1 Wednesday, 27 October 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
7 you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is the case IT-03-69-T, the
10 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Good morning to you, Mr. Theunens, as well. I would like to
13 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given
14 yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.
15 Mr. Jordash will now continue his cross-examination.
16 Mr. Jordash.
17 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
20 Q. Yesterday we were looking -- good morning, Mr. Theunens.
21 A. Good morning, Mr. Jordash.
22 Q. Yesterday we were, I think, dealing with your conclusions
23 concerning the issue of tacit authorisation. Do you recall the issue?
24 A. Yes, I do, Your Honours.
25 Q. And is this right -- we were looking at page 80 of the report,
1 which is page 103 e-court. P1571 -- P1575. I beg your pardon. Are you
3 A. Yes, indeed, and as I explained yesterday, this is a paragraph --
4 I mean, the paragraph we were discussing comes out of the summary of
5 section 3, and I mean the basis for that summary can be found on the
6 pages 83 to 91.
7 Q. Yes. No. I understand there's a -- you say there's support for
8 that summary, but you're not saying the summary is incorrect, are you?
9 The summary's a distillation of the evidence or a distillation of your
10 analysis. So can we go to page 80, 103, and try to, if you could,
11 explain which groups you say were tacitly authorised by the Serbian MUP.
12 A. As I explain in pages 83 to 89, there are a number of groups
13 established by Serbian nationalistic political parties. In some
14 documents they are identified as opposition parties, and they are
15 supported -- or they are authorised to exist and tacitly supported by the
16 government of Serbia
17 support on the basis of the documents I review -- or this authorisation
18 consists of the fact that the groups are allowed to be established. They
19 are allowed to exist. There are documents indicating that they're
20 allowed to organise themselves and --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just -- I do understand that Mr. Jordash is
22 asking identified those groups that were tacitly. What you are doing,
23 you are explaining to us what the tacit acceptance or what was the
24 tacit --
25 THE WITNESS: Authorisation.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- authorisation means. So Mr. Jordash is putting a
2 different question, apparently, than you have in your mind. I could
3 imagine that somewhere on page 85 we find a number of groups listed.
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean, as Your Honours say there are a
5 number of groups listed on the subparagraph B on page 85, and then I have
6 referred to a number of documents where reference is made to some of
7 these groups --
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. No. Mr. Theunens can I stop you there.
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. So we can agree then, can we, that your tacit authorisation
12 thesis - if I can put it like that - applies to the groups at least on
13 page 85(b)?
14 A. That is correct, yeah.
15 Q. Now, are there any other groups you identified which fall into
16 the same category?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Right. Thanks. We got there. So -- now, returning to page
19 80(D), 103 e-court, (D) also notes, and I'll read it again -- well, I'll
20 read part of it again, the top of page 81. You're effectively saying
21 that the Supreme Command, the JNA, the government of Serbia in particular
22 the ministry of the MUP and the Ministry of Defence, not only were aware
23 and effectively tacitly authorised, but also supported them otherwise.
24 Now, which groups did you have in mind when you say the Serbian
25 MUP support them otherwise?
1 A. I mean, to give a very short answer to your question, I would
2 like to draw your attention to page 94 where I discuss -- excuse me, page
3 94 of part 1 of the report where I discuss P1048, where reference is
4 made -- I mean, it's a VJ security ODs report of October 1993, and there
5 reference is made to, for example, paramilitary groups organised by the
6 SPO, Serbian Renewal Movement, who according to this VJ security organs
7 report have received weapons from the Serbian MUP. There's also
8 reference made to in the same document paramilitary groups organised by
9 the SRS, the Serbian Radical Party.
10 Q. Could I just stop you there a minute. What I'm interested in is
11 not what individual -- at the moment what individual documents might say
12 because obviously individual documents are part of a collection. What
13 I'm interested in is your eventual conclusion after analysing all of
14 these documents, what support was given to these groups which enabled you
15 or made you conclude supported them otherwise? Which groups, what
17 A. The documents I have reviewed indicate the nature of the support
18 for a number of groups, like for example P1048, I just identified. In
19 addition if we take some distance from the individual documents, we come
20 to the conclusion or we can draw the conclusion that, for example, groups
21 controlled by the Serbian Radical Party were allowed to exist by the
22 Ministry of Interior as a policy of the --
23 Q. Yeah. We've dealt with that Mr. Theunens, support to the group?
24 A. Well, I think that if you allow a group to exist even though the
25 law does not allow it, you provide support.
1 Q. Mr. Theunens, your report says supported them otherwise. So what
2 we're talking about additional support?
3 A. Indeed. The support consists of you allowing them to exist, you
4 allow them to organise themselves to recruit people. You provide
5 weapons. You provide training. I mean, that happens at a later stage
6 but there are indications, for example, that volunteers who initially
7 were identified as volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party were then
8 trained in the -- yeah, the facility in Pajzos, in the vicinity of
9 Bapska, Eastern Slavonia, before they were sent to municipalities in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina in spring 1992 to participate in the takeover
12 And just could to conclude, as I try to explain the report, the
13 support is part of the policy of the Serbian government and there we
14 have, for example, the fact that these volunteers were treated on equal
15 basis in relation to compensation for wounded and compensation also
16 for -- I mean the time they didn't spend at their job.
17 Q. What's that got to do with the Serbian MUP?
18 A. Because the Serbian MUP is the Ministry of Interior's part of the
20 Q. So let me then take a step back. So you're -- are you conflating
21 then the actions by the government with the actions of Serbian MUP
22 throughout this report?
23 A. No, Your Honours. When you read my report, you will see that
24 I -- whenever I can, I try to be as specific as possible, and I made a
25 distinction between the support provided -- specific support by the MUP
1 as well as the support provided by the government whereby for me the
2 Serbian MUP, the Ministry of Interior is a part of the government.
3 Q. Yes, but you're not suggesting that Serbian MUP was providing, or
4 maybe you are, compensation for wounded soldiers.
5 A. No, I haven't suggested that in my report. As the report
6 indicates and I think there is a document for that, it's part of a
7 government policy.
8 Q. Well, let's go back then. Okay. So that's a government policy.
9 I want to go back to what support. You've said there's the tacit
10 authorisation, and I want to deal specifically with Serbian MUP, not
11 Serbian government, but Serbian MUP and the support you concluded it gave
12 to these groups which were also tacitly authorised. You've told us about
13 Seselj and training. What other support did you conclude had been given?
14 A. I also mentioned arming, provisional weapons and ammunition.
15 Q. To which groups?
16 A. Well, there is for example P1048 that identifies two groups
17 whereby one is a very substantial group, namely the volunteers recruited
18 and organised by the Serbian Radical Party, and this lasted for years not
19 only in Croatia
20 Now, when you have the law which prohibits the existence of
21 such -- the establishment existence and so on of such groups and that law
22 is not enforced, I understand that also as providing tacit support.
23 Q. But we've got that. We've got that. We're going to come to that
24 later. I just want to clarify your conclusions. That -- so I understand
25 them so I'm not heading off in the wrong direction.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters relatively simple. You
2 asked what other support. The answer was provisional weapons and
3 ammunition. Then the question was, to which groups, and then apparently
4 the answers you took us to 1048, Serbian Radical Party over the years.
5 Is that?
6 THE WITNESS: Indeed, and in addition also the groups organised
7 by the Serbian Renewal Movement which are also mentioned in --
8 JUDGE ORIE: The two groups mentioned in page 94 received in
9 addition to the tacit authorisation apart from other matters arming as
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Okay. So that's two. Any other group, any other support which
14 fell within this conclusion at page 80 and 81?
15 A. No, not -- I wouldn't just see it as a matter of like numbers of
16 groups. I would also look at the kind of groups. And as I tried to
17 point out, groups organised by the Serbian Radical Party were the most
18 prominent in the conflict in Croatia
19 volunteers/paramilitary groups organised by nationalistic political
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's get ourselves organised in our thinking. The
22 question was tacit authorisation and in addition to that other matters.
23 Some were mentioned, like payment for wounded, and also arming. Then we
24 focus on arming. We identified two specific groups that were assisted by
25 being armed.
1 Now, the next question: Any other group, any other support which
2 fell within the conclusion? That immediately confuses us again, because
3 we were talking about groups and the kind of support. We stopped at the
4 kind of support specified as arming. We identified these two groups.
5 Now, what other -- let's then -- either we start with the groups
6 and say what other support did they get, or we start with the other type
7 of support and ask ourselves what groups got that support.
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I appreciate that there is some
9 confusion, but Mr. Theunens is an experienced expert who is
10 prone [overlapping speakers] --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but -- and you're an experienced lawyer who
12 puts questions in such a way. Any support -- any other group, any other
13 support asks for confusion. Let's start with the other type of support,
14 and it was provided to what group. Then we keep ourselves organised.
15 MR. JORDASH:
16 Q. Which other groups were provided with arms according to your
17 conclusion, Mr. Theunens, by the Serbian MUP?
18 A. Your Honours, based on the documents -- I have reviewed, I'm not
19 able to identify other groups organised by --
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that question was already put to the witness and
21 was already answered by the witness. Do -- these are the two groups he
22 identified as being armed on the basis of the documentation.
23 Now, we move now to other support or other groups. Take it the
24 way you want it, but not the two together, Mr. Jordash, because that
25 other support, I think we have the payment of wounded soldiers by -- to
1 what groups.
2 MR. JORDASH:
3 Q. But --
4 A. Your Honours, as I tried to explain, this is a general policy
5 which was introduced by the government of the Republic of Serbia
6 applied to all volunteers.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. All groups, you mentioned earlier the
8 volunteer groups which are not the Dragan -- well, the three, the Dragan,
9 the Arkan, and the -- okay. General policy to support for wounded
10 soldiers and as it appeared from your earlier answer, not specifically
11 MUP, general government policy. Okay, that's -- let's try to keep
12 ourselves very organised in our minds.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. Any other support provided by the Serbian MUP?
16 A. I mentioned that earlier, but I want to repeat it. The fact that
17 no legal action was undertaken against this group --
18 Q. That's the tacit authorisation, isn't it?
19 A. Yep.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Yeah.
23 A. But I would say if you allow a group to exist for --
24 Q. Yeah, but it's support otherwise we're dealing with.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no. Let's -- tacit authorisation can take
1 several forms. It being tacit means that you remain passive. You don't
2 open your mouth. Now, then it's interesting to know under what
3 circumstances, and I think, Mr. Theunens, you've mentioned that already,
4 existence, recruitment, not responding, not taking any action if they
5 were in operations or if they were seen to be active. Is that anything
6 else in that respect?
7 THE WITNESS: In the fact that these groups -- I mean, for
8 example, the Serbian Radical Party establishes a war staff which recruits
9 volunteers, and they do that --
10 JUDGE ORIE: We add to that open organisation of those groups in
11 addition to existence. It's not only the groups existed, but they
12 adopted the kind of an organisation and against this organisation also no
13 action was taken. So we have now existence, organisation, recruitment,
14 and the fourth was no response if they acted openly as a group.
15 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that it? Okay.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. And that you label as tacit authorisation; is that correct?
19 A. It's -- I mean, it started with tacit authorisation and then it
20 develops into support, because if you allow a group to exist --
21 Q. No, okay. If that's -- I just want to clarify -- if that's
22 right, okay, this -- the tacit authorisation and support, I want to just
23 list the conclusions so I know what I'm dealing with, Mr. Theunens,
24 please help me.
25 A. I'm desperately trying to help you, but I'm not sure whether you
1 want to be helped.
2 Q. Well, let's --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's refrain from comment on who wants to be helped
4 by whom. I do understand the answer of Mr. Theunens to be that the four
5 elements he mentioned shows a process in which tacit authorisation goes
6 beyond that and that in time the inactivity of the government to respond,
7 that that takes the form of active support by doing nothing. That is how
8 I understand your testimony, is that -- and you are nodding yes, for the
10 Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. Let's go to page 80, 81, where we've been some time. What you've
13 just described, the tacit authorisation is what led you to conclude, is
14 it not, that these groups were encouraged.
15 A. The tacit authorisation and the support encouraged the groups.
16 Q. Okay. And the support is included within the tacit authorisation
17 and as we now know, the support is also, as you found, training and
18 arming of Seselj's men, arming of the Serbian Renewal Movement. Anything
19 else you had in mind when you made that conclusion on page 80, page 81?
20 A. I refer to what Your Honours said just before your last question.
21 Q. Which -- i.e., what?
22 A. What Judge Orie said.
23 Q. Okay. So just --
24 A. He summarised my reply.
25 Q. So we are limited then to this --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I left out the training, as a matter of fact, which
2 you say took place later, but let's -- this is not -- words are
3 important, Mr. Jordash, but it's not just the words. It's also trying to
4 understand what is meant by those words, but please proceed.
5 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure I understood.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, where the tacit authorisation moves into
7 encouragement or -- I mean, that's to some extent is a matter of
8 language, whereas that's of course a bit of a problem with an expert who
9 tries to draw conclusions that the phrasing of the conclusions should be
10 understood in the context of the basis on which these conclusions are
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. Okay. I think I understand your conclusion. So if there are no
15 other types of support which you've concluded or meant to include within
16 80 and 81 then I can move on to the next section.
17 Now, let's go to your CV.
18 MR. JORDASH: Please could we have P1574 on e-court.
19 Q. Is this a fair summary, that the publications we see on page 3 --
20 sorry, page 2, beginning page 2 and on to page 3, all concern, apart from
21 the first, issues relating to peacekeeping? Is that really where your
22 academic interest lies?
23 A. I think you have to go to the -- it's at the bottom of the second
24 page, and it continues on the third.
25 Q. Well, is that where your academic interest lies?
1 A. I mean, you can qualify as academic interest, but -- I mean, most
2 of the writing I did obviously when I was working at the Ministry of
3 Defence in Belgium
4 academic publications but they are still relevant in the context of my
5 current presence here, and that's -- you can find there a description at
6 the last bullet point just before title 7.
7 Q. Is that -- your writing has been exclusively on peacekeeping
8 issues other than publication 1, the role of military expertise and the
9 Prosecution of and trials of international crimes?
10 A. My public writing as I tried to explain in my previous answer
11 there you're correct, but obviously most of my writing was done, as I
12 explained in my previous answer and was not public -- I'm sorry,
13 published openly.
14 Q. Right. Well, let's go to page 3 of your -- I think that's where
15 we are.
16 Within the -- looking at your 1992 to 1998 and 1998 to 2000 entry
18 "Within the Belgian military and during my participation in the
19 aforementioned UN peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia
20 drafted numerous assessments and analysis on the situation in the former
22 What were these assessments?
23 A. These are assessments on the situation in these countries, i.e.,
24 outlook for possible developments, predictive analysis on the possible
25 developments for the political, military situation, as well as the
1 security situation of Belgian peacekeepers who were operating in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia
3 working the UN, this was not restricted to Belgian peacekeepers but to
4 UNPROFOR and UNPF as a whole.
5 Q. What does it mean to write a predictive analysis on the possible
6 development? What does that process entail?
7 A. It means that you analyse the facts, i.e., the situation, the
8 events that have occurred. You try to understand on the basis of those
9 events and your overall understanding of the situation what can happen in
10 the future in order to assist planning and decision-making.
11 Q. And who was supplying the facts?
12 A. The facts -- I mean, I could give a very general answer. They
13 are supplied by sources. I mean the information is provided by sources.
14 Q. And who generically are the sources?
15 A. A source is anybody or anything that can provide information.
16 Q. And how did it work? How did the sources come to your office, if
17 you like.
18 A. I will -- for example, when working UNPROFOR, we received daily
19 situation reports from the different levels because we were at the
20 headquarters in Zagreb
21 headquarters for Croatia
22 there's -- as you know, there's the whole structure with sectors,
23 battalions and so -- and further on. We had access to open sources,
24 i.e., summaries of local media. We would meet certain people. I, for
25 example, I tried to go as much as possible to the field in order to
1 discuss with not only blue helmets in the field but at occasions we could
2 also meet members of the warring parties. I mean I, for example, had
3 some meetings with the members of the during one visit 5th ABiH Corps.
4 We may also have access to other information, and as I then explained
5 yesterday, you applied the methodology in order to draft these protective
7 Q. And the point of the predictive analysis was to assist with the
8 peacekeeping mission?
9 A. When I was working in the UN, yes. In UNPROFOR, yes.
10 Q. And how was it that you became employed by the Office of the
12 A. In -- I'm not sure whether it was in December 2000 or January
13 2001. I saw a vacancy and I applied.
14 Q. And what was the job specification?
15 A. I mean, I don't know by heart any more, but I understood -- I
16 mean, it was my impression that they looked for people -- the Office of
17 the Prosecutor looked for intelligence analysts military, and I had the
18 understanding that my background, my experience, professional/educational
19 experience matched the requirements and I thought that it would be an
20 interesting job, so I applied.
21 Q. You hadn't had experience in combat yourself?
22 A. I mean, I was in the former Yugoslavia
23 first went to former Yugoslavia
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina and also to Sector East in Croatia. Okay. We were
25 not fired upon, but there were war operations ongoing in
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina as you know very well. The same applies to UNPROFOR.
