure of the command under Novakovic was.
3 MR. KNOOPS: No, this is, Your Honour, with all due respect, a
4 different question. This is specifically pertaining to a question where
5 the tactical groups, as referred here to, were part of Operation Pauk.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were tactical groups, yes.
8 MR. KNOOPS:
9 Q. Yes, but were they part of Operation Pauk, yes or no?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You mentioned yesterday and also in your statement the name of
12 Legija. He was actually also subordinated to General Novakovic, wasn't
14 A. I don't know about General Novakovic, but I know that Legija did
15 come to our command post at Magarcevac to visit Jovica Stanisic.
16 MR. KNOOPS: May I please pull up D47. 65 ter 4216.
17 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please look at --
18 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, I just got notice from the defendant
19 Mr. Stanisic that he would prefer to have a rest.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have, as a matter of fact, I have not looked
21 at the clock as I should have done.
22 MR. KNOOPS: Maybe I could just finish this document which only
23 pertains two questions, if that's okay.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at Mr. Stanisic. He apparently agrees.
25 So let's do that.
1 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Witness, number 12, the name Legija is referred to in this
3 document. You see that he is mentioned there as tactical group
4 commander 2. Can you agree that this also relates to the same tactical
5 groups as referred to with Tactical Group 3?
6 A. I suppose so. It's possible.
7 Q. Yes. And you see number 13, Kobac, Tactical Group 3. Can you
8 confirm that this relates to Rajo Bozovic, yes or no?
9 A. As far as Legija is concerned, I know that he was one and only.
10 And as far as Kobac is concerned, I told you that I did hear that that
11 was Rajo Bozovic's nickname. But I can see that it says Kobac 1
12 underneath and so on and so forth, so I wouldn't be able to tell you what
13 this actually refers to.
14 Q. But you do agree that these tactical groups were part of
15 Operation Pauk?
16 A. There were possibly several tactical groups acting from different
17 command posts.
18 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Knoops. Now, do I understand from
20 you - and we'll have a break in a second - that I should have concluded
21 from page 23, lines 9 to 14, that it is without any doubt that Kobac -
22 and looking now at the newest document, I do not know whether we are
23 talking about Kobac or Kobac 1 - that that is the same as Mr. Bozovic?
24 I'm looking at line 12, I'm not sure, I'm not sure whether his nickname
25 was Kobac or whether he was only known as another name. But I do
1 understand that that is what you were referring to, that the witness
2 testified that the nickname was Kobac.
3 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 10 minutes past 4.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be brought
7 into the courtroom, have the parties received a chart of the -- with the
8 exhibit numbers on it and 65 ter numbers and description of the -- it's
9 hereby decided that P471, which contains four documents; P472, one
10 document, are admitted into evidence. P473, two documents, is MFI'd.
11 And we'll decide with that together with P179.
12 P474, one document; P475, one document; P476, one document; P477,
13 two documents; P478, two documents; P479, three documents; P480, one
14 document; the same for P481; and for P482, these are all admitted into
15 evidence. I hereby observe that the 65 ter numbers you'll find on the
16 chart are the 65 ter numbers as they were until now. New 65 ter numbers
17 will be assigned, but Madam Registrar will include in e-court a short
18 history of the numbers of 65 ter. But the decision on admission on all
19 but one is hereby delivered.
20 There seems to be a problem with next week's witnesses. We may
21 find time later today to deal with that.
22 Mr. Knoops, are you ready to continue your cross-examination, and
23 could you give us an impression as to how much time you'd still need?
24 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour, maximum of 15 minutes, if the
25 Court allows me.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please.
2 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you.
3 Q. Mr. Witness, in your 2003 statement, paragraph 18, you refer to a
4 group of soldiers from Bijeljina at the time called the Panteri. Were
5 you referring with this group to the group also known as the
6 Mauzer Panthers?
7 A. I'm not sure. It is possible. I only know that they were called
9 Q. Do you know that this group called Panteri were sent by the VRS
10 and subordinated to the east corps of the VRS led by General Simic?
11 A. No.
12 Q. In the same statement, paragraph 18 -- no, sorry, paragraph 19,
13 you refer to a group called the Skorpions. Can you confirm that this
14 group was a unit for special purposes for security and protection of the
15 oil fields in Djeletovci in the zone of responsibility of the 11th Corps?
16 MR. WEBER: If counsel could just provide a date for that for the
17 record, so it's clear.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, were they there during the whole of the
20 MR. KNOOPS: I'm speaking about the time-period as of the
21 31st March, 1994
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard that part of the unit, of
24 this unit, was engaged, but I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what
25 assignments they had.
1 MR. KNOOPS:
2 Q. General Dusan Loncar was appointed as commander of the
3 Slavonian Baranja Corps, 11th Corps on the 31st March 1994, and he took
4 that post on that date, and under his command this group Skorpions were
5 subordinated. Can you confirm this?
6 A. I can't.
7 Q. This group was composed of 300 to 350 individuals, and the unit
8 was commanded by Major Medic --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, the witness now has in two or three
10 questions answered that he hardly has any knowledge apart from what we
11 find in his statement. Wouldn't it be more efficient to first ask
12 whether he has any additional knowledge about command, size, et cetera,
13 and then we know whether it makes any sense or not to ask him those
15 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Witness, do you know anything about the Skorpions in terms of
17 size or command structure?
