Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10562

 1                           Tuesday, 25 January 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.28 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone after a recess slightly

 6     longer than we had in mind when we left this courtroom last year.  This

 7     was caused by a request of the Defence to have additional time to study

 8     the Mladic diaries.

 9             Yes, Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

11     Good afternoon, everyone.  This is case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus

12     Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

13             Thank you, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

15             I'd like to briefly deal with a few procedural matters.  I'm also

16     informed that the parties would like to raise some procedural matters as

17     well.  I'll try to go through it as quickly as possible without

18     challenging the capacities of our interpreters and transcriber.

19             First, I'd like to read out a request which is the following:

20     This is a request for information from the parties on matters related to

21     the further scheduling of this case.  While the Chamber is well aware

22     that there are a number of pending issues that may make it difficult for

23     the parties to accurately predict the future scheduling, the Chamber

24     nonetheless views it as important that some sort of time-frame be set, in

25     order to give all parties and the Chamber an idea of what to expect.

Page 10563

 1             The Chamber therefore requests the Prosecution and each Defence

 2     team to make brief submissions on the following five questions, and the

 3     submissions should be filed no later than the 2nd of February:

 4             Firstly, the Prosecution is asked to inform the Chamber on what

 5     dated it expects to close its case.

 6             Secondly, the Defence teams are asked to inform the Chamber if

 7     they intend to make submissions pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Tribunal's

 8     Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and if so, how much time they would

 9     require for the actual submissions.

10             Thirdly, the parties are asked to inform the Chamber on how many

11     working days they would require between the closure of the Prosecution's

12     case and a possible first hearing for Rule 98 bis submissions.

13             Fourthly, the Defence teams are asked to inform the Chamber on

14     how many working days they would require between the last day of

15     Rule 98 bis submissions, if any, and the start of the Defence case, if

16     there is a need to present one.

17             Fifthly, and finally, the Defence teams are asked to inform the

18     Chamber, provided that there is a need to present a case, in which order

19     they would like to present their evidence.

20             In it's planning, the Chamber will do its utmost to take the

21     parties' wishes into account.

22             And this concludes the Chamber's request for information.

23             Second item I'd like to deal with is related to Witness JF-051.

24     The OTP, in an e-mail of the 16th of December to the Simatovic Defence,

25     has announced that it would drop the evidence of Witness JF-051.  As a

Page 10564

 1     consequence of this information, the Chamber declares moot, A, the

 2     Prosecution's motion for admission of further written evidence of

 3     Witness JF-051 pursuant to Rule 92 ter, which was filed on the

 4     28th of August, 2008; B, an OTP request for an in-camera examination on

 5     protective measures which dates the 22nd of June, 2010.  Further, the

 6     Chamber declares moot the Prosecution motion for the admission of the

 7     diary of JF-051 pursuant to Rule 94(B) which was filed confidentially on

 8     the 19th of July, 2010.

 9             In relation to that last motion, I put on the record that the

10     Stanisic Defence responded to this motion on the 2nd of August, 2010,

11     that the Prosecution then on the 6th of August, 2010, filed a request for

12     leave to reply to the Stanisic Defence, and the Chamber granted the

13     Prosecution leave to reply, and informed the parties by way of an e-mail

14     on the 19th of August.  This was all not yet on the record.  It is now,

15     but that doesn't change that the Chamber has declared the motion moot.

16             I'd like to move into private session.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10565











11 Page 10565 redacted. Private session.















Page 10566

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session, thank

10     you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             On the 12th of January, the Stanisic Defence has informed the

13     Chamber through an informal communication that it had decided not to

14     request a re-call of Witness JF-056 for further cross-examination.

15             We have not received any request from the Simatovic Defence for

16     further cross.

17             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the

18     Simatovic Defence -- well, I don't know, we have informed the OTP and the

19     Chamber that we are giving up on a witness that we thought we might

20     re-call for cross-examination, yes, it's JF-052.  But as far as JF-056,

21     that's fine; we don't want to re-call him either.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the Victims and Witness Section is hereby

23     instructed to inform the witness that the instruction that was given to

24     him not to speak to anyone about his testimony is hereby lifted.

25             Next matter.  On the 10th of January, 2011, the OTP has informed

Page 10567

 1     the parties that it would not call Witnesses JF-055 and JF-028.  This

 2     information was also included in the weekly notification to the parties

 3     on witnesses.  As a result, the Chamber hereby declares the 92 ter

 4     motions for Witnesses JF-055 and JF-028 moot.

