1 Wednesday, 8 September 2010
2 [Closed session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My question is whether we were in open session
15 because that's what the transcript says and we were not. Then what
16 happened in closed session was that the Registrar has called the case.
17 She said:
18 "This is case number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica
19 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic."
20 All the submissions that parties said they would like to make
21 have to be made in private session, so therefore although started in open
22 session we'll now move into private session and we'll soon move into
23 closed session. But it comes down to the same at this moment, we move
24 into closed session.
25 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Pages 7018-7027 redacted. Closed session.
1 you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
2 beginning of your testimony yesterday.
3 Mr. Groome will now continue his examination-in-chief. Please
4 proceed, Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 WITNESS: JF-095 [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]
9 Q. Good afternoon, Witness JF-095. The usher is now handing you a
10 binder containing a copy of the original version of your report for ease
11 of reference, as well as some of the attachments that were attached to
12 the report. There is a second binder here of the second part of the
13 attachments. I don't expect that my examination will require you to
14 refer to them, but should you want to look at the other attachments, they
15 are on the desk at hand.
16 Now, yesterday we adjourned your testimony just after you
17 explained in general terms the work of the commission. Prior to
18 continuing with the work of the commission, I would like to return for a
19 moment to the meetings held with staff of the Office of the Prosecution.
20 Yesterday you told us that the meetings were held in the official
21 premises at the headquarters at the seat of the security and information
22 agency; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. In the event that the location of these headquarters should ever
25 become relevant in this trial, I'm going to ask you to mark its location
1 on a map.
2 MR. GROOME: At this time I would ask that a hard copy map be
3 placed on the ELMO. I have made additional copies for those in the court
4 room. It is a map provided by the Stanisic Defence and used with a
5 witness last week. If it could be placed.
6 Q. JF-095, I'm going to ask you to examine the map now placed on
7 what we call the ELMO before you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The ELMO nicely shows now the Chamber, so could it
9 be adjusted. Now it shows the floor of the courtroom. There we are.
10 MR. GROOME:
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would
21 tender that map into evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P971, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: P971 is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. GROOME: I'm finished with the map now, thank you.
10 Q. Now, if I may return to the work of the commission, were
11 representatives of the OTP present during any meetings convened by
12 commission members?
13 A. No, no OTP representatives were present at any meetings of the
15 Q. Did the OTP have any role in deciding what concrete investigative
16 steps should be taken by the commission?
17 A. No, the OTP's office did not have any role in that respect.
18 MR. GROOME: Could I please ask that 65 ter 5751 be brought to
19 our screens, and I would ask that we at first display the first page of
20 this document.
21 Q. JF-095, in a few seconds you will see the image of a document on
22 the screen before you. Before you comment on what you see, I would also
23 like to show you page 4 of this document, so please indicate when you
24 have had an opportunity to look at the first page and then I will ask
25 that page 4 be displayed for you.
1 A. Yes, I can do that.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time I would ask that
15 65 ter 5751 be marked for identification.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
17 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P972 MFI'd, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. GROOME:
21 Q. Did you attach to this report some documents related to the
22 commission's work?
23 A. Yes, I did. The concept of the commission's report was that it
24 would contain five chapters in fact. Documents which were produced in
25 interviewing a number of persons, that is one part of the report, and
1 attached to the report as well we have documents that were found, namely
2 documents that were requested by the OTP through their RFA 1691.
13 Q. JF-095, can you look at the screen before you and tell us whether
14 you recognise this document.
15 A. Yes, I do recognise this document. That is a document which is a
16 constituent part of this report.
17 Q. Can you be more precise in your description of what the document
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I inquire with the parties, is there any
20 dispute about, whatever the quality may be, that these are Official Notes
21 taken by those witnesses? I mean, we go through in a rather slow --
22 MR. JORDASH: No dispute.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is no dispute
24 as far as we are concerned regarding the authenticity, but there is a
25 dispute regarding the reaches, the importance of the content of the
1 notes. In formal terms there is no dispute but in substantive terms,
2 yes, and we will deal with that a bit later too.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.
4 Mr. Groome, could we speed up a bit. If you would have given the
5 witness this set of the documents, say look at it, is this the report and
6 are these the attached, and if it's not in dispute then we could deal
7 with that in 30 seconds up to one minute rather than in four or five
8 minutes giving the names again. Could we try to be efficient in this
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in that event the Prosecution tenders
11 65 ter 5758.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's a set of four documents, and we are
13 talking about admissibility not to whether the content of it is true or
14 not. This is apparently what was recorded those witnesses have said, and
15 that's reported in official notes.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we oppose the
17 admission of these notes, and I can give you a very brief explanation.
18 First of all, in the introduction -- introductory part of this report
19 itself, it is stated that the commission did not have any powers in terms
20 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, so that these notes are nothing else
21 but what was jotted down by people who conducted the interviews; namely,
22 how they understood what some of these people had said.
23 Furthermore, in each of these notes, for instance, I shall refer
24 to note from an interview with Obrad Stevanovic, it is stated that this
25 was an informal interview, not only is not the framework formal, even in
1 some official terms, this has been designated as an informal talk,
2 informal interview. That affects the content and that affects the
3 reliability of what is contained in the notes, and we fear that the
4 Prosecutor by the admission of these notes is actually trying to
5 circumvent the very strict rules for the admission of what some people,
6 some persons have communicated in an informal or formal talk. In other
7 words, by the admission of these notes, the intention is to circumvent
8 these stringent rules under 92 ter or 92 bis. In other words, to
9 introduce by the back door the words of these people into this courtroom
10 as testimony of those people; whereas, the Official Notes such as it is
11 and given the circumstances in which it was compiled cannot be
12 characterised as such in any way. That is why we oppose the admission of
13 these notes into the case file.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE ORIE: It may be clear that this could never be 92 ter
16 statements, if only because there's no attestation to them, so therefore
17 the Chamber considers this not to be witness statements but as you
18 rightly said, Mr. Petrovic, what someone jotted down as how he understood
19 what someone else told him. And apparently we are talking about
20 reliability, evaluation of this evidence is still to be made.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: The objections raised go to weight. There's only
23 one thing, Mr. Groome, for the report itself, you asked it to be marked
24 for identification. Now, isn't it true that these Official Notes
25 attached to the reports then should undergo the same fate.
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I just thought it procedurally
2 more appropriate to actually move them into evidence at the end of the
3 second witness, but I'm happy given what has been said by the Defence to
4 move them into evidence at this stage. So I would ask that both exhibits
5 be tendered into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Madam Registrar, the number to be assigned, and I think being an
8 attachment to a report which is marked for identification, it would be
9 appropriate to mark the attachments to the report for identification as
11 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P973 MFI'd, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. JF-095, one of the documents that the Prosecution requested and
15 the commission undertook to investigate was a decision to establish the
16 anti-terrorist and combat operations unit with the department of the
17 state security of the Ministry of the Interior. A document purported to
18 have been issued on the 4th of August, 1993, and bearing the number 2497;
19 is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that is correct.
21 Q. Did the commission investigate the circumstances surrounding this
22 document, and if you could at this stage just limit your answer to yes or
23 no and I will ask you about some of the circumstances?
24 A. Yes, the commission did investigate the circumstances surrounding
25 this document.
1 Q. Did you come to a view with respect as to whether this
2 foundational document for this unit existed?
3 A. It was the conclusion of the commission that such a document most
4 probably did exist.
5 Q. And can you explain in greater detail the document that the
6 commission believed existed?
7 A. Yes. It is a fact that a larger number of individual decisions
8 on the assignment of specific individuals to specific posts and work
9 duties within the RDB, within the state security department, actually
10 were based on -- invoked the decision which was under this register
11 number, the one that you indicated, and which bore this date. Several
12 such individual decisions were sent by the OTP attached to their request
13 for assistance number 1691.
14 In our efforts to try and locate such a document, the commission
15 established with certainty that according to the register number which
16 that document bears, it cannot be in any case a document which was
17 autonomously brought by the RDB, inter alia, because of the fact that the
18 number itself, the register number in terms of its structure does not --
19 did not correspond to the numbers in the central register maintained by
20 the state security department in the period in question.
21 The only possible conclusion was that that document had been
22 adopted possibly by the minister of the interior at that particular time,
23 and according to the actual configuration of the register number, that it
24 was a document that had been filed or, rather, entered in the central
25 register of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.