18 A. As for this unit, I know that there existed such a paramilitary
19 unit, and I mentioned one of the persons who were -- who was an officer
20 in our unit who was in a way in charge of this unit, according to what I
22 Q. What do you mean "in a way in charge"?
23 A. From what I understood from the senior members of the unit who
24 had told me that, he was in a way in charge of this unit.
25 Q. And you're referring to Mr. Zoran Rajic?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I put it to that you Mr. Zoran Rajic was never ever even a member
3 of the Skorpions and that the unit was led by Major Medic, Slobodan,
4 alias Boca?
5 A. I don't doubt that that is correct. I said that this man was in
6 a way linked to this unit. I never said that he was their commander.
7 Q. But could you explain what you mean exactly with "in a way"?
8 A. Perhaps he co-ordinated in a way with that unit.
9 Q. Mr. Witness, we are now confronted with several qualifications
10 from "in a way in charge" to "in a way linked to the unit" to "he
11 co-ordinated in a way with the unit." Could you please inform the
12 Chamber what is your final view on this person's --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, the Chamber is not interested in views.
14 The Chamber is interested in facts.
15 What facts do you know, Mr. Sliskovic, which would provide a
16 basis for what you expressed as "in a way," "linked to," what facts do
17 you know?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In the Lipovica forest camp
19 while I was there with the members of my unit, I asked who Rajic was when
20 he appeared the first time, and they told, Me how come you don't know?
21 This is Rajic; he is in charge of one of these units.
22 And they said that in a way he was in charge of this Skorpion
23 unit. That's what they told me, verbatim. And they also mentioned his
24 nickname Gavran, which they knew from before.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any other facts apart from this hearsay
1 from others that would support you're views on the matter?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I learned this from what I was
3 told. Only on that basis.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Knoops.
5 MR. KNOOPS: Then we have no further questions, Your Honour.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Mr. Bakrac, is it you or will it be Mr. Petrovic who will
9 cross-examine the witness?
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, it will be me.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sliskovic, you will be cross-examined by
12 Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
13 But before I give you an opportunity to do so, I should have
14 added that the admission into evidence of Exhibits P471 up to and
15 including P482 is under seal and that also includes P473, which is just
16 marked for identification but should remain under seal.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
19 First of all, before I start with my cross-examination, I would
20 like to ask you, and this is in accordance with what I agreed with the
21 Prosecution before the break, to go into private session due to some
22 procedural issues.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 5201-5229 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I wasn't there -- let me just see whether ...
20 yes, and then we'll continue after the break.
21 Mr. Bakrac, could you tell us how much time you'd need, further
22 need, for your cross-examination?
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will need two hours,
24 but I know that I won't get that. We spent quite a lot of time on these
25 procedural issues, more than half an hour. Yesterday I gave you an
1 estimate of an hour and a half. Would you allow me another 50 minutes,
2 please, and then I will try to put only relevant questions within that
3 time so that we can finish this witness today. But to tell you the
4 truth, I could use easily two hours for my questions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since you gave an estimate of one hour and a
6 half and since you've used some time already then that you could use two
7 hours, I take it that you could use five hours, Mr. Bakrac.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Nothing, I apologise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break. We resume at 6.00. The Chamber
13 would welcome such use of time that we can conclude the testimony of this
14 witness today, and we all know that means 7.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, please proceed.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Q. Mr. Sliskovic, now we will deal with your health. Tell us,
20 please --
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] First of all, let's look at 2D129.
22 Your Honours, this is from the web portal of Pancevo newspapers. This is
23 a public document that anybody can see when they type in this person's
24 name. There's no need for this document to be protected.
25 Q. While we are waiting for the document to be uploaded,
1 Mr. Sliskovic, did you provide --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Before we go on to this point topic, we do have an
4 objection as to the relevance of, I believe it's actually 2D123 through
5 the remaining articles, of the relevance of this general line of
6 questioning. If the Chamber would like to hear the objection now before
7 we go on to it, or --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we first have a look it so that we know what
9 we are talking about, because talking in the abstract is always rather
11 Apart from that, Mr. Bakrac, I think I should put something on
12 the record which I had forgotten to do earlier, that is, that when we
13 were in private session that we heard no evidence whatsoever of this
14 witness which was in any way related -- was directly related to the
15 charges brought against Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Stanisic. And since the
16 witness considered this important to put it on the record, we do so, and
17 it was the Chamber which initiated the private session.
18 Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: I did have a question about this one exhibit.
20 Counsel says it was a public record, however the Prosecution did try to
21 find this on the -- this is the Storm Front or the -- it's a E-novine. I
22 just want to be clear as to which article is being shown as 129. Because
23 one could be found publicly, one could not. I just wanted to be clear.
24 I see it says the E-novine. Is that the one?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the one. E-novine. It
1 has four pages altogether. Let's look at page 2.
2 Q. First of all, sir, is that you in this photo?
3 A. Yes, it's me, and I'm even wearing the same suit.
4 Q. Thank you. Let's look at page 2. On page 2 it says that you
5 were treated in May 2006 at the institute of health care in Belgrade
6 A. Yes, I went in for some testing. I was there on two occasions.
7 The first time there --
8 Q. We'll come to that slowly. My time is really limited, so let me
9 guide you.
10 MR. WEBER: If the witness could actually provide a brief but
11 complete answer to the questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would be brief in your answers and
13 focus on what is asked.
14 And if you would put focused questions to the witness.
15 Mr. Bakrac, that photograph, was it really necessary to ask
16 whether that's him? And even if it was a stand-in, then it wouldn't have
17 made any difference, would it?
