1 Tuesday, 26 October 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.24 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 Before we invite the Prosecution to call its next witness, which
12 will be Mr. Theunens, I was informed that there were a few procedural
13 matters the Prosecution would like to raise.
14 Perhaps, Mr. Weber, I go through my list and see to what extent
15 that already covers some of your problems.
16 I do understand that the Prosecution wanted to tender only
17 selected portion of some of the documents in relation to Mr. Theunens,
18 and for that purpose has uploaded into e-court documents replacing the
19 ones earlier uploaded, and that would -- the exhibit numbers would remain
20 the same, but the 65 ter numbers would be the old ones, but then .1 added
21 to the original 65 ter number indicating that it's just an excerpt of the
22 original one, and this would be true for P1014, P1015, P1019, P1023,
23 P1027, P1031, P1032, P1074, P1177, P1376, and P1412.
24 The corresponding 65 ter numbers would be, and I follow the same
25 order: 65 ter 3847.1, 65 ter 3857.1, 65 ter 3852.1, 65 ter 3858.1,
1 65 ter 1886.1, 65 ter 3853.1, 65 ter 3866.1, 65 ter 3845.1, 65 ter 4206.1
2 65 ter 3829.1, and 65 ter 4117.1.
3 Mr. Weber, was this one of the issues you wanted to raise?
4 MR. WEBER: Thank you very much for addressing it. The numbers
5 read in are correct, and yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then Madam Registrar is invited and is
7 permitted to replace the original 65 ter numbers related to these exhibit
8 numbers by the .1 versions of those documents.
9 Madam Registrar, is this sufficient information for you?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then a second matter is that the
12 Prosecution has requested leave to add Mr. Theunens CV to its Rule 65 ter
13 exhibit list, which was filed on the 13th of August, 2010. There are no
14 objections from the Defence, therefore leave is granted to add the CV of
15 Mr. Theunens to the 65 ter exhibit list.
16 Then I have two more items we should deal with before we hear the
17 testimony of Mr. Theunens. These two items are related -- these are, as
18 a matter of fact, are elements in the history preceding the determination
19 by the Chamber of the date on which the Chamber would hear the testimony
20 of Mr. Theunens.
21 I put on the record that an e-mail was sent by Chamber's staff on
22 the 7th of September, 2010, informing the parties that the deadline for
23 responses to the Simatovic request for postponement of testimony of
24 Prosecution expert witness Reynaud Theunens, a request which was filed on
25 the 6th of September, 2010, that these deadlines had been shortened to
1 close of business on the 10th of September, 2010.
2 The second element in the history preceding the determination of
3 the timing of the hearing of Mr. Theunens's testimony was an e-mail of
4 the 17th of September, 2010, sent by Chamber's staff informing the
5 parties that the Chamber had decided that the testimony of Mr. Theunens
6 should not be bifurcated and should not take place before the last week
7 of October 2010.
8 These were the urgent items I had on my list to be dealt with
9 before Mr. Theunens enters the courtroom.
10 Anything else, Mr. Weber?
11 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. Prosecution wanted to address a
12 couple of matters and also put some items on the record. May I proceed?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
14 MR. WEBER: Over the weekend the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence
15 communicated the exhibits that will be opposed by each Defence from the
16 chart of exhibits for Mr. Theunens. There are approximately 65 exhibits
17 being opposed by either one or both of the Defence teams. If acceptable
18 to the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution is willing to defer discussion on
19 any objections to the opposed exhibits until after the testimony of the
20 witness and tender today only those exhibits which are not opposed by
21 either Defence. This would be done in order to make optimum use of the
22 available court time this week.
23 That's the first matter.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac.
25 MR. JORDASH: In principle I see the good sense in that. On the
1 other hand, I think it would be important for Your Honours to appreciate
2 with certain exhibits what our objection is before we launch into
3 cross-examining Mr. Theunens on the basis of those objections. I think
4 Your Honours will be guided by a very brief description.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So what we now have is we have a series of
6 documents, a small portion of them contested, Mr. Weber says I will not
7 tender them at this moment. Now, you'd say you would like to raise -- at
8 least raise matters in relation to those exhibits. So that's part of the
9 contested ones, not all of them.
10 MR. JORDASH: We've only -- the Stanisic Defence have only
11 objected to around, I think, ten exhibits, and --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could you please identify those ten. If you
13 just write down the numbers on a little piece of paper then I take it
14 that Mr. Weber, if -- may I take it if you want to cross-examine the
15 witness on them that they have to be in evidence.
16 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're not saying it's -- because you also
18 could, of course, examine the witness just on matters of relevance and
19 say it's totally irrelevant. Do you not agree, Mr. Theunens? And then
20 say therefore they should not be admitted but --
21 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour, perhaps I should be careful
22 about what I say. We do object to the admissibility of around ten.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
24 MR. JORDASH: And we say the Court should exclude them without
25 further consideration, at least some of them. And we indicate that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So what we now have a list of those documents
2 uncontested tendered by Mr. Weber, which therefore I take it are ready
3 for being admitted, and then we have a number which perhaps we -- I think
4 the others are -- numbers are assigned and not yet marked for
5 identification, but if we would know which ten they are then we could
6 mark them for identification, and if you give the numbers to Mr. Weber
7 then he could --
8 MR. JORDASH: He has them.
9 JUDGE ORIE: He has them.
10 MR. WEBER: The exhibits are -- part of the exhibits are
11 presently marked for identification. The Prosecution appreciates the
12 position of the Defence and believes that they should have an opportunity
13 to state their objections for the record, and also have the opportunity
14 to cross-examine on them. We're just proposing this measure for the sake
15 of the scheduling and for convenience. We would obviously like to be
16 heard also eventually on the objections.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If the objections if you have raised them during
18 cross-examination, and I take it that Mr. Weber would have an opportunity
19 to further explain that, because -- but let's not do that out of the blue
20 but on the basis of knowing what the objections are.
21 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. May I while I'm on my feet
22 introduce Mr. Gosnell to the Court who is presently our consultant but
23 hopefully more very soon.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Gosnell, welcome in this courtroom.
25 Mr. Bakrac, any response to the suggestion made by Mr. Weber?
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Well, no, Your Honour. I have heard
2 your position now, and I am going to adjust to that, of course. I just
3 don't understand one thing, Mr. Weber got to the number of the document
4 that we disagree with, that is 59 -- or, rather, 62. That is what is in
5 dispute, and we have to check three documents with our client, and we
6 need to check something as well.
7 I'm going to submit a list to you. I provided it to Mr. Weber on
8 Friday, and I'm going to give you a list of these documents that are in
9 dispute. I'll try to do that during the next break, and then during the
10 examination we are going to deal with these documents that are still in
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you'll understand that I don't like
13 reading long lists of numbers, but I'm certainly not going to read the
14 very, very long lists of numbers. So therefore, could the parties
15 provide to Madam Registrar already the list indicating which ones are the
16 tendered ones, the contested ones, and contested by which party so that
17 we have an overview of that, and then we will later find a way of putting
18 this appropriately on the record by other means than by reading those
20 Anything else, Mr. Weber?
21 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. Two other matters that we'd like
22 to put on the record.
23 On the 22nd of October, 2010, the Prosecution provided
24 Mr. Theunens with a binder containing an unmarked copy of his report
25 dated 30 June 2007
1 understanding of the Prosecution that the witness has placed tabs, made
2 highlights, and made notations of cross-references within the report.
3 Prosecution has not reviewed these markings. The witness has this binder
4 with him and has indicated that it would facilitate and expedite his
5 testimony before the Trial Chamber. Apparently this approach has been
6 done in the past with this witness.
7 The Prosecution has also provided the witness with two binders
8 containing exhibits for the witness to review at the request of the
9 Stanisic Defence. The next matter that the Prosecution want to place on
10 the record was just that we provided the Chamber and Defence prior to the
11 testimony of the witness with binders containing the report of the
12 witness with exhibits -- exhibit numbers in the footnotes, the curriculum
13 vitae of the witness, and a chart of the exhibits which was filed last
15 The Prosecution will be referring to these materials during the
16 testimony of Mr. Theunens. If anyone in the courtroom would like another
17 copy or a copy of this binder, the Prosecution does have extra binders
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Now, one final matter is about the CV of
20 Mr. Theunens. We just decided that leave was granted to add it to the
21 65 ter list, but it has no exhibit number yet, does it?
22 MR. WEBER: It does not. The Prosecution has uploaded it under
23 65 ter 5812.
24 JUDGE ORIE: 5812. And since there were no objections against
25 adding it to the 65 ter list, may I also assume that there is no
1 objection against the admission into evidence of 65 ter 5812? Then,
2 Madam Registrar, 65 ter 5812 receives.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1574, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P1574, Mr. Theunens's CV is admitted into evidence.
5 Then -- yes. One issue totally related to what we've dealt with
6 until now. Mr. Jordash, did you have an opportunity to speak with
7 Mr. Stanisic about scheduling of tomorrow afternoon?
8 MR. JORDASH: I did Your Honour, and his preference would be to
9 return to the UNDU if possible, please, between the break -- or in the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And he does not oppose against having at the
12 most two sessions in the afternoon, a little bit of a late start, because
13 tomorrow morning we'll have available until 11.30, which means that we
14 will sit from 9.00 to 10.00, have a break from 10.00 to 10.30 and then
15 sit from 10.30 to 11.30. That would be the moment where transportation
16 back, and I know that that takes some time, could be arranged for. We
17 would then -- I would prefer to start a bit later so that we have more
18 time over the lunch break where Mr. Stanisic will be during I think at
19 least one hour will be in his cell, then to start for example at 3.00
20 until 4.15, and then from quarter to 5.00 to 6.00, leave it two sessions,
21 which would mean in the whole of the day four and a half hours effective
22 court time.
23 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- yes. I was just informed, Mr. Weber, that
25 the Prosecution was not yet informed about these plans. No final
1 decision has been taken. The reason why you have not been informed is
2 that we first wanted to find out what practical problems there might be
3 at all. Second thing we wanted to find out is whether the condition of
4 Mr. Stanisic would oppose to any such thing, and it's only since one
5 minute now that I know that after Mr. Jordash has consulted with his
6 client that there is no opposition from the Stanisic Defence that now I
7 address the Prosecution and the Simatovic Defence where we are,
8 unfortunately, limited in time tomorrow morning. It's not the Chamber's
9 decision, but there's no other possibility, to have a session between
10 3.00 and 6.00 tomorrow in the afternoon.
11 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution understand.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Simatovic Defence also
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then hereby Madam Registrar is invited to inform all
16 the units, sections, whoever has to make this all possible, to inform
17 them that as far as the Chamber is concerned, we would sit from 9.00 to
18 11.30, and then from 3.00 to 6.00.
19 It was of no use to inform you any earlier if for other reasons
20 it would not have worked anyhow.
21 Having dealt with all these practical matters, anything else to
22 be raised before Mr. Theunens enters the courtroom? No? Then could the
23 usher please escort Mr. Theunens into the courtroom.
24 I add immediately to what I earlier said is that there is some
25 conflict in the scheduling of the Judges as well. So it all depends
1 whether this will finally work or not whether the Chamber would finally
2 decide for the afternoon whether it would be appropriate to sit under
3 Rule 15 bis. That's one of the remaining issues.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Usually I start by saying
7 Mr. Theunens, I presume, but let's be fair. I've seen you before,
8 Mr. Theunens, so therefore, good afternoon, Mr. Theunens. Before you
9 give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a
10 solemn declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Theunens.
14 Mr. Theunens, before we start your testimony, I'd like to inform
15 you about some scheduling issues. We intend to sit this afternoon. We
16 intend to sit on Thursday in the afternoon and on Friday in the
17 afternoon. However, tomorrow, Wednesday, the 27th, in order to use as
18 much time as possible, and since we are facing all kind of practical
19 problems, it is for certain that we'll sit in the morning hours, that is
20 from 9.00 to 11.30, and it is likely that we sit in the afternoon from
21 3.00 to 6.00, but this has not yet been finally determined. Just for
22 your information.
23 Mr. Weber, are you ready to start your examination?
24 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Theunens, you'll now first be examined by
1 Mr. Weber, who, it may not come as a surprise, is counsel for the
2 Prosecution. Please proceed.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1574 in
5 Examination by Mr. Weber:
6 Q. Mr. Theunens, while the exhibit is being brought up before you,
7 could you please introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.
