1 Monday, 13 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is the case IT-03-69-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We are here the remainder of the examination, that is
12 cross-examination of the present witness in closed session. Could we
13 turn into closed session unless there's anything to be raised in open
14 session at this moment. Apparently not.
15 Madam Registrar.
16 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in closed session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the representatives of the Republic of Serbia
19 be escorted into the courtroom, and immediately after that witness
21 Meanwhile, I inform the parties that the Chamber has decided that
22 the time at this moment granted for cross-examination is one hour and a
23 half for each Defence team, and to the extent it may serve as a guidance,
24 I'd like to inform the parties that if conclusions are written down
25 without a proper factual basis, then it's of hardly any use to establish
1 that there's no proper factual basis because the Chamber, of course,
2 certainly after discussion we had last week is testing itself whether
3 there's any factual basis or not.
4 Then the second issue is that it may have a better impact if we
5 are talking about authenticity of documents and to what extent it may
6 have been overlooked to start with the strong examples so that if you are
7 running out of time, that you are not missing the strong examples. But
8 of course, the Chamber leaves it to the Defence teams how to conduct the
10 [Representatives of Serbia enter court]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness JF-095. Please be seated.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And also welcome to you, the representatives of the
15 Republic of Serbia. We have received your requests. We'll consider
16 them, that is protective measures especially in relation to the report,
17 and the delivery of a copy of the transcript of the closed session.
18 We'll consider your request. Not immediately now, but you will hear our
19 decision on the matter, and we may first want to hear what the parties'
20 view on the matter is.
21 Witness JF-095, first of all, thank you very much for coming back
22 to The Hague. It's highly appreciated. It's certainly very inconvenient
23 for you but we have to proceed and again the Chamber appreciates your
25 I would like to remind you that you are still bound by the solemn
1 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony and I'd like
2 to inform you that you will be first -- that you'll be now cross-examined
3 by the Defence teams. When I was talking about one hour and a half, I
4 was talking about the two witnesses together. The Chamber very much
5 would like to see whether it's possible to conclude the testimony of this
6 witness today. Who will go first, is it the Stanisic Defence or is it
7 the Simatovic Defence?
8 MR. JORDASH: Could we just have a moment, Your Honour, sorry.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. JORDASH: I shall go first, Your Honour. May I just retrieve
12 the lectern, there was a bit of confusion between the teams.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-095, you'll first be cross-examined by
14 Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic. You may proceed.
15 WITNESS: JF-095 [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
18 Q. Good afternoon.
19 A. Good afternoon.
20 Q. I want to deal first of all with 65 ter 3880. And the subject I
21 want to deal with, Mr. Witness, is the subject of whether and under what
22 authority the Serbian DB was permitted to form any militarised unit. Do
23 you recall your evidence concerning this last week?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Do you maintain that the -- is it your position -- perhaps I
1 should put it this way, is it your position that the Serbian DB were not
2 entitled to form a militarised unit at any stage between 1991 and 1996?
3 Is that how I should understand your evidence thus far?
4 A. No. I never said that.
5 Q. My apologies. What was it that you did say? What is your
6 position in relation to, let's make it concrete, the formation of, say,
7 the JATD in 1993, according to the rules and regulations in place at that
9 A. Yes. Well, I've already mentioned that the RDB of the republic
10 of Serbian MUP was a department which was part of the Ministry of the
11 Interior. And that the internal organisation and job descriptions within
12 that department were established by the rules on the internal
13 organisation in accordance with the Law on the Internal Affairs Service,
14 and that the rules or a separate decision could envisage that as part of
15 the RDB, one such unit may be formed as a separate organisational unit,
16 especially so as the RDB also had reserve forces at its disposal, in
17 other words, an enlarged composition.
18 During my answers in response to the Prosecutor's question --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't want to interrupt you but since your answer
20 is relatively long. Mr. Jordash, would you switch off your microphone
21 when the witness answers the questions because of the voice distortion.
22 Please proceed.
23 I interrupted you. You said that "the RDB also had reserve
24 forces at its disposal," you said, "in other words, an enlarged
25 composition." Could you please resume from there.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can resume. In response to
2 the Prosecutor's question whether certain unidentified individuals who
3 were mentioned in the financial documents but were not listed as
4 employees or members of the reserve staff, whether they could be engaged
5 as fighters abroad. And my answer to that question was no. I am not
6 sure, in fact, what is meant by abroad here.
7 MR. JORDASH:
8 Q. And is your answer to that the same if those individuals were
9 part of a unit, an ad hoc unit, tasked with protecting the territorial
10 integrity of Serbia?
11 A. If its task was to protect the territorial integrity of Serbia,
12 that would have been legal and legitimate.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm getting a bit confused. We have
14 two categories of people working for the RDB. The listed ones and those
15 not listed but appearing in the financial documents. Now, it's unclear
16 to me, the earlier question, the questions put by Mr. Groome were by the,
17 I think by those who appear on the financial documents, not on the, I
18 would say the regular employment list.
19 Now, what -- now, we have since then, now, the witness has made a
20 distinction now between abroad and protecting the territorial integrity.
21 Your question was about the not listed persons or was it about the listed
23 MR. JORDASH: It was about persons who appeared in the financial
24 document but were not listed as employees.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this is how you understood the question,
1 Witness JF-095, that those who appear in the financial documents but were
2 not listed as employees could be used in order to protect the territorial
3 integrity even if that would be not necessarily gathering intelligence?
4 That is to say that beyond gathering intelligence, they might have been
5 tasked with other tasks as well related to the protection of the
6 territorial integrity of Serbia, and I do understand if you refer to
7 Serbia, you are talking about the Republic of Serbia?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm referring to the Republic
9 of Serbia. In the event that its territorial integrity were endangered,
10 it is the responsibility of every citizen of the Republic of Serbia to
11 take part in the defence of its integrity one way or another.
12 MR. JORDASH: May I have Rule 65 ter 2375 on the e-court.
13 Q. I just want to refer you, Mr. Witness, to the rules on the
14 internal organisation of the state security department within the
15 Ministry of the Interior, January 1992, and ask you about a particular
17 MR. JORDASH: May we go, please, to page 4. Let's go to page 3,
18 Article 3, please.
19 Q. Before I ask you questions upon this, would you please indicate
20 your understanding of the significance of these rules concerning the
21 operations of the state security of Serbia in 1992?
22 A. Yes. This was and still is one of the basic documents providing
23 for the organisation -- internal organisation of the then RDB and what is
24 now called the BIA. It regulates the sphere of work, tasks and duties,
25 organisational units which form part of the department, and these rules
1 also include as its constituent part a table of job -- different job
2 classifications with the number of people required to work and their
3 level of education.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, at the time these rules were promulgated in
5 1992, would you agree with me that the federal government had issued a
6 declaration of an a imminent threat of war in the SFRY? That declaration
7 having been made on the 18th of October, 1981.
8 A. I'm not denying that that is a fact, although I can't answer with
9 any degree of certainty whether that happened at the time you specify or
11 Q. Are you able to testify and confirm that it had happened by 1992?
12 It had happened at some point within 1991?
13 A. Most probably. At this point in time, however, I'm unable to say
14 with certainty.
15 Q. Fair enough. We'll leave that for further evidence. Please
16 would you have a quick look at Article 3 of these rules, and in
17 particular the section of Article 3 which reads, and I'll read it now:
18 "Other republic security duties are in particular the duties of
19 providing counter-intelligence protection to republican organs,
20 organising and carrying out preparations for defence and work in case of
21 an imminent threat of war, and in war, preparing appropriate
22 contributions to the plan for the defence of the republic, planning and
23 co-ordinating the duties of protecting facilities, areas, and work-places
24 important for the defence of the republic, and organising and providing
25 cryptographic data protection and special purpose communications."
1 Would it be fair to describe that as the enabling provision which
2 permitted the state security of Serbia to form such military units such
3 as the JATD?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. JORDASH: May I also have on the screen, please, Rule 65 ter
7 Q. Thank you for that answer. We'll move to another exhibit, or
8 potential exhibit.
9 MR. JORDASH: May I tender that particular article or the rules
10 as an exhibit, Your Honour, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think you've drawn our attention to 3 and 4, or, I
12 think that's what you said in the beginning, but Mr. Groome.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no objection to the rules being
14 introduced. I would ask that the entire set of rules so the Chamber can
15 read them in their full context and not just cherry-pick particular rules
16 for particular purposes.
17 MR. JORDASH: Absolutely, I agree with that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The whole set of the rules. We would like to hear
19 whenever you introduce something in evidence whether in your view it
20 could be made public at a later stage, yes or no. Of course, we'll also
21 hear later the view of the Republic of Serbia. But if you already could
22 indicate whether you think this is a document which says state secrets so
23 therefore it might well be that one would be inclined to say that this
24 should not be public. At the same time, we'd have to look at the content
25 before the Chamber will decide whether there are compelling reasons to
1 keep them confidential. Could we already assign a number,
2 Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D113, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D113 is admitted into evidence and for the time
5 being under seal.
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. Please, Mr. Witness, would you look at the document on the screen
8 and read the first page.
9 MR. JORDASH: I've just been told that this is already an
10 exhibit, P559. Apologies.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the witness has looked at what he is
12 asked to look at.
13 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I don't follow Your Honour's question.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let me just check. I thought the witness
15 would have read the first page, but he is looking at you so he expects a
16 question, I take it.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
18 Q. This is -- we can go to page 2 very quickly, and you will see
19 this appears to be an order or decision by Panic. Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, if we go back to page 1, from your experience and knowledge
22 of the way in which the security services worked, the first paragraph of
23 the letter or the first three paragraphs deal with or refer to various
24 incidents giving rise to the eventual decision by Panic, including such
25 things as armed individuals, groups, and paramilitary units crossing from
1 the territory of BH to Sandzak or the other way around provoking various
2 incidents, public order incidents and so on with reference to the border
3 control and customs MUP and VJ. Would you agree with me that it is this
4 type of activity which state security was enabled to create ad hoc armed
5 units to deal with, incidents along the border of Serbia? Do you follow
6 my question, I know it was a bit long?
7 Would you agree with me that --
8 A. Yes, I do agree. That would be a situation in which that was
10 Q. Were you, before being shown this decision by Panic, aware of a
11 decision by the Yugoslav Army General Staff chief to allow collaboration
12 between the MUP of Serbia and the Yugoslav Army to deal with threats to
13 the territorial integrity of Serbia as outlined in this document?
14 A. I'm sorry, I can't answer in the affirmative. It just so happens
15 that I'm not aware of that decision. In principle, I'm a witness who is
16 here to testify to facts regarding the reports. These questions are not
17 for me to answer, although I don't have a problem with that, nevertheless
18 you must bear in mind my position at the time and understand that I
19 simply cannot answer questions such as these with any degree of certainty
21 Q. Well, I want to be clear about what you've just said. You can
22 answer with certainty about the enabling provision of the rules of the
23 DB, you agree with me on that?
24 A. If your question has been interpreted accurately, you asked me
25 about a previous decision of the chief of the General Staff who proved
1 some form of co-operation between the MUP and the army. I'm answering
2 that I can't know with any degree of certainty whether such a decision in
3 fact existed. As a matter of fact, I don't know.
4 Q. That's clarified the answer. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
5 During the course of your investigation or the commission's
6 investigation, you've told us that Mr. Stevanovic was spoken to and
7 interviewed; correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And am I correct that Stevanovic confirmed that the -- he'd met
10 Mr. Simatovic at Bajina Basta in 1993?
11 A. Before I answer your question, I do have to remind you that it
12 was a member of the committee from the Ministry of the Interior that
13 interviewed Mr. Stevanovic. No other members of the committee were
14 present, and that includes me. The reason for that being a proposal made
15 by one of the committee members from the MUP suggesting that he should
16 interview Mr. Stevanovic on his own. The reason for that was the fact
17 that he knew Mr. Stevanovic personally, and he believed that that might
18 lead to better results in terms of Stevanovic agreeing to be interviewed,
19 but --
20 Q. Let me shortcut you if I can. Did Mr. Stevanovic give testimony
21 about meeting Simatovic at camp Tara in 1993?
22 A. An Official Note was compiled during the interview by a member of
23 the Ministry of the Interior committee. That note certainly suggests
25 Q. And that Stevanovic had asked the Serbian MUP or the Serbian DB
1 to organise some form of training for the police; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that's what the note says.