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 Q. Witness, is it correct that after the testing in 2006 it was
21 established that you were not capable of working at heights, heavy
23 A. The findings was that I shouldn't work at heights and heavy
24 labour and heavy psychological labour.
25 Q. Is it true that after those testings you learned that you -- you
1 learned that you suffered from hypertension, polyneuropathy, damage to
2 the peripheral nervous system, headaches, dizziness, and finally it was
3 established that you were obsessive?
4 A. As far as my first testing is concerned, analyses were carried
5 out and the expert report stated exactly what was established. In the
6 expert report which arose for medical testing, there is no reference to
8 Q. Just a moment, Witness, we'll come do that.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And can we now look at page 4 in the
10 same document.
11 Q. I'm going to ask you this while the page is being uploaded.
12 Let's look at the penultimate page, and I'll ask you this: Is it true
13 that you stated that after the trial, after the process against
14 Petrohemija, you would stage a Romanian scenario for Mr. Istic, that's
16 A. That was as interpreted by the journalist. I explained that this
17 is a part of a movie entitled Professional where that character said, I
18 will stage a Romanian scenario for you, and that guy was beaten. It was
19 a joke and the journalist interpreted things as he wished. And that was
20 during my interview at the crime police with inspector Todorovic.
21 Q. As a result of that statement, the crime police came to see you
22 and you provided a statement to Todorovic?
23 A. Yes, and Todorovic found that I used a joke, that it was not a
24 real threat. And he informed the director of electrolysis [as
25 interpreted] that there was nothing to the effect that I wanted to
1 threaten Mr. Istic.
2 Q. Is it true, Witness, as it says on this page, at the top of this
3 page, that the head of neuropsychiatry in Pancevo,
4 Mrs. Slavica Dzigurski, established 30 per cent diminished capacity for
6 A. Yes, she did, but that only concerns sensorimotoric
7 polyneuropathy, which is a disease of peripheral neurological system, not
8 a central nervous system.
9 Q. Thank you very much. Can this document please be tendered into
10 evidence, Your Honours?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] D129.
13 MR. WEBER: The objection is going be relevance. This matter
14 deals with something that occurred to the witness between 2006 and, I
15 believe, 2008 that he received treatment for. He worked for the
16 Petrohemija company, and he suffered from mercury poisoning. He had a
17 condition that was typical that occurred that were typical of mercury
18 poisoning, and this matter has been treated and resolved. It has no
19 impact on his evidence, or --
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you should not interrupt Mr. Weber. The
22 document will be marked for identification.
23 Please proceed.
24 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] But allow me, Your Honours, to say
3 that in 2010 this witness provided a very detailed statement to Mr. Weber
4 after such a thorough diagnosis, and Mr. Weber is now telling me that
5 this is not relevant. Then I really don't know what is relevant.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, when I said it will be marked for
7 identification, that means that we'll have a further opportunity to
8 discuss the relevance of this. And there's no need to do that now,
10 Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D60 marked for
12 identification, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Can we now see 2D130.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Still public?
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This was also
19 downloaded from the E-newspaper portal.
20 Q. Mr. Sliskovic, in the second paragraph, because of the threats
21 that you issued against the director of Petrohemija, it is stated:
22 "Dejan Sliskovic was told that on the 16th of June he should
23 report to the psychologist in that factory, Mrs. Svetlana Knezevic."
24 Did you report to her?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. Sliskovic himself showed her documents that he had received at
2 the department of neuropsychiatry where it said that he suffered from
3 organic hallucinations; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. The factory psychologist is in possession of all the
5 documents. This is not an authorised text. And whatever the journalist
6 wrote in here is --
7 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
8 MR. WEBER: Mr. Groome and I both --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
10 MR. WEBER: We located it. I apologise for interrupting, and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Bakrac, is there -- your answer has -- we
12 interrupted you. Your answer was:
13 "Yes. The factory psychologist is in possession of all the
14 documents. This is not an authorised text. And whatever the journalist
15 wrote in here ..." and could you then please finish your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The factory psychologist who works
17 at the factory and police officers also thought it would be good for me
18 to explain to the journalist that I didn't actually want to harm
19 director Istic. They wanted me to explain the meaning of this remaining
20 scenario, and I explained that to the journalist. I did not draft the
21 text myself. It was the journalist who did it, and he wrote it the way
22 he did. He put things in his own context.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I tender this into
24 evidence as well.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be marked for identification.
1 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
2 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D61 marked for
3 identification, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status.
5 Mr. Bakrac.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we now see 2D124.
7 Q. Mr. Sliskovic, while we are waiting for that document to be
8 produced, I asked you and you accepted from the first document
9 everything, but you denied obsessive character. Let's look at the
10 document which is still not on the screen. First of all, let's look at
11 page 1.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Public document, Mr. Bakrac?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no. I apologise, no,
14 thank you for --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Not to be shown to the public. But to be shown
16 to us.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Sliskovic, on the 26th of July, 2006, did you undergo
19 examination by Dr. M. Trkulja? Look at the document.
20 A. That's a lady doctor, Mira Trkulja.
21 Q. You were there?
22 A. Yes, that's while I was at the institute.
23 Q. Let's look at page 2. Is this a controlled check-up which was
24 carried out on the 9th of August, 2006?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you please read the second sentence in the first paragraph.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness does not
3 have the Serbian version on the screen. Now he has.
