1 Tuesday, 14 December, 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is the case IT-03-69-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber received a message that both Defence teams had
12 preliminaries to be raised.
13 Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, that's correct. The first thing is a
15 Stanisic-alone issue which relates -- perhaps we could, with Your
16 Honour's leave, go into private session.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 10314 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
5 Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: The next issue is a joint issue and it's an
7 application to adjourn the cross-examination of the next witness on the
8 basis of firstly late disclosure of statements which we -- a statement
9 which we submit ought to have been disclosed pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii).
10 JUDGE ORIE: And that statement being?
11 MR. JORDASH: A interview that the witness had with the Canadian
12 police dated the 2nd and 3rd of June, 2004. And that interview consists
13 of two parts, one dated the 2nd of June, 2004, and the second part dated
14 the 3rd of June, 2004. We were disclosed those statements yesterday.
15 However, the 3rd of June, 2004 interview appears incomplete and has a
16 large portion of it only in B/C/S. We would like a greater opportunity
17 to read that interview and we would also like an interview to have the
18 remainder of the interview translated.
19 The second part of the application rests on the non-possession of
20 this witness's testimony in the Belgrade
21 witness testified in the case of former Skorpion member Sasa Cvetan.
22 This interview came to light -- sorry, this testimony came to the
23 attention of the Defence when we were going through the voluminous
24 disclosure relating to this witness, and this witness spoke about that
25 testimony, and importantly claimed to have lied in that testimony due to
1 pressure or threats or attempts to persuade him to lie by former members
2 of the Skorpions. Thereafter, the witness claims to have told the truth
3 in subsequent proceedings in Belgrade
4 The application, therefore, is to hear the direct examination and
5 then be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the late disclosure,
6 and we do submit there was a disclosure violation. The interview of the
7 2nd and 3rd of June, 2004, we submit, falls squarely within Rule 66 and
8 ought to have been disclosed promptly. And we would like the opportunity
9 from the English speaking team or largely English speaking team, we would
10 like the opportunity to read that interview in English.
11 But in our submission, perhaps the strongest part of the
12 application is the second part, and we submit that it is absolutely
13 essential to see what this witness admits to have lied about in his
14 testimony in November of 2003 to be able to examine those lies and
15 presumably the witness will claim some truths in light of the disclosure
16 which followed.
17 For Your Honours' information, we in the Stanisic Defence will
18 advance the case that this witness continues to lie, in particular in
19 connecting the DB in the way he does to the Skorpion group and also in
20 relation to what the witness attempts to do in connecting the DB to other
21 military groups. And so there is going to be a full confrontation where
22 we allege the witness is fabricating evidence for whatever motive or
23 whatever personal motive he might have.
24 And we submit the witness -- a witness of this kind when put
25 forward by the Prosecution ought to be put forward as a witness of truth
1 with the Prosecution providing the full totality of what the witness has
2 said on the subject, and with the Prosecution making it clear what their
3 position is in relation to that evidence, whether they seek to rely upon
4 parts of that evidence, or whether they, in fact, perhaps take the same
5 view as the witness that some of it is reliable and some of it isn't.
6 But in any event, the position we are in today in our submission
7 is that that analysis, whether by the Prosecution cannot take place, in
8 our submission it cannot take place to allow the Defence a proper
9 opportunity to prepare, and it certainly, in our submission, cannot take
10 place in relation to Your Honours' view or assessment of this witness
11 until Your Honours also have the full picture.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, under the present circumstances, I will
13 not raise at this very moment the issue of making submissions on the
14 delaying the proceedings because one of the conditions was that the
15 parties would commit themselves to finishing this witness this week. So
16 that is now a bit of a shaky condition, I would say, so therefore, let's
17 first look at this matter. But before doing so, I'm looking at the
18 Simatovic Defence, is the Simatovic Defence, does it share the position?
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our position is fully
20 identical to that of my learned friend Mr. Jordash. We received the
21 disclosure yesterday after the housekeeping session, so after 7.00 p.m.
22 on a tape. And let me just add, Your Honour, I know that court time is
23 precious and that there's a danger of us losing two of those days,
24 however, there are some, I think, eight or nine witnesses of the
25 Prosecution left. Now, I didn't have time to go through the statement
1 which has 140 pages with my client and discuss it, and my client is
2 entitled to adequate defence and a fair trial. Please bear this in mind.
3 Given the circumstances and the coming winter recess, there's
4 simply no time to read the statement with the accused. Thank you, Your
5 Honour, I don't want to take up any more time. For the rest, I subscribe
6 to what Mr. Jordash said.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome. Two disclosure issues, the first
8 apparently a Canadian interview 2004, the other one is, if I understand
9 well, testimony in the Belgrade
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, let me begin by addressing the Canadian
11 statement. I recognise that it is something that should have been
12 disclosed under 66(A)(ii). It was something that fell through the
13 computer search cracks. It was not turned up in computer searches of our
14 evidence collection. My efforts to investigate why that was indicates
15 that it was handed by a judge in Belgrade to the head of our Belgrade
16 field office and then was treated confidentially and wasn't treated in
17 the normal way evidence would be treated. That was discovered yesterday
18 in response to trying to answer a specific query by the Defence and it
19 was disclosed yesterday.
20 With respect to Mr. Jordash's concern that he does not have the
21 entire interview, I've had Mr. Weber study the problem and he has just
22 informed me by e-mail that the entire English interview is here but that
23 when it was scanned in B/C/S it seems that some of the pages seem to have
24 been shuffled. So although all the B/C/S translation is there, the
25 numbering is a little bit out of order. We are trying to verify now that
1 all of that material is contained in the report.
2 With respect to the Belgrade
3 trial, I don't know that we even today have possession of what
4 Mr. Jordash is requesting. He seems to be suggesting that we have an
5 obligation to go and get the testimony that this witness gave in a
6 proceeding before another court. I'm not sure that's the jurisprudence
7 of the Tribunal. I would note, I've been informed by Mr. Jordash that it
8 was something that was said in the Seselj case that indicated that the
9 existence of this material, and the transcript of the Seselj case was
10 disclosed on the 15th of September, 2008, so the Defence have also had
11 notice of this document existing in the Belgrade court for quite some
12 time, over two years.
13 I would suggest, Your Honour, the following: I've read the
14 Canadian statement. I don't see that there's anything new or
15 substantially different. It deals with materials unrelated to this case,
16 but there is a significant portion that does deal with issues related to
17 this case. I would ask if -- that the Defence counsel be asked to
18 address the Chamber on what the prejudice is. I'm not sure there's
19 anything new in this document. But I do recognise that it should have
20 been disclosed and I apologise to Court and my colleagues on the Defence
21 that it wasn't.
22 With respect to the Belgrade
23 do have it. I have someone who speaks the language. We cannot find it
24 on our system. There is a file that we find on our system that says
1 very large volume of material. I have somebody at this very moment
2 looking through that material to see if within that material is contained
3 the statement or the testimony of this witness.
4 If that testimony is in that file, then I would recognise that it
5 was disclosable under 66(A)(ii). If it's not found in that file, then my
6 submission would be that Mr. Jordash was under the -- had the same notice
7 and had the same capacity and same time-period, two years, with which to
8 secure that evidence if that's something that he thought that he needed
9 before he could cross-examine this witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: I think -- I'm not sure we -- let me start again.
12 I'm not sure that looking at the Canadian interview Mr. Weber has got it
13 right on this occasion. It is a jumbled collection of testimony, that's
14 for sure. And that supports our application in that being handed it last
15 night at 7.00 or thereabouts and having to be forced to go through it at
16 6.00 in the morning at speed whilst trying to do last-minute preparation
17 as well, is far, far, far from ideal, and I certainly do not feel
18 confident that I've managed to look at that interview and properly
19 assimilate it. I certainly have not had the opportunity to discuss it
20 with my client, the most -- obviously the most important person in this
22 In relation to the Belgrade
23 position is somewhat unfair. This is a witness who the Prosecution have
24 spoken to on many, many, many occasions. There are at least just from
25 the top of my head eight or nine different occasions when the Prosecution
1 must have spoken to him. Three trials, various statements, more
2 statements than for any witness in this trial so far. And in our
3 submission it's hard to understand how given that volume of interviewing,
4 given the issues that have arisen during that -- those interviews
5 concerning the witness's protective measures, given the witness's
6 assertions through these statements about lying in the Belgrade court,
7 it's somewhat surprising that the Prosecution have not had possession of
8 that testimony. In our submission it's likely that they do, it's likely
9 it's there somewhere, and it's likely that it will turn up.
10 In our submission whether that's correct or not, whether the
11 Prosecution, it turns out, do not have it, whether the Defence ought to
12 have approached the Belgrade
13 is a Prosecution witness put forward to give extremely contentious
14 evidence, and in our submission to be asked to cross-examine without what
15 might turn out to be the principal testimony which allows proper
16 impeachment, in our submission would be an exercise in futility. To be
17 asked to cross-examine the witness without the very testimony which the
18 witness now resiles from, in our submission, would be to cross-examine
19 him with our hands behind our back.
20 In our submission, a witness such as this ought to be approached
21 with substantial caution as befits the reliance that the Prosecution want
22 the Chamber to place upon his testimony, and that caution, in our
23 submission, involves adjourning his cross-examination to allow all of his
24 testimony to be in front of the Chamber and in the hands of the parties.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
1 Any need to further responds, Mr. Groome, or has everything been
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only thing I would add, Your
4 Honours, I'm not sure it has to be all or nothing. I don't see why we
5 couldn't proceed and go as far as we can with the cross-examination, and
6 I certainly would not oppose if Mr. Jordash or Mr. Bakrac made the
7 request that the witness be recalled, I certainly would not oppose it
8 based upon attainment of new material whether it's my fault or not.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash, I take it that from your previous
10 submission that that is exactly what you want to avoid to happen?
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then I understood you well. Now, as far as the
13 Canadian statement is concerned, of course the Chamber could not look at
14 the Belgrade
15 have it. Whatever is available of course we would like to know so in
16 order to consider your application.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Perhaps what I could also do is
18 to find the -- at least some of the references to the testimony in the
19 statements that you do have, so Your Honours can see how the issue was
20 dealt with by this particular witness.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have not paid specific attention to it in
22 this context as a matter of fact. Then another matter, Mr. Groome,
23 perhaps you could help me because you certainly would have studied that
24 rule. The rule on late disclosure is?
25 MR. GROOME: The rule on disclosure, Your Honour, or the --
1 JUDGE ORIE: The later disclosure.
2 MR. GROOME: Wait just one second, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think you have to, at least the rule as I remember
4 it, was that you would have to disclose it to the Chamber as well, if
5 it's late disclosure.