8 A. Good afternoon, Your Honours. My name is Reynaud Theunens.
9 Q. Mr. Theunens, does the CV that now appears before you correctly
10 indicate your personal information on the top of page 1?
11 A. Yes, it does, Your Honours.
12 Q. Does this CV also accurately represent your educational
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 Q. With respect to your position with UNIFIL from April 2009 onward,
16 does this CV accurately describe your present responsibilities?
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of this
19 exhibit shown to the witness.
20 Q. With respect to your past positions as an intelligence analyst
21 with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
22 Office of the Prosecutor, the Belgian Ministry of Defence, and the
23 Belgian Armed Forces, does this CV accurately describe your past
24 responsibilities and duties in these positions?
25 A. Yes, it does, Your Honours.
1 Q. What do the acronyms SGRS, and IE represent?
2 A. Your Honours, SGRS stance for Service General du Renseignement et
3 de la Securite, which in English means general service for intelligence
4 and security, and IE stands for the I for intelligence or information,
5 and the E for exploitation.
6 Q. Your curriculum vitae indicates that between September 1992 and
7 June 1999, you were a Balkans analyst at the SGRS and performed
8 assessments of political, military, and economic developments in the
9 former Yugoslavia
10 please explain these assessments along with their frequency and scope?
11 A. Your Honours, together with my colleagues we prepared daily
12 analysis of the events of the past 24 hours. They were intended for the
13 operations staff in order to assist them in planning the operations of
14 Belgian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia
15 analysis, written analysis, in addition to this daily and written --
16 excuse me, to these daily and weekly written analysis we would also
17 prepare ad hoc documents. For example, the Ministry of Defence would
18 attend meetings with colleagues of neighbouring countries or on a
19 multilateral level his office would request such a document. It would
20 also prepare on the basis of these written analyses oral briefings on a
21 daily, weekly and ad hoc basis for the same addressees.
22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of this
24 Q. Mr. Theunens, most of your previous testimony before this
25 Tribunal as an expert witness is listed under section 7 of your CV.
1 Could you please briefly explain the scope of your expert analysis and
2 testimony in the five cases that are listed under section 7?
3 A. Your Honours, for four of these five cases the testimony and the
4 underlying report dealt with senior Serb suspects, by my role consisted
5 of providing an overall background focused on doctrine JNA SFRY Armed
6 Forces, and then to look at -- I mean to study on the basis of the
7 written evidence that was available to study and analyse to what extent
8 this de jure doctrine was applied in practice, and also to identify other
9 relevant issues as defined by the senior trial attorneys who would issue
10 the tasking to me. The fifth report, the case of Ante Gotovina,
11 Ivan Cermak, and Mladen Markac, the tasking was similar but in this case
12 it applied to senior members of the Croatian Armed Forces.
13 Q. Have you recently testified in any cases before this Tribunal and
14 if so could you please tell us the case name.
15 A. Your Honours, two weeks ago I testified in the review hearing in
16 the so-called Vukovar case, review hearing concerning
17 Mr. Veselin Sljivancanin.
18 Q. Did you complete a military analysis in this case?
19 A. Yes, indeed. Your Honours, I prepared a report which is now in
20 front of us.
21 Q. What was the scope of your analysis in this report?
22 A. The scope, Your Honours, is -- is discussed in the first section
23 scope and executive summary, and basically I have tried to do two things,
24 first of all to provide the military background, as I mentioned earlier
25 today what I would call due Jure, i.e., SFRY doctrinal armed forces
1 doctrinal issues which I considered relevant in the context of this case
2 as well as look at how this doctrine was implemented, call that the de
3 facto aspects, and in addition to that I then analysed the military
4 role -- or the military aspects, I'm sorry, the military aspects of the
5 role of Mr. Jovica Stanisic and Mr. Frenki Simatovic during the time
6 period that was given to me, i.e., from, say, early 1999 -- 1991 to
7 December 1995.
8 Q. Does your report analyse the organisational structure of the
9 Ministry of Interior of Serbia
10 A. No, Your Honours. My report does not look into that aspect.
11 Q. What methodology did you apply to the review and selection of
12 documents in this case?
13 A. The methodology I applied is generally known as the intelligence
14 cycle whereby there are four discrete phases, direction, collection,
15 processing, and dissemination, and whereby in the processing face which
16 is often defined as the analysis phase, there are five steps. I mean, I
17 can give them.
18 Q. Mr. Theunens, the Prosecution would like to discuss this with
19 you. What occurred during the direction phase in this case?
20 A. Basically direction consists of determining the focus of the
21 analysis or of the research project, and there I was tasked by
22 Ms. Brehmeier in the course of spring 2007 to prepare a military report
23 for this case. I -- in response I prepared a draft table of contents
24 which was basically -- which was mainly based on -- on reports I had done
25 for other cases involving senior Serb suspects. I tried to expand it and
1 also to focus it on the specific aspects of this case.
2 I submitted a draft table of contents to Ms. Brehmeier, she
3 agreed, and I used that then as the direction for my further research.
4 Q. Could you please explain how you completed the collection phase
5 of your analysis in this case?
6 A. Your Honours, during the collection I gathered information
7 whereby I confined myself to written information, i.e., again, looking at
8 the scope doctrinal regulations, military orders, military reports, open
9 sources, and any related documents, and I conducted searches in the
10 databases that were available in the Office of the Prosecutor, as well as
11 in some case on the internet in order to identify or to obtain additional
13 Q. Were any limits placed on your access to materials by the Office
14 of the Prosecutor?
15 A. No, Your Honours. The Office of the Prosecutor did not impose or
16 place any limits to my access to material.
17 Q. How were open-source materials in the form of books, news
18 articles, and recorded public statements relevant to your analysis?
19 A. I mean, traditionally in intelligence it is said that 80 per cent
20 of the material originates from open sources. Of course when dealing
21 with open sources one has to be very careful, and again that is also part
22 of the process I explained earlier, the intelligence cycle, because
23 obviously there is the risk of barriers and so on and so on, but also in
24 this particular context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, many
25 senior officials who played, yeah, an important role during the conflict
1 published memoirs or other books that covered their activities. Of
2 course, and again this is part of the process, when dealing with such
3 information one looks for, among other things, for corroboration from
4 other material, and there I think in the Office of the Prosecutor we are
5 in a privileged report because we have access original documents and
6 original reports, i.e., not secondary sources but original documents and,
7 yeah, open source can also provide context and they can provide lead
9 Q. Could you please explain the processing phase and the steps you
10 utilised to select and categorise materials for your report.
11 A. In the processing phase basically there are five steps
12 identified. The first one is collation. Just means that you organise
13 the material that you have available in a manner that it's easy to be
14 consulted. Can be that you make separate databases, spreadsheets,
15 binders, whatever.
16 Next and in my view much more important is the evaluation
17 phase -- sorry, the evaluation step where we look at two aspects, the
18 reliability of the source and the credibility of the information.
19 Obviously -- oh no, it's important -- sorry, it's important
20 notice that a reliable source can provide information of low credibility
21 and vice versa, and again this comes back to what I said earlier with the
23 After the evaluation, we're going to analyse the material, which
24 means that we're going to subject the information we have in front of us
25 to a mental process in order to identify relevant facts for subsequent
1 interpretation. This interpretation means that you will confront what
2 you know with the new information, and it could be that it basically says
3 the same or that it shows something different, and then at the end in the
4 integration phase a step -- excuse me, it's a step you're going to
5 combine the two and you draw conclusions. So interpretation basically
6 you're going to say, well, so what. What does it mean? What does this
7 new information mean? And then of course then it will have an impact or
8 it will change your body of knowledge.
9 Q. How did you assess the reliability of the materials that you
10 selected and cited in your report?
11 A. Reliability applies to the source, and again I think -- I mean
12 it's the same as research -- other academic research or academic research
13 is concerned, i.e., you're going to look at for example what is the
14 reputation of a source. If you have a source where there's doubtful
15 reputation, well you may handle the information provided by that source
16 with care. If you have a source with a good reputation, you may have
17 more trust in the information that source provide but as I said before, a
18 reliable source can still provide information of low credibility.
19 A second aspect would be what is the relation between the source
20 and the fact or the event that is included in the information? If you
21 have, for example, in this situation if you have -- if you have
22 information provided by what I would call the opposing side, you may
23 handle that with more care than when a unit commander is talking about
24 the activities of his own units.
25 The relation may also be -- may also cover the time aspects,
1 i.e., is it contemporaneous information or information has become
2 available much later. Is the source the first source or is he or she
3 basing himself on what somebody else has reported and so on and so on.
4 So there are various criteria you apply to determine the reliability of a
6 Q. Could you please explain the dissemination phase of the
7 intelligence cycle.
8 A. Dissemination basically means that you submit the product of your
9 work, i.e., your analysis in this case in written form to the one who has
10 requested that for you -- from you.
11 Q. Prior to the completion of the dissemination phase of your report
12 in this case, did the Office of the Prosecutor instruct you to revise or
13 include any analysis contained in your report?
14 A. No, Your Honours. The only kind of guidance I received is that
15 there were certain aspects where I wasn't sure whether that was -- I was
16 expected to cover that or the MUP expert was expected to cover that. So
17 I asked Ms. Brehmeier whether I would have to cover it or whether
18 somebody else did it and okay then I received an answer to the question,
19 but there was no intervention in the contents of the report.
20 Q. You mention that you have a binder here today in court. Does
21 this binder contain a copy of your report and would this assist you and
22 facilitate your testimony before the Tribunal?
23 A. Yes, Your Honours. It's a copy of my report I received from the
24 Office of the Prosecutor with exhibit numbers or P numbers MFIs added,
25 and since I arrived here I have been reading and marking it up to
1 facilitate my testimony.
2 Q. The Prosecution requests that during the course of your testimony
3 that you refer to the exhibit numbers as much as possible when you're
4 referring to an exhibit in order so that we could have a clear record of
5 the exhibit that you're referring to. You've explained the overview and
6 executive summary already in your report. Following the executive
7 summary, there is a table of contents. Could you please explain how
8 you'd structure your report using the table of contents.
9 A. Yes, Your Honours. It refers to what I explained earlier to the
10 scope so that the report stands with the background section which focuses
11 on the main doctrinal issues of SFRY Armed Forces, the JNA, consisting of
12 the JNA and the TO as well as volunteers. I also have a very briefly
13 touched upon armed forces of the Republic of Serbia
14 part I discuss the military aspects of the role of Mr. Jovica Stanisic
15 and Frenki Simatovic in the conflict in Croatia, and the third part
16 discusses the same role, however for the conflict or what
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders the
19 report of Mr. Theunens. We are willing at this time to tender into
20 evidence. We've uploaded it under 65 ter 5811.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, at this stage we would invite the
23 court to MFI it until after cross-examination, and then we might have
24 submission at that stage as to its admissibility depending upon what
25 Mr. Theunens says.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Likewise. The Simatovic Defence
3 proposes the same thing.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you live with a solution in which
5 we do not start arguing about admissibility until after we've heard the
6 testimony of Mr. Theunens and that we for the time being MFI the report.
7 MR. WEBER: That's fine, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And 5811, is that the copy of the report where the P
9 numbers are included?
10 MR. WEBER: It is.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the newest version with the blue P numbers,
12 at least on the screen they appear to me as blue. Madam Registrar,
13 65 ter 5811 would be MFI'd under what number?
14 THE REGISTRAR: That would be number P1575, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P1575 keeps the status of marked for identification.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. WEBER:
18 Q. In sections 1 and 2 on pages 2 to 79 of part 1 of your report,
19 you analyse the legislative and doctrinal framework of the armed forces
20 of the SFRY between the years of 1974 to 1990, and also the Republic of
22 you analysed in these two sections relate to your subsequent analysis of
23 events which occurred between 1991 and 1995?
24 A. This -- I mean, doctrine or military doctrine is defined as the
25 set of rules according to which armed forces operate or are supposed to
1 operate, and in this regard -- in context of this report for me, and
2 again this was not the first time I looked at it, I started with it --
3 with this when I arrived at -- I'm sorry, I started to include these
4 aspects in expert reports here within the OTP already from the first
5 report I drafted, report for the trial of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic.