3 Q. And the training was to train specialised police to patrol the
4 Serbian border, and that was the purpose of the training, to create
5 specialised police to patrol the Serbian border at a time when the
6 conflict in Bosnia threatened to spill into Serbia proper?
7 A. Although the Official Note doesn't state that, it just might be
8 the case given the fact that Mount Tara is right next to the border to
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Serbia's territory, however.
10 Q. Well, I'm looking actually at a note which -- let me shortcut
11 this, didn't Stevanovic tell you that in 1993 he visited Simatovic at
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: I believe the witness has already testified that he
15 did not do the interview, and he referred to the person from the Ministry
16 of the Interior who did.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which does not exclude for that other
18 possibility. Could have said outside the context of that interview.
19 But, Mr. Jordash, you started asking questions about what apparently is
20 found in the Official Note, then you moved outside that, that was not
21 entirely clear in your question. Now, the objection or at least the
22 observation made by Mr. Groome may be an indication that you had not been
23 perfectly clear on the context.
24 MR. JORDASH: I did move from one to -- from the Official Note
25 or -- of the interview with Stevanovic to a proofing note. We are just
1 trying to find the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not saying, but perhaps it's also clear for
3 the witness if you say, so apart from what we find in the Official Note
4 and then you put your question to him.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. Did you not, Mr. Witness, speak to the Prosecution on the 7th of
7 September, 2010, and state that Stevanovic had told you that in 1993 -- I
8 beg your pardon. This is for the -- I take the point. I withdraw the
9 question and I'll leave the issue at that point for now.
10 I want to ask you about something else in the report.
11 MR. JORDASH: Please could we -- do you have a hard copy of the
12 report? I don't know if the Prosecution have the --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be provided with a hard copy by
14 whoever has a copy available.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we've just sent upstairs for the hard
16 copy that was available last week.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you read the relevant portion, Mr. Jordash,
18 that might assist.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
20 Q. Page 24 of the report states inter alia this, and I'm referring
21 to the JATD:
22 "During the interview with Slobodan Miletic, the then chief of
23 the MUP department for administrative and legal affairs, the commission
24 discovered the information that in the Ministry of the Interior when
25 certain decisions were being adopted, there was practice based on the
1 identified needs and outside the current job classification to form units
2 for certain tasks, but organisational documents for such units were often
3 drafted only in consultation with this department. This way of drafting
4 system-related documents which refer to JATD, was confirmed by
5 Obrad Stevanovic, retired chief in the MUP of the Republic of Serbia who
6 said that in his interview that in 1993 he personally used to go to the
7 office which Franko Simatovic used Bajina Basta to offer suggestions
8 relating to the drafting of organisational documents for the RDB special
10 Could you please explain what is meant by when certain decisions
11 were being adopted there was practice based on the identified needs and
12 outside the current job classification to form units for certain tasks,
13 but organisational document for such units were often drafted only in
14 consultation with this department. What does it mean that organisational
15 documents were drafted only in consultation with this department?
16 A. I'll try to be as precise as possible. I know full well what the
17 report says, at least the part which the gentleman's quote refers to.
18 It's either an interpretation problem or it's about the way the report
19 has been presented. Mr. Miletic could never possibly say that such
20 decisions were made bypassing him. Given his position in the Ministry of
21 the Interior, he had no authority to take any decisions regarding the
22 establishment of a new organisational component of the MUP or for that
23 matter the RDB. Mr. Miletic spoke about a single technical matter. He
24 tried to explain he was not involved in the drafting of the founding
25 document regarding the establishment of a new organisational unit in the
1 MUP or the RDB. After all, we did see the rules on the job
2 classification and internal organisation awhile ago. That would have
3 been the typical thing to do. He was, after all, head of the department
4 for systemic and legal affairs, rather, he was discussing this in purely
5 practical terms.
6 Documents such as these, again I have to say in a technical
7 sense, are sometimes drafted without any involvement on the part of the
8 technical department, drafted by people in leading positions or indeed
9 individuals from these units and special organisational structures, and
10 that is all his statement comes down to.
11 By saying that, he also explained that he was not involved in the
12 drafting of any decision, resolution, or indeed any set of rules under
13 any number bearing a date sometime in April 1993 unless I'm mistaken.
14 Q. On page 25 of the report at paragraph 2, the followed is noted:
15 "Considering the then practice of drafting the documents such as the
16 founding document for JATD, there are reasonable grounds to assume that
17 it was probably done in two copies and filed in the log-book after the
18 then interior minister, the deceased Zoran Sokolovic had signed it."
19 Is this fair that a particular administration would form a
20 particular unit, the documents for the founding of that unit would be
21 compiled within that administration, as a general practice?
22 A. Yes, absolutely.
23 Q. Once those documents had been drafted, they would then be sent to
24 the interior minister, from the administration to the Ministry of the
1 A. Not necessarily in this case. In this case, it is uncertain who
2 made the decision. Whoever makes a decision signs it off and puts it on
3 file. That's what I was trying to say.
4 Q. But the documents dealing with the founding of the JATD would
5 have been drafted within the administration dealing with the founding of
6 that unit and then sent straight to the minister of interior, Sokolovic;
7 is that correct?
8 A. I have to reminds you that the RDB was part of the Ministry of
9 the Interior. As the report very precisely states, the log-books from
10 that period which the Prosecution has had a chance to inspect on several
11 occasions contain no document under that filing number. It's not there.
12 Based on the structure of the filing number, the committee merely drew
13 the conclusion that the document had probably been passed by minister and
14 then filed in the log-book of the minister's cabinet which, by the way,
15 was destroyed during NATO's air-strikes.
16 Q. Well, the paragraph goes on to say:
17 "One copy was most probably sent to the then RDB chief
18 Jovica Stanisic, and the other was filed in the office of the interior
19 minister which was destroyed in the NATO bombing."
20 Why did the commission conclude that one copy was probably sent
21 to the RDB chief, with emphasis on the probably?
1 assignment, they all confirmed that such a decision, resolution, or
2 similar document existed. Nevertheless they all agreed that they had
3 never set eyes on it. The committee had no choice but to reach that
5 Q. But the -- probably appears to suggest, tell me if I'm wrong,
6 that it wouldn't have necessarily have been sent to Mr. Stanisic as a
7 matter of strict protocol; is that fair?
8 A. Yes. I quite accept that possibility that such an additional
9 copy, a second copy, had not been sent to Mr. Stanisic, and that maybe it
10 had never been sent to the RDB because according to the official
11 log-books and records, it was not logged and filed in the RDB at all.
12 Q. So the decision to establish the JATD according to the
13 conclusions reached by the commission may well have not been seen by
14 Mr. Stanisic?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, that's the meaning of the word
16 "probably" isn't it, if you say that something is probable, that it's not
17 established with such a level of certainty that we can rely on that
18 possibility which is considered to be even probable. Possibility.
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes, but I was hoping that I would be able to tease
20 out exactly what the commission meant by that word because it may
21 indicate a different degrees of certainty or lack of certainty.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your question was whether it was possible that
23 he had never seen it. That's, of course, included in that it's probable.
24 He may never have seen it because if the probability did not -- of course
25 doesn't say that this is what happened. Let's proceed. I just want you
1 to be aware that if the word "probable" is used in such a report, that
2 the Chamber doesn't take that for being a fact but just for a
3 probability. Nothing more, nothing less.
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Thank you.
5 Q. The point I'm getting at, Mr. Witness, is that it was not unusual
6 or it was quite usual for administrations within the state security to
7 form units within those administrations and that those units be their
8 formation and the founding documents indicating their foundation bypass,
9 if you like, the chief of security, chief of state security?
10 A. I cannot answer that question with absolute certainty because at
11 the time I was not in -- on a position where I could answer this
12 question, but I understand your question and I can say that it's not very
14 Q. What's not very likely?
15 A. Well, that --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not likely that an
18 administrative organ, whether it be the MUP, the RDB, or any other state
19 organ would make -- take decisions changing their internal organisation
20 without the leadership of that organ, administrative organ being aware of
21 it. That's what I was trying to say.
22 Q. But the units being formed within the administrations could and
23 did report directly at times to the minister; is that fair?
24 A. If you are referring to the Ministry of the Interior, that is
1 Q. I want to now turn to the issue of authenticity. Did I
2 understand your evidence correctly that you hadn't seen anything to
3 indicate that there were fabricated documents within the records found,
4 or I should say, stored at Lipovica?
5 A. Yes, that's exactly what I said.
6 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D01248.
7 Q. While that's coming up, could I seek some clarification from you.
8 Were you ever looking for documents which were not authentic when going
9 through the records?
10 A. Could you please repeat the question, I'm not sure I understood
12 Q. When you -- how much time have you spent going through the
13 records yourself personally? Have you read everything in the records
14 relating to what you've sent the Prosecution?
15 A. Yes, I have read all the documents that were forwarded together
16 with the report.
17 Q. Would you agree with me that within the records sent to the
18 Prosecution, there are handwritten documents lacking any official stamp?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Would you agree with me that within the records there are typed
21 documents without any official stamp or other identifying indices?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Would you agree with me that you have indeed concluded yourself
24 that there was at least one fabricated document within the records?
25 A. I don't recall that I had that conclusion.
1 Q. Do you recall being shown a document relating to a criminal
2 complaint against a man called Vasilije Mijovic?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Do you recall telling the Prosecution that you considered that a
5 particular document had probably been manufactured by one of the
6 Mijovic's friends and somehow placed into the records?
7 A. I don't recall saying that to the Prosecution.
8 Q. Just let me try to -- I'm very short of time. That had been
9 manufactured by one of Mijovic's friends to help Mijovic escape criminal
10 responsibility; do you recall that?
11 A. You have to remind me when it was that I said that to the
12 Prosecution or when, in fact, I mention at all the name of Mijovic.
13 Q. The 2nd or 3rd of December, 2008, in a location at the BIA
14 offices, and it was a meeting with Mr. Groome. And the note of the
15 meeting. Do you not recall this?
16 A. Who wrote that note?
17 Q. I think one of the representatives of the Prosecution.
18 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps Your Honour, I'm desperately running out of
19 time and I really do not have the time to conduct the cross-examination
20 I'd want to conduct, so I'm not going to take the witness to that
21 particular section because I have other things I have to deal with.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you read it briefly to us, because one of the
23 things I was asking myself when I listened to your questions is to what
24 extent intellectual falsity and forgery of documents are strictly
25 separated. I mean, I can produce a document which is not true to its
1 contents but nevertheless not a forgery to the extent that I produce it
2 myself and I do not hide that I'm the one who produces it. Although I
3 may be lying in producing such a document. That's one of the question
4 that came to my mind.
5 But since I do not know what is in the note, neither do I exactly
6 know what document you are referring at, it's questions on my mind,
7 nothing else.
8 MR. JORDASH: The note states:
9 "The meeting next dealt with order 33/95 which had been provided
10 for review during the Groome-Soldal mission in October. This order had
11 been part of a criminal case file against Vasilije Mijovic as a member of
12 the Serbian MUP in relation to a traffic accident he had caused in 1995.
13 The BIA officials stated that they did not consider this to be a genuine
14 document issued by the JATD, in view of the signature and stamp (stating
15 Serbian Republic of Krajina) but that it had probably been manufactured
16 by one of Mijovic's friends to help Mijovic escape criminal
18 JUDGE ORIE: So do I understand then that it's considered to be
19 authentically a part of that file but found it's way in there as a result
20 of fraud or forgery?
21 MR. JORDASH: To be fair to the witness, it looks as though it
22 was said by an unidentified official rather than the witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is the one focused question you could ask the
24 witness about it. Perhaps he now remembers what it was about.
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. Do you remember this discussion?
2 A. I don't remember this discussion but I can explain what it is
3 that you are getting at, if you allow me, I can be very precise. It was
4 like this, a certain individual actually sued the Republic of Serbia for
5 damages caused by an individual called Vlastimir Mijovic claiming that
6 the state of Serbia is responsible for the damage incurred in this
7 traffic accident because Mr. Mijovic, according to what was alleged, was
8 at the time a member of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
10 The attorney who was in charge of protecting the interests of the
11 Republic of Serbia, he is referred to as the public attorney in Serbia,
12 he replied to this claim by the citizen. The BIA at the time sought
13 information on whether Mr. Mijovic was in fact a member of the Ministry
14 of the Interior, or rather, the RDB. In one such case where a certain
15 individual was a leader of a unit, the answer was that Mr. Mijovic was
16 not a member of JSO, and that answer was signed by the commander.