6 MR. GROOME: I'm not familiar with that aspect of the rule, Your
7 Honour, that the Prosecution would have a disclosure obligation to the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if there's late disclosure if you have not met
10 your disclosure obligations. So let me just have --
11 MR. GROOME: Yeah, I do see that, Your Honour. It's Rule 67(D).
12 JUDGE ORIE: 67(D), let me just have a look at it.
13 MR. GROOME: If either party discovers additional evidence or
14 material which should have been disclosed earlier pursuant to the rules,
15 that party shall immediately disclose that evidence or material to the
16 other party and the Trial Chamber.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So my recollection of the rules is still
18 adequate. Now, 67(D) requires immediate disclosure also to the Trial
19 Chamber, which under circumstances can be prejudicial to the accused
20 because if it is incriminatory evidence, then the Chamber would see that
21 already before it even has been tendered or admitted. Therefore if you
22 want the Chamber to look at this material, and Mr. Jordash and
23 Mr. Bakrac, there is a duty for the Prosecution to disclose it to the
24 Chamber, would you, in view of what you've seen until now, would you have
25 any problem in the Prosecution fulfilling this obligation under the
1 rules? I am addressing both Defence teams. There is a duty which
2 apparently has not yet been met, and as I said before, I consider the
3 rule in it its effect could in the circumstances be prejudicial to the
4 accused because if it's incriminating evidence then it would come under
5 the eyes of the Chamber even before it has been tendered. At the same
6 time, if you want us to decide on the issue you raised, we might want to
7 have a look at it.
8 MR. JORDASH: We have no problem with Your Honours seeing it. It
9 would make sense.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So under the present circumstances the Defence
11 considers it appropriate that the Prosecution fulfills its duty under
12 Rule 67(D), and Mr. Bakrac, I see you are nodding yes.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Even before
14 Mr. Jordash spoke, I believe that you noticed me nodding my head in
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that's now on the record as well. Then the
17 request is to delay the cross-examination, which means that we could
18 start with the examination-in-chief. The Chamber meanwhile will have an
19 opportunity perhaps to see that Canadian statement.
20 Mr. Groome, may I take it that an on-going effort is made to see
21 whether you have the Belgrade
22 MR. GROOME: Someone is examining the file now. My experience
23 does suggest, Your Honour, that even if we do discover the statement of
24 this person within that larger file that it wouldn't be translated
25 because I think that certainly would have popped up. So I think if we do
1 it, it's unlikely that it would be translated, but I should have more
2 information at the first break.
3 Mr. Laugel is in the process of e-mailing the Canadian statement,
4 and if is assists the Court, I have an unmarked hard copy here in the
5 court that I'm willing to give up to the Chamber if, again, if that
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if we hear the testimony of the witness, we
8 might not be able to read statements at the same time, although
9 multitasking seems to be what we are all expected to do nowadays.
10 Any other matter to be raised before the witness appears? Then
11 under those circumstances, Mr. Jordash, I would like to delay the
12 decision of the Chamber on -- and perhaps you have already prepared
13 written submissions. I do not know whether there was any initial
14 agreement between the parties that you would raise your request for delay
15 of the proceedings four weeks after the end of the winter recess, whether
16 you had made up your mind already as whether you wished to orally present
17 it or to file it in writing.
18 MR. JORDASH: We were hoping to make it orally, but events might
19 have overtaken us.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps we leave the matter for a moment.
21 We'll see whether there will be any time. If not, of course, you are
22 expected to make written submissions without delay. Of course, one of
23 the issues is we don't want to lose time on this matter. If we wait for
24 another day, then the Prosecution will have -- might have difficulties in
25 responding to your request. At the same time, I do know that even if
1 there's recess and even if none of the Judges are still in The Hague
2 they sometime become aware of filings, read them, and communicate about
3 them. So therefore even if the recess would have started, then that
4 doesn't mean that all communication and all decision-making is frustrated
5 by that alone.
6 If there's no other matter, then, Mr. Groome, is the Prosecution
7 ready to call its next witness?
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution called Goran
9 Stoparic. There are no protective measures, Your Honour, with this
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted into the
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, Mr. Laugel informs me that he has just
14 disclosed that material to Chamber staff. He has not cc'd the Defence,
15 but I'd just let them know that that has been done.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Stoparic, I take it. Before you
18 give evidence in this court the rules require that you make a solemn
19 declaration, and I'd like to invite you to make that declaration. The
20 text is handed out to you by the usher.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stoparic. Please be seated.
24 Mr. Stoparic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Groome. Mr. Groome
25 is counsel for the Prosecution.
1 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: GORAN STOPARIC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Groome:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Stoparic, could you please tell us your full
7 A. My name is Goran Stoparic.
8 Q. Were you a member of a paramilitary group based in Djeletovci,
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What's your best recollection of when you became a member of that
13 A. I'm not absolutely sure. I've forgotten in the meantime. It was
14 in late 1992 or early 1993, but I'm not sure.
15 Q. And how long were you a member of that unit, or when did you
17 A. I left the unit in the spring of 1995, I believe.
18 Q. Do you know what month? What is your best recollection as to the
20 A. To the best of my recollection that was after we returned from
22 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 5884 be brought to our
24 Q. Now, Mr. Stoparic, while that document is being brought to the
25 screen before you, have you provided statements to the Office of the
1 Prosecutor of the ICTY with respect to some of the events you have
2 witnessed during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you describe in some of these statements events you witnessed
5 while a member of the Skorpions paramilitary unit?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you provide a statement to investigators of the Tribunal in
8 November of 2003 signing that statement on the 24th of November, 2003
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we scroll down to the bottom of
11 both pages.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Stoparic, you have two computer screens before you,
13 would you take a look at the one on the right. It is a statement dated
14 24 November 2003
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what do you recognise it to be?
18 A. I recognise my own signature. I remember the date. I see my own
19 initials there.
20 Q. Is this the statement that you provided investigators of the OTP
21 in 2003?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. GROOME: Could I now ask that 65 ter 5885 -- I'm sorry, Your
24 Honours, could I ask that that be marked for identification.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the 2003 statement of the witness
1 would receive?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5884 becomes P1702, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we now call 65 ter 5885 to the
6 screen. This is a statement dated 20 January 2005.
7 Q. Mr. Stoparic, did you provide another statement to an
8 investigator of the Tribunal on the 20th of January, 2005?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On the screen before us we now see a statement dated 20 January
11 2005, do you recognise this document?
12 A. Yes, I recognise my signature on the document.
13 Q. And is this the statement that you gave in January of 2005?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time could I ask that 65 ter
16 5885 be marked for identification.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number it would receive is?
18 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P1703, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P1703 is marked for identification.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time I would ask 65 ter 5886
21 be brought to our screens. It is a document dated the 13th of December,
23 Q. While that is being done, Mr. Stoparic, in preparation for your
24 testimony here today, were you asked to carefully review both of these
25 statements and review copies of those statements in your native tongue?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. After reviewing these two statements, were there corrections that
3 you asked to make in order to ensure the accuracy of these statements?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were your corrections recorded in a separate document,
6 translated, and then submitted to you for review?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can I ask you to once again look at the screen before you. Do
9 you recognise the document now identified as 65 ter 5886 on the screen
10 before you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what do you recognise it to be?
13 A. I recognise my initials. I read this document earlier today
14 during the morning.
15 Q. Is this the document that records your corrections to the two
16 earlier statements, the 2003 and 2005 statements?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Stoparic, if the Chamber considers your 2003 and 2005
19 statement in conjunction with the corrections that are now on the screen
20 before us, do they have an accurate and truthful account of your
22 A. Yes, to the best of my recollection.
23 Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the
24 truthfulness and accuracy of the evidence contained in these three
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders
3 P1702, P1703, and 65 ter 5886.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, the document you just said
5 was -- the document you read earlier today, I think you saw one page on
6 your screen. How many pages was that document that you reviewed today?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that there
8 were two pages in this document.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And you reviewed both?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I think that only the first page was
12 shown to the witness, but as matters stand now, let's first have a number
13 assigned to the document of today.
14 Madam Registrar, 65 ter 5886 would received?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Number P1704, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P1704 is marked for identification. Now, I address
17 the Defence teams. P1702, P1703, and P1704, objections against
19 MR. JORDASH: It's not an objection as such, it's just that I
20 think we might have missed out the second limb required for 92 ter which
21 goes into whether if asked the same questions and so on and so forth.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I did -- I do agree with you that it has not
23 been explicitly dealt with. Let me just have a look, one second.
24 MR. GROOME: That is true, Your Honour, I'm happy to do that.
25 It's an oversight on my part.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness, if the same matters would be asked,
2 would you give the same answers as we find in the three documents taken
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, chances are that I might have
5 forgotten things after such a long time in which case I would have a
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you attest that when you gave those
8 statements that you gave the answers to the best of your recollection in
9 accordance with the truth, is that -- although you might not remember
10 every detail at this very moment anymore; is that correct?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely so.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Any objections? No. P1702, P1703, and
13 P1704 are admitted into evidence.
14 Mr. Jordash, if someone testifies being reminded of the solemn
15 declaration taken that he affirms the truthfulness, then of course if he
16 would have given different answers then he would have lied, isn't it?
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, and I was simply hoping to assist.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, no, no, it's appreciated.
19 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, I would note the following with
21 respect to P1702, the 2003 statement: It contains some evidence not
22 directly relevant to issues in this trial, therefore the Prosecution does
23 not rely on paragraphs 26 to 31, paragraphs 33 to 37, and paragraphs 41
24 to 47.
25 Q. Mr. Stoparic, I want to now ask you some questions about the
1 structure and operations of the Skorpion unit. I would like to begin by
2 asking you describe the basic structural organisation of the unit. Can
3 you describe that for us?
4 A. You want me to describe the structural organisation of the unit
5 when it was at its maximum strength? In that case, there were two
6 companies, each company had up to 150 men. There was a reconnaissance
7 platoon and there was a so-called work platoon.
8 Q. And who was the commander of the overall Skorpions unit?
9 A. The unit commander was Slobodan Medic.
10 Q. And was he also known by a nickname or a shorter name?
11 A. Yes, he did have a nickname which was Boca.
12 Q. Now, you've told us how many people were in the companies. How
13 many men or how many people were in the reconnaissance unit?
14 A. Things changed. Anything between 30 and 40, I would say. It
15 depended on the period.
16 Q. Now, the structure as you've described it, was this the structure
17 that existed in June and July of 1995?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What was the primary mandate of the Skorpion unit?
20 A. The Skorpion unit was based in an abandoned place called
21 Djeletovci in the then Republic of Srpska Krajina which is currently the
22 Republic of Croatia
23 Krajina and that task also comprised the guarding of the 40 kilometre
24 stretch of border between the Republic of Croatia
25 Serbian Krajina. There was a natural border and that was a river called
1 the Bosut river.
2 Q. Am I correct in understanding your answer that the unit was
3 responsible not only for safeguarding the oil fields, but approximately
4 40 kilometres of the border between Serbia
5 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. The border between the Republic of Serbian
6 Krajina and the Republic of Croatia
8 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Where were the oil fields with
9 respect to the border that the unit was responsible for?
10 A. Most of the oil wells were located on our side of the Bosut
11 river, on the side under the control of the government of the Republic of
12 Serbian Krajina.
13 Q. Were members of the Skorpions issued identification cards?
14 A. All our officers and non-commissioned officers were issued IDs,
15 red booklets with the inscription the Skorpion unit. The booklet
16 depicted the person's name and the rank. And then on the last page of
17 the booklet it said that the owner of the ID could use anybody's
18 communication means or anybody's vehicle.
