1 Monday, 1 November 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
7 everyone in and around the courtroom.
8 This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus
9 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 There was one matter still pending since last Friday; that's the
12 Prosecution motion for leave to reply to the Defence response to the
13 18th Prosecution motion for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list.
14 What I think, Mr. Jordash, you indicated that you would give your
15 position on that matter today, leave to reply.
16 MR. JORDASH: We don't -- we don't oppose the application.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] As well, likewise, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
20 Leave is therefore granted, Mr. Groome. Prosecution reply to be
21 filed by Friday, the 5th of November.
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: We also don't oppose the application for leave to
25 reply to the Defence responsible to the bar table motion.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Bakrac, same position as far as you're concerned?
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Same, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any idea on how much time you would
5 need to ...
6 MR. GROOME: I don't, Your Honour. But I could have that
7 information by the first break.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you could please tell us after the first break,
9 then we will rule on the matter.
10 Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.
11 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think that last Friday at ten minutes past 7.00 I
13 again - which is not what I'm used to do - have forgotten to instruct you
14 not to speak with anyone about your testimony. But being -- well, rather
15 familiar with the practice and having been here for a couple of days, may
16 I take it that you have not discussed your testimony with anyone?
17 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Then, Mr. Jordash, since you had given up your one-minute
20 question, it's now for Mr. Bakrac to ... we discussed that you had one
21 question on the basis of a document which you disclosed rather late, and
22 later you said, No, I --
23 MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, that's -- yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- I leave that. So that means that Mr. Bakrac is
25 now the one who is ready to cross-examine the witness.
1 Mr. Bakrac.
2 Mr. Theunens, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Bakrac.
3 Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
4 And I again instruct you, before I forget that as well, that
5 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the
6 beginning of your testimony.
7 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, please proceed.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Good afternoon to all in the courtroom, in and around the
14 Mr. Theunens, good afternoon.
15 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Bakrac.
16 Q. I would like to start my cross-examination in relation to your
17 report by dealing with some documents or, rather, the Law on All People's
18 Defence, and I believe that that is where you had started from as well,
19 in your report.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] So could we please have P1010 in
22 Q. While we're waiting for the document, Mr. Theunens, I would like
23 to draw your attention -- no. No, actually, first I'm going to ask you
24 whether it's correct that this Law on All People's Defence of the
25 Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia that was passed on the
1 23rd of April, 1982 -- or, rather, that is when it was published in the
2 Official Gazette in 1982, whether it was in force until the
3 Law on Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was passed in 1994?
4 A. If your question refers to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as
5 it was established in May 1992, then the answer would be yes.
6 Q. Could we now have a look at Article 13. However, it seems that
7 we did not understand each other. We're waiting for Article 13 to appear
8 on our screens, but my question was whether the Law on All People's
9 Defence from 1982 was in force all the way up until 1994 when the Law on
10 Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was passed.
11 A. I tried to explain my answer that the 1982 law applied to all
12 republics of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e., all
13 six. Of course, the 1994 law only applies to the two republics that
14 constituted FRY, i.e., Serbia
15 republics became independent before May 1992, so that's why I tried to be
16 specific and explain that the 1982 law only became -- only remained
17 invalid for Serbia
18 FRY law.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens, now it is much clearer.
20 So please do have a look at Article 13. I would like for us to
21 interpret it together. Actually, I'm asking you how it is that you
22 understand this joint provision of Article 13.
23 It says here that:
24 "Working people and citizens have the right and duty to organise
25 themselves and take part in the organisation, preparation for and
1 implementation of All People's Defence; to educate or train for
2 All People's Defence; and for carrying out tasks in times of war in the
3 convenient of an immediate threat of war or other emergencies; to take
4 part in armed struggle and other forms of All People's resistance in
5 order to protect and rescue citizens and material goods from wartime
6 devastation and other threats; and to carry out other tasks of interest
7 for the defence of the country and the protection of the social order
8 established by the SFRY constitution."
9 So my question is: The Serb people, in Croatia and in Bosnia
10 who, at that point in time, in 1990 and 1991, were within the SFRY, would
11 they have had the right to organise themselves on the basis of this
12 article and to prepare for defence, for the defence of the state that
13 they considered to be their own?
14 A. Your Honour, I believe that this falls outside the scope of my
15 report because it's essentially a legal question. However, I would just
16 like to draw your attention to the reference in the article that these
17 kind of activities, i.e., to defend the country, it is specified that one
18 of the three states has to be declared: state of war, state of imminent
19 threat of war, or I think that it's -- also mention is made of a state of
21 And this is a decision which is taken by the highest political
22 authority, i.e., the SFRY Presidency. So my understanding would be, from
23 this article, that, indeed, they can participate in these activities if
24 one of these three states has been declared.
25 Q. All right. Let's do it this way, Mr. Theunens.
1 Shall we agree first on a fact that I believe should be beyond
2 dispute; namely, that on the 3rd of October, 1991, a state of imminent
3 threat of war had been declared?
4 A. Yes. But, I mean, not to be difficult, but there is some dispute
5 in a sense that - and I have quoted it in my report - that one, I think,
6 it's a minute of the meeting states that the state of imminent threat of
7 war has been established. And it doesn't use the word "declared."
8 However, a document from the, I think, the SSNO that follows this
9 establishment refers to a declaration of the state of imminent threat of
10 war, by the SFRY Presidency or what remains, at that stage, of the SFRY
11 Presidency. And that should be in the beginning of part 2 of the report.
12 Q. Mr. Theunens, we won't deal with that any longer. You said what
13 you had to say in relation to that. I'm interested in the third
14 situation. In the B/C/S version, this is what it reads verbatim:
15 "Or other emergencies."
16 When we say "or other emergencies," you're a military expert, an
17 expert in military affair, hotbeds of crisis and so on, the arming of a
18 political party like the HDZ was in a republic and preparation for
19 cessation, could that be considered as one of these "other emergencies"?
20 A. Your Honours, I have not analysed in this report the -- I mean,
21 the matter raised by the Defence -- by Defence counsel. I mean, the
22 arming by the HDZ and the preparation of cessation -- or cessation,
23 excuse me.
24 Q. All right, Mr. Theunens. I don't have time to dwell on this.
25 That will do.
1 So now please look at Article 64 from the same law. The last
2 paragraph at that.
3 I'm going to read the last paragraph out to you very slowly and
4 I'm going to have a few questions in relation to that.
5 "Socio-political and other social organisations and associations
6 of citizens in accordance with their role and tasks develop and encourage
7 various activities in preparing, organising, training, and the
8 participation of their members and other working people and citizens in
9 All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection and in carrying out other
10 tasks of importance for the strengthening of the defence and
11 self-protection capacity of the social community."
12 So my first question would be: How do you interpret this? What
13 are social political organisations, what are social organisations, and
14 what are associations of citizens?
15 A. Your Honours, this refers to the concept of All People's Defence
16 as it existed in the SFRY, whereby the entire population would
17 participate in an organised manner in the defence of the country. One of
18 the components of the defence consisted of the armed forces, whereby the
19 armed forces were made up of the JNA and the TO. Now there could be also
20 other participants in this All People's Defence like, for example, civil
21 defence. I believe that also state-owned factories could participate. I
22 mean, the people working there who didn't serve in the JNA or the TO
23 could participate in the defence effort. But obviously the emphasis was
24 on an organised structure -- on organised structures which would operate
25 under -- under state control.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. I would like to deal with these legal
2 provisions very quickly.
3 Let us look at Article 81 now, and I'll have two questions in
4 relation to that. First paragraph of Article 81.
5 So, Mr. Theunens, please look at Article 81 that says:
6 "The Federal Secretariat for National Defence and certain
7 commands, units, and institutions of the Yugoslav People's Army in
8 cooperation with appropriate organs of socio-political communities ..."
9 I would like to stop at this point and I would like to ask you,
10 for example, can we interpret it this way: The MUP of a republic or the
11 MUP of a municipality, can it be considered an appropriate organ of a
12 socio-political community, an organ that is in charge?
13 A. I -- I don't think I'm able to answer the question. I know that
14 in Article 104 the police is identified as police in the -- in the
15 All People's Defence law and not as a socio-political community or
16 socio-political organisation. So I prefer not to answer, instead of
17 trying to speculate.
18 Q. Mr. Theunens, I don't want to insist on something that you
19 obviously haven't gone into in great detail. I'm just suggesting to you
20 that a socio-political community is, say, a republic. Would you agree
21 with that?
22 A. That may be correct, yeah.
23 Q. Can we agree that an appropriate organ, an organ in charge of
24 that socio-political community or that republic, is the Ministry of
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. Let us proceed.
3 So these organs of socio-political communities, according to this
4 law of the SFRY, have the right to provide professional assistance to
5 self-management organisations and communities, socio-political and other
6 social organisations, in preparing All People's Defence, notably
7 regarding the preparation organisation of Territorial Defence, civil
8 protection, and a system of monitoring and reporting.
9 So according to this law, for instance, could the MUP give
10 professional assistance, for instance, in monitoring and reporting, in
11 procuring equipment, like radios, uniforms, and so on, in your view?
12 A. I mean, yeah. If this assistance would be provided by the
13 entities identified in the Article, I don't see a problem.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. I don't want to go into an in-depth
15 discussion. I want to deal with this to the degree to which you have
16 dealt with these matters. And that is what is relevant to our Defence,
17 and that is why I'm moving so quickly.
18 Let us look at Article 94 now.
19 This is a chapter that has to do with the armed forces, and the
20 heading is: "Joint provisions." The subheading, rather. It is very
21 brief. Please look at the text.
22 "For the organisation and preparation of the armed forces within
23 the rights and responsibilities established in the constitution and law,
24 it is the socio-political communities, basic and other, organisations of
25 associated labour and local communities that shall be responsible."
1 So does this pertain to the same thing that you talked about,
2 that even a local commune had a right to prepare for armed resistance, in
3 one of those three aforementioned cases?
4 A. Again, if this is a -- these kind of activities are conducted in
5 accordance with the overall legislation, and, for example, this is an
6 reference here at the end of Article 94 in compliance with the social
7 role and nature of the tasks, there -- there should not be a problem.
8 And when I mean the overall legislation, I refer to the 1974 SFRY
9 constitution and the 1982 Law on All People's Defence.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. Can we now move on to a different
11 document. And --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... just for me to
13 verify whether -- apparently the point you're making is that under this
14 law the MUP of Serbia - and you referred to the MUP, you never referred
15 to a MUP of a republic - was in a position to -- to assist in this
16 self-defence which is organised by any of the organisations mentioned in
17 this law.
18 Have I understood that well?
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This was possible
20 under the law. We will see what happened. But the point I'm trying to
21 make is that this was permissible under the law.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I see that point. So I, therefore, well
23 understood your line of questioning.