1 Q. Were you able -- ever able to find the document itself?
2 A. No, we never were able to find this document and none of the
3 persons with whom we had conducted interviews in that particular respect
4 ever confirmed having ever seen that document.
5 Q. Did you ever find other documents that established or referred to
6 the existence of this document? And if you could limit your answer to a
7 yes or no for the moment.
8 A. Yes, we did find such documents.
9 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that 65 ter 5757 be brought to our
10 screens. I ask that we go to page 1 of both versions. Can I ask that we
11 go to the next page, please, in the B/C/S.
12 Q. JF-095, do you recognise the document that's now before us on our
14 A. Yes, I do recognise it.
15 Q. What is this document?
16 A. This is a makeshift improvised excerpt from a document which is
17 entitled "The Rules on the Staffing Specification of Work Posts and Work
19 Q. Where was this document obtained from?
20 A. This document was found in one of the personnel files in the
21 documentation bases of the Ministry of the Interior which were in April
22 1992 on the basis of minutes submitted to the Ministry of the Interior by
23 the RDB.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65
25 ter 5757 into evidence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P974, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P974 is admitted into evidence under seal.
4 MR. GROOME: Can I now ask that we take a closer look at P974, in
5 particular page 3 of the original and the English translation.
6 Q. I want to ask you to assist us in understanding row 34 of this
7 document but before I do that, would you please focus on the column
8 headings. Am I correct that the second and third columns of this
9 document contain a reference to some set of rules, the second column
10 being a reference to an article in those rules and the third column being
11 a reference to the number of the subsection of the article? Is my
12 understanding correct? Do you need us to enlarge it, we can have that
13 done for you. Would you like it to be enlarged and focused on the second
14 and third columns?
15 A. Yes, thank you. Yes.
16 Q. Now, the heading of the fourth column is "Title of Post." Am I
17 correct in concluding that the title of the job specified by the rule
18 indicated in the first two columns is placed here?
19 A. Yes. This is a standard excerpt from the rules on the staffing
20 specification which contains in the vertical column, first of all the
21 ordinal or the serial number, of course in this particular document, and
22 the second vertical column which has two sub-columns, is divided into two
23 sub-columns, it practically denotes the actual staffing specification
24 because it refers to the article in the rules and the actual serial
25 number of the work post concerned.
1 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we zoom out a little bit and that
2 we move to row 34 in both documents.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think we need the next page if we are talking
4 about row 34.
5 MR. GROOME: The original -- sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: There we are.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. Now, when we look at row 34, it contains information regarding a
9 person by the name of Zoran Davidovic. Is a correct interpretation of
10 this row that a person named Zoran Davidovic held a position specified in
11 Article 37 subsection (7) of the applicable rules, the title of such
12 position being a unit member, is that a correct reading of the
13 information in this row?
14 A. Yes. I only have to place the caveat that I don't see the name
15 Zoran Davidovic.
16 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that it be moved over to the right-hand
17 side of this table so that the witness can see the name of the person in
18 this row.
19 Q. Can you now see it and do you confirm it's Zoran Davidovic?
20 A. Yes, I can see it and I confirm it.
21 MR. GROOME: Can I now ask that page 1 of Exhibit P442 be brought
22 to our screens. And I'm interested in the middle portion of the
23 document, the paragraph in the middle.
24 Q. Now, can I draw your attention to the portion of the document
25 midway down the page that reads:
1 "Is hereby employed in the Republic of Serbia Ministry of the
2 Interior state security department as of 1 June 1994, to the position
3 envisaged in item 37, number 7 of the rules on job specification in the
4 state security department at the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic
5 of Serbia. (DT number 2497 of 4 August 1993)."
6 My question to you is whether this reference to item 37, number 7
7 is a reference to the same rules mentioned in row 34 in the last document
8 we examined which is now in evidence as P974?
9 A. In order for me to confirm this with any certainty, i.e., that
10 this is the very posting, I would have to have the relevant document,
11 namely the rules governing staffing specification of jobs and duties
12 under the number of 2497 of 4 August 1993. However, as the commission
13 stated in the report and as I said, the commission was only able to
14 locate this makeshift excerpt from the rules governing job and duty
15 specification of the RDB of the Ministry of the Interior.
16 In addition to this, the commission explained why it was unable
17 to locate and deliver the original copy of the rules.
18 Q. Now, I think you've mentioned earlier in your testimony today
19 that the minister of the interior had the authority to create special
20 units in the Ministry of the Interior; is that correct?
21 A. Yes. Pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Serbia, the
22 minister had the authority to do so.
23 MR. GROOME: Can I ask the Court to call to the screen 65 ter
24 432. It is a newspaper article dated the 12th of April, 1991, reporting
25 on statements made by Milosevic in mid-March, the 16th and 17th of March,
1 1991, and recorded in the minutes of a session of deputies of the party.
2 I intend to tender it from the bar table and simply draw the Trial
3 Chamber to its existence now as it is directly relevant to this evidence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, I
6 oppose this document being shown to the witness. This newspaper article
7 has the nothing to do with the work of the commission, nor was it the
8 subject of its work. Whatever or rather everything that the witness can
9 tell us in relation to this article would be based on his knowledge as a
10 citizen of the Republic of Serbia at the time. So I don't think that
11 this would be helpful to the Chamber in any way. That's my first
13 My second submission is that this newspaper article is not an
14 interview. It is rather Milosevic and some other individuals saying
15 things, the context of which is not clear. So I ask that the newspaper
16 article not be shown to the witness because there is neither the
17 substantive nor procedural basis for the article to be shown to him.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you said that you more or less bar
19 tabled the document. Is there any need to show it to the witness.
20 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, and I will not ask the witness any
21 questions. I just would seek to draw your attention to a particular
22 portion of it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The second element of your response was about
24 weight to be given to this document, saying that it is not an interview,
25 that may become clear from the document. Any other objection against
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
4 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P975, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Before we decide to admit it into
6 evidence, Mr. Groome, even if not shown to the witness, the Chamber
7 always prefers to see what it admits into evidence because we do not take
8 any blind decisions in this respect. I haven't -- I don't have it on my
10 MR. GROOME: It was on the screen, Your Honour. I'm not sure why
11 it's disappeared.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps because it was supposed not to be shown
13 to the ...
14 MR. GROOME: Could I ask JF-095 not to look at the screen.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic just said that it is of no use. Well,
16 okay. It will marked be for identification.
17 Madam Registrar, the -- let me just check.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GROOME: If I may draw the Chamber's attention to it, maybe
21 the relevance will become clear, it is a document that has been referred
22 to before in the Prosecution case.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then it will be marked for identification under what
24 number? No, Madam Registrar, you have already assigned number 975. P975
25 is marked for identification.
1 MR. GROOME: Am I still permitted to draw the Chamber's attention
2 to a particular portion of this interview?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it might even assist us in deciding on
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the portion that I wish to draw the
6 Chamber's attention to, in the original it's marked as page 40 and it's
7 the bottom -- last full paragraph on that page. The corresponding
8 translation of this passage can be found in the last paragraph of page 2
9 of the English translation, and the portion I wish to draw the Chamber's
10 attention to is the recorded statement of Mr. Milosevic:
11 "I ordered a mobilisation" --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if we just read it, there were -- apparently
13 there was an objection to putting it to the witness, you said the witness
14 has got nothing to do with it. If you give us the first two lines and
15 have it on the screen, we can read it for ourselves and you have achieved
16 your goal, Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Then the sentence begins with: "I ordered a
18 mobilisation," and the quote ends with "people outside Serbia."
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we read it. If it could be kept on the screen
20 for awhile.
21 You may continue, Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would renew my tendering of the
23 exhibit, or if the Chamber wishes to continue with it as marked for
24 identification, may I ask what is necessary for the Prosecution -- what
25 further steps are necessary before it can be admitted?
1 JUDGE ORIE: One of the things is that the Chamber has a
2 possibility to read whether it's supposed to submit in to evidence. You
3 said the relevance will be explained further. I have read now one
4 paragraph. I'd like to read the whole of it in order to perhaps better
5 understand what it all is. And that's the reason why I think we should
6 decide that. I'm not expecting anything special for you, just I'm
7 emphasising that the Chamber want to know what it admits into evidence
8 before doing so. Please proceed.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 Q. Now, JF-095, I would like to draw your attention to section 5 of
11 the commission report.
