1 Wednesday, 16 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 Good afternoon, everybody in and around the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Any problems with the -- Mr. Stanisic, can you now hear us?
13 Thank you.
14 Mr. Jordash, before I give you an opportunity to continue your
15 cross-examination, we are going through all the submissions and
16 transcripts dealing with matter you raised yesterday, and matters are not
17 yet entirely clear. It was in of a different context than the matter was
18 raised at that time. The Chamber is considering - we have not made up
19 our mind yet, we first want to review all the documents - to have a
20 meeting out of court. It's primarily an administrative matter, which
21 does not directly affect what happens in court. And that we would then
22 meet with presiding judge, representatives of the Registry, and you. So
23 to see what exactly it is that you would wish to have, and to see what --
24 instead of making eternal submissions, and try to come to a solution as
25 quickly as possible.
1 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-048, I would like to remind you - but
4 perhaps you first confirm that you hear me in a language you understand.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you well.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you are still bound
7 by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your
9 WITNESS: JF-048 [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
12 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, I apologise, but our screen here
13 isn't working, so I don't know if that can be looked at.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Which screen is it? Oh, yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: This one.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could someone assist Mr. Jordash?
17 Any other screen you can look at, Mr. Jordash?
18 MR. JORDASH: I think -- I think we can probably use this one in
19 the meantime; the one to my right, I think.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you can look at it. I don't know whether
21 it's the socket or the screen itself which causes the problems.
22 MR. KNOOPS: It's working, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on e-court, please, the witness's
25 first statement of 2000. And, I beg your pardon, the list of P numbers
1 has escaped me. So if -- P523, please.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
3 Q. While that's coming up on the screen, good afternoon,
4 Mr. Witness.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. You spoke yesterday about somebody saying to you or you
7 concluding that it was difficult to join the unit but even more difficult
8 to leave.
9 Do you recall that?
10 A. Yes, I can recall that.
11 Q. Am I correct that you joined the unit, and the process was this:
12 You met --
13 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps we should go into a private session,
14 please, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
16 [Private session]
11 Pages 5770-5777 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 MR. JORDASH: Could we --
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
24 Please could we go to page 5 of the English version, and page 5
25 of the B/C/S in the document on the screen, which is P523.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Not to be shown to the public.
2 MR. JORDASH: Not to be shown to the public.
3 Q. Am I correct -- no, I'll wait until the document's on the screen.
4 And the paragraph I'm interested in, Mr. Witness, is the
5 paragraph -- the first paragraph in the English and, I think, the first
6 full paragraph of the B/C/S, which -- and it should start with:
7 "... but the existence and name of the JATD ..."
8 Do you have that?
9 A. Yes, I'm reading it right now.
10 Q. And let me read the specific portion I'm interested in:
11 "Because members of the JATD wore red berets, they became known
12 as the 'Red Berets,' but they were not officially part of the MUP
13 structure but were, in fact, the paramilitary arm of the state security
14 service of the Serbian MUP."
15 Was it the case --
16 Do you have that, Mr. Witness? Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Was it the case that after your time at location 1 and 2, or
19 thereabouts, the unit being referred to in this statement became known as
20 the JATD?
21 A. To the best of my recollection, the official name of the unit for
22 anti-terrorist operations only came into existence after location 5 was
23 ceremonially opened. I remember that well. In my belief, that's when
24 its name became official.
25 Q. And is it the case that after the name JATD became official that
1 the unit became known as the Red Berets?
2 A. No. I think I've said already that I heard of the name
3 Red Berets for the first time when we were still at location 1 during a
4 meeting and, of course, also at location 2 later on. We were either
5 called the Red Berets or Frenki's Men, but not much was known about us at
6 the time.
7 Q. Now, looking at the paragraph in your statement, you refer to the
8 JATD, the Red Berets, as, in fact, the paramilitary arm of the state
9 security service of the Serbian MUP.
10 Could you please define what you mean by "paramilitary unit" and
11 why you use the term "paramilitary"?
12 A. I will try to explain it in my way. I hope you'll understand.
13 If you join a MUP unit, if you become part of the MUP structure,
14 be it a police station or a special unit of the Ministry of the Interior
15 such as the SAJ, your instructors, of course, are people who had either
16 graduated from the academy or from the interior high school. However,
17 what we learned, having arrived at location 2, was that our group was the
18 initial group or the first group of members of that unit who actually
19 held police background in terms of education.
20 And this also went for the instructors. This raised some doubt
21 in some of the guys, including myself and a few work-mates from Belgrade
22 Of course, the option -- the other option would have been to go and join
23 another MUP unit somewhere in Belgrade
24 something of that sort.
25 I hope I was sufficiently clear.
1 Q. Well, yesterday you gave evidence concerning your information at
2 that time being limited to the first group of Red Berets being trained at
3 the Alfa camp; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. I don't understand where you are going with this.
5 Q. Well, it doesn't matter where I'm going. I'm just going to ask
6 you some questions about that.
7 And your understanding was that this was the first group of
8 Red Berets. Who were they, if they were not police officers or from a
9 police background?
10 MS. MARCUS: I am sorry to interrupt. It seems to me the witness
11 didn't say it was the first group, the witness said that the roots of the
12 unit stemmed back to the Alfa centre.
13 MR. JORDASH: Which would make it the first group, if that's the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's try to stay out of semantics, and let's
16 ask clear questions, what the witness can tell us. Because he testified
17 quite a bit about the roots yesterday. And to say that there was broad
18 and thorough knowledge of ... that would be an overstatement, on the
19 roots in the Alfa camp.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Who were the previous Red Berets, as you understood at that time?
23 A. As far as I remember, I think I said yesterday that I learned
24 from one of my instructors during an informal conversation that this is
25 where the origins of the unit lay.
1 The guys who taught us were no rookies, and this is what I could
2 gather from our conversation. But as to who were the initial guys and
3 what was the initial structure of the Red Berets, that's not something I
4 can tell you about. I can only tell you about the people who were in the
5 unit when I was there.
6 As for anything before that or after my departure, that's
7 something I cannot provide you with much specific information.
8 Q. So you don't know who was part of the Red Berets before you
9 joined; is that correct?
10 A. Of course, before I joined the unit, I didn't even know of it. I
11 heard of the Red Berets for the first time when they arrived at
12 location 1.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... June 1995, you had not heard
14 of the Red Berets; and when you heard of the Red Berets, you were not
15 told who they were or what their training was. Is that correct?
16 A. It is not. First of all, it was not in June, if I remember
17 correctly. I think they came for the first time in May to location 1.
18 And it was then when they told us that they were a special unit of the
19 state security sector, and rigorous training applies to any member of
20 that unit and everything I've said already.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps -- I'm trying to understand what Mr. Jordash
22 wants to know.
23 When you joined the Red Berets, was a unit called the Red Berets
24 already in existence?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, they -- it probably was
1 in existence. Otherwise, how could they invite us to join something that
2 doesn't exist?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge on whether it existed
4 already for six month, or one year, or two years, or three years? Do you
5 have any knowledge about that?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, in May 1995, I did
7 not have any knowledge. As I said, from time to time I would get pieces
8 of information at various locations, starting with location 2.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And what did you learn as far as the history,
10 that is, how long the unit already existed, from what they had told you?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on what I learned and what I
12 was told - and this takes me back to the conversation with one of the
13 instructors - I knew that the origins of the unit were in the Alfa camp,
14 as he said, following which the unit developed, although I don't know how
15 and in what direction. What I can tell you, though, is that during my
16 stay in the unit, I know how it worked. As for anything before my
17 time --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- let me stop you there. So you don't know
19 how long the unit was already in existence, you do not know how it
20 developed, you have only very limited information about the past of the
21 unit; is that -- apart from that, your instructors once were in the
22 Alfa camp; is that correctly understood?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, one could say so. That's it
24 more or less.
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. And is it your evidence, so that I understand what you're saying,
2 it is your evidence that you refer to the Red Berets as a paramilitary
3 group because it's first -- let me start that again.
4 Not -- did you, in your 2000 statement, refer to the Red Berets
5 as a paramilitary group because the unit that existed before you joined,
6 as you understood it, did not contain police officers, professional
7 police officers?
8 A. Well, it's like this: We, that is to say, our group, when we
9 arrived at the unit, we were not looked upon as a paramilitary formation,
10 and we did not want to see the unit as such. But there was some indicia,
11 some things that were happening, which made us think that way.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, in order to avoid further --
13 What, in your view, Witness JF-048, makes a unit a paramilitary
14 unit rather than a military unit or police unit or whatever? What
15 qualifies a unit as a paramilitary unit, if you could tell us?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, in my view and based
17 on what I was taught at location 1, for a unit to be a legal MUP unit as
18 part of its overall formation, it has to have people who underwent
19 training or education, people qualified to occupy positions within the
20 Ministry of the Interior. One cannot take a car mechanic, although that
21 person may well be extremely fit and brave, and place such a person to a
22 leadership position in the MUP. That has never been, and I don't think
23 that is the case now.
24 Secondly, during training and education, it is clearly known and
25 it is regulated what the authority, the scope of authority, is of a
1 professor or an instructor, what are the things he may and may not do.
2 But this was not necessarily always the case at locations 2 and 3.
3 MR. JORDASH: Well ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, it seems to me the witness has a
5 different concept of what means paramilitary. That's compared to what
6 most people would understand on it. And, of course, we can further
7 explore that and suggest to him a certain kind of a definition and then
8 to see whether he would join in that or not.
9 At the same time, his remark, I think, most likely, is to be
10 understood in the context of what apparently is his understanding or his
11 concept of what paramilitary is: That people are not properly trained,
12 although at some of the places people apparently were trained, that there
13 was something with those teaching, instructing. Which all is, for me,
14 not necessarily the core of the concept of paramilitary.