24 Are you also making the point that, therefore, the MUP of Croatia
25 could have assisted organisations falling in the scope of this law in
1 order to organise themselves against developments in other republics,
2 because you're asking whether the MUP -- at least that was your point,
3 that the MUP of Serbia had a right -- was in a position to -- to assist.
4 Would that be true for the MUPs of all the republics, even if
5 they would go against developments in the other republics? Is that
6 included in the point you wanted to make?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do believe that
8 this -- they would be included, because we're talking about the rights of
9 the peoples to organise themselves and protect themselves, being
11 Second, I'm not trying to testify here, but let us note that this
12 is the SFRY constitution that one or two republics wanted to crush.
13 Whereas, one constitutional entity within these republics wanted to
14 preserve it. And under the -- the legislation, they had the right to
15 defend themselves.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think I got your point. I might still be
17 struggling with the end of Article 2 which says that -- after having
18 listed again all these organisations:
19 "... shall ensure that the preparation and implementation of
20 All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection constitute a unique
22 But I'm still -- then would be struggling with that, but at least
23 I got your point. And that is what I wanted to verify.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Can we have P1042, which is the Law on Defence of the
2 Republic of Serbia
3 Q. This is a law from 1991 which applies to the Republic of Serbia
4 only, while the FRY was still in existence.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Let us look at Article 10, which
6 reads -- it's on page 2. It reads that:
7 "The Ministry of Internal Affairs shall organise and implement
8 defence preparations and its functioning in the case of an imminent
9 threat of war or war.
10 "Establish the organisation and the headcount of the police force
11 in the event of an imminent threat of war or war."
12 We spoke of the proclamation of the state of an imminent threat
13 of war into October, so under the law, did the MUP have the right to
14 organize and carry out preparations for defence and war?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Ministry of Defence.
16 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understood the question now because
17 I thought you asked about Ministry of Interior and then in the transcript
18 there is a reference to the Ministry of Defence.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I may have misspoken. No, my question had to do with the
21 Ministry of the Interior.
22 A. Indeed. As is specified in the Article, okay, one of the three
23 states has to be declared. And just to also refer to the point made by
24 Your Honours, the uniqueness, as is referred to in -- in the Article of
25 the All People's Defence law, refers to the principles of command and
1 control that are defined in Article 112 of the 1982 All People's Defence
2 law, page 29, part 1 of the report, where unity of command is one of the
3 three principle, i.e., it's part -- all defence efforts have to be part
4 of one bigger or one big effort and -- and all these smaller efforts that
5 are part of it have to be coherent and consistent with the overall goal.
6 Q. Let me follow up with the -- with this. When you say "unity of
7 command," who is it who enforces unity of command under the law?
8 A. Well, it starts at the level of the Supreme Command, which is a
9 political body; and then as far as for the military is concerned, it goes
10 down through the chain of command to the smallest unit. I mean, when I
11 go from the top to the bottom.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. Let us look at another Article from
13 this law; namely, Article 119, which is on page 45 in the B/C/S version.
14 It is a short article as well. And I'd like to see what your
15 understanding of the article is.
16 Let me start reading slowly before we have it. Article 119
18 "In the event that the interests of the Republic of Serbia
19 state are under threat, as well as those of the Serbian People, the
20 provisions of federal laws from the field of national defence shall apply
21 as appropriate until such time as the republican laws are passed."
22 So what I'd like to know is this: Does this Article provide for
23 the application of, under the republican Serbian law, the Law on All
24 People's Defence dating back to 1982, in those circumstances as well?
25 A. I've seen this article before and I know there has been debate
1 over it, but I have not been able to fully understand the last sentence,
2 whether it means that Serbian law has priority over federal law or
3 whether federal law has priority over Serbian law until Serbian law has
4 been made coherent with federal law.
5 So that's why also I haven't included this article in my report,
6 and I don't -- I'm not qualified to answer the question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I also have some difficulties in
8 understanding what Article 119 exactly means. And I wonder whether
9 there's any translation problem, but perhaps I should ask the native
10 speakers whether they can make any logic sense out of Article 119, in
11 English. Perhaps I'm -- looking at Mr. Groome, looking at Mr. Jordash.
12 So equally looking at both parties.
13 Mr. Jordash, do you fully understand what Article 119 actually
15 MR. JORDASH: I think I do.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me ask.
17 Mr. Groome, do you also have no difficulties in understanding the
18 language of Article 119?
19 MR. GROOME: I do have some difficulty. I'm just studying it
20 now. Maybe Mr. -- Mr. ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: Weber.
22 MR. GROOME: -- Weber ...
23 MR. WEBER: I'm just reiterating what Mr. Groome just said.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... so there's one party who
25 claims that he understands, being a native speaking person.
1 Mr. Jordash, could you rephrase Article 119 in such a way that it
2 becomes clear to us as well?
3 MR. JORDASH: The federal laws -- in a situation where the
4 Republic of Serbia
5 laws will apply until --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Until, yes.
7 MR. JORDASH: -- the republican laws are passed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I was struggling with the "as long as."
9 MR. JORDASH: Until.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Until. You understand "as long as" to be "until."
11 Then, I must say, I have far less problems.
12 Is that your understanding as well, Mr. Bakrac?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. And perhaps my
14 next question and reference to the 1994 FRY law will serve to clarify the
16 So I'll call up the 65 ter number of the federal law, because it
17 was uploaded erroneously as a P exhibit. We only have the first page in
19 So can we call up 65 ter 4418 and look at page 2, where two
20 articles are listed -- or, rather, my apologies. Let us first look at
21 the last page of the transitional and final provision, which is
22 Article 87.
23 It is a rather longish article, so I'll read it out for you:
24 On the date of coming into effect of this law, the Law on All
25 People's Defence, SFRY Official Gazette 81/17 and 31/91, will cease to
1 exist -- will cease to -- will become null and void.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we have the article so that we can follow
3 what has just been read.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour. I didn't
5 notice it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You were reading from 87, Mr. Bakrac?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... The Registrar
9 informs me that a translation of 87 is not uploaded in e-court.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Maybe it was an error on my part. I
11 relied on the Prosecution documents being uploaded. I did say that only
12 page 1 was translated. I didn't look at the end of it. I didn't think
13 it was going to be a problem. Even Mr. Theunens confirmed at the start
14 of my cross-examination that the 1982 law was in force until 1994, when
15 the Law on Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was passed.
16 Q. Perhaps we can ask Mr. Theunens if he agrees with what I've just
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first re-read what you just read so that we
19 have at least -- one second, please.
20 Well, let me ... first of all, I have a problem with the server
22 Do I understand that Rule 87 is a kind of transitional rule which
23 refers to all other kinds of other legislation and that you say that it
24 [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... yes,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] To make it easier for you, I can
4 read it out. It's just a sentence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... if you read out
6 the one relevant sentence, that would assist.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's precisely what I wanted
8 to do, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 "On the date of the coming into force of the present law, the Law
10 on All People's Defence (SFRY Official Gazette 21/82 and 35/92) will
11 become null and void."
12 Q. Is that something you agreed with at the start of my
13 cross-examination when I asked you whether this 1982 law was in force in
14 the FRY until 1994?
15 A. Your Honours, my -- it was indeed my reply that it was my
16 understanding that the 1982 was still in force in FRY prior to the
17 adoption of the FRY Law on Defence. And there's obviously a
18 contradiction between what he's stated in Article 87 and, for example,
19 the SFRY Presidency order number 73 from December 1991; it's the order on
20 the engagement of volunteers in the armed forces of the SFRY during
21 immediate danger of war. There -- I mean, this is from December, i.e.,
22 after the adoption of the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia
23 in that order there is a clear reference to the Law on All People's
24 Defence, so suggesting or indicating or even confirming that the Law on
25 Defence is still valid.
1 Now, I know - and, again, I'm not going go into legal analysis -
2 but I know that the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia
3 adopt in August 1991, as well as, I mean, in particular also Article 119
4 that was discussed, which basically states that for Serbia its own
5 legislation has priority over federal legislation - here the defence
6 law - that there was a lot of debate on that legislation, i.e., its
7 validity. But I would leave that to a constitutional or legal expert to
8 comment an opinion on that.
9 Q. Very well, Mr. Theunens. I can agree with you in part. After
10 all, it is a piece of legislation on defence, and you, as a military
11 expert, should have more extensive knowledge about it than me, and I mean
12 in relation to this particular field. I am not calling into question
13 your knowledge and expertise, the vast knowledge and expertise you have.
14 Can we have Articles 15 and 23 of the law. That's on the
15 following page. Where, in my view, and I'm suggesting it to you, a point
16 which was envisaged under the SFRY law of 1982 is being specified.
17 So look at Article 15 which reads:
18 "Organising and preparing citizens for armed struggle and other
19 forms of armed resistance shall be carried out by the -- shall be carried
20 out within units and institutions of the Army of Yugoslavia and units and
21 organs of home affairs."
22 So do you agree that at least under this particular law, which
23 says so explicitly, did these competent organs have the power to prepare
24 citizens and engage in other forms of activities aimed at preparing armed
1 A. Yes, that's what Article 15 states.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I see that many in this
3 courtroom are struggling with the connection with the server.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I am informed that the server will be restarted and
6 that we'll have access again within a couple of minutes.
7 I suggest that we continue for the time being, looking at our
8 left screens where the text is still scrolling.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. I have only one question left on the issue of legislation, and
12 that's in relation to Article 23. I'd like to hear your interpretation
13 of the article. It reads:
14 "All citizens, according to their abilities and understand
15 conditions as provided in Article 22, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present
16 law, shall have the right and duty to be trained for defence of the
18 "The federal government shall issue rules regulating the training
19 of citizens for the defence of the countries as stipulated in paragraph 1
20 of this Article."
21 Mr. Theunens, according to this law, was the federal government
22 the one which issued rules and regulations for the purposes of training
23 citizens as provided in Article -- in paragraph 1 of this article?
24 A. Yes. Article 23 states that it is the federal government that
25 shall issue rules regulates the training of citizens for the defence of
1 the country as stipulated in the first paragraph of that article.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. I needed to ask you this because it
3 will form the basis for my further submissions.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at 2D306 now.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would object to using this document
7 at this time. It's one of the documents for which the Prosecution has
8 not received a translation to before court. We also received, right
9 before court, an indication of the order, from the Simatovic Defence, of
10 exhibits, and I see this one was not appearing in the -- the order that
11 we were provided. So we haven't even -- I believe that there are some
12 translations that just recently became available, but, of course, in my
13 reviewing of what was noticed to us to -- even recently, in terms of how
14 to prioritise it, this document wasn't included in it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, has any translation been provided?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we did include it, and
17 my learned friend is right when he said that we did it today.
18 It is possible, perhaps, that inadvertently an error was made in
19 the order. But perhaps we could have a look at the document with the
20 witness now and then at the end of this process I will be tendering these
21 documents, so Mr. Weber will have time enough to review the document and
22 make his objections, if any.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, time enough. At least additional time.