2 During I -- for example, in December 1994 I went to Bihac with the
3 logistics convoy and there was active fighting between --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- is your question about being involved in
5 combat operations yourself.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And what you are describing is being a witness or
8 observing combat operations in which you were not involved yourself.
9 THE WITNESS: No, no, I --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's try always to understand what the
11 question is. For example, the last -- okay. That was your question, and
12 that's the answer.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. You've never fired a weapon in any combat?
15 A. No, I didn't.
16 Q. Your September -- looking at page 2 of your CV. September 1992
17 to June 1999, Balkans analyst. You were reporting -- sorry, you were
18 following up and assessing the political and military and economic
19 developments at the operational and strategic level. Was it just at the
20 operational and strategic level that you were focusing on?
21 A. As I explained in one of the articles I wrote, in a peacekeeping
22 operation distinction between tactical, operational, and strategic can be
23 very blurred. For example, a tactical development, i.e., a shooting
24 incident near a check-point could immediately have operational or
25 strategic implications. However, our assessments, the predictive
1 analysis we prepared, focused on the operational and strategic level of
2 command and control, i.e., the people I was working for.
3 Q. Now, when you started working for the ICTY Prosecution, what was
4 your day-to-day job? Did it remain the same throughout your time or did
5 it change?
6 A. I mean, overall the job contents remained the same because I
7 was -- during the eight years I was working here most of the times -- I
8 mean, at least after 2002, most of the times in trial so I was conducting
9 my analysis, for example, preparing expert reports. In addition, I was
10 providing support to the trial team, OTP trial team, on the issues I
11 highlighted in my CV, political background, military background. I
12 participated in interviews of witnesses and suspects. In some trials I
13 was called by the senior trial attorney to join him or her in the
14 courtroom to assist with the examination and cross-examination of
15 witnesses. So overall these were the kinds of activities I carried out
16 during these eight years.
17 Q. And were you one of many military analysts?
18 A. Yes. In the beginning, I think there were like 10 or 12 in the
20 Q. And did that change?
21 A. The team became -- the team became smaller over the -- over the
23 Q. And by -- by 2007, how big was the team?
24 A. I have no exact recollection. Maybe eight or nine. I'm not
1 Q. And was there a hierarchy in the team?
2 A. I believe that in 2007 we still had a team leader.
3 Q. At the time of 2007, where were you in the team?
4 A. I was one of the military analysts.
5 Q. And in 2007, was your day to day as you just described it?
6 A. Yes. I don't recall -- I mean, the activities I mentioned, yes.
7 At any given day these would be the activities depending on, for example,
8 on trial schedule.
9 Q. So did you answer to a particular trial attorney or did you
10 answer to all trial attorneys?
11 A. Most often I worked for several trial attorneys because I was
12 working on several cases at the same time. Most of them were related
13 cases, as you can see from my testimony in other trials.
14 Q. Which trial attorneys were you working for in 2007, can you
16 A. I remember some names. There was, I believe,
17 Ms. Hildegard Retzlaff-Uertz was still here. I believe Mr. Marks Moore
18 was here. I mean, it was the Vukovar trial. I'm not sure whether that
19 was 2007 or 2008. I also worked for -- I mean, she wasn't a trial
20 attorney -- a senior trial attorney, but Ms. Brehmeier.
21 Q. Who was working on this case at this time?
22 A. Exactly, exactly. There was -- I mean, there was also the Martic
23 case, but I'm not sure whether the trial had finished. I would have to
24 look at the dates when I testified, but anyway I was working for
25 different senior trial attorneys at the same time.
1 Q. And they could ask you, is this right, about -- for your
2 assistance in relation to any aspect of their case preparation?
3 A. I mean, they wouldn't ask me for legal advice obviously, but if
4 it concerned military issues or political even they would most often be
5 better served by the experts in leadership research team, yeah they would
6 contact me.
7 Q. But it could be for any aspect of the case preparation from
8 advising on indictments to advising on court proceedings to --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Clear questions, please. Advising on indictments is
10 a rather ambiguous expression. What should be put in an indictment or
11 how should an indictment should be phrased or how to -- you see, advising
12 on an indictment is really something which confuses me. Could you please
13 be more specific in this respect.
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I -- with respect, I think advising on
15 an indictment in the context of an expert opinion -- expert witness is
16 quite specific.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it could -- it could mean what documentary
18 evidence exists which could prove an indictment. It could also be what
19 documentary evidence you are aware of which would support an indictment
20 so as to advise on what to put in an indictment or not.
21 MR. JORDASH: But, Your Honour, I understand that it could be
22 many things, but unless I go through every single aspect of what advising
23 could be, it would take me to ten minutes rather than, I'm hoping,
24 putting something a little general Mr. Theunens can then answer.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Theunens is now aware that part of your
1 question, at least, is such that it could touch upon several aspects of
2 what is phrased rather broadly.
3 I interrupted you. Did you finish your question, Mr. Jordash
4 or --
5 MR. JORDASH: I'll try to be more specific.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. JORDASH:
8 Q. Did you -- did you offer specialised knowledge to those engaged
9 in drafting indictments?
10 A. Yes, I did, on military aspects.
11 Q. Was there a pattern in terms of when you would be brought in to
12 do that? At what stage of the drafting of the indictment?
13 A. Not really, because each -- what I remember, at least each senior
14 trial attorney had his or her own approach, and in some cases I was not
15 asked whatsoever or even if I spontaneously -- spontaneously proposed
16 certain things irrespective of whether it was for an indictment or not,
17 sometimes it was used, sometimes it was not used.
18 Q. Well, did the Prosecution -- did you see this indictment at the
19 time it was being drafted, the Stanisic indictment?
20 A. I may have seen it, but I have no clear recollection.
21 Q. You mean, throughout the whole of your time -- well, did you ever
22 see the Stanisic indictment?
23 A. Of -- of course I saw it, because I read it before drafting my
24 report in order to know which, for example, geographic areas I should
25 cover, but I have no exact recollection whether I was involved in the --
1 in the drafting of the indictment, i.e., whether I was consulted or
2 whether I gave, as you express, specialised knowledge on military issues
3 during the drafting process. Probably I did, but as I explained earlier,
4 I worked on sometimes five, six cases, among them sometimes two or three
5 in the trial at the same time, and I didn't keep a detailed record of
6 what I did for each trial at which -- or which case at which time.
7 Q. Well, did you not have notes concerning your interaction with the
8 Stanisic indictment or with the Stanisic case in particular before you
9 were asked to draft an expert opinion?
10 A. My e-mails -- the e-mail exchanges would be the notes, but I did
11 not keep separate notes.
12 Q. So you have e-mail exchanges. I mean, how much contact have you
13 had with the Stanisic case before drafting the expert opinion in 2007?
14 A. I'm just trying to recollect exactly, because it's mainly related
15 to persons. When Ms. Hildegard Retzlaff-Uertz was still here, obviously
16 the case we were working on the Slobodan Milosevic case, Milan Martic,
17 there were aspects that also touched upon this case, and there were
18 several contacts as part of the two cases I mentioned.
19 She left, and I'm not sure -- I think it was sometime in 2007.
20 Then the contacts became much less. I was burdened with other cases. So
21 then it was much more limited. So maybe once a week, once every
22 fortnight. And as I said I was focused on that. I mean, we look at the
23 dates, probably I was working mainly on Milan Martic case then.
24 Q. But you were working on this case, though?
25 A. I have been part of the Prosecution team for this case.
1 Q. You were -- you were interviewing witnesses or advising alongside
2 the interviewing investigator or lawyer?
3 A. Yes, but I'm not -- I mean, at that time I don't recall that it
4 was specifically for this case. I -- some of the witnesses I -- I think
5 I participated in the interview of, say, two or three witnesses for -- in
6 the Milan Martic case, some even during trial, and I didn't know -- I
7 wouldn't know in advance whether they would be called here or not, or
8 maybe they would appear as Defence witnesses. And the same applies to --
9 to other trials, other cases.
10 Q. Including this one.
11 A. Indeed.
12 Q. And what would that process entail, you sitting in on the
14 A. It could mean that I sat in on the interview, yes. It could also
15 mean that I would draft questions which the lawyer or the investigator
16 would use, yes or no. And it could also imply that I would ask
17 questions. And I'm talking now in general. I have no specific
18 recollection for -- for this trial.
19 Q. And what kind of questions would you draft in such situation?
20 A. Most often my role consisted of identifying documents which would
21 assist in understanding the background to the potential role of the
22 witness or the activities of the witness. Sometimes they were documents
23 signed by the witness we were about or the suspect we were about to
24 interview. So I provided these -- I selected these documents. I tried
25 to explain what they meant in the context. I mean, these were military
1 documents. I think that's a good summary for what my role was.
2 Q. When you say "identify," you would do the searches on the various
3 Prosecution databases and produce the documents and give them to the
4 trial attorney or interviewing officer?
5 A. That is correct, Your Honours.
6 Q. And what would you looking for? Would you be looking for any
7 document with the witness's name on it or inculpatory evidence or
8 exculpatory evidence?
9 A. I wouldn't make any distinction, and I think especially the
10 exculpatory evidence would be important because obviously we have a legal
11 obligation to disclose that.
12 Q. So you saw your duties as working -- when you were working for
13 the OTP in that capacity to include the search for exculpatory material
14 as a positive duty, did you?
15 A. Yes, because I see the role of -- of -- I mean, on my modest
16 level of the OTP is try to identify the facts and not just one side of
17 the facts.
18 Q. And is it your evidence that you cannot recall any of the detail
19 of your interaction with the Stanisic case prior to your involvement
20 writing an expert report? Is that really your evidence?
21 A. No, it is not. I have -- I have been involved in team meetings.
22 I have participated in interviewing witnesses who may have been called
23 here. I don't know. I don't know even -- I mean, I don't who has been
24 called. I prepared memos on certain issues when I was asked, and okay, I
25 did the work of a military analyst working for a trial team in the OTP.
1 Or for a case team in the OTP. I'm sorry.
2 Q. So are we talking tens of hours or hundreds of hours of work on
3 the Stanisic case prior to it, your drafting of the report?
4 A. If you take -- I mean, I started here in 2002, and obviously a
5 lot of the work I did for, for example, the Slobodan Milosevic was of use
6 here, too. Then I would more see it as hundreds of hours. But they were
7 not specifically Stanisic and Simatovic. They were part of the overall
8 package of tasks I carried out as a military analyst in the military
9 analysis team.
10 Q. Well, just trying to be a bit more specific. In relation to this
11 case, in relation to the issues which pertain to this case -- well, let's
12 stick with the first. In relation to this case specifically, can you
13 estimate, is it tens or hundreds of hours? This case specifically.
14 A. Then it would be more tens, tens of hours.
15 Q. And in relation to the issues which pertain to this case such as
16 the Red Berets, such as Martic, such as the various paramilitaries you've
17 identified, we are talking hundreds of hours?
18 A. Yes. And even -- I mean, you go tens, hundreds. It's a wide
20 Q. I think I've been quoted as saying which is the Red Berets such
21 as Martic, and I think what I meant to say the Red Berets as well as
23 Sorry, Mr. Theunens.
24 A. Yeah. I didn't keep count of the hours, but I can say that I
25 worked on this case before, most of the time because it was related to
1 other cases I was working on for a long time. Preparing a report
2 takes -- I means, it's not a question of tens of hours. It's hundreds of
3 hours to prepare such a report. But I what I'm trying to explain is that
4 it was specific time I dedicated to this case, no. It was part of the
5 overall package where, as you will compare -- when you compare this
6 report with like the Seselj report I did for the Seselj case or Martic or
7 Milosevic, there is some similarity obviously. I didn't have to reinvent
8 everything. A lot of material was already reviewed. I had already
9 reviewed a lot of material.
10 Q. And in relation to all of these hundreds of hours, you saw it as
11 your duty to continuously identify exculpatory material?
12 A. Yes, it's part of my daily job, and if I would discover such
13 material I would send it to the trial team because they would deal with
15 Q. Now, let's move to when you were first approached in this case to
16 write a report. Who did you first meet?
17 A. I mean, in the very early stages Ms. Hildegard Retzlaff-Uertz
18 spoke about the requirement for -- in this case there would have to be a
19 report too. That was -- that is several years before 2007, but I didn't
20 work it on, but then in 2007 Ms. Brehmeier told me that the trial team
21 requested an expert -- a military expert report for this case.
22 Q. And they asked you to write a report to -- within which
24 A. The initial parameters were extremely general. It was basically
25 write a military expert report and then I proposed, okay I will submit a
1 table of contents for your review, and that table of contents will then
2 serve as my -- my direction or the guidance for my further activities.
3 Q. Sorry, go on. I interrupted you.
4 A. Yeah. So I submitted a draft table of contents and that was
5 approved and that's when I started to -- I mean, continued to work on the
7 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to Exhibit P1575 MFI'd and to page 2 of
8 the table of contents, and it's 16 on e-court.
9 Q. Now, are you able at this stage to identify which were the
10 headings that you first sat down and drafted before beginning the
11 drafting of the report?
12 A. I adopted -- or I -- it was my intention to take the same
13 structure I had or the same approach I had applied in the other cases,
14 i.e., to have -- to see whether at least have two big components in the
15 report, first a background section which would deal with legislation,
16 doctrine, and related issues, and then call it a factual section which
17 would deal with the situation as it unfolded during -- during the
18 conflict in Croatia
19 explains part 1. And then okay because the volume -- it was too
20 voluminous I split Croatia Bosnia-Herzegovina in two separate parts, part
21 2 and part 3.
22 Q. And what about the sub-heading. Let's take for example at page
23 3, 17 on e-court, "Serbian Volunteer/Paramilitary Groups."
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Was that one of the subheadings which you took from other
2 A. I must have done or -- I mean, discussed such issues also in my
3 report for the Seselj case. I'm not sure whether -- to what extent I
4 used the same title in the Milosevic case, because over the years we
5 acquired more material, and so I was able to be more specific.
6 Q. And the title below that, "Serbian Volunteers/Paramilitary Groups
7 Controlled by or Linked Otherwise to the Ministry of Interior Republic of
9 A. When conducting the research and drafting the report, and I did
10 it in a way like I could draft maybe one section of part 3 and then go
11 back to a section part 2 depending on the time I had available and other
12 issues, I came to a conclusion that there were groups which had specific
13 relations with the Ministry of Interior, but I was not able on the basis
14 of the material I had available to provide a general definition like,
15 okay, command and control, and so I took a bit of a maybe more general
16 definition or title in which I tried to encompass the different aspects
17 of that relation as I identified it on the basis of the documents I
19 Q. So you're saying that heading wasn't there when you first showed
20 Ms. Brehmeier the contents table.
21 A. No. There's no reference to Ms. Brehmeier here.
22 Q. Well, didn't you say yesterday that you'd shown an OTP
23 representative the draft headings?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who was that?
1 A. That was Ms. Brehmeier as I confirmed today, but --
2 Q. Right.
3 A. -- I'm not sure whether all the headings as they are in the final
4 table of contents were all there. I'm pretty sure they were.
5 Q. Because you said yesterday Ms. Brehmeier hadn't made any
6 substantive alterations?
7 A. Indeed.
8 Q. So --
9 A. If you let me finish. I don't remember any feed -- specific
10 feedback except for, yeah, it's okay, to the table of contents. But as I
11 tried to explain, once I had the table of -- or the overall table of
12 contents, then my work only starts, and obviously I can still make
13 changes, it's my report. So -- and I had to explain that also in another
14 trial here, that the headings reflect the contents. So it could well be
15 that I would change a heading after I had finished a section because only
16 then after reviewing the material that was available to me I could draw a
17 conclusion as to what that material meant to me, and this may be one of
18 these conclusions. I mean, one of the headings that was established in
19 such a manner.
20 Q. You don't -- you don't know at this stage. You don't know
21 whether it was there in the initial draft you gave to Ms. Brehmeier or it
22 was something that came later?
23 A. No. But I'm very sure Ms. Brehmeier had no influence whatsoever
24 on the nature on the contents of the table of contents.
25 Q. I'm not suggesting she did. I'm asking -- you're not able to say
1 whether that title was there at the beginning or it came later.
2 A. We would have to see the draft I submitted to her. I didn't have
3 the time to review all the draft before I came here, so ...
4 Q. You have the draft, do you?
5 A. It must be in the OTP. I mean, when I left I didn't erase my
6 hard disk or something or the network so the material is there.
7 Q. But let me -- let me --
8 MR. JORDASH: I note the time, Your Honour. I don't know if?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We would have a bit of a different time
10 schedule this morning, not having sessions of 75 minutes but two sessions
11 each, approximately 60 minutes. If this would be a suitable moment.
12 MR. JORDASH: Could I just ask one or two last questions?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we'll adduct the time we'll resume.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. You don't have a recollection, though, of going back to her,
16 Ms. Brehmeier, or any other OTP representative with new titles, including
17 this title, "The Serbian Volunteer/Paramilitary Groups Controlled by or
18 Related Otherwise to the MUP of Serbia
19 A. My recollection is as follows: I submitted a -- when I got the
20 tasking, within a week or two I submitted a draft table of contents which
21 was very similar to this one but obviously there were a lot of gaps. And
22 then more or less a week or a number of days before the deadline that was
23 established by the Trial Chamber, I submitted a draft report to
24 Ms. Brehmeier, and I received that draft report back with the only
25 comments like there were some typos in it, and those are the only
1 contacts I had with the Stanisic-Simatovic OTP trial team on this report.