6 I considered this doctrine essential in order to understand the
7 subsequent events that are discussed in part 2 and part 3, i.e., to
8 understand what are these armed forces, what is their mission, what --
9 how is command and control organised, what are their duties in relation
10 to international humanitarian law. Something like volunteers is a
11 concept that is popping up or is appearing systematically throughout the
12 conflict. I thought it was important to see whether there was any legal
13 basis for this concept, and if yes what was this legal basis. And I then
14 used this doctrinal and legal basis to review the actual events on the
15 basis of military reports, military orders, reports from the Ministry of
16 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
17 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
18 documents in order to describe and analyse the activities of a number of
19 units and groups during the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
20 Q. What is an ad hoc formation?
21 A. With ad hoc I mean that the formation or the -- or the unit or
22 the group is established for a specific mission. I should rephrase that.
23 Is established to carry out a specific mission in a specific area during
24 a specific time period, and it is established because it consists of
25 several sub-units or elements which outside the framework of the specific
1 mission do not necessarily operate together.
2 Q. According to JNA military manuals, in the 1981 JNA military
3 lexicon how were these ad hoc formations designated?
4 A. I mean, it's not only in the lexicon because the lexicon is just
5 a dictionary without, I would say, legal implications for military
6 officers but also the regulations I reviewed, and you can find them back
7 in the first part, they define even strategic groupings, but I haven't
8 addressed them in my report because they are in my view not relevant for
9 the -- in the context of this report but there are strategic groupings.
10 There are operational groups. There are tactical groups, assault
11 detachments and assault groups, and the names obviously -- or the how you
12 call it categorisation depends on the size and the composition of these
13 ad hoc units, but they all have in common that they're established for a
14 specific mission in a specific area during a specific time period.
15 Q. Directing your attention to section 2 of part 1 on page 70, you
16 state on this page of your report that:
17 "Article 118 of the 1991 Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia
18 implies that the Serbian volunteer paramilitary formations, including
19 groups led by Dragan and Arkan, or other formations that were controlled
20 by or linked otherwise to the MUP of Serbia could only be set up,
21 including recruitment of their members, and exist with the authorisation
22 and approval of the Serbian authorities in general and the MUP of Serbia
23 in particular."
24 My question to you is how did you reach this conclusion?
25 A. Your Honours, this conclusion is based on the material I reviewed
1 during the preparation of this report, and in addition, of course, to all
2 the documents you can find in part 2 and part 3 when I discuss the
3 activities of -- of these groups in particular Dragan's people and
4 Arkan's people as well as other groups which are discussed in part 2 and
5 part 3, and when I looked at -- at those documents in -- in one hand --
6 or one side and on the other hand Article 118, which is very
7 straightforward, it means that these volunteers/paramilitary - and just
8 to clarify I use paramilitary here as formations not foreseen by the law
9 which act in a military manner or are organised in a military manner or
10 conduct operations that -- or conduct military operations, sorry - that
11 they were established, and since based on the material I -- I reviewed
12 they existed for several years and after they were involved in Croatia
13 and their involvement was very much publicised, they became also involved
14 in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina implied for me that there was an
15 approval of their existence over several years, and again based then on
16 the -- on the duty of the ministry interior as well as other ministries
17 in the republic of Serbia
18 imply enforcing Article 118, I could only conclude that the ministry
19 of -- that the authorities at Republic of Serbia
20 of Interior approved not only the establishment but also the existence of
21 such groups.
22 Q. Turning to section 3 on pages 80 to 120 of part 1 of your report,
23 in this section you discuss the legal and factual background of Serbian
24 volunteers and paramilitaries. Did you reach any conclusions as to which
25 volunteer or paramilitary units were controlled by or related otherwise
1 to the Ministry of Interior of Serbia
2 A. Yes, I did, and maybe just to clarify I think the word "control,"
3 I haven't used it in a strict military sense, but since we were looking
4 at the situation which I would qualify as very much ad hoc, i.e., that
5 the existing legislation, I'm talking about legislation that existed
6 prior to August 1991, did not foresee the existence of such units, i.e.,
7 nonmilitary units carrying out military operations. We can see and again
8 that's discussed further on in that section that both on the level of the
9 Republic of Serbia
10 decrees or laws are adopted to legalise the existence of these
11 volunteer/paramilitary groups.
12 And again looking at the material that is included in part 2 and
13 3, I could only conclude that these groups existed with the approval --
14 and when I say these groups, okay, the focus is here on groups like
15 Dragan and Draganovci, Arkan and the Serbian Volunteer Guards, as well as
16 a group that became known as the Special Purpose Unit of the Ministry of
17 the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
18 Berets, yeah, obviously that these groups existed -- that these groups
19 existed with the -- sorry, with the knowledge and the approval of the
20 ministry of interior, and even more that they were controlled or linked
21 otherwise by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
22 Q. The Prosecution would like to discuss some examples of documents
23 which you reference in your report. Could the Prosecution please have
24 the first page of P1062 marked for identification shown to the witness.
25 The Prosecution requests that this document not be broadcast to the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, in order to avoid whatever conclusion,
3 when you earlier referred to section 3 starting on page 80, you had on
4 your mind the page numbered 80 of the first part of the report. Is
5 that -- that means that the -- more or less the summary has its own
6 numbering. Then we are talking here about the -- about one of the
7 report, because the numbering of part 2 and part 3 is different. We
8 often refer to e-court page numbers, but this certainly is not an e-court
9 number. So could you -- if you use actual page numbers in the hard
10 copies, could you always indicate in what section were the first, the
11 second, or the third we are so that we -- that those who will read the
12 transcript are able to find what we are talking about.
13 MR. WEBER: I will, Your Honour. I will try to make clear at
14 least for the time being the page number within the section and part of
15 the report, and as I go on, I will try to incorporate the e-court pages
16 if it's okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- which would then result in second
18 part or hard copy, second part, page so-and-so, e-court page so-and-so,
19 because the e-court numbering goes on to 426.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, of course I could read out the ERN
21 number of the page if that --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, for purposes of searching, I think e-court and
23 hard copy pages are of assistance, whereas ERN numbers may be of less
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER: Mr. Theunens, the document that is now before you is
2 Exhibit P1062, marked for identification. What is this document?
3 A. Your Honours, this is a report, information report drafted by the
4 security administration of the SFRY Armed Forces with the title "Some
5 Information on Daniel Snedden, Australian Citizen, alias Captain Dragan,"
6 and it's sent to the federal secretary for peoples or for national
7 defence army general Veljko Kadijevic, and as well as a number of other
8 addressees but they are not visible on e-court.
9 Q. What information is contained in the first paragraph of this
10 report which describes a relationship between Daniel Snedden, aka
11 Captain Dragan, and the MUP of Serbia
12 A. The first paragraph, Your Honours, discusses the role of Dragan
13 in the training of what is called a special unit of the SAO Krajina MUP
14 in Golubic, and -- and there's also reference to his alleged connections
15 with the -- with organs of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic
16 of Serbia
17 Q. If we could please have the footnote on the bottom of this page.
18 Which individuals from the MUP of Serbia are in this footnote which the
19 text states were engaged in the same mission as Captain Dragan?
20 A. Your Honours, two individuals are mentioned. First Franko
21 Simatovic, also known as Frenki, and secondly, Dragoljub Filipovic also
22 known as Fico.
23 Q. Do you know how Dragoljub Filipovic was also known as based on
24 the other materials you reviewed in your report?
25 A. Your Honours, I have seen Fico and Fica.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 in the
2 English and B/C/S versions of this exhibit.
3 Q. Does this report indicate how the DB of Serbia initially made
4 operative contact with Captain Dragan?
5 A. Yes, it does, Your Honours. It indicates that they were first
6 monitoring his behaviour and that subsequently afterward, after he
7 altered his previous orientation they established operative contact with
9 Q. The Prosecution would now like to show you Exhibit P992 in
11 This document that is now before you, could you please identify
13 A. Your Honours, this document is a request by Captain Dragan to the
14 Ministry of Interior -- excuse me, to the command of the Territorial
15 Defence of the Republic of Serbia
16 Q. In this document, it refers to the Bubanj Potok centre. Do you
17 know where this is located?
18 A. The Bubanj Potok centre is located near Belgrade in Serbia
19 Q. How does Captain Dragan define his status according to this
21 A. Yeah, Dragan expresses a request, I think, to kind of maintain
22 the image he had maintained by then, I mean by the date of the document,
23 and he refers to what he identifies as obligations towards the state
24 security of the Republic of Serbia
25 activities in relation with the TO of the Republic of Serbia
1 fully in accordance with these obligations.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P1069 marked for
3 identification shown to the witness. This document is referred to in
4 e-court pages 120 to 121.
5 Q. Mr. Theunens, these are the minutes of a meeting between
6 ministers of defence of the Republic of Serbia Tomislav Simovic and
7 Captain Dragan. What topics were discussed at this meeting between
8 Captain Dragan and Minister Simovic?
9 A. Yeah. I mean there are three topics which are identified on the
10 first page. The work of the Captain Dragan Fund, last engagement of
11 Captain Dragan, and his -- the possibilities of his further engagement.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
13 minutes in both English and B/C/S.
14 Q. Mr. Theunens, directing your attention to the middle of page 2 of
15 the English version, does this document also indicate who invited
16 Captain Dragan to Serbia
17 A. Yes. According to this document he was invited by the state
18 security of the Republic of Serbia
19 Q. According to these minutes, who was Captain Dragan collaborating
20 with in -- when he came to the Republic of Serbia
21 A. According to the document, there is mention of a Stanisic. Now,
22 based on -- on the context we are talking about, I concluded that this is
23 Mr. Jovica Stanisic, as well as Radmilo Bogdanovic, who is also a
24 minister of interior.
25 Q. Does this document continue to describe any assignment that
1 Captain Dragan had after he arrived?
2 A. Indeed. Reference is made to the training of volunteers as well
3 as activities in co-operation with Milan Martic. So the minister of the
4 interior of the SAO Krajina at the time and Milan Babic the prime
5 minister of the SAO Krajina at the time, and these activities as they are
6 described here are coherent in what we see in other documents that are
7 discussed in my report when I discovered this document here.
8 Q. Based on the content of these minutes and other exhibits you
9 reference in your report, can you determine the approximate date of this
11 A. Your Honours, in my report, and this is part 1, page 99, footnote
12 278, I state that this meeting must have taken place before December
13 1991, because on the previous page in P1066, Mr. Simovic -- I mean
14 General Simovic, who was then the minister of defence of the Republic of
16 question he asked in his position as member of the Assembly, on the
17 activities of Dragan, and this is P1066 MFI. There Simovic refers to his
18 proposal that Dragan would train volunteers, Serb Krajina volunteers, in
19 Bubanj Potok within the existing system.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of this --
21 of the English version. Excuse me.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, Mr. Weber, could you also have a look at
23 the clock and find a suitable within the next two or three minutes to
24 have a break.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. What conclusion was reached by Minister Simovic at the end of
2 these minutes?
3 A. Yeah. The conclusion is that -- I mean, for the minister that
4 it's not a question whether Dragan should be engaged, i.e., in the
5 training of volunteers, or -- but actually how this should be done, and
6 he refers to the need for additional consultations on this issue.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if it's okay with the Trial Chamber,
8 this would be a suitable time.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will have a break, and we will resume at
11 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Apologies for the late start. Please proceed,
14 Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit D31 in
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, on pages 105 to 107 of part 1 of your report,
18 e-court page 128 to 130, in your analysis of Arkan's relationship to the
19 MUP of Serbia
20 security organs. These are exhibits P327, P328, D31 in evidence, and
21 P1061, P1077, P1078, and P1079 marked for identification.
22 Directing your attention to Exhibit D31 which is now before you,
23 could you please identify this document.
24 A. Your Honours, this is a report or information by the security
25 organ of the 1st Military District dated the 19th of October, 1991
1 is submitted to three addressees identified at the top of the page. The
2 first department of the security administration, the third department of
3 the security administration, as well as the security organs of the 1st
4 Military District.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have the lower portion
6 of the English translation.