24 Mr. Weber, let's have a look at the document. We do not know yet
25 what it is. It could be a one-line document. I've got no idea.
1 So before we say yes or no, wouldn't it be good to have a look at
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we're objecting. Mr. Bakrac is going to
4 have a day and a half -- well, today and tomorrow. We're asking for, at
5 the very least, an opportunity to know what the document is that's being
6 shown to the witness, which, I guess, is now - since I'm seeing the
7 translation for the first time ever - from the federal Ministry of
8 Justice and is just not a one-page -- of a one-line document.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The last thing, I can confirm.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, would it disturb your flow of evidence
12 to be presented if we would look at it tomorrow or ...
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I only wanted to
14 have continuity and to follow up on the laws relating to associations of
15 citizens. But if it makes matters easier for the Prosecutor, I will go
16 back to this document tomorrow.
17 But just to summarize: It's a decision whereby the Serbian Guard
18 was entered in the register of social and political organisations. The
19 decision was issued by the Ministry of Justice, and the statement of
20 reasons indicates that there was an earlier decision under the old law.
21 In item 4, it is stated that a similar decision dating back to
22 January 1991 was hereby made null and void.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, Mr. Bakrac was kind enough to already
24 inform you briefly about what you could expect in the document which he
25 will deal with tomorrow.
1 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. We're not looking to have any
2 discussions about the document. There are a substantial number of
3 documents that we don't have translations to. If we could have an
4 opportunity to look at them and then reserve any position for tomorrow,
5 when we look at [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: You're already anticipating on what will follow.
7 This document Mr. Bakrac will deal with tomorrow.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
11 Can we have now D118, please. It's an admitted document.
12 Q. Mr. Theunens, did you have occasion to review the document at --
13 over the weekend?
14 I'm -- I apologise. We don't have it on our screens yet, so I'm
15 sure you can't even answer it. We'll wait for you to have a look at it.
16 You have it before you now, Mr. Theunens. Did you have occasion
17 to go through it over the weekend?
18 A. I went through the CD I received from you. I don't remember
19 whether this document was on the CD, but I may have missed it. But,
20 anyway, I have seen it before.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. If you look at the last paragraph in
22 B/C/S, and it's also the last paragraph in English, please read through.
23 This is a letter by Dusan Smiljanic, a colonel or assistant commander for
24 security intelligence of the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of Krajina.
25 Did you know that on the 15th of October, 1994, this particular
1 individual held this position?
2 A. You say 1994 or 1993? Because the document states 1993.
3 Q. Mr. Theunens, I see that the document states the date when this
4 was written and when Colonel Dusan Smiljanic qualified himself as
5 assistant commander for security and intelligence of the Main Staff of
6 the Serb army of the Krajina. So it's the 15th of October, 1994
7 Since you were involved in military affairs in this case, my
8 question to you is whether you can confirm that this person was in actual
9 fact assistant commander for security in the Main Staff of the Army of
10 the Republic of the Serb Krajina.
11 A. I know that Colonel Dusan Smiljanic was a security organ in the
12 SVK. Now, I have no reason to doubt what you're stating. I'm more
13 familiar with his successor, even though I don't remember his exact name
14 at this stage. But I know that lieutenant-colonel -- or Colonel - excuse
15 me - Smiljanic was at the senior level in the security organs of the SVK
16 at the time you mentioned, October 1994.
17 Q. So, Mr. Theunens, if we look at -- actually, can we go back to
18 the first page now.
19 I would briefly like to jog your memory in terms of the substance
20 of this letter. The letter is being sent to General Ratko Mladic to the
21 Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, and Mr. Smiljanic is looking
22 back at everything that had happened in the area of the Krajina. At the
23 end of the first paragraph, he refers to what happened in Plitvice in
24 March 1991, and he says that he was sent to Plitvice at his personal
25 request together with a group of officers, that he remained in the area
1 of the republic of the Serb Krajina until July 1992.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could we please move on to page 2
4 Q. Now the second paragraph, where he specifically states that he is
5 illegally linking up with the key people of the Serb democratic people
6 from the area of Lika, Banija, Kordun, and Banja Luka, and with a group
7 of security organs and VP - I assume that VP is military post code -
8 on -- at the end of April and the beginning of May. I starts arming the
9 Serb people illegally from the arms depots that were in Otocac,
10 Sveti Rok, and Skradin, and that in that -- at that point in time in
11 July 1991 various infantry weapons and mortars were distributed in this
12 ways, as well as guns and large amounts of ammunition, in this area of
13 Lika, Kordun, and Banja.
14 You have seen this document.
15 My question is: Why is it not contained in your report? Because
16 I think that it provides some important figures about the ways in which
17 the Serb people were armed in the republic of the Serb Krajina.
18 A. First just a small correction: The VP stands for "vojna
19 policija" here, so for military police.
20 Q. Oh, yes, sorry.
21 A. No problem. It is correct that I have not included this document
22 in my report for the reason that I -- I tried to focus in this report on
23 the role of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
24 So I didn't conduct a detailed analysis of how Serbs in Croatia
25 were armed, but I tried to focus and I tried to limited myself, as is
1 indicated in the scope of the report, to any role played by the
2 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
3 And I think -- I mean, just to be complete --
4 Q. Mr. Theunens --
5 A. Just to be complete, I think when your colleague asked questions
6 about the arming of the -- of Serbs in Croatia, I mentioned the role of
7 the JNA, as well as of -- as well as of other organisations as we
8 discussed over the last week.
9 Q. Mr. Theunens, wasn't it relevant for you to include in your
10 report this particular fact? I'm going to ask you now, because you were
11 dealing with the Serbian MUP and the assistance that it had provided to
12 the Krajina, do you have any idea of the type and amount of equipment
13 that was provided by the Serb MUP to the Republic of Krajina
14 A. No. The documents I reviewed do not provide a detailed breakdown
15 of the types and -- and numbers or amount of equipment that was provided
16 by the MUP the Republic of Serbia
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, with all due respect, and bearing in mind the fact
18 that you had before you this fact, and a certain amount of assistance
19 provided by the MUP of Serbia, wasn't it fair to include this document in
20 your report so that it would be more correct and more realistic at that?
21 A. I could have included this document for the sake of being
22 complete but then I would have to do -- would have to have included also
23 a detailed breakdown of other assistance -- I mean, other JNA documents
24 that refer to the provision of weapons. But it's -- I mean, yeah, I
25 could have included it for the sake of completeness, but it doesn't
1 change what I have put in my report.
2 Q. Very well, Mr. Theunens. Tell me -- before we move on to the
3 second paragraph that has to do with the second part of your report, or,
4 rather, the third part of your report, tell me: 15.000 pieces of
5 different infantry weapons, according to military doctrine, how many
6 brigades can be armed with that amount of equipment?
7 A. I would say it depends on the type of weapons. Because in some
8 cases one soldier can have several weapons. But you would talk about
9 several brigades. Four, five, six, depending on the nature of the
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. Please look at the next paragraph now.
12 This same Colonel at the time, from the security organs - and we did deal
13 with many alleged documents of the security service. And now there's a
14 reference to the territory of Bosnia
15 went to the area of Novi Grad in Banja Luka where he linked up with
16 Stojan Zupljanin, Brdjanin, and some other persons. And that during the
17 course of that month he organised, again, the provision of over 20.000
18 various pieces of weapons from the arms depot in Skradnik, to Celinac and
19 Drvar. This equipment included mortars, bombs, Zoljas, and two BKs and I
20 believe that these are two combat sets of ammunitions or kits.
21 Is this a fact that did you not deem relevant when you were
22 compiling your report?
23 A. No, Your Honours, I have answered the question. I could have
24 included this document if I wanted to address in detail the role of the
25 JNA in arming local Serb military structures in Croatia and
2 I would also like to emphasise that this is a personal letter.
3 It is not an official document. So -- and as I mentioned earlier, I
4 could have included this for the sake of completeness, but I haven't done
6 And I did --
7 Q. I'm sorry. Mr. Theunens, you said a few moments ago that you had
8 no reason to doubt this document, that you knew this Mr. Smiljanic. And
9 now it seems to me that you are trying to bring into question the
10 authenticity of the document. Or am I wrong perhaps?
11 JUDGE ORIE: I understood the observation to be that it was a
12 authentic but not formal document, a personal letter on matters which
13 could have reported in a formal sense in the existing hierarchy, whereas
14 this is a more personal nature.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I do
17 apologise. Yes.
18 Q. Now, do you have any reason to doubt the substance of what
19 Mr. Smiljanic wrote to General Ratko Mladic in this document, in this
21 A. I know overall that there was -- there is information indicating
22 the participation of security organs in, say, summer and -- and
23 fall 1991, in providing assistance, equipment to local Serb defence
24 structures in -- in Banja, Kordun, and maybe also Lika, so the area that
25 was covered by Sector North in the time when UNPROFOR was deployed. But
1 I haven't seen any official documents on that.
2 Q. Mr. Theunens, for the sake of clarity, I do not share your
3 position that this is a private document. Please look at the last page.
4 This document was officially registered in the Main Staff at the Security
5 Department of the Army of the Republic of the Serb Krajina on the
6 16th of October, 1994. So that is one matter.
7 And now there's another matter: I did not understand you quite
8 well, I assume. It was my understanding that you were a military expert
9 in this case, and it was the activity of the army that you dealt with in
10 the area concerned, and also at the time that is relevant to this
11 document. In -- or, rather, you were not dealing with the indictment in
12 that way; you were just investigating the activities of the MUP, or,
13 rather, explaining that.
14 Are you a military expert here? Am I wrong about the capacity in
15 which you appear here?
16 A. I would just -- to make sure that -- that what I wanted to state
17 is correctly effected, I want to emphasise that in page 26, line 15, I
18 needed to have said the security organs of the JNA.
19 Now to come back to your question. Indeed, there a stamp on the
20 document, but that is just, in my view, reflects that the document has
21 been officially registered but the contents still remains the same. It
22 is a personal letter by Colonel Smiljanic to General Mladic. Why he had
23 it registered to as -- as such, we should ask Smiljanic.
24 Now to answer the second part of your question. The scope of the
25 report is very clear. I tried to focus on the military aspects of the
1 role of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia
2 report. It is obviously not an overall analysis of, for example, in this
3 specific discussion, how the Serbs in -- how Serbs in Croatia and
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina were armed, how they created their own defence or
5 military structures, and so on. That would go beyond the scope of the
7 Q. Mr. Theunens, but you will agree with me that you your report
8 would have been a lot more realistic and a lot more complete and complex
9 and that it would reflect far more faithfully the role of the MUP in
10 these developments had you taken into account these facts which I deem
11 very important; right?