2 Q. Okay. If you don't remember, you don't remember.
3 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour --
4 THE WITNESS: That's not my answer.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. Well, you don't remember --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you gave us the information which you still
8 remember and what you don't remember, and that's what Mr. Jordash is
9 talking about. If you don't remember further details about that, then
10 you don't remember, and that seems to be a -- an unproblematic matter.
11 We will have a break, and we will resume at 10.30.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.05 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.35 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, are you ready to continue?
15 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
16 Q. I just want to move swiftly and wrap up this section,
17 Mr. Theunens. Just some clarification. Was there e-mail exchange
18 between you and Ms. Brehmeier during the drafting of your report
19 concerning the drafting of your report?
20 A. I sent the draft table of contents by e-mail. I'm not -- I don't
21 remember whether I got her feedback that she agreed with the nature -- or
22 the table -- the draft table of contents, whether I got that orally or by
23 e-mail, and I submitted the draft report to her, I mean the final draft,
24 to her by e-mail, and again I don't remember -- I mean, she -- no, she
25 replied to me, I mean, with the draft saying there was some typos line
1 whatever in this part, this word or that word, and that was also done by
2 e-mail. I don't recall any other e-mails concerning the drafting of the
3 report in between these two e-mails.
4 Q. Nor with any other Prosecutor involved in the Stanisic case?
5 A. No. And just to be fully accurate, there may have been e-mail
6 exchanges on the progress of the work like I remember there were hearings
7 in the -- in the case where the Trial Chamber invited Ms. Brehmeier to
8 propose deadlines when the expert reports would be submitted, and I may
9 have received an e-mail from her asking me when would report be finished
10 or whether I could --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to cut this short.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash is apparently seeking whether there was
14 any exchange of substantial comments on drafts you produced, and I take
15 it from your answer that it was rather practical matters than anything
16 else, and is that the full answer to the question? If that's the case,
17 then you can move on, Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. And just so that we understand the process which you followed,
22 was the first step to sit in front of the various databases and search on
23 the subjects which had been identified in your table of contents?
24 A. The first step was see what I had already done, i.e., reports for
25 other trials, cutting and pasting that in a draft report, and then
1 identifying key words or -- yeah, key words I would use to conduct
2 searches. Identifying what I would call information gaps and based on
3 that also, yeah, the key words to conduct the searches.
4 Q. And the key words to fill the information gaps produced a number
5 of documents, and then how did you make the selection of which documents
6 would go into the report?
7 A. Your Honours, I made the selection by applying the methodology I
8 explained yesterday. For each and every document I saw, I would
9 obviously evaluate the documents, i.e., I would look at the reliability
10 of the source, the credibility of the information. I would try to find
11 when I had a document saying one thing, I would try to find another
12 document that would corroborate that information or not in order to make
13 sure -- I mean, again to ascertain the credibility of the information.
14 And it's basically like a puzzle where you identify pieces, and by
15 conducting additional searches additional pieces can be identified and a
16 picture is being created at the end.
17 Q. And so did that process then involve a rejection of documents
18 which you didn't find reliable?
19 A. Rejection in a sense of not including them in the report, but I
20 would still keep them with me, because obviously over the years the OTP
21 acquired additional documentary evidence, and it could be that
22 information that seemed less credible at one moment because of the
23 availability of additional documents, that that information would become
24 more credible.
25 Q. Well, was there, though, at the end of your -- the process
1 whereby you completed your draft, a pile of documents which had not found
2 its -- their way into the report because you hadn't found them reliable
3 or convincing or useful, and then a pile of documents which you had found
4 to be so, and you put those in the report?
5 A. Yeah. That's -- that's the way how you could represent it.
6 Q. And that process from what you've told us then necessarily would
7 have involved finding exculpatory material; correct?
8 A. Yes. I mean, when I conduct the searches on the basis of the key
9 words I discover different materials, and material that looked
10 exculpatory, i.e., Rule 68, would I share that with the team. I would
11 forward it to the team.
12 Q. Would you put it -- or did that exculpatory material find its way
13 into the report?
14 A. Yes, it did.
15 Q. Could you indicate where that is? Just a paragraph or two where
16 you deal with documents and a conclusion or a comment on those documents
17 which is exculpatory in terms of the accused's liability or the Serbian
18 MUP's responsibility.
19 A. I don't have a specific paragraph or conclusion to that effect.
20 But there are, for example, situations when I had only -- no, when there
21 was a contradictory conclusion as to the nature of a unit, was it the
22 MUP RS, MUP RSK, or MUP Serbia unit, I would highlight what the different
23 document said. I mean, it's not a hundred per cent exculpatory, but at
24 least I tried to be as accurate as possible to -- as in case there is any
25 doubt about, for example, here the allegiance or the adherence of a unit.
1 Q. But you didn't include any paragraph, or you didn't come to any
2 conclusions, let me put it that way, you didn't come to any conclusions
3 yourself on the basis of a perusal and assessment of the documents which
4 undermine the inference that the MUP was responsible for that the accused
5 were responsible; is that correct?
6 A. It's a question of the logic you apply. I mean, the conclusion
7 is the result of the materials you look at, and -- I mean, the materials
8 can say different things. I will try to draw a conclusion on the basis
9 of the materials I have in front of me, but it's not that you have a
10 preconceived conclusion, and then you would try to do the opposite. That
11 doesn't work.
12 Q. So the simple answer is that you didn't draw any conclusions
13 which you placed into the report which undermine the responsibility of
14 the MUP or the accused's responsibility. Is that fair?
15 A. I think it's a bit of a too drastic conclusion. For example, I
16 have included documents indicating that indeed the MUP acted against
17 paramilitaries at a certain moment in time. You could consider that
18 material exculpatory.
19 Q. But did you draw that conclusion, though, and say well, for this
20 period of time I can say the Serbian MUP did fulfil its duties, for
21 example. Did you draw that conclusion and put it in the report?
22 A. I did. I'm just trying to identify it. When we talk about
23 Article 118 of the Law of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
24 prohibition of the organisation, establishment, and so on of paramilitary
25 groups, I state that this article was selectively implemented by the
1 Ministry of Interior. Now, you could say this is exculpatory because it
2 shows that they do implement it, but they do it selectively, but I found
3 it important to include that document to show that they had the ability
4 to implement the article, and I -- it's on page 93 of part 1 where I
5 refer to -- it's P1057.
6 Q. So what conclusion did you reach then concerning the exculpatory
7 part of that conclusion? What did the Ministry of the Interior do as you
8 found it in relation to its obligations?
9 A. P1057 shows that the Ministry of the Interior -- I mean the
10 police arrested a leader of a paramilitary group.
11 Q. And was that then the full extent of your conclusion concerning
12 the exculpatory aspect of this selective enforcement conclusion?
13 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
14 Q. Well, I can see that the arrest of a leader of a paramilitary
15 group could be viewed as exculpatory.
16 A. Mm-hmm.
17 Q. I can see how the selective enforcement has an exculpatory aspect
18 to it, but did you reach any other conclusions concerning what the
19 Serbian MUP did other than the arrest of one leader?
20 A. I mean, on the same page there is P1058 where I indicate that the
21 state security collected the information on the activities of at least
22 one volunteer group.
23 Q. Okay. So that's two things. Anything else that you concluded
24 having looked at all these databases that you had in your possession, all
25 the hundreds of documents you must have looked at.
1 A. Obviously I looked at many documents in accordance with the
2 methodology I explained yesterday, and more specifically the table of
3 contents I had. So when I tried to explain, for example, I have a
4 section on relations or -- I mean, we still have the table of contents
5 titled "4. Serbian Volunteer/Paramilitary Groups," and I look at attitude
6 of the authority of the SFRY, of course I take all these aspects into
7 account to the best of my abilities.
8 Q. But you --
9 A. I'm not explicitly looking for inculpatory or exculpatory
10 conclusions. I'm trying to draw conclusions on the basis -- I have the
11 facts -- on the basis of the facts that are established in the documents.
12 Q. So the only then - is this right? - document you saw, and perhaps
13 I should say thousands of documents that you've looked at over the years
14 and prior to 2007, out of the thousands of documents you saw the only two
15 documents which suggested that the Serbian MUP did anything in relation
16 to paramilitary groups in enforcing the prohibition on them as you see it
17 is those two documents?
18 A. In the report is a selection of material. So I didn't include --
19 I mean, if I want to use your terminology, I didn't include all the
20 inculpatory material. I tried to identify the most significant documents
21 again to understand the facts in order for me to draw certain
22 conclusions. And I didn't look specifically at the nature of these
23 documents, except if it was an exculpatory document, my first concern or
24 my -- I mean the important concern was to send it to the team because it
25 had to be disclosed.
1 Q. Okay. We'll come back to that in more concrete form.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one clarifying question, Mr. Theunens.
3 I'll read part of your answer to one of the previous questions as it
4 appears on my screen. You said you tried to identify -- you said that
5 Article 118 of the law of the defence of the Republic of Serbia
6 selectively implemented by the Ministry of Interior. Yes. And then you
7 continued and I now literally quote:
8 "Now, you say -- could say this is exculpatory because it shows
9 that they do implement it, but they do it selectively, but I found it
10 important to include that document to show that they had the ability to
11 implement the article."
12 And then you give the source. Your answer puzzled me because you
13 say drawing the attention to the selective implementation you could
14 consider that as exculpatory because they did implement it, although not
15 always. And then you continue by saying: "But I found it important to
16 include that document to show that they had the ability to implement the
17 article," which is inculpatory to the extent that not implementing due to
18 a lack of ability may be neutral or -- but not implementing where you
19 have shown the ability might well be understood as very inculpatory.
20 And I was puzzled by your answer saying now you could say it's
21 exculpatory, but I found it important to show the ability which tends to
22 be more inculpatory or at least the inculpatory elements seems to be more
23 on the foreground and you make the distinction between exculpatory and
24 this aspect which, although you do not say that with that many words,
25 could easily be understood as inculpatory.
1 Could you -- because I was puzzled by the answer because I
2 wondered to what extent it shows a mindset.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I should have included -- I'm not
4 sure what said but I should have said, "but I also found it important to
5 include the document."
6 Now, as I tried to explain to Mr. Jordash, the starting point is
7 not to say I look for inculpatory or exculpatory material. The starting
8 point is to -- is to identify material that allows to understand the role
9 in this case of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
10 relation to volunteer/paramilitaries, and I came across various
11 documents, and the most the documents I consider the most significant I
12 included in the report, significant in the sense that allows to
13 understand what the Ministry of the Interior was doing in relation these
14 volunteers and paramilitaries.
15 The issue we're discussing now, i.e., whether it's inculpatory or
16 exculpatory, as I said was not my primary concern. I tried to provide a
17 complete picture in order to understand the role. Now, these
18 conclusions -- I mean you can look at each document individually, and you
19 could say, okay, this is more inculpatory, this is more exculpatory, but
20 that's not the process I conducted. That was not my concern.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I see the difference if you would have given the
22 answer, but I also found it important that's not what is recorded as a
23 matter of fact.
24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry [overlapping speakers].
25 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether that's, but it certainly would
1 have -- my question would have been phrased quite differently if the word
2 "also" had appeared there. I was puzzled by the answer.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. JORDASH:
5 Q. Thank you. So I just want to understand the situation. We have
6 on page 93 the two exhibits you've just referred to, I think, showing
7 this selective enforcement, so showing some enforcement by the Serbian
8 MUP. Now, is it the fact that you didn't find any other enforcement by
9 the MUP or you found other enforcement and you didn't find those
10 documents reliable, or you simply didn't -- you found documents of
11 Serbian MUP enforcement but just chose not to include them for another
13 A. My recollection is that there was additional -- or there was
14 enforcement, for example, in November 1993. I mean, there are documents
15 about that from the Serbian Radical Party, and I believe also from the
16 MUP whereby senior volunteers of the republican -- of the Serbian Radical
17 Republican Party are arrested. I don't think I included those in my
18 report here. I include them in another report. Okay, it's not relevant
19 for this trial, but again they would also have shown the selective
20 implementation of Article 118, and again for reasons -- reasons of
21 concisivness I chose not to include those documents.
22 Q. You accept they would have been exculpatory. I mean, it's a
23 matter of degree how much, but do you accept that they would have been
25 A. I mean, it would have been a separate a separate analysis because
1 again if we go into the specifics of these documents we see that people
2 were indeed arrested but they were almost immediately released, and they
3 were only arrested as we see with P1057 on the basis of illegal
4 possession of firearms, whereas there was information available from
5 various sources that these volunteers had been involved in serious
6 crimes. And again I chose for reasons of concisivness not to include
7 these documents or to refer to that specific aspect in my report.
8 Q. So apart from then Seselj -- they arrested the Seselj members in
9 1993 for what you would see as the wrong reasons or the wrong charges,
10 and these two documents in here, you didn't find anything else which
11 showed what the Serbian MUP might have been doing relevant to this report
12 or to this issue in the report?
13 A. No. I mean obviously I conducted searches, for example, when I
14 had a JNA report, I mean, a security [indiscernible] report on alleged
15 crimes by Arkan, I did conduct searches to try to see whether the
16 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
17 in relation to those or other reports on -- on illegal activities
18 conducted by Arkan, and I don't remember finding any.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. But please if you have them show me.
21 Q. I will in due course, Mr. Theunens.
22 Did you ask -- I mean, we'll come back to this in more detail
23 when I take you through the legislation, but just to wrap this point up
24 now, you did say yesterday, I think, in relation to my learned friend
25 Mr. Weber, your approach had not been to analyse - am I stating this
1 fairly? - analyse the Ministry of the Interior and its workings? Is
2 that fair?
3 A. Mr. Weber asked me about the structure of the Ministry of the
4 Interior and indeed I didn't analyse that.
5 Q. And did you analyse -- well, let me put it differently. Did you
6 ask anyone in the OTP to write to the National Council and ask for
7 documents showing what the Ministry of the Interior was doing in these
9 A. I have even myself, I mean, drafted a draft RFAs, request for
10 assistance, on the issues you highlighted and for me that was essential
11 not just for this particular but also for other trials I was working on;
12 i.e., reports on investigation of volunteers/paramilitaries and any trial
13 cases that was happening, because to me that is an essential aspect of --
14 would be an essential aspect of what were my tasks.
15 Q. So you wrote an RFA asking the National Council to produce the
16 work diaries or the daily reports, the weekly reports, the annual
17 reports, from the Ministry of Interior of Serbia to show what they were
18 doing between 1991 and 1995?
19 A. I'm sorry. I drafted several RFAs in relation to these documents
20 prepared by the military. As you know, there were several -- I mean, I
21 haven't -- I don't remember drafting any specific RFAs for the Ministry
22 of the Interior.
23 Q. Do you have your records with you in The Hague, Mr. Theunens?
24 A. No, I don't have them with me. I mean, I left here and -- but
25 it's all on the --
1 Q. It's all on the record.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. So the Prosecution should have the RFAs, if they exist, where you
4 wrote to the MUP and the response which produced whatever it produced.
5 A. Myself, I didn't keep a record of the response. I kept a record
6 of the documents I drafted, but -- I mean, I'm certain I drafted several
7 RFAs in relation, for example, to Vukovar case.
8 Q. But, Mr. Theunens, sorry to interrupt, but this was -- did you
9 not see this as an essential part of your analysis in this -- the
10 compilation for this report? I am setting out to draft a report what it
11 was the MUP should have done, what it was they didn't do, and what the
12 consequences of that failure led to. So do you not have a very clear
13 recollection of your investigative approach in terms of seeking out the
14 information to show what the Serbian MUP did?
15 A. I am sure I drafted such RFAs for what the military is concerned,
16 I mean, the JNA, the SFRY Armed Forces, and the VJ. I am not sure -- I
17 mean, you would have to check -- you would have to check my work records
18 whether I drafted some -- such RFAs for the Serbian Ministry of Interior.
19 Q. Okay. Let's leave the point now. We'll come back to it later
20 when we look at documents.
21 MR. JORDASH: Could we have please on e-court P321 -- sorry,
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Let me just understand the process a security officer had a duty
10 at that time in classical JNA military doctrine had a duty to investigate
11 crime within the JNA by JNA military personnel, or by armed forces
13 A. Your Honours, I would first like to finish my answer to the
14 previous question where I was saying that we know -- I mean it has been
15 established that the security administration at the SSNO, i.e., the
16 addressee of the report, was very interested in the activities of various
17 paramilitaries, i.e., nonofficial armed forces knowing that the armed
18 forces consist of the JNA and the TO.
19 Coming to your second question, yeah, security officers had among
20 their duties, I mean their duties included among other duties to
21 investigate crimes; for example, crimes against the armed forces.
22 Q. Right. And by armed forces personnel?
23 A. Mm-hmm.
24 Q. And the way it would work is that the crime would be -- there
25 would be some evidence of the crime and the security organ in that
1 particular military unit or military region would then set off and
2 investigate that; is that correct?
3 A. That is an example of -- of what a security organ could do among
4 its other tasks.
5 Q. They might instruct, for example, the military police to take
6 action, too; is that correct?
