1 Friday, 29 October 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
8 everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica
10 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Good afternoon to everyone.
14 Mr. Theunens, good afternoon to you as well. I'd like to remind
15 you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given
16 at the beginning of your testimony. And I apologise to the parties for
17 not having instructed you, Mr. Theunens, yesterday that you should not
18 speak with anyone about your testimony, whether already given or still to
19 be given. But may I take it that you acted as if you would have received
20 that instruction.
21 THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Then, as far as scheduling for next week is concerned, as matters
24 stand now, we will sit Monday, in the afternoon, from 2.15 to 7.00;
25 Tuesday and Wednesday, we have a schedule which was prepared in close
1 cooperation with the Registry, and after having consulted you,
2 Mr. Jordash, in the morning, from 9.00 to 12.00, that is two sessions
3 with a break, afternoon starting at 2.30 until 7.00. That's how we will
4 proceed next week.
5 Mr. Theunens, we expect that your testimony will be concluded
6 Wednesday morning, not later than Wednesday morning, 12.00.
7 Then for next week, where we have the videolink in the --
8 starting in the afternoon of Wednesday, we will continue with that
9 videolink on Thursday where we have the normal hours of 2.15 until 7.00.
10 I do understand that Mr. Stanisic will return to the UNDU during
11 the lunch breaks. We do understand that he'll have approximately a
12 little bit less than two hours in the UNDU during the break and we try to
13 take care that he will be transported back and forth as quickly as
15 MR. JORDASH: Could I also mention that on Monday morning,
16 Mr. Stanisic is going to be examined, I think, post-provisional release.
17 I think there's a serious examination just to ascertain what effects, if
18 any, and so I just put that before Your Honours so Your Honours know the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If this has any impact on the court schedule,
21 of course, we'd like to know as quickly as possible. But if this is
22 examinations which -- if it is just observing on what the effects are, I
23 don't know whether there's any immediate treatment involved or whatever.
24 But we'll see what it results in. If there's any reason to believe at
25 this moment already that it would negatively impact on the possibility to
1 have an afternoon session on Monday, then, of course, we'd like to know
2 now already.
3 MR. JORDASH: Mr. Stanisic has asked me to convey to the Court
4 that he will be here on Monday afternoon.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
6 Mr. Theunens, the Victims and Witness Section has communicated a
7 message from the Chamber to your employer.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, and I have seen the message and
9 I have had the feedback from my employer. It's okay.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's good to hear.
11 Finally, when I announced that we would start with the -- with
12 the videolink on Wednesday afternoon, this already means, Mr. Bakrac,
13 that your request to postpone the testimony of Witness JF-052, so not
14 even to start with that, has been denied. We'll start with the testimony
15 of Witness JF-052 on Wednesday afternoon. I might come back to that at a
16 later stage.
17 Mr. Jordash, are you ready to -- is there an agreement between
18 the parties on the time you will take and how much time the Simatovic
19 Defence will take?
20 MR. JORDASH: I'll finish by the end of the day, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, thank you. Please proceed.
22 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.
25 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Jordash.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask counsel to speak closer to the
2 mike. Thank you.
3 MR. JORDASH:
4 Q. Yesterday we left off and we were discussing the travelling of
5 volunteers into Croatia and you made the point at the end of the day that
6 and I'll just read you the last sentence.
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, page 8360:
8 "I can assure you, I mean, the SRS volunteers, again based on the
9 information I have seen, who participated in the operations in Vukovar up
10 to September 1991, they were coming in by bus."
11 What was the point you were making there?
12 A. I was answering your suggestion where you indicated, I mean, you
13 wanted to generalise the events, i.e., the movement of SRS volunteers to
14 Eastern Slavonia as it had occurred in May, i.e., using barges to cross
15 the Danube, and I just wanted to clarify that at later on, and again
16 that's part of the bigger picture where the relations or -- excuse me,
17 the attitude of the Serbian authorities towards volunteers change so that
18 later on volunteers travel over land, in this case over the bridges of
19 the Danube, or the highway crossing in the vicinity of Sit [phoen]
20 towards Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem.
21 Q. But the point I was trying to make yesterday was that the
22 volunteers for Seselj had to travel by boat because travelling across the
23 bridges if they had weapons in their possession would have been
24 problematic because of the Serbian authorities. Do you accept that?
25 A. That is what Mr. Seselj and his volunteers state in relation to
1 how they arrived in Borovo Selo in April, April 1991. And there would
2 obviously also be a problem on the side of the Croatian authorities
3 because you would have to cross the Serbian police check-point when
4 leaving Serbia but most likely there would have been a -- or there was a
5 Croatian check-point on the other side of the -- I mean, on the Croatian
7 Q. You're not suggesting that the volunteers were travelling in the
8 bus with weapons, are you?
9 A. I can't answer that question. What I know is that in -- in a
10 suspect interview we conducted here, I mean, we conducted in Belgrade of
11 the deceased General Zivota Panic, it was -- he stated that during the --
12 I mean, after September 1991, volunteers were brought in by bus from
13 Serbia in order to join units fighting in Slavonia, Baranja, Western
15 Q. But you will agree with me that --
16 JUDGE ORIE: But could we -- the question was whether you are
17 suggesting that they had weapons with them on the bus. Did you suggest
18 that or did you not?
19 THE WITNESS: I didn't suggest that. No, I tried to say I can't
20 answer that question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you do not know. They may have had, they
22 may not have had.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH: Could we go into private session for ten minutes,
25 Your Honour, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 8368-8369 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. So the document we're looking at records the minutes of the
10 founding assembly of the Serbian Radical Party held on the
11 23rd of February, 1991, in Kragujevac, and you have read this.
12 Now if we go to page 8 of the document. And could you just
13 explain to the Court what this document is -- when dealing with the
14 1991 founding, what it consists of.
15 A. I mean, as you indicated, it's a report on, as the title
16 explains, the founding assembly of the -- it's the third fatherland
17 congress of the Serbian Radical Party held in Kragujevac, a report on
19 Q. Maybe we can shortcut things. Maybe you can remember these
20 things. Doesn't this record the minutes of what was said?
21 A. It is possible.
22 Q. Well --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm just -- I'm not clear, I'd like to
25 follow along. Is the correct page on the screen?
1 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it's --
2 Q. And we try to -- it is basically the speeches or at least some of
3 the speeches that were made during this founding occasion. And in it,
4 various members of the Serbian Radical Party make various comments. And
5 one comment they make is a comment that the Communist party wanted to
6 destroy the opposition at that time. Do you recall this?
7 A. I mean, it was generally known that that was the perception with
8 more nationalist parties. There was a deep distrust, at least on
9 ideological level, between the nationalist parties and the -- what they
10 call the Communists or the SPS.
11 Q. Yeah. You can see that in the document:
12 "We need to dispel --" about halfway down the page.
13 "We need to dispel all the Communist illusions that have been
14 planted in order to break up the Serbian opposition parties and turn them
15 against one another."
16 And then if we go over to page 28, please.
17 And you'll see reference there in the second paragraph:
18 "In early March, the Serbian Freedom-loving Movement and part of
19 the Serbian National Renewal merged to form the Serbian Renewal Movement.
20 That was when Vuk Draskovic was sacked from the Serbian National Renewal.
21 We offered him a helping hand, as we knew that this was -- or this is --
22 was the doing of the police."
23 Did you know about that?
24 A. I don't remember the exact details of that.
25 Q. Right. You didn't make a note anywhere of the significance of
1 that, that the -- Seselj at least thought that the police, the Serbian
2 police had been responsible for getting rid of Vuk Draskovic?
3 A. No. Because it was outside the scope of my report.
4 Q. Okay. Let's go down the page. Sorry, let's go to page 30. And
5 here we have on page 30 a useful history of the opposition parties and
6 their opposition to the Communist party, the Milosevic party. Do you
7 agree with that?
8 A. I mean, the official name of Mr. Milosevic's party was the SPS,
9 the Serbian Socialist Party. But --
10 Q. We know that's what they're talking about there when they talk
11 about the Communist party. Am I right?
12 A. Could you repeat your question because I'm trying -- I'm reading
13 the text but I'm --
14 Q. Well, for example --
15 A. It's difficult to connect it to your question.
16 Q. Six or seven lines down:
17 "We stood side by side with some other opposition parties in
18 their efforts to control the monopoly of the state media and to secure
19 equal conditions for all political parties in their duels. We also
20 supported the request for dismissal of the management of the state
21 television and the Belgrade television. We even said that we would take
22 part in a demonstration over this issue but publicly refused to join in
23 the demonstration with the parties such as Association for Yugoslav
24 Democratic Initiative, reformists and other traitorous parties."
25 What I'm trying to convey is that there is a whole history of
1 animosity between the government in 1991 and these opposition parties
2 which doesn't find reflection in your report.
3 A. I do not share your position because I would say there was indeed
4 distrust initially between the nationalist parties and the SPS. But I
5 mean as an overall conclusion I would say that at one moment in time, all
6 these -- I mean these parties, especially the SRS and the SPS, or more
7 specifically, Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj, they kind of find each other.
8 And actually Mr. Seselj becomes very useful for Mr. Milosevic to
9 implement a number of goals, not only political goals, and Mr. Seselj
10 enjoys that position because he can also advance his own position. And
11 this lasts from, say, the latter half of 1991 until November 1993. And
12 during this time -- again and I have to reviewed several -- lots of
13 documents related to the SRS war staff since I had to compile a report
14 for the Seselj case. There is no indication that active measures are
15 taken by the Serbian authorities against the SRS or the SRS war staff. I
16 know and I have also seen that later on and maybe in some of the
17 materials you have handed over for me to review, that the SDB was
18 monitoring the activities of the war staff, but I'm not aware of any
19 active -- I mean, action to prevent the action or the activities of the
20 war staff.
21 Q. Let's go to page 31, can we, please.
22 You see there in the first paragraph reference to Borovo Selo.
23 Would you agree that the references you saw to -- emanating from the --
24 either Seselj or the SRS party in 1991 was not making allegations against
25 the assistance by the Serbian MUP or the police, in relation to such
1 events like Borovo Selo?
2 A. I'm not sure I understand your question but I haven't seen any
3 material linking the Serbian MUP or the police to the incident in
4 Borovo Selo.
5 Q. Let me simplify it. My issue at the moment is this: That you
6 rely in your report on the video "Death Of" -- I think it is "Death of
7 Yugoslavia" in which Seselj makes various allegations about the
8 involvement of the Serbian MUP in his war activities. Correct?
9 A. It is one of the -- the sources have I used, that's correct.
10 Q. But what you don't do is put into your report in the same
11 transparent way the various other speeches from 1991 and 1992 which
12 Seselj makes whereby he doesn't make those same allegations. Is there a
13 reason for that?
14 A. Indeed because, again, it comes back to the methodology I
15 applied --
16 JUDGE ORIE: If, before we continue. I see on the screen B/C/S
17 apparently also page 31 but certainly not corresponding with -- or am I
18 wrong? I see that Tomislav Nikolic and -- as a speaker and --
19 MR. JORDASH: I think that -- it probably isn't. In a moment a
20 file is going to arrive where I have got the pages marked.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because for the public to follow the
22 proceedings if they don't speak English or read English, then please
23 proceed. And when you're talking about page 31, that is the page 33 in
24 e-court, in English.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. JORDASH: Could we go to --
2 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to answer the question or ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: I interrupted. Let's ...
4 THE WITNESS: What I was trying to say that, of course, I mean,
5 among the materials I reviewed and -- I mean, I reviewed, there were
6 numerous speeches by Mr. Seselj as well as representatives from his
7 parties, and this is all material that is then subjected to the
8 methodology. And on the basis of the different materials reviewed, I
9 draw conclusions and I -- I also select the key documents that explain
10 these conclusions or that show the -- sorry, that provide a basis for
11 these conclusions and in the overall -- when I look at the overall
12 pattern and my conclusion of the role of the SRS and the relation between
13 the SRS and the SPS and the Serbian authorities, the result you can see
14 in my report.
15 Q. Hold on a second. In 1995, was the relationship between Seselj
16 and Milosevic a good relationship?
17 A. At least publicly it was not a good relationship.
18 Q. Right. So at least what you've seen it hasn't, because what
19 you've seen is the public stuff, no? The public material. You weren't
20 privy to any private communications between them?
21 A. No. But if we go into the detailed -- I mean, the no doesn't
22 refer to your question. I will rephrase it, I'm sorry. I will
23 concentrate. But, I mean, if you follow a bit the activities of
24 Mr. Seselj, you will remember that in 1998, out of the blue, he joins the
25 government of unity of his archenemy, Mr. Milosevic. So I think it is
1 very difficult to summarise the -- for example, the relations between --
2 the true nature of the relations between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj in
3 just a -- one line.
4 I can say that publicly or what I've seen for the public material
5 the relation was not good.
6 Q. Right. The relationship was not good. Seselj gets -- gives an
7 interview, several interviews, publicly in which he accuses Milosevic of,
8 effectively, war activities which would link Milosevic to crimes. Is
9 that a fair summary?
10 A. He basically does that in the fall of -- he starts doing that in
11 the fall of 1993, around November, and he even gets arrested for that and
12 I think he spent some time in prison.
13 Q. Right. And you would say, well, Seselj didn't have the same
14 motive in 1991 because, well, Milosevic was -- had reached some sort
15 of -- at least easy cooperative relationship at that point. So he didn't
16 have motive to accuse Milosevic of anything at that point, did he?
17 A. If you would consider the statements of Mr. Seselj the same as he
18 made from November 1993 onwards, I mean, in isolation of the events he
19 was referring to, I would agree with you. However, if you compare these
20 speeches with the actual events he is referring to, there is coherence.
21 And, of course, knowing Mr. Seselj, sometimes he exaggerates a bit but
22 overall, I mean, the key aspects of his statements corresponds with the
24 Q. Well, sorry. Do you accept that in 1991 Seselj was saying, I was
25 stopped from travelling through Serbia with men with weapons and I was
1 stopped by the Serbian police. Do you accept that you've read speeches
2 where he says that? We can turn to them if we need to.
3 A. It's possible. I don't remember seeing them but --
4 Q. Well, let's turn to one of them. P1344, which is in your report
5 at part 3, page 31. And you rely upon this to -- for the proposition
6 that during a joint radio interview with Seselj, the president of the SRS
7 BiH stated that the volunteers in BiH all operated under the command of
8 the VRS.
9 But if we go to this, there is more in this interview.
10 MR. JORDASH: Page 4, please. Of the English, please.
11 Q. You see there Seselj, 1992, the bottom of the page:
12 "There are no troops from Serbia or from Montenegro. That is a
13 fact. However, there are volunteers who have come to fight for the
14 liberty of the Serbian people and no one can prevent them from coming.
15 We had a lot of problems, you know. Everything was very much -- was much
16 easier during the war for Srpska Krajina. Then at first we had to
17 smuggle volunteers across the Danube to Slavonia. We feared the Serbian
18 police and the Yugoslav Army more than we feared the Ustashas, as we
19 smuggled them across the Danube. And then, when the war broke out with
20 full intensity, then we cooperated fully with the army."
21 Didn't you find that a significant comment for Seselj to be
22 making in 1992, about the smuggling and the later cooperation with the
23 army, not with the police?
24 A. But this comment is -- is exactly what I have been trying to
25 explain in relation to the situation in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem.