15 MR. JORDASH: Mm-hm. Your Honour, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But we go around in circles. Either we clarify
17 it -- of course, you could suggest whatever you want to him and what a
18 paramilitary group in your view is and to see whether that matches with
19 his concept.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Witness: From location 2 to location 5,
22 is there anything that you or your unit did which you would use to define
23 your unit as a paramilitary unit?
24 A. A unit -- or rather, the unit, as I know it, when I was at the
25 locations, and based on my knowledge, did not commit any crimes such as
1 arson, rape, if that's what you meant. I never witnessed any of that.
2 What am I trying to focus your attention to? The behaviour of
3 certain instructors towards us, the youngest of the unit -- well, having
4 come from the school I did, such command personnel behaviour was
5 incomprehensible in our view.
6 Q. So apart from some, in your view, unnecessarily tough training,
7 was there anything that you or the unit did which you would say
8 characterised you as a paramilitary unit, from location 2 to location 5?
9 A. In my opinion, save for the fact that at locations 2 and 3 we had
10 no contracts and we were paid in cash; for example, I meet you in the
11 street, give you a certain amount of money, and that's it. That's
12 perhaps the simplest explanation I can offer.
13 If you are employed in a police station or if you were with the
14 SAJ, you received your salary, you had to sign for it, and records were
16 This was not the case at locations 2 and 3. I'm positive about
17 location 2, and I think the same applies to location 3.
18 Q. And yesterday you made mention in this context of the fact that
19 you in the unit were told to keep the operations of the unit secret. And
20 I think you were suggesting yesterday that that was something which led
21 you to define the unit as a paramilitary unit; is that correct?
22 A. No, that did not lead me to define the unit as a paramilitary
23 unit. This was the state security sector; it's the secret police of a
24 state. If everyone would know what the secret police were doing, it
25 would not be secret anymore. This is not what made me believe that the
1 unit was a paramilitary one.
2 Q. I mean, you were asked --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I think you are misstating the evidence
4 of the witness yesterday. I think it was not the operations that were
5 secret, but the existence and being a member of that unit was secret.
6 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think the witness said - at the draft
7 transcript page 34 - that he was strictly forbidden to discuss the
8 operations of the unit and the very existence of the unit.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the very existence.
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's not only operations.
12 MR. JORDASH: No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, that makes it -- he went further, he called it a
14 secret organisation of which existence -- and, of course, if -- you
15 shouldn't talk about the existence, of course. And then it would be a
16 bit funny to talk about the operations. But -- so it went a bit further
17 than what you quoted.
18 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. It wasn't a surprise, was it, that you were asked -- it wasn't a
7 surprise to you or the members of your unit that you were being asked not
8 to tell people what you were doing from location 2 to location 5; is that
10 A. Basically, yes. That did not come as a surprise. What did
11 surprise me, however, was that I was told not to tell even my mother and
12 father where I was and what I was doing. Given my age at the time, I
13 found this surprising. I just came out of school and started working,
14 and my dad asked me where I worked, and I was not supposed to tell him
15 what or where I was. And his conclusion was that I dropped out.
16 Q. And am I correct that at location 2 there was plenty or a huge
17 array of expensive electronic listening devices owned by the state
18 security; is that correct?
19 A. As far as I remember, there was a room just behind the building
20 where we slept that we called communications centre. Whether it was to
21 listen in on anything or just stay in touch with the rest of the MUP,
22 that's something I don't know. But I clearly remember a room with a
23 large number of radio sets. I'm going back to the part when I discussed
24 the origins of the units. That's where I had the informal conversation
25 with my instructor.
1 Q. Wasn't it that communications centre that you were guarding at
2 location 2?
3 A. We didn't guard only the communications centre; we took turns to
4 guard the entrance gate, then the dormitory, then we had a sentry post by
5 the villa. And apart from training at that location, we performed sentry
6 duty; we were in charge of security for the whole camp, for that whole
8 Q. But the whole camp consisted of the communications centre and
9 buildings which serviced the guards who were staying there; isn't that
11 A. No, I just listed where we took guard. I can list you the
12 buildings there.
13 Q. Okay. But let's move on from there. Let me ask you, please,
14 to --
15 MR. JORDASH: Can we have, on e-court, please, page 5 of the
16 English and page 5 of the B/C/S. I think we've got that.
17 Q. And I want to go back to the paragraph we were looking at a
18 moment ago, where it says, in the last line:
19 "Prior to that, we functioned with the full support the Serbian
20 government, namely, Jovica Stanisic and Slobodan Milosevic, but our
21 existence and our activities were not known publicly."
22 What made you say that the JATD, prior to 1996, operated with the
23 full support of Jovica Stanisic? What was your knowledge?
24 A. Could you please once again explain which paragraph you are
25 referring to?
1 Q. The first paragraph of the English and the first full paragraph
2 of the B/C/S. And it's the last line.
3 A. Your question was, what led me to believe this; isn't that right?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. First of all, we used vehicles with M number plates; that's one
6 of the details. The M number plates 601 and 602. To my knowledge,
7 MS 602 was the state security sector.
8 May I continue?
9 Q. Please.
10 A. Apart from that, the very fact that we directly joined the unit
11 in front of the MUP building in Belgrade
12 joining the unit were held at location 1, and after I definitely found
13 out that I would be joining the unit, I had a meeting at the DB building,
14 together with some other colleagues, with Krsmanovic, who definitely told
15 us, Report in front of the Ministry of the Interior building on that date
16 on that -- at that time. These details led me to believe that this unit
17 was part and parcel of the MUP. And, of course, it logically follows
18 that if something is part of the MUP, then it will have support of the
19 government and the leadership.
20 MR. JORDASH: Could we please have P524 on e-court. Not to be
21 shown to the public.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Page, Mr. Jordash?
23 MR. JORDASH: Page 15 -- sorry, 14580.
24 Q. I want to read you a question and answer and ask you whether you
25 stick by your answer. Line 20, with reference to the reporting chain of
1 the Serbian MUP and state security:
2 "Q. And its reporting chain, did that fit within the general
3 structure of the Serbian MUP and the state security service, or did it
4 have a separate reporting chain as you understood it with reference to
5 the Red Berets?
6 "A. As far as I know, the only method of reporting was directly
7 to Krsmanovic, and Krsmanovic was accountable directly to Frenki, and
8 then how it went on from there, I do not know."
9 Is that -- was that your understanding between location 2 and
10 location 5, that you did not know how the reporting went from Frenki
12 A. Yes, that's correct, as I stated in that testimony.
13 Although, there's one thing which prompted me to think in this
14 way: The unit would not use the normal structure of the MUP when it came
15 to reporting. There was, on one occasion, there was a meeting of the
16 whole unit with the managerial personnel when Franko Simatovic, the
17 commander of the unit, was present. At one point, he said words to the
18 effect that we have to do whatever is required of us; but, on the other
19 hand, even the doors of the president's office are open to us, meaning we
20 will be given whatever we require and need, but, on the other hand, we
21 have to perform the task given to us. (redacted); I can't
22 remember when. But there was a large number of management personnel
23 there and us younger members of the unit attending.
24 Q. Let me take you to location 2. Your training exercises at that
25 location. You were trained, is this correct, how to communicate during
1 training -- sorry, how to communicate during combat; is that right?
2 A. Yes, that mode of communication was all specific to location 2.
3 Sorry, oh, I apologise; I wasn't checking this list. That's location 2
4 and location 3 where we were told that.
5 Q. Let me shortcut these questions.
6 What, in your view, took the training at location 2 outside of
7 basic infantry training, if anything?
8 A. You mean beyond the basic infantry training as in the military?
9 Well, it differs, of course. Regular infantry training in a unit and
10 regular infantry training in the military are drastically different.
11 Q. Well, the regular infantry training you received at location 2,
12 how was it different?
13 A. How it was different, I don't know. I tried to provide an
14 answer. For instance, a soldier who is supposed to complete regular
15 infantry training in the VJ or the former JNA did not have to bring his
16 side-arm into the toilet or the assault rifle and to sleep in the bed
17 with it and not to leave it anywhere at any point in time.
18 Secondly, regular infantry training does not lead to situations
19 where an instructor tossing a hand-grenade, a real hand-grenade, to a
20 group of trainees who had instructed to sit down - and I'm not talking
21 about dummy hand-grenades; it was a real one - then I don't know whether
22 the instructors in regular infantry training are allowed to shoot live
23 ammunition next to soldiers' heads just because that particular soldier
24 is not fast enough to catch up with the rest of the group. Or if he
25 failed to take cover properly, they are not allowed to shoot a live round
1 next to the soldier's head, illustrating: This is what will happen if
2 you do not take cover properly.
3 These are huge differences between this kind of training and
4 regular infantry training.
5 Q. Am I correct that members of your unit left location 2 and went
6 to Tara
7 A. Yes, I remember that case. That happened after location 2. We
8 were given a few days off, but suddenly we were informed that we were
9 supposed to report at our main location. Well, what happened on that
10 location? What I took to be our main location was location 2. I saw
11 that as our main location, and I reported then --
12 Q. Did they go to Tara
13 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
14 Q. And is it the case, and I suggest it is, that when they went to
16 received at location 2 was just basic infantry exercises?
17 A. I don't know what kind of training they received at Tara because
18 at that time I was at location 2 together with some other classmates,
19 meaning my peers, and with a large number of instructors. When I
20 reported at the gate, I was told to stay there and continued regular
21 training just as before until the others came back.