17 However, after awhile, a totally different individual submitted or sued
18 the same individual or --
19 Q. Sorry, Mr. Witness, I'm going to have to cut you off because I'm
20 running out of time. Do you remember -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to be
21 rude, but do you recall that it was the view of some unidentified BIA
22 official at the meeting that a document, the document I've just referred
23 to, had been manufactured and placed into the records?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you are on your feet.
25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, just so the record is clear, the
1 note doesn't indicate, I'm trying to verify now, where this actual
2 document came from. It's not clear, it may very well have come from a
3 court case file and not from the archives, but I'm still investigating
4 this, so I ask Mr. Jordash to keep that in mind as he phrases his
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I can answer this
7 question. No BIA member who took part in these talks could have said
8 anything to that effect, because simply put, it's not true. The agency
9 sought and has different answers from that same institution, the JSO,
10 regarding that same question, and the agency was not trying to conceal
11 that it had two opposing documents which actually exclude one another,
12 but this does not mean that someone within the agency actually falsified
13 the document because this -- the agency itself actually showed and
14 presented both of these documents.
15 MR. JORDASH: Could we have page 3 of the document on the screen,
17 Q. What is that a photograph of, please?
18 A. This photograph depicts and shows the state in which we found the
19 personnel files for former JSO members after the take-over had been done
20 where it had been taken over by the MUP in April 2002.
21 Q. How did the document end up in this rather disheveled state?
22 A. Well, you have to put that question to the person who was
23 responsible for safeguarding these documents because after we handed over
24 the documents, my responsibility ended with that. There was no other
25 responsibility on our part.
1 Q. So you are not able to provide the Court with evidence concerning
2 how the documents were carried to this room and placed in the manner in
3 which we see them?
4 A. Of course I cannot say anything about that. You probably know
5 that the Ministry of the Interior and the BIA in 2002 were two separate
6 state organisations.
7 Q. And you cannot give evidence concerning how many people were
8 involved in transporting those documents and placing them in the manner
9 in which we see them?
10 A. I cannot say anything about it because I had no part in this and
11 I had no knowledge.
12 Q. Or who had access to the documents before they were put into the
13 room in that way?
14 A. I don't know who had access to them but working as a member of
15 this commission, I could see that the Office of the Prosecutor and its
16 investigators had at least three times access to these documents and we
17 did not have -- as for our part, we did not have access to these
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if the point you'd like to make is that
20 a documentation, the status we see it on the picture, creates great risks
21 of unreliability, then that point is clear; not to say that it was
22 unreliable, but at least that the way in which it was organised certainly
23 favoured rather than disfavoured that documents would either be lost or
24 added easily or whatever.
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
1 Q. Finally, Mr. Witness, you were asked to conduct an investigation
2 involving the -- a unit called the JPN; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct. That was one the tasks set before the
5 Q. And am I correct, is this fair, that having conducted your
6 investigation, the conclusion reached was that the JATD was the first ad
7 hoc unit formed by the DB during the 1991 to 1996?
8 A. Yes, that conclusion can be reached, but I would confine the
9 time-frame to April 1993 through April 1996.
10 Q. And in relation to 1991 to 1993, there was nothing in the records
11 to indicate the DB had a unit as such akin to the JATD, or the later JSO?
12 A. The agency does not have any document pointing in that direction,
13 nor do I have any knowledge about that.
14 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours. I will stop there because
15 I'm running out of time, I would ideally have liked to take the witness
16 through some of the documents but I want to save some time for the next
18 JUDGE ORIE: You'd say some of the documents which might raise
19 doubt just to the authenticity, is that --
20 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, would it be an idea that you provide those
22 documents to the witness, ask him to look at it, and see whether after
23 the break there's anything where apparently you earlier said that there
24 was no -- that he had nothing that he considered to be an indication of
25 lack of authenticity, whether that still would be his view if he looked
1 at those documents. Is that -- I'm not trying to take over, but would
2 that be a solution and would that at least enlarge the possibilities in
3 putting questions to the witness, perhaps by briefly saying did you look
4 at this, did you look at that, did you look at that? I'm just wondering
5 whether that would assist you in eliciting as much information from the
7 MR. JORDASH: I'd be certainly happy to try, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would it then be a good idea that you provide the
10 witness with copies of, I take it, the copies in the original copies, and
11 that he is invited during the break to carefully look at them again and
12 whether he sees anything which looks strange to him or which would be a
13 clue for the purpose of questioning the authenticity. If that's
14 something which would assist you, then that might --
15 MR. JORDASH: I certainly will do that, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'm looking at -- yes, Mr. Groome, I take it
17 that you would like it to know what documents will be given to the
19 MR. GROOME: Well, that, Your Honour, and I have another matter
20 that I must raise before the break.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before the break. In the presence of the witness?
22 MR. GROOME: I think it will be no harm to raise it in front of
23 the witness.
24 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt, may I just tender the picture
25 of the store as an exhibit.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I don't know whether this is -- whether
2 you consider this to be state secret or not.
3 MR. JORDASH: I don't.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You don't. We'll hear later from other interested
5 parties whether they would consider it to be state secret.
6 Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at 2.17 today the Simatovic Defence
8 notified of us of 29 documents that they would use in cross-examination
9 of this witness, the totals 1.600 pages. This notice is, according to
10 the practices and agreements between the parties, is six days late. I
11 think fairness requires that over the break that the Simatovic Defence be
12 directed to indicate to the Chamber which among these 1.600 pages they
13 intend to put before the witness so we can prepare ourselves. We are
14 still printing them out, but as they arrive here in the courtroom I
15 hardly will have the time to be able to read so many pages.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll see also how they are going to be used in
17 order to see what the real problem is. Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first I'd like to
19 say that our notice was sent when it was because we had a problem with
20 the documents that had been disclosed tardily. And we discussed this
21 last week. That's number one. Number two, most of those documents are
22 not necessary. These are notes on questioning and they have to do with
23 the questioning of Obrad Stevanovic before this Tribunal. Most of these
24 documents relate to that, the questioning of Mr. Stevanovic in the
25 Milosevic case, so I don't think that would pose a major problem to the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's see how it turns out to be. Too often
3 it happens that we have major problems and sometimes forget that the
4 proof of the pudding is in the eating and not in the discussion before
5 even tasting the pudding. We'll have a break and resume at five minutes
6 past 4.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we resume, the Chamber received an informal
10 message about submissions to be made by the Republic of Serbia in
11 relation to the closed -- the protective measures for this session. The
12 Chamber will phrase very specific questions in this context and will
13 invite you to make written submissions on the matter, and as long that we
14 have not received that, of course everything will stay as it is at this
15 moment for the time being. Then, of course the parties will have an
16 opportunity to respond to that, and then finally we'll decide on the
18 Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. Mr. Witness, did you have the opportunity to look at those
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. JORDASH: Could we have quickly P473 on the e-court, please.
24 Q. Is there anything about this document which indicates to you that
25 it is authentic or not authentic?
1 A. I can't notice anything about this document that would challenge
2 its authenticity.
3 Q. Do you recognise -- well, have a look there at the signature
4 which purports to be Mr. Stanisic, and just keep that in your mind for a
6 MR. JORDASH: And may I then have on the screen P406. I don't
7 know go we can keep the B/C/S version of the present document on the
8 screen and pull up a B/C/S document of P406 so we can look at signatures.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the document you were seeking?
10 MR. JORDASH: Well, I'm looking for, Your Honour, ERN 0641-4640.
11 That's the one, thank you.
12 Q. I was wondering, Mr. Witness, whether you are able to say
13 anything about the signature of Mr. Stanisic, whether you would recognise
14 one or both or neither as Mr. Stanisic's signature as you've seen on
15 other documents?
16 A. I do apologise for not being able to answer this question with
17 certainty. I am not qualified to give a forensic opinion on signatures.
18 At the first glance when I compare the two documents, it seems quite
19 unequivocal that the signatures are identical, if nothing, it's about the
20 physical length of the two signatures. I yet again have to apologise. I
21 never worked directly with Mr. Stanisic, therefore, I never had an
22 opportunity to really deliberately study his signature.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you a few questions on this. Did you
24 pay attention to it when you looked at the document on the left of your
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Have you ever considered to ask for an expert
3 opinion about -- in comparing the signatures?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not me.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Anyone else, to your knowledge?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not that I know of.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Witness, I would suggest that the two signatures there look
10 quite different. You don't agree with that?
11 A. I don't suppose my answer would be relevant. I can agree that
12 there is a difference between the two signatures, the way in which the
13 signatures were placed. However, I can't assert that these are two
14 signatures by two different persons, whether the two documents were
15 signed by different hands belonging to different people in fact. I
16 cannot assert anything either way.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the point which you apparently want to
18 make is clear to us, whatever our conclusions would be.
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Let me ask you this, if we could look at the document on the
24 MR. JORDASH: And if we could have the English version of that
25 now on right.
1 Q. It purports to be an operative cheque for the special unit of the
2 Serbian MUP. Sorry, let me put that again. It purports to be a request
3 for an operative cheque for the special unit of the Serbian MUP on the
4 20th of February, 1992. Would you agree from what you've told us that
5 the evidence you looked at did not suggest there was a special unit of
6 the Serbian MUP, certainly not the special unit of the DB in 1992?
7 A. Yes. I didn't know that there was an RDB special unit prior to
8 April 1993.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, what is it -- is there anything which would
10 identify this document as authentic rather than there being nothing on it
11 which suggests it's not authentic? What is it about the document which
12 suggests it is authentic?
13 A. Yes. In the upper left corner there is a header and filing
14 number. The filing number was registered as such in the log-book, 02
15 official secret, strictly confidential, the number, and the date when the
16 document was logged. I suppose if one goes back to the log-book, the
17 strictly confidential RDB from 1992, and inspects it, as far as I can
18 tell the date is the 28th of August, one could to a certain extent
19 establish whether a document like this ever existed or was logged.
20 Nevertheless, this would still not constitute absolute certainty in terms
21 of the document really being signed by the person whose signature is
22 displayed on the face of the document.
23 Q. Where is the log-book that might assist?
24 A. I suppose in the security and information agency.
25 Q. So you think it might be available? Have the Prosecution asked
1 you for that log-book?
2 A. Yes. The OTP have had a chance to inspect these log-books of the
3 RDB. I suppose they looked into 1992 as well.
4 Q. Oh. Okay. So we'll leave it at that. The Prosecution have
5 looked at the log-book. Thank you.
6 MR. JORDASH: I'll leave it there, Your Honour, thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, the next step to see whether it
8 could be verified, because this apparently is a contested document and it
9 might bring us one step further to a solution of the problem.
10 MR. JORDASH: Well, I was leaving it as if the Prosecution have
11 the log-book, then they'll produce it as corroboration of their case in
12 relation to this document.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'll investigate to verify, but my
14 recollection is that the Prosecution does not have the log-book. They
15 were offered the log-book to look and the Prosecution then selected
16 documents or made requests of documents in the log-book that appeared to
17 be of interest for this case and that's how we obtained these documents.
18 I don't know that we were ever given by Serbia a copy of the log-book,
19 but I think the witness may -- his recollection on this matter might be
20 more accurate than mine.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see what happens and whether if the parties do
22 not pursue the matter, whether the Chamber would like to have a look at
23 what on this date is entered into the log-book. Please proceed,
24 Mr. Jordash.
25 MR. JORDASH: I'll leave it at that, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You'll leave it at that.
2 Mr. Petrovic, are you ready to start your cross-examination?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour, thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-095, you'll be now cross-examined by
5 Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic, but before I
6 give that opportunity, I'd first like to invite Madam Registrar to assign
7 a number to the photograph of the disorganised archive we saw before the
8 break. That was 1D1248. Madam Registrar, that receives number?
9 THE REGISTRAR: 1D1248.1 under which number is now photograph
10 uploaded will be Exhibit D114, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence provisionally under
12 seal. Please proceed.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, witness. First of all, I would
16 like to ask you to tell me in a few words about your professional
17 background, your education, and your career?
3 Q. Thank you very much. Between 1990 and 1999 can you tell us where
4 you worked at that period?