1 Q. No, but the point is why didn't you put this into your report?
2 Why didn't you -- why did you find the later comments by Seselj where it
3 implicates the accused or the Serbian MUP significant but not this
4 comment, in 1992, absent, as you would say, any obvious motive?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I just put on the record that P1344 is
6 not to be shown to the public and perhaps you should have stated that.
7 It's MFI'd; it's not an exhibit.
8 THE WITNESS: I disagree with your proposition because, first of
9 all, when I took an excerpt from this book, I mean, the one that I quoted
10 in my report in part 3, page 34, it deals with a section situation in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina after June 1992, i.e., situation in the field. What
12 Mr. Seselj is talking about here, he refers again to the situation as it
13 existed in April, May, 1991, in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem, where
14 there are no generalised combat activities yet and as we also know from
15 other sources, I mean including sources --
16 Q. How do you know he's referring to that exact period?
17 A. Well, you know, he mentions the Danube, he mentions Slavonia. We
18 can look at a map if you want.
19 Q. How do you know he is referring to April and May, and --
20 A. Because, I mean, read the text:
21 "And then when the war broke out with full intensity, then we
22 cooperated fully with the army."
23 If you -- I mean, that's part of my job here, but if you then put
24 these statements into context and you try to understand them, then you
25 realise indeed what Mr. Seselj says there is coherent with, for example,
1 other publications of the Radical Party, open source articles and so on,
2 and also the historical record.
3 JUDGE ORIE: What apparently keeps you and Mr. Jordash apart is
4 that the time indication when the war fully broke out, that's for you
6 THE WITNESS: When it concerns Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem,
7 it's August 1991. More or less.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So that does not yet explain April. It just
9 explains before August.
10 THE WITNESS: Exactly. But, Your Honours, the most significant
11 event before August in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem was, I mean, the
12 incident of 1st and 2nd of May in Borovo Selo.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although is any specific reference made to
15 THE WITNESS: The text doesn't mention Borovo Selo, but when
16 you -- I mean, reference to smuggling volunteers across the Danube to
17 Slavonia --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is that for you an indication that this happened
19 before Borovo Selo, is that how --
20 THE WITNESS: No. For me it is linked to the events in
21 Borovo Selo, i.e., the volunteers were smuggled across the Danube to set
22 up local Serb defence or assist in setting up local defence -- local Serb
23 defence structures in Eastern Slavonia. And one of the -- the operations
24 they conducted was the ambush against Croatian policemen in Borovo Selo
25 on the 1st and/or the 2nd of May, 1991.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. JORDASH:
3 Q. Didn't find it significant that Seselj said when the war broke
4 out in full intensity, his cooperation was with the army. That wasn't
5 significant for you?
6 A. If you go to my section on the situation in Slavonia, Baranja,
7 Western Srem --
8 Q. If -- if you --
9 A. No, but --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let the witness -- if the answer is found there,
11 then, of course, we should look at it. If it is not, then ...
12 THE WITNESS: On page 62 of part 2 of the report, I state,
13 Roman IV:
14 "During the combat operations in SBWS, the local Serb TO as well
15 as Serbian volunteers and paramilitaries, including volunteers affiliated
16 with or sent by the SRS/SCP, operated under JNA command and control."
17 And then I go into further details about the structures.
18 MR. JORDASH:
19 Q. But the point is that at one point in time Seselj is not
20 implicating the MUP. He is implicating the army. And that's the point,
21 Mr. Theunens, which you, it seems, ignored. And I'm asking you why?
22 A. It's not a matter of me ignoring the MUP -- I mean, the fact that
23 the MUP was not participating there. I have never stated in my report
24 that the MUP participated in each and every incident. I've highlighted
25 the involvement of the MUP in those incidents where according to the
1 documents I reviewed there was a MUP Serbia involvement.
2 Q. No. But the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to see what -- what -- Mr. Theunens,
4 Mr. Jordash puts to you a -- a passage of this book in which Mr. Seselj
5 is reported as having said:
6 "At first we had to smuggle volunteers across the Danube to
7 Slavonia. We feared the Serbian police and the Yugoslav Army more than
8 we feared the Ustashas as we smuggled them across the Danube. And then
9 when the war broke out with full intensity, then we cooperated fully with
10 the army. And in agreement with the army --"
11 Now, what apparently triggers Mr. Jordash's question is that
12 Seselj says, We were afraid of the police and the army. But then, at a
13 certain moment, we cooperated with the army. Not, we cooperated with the
14 army and the police, so whether they were still fearing the police or
15 whether -- that's unclear. And Mr. Jordash, apparently, gives some
16 weight to the fact that it was only the army which was mentioned as the
17 institution with which Seselj, after the war had broke out -- had broken
18 out with full intensity, that he mentioned that institution as the one he
19 cooperated with, and has not yet retracted from being in fear of the
20 Serbian police.
21 Mr. Jordash, did I understand you well?
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please comment on that.
24 THE WITNESS: My understanding of this passage from a book from
25 Seselj is that he is explicitly referring to the situation in Slavonia,
1 Baranja, and Western Srem, more specifically Eastern Slavonia, where
2 indeed initially they have to cross the Danube. I mean, the SRS
3 volunteers have to cross the Danube at night and be smuggled in. But in
4 the -- in September, I mean, end of August/September, at the same time
5 when there is a generalisation of the war there, after the JNA starts the
6 siege of Vukovar which is in mid of August, 1991, then the volunteers,
7 including SRS volunteers, are doing combat operations subordinated to the
8 JNA, i.e., cooperating with the JNA.
9 And they are welcomed by the JNA because the JNA has manpower
10 problems --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Theunens, everything you said until now in your
12 answer was already included in the question. The issue Mr. Jordash
13 raises is it doesn't say anything about, if I could say, normalisation
14 with the MUP of Serbia. It doesn't say anything about it. It just says
15 something about the attitude towards the JNA and, therefore, he wonders
16 whether he -- you should not have mentioned that when Mr. Seselj
17 apparently says that cooperation with the JNA was fine, that he is
18 completely silent on any cooperation in this context with the MUP.
19 Mr. Jordash, did I understand you well?
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes, perfectly.
21 THE WITNESS: I apologise for misunderstanding the question then.
22 But in the global framework of the material I reviewed, I would
23 have found it speculative from my side to draw conclusion on something
24 Mr. Seselj didn't mention.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No. So, therefore, then you have an option. We
1 feared JNA and police at a certain point in time. We cooperated well
2 with the JNA, which leaves the MUP situation either the same; still in
3 fear; either neutral; either very good but not mentioned. That seems --
4 and Mr. Jordash is a bit concerned that you did not specifically point at
5 this matter and I think he also wanted the Chamber to look at that.
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then perhaps we could move on.
8 Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just since we're on the topic, I just
10 would like to have some context. I believe that most of the statements
11 by Vojislav Seselj are objected to by the Simatovic Defence. I think
12 there is over 25 of them, that's just a rough estimate, and it's been on
13 the record, but there are multiple documents. I know there's
14 representations being made throughout the examination to only one
15 document, only a certain number of documents. There are additional
16 documents. So we just believe that the report should be considered in a
17 whole and the material should be considered in whole also.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the reason why I said that it was
19 MFI'd. The status is --
20 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The status is not yet finally determined and whether
22 it would be the whole of it, or nothing of it, or part it.
23 Please proceed.
24 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, if you allow me, just to give you an
25 example of a -- another operational context. The operations conducted in
1 Eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina, Skelani area, end of 1992, early 1993, and
2 again this is discussed in part 3 of my report. There the documents I
3 reviewed indicate a close cooperation between forces of MUP Serbia and
4 SRS volunteers.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What you say is at another point in time, at another
6 place, I found documents which indicate or suggest that there was a close
7 cooperation, which doesn't change the issue that is before us now. It's
8 how to understand this text of Mr. Seselj for this period of time and
9 this territory.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
12 Could we go back to P1345, please, and the page, please --
13 JUDGE ORIE: And that is a public document?
14 MR. JORDASH: It's under seal, please.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.
16 MR. JORDASH: And if we could go to page 46 of the English and
17 B/C/S 20 --
18 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry to interrupt. P1345, I have as a public
20 MR. JORDASH: Oh, I beg your pardon.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: In e-court it is confidential so we keep it ...
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, P1345 is in e-court MFI'd and is confidential,
1 so we keep it for the time being. Let's not take no risks.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour. Page 46 of the English and
4 28 of the B/C/S.
5 Q. And we are, to give you the context, still in the same document
6 but at a different point in time. And, again, I think it's the -- would
7 you agree with this, it's the discussions emanating from some meeting of
8 the Serbian Radicals? Does this ring a bell?
9 A. When you give -- can you give me the page number where I
10 discussed it in my report?
11 Q. Page number -- it's footnote 94, I think --
12 A. Of --
13 Q. Part 3.
14 A. Part 3, Okay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Which is page 33, isn't it.
16 THE INTERPRETER: When all microphones are on at once, it is
17 extremely difficult to hear the speakers. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The footnote is on page 33, hard copy, although the
19 reference to that footnote is on page 32.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Have you familiarised yourself with the document?
22 A. I mean, I know where it is in my report.
23 Q. It's -- it's a document -- it's a document which is attached --
24 it may be the same document to the minutes we saw from the founding --
25 A. Mm-hmm.
1 Q. -- assembly in 1991. But this is reporting at a later stage.
2 And if one looks at page 46, the document notes, four lines down:
3 "During the first year of war until October 1992, the Serbian
4 Radicals were primarily involved in the defence and liberation of the
5 Serbian ethnic and historical territories mainly under the command of the
6 newly established Army of Republika Srpska and Ministry of the Interior
7 of Republika Srpska."
8 Were you aware of that comment?
9 A. Indeed.
10 Q. Is that significant to you that that was being said at assembly
11 minutes -- in the assembly of the SRS?
12 A. It is indeed significant and it's something again, as I explained
13 earlier, to consider in the context of the wider range of sources I have
15 And if you want, I can go into further details.
16 Q. I don't think we have got time.
17 A. But you -- but you could say when he says, like, We were under
18 the command of the Serbian army -- sorry, of the newly established Army
19 of the Republika Srpska, well, the VRS was only established in May 1992,
20 so when you link that to October 1992, and there is a reference to the
21 first year of the war, it raises some doubts about the credibility of the
22 information. But I wouldn't discard it. You look at it in context.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to, please, Exhibit 4123 -- sorry,
25 Exhibit P1163.
1 Q. Part 2 of your report, Mr. Theunens, at page 2.
2 Now, could you tell us what this is?
3 MR. JORDASH: It's under seal; I beg your pardon.
4 THE WITNESS: Could -- could you please repeat the page number,
5 because I'm not sure it's correct.
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. Well, perhaps we can just look at the document itself anyway.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to know where
9 in the report it's at, just so we can follow.
10 MR. JORDASH: Page 60, part 2.
11 Q. Have you found it?
12 A. I have D48 and P1099 discussed on page 16 of part 2.
13 Q. Part 60, 6-0.
14 A. Ah, 6-0. Sorry. Okay.
16 Q. And, again, if we were to go to the end of this interview, it's
17 29th November 1991, and if we look at what Seselj says at the first
19 "We are not allowed to discuss the numbers of our volunteers
20 until this war is over." I miss out the next line.
21 "However we don't have our own formations. Our volunteers are
22 subordinated to the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja and
23 Western Srem, Western Slavonia and the Serbian Krajina, depending on
24 where they are. We do not have any kind of a partisan military
1 Were you aware of that speech?
2 A. Indeed, I am aware of.
3 Q. Significant or not to you?
4 A. It's the same as I said before. I mean, all this material is
5 significant, but you apply the methodology and you consider it in the
6 context. And, I mean, the context you can find in my report. More
7 specifically for -- for example, P1173, clearly explains that in -- in
8 October, November, the SRS volunteers who are participating in the
9 fighting in the Vukovar area are subordinated to OG South, JNA OG South.
10 Q. But you do rely in your report on a Seselj speech in 1995, where
11 Seselj says his men were always subordinated to the Serbian MUP's men,
12 don't you?
13 A. Could you point me to that speech?
14 Q. If you'd go to, first of all, part 3, footnote 95. And it's P18.
15 A. But that's exactly what I've been trying to say earlier because
16 he is talking about a different region, I mean, geographic area. As you
17 can see on page 33, Seselj in his -- I mean, the section I took from his
18 interview for "Death of Yugoslavia" refers to Srebrenica and Skelani.
19 And when we look at the specific documents, military documents and other
20 documents I have included --
21 Q. No, I think -- sorry to correct you but he is referring as
22 examples to Srebrenica and Skelani. "Our volunteers were often under
23 their command in Srebrenica and Skelani, for example ..."
24 And then he goes on to say:
25 "Some of our members produced some papers then from which it was
1 evident that we were always under their command."
2 A. But are you reading from my report?
3 Q. I'm reading from your report which quotes the relevant speech.
4 At the top of the page 34, part 3. When you're quoting from the
5 report -- from Seselj's interview which was played in the "Death of
6 Yugoslavia" documentary?
7 A. Yeah, but, okay.
8 Q. Why do you quote that but not when -- the very many other times
9 when he said that his men were under somebody else's command?
10 A. No, because, I mean, page 33, part 3 deals with
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Mr. Seselj makes a speech or provides information on
12 how his volunteers participated in certain operations in
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It wouldn't make much sense to start to talk about
14 Eastern Slavonia there.
15 And, I mean, as I just -- as I just read out in part 2 in for --
16 and as I confirmed here in my testimony, when they participate in combat
17 operations in the Vukovar area, from the arrival or the days after the
18 arrival of the Guards Brigade, they were under the command of OG South
19 throughout the operations until the dissolution of OG South. And that's
20 also reflected as such in my report.
21 What I tried to do in my report is reflect the facts.
22 Q. Okay. Well, let's just move on. I think I have, hopefully, made
23 the point. Would you agree with this, that it's only in 1993, at a time
24 when Seselj's men are being, as you say, arrested at that point, that
25 Seselj starts to make speeches accusing the police, the Serbian police of
1 being involved with his volunteers, or can you point to earlier speeches
2 where he does the same?
3 A. Ideally we would have my Seselj report. But I can say that based
4 on my recollection he indeed intensifies the number of speeches and
5 public statements on these activities after his fallout with Milosevic.
6 But what I have tried to show in my report that there are official
7 documents as well as reports by MUP RS and again other official sources
8 that largely corroborate Mr. Seselj's speeches in relation to cooperation
9 or coordination with the MUP Serbia, in -- for what the participation of
10 SRS volunteers in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned, more
11 specifically the takeovers during spring 1992, as well as the operations
12 in Eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina, Skelani, Srebrenica, early 1993.
13 MR. JORDASH: Could we go, please, to P18.
14 MR. WEBER: It's -- it's a video, I believe. Are we going to
15 play a portion or transcript?
16 MR. JORDASH: Give me a moment, please.
17 It's P -- could I just have a moment.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 MR. JORDASH: This is the transcript from the "Death of
20 Yugoslavia." This is what I'm after.
21 I think it is P18. I think I was right the first time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want part of the video to be played or just
23 the transcript?
24 MR. JORDASH: No, just the transcript, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. Now this is probably, would you agree with this, the clearest
3 accusation that Seselj makes, naming names in the Serbian MUP. Have you
4 seen anything more explicit than this that Seselj said?