22 Q. Is it the case that when you went to location 3 the unit was
23 instructed and commanded by the Poskok Unit?
24 A. Not true. As far as I know, in my opinion, that's not true.
25 Q. Didn't five or six Poskok members become your instructors?
1 A. Yes, I cannot remember if there were five or six of them. For
2 two, I'm certain. One of them became an instructor in our group -- to my
4 Q. Because the --
5 MR. JORDASH: Could I just take instructions, please.
6 [Stanisic Defence counsel and Stanisic accused confer]
7 MR. JORDASH: Is it possible to take a break, Your Honour,
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, and we resume at 4.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, may I take it that you need another 15,
13 20 minutes?
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour is right. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
16 MR. JORDASH:
17 Q. Just to clear up the issue of training at location 2. It's
18 right, isn't it, that the only persons being trained at location 2 were
19 those who were guarding the facility; is that correct?
20 A. That is not so because our instructions and managerial personnel
21 never performed sentry duty. Only those newly admitted, new members,
22 young members, did so.
23 Q. Yeah, only the new members who had been taken from location 1
24 were trained at location 2; is that correct?
25 A. Yes. In front of the MUP building when we departed for
1 location 2, some other lads boarded the bus, those who had not finished
2 any training at location 1.
3 Q. Sorry, and who were these other lads who boarded the bus? What
4 have they got to do with location 2, if anything?
5 A. Those were young men that - at the same time as my unit -- my
6 group and me - joined the unit. But they joined it from other
7 structures. They used to be members of military units. Moreover, some
8 of them were physically stronger, readier than normal. They found out
9 about the tender to join the unit and were admitted into the unit and
10 joined it.
11 Q. Okay. The only people trained at location 2 were those who had
12 joined the unit at around the time that you joined; is that correct?
13 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, yes.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, on the e-court P524. Not to
16 be shown to the public. Oh, it's there. Page 14622. Could we go to the
17 top of the page, please. Page 14622 and the top of the page.
18 Q. I want to ask you about something you said in reference to
19 location 3. Question at line 3:
20 "You said that your function was to provide security for the
21 transference of certain people wearing civilian clothing on the other
22 side to collect intelligence data. That's what I understood from what
23 you were saying. Is that right?"
24 Your answer:
25 "Yes, those were the rumours and stories going around the camp
2 Is it correct, Mr. Witness, that you went to location 2 -- sorry,
3 to location 3 in order to provide security to intelligence operatives?
4 A. No. As far as I know, this wasn't one of the reasons for us
5 going there. What was the true reason? It is not known to me. Because
6 in many -- in majority of cases, we were never told why we were going
7 somewhere. We were told what to do at a certain location. And this case
8 did not occur at location number 3. It is that we went from location 3
9 to a village - I don't know the name of that village - and we were told
10 by the instructors when we were deployed at houses and lofts of houses in
11 which direction to open fire if we were ordered to do so, although that
12 order never came. And after several hours, we withdrew from that
13 village. And, later on, rumours started going around the camp about the
14 reasons that we were there.
15 Q. And that was the provision of security for the transference of
16 persons who had been collecting intelligence data; was that the rumour?
17 A. This was the gist of the stories making their rounds around the
18 camp. Whether they collected intelligence or data, I don't know.
19 But the story went like this: Our lads were strolling around
21 This is, as far as I can remember, what was being told.
22 Q. And apart from that rumour concerning what you were doing, in
23 terms of what you were doing at location 3, you don't, in fact, know; is
24 that correct?
25 A. You mean this case concerning Osijek and what transpired there?
1 Q. No. When you went from location 2 to location 3, before going to
2 location 4, am I correct that whilst at location 3 you were not told and
3 you did not know what it was your function was supposed to be?
4 A. No, no.
5 Q. No, you don't know what your function was supposed to be;
7 A. No. As I said earlier, members of the unit of my rank were never
8 told the reasons for being somewhere. When told what to do, you were
9 supposed to do it, and that's it.
10 Q. And, in fact, while you were at location 2, you, in fact, did not
11 engage in any combat or any operational activity; is that correct?
12 A. Of course we did not, except this case, which we referred to, and
13 another case where there -- we were on alert, we were ready to act, we
14 were boarded on vehicles and waited for orders to depart, but we were
15 never told what kind of action that was supposed to be. After half an
16 hour or an hour of us being gone on alert and being on vehicles, we were
17 ordered to return to the camp. Those were the only semblances of action
18 that I had while at location 3.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. JORDASH: Could we have 1D266 on e-court, please.
21 Q. And while that's being found, Mr. Witness, is it correct that you
22 have a conviction for robbery arising from a crime you were found to have
23 committed in May of 1998?
24 A. That's not true. I've never robbed anybody in my life.
25 Q. Is it true that you have a conviction for robbery arising from an
1 incident in 1998?
2 A. I've never been tried before a criminal court. I did stand
3 before a disciplinary Tribunal of the MUP of Serbia, but I've never been
4 tried before a criminal court, ever.
5 Q. Did you admit --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is it not to be shown to the public, this one?
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, I beg your pardon.
8 Q. Did you admit to being involved or associated with the robbers?
9 A. First of all, I would like to correct something. I see in this
10 document in front of me --
11 Q. Mr. Witness --
12 A. -- what it's all about. To the best of my knowledge, this is not
13 a criminal offence of robbery.
14 Q. Mr. Witness, I'm asking you a question, so please would you
15 address the question.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The witness, if he is -- if a document is put to
17 him, apparently in order to support your claim, then the witness should
18 be given an opportunity to have a look, at least, at the document. And
19 if he has any comment on it, then he should be --
20 MR. JORDASH: I was going to turn to the document, but if
21 Your Honour prefers it that way.
22 Q. Mr. Witness, can you please, with the document ... what did you
23 have to say?
24 A. I meant to say that aggravated theft is being referred to, and
25 not a criminal offence of robbery. This is -- there is a huge difference
1 between the two.
2 Q. Well, it's been translated in the English as a grave robbery.
3 You can see that on the bottom right-hand corner of the screen.
4 I don't want to waste time, Mr. Witness.
5 Were you found responsible for a crime involving theft of items
6 which did not belong to you and disciplined by the MUP? Yes or no?
7 A. It is evident from this document that the disciplinary Tribunal
8 of the MUP ruled in such a way. But I've never been tried before a
9 criminal court. And to the best of my knowledge, for a decision of this
10 sort to be adopted, one had to stand trial before a criminal court. I
11 was accused of committing a criminal offence, and I was convicted for
12 breaching the rules of service of the Ministry of the Interior, and this
13 is why such a judgement was passed. As you can see from this document,
14 you can -- you may find out that I received a disciplinary punishment. I
15 was not convicted before a criminal court.
16 Q. And that disciplinary punishment was the cessation of your
17 employment, was it not?
18 A. Yes, it was.
19 Q. So it wasn't, as you indicated earlier today, that you hadn't
20 heard anything about your request to leave, it was the fact that you were
21 fired from your employment; isn't that correct? Let me -- no?
22 A. No, absolutely not.
23 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this as an exhibit under seal,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus?
1 MS. MARCUS: No objections, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D72, Your Honours, under seal.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D72 admitted, under seal.
5 MR. JORDASH: Can we have, please, on the screen --
6 Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Can we have on the screen D5345, not to be shown to the public,
9 For Your Honours information, this is the remainder of the
10 witness's DB file.
11 5345, 65 ter number, please. Can we turn, please, to page 18 of
12 the English version. And there are no page numbers on the B/C/S except
13 for the ERN number. And for the B/C/S it's 0648-9360. That's 0648-9360.
14 Q. Whilst that's --
15 MR. JORDASH: If -- perhaps we should go to page 1 just so that
16 we can identify the document, sorry.
17 Q. Can you see that, to what the English version is on the screen?
18 And whilst the B/C/S is coming, can you have a look at the English
19 version, Mr. Witness, just so that you understand what the document is.
20 It is part of your record.
21 MR. JORDASH: Let's turn, now, to page 18 of the English version
22 and 0648-9360 of the B/C/S.
23 Q. You'll see your identifying details at the top of the page; we
24 don't need to go into that. And then I want to ask you about the second
1 You see the reference there that according to this file, which,
2 as we saw, was dated January 2000, it was said that once you -- when you
3 are at school, you were associated with persons from a criminal
4 environment in Novi Sad
5 drug dealers; is that correct?
6 A. That is not true.
7 Q. Next paragraph: After finishing school, from July 1995, you were
8 assigned, as it indicates there.
9 "... and officers evaluated him as extremely irresponsible and
10 physically unfit, so he was placed on guard duty, guarding facilities and
12 Is that correct?
13 A. That is not true either.
14 Q. "During that period, he was sanctioned several times over
15 disciplinary offences, failure to come to a guard post, prohibited
16 carrying of weapons and equipment, late arrival to work, et cetera."
17 Is that correct?
18 A. I must say, there were cases such as this. Occasionally I would
19 come late for work or was cautioned for not wearing my beret, but I am
20 quite taken aback by this information about me being in touch with
21 criminal circles. I hear of this for the first time. What prostitutes?
22 What drug dealers? I'm speechless.
23 Q. Did you, as the paragraph suggests below, in August 1995 cause a
24 serious incident, opening fire and activating a hand-grenade whilst on
25 guard duty?
1 A. That is true, and I was sanctioned.
2 Q. Did you, in autumn 1995, as the next paragraph suggests, with
3 colleagues steal a vehicle and drive it around the location mentioned
4 brandishing insignia belonging to the DB?
5 A. No, I have never done that. It was done by a mate of mine who
6 was in the same unit.
7 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to the next page, please. And in --
8 yeah, thank you.