19 Q. This last item in the -- in the identification booklet, what
20 specifically did that authorise holders of this identification document
21 to do?
22 A. Well, I will use my example and tell you what I did. At one
23 point in time, I was manning the police check-point by the village of
24 Njemci and since my battery had run down, I showed a policeman my
25 document, he gave me his Motorola that I used to call my base.
1 Q. Did this document also give you the authority to use military
2 communications equipment?
3 A. Well, they're identical. I don't see any difference between the
4 police and the military communications equipment. Actually, I'm not sure
5 that I understood your question properly.
6 Q. I think you've answered it, but just so that we are clear, did
7 the document give you the same authority to use communications equipment
8 used or in the possession of the army?
9 A. As far as I can remember on the last page of the ID booklet, it
10 said that we were allowed to use anybody's means of communication and
11 anybody's vehicle, but it wasn't specified whether it could be only the
12 police or the military or both. But I assume that in the territory of
13 the Republic of Serbian Krajina, we were authorised to use the
14 communication means belonging to a military unit or a military officer.
15 Q. Your statements now evidence as P1702 and -3 describe some of the
16 combat situation or activities you were personally involved in. My
17 question is, during combat, active combat operations, did you and other
18 members of the unit carry your identification documents into the field?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Was there a policy prohibiting carrying documents while engaged
21 in combat activities?
22 A. We are talking about participation in combat outside of the
23 territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. It was not a rule. We had
24 specific orders to leave our IDs behind.
25 Q. Approximately how many vehicles were in use by the Skorpions,
1 that they possessed?
2 A. We had two or three vehicles, military vehicles. Those were
3 actually lorries, 110 and 150. We had a Pinzgauer. I'm talking about
4 classical military vehicles, and we had a Praga which remained at the
5 base at all times. It was deployed at the sentry post at the base. We
6 also had a Kula truck, we had a few jeeps, a lot I would say but their
7 numbers changed. And there were civilian vehicles, Nissan Patrol and
8 similar types of vehicles. We had a bigger truck, a pickup truck. We
9 had quite a few vehicles of our own.
10 Q. Did any of these vehicles have an insignia or name of the unit
11 painted on them?
12 A. The green vehicles, that's to say the lorries, didn't have any
13 insignia, whereas all the other ones had the insignia of the Skorpion
14 unit and the letters denoting that both on the sides of the vehicles, on
15 the doors, and on the hood.
16 Q. What was the insignia of the Skorpion unit?
17 A. Well, it was your typical scorpion drawn, and at times you would
18 have the letters saying the Skorpions on one side of the vehicle with the
19 insignia being placed on the other side of the vehicle, and at times it
20 would only say the Boca detachment.
21 Q. What, if any, licence plates did the Skorpions use on their
22 vehicles when the vehicles were driven in the Republic of Serb Krajina
23 A. When driving through the Republic of the Serbian Krajina, well,
24 we had both the civilian licence plates and the army licence plates with
25 the acronym SVK. We also had blue police licence plates. You could use
1 them interchangeably on all the vehicles. You only needed to get a work
2 vehicle log from the man distributing fuel.
3 Q. What, if any, licence plates were used on these vehicles when
4 they were driven in Bosnia
5 A. None. We went without plates.
6 Q. Was there a reason why no plates were placed on the vehicles when
7 they were driven in Bosnia
8 A. If there were no licence plates on the vehicle, I suppose that
9 was a result of an order to that effect. Though I never witnessed such
10 an order being issued. This is only an assumption. I suppose that the
11 reason behind that was in order for us not to be easily identifiable at
12 first sight. I don't know, in fact.
13 Q. What, if any, licence plates did the Skorpions use on their
14 vehicles when they were driving in the Republic of Serbia
15 A. They would put up civilian licence plates of Belgrade and Novi
16 Sad and M, that's to say blue licence plates. We had -- we kept various
17 licence plates in the jeep in the glove compartment.
18 Q. What's the significance of what you are referring to as a blue or
19 M plate?
20 A. We had two such licence plates, one of them was M606 and the
21 other one was M602, I remember those specifically.
22 Q. Were any of the vehicles with the insignias painted on them
23 driven in Serbia
24 A. Well, the commander would go to Serbia frequently with his
25 security detail every day, and at times he would have such licence plates
1 on his jeep.
2 Q. And did his jeep have the unit's insignia or name painted on the
4 A. His vehicle? No. You mean if he had the large insignia of the
5 Skorpions, no, no, it didn't.
6 Q. Now, you have told us about the use of Serbian or blue M plates
7 while driving in Serbia
8 A. I know of these plates because I would frequently see the
9 commander arriving at the base with the licence plates on. They were
10 there before, yes.
11 Q. In paragraph 71 of your 2003 statement now in evidence as P1702,
12 you describe:
13 "In the JSO everyone had a red beret. In the satellite units
14 only 50 per cent or so had the right to wear a red beret. Only
15 instructors, commanders, and distinguished members could wear red
17 My question to you is, can you describe what you mean by the
18 right to wear a red beret? What does that mean?
19 A. When the red berets are mentioned, one often times thinks of
20 active JSOs. Well, they would undergo training and on the basis of them
21 having completed training they would be entitled to wear a red beret.
22 Whereas in the Skorpions, not everyone was entitled to wear read berets.
23 Many of them wore black berets. It was only squad and platoon commanders
24 as well as some other prominent members as it were, ordinary soldiers who
25 would at all times be entitled to wear a red beret, and the red beret
1 would then have a scorpion on. And if any of the other soldiers went
2 around wearing a red beret, the commander was entitled to seize it from
3 him. The story was that one had to earn that right.
4 Q. Were you entitled to wear a red beret while you were a member of
5 the Skorpion unit?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were you instructed on a specific way in which you had to wear
8 that red beret?
9 A. Well, instructed, any beret had to have been worn properly. It
10 had to be tilted to a side and then above your left eye you had to have
11 the unit insignia. Back at the time when I served in the JNA, we were
12 told how to properly wear a cap as well.
13 Q. Now, paragraph 74 of your 2003 statement describes three
14 different ways in which you received pay. I want to ask you some
15 detailed questions about this. My first question --
16 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to -- I hope Your Honours don't mind, but
17 would it be possible to ask for some clarity on the time that the witness
18 was referring to in relation to the wearing of the red berets. It's been
19 left rather open in the statement and in the evidence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any problem in following this
22 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Mr. Jordash has asked me to clarify you some details about the
1 time during which you were entitled to wear a red beret. Do you recall
2 when as a member the Skorpion unit you were first entitled to wear a red
4 A. Commander Medic was the one who gave me a red beret. Well, of
5 course, for the first year nobody wore a red beret save for him. Now, I
6 received my first beret from him in late 1994. I don't remember exactly.
7 Q. And during the remainder of your time with the Skorpions, were
8 you entitled to we are that red beret?
9 A. Well, I wore it whenever I wished to.
10 Q. And when Mr. Medic gave you the red beret, was it done during the
11 course of a ceremony, or did he simply hand you the beret one day to
12 indicate that you were entitled to wear it?
13 A. There was a system in place. Every month when the best sergeant,
14 officer, and private of the month was pronounced, he would be given a red
15 beret and a CS-99 pistol.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure of the designation.
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Can you say again the type of pistol that was handed out at the
19 same time as the red beret?
20 A. Well, we had two; CZ-99 and a small Magnum. He himself wore a
21 sig sauer.
22 Q. When you say he himself, are you referring to yourself or
23 Mr. Medic?
24 A. Commander Medic.
25 Q. Now, returning to the issue of pay, my first question in this
1 regard is respect to the money that you may have received from the
2 Krajina oil company, can you tell us how often you were paid?
3 A. The money that we received from the oil industry of Krajina came
4 once monthly in an envelope and it was in German marks.
5 Q. And was there a particular time in the month that you received
6 this money or did it vary?
7 A. At times it may have been a day late, but I think that we would
8 receive it on the first day of the month from the oil industry. And on
9 the 15th of any given month we received money from Belgrade which was in
11 Q. And you say you received money from Belgrade, how do you know
12 that it came from Belgrade
13 A. When the pay day came, it would normally be a delegation of
14 individuals some four to five
15 told to wait for Manojlovic's return from Belgrade. We were told not to
16 go home before he returned in order for us to be able to get our
18 Q. What currency was this money?
19 A. In dinars.
20 Q. And was there anything unusual about these dinars?
21 A. Well, unusual, it was normal at the time to have always French --
22 fresh bank notes. They were always fresh.
23 Q. When you say "fresh," what exactly do you mean, and how did you
24 know they were fresh?
25 A. Well, you could tell that the money was new and the serial
1 numbers were sequential.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, is that a convenient moment to take
3 the break?
4 JUDGE ORIE: It is a convenient moment to take a break. We
5 resume at 4.00.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before we break I do have some
7 information that the Chamber may find relevant. We have found some
8 testimony of this witness in that file, it's in Cyrillic. It is not --
9 hasn't been translated. So I just would make the Chamber aware of that.
10 We are still trying to determine how much of it pertains to this witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information and we will resume at
13 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.13 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the Chamber has considered your request
16 to stress and explain to the -- perhaps we should go into private session
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 10343-10344 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, over the break we
21 received the disputed record from the earlier interview of this witness
22 from Serbia
23 Mr. Jordash for a delayed cross-examination which was a joint motion.
24 Now, having looked at the record, I can say that the right to
25 disclosure has in fact been violated. The Prosecution has had this
1 document in their possession, and I suppose that they do have two related
2 statements as well. I'll read them out -- read out the information
3 briefly and tell you why it is important to have these statements
5 At the start of the trial it is stated that witness Stoparic has
6 appeared before the court and given his particulars as he did on the
7 trial on the 11th of November, 2002, which is a statement or evidence of
8 his we don't have. Then at page 17 it is stated:
9 "When the witness was confronted with his evidence of the 17th of
10 December, 2002, evidently yet another testimony of his, the witness
12 'What I said today at this trial is true. It is the truth that I
13 experienced. I gave a different statement earlier on at the trial
14 because that was how the defence lawyer advised me to do. Now I have a
15 target sign on my back. I'm a big traitor to the Serbs, and of course
16 I'm frightened.'"
17 What follows from this is that evidently in some of his earlier
18 evidence, Mr. Stoparic spoke some untruths having been advised to do so
19 by his lawyer, but we don't know which portions were untrue, and if not
20 for the substance of the testimony, at least for the credibility of the
21 witness that it would be important to clarify this.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I interrupted you, Mr. Bakrac, because you said
23 earlier that the witness gave an untrue statement so advised by the
24 defence counsel, from what I understood, and now a couple of lines later
25 you say having been advised to do so by his lawyer. Now, I do understand
1 that he was a witness in that case, so therefore I see at least I have
2 difficulties in reconciling whether he was advised to do so by defence
3 counsel, that this counsel for one of the persons who stood trial, or
4 whether it was by a lawyer who would advised him as a witness.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I -- perhaps what I
6 said wasn't properly interpreted. I read what he said here:
7 "I gave a different statement earlier on at the other trial
8 because that's what the defence counsel advised me to do."