7 Q. Does this report indicate who is supplying Arkan with weapons and
9 A. Indeed. According to this report, weapons, ammunition, and mines
10 and explosives are, according to what Arkan stated to the -- the person
11 who was in contact with him, supplied by the Ministry of the Interior and
12 the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
13 Q. According to this report, what is Arkan doing with those weapons
14 and ammunition that are being supplied to him?
15 A. Arkan is reportedly distributing them to local Serb TO staffs in
16 a number of municipalities in Eastern Slavonia, Erdut, Sarvas, and Borovo
18 Q. You just stated on page 30, lines 15 and 16, according to the
19 person who is in contact with him. According to this information here,
20 who is the source of the information about these weapons and ammunition?
21 A. I think I answered the question that the weapons and ammunition
22 originate from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior
23 of the Republic of Serbia
24 Q. Yes, but according to this report, who is the source of the
1 A. Ah, I'm sorry. It's 2nd Lieutenant Goran Blagojevic, who is a
2 security organ in the Savska Venac local TO staff, and okay the
3 Bratsvo Jedinstvo Bridge
4 in the document but I was stationed during a certain time period in
5 Eastern Slavonia
6 separating Slavonia
7 Q. Actually, directing your attention to the paragraph that begins
8 "during several consecutive contacts with Arkan he stated."
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10 Q. Does -- what does this statement indicate to you as to the source
11 of the information as contained in this report?
12 A. That Arkan provided information to the -- I mean, I oversaw that,
13 that Arkan provide the information to the 2nd lieutenant.
14 Q. What relationship, if any, did the Ministry of Defence of Serbia
15 have with the JNA or the VJ?
16 A. I have not analysed that for this report, but when I prepared a
17 similar report for the trial of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, basically the
18 Ministry of Defence acted as a -- as a facilitator to assist the local
19 Serbs in Krajina and also Slavonia
20 organising or setting up arms structures, as well as recruiting
21 volunteers whereby requests were regularly sent by these local Serbs to
22 the Ministry of Defence, who would then -- of the Republic of Serbia
23 sorry, who would then forward them to I think that some kind of a
24 co-ordination body was organised which would then forward them to the
25 JNA. And some of these requests may also have been forwarded by the
1 republic of -- excuse me, by the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1077
4 marked for identification. The Prosecution requests that this document
5 not be broadcast to the public.
6 Q. Mr. Theunens, with respect to the next exhibit, could you please
7 not refer to the name of the source of the information in this report.
8 Could you please identify the exhibit and the subject matter of
9 the report that now appears before you.
10 A. It's another information report compiled by security organs.
11 It's identified there as -- I mean at the top left corner is 1st Army,
12 but it should actually been -- oops -- the 1st Military District,
13 security organ, 19th of November, 1992, and it is sent to a number of
14 addressees in the Main Staff -- or actually it should be the General
15 Staff of the Yugoslav Army, as well as security organ of the 1st Army. I
16 think there is some -- some confusion at that time, because I remember
17 the VJ was restructuring from military districts to armies and that's why
18 there seems to be some confusion with the author whether it's a military
19 district or an army. I mean, it's just a detail but it deals with or it
20 covers indications re: the establishment of what is defined as a
21 Serbian Army centre as well as criminal activities.
22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the B/C/S
23 original and page 3 of the English version of this exhibit, specifically
24 the top half the page.
25 Q. Mr. Theunens, what is discussed in the first paragraph of the
1 English version on this page?
2 A. The first paragraph discusses criminal activity conducted on the
3 territory of SBWS
4 identified as registered criminals and smugglers and who, according to
5 the document, have call it links or connections with leaders of the MUP
6 of the Republic of Serbia
7 as well as officials in the government of the RSK, SBWS, and UNPROFOR and
8 the VJ.
9 Q. Could you please read out the names of the individuals who are
10 identified in the sentence, "They are closely connected with top leaders
11 of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
12 A. The names are Stanisic, Loncarevic, Prica, and Kostic, Radoslav.
13 Q. And respect to the government of the RSK in the Serbian region of
15 individuals that are contained in this document.
16 A. Goran Hadzic, who was at the time the president of the RSK;
17 Ilija Kojic, then last names are given, Zivanovic, Radlovic, Spanovic,
18 and Milanovic.
19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have the lower portion
20 of this document.
21 Q. In the footnote on this page does it identify who the registered
22 criminals are that are being refer to?
23 A. Indeed, I mean, a number of names are given there, Arkan, the
24 Dimitrije brothers, Zika Ivanovic, and then yeah, additional names are
1 Q. What are the additional names?
2 A. A Bozovic and a Loginov.
3 Q. And what does this footnote continue to state about those
5 A. The footnote states that they have SDB State Security Service
6 membership cards and that they go to the territory of the Republic of
8 Q. Mr. Theunens, please go ahead and continue explaining the
10 A. Okay. There's also a reference to an aka Cope, who is owner of a
11 few private companies in Belgrade
12 again to the criminals or the term "criminals." There's aka Frenki, aka
13 Carli, Lainovic Branko and Ranko who are smuggling drugs and goods from
14 it says there Western Bosnia.
15 Q. In this footnote it mentions Zika Ivanovic. Based on your
16 analysis in this case do you know who this individual is and what other
17 names he is known by?
18 A. I have seen, I mean, Zivojin Ivanovic, and he was mentioned in
19 connections to units identified as special -- unit -- a unit, excuse me,
20 as a Special Purpose Unit of the MUP of Serbia and that was also -- I
21 mean, his name was then -- not an aka, it was -- or an aka was Crnogorac
22 which means Montenegrin.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1075
24 marked for --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I perhaps seek first some clarification.
1 Apparently what we see in the footnote, Mr. Theunens, is the listing of
2 the criminals. Is that, I have to understand it, Arkan, the Dimitrije
3 brothers, all closely related to?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, because if we would move back to
5 the top of the page we see that this asterisk or the star --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: -- is put there after the word criminal so --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: -- they are specified in the footnote.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I find in the footnote the name of
11 Loginov and Loginov further in the text is referred to as someone in the
12 UNPROFOR as apparently a person with whom the criminals had close
13 contact. Is that -- now, I find him both on the list of the criminals
14 and on the -- apparently the important persons these criminals had links
15 to. That confuses me, but --
16 THE WITNESS: Could we go in closed session, Your Honours?
17 JUDGE ORIE: We can go into closed session. We move into closed
18 session, and you explain in closed session why we have to be in closed
20 Private session will do, I take it.
21 THE WITNESS: Or private, yeah. Something that is not public.
22 JUDGE ORIE: At least the content. They will still see you. One
23 second. One second, please.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 8075-8076 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Mr. --
4 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, it would be our position that that
5 could be and should be evidence that's in a public session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The evidence as we have heard it until now --
7 perhaps not to discuss this in open session, Mr. Jordash. That's --
8 because it then goes to the details. Let me -- let's return for a second
9 into private session.
10 [Private session]
11 Pages 8078-8079 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
22 MR. WEBER: May I continue, Your Honour?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Continue. Mr. Weber, please proceed.
24 MR. WEBER: Thank you. Could the Prosecution please have P1075
25 marked for identification.
1 Q. Mr. Theunens, this exhibit is referenced in parts 1, 2, and 3 of
2 your report and discussed on pages 101 and 102 of part 1. The e-court
3 page is page 124 and 125.
4 Directing your attention to the first few lines of this document,
5 are you able to determine which security organ was the originator of this
7 A. Your Honours, it was my -- my conclusion that this document had
8 been compiled by a member of the security organs of the VJ.
9 Q. What is the subject of this report?
10 A. The subject is -- it's a report on the formation of the JCO, a
11 special operations unit of the RDB, republican state security of Serbia
12 and interesting data for security.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 9 of the
14 English version and page 6 of the B/C/S original.
15 Q. Are you able to determine the approximate date of this report
16 based on its contents?
17 A. Yes. We can see in title 5 that reference is made to an event
18 that took place on the 4th and the 13th of May, 1996, which means that
19 the report has to date from after the 13th of May, 1996. I think there's
20 also another reference in the document to May 1996.
21 Q. What is discussed in section 5 of this report?
22 A. It discusses an award ceremony by people or members -- no.
23 Sorry. People receive awards from the Ministry of Interior and the
24 Republic of Serbia
25 Q. Does this report indicate whether or not there is a laying of any
2 A. Indeed, Your Honours. In the second and the third line following
3 title 5, there is reference to a wreath which is laid in the centre in
4 Kula at the monument of Mr. Radoslav Kostic, and he is then identified.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 10 of the
6 English translation and remain on the same page of the B/C/S original.
7 Q. Does this page indicate anyone who were award recipients at this
9 A. Yes. A number of names are given, Milorad Ulemek also known as
10 Legija, who is then described as Arkan's general; Predrag Baklajic, also
11 known as Baklaja, who is identified as the head of a terrorist group in
12 Kordun, and apparently he has been liquidated. And then also a
13 Milan Letica who has, according to the document, also been liquidated in
14 a mutual showdown in Eastern Slavonia.
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the
16 English translation of this document and page 2 of the B/C/S version
17 shown to the witness. If we could please have the bottom half of the
18 English translation.
19 Q. What is discussed in section 2 of this report?
20 A. Section 2 discusses as the title states paramilitary units and
21 groups and their connection with the special units of the republican
22 state security and the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
24 Q. What does this section say about those groups?
25 A. It identifies a number of these groups and then discusses in
1 general terms their activities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e.,
2 the territory of the RSK and RS during which -- I mean during these
3 activities according to the document they remained in direct contact with
4 the republican state security and the Ministry of the Interior of the
5 Republic of Serbia
6 Q. Which groups are identified?
7 A. It starts off with the SDG, so the Serbian Volunteer Guard, under
8 Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and then the special unit of the Ministry of
9 Interior which is under the command of someone who is described as the
10 self-appointed Colonel Vasilije Mijovic, the Red Berets, and then a
11 special under the command of Zika Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac,
12 excuse me, Crnogorac, and then a unit described as the paramilitary unit
13 of Slobodan Medic, also known as Boca.
14 Q. Based on your review of materials in this case, were any of these
15 units ever brought together for any combat operations?
16 A. I don't have an exact recollection that they were all present at
17 the same time in one particular location, but for example -- I mean, one
18 good example which I've discussed in my report is the Pauk command which
19 is established in the course of November 1994 in Western Bosnia
21 corresponding groups operate together under a -- a Joint Command in a
22 co-ordinated manner with units of the VRS and the SVK.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution has completed its
24 examination of part 1 of the Theunens report, and at this time the
25 Prosecution would tender exhibits from this part. We are able to go
1 through these in certain ranges if it's easier for the Chamber to
2 facilitate the tendering. The exhibits being tendered are those to which
3 there is no objection by either the Stanisic or the Simatovic Defence.
4 The Prosecution tenders Exhibits P1010 to P1047, and we request
5 that P1046 and P1047 remain under seal.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Does this -- the numbers reflect the documents which
7 are not opposed to. Then --
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before I make a mistake, P1010, up to and including
10 P1047 are admitted into evidence. P1046 and P1047 under seal.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders P1051 to 1052,
12 P1054 to P1057 requesting that Exhibit P1051 remain under seal.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Again looking at the Defence, apparently no
14 objections. P1051, P1052, P1054, P1055, P1056, and P1057 are admitted
15 into evidence. P1051 under seal.
16 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders P1062 to P1064, P1066, P1074,
17 and P1076 to P1079, and we request that Exhibits P1062, P1064, and P1076
18 to P1079 remain under seal.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P1062 up to and including P1064 are admitted into
20 evidence, the first and the last under seal. P1063 as a public document.
21 P1066, P1074 are admitted into evidence. P1076 up to and including P1079
22 are admitted into evidence, all four under seal.
23 MR. WEBER: May I continue, Your Honour?
24 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm a bit. There is some confusion, Mr. Weber.