9 Q. Looking at the top paragraph, in late 1995, you were assigned to
10 location 5, again, mainly engaged in guard and patrol duty; is that
11 correct? That is correct, isn't it?
12 A. That is true, much as the rest of those who were there.
13 Q. And immediately upon arrival at that location, you contacted
14 individuals from the local criminal environment; is that correct?
15 A. What criminal environment? I do not understand this question.
16 This is all brand new to me. I apologise if I'm being a bit abrupt, but
17 I'm not familiar with this. Unless I left the camp on approval by the
18 commander or superior, I had no dealings, no contact with any local
19 population at all.
20 Q. Next paragraph:
21 "As he turned out to be irresponsible, undisciplined, and
22 unreliable, he was not accepted by the group. And in early
23 February 1996, he filed a request to be transferred to the police
25 Is that correct?
1 A. Yes. It is true that I submitted a request to leave the unit.
2 But this is not how I saw the situation. This was another person's
4 Q. And I suggest it's correct that you were not accepted by the unit
5 at location 5 because of your criminal activities; isn't that correct?
6 A. No, it's not. I always conducted myself well and fairly. I was
7 always a team player. I never argued with my mates and comrades. Quite
8 the contrary: I liked them and they liked me.
9 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this under seal, please, Your Honour.
10 MS. MARCUS: No objections.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D73 under seal, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: D73 is admitted under seal.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. Is that why you give evidence against the accused, Mr. Witness,
16 because you're angry about being fired for criminal conduct from the MUP
17 of Serbia
18 A. That is not my motive. First of all, let us understand each
19 other. I stood before a disciplinary commission and received my sentence
20 in that respect, but I was not fired from the MUP after certain events
21 because I no longer felt safe there. I left the MUP and the territory of
23 Q. You suggest, in your statement of 2000, that you met Raja Bozovic
24 on two occasions. Do you stand by that evidence?
25 A. I made a correction during proofing. I corrected something that
1 had to do with the name of Rajo Bozovic. Among the command personnel,
2 there were quite a few people, a lot of names in circulation, and I had
3 described him originally as a different person. I can't say that I know
4 Mr. Bozovic personally. I may have met him in passing, but that's the
5 extent of my knowledge of him.
6 Q. Okay. So let's be clear: You didn't attend any meetings with
7 him, did you?
8 A. No, no personally with Rajo Bozovic. Definitely not.
9 Q. When you watched the Kula video, did you recognise him?
10 A. I did not. That's precisely the point. That's why I made the
11 correction in my former statement. I had actually described another
12 person who I thought was Rajo Bozovic.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 One last subject I want to deal with, and that's Arkan and Boca. You
15 saw nothing, is this correct, when you were at location 2 to suggest that
16 Arkan was collaborating on operations with anyone at (redacted); is that
18 A. No, it's not.
19 Q. It's not correct?
20 MS. MARCUS: Can I please request a redaction of ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please, proceed, Mr. ...
22 MR. JORDASH:
23 Q. Let's put it this way: Arkan didn't attend location 2 for any
24 meetings with anyone from location 2; correct?
25 A. I apologise. You put questions in a rather odd way, but I'll try
1 to explain. What I know about Arkan is what I learned from my colleagues
2 and that is that at some point in time he arrived at the gate --
3 Q. Let's leave that aside for the moment. At no point did you see
4 Arkan attending location 2 to have meetings with any commander in
5 location 2; correct?
6 A. Now I understand your question. I did not see him personally.
7 Q. None of your unit at location 2 had joint operations with any of
8 Arkan's Unit; is that correct?
9 A. As far as I know, that was not the case.
10 Q. And the same question in relation to Boca's Unit: You didn't see
11 any joint operations with them; is that correct?
12 A. It is.
13 Q. And none of Boca's Unit attended for meetings with any commander
14 at location 2; is that correct?
15 A. As far as I know, it is correct. Actually, I have no information
16 to that effect, so I can neither confirm nor deny.
17 Q. But you saw nothing while you were there guarding to indicate
18 that that was the case, did you?
19 A. I did see, on one occasion, that some of Boca's Unit's members
20 came to our camp. They were loading green crates into their truck. It
21 could have been ammunition or hand-grenades. And there was a sign on the
22 truck that indicated they were from Boca's Unit. It was either at
23 location --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Could the witness
25 please repeat the last part of his answer.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. Could you repeat the last part of your answer, please,
3 Mr. Witness. The translator didn't pick it up.
4 A. I wanted to say that on one occasion I saw members of Boca's
5 detachment arrive at our camp at location number 2 with their truck.
6 From the depot, they took out green crates containing either
7 hand-grenades or ammunition in order to have them loaded onto their
9 Q. It was the case that there was no warehouse of weapons or
10 ammunition at location 2; there was simply a store for the weapons and
11 ammunition required by the guards. Isn't that correct?
12 A. In my view, it is not. It was an ammunition and equipment depot
13 from which we were supplied with all the necessary equipment and weapons.
14 Q. Yesterday you said that the store corresponded to the current
15 needs of the unit; is that correct or not?
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, perhaps, if Mr. Jordash is quoting
17 something, in order for the witness to clarify, that the actual
18 transcript could be put before him.
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, if the witness remembered saying it, it might
20 shortcut things, but if the witness doesn't remember saying that ...
21 Q. Do you remember saying that the store corresponded to the current
22 needs of the unit?
23 A. Of course it was for our needs, but also Arkan's Tigers and
24 Boca's Men came to supply themselves.
25 Q. Could I suggest that neither Arkan's Men or Boca's Men came at
1 any time to supply themselves; and the time that Arkan came, he was sent
2 away by Krsmanovic?
3 A. Well, you can suggest whatever you like. I know what I saw and
4 what I heard.
5 Q. How did Arkan's Men -- how did it work? Who gave the weapons or
6 ammunition -- sorry, the ammunition to Arkan's Men? Where did they go?
7 A. I know that on one occasion they arrived at the camp and that
8 Garic opened up the warehouse; they went in together and loaded their
9 vehicles, after which they left the camp. That's all I know. As for
10 where they had come from and where they went to, that's something I don't
12 Q. So it's on one occasion you saw that?
13 A. It was once. Definitely.
14 Q. And in relation to Boca, once as well?
15 A. As far as I recall, he was definitely there once. I don't know
16 whether there were more occasions than that because I didn't pay much
17 heed to it, but I clearly remember having seen them once. The logo on
18 the truck was brand new to me, and I was wondering who they were and what
19 they were doing there.
20 Q. You didn't see what was inside the boxes; is that correct?
21 A. I didn't. I can only describe the crates. I don't know what was
22 inside them, though. Well, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to
23 conclude that.
24 MR. JORDASH: I've got no further questions, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Mr. Witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Concept of time - 15 to 20 minutes, Mr. Jordash - is
3 apparently also something we are sometimes differing.
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Awareness exists.
6 Mr. Petrovic, will it be you, or will it be Mr. Bakrac?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It will be me, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-048, you'll now be cross-examined by
9 Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. The location -- the school at location 1, as far as you know, was
16 it part of the public security sector of the Serbian MUP?
17 A. As far as I know, it was.
18 Q. What about the cadets at location 1; were they submitted to
19 medical examinations, psychological evaluation?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. Could the students be people with a criminal file, people
22 previously convicted of a crime?
23 A. Not as far as I know.
24 Q. Was it strange for you to find that members of a police unit
25 arrived there in order to recruit future members at the school at
1 location 1?
2 A. I didn't find it strange. I never even wondered about that. In
3 any case, the way they described the situation, it didn't seem strange.
4 There was no reason for that.
5 Q. Very well. On what date did you officially begin working? When
6 did your student status change?
7 A. When did my student status change to what?
8 Q. To that of an employee. When did that happen?
9 A. After I completed my education and after we were assigned to go
10 either to a certain unit of the MUP or to a police station and six months
11 after the state exam, we become officially authorised personnel, entitled
12 to use the scope authority -- scope of authority as prescribed by the law
13 and to carry weapons.
14 Q. Witness, therefore, upon graduation, you received the status of
16 A. Yes, any student coming out of the school at location 1 did that.
17 Q. In a single sentence, can you tell us what an intern is in that
18 respect? What obligations, what rights does such a person have?
19 A. As far as I know or as far as I remember, the only difference
20 between an intern and a member of the MUP is in that the intern still did
21 not take the either professional or state exam. I don't know exactly
22 which term was used.
23 Q. While you were an intern or a trainee, were you gainfully
25 A. I should have been. It's all part of the record. I would have
1 to go back to my employment history and check. I think I was.
2 Q. Irrespective of that status of trainee or intern, as of the
3 moment of employment, were you an employee of the Serbian MUP, in your
5 A. In my understanding, I was.
6 Q. As an employee of the Serbian MUP as of day one of your work, did
7 you enjoy all the entitlements such as pension rights, health care, and
8 all the other rights befalling any employee of the Ministry of
9 the Interior?
10 A. As far as I know, that should have been so. And I think it was.
11 We received treatment. The only odd thing was that we received our
12 salaries in cash, without any signatures.
13 Q. We'll get to that. Let's go back to your social and pension
14 status. That was the same as it would have been in the case of any other
15 employee of the MUP?
16 A. Yes, in essence, it was so. We had a part of the unit where the
17 doctors were, and if we had any health concerns, we were supposed to turn
18 to them.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just to clarify that, I would
20 kindly ask that P548 be shown to the witness. Page 11. And it should
21 not be open to public. Page 11, if possible, please. On the left-hand
22 side we have, in B/C/S. Could we have the same page in English, please.