7 A. Indeed.
8 Q. And what might the military police -- what might the military
9 police do? In a situation like this, what would this -- let me start
10 this again. In a situation like this, what would -- what would the duty
11 of the security officer be?
12 A. About which situation are we talking?
13 Q. Mr. Arkan.
14 A. Yeah, and what about Mr. Arkan?
15 Q. Well, he's investigating Arkan or she is investigating Arkan.
16 What would his duty be?
17 A. No. I mean it depends how -- this is not an example of a
18 criminal investigation report. As you know, I have included some of
19 these reports for the situation Saborsko and Skabrnja where security
20 organs use a particular template to -- when they are -- when they're
21 providing an investigative report, this document does not correspond with
22 the template. It's an information report.
23 Q. What's the difference?
24 A. Well, the difference is that there is no investigation of a
25 specific event, and if you -- I mean, I will try -- I will identify the
1 pages where I highlight -- where I show these investigative reports,
2 again with a specific template. Here the security organ is providing
3 information on what Arkan is doing, and on the basis of that information,
4 if there's clear reference to a crime, they would have prepared an
5 investigative report, but it has a different -- it looks different. It's
6 a different kind of report.
7 Q. Well, the information report at page 1 which we have on the
8 screen identifies a crime by Arkan.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- I'm -- again that may be my mistake. I'm
10 a bit confused. My understanding of the words "security" and
11 "investigations" leads me to make the following observation: I am under
12 the impression, and I am seeking verification of that because that's what
13 we're here for and not to work on the basis of my personal impressions,
14 that activity by security organs and security staff is primarily aiming
15 at gathering information which is important for tactical operation --
16 whatever; whereas, investigations conducted by police, military police
17 included, is primarily aiming at establishing facts for the purpose of
18 deciding whether or not to further proceed against a person who may have
19 committed a crime. It is also my understanding that information gathered
20 during security investigations may be used for informing law enforcement
21 agencies such as military police in order to investigate from their
22 responsibilities for the specific purpose I just mentioned.
23 It would assist me, first of all, if you would agree with this
24 brief observation, it would assist me to always clearly identify, and it
25 seems that that is part of the -- I wouldn't say debate because of course
1 it's not a debate, but Mr. Jordash is asking you questions, but that in
2 questions and answer that this is constantly colliding more or less, and
3 I would appreciate if you would share my basic analysis to make clear
4 both in questions and in answers what we are actually dealing with.
5 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, thank you.
6 Q. Is that something, what His Honour just said, that you can
8 A. Yes. I mean for the specifics on page 51 of part 1 I give a
9 summary of the duties of the security organs, and obviously it starts
10 with counter-intelligence, state security duties within the remit of the
11 military, as well as investigate serious crimes. And the investigation
12 of serious crimes, there the military police plays a role. However,
13 security organs can also play a role, and I can give you two examples of
14 that. These are P1205 and P1209. And I give you these examples to just
15 show you the specific template that is used for investigative reports,
16 which is significantly different from this information report we have in
17 front of us.
18 Q. Okay. That's sufficient. I mean, we can come back this subject,
19 but I think that distinction is an important one, and let's return to
20 this information report. Are you suggesting that there is a difference
21 in the quality of information -- sorry, let me use different words. In
22 the quality of the investigation underpinning on the one hand an
23 information report, and on the other a security organ investigation?
24 A. I mean, I would expect that the security organs in whatever
25 activity they carry out in order to do their job always do it in a
1 professional manner.
2 Q. Is there, though, a distinction or not?
3 A. I -- I have not come across such a distinction.
4 Q. So the investigation underpinning one or the other would be
5 expected to be conducted in the same rigorous manner.
6 A. That's what I would expect. I just have a difficulty with the
7 order "investigation" in the context of an information report. As you
8 see, some of these reports consist of a security organ having
9 conversations with sources of his.
10 Q. Mm-hmm.
11 A. Some sources may step forward spontaneously. That doesn't -- has
12 no implications for the value of the information, but it's formally it is
13 not an investigation so I just want to highlight the distinction.
14 Q. Okay. Let's call it a search for evidence or potential evidence.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, there you are exactly at the point
16 where I said I was confused. I do understand that gathering evidence
17 is -- to gather information in such a form that it can be used first by
18 the police and then later in a court setting; whereas, I understand that
19 security information is not primarily aiming at getting the information
20 in such a format that it can be used during prosecution and in court.
21 But the word "evidence" has, of course, a very specific meaning in legal
22 terms. So therefore this is exactly one of these points where I'm
23 getting confused.
24 MR. JORDASH: I'll avoid that.
25 Q. An information report, would that be used in a military court?
1 Could it be?
2 A. I cannot answer the question.
3 Q. Why not?
4 A. Because I haven't seen an example of it being done.
5 Q. So it -- you've never come across an information report being
6 used in a military court?
7 A. The logical cycle would be that the --
8 Q. No, I know. Just you, have you come across it? You haven't
9 experienced it? You don't know about this?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. And what about the security organ, the other type?
12 A. The same -- the same answer.
13 Q. You don't know.
14 A. No.
15 Q. But the process underpinning both would be expected to find the
16 most reliable evidence -- sorry, most reliable information. That would
17 be the duty on the security organ, no?
18 A. It's just, the reliability, I mean in intelligence cycle you use
19 it for the source. You use credibility for the information. Now, in an
20 information report, we have to look at the specific report because some
21 information reports refer to only one source. Other information reports
22 include information from different sources, so that is all a kind of a --
23 I mean, you have to take these factors into account. The same obviously
24 applies to an investigation report.
25 Q. Would the security organ in relation to either types have a duty,
1 a well-entrenched duty, to find the most reliable or credible
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, looking -- going back to the exhibit on e-court,
5 and perhaps we will -- we will turn this up in a moment, but did you look
6 at this, and this is what I suggest my analysis would be, did you look at
7 this and look at the way in which this particular author had conducted
8 his investigation or his inquiry? Let's call it that.
9 A. Your Honours, it's not an investigation --
10 Q. Let's --
11 A. Not an inquiry. It's an information report. The security organ
12 in the course of his professional activities comes across information in
13 different manners, and he explains in the report how he has come across
14 that information, and okay, he will pass the information as it has been
15 provided to him.
16 Q. And what would the security organ's obligation be once he'd
17 obtained this information?
18 A. His obligation, for example, like any other SFRY Armed Forces
19 officer, and I refer now to the 1988 regulations on the implementation of
20 the laws of war by the SFRY Armed Forces, would be that if the
21 information refers or is linked to crimes that he has to forward it to
22 the competent authorities. That applies to any officer. And otherwise
23 he would have to apply his professional standards to ensure that he
24 provide an accurate report to his superiors of the information he has
1 Q. Looking at the first paragraph there -- sorry, the second
2 paragraph, the accusation that Arkan had destroyed a church in the
3 village of Erdut, did any part of your analysis involve any sort of
4 critical analysis of why the lieutenant had provided that information to
5 the source -- sorry, to the person gathering the information? Let me put
6 it more simply. Didn't the JNA have a reason to accuse others of crime
7 in a scenario where Arkan was being used on a regular basis by the JNA?
8 A. It could be, but again as I tried to show in the -- in my report,
9 that is exactly the reason why I tried to include as many documents as
10 possible in order to see whether there are patterns or not.
11 Q. Well, okay, let's go to page 2. This is -- we spent some time
12 with Mr. Weber yesterday with this. Looking at the second-to-the-bottom
14 "There is a rumour among the JNA members located in that area
15 that Arkan goes into the action only after the JNA units mop up the area,
16 and then he --"
17 I'll ask you to turn up the report in a moment, Mr. Theunens, if
18 I can.
19 "... and that area and commit crimes. They think that Arkan is
20 doing it with the full support of the SDB of Serbia."
21 Okay. Since you're turning to it in the report let's turn to it
22 in the report, page 89, e-court 232. Let's see how you reported it in
23 your report.
24 Page 89, 2(a), you state that this report addressed the UBNOB at
25 the SSNO, stated that the JNA personnel believed that Arkan goes into
1 action only after the JNA units mop up the area and commit crimes. They
2 believe that Arkan is doing it with the full support of the SDB.
3 Now, the first question I have is this: Did you approach this --
4 did you approach this report with the critical analysis whereby you said,
5 well, since the JNA were using Arkan, since the JNA were fully familiar
6 with Arkan's activities, it is somewhat surprising that the source relied
7 upon a rumour or that the information report has the word "rumour" in it
8 concerning Arkan's activities.
9 A. No, because I mean first of all I tried to explain that the JNA,
10 as I have understood the operations of the JNA during that time period,
11 is not a fully -- I mean, has no unified view or there is no unified view
12 within the JNA on the use of these volunteers, and we see -- I mean,
13 there are several laws and decrees applied -- sorry, adopted during that
14 time period, fall 1991, in order to legalise the situation. Some --
15 Q. Did --
16 A. I'm sorry. Some officers are opposed to these volunteers, others
17 are in favour. And when I say "in favour," I would like to draw your
18 attention to page 94 in part 2 of the report where I quote, and this is a
19 very famous speech, General Andrija Biorcevic was the commander of
20 OG North at the time, also the commander of the 12th Novi Sad Corps, who
21 talks about exactly the same. He says that -- I mean, you can see the
22 quotation, he talks basically about exactly the same as is suggested in
23 this rumour with the exception of the reference to the SDB.
24 Q. But that -- that's the point I'm making. It wasn't -- wouldn't
25 you have expected at that point in time that many JNA personnel from
1 Biorcevic downwards would have known precisely what Arkan was doing? Why
2 would a report simply record that there is a rumour if the person
3 drafting the report had been doing his duty correctly and professionally?
4 A. The report dates from the 1st of October, 1991. It may well be
5 that the source of the security organ has no more precise information for
6 various reasons and cannot say more than there is a rumour.
7 Q. But wouldn't you have expected that the person compiling this
8 information report could rely upon a bit more than rumours if they are
9 seriously carrying out their duties given the relationship between the
10 JNA and Arkan which you yourself have agreed existed? How difficult
11 would it have been?
12 A. I mean, if you understand military structures, not everybody has
13 the same access to information and is -- and is as familiar as -- as -- I
14 mean as -- as the commander in a sense. If Biorcevic decides to use
15 Arkan -- Arkan's forces doing a specific operation, Biorcevic being the
16 commander of OG North, somebody in a ballistics battalion of OG North may
17 have no clue whatsoever about this.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. But he may have heard while he's stationed in the area that a guy
20 named Arkan is doing certain things in the area and is reporting that to
21 the security organ. I mean, this is just one way to explain.
22 Q. Right. I see. So basically it's, according to you, quite
23 reasonable for members of the JNA in SBWS at this point not to know what
24 Arkan was doing?
25 A. I would say for very low-level people who are maybe not directly
1 involved in combat operation, that is possible. It cannot be ruled out.
2 Q. Even colonels? That's who the author of this report spoke to.
3 A. It --
4 Q. Sorry. The author is a colonel. I beg your pardon. That would
5 be normal? Then you would think that colonels in the SBWS region at that
6 point not to know what Arkan is up to?
7 A. It would depend of his position.
8 Q. Okay. Let's just -- I can see the time. Page 89, this is -- I
9 mean, I'm asking these questions because this is the type of inquiry that
10 I submit you ought to have conducted.
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, as we went through yesterday, if I
14 could just request, I see documents are referred to multiple times in
15 multiple parts, if Mr. Jordash could just please refer to page 89 of
16 which part since the numbering --
17 MR. JORDASH: Oh, sorry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It was part 2 --
19 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- as Mr. Theunens clarified when he referred to a
21 page just a couple of page after this one in that same part 2.
22 Mr. Jordash, let me try to understand exactly what your point is.
23 It seems that your point is how could you ever provide such vague
24 information? You might even have an interest in presenting it as
25 Arkan's. Why only rumours? You should have known. Therefore,
1 Mr. Theunens has insufficiently considered possible bias in this report.
2 Is that --
3 MR. JORDASH: That's -- that's the -- the sum.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then I see that the rumour is only about
5 that paragraph, isn't it, that the rumour is limited to the paragraph you
6 just read --
7 MR. JORDASH: Yeah.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- that the rumour is about that he would only go
9 into the area after the JNA units mop up the area.
10 MR. JORDASH: And [overlapping speakers] --
11 JUDGE ORIE: All the rest of the report is not specifically based
12 on rumours, is it. Just for my understanding. It says in order this --
13 this happened, this -- that this -- he -- explosive are used to destroy
14 the church, whether part of it had already been destroyed. I mean, the
15 rumour part is -- and I'm just trying to understand the point you're
16 making is limited to that going in only after that paragraph.
17 MR. JORDASH: The -- yes. The -- the rumour applies to that
18 paragraph. That's what our position is.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to understand the point you're
20 making and then please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH: At this point we're not saying that Mr. Theunens
22 didn't consider these issues, but I'll make the point very briefly now
23 what our position is.
24 If we go back to page 89, 2(a), let's put it simply. You miss
25 out the word "rumour" when quoting the implication that Arkan is acting
1 with the full support of the SDB.
2 A. I didn't put the word "rumour," it's true, but I wrote JNA
3 personal believe. I don't see a big difference between the two.
4 Q. Well, there is --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's -- [overlapping speakers]. The point
6 is clear. If you believe something on the basis of a rumour, then that
7 may be by far weaker than believing something on the basis of more solid
8 information. That's --
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's the point.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
11 MR. JORDASH: And this is second --
12 JUDGE ORIE: And it seems that Mr. Theunens --
13 THE WITNESS: I agree.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- agrees that it's not exactly the same.
15 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]
16 MR. JORDASH:
17 Q. The second hand here -- sorry, can I just ask, if I may,
18 Your Honour, why didn't you put in the word "rumour"? Why miss out that
19 obvious thing which exculpated to a degree the SDB or casts a
20 sufficient -- a significant doubt on the implication, didn't it?
21 A. No, I mean it's -- the best I can say it's an oversight. I had
22 no deliberate intention to misrepresent the document because I knew that
23 you would fine out, so.
24 Q. Okay. And did you go through this analysis that we just went
25 through over the last 15 minutes, did you go through that analysis?
1 A. Indeed because -- that's why I included several documents and I
2 looked at several documents to try to see, for example -- I mean,
3 identify the relations between Arkan and the JNA, what is JNA at that
4 time in eastern -- in Slavonia
6 activities, I wanted to go further than just a rumour and I think I
7 found --
8 Q. But why didn't you then say something about this in the report?
9 Why don't you say when you wrote this report as you go through document
10 after document offering implication of the accused, why don't you offer
11 in the report a scintilla of analysis which casts doubt on the documents
12 such as it's an information report, such as there's a rumour? Why don't
13 you do that?
14 A. Because the other documents I have included do not include, for
15 example, the word rumour.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And since these documents provide similar information on yet --
18 on the behaviour of Arkan even though they have been compiled by
19 different organisations that allow me to draw a certain conclusion.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock. We would
21 finish today at 11.30.
22 We'll adjourn for the morning and will resume this afternoon at
23 3.00 in Courtroom I. And the same instructions apply as I gave to you
24 yesterday, Mr. Theunens. So yesterday evening it was for dinner. Now
25 it's for lunch.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
2 --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.33 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 3.05 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Since we resume on the same day, I will not invite
5 Madam Registrar to call the case. We resume where we left of this
6 morning at 11.30 in Courtroom II.
7 Judge Picard is unable to continue sitting this afternoon, and
8 Judge Gwaunza and myself have considered whether or not to continue and
9 we decided that being satisfied that it was in the interests of justice
10 to do so, we decided that the hearing of the case continue in the absence
11 of Judge Picard.
12 Mr. Jordash, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
14 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.
15 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Jordash.
16 Q. I want do deal -- return to the subject we were on just before
17 lunch but only for one or two minutes, lest there is any confusion about
18 the point we were trying to make.
19 In relation to Exhibit P327, the document wherein the rumour was
20 reported, isn't the real point this, Mr. Theunens, not so much that you
21 missed out rumour in the report which is one issue, but the bigger issue
22 is that this report effectively, when implicating the DB, derived from
23 this chain of reporting, that the source, the security agent, had spoken
24 to the assistant commander of the 51st Mechanised Brigade, and the
25 Commander of the 51st Mechanised Brigade had reported to the source
1 rumours that he'd heard from unidentified JNA members. Did you not see
2 it as part of your essential role as an expert to reflect that chain of
3 reporting within the report?
4 A. This morning we -- we -- I mean, I clarified indeed that where I
5 put that the JNA members believed that I should have quoted literally the
6 word "rumours." Now, as you all know, rumours can be true or false, and
7 in order to have a better picture of the overall situation and especially
8 that aspect, you will find several additional documents in my report that
9 clarify or that provide additional information on the relation between
10 Arkan and the state security of the Republic of Serbia
11 Q. Well, the point that -- so your evidence is that, well, I didn't
12 reflect that this report is double hearsay based on rumours --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, your point apparently is that the type
14 of reporting is not fully reflected or is not reflected in your view in
15 sufficient detail by Mr. Theunens. That's the point you want to make?