11 Q. Thank you very much, witness. If you know, please, I'd just like
12 to make this even more concise, if possible. The other two members of
13 the committee from the BIA, do you know anything about their careers
14 between 1990 and 1999 specifically, the commission members?
15 A. I can't answer that question with any certainty or precision. I
16 believe there was this gentleman who joined the service much later after
17 me. As for the lady involved, I believe she had also been a member of
18 the service for a considerable amount of time.
19 Q. Thank you. Sir, what about the commission reports which is the
20 subject of our exchange here today. The annexes contain some of the
21 general documents that I believe were used before the drafting of the
22 report. Can you tell us whether in addition to all these documents
23 listed in the annex there were other general documents providing
24 guide-lines for the work of the state security service and were those
25 also used for the purposes of drafting the present report?
1 A. The general documents that are in the annexes were not used for
2 the drafting of this report. They were listed because one of the
3 assistance points was about the delivery of those documents.
4 Q. So what general enactments were actually used when the report was
6 A. Which general enactments do you have in mind, sir?
7 Q. I mean, enactments regulating the work of the state security
9 A. I'll be very specific. The commission was established pursuant
10 to a decision of the government of the Republic of Serbia dated November
11 2008. The decision detailed the commission's tasks. The fact was the
12 commission did not have the authority to prosecute, therefore no general
13 enactments were required for its work.
14 Q. Witness, if we look at the commission's conclusions, specifically
15 page 29 of the report in the Serbian, as I'm sure you know it reads:
16 "In accordance with the generally accepted standards of the RDB
17 under the norms applying then it had the authority to enlist the
18 assistance of a person that would then help with their work."
19 And it goes on to talk about documents and so on and so forth.
20 My question then as now, what would be the norms you invoked while
21 drafting this part of your conclusion?
22 A. Under the norms in place at the time, this would have been the
23 rules governing the work of the state security service. Further, rules
24 on the methods and means used in the work of the state security service
25 that applied at the time and in part also the law on the basics of the
1 state security service system. Now it would be the law on the
2 legislative information agency -- security information agency and the
3 instructions governing its work. There are some special measures and
4 steps provided for. The RDB and the BIA, in order to perform work from
5 their purview, has the power of enlisting the external persons to help
6 them with it, to help them achieve their tasks.
7 Q. Thank you very much, witness. There is a correction perhaps that
8 I'd like to make and perhaps I just misunderstood what you said earlier
9 on. At some point today earlier on you mentioned April 1993 through
10 April 1996 while describing the time-period throughout which this unit
11 existed that was mentioned in the OTP's motion. Did I get it right, did
12 you mean to say April or did you mean to say August since the documents
13 that you analysed were dated August 1993? It is possible that I
14 misunderstood what you said.
15 A. Your understanding is correct, I did say April 1993. This is an
16 enactment that can be read as a founding document. Unless I'm mistaken,
17 it's from August 1993. I don't have it in front of me. If I said April,
18 then I misspoke.
19 Q. Thank you very much. That's the one thing that I wanted to
21 Based on your knowledge sir, under the constitution of the
22 Republic of Serbia adopted in 1990, were there any obligations for the
23 state of Serbia or the state organs vis-a-vis Serbs living outside its
25 A. I can't answer that question with any certainty. I do assume
1 that there were certain commitments. The present constitution of the
2 Republic of Serbia mentions certain commitments on the part of the
3 Republic of Serbia vis-a-vis what we now call its diaspora. Would have
4 been the case all the more so perhaps earlier on when there was still a
5 single country.
6 Q. Do you perhaps know whether general enactments of the MUP or the
7 RDB defined any obligations or commitments of those organs vis-a-vis
8 Serbs living outside the Republic of Serbia's territory?
9 A. Under the general enactments for the RDB, I don't suppose there
10 was a category like that. But again, I can't say with certainty. These
11 are issues that would require an inspection of the relevant documents.
12 Q. I'd be happy to show you a document entitled "Description of
13 Classified Jobs."
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 65 ter 2377.
15 It's an OTP document. Page 12 and page 13. The title page first of all,
16 followed by pages 12 and 13, please.
17 Q. This is the title page, witness.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now move on to page
20 Q. Would you please take a look at the bottom of the page where it
21 says "the second administration," "the chief of the administration." So
22 let's look at this paragraph that appears on this page, and then can we
23 move on to the next page, the top of the next page.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if it assists and saves time, the
1 Prosecution would not object to the tendering or the admission of this
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only wanted to ask
4 a few questions of the witness regarding this. I did not really intend
5 to tender it, but there is no problem with tendering it if that's
7 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't understand Mr. Groome's observation to be
8 an objection to further questions being put to the witness. Please
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Witness, I just had a question for you. Were you able to read
12 these two paragraphs?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can we agree that this is one of those enactments regulating and
15 defining at the level of the service, in other words, the second
16 administration, the commitments vis-a-vis the Serbs who lived outside the
17 territory of the Republic of Serbia?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for your reference,
20 this is on pages 10 and 11 in the English version. I see that we don't
21 have it on the monitors yet in English. Your Honour, as my learned
22 colleague has no objection, I would like to tender this document into
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D115, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D115 is admitted into evidence for the time being
2 under seal.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. Witness, you are aware surely, and you mentioned a moment ago a
5 document entitled "Rules of Service of the State Security Service." That
6 document provides for the means and methods used by the service, and what
7 I would like to inquiry about is the co-operation as one of those methods
8 and operative means. So my question for you is this: Can collaboration
9 or co-operation be established on the basis of one's patriotism, loyalty
10 that to the state, et cetera? Could that be one of the basis for it?
11 A. Yes, certainly, and that is one of the primary bases for actually
12 establishing a collaborative relationship.
13 Q. Can this collaboration also be established on the basis of some
14 remunerative principles?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can collaboration also be established with foreign citizens on
17 the basis of friendship or some political motives or any other basis?
18 A. Yes, that is possible.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Can collaboration be established with a member of a foreign
22 intelligence, a foreign army, or even a terrorist or some other
24 A. Absolutely, yes.
25 Q. In the rules of service for the state security service, among the
1 tasks that are mentioned for operatives, one of them is tasks that are
2 envisioned for extraordinary circumstances such as a threat of war or a
3 state of war; correct?
4 A. Yes, correct.
5 Q. Can the service -- can the service compensate its collaborator
6 for a task or a job done?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If the collaboration is based on the remunerative principle, does
9 the service -- does there arise on the part of the service a certain
10 obligation towards that collaborator?
11 A. Well, yes. If the motive for co-operation that was promised to
12 the collaborator is material remuneration, then that would have to be
14 Q. Thank you. Does the service have any obligations in certain
15 circumstances vis-a-vis members of families of the collaborators, or do
16 they have to provide some forms of special technical assistance such as
17 legal assistance or some other assistance?
18 A. Yes, in the event that the security of the collaborator is
19 threatened or that a collaborator had lost his life in service, such a
20 person and his family members would enjoy all the benefits that the
21 regular employees of the service enjoy. The same is true in the event
22 that an individual was arrested or criminal proceedings have been
23 instituted against him, that person would be entitled to material
24 assistance provided that the proceedings were not initiated by the
25 service itself.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, before we continue, you referred as
3 far as Serbs living outside the republic, you refer to pages 10 and 11,
4 and I think in B/C/S 13. I only found something on e-court page 9.
5 Could you please verify that we didn't miss anything. By the way, the
6 numbering of pages is a bit confusing because the numbering at the bottom
7 of the page, it restarts halfway the document. But could you, not
8 necessarily now, but keep in the back of your mind that the Chamber would
9 appreciate a very precise reference so that we know where to look.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I will
11 do that during the next break.
12 Q. Witness, first of all let me ask you, do you have the commission
13 report before you?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Please look at page 21, that's section 4. I would like to refer
16 you to the portion where it says that the commission has obtained
17 information that in the work of the MUP it was standard practice to
18 employ regardless of the job classification that is in force, to employ
19 certain individuals for certain tasks and assignments. Could you please
20 just clarify this part which says "outside of the job classification in
21 force." My understanding was that this part of the commission report was
22 drafted based on the interview with Mr. Miletic, and in the note on the
23 interview I did not actually find any place where he mentioned that this
24 can be done outside of the job classification.
25 First, so could you please just describe or explain why this
1 terminology was used, perhaps I did not understand something correctly,
2 or maybe you can just shed some light on this?
3 A. Yes. The fact is that the paragraph that you are referring to is
4 to a certain degree contradictory because Mr. Miletic mostly discussed
5 the manner in which the founding documents were produced, and the
6 participation or non-participation of his unit in the production of those
7 documents. Now, if founding documents are being produced and they affect
8 the existing job classification, then one cannot really say that a unit
9 may be formed outside of the job classification in force. I assume that
10 Mr. Miletic, just as the other members of the commission, had in mind
11 when said this that of the -- had in mind the fact that a unit referred
12 to here is a unit that is in the process of being established. So it
13 wasn't really envisaged in the enactment. However, once it is
14 established and once it becomes part of the existing enactment or a whole
15 new enactment is adopted, then such an organisational unit is not outside
16 of the scope of the enactment in force.
17 Q. And as far as I understood, you could find proof that the job
18 classification had actually been put in place and that it was, in
19 accordance with this job classification that action was taken?
20 A. Yes, we found evidence of this in one of the personnel files that
21 was found in the Lipovica store where we found an adjusted table of jobs
22 and posts which table was part of every rules of service, but as I
23 already told the Prosecutor, I don't know whether it is this -- these
24 rules of service that we have -- that we are discussing here because I
25 can't really tell without seeing the number in the heading. Whether it
1 is the rules of service of August 1993, I cannot really ascertain.
2 Q. Very well, thank you.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please take a look at
5 Q. We will have it before us this a moment and could you just tell
6 us whether the designation that we find where reference is made to the
7 job classification, does it correspond to the job classification as
8 provided in the document that you mention, the handwritten document?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] For reference, let me say that
10 it's P974.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. From this -- from the table
12 we could conclude that that is the document in question.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you, witness. Now, I have a few questions that you may
15 find quite ordinary, but they are significant to us in view of the
16 evidence that is already before this Trial Chamber. You marked last week
17 for us the place where the BIA headquarters is in Banjica. Now, do you
18 know how long the BIA and its predecessor, the SDB, were actually housed
19 in that -- on those premises?
20 A. As far as -- if I'm not mistaken, the seat of the service of the
21 SDB or the BIA was there as of the spring of 2004, but it is possible
22 that I'm mistaken.
23 Q. Do you know where the headquarters of the SDB was in 1991?
24 A. Yes, I do. It was in Kneza Milosa Street in Belgrade.
25 Q. Do you know -- do you know what was in Banjica on the premises
1 where the BIA is today? What was on those premises in the period between
2 1991 and 1999?
3 A. Yes, I do. It was the security institute of the Republic of
5 Q. Can you tell us this security institute, was this a federal
6 institution which then later was transformed into a republican Serbian
7 institution or was it something else?
8 A. Yes, this was a federal institution, a federal body or agency,
9 which as far as I know and as you can deduce from its name was a research
10 facility actually. And also an educational facility.
11 Q. Thank you. I have a few questions about Obrad Stevanovic. Could
12 you tell us, please, who made the decision to interview this person?
13 A. The decision was taken by the commission.
14 Q. You have the commission report before you, part of which are also
15 the notes, official minutes on your work. Now, could you please tell us
16 whether -- I've tried to find some of these documents in the attachments
17 but I couldn't really find it?
18 A. I can't tell you precisely at the time, but I think you're
19 referring to one of the first sessions of the commission, maybe not the
20 constitutive session but the following one. And I'm not sure that such a
21 decision is actually mentioned in the law?
22 Q. Witness, in the official notes I did not find any mention of
23 Mr. Stevanovic's interview in that decision, but I did find a decision
24 relating to all the other individuals. This was adopted on the second,
25 during the second meeting; for instance, at the second meeting it was
6 A. Well, this was an omission that occurred during the drafting of
7 the report. We did discuss interviewing this individual at the
8 commission, and as I've already said the member of the commission from
9 the Republic of Serbia MUP actually initiated and proposed that he
10 himself conduct the interview with this person and that was accepted by
11 the commission.
12 Q. Could you please just tell us whose proposal was this to
13 interview this individual?
14 A. Well, this was a proposal by the member of the commission from
15 the Ministry of the Interior.
16 Q. Why did only one individual conduct this interview with
17 Obrad Stevanovic when the interviews with all the other individuals were
18 conducted by all three members or at least two members of the commission?