23 Just a sec; we don't have it in English. Oh, thank you very much,
24 Your Honours.
25 Q. Witness, is this the application to social security, health
1 insurance, upon the establishment of employment submitted on your behalf
2 immediately after you started being employed? Can you confirm that,
4 A. I think this is it. I've never seen this document before. But
5 from those boxes I can read out, I think it resembles a health insurance
7 Q. Could we go to box 14
8 when this insurance policy started running. And this would be
9 coincidental with your assuming your position in the unit.
10 A. I cannot say precisely. I see the 20th, but I'm not sure about
11 the 6th month. But let's say that this is the 20th of June, 1995
12 reiterate: I've never seen this document before.
13 Q. Thank you, Witness.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the rubber stamp, if
15 we could zoom in on it. I don't see it being translated into English,
16 but could we see both rubber stamps in B/C/S. Let's see what -- whether
17 we can make out anything.
18 Q. Could you please take a look at the right-hand side, the rubber
19 stamp of the right-hand side. If you can read out what is written there.
20 A. As far as I can understand, the Republic of Serbia
21 guess. But since I know the rubber stamp of the MUP of Serbia, it does
22 resemble it. But what is in the centre does not resemble the coat of
23 arms of Serbia
24 Q. Do you agree that it states here "Ministry of the Interior" and
25 that this is would be the older coat of arms with a red-point star?
1 A. I do not agree when it comes to the coat of arms. I cannot make
2 out anything of it. I see that it states "Republic of Serbia
3 of the Interior," but I can't make out the coat of arm.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
5 No need to dwell on -- any further on this.
6 Q. Witness, you stated that you had occasion to see the rules of
7 service of state security of Republic of Serbia
8 A. Yes, on one occasion. Briefly.
9 Q. Could you please explain what "briefly" means? What was the
10 situation when you had this -- had this in your hands and when you took a
11 look at it?
12 A. As far as I can recall, that was immediately before I took the
13 professional exam. Several of us were invited or we came to the
14 Ministry of the Interior. I believe that this was the state security
15 building. In a room, one MUP member in plain clothes brought, in a
16 brief-case, several copies of that document. If I remember correctly,
17 what it stated was, The Rules of the Sector of the RDB, Sector of State
18 Security; something of the sort. As far as I can recall, it contained
19 the powers and authorities and the mode of operations of the state
20 security sector, as far as I could understand.
21 Q. Did you see that it was a state -- a document designated as a
22 state secret?
23 A. Yes, I can remember something stencilled on it as state secret.
24 Q. Who allowed you to see a document designated as state secret, and
25 why would anybody allow a trainee at the MUP to do so?
1 A. I don't know why would anybody do that. An instance -- well, the
2 reason why we were supposed to cram what -- whatever we could cram was
3 because we were about to take the professional exam to begin work in the
4 state security sector, and for you to be able to work in the state
5 security sector, you had to know rules of service of the state security
6 sector; the same way as when you are supposed to work in public security
7 sector, you had to know the powers and the authorities within that
9 Q. So somebody gave you this booklet so that you could learn
10 something from it for how long?
11 A. Not just me, the whole group that was in that room. If I recall
12 correctly, some 30 minutes. Maybe a bit more.
13 Q. How many pages did the document contain?
14 A. Not more than 30-odd pages, as far as I can remember. It wasn't
15 a voluminous document. It was an A4 volume, similar to this. Maybe half
16 a centimetre thick, some 30-odd pages, if I remember correctly.
17 Q. So you as a trainee were given state secret documents to study
18 for 30 minutes or so; is that correct? Just answer Yes or No.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. In your statement, on several occasions in that
21 statement, for instance on page 5, first paragraph, you state that the
22 Red Berets were not officially within the structure of the MUP, they
23 were, rather, a paramilitary wing of the state security sector; and,
24 furthermore, you say that the existence of the anti-terrorist operations
25 unit was officially recognised only in early 1996.
1 This is what you stated in 2000; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, this is how I saw things. Well, whether the unit was really
3 a paramilitary unit or not, well, it is not up to me to decide or to
4 [indiscernible]. But what -- this is how I saw things at the time. This
5 is my perspective of it.
6 Q. There were questions concerning that. I'm going to reserve the
7 right to ask one question: The term "paramilitary unit," what does it
8 mean, irrespective of the situation we're discussing?
9 A. How I understand the term paramilitary, it would denote a group,
10 organised group, of people who act outside the boundaries and outside the
11 powers of the military of the -- of Yugoslavia or the MUP.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Now, let's show the witness P476,
15 Q. Witness, this is a decision dated the 12th of January, 1994
16 it states in decision that on December 1993, has been assigned to the
17 post under item 5, member number 2 of the decision establishing the
18 anti-terrorist and combat operations unit of the state security
19 department in the Ministry of the Interior.
20 My question to you is: Do you accept that there was a decision
21 on the basis of which this unit was established and it operated under
22 from 1993 onwards?
23 A. Is your question whether I recognise this document as a valid
25 Q. No, you misunderstood me.
1 A. I did not understand you either.
2 Q. Do you accept that there is a legal basis, legal foundation, for
3 the existence of the JATD from 1993 and that it had been established on
4 the basis of a decision of the minister of the interior of the
5 Republic of Serbia
6 A. I don't know how to answer this question. Who am I to accept or
7 not? I do not understand the question.
8 Q. If this were true, would you change your position contained in
9 your statement claiming that the Red Berets or JATD were a paramilitary
10 unit? Had you known that, would it have changed your position and
11 conclusions concerning the JATD, and this document did exist?
12 A. Well, I'll try to answer. Can I do it in my own way very
14 Q. Would such knowledge that there existed a decision by the
15 minister would have influenced your attitude or position expressed in
16 your 2000 statement?
17 A. Officially, yes; but in terms of conduct towards the members of
18 the unit at the time, well, that would not have changed my opinion.
19 Q. What do you mean by saying "officially"?
20 Do you accept that there is a legal foundation for the
21 establishment of the JATD; is that correct?
22 A. I don't know anything about legal foundations; but reading out
23 from this decision, it says who is appointed to which post. My
24 statement, my earlier statement, claiming that this was a paramilitary
25 units or unit acting in a paramilitary way is confined strictly to the
1 conduct of the instructors towards us in the unit, which is unacceptable.
2 For instance, for the SAJ, I've never heard that any instructors there
3 could behave towards those members as our instructors behaved towards us.
4 And this is what I deem unacceptable. This is what I meant to say.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Let's take a look now at -- could
7 you take a look at, please, at P481.
8 Q. Before it's being retrieved, do you know who Milan Radonjic was?
9 A. I do not know him personally. I can only presume that he
10 occupied a high position. But I don't know him personally.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let's lake take a look
12 at P481.
13 Q. Please take a look the text below "decision":
14 "Milenko Milanovic, assigned to a post under item 5 on number 21
15 on the decision to establish the anti-terrorist and combat operations
16 unit in the State Security Department DT 02, number 2497, dated
17 4th of August, 1993."
18 Can you see that, Witness?
19 A. Could we please zoom in on this section?
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please focus below the
21 word "decision" in the B/C/S.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was your question?
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, the question was: Can you see that there existed this
25 decision, and what was the number of that decision?
1 A. Yes, I did have a similar decision. This is a decision
2 determining the coefficient of pay or salary.
3 Q. I'm ask -- this is correct, what you say, but my question is
4 this: Can you see -- the text saying:
5 "Decision on the establishment of the anti-terrorist and combat
6 operations ..."
7 Can you see the date of that decision and the number of that
9 A. Yes, it states here:
10 "Decision to establish the anti-terrorist and combat operations
11 unit in the state security department in the Ministry of the Interior,
12 number 2497, of the 4th of August, 1993."
13 Q. Fine.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we take a look, then, at P528.
15 And not to be shown to the public, please. P528, please. Could we
16 please see the B/C/S version. We've got the English version shown, but
17 could we have the B/C/S version so the witness can read it.
18 Q. Witness, sir, this is a decision concerning you?
19 A. Yes, as far as I can see.
20 Q. Could you please take a look at the number and the date of the
21 rule book on the systemisation. That would be DT-497 -- 2497 dated
22 4th of August, 1993.
23 A. Yes, this is the same text that I can read.
24 Q. Witness, although you may not known that, were you posted on
25 the -- or assigned on the basis of a decision dated from 1993 which had
1 existed from then and which determines the posts in the anti-terrorist
2 operations unit? Does it follow unequivocally from those two documents
3 that we saw?
4 A. Well, this decision doesn't say that I'm to be part of the
5 anti-terrorist operations unit. It just said that I'm to be assigned to
6 the state security sector.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Let's take a look at P54 -- no,
9 sorry, we'll go another way. Let's take a look at P481 again.
10 Q. Could you please take a look at the explanation or statements of
11 reason determining the level of salary. It is stated on the basis of
12 4, 5, and 6 of the rules of salaries of state security sector employees
13 dated the 4th of August, 1993. Did you see this?
14 A. No, I could not read it out. Could we please zoom in on this
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in on the
17 last paragraph of the B/C/S version, please, so that the witness can see.
18 THE INTERPRETER: And the English version, please; interpreters
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Did you see it, Witness?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have P548 and that it not
24 be broadcasted for the public. It should be in private, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We turn in to private session.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 5820-5822 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 Mr. Jordash, what happened as you very quickly put a nine-page
9 several-documents item to the witness about being convicted and then the
10 witness started saying, No, it was not conviction; it was disciplinary
11 measures, and he then said, Yes, it wasn't robbery; it was ... and you
12 said, Well, that's how it's translated.