5 A. I don't remember. I mean, it was not my -- it was not within the
6 scope of my report to analyse the accusatory nature of speeches by
7 Mr. Seselj in relation to the MUP Serbia.
8 Q. So you haven't analysed this speech?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, which portion more specifically you
10 want to draw his attention to? In English the lines are numbered.
11 MR. JORDASH: In English it's page 12.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Page 12. E-court or hard copy?
13 MR. JORDASH: If I could just take a moment.
14 I'm not sure, I thought it was in this file but it's not. But
15 it's page 12 of --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Page 12 --
17 MR. JORDASH: -- of the English. Apologies.
18 JUDGE ORIE: What is said there -- what you -- apparently there's
19 a -- you say you're referring to an accusation. So let's -- if you would
20 give the Chamber a chance to read that.
21 Well, one bit of luck. 12 in e-court is 12 in hard copy as well,
22 so that resolves one problem.
23 MR. JORDASH: I think Seselj is asked how did he go to
24 Borovo Selo. And if we look --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. So you want us to read on from line 24
1 down, apparently, because that's where he answers the question about --
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 MR. JORDASH: We've read that. Can we go to the next page,
6 Q. If you read to the bottom of the page, please, Mr. Theunens.
7 A. I mean, for your info, in line 11 he also says something about
8 receiving weapons.
9 Q. I know. That's the --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- let's focus -- I want to understand
11 your question and I want to know whether, when we're talking about -- so
12 we're now on page 13, second half of the page. And I see that reference
13 is made to the Serbian police in, again, line 24. Let's then read to see
14 what the accusation there is, because that's what you wanted Mr. Theunens
15 to comment on.
16 Do you have it on your screen, Mr. Theunens?
17 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours, I have.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And then we could read it. One second.
19 Now where is the accusation in this?
20 MR. JORDASH: It's the allegations concerning where he received
21 the weapons from, or who he had contacts with. First of all, Vukasin
22 Soskocanin. At line 19 and 20.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now what exactly is your question for
24 Mr. Theunens?
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. The question is: What did you conclude, Mr. Theunens, about the
2 way that Mr. Seselj obtained his weapons through Vuk Soskocanin?
3 A. I haven't drawn any specific conclusions, I think, on that. I
4 have a brief comment on the incident in Borovo Selo, I think, in the
5 section SBWS, but I haven't specifically addressed that.
6 Q. Did you address anything concerning Soskocanin's relationship
7 with Bogdanovic?
8 A. No, that is outside the scope of my report.
9 Q. Did you assess about Bogdanovic's -- whether Bogdanovic,
10 according to Seselj, was acting in his private capacity or on behalf of
11 the institution of the Serbian MUP?
12 A. No, I haven't addressed that issue. I mean, it is not my report
13 so I haven't addressed that. It would be outside the scope of my report.
14 Q. And so you haven't analysed whether this has had, according to
15 Seselj, if he was at this point telling the truth, anything to do with
16 the Serbian DB?
17 A. I don't understand the question.
18 Q. Well, have you assessed at any point whether the alleged supply
19 of weapons through Bogdanovic, if Seselj was telling the truth in 1995,
20 had anything to do with the Serbian DB?
21 A. No, I haven't looked into the alleged role of Mr. Bogdanovic. As
22 I said, it's outside the scope of my report.
23 Q. And you haven't -- at some point Seselj also accuses
24 Franko Simatovic and a number of other state security persons. Have you
25 analysed that relationship, those relationships? Is it in your report?
1 A. I have not analysed the relationships in detail. I have
2 mentioned -- I have quoted the statements Mr. Seselj made, I think, also
3 for the "Death of Yugoslavia," which would be P18, in which he refers to
4 the -- in his view, I mean, the role according to him of Mr. Franko
6 Q. But you haven't got -- but Seselj, when he speaks about
7 Franko Simatovic, doesn't in fact describe a role that Franko Simatovic
8 played. He just simply listed a number of names, didn't he?
9 A. Yeah. I think he or Ljubisa Petkovic, who was the chief of the
10 SRS war staff by then, was in contact with Simatovic. He --
11 Q. Well, is that in your report?
12 A. I would have to check.
13 Q. I mean, what Seselj does during this interview is simply list a
14 number of people, says that he contact with them and leaves it at that.
15 Did you not, then, follow up such an allegation and try to work out
16 through the documents precisely what the nature of that relationship --
17 those relationships were?
18 A. I mean, that would be the implementation of the methodology
19 and -- and I would conduct searches to find documents. The documents I
20 have discovered and which again were analysed in the context of the scope
21 of the report, they are included in the report. For a number of things I
22 wasn't able to identify additional documents, and then the statements of
23 Mr. Seselj have been identified as such as being statements of
24 Mr. Seselj. Maybe there will be other evidence in the trial that allows
25 to provide a context which could I not provide on the basis of the
2 Q. So all you --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Jordash, and I'm also
4 trying to find myself back in where we are at this moment. Let me try to
5 understand, because I really want to understand what you want to
7 We started with speeches by Seselj on from a certain moment
8 implementing and criticising the MUP. Then your question was whether
9 Mr. Theunens had seen any earlier speeches where that was mentioned. And
10 then you took him to P18, which is an interview dating from --
11 MR. JORDASH: 1995, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- 1995, so it is not an earlier speech.
13 MR. JORDASH: No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And you took Mr. Theunens to a passage, it took us
15 awhile to get from page 12 to 13, the end, the beginning, okay. We
16 finally found it. And then apparently there is something about weapons
17 and that, I think, does not directly refer to the MUP. Is that what you
18 wanted to say, that if, in 1995, Mr. Seselj tells us what happened in
19 Borovo Selo or in relation to that, that he doesn't mention the MUP
20 for -- in relation to the weapons?
21 MR. JORDASH: Our point is this, that in -- in the early speeches
22 before there was such an open conflict between Seselj and the Serbian
23 MUP, Seselj does not implicate in a number of speeches the Serbian MUP
24 for -- for being involved with him and his war effort.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JORDASH: 1993, and from then on, up until this famous speech
2 in 1995, Seselj starts to implicate the MUP. And our critique of
3 Mr. Theunens is this: That, number one, all he has done, we say, is
4 simply list the latest speeches because they happen to support the
5 Prosecution case. And, two -- I lost my thought. And, two, what he
6 hasn't then gone on to do which what we would say he should have done,
7 having listed that speech, is then conduct an investigation to see if
8 there's any support for it. And if there was support, to put it into his
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to understand.
11 Later speeches, fine. Did you see anything in earlier speeches
12 was your question. And then we were taken to the 1995 recording, which
13 is a later speech.
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So we never ended up in the earlier speeches and
16 there you say in the 1995 speech we again find involvement of the MUP or
18 MR. JORDASH: We've looked at -- we've looked at the founding
19 assembly and then a follow-on meeting which was in 1991, and we've looked
20 at another document which was a Seselj speech from 1991. And then we've
21 looked at the 1995 and that's what we're looking at now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the portion at the bottom part of
23 page 13, is that now to indicate that he does imply the MUP or that he --
24 MR. JORDASH: He does.
25 JUDGE ORIE: He does.
1 MR. JORDASH: But Bogdanovic was the minister of interior up
2 until around July of 1991.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So, I'm just trying to understand fully. We
4 started, later speeches he implies the MUP, but that's only later. And
5 on from a certain moment where something had happened, do you find
6 anything in the earlier ones? We haven't had a clear answer to that,
7 because we were taken then, again, to one of the late speeches where you
8 say it clearly demonstrates, again, that he was then implying the MUP
9 although --
10 MR. JORDASH: I think --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- you are specifically pointing at the role of
12 Mr. Bogdanovic.
13 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think I -- what I took Mr. Theunens to was
14 an earlier speech by Seselj and also the assembly, the earlier assembly.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you did that before you asked him the
16 question whether there was anything found in the earlier speeches.
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, and I think Mr. Theunens implies that there is
18 and I was going to leave it there for future submissions --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
20 MR. JORDASH: -- to demonstrate to Your Honours that there isn't.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I hope you understand that following the line
22 of what you really -- and that you could say, Well, you don't give us
23 enough time, but it's also a matter of structured thinking and giving us
24 an opportunity to -- to follow the line. And therefore I'm verifying now
25 and then whether I followed you well.
1 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Well, I wasn't being as clear as I could have
2 been. I accept that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm not blaming you. I'm more seeking such
4 evidence that I can follow. But we get there, finally we will understand
5 what you are trying to establish and the line of your questions.
6 Mr. Weber, I asked you to wait for a second. Yes.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution is willing to
8 discussion certain matters with the Defence, amongst them Mr. Theunens
9 has cited a large range of speeches from 1991 through 1995, later. You
10 know, they're accurately reflected in the report and in context, and if
11 they're just certain points that he would like to make in terms of
12 factually when certain things show what, we're available to discuss it --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps is -- is there any way, and that might
14 assist the Chamber, that before you ask questions on a certain matter,
15 that you briefly, in three, four, or five lines, you set out the position
16 of the Defence is this and this and this and this, and in order to verify
17 our position I'd like to take you here, there, there. Then it's far
18 better possible for us to follow.
19 Mr. Weber, would have you any problem with that? Because
20 finally, sooner or later, between the lines, we're supposed to learn
21 exactly what the position of the Defence, in relation to those specifics,
22 is anyhow.
23 MR. WEBER: No. That would be appreciated. There's a lot of
24 characterisations going on and I think it takes some time to get some
25 materials. So the Prosecution would have no problem if it was set out
1 like that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, then you could more quickly get to the
3 point. You could even explain to us in advance, before you have elicited
4 evidence, what the point is. Think about it, whether it fits into the
5 art of cross-examination, and --
6 MR. JORDASH: Sometimes it does and sometimes --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then it is a suggestion. If you could follow
8 it, that would be -- that might save some time. And art and artists,
9 that's, of course, in a courtroom, always a -- an issue. The Chamber
10 would like to understand what the issue is and what the related facts
12 We'll have a break. We're a bit late, as a matter of fact. I'm,
13 to some extent, responsible for that.
14 We resume at ten minutes past 4.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Just to wrap up this subject, Mr. Theunens.
20 If we look at the exhibit we have on the screen, and page 14. In
21 the B/C/S page 15, please. And we see there halfway down the page at 19,
22 Seselj is accusing Bogdanovic of assisting from July 1991; correct?
23 A. I -- I mean, the English page I see, I don't see a July 1991.
24 But maybe I --
25 Q. Sorry, the English page is 13.
1 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to 14, please.
2 Q. And Seselj says at the bottom there that his contacts, first of
3 all, were with Vukasin Soskocanin. Then he met Bogdanovic in July 1991,
4 when Seselj was elected deputy in the National Assembly. Do you see
6 A. Indeed.
7 Q. And can you confirm that, at that point, Bogdanovic wasn't the
8 minister of the interior? He was, in fact, the president for the
9 organisation for Serbs outside of Serbia.
10 A. I don't know. It's possible. I don't know.
11 Q. You didn't look into that?
12 A. No. And again to clarify, I don't think I have used this part of
13 Mr. Seselj's interview for the "Death of Yugoslavia" in my report, and
14 certainly not to discuss involvement of the minister of interior of
15 Republic of Serbia in the arming of volunteers. I refer to P1048, which
16 is a official VJ security organs report.
17 MR. JORDASH: Could we go to page 15, please. And page 15 of the
19 Q. And at the top there, we'll see Seselj goes on to say:
20 "First of all, they obtained weapons from Vukasin Soskocanin, and
21 then after the Association of Serbs from Croatia had been formed, they
22 took over the coordination with the regime regarding the weapons
24 Did you look into the role of the Association of Serbs from
25 Croatia, which Bogdanovic was the president, in delivering weapons?
1 A. It -- I'm not sure whether I include in my report but it's
2 something that we discussed yesterday when we discussed the different
3 origins of the weapons that became available to local Serbs in Croatia.
4 The Association of Serbs in Croatia played a role in that, as other
5 institutions -- as well as other institutions.
6 Q. And going over the page to page 16 and 17 of the B/C/S.
7 And halfway down the page, Seselj makes the point that Milosevic
8 knew all about it. There is no doubt there. Key people from the police
9 at that time, with whom we established cooperation, were Radmilo
10 Bogdanovic, Mihalj Kertes and others, Franko Simatovic called Frenki.
11 And so on.
12 You didn't, in your analysis, go on to analyse the role of those
13 three in the delivery of weapons on behalf of Seselj?
14 A. No. As I said, I haven't used this interview and I used official
15 documents which clarified the role of a number of institutions in the
16 arming of volunteers, including the fact that the minister of interior
17 was well aware of the arming of -- of this activity, i.e., the arming of
18 volunteers. We have, for example, P1054, we have discussed over the
19 previous days.
20 Q. And you made the point I think before the break that you -- you
21 have seen documentation to connect Simatovic to Petkovic. Is that what
22 you were saying?
23 A. I don't think I used the word "documentation," I mean -- or maybe
24 open-source articles. If I had seen official documents or primary
25 sources, I would have included them in my report, and I don't think I
1 have included such documents in my report.
2 Q. So -- well, I'll leave it at that, then.
3 MR. JORDASH: Could I ask, please, on the -- put on the
4 screen ...
5 Q. Have you ever heard -- before I come to that, have you heard,
6 Mr. Theunens, of Operation Tomson?
7 A. I am familiar with the name, yes.
8 Q. What was it?
9 A. I remember -- or I have a recollection of an Operation Tomson
10 which consisted of providing weapons to local Serbs. But I also believe
11 that the name has been used for different types of operations.
12 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D1331.
13 THE WITNESS: Is this one of the documents you provided to me
14 or ...
15 MR. JORDASH: No, no, it's not. It's coming up on the screen.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. Now this is a Ministry of Internal Affairs from Serbia document,
19 state secret, 23rd of July, 1991. And this explains what
20 Operation Tomson was. And if you read it, you'll see that Operation
21 Tomson was an operation by the Serbian MUP, beginning on this date, an
22 operation to do what it could to prevent the formation of paramilitary
23 organisations within Serbia.
24 A. Indeed, that's what the document states.
25 Q. And we can go over the page, if we need to, but that's what the
1 document says.
2 But you've never heard of this operation, Operation Tomson --
3 A. I have heard of it and this refreshes my memory. Maybe I was
4 confused. I thought that the name Tomson has also been used in the
5 context of providing arms, because Tomson refers to the name of one of
6 the type of arms that was provided. But this again, this refreshes my
7 memory, the document you show me.
8 Q. Well, did you ever request information -- when did you learn
9 about Operation Tomson, this operation by the Serbian MUP?
10 A. I have a recollection that Ms. Brehmeier at the time after the
11 filing of report mentioned it, but without further implications. And I
12 may have carried out some searches on it while working at the OTP. Yeah,
13 but that was for sure after the filing of my report.
14 Q. Do you agree that it's this operation which ought to have been
15 assessed as part of your report to arrive at a reliable conclusion
16 concerning the Serbian MUP's conduct?
17 A. Not necessarily. Because we would have to see the effectiveness
18 of the operation. When I look at the documents that I have included in
19 my report, my conclusion would be that the operation was not effective
20 for whatever reason. But I could for sure have included it, but again
21 the other documents are very clear.
22 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D1111. And
23 the page in e-court is 1D01-0647.