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I think,
13 Mr. Bakrac, you've now tried six, seven, or eight times to illustrate for
14 us that what others did may be relevant, if you are assessing what the
15 MUP did. Now, that was clear to me 15 minutes ago. If you want to spend
16 another 15 minutes on it, but it's your time. It's -- it's -- it's clear
17 that Mr. Theunens says, I focussed on documents directly relating to the
18 MUP. And you said it would have shed light if you would have also paid
19 attention to documents which -- which more or less explains the
20 developments but which were focussing on activity of other organisations.
21 Therefore, I leave it to you. But I would suggest that you move
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, I'm
24 grateful. I understand, and I shall move on. But I just have one
25 question left.
1 Q. Mr. Theunens, I think that I counted this right. You included in
2 your report 19 different articles or books or interviews of
3 Vojislav Seselj. It seems that this was more important for you than
4 documents that are fact-based and that come from security organs.
5 We will also go back to another thing that you made comments,
6 with regard to some unsigned reports of security organs, that in this
7 way, or some other way, gave a bad impression of the security service.
8 A. I don't know what the question is.
9 Q. My question is: Do you do not think -- or, rather, do you think
10 that newspaper articles of a political leader at the time who, inter
11 alia, wrote other books, also since he came here to the Tribunal, are
12 they more important than a signed document, a registered document, which
13 is evidence provided by a military person in an area that you had dealt
15 A. Your Honours, we have been a few times over this. It is all a
16 matter of first looking at the scope of the report which has been
17 explained actually in introduction to report. And then, next, of the
18 second aspect of my answer, is the methodology that is applied. And
19 obviously one considers a wide range of written documentation when one
20 compiles such a report, and some of this written documentation can
21 consist of open-source material, including personal statements of senior
22 politicians, and so on. So -- and sometimes documents are unsigned
23 that -- and that has also been highlighted in the report.
24 Just to finish my answer, I think it's also important to realise,
25 that we're -- I mean, there's report, discussions, and activity which
1 was, to say the least, hidden to the -- to the public for obvious
2 reasons. As you know, the United Nations imposed sanctions, I mean,
3 economic sanctions, against FRY in May 1992 as a punishment, between
4 brackets, for the -- what was considered the continuous involvement of
5 the FRY in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and provisional support and
6 so on. And the subject matter that is discussed in the report directly
7 concerns this kind of support by one branch of the authorities of the
8 Republic of Serbia
9 so little documentation and even that some of the documentation is
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm looking at the
13 clock. Perhaps this would be a convenient moment for the break, if you
14 so allow.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is, Mr. Bakrac.
16 We'll have a break, and we will resume at 4.00.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, are you ready to proceed?
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I am, Your Honour. Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Theunens, before I show you a document, I'd like to ask you
24 this: Do you know General Tumanov?
25 A. Yes. He was a general in the JNA. He was of Macedonian
1 ethnicity. And I believe that in the first half of 1992, or at least
2 until April or May, he was the deputy chief of the security
3 administration of the SFRY armed forces.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 8507-8514 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honour?
16 JUDGE ORIE: You may.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Theunens, when we now say -- actually, you said what the area
19 of responsibility of the 2nd Military District is. In the situation when
20 a state of imminent threat of war was declared, or a state of war, what
21 are the duties and responsibilities of the military organs and the
22 security organs in the area of the military district?
23 The military security organs; that is what the interpretation
24 should say.
25 So, we saw what the situation was. A state of imminent threat of
1 war was declared. There is the area of responsibility of the
2 2nd Military District. I would be interested in the rights and
3 responsibilities of the military organs and the security organs in their
4 area of responsibility.
5 A. I'm not able to answer that question because I have not seen a
6 specific document, or documents, that describe these rights and
8 Q. I fully understand what you're saying. I would now be interested
9 in the following: In a military doctrine, could you tell us what the
10 rights and responsibilities of the military authorities would be in that
11 kind of a situation?
12 My question before that was whether you read the Law on the Army
13 and the rules of conduct, in order to be able to answer that question.
14 A. I'm not sure with -- with the rules -- I mean, which specific
15 rules of conduct you are hinting at.
16 Q. In the JNA. As a military expert, did you have access to the
17 rules of service? It's called the rules of service in the JNA. As a
18 military expert who dealt with military matters, did you explore and
19 study that? That's my question to you.
20 A. I know of a 1985 Law on the Service in the Armed Forces, but I
21 don't remember, at this stage, whether there were specific duties or
22 rights identified in that law in relation to military organs during one
23 of the three states.
24 Q. Can you give us an example from a military, doctrinary point of
25 view. If a state of war is declared or an imminent state of war is
1 declared, what are the rights and responsibilities of military security
2 organs and military authorities in their area of responsibility?
3 A. Again, I cannot answer the question because I don't remember
4 seeing such a document for the SFRY armed forces or the JNA. There is
5 one document I managed to identify, which I mentioned -- I mean, I
6 mentioned it earlier, from the -- I think the SFRY armed forces Supreme
7 Command Staff, which is from early October 1992, and specifically
8 highlights the situation with volunteers, i.e., emphasizing the
9 importance of volunteers to reinforce the manpower of the JNA. But I'm
10 not able to answer your question further.
11 Q. Mr. Theunens, with all due respect, as an expert who was given
12 the task of compiling a military analysis in a particular area, were you
13 not interested in taking into account all relevant military legislation,
14 all military rules? That is a basic document, the rules of service in
15 the JNA. Quite simply, I'm surprised now. Is it possible that when you
16 wrote up your report you were not interested in that, to see what this
17 basic document says?
18 A. I'm not sure whether you're accurately representing my previous
19 answer. I explicitly made reference to the 1985 Law on the Service in
20 the Armed Forces. Again, if there is another regulation I haven't seen,
21 well, please show it to me and then show me the relevant passages so I
22 can comment on them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see --
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, first of all, the rules you were
1 referring to, are those the same as the law Mr. Theunens referred to? I
2 mean, is there any disagreement in that respect?
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I'm not
4 understanding you fully. The rules I'm referring to are not those laws
5 on defence. Those are the rules of service in the JNA. I shall --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... line 17,
7 page 40, you say: "It's called the rules of service in the JNA."
8 So you had a certain set of rules on your mind.
9 Mr. Theunens started his answer by saying:
10 "I know of a 1985 Law of the Service in the Armed Forces, but I
11 don't remember, at this stage ..."
12 So let's first establish whether had you a different set of rules
13 on your mind as the ones Mr. Theunens referred to.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this is
15 called the rules of service in the JNA. It is not -- it is not a law on
16 service in the JNA. This is the basic document that regulates --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. When was that document issued? Do you have a
18 copy of it so that we can look at it? We are having a debate, and you
19 are proclaiming Mr. Theunens for not considering a certain piece of
20 legislation or rules or whatever, when we have not even established
21 whether we are talking about the same set of rules.
22 Your rules of service in the JNA were issued when?
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise. I've
24 been taken by surprise. I thought that Mr. Theunens had taken that into
25 account. I am referring to the rules of service --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, but,
2 there's no need to express now for the third or the fourth time your
3 surprise. I'm just trying to get you both on the same track. That's the
4 only thing I'm doing at this moment.
5 Your set of rules, the rules of service in the JNA, were issued
6 when and by whom?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Issued by the Federal Assembly in
8 1985, and I think that Mr. Theunens mentioned that.
9 Could he, on the basis of that, explain to us what the areas of
10 responsibility of a brigade is and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- so we now establish more or less that you
12 are -- you say it's no law but it's of 1985 and issued by the -- by the
13 Federal Assembly and --
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. Let me be
15 very specific. The document is actually sponsored by the Ministry of
16 Defence and ultimately passed by the Ministry of Defence but is approved
17 by the Federal Assembly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. It's still not perfectly clear whether we're
19 talking about the same document. I would say there's an 80 or
20 90 per cent chance that we do, but it's still not finally established.
21 Now, what you asked Mr. Theunens, when he referred to what he
22 considered to be part of your question, he referred to this -- what he
23 called the Law of 1985, and you asked him whether he could give an
24 example. He said something about that law, and then he said, But I can't
25 further answer your question at this moment. Which means that he can't
1 give an example by the top of his head of any of the elements you asked
2 for. So there we are. We are talking about the same document.
3 Mr. Theunens has not a recollection which allows him to give an example
4 as you asked him. And that's where we are.
5 Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, on page 41 of today's transcript I see,
7 in conjunction with this discussion, Mr. Bakrac asked:
8 "What are the right and responsibilities of military security
9 organs and military authorities in their area of responsibility?"
10 I just -- in order to avoid any confusion, I do not know if
11 Mr. Bakrac is referring to P1036 which are the rules of service of the
12 security organs in the SFRY armed forces. So I just bring this --
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 MR. WEBER: -- bring this up to see if this is the same document
15 that Mr. Bakrac is referring to or a different one.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P1046 you said?
17 MR. WEBER: 1036. I see that it is published in 1984.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then most likely it's not the same.
19 Different year, different title.
20 Mr. Theunens, I just wanted to establish where we were at that
21 time. Not a full 100 per cent certainty that we're talking about the
22 same. You asked for examples, Mr. Theunens is -- said something about
23 the document he is aware of and couldn't give any examples.
24 Next question, please.
25 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes.
2 THE WITNESS: If you allow me, Your Honours, actually the law on
3 the service in the armed forces, "zakon o sluzbi o oruzanim snagama,"
4 is -- from 1985, is P1012.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
6 THE WITNESS: If that can help.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the one you were hinting at, Mr. Bakrac?
8 Then we ...
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I'm
10 going to skip this question. I'm going to look into it again, and
11 perhaps I shall go back to it later.
12 I would just like to check this. I hadn't printed this because I
13 didn't think that there was any need to cite anything from there, but if
14 you allow me, I'm going to skip the question for the time being and go
15 back to it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you ask a specific question about a document,
17 then at least you should be aware of what that document is, isn't it?
18 Especially if it's in evidence. Because that makes life easier if we
19 know what we are talking about.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Theunens, when my learned friend Mr. Jordash was
23 cross-examining you, if I understood things correctly, you said, when
24 speaking about the Serb Radical Party and the volunteers of the Serb
25 Radical Party, that it seemed to you that after November 1993 the MUP
1 started bringing pressure on the Serb Radical Party.
2 Did I understand you correctly?
3 A. I think you're paraphrasing a bit, but what I was trying to
4 explain is that only after there is a political fallout or break between
5 Mr. Milosevic, president of Serbia
6 of the Serbian Radical Party, that only at that time the competent
7 authorities in the Republic of Serbia
8 against, in particular, senior SRS volunteers. And I've seen a number of
9 documents indicating that these senior SRS volunteers are then arrested
10 on the basis of charges for the illegal possession of weapons.
11 And, again, these are just a number of documents. I haven't
12 analysed the whole issue in detail, and I cannot provide any statistics.
13 Q. Mr. Theunens, I think that I did paraphrase you correctly, and I
14 think that we can agree that you were referring to the period from the
15 second half of 1993 onwards, that that's when that happened; right?