25 I think I heard you say, that's at least what we find on the record,
1 P1054 to P1057, which would include P1055, is that correct?
2 MR. WEBER: Correct.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then this resolves confusion between the Chamber and
5 MR. WEBER: The last --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Have I dealt with everything, Mr. Weber?
7 MR. WEBER: There is one last segment of exhibits from part 1.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. WEBER: It's P1081 to P1082, P1086 to P1089, and
10 Exhibit P1091. We are requesting that -- and all those can be admitted
11 as public exhibits.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. P1081, P1082, P1086 up to and including
13 P1089 and P1091 are admitted as public documents. Then later I take it
14 that we get a list of the documents which should -- are not tendered yet
15 and which will -- there will be further submissions. Please proceed.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, in part 2 of your report you discuss the contextual
18 developments throughout the conflict in Croatia. Today the Prosecution
19 will first focus on particular developments and aspects of the conflict
20 in the Serb Autonomous Region of the Krajina and then the SAO SBWS.
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1101,
22 marked for identification.
23 Q. While the exhibit's --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, one short remark. The last document we
25 had on our screen on which you asked questions has bit of an odd way of
1 translating. Sometimes abbreviations such as SRK are translated by SRK.
2 Sometimes when you find in the original MUP you'll find not an
3 abbreviation in the translation but -- or RDB is not transposed as RDB
4 and then with an explanation but just gives the full explanation of the
5 text, and it's the way in which that document is translated is not very
6 consistent, and I would like you to have a look at those inconsistencies.
7 MR. WEBER: Thank you for mentioning that and I understand, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Prior to the commencement of hostilities, were there any changes
12 in the structure of the police and the Territorial Defence in Croatia
13 A. Your Honours, as a very general conclusion, one can say that
14 starting in the spring 1991, local Serbs start to set up their own
15 structures, own police and/or Territorial Defence structures in areas
16 where they have a significant presence. In some areas they do it
17 themselves. In other areas they remove the Croats or -- in -- in other
18 areas the Croats abandon the existing structures themselves. And there
19 are examples listed in the document -- in the report, I'm sorry, to
20 explain how this affects the creation of a local Serb TO in an area which
21 became known as the SAO Krajina, as well as the SAO SBWS and the SAO
22 Western Slavonia
23 Q. Turning your attention to the exhibit that is now before you
24 which is discussed on page 22 of part 2, e-court page 165, could you
25 please tell us what this document is?
1 A. This document is -- is a -- I mean, as the title says, an order
2 issued by Dr. Milan Babic, who is the President of the Executive Board of
3 the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina. This is at the very early
4 stages. It's from April -- the 1st of April, 1991.
5 Q. Under the conclusion, are there any requests that are contained
6 in this document?
7 A. Milan Babic requests the government of the Republic of Serbia
8 that forces of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
9 technical and personnel support to the secretariat of interior of the
10 Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina.
11 Q. On this same day, that being the 1st of April, 1991, were there
12 any other decisions issued by the SAO Krajina Executive Council?
13 A. I think further on in my report -- I thought I put a note here,
14 but there's also a decision to include the Serb autonomous region of
15 Krajina into the Republic of Serbia
16 page 26 basically. It's P1107. Page 26 of part 2.
17 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P426 into
19 Q. This exhibit is referenced on page 65 of part 2 of your report,
20 which is e-court page 208.
21 Mr. Theunens, this is a proposal to set up a new training centre,
22 dated 27 May 1991
23 A. We would have to go to the end of the document.
24 MR. WEBER: If we could please have the next page briefly.
25 THE WITNESS: It's -- as we can see it at the bottom it's sent by
1 Captain Dragan Vasiljkovic to a number of addressees.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. While we are on this page, could you please tell us who the
4 addressees on this document are.
5 A. They're not -- I mean, they are titles, but the names of the
6 persons are not given, so it's the president of the Municipal Assembly,
7 which would most likely be the Municipal Assembly in Knin. The secretary
8 of the SUP, which would most likely be Mr. Milan Martic. The security
9 service. It's -- I know that there was a -- a kind of a -- of a State
10 Security Service in the Krajina at the time, but it was not fully
11 organised. So it's not -- not possible for me to be more precise there.
12 And then the commander of the Territorial Defence, which at least
13 according to the document should have been Milan Babic at the time.
14 MR. WEBER: Could we please return to the first page.
15 Q. Does Captain Dragan discuss any special units of the SAO Krajina
16 in this proposal?
17 A. Yes, he does, in the -- in the second paragraph on the first
19 MR. WEBER: Could we please have the lower portion of the first
20 page of this document.
21 Q. What is the proposal?
22 A. It's twofold. I mean, Dragan proposes how the unit should be
23 composed. I mean, active and activated or reserve members. And he also
24 gives a number of tasks in relation here more specifically the training
25 centre and the fortress.
1 Q. According to this proposal, where would the training of these
2 special units take place?
3 A. It would take place in Golubic, which is near Knin Krajina.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1117 in
6 Q. Mr. Theunens, the next exhibit is a decision to form Special
7 Purpose Police Units of the SAO Krajina dated 29 May 1991. According to
8 this decision, which is now appearing before you. Who had authority over
9 these newly formed Special Purpose Units of the SAO Krajina MUP?
10 A. As you said in the third line under decision they would be under
11 the authority of the Ministry of Defence, and I've highlighted that in my
12 report. It coincides with the appointment of Milan Martic, who was
13 already secretary of the interior. Here now he's appointed minister of
14 defence on the same day.
15 Q. Is this decision on the election of Milan Martic as the minister
16 of defence, dated 29 May 1991
17 for identification. I believe this is on page 33.
18 A. Yeah. P1116. Yeah, indeed.
19 Q. Did Milan Martic maintain any other positions throughout 1991
20 besides the one listed on this document, or in P1116?
21 A. Yes. I mean, he was -- as I mentioned, he was first secretary of
22 internal affairs and then because the names were changed, this happened
23 also in Serbia
24 is P1119, on the 27th of June, 1991, he was -- I put it as re-elected
25 minister of interior of the SAO Krajina, and that is P1118. And this is
1 discussed on page 34 of part 2 of my report.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1179
3 marked for identification.
4 Q. Mr. Theunens, the exhibit that is being brought up before you is
5 discussed on pages 67 and 68 of part 2 of your report. This is e-court
6 page 210 to 211. Could you please tell us what this document is.
7 A. This is a note, and I think on the bottom it will be marked -- it
8 is marked that it was sent by -- or compiled by Dragan Vasiljkovic.
9 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
10 English version.
11 Q. Are you able to determine the approximate date of this note based
12 on its contents and your review of other documents referenced in your
14 A. Yeah. On this page one can see under the third line says, "I
15 suggest," and then there is a heading 1. Dragan uses the future tense
16 for the date of the 23rd of June, which would mean that it has been
17 compiled prior to the 23rd of June, 1991.
18 Q. Based on the content of this note, did you reach any conclusions
19 as to which state security department it was sent to?
20 A. Well, Your Honours, I looked at this document in the context of
21 the other documents, and some of them we have discussed this afternoon,
22 and my conclusion is that this document is sent to the state security of
23 the Republic of Serbia
24 talks about, for example, Milan Martic, Frenki, I considered it again in
25 the context of the other documents unlikely that he would address Milan
1 Martic -- or address, I mean -- discuss Milan Martic in a document sent
2 to the state security of the SAO Krajina.
3 Q. What does Captain Dragan suggest as a programme for further
4 training for special units on this page?
5 A. Yeah. He makes a suggestion -- I mean, I can read it out if you
6 want, but he makes a suggestion on how the structures -- I mean the
7 instructors should be used. He also, I mean further on, suggests that
8 he, Milan Martic and Frenki and what he describes as influential Specials
9 should give advice to the units in the field about -- in relation to
10 future development -- further development. Yeah, I mean I discuss it on
11 page 67 in my report. So I'm just referring to that now if there's
12 anything I want to add. No.
13 MR. WEBER: Okay. Could the Prosecution please have
14 Exhibit P1186, marked for identification.
15 Q. Mr. Theunens, the Prosecution will now show you three exhibits
16 and then ask you about what these documents demonstrate. The first
17 exhibit which is now before you is Exhibit P1186. It is a 19 July 1991
18 report from Glina which is discussed on page 70 of part 2, which is
19 e-court page 213. Could you please tell us what information is contained
20 in this report?
21 A. Dragan provides an overview of the -- of the current situation in
22 Glina where he gives an overview of the incidents and other events that
23 have happened in the previous days -- or in the past.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
25 English translation.
1 Q. Directing your attention to the bottom of the original document
2 which is on the top of the English translation, could you please tell us
3 who is on the addressee list of this exhibit?
4 A. Dragan has -- or included five addressees. The first is the
5 secretary of the SUP of the SAO Krajina which -- who is -- I mean which
6 is Milan Martic. The commander -- the second is the commander of the SAO
7 Krajina TO, which would be Milan Babic. The second -- the third, I'm
8 sorry, third is identified as Frenki, then fourth we have Major Fica,
9 Fica, I'm sorry, and then there is a security officer. Now, it's not
10 clear what he means by "security officer." And, okay, the Major Fica in
11 my conclusion is the same -- is the Fico we saw earlier in the SSNO
12 security organs document from August 1991, Dragan Filipovic.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P1121, marked for
15 Q. Exhibit P1121 is a report of the SAO Krajina TO staff, dated 19
16 July 1991. It is referenced on page 71 of part 2 of your report, e-court
17 page 214.
18 Could you please tell us who are the addressees on this report.
19 A. It starts with the president of the council of the People's
20 Committee of the SAO Krajina. I have to confess that I didn't look into
21 detail into that title. It's my understanding that this is Milan Babic.
22 Then there's the secretary of the SUP for the SAO Krajina, aka
24 state security. The commander of the TO SAO Krajina, which was also
25 Milan Babic at the time because there was no staff yet, military staff
1 for the TO of the SAO Krajina. And then Frenki.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1122,
3 marked for identification.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Theunens, you said ODB could
5 stand for. Does it stand for, and if it stands for DB, is that state
6 security, and what stands the O for? We have no -- because in the
7 translation we see that the abbreviation is unknown to the translator,
8 and I would like to abuse your presence or perhaps the parties could even
9 agree on what ODB exactly stands for.
10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm not sure whether I was confused, whether
11 we still have the same --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. We have a different document now --
13 THE WITNESS: But it explains --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the abbreviation, one of the -- was the
15 ODB. Now -- oh, here we have -- yes. Yes, because here apparently the
16 interpreter knows what ODB stands for.
17 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's a pity --
18 JUDGE ORIE: State security department.
19 THE WITNESS: It should have clarified that before, but ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in the previous document the ODB is apparently
21 an unknown abbreviation which surprised me a bit, but --
22 MR. JORDASH: If it assists, we agree.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Everyone agrees. Yes. So it not only could stand
24 for but it does stand for. Okay.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. What is the document that now appears before you? The
3 Prosecution brought it up as P1122.
4 A. Okay. It's another -- it's a situation report. I mean, you can
5 see at the bottom of the screen situation report covering the situation
6 5, 6 of August 1991, compiled by -- okay, a body known as the SAO Krajina
7 TO staff, but again I explained in my report a military commander is only
8 appointed in September, and this is dated the 6th of August, 1991.
9 Q. Who is on the addressee list for this document?
10 A. The term Supreme Commander SAO Krajina TO is used, who is Milan
11 Babic. The secretary of the SAO Krajina SUP, Milan Martic. The ODB, as
12 discussed. The commander of the TO where I'm not able to -- to identify
13 him because I'm not sure at which level we're talking. And then Frenki.
14 Q. Okay. What do the last three exhibits demonstrate about the
15 reporting system that may have existed between the individuals listed on
16 these reports?
17 A. Well, the documents show that attempts are made to establish and
18 to have a reporting system function and that the reports are sent to a
19 number of people. And as I mentioned earlier in the reports, such
20 reports are sent on a need-to-know basis, i.e., they are sent to people
21 who have a need to know the information in order to prepare their
22 decision making and planning and that -- okay, Milan Babic, Milan Martic,
23 as well as Frenki are among these people.
24 Q. What co-ordination if any, do these documents illustrate?
25 A. It's difficult to answer. I mean, the question, it shows -- the
1 documents showed that, I assume you're referring to Frenki, that Frenki
2 has a need to know what is happening in the Krajina, what the units of
3 the SAO Krajina are doing, and over a longer time period. I mean, we
4 have seen documents covering different time periods.