13 Now, if I understand the difference between robbery and theft --
14 whereas in other parts of these documents we find theft, we find larceny,
15 which may have been abolished in the UK but is -- still has some meaning,
16 isn't it, and we find robbery. And then to just say to the witness,
17 That's how it is translated. Where you find three different terms. And
18 then further, if you look at the description on which, apparently, the
19 decision was based, then that is -- if robbery involves threats and
20 violence, sleeping on a bed, which is how it is explained, doesn't seem
21 to be very violent. So, therefore, I have some problems with the way in
22 which you deal with the matter.
23 But apart from that, could you tell us how those proceedings
24 developed? You only paid attention to the first instance decision. What
25 happened during this procedure after that? As you read it, I -- of
1 course, we have difficulties in reading nine pages in a second, but you
2 certainly have prepared for it. Could you tell us what then happened?
3 MR. JORDASH: If I may just find the document, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it a final decision? Was it appealed?
5 Was it ...
6 MR. JORDASH: Well, it -- in sum, there was some form of hearing.
7 The witness admitted --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, let's start from the decision, the disciplinary
9 decision. First three pages. Okay. Fine. What then happened during
10 these proceedings. Do you know? What was the follow-up? What else do
11 we find, as far as you are concerned? Because you are suggesting that
12 there's a kind of final conviction or at least establishment of facts.
13 What, in your view, on these fourth up to the ninth page, happens in this
15 MR. JORDASH: Well, there's some form of disciplinary hearing.
16 There's some form of admission by the witness. And, as a consequences,
17 there is a disciplinary measure imposed upon the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- most of that is found in the first three
19 pages. What I find later - but I must say the documents are not very
20 clear - mention is made that the matter was reviewed, that the
21 disciplinary proceedings were then barred. Then later we find a document
22 that he was appointed again and ordered -- the case was referred to
23 another court.
24 I mean, you focused on the first -- you provide nine pages, and
25 the fourth to the ninth page are creating -- well, at least some
1 confusion on what really the outcome of that proceedings was apart from
2 the first instance. The first instance is clear. Disciplinary
3 proceedings. And you said for robbery, but that could be larceny, that
4 could be theft. At least, he fell asleep when his colleagues stole
5 something, sport shoes, mobile phone.
6 I want to know: You -- there was a clear suggestion in your
7 question to the witness that he was finally convicted or a disciplinary
8 measure was imposed; whereas from the fourth to the ninth page, that
9 becomes highly questionable.
10 MR. JORDASH: Well, the witness agreed that he'd lost his
11 employment as a consequence of the hearing. And that's the best evidence
12 that we have of what happened. I was using the document merely to
13 endorse the questions and see what he had to say about it. And that's
14 what he had to say.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think -- I think the suggestion went further.
16 But I, at least, was entirely confused by all of the other pages. And
17 from what you tell us now, it seems that the review or the appeal or what
18 then happened, for example, how to interpret a decision, where, in
19 1999 -- well, after the fact, which mentions the disciplinary
20 proceedings, nevertheless, seems to assign him a certain position again.
21 So it's ... well, I mean -- yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: The document isn't clear, the witness's answer was
23 clear, and I was content with that answer. If my learned friends had
24 felt that that somehow -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: This Chamber has the habit of if documents are put
1 to it and are tendered into evidence, to look at it very critically and
2 to see what these documents say, even in order to make an assessment on
3 whether what the witness said was entirely true or not, whether the
4 suggestion, which were, in your questions, are based in those documents
5 are not. That's how we work.
6 MR. JORDASH: The document suggests that there was some form of
7 review of the disciplinary finding. The document doesn't suggest what
8 happened in the end. And the witness has said --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No. Therefore, that's exactly -- and even the
10 documents say that the disciplinary proceedings were barred. And the
11 documents also say that, at least to the extent I understand these
12 documents, that in 1999, in Kosovo, he was given a position of ... let me
13 see. If you look at English page 4 and 5. A decision from 1999, a
14 decision by which the employee assigned to the post of a police station
15 security policeman. That's the old -- that's the 1st of July 1999.
16 And then on the next page a reference is made: There was a
17 disciplinary procedure initiated against the said employee for ... and
18 then it mentions what was the reason, based on article so and so. The
19 said employee has been assigned to the post as mentioned in the first
20 part of the decision and given the rank as mentioned in the second part
21 of the decision.
22 So I'm totally confused, and I would not satisfy myself by
23 saying, Well, this is what the witness said, if I get a totally confusing
24 set of documents underlying your questions.
25 MR. JORDASH: This is the record from the DB. This is what we
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in 1999 he is appointed.
3 MR. JORDASH: But I put it before the Court, I asked the witness
4 whether he had been convicted or a finding had been made, he confirmed he
5 had, and I left it for the Court to consider the papers. I cannot take
6 the matter further.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, but if I ask you whether this is a final
8 decision or not, you say, Well --
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, I don't know --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... but how do you --
11 MR. JORDASH: -- from the contents of the document. I can only
12 see what is there in the document. And the --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the document also says that in 1999, at least
14 as far as I understand this document, that he was assigned a certain
15 position and that the disciplinary proceedings had been barred, that the
16 decision had been -- so, therefore, what happened in first instance may
17 be true, but it's, for me, it's totally confusing. And then to say,
18 Well, this is what the witness said.
19 MR. JORDASH: But I don't know what I could have done other than
20 put the document and ask the witness what his position was.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, to give -- well, you put only one document to
22 him. You didn't put this document, for example, to him. What happened
23 in 1999? Were you reinstated? How do you reconcile that with being
24 fired? That's, of course, if you get a whole bunch of the documents,
25 which we would like to know.
1 MR. JORDASH: But, respectfully, that's for the Prosecution to
2 re-examine on. It's not -- in the same way the Prosecution put --
3 JUDGE ORIE: No --
4 MR. JORDASH: -- in part of the DB record and missed out this
5 part --
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have presented us only the first
7 decision, then I don't know whether I would have highly appreciated that.
8 But we are unable, if you put in a lot of other aspects, if you do not
9 deal with them, we are confused tomorrow or the day after tomorrow when
10 the witness has left. And, therefore, whether this is for the
11 Prosecution or not, it's fine. You apparently rely heavily on a
12 party-driven system, but this Chamber is also inclined to use its own
13 reading capacity and to see whether everything fits in well. And, again,
14 this is -- for me, at least, it was highly confusing.
15 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I understand what Your Honour is
16 saying, but it's an extremely difficult line to draw. At what point does
17 a party -- at what point does our obligation arise to point out in
18 documents things which are not helpful to our case in the light --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I started with the other example. The
20 witness said it was not robbery. Yes? You said, But that's how it's
21 translated. If you would have gone through the whole of the translation,
22 you would have found theft as well, and you would have found larceny as
23 well. So that was not a response which assists the Chamber. Of course,
24 the Chamber cannot rush through the documents, but the way in which the
25 offence, the disciplinary offence, or the -- call it a -- call it an --
1 even if it's a criminal offence -- is described, is not one where you
2 would easily stop the witness by saying, That's how it's translated.
3 Because robbery, aggravated robbery, and what we find in the statement,
4 sounds to be at least a bit apart.
5 MR. JORDASH: I accept completely Your Honour's comment about
6 that, and I apologise for that.
7 In relation to the second part --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that.
9 MR. JORDASH: -- I -- I find it difficult to understand exactly
10 how a party can conduct a case and point out --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Well, you can conduct --
12 MR. JORDASH: -- what is not helpful.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If -- well, of course, one of the things you could
14 consider is that if the documentation shows clear signs of the decision
15 not being a final one, to not just act and leave it to the Chamber by
16 going through the remaining six pages, to find out that there is a
17 problem. You understand what I mean?
18 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. And I'll take what Your Honour is
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 We'll have a break, and we resume at five minutes past 6.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 6.08 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I would like to convey to you that my
25 observations just before the break are unanimously shared by my
1 colleagues. That's -- because it looked, perhaps, very much as a
2 private -- some private observations. They were not.
3 We are waiting for the witness.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, please proceed.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Q. Witness, sir, in your statement, you stated:
8 "Although Simatovic at the beginning, in mid-90s, was at the head
9 of the paramilitary branch of the state security, his official position
10 at the time was special advisor of the head of the DB."
11 My question to you is this: Is it true that you, until July
12 1995, had not known anything about what kind of actions and what kind of
13 posts and tasks were performed by Franko Simatovic?
14 A. As far as I can see, you are right in saying so. I remember
15 seeing, first time, Franko Simatovic --
16 Q. No. Fine. I'm going to ask you everything, and you may add.
17 So until July 1995 you had not known anything about this man; is
18 that correct?
21 Q. Fine. We will get to that eventually. So before that time in
22 1991, 1992, 1993, what transpired then, you know nothing about that?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. You state here that his official position was special advisor to
25 the head of state security of DB. When did you learn that Mr. Simatovic
1 was special advisor to the head of state security?
2 A. I believe that this was on the occasion of our meeting at
3 location 4, if my memory is not playing tricks on me. I believe that
4 this was the location when -- where this took place.
5 Q. Due to the passage of time, is it possible that you heard much
6 later about this? Do you allow for this possibility, since this is a
7 very specific piece of information, maybe you've heard in the subsequent
9 A. Of course it's possible, but as far as I can remember, I think
10 that I learned that at location 4 on the occasion of our meeting there.
11 Q. Fine. Is it true -- or let me rephrase it.
12 Did you know anything about, when he became special advisor, what
13 were his duties, his obligations, his entitlements; do you know anything
14 about that?