12 MR. GROOME: It is page 30 in the English and page 32 typed page
13 number 28 in the original. And this is now P972 marked for
14 identification. If that could be brought to our screens.
15 Q. Now, while that is being brought to our screens, and again that's
16 page 30 in the English and page 32 in the original, the commission made
17 some inquiry with respect to those records indicating that a number of
18 people had received payment a from the state security department; is that
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. Perhaps it may be quicker if you turn to page 28 on the copy
22 that's before you, the hard copy you have in front of you. Perhaps that
23 would assist you. As your report indicates, for some of these people who
24 receive payment, you were able to find personnel files, for others you
25 were not; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. And the report concludes:
3 "It is certain that some of the persons mentioned in the request
4 RFA 1691 were employed by the RDB MUP of the Republic of Serbia."
5 On what basis was the commission able to find with certainty that
6 some people on these payment records were officially employed?
7 A. On the basis of relevant documents contained in the personnel
8 records of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia at this
9 point in time. The personnel records were for awhile in the possession
10 of the RDB.
11 Q. Now, could I ask you to focus your attention on the remainder of
12 the men on these payment records. Those for which you cannot establish
13 with certainty that they were officially employed by the RDB MUP, can you
14 provide the commission's findings with respect to these men?
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I see that the time for the break is
16 upon us. I am happy to have the witness, with the Court's permission, to
17 review the report and answer the question after the break if that pleases
18 the Court.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, having looked at the report, Mr. Groome, I
20 still ask myself, the dispute is apparently in the information received,
21 not in the explanation given in the report itself. It's clear the report
22 states that if we find only financial records, there is no documentation
23 which would support that the persons were employed, and then it continues
24 to say that sometimes -- that it was not unusual to destroy records once
25 those who had only assisted in the work were destroyed after that or even
1 already during their providing assistance to the service.
2 Now, I'm asking myself why are you seeking the witness to confirm
3 all this, whether the conclusions are right or wrong is a different
4 matter because if that's the case, you could simply ask him whether he,
5 as a member of the committee, shared the opinions expressed in the report
6 on that and that being that and that and that. I try to summarise now
7 the question you just raised, then we could move on by far quicker, and
8 we also could reach as soon as possible the points where apparently there
9 is dispute. Or is this in dispute that this is what the commission on
10 the basis of the documentation set out a report that this is what they
12 MR. JORDASH: No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, is there --
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in principle it is
15 not in dispute. However, I can give you a final response only after we
16 have heard the explanation provided by the witness, so I can't give you a
17 definite response at this time.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if the witness would agree with what is
19 writ in the report, then we have his explanation, taking it that you are
20 aware of the conclusions and the reasons for -- given for it in the
21 report of the commission, Witness JF-095?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, of course I am
23 familiar with it and I stand by every word written in this document and
24 especially so with regard to the conclusion.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the way in which I summarised the
1 position of those persons for whom financial records were found but no
2 records of employment, was my summary more or less reflecting what the
3 report states about this?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is fully consistent with
5 what was stated in the report.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome, I'm certain that there are ways to
7 move more quickly on matters which apparently are not in dispute and then
8 to -- I don't know whether you understand what I mean. I mean, I tried
9 to summarise in one or two lines, of course you can read that in the
10 report, and the witness has told us that he fully supports what every
11 finding of the commission, and so therefore on that basis alone you
12 could -- whether right or wrong, but you could on that basis establish
13 that this witness shares the findings, even the conclusions of this
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I took that for granted since he signed
16 the report. I'm merely trying to bring the witness to a particular
17 phrase which I think deserves explanation for the Court to understand
18 what he means in this paragraph. I can do that very briefly if the Court
19 permits now or after the break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps do that after the break. So let's come as
21 soon as possible to those issues, portions of the report, whatever, which
22 needs further explanation and let's go in a different speed over all
23 those elements which do not need any explanation.
24 MR. GROOME: I'll be available here during the break if the
25 Defence have any points that they want let me know that they agree to and
1 I'll just skip those areas of questioning.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be very practical.
3 We have a break and resume at 4.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, are you ready to proceed?
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 Q. JF-095, I just have a few more questions for you today. I want
9 to focus on the conclusions portion of your report and ask for you to
10 explain a phrase that is used in one sentence. I will read the entire
11 sentence for you, and this is in reference to the group of men in which
12 the commission lacked certainty:
13 "The commission indicates as a possibility in this case that the
14 RDB MUP of the Republic of Serbia in accordance with the generally
15 accepted standards characteristic of the services for the protection of
16 domestic safety, could have engaged people for co-operation in carrying
17 out its tasks in line with the (then and also now) current normative
19 Now, I want you to focus on the phrase "current normative
20 provisions," can you please describe for us what is meant by that phrase?
21 A. Yes, I can explain this. The commission was confronted with the
22 fact that it had in its possession a number of documents which featured
23 the names of individuals in respect of whom it could not be established
24 upon reviewing records and registers that they were employees of the RDB
25 or that they were on the reserve force of the RDB. In an attempt to
1 respond to the request put to it, i.e., what was the basis for a payment
2 made to an individual, and the commission was not even aware of who these
3 individuals were, the commission arrived at the conclusion that these
4 could possibly have been individuals who were hired to co-operate with an
5 institution such as the RDB, or BIA as it is known now. However, nowhere
6 did the commission establish what the tasks given to these individuals
7 could have been and it did not have anywhere to find this. The
8 commission proceeded from the assumption that these were possibly
9 individuals hired to gather information which is one of the basic tasks
10 and duties of a service of this type.
11 Q. Would the phrase "current normative provisions" include the
12 creation of an armed fighting force?
13 A. Absolutely not. Under the regulations in force at the time and
14 today and not only in Serbia but in other states which have proper legal
16 Q. Would that phrase include the deployment of an armed fighting
17 force outside the borders of Serbia to engage in combat operations?
18 A. I apologise, can you clarify your question.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object. It seems
20 to me that this line of questioning wishes to turn the witness into an
21 expert witness for the Prosecution and this witness is not an expert. He
22 was a member of the commission which had limited tasks and arrived at its
23 conclusions. This line of questioning seeks to elicit expert knowledge
24 from this witness which we do not know whether he has that knowledge or
1 The point is that we do not consider him an expert witness. He
2 is a witness who is about to testify about the work of the commission and
3 its findings. In other words, these questions ought to be put to an
4 expert witness and not a fact witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the objection is denied. The witness
6 has testified that he shares all the conclusions of a commission in which
7 he participated himself, so therefore it doesn't need expert knowledge or
8 expert skills to answer a question on what was meant in the conclusions
9 of this even if it's phrased as a possibility. That's the ruling. The
10 witness, perhaps you'll repeat the question, Mr. Groome.
11 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be allowed
13 to make one more point.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If it's another point because on your previous point
15 a ruling has been made.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, it seems to me
17 that this witness is asked to interpret rules and regulations because the
18 witness does not have firsthand knowledge. He is interpreting
19 regulations and it seems to me that this goes beyond the scope of --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, first of all, it's the same point more
21 or less as you previously raised when you said this is a question for an
22 expert. Now, if someone has participated in the work of a committee and
23 has put something on paper, even if what is put on paper in order to be
24 reliable would require some knowledge of legislation, then nevertheless
25 it is a very factual question to ask a witness what he, right or wrong,
1 understood the meaning to be the meaning of the words used in the report.
2 The witness may answer the question.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. JF-095, I'll repeat the question and try to phrase it clearer.
5 When the commission used the phrase "current normative provisions," did
6 that definition or did it intend to include -- does that include the
7 deployment of armed men to engage in combat operations outside the
8 borders of Serbia?
9 A. That was absolutely not its intention. It did not proceed from
10 such a possibility or from such a solution.
11 Q. Now, my final questions to you here today is based in the
12 following: Part of the Stanisic Defence case has exemplified in a filing
13 dated the 5th of March, 2010, is that some of the documents provided by
14 the government of Serbia are the product of a malicious attempt to
15 fabricate documents to implicate Mr. Stanisic. Recognising that you can
16 only speak authoritatively about what happened to the documents once you
17 had control of them, my question is, over the course of your work, did
18 you come across any evidence that some of the documents provided by BIA
19 to the Office of the Prosecutor were fabricated to falsely implicate
20 Mr. Stanisic?
21 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, objection to the way the question is
22 phrased. It does call for specific expert evidence in this instance.