4 Q. First paragraph, second sentence, please read it for us.
5 A. "Obsessive engrossed in particular topics he must see to the
7 Q. This lady doctor did find you as being an obsessive character?
8 A. That was part of the observation; however, this did not make it
9 into the expert report.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can this document also
11 be admitted into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It will be marked for identification for the time
14 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D62 marked for
15 identification under seal, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. It will keep that
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, did it happen in 2006 that from the place where you
20 reside in Pancevo you went to a different part of Pancevo called
21 Mrkita [phoen] and that three hours later you found yourself in front of
22 the Metropol Hotel Belgrade; is that correct?
23 A. I believe so, yes.
24 Q. Could you please explain where Pancevo is, where Metropol Hotel
1 A. Hotel Metropol is about 13 kilometres away from the town of
3 Q. Is it true that you said that you had no idea how you found
4 yourself in front of the Metropol Hotel?
5 A. Most likely it is.
6 Q. Is it true that it happened more than once?
7 A. Yes, but not in this way.
8 Q. So it happened to you several times that you would head out to go
9 somewhere and then reach a completely different destination without
10 knowing how you got there?
11 A. I was probably immersed in my thoughts.
12 Q. This can be seen in the expert report. Exhibit 2D127, page 6.
13 And for the sake of the speed, and the witness has confirmed this, could
14 this be admitted into evidence, Dr. Dzigurski expert report.
15 A. It is not an expert report by Dr. Dzigurski.
16 Q. Maybe I made a mistake. I apologise. I see that it says here
17 forensic expert, Dr. Slavica Dzigurski, neuropsychiatrist.
18 A. You are not referring to the expert report. The expert report
19 was produced by the occupational medicine institute, and it should have
20 been signed by Professor Bulat.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Have we had 2D127 on the screen? You are referring
22 to a document we haven't seen, Mr. Bakrac.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I apologise, Your Honour. I thought that it appeared on the
25 screen. This is also not a public document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Please look at the first page. Municipal court in Pancevo.
4 Expert report.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And then can we see the last page,
7 Q. Forensic expert Dr. Slavica Dzigurski, neuropsychiatrist.
8 A. This is not an expert report. She is a forensic expert, but the
9 document that is used for forensic expertise --
10 Q. Let me just interrupt you. I agree, it doesn't need to be an
11 expert report. Is it an authentic document?
12 A. To tell you the truth, I never saw that document. I believe that
13 it is authentic, but I don't remember it.
14 Q. Did you talk to Dr. Dzigurski?
15 A. Yes, she examined me. She's a forensic expert.
16 Q. Were you examined in relation to your complaints concerning which
17 you sued Petrohemija?
18 A. Yes, and in that case Slavica Dzigurski was appointed forensic
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this is
21 sufficient. The time flies. So can this document also be admitted into
22 evidence. This is 2D127.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It will be marked for identification.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D63 marked for identification under seal,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Another document, the last document.
3 This is a public complaint. It's a complaint filed with the court. It's
4 a public document, 2D123. I don't know whether we should broadcast it or
5 not. This is a complaint filed by the lawyer of Mr. Sliskovic in the
6 Pancevo court in his case against Petrohemija.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If it is publicly filed, I don't think that there's
8 a specific reason not to show it to the public.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Q. Is it true, sir, that as your lawyer was drafting this complaint,
11 you gave him documents and you told him - and this can be found in
12 paragraph 3 in the middle - that there was a significant deterioration of
13 your mental health and that you had the following diagnosis: F45, A41,
14 and F06, which are well known in psychiatry?
15 A. My lawyer is not an expert in medicine. As for the F06
16 diagnosis, that was a diagnosis in observation, and I don't know what the
17 neuropsychiatrist concluded because the court case is not over yet.
18 There has been no judgement, either in my favour or in the favour of the
19 other party. My lawyer considered it important to mention these
20 diagnoses in the complaint. And based on everything that happened, it
21 was established that my work ability was affected, as a result of which I
22 worked as a security officer in Pancevo.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I want this complaint
24 to be admitted into evidence as well, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It will be marked for identification so as to give
1 an opportunity to the parties to further discuss the relevance and other
2 relevant considerations for admission into evidence.
3 Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This will be D64 marked for identification --
5 under seal?
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think this doesn't have to be under seal.
7 Mr. Bakrac, does it? You said it was publicly filed?
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I think there are no problems. It
9 was publicly filed.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D64 is marked for identification.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now see
14 Q. Do you recognise your medical file, your medical history, dated
15 19 July 2006
16 A. Yes. It says here --
17 Q. I'm just asking you whether you recognise your medical history.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could we now see page 2 where it says CNS. I will read out what
20 it says. And will you please confirm that this is the doctor's finding.
21 It says here:
22 "Anxious, depressed, sleeps poorly, has nightmares, has sudden
23 mood changes, fear of being in closed area, has paranoid ideas
24 (conspiracy theory after using Ksalol in the morning)."
25 A. Yes, that's what the doctor wrote.
1 Q. So you agree with me that this was written by a doctor?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we tender this into
4 evidence as well.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was my health condition after
6 I was exposed to toxic substances, mercury.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the document for -- the number for
8 the document which will be marked for identification is ...
9 THE REGISTRAR: This will be D65 marked for identification,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, D65, MFI'd.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, another document, due
14 to the fact that the witness denied some things from his complaint, and
15 this should not be publicly broadcast. This is an expert report, 2D125.
16 Page 3.
17 Q. Could the witness verify the diagnosis. Are you familiar with
18 this expert report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you see here diagnoses F41 and F45 as your diagnosis?