16 A. I -- I have a recollection of November. But we would have to
17 look at the specific documents in order to ascertain when this starts.
18 Or to establish, I'm sorry, to establish when this exactly starts.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would -- I would now
20 like to ask that we move into private session because I would like to put
21 something to Mr. Theunens that is actually the transcript of a protected
23 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 8523-8531 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 THE WITNESS: I did, indeed, conclude in the report that the
3 Serbian Volunteer Guard, on the basis of the documents I reviewed, during
4 combat operations operated under JNA command. There are also documents
5 from the 1st Military District, security organs, indicating that outside
6 combat operations the Serbian Volunteer Guard conducted other activities,
7 including criminal activities, whereby they were not -- at least on the
8 basis of these documents, not subordinated to the JNA.
9 As a second aspect of my answer: On the basis of the document, I
10 concluded that the Serbian minister of interior controlled or maintained
11 other relations with groups like the Serbian Volunteer Guard. I couldn't
12 find a specific -- or I couldn't, yeah, find a specific military
13 definition for the type of relation, but at least on the basis of the
14 documents I could conclude that the Serbian minister of interior allowed
15 the Serbian Volunteer Guard to exist from at least fall 1991 to
16 September 1995 without interfering with its activities, even though there
17 was public knowledge or even information available to the Serbian
18 authorities that members of the Serbian Volunteer Guard, including Arkan,
19 had allegedly been involved in serious crimes.
20 There're also examples -- I mean, obviously when you look at the
21 map, the Serbian authorities, including the MUP, allowed the
22 Serbian Volunteer Guard to transit from Serbia towards Eastern Slavonia
23 to remove certain goods from Eastern Slavonia. One famous example, it's
24 not the Serbian Volunteer Guard itself but it's the -- are the Skorpions
25 located at the Dzeletovci oil --
1 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 A. Yeah?
3 Q. Sir, witness, all this is contained in your report, and there's
4 no need for you to repeat it.
5 I will now show you some exhibits and we'll see if perhaps
6 they'll change your mind. My intention was to show you, tomorrow, a
7 document whereby the Ministry of Justice registered the Serbian Guard as
8 a socio-political organisation. Did you know that
9 Mr. Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was a deputy in the Serbian Assembly
10 sometime from mid-1992?
11 A. Indeed, I know. And on the basis of the information that was
12 already available at the time in relation to alleged criminal activities
13 by Mr. Zeljko Raznjatovic in Croatia
14 consider quite remarkable, but it's not something I have analysed in the
15 scope of -- in my report.
16 Q. Mr. Theunens, if I were to tell you an assumption - and we'll see
17 what the evidence will show - that the Serbian Volunteer Guard was
18 registered as a socio-political organisation or social organisation by
19 the Ministry of Justice, and if we proceed from the assumption that the
20 testimony of Witness JF-047 on the issue of MUP of Serbia's attitude
21 toward volunteers was true, was there a reason for the MUP of Serbia to
22 arrest Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and members of his guard?
23 A. I'm a bit confused by the first part of your question because are
24 you now stating that the Serbian Volunteer Guard, also known as the
25 Arakanovci, were registered as a socio-political organisation? Or are
1 you referring to the document on a Serbian Guard, "Srpska Garda," that we
2 saw briefly on the screen earlier today?
3 Q. Mr. Theunens, no. My question was a hypothetical one. Had the
4 Serbian Volunteer Guard been registered in the register of
5 socio-political organisations as was the Serbian Guard, would there have
6 existed a basis for its members to be arrested if they had not committed
7 a crime in the territory of the Republic of Serbia
8 about Serbia
9 A. I mean, that's a legal question and it's outside the scope of my
10 report. Because one would have to establish first what are the legal
11 criteria in order to be registered as a socio-political organisation, and
12 which activities prevent -- for example, which activities prevents an
13 organisation from being registered as a socio-political organisation.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, your question was, to that extent, a bit
15 confusing, that you started by saying: "If I were to tell you an
16 assumption - and we'll see what the evidence will show ..." which means
17 it's an assumption, but, at the same time, we should take it for a fact
18 that the Serbian Volunteer Guard was registered, and, if, as you said, we
19 proceed from the assumption that the witness -- so therefore the second
20 assumption is included in the question that -- on the issue of the MUP
22 One being translated more into a expectation of being established, and
23 then I'm not surprised that Mr. Theunens is a bit confused as well.
24 Apparently what you want to ask him - at least that's how I
25 understand it to be: If an organisation is registered as a
1 socio-political organisation, would there be any reason to arrest members
2 of it apart from if there's a reasonable suspicion that they committed
4 Is that what you wanted to ask?
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's what I
6 wanted to ask.
7 So to keep matters short, that's what I wanted to ask. And I --
8 my question was to be placed in the context of the Republic of Serbia
9 because I'm asking about the MUP of Serbia.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, have you, meanwhile, understood the
11 question, Mr. Theunens, to be looked at in the MUP of Serbia context?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. I mean, I -- I remain convinced it's a legal
13 question, but I would address this from a common sense point of view,
14 whether or not somebody is a member of a socio-political organisation is
15 not a -- kind of an exonerating factor or has any other impact in case of
16 criminal behaviour. Everybody should be equal to the law. And if a
17 socio-political organisation starts to undertake or plan activities - I
18 refer now to Article 118 of the Law on Defence - or other criminal
19 activities, then I would expect that the organisation would be
20 investigated and that the law would be implemented.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Yes, Mr. Theunens. I agree with you fully. But if a member
23 committed a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia
24 there is no evidence about that crime, do you think that there is room
25 for MUP to react to that?
1 A. This is, again, a legal question which is outside the scope of my
2 report. But --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Bakrac, I suggest to you that we do not ask Mr. Theunens to
5 answer that question, because if a crime is committed outside of the
6 territory, this raises a whole textbook of theories on continuing crimes,
7 crimes of which elements are committed within the territory but other
8 parts outside the territory, the principle of ubiquity ... this covers --
9 I could easily write a hundred pages on that, just to describe the
10 difficulties in saying what is a crime committed within and what is a
11 crime committed outside.
12 So, therefore, Mr. Theunens, I don't think you could write that
13 book, or am I wrong?
14 THE WITNESS: No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You couldn't write that book.
16 Now that, of course, might be of great importance for the MUP to
17 react yes or no. And then we have the applicability of substantive law.
18 And then we have procedural law, to what extent can enforcement agencies
19 act outside the scope or only inside the scope of the territory. It's a
20 rather complex legal question, which is very intriguing. But I don't
21 think, as a matter of fact, that on the present circumstances, n the
22 basis of the evidence that we have now, that we should ask Mr. Theunens
23 about it.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I fully agree with you.
1 Perhaps I'm not conducting my examination appropriately, but I'd like to
2 draw Their Honours' attention to the fact that there is not enough basis
3 in the report to draw that conclusion.
4 Let me ask Mr. Theunens the following question --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... isn't it true
6 that Mr. Jordash has extensively questioned the witness about whether
7 they could react, if we're talking about offences which are committed
8 outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia
9 Mr. Jordash, I'm not inventing things, am I? That was part of
10 your cross-examination, wasn't it?
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I covered some of that. Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, quite extensively, I do remember.
13 So, Mr. Bakrac, if you want to draw our attention to something
14 Mr. Jordash has already drawn our attention to, then it's your time,
15 and -- but it is repetitious.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... there's any new element in
18 it, then please focus your questions on the new element.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree. Thank you.
20 Since our time for the break is nearing, I'd like to ask Mr. Theunens to
21 tell me how many documents did he come across where the security organ
22 within whose area of responsibility the alleged crimes were committed by
23 Arkan, how many such documents were there where the MUP was informed and
24 provided sufficient documentation in order to take any steps?
25 And I'm sure Mr. Theunens will have an opportunity to give us an
1 answer to that after the break. How extensively were they able to
2 prosecute, given the area of their responsibility, given -- and I'm
3 talking about the security organs.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Bakrac please repeat the document
5 number he's asking for.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the document number you
7 were --
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] 2D64. Sorry, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Theunens, we don't have the English translation yet.
10 Mr. Theunens, this is a certificate signed by Zeljko Raznjatovic,
11 Arkan, and JNA colonel Enes Taso, confirming that Nenad Markovic of
13 the JNA. And we're coming to this issue where you said that the
14 Arkan's Men were under JNA command when participating in combat
16 And I'm referring you to D63 where we can see that in the battle
17 at Luzac, Arkan was subordinated or under the command of the JNA
18 Colonel Enes Taso.
19 You do remember this document, Mr. Theunens, don't you?
20 A. I remember, I mean, from somewhere this combat operation or this
21 attack, but I don't remember seeing D63. Maybe I did and it's my fault,
22 but I don't remember. D63.
23 Q. 2D63. But I'll not waste any time on this because you do not
24 dispute the fact that in combat activities they acted thus.
25 So please look first look at the stamp and the heading and tell
1 me if you agree that the special training centre at Erdut, judging by the
2 stamp and the heading, was a training centre belonging to the
3 Territorial Defence of Slavonia
4 A. At that moment in time, indeed. So on the 4th of December, 1991
5 the training centre in Erdut is identified as centre for special training
6 of the TO of -- the self-established TO of SBWS.
7 Q. Yes, sir --
8 A. I'm sorry, but -- I mean, looking at the stamps, at the same
9 time, there is a stamp which states "command of the volunteer training
11 Maybe it's an old stamp. Because I know that the training centre
12 in Erdut changed a few times of names. Later, sometime in 1993, Arkan
13 withdrew for some months but then he came back and again the name changed
14 a few times, but the link with Arkan remained the same.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, could I ask you one question. When you
16 summarized the document, you suggested, I think, that Arkan's Men were
17 under JNA command and that at the "battle of Luzac, Arkan was
18 subordinated or under the command of the JNA ..."
19 Is that what you read in this document.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I had wanted to
21 follow some of your previous instructions. When there is no coalition,
22 we should try to avoid a waste of time. I can actually ask for 2D63 to
23 be called up, and the battle of Luzac, and you will see that it is under
24 the command of Enes Taso and the 52nd Brigade, that we can see Arkan and
25 his men. 2D63. Perhaps we can call that up and you'll see.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because in this document, which is on our
2 screen now, it says "cooperation with the JNA" and no subordination. I
3 just wanted to have this clarified. If you say we can read it
4 differently in 2D63, I'll do that. And there's no need to have it on the
5 screen at this moment, unless you would insist.
6 I'm looking at the clock. I'd like, first of all, to have
7 Mr. Theunens to already take his break. He has two questions on his
8 piece of paper, I take it.
9 Mr. Theunens, if you would be kind enough to consider those
11 And then I would have one further matter to briefly raise with
12 you, Mr. Bakrac.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher escort Mr. Theunens out of the
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I'm just trying to follow the line, to
18 follow the thoughts behind your questions and try to verify whether I
19 understand the evidence you're eliciting.