16 MR. JORDASH: That's the point.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That point is clear.
18 MR. JORDASH: Fine. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But of course -- you don't understand. The point is
20 clear to us. That doesn't mean in any way that we either agree with that
21 or not. That's a totally different matter. But for the examination of
22 the witness, I think it's sufficient for us to know that this is what you
23 put to him, and he says I've not specifically mentioned that. I've
24 referred to other reports which may corroborate or not corroborate, but
25 he refers to the material rather than to explicit mentioning it in the
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I --
3 JUDGE ORIE: That point is clear. Yes, perhaps you don't
4 overestimate but also do not underestimate the intelligence of the
5 Judges. I start with the first one. Don't overestimate. Sometimes a
6 point is clear already ten minutes before you have finished that point.
7 Perhaps not always, but try to seek -- or just ask us this is what I put
8 to the witness. Is that sufficiently clear or should I further elaborate
9 on that? Then we'll tell you whether we understood the point. Whether
10 we agree with it or not is a totally different --
11 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. So in a moment then we'll go through the reports which deal with
15 Arkan and the connection to the MUP so you can further elaborate on your
17 Before we go there, you wrote a report in the Mrksic case; is
18 that correct?
19 A. That is correct, and that report was admitted into evidence.
20 Q. Indeed. And was there a difference in the approach you took to
21 that report to this report in terms of your methodology?
22 A. No. I applied the same methodology, but the focus was obviously
24 Q. Now, may we have on e-court, please, 1D01 -- 1D01350, which is --
25 that's the 65 ter number. The e-court number is 1D01-8271. And the
1 page, precise page I want is 1D01-8275.
2 This is your testimony or part of it in the Mrksic case. And if
3 we look at the page number to the right-hand corner of the page, 10763,
4 and you're asked this at line 17:
5 "Let us move on to something now. I now want to move on to your
6 report. In the introduction to your report you state the methodology
7 that you used in producing this report. That is on page 1; right? You
8 had the opportunity when creating this expert opinion to attend witness
9 interviews, to talk to some of the witnesses, and during these
10 interviewing and proofings to be actively involved. In some cases you
11 saw statements that were given to OTP investigators. Would that seem to
12 be a fair assessment?"
13 "It's correct, Your Honour, but maybe it's a translation issue."
14 Let's go over the page to 10764, e-court 1D01-8276. I'll read
15 from the last page but to get the full sentence.
16 "But maybe it's a translation issue, but I don't think this is an
17 expert opinion. I don't express opinions in this report. This report is
18 an overview of documentation and analysis of documentation whereby the
19 nature of the documentation has been explained in the introduction -- in
20 the introductory section of the report; i.e., SFRY legislation, military
21 orders, and documents and reports from the SSNO, 1st Military District
22 and OG South, and also some open source material both from official
23 sources like the SSNO, as well as from other parties that were involved
24 in the conflict on the side of the JNA, if I could describe it like
1 Is that an answer that would apply to this report?
2 A. Yes. I mean, I understand that in English expert opinion may
3 mean something else, and in my own language an opinion does not
4 necessarily have the same, call it scientific basis, as an analytical
5 conclusion, but I understand it in English an expert opinion is the
6 commonly used expression for the kind of work I do.
7 Q. Well, do you just then categorise this report, the Stanisic and
8 Simatovic report as an overview of documentation?
9 A. Well, I think you -- in line 2 it says it's an overview of
10 documentation and analysis of the documentation. I have analysed
11 documents, that's what I did, and on the basis of that analysis drawn
12 certain conclusions.
13 Q. Okay. Now, I want to move to the Arkan documents which you say
14 supports your conclusions concerning the MUP's control of Arkan and his
16 Now, from our reading of the report in order to come to the
17 conclusion that the Serbian MUP controlled Arkan, you rely upon 9
19 A. Can I just clarify? I used control or linked otherwise.
20 Q. Well, let's have a look at what your report says --
21 A. Yep.
22 Q. -- because in the executive summary at page 10, which is --
23 sorry, it's page 7, paragraph 10, Exhibit P1575.
24 A. Mm-hmm, I see your point.
25 Q. You say that the --
1 A. Yeah, yeah.
2 Q. -- Arkan's group was -- Arkan's Tigers were controlled by the
3 Ministry of the Interior.
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Do you say -- I mean, I know that in another part of the report
6 you widen your assessment and say controlled or otherwise related to.
7 You also use "close ties" I think at another point.
8 A. It should be "controlled or related otherwise to," and I
9 apologise for this omission.
10 Q. So what do you mean, then, by -- when you use the world
11 "controlled"? Actually, what do you -- what did you conclude?
12 A. Factually I mean that on the basis of the documents I reviewed
13 that the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
14 over the activities of Arkan and his group, and this influence covered
15 several aspects. The Ministry of the Interior allowed Arkan to establish
16 his group, to arm themselves, to obtain uniforms. Subsequently, it's my
17 conclusions that the Ministry of the Interior also allowed Arkan to set
18 up a training camp in Erdut, which at a later moment in time was also
19 used or became known as a training centre for the RSK TO in SBWS.
20 I also believe that there is information -- I mean, on the basis
21 of the reports that when Arkan was involved in takeover operations in
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina that that must have gone -- I mean, the
23 decision-making behind his operational involvement, that the Ministry of
24 the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
25 allowed him to move through Serbia
1 to participate in these takeover operations.
2 Q. And the support for those conclusions we will find in this
3 report; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, and in addition, of course, I mean when I say that he's
5 allowed to move from Croatia
6 that's a conclusion I draw based on the geography and the maps I have
7 seen. I have no explicit document indicating that the MUP Serbia allowed
8 Arkan to move around in Serbia
9 northern Bosnia-Herzegovina, so they must have moved over land.
10 Q. And you're saying that the combination of the things you've
11 listed led you to conclude that the Serbian MUP controlled Arkan.
12 A. As I said earlier, it's controlled or linked otherwise. I really
13 tried and also for the other groups, for Dragan and then the Red Berets,
14 to find a military definition of the relation that existed or that I --
15 at that on the basis of the documents I reviewed I concluded that
16 existed, but I wasn't able to do so. That's why I used the -- the
17 description "controlled or linked otherwise to" and these specific links
18 can then be found in the documents in my report.
19 Q. And the way you phrased your various basis for that conclusion,
20 correct me if I am wrong, but are they omissions as you saw it? They
21 allowed Arkan to do the things that you've quoted rather than something
22 more direct such as ordering him to do it?
23 A. For the specific situation of Arkan, I don't recall seeing a
24 document from the ministry -- of any document, including documents from
25 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
1 minister of interior was ordering him.
2 Q. Okay. So it's admission. It's allowing him to travel. It's
3 allowing him a base outside of Serbia
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina. And allowing him to obtain a uniform.
5 A. I think -- I explained it differently. It's also allowing him
6 and -- to organise his group and recruit people in Serbia. And as you
7 see from the documents, often reference is made to looting of goods
8 from -- I mean, most documents refer to SBWS. These goods enter Serbia
9 and they were only as I explained yesterday three official crossing
10 points over the Danube
11 used, but still I would -- I mean, the borders were controlled by police,
12 and so these policemen allowed Arkan to bring in these goods into Serbia
13 Q. Now, we'll come to the issue of tacit authorisation tomorrow, but
14 just briefly, what you're saying is then that effectively what you found
15 was that Arkan could have been stopped at the check-points and wasn't
16 stopped, thus allowing him to do the things that you've listed. Is that
17 what it comes to?
18 A. That is -- that is one aspect. And I think one should also look
19 at the duration. The authorities of the Republic of Serbia
20 authorities are informed at the earliest stages of alleged crimes Arkan
21 has been involved in, and we still see in September 1995 that Arkan is
22 appearing with his group as he done in 1992 and in 1991. So again that's
23 another aspect I haven't clarified yet, but also a failure to act
24 against -- against crimes, where obviously I understand that each of the
25 institutions in the Republic of Serbia
1 Q. So the Serbian MUP failed to act against crimes, and the crimes
2 you're considering are within Serbia
4 A. The crimes I deal with, I mean the ones in my report, are outside
6 presence in areas where combat operations have taken place or where
7 takeovers took place.
8 Q. So you found that there was a duty on the Serbian MUP to deal
9 with Arkan's crimes within Croatia
10 A. It's more -- I'm sorry. It's more complicated, Mr. Jordash.
11 Obviously the crimes taking place in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
12 need to be investigated separately, but these crimes became widely known
13 in Serbia
14 which could actually encourage others to commit the same crimes. I would
15 also say that if you have an armed group like -- like Arkan with quite
16 substantial capabilities, which is at least to the outside world not
17 known as being under government control, that could represent a threat to
18 state security, and in this context, I mean I have it on page 91, it was
19 not my ambition or within my remit to analyse the duties of the Ministry
20 of Interior, but I understand from the existing legislation in the
21 Republic of Serbia
22 ministries, had a duty to enforce the law.
23 Q. Well, what law did they have a duty to enforce which they failed
24 to do which allowed Arkan to commit crimes in Croatia and Bosnia
25 A. No, I was specifically referring to Article 118 of the Law on
1 Defence which states that only official organs or state-controlled organs
2 are allowed to establish, organise, and train armed forces. I made a
3 distinction with the crimes in Croatia
4 of my answer to the previous question.
5 Q. So the relationship between the Serbian MUP and Arkan's men,
6 then, it was this tacit authorisation which we touched upon yesterday
7 which allowed him to travel to these various places and having arrived
8 there he committed crimes, and that's the relationship of -- you would
9 categorise as control?
10 A. No, because I don't think you're accurately reflecting my answer.
11 I gave a number of reasons why I used the expression "control." I mean,
12 if you want I can repeat them, but they are on the record. In this
13 context I can -- I mean, I don't mind drawing you again to other
14 documents in my report, but P1054 clearly states that the Serbian
15 minister of interior knows that certain political parties are
16 establishing and supporting paramilitary formations, and we know then
17 from, for example, P1057 that indeed they take measures against such
18 groups, albeit on a selective manner.
19 I haven't seen a document, but please show it to me, where the
20 minister of interior took any measures against Arkan or his group.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was again confused. I'm often confused. The
22 question was all about control or other links with Arkan's, Arkan's being
23 in the -- the group of three to be distinguished from the other groups,
24 that is Dragan, Arkan, and the Red Berets.
25 Now, part of your answer is now again about the political
1 parties, which was the other category.
2 "... P1054 clearly states that the Serbian minister of interior
3 knows that political parties are establishing and supporting paramilitary
4 formations ..."
5 Now, the question was about the relationship between Arkan and
6 the Serbian MUP, and the answer now relies on what seems to be knowledge
7 of a different category of groups. So apologies for being confused
8 again, but that's my confusion. If you say, well, therefore P1054 is not
9 the document I should rely on in answering this question, then it's
10 understood. If not, please explain.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours, for
12 any confusion I create, but I was under the understanding I had already
13 answered Mr. Jordash's question, but he repeats the question, and I
14 didn't thought it was useful to repeat my previous answer. And, okay, I
15 tried to focus on the fact that it was not just a tacit authorisation but
16 it went further, and that's why I tried to refer to two exhibits that
17 deal with a similar albeit different situation, similar, the existence of
18 armed groups and different, obviously as you have highlighted, whereas I
19 concluded Arkan is controlled or linked otherwise to the Ministry of the
20 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
21 groups or volunteer groups established by political parties.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So let my try to understand. What you say, the
23 tacit authorisation went a bit beyond what is just tacit, there was a bit
24 more. And if we are talking about control or otherwise linked, the
25 otherwise linked serves in order avoid a final conclusion that there was
1 real control as sometimes it was less although it was more than the
2 extended other category which went a bit beyond tacit authorisation. The
3 one a bit higher up, the other one a bit further down. Is that -- if
4 that is approximately, then of course it's still very much in abstract
5 terms, whereas we of course would primarily look at what the factual
6 basis for those conclusions is.
7 Mr. Jordash.
8 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps we can go to those facts now, Your Honour.
9 Q. Page 95 of your report, part P1575, please, part 1, page 95, 118
10 e-court, where you deal with -- have I got the wrong page? It should be
11 page 118 e-court, and it should be part --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] 8 in e-court is most likely in
13 part 1 of the report but not page 95.
14 MR. JORDASH: Page 118 e-court. That's the page we've got on
15 the --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes. And that is page 95.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. And there you see at the top of the page your conclusion which
19 you say takes Arkan's men from the category of tacit authorisation to
20 something more, where you note:
21 "In addition to allowing for and thus encouraging the existence
22 of party-affiliated armed volunteer/paramilitary groups and providing
23 weapons or other support to these groups, the Ministry of the Interior of
24 the MUP also maintain close ties with at least two so-called
25 volunteer/paramilitary formations," and we have amongst the two named
1 there Arkan's Tigers.
2 And if we look at the factual basis for that conclusion, there
3 are in our calculation nine documents, and I'd like to go through them.
4 And you can explain if you would how you arrived at this conclusion from
5 these documents.
6 First document, P1061, which we have at footnote 266 at the
7 bottom of this page.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I find it in footnote 265 instead of 266.
9 MR. JORDASH: 265. It's -- it's -- could I just have a moment.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. JORDASH: I should indicate to the Court at this stage that
12 there is some errors in the footnoting, and --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Because the ERN numbers are the same, although the P
14 references are different.
15 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, yes, in footnote chapter 1 --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could we perhaps have a look --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hmm.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If I look at the ERN numbers for English, in
19 footnote 265, first reference VJ security organs report on paramilitary
20 units has exactly the same English ERN numbers as the one we find in 266.
21 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Same title. One time it is P1061, the second time
23 it is P1060.
24 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I can give you the correction. It's
25 footnote -- in chapter 1, footnotes 242, 243, 266, 298, 300, and 306 all
1 give the wrong exhibit number. In respect of these footnotes, the
2 document is the Exhibit P1061, which is the first document that I'm going
3 to look at.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. Now, footnotes often refer to various
6 Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I see that one -- of course it if
8 there's any such problems like this the Defence raises with us we'll of
9 course verify and check. I see it's correctly listed in our chart that
10 we filed, and I can further verify the footnotes. Obviously the document
11 is what's controlling. I believe that there's a way between the chart
12 and the actual footnote to make the connection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Jordash has been kind enough to point you
14 to the footnotes. Could at least a correction be made in relation to --
15 could you verify that the footnotes mentioned by Mr. Jordash, and would
16 you -- if there's any need to correct the report then to have a corrected
17 report into evidence.
18 MR. WEBER: Yes. Of course. The only thing that the Prosecution
19 would request that the Defence -- either Defence team just send us an
20 e-mail with a list of any footnotes which they feel are not correct.
21 That way we'll be able to check all at one time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash has done part of the work already.
23 If there is anything to be added we will hear. Please proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
25 Q. So just to give the -- the picture of how much you rely upon this
1 document that we're going to have a look at, you rely upon it at footnote
2 242, 243, 265, 266, 294, 298, 297, 300, and 306 in part 1 of your report,
3 and also in part 3, footnote 286 and footnote 32.
4 MR. JORDASH: And perhaps we can have this document on e-court.
5 And it's 3 -- P1061 and B/C/S page 1, and page 1 of the English, please.
6 Q. This is one of the first out of the nine which you rely upon for
7 this conclusion concerning Arkan.
8 A. Just -- I think -- I mean if you go to part 2 and 3, I believe
9 that there are more -- in fact, I will look at them during the break, I
10 mean, to save precious court time, but I think there are other documents,
11 documents specifically dealing with operations that also make references
12 on -- links or relations between Arkan and the Ministry of the Interior,
13 but I will look into it during the break.
14 Q. We identified nine, so I'll go through them and you can explain
15 your approach if you would. This is an undated document with no apparent
16 source and no addressee and no source is mentioned in the report. Do you
17 accept that?
18 A. When you look at the document like that, yes, I accept that.
19 Q. And would you agree with me that you rely heavily on it in your
21 A. I rely on that document as well as I rely on other documents. I
22 leave the word "heavily" to -- for you.
23 Q. Well I think it might be the document that you rely upon the most
24 throughout this report, I think, with all the footnotes I just quoted.
25 You didn't see this as particularly important now looking back?
1 A. It's an important document, but there are other important
2 documents in my report.
3 Q. And --
4 MR. JORDASH: Could we go into private session for one minute,
5 Your Honour, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
7 [Private session]
11 Page 8203 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. Have -- have -- having accepted that -- that there is no
10 indications on it to -- let me rephrase that.
11 Are you guessing at this being a VJ OB report?
12 A. No, I'm not guessing. It was my conclusion based on the contents
13 and on the fact that it was provided by the source we discussed earlier.
14 Q. So it -- the contents, what was it about the contents which made
15 you think it was an OB
16 A. Because the document -- I mean, there is detailed discussion on
17 activities of a number of groups. Some of these -- of the information
18 included I have personal knowledge from my previous professional
19 occupations, I mean the two -- I mean, what I found in the document
20 corresponded with what I knew from before. So in order to assess the
21 credibility, and I believe - but I don't have the whole document in front
22 of me - that there are references to security organs.