9 In our system a witness is not entitled to lawyer when appearing
10 in a courtroom, so it must be a defence counsel for one of the accused.
11 Bearing in mind our jurisdiction, I'm sure that there must be a statement
12 that Stoparic gave at the investigative stage which is yet another
13 statement we don't have and that is prejudicial to us. This is an
14 infringement of our right to disclosures and so we join Mr. Jordash's
15 motion for additional time to prepare for the cross-examination of this
16 witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Bakrac, just suggesting that there may be
18 another statement and already conclude that it's prejudicial to not give
19 it to you where it has not even been established that it does exist, and
20 just you think it would be likely that it exists, is at least taking the
21 matter not step by step but jump by jump. Let's first hear what
22 Mr. Groome wants to say in response.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I also have some information about this
24 document, and I invite the native speakers on the Defence to correct
25 anything that I say if it's inaccurate. It's eight pages, and they are
1 notes by a court assistant. It's not a verbatim account of what the
2 person has said, but it is some notes taken by a court assistant in a
3 prior trial. Now, I've asked for the entire thing to be translated on a
4 rush basis, and they tell me that we will have the entire document
5 tomorrow afternoon. Having said that, during the break I had a native
6 speaker kind of read it and give me the gist of it.
7 My understanding is that this is a testimony regarding an
8 incident in Podujevo, Kosovo, so it's completely unrelated matter, the
9 substance, it's nothing that this witness is going to testify here. And
10 if I could recall for the Chamber, Mr. Jordash last week when this topic
11 came up actually objected to a question that I was asking about this
12 saying that that matter was irrelevant. So I don't believe it's
13 disclosable under 66(A)(ii).
14 Now, having said that, if what Mr. Bakrac says is true, that
15 there's some admission that he may have changed his statement about
16 anything, I guess there is a reasonable view that it might be considered
17 Rule 68. If Mr. Bakrac can indicate that specific portion to me, I'm
18 quite confident that I could have that translated before we conclude
19 today, and then all of the information that is truly disclosable, the
20 Rule 68 material would be disclosed before the end of today.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, could I first ask you when going through
22 that statement very quickly apart from forming an opinion on what other
23 statements that should exist, did you -- did you find that the statement
24 or the testimony was given primarily in relation to a Kosovo event?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I skimmed
1 through the document as far as the break would allow me, and I said a
2 insofar as it related to Kosovo alone and not to this case, and I'm
3 talking about three testimonies at least, testimonies before a court of
4 law, they would be important for us because they would go to the
5 credibility of the witness. We have a witness's own statement where he
6 said that --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I just wanted to tell you that it would have
8 been appropriate to inform the Chamber in this respect as fully as
9 possible and apart from forming opinions on other documents that may be
10 in existence, to first of all inform the Chamber about not what may be
11 the case, but what is the case and that is that this statement was at
12 least about Kosovo. I'm not saying that for the credibility of the
13 witness you might not have an interest in looking at other statements as
14 well so as to see whether the witness has been consistent when giving
15 statements, but this information which Mr. Groome brought to our
16 attention is something we would have expected you to inform the Chamber
17 about as well.
18 Mr. Groome invited you to give the relevant portions and
19 references so that he could do his utmost best to have the most relevant
20 information accessible. I take it that you are willing to assist
21 Mr. Groome in that respect.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, Your Honour. I don't
23 know if I'm expected to do it in writing or orally now, but if I can be
24 allowed to explain first, when particulars were taken from the witness at
25 trial, it was said that the particulars were the same as the ones given
1 on the 11th of November, 2002, so we can deduce that he already
2 testified. At page 17 when he was told that what he just stated differed
3 from what he had stated on the 17th of December, 2002, well, then I
4 conclude that there must exist a testimony of his which we don't have and
5 for that one he said that it was untrue and that he gave it under the
6 persuasion of the defence counsel. And I can give the ERN reference for
7 my learned friend Mr. Groome. It's page 17, K0547120. Thank you, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, it may make a difference. I'm not saying
10 that it's irrelevant. If the witness was not consistent in his
11 statements about Kosovo, I certainly see that you might have an interest
12 in establishing that. At the same time, if those testimonies were about
13 the events which are vital for this case, of course the impacts would
14 have been by far bigger. At least that's what you could presume not
15 having seen them yet. It's all to some extent speculative, although some
16 speculation is better reasoned than other speculation.
17 MR. JORDASH: May I support Mr. Bakrac, and in our submission
18 it's crystal clear and there can be no doubt that there are at least two
19 statements which we don't have sight of because the statement that we
20 have just been -- had disclosed to us in breach of the disclosure rules
21 indicates precisely that. There can be no doubt about it. The one
22 aspect which it might be speculative, but I doubt it, is whether there's
23 a third which is that which arises from an investigation by the
24 investigating judge as a precursor to the missing statement.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear that we should explore what actually does
1 exist as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible and what the
2 outcome of such an exploration would be for the request to delay
3 cross-examination is to be considered by this Chamber.
4 MR. JORDASH: May I, Your Honour, add two points and that's
5 these: One, in the testimony that we have received, which relates to the
6 Kosovo incident, in all instances there is useful testimony given
7 concerning the -- how the Skorpions came into existence, command
8 structures and so on. It's not simply evidence which is related to 1999.
9 It's evidence which starts with the witness's participation in the
10 Skorpion unit.
11 And secondly, it's only right to correct Mr. Groome, when
12 Mr. Groome led evidence of that Kosovo incident, I objected and on the
13 basis of relevance and Your Honours overruled the objection. So for
14 Mr. Groome now to say, well, the Defence said it wasn't relevant, I think
15 we've moved past that point and it became relevant.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you would consider that an inconsistent
17 approach to the matter.
18 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
20 Mr. Groome, before I give you an opportunity to respond because
21 we are still talking about a request for the delay of cross-examination,
22 perhaps before I give you an opportunity to, well, if I would say, to say
23 the last word that would not be appropriate, but at least to submit what
24 you wanted to add, one question: This material you found, is that part
25 of the electronic disclosure system that is the Belgrade stuff, if I
1 could say so?
2 MR. GROOME: I do not know, Your Honour, I'm going to check it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please try to find that out.
4 MR. GROOME: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you -- now you have an opportunity to make any
6 final observation you'd like to make.
7 MR. GROOME: The only comment that I would make, Your Honour, is
8 I mean if it's disclosable and if I -- I don't try to avoid my disclosure
9 obligations, I do my best to discharge them, but I seem to be hearing
10 Defence counsel, their position, and I want to clarify if it is their
11 position, it's my position that the jurisprudence places upon me the
12 burden of if I'm in possession of disclosable material to turn it over.
13 I don't see that the jurisprudence or the rules require me to go to the
14 district courts in Serbia
15 witness in an unrelated case, or even -- I mean, I just don't understand
16 that that's the obligation that I have. I think that -- I want to make
17 sure that counsel are not under the misapprehension that somehow tonight
18 or tomorrow I'm to try to contact these courts and obtain rush copies of
19 the documents that they believe would be useful.
20 My position is quite frankly that they've had possession of the
21 Seselj testimony for two years now. If in reading that they saw
22 something about a reference to a Belgrade
23 some investigation, I mean they were certainly free to do that. If it
24 wasn't done, again if I'm in possession of it I have a duty to disclose
25 it. If I'm not in possession of it, I don't believe it's my duty now to
1 go and actively go get these documents before cross-examination can
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I see that you'd like to add one or two
5 MR. JORDASH: Only because Mr. Groome wanted our position and
6 inquired upon it, but if Your Honours --
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, let's do it, but let's then in two minutes. I
8 already asked the usher to get the witness and to be stand by at the
9 door-step which --
10 MR. JORDASH: I can deal with it in 30 seconds.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then please do so, because Mr. Usher needs more
13 MR. JORDASH: We take a position and the royal Canadian late
14 disclosure, that's a violation, we take a position on this latest
15 statement, that's a violation. In relation to the rest and the remainder
16 at this point, until we see what it contains, we don't take in position,
17 but it looks very likely that it may well have been Rule 68 material
18 which, given the contents of this latter statement served today, may well
19 ought to have been disclosed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And then you are thinking in Rule 68 terms of
21 exculpatory rather than ideous [phoen].
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. Mr. Bakrac, may I take it that you
24 join all the submissions made by Mr. Jordash?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, while we are waiting for the witness,
2 if I could just clarify with Mr. Bakrac, my staff tell me it's the first
3 paragraph on the page that he has referred to, and that's the one that we
4 will try to have translated this session. Is there any other paragraphs
5 on that page that Mr. Bakrac feels should be translated on an urgent
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the time being I
9 can't see that. However, I will listen to the examination-in-chief. I
10 will ask my colleague Mr. Petrovic to look, and as soon as we have the
11 result, we will inform Mr. Groome accordingly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you could send him an e-mail. Even if
13 we are in court we can send and receive e-mails.
14 Mr. Stoparic, you had to wait far longer than you expected, that
15 was due to procedural matters which were raised in your absence. We are
16 now ready to continue to hear your evidence, Mr. Groome will continue his
17 examination-in-chief. Please proceed.
18 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. Before I do, Mr. Laugel
19 informs me that the document is not on the EDS system.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Now, Mr. Stoparic, prior to the break I was making an inquiry
23 about the methods in which you receive payment and you told us about two.
24 Now, in paragraph 34 of your 2003 statement you say:
25 "I received a third salary from Boca himself."
1 My first question is, who are you referring to when you say Boca?
2 A. Our commander Slobodan Medic.
3 Q. Can you now explain this third salary? Can you give us some more
4 particulars about what it consisted of and what it was for?
5 A. That was my personal agreement with Medic. Sometimes he gave out
6 money and sometimes he paid us in kind in oil or petrol, in any oil
8 Q. Did other members of the Skorpions have similar arrangements with
9 Commander Medic?
10 A. A few but not many. Company commanders, some platoon commanders,
11 as well as some men who were related to him.
12 Q. Now, in paragraph 76 of your 2003 statement, now P1702, you
14 "The order came from the top that 60 per cent of our men should
15 be from the Republic of Srpska and Republic of Serb Krajina
16 cent from Serbia
17 always deny the link between the Skorpions and Serbia. They could always
18 claim that these were Special Forces of the RS and RSK and that the men
19 from Serbia
20 Are you able to give us a concrete example of something which
21 occurred that demonstrates this?
22 A. On one occasion I got a call from the city of Nis, about 10
23 people called me and asked me whether they could come and join the
24 Skorpions. And during a morning briefing with the commander, I told him
25 that I had ten new men that had been engaged in the Vukovar front line.
1 And then he told me what I stated in my statement, which is that
2 according to an order, there shouldn't be more than 40 per cent of the
3 men from Serbia
4 And he did not allow me to bring those men in.
5 MR. GROOME: Could I now ask that P347 be brought to our screens.
6 At present it provisionally under seal pending a final determination on
8 shown to the public.