24 Q. And this is a report arising from that operation, I suggest,
25 Mr. Theunens.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. One of many reports but which we're not going to have time to go
3 through today. But just to give the Court some understanding, this
4 report from the Belgrade state department -- state security department,
5 the 1st of August, 1991, reports on the creation of paramilitary
6 formations organised by the unregistered Serbian Chetnik Movement, SCP,
7 and the Serbian National Renewal. And if we go over the page to
8 1D01-0648, page 2, there's a report which reads:
9 "On the 8th of July, 1991, the Main Staff met ..."
10 And this is referring to the Chetnik movement:
11 "... met on the premises of the association and adopted new
12 decisions regarding the further organisation of the Serbian army."
13 And then we go further down to the page to this second paragraph,
14 where the report notes that the DB has information that, apart from
15 Ljubisa Petkovic and Zoran Rankic from the SCP, also directly involved in
16 the transfer of volunteers to either Slavonia or the SAO Krajina were
17 Dragoljub Bulat and Zoran Ciganovic. For example, on 8th of July, 1991,
18 they arranged for a group of volunteers to be ferried across the Danube
19 to Borovo Selo.
20 And further down on the same paragraph, the DB seems to be
21 observing something to do with Captain Dragan, where it says it was sent
22 back -- this is the ferry. Was sent back with the comment of
23 Captain Dragan, member of Martic's special forces, that they should be
24 better organised and seek prior consultations with Martic and Babic, and
25 that they did not need either Chetnik or partisans, but only Serbian
1 volunteers without any symbols.
2 Is this anything -- is this familiar to you, these -- the
3 description by the Serbian DB?
4 A. Yeah. But you used the word "ferry" in connection to Dragan and
5 I don't see that in the text.
6 Q. Well, for example -- it's fourth line in the second paragraph.
7 It says:
8 "For example, on the 8th of July, 1991, they arranged for a group
9 of volunteers to be ferried across the Danube to Borovo Selo."
10 A. But that's what I have been trying to explain from the beginning.
11 We have to look at each region -- we have to look at the regions
12 individually, i.e., based on the facts. The document does not -- the
13 document confirms that indeed the volunteers, SRS volunteers went to
14 SBWS, they were ferried in April or May 1991. But --
15 Q. But the point I'm --
16 A. -- Dragan is not referring to a ferry for volunteers who were
17 going to the SAO Krajina. It wouldn't make much sense.
18 Q. The volunteers were sent back to Vaske and subsequently to the
19 training ground in Pikravica [phoen]. The same happened with the second
20 group of volunteers led by Zoran Ciganovic, which was sent to the SAO
21 Krajina 9th of July, 1991.
22 A. Indeed, but there's no reference to a ferry there. You --
23 Q. Okay. That's --
24 A. When you read it out, you mentioned a ferry.
25 Q. Well, I apologise for mentioning ferry. But were you aware that
1 the DB was watching Petkovic, Dragan, Martic, and Babic and reporting on
2 it at the Belgrade DB?
3 A. There are examples in P1062 which we discussed earlier. The
4 document from the VJ -- excuse me, from the SFRY armed forces security
5 administration on Dragan shows that the DB is first watching Dragan and
6 then, according to the document, subsequently they recruit Dragan. If
7 you --
8 Q. Well, Mr. Theunens, I'm really short of time. Can you try to
9 keep your answers --
10 A. Yeah, but --
11 Q. -- to the questions that I ask.
12 Were you aware that they were watching -- sorry.
13 A. I'm sorry.
14 Q. Please could you just answer the question because I need to
15 finish today.
16 A. I was aware but I tried to explain there is an evolution.
17 Q. Turn over the page to 4, please. 1D01-0650. And again, second
19 "Unconfirmed reports indicate that Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan,
20 has founded a so-called Serbian volunteer guard made up of his supporters
21 with a view to uniting all Belgrade patriots in order to help the Serbs
22 in vulnerable areas of Croatia. These individuals allegedly have
23 membership cards. They are armed with Heckler and Koch automatic rifles
24 supplied by Arkan, and train regularly at the Red Star football club
25 stadium. According to these same sources, these automatic weapons can be
1 bought through Arkan for 3.000 to 3.500 German marks apiece."
2 Were you aware of these facts, Mr. Theunens?
3 A. I am aware of them and my reflection would then be, okay, what
4 was done with that information? Because the information as such is
5 useful but then you would expect the organ that orders or that instructs
6 its staff to gather that information to act upon it.
7 Q. And you were not aware of these reports at all, were you, when
8 you conducted your analysis?
9 A. I don't -- I don't recall seeing this specific document before,
10 but I have included -- I made a reference to -- it's P1058, that the
11 state security -- excuse me, the State Security Service of the Republic
12 of Serbia collected information on the activities of at least one
13 volunteer group. It's footnote 260. So --
14 Q. And what I've given you and you've looked at is a series of
15 reports arising from Operation Tomson; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct. And they are coherent with this one.
17 Q. And if we, for the sake of brevity, we go to 1D, please, 1D369,
18 which is, I hope, the programme orientation of the State Security Service
19 in 1991. And it's an extract. If we go to the next page, 1D00-9665.
20 And we see there:
21 "Republic of Serbia Secretariat of the Interior State Security
22 Service programme orientation of the State Security Service in 1991.
23 Extremism in the country. In order to oppose all forms of extreme
24 nationalist, chauvinist and separatist activity ..."
25 Reading into the second paragraph:
1 "The information obtained by the service so far, the experience
2 and assessments indicate that the priority tasks in 1991 must be to
3 detect, document, and oppose the extremist activities of national
4 chauvinists which aims forcibly to destroy or jeopardise the
5 constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia," and so the report goes
7 Wouldn't -- don't you accept this, wouldn't your report have been
8 more complete if you had asked for these types of reports from the
9 Serbian MUP in order to come to your final conclusion about what the
10 Serbian MUP was doing?
11 A. I don't know -- I don't know when this document -- whether this
12 document is available to the OTP. It was not available to me. I could
13 have included it in order to highlight, okay, what the programme of the
14 State Security Services was, but then, of course, I would look into
15 the -- the -- the way how this programme was implemented. And that is
16 what I have tried -- I mean, this latter aspect, the implementation, is
17 something that I have tried to address in my report.
18 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, 1D385 on e-court, please.
19 1D00-9840, I should have said.
20 Q. And we see here 27th of August, 1991. Official Note. And I
21 won't read it, but it's -- you've seen this, haven't you?
22 A. I have seen it and I'm familiar with the contents, I mean, to
23 general aspects.
24 Q. And you've seen a number of reports showing that the DB had Arkan
25 under observation in 1991?
1 A. Yes. And if you want, I can explain what my conclusion is on the
2 basis of those documents when I linked them to those included in my
4 Q. Please do.
5 A. It is obvious from, for example, when you look at the CV of
6 Arkan, that these were people, I mean, Arkan and other important
7 volunteers, were people of a special nature. Arkan had a criminal record
8 not only in -- I mean, in Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden. And,
9 of course, these people they are organising armed groups. These armed
10 groups, as was indicated in one of the other documents you have shown,
11 especially when they are organised by political parties could represent a
12 threat to the state order in the country, i.e., the state order and the
13 constitutional order in Serbia. So it's -- I would consider it mandatory
14 for a State Security Service to keep an eye on this group -- these kind
15 of groups.
16 What we then see is that at one moment time, is it by fall -- at
17 the latest by fall 1991 the authorities start to use these groups because
18 these groups assist in implementing the goals of the authorities --
19 Q. Well, you can't say, can you, from what you've seen, that the DB
20 was using these groups?
21 A. I see the DB as one of the organs of the authorities. Now --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to cut matters short here.
23 I think everyone agrees that the DB was embedded in the state
24 organisation of Serbia. Now what Mr. Jordash wants to know is when you
25 give this explanation when the ... whether you have any source which
1 specifically points at a specific role of the DB in this process you are
2 describing, or whether it's rather a state or government-steered
3 development. That's what Mr. Jordash is interested in.
4 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I would like to refer to the
5 document -- I mean, we have discussed a number of these documents. I
6 don't know them by heart but they are documents included in my report,
7 mainly reports of the security organs of the SFRY armed forces as well as
8 when it comes to Bosnia-Herzegovina documents from, for example, the RS
9 MUP, which indicate an involvement of the state security of the Republic
10 of Serbia in relation to a number of these groups. And for the details,
11 I refer you to my report.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. Why didn't you ask the Serbian MUP to provide you with the daily
16 reports, or weekly reports, or annual reports, of what it was doing?
17 A. I'm trying to think of how I can give a short explanation.
18 I have not myself asked the Serbian DB for their daily reports
19 but I know that the Stanisic-Simatovic trial team, I mean, Office of the
20 Prosecutor, organised a number of archive missions. I'm not hundred per
21 cent familiar with the nature of the documents they requested prior to
22 the missions. I have seen, and mainly after the compilation of these
23 reports -- excuse me, of my report, a number of spreadsheets where
24 documents that had been obtained from the government of the Republic of
25 Serbia in response or as a result of these archive missions were listed.
1 Q. Why didn't you ask for them? Why didn't you ask the Prosecution
2 to give you the reports?
3 A. That's not how it works. I conduct searches in the databases
4 that are available in the Office of the Prosecutor.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. And, of course, I conducted searches on documents using various
7 key words from the DB. I didn't see these daily reports.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. These documents here I have not seen before you gave me the hard
11 Q. Let's have a look at one more, please.
11 Pages 8412-8413 redacted. Redaction order.
13 MR. JORDASH: Can we have on the screen, please, 1D03 -- 1D01377.
14 Your Honour, may I tender all of these at the end of the
16 JUDGE ORIE: It seems to be a practical proposal.
17 Mr. Weber.
18 MR. WEBER: It does. I don't know which ones he's exactly
19 tendering so if he could discuss with me during the next recess a list of
20 which ones are being tendered just so we know. And then if there's any
21 problem with them, we'll --
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll find a practical solution for it.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. This is Seselj's testimony in Milosevic, or part of it. I don't
25 know if you are aware of this.
1 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to page 1D02 --
2 THE WITNESS: I am aware of Mr. Seselj's testimony in the -- as a
3 Defence witness in the Milosevic trial.
4 MR. JORDASH: 1D020906907 [sic].
5 Q. And we see there Seselj saying at line 17 -- sorry, at line 21:
6 "I first met Jovica Stanisic in November 1992 at his own
7 initiative. He sent a message through some republican MP that we should
8 meet. I agreed, and we met in front of the building, the national
10 And then if we go further down the page. Line 2:
11 "That was just before the new elections, the federal elections in
13 MR. JORDASH: I think we need to go to the next page. Down
14 further down the page, please.
15 Q. And then Seselj says:
16 "After that, after a point in time I was constantly clashing with
17 Jovica Stanisic. He was head of the State Security Service of Serbia,
18 and after our fierce conflict with the service, they made every effort to
19 break up the Serb Radical Party."
20 Do you accept what Seselj says there?
21 A. It's difficult to establish the moment in time, the specific
22 moment in time, that refers to, but what I remember is that especially
23 after November 1993, indeed the Serbian Radical Party came under pressure
24 from different institutions in the Republic of Serbia.
25 MR. JORDASH: Let's go, please, to page 1D02-1101.
1 The same testimony, Seselj's -- I think if we go down the page.
2 Could we magnify it a bit, please. Yes.
3 Q. There, at the bottom of the page?
17 [Private session]
11 Page 8417 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. Isn't -- just to finish this topic, Mr. Theunens. Isn't it
16 obvious or wasn't it obvious to you that Mr. Seselj is not a reliable
17 informant probably of anything. And yet you rely upon him without
19 A. You will see -- I mean, if you read my report you will realise
20 very well that I don't rely exclusively on Mr. Seselj. I have used
21 Mr. Seselj's contemporaneous as well as subsequent statements at a number
22 of occasions, but again, when you look at the report, there are many more
23 primary sources to describe the events I cover in the report and which
24 are then the basis of my conclusions.
25 Q. So if we read your report we'll see the reasonable critique which
1 I suggest arises from the nature of Mr. Seselj's personality, will we?
2 A. Drafting what you call a reasonable critique on the nature of
3 Mr. Seselj's personality falls outside the scope of my report.
4 Q. That's not quite what I said. But let's move on.
5 Let's move to the issue of Zvornik, Bosnia.
6 MR. JORDASH: Please could we have on the screen P1338.
7 Q. You rely upon this at chapter -- part 3 of your report, page 24
8 to 25, and footnote 73 and 74.
9 MR. JORDASH: I've lost my screen. I'm ...
10 Q. Now, what is this, Mr. Theunens? And how do you rely upon it in
11 your report?
12 A. This document is a daily -- daily situation report compiled by
13 the command of the 5th Corps and it's addressed to the 2nd Military
14 District of the JNA, dated 8th of March, 1992.
15 Q. And it's a report from Lieutenant-General Vladimir Vukovic. Who
16 is Vladimir Vukovic, or who was he?
17 A. He must have been the commander of the 5th Corps.
18 Q. And do you know of the lieutenant-colonel Masirevic mentioned in
19 the report?
20 A. There is a Masirevic mentioned in the document.
21 Q. Do you know him?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And Vukovic describes having received a visit from a colonel in
24 the SSNO, Lieutenant Masirevic, and a civilian named Branislav Lainovic,
25 whom he knew from the television as the leader of the Serb Guards. Do
1 you have any knowledge about this direct cooperation between the SSNO and
2 the Serb Guards?
3 A. I have mentioned it in my report on page 24, 25, where, according
4 to this document, JNA organised the transport of 12 members of the
5 Serbian Guard from -- I mean, from Gracac in Croatia to Sarajevo.
6 Q. And the report reads:
7 "In the second half of last year and in January this year" --
8 sorry let's go to page 2.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, can we have the B/C/S text
10 blown up a bit, please.
11 MR. JORDASH: Is that page 2? Yeah. Sorry, I'm just having
12 difficulty with my screen.
13 Q. "In the second half of last year and in January this year, at the
14 request of the SSNO, first, second, third and political administrations,
15 I admitted Serb Guard groups that arrived to the battlefront on a number
16 of occasions, assigning them to corps units where they carried out combat
17 tasks under unified insignia and integral command. I deemed this kind of
18 help normal, as there have been similar cases to this day."
19 You don't refer to that passage in your report, do you,
20 Mr. Theunens?
21 A. No. Because I quote this document in part 3 which deals with
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina; whereas the fighting in January -- or the second half
23 of last year and January this year refers to fighting in Croatia.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Could I see the correct page in the B/C/S version,
2 because there's reference to possibly different groups known as Serbian
3 Guards, or Serbian Volunteer Guard. I just wanted to see what it
4 appeared like in B/C/S.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We can try to get it on the screen. Although you're
6 always able yourself, Mr. Weber, to get this on your screen, in e-court.
7 You just click on it, then you get it in the separate, and you can choose
8 all the document details, including the B/C/S original.
9 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But let's have a look at it.
11 Did you find it? Which part of the English are you -- we have,
12 at this moment, we have some are handwritten and then a 2, and then a 3.
13 Where exactly were you looking for, Mr. Weber?
14 MR. WEBER: I guess I was confused. On page 2 -- well, on
15 page 55, line 11, Mr. Jordash makes reference to this document on page 2
16 and the Serbian Guard or Serb Guard groups. I just wanted to see -- I
17 wanted to know where that was in the document, and, two, how that is
18 reflected in the B/C/S. I can look that up and I can continue to look it
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you referred to what exactly on page 2?