23 Q. And so it -- it -- what enabled you to distinguish this from a
24 complete fabrication? Somebody pretending to --
25 A. It -- it's an important point. It's what I explained yesterday.
1 When you see a document and then in the processing phase you evaluate it
2 or you evaluate information. You look at the reliability of the source
3 and the credibility of the information. Here, it is difficult to
4 establish a source, I mean the source is not indicated. Now, as I
5 mentioned, unreliable sources can provide credible information, reliable
6 sources can provide information with a low degree of credibility. I read
7 the document several times. I compared it with similar documents I --
8 mean documents discussing similar issues, and as I mentioned for example
9 the information of Slobodan Medic, that was well-known information during
10 the time -- I mean, as I discussed yesterday when I was serving UNPROFOR.
11 Q. But this document, it -- it effectively links the Serbian MUP.
12 This is the sum of this document, isn't it? This is the important
13 information from your perspective. The Serbian MUP are linked in the
14 document to Medic and his men, to Arkan and his men, and to Vaso Mijovic
15 and Zika Ivanovic and their men?
16 A. It is one of the -- of the relevant aspects of the document. I
17 mean, it explains these -- it identifies these groups. It explains what
18 they did, and it explains indeed relations with the Ministry of the
19 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
20 Q. And when -- do -- were you able to estimate when it was written?
21 A. I put in the footnote 284 that it's based on the contents it must
22 have been after 1996. When I looked at the document again, it must have
23 been after May 1996.
24 Q. And the fact that it wasn't dated and didn't have any named
25 source or in fact an addressee, did that not cause you any concern?
1 A. As I explained, Your Honours, from the methodology point of view,
2 indeed that causes some concern and then of course you start to go
3 into -- look into the document, you look for corroboration, i.e., other
4 information, other sources that provide information on individuals named
5 in the document, events named in the document, and other aspects of the
6 contents. That's what I've tried to do.
7 Q. But it was the -- the link it made with them, those various
8 groups. Is that the information you say was important which you then
9 sought corroboration for?
10 A. I have answered the question, Your Honours.
11 Q. Did you seek corroboration in relation to those points? Is that
12 what enabled you to say this document is -- is reliable?
13 A. As I explained it, there are two aspects, reliability of the
14 source, credibility of the information. For me, based on the methodology
15 I applied, the information included in the document is credible.
16 Q. Which information is credible, all of it?
17 A. The information on the groups, names of the groups, composition,
18 structure, activities, as well as on -- on -- on the relations with other
19 structures, i.e., the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
20 Even if maybe for some aspects I wasn't able to -- to be -- for aspects I
21 couldn't corroborate, I didn't literally quote the document or took the
22 document on its face value as the basis for conclusion. I have also
23 looked at other documents.
24 Q. But there were -- by 1996 there was a great deal of information
25 for and against these conclusions in relation to the Serbian MUP's
1 connection, wasn't there?
2 A. I mean, the information I have reviewed is included in the
3 report. If you have other information, please show it to me and then
4 maybe I have to review my conclusion or change my conclusions.
5 Q. The TV had undoubtedly, I suggest. There had been programmes
6 made. There had been security reports suggesting seem link. Is that
7 what you use for corroboration?
8 A. As I stated, I conducted searches in the -- in the databases
9 avail -- of the Office of the Prosecutor and selected a number of
10 documents, and these documents I have used to draw conclusions. If you
11 show me other documents, I'm -- of course I will look into them and I'm
12 always available to review my conclusion.
13 Q. Are you suggesting that you've never seen a document that links
14 Slobodan Medic and the Skorpions to any other group other than the
15 Serbian MUP?
16 A. In relation to Slobodan Medic, as you know from the documents on
17 the operations in the Trnovo-Kalinovik area, July 1995, this is discussed
18 in part 3 of the report, some of the MUP arrest documents identifies
19 units as an RSK MUP unit. My own knowledge of the group was that they
20 were publicly -- I mean, openly present in Djeletovci, i.e., in Eastern
22 was subordinated to Arkan, and this conclusion was drawn on the fact that
23 there was regular movements from senior members of Arkan's group from
24 Erdut to Djeletovci back and forth, for example.
25 Q. Does this document have the same typeface as most of the VJ
1 security organ reports that you've reviewed? Does it appear in the same
2 format or is it completely different to most of the reports you've seen?
3 A. It is not a standardised format. It's -- as you mentioned
4 earlier there is no heading, there is no date, so these kind of aspects
5 of the format are lacking.
6 Q. It could be knocked out by anyone, couldn't it? This could be
7 fabricated by anyone in 1996 in the former Yugoslavia?
8 A. Mr. Jordash, I will repeat my answer, but anything is possible.
9 Anybody can make a document on whatever topic, especially nowadays with
10 the internet, but as I explained, I applied a methodology whereby here
11 reliability of the source is problematic, because the only source
12 reference I had, okay, it was provided by the person I mentioned. But
13 then the next aspect is the credibility of the information, and I have
14 explained how I tried to establish the credibility of that information,
15 and my conclusion was that this information is credible. Seen in the
16 context of the other documents I reviewed.
17 Q. So you do accept that the source was problematic.
18 A. On the face -- how you call it on the face value since no source
19 reference is mentioned on the document, it -- it's a document you
20 wouldn't just take and -- and -- and -- without further research, i.e., I
21 tried to find out how the OTP had obtained it, that provide me some
22 information, and then I tried to -- as I said, I looked at the -- at the
23 contents aspect, because the two are not necessarily linked.
24 Q. Do you say the -- all the information in that report is of equal
1 A. We would have to go paragraph by paragraph and then I could
2 explain again based on -- on the other information I have reviewed and my
3 own knowledge, but the aspects I have used from this document at various
4 locations in my report in my view were credible.
5 MR. JORDASH: Can we go into private session for approximately 10
6 to 15 minutes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session for 10 to 15 minutes.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 8210-8217 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we touch upon another subject, I have a few
5 procedure matters to deal with. Now, I also can tell you what they are
6 so that Mr. Stanisic can decide on whether he wants already to take a
7 break or -- yes. Even if I tell you that it's about the scheduling of
8 Witness Kirudja, which is not very exciting, but if you -- of course,
9 then -- and the other one is updates on the Kovacevic notes. Yes. Okay.
10 Then I'll deal with them very quickly before we take a break.
11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have perhaps we first move to --
13 Mr. Theunens, scheduling of other witnesses, you're not required to -- to
14 attend that. Could you please follow the usher. We'll resume in
15 approximately half an hour.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We received a filing which apparently comes from the
19 Stanisic-Simatovic Prosecution team but also from the Karadzic
20 Prosecution team in which -- it is signed by the way
21 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, if the witness would still be here, it would have
22 served him not to say Retzlaff-Uertz but Uertz-Retzlaff, in which the
23 relief requested is the following: That the Karadzic Prosecution be
24 allowed to advise the witness of the travel arrangements and the travel
25 arrangements are relevant for this case because they aim at finishing the
1 testimony in the Stanisic-Simatovic case on the 15th of November of --
2 Second relief requested is that the Karadzic Prosecution be
3 allowed to discuss a draft amalgamated witness statement and associated
4 exhibits prior to the completion of the testimony in Stanisic-Simatovic,
5 and further that the witness could be proofed for the Karadzic case prior
6 to having finished his testimony in the Stanisic-Simatovic case.
7 First question: Have you seen it, the application?
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anyway you could already express your views
10 on the matter or otherwise I would set a deadline. I understand that
11 whatever is discussed with Mr. Kirudja by the Karadzic Defence would of
12 course be totally separate and not be discussed in any way with the
13 Stanisic-Simatovic Defence. So Chinese walls there, effectively.
14 MR. JORDASH: May we consider it overnight, Your Honour, please?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then we would hear your position tomorrow.
16 Is that -- Mr. Bakrac.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Well, allow me to think it overnight
18 and then liaise with Mr. Jordash on this issue.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber then expects your response even if
20 given orally by tomorrow at the beginning of the session in the
22 The next item I had on my agenda is an e-mail dated the 22nd of
23 October, an e-mail received by the Chamber from VWS forwarded to the
24 parties on the 26th of October. The -- on the basis of that e-mail which
25 gets the latest updates on context of VWS with Witness Kovacevic, the
1 Chamber hereby informs the parties that the Chamber will communicate with
2 VWS that it would be appreciated if they would once again contact
3 Mr. Kovacevic, so one more time, and that on the Chamber's instructions
4 that VWS will suggest to the witness that the Belgrade field office may
5 be able to assist in collecting the notes. That's what the Chamber has
6 on its mind to instruct VWS.
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I don't know if -- I mean I would like
8 to consider this a bit further, but I don't know the time has come for us
9 to apply for an order to that effect. The issue about these notes is
10 that we wanted the notes to be obtained before the witness could
11 manufacture them, basically.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he has had -- if he has ever had an intention
13 to do so, the time has been sufficient now, and every day that adds to it
14 would add to that possibility.
15 MR. JORDASH: Well, precisely, but if he hasn't completed that
16 process which we say --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You say if we hurry up now then --
18 MR. JORDASH: If he's got the notes and the Belgrade office are
19 willing to go and get them, in our submission the witness should be
20 ordered to give them now.
21 JUDGE ORIE: There are three options. Either they do exist and
22 could be made available. Either they do not exist and no attempt will be
23 made to produce them, and the third option is that they did exist but
24 that an attempt has been made to produce them or will be made to produce
25 them. That seems to be the scale of the -- the range of possibilities.
1 MR. JORDASH: Well, our instinct is that he hasn't finished
2 inventing them, and if an order came from the Court he wouldn't be able
3 to produce them even at this stage. That's how -- well, my instinct, and
4 so --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I leave your instinct as it is,
6 Mr. Jordash. I just gave objective possibilities, a range of
7 possibilities. I do understand that if the next contact will not create
8 the results you would expect, that you apply for an oral [indiscernible]
9 by the Chamber.
10 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Any further comments, Mr. Bakrac?
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further
13 comment. As you have rightly observed, the notes could have been written
14 up so far. I suggest that we just wait and see what it is that we're
15 going to get, and then let us decide on further steps to be taken.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I actually had a separate matter. I
18 don't know if you're complete, but I just want to raise one thing before
19 we --
20 JUDGE ORIE: One thing before take the break. Can it be dealt
21 with in open session?
22 MR. WEBER: It can.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at 3.40 this afternoon we received
25 notification of over 70 documents and over a thousand pages from the
1 Stanisic Defence. We are trying to employ a somewhat flexible process in
2 terms of notification. Just so we can use our resources properly over
3 the next recess, we would just ask if the Stanisic Defence could inform
4 us: One, if they're going to use any of these documents today, if not
5 then we can print them out and review them for tomorrow; and two, if they
6 are going to use them today, if they could please prioritise which ones
7 that they'll be using. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash. Which of the 70 documents you intend
9 to use today and in what order?
10 MR. JORDASH: I don't intend to use any of them today. I can
11 also say that the -- the majority of that -- that thousand pages relates
12 to a witness that we were -- a person we've been discussing, and I'm not
13 going to use any of them. The only thing we're going to use in the next
14 day, tomorrow, I think, amounts to, I think, approximately 50 to a
15 hundred pages.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, since we are talking about today,
17 tomorrow, perhaps even the day after tomorrow, given the efficiency of
18 the cross-examination, the Chamber would like to have an update on how
19 much time you'd need. We have been considering, in view of the fact that
20 next Tuesday and Wednesday a videolink has been scheduled, which also
21 limits our possibilities of continuing the examination.
22 Now, Monday afternoon there seems to be a courtroom available,
23 but it only makes sense to do that if the two Defence teams consider that
24 it would be possible to -- to conclude their cross-examination by
25 Wednesday, because that would avoid that Mr. Theunens has to stay for
1 more time.
2 Could I ask you to sit together and to consider how to speed up,
3 how to get to the core of what you want to bring to our attention more
4 quickly, more directly, and to see whether we would need additional time
5 on Monday.
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, there's -- there's -- there's -- in
7 our submission, and I think I can at least to an extent speak on behalf
8 of the Simatovic team, the prospect of finishing by Monday, if we are to
9 do our job properly, I think, is next to nil. What -- what I would
10 submit is that this is a 500-page report with 500 exhibits, many of the
11 exhibits running into hundreds of pages, and what we say Mr. Theunens has
12 done is miss out much of the valuable information which would cast a very
13 different light on the conclusions he's reached, and to get through it
14 and to actually bring that to Your Honours' attention takes some time. I
15 understand that I haven't been as efficient as I could have been and I
16 will be more efficient from now on, but still nonetheless to go through
17 these documents in the way that Mr. Theunens, which must have taken him
18 hundreds of hours --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm not saying that no reasonable time should
20 be granted to challenge the report, but what happened until now is that
21 the Chamber gained the impression that what our attention was drawn to
22 could have been done in approximately 25, 30, or 35 per cent of the time
23 you used for that. And that's our concern, that not -- we don't want to
24 stop you to -- to present to the Chamber reasonable challenge to the
25 report. However, we expect this to be done within a limited period of
1 time, and some matters have been explored again and again and again. If
2 we are talking about the red car, of course you could talk about Bordeaux
3 red, Ferrari red, whatever, you can spend at least 20 minutes on the
4 different varieties of red of cars, but then at the end if we're just
5 talking about whether the car was red or blue, then these varieties
6 almost always are not playing an important role; that is, there is too
7 much time spent on too much details where of course the Chamber is highly
8 interested in the core of the challenges put to the witness.
9 We take a break and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 5.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 4.25 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.55 p.m.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes Mr. Bakrac.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I would like to say
15 something although the witness is present. I would like to add something
16 to what we had been discussing beforehand, before the break that is.
17 Perhaps it will be helpful in terms of deciding what will be done further
18 in these proceedings.
19 As you have observed, my colleague Mr. Petrovic is helping me
20 from the office with documents and other matters related to Mr. Theunens.
21 He is also working on the end of stage report that has to be handed in by
22 Friday. There is no need for me to dwell on this. I am fully involved
23 in the testimony of this witness, and I can say that practically by
24 Friday we should provide documents for the videolink. However, we are
25 not prepared, and we will not be prepared to hear Witness 52 next week,
1 precisely for these reasons that I've just referred to now. Also, in
2 view of the time that we had announced, we had expected this witness to
3 spill over into next week as well.
4 I shall do my best, of course, not to repeat the questions that
5 had already been put by Mr. Jordash. The expert witness said himself
6 that he may change his position if we show him some documents that he
7 hadn't seen before. So he may change some of his positions from the
8 report. Therefore, I shall focus on some documents that I would like to
9 show the witness, and in this way I might lead him to correct his report.
10 Therefore, if you allow me to do so, I take the liberty of making
11 this proposal while there is still time for it. Could the
12 video-conference please be postponed for the week after next, or some
13 other later date? As I've already said, Mr. Petrovic and I have a major
14 problem in terms of preparing for the next witness for all the reasons
15 that I've already mentioned. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Preparing for a videolink usually takes one week,
17 which means that most likely everything has been organised, and -- but
18 let's hear Mr. Weber first.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution's major concern with
20 rescheduling the videolink for next week is I believe there might be
21 conflicts that would arise with videolinks for other cases in the weeks
22 that are following, and it was slotted into a very particular week in
23 time just for the -- from that standpoint. So without being exactly
24 familiar with what days are and are not available, I would have to check
25 that, but our concern would be other videolinks scheduled in other cases
1 and the possible availability of future dates in which to re-schedule
3 JUDGE ORIE: Rescheduling the videolink would also mean that we
4 would lose another one day, one day and a half in court.
5 MR. JORDASH: I think the suggestion is we would take that time
6 Mr. Theunens. I think that's --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I -- I'm hesitant to say that if we take more
8 time with Mr. Theunens that would be time lost as well, but of course it
9 would be behind schedule. We would lose in terms of -- even if we would
10 use that time, we would still get behind, and that's one concern.
11 Let's move on. Mr. Weber will at least try to find out exactly
12 what would be possible and what would not be possible, but even if
13 everything would be possible, it doesn't mean that the Chamber would
14 agree with that. Also, it doesn't mean that the Chamber would agree with
15 Mr. Theunens going beyond next Monday. We are still considering that
16 seriously, and please keep that in the back of your mind.
17 Please proceed at this moment, Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on e-court, please, 65 ter 1D1349,
19 pages in e-court 1D01-7601.
20 Q. While this is being brought up, Mr. Theunens, this is the Seselj
21 transcript that you wanted to see concerning the relationship between the
22 Serbian MUP and the armed forces that we referred to before the break.
23 MR. JORDASH: Okay, could we go to transcript page 3767, which is
25 Q. You see if this triggers your memory, Mr. Theunens.
1 A. Yes, it does, Mr. Jordash.
2 Q. So is what you said there an accurate overview of a complex
4 A. Yeah. It's how you call it -- it's a summary of, as you say, a
5 complex situation.
6 Q. Right. It's illustrating or describing a rivalry and a
7 competition, even a hostility between the two institutions; is that
9 A. I'm just checking whether I use the word "hostility," because I
10 fine it a quite strong expression, but --
11 Q. Well, I'm -- do you know -- do you know about this? It's not
12 what you necessarily said the last time, it's what you now know to be the
14 A. No, but -- I think this was in 2008 I testified in --
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. I haven't obtained any additional information, or I haven't
17 looked into that matter, into the relations between the Ministry of the
18 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
19 the 1991, 1992 time time-period afterwards.