21 A. Yes, but not F06.7.
22 Q. We will get to that, sir. Tell me, please, sir, can you see in
23 the middle it says occasional loss of determinate tendency in the thought
25 A. This was written by doctors.
1 Q. Yes, yes, this was written by doctors, that's why I'm asking you
2 whether this was your document which was drafted after you were examined
3 by doctors.
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this into
6 evidence as well.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The document will are marked for identification.
8 THE REGISTRAR: This will be D66 marked for identification,
9 Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like now to
13 turn to the statement. I don't have much time left, so I will start
15 Q. Mr. Witness, today you said in examination-in-chief that you left
16 the so-called JATD after Pauk operation and that you tried to ask to be
17 released immediately after the Pauk operation concluded?
18 A. Well, in Tara
19 Q. Did you give this request to the OTP?
20 A. No, it was written in one copy only, and I gave it to Zvezdan
21 Jovanovic at the Mount Tara
22 Q. And you did not want to be a member of the SDB unit any longer?
23 A. Yes, that's what I wrote, that I no longer wanted to be a member
24 of the unit or of the reserve forces.
25 Q. Witness --
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We have P442 here, and we need
2 page 4. This is a certificate on the years of service of Mr. Sliskovic
3 where we can see that he worked for exactly one year and not a single day
4 more or less, not a single month more or less, from what his contract
6 Q. Is that true, Mr. Sliskovic?
7 A. Yes, and this is when the decision on my status was annulled.
8 Q. Sir, how is it possible that you wrote your request asking to be
9 released from the unit on the day when the decision assigning you to that
10 unit expired?
11 A. I didn't say that I wrote it on the same day. Simply I was at
12 the Tara
14 together with me.
15 Q. Witness, I put to you that your work contract expired. You had a
16 one-year work contract and that you had to leave the state security and
17 that as a result of that you have a grudge?
18 A. That's not true.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the sake of the
20 record, because I don't have time to go back, diagnosis F06 can be found
21 in Exhibit 2D127 on page 4 under item 7. I owed you that piece of
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Madam Registrar, could you assist us in what exhibit number that
1 THE REGISTRAR: It's D63 marked for identification, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Witness, so after the Operation Pauk, you no longer wanted to be
6 a member of the state security?
7 A. When I wrote that statement, that's how I felt and that's how I
9 Q. No, I withdraw this question.
10 My question is as follows: Is it true that after the 72nd
11 Brigade when you were discharged from there you signed up for the Serbian
12 Volunteer Guard?
13 A. Yes, yes, I did. I signed up for the Serbian Volunteer Guard.
14 Q. Sir, if it's true that the Serbian Volunteer Guard was under the
15 jurisdiction of the state security of Serbia, why did you then go to a
16 unit that was under the Serbian DB when you no longer wanted to be a
18 A. When I said that I no longer wanted to be a member of the unit, I
19 was referring to the unit led by Zvezdan Jovanovic.
20 Q. But a bit earlier you said that you no longer wanted to be a
21 member of a DB unit, not a unit led by Zvezdan Jovanovic.
22 A. Well, perhaps I expressed myself inaccurately. When I wrote the
23 request to leave the unit, the reason was because the deputy
24 Zvezdan Jovanovic at the camp forced me to stand guard for eight to ten
25 hours every day --
1 Q. You've already told us that. We don't need to hear it again.
2 Witness, is it true that before joining the DB in May of 1994 you had a
3 contract with the army, a three-year contract with the army?
4 A. Yes, I had a contract with the army. I don't know for what
5 period of time. But when I was supposed to start working here, I was
6 told to write a statement saying that for personal reasons I wanted to
7 leave the army.
8 Q. So you terminated your work contract with the army, lying to them
9 that it was for personal reasons, and not telling them that it was
10 because you were hired by state security?
11 A. No, I wrote that reason down because I had been told that I
12 shouldn't write the real reason to the army. That's what I was told by
13 the state security, and I did as I was told.
14 Q. Is it true that you stated that in the 72nd Brigade you were not
15 allowed to join that brigade because you had been a member the state
17 A. No, I did become a member of the 72nd Brigade. I spent a certain
18 amount of time there. And the commander who was my commander at the
19 time, I think his name was Zivkovic, told me that he no longer wanted me
20 to be a member of the 72nd Brigade because I had been a member of this
21 other unit. And he sent me to Avala to give back my equipment. And he
22 actually wanted me to meet with the security officer who interrogated me
23 about the Pauk operation in Western Bosnia.
24 Q. Did you state this to the OTP investigator that that was the
25 reason you left the 72nd Brigade?
1 A. I don't remember exactly.
2 Q. While you were a member of the at the 72nd Brigade, did you
3 confiscate a weapon from somebody?
4 A. No, I didn't confiscate any rifle from anyone.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could we see Exhibit P440, which is
6 the first statement of this witness. Paragraph 21.
7 Q. We don't have much time, so I will read it out to you:
8 "I confiscated a rifle from a 13-year-old boy, and I told him to
9 tell his father to go back to the MUP to get it back."
10 While you were a member of the 2nd Brigade.
11 A. I think it's a bad translation. It was a pistol, 7.62 millimetre
13 Q. And who did you confiscate it from?
14 A. This boy's name was Nenad.
15 Q. And what authority did you have to confiscate weapons from anyone
17 A. I was not an authorised official entitled to confiscate weapons,
18 but due to the boy's security, I thought it was better if I confiscated
20 Q. Did you surrender it to the police, or were you later accused for
21 doing that?