15 A. No, this happened at higher circles from those that I moved in.
16 Q. Fine. Thank you. Witness, sir, is it true that you saw
17 Simatovic in 1995 on two occasions: First time at location 2, and the
18 second time around at location 4. Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Is it true that on both occasions you did not see him issuing any
21 orders to anybody, receiving any kind of reports from anybody; is that
23 A. Correction to my answer to the previous question.
24 Am I allowed to do so or not?
25 Q. Go ahead.
1 A. I said location number 2 and location number 4, answering your
2 previous question.
3 Q. I'm asking you about 1995, not 1996.
4 A. Okay, fine.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, if the witness is correcting an
6 answer, he should first be given an opportunity to do so. And if it then
7 falls outside the time-frame of your question, then that becomes apparent
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Witness, let us clarify, in 1995 - I emphasise 1995 - you saw
12 Mr. Simatovic twice?
13 A. Yes, as far as I can remember, concerning 1995, twice.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Fine.
15 My question -- before you asked whether you could rectify your
16 previous answer, so my question was: Is it true that on those two
17 occasions you did not see Simatovic issuing any orders to anybody or
18 seeing that Simatovic was being reported to, receiving any report from
19 anybody; is that correct?
20 A. I cannot recall, but Mr. Simatovic was received at location
21 number 4 as our big boss, as the main boss, as the main commander.
22 Q. I'm not asking you about that. But you cannot recall that he
23 issued any orders to anybody or receiving reports from anybody?
12 "This meeting was held after we left Eastern Slavonia towards the
13 end of 1995."
14 Is that correct?
15 A. I believe so. I cannot recall the month or the date, but I can
16 recall the sequence of events. This I can recall. This would be
17 approximately it.
18 Q. Is it true, then, that at the time of that meeting at location 4,
19 the wars in Croatia
20 A. I cannot remember correctly. I cannot recall when Srebrenica
21 happened and when the Dayton Accords were signed. It did not interest me
22 that much, so I cannot recall the dates. But I couldn't really be more
23 precise whether this occurred before the war ended or after the war had
25 Q. May I help you. Dayton Accords were signed on the
1 21st of November, 1995, so --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the witness says: I do not remember
3 before it -- the war ended or after the war ended. And then to go with
4 him through the dates on which the peace agreements were concluded,
6 know whether it was during or after the war.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... tell you that
10 the Chamber thought that -- I'm a bit late in telling you that we thought
11 that half an hour would be an appropriate time to be left for you, which
12 would give you until 20 minutes to 6.00.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must say that this
14 will present a great problem. But I have no other choice but to yield to
15 your decisions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you start with
17 the most important questions, and then ...
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Q. Witness, sir, do you know anything about the relationship between
20 Simatovic and the former president of Yugoslavia, Milosevic?
21 A. What I knew, I stated.
22 Q. No, we heard it. We do not have much time.
23 Do you have any knowledge about the relationship between the two
24 individuals specifically?
25 A. I do not have any specific knowledge about that.
1 Q. Doesn't it -- well, I'll withdraw.
2 Is it known to you -- is anything about possible meetings between
3 the Simatovic and Milosevic meeting outside of ceremonies, some solemn
4 events, et cetera; do you know anything about that?
5 A. I do not know anything about that.
6 Q. Fine. Thank you. I'm going to ask you about meetings at
7 location 2 -- or rather, that one arrival of Simatovic, as you say, to
8 location 2.
9 First of all, is it true that you cannot be specific as to what
10 was the month when Simatovic arrived at location 2, given the passage of
11 time and the fact that at that moment this was not the most important
12 thing in your life?
13 A. I cannot recall the precise date. It could have been in June or
14 maybe between July and August; that period. It must have been in that
15 period. But I cannot really recall the specific date.
16 Q. Could you please tell us, Why do you think this was in that
17 period June, July, August? What triggers your memory?
18 A. Well, this is the period when I was there, and I know for a fact
19 that the former commander arrived in helicopter. I remember that
20 specifically. And we -- I know and recall how discipline had to be
21 strictly observed and what kind of measures were put in place.
22 Q. I'm asking you about the date or the period. What makes you
23 believe that this must have been in July or August? Well, I'm not asking
24 about some other circumstances. It could have been in some other month,
25 not specifically July or August.
1 A. Well, if I hadn't been there, I wouldn't have had knowledge about
2 that. I can tell you what I know about.
3 Q. Well, let's go to page 9 of your statement.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Paragraph -- could we please
5 retrieve P523, without showing it to the public, page 9, the second full
6 paragraph on that page. In English, that would be the first full
7 paragraph of that same page.
8 Q. Witness, it's stated here:
9 "I stayed at this camp from June until early October. During
10 this time, Franko Simatovic came in a helicopter to that camp."
11 So please explain to me how is this difference possible from your
12 statement in 2000 and from your today's testimony. Isn't it true that
13 you cannot recall with certainty the period when Simatovic arrived there?
14 A. No, what you said is not closer to the truth. So if it concerns
15 location number 2, of course, it is true what I said between June and
16 October, this would then have to refer to locations 2 and 3. So this
17 would not be entirely true.
18 As far as arrival of Mr. Franko Simatovic to location 2, this is
19 what I can state with certainly because I know about that.
20 Q. Well, you read -- when you read your witness statement, then this
21 is not the conclusion one could draw. But I'm not going to dwell on
23 What is a Desert Eagle; do you know?
24 A. This is an Israeli-made pistol - to the best of my knowledge;
25 I've never held one in my hand - which can take -- or different calibres
1 of barrel. It can use different munitions of different calibres.
2 Q. So this is a pistol which was not part of standard-issue
3 equipment of the military or MUP even before that or after that; is that
5 A. As far as I can say, no, it wasn't. I know that this is a very
6 expensive item, very expensive pistol, relatively new at the time.
7 Q. You say that Simatovic came to location 2 to test that weapon.
8 First of all, could you please tell us what exactly did you see
9 with your own eyes, how he tested that weapon?
10 A. We were told that by one of the instructors. We could hear
11 gun-shots close to the villa. I cannot recall which instructor told me
12 that, but he related that they had tasted the Desert Eagle.
13 Q. But you did not see nor hear what was tested by whom; you are
14 telling somebody else's words?
15 A. When it comes to the Desert Eagle, yes. But as far as the
16 arrival and the visit is concerned, that's a completely different thing I
17 saw. And we were told who was coming and how we were supposed to behave.
18 Q. But you do not know why Simatovic came there, what was his
19 mission, his task; is that correct?
20 A. This is what the -- this is something I did not know.
21 Q. At one place in your statement you mention that you'd heard that
22 Simatovic and Arkan were not on the best of terms.
23 Could you please tell us where did you hear that?
24 A. This was more or less, as far as I could tell, this was a public
25 secret. More specifically, I heard that from my former colleagues in
1 Kosovo. To wit, if I can explain --
2 Q. No, I'm just interested in what I asked you about.
3 A. Fine.
4 Q. Very well.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
6 the video that we saw yesterday. That would be P2609.3.
7 Your Honours -- Your Honours, if I could advise you of my
8 findings of going through that video after -- afterwards, if you allow
9 me, so that we do not waste time. I made an effort to go through the
10 footage, and I could tell you what, as a layperson, I concluded from
11 watching the video.
12 Can we see the clip now, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first look at the clip.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. While we are paused here --
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, we have to go back. Could
18 we please stop.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, what would you like to see? The --
20 first the balaclava black uniforms?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That portion -- or both portions
22 that we saw. Stop, please.
23 Q. Witness, can you recognise the patch? I know it's difficult, but
24 do try.
25 A. Yes, very difficult. As far as I can see, there seems to be
1 tiger there with a three-coloured flag, however this is a very bad still.
2 Yes, it's slightly better. The head of a tiger and a three-coloured
4 Q. Whose insignia was this?
5 A. As far as I know, Arkan's Tigers had that.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go on.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Were you able to hear the part where the person says, "Tiger's
10 oath" or "Tiger's word"? Were you able to make that out?
11 A. Yes, I quote you, when you say "Tiger's word or Tiger's oath," I
12 didn't hear that.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we rewind, please.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]...
16 THE INTERPRETER: We can't hear Mr. Petrovic.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I heard it. It seems like
18 they're saying "Tiger's word."
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. And, after that, the text of the pledge follows, I believe?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Let's move on.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Stop, please.
25 Q. Witness, based on what you can see, can you tell us where this
1 was taped?
2 A. The people in these uniforms?
3 Q. Yes, can you tell the location?
4 A. This resembles our mess, or a mess.
5 Q. A mess. Do you recognise the location, or is it something you
6 cannot say?
7 A. I can't. Not on the basis of this.
8 Q. You can't say whose mess this is?
9 A. I don't recall this as a mess where I was. Perhaps you can give
10 me a moment and I'll try to remember, but...
11 Q. That's fine if you can't.
12 A. It doesn't resemble any of the messes. I just tried to remember
13 the mess at location 2. There was no mess at location 3. As for
14 locations 4 and 5, they didn't resemble this location.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 Can you recognise any one these soldiers we see?
17 A. No, I can't recognise anyone.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Let's play this slowly. There are
19 a few more seconds. And then the witness can see he whether he can
20 recognise anyone.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Did you recognise anyone?
24 A. I didn't.
25 Q. Witness --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Stop, please.
2 Q. Do you recognise anyone here?
3 A. No, I really can't recognise anyone.
4 Q. Witness, do you see any insignia on these men that would assist
5 us in establishing who they are?
6 A. I don't see any, and we didn't wear any either.
7 Q. Can we agree, then, that we cannot ascertain who these people are
8 and where they are? We don't know who they belonged to?
9 A. Yes. What I said earlier was that we had the same custom to tell
10 the oath just before meals. As for your question, you are quite right.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 How were you paid out? You said it was in cash, but how was it
13 done? Did someone count the bills in front of you and give them to you,
14 or ...