9 Q. Mr. Stoparic, P347 is a document which lists payments made for
10 the period between 16 to 30 September, 1995. In preparation for your
11 testimony here today, were you asked to review these payment records?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we go to e-court page 26 of this
14 document in its original and in its translation, and the page bears the
15 ERN number ending 2955.
16 Q. While we are waiting for the original text, or I see it now, on
17 this particular page of this document, did you recognise some of the
18 names on that document?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can I ask you to tell us each one -- first tell us the number on
21 the list where the name appears, read the name, and tell us how you
22 recognise that person?
23 A. The first one that comes to mind appears under 2, Goran Simovic.
24 His nickname was Tralja. This is what I can add. We were members of the
25 same platoon, that's how I know him. The next one under 13, that's me.
1 I also know Jovic, Goran who appears under number 14. Number 15, Laza
2 Kresovic, number 16 Zlatoje Bozic. I know a few more people on the list,
3 their names ring a bell, but I mentioned only those men whose name I know
4 and also that I can put a face to each of the names.
5 Q. Now, were any of the people whose names you've actually called
6 out here in court, were any of them members of the Skorpion unit?
7 A. Nobody but me.
8 Q. Now, were you asked to review records for the entire period
9 between the 16th of August, 1995, and the 15th of December, 1995
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you see the names that you mentioned here on other
12 payment records during that period?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, do you know who General Loncar was?
15 A. I saw General Loncar on several occasions, and I know that he was
16 the commander of the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in 1995.
17 And he was engaged in the territory of Slavonia
19 Q. Can you describe the relationship between Slobodan Medic and
20 General Loncar?
21 A. Well, I never attended any meetings with the two of them, but I
22 was present during their telephone conversation, and I could tell that
23 Medic was rather arrogant, sometimes he used harsh words, even swear
24 words. That's what I can say.
25 Q. Do you know a person by the name of Milan Milanovic, also known
1 as Mrgud?
2 A. Yes, he often visited us. I know him personally. That person
3 followed us everywhere and he would take us to the field missions in
4 Republika Srpska first and later on to Kosovo. He held a position in the
5 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbian Krajina but I don't know
6 what the position was.
7 Q. Can you describe his relationship with Slobodan Medic?
8 A. Well, Slobodan Medic simply adored him, and you could see that he
9 looked up to him.
10 Q. And was there -- how did Medic treat him, if you can contrast
11 that with how Medic treated Loncar? How did Medic treat the two
12 different gentlemen?
13 A. Let me put it this way: When he was talking to Mrgud, he was
14 standing to attention, if I may put it that way.
15 Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to the operation of the
16 Skorpions in Trnovo in June of 1995. How did you first learn that the
17 Skorpions were being deployed to Trnovo in June of 1995?
18 A. How did I learn? I was there.
19 Q. Talking about prior to actually travelling there, did you learn
20 before travelling there that a unit was going to be deployed there? And
21 if you did, how did you learn that?
22 A. Before we were deployed when we learned that we would be going to
23 a field mission, I knew that we were being sent somewhere around
25 we were being sent about a week beforehand. And I learned officially at
1 a meeting one morning in Medic's office, Medic's assistant brought an
2 official order from General Loncar, and I believe that the order arrived
3 from Erdut. Srdjan Manojlovic was the man to brought that order to us.
4 Q. Was the -- how soon after receiving that order did you depart for
6 A. We needed a week for preparations. How shall I put it, we were
7 some kind of an autonomous unit in terms of food and other provisions.
8 We carried everything with us. We didn't depend from any field kitchen,
9 so it took us about a week to prepare all that, for the commander to
10 assign which company and which men would be sent, would be deployed. A
11 week later, in the evening we set out on the field mission. We entered
13 [phoen], and then from Visnjicevo we took a forest trail towards the
14 bridge in the village of Raca
15 for the night to fall in order to be able to enter Republika Srpska
17 Q. Now, in your answer to my previous question on transcript page
18 46, line 10, when asked about when you learned about the deployment, you
20 "And I learned officially at a meeting one morning in Medic's
22 My question is, did you learn that you were being deployed
23 unofficially --
24 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, that's not quite the evidence. I don't
25 think there is a closed quote. The statement goes on.
1 MR. GROOME: I can read the entire thing.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would please do so. If there's any
3 dispute about whether it reflects or not accurately the evidence, this is
4 the way to resolve it. Please proceed.
5 MR. GROOME: I'll read the entire sentence start to finish.
6 Q. When asked about when you learned about the deployment, you said:
7 "And I learned officially at a meeting one morning in Medic's
8 office. Medic's assistant brought an official order from General Loncar
9 and I believe that he would arrive from Erdut."
10 My question is, did you learn -- you say I learned officially,
11 did you learn of this fact unofficially at another time?
12 A. Yes, a day or two, prior to that we already knew that we would be
13 deployed in the Sarajevo
14 Q. And how did you know that a day or two before officially being
16 A. Somebody told us, but my memory fails me on that particular
18 Q. Do you remember what organisation the person belonged to, if you
19 don't recall the name?
20 A. Usually it was Milan Milanovic's line. He was the first one to
21 learn everything. I am a bit confused. I really don't know what you are
22 asking me. I know that -- I apologise.
23 Q. I'm not asking you generally. If you don't have a memory about
24 when you learned unofficially, then I'll leave it there.
25 MR. GROOME: Now, I want to show a video-clip for you, and I
1 would ask Mr. Laugel to prepare 65 ter 1167.4, a clip from the Skorpion
2 video from time code 14 minutes 26 seconds to 16 minutes 16 seconds.
3 Q. Mr. Stoparic, I'm going to ask you to view a clip on the screen
4 before you from the original video of the Skorpion video, and I'm going
5 to ask you a number of questions regarding it.
6 MR. GROOME: I'm going to ask Mr. Laugel to pause at three
7 locations during this clip. I would ask that he make the first pause at
8 14 minutes 33 seconds.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. Mr. Stoparic, can you tell us the person who is in the centre of
12 this still holding a camera, do you recognise this person?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And who do you recognise him to be?
15 A. Slobodan Stojkovic, also known as Bugar.
16 Q. And is he the person who actually held the video camera during
17 the killing of the four Muslim men and two boys that appears later on
18 this tape?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. GROOME: Could I ask Mr. Laugel to resume playing the tape
21 and pause at 15 minutes 9 seconds.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Have you brought the chewing gum?
24 "Ziko, the scarf."
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. We've now paused the video and we can see a person walking
2 towards the camera that appears to have two things with white ends on
3 them sticking out of his rucksack. Do you recognise this person?
4 A. Well, that's me.
5 Q. And what are the items that you have in your rucksack?
6 A. Rifle-launched grenades.
7 Q. What location are you in in this video?
8 A. Somewhere on Mount Jahorina
9 Q. Can you give us some idea where that is in relation to Sarajevo
10 A. It should be above Sarajevo
11 don't know exactly. I never resided in Bosnia so my geographical
12 knowledge of Bosnia
13 Q. Perhaps I should have asked you, can you tell us where it is in
14 relation to Trnovo? Are you able to tell us approximately how far away
15 this location is from Trnovo?
16 A. We travelled from the hotel you can see here across a forest
17 trail to Trnovo and it took us several hours. That's all I can tell you.
18 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we resume playing the tape and
19 pause one last time at 15 minutes, 15 seconds of the original.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Mr. Stoparic, we can see a man standing on an upper floor balcony
23 looking at people below. Do you recognise this person?
24 A. Yes, that's Commander Slobodan Medic.
25 Q. Do you know what he is doing?
1 A. He's overseeing our, well, unpacking, let's call it that. Soon
2 thereafter we were supposed to line up and then he delivered a speech.
3 MR. GROOME: Would Mr. Laugel please continue with the remainder
4 of the tape.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Did you tape it?"
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, this is one of several clips that I
8 will use with this witness and I have used other clips in the past. It
9 occurred to me in preparation for this witness that perhaps better than
10 tendering individual clips with various witnesses, it is my intention to
11 tender the entire video with upcoming witness and that perhaps I would
12 suggest to the Chamber that we simply mark the entire video for
13 identification at this juncture and this way we can simply refer to the
14 same exhibit but the different time codes on the original. That would be
15 my suggestion.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I had some difficulties in following the time codes
17 at this moment, but apart from the technical details, if there's no
18 objection, then the whole of the video should be MFI'd for the time
19 being, and then we sooner or later we receive an exact list, Mr. Groome,
20 I take it from what has been played in relation to that witness.
21 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the entire video would receive
24 THE REGISTRAR: Number P1705, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P1705 is marked for identification.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, so the record is clear about the
2 discrepancy in the code that we saw, whenever we create a clip, of course
3 the beginning of that clip resets at zero, so all of the time codes that
4 I have mentioned on the record here are from the original tape, and when
5 the Chamber looks at P1705, the Chamber will be able to find those exact
6 portions by the codes I've mentioned today.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and it takes us quite a lot of calculations to
8 verify whether what you say you play is really what is played. That's --
9 but --
10 MR. GROOME: From now on, Your Honour, we will be using the
11 original, and then the time codes will correspond precisely.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That will be of great help. Please proceed.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution is going
14 to play 65 ter 1167.5. It is a video-clip taken from 51 minutes, 50
15 seconds to 52 minutes, 5 seconds of P1705 marked for identification.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. GROOME: And could I ask that we stop now. I've asked
18 Mr. Laugel to stop at what would be 51 minutes, 57 seconds in the
20 Q. Mr. Stoparic, can you see the green box in this video or boxes in
21 the video?
22 A. Or what is contained in the boxes.
23 Q. Yes, what is contained in these boxes?
24 A. These are mortar shells.
25 Q. And how did these mortar shells get to this location?
1 A. We transported some of them by lorry and -- or rather, let me
2 qualify this. We transported them a part of the road on the lorries and
3 a part of the road on horseback.
4 Q. I'm going to ask that you look at one more clip today from P1705.
5 It is taken from 52 minutes, 24 seconds to 54 minutes, 26 seconds of the
6 entire video. I ask that you pay attention to the screen before you
7 where you will see it played, and I have some questions after we watch
9 [Video-clip played]
10 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "What do you mean for no reason?
11 With a goal. With a goal of killing or disabling him.
12 "And have you disabled him?
13 "We have not, but they fired five shells on us.
14 "They fucked us up good.
15 "What do you mean they fucked us up good? Well, we fired but
16 then we didn't fire after that since we saw that they had good
18 "Where are these co-ordinates?
19 "Well, somewhere down there.
20 "Whether that was an echo, well, let me light up, and Seca fired
21 two rifle-launched grenades at them.
22 "We fucking rattled them up."
23 MR. GROOME: Now, I just ask that the video be paused at 54
24 minutes, 15 seconds, the original.
25 Q. We can see a man in the left side of the frame and he is lighting
1 a cigarette. Do you recognise this person?
2 A. That's me.
3 MR. GROOME: I ask that we play the rest of the video.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "That was the first time in two days
6 that we heard them fire a bullet.
7 "I haven't heard it yet.
8 "And then when you fired those rifle-launched grenades, they
9 probably thought that we were going to attack them, that it was
10 preparation. A rifle-launched grenade explodes like a 60-millimetre
11 shell. What are you recording this for, motherfucker?
12 "This morning those from Zvornik fired, but they fired somewhere
13 towards us. Those ones over there?