5 Q. On pages 24 and 25 of part 2, this is e-court page -- pages 167
6 and 168, you discuss Exhibit P1105, a decision to apply the law of
7 defence of the Republic of Serbia
8 Pursuant to Article 5 of this decision, what units officially constituted
9 the armed forces of the SAO Krajina as of the 1st of August, 1991?
10 A. The armed forces of the SAO Krajina as explained in Article 5 of
11 P1105 consists of the SAO Krajina Territorial Defence and the Special
12 Purpose Units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the SAO Krajina.
13 Q. On page 45 of part 2 of your report, e-court page 188, you state
14 the following opinion:
15 "In many parts of the combat zone in Croatia, the JNA established
16 operational OG and tactical groups and in some areas also assault
17 detachments JOD and assault groups to create the conditions for or
18 restore and maintain (and unified) command over all forces involved in
19 combat operations."
20 My question to you is what do you mean by the word "restore" in
21 this opinion?
22 A. I mean by this that single authority is one of the three
23 principles of command and control in the SFRY Armed Forces. Now, since
24 in an earlier question you asked -- we see that local -- the local Serbs
25 or the Serbs in Krajina as well as Western Slavonia and SBWS established
1 their own structures. This doesn't happen everywhere as smooth as it was
2 maybe intended to happen, and so it means that -- I mean, the
3 implications are there are different groups existing at different times,
4 and since we are -- or there are combat operations ongoing and they are
5 intensifying after summer 1991, there is a need to bring all these units
6 which may not have existed before, to bring all these units under single
7 command or single authority. Yeah, single command and control.
8 Q. The Prosecution does not have a substantial number of further
9 questions for you today regarding the events in the SAO SBWS. The
10 Prosecution's next questions will mainly relate to your analysis of the
11 relationship between Arkan and the SDG to the JNA in this region.
12 According to the materials referenced in your report, are there
13 indications that Arkan and the SDG were subordinated to operational
14 groups of the JNA during combat operations in the region of the SBWS.
15 A. In my report I explain that the JNA was organised in two
16 operational groups during the combat in Slavonia, Baranja -- yeah,
18 and an Operational Group South with the Vuka River
19 into being the -- the boundary between the two operational groups, and
20 Arkan during combat operations acted under the command of Operational
21 Group North. I don't have any specific documents on his subordination
22 during combat operations led by OG North, but I have a reference in the
23 second part of my report on page 94 to a speech, the command of
24 Operational Group North General Andrija Biorcevic made in January 1992
25 where he -- I mean the wording he uses indicates subordination of Arkan
1 to OG North-led combat operations at the time.
2 The other documents I discuss in my reports -- report, and these
3 are mainly reports by security organs of the 1st Military District,
4 indicate that there is -- that Arkan is doing a number of things without
5 being subordinated to the JNA.
6 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P327 in
7 evidence. The Prosecution requests that this document not be broadcast
8 to the public.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I notice that one of the -- one of the
10 previous documents bears the stamps of under what number they are
11 admitted in other case, and that's something we try to avoid, as you may
12 be aware of. So therefore, if a better copy could be uploaded.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I see that also. And just so it's on
14 the record, it's Exhibit P1122 and we will look into that over the next
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because otherwise it leads to all kinds of
17 confusion, at least that's a risk.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. On page 89 of part 2 of your report you reference this exhibit.
21 It's e-court page 232. Could you please identify this exhibit and tell
22 us the subject of the report.
23 A. This is a report compiled by a security organ of a logistic
24 sector. It's not specified but it should be logistic sector or the
25 logistic centre of the 1st Military District of the JNA, and it's
1 information on Zeljko Raznjatovic, also known as Arkan, with a number of
2 observations which they then send to the security administration OB, so
3 at the level of the SSNO, security which is also at the SSNO, and
4 indeed -- that's it is.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
6 English translation.
7 Q. Mr. Theunens, the Prosecution's question to you relates to the
8 top paragraph. How does this report describe Arkan's relationship with
9 the 51st Motorised Brigade?
10 A. According to the report, Arkan behaves cynically and tyrannically
11 towards the members of the 51st Motorised Brigade, whereby he actually
12 also kicked two officers of that brigade out of the office.
13 Q. Now, continuing to the next paragraph, does this report describe
14 any independent actions taken by Arkan and his group?
15 A. It does. It has to be -- I mean, just to provide some context,
16 by the 1st of October large parts of the AO, the area of responsibility,
17 sorry, of OG North are fully under JNA control. There is no more
18 fighting, so there are no more combat operations. And as this document
19 indicates, Arkan and his group are active there independently and doing
20 certain things. As is explained here they are visiting Croatian houses,
21 interrogating the inhabitants there, and according to the document, they
22 are committing crimes against them.
23 Q. If I could please have the lower half of the English translation.
24 In the second paragraph from the bottom of the translation, does
25 this report indicate who the JNA members think is supporting Arkan?
1 A. Yes, according to the document JNA members think that Arkan is
2 doing what he's doing, or as described in the document, with the full
3 support of the SDB, the State Security Service of Serbia.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, this completes the Prosecution's
5 examination of part 2 of the report. Whatever Your Honours would like me
6 to do. I can continue and tender all the exhibits from this, or if you
7 would just like me to go through one larger tendering process after
8 part 3, I could continue.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could do it all together. If you would
10 prepare it in a little note, then you could just follow so that we don't
11 have to do it twice, your reading it first and then me reading it again.
12 So if you would -- and then show it to the Defence first to see whether
13 they agree with the list and then --
14 MR. WEBER: Of course.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I am looking at the clock. Perhaps this
16 would also be a suitable moment for having a break, and we will resume at
17 10 minutes to 6.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.20 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We move for a moment into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 8100-8102 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 Q. The Prosecution's examination today on part 3 of your report will
24 focus on the presence of particular individuals and aspects of events
25 that occurred in five specific municipalities.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1381,
2 marked for identification.
3 Q. Mr. Theunens, while the exhibit is being called up, on pages 55
4 to 54 of part 3 of your report, e-court pages 336 to 355, you discuss
5 events which occurred in the municipality of Zvornik
6 will show you three exhibits in relation to this municipality.
7 Directing your attention to the exhibit now before you, which is
8 discussed on page 58 of part 3, e-court page 339, could you please tell
9 us what this exhibit is?
10 A. Your Honours, this is a situation report compiled by the command
11 of the 17th corps, i.e., the JNA unit at the time in north-eastern
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, discussing the situation in its zone of
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have paragraph 3 focused
16 Q. In paragraph 3 does this report provide any description of the
17 situation in Zvornik as of the 6th of April, 1992?
18 A. Yes, Your Honours. At the end of the paragraph it states that
19 the situation in Zvornik municipality is "explosive and likely to grow
20 into a large conflict, because Serb and Muslim TO were mobilised."
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of both
22 English and B/C/S of this document.
23 Q. Directing your attention to paragraph 5 of the situation report.
24 Does this report describe the command and deployment of JNA units in the
25 zone of responsibility of the 17th JNA Corps?
1 A. Indeed. I mean, we also have the commander, the name of the
2 commander, Major-General Savo Jankovic. He explains to the addressee,
3 which should be the 2nd Military District, what his units are doing and
4 where they are -- I mean, he explains that units are primarily deployed
5 to secure military facilities, control the territory, prevent -- and
6 prevent conflicts as well as, yeah, further issues.
7 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1380,
8 marked for identification. It is a cable to General Jankovic, dated 8
9 April, 1992.
10 Q. Mr. Theunens, if you could, please tell us what is communicated
11 to General Jankovic in this cable?
12 A. It's the director of the state-owned or the public construction
13 company Izet Mehinagic. He communicates his concern about the situation
14 in Zvornik, including what he describes as the issuance of an ultimatum,
15 and he wants General Savo Jankovic to intervene.
16 Q. Are any negotiations discussed in this cable?
17 A. Yes, he talks about negotiations in Mali Zvornik which is located
18 on the Serbian side of the border where according to Mehinagic Arkan is
19 the chief negotiator which representatives of the Zvornik -- I mean
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina municipality. He also mentions the attendance of a
21 Captain Dragan Obrenovic who is a JNA officer, and then three other
22 people, an Alija, an Abdulah, and a Jovo Mijatovic.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P1390, marked for
24 identification. It is 2nd Military District JNA situation report, dated
25 10 April 1992
1 Your Honour, if I could just please have a moment.
2 Q. In section 3 of this document entitled "Situation in the
3 Territory," does this report describe the situation in the Zvornik
4 municipality as of the 10th of April, 1992?
5 A. It does. I mean, the 2nd Military District covers the largest
6 part of Bosnia-Herzegovina except for a small part in eastern
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and so the situation in a number of municipalities
8 all over Bosnia-Herzegovina as -- including Zvornik is discussed.
9 Q. And how does it describe the situation as of the 10th of April,
10 1992, and does it communicate any concerns?
11 A. It states that the situation is getting more intensified,
12 specifically in the areas of Visegrad, Zvornik, as well as Jajce and
14 towards the JNA.
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
16 English and B/C/S of this document. And if we could particularly have
17 the section that is entitled "17K."
18 Q. Mr. Theunens, could you please tell us if this report describes
19 the deployment of JNA forces in and around Zvornik as of the 10th of
20 April, 1992, under the section that starts with 17K?
21 A. Indeed. Now we're in the activities of the subordinate units of
22 the 2nd Military District, and this is the 17th corps, and it mentions
23 that the units are fully engaged in arranging the preparation of
24 mobilisation. They are securing traffic on the main roads and they are
25 monitoring the situation in the crisis points or crisis areas in the zone
1 of responsibility. And then he provides details on the situation in
2 Zvornik and Visegrad.
3 Q. What are the details in relation to the municipality of Zvornik
4 A. According to the document, Serb paramilitary formations are
5 holding about 3.000 Muslims under ultimatum in the Kula area. And in the
6 afternoon, 20 buses without Muslims -- Muslim paramilitary soldiers
7 proceeded from Tuzla
8 Q. Based on the last three exhibits, how would you describe the
9 level of engagement of JNA forces between the 6th and the 10th of April,
10 1992, in and around the Zvornik municipality?
11 A. Your Honours, we know from -- from the other documents that
12 between 8 and 9 April or during 8 and 9 April Serb forces take control of
13 Zvornik, and these forces are specified in my report, and based on the
14 report of the 17th corps, the 17th corps is not actively participating in
15 this takeover. They are focusing, as we saw in the previous report, on
16 protecting military facilities, they're manning or they're securing
17 traffic on the main roads, and they are monitoring the situation but
18 they -- at least on the basis of these documents and other documents I
19 reviewed, they're not actively involved in the takeover the control of
20 the municipality of Zvornik
21 Q. Mr. Theunens, I know this is in your report, but since you've
22 mention it, who are the Serb forces that are involved in the takeover of
24 A. I discussed that in the section on Zvornik. There are members of
25 the Territorial Defence of Loznica, which is a municipality in Serbia
1 There are -- I mean, according to these JNA documents we saw Arkan is
2 involved, and there's also a paramilitary group which became known as the
3 Yellow Wasps involved. And then there is information provided by
4 Vojislav Seselj that also members of the Special Purpose Unit of the
5 ministry of the interior of the Republic of Serbia
6 Q. Based on your analysis, was there any subordination of Arkan and
7 the SDG to the JNA between the 6th and the 10th of April, 1992?
8 A. I mean, as far as Zvornik is concerned, I haven't seen any
9 documents that would suggest that. Again, as I mentioned, the documents
10 I've seen indicate that JNA units in the area adopted a passive [Realtime
11 transcript read in error "positive"] posture and were not actively
12 involved in the takeover.
13 Q. On pages 74 to 79 of part 3 of your report, you discuss events
14 which occurred in the municipality of Bosanski Samac. This is on e-court
15 pages 355 to 370.
16 In this section, you discuss an individual by the name of
17 Dragan Djordjevic, also known as Crni. Could you please tell us if Crni
18 participated in combat operations --
19 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to get to my feet.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. JORDASH: I heard a word before posture at, Your Honours,
22 line 5, and I didn't hear that word.
23 THE WITNESS: Indeed. I'm sorry I forgot to check the
24 transcript. It should be they didn't adopt -- they adopted a passive
25 posture, not a positive posture. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which brings me to another matter. Your
2 answer was focusing on the attitude of this JNA rather than on what was
3 the question, whether there was only subordination. I can keep my own
4 troops quiet and passive, and at the same time have some other units
5 subordinated and doing the takeovers. So I had some difficulties in
6 finding the direct answer to the question that was put to you.