20 One of the issues that you apparently want to raise is that if
21 this witness says that on from, I think, it was November 1993 when there
22 was a clash between Seselj and Milosevic, that it was only then that they
23 started arresting people, as the witness said, that he's wrong because on
24 the basis of the other evidence it is shown that, already in 1991, people
25 could not carry weapons in the bus because they might be stopped. And
1 did I understand you well that that is an issue you raised?
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm trying to reconcile this with another issue
4 which apparently was raised this morning on a more legislative level,
5 that is, that everyone had the right to defend himself and to form groups
6 and to do all that.
7 So I'm trying to reconcile, why, on the one hand, you say it was
8 not only in 1993 but already in 1991 that the MUP took action against
9 volunteers. And, at the same time, I do understand from your earlier
10 portion of the cross-examination that that was exactly what everyone was
11 entitled to, is to group themselves together and to defend the
12 constitutional structure of the Federal Republic
15 Now I'm just trying to understand what you're telling us. Are
16 you telling it was everyone's right? And then I have difficulties on why
17 you insist so much on the MUP not starting in 1993 but already in 1991,
18 against what then apparently was everyone's right. Is -- is -- I'm
19 trying to -- or is it that you say, No, it was wrong, the MUP took action
20 against it. And then I have difficulties in understanding this
21 legislation which suggests that it was everyone's right to do that.
22 So I'm -- the only thing I'm doing at this moment is trying to
23 understand the message you're sending to us through the cross-examination
24 of this witness.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what my message
2 This case deals with Croatia
3 with a period when what was in force in that area was the Law on Defence
4 of the SFRY and when the Serbs, in those areas, could organise themselves
5 and prepare for defence and self-defence. I think that that is something
6 that we are going to find useful in the further proceedings ahead of us.
7 That is one point.
8 My other point is that I've tried to show that various volunteer
9 groups could not just stroll about with weapons. However, what the law
10 did allow was that in a state of war and an imminent threat of war the
11 army and the MUP could organise legal centres, in which, perhaps, the
12 training of volunteers could take place but within a legal framework.
13 What we showed now and what Mr. Theunens tried to say, and I
14 believe that's part of his report too, is that the MUP of Serbia
15 tolerated various armed groups that had come from
17 about Serbia
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, the only thing I was not seeking,
19 Mr. Bakrac, of course, doesn't give evidence, but since I was a bit
20 confused about what I was supposed to understand from this evidence that
21 I asked him, that's perhaps not very common. But, at the same time,
22 you'll understand that the Chamber, if it feels that it might lose track,
23 that it tries to get itself on track again, whether or not we agree in
24 every respect with what Mr. Bakrac said.
25 MR. WEBER: I understand that that's what the Trial Chamber was
1 doing. I just wanted to correct the representation of Mr. Theunens's
2 evidence on page 66, line 13. I believe Mr. Theunens did testify during
3 cross-examination last week that the groups originated from Serbia
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac. Arms group comes from Croatia and they
6 committed crimes there, milled about Serbia. Is that --
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it must have been my
8 mistake. I wanted to say that they were coming back from Croatia
9 did not word it properly. They were returning from Croatia and Bosnia
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear to me.
11 We will have a break and resume at 6.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Theunens, did you have an opportunity to look at what we've
18 discussed over the break?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Can you refer to what I've asked to you look at over the break so
21 as not to repeat everything I've said.
22 A. Yes, I can. First question was to provide examples of the
23 security administration of the SFRY armed forces informing the MUP of
25 The other documents - and I refer specifically to information
1 reports by security organs of the 1st Military District, which are sent
2 to the SSNO -- excuse me, to the security administration at the SSNO - do
3 not allow to conclude what the security administration at the SSNO did
4 with these documents, and, I mean, these documents can be found in
5 part 2, pages 88 to 96.
6 And if I remember well, you also asked me about documents
7 indicating knowledge of the MUP Serbia of --
8 Q. Mr. Theunens, my apologies for interrupting you, but I just would
9 like to follow up on something you said.
10 From what I understand, you found only one document which
11 indicates that the security administration informed the MUP of some
12 events. If my understanding is correct, the other documents went to the
13 SSNO security administration, but there is no further evidence indicating
14 that they reached MUP. Is that right?
15 A. Indeed. And just to clarify, there would be no reason for these
16 documents of the first -- excuse me, of the security organ of the
17 1st Military District to be sent directly to the MUP. The normal chain
18 would be security organs of the 1st Military District to the security
19 administration at the SSNO, and then the security administration at the
20 SSNO would be in charge of informing the MUP.
21 Q. However, we have no evidence whatsoever that this was indeed what
22 the SSNO administration did, i.e., inform the MUP about all these events;
23 is that right?
24 A. Well, I have only been able to identify one document. Of course,
25 we can assume that there are more documents but I understand your
1 question in that regard. There's only one document I could identify that
2 was available to the OTP.
3 Q. Mr. Theunens, let us focus on this sole document.
4 Save for conveying information, did you see any sort of evidence
5 being attached to the document or any other supporting documentation
6 corroborating the fact that the MUP -- or, rather, supplementing the
7 information in order to enable the MUP to react, or is it merely a report
8 on some events?
9 A. I mean, we discussed P1060 during cross-examination by
10 Mr. Jordash, and it shows a number of comments the Ministry of Interior
11 provides to the document; for example, reminding the military security
12 administration of the military justice procedure in relation to alleged
13 perpetrators who belonged to the military.
14 And there's also information on other people. I mean, we would
15 have to look at the document again.
16 Q. Yes. This is my next question, Mr. Theunens: Did the security
17 administration fulfil its duty by simply informing the MUP? Did the
18 security administration through its own organs, i.e., military police,
19 and through the security organs, take measures in its area of
20 responsibility in respect of the crimes that it was allegedly given
21 notice of?
22 A. In the absence of specific documents, I cannot draw a
23 conclusion -- or I cannot provide an answer to that question.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. And now for the second part. I
25 interrupted you giving me the answer.
1 A. Okay. Your Honours, I understand that the question was to
2 identify documents that show that the MUP of Republic of Serbia had
3 knowledge of or provided support to Arkan. When I say "had knowledge
4 of," it means activities, including illegal activities, conducted by
5 Arkan, or Zeljko Raznjatovic. This is covered in part 1, pages 101 to
6 108. And for what alleged crimes is concerned, in part 2, pages 78
7 to 96.
8 If you want, can I read out the P numbers, but ... yeah -- I can
9 also refer you to the sections in my report.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, give me a moment,
12 Q. Mr. Theunens, my question was: What was the evidence indicating
13 that volunteer units were being prevented from going through training
14 or -- or milling about in uniform and with weapons, what was the evidence
15 indicating that they were prevented from doing so only from 1993 onwards?
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... perhaps I give
17 you the details of the source. Part of your evidence was that you said
18 that somebody like Seselj, for example, relied on the - call it tacit -
19 authorisation of the Serbian authorities. And his relationship with
20 Slobodan Milosevic is good relation with Slobodan Milosevic, in order to
21 organise and so on -- the -- his groups, and that only when there was a
22 political fallout between November -- between the two in November 1993,
23 that legal steps were put against this volunteers.
24 That was, I think, one part of your -- the second being that you
25 said -- was about your testimony, I think, in the Seselj case, where it
1 was put to you that you said:
2 "This is not dealt with in my report, but I remember that it's
3 only after a political conflict arises between Mr. Seselj and
4 Mr. Milosevic, sometime in October -- November 1993, that the competent
5 authorities in Serbia
6 all arrested, or most of them are arrested, on the grounds of illegal
7 possession of fire-arms and they're released quite soon."
8 Mr. Bakrac -- that was the evidence you gave, and Mr. Bakrac is
9 looking for the sources that it was only in or after November 1993 that
10 such action was taken and not any earlier.
11 Mr. Bakrac, that was your question. And I've given you now,
12 literally, the portions of your testimony.
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I apologise, but I was confused by
14 the reference to -- by Mr. Bakrac to Serbian Volunteer Guard, and I
15 thought -- when he was formulating his question.
16 As I mentioned earlier today, I have not -- I don't think I have
17 included any document in my report -- this report here, showing that SRS
18 volunteers were arrested in the course of -- or after November 1993.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, the question was on what documentary basis --
20 it's clear that you indicated on from November 1993 that arrests took
21 place, as you described.
22 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But on what basis you concluded that a similar thing
24 did not happen before.
25 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours.
1 Well, when you look at parts 2 and part 3 of the report, you see
2 that SRS SCP volunteers participate in a number of -- in the -- sorry, in
3 the conflict in a number of areas of Croatia in 1991.
4 I have discussed Sector West and -- excuse me, Western Slavonia;
5 Western Slavonia
6 noticed that sometimes the same SRS volunteers or other SRS volunteers
7 also participate in a number of takeover operations in northern
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina that are conducted in spring 1992. I conclude from
9 that that the Serbian authorities, including the Ministry of Interior of
10 Republic of Serbia
12 The reference to November 1993 then is based on the fact that
13 only documents I have seen here at the OTP that mention arrests of SRS
14 volunteers date from November 1993 or afterwards. There are a number of
15 documents, but, again, I haven't discussed that here, but there is --
16 attempts are made, I believe, in the course of 1994 to put a number -- I
17 think two members of the Yellow Wasps on trial in Serbia, but that trial
18 is repeatedly delayed, and I don't recall from the top of my head if
19 there's ever an outcome.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Bakrac did
21 put this question to you in the following context, without elaborating on
23 He referred to the -- to testimony which indicated that persons
24 could not bring arms with them in a bus when going to a training centre
25 because they feared that the MUP would intervene, which, as I understand
1 Mr. Bakrac well, suggests that the MUP already, at that time, in 1991,
2 did not leave such groups, or whatever you want to call them, didn't
3 leave them -- well, acted against them, or at least that they thought
4 that action might be taken against them if they would travel with weapons
5 in their possession.
6 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours, and I will basically
7 repeat what I said earlier. That, indeed - and, again, this is based on
8 documents I reviewed - that initially -- and there is a document, P1051,
9 from 25th of July, 1991; it's a public statement of the minister of
10 defence of the Republic of Serbia
11 of SRS volunteers indicating that initially the Serbian authorities are
12 opposed to the establishment of these groups; I mean, party-affiliated
13 volunteer groups. However, over time, and I would say at the latest by
14 fall 1991, these groups are authorised to exist, to organise themselves,
15 to train. And we discussed the existence of the training centre in
16 Prigrevica, whereby Prigrevica - I looked on the map during the break -
17 is located in Vojvodina.
18 The documents I have seen -- I mean, several documents indicate
19 that there was indeed a training centre which was used by the SRS. I
20 have not seen a document that indicates that the Serbian MUP prevented
21 that training centre from operating, at least not in 1991. And I don't
22 remember for 1992.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So let me try to understand, then, to perhaps
24 summarize your answer.