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you phrase it slightly differently, and that's
24 the only way you could understand his question is, did you ever come
25 across, Witness JF-095, did you ever come across any information in
1 whatever form, statements, documents, whatever, which made you think that
2 documents may have been intentionally produced as fabricated for the
3 purpose of implicating Mr. Stanisic, or for any other reason?
4 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, it's that question that I was
5 objecting to. May I address you on it?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may. Please consider whether it should be
7 appropriately done in the presence of the witness.
8 MR. JORDASH: I think it can be, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please proceed.
10 MR. JORDASH: The report deals with, as I understand the report,
11 whether an opportunity existed for placing fabricated documents within
12 the data storage. The question Mr. Groome and Your Honours have asked
13 appears to ask the witness to make a judgement as to whether the
14 documents themselves appear to be fabricated, and this witness cannot or
15 hasn't provided any evidence on that line.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then you have not carefully listened to my question.
17 I asked about any information, could be statements, could be documents, I
18 specified specifically from whatever source, that ever led the witness to
19 think even that documents, processed documents he saw, might have been
20 fabricated. So I really disagree with your interpretation of the
21 question I put to the witness. I did not limit myself to what you could
22 see on the documents but I made it far more broad, and Mr. Groome, I have
23 not repeated that, but of course that was part of my question as well,
24 specifically emphasised that the witness of course cannot say anything
25 about the documents to the extent how they arrived at places where they
1 may have found beyond what the witness could observe. Let me check one
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I did not want to decide on my own on
5 this objection as you'll understand, specifically because I rephrased the
6 question. The Chamber unanimously now invites the witness to answer the
8 Witness JF-095, do you still remember the question as I phrased
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Presiding Judge, the
13 Prosecutor's question was whether I had come across or had knowledge of
14 any documents that the government of the Republic of Serbia, in
15 proceeding in keeping with the request for legal assistance, had
16 submitted to the Tribunali, i.e., to the OTP, and whether among those
17 documents that possibly I had recognised any that might have been
18 forgeries, fabricated. With the reservation that what I will be saying
19 now refers to only documents that originate in the BIA --
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you for second, because then I rephrased
21 the question, made it broader. Whether at any point in time you from
22 whatever source, that is statements or on the face value of these
23 documents or on the basis of the value of other documents, that you
24 ever -- that ever came to your mind that the documents the government of
25 Serbia produced would not have been authentic documents but would have
1 been forgeries or changed documents in any way either for the reasons
2 Mr. Groome expressed, that is, in order to fraudulently implicate
3 Mr. Stanisic, and I added to that or for any other reason. Would you
4 please answer that question.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when documentation
6 coming from the security and information agency is in question, I have
7 never -- it had never even occurred to me nor had I ever seen any
8 documents or a document that would have indicated any such possibility.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And also no information from any other source not
10 being a document ever triggered such a thought; is that correctly
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is so. I never had -- nothing
13 ever triggered such a thought.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. JF-095, this question began focused on Mr. Stanisic, would your
17 answer be the same with respect to Mr. Simatovic?
18 A. Yes, the answer would be the same.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no further questions at this
20 time. Thank you, Mr. JF-095.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
22 The order of the examination, Witness JF-095, is not the usual
23 one. Usually you would now be cross-examined by the Defence. However,
24 the Chamber has decided that we'll first hear the evidence of another
25 witness and that cross-examination will take place only after that, and
1 we still have to decide whether that would be -- whether that would start
2 even today or whether that would start on Monday or even on Tuesday or
3 Wednesday or at any other later point in time. You will be informed
4 about how it will happen as soon as possible, most likely later this
5 afternoon. Meanwhile, you are asked to remain available and the Victims
6 and Witness Section will further inform you about the way in which we
7 will proceed.
8 Do you have any questions in relation to this?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, presiding judge, my
10 question is of a personal nature. If it is possible, I should like to
11 know when I would be required to appear before the Chamber again in view
12 of my other commitments. And my arriving here is also fraught with --
13 involves some problems, namely the travelling arrangements.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first ask you when are you scheduled to
15 return home?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tomorrow, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you consider in advance the possibility
18 that your testimony might not be concluded in full today?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I did consider that
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what obstacles, apart from available flights,
22 et cetera, what obstacles would be there for you to return on Monday,
23 Tuesday, or Wednesday next week?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is actually my other
25 obligations, so if it is possible it will suit me to appear here on
1 Wednesday at the earliest next week or at any later date.
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you to see to what extent it would be
3 possible to be back at an earlier date, but that means Monday and/or
4 Tuesday. At the same time, I have to tell that you the Chamber has not
5 finally decided on the order of the proceedings, but would highly
6 appreciate if you would explore the possibilities to come back earlier.
7 I'm not looking at any further or longer terms because it is still
8 uncertain how the Chamber will decide on various requests in relation to
9 postponement of examination, cross-examination of witnesses.
10 Would you please explore that to the best of your abilities?
11 Then I would like to ask you to follow the usher. You'll receive further
12 information on how we will proceed as soon as possible.
13 And oh, yes, I've forgotten one thing. I would like to instruct
14 you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony up to
15 'till the very moment that your examination has been concluded, that
16 includes both examination-in-chief and cross-examination. So unless you
17 are relieved from this duty, you should not speak with anyone about your
18 testimony or communicate in any other way.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ORIE: And may the next witness be brought into the
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls JF-094.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, as I said earlier, we'll have time
24 until quarter to 6.00. We have not three sessions, could you please
25 consider with Mr. Stanisic to what extent it would be possible to have a
1 bit of a longer session and then conclude in, well, let's say in a little
2 bit over one hour from now. And that would enable us to finish the
3 examination-in-chief of the next witness, I take it, at least.
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, that would be perfectly fine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, it's much appreciated, Mr. Stanisic.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness JF-094. Before you give
10 evidence, I'd like to invite you to make a solemn declaration that you
11 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The
12 text is handed out to you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
14 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Witness JF-094. You'll first be examined
16 by Mr. Groome. Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution.
17 Mr. Groome, I take it that the information about the system in
18 place for protective measures, as you explained that to the previous
19 witness, that you would do the same with this witness.
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 WITNESS: JF-094
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Examination by Mr. Groome:
25 Q. Can I ask you to state your full name for the record?
8 Q. Yesterday during a meeting with me, did I explain the procedure
9 the Chamber has ordered for your testimony as well as measures the
10 Chamber has ordered to protect your identity?
11 A. Yes, you did, and I understood them fully.
3 Q. Now, you have received many requests for documents, have you been
4 able to find all of the documents requested by the Office of the
6 A. In this particular case, there have been documents that the units
7 from which we requested such documents were unable to submit to us.
8 Q. Did you take part in a commission that was convened to
9 investigate missing documents or documents that could not be found in
10 response to requests for assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor?
11 A. Yes, I was a member of that commission on behalf of the Ministry
12 of the Interior.
13 Q. Now, in the course of your work on that commission, did you
14 personally participate in the interview of people that you believed may
15 have had relevant information with respect to the documents you were
16 looking for?
17 A. Yes, I did in a twofold way. First of all, as the commission was
18 an interdepartmental organ consisting of people from the Ministry of the
19 Interior and the BIA of the Republic of Serbia, my task as a member of
20 the commission from the MUP of Serbia was primarily to conduct interviews
21 with people who are employed or were employed with the MUP of Serbia in
22 order to conduct this preliminary part. After that, at the commission's
23 meeting we decided whether the need existed to have a more formal
24 interview with those persons, namely, to make minutes of the interviews
1 Q. Can I ask you to describe in general terms the procedure that was
2 followed when interviewing one of these witnesses?
3 A. First of all, after at the commission meeting we decided given
4 the fact that the documentation that we were looking for was lacking
5 partly, we tried -- some of us tried, at least I'm speaking in my own
6 name, I cannot say anything about the members from the BIA, we were not
7 direct witnesses of the events on which the documentation was compiled or
8 knew how it had been produced, so we tried to find the people who had
9 originally participated in the compiling, in the drawing up, producing of
10 such documents, or witnesses to the events on which such documentation
11 was made.
12 So I would get in touch with people that we supposed had the
13 knowledge we required in respect of such events or such documentation.