7 THE WITNESS: I apologise for that, Your Honours. I -- as I
8 tried to explain, I haven't seen any documents indicating that Arkan
9 during the takeover of Zvornik was subordinated to the JNA. And
10 actually, the reason why I refer to JNA was that the documents I have
11 seen do not indicate any JNA involvement either in the takeover. That
12 was --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it was a double answer.
14 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You didn't see any subordination in documents and
16 also no active involvement of the JNA. Now, SDG was part of the question
17 as well.
18 THE WITNESS: Well, Arkan SDG stands for the Serbian Volunteer
19 Guard which is another name for Arkan's unit. So the same applies. I
20 have not seen any document indicating a subordination of the SDG to the
21 JNA during the takeover of Zvornik.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Returning to my question about Bosanski Samac. As I indicated,
25 you discuss an individual by the name of Dragan Djordjevic in this
1 section. Could you please tell us if Dragan Djordjevic, also known as
2 Crni, participated in combat operations in and around the municipality of
3 Bosanski Samac between April and June 1992.
4 A. Yes, Your Honours. Dragan Djordjevic, also known as Crni, was
5 commander of a detachment or a group of military personnel which was
6 subordinated to the JNA-led Tactical Group 17 during the takeover of
7 Bosanski Samac and as such participated in the takeover.
8 Q. Based on your analysis, what relationship did Crni have with the
9 MUP of Serbia
10 A. I discussed that on page 78 of part 3 of the report. According
11 to statements Crni or Dragan Djordjevic made himself, he was an official
12 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
13 Q. Is there any information that you reviewed as to where Crni had
14 trained during the course of 1992?
15 A. Yes, I've included information according to which he was an
16 instructor at the Pajzos training facility in Eastern Slavonia, which was
17 as other documents in my report indicate was used by members of the
18 Special Purpose Unit of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of
20 Q. On pages 99 to 107 of part 3 of your report, you discuss events
21 which occurred in the municipality of Doboj
22 pages 380 to 388.
23 In this section, you discuss an individual by the name of
24 Raja Bozovic. What could you determine about the relationship between
25 Raja Bozovic and the MUP of Serbia
1 A. Raja Bozovic, the name appears several times when discussing -- I
2 mean, events I discuss in the report. And in addition to the documents
3 that I've included in the Doboj section where link -- link is established
4 between Bozovic and Red Berets or unit identified as Red Berets, we also
5 know that he was a commander of a subordinate unit, a tactical group, I'm
6 not sure Tactical Group 2 or Tactical Group 3, in the Pauk command which
7 was active in western Bosnia-Herzegovina between November 1994 and August
8 1995. And as - just to answer the question - as is discussed in the
9 report, Pauk was predominantly manned by members of the Ministry of
10 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
11 Purpose Unit.
12 There is also information indicating that he was involved in
13 Skelani, as again in charge of a Red Beret unit, and this is P1441 and
14 P399 that indicate that. And this refers to 1992 -- end of 1992, early
16 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P1452 marked for
18 Q. While the next exhibit's being called up, on pages 120 to 129 of
19 part 3 of your report, you discuss events which occurred in and around
20 Trnovo during June and July 1995. These are e-court pages 401 to 410.
21 Directing your attention to the RS MUP dispatch dated 1 July 1995
22 that now before you, does this exhibit refer to any units of the Serbian
23 MUP who participated in combat operations near Trnovo?
24 A. Indeed, Your Honours, it does. It talks about a Kajman
25 Detachment which consists -- or which includes two platoons, more
1 specifically the Plavi and the Skopje
2 is identified as a unit of MUP Serbia.
3 Q. With respect to this report, does it indicate whether or not any
4 members of the Serbian MUP forces were injured during combat operations?
5 Please let us know if you need us to read on -- or scroll down?
6 A. Yes, if we could scroll down. Yes. Sorry -- eight lines from
7 the bottom there is a reference to yesterday's fighting or clashes, and
8 during those clashes three members of the MUP Serbia were lightly
10 Q. And when did this fighting take place?
11 A. This should have -- I mean, taking into account the date of the
12 report, which is the 1st of July, it should have been on the 30th of
13 June, 1995.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1454,
15 marked for identification. It is a 1 July 1995 response from
16 General Mladic.
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, what is the subject of this response from
18 General Mladic?
19 A. General Mladic responds to a telegram of the anti-terrorist unit
20 of the MUP Serbia from the day -- the day before, and he deals with the
21 evacuation -- or the use, excuse me, the use of helicopters from the VRS
22 for the evacuation of members of MUP Serbia who are participating in the
23 fighting in the Trnovo area.
24 Q. According to the -- this response, does General Mladic authorise
25 this use?
1 A. Indeed. And -- and -- I mean, from the contextual point of view,
2 this is an important document to highlight the level of co-ordination
3 that is required to organise the involvement of call it nonorganic, i.e.,
4 non-VRS forces, in this case MUP Serbia forces in joint operations with
5 the VRS.
6 Q. Where is the basis of that opinion?
7 A. Well, the basis -- sorry. The basis of that opinion is that it
8 requires the authorisation of the chief of the VRS Main Staff in order to
9 allow injured members, I mean in this specific matter, injured members of
10 the MUP Serbia units fighting in -- participating in the fighting in
11 Trnovo to make use of a VRS helicopter.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
13 English translation.
14 Q. How does this response indicate officials from the MUP of Serbia
15 should be notified?
16 A. Well, General Mladic states that the MUP of the RS should inform
17 I mean representatives of the MUP Serbia, and then a Colonel Golic of his
18 decision pertaining to the use of the helicopters.
19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1469,
20 marked for identification.
21 Q. On page 128 of part 3 of your report, e-court page 409, you
22 reference this dispatch dated 22 July 1995. What does this document
23 indicate as to who the Skorpion Unit belongs to?
24 A. More or less in the middle of the document we can see that -- I
25 would say ten page -- ten lines from the top that the Skorpions are
1 identified as a unit of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of
3 Q. What activities are the Skorpions engaged in according to this
5 A. The Skorpions are holding a defence line.
6 Q. Does this dispatch indicate when the forces of the MUP Serbia
7 would be leaving the battlefront of Trnovo?
8 A. Yes. Four lines lower, it stated that the units -- or the MUP of
10 is highlighted by the commander as -- as a problem.
11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of
12 Exhibit P289 in evidence.
13 Q. On pages 130 to 134 of part 3 of your report, you discuss events
14 which occurred in Sanski Most in September 1995. This is e-court pages
15 411 to 415.
16 MR. WEBER: If we could also please have the page 2 of the B/C/S
18 Q. Before you is a dispatch dated 23 September 1995 from
19 General Mladic. Does the first paragraph of this exhibit indicate
20 whether Arkan and his SDG formations are under the command of the VRS up
21 until the 23rd of September, 1995?
22 A. It indicates that they are -- these SDG formations are present in
23 the area of responsibility of the 1st Battalion or the 1st Brigade of the
24 2nd Krajina Corps, but according to Mladic they are not subordinated to
25 the VRS, and he explains the basis for his conclusion.
1 Q. What is the basis that he explains?
2 A. Okay. They haven't -- they have not taken part in any combat
3 operations. They are not part of any formation unit, and they have not
4 reported, i.e., presented themselves to any of the commands,
5 battalion-level commands, of the VRS, and they haven't, yeah, present
6 themselves to the Main Staff of the VRS either. So they haven't received
7 any assignments from the VRS.
8 Q. Directing your attention to the middle paragraph on this page.
9 Does this exhibit indicate how VRS members are being recruited into the
10 SDG and how their salaries and benefits would be paid if they joined?
11 A. Indeed. That is explained in -- in this paragraph.
12 Q. What does it say?
13 A. It says in the third paragraph that they are being promised
14 money, 600 dinars, 10.000 dinars -- excuse me. They are presented a
15 salary of 600 dinars and a compensation of 10.000 dinars in case they
16 are -- get wounded, as well as unemployment and health insurance through
17 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
18 members of the SDG promised to this -- to people they tried to recruit
19 from the VRS.
20 Q. Does the following paragraph describe any crimes being committed
21 by the SDG in and around Sanski Most?
22 A. Yes, it does. I mean, mention is made of liquidation of a
23 certain number of what are described as loyal Muslim citizens, including
24 relatives of a VRS serviceman. And, okay, there's justification given.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the
1 English version of this document.
2 Q. Under number 2, does General Mladic in this dispatch make any
3 proposals to the organs of the MUP?
4 A. Yeah. He requests and proposes that the organs of the MUP take
5 measures within their jurisdiction against Raznjatovic and his formations
6 for the crimes they have committed against VRS members and civilians, and
7 he much bases that on the fact that Arkan has identified himself as a
8 member of the MUP of Serbia and MUP of VRS.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time this completes the
10 Prosecution's examination-in-chief of Mr. Theunens. We did provide a
11 list of documents -- or list of exhibits that are not being opposed by
12 either Defence teams, and at this time we would ask to tender those
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have received a list. Have the Defence
15 teams received that same list, documents for which admission is sought?
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And it reflects that these are the documents not
18 objected to by the Defence; is that correct? I'm also looking at you,
19 Mr. Bakrac. Apparently it is. Then I'll try to go through it rather
20 quickly, and I -- P1092 and P1093 are admitted into evidence. P1095, up
21 to and including P1158 are admitted into evidence. Among these, P1096
22 and P1131 are admitted under seal, the others as public documents.
23 P1161, P1162 both admitted into evidence. P1165 up to and including
24 P1173 are admitted into evidence. 1165 to 1167, 1169, 1170, and 1172
25 under seal. P1175 up to and including P1176 are admitted into evidence.
1 P1180, P1182, P1183, P1184, and P1185 are admitted into evidence. P1187
2 up to and including P1191 are admitted into evidence. P1188 under seal.
3 P1195 up to and including P1208 are admitted into evidence. P1200 under
4 seal. P1211 to P1216, and I said to, including also P1216, are admitted
5 into evidence. P1218 and P1219 are admitted into evidence. P1221 to
6 P1247, including that last number, are admitted into evidence. P1249 up
7 to and including P1281 are admitted into evidence. Among them, P1254 and
8 P1260 admitted under seal. P1283 up to and including P1284 are admitted
9 into evidence. P1286 up it and including P1301, as well as P1303 are
10 admitted into evidence.
11 I now move to the documents related to part 3. P1306 up to and
12 including P1338 are admitted into evidence. Among them, P1319 under
13 seal. P1340 to P1343 are admitted into evidence. P1347 up to and
14 including P1367 are admitted. Among them, P1346, P1347, and P1349 under
15 seal. P1369 up to and including P1373 are admitted into evidence. P1378
16 up to and including P1381 are admitted into evidence. P1383 up to and
17 including P1395 are admitted into evidence. P1389 under seal. P1397 to
18 P1398 are admitted. P1403 up to and including P1411 are admitted into
19 evidence. P1413 up to and including P1421 are admitted into evidence.
20 However, P1417 under seal. P1423 is admitted. P1425 to P1434, the last
21 number included, are admitted. P1427 under seal. P1436 up to and
22 including P1437, P1440 [Realtime transcript read in error "P1444"] up to
23 and including P1442 are admitted into evidence.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Was it
1 JUDGE ORIE: It was P1440, yes, yes, because otherwise we would
2 count back.
3 MR. WEBER: Yes, I believe the transcript on --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it says P1444. And it was meant to be one
5 sentence, which means that 1436 and 1437 are included in the admission.
6 Then followed by P1440 up to and including P1442.
7 The next series: P1444 up to and including P1449 are admitted
8 into evidence. P1444 and P1445 under seal. P1451 and P1452 are
9 admitted, as well as P1454 up to and including P1479.
10 First of all, I would like to thank you for your patience for
11 listening to this reciting of a list, but I hope everyone has carefully
12 checked that we have the right numbers now in evidence.
13 Thank you, Mr. Weber.
14 Who is the first to cross-examine the witness? Mr. Jordash, it
15 will be you.
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Theunens, you will now be cross-examined by
18 Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.