21 I have to first find it again. Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: It's the top paragraph, Your Honour, and the
23 particular point I'm trying to address is the line indicating that --
24 JUDGE ORIE: "I admitted Serb Guard groups," that's just above
25 the handwritten portion. Now the handwritten portion is on, let me see,
1 I need the original there.
2 THE WITNESS: It's on the bottom of page 1, Your Honours, the
3 fourth line from the bottom.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look.
5 THE WITNESS: It says "Grupa Srpske Garde."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that. The only thing in the English, I
7 tried to find the handwriting, which is supposed to be just below or
8 just ... oh, I see it. That's the empty page after that.
9 Yes, I'm satisfied, Mr. Weber.
10 Yes, please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. The point is, isn't it, Mr. Theunens, that at the very highest
13 level at this point in time, January 1992, you -- of the SSNO is that
14 it's kind of normal to employ the use of groups such as the
15 Serbian Guard. Isn't that the point?
16 A. Indeed when you -- I mean, why, because we have order -- the SFRY
17 presidential order number 73 which clearly stated that volunteer groups
18 are admitted if, and then we go back to the document. Yeah, if they have
19 a unified insignia, it's the top of page 2, i.e., the JNA insignia and
20 integral command, i.e., single command and control. So this is -- and
21 I'm just explaining the document. It is an implementation, in my view,
22 of the SFRY presidential order number 73, which was adopted on the
23 10th of December, 1991.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, you referred to this document at page 24 of your
25 report under the heading: "Volunteer paramilitary groups including
1 volunteer paramilitary groups controlled by or related otherwise to the
2 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia."
3 JUDGE ORIE: Which part, Mr. Jordash?
4 MR. JORDASH: Page 24, part 3, Your Honour.
5 THE WITNESS: There is indeed a general heading titled 4. And
6 then you see the subheadings of the title 4.
7 MR. JORDASH:
8 Q. Yeah. But this doesn't actually demonstrate that at all, does
10 A. No, and I have not suggested any linkage between -- I mean, in
11 this section between the Serbian Guard and the Ministry of Interior of
12 the Republic of Serbia.
13 Q. Right.
14 A. But there's other documents referred to further on in the
16 Q. Well, didn't you tell us yesterday or the day before that it was
17 the Serbian Guard that had been effectively dismantled by the Serbian
19 A. Yeah. But I don't recall exactly at what moment in time.
20 Q. Okay. And then --
21 A. And -- I believe that the Serbian MUP acted against them at one
22 moment in time but I don't know exactly when.
23 Q. And this document shows that the participation of volunteer
24 groups from Serbia was being encouraged and endorsed at the highest
25 levels of the military in early 1992; correct?
1 A. Well, the military is implementing a political decision. The
2 political decision being the SFRY presidential order number 73 --
3 Q. So the answer's yes --
4 A. -- of the 10th of December, whereby, okay, the SFRY presidential
5 order has been reduced to a -- yeah, to a smaller body.
6 Q. Yeah. So the answer is yes, it was being encouraged and endorsed
7 by the military?
8 A. I haven't used the word "encouraged" or "endorsed." We see in
9 this document that the military is transporting members of a Serbian
10 volunteer group who have accepted to carry out combat tasks under a
11 unified insignia and integral command.
12 Q. Now, during your testimony I think on the 26th of October, two
13 days ago, you indicated that you hadn't seen any documents indicating
14 that Arkan during the takeover of Zvornik was subordinated to the JNA.
15 In fact, the documents you've seen indicated that the JNA didn't
16 participate. Do you recall that?
17 A. I recall the second part but the first part I'm not sure.
18 Q. Well, what --
19 A. Okay, no, I agree. I remember now, indeed.
20 Q. And --
21 A. Sorry.
22 Q. Do you stand by that?
23 A. Yes. And, of course, please show me another document.
24 Q. Sorry. What do you want me to do?
25 A. No, if the conclusion I drew on the basis of the documents I have
1 seen is -- can be challenged with another document, I would, of course,
2 be happy to review the other documents.
3 Q. Now, looking at part 3, page 52 of your report, you cite a
4 document which indicates that Arkan had some 29 men present in Bijeljina.
5 Have you seen any documents which indicate that the men he had numbered
6 more than that?
7 A. No. But if we look at P1371, one could argue they probably had
8 more men there. That again --
9 Q. What do you say, Mr. Theunens?
10 A. That's all I can say. I haven't seen any document -- or I don't
11 remember seeing any document with the precise indication of the number of
12 men Arkan had in Bijeljina.
13 Q. Now around -- around -- let's move to Zvornik and Arkan.
14 Are you able to say the number of men he had there?
15 A. No, I'm not.
16 Q. Approximately, are you able to indicate?
17 A. No. Because I don't remember seeing any document providing such
19 Q. But would it have been, do you think, from your knowledge, less
20 than a hundred?
21 A. It -- you know --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if you want to rely on the knowledge of
23 the witness, then we should know where that knowledge comes from.
24 He said something about documents not giving any number, so if
25 you ask him that knowledge which must come from somewhere else, then we'd
1 like to know where that knowledge comes from.
2 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
3 Q. Zvornik, is this correct, was within the zone of responsibility
4 of the 17th Corps; correct?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And we'll find at chapter 3 of your report, page 56, your
7 citation of various 17th Corps reporting documents; correct?
8 A. Among others, yes.
9 Q. Reporting on the event in Zvornik.
10 A. Indeed. Among other documents.
11 Q. And you also note in your report that a Captain Obrenovic
12 attended negotiations between the Serb and Muslim side in Zvornik on the
13 8th of April, in Zvornik. Am I paraphrasing correctly?
14 A. Yes, and that is stated in P1380.
15 Q. Who was Captain Obrenovic?
16 A. He was an officer in the JNA, but I have no information on his
17 specific position. But we all know that subsequently he transferred to
18 the VRS.
19 Q. Captain Obrenovic was present at a -- at a -- at the
20 negotiations. Do you know anything about that?
21 A. No. The only document I -- I could identify that deals with
22 these negotiations is P1380.
23 Q. And that doesn't explain what his precise role was.
24 A. It just says that he attended and that actually Arkan was in
1 Q. If I indicated that he was the commander of the 336th Motorised
2 Brigade garrison in and around Zvornik, does that trigger your memory?
3 This is Obrenovic.
4 A. I would like to see a document because it would be unusual for a
5 captain to be a brigade commander.
6 Q. Do you know anything about the 336th Motorised Brigade, the size
7 of it, for example?
8 A. No. But again, I mean, a captain could be a company commander
9 but it would be unusual to have him as brigade commander because he would
10 even skip the battalion echelon. But if you have a document, we can look
11 at it.
12 Q. How big is usually a motorised brigade?
13 A. I mean on paper, I would say 1500 to 2.000 people.
14 Q. Right. And would that, from what you have seen in terms of
15 documents, accurately or fairly accurately approximate the size of the
16 336th Motorised Brigade in Zvornik?
17 A. As I said, I'm not familiar with that brigade, so I'm not in a
18 position to say whether -- what the manpower of that brigade was at the
20 Q. Do you know the size or the manpower of the JNA at that point,
21 around Zvornik?
22 A. No. I have no precise data.
23 Q. But approximately are you able to say, from the documents you
24 have looked at over the years?
25 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is requested to speak up.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. Did you hear my question, Mr. Theunens?
3 A. I hear your question. I mean, I -- a corps theoretically would
4 be more than 10.000 troops but, of course, we also have to look at the
5 difficulties faced by JNA at the time. There's very poor response to
6 mobilisation. There are people who are leaving and so on, so I cannot
7 put the precise figure on it.
8 Q. Okay.
9 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 65 ter
11 Q. Do you know, Mr. Theunens, while this is coming up, who
12 Richard Butler is?
13 A. Yeah. I know at least two Richard Butlers but I assume that
14 you're referring to a former colleague of mine.
15 Q. Right. And who was he, this former colleague?
16 A. He was a military analyst in the military analysis team in the
18 Q. And he wrote an expert -- I mean, how -- let me start that again.
19 Would you -- no. Let me -- let me ask you this. You are aware
20 that he wrote a report in the Perisic case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, Mr. Registrar informs me that he has
22 difficulties in finding 65 ter 1D01375 in e-court.
23 MR. WEBER: I'm just wondering if this also is a document that
24 the Prosecution received notice of. I'm having trouble finding it.
25 MR. JORDASH: Yes, the Prosecution did have notice of this. And
1 it's 1 -- 1D1375. Should -- it was uploaded ... perhaps --
2 THE REGISTRAR: I still can't locate it in e-court. If the
3 Case Manager can make sure that it is properly released. Thank you.
4 MR. JORDASH: While that is being done, perhaps I can -- it is
5 there. I can see it myself.
6 65 ter number 1D01375.
7 Q. Let me, while that is being found, perhaps read you an excerpt
8 from it, which we'll find in the public --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly turn off your microphone when not
10 speaking. Thank you.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm looking at the e-mail. I got 1D1074
12 skipping 1D1076 to 1D1076 so skipping this specific one in the notice.
13 If someone could please from the Stanisic Defence tell us where got
14 notice of this. If they could just e-mail me, it would be appreciated.
15 MR. JORDASH: Okay. We shall do that and we apologise if there
16 has been some error, and I hope we can still deal with a very small
17 section of the report. It is a Prosecution report in the Perisic case.
18 Q. And if I can just read it. What we have on the screen there,
19 Mr. Butler's view:
20 "With respect to the town of Zvornik, conflict erupted in the
21 early evening hours, the 8th of April, 1992, when elements of the JNA
22 336th Motorised Brigade, Arkan's Serbian Volunteer Guards and local
23 SDS-backed TO units seized control of the predominantly Muslim-populated
25 Have you followed me, Mr. Theunens?
1 A. I mean, I don't see it so it's a bit difficult.
2 Q. You haven't got it on your screen?
3 A. No, I don't.
4 Q. Oh.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the Registrar had difficulties in finding
6 it in e-court and if is not found in e-court, then he can't show it to us
7 or ...
8 MR. JORDASH: We can see it e-court. I can see it from here.
9 Maybe it is our error.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Another option may to be give me the doc ID
11 number instead of the 65 ter number. Yeah.
12 MR. JORDASH: Okay. Doc ID is 1D01-9654. I'm sorry about the
14 Q. But if you look at the screen, what I've just said, we'll find
15 that that's what the report says --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we wait for a second.
17 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If it's found. The doc ID is also not found in
19 e-court. Then I think it really is time for a break so that we resolve
20 these matters during the break.
21 But before taking a break, I will do a similar thing like I did
22 during the first session, Mr. Jordash. That is to try to find out
23 whether I understand what you are actually pointing at.
24 MR. JORDASH: May I --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JORDASH: May I discuss that in the absence of Mr. Theunens,
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can do that.
4 Mr. Theunens, you already -- we'd like to see you back after the
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could the Usher escort Mr. Theunens out of the
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: You remember the Valjevo report with the list of
11 weapons seized at the end.
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Did I understand you well, that you wanted to
14 demonstrate that at least the Valjevo DB took active action against the
15 position of arms?
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. And we have many document which
17 we will in due course apply to tender as exhibits showing the actions
18 taken by the Serbian DB under Operation Tomson.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now if I read that document, and please
20 forgive me that if it comes new on my screen it takes me a while to go
21 through it, even to scan through it, because there is no way of properly
22 reading it. Then it -- it relates to people returning from the
23 battle-fields in Eastern Slavonia and then having developed a special
24 interest in weapons which they start training to all kind of other
25 countries, I think Bulgaria or Romania is mentioned, and to bring it into
1 totally different area. So my question with that document, now
2 understanding what you want to establish with that, is whether this was
3 action taken against arms trading after these people came back from
4 Eastern Slavonia, or whether it was action taken against those arms being
5 used by these units.
6 I'm just putting -- I'm not asking an answer from you but I tried
7 to understand why you used -- because if I look at the numbers, then if
8 these are all weapons seized from active members of those groups or units
9 or whatever call it, in order to prevent them from using them in any
10 further combat --
11 MR. JORDASH: No.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- or whether it is seizing weapons which are used
13 for trading after people came back from Eastern Slavonia, then, of
14 course, for me, there is a question. Let me put it that way. I just
15 wanted you to be aware that my understanding of the evidence raises this
16 question, whereas, I apparently understood what you wanted to establish
17 with that.
18 MR. JORDASH: What our case is, Your Honour, is that the DB had a
19 specific jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction was to take action to prevent
20 public disorder of the kind which was threatening the constitutional
21 order. In order to exercise that jurisdiction it had a number of
22 limitations or restrictions. One of them was the political climate that
23 it was working in vis-a-vis decisions by the National Assembly. Two, was
24 the limited number of enforcement laws it had within its jurisdiction in
25 order to take action against those whose conduct threatened public
1 disorder of a gravity which would threaten the constitutional order. And
2 it's our case that within the limitations, and there are more limitations
3 which we will hopefully demonstrate over the course of the trial, within
4 those limitations the DB was doing what it could to prevent those who
5 came back from the war front from causing disturbance within Serbia. And
6 it's our case that the DB had no jurisdiction to take such action to
7 prevent volunteers of any kind, extremists or moderate, from leaving
8 Serbia and engaging at the battle-front. But it did what it could within
9 the limitations it had.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Or at least --
11 MR. JORDASH: For five years, I'm being reminded by Mr. Stanisic,
12 from the date of the Operation Tomson through to --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because I saw Operation Tomson document from
14 1991, and now I see a report after five years which describes at least
15 things that happened over the years.
16 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And -- okay. I'm just trying -- my main purpose is
18 to try to understand what evidence -- I'm not seeking any evidence from
19 you but I'm just verifying whether I got at least some of the gist of the
21 Okay. There was one other matter which I would like to briefly
22 address. Mr. Weber, you want to --
23 MR. WEBER: Just because there was a big submission that was put
24 on the record, I just want to say the Prosecution's position would
25 obviously be different.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. But since this is evidence elicited
2 by the -- if I have any similar questions, I will address you in order to
3 verify whether I understood what the evidence is.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: One more matter. You referred to the testimony, you
6 said two days ago, the 26th, actually, three days ago, that the witness
7 had confirmed that Arkan -- that he did not find any document that
8 Arkan's Men in Zvornik were subordinated to the JNA. And then in the
9 question, I'm just trying to understand, because it seemed not to be a
10 problem for you and the witness, that you said, well, the JNA wasn't
11 there at all.
12 Is that -- that would come -- let me just try to find the --
13 MR. JORDASH: Yeah. The witness said at transcript 8109:
14 "Actually the reason why I referred to JNA was that the documents
15 I have seen do not indicate any JNA involvement either in the takeover."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. JORDASH: Mr. Theunens is saying both that Arkan wasn't
18 subordinated to the JNA and, in any event, the JNA didn't participate in
19 the takeover. It was effectively [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was a bit puzzling to me. But that's --
21 apparently I have understood what he said. And then we have a lot of
22 evidence on -- on what various units did. But perhaps it's important to
23 look at when they did it.