14 After that, when at the commission meeting we made such a decision, I
15 would I locate such a person, whether it was a retired person or an
16 active person in the Ministry of the Interior, we would conduct a
17 preliminary talk with that person. In the -- sometimes on our official
18 premises, sometimes at their work post or in their houses, their homes.
19 After that I would compile an Official Note. I apologise, I was just --
20 I just realised that I should follow the transcript.
21 So after that I would take that Official Note to the commission's
22 offices that was usually in BIA, and then we would on that basis decide
23 whether the need existed for any further interviews in the presence of
24 all the members of the commission. Thereafter, in respect of persons we
25 considered had the information that we required, which could be of
1 assistance to us in our further work, such persons would be further
2 interviewed in the presence of all the commission members in BIA, after
3 which of course an Official Note would be compiled and those notes are,
4 if I'm not wrong, also a component part of the documentation of the
5 material that has been submitted here.
6 Q. What were these people told, if anything, about the purpose of
7 the interview?
8 A. First of all in connection with the talks I conducted personally,
9 I would inform each person individually that this was a task that we had
10 been assigned to which great importance had been attributed, national
11 importance in fact, and that it was in fact a search for some lacking
12 documents, lacking in the archives of the BIA, and that the reason for
13 conducting such conversation was that we were trying to obtain through
14 what they knew some responses as to what had happened to the documents,
15 what had become of documents. Or they were all informed why we were
16 doing this, and if there was a repeated interview in the commission, they
17 would be informed again what the idea was, namely that the interview was
18 in response to an ICTY request which is to say that in every case they
19 were informed, they were not uninformed what it was about.
20 The commission, however, did not have powers which it would be
21 based on the Criminal Code, however.
22 Q. Was the participation of the people that were interviewed, was
23 their participation voluntary?
24 A. Yes, nobody refused to talk to us.
25 Q. Now, I want to ask you to focus your attention on an interview of
1 a person by the name of Obrad Stevanovic. Did you personally conduct
2 that interview?
3 A. Yes, I did. If you want me I can find it here in the binder. I
4 suppose his statement is in there. Yes, I personally interviewed him as
5 this was a former high official of the ministry who, at the time of the
6 war conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, had the task, inter alia, of setting
7 up Special Police Units at that time so that I assumed, as these are
8 documents, the documents that are requested have to do with the
9 establishment of Special Units within the then department of state
10 security. I assumed that he might have some information in that
12 Q. During that interview, did he describe interaction that he had
13 with Franko Simatovic in 1993 in relation to formalising a group of men
14 that Stevanovic saw in a training camp at Tara?
15 A. Yes, as I have said, they were all informed of the reason why the
16 interviews were being conducted in the first place, so that the main
17 portion of the talks also focused on what kind of a contact had been
18 established between him and Mr. Simatovic, and he said that during the
19 process of the setting up of the Special Police Units, he came to know
20 that Mr. Simatovic was in Bajina Basta, that there he was using an office
21 or several offices, and that there was on Mount Tara a camp where there
22 were men, there was a group of men who had specific experiences in
23 connection with the military aspect of police work so to speak, so that
24 with Mr. Simatovic, according to him he had some sort of an agreement
25 where he, as Mr. Obradovic, was a jurist who had experience in terms of
1 the legislative aspects of the setting up of units relevant to the
2 documentation and the legal aspects. On the other hand, Mr. Simatovic
3 had experiences related to combat actions or to the training of special
4 units so that there was a sorts of an exchange of information between the
5 two of them.
6 Q. Did he tell you when this first meeting with Mr. Simatovic was?
7 A. I would have to check that in the note and if you want me to, I
8 can consult it. I don't remember when it was, at any rate, it was in
9 that time-period, let's say 1992.
10 Q. I would ask you to refresh your recollection with the note. What
11 you have before you is a copy of the report and the tabs all correspond
12 to the numbering system in which the report was organised. And if I may
13 assist you, I believe it is at K16.
14 A. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, may I -- we are touching upon, I take
16 it, what is found on page 24 of the report, and I ask myself because this
17 has only to a limited extent to do with the core of the work of the
18 commission whether, if you would support the existence of a principle of
19 the best evidence, whether it would be appropriate to specifically
20 address these matters through this witness?
21 MR. GROOME: I apologise, Your Honour. I'm not exactly sure I
22 understand the Chamber's point.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the core of this report is the efforts made to
24 locate documents, existence of documents, whereas there's only very
25 limited information in this report as to what those persons who have been
1 interviewed told the interviewers about their dealings with one of the
2 accused in the past. Now, I do know that hearsay evidence is not
3 excluded in this Tribunal. That doesn't exist a kind of an absolute rule
4 of the best evidence. Nevertheless, would you agree with me that the
5 Chamber is better assisted to hear these details, and I'm now
6 specifically pointing, and there are not many instances in this report I
7 would say where it would apply, that this may be a matter which is better
8 heard by the source of the information of this witness, that is the
9 person who he interviewed. Because it goes directly to the acts and the
10 conduct of the accused, isn't it? It's not about where are the documents
11 gone, it's a bit of a different aspect of the work of this commission.
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Without prompting the witness,
13 the key piece of information that I'm seeking to elicit is part of the
14 chronology, not so much what the substantive conduct that Mr. Stevanovic
15 engaged in. It's quite possible he may be a witness here, but there is a
16 key thing about a chronology and that's all I'm seeking to elicit. And I
17 agree with the Chamber --
18 JUDGE ORIE: If it's exclusively about chronology, you may
19 proceed, but please keep the observations I just made in the back of your
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Are you -- has your memory been refreshed by examining your
23 interview notes. And I see you nodding. Can you please tell us when was
24 the first meeting between Mr. Stevanovic and Mr. Simatovic with respect
25 to this issue?
1 A. It reads in the note that Mr. Stevanovic stated that the first
2 meeting took place in the January of 1993.
3 Q. And at the time of the first conversation about formalizing the
4 unit, did Mr. Stevanovic indicate observations relating to an already
5 existing group of men wearing uniforms?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to this line
7 of questioning. What I cautioned about in relation to the previous
8 witness has happened here again. This is an attempt to elicit from these
9 witnesses what Obrad Stevanovic had said about certain events or
10 individuals. The witness can testify to the documents he located or did
11 not locate, but cannot interpret something that was told by
12 Obrad Stevanovic. I believe that the Prosecutor is overstepping the
13 scope of testimony as permitted by the Trial Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: I would object on that basis but also that I don't
16 think we've had disclosure of that issue.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME: I'm not sure specifically what issue, but the
19 interview note which was disclosed several months ago does talk about
20 this meeting in January 1993.
21 With respect to the points raised by Mr. Petrovic, I am prepared
22 to make detailed legal submissions on that, but I believe I'm entitled to
23 ask a question that elicits hearsay evidence. There's no prohibition. I
24 can make those detailed legal arguments now if the Chamber wishes or at
25 the time that the Chamber considers the admittance of the interview
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, have you considered calling the
4 interviewed person as a witness? He is not on your list from what I
5 understand. Have you considered that as a possibility?
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, this person was a Defence witness in
7 the Milosevic case. I'd have to check our history with our contact
8 witness with this witness. I'm not sure whether he would be amenable to
9 an approach by the Prosecution to come as Prosecution witness, but I
10 rather suspect that he would not. I do know that Mr. Prodanic, one of
11 the people on this who was interviewed, was approached and asked to be a
12 Prosecution witness and he refused and identified himself as having
13 already committed to being a Defence witness in this case.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one would wish that witnesses would commit
15 themselves not to a party but rather to the truth, but apart from that,
16 we are at a point where, although hearsay evidence is admitted before
17 this Tribunal, that we have to carefully consider whether the best basis
18 for adjudicating this case would be hearing this hearsay evidence on this
19 subject. The Chamber invites you to make submissions when arguing the
20 admissibility of the Official Note in which the interview is reflected,
21 at least what is made in relation to this interview.
22 The submissions should include not only whether there are
23 prohibitions, legal prohibitions to admit this into evidence, but also
24 whether it serves the interest of justice to elicit this information
25 through this witness as hearsay evidence or whether it would be
1 appropriate to call the source as a witness. The Chamber further always
2 has an opportunity to order the parties to present certain evidence and
3 that could include either to order a party to call a witness or even to
4 call a witness that the Chamber would call a witness itself.