22 A. No, I didn't surrender it to the police, but I told this boy to
23 send the owner of the weapon to the police to come and get it.
24 Q. And did he come?
25 A. No, he didn't because later it turned out that it was a weapon
1 owned by a railway worker who had been killed at the railway.
2 Q. And how did this emerge? When the police got involved?
3 A. Yes, the police told me what this was about.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
5 Yesterday you said that when you were in Petrova Gora -- first of
6 all, let me ask you this: How many times did you see Legija in
7 Petrova Gora? How many times did he enter that room that was, according
8 to you, used by Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic?
9 A. Well, I was standing guard, we rotated. I saw Legija at least
10 three times.
11 Q. How many times did you hear that Legija said, or rather,
12 requested and said, I'm going to attack Kladusa from the front side; how
13 many times did you hear that?
14 A. I heard that through an open window. I was standing guard, and I
15 heard Legija saying that once. He wanted to carry out a frontal attack.
16 Q. So that happened just once? He requested to be in charge of a
17 frontal attack against Kladusa; is that correct?
18 JUDGE ORIE: How possibly do you think that the interpreters can
19 follow this speed of speech? Please try to make pauses and try to speak
20 at a decent speed.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. So we have agreed that you heard Legija only once when he said
24 that he would carry out a frontal attack against Kladusa?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is it true that on direct examination you said that
2 Franko Simatovic responded to him, "Act according to plan"?
3 A. No, he said things, "Will happen according to our agreement."
4 Q. Could you please look at P440, paragraph 8. And just for the
5 time restrictions I'm going to start reading before it appears on the
6 screen. And starting in the middle, there was a meeting at the staff,
7 and so on and so forth:
8 "We did not dare eavesdrop on their conversations, however it so
9 happened that I heard them use the term 'Pauk,' and I also heard Legija
10 (whose deputy was Sarac), and I don't know his name, Legija requested for
11 an approval to attack the Velika Kladusa. I also heard Abdic who told
12 him that that should be a classical infantry attack and that he did not
13 want a single building to be destroyed in that attack."
14 Witness, I'm putting it to you that you made everything up,
15 because in your statement you stated that that Abdic responded to
16 Legija's request.
17 A. You know what, I stated things as I remember them. I never
18 attempted to learn my statement by heart.
19 Q. So what do you remember? Was it Franko Simatovic or Abdic who
20 responded to Legija's words?
21 A. I'm now sure that it was Franko Simatovic and nobody else.
22 Q. So now your memory is much fresher than it was when you provided
23 your statement in September 2003; right? Is that what you are saying?
24 A. Maybe I remembered some things after providing the statement at a
25 later stage. As simple as that.
1 Q. Thank you. Witness --
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's no answer in
3 the transcript. This is what I've just been suggested by my colleague,
4 or rather, what I'm being told is that there's no separation between my
5 question and my answer, but this will probably be done at a later stage.
6 Let's not waste time on that.
7 Q. Witness, in 2003 your statement was different. Today in 2010
8 your statement is again different. Are you saying that your memory is
9 fresher and that you remember better today than you did in 2003 and the
10 events happened in 1994?
11 A. I'm not saying that I remember better. When I provided my
12 statement, I was speaking from memory. I did not learn any of my
13 statements by heart. I simply said what I remembered at the time, what
14 came to mind first.
15 Q. Witness, you said that Zika Crnogorac was with you in the convoy
16 when you were headed for Petrova Gora?
17 A. Yes, he was in the same bus with my group.
18 Q. What was Zika Crnogorac's name?
19 A. I believe that his family name was Ivanovic, but I'm not sure.
20 Q. When did you learn that his family name was Ivanovic?
21 A. I learned that -- or rather, I knew his family name, but I'm not
22 sure, so I didn't say that.
23 Q. When did you learn that his family name was Ivanovic?
24 A. Maybe five or six years ago.
25 Q. Five or six years ago.
1 Could you please look at your statement provided in 2010.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the number is P441,
3 and the paragraph that I'm interested in is 87, which is on page 31 in
5 Q. You said a month ago:
6 I can recognise that on the basis of the name of Darko Coklin's,
7 which is Zika Crnogorac's name.
8 A. No, Coklin was the lad who was sitting next to me on the bus, and
9 Zika Crnogorac, when we crossed the border there was -- we stalled, and
10 he called Coklin to get off the bus and to come to urgently while he was
11 hiding in the corn fields.
12 Q. Witness, I have to finish within the next three minutes. There
13 are major discrepancies here, and let me finish with the following
14 question: Your observation, therefore, that Arkan's Volunteer Guard was
15 under the DB is, first of all, as the way I understood it, is that the
16 guards in front of the house were armed; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could security be provided by the army, the General Staff, or
19 anybody else during the war?
20 A. I spoke with the man who worked in the security in front of
21 Bogdan Ljutice's house. He is Montenegrin. Ljutice is his name. And
22 not for a single moment did he mention that either the army or anybody
23 else provided security. The lad didn't even know who provided security.
24 Q. So don't tell me something that you don't know. He said that you
25 didn't know who provided security. I'm asking you this:
1 Was it the military security that could have been put around that
2 house or maybe the public security sector? Who could have allowed the
3 armed guards in front of the party headquarters?
4 A. I think that it was impossible under the law to stand guard with
5 automatic weapons unless it was done by a regular formation.
6 Q. Could a guard be stood with a pistol?
7 A. I suppose that it was possible.
8 Q. Thank you. You are saying that they drove through Serbia in
9 their vehicles and they were armed. When did you see that?