24 MR. JORDASH: Well, I'm going to be putting to Mr. Theunens, and
25 that's the point of the cross-examination next, is to try to establish
1 that Mr. Theunens is wrong.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Fine. Then I'm just --
3 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour --
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- focussing on trying to understand which seems to
5 be a rather complex area of the evidence.
6 Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER: Again, just want to put back on the record that we
8 have a proper context to the discussion. Mr. Theunens's testimony on the
9 26th wasn't necessarily that the JNA wasn't there or in and around the
10 area of the municipality --
11 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing he said - I checked that - that he
12 did not find any document which demonstrates that Arkan was subordinated
13 to the JNA, which can mean that the JNA wasn't there, that the JNA was
14 there but was not subordinated. It could also mean that the JNA was
15 there, was subordinated, but this is not reflected in any document. I
16 mean, that's a matter of proper analysis of -- but those words do say
17 that. Apart from any other --
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe my question was pretty
19 carefully worded to ask precisely around the takeover between the 6th and
20 the 10th of April.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think --
22 MR. WEBER: I think there are documents that later on
23 [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think that I already indicated that looking at the
25 time when interpreting this piece of evidence might be of importance, and
1 that's what you more or less confirm. And, Mr. Jordash, you would
2 certainly not tell us that time is irrelevant.
3 MR. JORDASH: No. Perhaps as well, Your Honour, the Prosecution
4 could indicate what their case is, whether they say Arkan was operating
5 [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps --
7 MR. JORDASH: -- or not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps have a chat for -- during the next break to
9 see whether you can speed up.
10 Then, finally, I do understand that the famous document was found
11 by the Registrar.
12 Mr. Registrar, could you tell us when it was released.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, I can only see the dates. It was
14 released on the document -- on the documents in e-court which is
15 29th October. Not the time precisely.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's great. So it could be our mistake, it could
17 be your mistake. It was today.
18 We have a break and we resume at 6.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.32 p.m.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Jordash, there was one
23 outstanding issue I just wanted to -- there was a request for leave to
24 reply. I don't know whether you've seen it.
25 Mr. Weber, the -- we have not received any responses, I think.
1 MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ... seen it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any objection to it, or would you like to
3 respond in writing, or have you made up your mind?
4 MR. JORDASH: The -- the difficulty we've got, Your Honour, and I
5 don't wish to be overly complex about it, but the Prosecution's practice
6 is generally to request for leave to reply but the reply is in the
7 request, so ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- if I could use unparliamentary language, I
9 could say it's a trick applied by many parties before this Tribunal. Of
10 course the issue is if it would not be granted, of course, we would
11 ignore -- and at the time you would say you have read it already.
12 That's -- I can tell you that for this specific reason I did not look
13 into it in great detail, as a matter of fact. And -- but I know it,
14 since my staff told me, that the reply is in it already, but I'm not
15 familiar with the content of it. That's a way of protecting ourselves
16 against what one could call -- at the same time, it's very difficult to
17 argue that the reasons why you need a reply without saying anything about
18 it, so it's a matter of balance.
19 Do you have any opinion about it?
20 MR. JORDASH: To be honest, I have read it but we haven't
21 analysed it as yet.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. JORDASH: Can we respond on Monday.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's fine. We hear on Monday.
25 Same for you, Mr. Bakrac?
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we're going to have a
2 look at it, so we'll present our views on Monday.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. Then we'll hear from you, and then the
4 Chamber will be able to decide.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: Could I just clear up what happened before the
7 break in relation to the Butler report. We mistakenly notified the
8 Prosecution of the wrong excerpt. That's the difficulty. And we
9 notified them of the report and an excerpt which we're not relying upon
10 and missed out the one which we want, which is one paragraph.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I will preface my comments by saying
13 that I do not think that the Stanisic Defence intentionally did anything.
14 With that being said, the Prosecution commenced its examination on the
15 26th of October. We have received notification of over 3.000 pages of
16 material from both Defence teams for the use during cross-examination.
17 Much of the volume that was notified by the Stanisic Defence hasn't even
18 been used. This being said, we are now an hour away from possible
19 completion of cross-examination, and even today at 2.08, seven minutes
20 before the start of court, I'm getting notifications of additional
21 documents from the Stanisic Defence. Additional document, to be clear.
22 It is a prejudice to us right now to notify us to materials with
23 an hour left in the examination [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand it is one paragraph?
25 MR. WEBER: No --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Or is it more?
2 MR. WEBER: Yeah. It's 11 pages of an expert report.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I'm sorry.
4 MR. JORDASH: It's one paragraph, Your Honour.
5 MR. WEBER: I appreciate that the Defence may only want to put
6 one paragraph, but if it was a document, it would be easier for the
7 Prosecution to actually review at the last minute. But there are over
8 50 footnotes here of different documents --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I see your problem. Do you object?
10 MR. WEBER: Yes. Notice --
11 JUDGE ORIE: You do object.
12 MR. WEBER: It's a prejudice to us at this point in time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We will allow Mr. Jordash to ask questions about the
16 document. This is not a final decision on whether we'll admit that
17 document. If -- it's -- it's a bit difficult for the Chamber to rule on
18 that in the blind, not knowing what questions are asked, et cetera. So,
19 therefore, we will carefully the matter. We will not at this moment
20 prohibit Mr. Jordash from putting questions.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I ask that multiple paragraphs of the
22 document get put to him, not just one. You're asking an expert to
23 comment on another expert's report in a vacuum without that expert having
24 looked at or reviewed the material. That's the situation that now
25 arises. So they have had the opportunity to present this information to
1 the expert and only now with -- with extraordinarily late --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
3 MR. WEBER: -- notice --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do the following.
5 Mr. Theunens, who will be here after the weekend as well, will
6 have an opportunity to read the whole of the document during the weekend
7 and that, to some extent, I think, would meet some of your concerns. And
8 that there will be an opportunity for him to draw the attention to other
9 matters and you can ask questions in re-examination, if you wish to do
11 MR. WEBER: Just because we're developing a record as we go here,
12 we ask that Mr. Theunens be allowed to read the document before
13 commenting even on a portion of it because otherwise it is out of
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, how much time would you need for that
17 MR. JORDASH: Well, I was simply going to put the paragraph to
18 Mr. Theunens and see if he agreed with that conclusion reached by Mr. --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That would take how many minutes?
20 MR. JORDASH: One minute.
21 JUDGE ORIE: One minute. Then I suggest that it would be the
22 minute from quarter past 2.00 on Monday, until 16 minutes past 2.00 on
24 Is that a solution, Mr. Weber?
25 MR. WEBER: Yes, I -- the concern is -- well, it's not a
1 solution. We do object and --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I see that point but that would at least meet some
3 of your concerns.
4 MR. WEBER: If Your Honours are overruling my objection, you're
5 overruling my objection.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least we would not disallow Mr. Jordash to
7 put questions. We have not decided yet on the admission, but Mr. Jordash
8 is allowed to put questions on Monday between 1415 and 1420.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, and I believe that --
10 JUDGE ORIE: And then --
11 MR. WEBER: -- the parties are entitled to some type of notice
12 also, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash, you have an opportunity to
14 introduce that matter, but really five minutes, so that is five times for
15 what you asked, on Monday.
16 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, the JNA 17th Corps, as we've heard, was in the
18 vicinity of Zvornik and that was its zone of responsibility; correct?
19 A. That is correct, Your Honours.
20 Q. And from the earliest time that operations -- military operations
21 began in the vicinity of Zvornik, the JNA 17th Corps was present?
22 A. Indeed, Your Honours, that's my understanding on basis of the
23 documents I have reviewed.
24 Q. So at the time when the conflict erupted on the 8th of April,
25 elements of the JNA Motorised Brigade, the 17th Corps, were there in
1 this -- in its zone of responsibility, Zvornik?
2 A. Zvornik was located in the zone of responsibility of the
3 17th Corps. But I have, again on the basis of the documents I have
4 reviewed, no detailed knowledge of the actual deployment in the Zvornik
6 Q. What was it doing in the Zvornik region?
7 A. Well, it's part of its zone of responsibility. I mean, in
8 peacetime it is part of the peacetime garrison; and in wartime, yeah,
9 they may have had plans to defend the territory in that area.
10 Q. Did, from the documents you have seen, it have plans to defend
11 the territory?
12 A. I mean, the documents I have reviewed, the 17th Corps documents
13 as well as the document from the -- I think it is Republic of Serbia TO
14 document, they just indicate that the 17th Corps is reporting what is
15 happening in Zvornik, but I couldn't see any active involvement of 17
16 Corps units in these documents.
17 Q. Wasn't the 17th Corps there and, I think as you've testified,
18 concerned about the growing situation and planning operations to ensure
19 some kind of JNA control?
20 A. It would be easier if you would show me the specific document for
21 the latter part, because indeed they were reporting that the situation
22 was -- was tense, and this starts on the 8th of April, where there is
23 reporting of fighting between Muslims and Serbs in Zvornik. And on the
24 9th of April, the 17th Corps reports that the situation is complex and
25 tense. I haven't included specifically -- I mean, the reference you make
1 to operations that were undertaken but if we go, for example, to P1388,
2 we could see that.
3 Q. We can see what? Sorry.
4 A. What the 17th Corps was doing.
5 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to the P1388, please.
6 THE WITNESS: The TO Republic of Serbia document is P1389.
7 Sorry, it is an SSNO document but quoting information they have obtained
8 from the TO of the Republic of Serbia.
9 MR. JORDASH:
10 Q. If we look at this document P1388, paragraph 2:
11 "Combat readiness of corps units ensures execution of orders.
12 All units of the corps are on the highest level of combat readiness.
13 Mobilisation has been completed in the 11th Anti-Artillery Battalion but
14 the morale of the troops is low."
15 So -- and then further down:
16 "The units that arrived in Bijeljina have been re-directed ... on
17 the 8th of April, 1992, mobilisation of volunteers organised by
18 6th Motorised Brigade have been completed."
19 And 3, it says:
20 "Armed conflicts with paramilitary formations."
21 And 5:
22 "A 336th Motorised Brigade tank T-55 slipped off the road at
23 R. Sapna bridge in the village of Celopek near Zvornik."
24 Number 6, we have the logistics:
25 "Rear logistics base face [sic] problems due to blocked roads ...
1 supply of materiel and technical equipment of all units is aggravated."
2 Does this tell you anything, all this activity?
3 A. Yes. It's -- it's a situation report now. I would have expected
4 that they would have also addressed what they did in Zvornik, since, on
5 the 9th of October -- excuse me, the 9th of April, there is the takeover
6 by Serb forces of -- of Zvornik. But I couldn't find this specific
7 information in this report.
8 Q. So it -- it's your evidence that -- I don't know maybe I'm
9 unfairly paraphrasing, but are you suggesting that prior to the 8th and
10 on the 8th and 9th, the JNA were simply there observing?
11 A. You have read out the text of -- of the situation report for the
12 9th. We didn't see any kind of operational activity related to Zvornik,
13 i.e., establishing check-points or separating parties or anything else.
14 What is reported in paragraph 2 is more like the status of the units but
15 less their -- their operational activities.
16 Q. No, but I'm asking you, from your study of these documents and
17 your knowledge which arrives from -- from those documents whether that's
18 the position you reached, that the JNA was there simply observing what
19 was happening?
20 A. P1379 and P1380, as well as P1389, indicate that the 17th Corps
21 is mainly observing and describing the situation.
22 MR. JORDASH: Let's go to 65 ter 1D01349 on e-court, please. And
23 page 1D01-7791.
24 Q. And it's your testimony in the Seselj case.
25 MR. JORDASH: If we could blow that up a bit. Keep going down --
1 up, please. Keep going.
2 Q. And there at line 22 you make the comment -- well, let's start at
4 "No, Your Honours. And it's not only a matter of support, i.e.,
5 logistical aspects that these people have to be equipped. They need to
6 have a weapon. They need ammunition. They need uniforms. But it's also
7 a matter of authorisation."
8 "As I mentioned before, in an area where military or combat
9 operations are conducted, there is a commander who is responsible for
10 that situation in the area, which means that he also determines and
11 decides which forces will operate in that area. So if SRS volunteers" --
12 MR. JORDASH: Can we keep going, please.
13 Q. "... operating in an area where there is a JNA unit and the JNA
14 unit is conducting operations, there needs to have been given an
15 authorisation by the most senior JNA office in the area.
16 "From the documents I have reviewed I can conclude -- conclude
17 that it -- that this authorisation was just not issued on the local level
18 but that was part of a policy which had been decided ... at the highest
19 level. You see, for example, the various decrees and orders which [sic]
20 we discussed from the political leadership to legalise and regularise the
21 participation of volunteers, including volunteer formations in the
22 conflict in Croatia during fall and winter 1991."
23 In a situation which you've described with the JNA there
24 observing, ready to conduct operations, would that comment you made in
25 the Seselj trial be applicable?
1 A. The key issue here is what kind of orders has the 17th Corps
2 received. My testimony in the Seselj trial clearly referred to a
3 situation of combat operations in Croatia, i.e., there's a war ongoing
4 and there are two sides fighting each other.
5 In Zvornik, again, based on the documents I have reviewed, Serb
6 forces take control over a town. And they take control not by fighting
7 from -- from trench to trench or from building to building, as was for
8 example the case in Vukovar, but it seems to be a very swift operation.
9 There may well have been some barricades erected by the Muslim or the
10 Bosniak forces or the SDA forces as they are called, or sometimes the
11 Green Berets. But again, the documents I reviewed do not show or do not
12 indicate that there are systematic combat operations.
13 Q. The JNA -- would the situation be different if the JNA had been
14 responsible for distributing weapons which had fallen into the hands of
15 the volunteer groups around Zvornik or in Zvornik, such as Arkan's Men?
16 A. I don't understand the question. I mean, we're talking about are
17 there combat operations or not. That is for me the main issue in this
18 discussion. If we compare the two situations, my testimony in Seselj and
19 my -- what I write in relation to Zvornik.
20 And maybe to add on, it is like what are the orders -- what were
21 the orders to the 17th Corps.
22 Q. So is it your evidence then that the 17th Corps was entitled
23 under JNA military doctrine to position itself around and in the region
24 of Zvornik, with its hundreds, if not, thousands of men, and simply
25 observe as other Serb forces took the town without taking any action?
1 A. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is -- I mean, we
2 have reviewed -- you have read out one situation report. What is the
3 purpose of the situation report? The purpose of the situation report is
4 to inform the superior of the situation. And based on that and based
5 on -- on the orders the superior has received, the superior echelon,
6 here, the 2nd Military District, will issue orders to the 17th Corps.
7 And that's the key issue. What orders did the 17th Corps receive from
8 its superior echelon, the 2nd Military District, in relation to the
9 posture it had to adopt in Zvornik.
10 Q. Wasn't there a duty on, for example, Obrenovic, who was part of
11 the surrender negotiations, having observed or being aware of Arkan's
12 presence, to ensure that crimes committed by Arkan were reported to a
13 security organ and the security organ would thereby then be duty-bound to
14 take action?
15 A. I think you're paraphrasing a little bit too much, if you allow
17 Any JNA officer, and I think it's Article 36 of the 1988
18 regulations -- excuse me, SFRY armed forces regulations on the
19 implementations of the laws of war. Any JNA officer has the duty when
20 there are indications that a crime might have taken place to secure
21 evidence and so on, and to inform the competent organs, military police,
22 military prosecutor and so on. They follow the procedure. And they can
23 inform the security organs. But -- so if Arkan has committed crimes and
24 there is information about that, that comes -- that is available to a
25 military commander -- military officer, well, yeah, they have to act in
1 accordance with the article.