5 We want to give it ample thought how to proceed. Now, we will
6 not disallow you at this moment to continue to put questions to the
7 witness in relation to this subject, but we already inform you that the
8 decision that we'll make on the basis of your submissions on
9 admissibility may have consequences as well for the Chamber when
10 determining whether it will consider the answers given to questions which
11 are directly related and are to be looked upon in direct relation with
12 the issue I just -- issues I just raised. Am I clear enough, Mr. Groome?
13 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then please proceed.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. JF-094, the interview note talks about Mr. Stevanovic seeing a
17 group of men in NATO uniforms with Franko Simatovic at a training camp
18 called Tara. My question to you is really limited to the chronology.
19 Which happened first, his observation of those men, and the request for
20 assistance in establishing a formal legal unit? Which of those two
21 events occurred first?
22 A. I am afraid that we did not go into such detail in our interview.
23 We merely wanted to know the way in which they made the contact. He said
24 that at the time the PJPs were guarding the border opposite Bosnia, at
25 one point he came to know that there was a group of people headed by --
1 well, in essence it was Mr. Simatovic who was in charge of this group of
2 people. He referred to it rather as a group and not as an organised unit
3 that would be functioning as per rules of combat, for instance. Since he
4 had already had a PJP which was an operational unit, during the
5 interview -- or rather during the conversation they had, they agreed that
6 two members of each of the PJP units would be sent to the Tara training
7 camp, and in return Mr. Stevanovic would assist Mr. Simatovic in
8 organisational terms, i.e., by drafting documents.
9 And once they decided that the unit should be set up, there
10 remained the question at which level the unit should exist, so this was
11 my impression. His words were that this was a group of people who
12 pretended to have war experience. Now, if you ask why did he decide to
13 embark on this co-operation and this was the only contact between this
14 group from the MUP --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you for a second.
16 Mr. Groome, you told us that you were exclusively interested in
17 the chronology. You've asked the question which directly related to
18 chronology. The witness now says we didn't go into those details and
19 then starts telling a lot of things which have not directly to do with
20 chronology. I wonder whether it would not have been appropriate to stop
21 the witness and ask your next question, which I now invite you to do.
22 MR. GROOME: It's always a difficult thing when there's voice
23 distortion, Your Honour, to turn on a mike in the middle of a witness's
25 Q. JF-094, I have one final question for you. Do you confirm the
1 findings of the commission report now that you have taken the solemn
3 A. Of course. I signed them.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no further questions at this
6 Q. Thank you, JF-094.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-094, the Chamber, and I should inform you
10 about this, is still considering how we will proceed. Your
11 examination-in-chief has now been concluded. Cross-examination may start
12 even today but not necessarily your cross-examination, but I don't think
13 that you are unaware of that another person is currently testifying in
14 this case on related issues. We want to consider how to proceed.
15 There are a few options. The first and perhaps relatively
16 unlikely but certainly not to be excluded is that the cross-examination
17 start already within the next 10 to 15 minutes. Another possibility is
18 that it would be early next week, Monday, Tuesday, and/or Wednesday. I'd
19 like to know whether you would be -- first of all what has been scheduled
20 as far as your return home is concerned?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was told by the VWS that my
22 departure was planned for tomorrow, that's to say Thursday.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would you be available to return to The Hague early
24 next week?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will be available.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that information.
2 I would like to first of all to instruct you that you should not
3 speak with anyone about your testimony or in any other way communicate
4 with anyone, whether these are other witnesses or your government
5 officials or any of the parties or even anyone passing by on the street.
6 You should not discuss with anyone any part of your testimony.
7 Could I ask you to leave the courtroom. We'll further discuss at
8 this moment how we will proceed. We'll inform you about this as soon as
9 possible, and we apologise for the -- what may seem a bit a chaotic way
10 of proceeding. We are trying to do our best and we are also trying to
11 keep on our mind your interests in this matter. Could you please follow
12 the usher.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before the Chamber decides how to proceed, and I
17 think as a matter of fact you are for the time being excused as well,
18 gentlemen, because it's now a party discussion on what we expect them to
19 do. There is a possibility that we would start with the
20 cross-examination already in 10 minutes or 15 minutes from now. If
21 that's the case, of course, we'll invite you back. If you would have
22 patience, I apologise for the situation.
23 For further scheduling purposes, the Chamber has great
24 difficulties in understanding what a cross-examination would be about
25 which takes such a long time in relation to those witnesses, not to say
1 that there may be underlying areas which need to be explored in full
2 detail, but of course, the testimony of these witnesses is relatively
4 MR. JORDASH: Well, in one sense the core issue is limited. The
5 core issue of what happened to these particular documents. On the other
6 hand, my learned friend for the Prosecution has led the witness into
7 dealing with other subjects, one a subject of whether this witness has
8 ever seen a document within the records which looked forged or
10 JUDGE ORIE: I can imagine -- sorry to interrupt you, but I'm
11 trying to keep the discussion focused. I can't imagine that in
12 cross-examination you would present a document to this witness and say,
13 first, have you seen that document, second, were you not surprised by
14 finding this or that or did you know that September comes after August
15 instead of the other way around. I mean, if you have indicia for
16 forgeries that you would put that to the witness, that's something I
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, it's -- the subjects are, I mean, I haven't
19 finalised my preparation for cross-examination, but the subjects that I
20 think have to be dealt with through this witness or witnesses are,
21 firstly, the regulations since my learned friend led through this
22 witness -- through these witnesses that the state security were not
23 entitled in law to establish armed units. That's a large subject
24 potentially, looking at the regulations.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But is this -- and you are specifically referring
1 now to what part of the report because I take it that it's also to be
2 found in the report?
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, it wasn't, I don't think in the report. I
4 think this was something that we moved into. As far as I am aware, the
5 report doesn't say that the state security were not entitled in law to
6 create and use armed units, but that's something my learned friend
7 elicited from the witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist me exactly on where, what exactly
9 was asked. Mr. Groome, is that something that sounds ...
10 MR. GROOME: I believe what Mr. Jordash is referring to is when I
11 asked the witness to explain what was meant by "current normative
12 provisions," what kind of tasks that could be. I've not asked him
13 specifically about the law.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think you didn't ask him to explain that.
15 MR. GROOME: In fact, Your Honour --
16 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing that happened then is whether you --
17 that you asked him whether he would consider a certain activity to be
18 within these current normative provisions and for both examples we said
19 that would not be in it.
20 I understood, but perhaps I'm wrong, current normative
21 provisions, when I read it, I thought is the meaning the applicable
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, it -- if I can find the section quickly in
24 the report, the report notes that the persons employed by the DB or -- by
25 the DB into the reserve force, this is at page 30 of the report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. JORDASH: Was possibly in accordance with the generally
3 accepted standards characteristic of the services for the protection of
4 domestic safety. I think I'm looking at the right part. Yes. And then
5 so --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Of course I made some markings here in my version of
7 the report as well, and I underlined that this is what the witness says
8 is a possibility. Well, I'm always of the opinion that you should not
9 too easily exclude possibilities.
10 Mr. Groome, are you going to rely on this possibility as
11 something that is likely or -- I was a bit surprised in reading the
12 report and seeing the subject matter of the report to read this last
13 linear on page 30.
14 MR. GROOME: I'm not sure what the Chamber means by
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, "possibility" to say this is a possible
17 explanation. That this possibly was the case. Now, okay --
18 MR. GROOME: But what -- I'll recount what I heard the witness
19 say and perhaps maybe I've missed something, the witness said what was
20 meant by current normative provisions what referred to information
21 gathering. And to clarify that that's -- did not include other tasks,
22 that's why I asked him did it include these other two activities;
23 deployment outside the country of armed men engaged in combat operations,
24 and the creation of an armed fighting force, which I think he made clear
25 that it did not, and I do remember that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Petrovic then intervened and said that it
2 was for an expert to answer those questions, and then I responded to that
3 that what you could ask this witness what they at that time, what they
4 understood when they used this phrase. So first of all we have a
5 possibility, and second it is the subjective opinion of, because it's all
6 after the possibility, it's the subjective opinion of this witness which
7 he is more or less speculating on what is possible on the basis of his
8 understanding of the rules, not being an exert.