19 A. Well, I think I've already answered that question, but let me
20 repeat: The proposal that was put forth by this member of the Ministry
21 of the Interior was that he should conduct this interview on his own. He
22 said that he knew the person, that he knew this man personally and that
23 this would yield better results and that Mr. Stevanovic would not have
24 any -- he would not oppose and show any kind of negative response to the
25 questions posed by the commission.
1 Q. Thank you. Now about the co-operation between the BIA and the
2 OTP. What about the Prosecutor in this case, did they at any point ask
3 you to help them get in touch with anyone from the BIA, be it an active
4 employee or retired?
5 A. Yes, that has been the case on one or two occasions, and the
6 people in question were active employees.
7 Q. How did you respond to that request?
8 A. I'm in no position to make such decisions. Nevertheless, when
9 the right person was addressed, the person with the power to make such
10 decisions, the response that came back was a positive one.
11 Q. Is it true that Mr. Groome phoned you so that you could help him
12 identify the right persons to talk to?
13 A. I never spoke to Mr. Groome on the phone.
14 Q. My apologies, I misinterpreted something. At any rate, did
15 Mr. Groome ask you when you met to later phone you and for you to help
16 him identify some people to talk to, was that the situation?
17 A. No, Mr. Groome never requested a conversation with me in terms of
18 identifying people. In the request for assistance he did mention
19 something about a videolink.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
22 I'm done with my questioning of the witness.
23 Q. Witness, thank you very much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
25 Mr. Jordash, one question came to my mind you asked a few
1 questions in relation to the documents and authenticity. Did you give
2 him more than the ones you dealt with in court?
3 MR. JORDASH: I gave him -- yes, we gave him another disputed
4 document allegedly signed by Mr. Stanisic, but I was content to leave it
5 because the answers would be applicable to that document.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can imagine that the answers being of a
7 rather general nature on what -- yes, that's clear to me.
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, though, I would -- in light of the
9 time, and I think we would finish both witnesses today --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And one of the things I do not know yet is how
11 much time you would need for the next witness.
12 MR. JORDASH: I would need no more than 15 to 30 minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Petrovic, how much would you need?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, an hour perhaps. An
15 hour and a quarter perhaps.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then you were rather optimistic, Mr. Jordash.
17 I mean, well, depends on whether it's 15 minutes or 30 minutes and one
18 hour and a quarter, one hour. Mr. Groome, as I understand now, how much
19 time do you think you would need for re-examination?
20 MR. GROOME: I have five questions, Your Honour. I think no more
21 than five minutes or six minutes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Five, six minutes. Mr. Jordash, have you negotiated
23 the time claimed by Mr. Petrovic down.
24 MR. JORDASH: I don't think so at the moment, but I was going to
25 request an additional five minutes with this witness to deal with some
1 issues which I would like to deal with if at all possible. It's 10
2 minutes rather than five to be frank with the Court, but I would if time
3 allows. I'd be happy to leave it until the end to see if Mr. Petrovic
4 does indeed take that long with the next witness. I certainly will not
5 be more than 30 minutes.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you'll have a couple more minutes. If
8 you say I certainly do not need more than 30 minutes, that's of course
9 already more pessimistic than 15 to 30 minute, but the reason why I am
10 allowing you now to ask further questions to the witness is because
11 asking him to remain standby and to have him enter the courtroom and
12 going out again might take more time than -- so please be as efficient as
14 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
16 MR. JORDASH: May I have on the screen, please, 1D1274.
23 MR. JORDASH: May we turn, please, to page 23617. Let's go to
25 Q. And the top reads, the top paragraph reads:
15 Did you say those words?
16 A. Right now I can't remember every single word I've ever uttered.
17 A lot of time has gone by. I can hardly be expected to confirm every
18 single word that is recorded here as truly authentic. I am not prepared
19 to do that.
20 Q. Would it be your view having conducted or being part of this
21 investigation that there may be people on the payment lists that did not
23 A. I can neither confirm nor deny something like that. The simple
24 truth is I don't know these people, I don't know who they are, I don't
25 know what their jobs were. I've never met a single person from that
1 list. Anyway, that was not the job of my commission and it wasn't in the
2 job description of the Security and Information Agency either. I'm not
3 an investigator and I'm not with the OTP. It is not my place here to
4 defend or accuse anyone. I'm here to be a fact witness. I'm here to
5 tell you about the work of the commission of which I happened to be a
7 Q. One more point if I may, then I'm finished. If we look further
8 down on the same page it's recorded that you made the following comment
9 in relation to your assistance to the Prosecution:
20 You were surprised that these payment lists had not been
21 destroyed in accordance with the normal procedure? Was that what you
22 were telling the Prosecution in part on that occasion?
23 A. Yes. To me that was a great surprise. Had the rules been
24 complied with such as rules regulating how those documents were dealt
25 with, the regular procedure would have dictated that those documents be
1 destroyed over ten years ago.
2 Q. So that would -- according to the regular procedure would have
3 entitled Mr. Stanisic as the chief of the service to destroy the
4 documents if he had so chosen; is that correct?
5 A. Not entirely correct. This is not a discretionary right of the
6 head of the RDB. There are some bylaws regulating procedures relating to
7 documents including the destruction of documents. Here we are dealing
8 with a document category that is normally kept for up to five years.
9 Nevertheless, the final decision on destroying such documents is taken by
10 the head of the RDB which would now translate into the agency director.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. JORDASH: Nothing further, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I have one follow-up question in
14 relation to what Mr. Jordash asked you, Witness JF-095.
15 Mr. Jordash read to you what is written down as being your
16 response to an observation made by the OTP that while no members of
17 Arkan's Tigers were found on the lists, you said you didn't remember
18 exactly what you said, that was in the report of June 2008. If I would
19 ask you that same question today, would your answer be similar or would
20 it be different, and I -- what is written down as your answer at the time
21 was that you had claimed that your normal circumstances that it would
22 have been impossible that people like that would be paid DSA from the DB
23 or the BIA but that the circumstances were not normal. Would you give a
24 similar answer if I would put that same question to you?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my answer would be very
1 similar. Nevertheless, I do owe you an explanation as to why
2 circumstances were unusual. If the territorial integrity and the very
3 sovereignty of a state is in jeopardy, then I suppose you will agree with
4 me that these are unusual circumstances, including any threat to the
5 constitutional order, and defending a constitutional order is a primary
6 task for a service such as the RDB.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you added to your answer that it could have
8 been an abuse of public money as well and that those persons did not
9 exist. Would you still add that to the answer you just gave?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The probability that that is the
11 case is low or at least lower than the contrary. Of course there is a
12 possibility that funds were embezzled. There is always the possibility
13 when we are talking about public administration bodies and that applies
14 at all times and not just in extraordinary circumstances.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-095, it would have saved sometime if when
16 asked by Mr. Jordash you would have added to the response that you do not
17 remember exactly what you said at the time, that your answer would still
18 be the same. And perhaps have given the same explanations as you just
19 gave to me.
20 I have -- Mr. Groome.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Groome:
22 Q. JF-095, could I first deal with the last matter that Mr. Jordash
23 raised with you with respect to document that you produced or your agency
24 produced to the OTP that in your view, had ordinary procedures been
25 followed, would have been destroyed five years after their creation.
1 Now, my question to you with respect to these documents is the following:
2 Does the fact that they were still in existence is a more -- what is the
3 probable explanation of the fact that they are still in existence?
4 A. The most probable explanation for their existence would be lack
5 of care, lack of professionalism, and negligence on the part of whoever
6 was in charge of those documents, which is not to say that there might
7 not be another reason.
8 Q. When you say negligence, do you mean that they were overlooked,
9 they weren't destroyed at the time that they were, according to the
10 rules, intended to be destroyed?
11 A. You could put it that way, yes.
12 Q. Now, the location where BIA currently stands, when did that
13 building come under the control of the state of Serbia and leave the
14 control of the former Yugoslavia, if you know?
15 A. I assume that was the case with the former federal state and its
16 break-up, possibly 1992.
21 Q. Now, with respect to questions Mr. Jordash asked you with respect
22 to signatures, I want to ask you the following question: Can the chief
23 of the state security service, does he have the right to or the authority
24 to delegate -- I am sorry, let me start the question again.
25 Does the chief of the state security service have the ability to
1 delegate the authority to sign documents on his behalf?
2 A. Director of the security information agency does have that power.
3 He has the power to authorise another person, the deputy or another
4 authorised person to sign document on his behalf. As for the period of
5 the RDB, I'm unable to answer that question with certainty.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Jordash showed you a photograph of the container in
7 Lipovica, and my question to you is: Are the other archives of the BIA
8 in a similar state of disorganisation?
9 A. Correction, that was not the archive of the BIA, that was the
10 archive of the Ministry of the Interior and its special units. The
11 archive of the BIA is definitely not in that kind of condition.
12 Q. And finally, Mr. Petrovic with respect to D115 now in evidence,
13 he spoke to you at length about different types of collaboration both
14 with people within Serbia and also with friends and people who received
15 remuneration outside the country. My question is the following:
16 Collaboration is a somewhat vague word, can such collaboration include
17 the commission of international crimes such as persecution, murder,
18 forcible deportation as crimes against humanity?
19 A. I assume you already know what my answer would be. No service in
20 the world, no system anywhere would you find a thing like that.
21 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
23 Witness JF-095, first of all, have the questions put by
24 Mr. Groome triggered any need for further questions?
25 If not, I think it would be desirable if witness JF-095 would
1 remain standby, there may be unforeseen developments in the
2 cross-examination of the next witness.
3 Witness JF-095, would you be willing to remain standby until 7.00
4 or shortly after 7.00?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, I hope and expect that we don't have
7 to rely on your further presence, so therefore, in case we would not see
8 each other later today, I already would like to thank you on behalf of
9 the Chamber for coming to The Hague and having answered -- I should say
10 coming to The Hague twice and having answered all the questions that were
11 put to you by the parties and by the Bench. I hope that you have a safe
12 trip home again.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at 10 minutes to 6.00.
15 And the parties are invited to see whether there's any way of concluding
16 their cross-examination in the 70 minutes then remaining.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 5.54 p.m.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness JF-094. I'll repeat my
22 words. Good afternoon, Witness JF-094.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. And
24 good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-094, I would like to remind you that you
1 are still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given last week
2 Friday at the beginning of your testimony. No, it wasn't the Friday --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But at the beginning of your testimony, even if it
5 was not on Friday. You'll now be cross-examined.
6 Mr. Petrovic, you'll be the first one?
7 You will now first be cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic.
8 Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic. Mr. Petrovic, please proceed.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: JF-094 [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
13 Q. Good afternoon, witness.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. On Wednesday you mentioned that the establishment of the
16 commission and the production of the report was of national interest, as
17 you put it. What is the national interest of this commission or this
18 commission's work as you see it?
19 A. Well, the commission was established in order to respond to an
20 RFA from the Tribunal which earlier on were -- it was impossible to
21 provide. Some of the documents had already been provided pursuant to
22 some other RFAs, but if you're asking me about whether I consider that
23 this commission was of national interest and why, my understanding of it
24 was, and as far as I could see the understanding of the other members of
25 the commission as well, was because we put the co-operation with the
1 Tribunal as one of the priorities. So our job was to determine where the
2 documents which were sought by the Tribunal could be found or if they
3 couldn't, to establish that for a fact.
4 Q. Would you please just slow down a bit so that -- to make sure
5 that the transcript is complete.
6 A. I will. Thank you.
7 Q. Now, first of all, tell us, please, what was the reaction of the
8 Tribunal's Office of the Prosecutor to the commission's report?
9 A. Well, I really don't know that.
10 Q. What would be the repercussions had these -- had this job not
11 been done in a proper way, in other words, in a way that would satisfy
12 the expectations of the Prosecution?
13 A. Well, again, I can only guess, I assume that that would affect
14 the confidence that the Tribunal had in the work of Republic of Serbia
15 organs and our honest wish and desire to really respond to the Tribunal's
17 Q. Do you know whether after the report was submitted, the
18 commission report, a member of which you were, do you know whether the
19 Tribunal produced any report or statement of some sort that touched upon,
20 among other things, the commission report, the report that you yourself
21 participated in producing?