10 A. I was in the staff of the Party of Serbian Unity and the driver
11 came to pick me up and in his van he had an automatic rifle and he was
12 wearing a uniform with insignia.
13 Q. And he drove you to the front line?
14 A. No.
15 Q. I know, first you dropped by Stara Pazova and then you went to
16 Erdut to the front line?
17 A. Yes, that's true. We went to Erdut finally.
18 Q. Was there a war going on?
19 A. No, I didn't say that a war was going on there; I said that there
20 was a camp there which was used by the Serbian Volunteer Guard.
21 Q. Were people armed there?
22 A. They were.
23 Q. Thank you. Let's conclude my cross-examination, Witness. As a
24 matter of fact you only speculate. You don't have exact and proper
25 information as to what the link was between Arkan's volunteers and the
1 state security of Serbia
2 A. I spoke from my personal experience and the time that I had spent
3 with those people there based on what I heard at the staff of the
4 Serbian Volunteer Guards and from their members.
5 Q. What did you hear, the staff of the Serbian Volunteer Guard? You
6 never told us anything about that. I read to you what you actually
7 stated in your statement and how you reached your conclusions, now you
8 are giving us a completely new information. What did you hear there in
9 the staff of the Serbian Volunteers Guard?
10 A. I'm referring to Erdut and more specifically about the money
11 that arrived. They told us that the money had arrived from Serbia
12 Q. Who told you that the money arrived from Serbia?
13 A. I believe that his name was Captain Lada [phoen]. He was in
14 charge of the camp when I was there.
15 Q. Did he also tell you where from Serbia was the money sent?
16 A. No, he didn't say that.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness. Thank
18 you very much. I have no further questions for you.
19 Your Honours, I hope that I have delivered on my promise and that
20 I finished within the 50 minutes just as I promised.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we give 60 seconds for everyone to recover
22 from transcribing, translating at a speed -- and if gives me an
23 opportunity to express my great admiration for your performance.
24 Mr. Weber, how much time would you need?
25 MR. WEBER: I believe I can finish by 7.00.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 Re-examination by Mr. Weber:
4 Q. Mr. Sliskovic, on page T5161 of yesterday's transcript, you were
5 asked questions about insignias that were worn by different armed forces
6 that had red berets. You yourself have testified that you were a member
7 of the regular formation of the JATD. Could you please describe whether
8 or not there were the same or different insignias also worn by the
9 reserve paramilitary units of the JATD?
10 A. Some wore the same insignia, and some appeared wearing insignia
11 that differed from ours.
12 Q. Could you please mention these different insignias, and if you
13 could briefly describe them?
14 A. Zvezdan Jovanovic, for example, wore a different insignia. He
15 had an eagle on his flak jacket. And that was the first time I saw an
16 insignia of that kind. There was --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the description of the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the description you gave
20 from the insignia.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It looked like the insignia that
22 was later on worn by Special Police Units. It was a wolf on a copper
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. Yesterday you adjusted your cap in a particular way when it was
1 provided to you by Mr. Knoops. Where did you learn to adjust your cap in
2 the manner that you did?
3 A. As far as the cap is concerned, at the Lipovica forest camp I was
4 told how to put it on, how to attach the insignia on the beret, and it's
5 not done in the same way in the army.
6 Q. And the way that you put it on yesterday, was it the way that you
7 wore it while you were a member of the JATD or a member of the army?
8 A. That's how I wore it when I was a member of the JATD.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution did create a photo still
10 of yesterday's proceedings. At this time we tender what we've marked as
11 65 ter 5318. It is a still of the witness wearing the beret.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
13 Madam Registrar, the exhibit number would be ...
14 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P487, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P487 is admitted into evidence.
16 Perhaps we could have a look at it on the screen so that we know
17 what is admitted evidence. Meanwhile, please proceed so that we ...
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, in order to proceed, I have to go to a
19 new exhibit, so ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes. Well, I see it on some screens close to
21 me. Please proceed with your next exhibit, Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Today you were also asked a number of questions about the command
24 structure in Pauk and also tactical groups. You were shown certain
25 selected excerpts from Exhibit P235 which is a diary from Pauk. I do not
1 have time to go through all the different examples in this diary,
2 however, I would like to use one example before we conclude today.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 53 of the
4 English version and page 73 of the B/C/S version of Exhibit P235 in
5 evidence. We'll be referring to the entry at 1900 hours.
6 Q. Sir, can you see the exhibit in front of you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The entry at 1900 hours states:
9 "Legija arrives personally and reports that he took part at
10 Prokresa and Dzaferovica Brdo. Pauk and commanders of TG-2 and TG-3 are
11 going to a briefing at Frenki's."
12 My question to you is: Do you know who the Frenki is that's
13 being referred to here?
14 A. Franko Simatovic.
15 Q. And do you know the reason why Franko Simatovic went by the
16 nickname of Frenki?
17 A. I said that he was in charge of the Serbian Volunteers Guard and
18 the tactical group that was headed by the Radojica Raja Bozovic.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that was not the
20 question, and I don't know -- and I don't see what part of my
21 cross-examination does this arise from.
22 MR. WEBER: One, it arises from the cross-examination of the
23 Stanisic Defence; two, I was just about to re-ask the question.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] But then, Your Honours, by your
25 leave, the Prosecutor can then take the diary because Stanisic's Defence
1 used the diary and can raise thousands of new issues from that diary.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question has been put, the question has
3 been answered.