22 A. Good afternoon Mr. Jordash.
23 Q. In the little time that we have left today, I would like to just
24 try to understand before we launch into the body of the report the
25 precise conclusions that you reached concerning the relationship of the
1 Serbian MUP to the paramilitaries.
2 You effectively divide the relationship into two types. Is this
3 right? On the one hand, Arkan, Captain Dragan, and the Red Berets were
4 controlled by the Serbian MUP. Is that correct?
5 A. That is not correct. I mean, it doesn't reflect what I tried to
6 write in the report. When I first address volunteers/paramilitary groups
7 controlled to -- controlled by, I'm sorry, or related otherwise to the
8 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
9 and the people he operated with. Secondly, I talk about Arkan; and
10 thirdly, I talk about other groups whereby these other groups are then
11 further defined.
12 As I mentioned earlier, the material that was available to me did
13 not allow to draw a -- what I say a complete conclusion as to what was
14 the exact nature of the relations between the various groups and the
15 Ministry of Interior. I mean, the documents I have included in
16 particular when I discussed the involvement of these groups, and I'm
17 talking now about all of them, Dragan, Arkan, as well as the other
18 groups, for what -- their involvement in the conflict in Croatia and
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned show a number of things that allowed --
20 led me conclude that there was a degree of control, i.e., influence over
21 the activities of these various units.
22 Q. Could I ask you, please, to turn to the executive summary of the
23 report, page 6, and it's paragraph 9, e-court page 6. And at paragraph
24 9 -- sorry. Exhibit P1575, MFI'd. Because -- perhaps it's my reading,
25 Mr. Theunens, but it seemed that in the report you were a little more
1 definite in the way that you looked at the paramilitaries.
2 At page 9 -- sorry, page 6, paragraph 9:
3 "The SFRY Supreme Command, the JNA, and the government of the
4 Republic of Serbia
5 of defence, were aware of the existence of extra-legal voluntary --
6 volunteer/paramilitary formations participating in the conflict in
8 the recruitment of these volunteers and encouraged these groups or
9 supported them otherwise."
10 And then you move on -- if we of move to the next page, page 7 in
11 e-court, to paragraph 10, you note:
12 "At the same time, there were also volunteer/paramilitary groups
13 such as Arkan's Tigers ... and individuals operating under the command of
14 Dragan or other groups including a group which became colloquially known
15 as the Red Berets which were controlled by the Ministry of Interior of
16 the Republic of Serbia
17 Franko Simatovic, aka Frenki."
18 Are you not making a distinction here? And you're saying, well,
19 there are on the one hand there is the groups which were formed by
20 nationalistic parties, and on the other hand there's Arkan's, there's
21 Captain Dragan's and the Red Berets, and I am asserting that the Red
22 Berets were in fact controlled directly by Stanisic and Simatovic?
23 A. That is correct, and I apologise if I misunderstood your initial
24 question but I didn't see any reference to the nationalistic political
25 parties in your initial question. I understood from your initial
1 question that you believed that I had made a distinction within -- I mean
2 between Arkan, Dragan, and others within the Ministry of the Interior.
3 So I mean I stand by what I wrote in my report because the
4 misunderstanding's clarified now.
5 Q. So just so that I'm clear, you're -- you effectively concluded
6 that there were on the one hand paramilitary groups created by the
7 political parties such as the White Eagles - and we'll come to the list
8 in a moment - they were, is this correct, tacitly authorised by the
9 government of the Serbia
10 Arkan's Men, Captain Dragan's men, and the Red Berets were controlled by
11 the Serbian MUP with direct control of the Red Berets by Stanisic and
12 Simatovic. Is that a fair summary?
13 A. I didn't include the word "direct," but otherwise, I mean that's
14 a fair summary. I mean, we can talk about control. I didn't use the
15 word "direct" in -- in my report.
16 Q. But you did make the distinction between Dragan and Arkan on the
17 one side and the Red Berets on the other, attaching Simatovic and
18 Stanisic to the Red Berets with a more intimate relationship than that to
19 Arkan or to Captain Dragan. Does that make sense?
20 A. I -- I don't think I did that. I mean, I didn't have the
21 material that would allow me to do so. My conclusion was that all three
22 of them -- I mean, if you say Arkan, Dragan, the Red Berets, they were
23 all controlled -- and again the word "control" has to be taken in its --
24 Q. We'll come to the word control in a minute.
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. But you do say, sorry to interrupt --
2 A. Yep.
3 Q. -- but you do say the latter through Stanisic and Simatovic as
4 if -- and doesn't the latter relate to Red Berets?
5 A. Okay. Now I understand, I'm sorry. Yeah.
6 Q. So you do in the executive summary at least make a distinction;
8 A. No, that's true. That's correct, I'm sorry.
9 Q. So you had in mind --
10 A. I wasn't concentrate.
11 Q. -- in terms of the two accused that their relationship to the
12 Red Berets was closer than it was to or Arkan and Dragan?
13 A. That is indeed what the documents I reviewed indicate.
14 Q. Well, that was your conclusion on the basis of all the documents
15 you saw and relied upon in your report.
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. Now, going back to the first group, the tacit authorisation
18 group, if I can refer to them as that, you include in that, and I want to
19 try to be as specific as possible, the White Eagles, Dusan Silni,
20 Srpska Garda, the Vuk Draskovic group, and the Serbian Chetnik movement
21 SRS/SCP. And I'm looking at page 85 of part 1, and in e-court we need
22 page 81.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's almost impossible because the numbering in
24 e-court is usually higher.
25 MR. JORDASH: This point was confusing me.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So perhaps you should check that first.
2 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, it's 108, e-court 108. I do apologise.
3 THE WITNESS: To answer the question, I mean, as I said in the
4 executive summary it goes beyond tacit authorisation. There is also
5 active support, and okay the names you have given I identify them as the
6 best known volunteer/paramilitary groups.
7 MR. JORDASH:
8 Q. So your conclusion is that the failure to abide by the duties
9 placed upon the Serbian MUP led to tacit authorisation of every
10 paramilitary group within the indictment frame?
11 A. Can you show me where I conclude that in my report?
12 Q. Well, the -- the evidence you've just given is that the tacit
13 authorisation related to the groups which are listed at paragraph -- on
14 page 85, but also other groups. Am I misunderstanding you?
15 I'm trying to get some specificity so I know what I'm dealing
16 with over the next few days as to which groups you say were tacitly
17 authorised by the failure of the Serbian MUP to fulfil its legal duties.
18 A. I mean, what -- what we see is that as I put it in the report,
19 this is page 85 under title B, that a number of political parties in
20 Republic of Serbia
21 privately controlled groups that act in a military way with weapons and
22 uniforms and participate in the fighting.
23 Of course, over time efforts are done to legalise that situation
24 on the field as well as in Serbia
25 establishment, for example, of operational groups and tactical groups, as
1 well as other ad hoc units to ensure single authority.
2 In Serbia
3 further on -- legal measures are taken. First of all we see that Article
4 118 --
5 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Theunens. I just want to keep us both
6 focused if I can.
7 A. Okay, but I --
8 Q. Which groups are we talking about that you say were tacitly
9 authorised by the failures of the Serbian MUP?
10 A. Maybe -- I have difficulties to understand your question, because
11 you're moving to Serbian MUP groups, then you're going back to other
13 Q. Let me be clearer then if I can.
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Let's put aside what you said about Dragan --
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. -- Arkan and the Red Berets. Let's deal with all other
18 paramilitary groups that you had in mind --
19 A. Yep.
20 Q. -- when you concluded that the Serbian MUP's failures gave rise
21 to tacit authorisation.
22 A. The -- I mean, the failure lays in the fact that the existing
23 legislation --
24 Q. I'm sorry. I'm not asking you -- and we'll come to --
25 A. Yeah, but I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.
1 Q. We'll come to what the failures --
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. -- may or may not have made --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But if the failures are part of your question --
5 MR. JORDASH: If --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then of course if the witness does not fully
7 understand what you mean by that, then you should clarify that. So even
8 if you want to go in further detail about the failures at a later stage,
9 your question was whether the witness concluded that the Serbian MUP's
10 failures gave rise to authorisation. So that needs an understanding of
11 whether you, when you're talking about the failures, whether the witness
12 understands what you mean, and I got the impression that he's trying to
13 find out whether your understanding of the failure was exactly what --
14 MR. JORDASH: Well --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Whether he understood well what you meant by the
16 failure, and therefore wanted to expound a bit on that.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, if Mr. Theunens wants to, then I take
18 Your Honour's point.
19 Q. Mr. Theunens, please.
20 A. I mean, I will try my best to --
21 Q. Sorry, Mr. Theunens. Maybe I could --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I could try to assist both of you.
23 The failure of the MUP, would that, as understood by Mr. Jordash,
24 you can verify whether you have the same understanding, would that
25 automatically include tacit -- what was the word?
1 THE WITNESS: Authorisation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Tacit authorisation. Is that what you --
3 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I can take you to the section in the
4 report. Perhaps this is the best way.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Fine. Then we go first to the failure and
6 then to the -- okay.
7 MR. JORDASH: Please could we go to paragraph -- sorry page 80 of
8 part 1, and it is e-court 57. Sorry, it's 103. And the paragraph I'm
9 concerned with, Mr. Theunens, is paragraph C.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. "During the conflict in Croatia, nationalist political parties in
13 dispatching of volunteers to the conflicts zones in Croatia or even set
14 up their own volunteer paramilitary formations with the tacit
15 authorisation of the government Republic of Serbia
16 Paragraph D:
17 "The SFRY Supreme Command, the JNA, and the government of the
18 Republic of Serbia
19 ministry of defence (MOD), were aware of the existence of extra-legal
20 volunteer/paramilitary formations participating in the conflict in
22 recruitment of volunteers and encouraged these groups or supported them
24 Now, what I'm trying to clarify is which groups do you say were
25 tacitly authorised and thereby encouraged by the failures of the Serbian
2 A. Thank you for the clarification. Now, I'm not in a position -- I
3 wasn't able to identify which specific -- I mean, the name of the group,
4 but we can say that these nationalistic parties established groups, and
5 then as the government of the Republic of Serbia
6 Defence and the Ministry of Interior have specific responsibilities in
7 enforcing the law did not act against these groups as a whole. We know
8 that later on there are selective actions against certain groups, but I
9 cannot answer your question whether the Ministry of Interior specifically
10 authorised group A or group B or group C. I also want to emphasise that
11 this is a paragraph out of an executive summary which basically
12 summarises what follows in the report --
13 Q. Sorry, this isn't a part of the executive summary.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you would take the --
15 THE WITNESS: Summary.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's not the summary. It's page 80 of the first
18 MR. JORDASH:
19 Q. Section 3, Mr. Theunens, labelled Serbian
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's not [overlapping speakers] --
22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, but it's -- [overlapping speakers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- I do agree we have two kind of summaries. We
24 have the summary at the beginning of the report as a whole, and here we
25 have a section 3 Serbian volunteers/paramilitaries starts with a summary
1 of what then follows. Yes. So to that extent it is a summary, and
2 therefore if Mr. Theunens could find where this is further explained at a
3 later stage, he may include that in his answer.
4 MR. JORDASH: Well, perhaps if we go to page 85 --
5 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, looking at the clock --
6 MR. JORDASH: I noticed.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's -- you've heard the question,
8 Mr. Theunens.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You have a lot of time to think about an answer and
11 to go through the report and find perhaps an answer in the part which is
12 not a summary. I apologise, but you have several levels of summaries,
13 and I first ignored that.
14 Mr. Theunens, we'll continue tomorrow, but I'd first like to
15 instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony
16 either already given or still to be given tomorrow. If I say not to
17 speak, that includes all kind of communication. Perhaps it would even be
18 wise, knowing your background, to perhaps spend the evening in such a way
19 that no one could even think of you discussing the matters with others.
20 Therefore, we'd like to see you back tomorrow, and our schedule,
21 as far as matters stand now for tomorrow, is that we start at 9.00 in the
22 morning in this courtroom, II, until 11.30, and that in the afternoon
23 we'll sit from 3.00 in the afternoon in Courtroom I, up to 6.00.
24 We stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday day, the 27th of
25 October, 9.00, the same courtroom, II.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m.
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 27th day
3 of October, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.