22 A. No, I wouldn't know about that, but I do have to mention
23 something here. Right after the completion of the commission's work, I
24 was not at work anymore. I actually had -- I was ill, I was taken ill,
25 and I did not attend any of these sessions of the commission because I
1 had measles and the other members of the commission had not ever had
2 measles, so it was not a good idea for me to be there. So I'm not really
3 familiar with what was transpiring and happening at the very last
4 portions -- the last phases of the commission's work because I wasn't
6 JUDGE ORIE: The first five questions and I waited until after
7 the fifth that you put to the witness do not assist the Chamber in any
8 way. We do not see the relevance and I checked in the beginning with my
9 colleagues. If there's a relevance, please in your next question make
10 clear what that is. I can imagine that you are heading for whether the
11 report was influenced in order to please the OTP, whatever, but then
12 please ask the witness. Please proceed.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that will
14 become clearer at the end of my examination, I hope so, and if not, I
15 apologise, and I will no longer insist on these questions if you feel
16 they are not relevant.
17 Q. Now, you mentioned you did not attend the last several meetings
18 of the commission; correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct. That's exactly what I was trying to point
20 out. I understand English language and I see from the transcript that
21 there was something that was omitted. I said that I was -- I did
22 actually attend the meetings and I was there until the very end of the
23 commission's work because of the -- although I was ill, but the other
24 members of the commission had already been immune to that particular
25 disease, so I did participate in the work of the commission, however, in
1 the later phase when the report was actually drafted, I wasn't there.
2 Whether there was some reaction and what the reaction was of the
3 Tribunal's, that's why I wouldn't know how to answer that question.
4 Q. Now, could you tell me, please, who was it of the commission
5 members who proposed that an interview be conducted with
6 Obrad Stevanovic?
7 A. Well, I was the one.
8 Q. Can you tell us why you put such a proposal forward?
9 A. Well, simply because I was of the opinion that
10 Mr. Obrad Stevanovic had information that was relevant to the
11 commission's work. Now, in view of the fact that I myself never
12 participated -- never was an actor in those events, in the events of 1991
13 and 1992 because I wasn't even employed then with the service I only
15 documents were relevant or not to the establishment of the commission
16 that were sought.
17 And also the members of the commission who are from the BIA did
18 not know who it was who could help with the search for the documents that
19 had to do with the JPO, so I could say that we were actually just trying
20 to suss out information working blind as it were. So we were trying to
21 find people who could have some information about the events that the
22 commission was working on. And this was in early 1990. This person was
23 at a high position in the Serbian MUP and he was, among other things, in
24 charge of the work of Special Police Units. So it was my proposal that
25 he should be interviewed because I felt that he might be a person who
1 could provide some information.
2 Q. If I understood your evidence correctly a few days ago, you said
3 that you interviewed this person and that then the other members of the
4 commission were supposed to assess whether they should interview him too?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. Would you please just be as brief as possible in your answers
7 because we don't have much time.
8 A. Well, that was the point. Our intention was first of all to have
9 a preliminary interview with some individuals who might possess some
10 information and maybe not, so I interviewed Mr. Stevanovic in his home.
11 We discussed matters that related to the RFA itself, and I said what I
12 said and you can see that in the material that we provided. And it was
13 assessed by the commission that Mr. Obrad Stevanovic did not know
14 anything that might be relevant to the commission's work.
15 Q. That's what I wanted to know. Now, you interviewed him in his
16 home. Did you record that interview?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you have any notes? Did you take any notes during the
20 A. Well, in view of the fact that this was a brief interview, I did
21 not really make any notes. I just jotted down in my notebook when the
22 interview was conducted really as a reminder for later on.
23 Q. Well, so the substance of this Official Note is what you could
24 actually recall when you returned to your office and then dictated or
25 whatever, typed the report; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So how many days later did you actually produce this note of this
4 A. Well, perhaps four to five days later. I can check the exact
5 date because I have that written down, but also in the meantime we had
6 had a meeting, the commission had had a meeting and they were briefed on
7 the contents of Mr. Stevanovic's statement during this interview.
8 Q. In your interview of Mr. Stevanovic, did you have any powers that
9 under the Law on Criminal Procedure?
10 A. No, the commission did not have any such authority.
11 Q. Did you warn Mr. Stevanovic that it was -- that he was obliged to
12 tell the truth during the interview?
13 A. Well, I told him what the purpose of the interview was.
14 Q. But you did not issue any warnings in terms of the Law on
15 Criminal Procedure?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Would there be any legal consequences for Stevanovic if he
18 provided some false information during that interview?
19 A. I can't really say anything about that.
20 Q. Well, I'm a bit surprised by your answer in view of the fact that
21 you are an experienced police officer, yes or no?
22 A. Well, all I can say is bearing in mind that this was an informal
23 conversation, this was not an official interview either in the pre-trial
24 proceedings or in criminal proceedings. This was just a preliminary
25 interview so that I cannot really see how Mr. Stevanovic could be held
1 liable for anything unless he would say things that would be damaging to
2 state interests and so on. In view of the fact that this was a
3 preliminary interview, personally I don't believe that would be the case,
4 so I can't really answer with a yes or no.
5 Q. Thank you. During that interview did Stevanovic tell you that
6 during the war from 1991 to 1995 every unit wanted to be called the Red
7 Berets and that if they had red berets as part of their uniform and
8 equipment that they would actually call themselves Red Berets?
9 A. Well, he didn't say it in so many words, however, he did mention
10 as we later --
11 Q. Please focus on my question. Just answer with a yes or no. If
12 it's no, then it's no.
13 A. Well, I cannot recall that it was said in so many words. He did
14 say that there were different kinds of units that were not necessarily
15 units that had anything to do with any legal authorities, either official
16 or not. So we didn't really discuss any units that had no ties with the
17 MUP of the Republic of Serbia, or let's call them regular units because
18 the documents here and the request that was sought was about units or
19 relating to units that had to do with the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.
20 Q. Did Stevanovic tell you that he actually attended the
21 establishment of JSO in 1996?
22 A. Well, no, he said in view of the fact that the request was to do
23 with the JATD and the JPN units, we only discussed his co-operation with
24 the JATD because that had to do with Mr. Simatovic.
25 Q. In the note, Official Note or notes actually of this interview,
1 it says, and you probably have it before you, would you please take a
2 look at page 2 of that interview with Mr. Stevanovic. Here it says that
3 he made proposals in respect of various organisational enactments and
4 that that was the first time that he had heard the term "JATD"?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Please wait for my answer [as interpreted]. In other words, that
7 in 1993 it was the first time that he heard this term JATD? That's what
8 it says there.
9 A. Yes, that was my understanding, that he had heard of JATD for the
10 first time in 1993 and that that was one of the names that was used for a
11 new unit that had been established.
12 Q. Well, please focus on my question. So this is what he said?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, did Obrad Stevanovic say what he said to you the same thing
15 that he said under oath here before this Trial Chamber, and that is that
16 he was not aware that there had been any predecessor unit to JSO from
17 1991? Did he say that, that he did not know that there was a unit in
18 1991 that was -- that preceded the JSO?
19 A. No, I don't know anything about that. He only talked about JATD,
20 he said when that was established and when he had heard about it. He
21 heard about it in a conversation with Mr. Simatovic and it was one of the
22 proposals that were put forth to call it that. He didn't even mention
23 the JPN at the time because that was one of the accepted -- it was one of
24 the alternative names that were proposed as possible name for that unit
25 that was being established at the time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if Mr. Petrovic is going to cite the
3 transcripts, I'd appreciate a reference so that I can find it among the
4 hundreds of pages of the -- of Mr. Stevanovic's testimony.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 40106, 40106, and we can find that
6 in 2D229. That is a note from the interview with Stevanovic on the 27th
7 of May, 2005. In response to Jeffery Nice's question whether the
8 predecessor to JSO was established in 1991, he said that he didn't know
9 and he repeated the same thing on page 40524.
10 Q. Now, witness, do you know that Stevanovic testified in this court
11 for 13 days, five of which he was questioned by Jeffery Nice, not
12 exclusively about but for the most part about the JATD and JPN and that
13 he never said, as far as I could see because I looked through all those
14 pages, he never mentioned that anywhere? In other words, he did not know
15 anything about the JSO and its establishment before 1996?
16 A. Well, I don't know that but what he said here is not really
17 contradictory to that. He didn't say that the JATD was established at
18 the time. He said that that was one of the names that were put forth to
19 use that name for a unit that was being established and he learned this
20 from a conversation with Mr. Simatovic, but he wasn't even sure that that
21 was what it was called. He said that it was one of the names that were
22 bandied about.
23 Q. Sir, I'm questioning you -- I'm telling you that
24 Mr. Obrad Stevanovic who testified here before this court and never
25 mentioned that he had any knowledge about JATD, JPN or anything else that
1 could be a predecessor to JSO?
2 A. Well, I understood what you've said and I'm repeating for the
3 third time what I recall. This was the substance of our conversation and
4 this is how I noted it down.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, how can I fairly assess whether there's
7 no mention of the JATD without reading the entire transcript or doing
8 word searches on it? I mean, there are hundreds of pages here. I'd ask
9 that if Mr. Petrovic is going to use the transcript that he put specific
10 portions to the witness so the witness can fairly answer and I can fairly
11 examine the transcript to see if it's in proper context.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the witness hasn't read it, the
13 Chamber hasn't read it, it's not in evidence. Whatever way you summarise
14 it, it's unverifiable for us. Now, the witness gave an answer to your
15 question not casting any doubt on whether you are correct or not, so
16 therefore there was no reason to intervene, but it -- it doesn't really
17 help to seek a witness who has not read the transcript to tell us what is
18 in there, and the Chamber also we can't verify it, so that's --
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Chamber is in a
22 position to check which might unfortunately be quite difficult since this
23 is some comprehensive material, but the Chamber is in a position to check
24 what is there and what's not. I am just trying to get the witness to
25 tell me whether he told him any of the things that he said in court under
1 oath. If not, very well, I have nothing further to pursue or indeed to
2 imply. Did he hear anything like that or not, if not I'll just move on.
3 That's the substance I've been trying to achieve.
4 JUDGE ORIE: One second. How do you consider us to verify the
5 testimony of Mr. Stevanovic?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's complicated
7 indeed. I could move for that to be under Rule 89 as part of this
8 trial's evidence; however, that does strike me as a rational idea. As
9 for a rational way to do this, I'll try to think of something. I don't
10 think it would make any sense to research this, least of all to have
11 5.000 pages of the transcript become part of this case's evidence.
12 That's why I was focusing on certain portions of the transcript which are
13 easy enough to track down. If the OTP can find something else, they
14 could as well present this something else, whatever they come across, and
15 then we can deal with it in that way by dealing with certain portions of
16 the transcript, selected ones that we might then show the witness and
17 indeed the Trial Chamber.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because I don't think you would wish us to
19 start reading transcripts of all other cases and then to be unknown to
20 the parties be influenced by that. I take it that that's the last thing
21 you want to achieve, isn't it?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. Thank
25 you. The witness is here now, I can read the relevant transcript pages
1 so we have several hundreds of pages and we can pair that back to a total
2 of five or six which makes our task a lot easier.
3 Q. Witness?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did Stevanovic tell that you he was a chief of the MUP staff of
6 Serbia in February and March 1993 at the Bosnian Serbian border in Bajina
8 A. We just touched upon Bajina Basta, generally speaking, because he
9 says that he was there with the Uzice detachment at the time protecting
10 the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina because of the problems that were
11 happening and the attacks from Bosnian territory on Serbia. There was
12 firing there and several persons died, at least that's what he said,
13 that's why the PJP was there, in order to prevent any incursions, and
14 also to assist the army because many people were running away from that
15 territory across the Drina into Serbia.
16 Q. But he didn't tell you that he was the chief of a staff that was
17 actually in the area, yes or no?
18 A. What the note says is what he told me. He says he was involved.
19 In what capacity?
20 Q. This is 40241. Did he tell you that he was in charge of a staff
21 based in Bajina Basta in control of combat operations in terms of
22 protecting the Republic of Serbia in that region which involved the
23 engagement of units in BH territory? Did he say anything about that?
24 A. No. As I said, he told me he was involved with the PJP
25 protecting the borders of the Republic of Serbia.
1 Q. This is 40236. Do you know anything about General Stevanovic's
2 background, educational background?