14 "Well, yes, from the right flank.
15 "Well, no, they moved a bit higher, you know, and when they fire
16 at this elevation here, if it flies over it hits you because they went
17 around them, you know.
18 "No. At the beginning they were halfway up the hill.
19 "Now they have moved, you understand. Now when they fire at this
20 elevation here in front of us, and when it goes over it, it hits us.
22 "But that is high up.
23 "Very high up."
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Mr. Stoparic, what are the green cylinders that we see on the
1 ground in this portion of the video?
2 A. These are containers or actually casings that contain the charge
3 for a hand-held rocket-launchers.
4 Q. Just prior to focusing on the cylinders there appear to be some
5 type of weapon next to the tree. Do you recognise that weapon?
6 A. That's what I was referring to. That's a hand-held
7 rocket-launcher and the cylinders are ammunition.
8 MR. GROOME: We can play to the end. I think there's just a few
9 more seconds.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "And grandpa is recording while
12 taking a dump, eh? And where is he? Well, he is carrying some
13 newspapers with him."
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. What types of targets would these rockets be used against?
16 A. Well, for anti-tank or anti-armour vehicles. They could also be
17 used for the destruction of enemy fortifications, bunkers or
19 Q. Finally with respect to this video, I'm going to ask that you
20 take a look at 65 ter 1167.7. It is a demonstrative exhibit made from
21 four stills from the 65 ter 1167.7. The stills are taken and indicated
22 on the sheet as far as 52 seconds; 5 minutes, 35 seconds; 15 minutes, 9
23 seconds; and 53 minutes, 29 seconds.
24 Can I ask that we start from the photograph or the still in the
25 upper left-hand corner. Are you depicted in that photograph?
1 A. Yes, in the centre.
2 Q. Moving to the right, are you depicted in that photograph?
3 A. Next to the priest, yes.
4 Q. On the bottom left-hand corner, are you depicted in that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the bottom right-hand corner, is that you who fills the
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 1167.7 as a
11 public exhibit.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
13 THE REGISTRAR: 1167.7 becomes P1706, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And in the absence of any objections is admitted
15 into evidence. Please proceed.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, could I ask now that 65 ter 3717 be
17 displayed on the screens before us.
18 Q. Mr. Stoparic, once 65 ter 3717 is visible on your screen, can you
19 tell us if you recognise this document?
20 A. What I see are still the photographs.
21 Q. It's being changed now. Do you recognise now what is on the
22 screen before you?
23 A. Yes, it's a copy of my military booklet.
24 Q. Does your name and photograph appear on the front page of this
1 A. Yes, it does. The photograph was taken at the time I first
2 received this booklet, and I was 17.
3 Q. Does this document contain a comprehensive record of your
4 military service?
5 A. Yes, the military service.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
7 65 ter 3717 as a public exhibit.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 3717 becomes P1707, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence in the absence of any
12 MR. GROOME: Could I now ask that 65 ter 3812, a document dated
13 the 12th of December, 1995, on the letterhead of the Republic of Serbia
14 Ministry of the Interior, be brought to our screens.
15 Q. Mr. Stoparic, can you please look at the screen before us and
16 tell us if you recognise this document?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us what it is?
19 A. It's a certificate confirming that from 11 June until 22 December
20 1995 I was a member of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
22 a base near Ilok which I believe is called Pajzos or something along
23 those lines. At that point I returned my gear and the Erdut agreement
24 was supposed to be in place already at that time.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
1 65 ter 3812 into evidence as a public exhibit. Your Honours, the person
2 who did the official translation of this document translated the period
3 of service of Mr. Stoparic as being from the 11th of June until the 22nd
4 of December, 1995. Given that the killings of the six Muslim males in
5 Trnovo happened within this period, I anticipate that whether this
6 document has been read correctly may become an important issue in this
8 Given its importance, I've asked investigator Ms. Pradhan to
9 bring the original of this document from the evidence safe of the Office
10 of the Prosecutor so that the Chamber may study the original document and
11 the Defence too may look at that time it. I would ask the Usher at this
12 time to receive the original from Ms. Pradhan and provide it to the
13 Chamber and then to the Defence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to make
16 any suggestions, but can the original in the B/C/S be enlarged for the
17 witness to read what it exactly says, and I would like to draw your
18 attention to the date of issue and its period of validity.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, there are two issues. The one
20 is reading the handwritten portion of the document, and where a witness
21 is not necessarily better able to do that, and then other elements which
22 may be relevant for the interpretation of this original document, of
23 course, can then be put to the witness. At the same time, there's
24 nothing wrong with showing to the witness the detail of the document in
25 this respect.
1 Could it be given to the Defence.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders 65
3 ter 3717 as a public exhibit. I'll -- I'm in the Chamber's hands whether
4 the Chamber wants the Prosecution to retain the original or whether it
5 wants to entrust it in the custody of the Registry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I looked at it from the computer, and if you enlarge
7 the original on the computer, I do not see anything more in relation to
8 the dates than I see when looking with my glasses to the original.
9 Mr. Bakrac.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, if you switch on your microphone it will
12 even be better.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, I was trying to but I wasn't
15 Your Honours, we do not oppose the B/C/S original being admitted
16 into evidence because it's self-evident. We want -- we object to the
17 translation being admitted because we are sure that there is an error in
18 the translation which concerns a very significant portion of it. That's
19 why I suggested if the relevant portion could be enlarged for the witness
20 so that he could re-read the period for which the certificate or receipt
21 was obtained.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If there is a translation issue, it's not a matter
23 of admission, I think, but it is a matter of getting the right
24 translation attached to the original document.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I may be heard on this matter. I
1 haven't made --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I was just identifying what the issue was.
3 MR. GROOME: I guess my suggestion, Your Honour, is that the
4 issue is a little bit different than the way the Chamber has
5 characterised it. I don't believe it's a translation issue, I believe
6 it's a handwriting reading of the issue, has the translator looked at a
7 particular figure and interpreted it as one number or another number.
8 So, and as Your Honour has said, Mr. Stoparic has no greater advantage
9 than any of us when we look at it, so it may be a matter that requires
10 expert investigation, it may be a matter for the Chamber to ultimately
11 find based on other evidence it hears, but I'm not sure that it's,
12 strictly speaking, a question of a word being mistranslated.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But since both the original and the translation says
14 11/06, the original and 11th of June in the other one, I wonder whether
15 that was the issue Mr. Bakrac wanted to raise.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [No interpretation]
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, may I suggest -- I'm about to conclude
18 my examination of the witness in the next few minutes. Perhaps it might
19 be a better thing to deal with this outside the hearing of the witness,
20 unless so that we don't influence --
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] If I may clarify, Your Honours, and
22 since you'll be deciding about whether we are going to cross-examine the
23 witness or not now, well, I assert that it's 11th of August, but I'm sure
24 that the witness perfectly knows if he became a member of the reserve
25 force of the MUP of Serbia before that period or after. I'm sure that
1 Mr. Groome can easily resolve the matter with Mr. Stoparic because
2 Mr. Stoparic says in his statement upon return from Trnovo, I spent some
3 time -- I apologise, Your Honour, but as I say, I'm reading --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's -- one of the matters raised by
5 Mr. Groome was that we should not discuss it before the witness. Perhaps
6 we first ask the witness and then further discuss it, Mr. Groome, would
7 that be -- would that -- wouldn't that be fair?
8 MR. GROOME: Again, I can, Your Honour, but I think as Your
9 Honour pointed out a few minutes ago that he is in the same position as
10 us. It's a number. I don't want to recite the evidence that could
11 influence the Chamber's interpretation of it in front of the witness,
12 but --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we could -- apart from the document, we could
14 perhaps ask the witness questions about the matter which apparently also
15 appears in the or is the subject matter of the document, but it doesn't
16 make much sense - I would agree and I think that's what I said before -
17 to seek the witness's opinion on what it says. But perhaps he has
18 knowledge totally apart from this document.
19 MR. GROOME: Well, I'll attempt to explore it, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Mr. Stoparic, when do you believe that you first received money
23 that originated from the state security service of Serbia?
24 A. When you showed me the document several minutes ago, I read it
25 fully and I said the 11th of August to the 22nd of December. In the
1 documents you showed me, I found proof of it and those were payrolls
2 because all the payrolls start with 11 of August and they end on the 22nd
3 of December. And I -- I've seen 11 of June written here and I noticed
4 that it wasn't right.
5 Take the first payroll that you'll find with my name on it and
6 you'll see that the date it bears is the 11th of August. It's illegible.
7 It's been written poorly number 8, and I wasn't on the reserve force of
8 the MUP of Serbia on the 11th of June, rather I was in the Skorpions.
9 Q. You've used the term "reserve unit," now that's a term that
10 Mr. Bakrac has used just a few moments ago. Am I missing something, I
11 don't see where on the document it says the reserve forces. Why do you
12 say reserve forces?
13 A. You are right, it doesn't say anywhere in the document, but I
14 know that I was on the reserve force.
15 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we now go to -- Your Honour, I'll
16 reserve my tendering of it until I conclude my examination or further
17 discussion of it. I think that's as far as I can take it with the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, let me just see, the document we are
20 discussing at this moment is 65 ter 3812 from what I understand. And you
21 would like to have it marked for identification, or?
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, until we can have further
23 discussions on it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
25 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P1708 marked for
1 identification, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
3 MR. GROOME: If I can just have one moment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm also looking at the clock, I wonder even
5 whether you should not more moments.
6 MR. GROOME: I just have -- well, I have one more document to
7 show the witness, but I can do that after the break if the Chamber
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is that one document would conclude your
10 examination-in-chief, is that what you intend to say or?
11 MR. GROOME: And I just have another question that I want to ask
12 the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Altogether taking how much time?
14 MR. GROOME: Five minutes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we -- that you finish your
16 examination-in-chief in the next five minutes. The Chamber will then
17 decide on the request made by the Defence to delay cross-examination.
18 Please proceed. Unless I'm looking at Mr. Stanisic as well because it's
19 a bit longer than we usually do. I see that he is indicating that he --
20 he doesn't object to it. Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Mr. Stoparic, I want to read you a portion of your statement, and
23 this is from paragraph 74. In it you say:
24 "I was employed by the Krajina oil company and was given a high
25 salary. In return, the Skorpions secured the oil facilities of the
1 company. We also received a salary from the Serbian DB, and I received a
2 third salary from Boca himself."
3 My question is what period of time are you describing here when
4 you say "we also received a salary from the Serbian DB"?
5 A. Well, the entire 1994 and 1995 our salaries arrived from
7 had arrived from the MUP of Serbia. The oil industry had its own
8 resources that they made available to us.
9 MR. GROOME: Could I now ask that 65 ter 3816, a document dated
10 13th of May, 1999, on the letterhead of the Republic of Serbia Ministry
11 of the Interior be displayed on our screens.
12 Q. Mr. Stoparic, we can now see the document 65 ter 3816 on our
13 screens. Do you recognise the document, and if so, can you tell us what
14 it is?