 5             Next matter.  On the 10th of November, you, Mr. Jordash, objected

 6     to the Prosecution's line of questioning of Witness JF-004 based on lack

 7     of notice and in relation to voice recognition of Stanisic.  At the end

 8     of the cross-examination on the 11th of November, you've asked to keep

 9     the cross-examination open in order to consult a voice recognition

10     expert.  Mr. Jordash, I hereby put on the record, on the 24th of January,

11     you have in an informal communication informed the parties that you would

12     see no need anymore to keep the cross-examination of Witness JF-004 open,

13     and for that reason, hereby the Victims and Witness Section is instructed

14     to inform Witness JF-004 that the instruction given to him that he should

15     not speak to anyone about his testimony is hereby lifted.

16             Then I would like to deliver a statement on behalf of the

17     Chamber; it is the Chamber's statement with regard to an amended sitting

18     schedule in the present case.  On the 6th of December, 2010, the Chamber

19     invited the reporting medical officer, the two independent medical

20     experts, and the parties to make submissions on the possibility of

21     increasing the number of sitting days from three to four days per week.

22     These submissions were all filed in December 2010.

23             On the 12th of January, 2011, the Prosecution informally notified

24     the Defence and the Chamber of its schedule of witnesses for the

25     remainder of its case.  According to this schedule, the Prosecution

Page 10568

 1     expects to close its case, as far as the hearing of witnesses is

 2     concerned, around mid-February 2011, after only a few more weeks of court

 3     sessions.

 4             Under these circumstances, the Chamber has decided, for the

 5     moment, not to further pursue the option of increasing the number of

 6     sitting days per week.  The Chamber will continue to sit three days per

 7     week throughout the remainder of the Prosecution's case, with the

 8     possibility of exceptionally increasing the sitting days if the

 9     scheduling of witnesses should require this.  The Chamber may return to

10     this issue at a later stage should there be a Defence case.

11             And this concludes the Chamber's statement.

12             Last item I would like to raise.  On the 16th of December of last

13     year, the Chamber admitted into evidence the previous testimony of

14     witness Babic as public exhibits.  Out of an abundance of caution, the

15     OTP is requested to verify that no parts of the previous testimony are

16     still subject to protective measures and report to the Chamber by Friday

17     this week.

18             These were the matters.  I have one left, but in view of the

19     time, I would prefer to deal with that one at a later stage.  I was

20     informed that the parties would like to raise certain issues.

21             Mr. Groome.

22             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I have an application with respect to

23     the protective measures of the next witness that I would ask that we go

24     into private session for me to address the Chamber on.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

Page 10569

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10570

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Open session]

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.  Thank

16     you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

18             Mr. Groome, any other matter?

19             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

21             MR. JORDASH:  The matter I'd like to raise is not a matter that I

22     need to deal with at length right now but it is a matter which has become

23     urgent and I'm seeking guidance from Your Honours as to when I can

24     address you at some length on the issue.  In a nutshell, the issue is

25     that I am now without co-counsel, working co-counsel, I should say.  And

Page 10571

 1     that is the result of funding inadequacies in this case arising from two

 2     directions:  Principally, one, OLAD under-funding; and, two, also as a

 3     result of a partial indigency order and the client having no further

 4     money.  We haven't in this Defence team resources to fund a second

 5     counsel.  Now, it will take some time to outline precisely how we arrived

 6     at this situation.  It has been a situation which has existed for many

 7     months but has been handled largely by, as Your Honours and the parties

 8     may have observed, myself conducting all the cross-examinations and

 9     effectively, in large part, playing the part of two counsel.

10             We have outstanding applications with both the president of this

11     Court and with OLAD; the first seeking an overturning of the indigency

12     decision, the original indigency decision, and the second seeking OLAD's

13     more reasonable assessment of the required funding of this case.  That

14     was filed on the 19th of November and as yet we still -- we have received

15     no answer.

16             The long and short of it is that there is absolutely no way the

17     funding in this case for the Stanisic Defence can possibly fund two

18     counsel, with one caveat; with the caveat that we fund ourselves and a P2

19     or P3 level.  And as far as I'm concerned and as far as Mr. Knoops, who

20     is the co-counsel on record is concerned, that is completely

21     unacceptable.

22             And so I'm raising it at this point.  It's an issue of fair trial

23     rights.  And that's why we seek to bring it before the Trial Chamber.