20 Q. Okay. To save time, I will ask for this to be tendered at some
21 stage as an exhibit, this page, Your Honour.
22 Moving on to the Arkan analysis that we're going through, chapter
23 1, page 95 of the report, footnote 265, refers to a book entitled "The
24 Serbian Army From the Office of the Ministry of the Army," by Dobrila
25 Gajic-Glisic, and you appear to offer that as further support of Arkan's
1 links to the Serbian MUP.
2 A. Yes. I included -- I mean, I didn't refer to a specific page in
3 the book, but I include the book as background material in the sense that
4 it gives an overview of the events during fall 1991, focusing on the
5 relations developed between Arkan and the Ministry of Defence as well as
6 Arkan and the ministry -- and the minister of interior. Ministry, I'm
7 sorry, Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
8 Q. Well, we haven't got time to go through the book, but this book
9 actually speaks of Arkan's relationship with the Ministry of Defence not
10 Arkan and the Ministry of Interior. I can take you through some critical
11 paragraphs --
12 A. Yup.
13 Q. -- if you like.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. Page --
16 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on e-court P1050 MFI'd, and it's --
17 THE WITNESS: I don't dispute that the focus is on the relations
18 with the Ministry of Defence.
19 Q. Well, let me try to summarise it.
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. What the book -- yeah, who is this character Glisic?
22 A. She was the secretary of the minister of defence of the Republic
23 of Serbia
24 Q. I will take you to some page because I think it is critical in
25 some ways. Could we go, please, to page 6 in B/C/S, 28. Perhaps we
1 should go to page 5 B/C/S, 27 so we get the context. And B/C/S page 27,
2 and page 5 of the English. And it looks as though Glisic -- would you
3 accept Glisic was one of General Simovic's close associates during the
4 1991, associates in the sense that she worked in his office on a
5 day-to-day basis?
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's what secretaries usually do, isn't it. That
7 was the secretary.
8 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That was the testimony.
10 MR. JORDASH:
11 Q. And Glisic seems to be reporting on page 5 of a speech by Simovic
12 in relation to a question by a British reporter, and the question was
13 what is the role of the Ministry of Defence in this war, and we have that
14 answer there. And if we go over the page to page 6, to the bit that I'm
15 particularly concerned with, and we have Glisic reporting Simovic down
16 the page -- down the page to page -- to halfway down, what would Arkan's
17 position be in that scenario. And you have an explanation there from
18 Simovic. And looking at the bottom of the page he says, according to
20 "Paramilitary formations are impermissible. Arkan is acting
21 within the frame of Territorial Defence of a village or town, which means
22 he's part of a regular unit. The fact that Arkan surfaced there is a
23 matter of self-organisation and the wish to assist his brothers in
25 Over the page.
1 "The JNA was unwilling to renounce the Arkan-type services and
2 his group behaved in accordance with the military rules and the
3 efforts -- sorry, the effects of their actions timewise and quantity wise
4 were positive.
5 "Q. As individuals?
6 "Yes, he has a group acting under his command, but he's
7 co-ordinating their operations with the JNA.
8 "Are there any independent groups outside the JNA unit?
9 "At the beginning during the month of June there were some of
10 those, let's call them paramilitary units, but they soon became --"
11 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading.
12 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
13 "But they soon became part of the Territorial Defence just like
15 And then further down when asked which ones are acting as
16 freelancers, the -- Simovic says:
17 "Dusan Silni, and a group of Seselj's men. Yes, but those are
18 the volunteers and they report to the Territorial Defence units in the
19 towns or villages where they are operating. So in that respect, they are
20 not understood as paramilitary formations."
21 Then can we go, please, to page 9, B/C/S page 30. No. Let's go
22 to page 10 to short-cut things, B/C/S 31. Again it is Glisic reporting
23 on this time it seems a visit by Arkan, and you see at the top there four
24 lines down:
25 "All hope seemed already lost when we were told that Arkan has
1 surfaced and was coming to see Simovic. He appeared without a trace of
2 fatigue as if nothing had happened to him, under full arms, with a sniper
3 gun across his shoulder and a bloody Ustasha hat hung on it. He entered
4 the office together with Kum and some of his buddies to tell us how he
5 himself had killed 24 Ustashas in that one night and had captured the
6 sniper gun that he brought as present for Simovic."
7 Looking down the page:
8 "The gun, the sniper gun, with the Ustasha military hat remains a
9 trophy and a gift to Simovic."
10 And then let's go to page 11, B/C/S 32. Sorry, 31, bottom of
11 the -- 31 B/C/S, and 11. That's right. Thank you. And looking at the
12 top paragraph there. Glisic is reporting, it seems, watching Arkan on
13 the TV or television, and notes:
14 "We all froze when the moderator asked Arkan in public who was
15 his Commander-in-Chief. There was also -- there was silence in the
16 office, and we all expected Arkan to speak after a short silence and say
17 right there in public General Simovic."
18 Is this something you found significant in your analysis,
19 Mr. Theunens?
20 A. Indeed I did, and I would like to respond to each of the
21 different passages you mention because they highlight, in my view, at
22 least from analytical point of view three important aspects. The first
23 one -- I mean the interview with the British journalist, I think it would
24 not be the first case that public statements are not always an accurate
25 reflection of the facts, and again going back to the methodology I
1 discuss later, I included many what would I call first-hand source
2 documents, mainly JNA security organs but also from the MUP, I mean
3 especially when we talk about events in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,
4 from the local MUP, on the activities on Arkan and -- and -- and others.
5 Secondly, that Arkan -- I mean the passage where Arkan is
6 visiting Simovic with -- I mean in the attire and in the things what he
7 has described by -- by Ms. Glisic for me was -- I mean, it's an
8 indication of the fact that he's free to move in Serbia in uniform with
9 weapons, and he's free to enter the Ministry of Defence. Now, I didn't
10 explicitly highlight that in my report, but for me it was -- it's part
11 of -- I mean there's much more in the book -- an indication that Arkan
12 has certain privileges.
13 This last passage here that he states that Simovic is his
14 Commander-in-Chief, it's obviously something I looked into, but I have
15 not found any other document that corroborates this opinion here, and
16 that is the whole issue about analysis. You try to find corroboration.
17 Q. Okay. If that's your answer we can -- we can move on. P1075.
18 Could we have that on e-court, please.
19 It's a document which appears, and you rely on it again heavily,
20 we suggest, at chapter 1, 101 to 102, footnote 284, 285, 286, 298, 300,
21 310, 311, 312, 313, and 314, and this is under seal. Could it not be
22 shown to the public, please. And this is a --
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, is this P1075, because the Prosecution
24 will be tendering it as a public exhibit.
25 MR. JORDASH: Oh. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
1 Could we go into private session very quickly, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Remove into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 8234-8236 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. The fourth document you rely upon as establishing ties to -- from
23 Arkan to the Serbian MUP is P1076, chapter 1 of your report, page 102 to
24 103, footnote 287 and 288.
25 MR. JORDASH: Under seal. Thank you. And could we have that
1 document, please, on the e-court. And it's --
2 Q. Would you accept -- if you want to look through this document,
3 there's no suggestion in this document that the MUP is linked to Arkan?
4 A. The document does not explicitly mention the Ministry of the
5 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
6 Q. It mentions that Arkan and Kum, if we go to -- I think we need to
7 go to the next page, please.
8 "Arkan and Kum have special attention and privilege --" yes, at
9 the top there. "... privileged treatment by numerous ministers and other
10 officials of the Serbian government every day."
11 That's the sum total of the connections expressed there; is that
13 A. Yeah. I mean, there's also other paragraphs which show
14 indirect -- what I would call the indirect support, i.e., for example the
15 paragraphs where there's talk about robbing and the looting of property
16 and whereby the looted property is then brought into Serbia.
17 Q. Right. Okay. Let's -- let's --
18 A. And of course when you look at -- I mean it's still early in the
19 conflict, but when words or expression are used like committing
20 uncontrolled genocide, we know that Arkan at that stage is still
21 travelling back and forth between Serbia
22 Q. Was he travelling to go and see Simovic?
23 A. For example. I mean, he also had a bakery in Belgrade and, I
24 mean, he was quite famous in Belgrade
25 Q. Yeah.
1 A. He was not all the time in Erdut. Or in Eastern Slavonia, sorry.
2 Q. His men were in Erdut though and he travelled back. He didn't
3 take his whole group back to Belgrade
4 A. I haven't seen such information, but I think it would be logical
5 to assume that the men, I mean additional volunteers, or when they
6 were -- I mean, at a later stage going to conduct operations or
7 participate in operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that they had to travel
8 through Serbia
9 Q. But you don't know. You don't know whether they remained in
10 Erdut throughout their time there, and you don't know whether they
11 remained in Bosnia and Herzegovina, do you?
12 A. No, but I don't think one needs academic, I mean, qualifications
13 to understand that if somebody's based in Erdut and you subsequently see
14 that group appear in, for example, Brcko or Bijeljina, they need to
15 arrive there, and in the absence of information that they were flown in
16 or transported otherwise, my conclusion would be that or was that they
17 travelled over land, i.e., crossing the territory of the Republic of
19 mean, the three bridges, as well check-points on the border or the then
20 border between Serbia
21 Q. But you don't know. You're saying it's a logical assumption but
22 you don't -- you cannot give the Court details on whether the group
23 travelled back to Serbia
24 what numbers, and when, and so on, do you -- can you?
25 A. Not --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it clear? I understood the testimony to be
2 that a large number first was in -- in Erdut, that they later appeared in
3 larger numbers in Bosnia
4 THE WITNESS: Then they moved around, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that at least to get from the one place to
6 the other, if you don't need -- if you don't use aircraft or other
7 missiles, that you'd have to travel over land, and that's what you know
8 and nothing more. I mean, that is so clear and of course this does not
9 permit for a hundred per cent conclusion as to how they travelled or when
10 they travelled, or -- but you consider it highly likely, that's your
11 conclusion that, they travel over land, but you have not found anything
12 about transportation.
13 MR. JORDASH: I can.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's as simple as that. Let's stick as good as we
15 can to the facts first and then if any conclusions are to be drawn to
16 phrase them carefully, and then there's no need any more, Mr. Jordash, to
17 say that you don't know for sure, because the witness has then told us
18 what he knows, and apparently there's some information he doesn't know.
19 MR. JORDASH: Yeah of the thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Let's move to the next document that you rely upon, number 5,
21 P328. Chapter 1, page 105, footnote 289.
22 MR. JORDASH: Please could we have that on e-court.
23 Q. No suggestion is there in this document of support by the MUP or
24 the DB for Arkan at this time; is that correct?
25 A. That is correct, Your Honours, and I mean, I didn't make such a
1 suggestion that there was a link or support indicated or mentioned in
2 this document. I tried in this section to group documents that discuss,
3 among other things, the support provided -- I mean direct support or
4 other support provided by the Ministry of the Interior, as well as other
5 documents. And this document here, for me it shows overall knowledge of
6 the activities of Arkan in Serbia
7 the Interior.
8 Q. And if we go to the next page, please. You can see there about
9 five lines down the information provided to the chief of the security
10 organ of the 1st Military District is that Arkan is transporting weapons
11 in military vehicles. Did that lead you to draw any conclusions?
12 A. It shows what I -- what I indicated earlier, support by the --
13 the government of the Republic of Serbia
14 whether these are TO Serbia
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. We cannot establish the origin of the weapons.
17 Q. Did your analysis conclude that the numbers given in this
18 document, i.e., that Arkan had 30 men, was accurate, 30 men in Erdut at
19 this time?
20 A. I have not made a detailed analysis about the number of men Arkan
21 had at any given time in any given location.
22 Q. And did you do an analysis of how many men the JNA had at this
23 time in this region?
24 A. I am familiar with the document that gives a breakdown of all the
25 units and the manpower of the 1st Military District in the -- in the area
1 in November 1991, but I don't recall the exact figures. It's an exhibit
2 in the Vukovar trial, but I don't recall the exact figures.
3 Q. But we're talking thousands, aren't we?
4 A. Yes, we are talking thousands.
5 Q. Compared to Arkan's 30 indicated by this document?
6 A. I'm mean from the military -- I'm sorry. From the military point
7 of view the number of the figures are not necessarily important. 10.000
8 infantrymen can be less useful than -- than hundred specially trained or
9 special purpose forces.
10 Q. You couldn't reasonably argue that the JNA couldn't have
11 subordinated Arkan if they'd chosen to, could you? Or would you?
12 A. I think that that's a very important aspect because it's not a
13 choice to subordinate, it's a decision. And as you know, and that's
14 highlighted in the first part of the report, the JNA is subordinated to
15 the Supreme Command. The Supreme Command is a political body whereby --
16 I mean, on the political level it will be decided what will be done with
17 the volunteers and the paramilitaries, and that brings us to the --
18 the -- the decree or the -- sorry, the presidential order number 73 of
19 the 10th of December, 1991, where for the first time I'm aware of the
20 SFRY Presidency issues a decree for the subordination of volunteers and
21 paramilitaries to the JNA, which is -- applies to all areas where the
22 fighting is happening. I mean, the document is included in my report.
23 Any other subordination seems to have been more on an ad hoc basis
24 whereby the commander in the area, he could have received instructions
25 from his superiors to subordinate the volunteers, or they could also have
1 been -- I mean, there are examples in Eastern Slavonia an ultimatum was
2 given to certain volunteers, and those were then the political volunteers
3 who were kicked out. It seems that with Arkan he relied on -- he could
4 rely on other powers or influence in order to maintain the status he had.
5 Q. Do you agree with this analysis: Article 240 of the constitution
6 of the SFRY at that time dictated that any citizen who takes part in
7 resisting aggression is a member of armed forces; is that right?
8 A. Indeed, and I also put in my report that this is very important
9 in order to understand the context of these volunteers and
11 Q. So Arkan in Erdut resisting, as the Serb forces saw it at the
12 time, aggression was by the constitution a member of the armed forces;
14 A. Theoretically, yes, but in practice we saw that the situation is
15 more complicated and that explains why additional decrees were adopted in
16 order to try to regularise the situation.
17 Q. Theoretically that was right. And then theoretically moving from
18 that, members of the armed forces, i.e., the JNA in the region, had a
19 duty, didn't they, under the existing legislation or there -- the JNA
20 doctrine to subordinate him, Arkan and his men, if they were engaged in
21 committing crimes, subordinate them in order to deal with that criminal
22 behaviour. Is that not right?
23 A. As I mentioned before, my understanding of -- of -- of the
24 situation at the time is that it -- in a number of cases and mostly
25 during combat operations indeed there is subordination of -- of the
1 volunteers including Arkan to the JNA unit in the area, but that is not
2 permanent. And again I mentioned this decree -- this, excuse me,
3 presidential order number 73 which clearly shows that there was a need to
4 clarify the situation and to ensure that the -- the legislation as, for
5 example, is foreseen in Article 240 was also put in practice and would
6 also cover these new armed formations, i.e., these volunteers consisting
7 of political volunteers as well as volunteers I -- I concluded to be
8 controlled by or linked otherwise to the Ministry of the Interior.
9 MR. JORDASH: Could we have in e-court please 65 ter
10 1D01-344 [sic], page e-court page 1D01-7592.
11 Q. I want to refer you to something which you said in the Seselj
12 trial, and I think that you answered what I'm trying to get at more
13 directly in that instance. And perhaps I can -- while that's being found
14 I can try to shortcut things. This is what I think you said, as a
15 general proposition, I think:
16 "Now, if there are formations in that zone which are not
17 subordinated to him, i.e., the commander, he has to take measures to
18 subordinate them, but he cannot allow that there are groups active there
19 doing things, certain things, whereby these groups are not subordinated
20 to him because that creates chaos."
21 Does that trigger your memory or do we need to turn to it?
22 A. No, and I want to highlight that it's coherent because what I
23 said in Seselj clearly referred to combat operations, because that's the
24 time when you have different groups conducting activities, and you want
25 to ensure that -- yeah, that there is coherence in these activities,
1 i.e., that there is single authority. And just to -- for me to be
2 complete, the presidential order I was referring to is P1088.
3 MR. JORDASH: Could we go back, please, to -- I don't think we
4 need to go to this now. Can we go back to P1076, please, the fourth
6 Q. You'll see when it comes up on the screen. Sorry, I should say
7 it's under seal and it's again a reference to footnote 287 and 288 of
8 chapter 1. And at page 2 of this report dated 13th of October, 1991 --
9 that's right. At the top it says:
10 "A command, i.e., the Serbian Guard command has been formed in
11 the Vojvodina TO centre Erdut."
12 Does that suggest to you that he was somehow Arkan affiliated
13 with the Vojvodina TO centre?