15 A. Yes, I recognise the document. I received this document when I
16 was awarded by the minister of the interior, and the award was bestowed
17 upon me on the 13th of May on security day, the day of the security
18 services. That's on account of the fact that I had been wounded and I
19 had been very good at my job, and the job in question was fighting
20 terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija when I was a member of the SAI. I was a
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
23 65 ter 3816 into evidence as a public exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
25 MR. JORDASH: We have no objection but we would note that it does
1 relate to Kosovo.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. Madam Registrar, the number
3 would be?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 3816 becomes P1709, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Now, Mr. Stoparic, my last question to you today is, and if I can
8 return to your military booklet for a moment, it's now in evidence as
9 P1707. You have told us when you were a member of the Skorpion unit. Is
10 there an endorsement in your military booklet recognising your service in
11 the Skorpions as military service? Did you hear the question? Do you
12 want me to repeat it?
13 A. Yes, but there's no document on the screen. Am I supposed to
14 answer without the document? I understood your question, sir, but I
15 thought that we were waiting for the document. I can answer but I don't
16 see the document. There is no confirmation at all in --
17 Q. If you are able to answer without us calling up the document,
18 then please do so. If you would like us to call up the document, I'll
19 ask that that be done. Are you able to tell us whether there's an
20 endorsement in your military booklet reflecting your service in the
21 Skorpions as military service?
22 A. No, there's no such endorsement.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
25 Mr. Stoparic, we'll first take a break and after the break the
1 Chamber will decide on a request by the Defence to delay your
2 cross-examination, so it depends on that decision whether we'll continue
3 to hear your evidence at this very moment.
4 MR. JORDASH: May I address you very briefly in the absence of
5 the witness. It would take no more than one minute.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, whatever happens after the break, it's
7 already break time for you. Could you escort the witness out of the
8 courtroom, and we'll see you back anyhow in approximately half an hour.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I stood because I wanted to correct
11 some information that I had provided earlier. In our rush to give the
12 Chamber an answer about the EDS
13 court case file is in EDS
14 have been stated.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information, Mr. Groome.
16 Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: I only wanted to add, if I might briefly, and
18 highlight that the Prosecution have made Kosovo very much an issue now in
19 this trial, that they produced an award relating to the witness's service
20 in Kosovo. What the witness did in Kosovo now, and why he received an
21 award is, in our submission, extremely relevant to the evidence that this
22 witness has given and the evidence that the previous witness gave, and in
23 both instances my learned friend for the Prosecution left it to the end
24 of each examination to deal with this very much live issue.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any brief response to that.
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The meritorious service does
2 nothing other than go to the credibility of the witness. It speaks
3 nothing about what he witnessed in Kosovo. If it were my intension to
4 introduce matters with respect to Kosovo, I would have led from the
5 witness another more serious atrocity committed by the Skorpions that he
6 personally witnessed and has given evidence about. I have not done that,
7 and I think that is a clear indication that it's not my intention to lead
8 his evidence on Kosovo. I simply introduced a certificate he received
9 for meritorious service while in Kosovo.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And for what purpose exactly then?
11 MR. GROOME: With respect to his credibility, Your Honour. It's
12 been already said here today; that is, it's the Defence case that he is
13 an untrustworthy person who has lied. Certainly someone who has earned a
14 high military honour for valour is something that the Chamber could
15 properly consider in assessing their credibility.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You would say because he received this award that
17 supports your view that getting such a support would -- you would expect
18 someone to be a credible person?
19 MR. GROOME: That would be one factor for the Chamber to
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the only reason why you.
22 MR. GROOME: That's correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: In our submission that is not what the evidence now
25 leaves -- sorry, that's not the connotation of the evidence. My learned
1 friend has led evidence of serious war crimes committed by the Skorpions
2 in 1999 in Kosovo, they then produce an award, and the implication is
3 that irrespective of war crimes being committed by the Skorpions, the
4 Serbian MUP then gives awards. The idea that valour and courage relates
5 in any way to credibility on the witness-stand is stretching the point
6 too far in our submission.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on page 10227, there
9 is an illustration of what my learned friend Mr. Jordash is saying.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Groome, do we understand you well that you
11 would never use as an argument that such an award would show that people
12 who may have committed crimes were nevertheless awarded and that
13 therefore this is relevant information for criminal responsibility for
14 those who may have issued such awards?
15 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. I'm not saying it's dispositive of
16 credibility. I'm saying it's one factor that the Chamber could properly
18 JUDGE ORIE: But I asked you whether you would not use it as an
19 argument in the way as I understood Mr. Jordash feared you would do. So
20 therefore, it's clear what you now say you would use it for, but is it
21 well understood that you would never in a couple of months from now,
22 perhaps you would say, look at it, we have now evidence that heinous
23 crimes were committed in Kosovo and now you see what happens, people who
24 served in Kosovo were even award for their service there and therefore
25 this casts some light on the attitude of those who are responsible for
1 the operations of that unit?
2 First of all, Mr. Jordash, did I understand you well what you
4 MR. JORDASH: Perfectly.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Groome, the question to you now is if you
6 say you exclusively used the document to convince us that awarded
7 people -- well, not to convince us but this is an element which indicates
8 or might add to being convinced that this witness must speak the truth
9 because he is an awarded person. Of course I make it a bit black and
10 white. But that --
11 MR. GROOME: That would be the only inference the Prosecution
12 would ask the Chamber to draw. The Prosecution is not seeking to have
13 any other inference -- the improper inference which I think Mr. Jordash
14 fears. And just to clarify what occurred with the last --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Improper or not, Mr. Jordash, you've now received a,
16 I would say, a confirmation that what you fear Mr. Groome would use this
17 document for, that he is not going to do that.
18 MR. JORDASH: And that does deal with part of the problem. The
19 other part is that the Prosecution themselves have asserted crimes in
20 Kosovo are relevant.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just so --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's, yes, Mr. Groome.
23 MR. GROOME: Perhaps after the break.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps after the break. That might be better.
25 We'll take a break and we resume at quarter past 6.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 5.46 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 6.18 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will -- has considered the material that
4 was disclosed 2003, 2005, 2006 statements. The Chamber has looked at, in
5 the time possible, at the Canadian statement, which primarily deals with
6 Kosovo again. Well, if I say again, that's wrong, because we had not
7 anything yet, but the Belgrade
8 is, as Mr. Bakrac told us, and as far as it could be verified is about
9 Kosovo, whether there's other evidence which would cast a different light
10 on the credibility of this witness, we do not know yet. That is
11 therefore still uncertain. The evidence in the Seselj case, apparently
12 we've seen that this triggered further requests from the Defence.
13 On the basis of having reviewed to the extent possible at this
14 moment the material, the Chamber considers that there's not sufficient
15 reasons to delay the cross-examination of the witness, and we'll give the
16 reasons in detail in writing of this decision.
17 This decision does not yet cover whether at the end of the story,
18 for example, for credibility reasons, there might be a need to recall the
19 witness, but it's primarily based on the subject matter at this moment.
20 Therefore, I don't know which party will be first to start the
21 cross-examination, if it's you, Mr. Jordash.
22 Then I would like to add to this that having resolved this
23 matter, that the other matter, that is to make oral submissions on your
24 request for four weeks suspension of the proceedings, now has to be
25 considered again, whether you do it orally or in writing. Now, there is
1 a fair chance that the procedural complications we had to face today
2 might lead to the conclusion that there would not be sufficient time this
3 week in court to make oral submissions, and therefore, unless you would
4 come to an agreement this evening, I would suggest that the further
5 submissions are made in writing, Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stoparic, you will now be cross-examined.
8 The first to cross-examine you is Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel
9 for Mr. Stanisic.
10 Please proceed.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.
13 A. Good evening.
14 Q. I want to take you back to the time when you joined in 1991 as a
15 volunteer, as a volunteer, as I understand it, as a member of the TO
16 SBWS. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that status lasted for a week before you received a military
19 summons from the JNA?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And am I correct that you were amongst a number of men
22 volunteering at that time?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And are you able to give us a picture of how many men, how
25 regular it was at that point for men to be volunteering to that TO?
1 A. Well, I can say that there was a large-scale response. There
2 were a lot.
3 Q. Hundreds or thousands?
4 A. Well, the Yugoslav People's Army accepted volunteers at the time
5 as well as the TO, so it's very hard for me to say. Hundreds of men
7 Q. And similarly to you, are you aware of hundreds of men thereafter
8 receiving summons to report to the 1st Guards Brigade at the JNA?
9 A. Some did, some did not. Some volunteered, or rather, stayed
10 voluntarily on the strength of some of the units.
11 Q. And were there many of you reporting to the barracks in Sid to
12 join the JNA?
13 A. Well, that was just a temporary arrangement. There was no
14 military facility in Sid before 1991, but you can call that facility a
16 Q. And when you went to the barracks, were you given weapons there
17 by the JNA?
18 A. Yes, I got an automatic rifle, an M-70.
19 Q. Did you observe other men similarly being given weapons by the
21 A. Members of my group received weapons, a non-commissioned officer
22 unloaded a truck and distributed weapons from the crates. He made a list
23 of everything that he distributed.
24 Q. And could every man attending receive a weapon from the JNA? Or
25 did every man that you observed receive a weapon from the JNA?
1 A. Well, everybody received weapons.
2 Q. Did you also observe taxi-drivers driving volunteers for free to
3 the SBWS TO office which was in Sid around that time?
4 A. I am aware of that.
5 Q. And similarly coaches driving volunteers for free to the SBWS TO
7 A. Volunteers would come to the train station. There they would
8 find taxi-drivers, and some of them, not all, drove them for free to the
9 town centre where the office was.
10 Q. And what would happen once they'd registered at the office? How
11 would they, if their intention was to go to the front, how would they be
12 processed from thereafter?
13 A. I can share my example with you. I don't know what happened to
14 the others. I can tell you how I was treated when I reported, when I
15 volunteered at that office.
16 Q. Please briefly, if you would.
17 A. They took my particulars, my first and last names. They wanted
18 to inspect my military booklet. In the military booklet there is a
19 description of war assignment. They were not allowed to accept
20 volunteers with a war assignment because it was never known when or it
21 was not known when could the JNA mobilise such persons. If somebody did
22 not have a war assignment recorded in their military booklet, they would
23 receive a piece of paper. We would go to the temporary military base, we
24 would hand it over there. We stayed there for a couple of days, we were
25 trained and equipped with weapons.
1 Q. And how would you be taken to the front? Where was that front at
2 the time?
3 A. The temporary barracks was located at the exit from the town of
4 Sid, and my first engagement or my first front line was the village of
5 Tovarnik which is about 5 kilometres away from the barracks. Half the
6 way we travelled on a Pinzgauer and the other half we crawled to the
7 village. We approached the village secretly.
8 Q. Sorry, which village did you approach secretly?
9 A. .
10 Q. And why was that? Why was it done secretly?
11 A. Well, why? Because we were on a mission to attack that village.
12 Q. Right. Did you -- just to summarise and so that I understand the
13 situation correctly, at the time you began and were recruited by the JNA,
14 was it right that everyone you met received their weapons either from the
15 JNA or from the TO in Sid?
16 A. I don't know. I don't know actually. Or perhaps I didn't
17 understand your question. All those I knew -- are you asking me whether
18 they all received weapons from the JNA or the TO?