2 Q. But would then there be no obligation on the JNA, in a situation
3 like this, to observe Arkan to reasonably suspect he was not going to
4 behave properly and then take remedial or preventative actions. They're
5 the force in the area, massively overwhelming in terms of numbers to the
6 men that Arkan had.
7 A. If Arkan has been authorised to be in the area and to conduct
8 certain operations, and, of course, there is responsibility of the
9 command of the 17th Corps but there is a responsibility on the higher
10 level, and I have included but I'm not sure whether it was in the Zvornik
11 section --
12 Q. What's the responsibility on the 17th Corps that you just
13 mentioned? What was their responsibility in such a situation?
14 A. Well, if there were combat operations, i.e., if the 17th Corps
15 was to -- had been ordered by the 2nd Military District to carry out
16 combat operations or to secure Zvornik, to -- to prevent anything from
17 happening, and Arkan, one way or the other, would like to do what he
18 wanted to do, then the commander of the 17th Corps would have to tell to
19 Arkan, Look, you can only operate under my command. As we saw with the
20 previous documents, a single authority and without - again that's
21 detail - a different insignia.
22 But it comes back to the same issue I highlighted earlier. I
23 have not seen a document that specifies the orders to the 17th Corps in
24 relation to the situation in Zvornik on, say, between the 1st of
25 April and the 10th of April.
1 Q. The fact that Obrenovic was involved with the surrender, would
2 that indicate to that you the JNA was involved and was active in the
4 A. Theoretically, yes. I mean, you cannot rule out in the ultimate
5 case that he would act on his own behalf. But that would be unlikely.
6 So theoretically yes.
7 Q. So he attends a meeting with Arkan which is concerned with the
8 surrender of Zvornik. From that, it must follow that the JNA assumed a
9 responsibility to ensure military operations were conducted according to
10 military law. Isn't that right?
11 A. No. I mean, sorry to repeat myself but we have to know, in
12 relation to the military operations, which orders had been given to the
13 17th Corps.
14 Q. Well, so you're saying if the 17th Corps had been ordered by the
15 2nd Military District to do nothing, to allow Arkan to rampage through
16 Zvornik, nobody in the 17th Corps would have an obligation to do anything
17 other than that.
18 A. No, that's not what I'm -- exactly what I'm saying. I was
19 addressing the first part in your response -- in your question, I'm
20 sorry, the question of military operations.
21 But imagine, indeed, a situation that the 17th Corps has been
22 ordered by the 2nd Military District to do nothing, then in my view
23 Article 36 would still be valid. I.e., members of the 17th Corps, the
24 officers and most particularly the commander, he would have to draft
25 reports on the activities of Arkan for the 2nd Military District as well
1 as the competent military judicial organs.
2 Q. You're suggesting that they would be within military law to then
3 do nothing, wait for it to happen, and then write a report about it?
4 A. But you're speculating that they knew in advance that something
5 would happen, with this question.
6 Q. Well, I am speculating because I'm suggesting that the JNA had
7 information as to how Arkan had behaved previously. It would have been a
8 reasonable inference for a cautious military commander to make, wouldn't
10 A. Indeed. I mean, you know -- you can see from Exhibit 1381 that,
11 already on the 6th of April, I mean, that's also on page 58, part 3 of
12 the report. On the 6th of April, the 17th Corps alerts or informs the
13 2nd Military District that, I quote: "The presence of Raznjatovic's,
14 also known Arkan, paramilitary formations of SDG on the territory of
15 Semberija is not calming the situation or improving attitude towards
16 Muslims. Situation in Zvornik municipality is explosive and likely to
17 grow into a large conflict because Serb and Muslim TOs were mobilised."
18 Q. Yeah, okay.
19 A. So there, the 17th Corps does one thing. They report a problem
20 to the superior command.
21 Q. Doesn't the -- I don't want to belabour the point and I'll move
22 on in a minute.
23 But doesn't the coordination implicit in Obrenovic's negotiation
24 alongside Arkan indicate to you that there was coordination of the JNA
25 with Arkan and from that must flow the JNA's responsibility to
1 subordinate Arkan?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Jordash, you're putting together facts and
3 legal consequences, et cetera, all in one question. Could you split it
5 First of all, whether there was coordination.
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. Does that indicate to you coordination?
8 A. I -- we have only one document, I mean, P1380 -- or at least what
9 I reviewed, that describes the role of -- of Captain Dragan Obrenovic. I
10 cannot conclude from that document whether there's coordination. I would
11 like to see more documents to see with what mandate was Obrenovic
12 negotiating. And who was he representing. Was he negotiating for the
13 JNA, or his unit, or maybe he had particular links with the political
14 party? The situation is quite complicated at that time in
16 Q. So your position is, then, from the document you don't know
17 whether the JNA had a responsibility, which I'm suggesting they had, to
18 subordinate Arkan before he conducted operations in Zvornik?
19 A. I can try to rephrase my answer but I'm not sure whether that is
20 going to advance us much.
21 Q. Just say yes or no. Is that your position?
22 A. According to doctrine, if the JNA was conducting combat
23 operations, yes, they should have.
24 Q. And your position is you don't know one way or the other.
25 A. I mean, I just answered the question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's keep -- let's try to cut matters short.
2 From the document, because --
3 THE WITNESS: The document is -- I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- the question from the document or did you say
5 "doctrine," Mr. Theunens. It appears as "document."
6 MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: From the document, are you able to know whether the
8 JNA had a responsibility to subordinate Arkan; or on the basis of the
9 document, you conclude that there was no such obligation; or would you
10 just not be able, on the basis of this document, to make that
12 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours. On the basis of P1380
13 I'm not able to make such a determination.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
16 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. Could I ask for 1D1350 to be on
18 Q. It's a comment that you made in the Mrksic case which I want to
19 see if you still agree with.
20 MR. JORDASH: Page 1D01-8243.
21 Q. And you're asked there at line 16:
22 "Now if there is an allegation of a war crime, who were the
23 officers most likely to investigate and arrest the perpetrators?
24 "A. Your Honours, based on the regulations in the JNA that apply
25 to security organs and military police, security organs and military
1 police would be the most -- would be the best qualified and the most
2 experienced to carry out such activities, and later, on, of course, at
3 the later stage in the investigation, also military prosecutors
5 And if we go down a bit further:
6 "Now, based on that" --
7 "Q. Now, based on that article, if a commander is advised that a
8 violation of war is occurring at that moment, what is his or here
10 If we go to further --
11 "A. Based on the Article 21, he has to do everything to stop the
12 violation from continuing. And then linked to the other articles, he has
13 to act to preserve the evidence and also have the alleged perpetrators
14 secured or arrested."
15 Do you stand by that answer?
16 A. Yeah, that's correct. I mean, Article 21 applies and -- mm-hmm.
17 Q. Thank you. Now moving on.
18 A. But you have to look at the contents of the Article 21. I'm not
19 sure whether it corresponds with the speculations you were making earlier
21 Q. Well, I'm happy with your answer, so let's move on.
22 Were you aware in relation to Bijeljina of Plavsic's presence at
23 the scene?
24 A. I am aware of that through -- I think there was -- yeah, in
25 newspapers and open sources. But I haven't seen an official document, I
1 mean, a military document mentioning that.
2 Q. If we look at P1371, page 50 of your report.
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. You'll see when that comes up that --
5 A. Or maybe I missed it then.
6 MR. JORDASH: Can we have that on the screen, please.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, indeed it's there. Sorry.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. I know that doesn't appear in your report. But the -- obviously
10 this document does. But you can see that --
11 A. Yeah, yeah, there's no discussion. It's paragraph 4.
12 Q. Right. Okay. Well, let's move on. Thank you.
13 A. Mm-hmm.
14 Q. And well, just to finish this. Present on the scene with the
15 Chief of Staff of the 2nd Military District and the commander of the
16 17th Corps?
17 A. Mm-hmm, we have to look at, I mean, the time.
18 Q. Well, I'm looking at the time, and I have to move on if you
19 don't --
20 A. No, no, but the time of the report. When she was there, I think,
21 yeah, during or after the takeover.
22 Q. Well, it reads as though it's sometime on the 3rd or the 4th. Do
23 you see that?
24 A. I touched the screen.
25 Q. Moving on to the Yellow Wasps.
1 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, on e-court 1D01-1353.
2 And if we go to page 1D01-08553. And this is the Prosecution's
3 opening statement from the Seselj case.
4 MR. WEBER: Objection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: I understand putting testimony of another witness or
7 evidence that would affect him, but as we all know from any trial,
8 opening statement or closing arguments are not evidence. So if someone
9 gave evidence in something else, if there's something that Mr. Jordash
10 wants to go to that was evidence in the Seselj case, that's one thing.
11 Now we're talking about putting opening statements, closing arguments to
12 people. I mean, how broad are we going to go here?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have not heard any question yet. Let's
14 first hear a question but let's also, Mr. -- invite Mr. Theunens not to
15 answer the question until I have -- it could be a question if a word is
16 spelled in A or B manner and then to see whether the witness recognises
17 the spelling or -- I mean it could be anything. But I take it that
18 opening statements in itself, of course, are not -- but find the right
19 page, formulate your question, and then we'll rule on your objection.
20 MR. WEBER: Regardless of what the question is, an opening
21 statement is not evidence. It is not controlling. If he has a
22 proposition that he wants to place to the witness, he can place the
23 proposition to him.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, as long as we have not heard the
25 question, we do not know what Mr. Jordash intends to do with it, and we
1 are put on notice.
2 MR. JORDASH: Prosecution in the Seselj case opened it in
3 relation to the Vuckovic brothers in this way.
4 Line 2: "The Prosecution will bring evidence" --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, what will be your question before you
6 start reading the whole of the opening statement? What will be your
7 question at the end? You can say, I will read a part of the opening
8 statement and then I'll ask you to do this and this and this. And then
9 we know what the question, and then we also know whether it is of any use
10 to start reading.
11 MR. JORDASH: I'm going to ask Mr. Theunens whether he agrees
12 with the Prosecution position as outlined in the Seselj case.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Weber, I --
14 MR. WEBER: I understand the theories and --
15 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Whether Mr. Theunens agrees or does not agree with
18 what is found in the opening statement, it does not assist the Chamber.
19 At the same time, Mr. Jordash, if you know what is in the opening
20 statement, I don't know which part you wanted to read, if you want to
21 formulate questions which deal with exactly the same matters as are dealt
22 with in the opening statement, then, of course, you're free to do so.
23 Please proceed. But then without reading and just including
24 those elements you apparently found in the opening statement in your
25 questions. Perhaps it would even be better to have it off the screen for
1 transparency reasons.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. JORDASH:
4 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Theunens, that the Yellow Wasps were Seselj's
6 A. I think I would refer to page 65 in my report and the following
7 pages whereby, based on their own statements, I mean, the Vuckovic
8 brothers, I think one or two of them had been a member of the SRS. And
9 according to -- again this is P1190, page 68, he went with -- I mean,
10 according to his own words, he went with Zoran Rankic, who was -- and I
11 was wrong the day before yesterday. Zoran Rankic was not chief of the
12 war staff but he was a deputy chief of war staff, SRS war staff, in the
13 latter half the 1991. So that Vojin Vuckovic went with Zoran Rankic, as
14 well as somebody identified as Ulemek, who was a member of Zeljko
15 Raznjatovic's volunteer guard, to Mali Zvornik in order to discuss with
16 the Zvornik SDS how to help them in their struggle. And then have you
17 the ensuing events. But I think -- you cannot summarise the relation
18 with the SRS as you do. At least not on the basis of the documents that
19 I reviewed.
20 Q. Would you agree that in the statements given by Dusan and Vojin
21 Vuckovic, neither of them mention any iota of an affiliation with the
22 Serbian MUP?
23 A. They talk about -- I mean, I just read out when they go to --
24 Q. Mr. Theunens, sorry, I'm running out of time --
25 A. Yeah, but -- no, no -- I mean --
1 Q. Do you agree with [overlapping speakers] ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Can you answer that question by a yes or a
3 no. What Mr. Jordash wants to know if there's any reference, that's at
4 least how I understand his Greek letter, but there's any reference to the
5 Serbian MUP in the statements of the two gentlemen?
6 THE WITNESS: I'm just going through them, not to miss anything
8 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently Mr. Jordash had looked at it and thinks
9 that there is no reference. Would there be a possibility that you verify
10 this over the weekend?
11 THE WITNESS: I'm just going through my report, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, through your report.
13 MR. JORDASH: Could I ask Mr. Theunens to verify that over the
14 weekend so that I can just move on --
15 THE WITNESS: I can answer now, if you want.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you have done your homework so quickly,
17 then please answer the question.
18 THE WITNESS: There is no explicit mentioning of the term
19 "Serbian MUP" in these statements. I mean, based on my review.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. And I don't know if you can do this off the top of your head but
23 you makes reference through your report to the book by Kadijevic, who was
24 the federal secretary for People's Defence in 1991 and 1992.
25 A. Mm-hmm.
1 Q. Can you confirm that in his detailed notes about the actions and
2 interactions of the SSNO and Milosevic, that the Serbian MUP does not
3 figure in that diary? Let me be more specific.
4 Mr. Stanisic doesn't appear in that diary?
5 A. But I think Mr. Milosevic doesn't appear either. I mean, it's
6 not a -- it doesn't talk about his interactions -- the interaction
7 between --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- Mr. Jordash wants to know whether
9 Mr. Stanisic is mentioned in those notes.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from what that means, that's a totally
12 different matter. But if Mr. Jordash has any follow-up questions, we'll
14 The answer is clear, Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I also encourage you not to ask what is not in
17 documents. If it is not positively established that something is in a
18 document, there is no evidence that there is. You understand what I
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And in that case I will leave the remaining
21 questions about other diaries that Mr. Theunens relies upon.
22 Q. Could I just deal with this point quickly, Mr. Theunens --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we have now clearly -- perhaps you mention
24 the documents you wanted to ask questions about so that we are better
25 focussed on seeing what exactly is referred to, whether it is
1 Mr. Stanisic, the DB, the MUP, the -- Italy or whatever, so that we know
2 which documents you have in mind. If you just list them then --
3 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, what I had in mind was that, first of
4 all, the Kadijevic book, then the Boris Jovic book, and the secretary for
5 Simovic, Glisic, that book. And I was going to make the same point, and
6 in due course we'll make submissions about the significance of
7 Mr. Stanisic not appearing in those documents.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You've now heard the titles. If you might,
9 from the top of your head, over the weekend think that Mr. Jordash --
10 but, Mr. Jordash, you take it that there is nothing in there, so,
11 therefore it has not to be confirmed that it is not in there.
12 That's at least my --
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay. Please proceed.
15 MR. JORDASH:
16 Q. In your report, Mr. Theunens, you have a title, which one can
17 find at section 2, page 20, in which you allege that Martic benefitted
18 from his close relationship with officials of the Ministry of Interior of
19 Serbia. And I have reviewed the documents that you rely upon, from
20 footnote 68 all the way to footnote 85, and 86, and 87, in which you
21 purport to use to prove that proposition and none of them mention
22 Martic's relationship with the Serbian MUP.
23 Is that something that you can confirm?
24 A. What I've tried to do is -- is to understand -- or, no. First
25 establish what I call the de facto authority of Milan Martic, and that
1 you can find in part 2 starting on page 35. And at the same time, I
2 mean, there's reference, for example, to a number of documents that are
3 sent to Martic, where he issues orders. I mean, for example, P1120.