4 You may proceed, Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. Do you know why Franko Simatovic went by the nickname of Frenki?
7 A. I was told that Franko Simatovic took his nickname while he was
8 still in Knin in the 1990s. People said that it was a Croatian name and
9 that Simatovic took this nickname Frenki from the proper name Franko.
10 MR. WEBER: Nothing further, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Has the re-examination triggered any need for further questions?
13 The Chamber has no questions.
14 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, I have three short additional questions
15 in terms of the re-examination.
16 Further Cross-examination Mr. Knoops:
17 Q. First question: Mr. Witness, what happened with your red beret
18 of the 72nd Special Brigade?
19 A. I returned the entire equipment, everything.
20 Q. You just told us that there is a different way to put on the
21 red beret within the army; is that correct? Could you -- can the
22 red beret once more be given to the witness, and could the witness show
23 us the difference between how the red beret was worn at the --
24 A. I can -- even without putting the beret on, if you want me to do
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you could.
2 MR. KNOOPS: It's not necessary.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you briefly answer the question.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. While I worked at the 1205
5 military post, I was told that the insignia emblem should be in the
6 middle of the forehead. As for the emblem that you can see here, it was
7 supposed to be at the end of the left eye. So, towards the left side.
8 As for the 72nd Brigade, the emblem was supposed to be right in the
9 middle of an eye.
10 MR. KNOOPS:
11 Q. Thank you. Last question --
12 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it right in the middle of the eyes, or is
13 it -- could you choose which eye? I mean we are talking --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. The beret was on the
15 left side, from the left to the right. And in the 72nd Brigade, the
16 emblem was supposed to be in the middle of the left eye. I didn't have a
17 mirror when I was putting it on here, but I was told that it was supposed
18 to be at the end of the left eye. On this side here.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's a total puzzle for me. Could the witness put
20 it on as he did it in the 72nd so that we can compare the pictures.
21 Would you put it on in the way that you did it in the 72nd.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the beret was turned to the same
23 side. The emblem was supposed to be in the middle. I don't have a
24 mirror in front of me. I am not sure that I will do it correctly.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the camera, I believe, is on the Bench
1 and not the witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have six cameras, so I take it that we
3 have -- all the camera recordings are kept, so it's always possible.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that I put it for -- in
5 such a way that the middle of the emblem is right above the middle of the
6 left eye.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whereas for the JATD it was just slightly a
8 couple of centimetres more to the outer side of that eye. It's clear to
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If -- has it been on the video finally? I take it
12 it has. Yes.
13 So you can choose whatever still you want, Mr. Weber.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Knoops.
15 MR. KNOOPS:
16 Q. Mr. Witness, can you confirm that the briefing which was referred
17 to by the Prosecution in the Pauk diary was briefing on intelligence, in
18 other words, Mr. Simatovic was giving intelligence information to some of
19 the people mentioned in that diary?
20 A. I'm not sure what kind of information he received. I can only
21 give you my assumptions. But I don't know the facts, since I did not
22 attend the meeting.
23 Q. Thank you --
24 JUDGE ORIE: You have no knowledge about the entry we just looked
25 at as to what the briefing was about; is that correctly understood?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, any further questions?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one question.
5 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
6 Q. You have now clarified for us that you don't know whether the
7 information that Mr. Simatovic received at the time were intelligence
8 information or not. Is it true that at Magarcevac where you stood guard
9 and where Mr. Simatovic was there was a centre where they collected,
10 gathered information, from 30 different wire-tapping intercepting
12 A. Signalsmen came in with reports, and I was present when a
13 signalsman came into a meeting and said that a report from Pljesevica was
14 late. I know that there were communications centre, but I wasn't sure
15 whether these were typical classical communications centre or something
16 else. Because on two occasions, I spoke, using the code list, with some
17 other places, but I didn't know what kind of other places they were.
18 Q. You said that you were present on one occasion when an
19 intelligence report was laid, was being delayed. It was being delayed
20 for whom, for Mr. Simatovic?
21 A. Yes, the signalsman came in and he said to Mr. Simatovic at that
22 meeting that a report from Pljesevica was delayed. Was late. I don't
23 know whether it was an intelligence report or some other kind of a
24 situation report or anything else that was being late.
25 Q. All right. You have explained.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will use another
2 couple of seconds to apologise to the interpreters and court reporters.
3 I wanted to be of assistance so that we can finish with this witness
4 today. And I apologise to you also for the speed of my questions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I take it that there is some understanding
6 among the interpreters and transcribers.
7 Mr. Sliskovic, this concludes your testimony in this court. I'd
8 like to thank you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and for
9 having answered all the questions that were put to you by the Bench and
10 by the parties.
11 We will adjourn. And there is still a matter to be discussed
12 among the parties with the Bench about Tuesday. Now, in view of the
13 estimates of time given by the parties, the Chamber thought that we could
14 deal with some procedural matters today in the last 45 minutes. That
15 turned out not to be possible.
16 The Chamber is considering to have a housekeeping session on
17 Tuesday. That would be -- let me just have a look. That would be
18 Tuesday, the 25th of May, at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, but the
19 Chamber will be further in contact with the parties about whether or not
20 we'll have that meeting, whether there's any other way of hearing
21 evidence on that day because that's a matter still to be discussed. I
22 also sincerely apologise with the interpreters, transcribers, and all
23 those who are assisting us.
24 We stand adjourned.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m.
2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day
3 of May, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.