14 A. This actually is coherent with what you mentioned earlier that
15 anyone who takes up weapons in defence of the country shall be considered
16 a member of the armed forces, because the constitution also states that
17 the armed forces consists -- consists of the JNA and the TO, and anyone
18 who is not a member of the JNA shall be considered a member of the TO,
19 and that's why you see that throughout the conflict in Croatia volunteers
20 are -- or can be also identified as -- or also identify themselves, I'm
21 sorry, as TO units, and that's for example what we see in OG South where
22 the Seselj volunteers, at least a number of them, are part -- are called
23 TO. So that is not unusual.
24 Q. But he -- Arkan joins the Vojvodina TO centre; is that right?
25 A. No. I mean, it's -- it's correct what -- what's mentioned in the
1 document, but when you analyse the situation, you will see that
2 actually -- I mean, I haven't found any other documents that uses the
3 name Vojvodina TO centre. There was a TO in Vojvodina obviously, but not
4 a TO -- Vojvodina TO centre in Erdut, and my understanding was that,
5 okay, the name TO is used because people want to give a legal definition
6 to a de facto situation in the absence of a legalisation of this de facto
8 Q. Okay. Let's -- let's move to your -- actually, we won't move to
9 the sixth document because the sixth document you rely upon is P327,
10 which is the document we've exhausted, and it's got the comment about the
11 rumour. So we've dealt with that. So the seventh document, D31,
12 referred to in your report at chapter 1, page 106, footnote 291.
13 You see there on the first page reference to the OB security
14 organ Blagojevic contacting Arkan. Is that a name you've come across
16 A. I mean, I've seen the document but I haven't seen the name in
17 another context. I don't remember seeing the name in another context.
18 Q. So it reflects, does it, something you've come across before in
19 terms of contact though with Arkan by security organs?
20 A. It's possible, yeah.
21 Q. Well, have you come across other documents to show that the
22 security organs are actually going to speak to Arkan around this time
23 while he's in Erdut?
24 A. No, indeed. I mean, we had another document this morning, I
25 think. Or at least a member of the JNA was talking to Arkan.
1 Q. And was this in the form of some kind of inquiry or investigation
2 into his activities?
3 A. The report clearly stated, as we discussed, that it was an
4 information report. It didn't have the same -- it didn't use the
5 template of a -- of an actual investigation by security organs which
6 leads me to the conclusion it was not an investigation report.
7 Q. Right. And there's no statement in this document connecting the
8 DB to Arkan; is that right?
9 A. This document mentions the -- yeah, the Ministry of Defence and
10 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
11 specifically mentioning the DB.
12 Q. Right. And can we go across to the next page, please. Oh, no,
13 stay there, please. Do you see the reference at the bottom to Arkan
14 distributing food -- sorry, weaponry ammunition to TO staffs in Erdut,
15 Sarvas, and Borovo Selo? Does that indicate to you a relationship with
16 the armed forces in SBWS at the time?
17 A. I mean, he -- it doesn't allow to draw a clear conclusion. He's
18 distributing these weapons, but we don't know who -- whether anybody
19 ordered him to do this. I would assume, yes. The question is then who
20 ordered him to do so. And if he's just the person who gives them the
21 weapons, that's it. So I don't think we can conclude anything specific
22 about the nature, at least the military nature, of his -- of his
23 relationship with these local Serb TO staffs.
24 Q. Nor can we conclude anything about Arkan's comments either, can
25 we? Arkan's claim to be connected to the Serbian Ministry of Defence and
1 the Ministry of the Interior?
2 A. I wouldn't agree, because again we should look at the documents
3 in context. That's why we look at several documents, and when you look
4 at the documents in context, yeah, one can draw certain conclusions. I
5 haven't seen any other documents indicating specific relations between
6 Arkan and the TO staffs in Erdut, Sarvas, and Borovo Selo. However, as
7 you can see in my report there are a number of documents indicating the
8 existence of relations between Arkan and the Ministry of the Interior of
9 the Republic of Serbia
10 Q. So we've had two documents we just had on the screen which link
11 him to the TO staffs, but you don't conclude that that's reliable.
12 A. I don't think -- I don't think that's an accurate reflection of
13 what I'm -- what I'm saying. The previous document identified the
14 training centre in Erdut as the Vojvodina TO centre. I have done
15 searches on the Vojvodina TO centre, but I haven't found any other
16 documents indicating that that was located in Erdut. And I've tried to
17 explain also why, based on my -- I mean, on my review of other documents
18 the name TO was used there.
19 Q. Was -- wasn't the TO and SBWS at this point subordinated directly
20 to the JNA? Wasn't it the JNA who were running the operations in SBWS at
21 the end of 1991?
22 A. It depends of which part of SBWS for what -- as I mentioned
23 yesterday you have Sector North -- oh, sorry, OG North, OG South.
24 OG South -- and again in the areas where combat operations were
25 conducted, indeed, there the orders show that the TO is subordinated to
1 TO units that are participating in the combat operations are subordinated
2 to the JNA units conducting these combat operations.
3 For OG North I haven't seen many documents. I know that for most
4 parts of the zone of the area covered by OG North, like Erdut, the war
5 had finished, and so we would have to -- there were no combat operations
6 in Erdut at the time of this document, so we have to look at the specific
7 documents in order to see whether the TO in Erdut was at that time
8 subordinated to a JNA unit in Erdut.
9 Q. Okay. Let's go to the eighth document. P1046. Chapter 1, page
10 103, footnote 292. You also rely upon it in chapter 2, page 94, footnote
11 291 and 292. I think we also looked at this document yesterday with
12 Mr. Weber. I think we can deal with it fairly briefly. Could we go --
13 under seal, please.
14 Now, the point is -- is a simple one that I want to make. If we
15 look at the source for this document, page 2. Maybe it's page 3.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm a bit confused, as always.
17 Chapter 1, page 103, footnote 292. I find footnote 292 in the first part
18 on page 106, not on 103. So -- and since you also refer to 291 and 292
19 in the second part, I wondered where the mistake was.
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Sorry.
3 Q. You remember this document while it's being brought up,
4 Mr. Theunens?
5 A. Yes, I do. It's on page 94 in part 2 of the report.
6 Q. And if we can go to -- we'll stay on page 1 for a moment. You
7 can see the source towards the bottom of the page, from what that source
8 stated, implicating Frenki and Stanisic.
9 MR. JORDASH: You can go to the next page, please. And to
10 page 3, please.
11 Q. And it says:
12 "We consider that information very interesting. It also confirms
13 some of our previous information, but we have to keep in my mind that the
14 source has had contacts with Stanisic before and also that she tends to
15 make unpredictable moves. That is the reasons why it has been decided to
16 terminate contacts with that source."
17 Obviously that indicates that the source was not being trusted by
18 the security organ. Is that not correct?
19 A. If -- if the source was not trusted then they wouldn't have
20 drafted the report, I mean, if they were fully distrustful of the source.
21 And I think -- I mean I cannot give a clear answer because my answer
22 would be similar as what the drafter -- I mean, states. He says, okay,
23 on one hand the source is unreliable; however, on the other hand, the
24 information corresponds with what we have heard from other sources. And
25 again, it comes back to what I've been mentioning several times. An
1 unreliable source can provide credible information. Of course an
2 unreliable source can also provide information with a low degree of
3 credibility and vice versa.
4 So I would assume that the JNA security organs would apply the
5 same methodology as -- as we would do is to look for information that
6 corroborates what the source has stated. And of course if now for -- for
7 particular reasons they wish to stop contact with that source, that is
8 their decision.
9 Q. And none of that discussion we've just had appears at all in your
10 report, does it, no reflection by you of those issues?
11 A. No, I didn't include this specific paragraph of in my report,
12 that is correct, because, yeah, I didn't see it was required. I was -- I
13 couldn't able -- I could not determine what the nature was of the
14 contacts between the person mentioned in the report and Stanisic, could
15 be positive could be negative. And also, of course, what is mentioned by
16 unpredictable moves -- what is meant by unpredictable moves, but the fact
17 that Gajic states that the information confirms some of their previous
18 information was for me sufficient to include that information in my
20 Q. Thank you for that answer. Can we turn to the final document you
21 rely upon to establish close ties between the MUP and Arkan and that's
22 P1078, and it's at chapter -- under seal, please. Chapter 1, page 106,
23 footnote 29 -- 293. P1078.
24 And this document, would you agree with me, it effectively
25 alleges that Arkan is support by a number of entities, MUP, TO --
1 A. I think this is a different document. This is not the document I
2 referred to in footnote 293.
3 Q. 1457. P1078. Let me just lead this point because we're running
4 out of time. The point simply I want to make with this document is still
5 no reference here to -- about Serbian DB in this report. Do you agree
6 with that?
7 A. I'm a bit lost with the documents, because I was looking for
8 footnote 293. That is P1220, which is not a document, which -- I mean,
9 this is P178 but which footnote is that?
10 Q. P1078, and it's footnote 293.
11 A. Ah, 293.
12 Q. Sorry if I misled you. Do you have it?
13 A. And we're in part 2 of the report?
14 Q. We're in part 1.
15 A. I'm sorry. I apologise. No. It -- I mean the -- the reference
16 is made to the government of the Republic of Serbia
17 stated that Raznjatovic is openly supported by the MUP, TO, and then
18 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia
19 reference to DB.
20 Q. And just to finish this -- this section. Those nine documents
21 you relied upon to establish close ties, are you able to indicate the
22 standard of proof that you employed when making that assessment? Was it
23 more likely than not, beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, what standard
24 were you employing?
25 A. These are not all the documents. I mean, I can mention a few
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe that -- I mean the
4 Prosecution's position, that's a matter for the Trial Chamber to decide.
5 MR. JORDASH: Well, how the witness has arrive at his conclusion
6 and the standard employed --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is part of his methodology.
8 MR. JORDASH: That's what I would say, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Well, yes, of course what standard he used, but
11 there's been a standard phrase that's quite a legal standard. I don't
12 know if that's how the witness would or would not consider the standard
13 that he's applying.
14 JUDGE ORIE: But the witness draws conclusions on the basis of a
15 number of documents, and if Mr. Jordash would have wished to avoid the
16 type of confusion that exists now, he would not have used the standard of
17 proof. He would just have said on what theoretical basis you made that
18 assessment, what was the standard you'd used, and whether you call that
19 proof or not, it is -- proof is for the Court.
20 If you draw conclusions, you want a standard on which you base
21 those conclusions in relation to the facts and that's apparently what
22 Mr. Jordash was asking for, and whether he calls that proof, that's of
23 less relevance.
24 Could you tell us, Mr. Theunens, what standard did you apply when
25 coming to this these conclusions? And don't spend too much words on it,
1 because if I would ask Mr. Jordash to explain to me exactly how you apply
2 a certain standard of proof, he would need at least three hours to
3 respond to that. If you can say anything about it, please do so. If
4 not, we understand that it's conclusions on the basis of logical
5 explanation of what you find on the basis of your experience. That's --
6 THE WITNESS: I have not applied any -- any particular standard.
7 I mean, I applied the methodology and on the basis of that methodology I
8 drew analytical conclusions. Since I had a number of documents
9 whereby -- I don't think that the number is so important, but it's --
10 more is important where they come from, and then the contents and also
11 the time period they cover, and I mean to be short, these documents cover
12 several years. Some of them we have not reviewed now but we can find
13 them in parts 2 and part 3, and they -- in my view, they show pattern
14 indicating that Arkan had specific relations with the Ministry of
15 Interior which I qualified or summarised as controlled by or linked
16 otherwise or related otherwise, and for the detailed contents of the
17 relations, I would refer to the specific documents.
18 MR. JORDASH:
19 Q. And --
20 JUDGE ORIE: This is the kind of answers you get if you ask these
21 kind of questions.
22 MR. JORDASH: But, Your Honour, I do think -- I mean, the witness
23 could have come to a mere impression all the way to absolute certainty.
24 I thought it was important --
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's anything in between. And then what should the
1 witness say? 78 per cent certainty? Of course, we're always talking
2 about conclusions. What the witness tells us, that on the basis of his
3 experience and combining it with the information he finds in the
4 documents, that he considers it -- that's at least how I understand it --
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Most likely in the absence of any clear
7 contraindications, most likely that it means A, B, and C and these are
8 then the conclusions. That's how I understand how it works.
9 MR. JORDASH: But -- yeah, but -- most likely itself is a
10 standard. Most likely it is [overlapping speakers] --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes [overlapping speakers]. And if we would all sit
12 together and we would apply the same standard, most likely we'd all come
13 to different conclusions because it's of such an abstract nature that --
14 MR. JORDASH: I'll leave the point, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But it's -- it's clear that it's about likelihood,
16 an assessment of likelihood on the basis of experience, on the basis of
17 the material, and of course it's important to know whether just
18 likelihood would be sufficient for Mr. Theunens or whether he would need
19 extremely likely or to say most likely, very likely. If you had to
20 choose from one of these, which one --
21 THE WITNESS: It all depends, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Where would you start hesitating, Mr. Theunens?
23 THE WITNESS: On the basis of the documents I have reviewed, I
24 mean, it's not a question of likelihood. The documents all show the
25 same, that is that there are particular relations between Arkan and the
1 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
2 MR. JORDASH: I'm happy to -- I'm with Your Honour completely,
3 and I will leave it there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JORDASH: Could I just ask one follow on question.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would have -- we would stop at 6.00,
7 Mr. -- but if it's one question, then.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. You -- you drew that conclusion into the MUP. You didn't go on
10 to draw it in relation to any division in the MUP did you?
11 A. Unless the document specifically mentions a division in the MUP,
12 I was not able, on the basis of the material I had available, to be more
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. JORDASH: No further questions for today, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I'd like you to consider, Mr. Jordash,
17 on how to use your time, because the Chamber will decide the matter with
18 three Judges. One of the Judges might have followed part of the
19 proceedings on a -- through the video.
20 You have consider and you have to seriously make plans together
21 with Mr. Bakrac to see whether if you would have Monday afternoon
22 available, if that would not be opposed by the condition of Mr. Stanisic,
23 how you would manage to get finished by Monday afternoon after another
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I -- I would have to basically miss
1 out a significant chunk of my cross-examination to give the Simatovic
2 team a fair allocation of time.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] Yes.
4 MR. JORDASH: So I put on the record that
5 [overlapping speakers] --
6 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is that we have spent quite a lot of
7 time on matters of high abstract character, which we wonder -- if you
8 want to make a difficult abstract motion, then you usually can do it
9 in -- far quicker and there's a lot of -- but let's -- I want you to
10 seriously consider and perhaps to reschedule. Another way of dealing
11 with the matter is that you start with the most important matters.
12 MR. JORDASH: Is Your Honour saying that that is the decision, we
13 have until Monday --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I said that the decision would be taken by the three
15 Judges together.
16 MR. JORDASH: Would Your Honours be able to indicate at the
17 beginning of the next session so that I can make the necessary --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Next session will not be today as you are --
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes, and -- thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll certainly discuss the matter before we restart
22 tomorrow in the afternoon and then see what message you will finally get.
23 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, can I just ask that Mr. Theunens be
24 allowed to look at P1050 overnight?
25 JUDGE ORIE: I have no problems. I take it that Mr. -- unless
1 Mr. Weber has any. Whatever you want to put him to which is not covered
2 by his -- let him read it if he's willing to do so that we don't spend
3 more time in court on giving an opportunity to Mr. Theunens to -- to read
4 what he has not read before.
5 Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe the -- well, Your Honour, the
7 Prosecution provided a CD in case there's any exhibits the Defences did
8 want Mr. Theunens to look at further in his own report that contains the
9 hyperlinks to the actual document. So I believe he is in possession of
10 all the materials just like the Defence was.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If there's any wish list, documents you would
12 like to have Mr. Theunens to look at before we start tomorrow, whether
13 these are documents he has already covered in his report or whether these
14 are documents he may not even have seen before, then we'll find practical
15 ways of presenting them to him.
16 And Mr. Theunens we are not the masters of your free time, but if
17 you would read whatever Mr. Jordash thinks is relevant and useful to
18 read, you're invited to do so.
19 THE WITNESS: I will do so, Your Honours, with your permission,
20 if I would be allowed to comment on the use of time, I -- I understand
21 the situation, but I was also under the understanding that I would finish
22 my testimony Friday evening because I'm not working at the OTP any more.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm aware of that. That is -- I have five or six
24 issues at this moment at my desk. One is how to send messages or not
25 send messages to your present employer, what happens with the videolink
1 next week, what are the alternatives. I've received some information
2 about that. What about other witnesses next week where there are some
3 problems in issuing subpoenas, getting messages from the relevant
4 authorities, getting passports and visa ready. I have a range of five,
5 six, seven, problems, and whether or not we'll continue on Monday and --
6 is one of them.
7 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And we try to keep an open eye to all the interests
9 involved, including your employer, but may I take it that also at the
10 same time that if you would satisfy your employer that we could more or
11 less finish rather quickly next week, that that would be preferred to
12 going back again to the place where you are posted at this moment and
13 then to come back after a month. So we're trying to reconcile all the
14 irreconcilable interests.
15 Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, in view of the importance of this
17 subject, I would appreciate ten minutes tomorrow to make submission on
18 why we ought to be allowed more time than Your Honours have in mind at
19 the moment.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a dilemma, because it takes at least
21 ten minutes from the time you would have available for cross-examination
22 if we would limit it. So it's -- we'll consider it. We'll consider it,
23 and at the same time you're invited to consider alternative solutions
24 together with Mr. Bakrac.
25 We adjourn, and we'll resume tomorrow, the 28th of October,
1 quarter past 2.00 in -- Madam Registrar, could you assist me. It's -- I
2 think -- tomorrow it's Courtroom II, yes, whereas on Friday it will be
3 Courtroom I.
4 We stand adjourned.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day
7 of October, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.