4 Martic issues an order which, in my understanding of the situation, the
5 RSK, in review of the documents, goes beyond his de jure authority. And
6 that document is also sent to Frenki.
7 Q. Yeah. No, I accept that you -- your documents do cast light on
8 Mr. Martic's de facto authority. But none of them, none of them, mention
9 his relationship with the Serbian MUP.
10 A. They don't explicitly mention his relationship with the Serbian
11 MUP, that is correct.
12 Q. And what I suggest is happened is you put your title in first and
13 then you forgot to prove the proposition. Is that correct?
14 A. I'm just reading my report again, because ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: What title are you exactly referring to,
16 Mr. Jordash?
17 MR. JORDASH: Referring to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Page.
19 MR. JORDASH: Title on page 20, chapter -- or part 1.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I am in the second part of the report.
21 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I beg your pardon. Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Second part, page 20, hard copy.
23 MR. JORDASH: Croatian part, page 20. And yes, the first -- it's
24 the summary.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Summary.
1 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Where's the title you're --
3 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, it's 20 ... yes, it's 20D, Your Honour.
4 Civilian authority over the TO was complicated and on so. And Milan
5 Martic, minister of the interior of the SAO Krajina, with the latter
6 relying on his links with officials at the Ministry of Interior of the
7 Republic of Serbia.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What you're saying is, and that is apparently
9 then your question to Mr. Theunens, first of all, it's on page 21 so --
10 what kind of title you refer to was unclear to the Judges.
11 Mr. Theunens, the latter relying on his links with officials of
12 the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia, is that something you
13 can substantiate or you have substantiated in your report, that specific
14 reference to the Ministry of the Interior, the MUP of the Republic of
16 That's your question, Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So where do we find this, what you present in the
19 summary? Unless you say it's a mistake, then ...
20 THE WITNESS: It's a mistake in a sense that I didn't include the
21 document in my report but if you allow me --
22 MR. JORDASH:
23 Q. If that's the answer, Mr. Theunens, I'd like --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's --
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution has an objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Defence is proceeding in a manner
3 where we're taking summaries without footnote in them where things are
4 very -- discussed at [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
6 MR. WEBER: But there are documents of reports being
7 misrepresented and it's not an accurate characterisation because, as you
8 know, is there a request on the 1st of April, 1991, that was discussed in
9 direct examination.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber. This is argument. You may have noticed
11 that the first thing I did is to find where in the report we find what is
12 apparently summarised. And that was the first question I put to
13 Mr. Theunens so that at least we are back from the summary -- we are away
14 from the summary and we are in the report. And then if he says, Well,
15 what is in the summary does not appear in the report, does appear
16 nowhere, then we know that it's perhaps not right to put it in a summary.
17 If, however he says, Well, here or there or there, then Mr. Jordash can
18 further question witness about that.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, Prosecution appreciates you doing that.
20 However, if you don't mind, if I can point out the sections of the report
21 just so we can make this efficient instead of struggling around the
22 report, the Prosecution would be willing to do that too, so we're not
23 talking about things in the abstract. And just so -- while I'm up, the
24 Prosecution does --
25 JUDGE ORIE: So whatever the answer is, you will offer to present
1 to the Chamber or hint at the relevant portions in the report where what
2 is found here in the summary, whether in the right place or not, is
3 substantiated. That offer, Mr. Jordash, would only create clarity, isn't
5 MR. JORDASH: It would, Your Honour, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That offer is accepted. We'll hear then from you, I
7 take it on Monday.
8 Meanwhile Mr. Jordash can ask questions and use his time as he
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, before ending the day, we just do have
11 one brief submission with respect to 1D1375 before the weekend starts and
12 materials are provided to the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
14 MR. JORDASH: Given the time, could I put another proposition to
15 Mr. Theunens and ask him to consider that over the weekend too. I'm
16 sorry --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We're all relaxing over the weekend,
18 Mr. Theunens, and you are the one who has to work hard.
19 THE WITNESS: It's for the just cause.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH: The proposition is this. It is picking up where we
22 left off with the Arkan document. We dealt, as Your Honours know, with
23 nine documents and there are in other sections documents which deal with
25 Q. And our proposition to you, Mr. Theunens, is that the only
1 document which deal and mention connection with Arkan and the DB is P327,
2 P1077, and P1192 and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Have had you an opportunity to write it down,
4 Mr. Theunens?
5 THE WITNESS: I'm doing it as we speak, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, could you please repeat before you waste the
7 whole of the weekend on the wrong numbers.
8 MR. JORDASH: P327.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I wanted Mr. Theunens to repeat so that ...
10 THE WITNESS: P327, P1077, and P1192.
11 MR. JORDASH: And my question to you is, is that the basis upon
12 which you concluded that the DB had a connection with Arkan?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: Objection. It's mischaracterising his conclusion.
15 He says the MUP of Serbia. There are many, many, many, many more
16 documents that reference the MUP of Serbia. So to put it to him
17 accurately, just so it is the context of what his actual opinion is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Keeping in mind, what we could do is we could also
19 invite the parties to phrase the question -- that Mr. Jordash phrases the
20 question that you look at it. I'm not in a position at this moment to
21 finally determine whether there's any misrepresentation in it. Let me
23 MR. JORDASH: I could point Your Honour to the conclusion in due
24 course where Mr. Theunens, in fact, says, "Ministry of the Interior
25 (including the DB)." And I'll find that any moment, Your Honours.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution can makes its quick
2 submission if it is an efficient use of late court time right now.
3 MR. JORDASH: It's right -- it's --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash will seek his lines and meanwhile you
5 may make a submission, Mr. Weber.
6 MR. JORDASH: I found it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You found it already. Then let's --
8 MR. JORDASH: Chapter 1, page --
9 THE WITNESS: Which section?
10 MR. JORDASH: Chapter 1, page 105, and it's little D.
11 Intelligence reports by JNA security organs drafted between October 1991
12 and January 1992 on Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan, and his Serbian
13 Volunteer Guard, can confirm the close relations between Arkan and the
14 MUP, including the state security, Serbia.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now this line first, Mr. Theunens, needs some
16 clarification. Did you want to say confirm the close relations between
17 Arkan and the MUP and then give as a fact that the state security of
18 Serbia, the SDB, is part of the MUP; or did you want to express here that
19 these documents, apart from confirming the close relations between Arkan
20 and the MUP, also confirm that the state security of Serbia joined in
21 that close relationship? Specifically, that part of the MUP, of the
22 Serbian MUP.
23 THE WITNESS: It is your second proposition, Your Honours, and
24 okay, we can just -- I mean, under that title or that section or that
25 introduction, a number of documents are cited. And, for example, P327
1 clearly mentions SDB of Serbia. For example. I haven't gone through the
2 others yet.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that is one of the three that was just --
4 THE WITNESS: Indeed --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now what apparently Mr. Jordash is very much
6 interested in to know is whether, apart from these three documents,
7 whether you found in other documents clear keys to not only a
8 relationship with the MUP --
9 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- but also specifically with the SDB, as a part of
11 the MUP. That is apparently the question. And I -- I would -- I would
12 ask you whether you could consider that over the weekend.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, Prosecution doesn't object to the
15 question as the Chamber just phrased it. That was different than Mr.
16 Jordash's question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- everyone is happy now with the way I
18 phrased it, apparently. I listened to you Mr. Weber and I listened to
19 Mr. Jordash and I'm happy that was able to phrase the question in such a
20 way that everyone goes into the weekend with a happy mind.
21 MR. WEBER: May I --
22 MR. JORDASH: Apart from the excerpt on Monday, from the Butler
23 report, that is the end of my examination.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat this? The --
25 MR. JORDASH: The Butler [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the one you wanted to give for a full
2 review so that you have this one minute after the weekend.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have a hard copy so that -- Mr. Theunens,
5 would be you willing to read that, I do understand, ten-page document?
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, this relates to our submission.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then please make your submission,
8 Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, 1D1375 is an excerpt, as Mr. Jordash
10 just referenced, 11-page excerpt that is from a 138-page report. We got
11 extraordinarily late notice of this document. I did have the opportunity
12 during this very session to first review this document. There are many
13 things in the 138 pages, including discussions of Red Berets, use of MUP
14 units, that are relevant to this case. We leave it to the Defence if
15 they want to use it, but the Prosecution, based on the severely late
16 notice that was received, we would then ask for wide latitude -- one,
17 we'd ask -- we object to notice. We maintain our objection. We believe
18 if the Chamber's going to overrule our objection, that the witness should
19 actually get all 138 pages, not just a selected 10- or 11-page excerpt
20 and then we ask for wide latitude if our objection is overruled to go
21 into matters that may be referenced in that report.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm, first of all, a practical person. Are the 138
23 pages available?
24 MR. JORDASH: We can make them available within a short time,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I suggest that what consequences to attach
2 to the late notice, of course, very much depends on what you and you what
3 want to do the ten pages, the 138 pages. First of all, Mr. Theunens, I
4 don't know your programme, ten pages suddenly become 138. Would you be
5 willing -- if Mr. Jordash could already indicate which ten pages he will
6 focus on, and if you would then try to acquaint yourself with at least
7 the main lines of what appears in the --
8 MR. JORDASH: For us it not the ten pages. It is simply the
9 paragraph that we wanted to put.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then, Mr. Theunens, Mr. Jordash will provide
11 the 138 pages. He will indicate which ones -- which ten he had already,
12 ready in translation in an earlier stage so you know that that was -- is
13 what Mr. Weber got at the time, and then he'll also indicate which
14 specific paragraph he is interested in, and if you would be willing to
15 read certainly the ten pages but, to the extent possible, also the
16 remaining 128, that would be highly appreciated, and I know that I put a
17 heavy burden on your shoulders.
18 Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: We maintain our objection, first and foremost. That
20 being said, based on what the transcript reflects today, the question's
21 going to be put to him something to the effect to comment on whether he
22 agrees or disagrees with an expert opinion. So we believe that we should
23 have wide latitude in the scope of that opinion that's being expressed in
24 that 138 pages to explore whatever area Mr. Theunens's opinion in this
25 case is in agreement or disagreement with the contents of that report and
1 the documents cited. So although the Defence might want to pick out a
2 very small portion --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me -- Mr. Jordash, if in the document,
4 which you give notice of at a very late stage, if Mr. Weber finds therein
5 other relevant matters, then I would expect you not to object too easily
6 on going through the context of.
7 MR. JORDASH: Well, the proper --
8 JUDGE ORIE: And again, let me -- I'll follow my usual line.
9 Mr. Weber, I know exactly what I'm going to expect. You're going
10 to object against taking out a small part and you want a large latitude.
11 Okay. We'll find out, because we'll -- first of all, I've got no idea
12 what the paragraph says, not what the ten pages says, not what the
13 138 pages say. That means that we'll -- first, we will cautiously go
14 step by step. Mr. Jordash has only one step to make. That's one
15 paragraph. You may want to go in other areas and then we'll again and
16 again look at what we're talking about, whether there's any
17 contextualisation, or whether you go somewhere while out of what is even
18 reasonable to be dealt with in re-examination.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I know that's a matter that is subject
20 to interpretation. And -- but you're asking the witness to comment on
21 something whether it is consistent or not consistent with that particular
22 aspect [Overlapping speakers] ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking the witness anything until now.
24 MR. WEBER: The problem --
25 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing I asked him is to read 138 pages.
1 MR. WEBER: The problem, Your Honour, is that the document, the
2 report, the analysis relates to events in 1995. And he is being asked to
3 be commenting on agreement of a portion of report in -- for events in
4 1992 and I can't to another portion of that without discussing events in
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll proceed very cautiously. If any comment is
7 asked on one paragraph, Mr. Jordash will first of all give the Chamber a
8 possibility to read that paragraph so that we know what we're talking
9 about. We'll cautiously proceed. I've clearly on my mind what your
10 objections are, Mr. Weber. As you may have noticed from the response of
11 the Chamber by the opening statements, that we carefully listen to you
12 but we don't want to rule already at a moment where we do not even know
13 what we are ruling on yet.
14 MR. JORDASH: I can indicate for Mr. Theunens' ease that the
15 issue is whether the JNA were involved in the takeover on the 8th of
16 April, 1992. And it's Mr. Butler's view that they were and that issues
17 relating to that is what we want Mr. Theunens to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber has a whole weekend to think about it.
19 You provide the material. We have not heard Mr. Bakrac yet on the
21 Mr. Bakrac, anything you would like to add?
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I don't
23 wish to take part in this debate. I leave it to you for your assessment,
24 if you allow me another moment, if Mr. Theunens thought that he would
25 leave this courtroom with only 130 pages to read over the weekend, I
1 guess he was wrong. I'm going to ask you for something else now.
2 I have prepared the documents that we would like to use as of
3 Monday. In order for us to carry out preparations properly, we have our
4 documents on CD. Could you please give me your guidance on this. If
5 necessary, we can print hard copies tomorrow. We will cautiously first
6 deal with those documents that have been translated --
7 JUDGE ORIE: How many pages?
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I cannot say now, Your Honour. I
9 have not instructed my assistant to actually do the word count. We have
10 been so busy. But I think it is about 200 pages.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me, first of all, I think you owe an apology to
12 all those who are assisting us to raise this matter at ten minutes past
13 7.00. Let me be clear on that. You should have raised it -- you sent a
14 copy to the -- you should have sent a message to Chamber's staff, We want
15 to raise, we have this and this and this we would very much like
16 Mr. Theunens to read. That's not appropriately done at ten minutes past
17 7.00, Mr. Bakrac. Let that be clear.
18 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour. Having considered the matter
19 with our team we would abandon the Butler point and we don't ask Mr.
20 Theunens to read it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, Mr. Theunens, instead of 138 pages, 200 pages
22 from the Simatovic Defence team, would be you willing to put an eye on
23 it, would you take car care -- I take it that you have a laptop somewhere
24 so you can read it from the screen --
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I prefer electronically. It is faster.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Exactly. Mr. Bakrac, quick response. Mr. Theunens
2 is willing to look at your material.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you to
4 Mr. Theunens. Thank you to you. I do apologise to all in the courtroom.
5 My intention was, of course, not to keep the staff after 7.00 tonight,
6 but I also didn't want to take any time from my colleague Mr. Jordash of
7 the time he had for cross-examination. Of course, we could have dealt
8 with it earlier. I do apologise to all once again.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the advantage of sending -- sending an
10 e-mail. Then it doesn't take anyone's time.
11 Mr. Weber, could I really urge you to not spend one more than
12 absolutely necessary.
13 MR. WEBER: I just want to put on the record that we're still
14 receiving notification of Simatovic documents at 6.15 this evening. At
15 this time we presume that notification is complete.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether that presumption is right or not will
17 be decided on Monday. We -- I add my apologies and the Chamber's
18 apologies to all those who are suffering under the -- going over the
20 We -- let me just see ... one second.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn until Monday, the 1st of November,
23 quarter past 2.00 in a courtroom which I cannot find at this moment. But
24 one of the three courtrooms in this building.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.15 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of
2 November, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.