3 A. I'm not familiar with his file. I just know that Mr. Stevanovic
4 was working at the police academy as a professor of police tactics. I
5 also know, although this would boil down to hearsay, something I heard
6 about General Stevanovic as a high ranking officer, that he had received
7 a certain degree of military education which means that at one point or
8 another he was probably trained at the military academy.
9 Q. Do you know that he completed the military academy programme
10 which takes four year, he was from the MUP but he completed the military
11 academy, yes or no?
12 A. That's what I heard from my colleagues but I did not look at his
14 Q. All right. Back to a particular portion of your testimony. On
15 Wednesday where you say Mr. Simatovic had some experience with combat
16 actions and training special units. You said that on 7062. The one
17 thing that I would like to ask you to do now is to tell me whether you
18 know this: Mr. Simatovic, what was his background in terms of formal
19 education and training?
20 A. I don't really know. Besides, I don't remember saying that
21 Mr. Simatovic had any combat experience. It was according to
22 Mr. Stevanovic's words. He had heard that Mr. Simatovic was in charge of
23 a group of people at the Tara camp who passed themselves off as people
24 with combat experience and people who could help train the PJP, and one
25 of the PJP's tasks in war time was something closely related to combat
1 assignments and also disrupting public law and order and preventing that
2 from happening.
3 Q. [Overlapping speakers] [English] "On the other hand,
4 Mr. [Indiscernible] had experiences related to combat actions or to the
5 training for special units..." [Interpretation] Now, that is not what
6 General Stevanovic told you, is it?
7 A. As I said, if I remember well, if those were the words, I tried
8 to paraphrase what Mr. Simatovic had said. It wasn't me saying something
9 that I actually knew. I never even met. I hadn't met Mr. Simatovic
10 until after 2006 when I ended up in my present job.
11 Q. Did Stevanovic ever tell you that Simatovic had experience
12 related to combat actions, yes or no?
13 A. He said that Simatovic was this charge of a camp where there were
14 people who, as he said, passed themselves off as people with combat
16 Q. You have the note right in front of you. Could you please try to
17 track that down. You say he told you that Simatovic was in charge of a
18 camp. Where exactly does the note reflect that?
19 A. The note says that he was for the first time in touch with
20 Vasinovic [phoen], Simatovic, and others who had this camp at Tara, and
21 in his words they were passing themselves off or advertising themselves.
22 That's at page 1 if you look at it.
23 Q. Witness, I'm not sure you understand me correctly. Where does it
24 say that Obrad Stevanovic told you that Simatovic had experience related
25 to combat actions? Where does your notebook say that?
1 A. I do not actually know that I said that at all.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 7062, Your Honours. But we might
3 as well move on.
4 Q. You go on to say this --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see now what -- what I read on 7062 is that
6 during the interview he would have said that Mr. Simatovic would have had
7 some experience, some combat experience; however, that
8 Mr. Obradovic [sic] would have another experience but that there was a
9 sort of exchange of information between the two of them. That's what I
10 read in the transcript and in the Official Note, I read "and according to
11 him they advertised themselves as a special unit composed of people with
12 combat experience." That's not exactly the same but comes close to it,
13 isn't it? I'm just trying to understand what the issue is in order to
14 fully grab what you want to establish and not miss the point you are
15 intending to make.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in my understanding
17 they were advertising themselves as a special unit or passing themselves
18 off as a special unit comprising people with experience of war. This can
19 by no means mean that Simatovic had experience in combat actions. In my
20 humble opinion, these are two entirely different matters. I will leave
21 it to the Chamber to judge and assess but that is certainly my
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would say advertising themselves would be
24 the unit and not in any way relate to Mr. Simatovic himself, is that how
25 I have to understand your understanding of what I read in the --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the context is that
2 some people were advertising themselves or passing themselves off as a
3 unit. In the very next paragraph you say mand that's what Stevanovic
4 says, there was no unit at all, not in a textbook sense of the word.
5 This is someone advertising themselves as something that is no unit at
6 all in the textbook sense of the term. Therefore, there is quite a
7 number of differences there in relation to the sentence that the witness
8 now denied ever uttering.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand the testimony of the witness to be
10 not that he said that Mr. Simatovic had combat experience but that it was
11 Mr. Simatovic who would have told that to Mr. Stevanovic; is that --
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is not my
13 understanding, and I believe that transpires clearly from this. The
14 witness keeps recounting his conversation with Stevanovic. He is
15 recounting what Stevanovic is telling him. Stevanovic is telling him, at
16 least as the present witness claims, that Stevanovic told him, the
17 witness, that Stevanovic said that Simatovic had combat experience. That
18 is my reading, but perhaps we should not waste any more time on this.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps apparently a key line is "according to
20 him" which we find on 7062, line -- for me it's line 24. Whether that
21 extends also to the next sentence where it reads "on the other hand,
22 Mr. Simatovic had experiences related to combat actions." The question
23 therefore is whether according to him still applies to the following
24 sentence, yes or no, because in that case it would be the words of
25 Mr. Simatovic rather than the words of Mr. Stevanovic. Let's proceed.
1 We'll carefully analyse the texts.
2 The only reason I'm intervening is because I really want to grab
3 what you are actually -- what you are trying to establish so that we do
4 not misunderstand the questions and the answers. Please proceed.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Let's leave the transcript aside for the moment then. Therefore,
7 my question to you, witness, is as follows: Did Stevanovic tell you that
8 Simatovic had experience in combat operations?
9 A. I'm trying to think back. I don't think I said that he had
10 experience in combat operations. I think it might be a good idea to
11 listen to the tape to see what was actually said. I believe that I said
12 he had experience in the combat context of policing or police affairs.
13 If I remember what I said a couple of days ago, that was in reference to
15 Q. You may have said that several days ago, but my question now is
16 let's start anew and sweep the board clean. Did Stevanovic tell that you
17 Simatovic had experience in combat operations?
18 A. Stevanovic told me what I wrote down, that he had heard there
19 were people in that camp who were advertising themselves as people with
20 combat experience. And that there had been an exchange of experience
21 between Mr. Simatovic, at least as the policing part of this combat in
22 war time is concerned, if that's what you prefer, while Mr. Stevanovic
23 who had experience that would be that, but obviously --
24 Q. Therefore Stevanovic did not as a matter of fact tell you that
25 Franko Simatovic had experience in combat operations?
1 A. Stevanovic did not tell me that Simatovic had told him that.
2 Q. Did Stevanovic tell you that Simatovic was a leader or someone in
3 charge of that group of men at Tara?
4 A. Based on the impression from that conversation, my impression was
5 that he was in some way in charge of that group because he and
6 Mr. Stevanovic were in touch about training and everything else.
7 Q. That being your impression, why did you not actually write that
8 down in your Official Note?
9 A. Didn't strike me as important. We were talking about JATD and
11 Q. All right. You were investigating the whereabouts of documents
12 that might reveal what the Prosecution was after, someone tells you that
13 another person is in charge of a certain group of men which doesn't
14 strike you as relevant in terms of writing down and including in your
15 Official Note?
16 A. My task had to do with this and this alone. I had no criminal
17 authority and I wasn't interested in anything else for that reason.
18 Q. Okay. So why did you say that in this courtroom if weren't
19 interested back at the time, if that is not the subject of your
20 testimony? What led you to talk about these things now?
21 A. Very simple, someone asked me the question. The purpose of that
22 interview was to see whether Mr. Stevanovic knew anything about the
23 existence of JATD or how it came into existence. I couldn't answer these
24 questions because obviously this is a question which stems from the work
25 of the commission and its effort to track down documents. Nevertheless,
1 if you ask me, even now as far as these documents are concerned, I don't
2 see an immediate link.
3 Q. So you said that you had the impression, that you gained an
4 impression during that interview that Simatovic was in some way in charge
5 of that group of men, nevertheless Stevanovic never explicitly stated
6 that. What we were talking about is your impression; right?
7 A. Yes, that's right. This was not a unit. He but -- said several
8 times that this was a group of men, and he was consulted on how documents
9 should be compiled for a unit to be established. Again, he in turn was
10 under the impression that this was not a unit.
11 Q. Were you aware of what the OTP's request was in relation to,
12 which trial? Did you know the trial documents were required for, was
13 that within your purview or not?
14 A. I should go back to the original request but normally a request
15 would state a case number and a trial. Prosecutor versus so and so.
16 Q. Very well. What did Stevanovic tell you about Vaso Mijovic?
17 A. He simply dropped his name and that was it and that's what I
18 wrote down. He said there was this group of men over there including
19 Franko Simatovic, Vaso Mijovic, and others and that was all. The only
20 time the name was mentioned.
21 Q. Did he tell you that he had asked Franko Simatovic to put him in
22 touch with Vaso Mijovic?
23 A. As I said, this was the only occasion where he mentioned the
25 Q. On page 40263, of your evidence in Milosevic, Obrad Stevanovic
2 [English] "Vasilije Mijovic is somebody I know. For awhile he
3 worked at the training camp for the training of Special Police Units at
4 Mount Tara, and Franko Simatovic found him at my request."
5 [Interpretation] Did Obrad Stevanovic say to you that Radovan Stojicic,
6 Badza, had asked the state security service to assist Obrad Stevanovic in
7 identifying --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel repeat what -- identifying
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the last part, had asked the
11 state security service to assist Obrad Stevanovic in identifying, and the
12 interpreters asked in identifying what.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will repeat, Your Honour.
14 Q. Did Obrad Stevanovic tell you that Radovan Stojicic had asked via
15 the state security service for assistance to him, Obrad Stevanovic, in
16 order to find or identify instructors? Did he say that to you,
17 Obrad Stevanovic?
18 A. He only said that there was a need to train PJP, something to
19 that effect, and as these people as was already mentioned were at the
20 Tara camp and they had combat experience, a certain number of PJP members
21 were sent to the Tara camp regardless of how that came about. I know
22 what you want to ask me, I'm just telling you he didn't tell me how it
23 was, but how the whole thing actually ended and how that would appear to
24 look from today's perspective, I can tell you about that too.
25 JUDGE ORIE: JF-094, could you please try to keep your answers
1 very much focused on what is asked. Would you carefully look at
2 Mr. Petrovic. If Mr. Petrovic with one or two words rather than starting
3 speaking whole sentences, Mr. Petrovic, because the interpreters will not
4 be able to follow that, but if Mr. Petrovic will interrupt you because
5 you are going beyond what they are asking you, carefully look at him and
6 with one or two words he will invite you to stop continuing your answer.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. So your response -- your reply to my earlier question is no?
10 A. My answer is we didn't go any further.
11 Q. In other words, no?
12 A. Well, as far as I can recall the whole question, probably so.
13 Q. Thank you. Did he tell you that Vasilije Mijovic had never been
14 a member of the state security service of the Republic of Serbia?
15 A. I have to repeat what I've already said before.
16 Q. Well, just say yes or no?
17 A. No, no. Well, I just want to say that anything you have to ask
18 about Vasilije Mijovic, all I can answer is that he only mentioned him
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel repeat the page number,
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the page number, Mr. --
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 40264. That is the transcript of
25 June 1st, 2005.
1 Q. Now, I have a few more questions for you about something else.
2 Now, in one of the conversations that you had with the OTP, and there
3 were quite a few, did you say and claim that there was not a single piece
4 of paper that related to the PJP for the period after the 23rd of March,
6 A. What conversations are you referring to? I said that there was
7 not a single paper after the 23rd of March, 1999.
8 Q. Well, could we see -- that's in your conversation of 13th
9 November, 2006. Mr. Groome can check this. It's on page 23626.
11 of paper is left from the time-period after 23rd of March, 1999."
12 [Interpretation] In other words, you are saying that what the Prosecutor
13 has written down here is incorrect?
14 A. No, here it says after the 23rd of March, 1999. Not before.
15 This is one of the things that I can recall in respect of another MFA
16 when in 2006 they had access to the entire documentation of the Ministry
17 of the Interior.
18 Q. Well, just tell me, did you say this or not?
19 A. Well, no I did not.
20 Q. That suffices, just you didn't say that and that's enough. Thank
21 you. Did you tell the OTP that the PJP, the Special Police Units, were
22 under the command of the Pristina MUP staff?
23 A. Excuse me, but I don't see how that relates to this case.
24 Q. Well, witness, it is on the Trial Chamber to decide whether my
25 questions are relevant or not. I would just like you to answer my
2 A. Well, first of all, I have to address the gentlemen here and see
3 whether I'm free to discuss this issue.