19 Q. Yes. Was that where the people you knew received their weapons
21 A. I believe that we had all received our weapons from the JNA.
22 Q. And am I correct that at the time -- and which period exactly are
23 we talking about?
24 A. September 1991.
25 Q. And am I correct that at the time there were strict controls as
1 to who could carry weapons in and out of the SBWS region from Serbia
2 A. Well, I didn't go out that often, and whenever I did go out and
3 then return, it had all been organised and arranged. I don't know who
4 checked, if anything.
5 Q. Well --
6 A. And -- I apologise. There were probably checks for weapons if
7 anybody was travelling on their own individually. I always travelled as
8 part of an organised arrangement. Whenever we returned from the
9 battlefield, the military police would be checking to see anybody had
10 stolen anything or something of that sort.
11 Q. Let me just try to understand the situation. If you were
12 travelling in JNA uniform in an organised fashion, could you travel from
14 A. That was precisely how I got in from Serbia, carrying weapons.
15 Q. Right. And if on the other hand you were travelling in as an
16 individual or a small number of individuals carrying weapons, you would
17 be stopped by the military police or the civilian police; is that what
18 you observed?
19 A. Since I hail from Sid and it is located quite close to the
20 region, I would receive furlough for a day or two to go back home and
21 would receive a permit for free movement which would state the quantity
22 and types of weapons I carried. Without such a permit, one could not
23 carry weapons to Serbia
24 Q. Right. And the permit would state that you were a member of the
25 JNA; is that correct?
1 A. Well, the permits were issued by the JNA and solely those issued
2 by the JNA were valid, even if a TO structure were to issue such a
3 permit, it had to be validated by the JNA.
4 Q. So in absence of validation by the JNA, you can confirm that the
5 civilian or the military police were stopping and seizing weapons, can
6 you confirm that?
7 A. Are we talking about 1991 or in general? If we are talking in
8 general terms, I did see for myself on a couple of occasions when some of
9 my colleagues who travelled together with me were -- had their weapons
10 seized by the policemen or even in some cases were taken into custody or
12 Q. And when you say in general terms, when did that happen?
13 A. When I say in general terms I mean from 1991 through to the end
14 of 1992 at a time when there was fierce fighting in the region. After
15 the fall of Vukovar when more peaceful times settled in, I don't think
16 there were many volunteers left there anymore.
17 The point you are trying to make is whether there were
18 check-points along the border, yes, there were.
19 Q. And from what -- I just want to be clear then we can move on.
20 From 1991 through to the end of 1992 there was check-points, from what
21 you observed, were stopping volunteers who were not certified as a member
22 of the JNA, stopping, searching, and removing weapons?
23 A. What I know is that the most rigorous check-point of that sort
24 was in Baranja. The one next to Sid was not that rigorous. There was a
25 large check-point near Belgrade
1 carried out. I suppose there were other check-points, but I didn't take
2 all the roads in that area so I don't know.
3 Q. And from what -- for what reason -- let me start that again. Did
4 you identify a reason why the check-point at Sid was not as rigorous as
5 the others?
6 A. Not always, but in the early days of September, October, and
7 November 1991, it wasn't that rigorous because there was a very high
8 level of traffic of the army crossing that point, and when I tell you how
9 rigorous it was, well, I'm telling you what people told me, that it was
10 less rigorous than the check-point in Baranja.
11 MR. JORDASH: Could we have P1703 on the screen.
12 Q. I want to ask you about a comment you make concerning the actions
13 of the local court in Sid. Do you recall that evidence? About the local
14 court not taking actions against individuals from -- who left the
15 territory of Sid or those who within Sid committed crimes against Croats?
16 Do you recall that?
17 A. I said that I didn't know of a single case at the time and I
18 truly don't.
19 Q. And how significant was the SRS
20 that point in terms of its influence on the authorities?
21 A. Without any doubt it was the socialist party that was the most
22 powerful party. The SRS
23 some authority in Sid. I don't know how far that authority went and I
24 can't express it in percentages.
25 Q. You were -- is this right, employed or worked for at least the
1 Municipal Board in Sid after the fall of Vukovar in 1991; is that
3 A. You mean the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party?
4 Q. Yes, I do.
5 A. I was a member of the Serbian Radical Party and a member of the
6 Municipal Board.
7 Q. And what was the role of the Municipal Board?
8 A. Well, party related activities. Preparation for elections.
9 Q. And was there interaction with the JNA between the Municipal
10 Board and the authorities of the JNA?
11 A. Between the Municipal Board and the JNA, I don't think so, but
12 there was between the Main Board and the JNA.
13 Q. Sorry, what is the Main Board?
14 A. The Main Board of the Serbian Radical Party in Belgrade. They
15 had relations with the JNA. As far as I remember -- well, the Main Board
16 also set up a Crisis Staff, and as far as I remember it was
17 Ljubisa Petkovic who was charged with liaising with the JNA.
18 Q. And was that liaising with the JNA something which occurred
19 throughout 1991 and 1992?
20 A. In 1992 I was sent out into the field or perhaps on two occasions
21 as organised by the SRS
22 would take us to the Boban Potok Barracks where we would undergo short
23 training, some test firing, and from there we would be deployed to the
24 theatre of war. On one occasion it was by plane and on the other by bus.
25 Q. And that barracks was a JNA facility; is that correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And the plane involved was a JNA plane?
3 A. We were taken out to the field by a military plane and returned
4 from Banja Luka on a civilian plane.
5 Q. Now, what other form of liaising with the JNA took place? Are
6 you able to give a little more detail about the Main Board's interaction
7 with the JNA? Again focusing on 1991 and 1992.
8 A. Well, the JNA -- or, I am sorry, not the JNA, the Serbian Radical
9 Party organised volunteers, drew up lists of them, and took them to
11 disposal of the JNA. If the JNA needed men, the SRS would organise these
12 volunteers and deploy them to the JNA.
13 Q. And whilst you worked for the 1st Guards Brigade, you received a
14 salary from the JNA; is that correct?
15 A. Well, I didn't work for the 1st Guards Brigade. I was a
16 volunteer within the 1st Guards Brigade. I did receive my salary, yes.
17 I went to pick it up personally to the Guards Brigade barracks in
20 Q. Now, let me take you very briefly to some training that you
21 underwent. You were trained, is this correct, just shortly before you
22 went to Vukovar?
23 A. Yes. After the actions in the villages of Tovarnik,
24 Djeletovci --
25 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter didn't catch the third
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- my group was sent back to Serbia
3 to Sid to a place called Lipovaca which is a countryside resort. We
4 underwent some sort of training there waiting for a certain amount of
5 people to gather and from there we were deployed to the Vukovar front.
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. And you were trained in part from one of Martic's police; is
8 that correct?
9 A. One of the four instructors was the only one who was a serious
10 instructor who taught us something and he was called Giovanni. He wore a
11 camouflage uniform with the emblem of the Krajina police. The other
12 three were just Chetniks, nothing serious at all.
13 Q. Now, when you were officially a member of the 1st Guards Brigade,
14 what did you observe about the attitude towards crimes; specifically, was
15 it very much dependent upon the commander of a particular unit and what
16 approach that commander took?
17 A. To give a picture of what it was like, the Guards Brigade had its
18 active members who were in fact conscripts, young people who had to go
19 through their compulsory term. They also had members of the reserve
20 force and volunteers. We the volunteers could choose our own squad and
21 platoon commanders. They did not impose their own officers on us. And
22 that's how it worked.
23 Q. And that went for all volunteers, they could choose their own
24 squad and platoon commanders? I'm focusing on your time during the
25 Vukovar operations.
1 A. Well, you see, when I came to Vukovar from the Lipovaca camp, the
2 instructor had already chosen me to be a squad commander. My platoon
3 commander, a lieutenant, got killed in one of the first actions in
4 Vukovar and that was when I was chosen to be the platoon commander.
5 Q. Now, I want to just ask you about -- actually, just let me go
6 back a little. How would volunteers choose their own squad and platoon
7 commanders? How would they make that choice?
8 A. If we are talking about Vukovar, it was already at a time when we
9 were in the Lipovaca camp. The instructor chose the backbone, let's say,
10 and then at some other deployments -- well, by that time the Vukovar
11 experience had already made some sort of a selection. I knew from the
12 start when I joined the volunteers that I would at least be a squad
13 commander because of the -- of my comportment out in the field because of
14 how I related to other people. And that was the case with others as
16 Q. And did you act to prevent crime in your role as squad commander?
17 A. I was a platoon commander and I had four squads under me. I
18 don't know what sort of crime you are referring to. Ordinary crime or
19 war crimes? I did not see any sort of crime occurring before my very own
21 Q. Do you say that it depended upon the squad or platoon commander
22 whether crimes were committed by those under their command during the
23 Vukovar operations?
24 A. I am convinced that it all depended on the unit concerned.
25 Q. And did it also depend upon whether the military police were in
1 the locality?
2 A. You are right, of course.
3 Q. And just going back, the training that you received prior to
4 Vukovar, were you told about not committing crimes? Were you warned
5 about it and educated in how to behave?
6 A. Nobody explicitly mentioned any sort of criminal acts, but I do
7 specifically remember having been told that we should not hurl grenades
8 into cellars before we call to the house and say come out. I can't
9 remember the exact wording but that's what I did. Before I would gain
10 entrance to a house that fire had been opened out of, you had to make
11 sure if anybody was still in the house or not, and of course, the safest
12 way of doing that was to throw a grenade at it. But before you did so,
13 it was necessary for you to say, "This is the JNA, come out of the
14 house." It is possible that because of shelling, people sought shelter
15 in the cellar of the house. That's what we were taught.
16 Q. So you were directly trained to give that warning before entering
17 a house, trained to tell the civilian, if there were any civilians, that
18 you were JNA; correct?
19 A. Explicitly.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch what the witness
22 MR. JORDASH:
23 Q. Could you repeat your answer, please.
24 A. The instructor said you don't know what urban warfare means. You
25 have to get into houses, cellars, et cetera. In doing so, you will have
1 to use your side-arms and grenades, hand-grenades, but before you throw a
2 hand-grenade in an urban area, you have to say, this is the JNA, come
3 out. If there are civilians around, they will most probably get out of a
4 building. Soldiers probably won't.
5 Q. Were you -- sorry?
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock, can you wind up.
7 MR. JORDASH: I will, Your Honours. Let me just ask two
9 Q. Did you in those circumstances also shout to civilians that you
10 were acting in according to the Geneva Conventions?
11 A. It would be very naive if we had mentioned the Geneva
12 Conventions, but I remember that we used the term "law." We were
13 supposed to say, "You will be treated in accordance with the law." There
14 may have been people who also used the Geneva Conventions, but I really
15 don't remember.
16 MR. JORDASH: Okay. That's fine. I'll leave it at that. Thank
17 you, Mr. Witness. Thank you, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then we'll adjourn for the day. I would
19 like to instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in any
20 other way with anyone about your testimony whether already given or still
21 to be given, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in
22 this same courtroom because we adjourn until Wednesday the 15th of
23 December, 9.00, Courtroom II.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of
2 December, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.