25 You say, in the very beginning there was some opposition or
1 action taken against them, then there was a period in which they were
2 left alone more or less and were condoned in their activities, and then
3 after a clash between Mr. Seselj and Mr. Milosevic in November 1993 they
4 started arresting, but after that, again, from what I understand, they
5 were further condoned and there was an understanding of the usefulness of
6 the existence of them. Is that ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. And, I mean,
8 this applies to the SRS volunteers. And we also have to note that
9 after -- I mean, in November 1993 there is very limited indication that
10 SRS volunteers are still active in Croatia because conflict is finished.
11 I mean, there is also a cease-fire or a cessation of hostilities in end
12 of 1991. We know that in January 1993 efforts are undertaken by the SRS
13 to send volunteers to Sector South because the Croatian armed forces have
14 conducted an attack in the pink zone in Maslenica. But during -- at that
15 time there are only SRS volunteers in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and there is
16 much less information on any -- for example, travel of these people or
17 armed travel of these people to Serbia
18 volunteers in the Republic of Serbia
19 So the requirement for action of the minister of interior of the
20 Republic of Serbia
21 investigation of alleged crimes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you received answers to your questions?
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. With your leave,
24 I'd try to have a couple of points clarified further.
25 Q. You said a moment ago that you thought that the MUP of Serbia
1 condoned these groups in their organising as military groups and getting
2 training at various training centres.
3 Based on what evidence do you claim that the MUP was aware of,
4 say, the volunteer training centre in Vojvodina, which was an abandoned
5 farming estate, which would lead you to draw the conclusion that the MUP
6 of Serbia
7 A. The prolonged existence of the training centre shows that no
8 action was undertaken to close it. I haven't seen a document that shows
9 that it was closed upon an action of the Ministry of Interior of the
10 Republic of Serbia
11 non-government-controlled armed groups, it would be a violation of
12 Article 118 of the Law on Defence, but that's just one aspect --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just stop you here.
14 The first question of Mr. Bakrac is awareness. I mean, if
15 something exists for a long time, of course, it's not closed. But the
16 first question was whether there was any awareness. Because if there's
17 no awareness, it might be difficult to close something. That would be
18 the first part of the question.
19 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours. I have not seen -- I
20 mean, I don't remember seeing a document that the MUP of Serbia was aware
21 of the existence of the Prigrevica training centre at the time it
22 existed. There is a lot of -- there are a lot of SRS publications on the
23 training centre, but I would have to check from which time-period they
25 Now, on the other hand, I would assume that it's -- since the MUP
1 is tasked to ensure, among others, law and order and -- and preserve
2 state security, that they wouldn't just wait till they are -- till they
3 explicitly received the information but would also actively gather
4 information on -- not just on such groups, but also the activities and
5 the training centre, the centres they may use.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was part of the question. At the farm at
7 a far distance the suggestion was clearly by Mr. Bakrac that it might
8 have remained unnoticed due to the location of the training centre.
9 Is that something which sounds reasonable to you? Is there
10 anything you would like to comment on? Because you say they would not
11 wait for information. But if it's far away and if they don't -- if in
12 the normal acquiring of information you might miss that information,
13 then, of course, it doesn't come as a surprise.
14 THE WITNESS: I cannot provide a direct answer because I haven't
15 seen the facility; but among the documents I have received from the
16 Defence, there are reports that, for example, organs of the state
17 security are monitoring Arkans bakery in Belgrade. And, of course,
18 that's a very visible building, and somebody -- if -- I would think
19 that -- and, again, it's maybe speculation, but looking at --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's refrain from speculation.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Let's finish this off. You said the long existence of the
25 centre, do you have any specific data? I mean, the starting and the
1 closing date of the centre?
2 A. I don't have the specific dates, but I've seen documents
3 referring to -- I mean, dated 1991 and 1992 that indicate the existence
4 of the training centre during those time-periods. But I cannot give a
5 precise opening nor closing date.
6 But if you want, I can --
7 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 A. If you want, I can --
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. I have an electronic version of my Seselj report, if that can
11 assist the Trial Chamber. And I can do -- conduct searchs there.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if you -- perhaps do that this evening.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you're able to do it without too many efforts.
15 So if we can get an answer to that question, it would be appreciated.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Theunens, there's an another issue you mentioned that I'd
19 like to clarify with you.
20 You said that the volunteers fought in Slavonia and Bosnia
21 the Serbian MUP have powers to arrest them in these areas?
22 A. I understand you're asking about the SRS volunteers.
23 Q. Yes. That's what you were discussing.
24 A. Yes. No, but as I mentioned earlier during my testimony, these
25 volunteers were transiting through Serbia
2 Q. Do you know, and can you tell us with certainty, that these
3 volunteers passed across Serbia
4 on their way to Croatia
5 to tell us that?
6 A. I don't remember specific documents. I mean, another facility,
7 for example, was the -- the camp in Bubanj Potok which is in Belgrade
8 It used to be --
9 Q. We will -- I apologise. I put a very specific question to you.
10 We will come back to the Bubanj Potok camp later on, and we will be
11 discussing legal and illegal camps and we will see who that camp was run
13 The question was specific: Do you have a single piece of
14 evidence that volunteers - and we are discussing the Serbian Radical
15 Party volunteers at the moment - on their way to Bosnia-Herzegovina and
17 as a group?
18 A. I mean, this is again -- I mean, it's a pity that I don't have my
19 Seselj report here, but there is an aspect that I have covered in that
20 report in an sense that I remember that certain volunteers received
21 weapons permits, to travel with weapons. But I would have to check
22 whether this was in the Republic of Serbia
23 authorities in Croatia
24 And I also have a recollection that -- that in Bubanj Potok there
25 were -- I mean, volunteers received weapons. Now, I cannot confirm how
1 these -- whether they then subsequently travelled with their weapons.
2 But I will check my Seselj report for that.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Theunens. Let's move on.
4 I asked you about the area of responsibility, which is an issue
5 that is related to what we just discussed.
6 Let's look at P1390, which is a document you gave your comments
7 on during the examination by my learned friend Mr. Weber. Specifically
8 page 2 in both versions. There's item 5.K, which I suppose is the
9 5th Corps. So it's the area of the 2nd Military District, and it's the
10 10th of April, 1992, operational combat report.
11 Do you recall discussing this document with the Prosecutor?
12 A. I believe we discussed this document when we were looking at the
13 situation in Zvornik at the time. Yeah, I have a reference to it on
14 page 60 of part 3 of the report.
15 Q. Mr. Theunens, look at the first line under 5th corps. The focus
16 of the work of the corps command was on the firm grip of the front lines,
17 control over the territory both along the length of the front line and in
18 the depth. The situation in the area of the corps is becoming
19 increasingly complex and it's especially difficult in the area of Jajce
20 and is getting ever more serious in the area of Prijedor and Sanski Most.
21 So can we conclude on the basis of this that the 5th Corps of the
22 Army of Yugoslav, i.e., the 2nd Military District, controlled both the
23 length of the front line and its depth. In other words, the entire area
24 of responsibility that it had. And does it follow from this document
25 that it was its duty to do so?
1 A. Yeah. But okay the document does not indicate the -- the zone of
2 responsibility, but it states, as you state, as you mentioned, they're
3 holing the front line, and there's also -- they're also conducting
4 territory control in the rear.
5 Q. So if it says "control over the territory and the rear," they had
6 the responsibility for the situation in that particular territory; is
7 that right?
8 A. We would have to see at the -- again, the situation there. Are
9 there still functioning or are there functioning civilian authorities,
10 and what has been established in relation to the the links or the
11 relations between these civilian authorities and the 5th Corps?
12 Q. So we're talking about the 10th of April, 1992, aren't we?
13 Now look at the 9th Corps. The corps units were engaged in
14 holding the front line and carrying out operations in the area of Kupres,
15 taking in soldiers from the 3rd Military District, and manning the JTO,
16 the Territorial Defence unit, and the units of the Serb Krajina.
17 So will you agree with me that the 9th Corps, here, has the
18 powers to man the Territorial Defence unit and the units of the police,
19 the milicija, of the Republic of the Serb Krajina?
20 A. I mean, these powers - if you can -- if one would use the word
21 powers there - these are part of the mission the 9th Corps has received
22 from the SFRY -- SFRY armed forces Supreme Command, i.e., a political
24 Q. Mr. Theunens, sorry --
25 A. Sorry, I need to correct. The Supreme -- I mean, the SFRY
1 forces' Supreme Command issues political instructions to the
2 Supreme Command Staff, and the Supreme Command Staff translates these
3 political instructions into military orders which are then passed
4 downwards through the chain of command, which would be, in this case,
5 from the Supreme Command Staff, to the 2nd Military District, to the
6 9th Corps. And I'm sorry for the confusion.
7 Q. Thank you. Mr. Theunens, could you now have a look at the
8 17th Corps. That was the corps that was responsible for Bosanski Samac;
10 A. Indeed.
11 Q. It says here the corps units are at full combat readiness and
12 they're engaged in preparing mobilised units, securing the traffic on the
13 main roads, and monitoring the situation at crisis points in the area of
15 So this 17th Corps, on the 10th of April - and later on we're
16 going to get to the topic of Bosanski Samac as well - is reporting that
17 they are basically engaged on preparing the mobilised units, securing
18 conditions for traffic on the main roads, and monitoring the situation at
19 crisis points in the area of their responsibility.
20 Do you agree that that was -- that was a comprehensive monitoring
21 of the situation, the responsibility of the 17th Corps for the situation
22 in the area, even taking care of traffic and roads so that passengers and
23 volunteers could move about, and so on?
24 A. I don't really understand your question. Because are you
25 suggesting that the 17th Corps is the only organisation that is able to
1 conduct these missions, or what -- I don't understand the question.
2 Q. Mr. Theunens, I accept that perhaps I am somewhat confused and
3 that I did not put the question properly. I'll try to rephase.
4 So look at the end of the sentence: Monitoring the situation at
5 crisis points in the zone of responsibility.
6 And before that we see all the things that the 17th Corps is
7 doing. Do you agree with me that the 17th Corps was responsible for the
8 situation in the zone of its responsibility? That includes Bosanski
9 Samac as well.
10 A. Yeah, the question could be asked which --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, what exactly are you asking? Are you
12 asking on the basis of this document? This document describes what
13 activities were deployed by -- in this case, the 17th Corps.
14 Well, are you relying on Mr. Theunens's knowledge from other
15 sources, or are you relying on his interpretation of this document?
16 For example, if you say "securing the traffic on the main roads,"
17 it could mean everything. You translate that into civilians being --
18 what could also be civilians not to be allowed on the roads. I mean, it
19 could be anything. At least on the basis of the text we see here, you
20 are giving your own interpretation.