4 Q. Well, very well, then let's move on.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you discussed the matter at any earlier stage
6 with the OTP, then I really do not see any reason why it's -- no
7 questions could be asked about that. So therefore, I invite you to
8 answer the question.
9 Yes. Mr. Ignjatovic.
10 MR. IGNJATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness has a
11 waiver for very specific topics. And he may actually be exposed to
12 criminal responsibility if he discusses matters for which he does not
13 have a waiver.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing he is asked is whether he discussed a
15 certain matter with the Office of the Prosecution. And I don't think
16 that so either he already violated any rule and then or -- I really do
17 not see the point at this moment because the only thing Mr. Petrovic is
18 asking is did you say this to the Office of the Prosecution. He is not
19 asked about any matter which he considered to be secret at any earlier
20 stage, if he told the Prosecution, if he did not tell the Prosecution,
21 then he can just say no, and then of course one can wonder why someone
22 wrote down that this is what the witness said during a conversation at
23 any earlier stage.
24 MR. IGNJATOVIC: [Interpretation] I can agree and I can see how
25 you see it this way. However, we issue a waiver to a witness before they
1 appear here, the confidentiality clause --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I intervene at
3 this point, I withdraw my question and we will no longer discuss this
5 JUDGE ORIE: The question apparently is off the record.
6 Now, Mr. Ignjatovic, from the decision of the Chamber, you may
7 have seen that -- one second. You may have seen that the waiver is not
8 binding upon this Tribunal and that if you should not refer to the
9 waiver, what you could do is to say, while answering this question, this
10 question should not be answered because state security interests are
11 involved, and then we would hear you and hear all the state security
12 interests involved in the absence of the parties and in the absence of
13 the witness.
14 The question apparently has been withdrawn so I suggest that we
15 proceed. At the same time I'm very much concerned, Mr. Petrovic, about
16 the time. I'm also looking at Mr. Jordash because --
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If I may. I understand your
20 concern and after consulting my client, let me just say that we have no
21 further questions for this witness. Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you,
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Petrovic.
25 Witness, JF-094, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jordash, and
1 Mr. Jordash will do his utmost best to finish his cross-examination
2 before 7.00. Please proceed.
3 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour. May we have on the screen,
4 please --
5 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Jordash, before I give you an
7 You raised your hand at an earlier stage and then I said wait for
8 a second. Is there anything you would like to add to what has been said
9 at this moment?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I would, and it has to
11 do with the earlier question of Mr. Petrovic's with regarding my alleged
12 remark that there was not a single paper relating to the PJP after the
13 NATO campaign, but however, since the question has been withdrawn let me
14 just say that I can answer it on some other occasion, however the answer
15 cannot be a simple yes or no because --
16 JUDGE ORIE: The question has been withdrawn so therefore in
17 what, how you would answer that question is at this moment not relevant
19 Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
20 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. I want to deal really with only one
23 topic and that's what the purpose of the activity as found by Stevanovic
24 was at Mount Tara.
25 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, P590. I beg
1 your pardon, it's P598.
2 Q. Could you just quickly have a look at that document, please,
3 Mr. Witness.
4 A. Well, as far as I can see, this is a document from the 1st Army,
5 an order from the command.
6 Q. And were you aware of this order, or have you become aware of
7 this order during your work or during your work with the commission?
8 A. Well, I have to say that in the course of my work I saw a huge
9 number of documents and I can't tell you really precisely whether I've
10 seen this particular document. I did see some comments including some
11 dispatches from the Ministry of the Interior which confirm what is
12 described here in this document, that there were some problems on the
13 border on the Drina River on the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
14 from what Mr. Stevanovic told me, the reason that the PJP was actually
15 employed there was specifically to address these incursions that were
16 made and that they -- that had consequences also on the other side of the
17 border in Serbia itself.
18 Q. Thank you. So what Mr. Stevanovic effectively told you was that
19 the Serbian MUP had become involved at Mount Tara in relation to trying
20 to prevent incursions into Serbia, trying to protect the border of
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second.
25 MR. GROOME: I believe what the witness believes Mr. Stevanovic
1 effectively told him is irrelevant. What is relevant is what
2 Mr. Stevanovic told him and it should be left for the Chamber to
3 interpret what the meaning of Mr. Stevanovic's words were.
4 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see. The question was whether
6 Mr. Stevanovic effectively told you that certain things happened.
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That is the question as I see it in the -- there's
9 no asking about what he believed, but what Mr. Stevanovic effectively
10 told the witness. Please proceed.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. Let me -- did you get the question?
13 A. Yes, I did. Would you like me to answer it.
14 Q. Yes, please?
15 A. Mr. Stevanovic told me specifically about Tara. The only thing
16 that he mentioned about the MUP activities on Tara was that all the then
17 secretariats of the Ministry of the Interior had sent one or two of its
18 members for training to -- one of two members of the PJP for training to
19 that camp.
20 Q. And were you also told that the reason for that was that
21 Stevanovic was organising units to patrol the Serb border at a time when
22 the conflict in Bosnia threatened to spill into Serbia proper?
23 A. Well, he told me at the time when he met Mr. Simatovic that he
24 had already been engaged with the Uzice Corps on the border towards
25 Drina, but that this was some kind of additional training for specific
1 tasks and these were practically from what we see here, this was really
2 just training for these members and from what we see here it says that
3 one or two members were sent from each of the secretariats.
4 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I just take a moment.
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. Did you tell the Prosecution that this was at a time when the
8 conflict in Bosnia threatened to spill into Serbia proper?
9 A. As far as I remember, what I said during that conversation, that
10 was the point, I don't know which words I used specifically. I said the
11 involvement of the PJP along the border to Bosnia in the proximity of
12 Bajina Basta. I said that the reason for their involvement was to
13 prevent any ramifications of the war in Bosnia, any spillover to the
14 Republic of Serbia. There were people who were killed as a result of
15 combat operations in Bosnia who were in Serbia's territory. Until such
16 time as the Army of the Republika Srpska took that territory from the
17 hands of the Bosnian army and then the firing across the Drina stopped.
18 MR. JORDASH: I've got nothing further, thank you. Thank you
19 Mr. Witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
21 Mr. Groome, any further questions for the witness.
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Could I ask that D114 be brought
23 to our screens.
24 Re-examination by Mr. Groome:
25 Q. While that is being brought up, JF-094, can I ask you the
1 container in Lipovica, is that typical of the way in which other archival
2 material in the possession of the Ministry of the Interior is maintained?
3 A. I can tell you my opinion, but certainly the way in which these
4 documents were kept and the condition in which we found them would not be
5 consistent with the standards applied in archives elsewhere across
7 Q. Now, for those of us who look at this picture and form the
8 opinion that it's an atrocious way to maintain official documents, can
9 you provides some explanation as to how these important records came --
10 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt, I mean, this is --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first Mr. Groome completes his question and
12 then you object.
13 MR. JORDASH: Well, the objection is to Mr. Groome covering this
14 subject at all which hasn't arisen from cross-examination. It's arisen
15 from cross-examination perhaps of the previous witness but not this
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, this was introduced with the last
19 witness and the last witness said I can't speak to this, it's the
20 following witness, so I submit that it's entirely proper for the person
21 with the knowledge about how this occurred to inform us about how these
22 records got into this condition.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But isn't it true that re-examination is an
24 opportunity to put questions to the witness on matters that were raised
25 or triggered by the cross-examination.
1 MR. GROOME: That is true, Your Honour, but 90(H) also gives the
2 Chamber some latitude in allowing the parties to address questions to
3 witnesses who have relevant information, and I believe --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is 90(H) dealing with the cross-examining party or
5 with the calling party.
6 MR. GROOME: Very often with the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Very often? Could you read the text then, please,
8 for me so that you can convince me that -- you talk about 90(H), isn't
9 it, and you are referring to that a cross-examining party cannot only
10 deal with matters but also can elicit evidence if it supports his case,
11 and I'm now talking from the top of my head, so perhaps.
12 MR. GROOME: In 90(H)(iii): "The Trial Chamber may, in the
13 exercise of its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters."
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and have you asked for such -- because you were
15 referring to -- the objection was raised on the basis of 90(H),
16 cross-examination shall be limited to subject matter of the evidence in
17 chief and matters affecting credibility and where the witness is able to
18 give evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party to the
19 subject matter of that case. That apparently was the basis of
20 Mr. Jordash's objection.
21 You, at least from what I understood, were considering the
22 possibility that the witness is able to give evidence relevant to the
23 case for the cross-examining party and then certain rules apply on what
24 shall be put to the witness. (iii), the Trial Chamber may, in the
25 exercise of its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters. But
1 although all the rest of 90(H) is about the cross-examining party, you
2 consider 90(H) under (iii) to be a general rule which applies to -- not
3 only to cross-examination, and have you asked permission from the
5 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, I have not asked permission. I
6 have not asked permission, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. The objection is sustained.
8 MR. GROOME: I have no questions, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
10 The Chamber has no further questions for you, witness JF-094.
11 This, therefore, concludes your evidence in this case. I would like to
12 thank you very much for -- yes, Mr. --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank the Chamber.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it just occurs to me that had this
15 examination proceeded in the ordinary course, that had JF-095 completed
16 his cross-examination and this photograph introduced in the
17 cross-examination, I would have been on notice that -- what the Defence
18 wants to do with this, and I would have certainly in my direct
19 examination of this witness have asked him to explain this. I'm at
20 somewhat of a disadvantage in the procedure adopted by the Chamber. I
21 think it's somewhat unfair of the Defence to introduce the photo without
22 any opportunity for me to elicit from the person who has the most
23 information who is sitting before you his explanation as to what he knows
24 about why it got into this condition.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if the order would have been opposite, you
1 would have had no opportunity either would it?
2 MR. GROOME: That is true.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If 94 would have preceded 95?
4 MR. GROOME: I think I would have made some arguments as to why
5 it wasn't put to the witness before since this is the witness who has
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check with my colleagues
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, this witness -- we have heard evidence
10 that this was not the standard, this was not normal, this was
11 exceptional. If you would argue strongly that the Chamber could not
12 interpret that evidence without knowing exactly why it was exceptional,
13 then we would not disallow you perhaps under those circumstances to ask
14 one question. If, however, you would think that the Chamber would accept
15 that this was the not normal situation, whereas archives are usually kept
16 in a different way, if that would sufficiently assist the Chamber, then
17 you're encouraged not to re-open your examination.
18 MR. GROOME: If it -- it seems that it will not assist the
19 Chamber, so I will not -- I will decline to ask to re-open.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Witness JF-094, I was about to thank you for
21 coming to The Hague and you've shown a great flexibility in being
22 available, which certainly has not been very convenient to you. I would
23 like to thank you very much on behalf of the Chamber for coming, even
24 coming twice, for having answered the questions that were put to you by
25 the parties and by the Chamber, and I wish you a safe return home again.
1 Would you please --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank the Chamber. Your Honours,
3 I'm available to this Tribunal whenever necessary.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that offer. Could you please
5 follow the usher who will escort you out of the courtroom.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then I finally address you, Mr. Cvetkovic and
8 Mr. Ignjatovic, apart from one small moment where there was perhaps a
9 matter which would have needed further discussion, apart from that I
10 think the examination of the witnesses went smoothly. It was a pleasure
11 for the Chamber to have you present and I wish you the same, that is a
12 safe journey home again, whether it's close or further away. Thank you.
13 You may follow the usher.
14 [Representatives of Serbia withdraw from the court]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 I earlier informed the parties that the Chamber would like to
20 have an out-of-court meeting with the parties in order to put an end to
21 not-too-well organised situations. The Chamber would also like to use
22 that, unless the parties would consider it inappropriate to discuss it
23 anywhere else than in the courtroom, the practicalities of the request
24 for a postponement of the testimony of Mr. Theunens. The reason why I
25 would like to include that is not to have full argument on that request
1 or motion but to see whether the Chamber could assist the parties in
2 finding a solution for what apparently is a problem. I have on my mind
3 to have such a meeting on Thursday, further details to be made known to
4 the parties, but we still need a place to meet.
5 Is there any objection against, apart from the other matter I
6 just raised, to also see whether the Chamber can assist the parties in
7 finding a solution for the scheduling of witness Theunens? If there are
8 no objections, we stand adjourned and we resume tomorrow Tuesday, the
9 14th of September, quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom II.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day of
12 September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.