15 A. Yes, one of the instructors would usually arrive with the money.
16 He would count it and give it to us. For the most part, we all received
17 the same amount, at least those members of the unit at my level.
18 Q. So, Witness, he would bring a stack of bills and distribute them
19 among those of you who were there?
20 A. Well, it was more of a bag than a stack of bills.
21 Q. So you didn't receive money in any envelopes with any markings?
22 A. I think it only happened at location 5, if I'm not mistaken.
23 Q. At location 5, can you describe the envelopes for us?
24 A. I think they were blue, and it said -- well, first there was our
25 initial of the first name, then the last name, and then the amount of
1 money. And, of course, we needed to sign on a list.
2 Q. Thank you. I only have a few questions left.
3 Do you know when Arkan was killed?
4 A. January 2000, I think. No? Well, I think so.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Why not tell the witness when he was killed, because
6 that seems to be a matter on which the parties could easily agree. You
7 apparently know when he was killed, so why ask the witness, if that's
8 common knowledge?
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 5844-5847 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: And we are back in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
3 MS. MARCUS: Could I please ask the Court Officer to call up D73.
4 The top of the first page, please, in both languages. Okay. I guess,
5 the second page in B/C/S, please.
6 Re-examination by Ms. Marcus:
7 Q. JF-048, when you were shown this document, you said on the record
8 today in cross-examination at transcript page 33, line 18, you said you
9 were speechless. What was it that surprised you about this DB file on
10 you containing this document from the year 2000? If you do need private
11 session to answer the question, please just let me know. What was it
12 that rendered you speechless?
13 A. I was rendered speechless because this would be so-called
14 official document, one of the members of the state security sector,
15 containing lies about me. In a normal country, if something of the sort
16 is produced before a court without any proof, then this is grounds for
17 lawsuit. There are truthful things in this document, but there are many
18 which are not truth.
19 Q. After reading this file, were you able to determine for what
20 purpose the state security service was collecting information about you
21 in the year 2000?
22 A. It's unclear to me what the intension was, but I can see the gist
23 of this document, to present me in the worst possible way. To whom, I
24 don't know. But as far as -- well, I saw it in terms of whatever
25 mistakes I've made in my life, some 80 per cent were heaped on top of
1 that. This is how I see this document.
2 Q. During cross-examination, Mr. Petrovic suggested to you that your
3 assessment of the unit being some kind of paramilitary branch of the DB
4 was incorrect. And the reason he put to you was because the payment you
5 received was supported by official documentation from the MUP of Serbia,
6 in some cases signed by the first accused. Did you see any of those
7 decisions calculating your salary or the -- using the coefficient, did
8 you see that during your time operating with the Red Berets?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. An
11 objection. I showed a host of documents, both general and those specific
12 to the witness, proving that there was no talk about paramilitary units,
13 that it went for a unit part and parcel of the Ministry of the Interior.
14 And this misinterpretation and misrepresentation on the part of my
15 learned friend is unacceptable.
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours --
17 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is overruled.
18 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
19 MS. MARCUS:
20 Q. Would you like me to repeat the question, or did you -- did you
21 hear my question?
22 JF-048, let me repeat the last question: Any of those decisions
23 that you were shown calculating your salary, decisions using
24 coefficients, for example, did you see any of those official MUP
25 decisions during your time operating in the field with the Red Berets?
1 A. If my memory is correct, I believe that this was shown at
2 location 5. For certain, it was not shown to me on location 2 and 3.
3 I -- if I remember correctly, the first time I saw them was at
4 location 5. I'm certain that I did not see anything of the sort for
5 certain at locations 2 and 3.
6 Q. During your time at locations 2 and 3 -- and 4 - let me add - did
7 you see any similar decisions in relation to any of your colleagues who
8 were with you, those are your colleagues from -- who came with you
9 throughout your deployment?
10 A. No, I did not see anything.
11 Q. So, to your knowledge, it could be quite possible that your
12 colleagues had similar decisions on which these payment records --
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second.
14 Yes, please finish your question.
15 MS. MARCUS:
16 Q. The question is: Based upon your knowledge, would you say that
17 it is quite possible that your colleagues had similar decisions on which
18 the payment records were based or calculated?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, may I answer the question? Yes, that's
20 possible because the witness doesn't know, so he can't exclude nor tell
21 us, isn't it? He hasn't seen anything. So let's -- let's get to the
22 core. I've answered the question.
23 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour.
24 Q. JF-048, you reviewed --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, my answer is not based on the knowledge of the
1 witness. You added that to the question, of course. I couldn't include
2 that in my answer.
3 Please proceed.
4 No, usually the question, "Is it possible ..." is very often,
5 unless someone has clear knowledge of what, under the circumstances,
6 would be possible if you have thorough knowledge of the situation, is
7 usually a useless question.
8 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
10 Q. My next question, JF-048: You reviewed quite a number of payment
11 records in preparation for your testimony. And you prepared a chart, one
12 of the charts that we tendered yesterday. Do you recall what I'm talking
13 about, the payment records with lists of names of people paid?
14 A. Yes, I do recall that.
15 Q. When you looked at those payment records, what was your initial
17 A. My initial reaction was that I recognised many of the names
18 listed there. That was one of my first reactions, if I can recall
19 correctly. Of course, there were other reactions. For the first time I
20 saw that document, I had not seen it earlier, and as far as I can recall,
21 no documents could I find my own signature. On several occasions,
22 somebody else signed on my behalf. And then a signature of a third
23 person would be on behalf of the whole group. Those were my initial
24 reactions when I saw those documents for the first time in my life.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, when you said, I could finish the
1 witness ... and then, of course, I thought within approximately the time
2 for this hearing.
3 MS. MARCUS: I have no further questions, Your Honour, thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any questions arising from ...
5 The Chamber has no questions. None other from the Defence.
6 Then Chamber still has to decide on the admission of the whole or
7 part of the -- with or without the Kosovo matters. We'll decide that
9 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, that's the submission -- sorry to
10 interrupt you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will hear that tomorrow.
12 Let me first see whether -- I would first like to thank you,
13 Witness JF-048, for having come the long way to The Hague and for having
14 answered the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the
15 Bench. I wish you a safe return home again.
16 Madam usher, could you please escort the witness out of the
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, while the witness is
22 exiting the court, may I use this time. One minute. I would like to
23 draw the attention of the Chamber that I asked Mr. Petrovic to ask the
24 witness about payments because I questioned another witness about the
25 modes of being paid at that unit and at another unit, and this why we
1 wanted to clarify that matter.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that submission.
3 I'm looking at the Prosecution. For tomorrow's witness, two
4 hours in chief have been requested. Ms. Friedman, I -- having read the
5 expert report, which provides relevant information such as whether the
6 Unix system was used on a Hewlett-Packard system and how many vacancies
7 they are, is there any way to do it more compact?
8 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honour, I anticipate that, at most, it
9 would be an hour and a half.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I already inquire as to the -- the
11 parties, of course, have requested cross-examination of -- usually an
12 expert report doesn't need a lot of explanation in chief any further, if
13 it's clear, and, of course, you may have had some influence on what you
14 exactly wanted the expert to describe and what details to give and what
15 details not to give. I found a lot of details I think you should ask --
16 you should have asked the expert not to give. So, therefore, let's see
17 how much time you really need.
18 For cross, as far as matters stand now. So you -- exclusively on
19 the basis of the expert report.
20 MR. JORDASH: The problem we have is that we don't have any of
21 the underlying material and so we don't know what the witness is going to
22 say beyond her report. And it may be at some point we shall seek an
23 adjournment of cross-examination on that basis, but it does --
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... yeah, but -- you say, I --
25 that causes me some problems.
1 MR. JORDASH: I can -- the problem -- the additional problem is
2 this, that the witness purports to describe the whole of the conflict as
3 Serbian aggression, and so cross-examination -- [Overlapping
4 speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that the word aggression is often used.
6 Could we -- could you agree with the Prosecution to interpret the
7 word "aggression" in such a way that it's -- whether or not it's
8 aggression is not for a sociologist to decide. In Kampala, they managed,
9 after seven
10 years after a history of 50 years. So I think -- could you agree with
11 the Prosecution to ignore, I would say, the strong language, which
12 doesn't make necessarily a strong argument.
13 MR. JORDASH: The problem is that the whole of this witness's
14 thesis is one which absolves Croatian military of any action whatsoever
15 and imputes it all to the Serbian military, so --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think what the core of the report is, is
17 where people moved, at what moment, and where they went. And I do not
18 expect from someone in that position to tell us exactly who is to be
19 blamed for the war or for aggression or ... and I really urge the parties
20 to see whether they can agree on that. Because what we are talking about
21 in an expert report is not about who is the aggressor, but on the impact
22 of the developments, of the development, or the cause of events, on the
23 moment of people. I take it that that is the core of what we'll hear
24 from that witness.
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, if my learned friends agree to move some of
1 this material, then we can probably complete cross-examination in an hour
2 or so. But if not, it's going to be a long process.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I already expressed that there were certain portions
4 where I really won't know what we have to do with that, what service were
5 used, what computers were used, what ... there's lot of information which
6 is really superfluous.
7 Ms. Friedman, I don't want to spoil your evening, but an
8 agreement with Mr. Jordash, do you think it would be something feasible?
9 MS. FRIEDMAN: We would be prepared to meet or -- and to meet
10 with Defence counsel in the morning to discuss the matter.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's at least a start.
12 I apologise to interpreters, to security, to transcribers,
13 everyone, for, again, stealing some of your time.
14 We adjourn. And we'll resume tomorrow, Thursday, the
15 17th of June, in Courtroom II.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day
18 of June, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.