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, respectfully I'd have to strongly
10 disagree. We have a career person here who said, I mean, very clear in
11 the report, then as now current normative provisions. I don't believe he
12 has to be an expert. He is a career person in this service, and he -- I
13 think he is speaking as a fact witness when he speaks about what he can
14 normatively do. And my understanding of the phrase "normative" is it
15 includes prohibitions outside -- not specifically mentioned in the rules.
16 As lawyers, there are norms that control our conduct even if they are not
17 specifically set out in particular rules and I believe that's what he was
18 referring to, that his understanding or what he meant by current
19 normative provisions was simply limited to intelligence-gathering
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, in keeping
23 with your instructions during the last break we talked with Mr. Groome.
24 We conveyed the position of the Defence to him, which is that this fifth
25 part of the commissions report, to us there's no dispute about that, the
1 fifth part. And the fifth part is the conclusion which contains two
2 pages; namely, had Mr. Groome confined himself to what was the reason for
3 the testimony of this witness which is the commissions report, probably
4 the scope of our questions would have been very small. But what
5 happened? What happened was that Mr. Groome asked this witness to
6 interpret regulations, and now we have to show those regulations to show
7 what is contained in the regulations. We have to discuss this with the
8 witness. And that is something which will be time consuming, not only in
9 terms of court time but also in terms of preparation time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Jordash. I'm reading again the
11 answer the witness gave to your first question about the current
12 normative provisions:
13 "We are talking about these others who may have been paid but
14 were not on the regular payroll, they were not employed. The commission
15 arrived at the conclusion that these could possibly have been individuals
16 who were hired to co-operate with an institution such as the RDB or BIA,
17 as it is known now. However, nowhere did the commission establish what
18 the tasks given to these individuals could have been, and it did not have
19 anywhere to find this. The commission concluded that these individuals
20 were hired to gather information which is one of the basic tasks and
21 duties of a service of this type."
22 The answer is not very clear because the answer seems to express
23 that the commission had no idea about these tasks, and then have no
24 information about these tasks, and then concluded that it must have been
25 the ordinary without any clear reason for that.
1 Mr. Groome, and I'm also addressing the Defence, because what I'm
2 trying to find out and what the Chamber is wondering is what issues are
3 there to cross-examine the witness on having heard his
5 Mr. Groome, what I just read to you, would you agree that there's
6 no clear factual basis for the finding that it must have been the usual
7 task, that is gathering information?
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, I believe what the witness has said that we
9 have no direct factual information and we assume that it was done
10 according to prevailing normative provisions of what an intelligence
11 service does. So it's an assumption on the part of the commission that
12 whatever these men were paid for, it must have been intelligence
13 gathering because that is what --
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what it says, is it? It says we have got
15 no idea what it was and then we concluded that these individuals were
16 hired to gather information without any further factual underpinning of
18 MR. GROOME: And then the last sentence, Your Honour:
19 "The commission concluded that these individuals were hired to
20 gather information which is one of the basic tasks and duties of a
21 service of this type."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. GROOME: So my understanding of the evidence is that absent
24 factual information that suggests otherwise, they are making the
25 assumption that they were paid to do what ordinary intelligence
1 operatives do when engaged on an ad hoc basis.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It is an assumption not more than that. That's
3 exactly what I said.
4 MR. GROOME: I agree.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That there's no clear factual basis for that
6 assumption apart from that they did not find anything which is specific
7 on the matter, and therefore it must have been business as usual. That's
8 more or less how I understand this testimony.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Just so it's clear, that's
10 obviously not the Prosecution case. The Prosecution case is that these
11 men were doing something else.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, that's clear. And the witness then
13 clearly on the suggested possibilities said, no, that certainly was not
14 what it was about. You gave him two examples.
15 MR. GROOME: No, I don't think he was saying that he knew that it
16 wasn't. I think what he was saying was that type of activity is not what
17 he would consider the normative work or the normative provision, I forget
18 the exact language, "the current normative provisions of an intelligence
19 service." So I was just asking him whether it is possible in his view
20 when he used that phrase did he intend it to mean these other two
21 activities, and I think he's clear that he did not intend it to mean
22 those two other activities.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at the same time he did not specifically
24 answer your question on what current normative provisions exactly are in
25 in this context, and Mr. Petrovic would oppose against putting such a
1 question to him because it would require him to give an outline of the
2 regulations applicable at that time, but he didn't do that. So to that
3 extent, Mr. Petrovic might be --
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just on the basis of
5 one example which we heard in this courtroom, the witness said that as
6 part of their tasks they had the collection of intelligence. This is
7 what Mr. Groome just repeated now. Even that statement of the witness is
8 inconsistent with what he wrote in the report and it is also inconsistent
9 with what are the norms. It is stated in the conclusion that in keeping
10 with the generally accepted standards inherent in internal security
11 services, he could engage persons to co-operate with him in the discharge
12 of his duties. This is a much broader definition than what we have just
13 heard. So intelligence affairs, this is where the dispute arises. This
14 is wherefrom arises the reason to seriously challenge what we have heard
15 here today.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear that you would like to cross-examine the
17 witness on these kind of matters, whether that -- whether the Chamber
18 will consider this to be within the framework of what cross-examination
19 in these specific circumstances for this witness would be, we'll have to
20 think about that.
21 Any other matter you would like to raise in cross-examination
22 because we are still exploring why it would take five hours.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, the second issue would be the document issue,
24 and whether it was possible to insert documents, A; and B, whether in
25 fact this witness has any basis for saying that he has never seen any
1 documents which gave rise to any concern about authenticity.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in relation to the first question, I almost
3 could answer at that question. That is, that there always is a
4 possibility. And I think that Mr. Groome made a reservation to some
5 extent in one of his questions where he said, of course you can't talk
6 about what happened before you ever started with this job. That is
7 whether in the past anyone would have created or replaced or done
8 anything. Do we expect -- yes.
9 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, but then completely nullified that position
10 by asking the question about whether the witness had seen anything that
11 gave cause for concern, which was the basis for my objection to the
13 JUDGE ORIE: There are apparently two issues here. The one
14 appears to be was there anything in your work which triggered ever the
15 thinking about forgery, et cetera, in whatever way. I think I as broadly
16 as that, put the question to the witness. Now, he clearly said no. It's
17 possible that he didn't look carefully at the documents. Where the
18 documents give a clue for forgeries, then I think that's a reasonable
19 challenge to what he said because even if he told us the truth and he
20 said he never found anything, any information, then it may be because he
21 didn't open his eyes wide enough but he listened carefully enough for any
22 signal which would go to the opposite. That's a perfectly legitimate, I
23 would say perfectly legitimate matter to cross-examine these witnesses
25 The other matter is if documents or information do not reveal any
1 indicia of forgery, could they nevertheless have been forgeries which
2 were planted in archives, et cetera? There I would expect that a witness
3 can do a few things, start speculating whether it's possible or not,
4 which doesn't assist. If he would firmly deny that it ever happened,
5 then of course, but in two or three questions you would find the factual
6 basis for such a denial, how could you exclude something if you weren't
7 there 24 hours, 7 days a week. That also seems not to justify many, many
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, it depends what the witness says. I mean, if
10 the witness concedes reasonably, in our submission, that he didn't check
11 the documents very carefully, wasn't looking for forgeries, he doesn't
12 know what happened beforehand and whether there was opportunity for
13 people to put forgeries in, then it would take ten minutes. But if he
14 sticks his heels in the ground and wants to insist on the absolute
15 reliability of his own assessment, well it could take several hours to
16 take him through various documents, take him through the chain of
17 custody, and so on and so forth.
18 I would hope we didn't get to that position, but our Defence
19 involves persuading to a degree, Your Honours, about the lack of
20 authenticity of certain documents, and we would not be content just to
21 leave it as a vague possibility but we would want to demonstrate to Your
22 Honours that it was more than a possibility, it was a probability.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Mr. Petrovic, you also claim quite some time. Is there anything
25 you would like to add to what Mr. Jordash has said he would like to
1 explore in cross-examination?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, I can only
3 promise that Mr. Jordash and I will be dividing the subjects so that we
4 shall seek to make our respective times devoted to cross as short as
5 possible. Nothing new, nothing different, there is nothing new, nothing
6 different that I can say in the sense that this reduction of time can be
7 significant. Only after having seen all the documents and review them, I
8 will be able to say something more precisely. But when I said three
9 hours before, with all due respect to the Chamber that was my best
10 estimate at the time, but I will be wiser in a couple of days I expect
11 and I promise then to give you my better estimate.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We all hope to grow wiser as age advances,
13 Mr. Petrovic. That's even -- in days we can make progress.
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, there are two other issues that I
15 would like to touch upon with this witness which may or may not take some
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. JORDASH: One is the establishment of the JATD and the
19 establishment of the JSO because, as I indicated I think yesterday, on
20 the face of the report there are pieces of that report which support the
21 Defence position and I'd like to explore that a little. And secondly,
22 I'd like to explore to a degree the chain of reporting and chain of
23 command of the JATD and the -- possibly the JSO, but the focus will be on
24 the JATD.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And what would the witness -- at the time?