21 Now, fine, no problem. If Mr. Theunens shares that
22 interpretation, then he will tell us. But what I'm interested to know
23 whether you're just interpreting a text or whether you're asking
24 Mr. Theunens, while interpreting this text, to rely on other information
25 he may have. That's my concern about your question at this moment.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did understand. And
2 I'm going to try to do away with any possible dilemmas.
3 I had ask Mr. Theunens earlier on what an area of responsibility
4 is from the point of view of military doctrine. Now I'm asking him the
5 following. We know that a state of imminent threat of war was declared
6 in 1991; that's the document dated the 10th of April, 1992. So now I'm
7 asking whether the 17th Corps had authority and whether they had the
8 responsibility and duty to control the territory in its zone and to
9 arrest possible perpetrators of crimes.
10 A. This document does not allow to draw any conclusions on that,
11 because --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's, first.
13 Mr. Bakrac, are you asking Mr. Theunens to rely on this document
14 to draw conclusions from that, or are you asking him to combine what is
15 found in this report with other evidence he has?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I would like
17 Mr. Theunens to tell me from a doctrinary point of view to answer my
18 question, the one that I had already put: namely, in this situation - and
19 we see from this report what it is the 17th Corps is doing - whether the
20 17th Corps has the right and responsibility within its area of
21 responsibility, according to the rules of the military profession, to
22 exercise control over the territory and arrest perpetrators of crimes or
23 investigate crimes that are committed.
24 THE WITNESS: I mean, I will try my best. But the wording is so
25 general, because what kind of crimes? What kind of perpetrators? Is it
1 the traffic violation, is it a war crime?
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Theunens, I'll try to be more specific.
4 If, in the month of April 1992, some person that was subordinated
5 to the command of the 17th Corps had committed a war crime or murder, for
6 example in Sakvina [phoen] for instance. The security organ, the
7 military police, are they responsible to investigate it, arrest the
8 perpetrators, and conduct criminal proceedings against them? Also, if
9 they are subordinated to that command.
10 A. That is a totally different question, because, as we discussed
11 over the previous days, in any event, I mean, and this applies to
12 all members of -- all officers of the JNA, and I refer again to
13 Article 36 of the 1988 regulations on the implementation --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Theunens, sorry to interrupt you.
15 Let's try to see whether we can deal with it in a rather quick
17 17th Corps in the place where it is deployed, if a soldier
18 subordinated to that corps command commits a war crime, would it fall
19 within the scope of the competence of the military police to investigate,
20 arrest, et cetera, that person?
21 Let me first see. Mr. Weber, would you ... is that a contested
22 issue at all? Not.
23 THE WITNESS: I understand --
24 JUDGE ORIE: We have two parties agreeing and an expert agreeing
25 on the matter.
1 Let's move on with the next question. Because in your earlier
2 questions, Mr. Bakrac - and that was confusing Mr. Theunens - you did not
3 specify at all. And it was only in the last version of your question
4 that you talked about someone who was subordinated and you talked about a
5 war crime. So that seems to be not in dispute.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Could we now have in e-court 65 ter number 2793, Prosecution
10 So we're going to go back to something that we have already
11 discussed in part, Mr. Theunens. This is another Prosecution document,
12 and I would be interested in the following: When writing up your report,
13 did you have an opportunity of seeing it?
14 A. I may have seen the document.
15 Q. Mr. Theunens, this is one example. And there's another one too.
16 And then we are going to complete a subject that we had already raised.
17 We see here that there is a stamp as well: "Association of
18 veterans from the municipality of Arandjelovac
19 registered as a citizens' association because they have a stamp of their
20 own. And they are confirming that Captain Zoran Baltic from Arandjelovac
21 and Captain Dimce Mijantovic of Zenjanin [phoen] are volunteers, members
22 of the Army of Republika Srpska, Military Post 7202, Red Berets special
23 purpose unit. And that the above-mentioned persons are travelling on
24 business for the purpose of visiting the wounded and collecting
25 humanitarian aid for Republika Srpska.
1 So -- actually, first of all, these are members of the Army of
2 Republika Srpska, the Red Berets that originally come from the territory
3 of Serbia
4 travelling in order to collect humanitarian aid.
5 Does the MUP of Serbia have any reason to arrest such persons?
6 A. It depends what they do in the Republic of Serbia
7 Q. [No interpretation]
8 A. Or if the MUP has received any information from --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's all speculation. Do you want the
10 witness to answer this question on the basis of this document? Because
11 then the question is very simple: Whether persons serving as volunteers
12 which are qualified as members of the Army of the Republika Srpska
13 Red Berets special purpose units, that if they're travelling in order to
14 visit the wounded and to collect humanitarian aid for the
15 Republika Srpska, whether there's any reason in that to arrest them?
16 THE WITNESS: On the face of this document, there is no reason to
17 arrest them.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want to ask the same question in relation to
19 other knowledge Mr. Theunens may have or may not have?
20 Do you have any knowledge which would shed further light on this
21 specific situation, Mr. Theunens?
22 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- was this, by the way, any matter in dispute?
24 Mr. Weber, I'm looking at you.
25 The question as I phrased it.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, there is some facts in there that would
2 be partially disputed. I just would note. And I don't want to offer too
3 much information in front of this witness --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I'm not asking whether you
5 dispute the facts. I'm was asking whether the question, as based on this
6 document, assuming - not establishing, assuming - that this is the whole
7 of the story, whether there would be any reason to arrest the man?
8 MR. WEBER: No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Could we now have, in relation to this, 65 ter number 4830. It's
12 a Prosecution number.
13 Q. Mr. Theunens, this is an Official Note. It's from the
14 Prosecution collection. Please have a look at it and tell me whether
15 you've seen it before, when you were preparing to write your report and
16 to testify here.
17 A. Your Honours, there's a name in the document that looks familiar,
18 but I don't remember whether I saw the document.
19 Q. Mr. Theunens, the centre of the State Security Service in
21 that month of November that you had referred to, is following extremism.
22 And an employee of the State Security Service, a certain S. Jankovic -
23 and you're going to see that in the paragraph that starts with the
24 following words:
25 "Through the 1990 war veterans association" - it's a document
1 similar to the one that we have seen - "the members of this paramilitary
2 formation are sent to the front line in the Republic of the Serb Krajina
3 under the command of Lieutenant Slobodan Ristic, a former waiter at the
4 JNA centre in Subotica
5 Yugoslav Army security organ, through the Subotica garrison chief of
6 military security, Koca Milenkovic, Ristic managed to obtain weapons and
7 equipment for around ten members of the SRS, transfer the weapons and
8 ammunition to Belgrade
9 So is it correct that the State Security Service is monitoring
10 the situation and providing information to the effect that under the
11 auspices of the security organs of the Army of Yugoslavia such things are
12 being done?
13 A. Yes, that is what the document states.
14 Q. On the other hand, we saw that the security administration is
15 purportedly giving some useful information to the MUP and is shifting
16 responsibility for things that had been committed to the MUP; right?
17 A. I don't --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Again, this document, or any other source of
19 knowledge? Because the document says that the information is passed on;
20 and, as far as I've seen, nothing has been said on who now has the
21 responsible to do what.
22 Could you please clearly phrase your question, Mr. Bakrac.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I withdraw the
24 question. What Mr. Theunens has already told me is sufficient. I do
25 apologise. I am truly going into an area of speculation. And in order
1 to avoid that, I withdraw the question, with your leave.
2 THE WITNESS: In my previous answer, I just confirmed what the
3 document states.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can -- if we're talking about the document,
5 the document reports on what apparently -- what kind of activity was
6 developed and -- yes, it's -- it says what it says.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. We had been dealing with Arkan before the break. We'll go back
10 to that.
11 Could I now have P367, please. Lest there be any confusion,
12 because the document that I have already shown speaks of cooperation. So
13 can I have P367.
14 It has two pages. Could the witness please have a look at the
15 first page and then the second page?
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the document
17 should not be shown to the public, being under seal.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, I wasn't
20 paying attention. P367, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I do not fully
22 remember why it was under seal. Could you please keep that in mind
23 when -- in order to consider requesting going into private session.
24 Again, I do not know.
25 Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: It was in relation to a 92 quater matter.
2 JUDGE ORIE: 92 quater matter. May I take it that there's no --
3 is there any need, in view of the content of the document, to ...
4 MR. WEBER: No, it's fine. It's fine to be shown.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's fine. Okay.
6 Please proceed. You can ask the questions in open session,
7 Mr. Bakrac.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Theunens, could you please be so kind as to look at this
10 diagram. All the participants on the first page and on the second page,
11 this document speaks of joint operations. And then you will tell me
12 whether we can conclude, on the basis of this document, that
13 Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was under the command of the
14 51st Mechanized Brigade in this operation, or, rather, under the command
15 of Enes Taso, 51st Mechanised Brigade.
16 Once you've had a look at it, could you please give us a sign so
17 that we can display page 2 for you as well?
18 A. I've seen page 1 and it doesn't mention Arkan, because it shows
19 the peacetime structure of the 51st Mechanized Brigade.
20 Q. Precisely, yes. Yes.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And could I now please have page 2.
22 Q. That's exactly what I wanted to clarify, whether they were
23 subordinated ...
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, the third page.
25 I do apologise. My mistake. I'm sorry, I am tired.
1 THE WITNESS: I should maybe ask about the source of the
2 document, but I --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- again, let's --
4 Mr. Bakrac, what do you want Mr. Theunens to tell us? To
5 interpret this document on the basis of what the document says, or do you
6 want him to interpret that document on the basis of not only the content
7 of this document but also on other knowledge he may or may not have?
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my original idea was,
9 basically, not to show this document, because Mr. Theunens himself had
10 said that they had been subordinated in combat operations. However,
11 because of that other document, there was this lack of clarity.
12 My response to your question is that I would like Mr. Theunens,
13 if possible, both on the basis of this document and on the basis of the
14 other document, to confirm whether Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was under
15 the command of the Army of Yugoslavia in combat operations. The JNA,
17 THE WITNESS: I know -- Your Honours, I know the source of this
18 document, but maybe we should go in closed session because I just want to
19 make sure.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We move into -- private session will do.
21 THE WITNESS: Private, I'm ...
22 [Private session]
11 Page 8569 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 The transcript is bit unclear as to when the Chamber expects the
20 reply to the response to the 18th motion to amend the 65 ter list. Where
21 the transcript may say 15th of November, I think I said the
22 5th of November. That is, this Friday. I hope that that's clear and was
23 clear already.
24 Then the second issue, we've heard that both Defence teams do not
25 oppose against Prosecution replying to the Defence response to the first
1 bar table motion, and we'd like to receive your reply by the
2 10th of November.
3 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, if there's nothing else, we adjourn for the
5 day. And we resume tomorrow, the 2nd of November, 2010, at 9.00 in the
6 morning, in Courtroom II.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.07 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 2nd day of
10 November, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.