1 MR. JORDASH: Well, the witness gives -- sorry, the commission
2 report deals with the way in which the minister would set up -- it would
3 be the minister who would set up a special unit and the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, from what I understand from the report they
5 say, if anyone it's set up that, it may well have been the minister.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And --
7 JUDGE ORIE: It's also not very firm.
8 MR. JORDASH: No, but I would want to explore whether the
9 witness's answers or the commission's conclusions arose from their
10 understanding of how things were normally done, which is our Defence
11 case, that such a unit would have to be set up by the minister. And
12 secondly, as it is in the report, that once the unit was set up, there
13 was a degree of missing out of certain chains in the chain of command,
14 i.e., the chief of the service, and the unit itself would or could bypass
15 the chief and go straight to the minister in terms of certain functions
16 and certain functioning of the unit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I understand. I was just exploring -- I'm not
18 taking over, it's for you to cross-examine the witness, but I was
19 exploring what the issues were and come to a reasonable estimate of the
20 time needed.
21 MR. JORDASH: I did say three to four. My guess is that's
22 excessive but I wanted to leave myself some room.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] -- have some reserve time.
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I could --
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's, for scheduling purposes, the Chamber is not
1 very fond of because if you claim more time, you use more time, that's
2 the general practice.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I'm just mindful of giving estimates and going
4 over them which we've been guilty of in the past, I think.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, slowly moving to a solution, but I'd like to
8 move now from these witnesses to witness JF-039. Mr. Groome, how much
9 time would you need?
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I don't have the estimate at hand, but
11 I think the estimate that we gave in November 2000, I was three hours,
12 and I believe -- I mean, hope -- I always hope, I always try to do it
13 shorter, but I wouldn't want to commit to anything less than three hours
14 with that witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Again, Defence, perhaps having a better and also
16 keeping in mind the way in which I just explained how we analyse what is
17 needed for cross-examination of witnesses, that is a clear view of what
18 do we want to establish through this witness and not what subjects could
19 we explore in order to find out that the witness can't tell us anything
20 about that because that's unlimited. So we have to find a fair balance
21 between fishing expeditions and a very focused clear cross examination.
22 For JF-039, Mr. Jordash?
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, perhaps I should say that this witness
24 gives -- or purports to give chapter and verse and places Mr. Stanisic in
25 control of almost all the Serbian events in the Krajina in 1991, so I
1 couldn't imagine cross-examining him for less than three and probably
2 closer to four.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Jordash was in a
5 better situation to make his estimates because I finished with Maksic
6 yesterday and last night and I focused on that. Over the night and this
7 morning I tried to take a look at the testimony of this witness. I
8 believe that he directly involves our client in a number of situations,
9 and my best estimate is that we should be requiring between two and a
10 half and three hours for this witness. But as my colleague Petrovic has
11 said and as Mr. Jordash has said, I am trying to reserve some time, but
12 if I manage to follow your instructions and focus only on the essentials,
13 of course that time can be that much shorter. Thank you
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has reached a conclusion as to how to
16 proceed. The Chamber wishes to start on Wednesday -- on Monday with the
17 examination-in-chief of witness JF-039 and expects you, Mr. Groome, to do
18 your utmost best to finish the examination-in-chief in the first two
19 sessions of that day.
20 Then we'll continue with the cross-examination of witness JF-039.
21 It may well be that we are in a better position to give further estimates
22 on how much time we would need by the end of the Monday session.
23 Meanwhile, we'll see whether it's possible for witnesses JF-094 and 095
24 to be prepared to travel, if need be, on Tuesday, that is the Tuesday
25 where we'll continue the cross-examination of witness JF-039. But by
1 Monday the end of the day we'll be better able to assess whether we would
2 need a Wednesday session still for conclusion of the cross-examination of
3 witness JF-039 or whether we'd have Wednesday available, because the
4 Chamber considers that the cross-examination of witnesses JF-094 and 095
5 would take close to a day at least, that that would be a reasonable
6 projection of the time we would need, that is anything between in total
7 three, three and a half hours.
8 We'll see how it develops, as we always do, but for the time
9 being, the schedule would be let's get started with JF-039, let's
10 immediately then continue with his cross-examination, and let's see
11 whether there's any time left in that week on Wednesday for recalling
12 witnesses JF-094 and 095 to be cross-examined. If that's not possible,
13 they will be called to be cross-examined later.
14 This is the suggestion by the Chamber at this moment. The
15 hearing on Wednesday is still a bit uncertain because it requires a lot
16 of reshuffling. So whether that would be morning or afternoon is still
17 to be considered, and whether it's at all possible because we need the
18 co-operation of other Chambers for the reshuffling exercise. Any
19 comments on this suggested way to proceed?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it has been stated
21 that this is a suggestion from Their Honours and this gave me the liberty
22 to stand up and say the following: If this is a suggestion, I would
23 kindly ask the Trial Chamber to reconsider, and if you allow me to, I'll
24 give you my suggestion.
25 JF-039 has only been announced as a witness yesterday or the day
1 before yesterday and since I was examining the witness who was testifying
2 at the time, I learned about that witness yesterday. I have four days to
3 contact possible individuals who know him and to prepare. My learned
4 friend Mr. Petrovic wanted to ask this, as did I, we believed that the
5 two commission witnesses would have their cross-examination next week and
6 we hoped that within that schedule my cross would have taken place on the
7 20th. I can prepare myself by Wednesday; however, it is highly
8 unrealistic for me to be able to prepare myself for Monday. I really
9 apologise. However, one of the commission witnesses said that he was
10 available on Monday. Why not start with him instead and conduct his
11 cross-examination at the end of which we could see how we stand. This
12 would help me gain some time.
13 As I said, despite all the shortcoming these commission witnesses
14 have been announced and we have known about them for months, whereas
15 JF-039 has only been put on our notice yesterday, and it is really not
16 enough time for me to prepare for his cross-examination by Monday.
17 JUDGE ORIE: One the problems of your solution is that only one
18 of the commission witnesses is available on Monday, the other is not. So
19 we can't -- the other one unless he has meanwhile explored the
20 possibility to come back on Wednesday. We'll explore that possibility.
21 We have to balance quite many problems, that's the vulnerability of
22 witness JF-039, availability of the commission witnesses.
23 I see since you have now a preference to first conclude the
24 cross-examination of the commission witnesses, suddenly all the problems
25 in asking for a delay, now you say, well, we have prepared for that since
1 six months. You see how quickly situations and positions can change.
2 We'll certainly consider that and we'll also try to find out whether it
3 would be possible at all to hear both commission witnesses, their
4 testimony in cross-examination on Monday, if not then we are facing there
5 a problem as well. And I said we have to -- we have to finish today,
6 unfortunately, apart from that we are running out of tapes.
7 It's a bit of a hectic and chaotic way we are proceeding at this
8 moment. As I said before, you'll soon receive an invitation to further
9 discuss how to avoid chaos and hectic situations, and I hope that we'll
10 be able to inform you today. We might need first to consult with VWS as
11 to the possibilities of flexible filling in Monday, Tuesday for witness
12 JF-095, we'll inform you as soon as possible. Tomorrow is unfortunately
13 a UN who holiday, but I take it that you can be reached if need be.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, I
15 understood him to say that he had some obligations he had to attend to,
16 but he did not exclude the possibility that he might appear on Monday.
17 So could the possibility for him to appear with the other witness on
18 Monday please be explored.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I invited him to explore his possibilities.
20 We will we will adjourn. First we turn into open session again.
21 If we open one curtain, then that make it public enough.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 We adjourn for the day and we'll resume on Monday, the 13th of
1 September, quarter past 2.00.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.51 p.m.
3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day of
4 September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.