24     It's an issue of how this case can proceed.  It is one thing to manage

25     during the Prosecution case with only partial assistance of a co-counsel;

Page 10572

 1     it's another thing to manage during a Defence case, which, as I know from

 2     experience, is a much more labour-intensive endeavour.  And in my

 3     respectful submission, it is simply not possible to do what we have to do

 4     over the next few months without additional funding and without

 5     additional counsel.

 6             I don't want to take the Court's time up at the moment, because I

 7     appreciate the delicacy of these next witnesses, and I simply raise it at

 8     this point.  I would ask the Court to give me 30 minutes at some point

 9     over the next few days to lay out precisely what the problems have been,

10     precisely what the consequences are for our ability to prepare for the

11     Defence, and precisely what we will be seeking at this stage as a remedy.

12             Those are my immediate submissions.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jordash.

14             Any further matter?

15             The Chamber, of course, will consider your request, and I take it

16     that the matter is important enough that we hear, either in the way you

17     suggest or in any other way, any submissions, or read any submissions.

18     It could well be that the Chamber for obvious reasons might want to

19     inform itself about how matters at this moment are proceeding, apart from

20     the fact that the primary responsibility for these matters is not with

21     the Chamber, although it may result in any secondary responsibility.

22     That's what you hinted at, I take it.

23             Would there be any problem if the Chamber already would inquire

24     as to where matters are getting stuck at this moment so that we at least

25     show a keen interest in matters, in whatever direction, to be resolved,

Page 10573

 1     rather than to be on our desk for another half a year.  I mean, we could

 2     ask OLAD, When do you think that what -- do you think that the matter

 3     could be resolved.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  They've indicated that the issue of the monthly

 5     allowance, which is the principal problem, will be dealt with by the end

 6     of the week.  They've separated that issue from the issue of the

 7     employment of a co-counsel and have indicated they'll respond to that in

 8     due course.

 9             Without getting into -- further into the argument, we would

10     invite the Trial Chamber to make whatever inquiries Your Honours felt

11     could properly apprise yourself of the issues.  We -- it is a complicated

12     issue, because the funding policy of OLAD is almost impenetrable, to my

13     mind at least, and it has a lengthy history.

14             Now, I do not expect to be able to lay it all out orally because

15     it is that complicated, but -- [overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I see that.  And the only thing I was inquiring

17     with you is that if we would seek further practical information.  Because

18     I think it would be appropriate that we would first listen to you before

19     seeing whether there would be any -- any reason why we should go into the

20     subject matter, which is of course something different from just knowing

21     as to how to proceed and how matters stand.  And we would do that in full

22     transparency so in order not to get mixed up in our various positions:

23     the one is outsiders, where we are not competent to decide on certain

24     matters; and to the other extent being insiders, that we are the

25     Guardians of the fair trial rights of the accused.

Page 10574

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, do you have any matter to raise?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since we are discussing

 4     the matter with the Registry, I would kindly ask you to raise a problem

 5     of our financing.  We have problems with resources, especially we've had

 6     those problems over the past two months, January and February.  The -- it

 7     remains unknown where our Defence will be funded from.  I didn't have

 8     anything special to add to this discussion, but since we are talking

 9     about your discussions with the Registry and since you have kindly

10     promised to raise the issue of the other Defence, I would kindly ask you

11     to raise the issue of our Defence as well.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Again, we are not going to the merits at this

13     stage; we are primarily looking at what the direct impact, practical

14     consequences, of these discussions are.  But I notice that apparently the

15     financial creases has not missed to enter this courtroom, although rather

16     late.

17             Any other matter?  If not, then I suggest to the parties that we

18     would move into closed session in order to hear the evidence of the next

19     witness.  One second.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  My staff reminds me that if we would ever want to

22     lift the closed session, whether we would just satisfy ourselves with the

23     transcript or whether we would have to put face and voice distortion as

24     an additional measure which would grant more flexibility at a later

25     stage, whether we should put face and voice distortion in effect.

Page 10575

 1             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I haven't ask the witness that specific

 2     question, but from my discussions with him, I think he was thinking more

 3     in terms of the transcript; he felt that that gave him the protection.  I

 4     think he may -- we can ask him when he comes in, but I think he may still

 5     have significant concerns with face and voice distortion.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             I earlier introduced the matter with the Defence teams in terms

 8     of making the transcript public.  They agreed with that.  Mr. Groome now

 9     seems to -- that he would like to persist by that proposal.  If there's

10     any change of your minds, then I'd like to hear it now.

11             MR. JORDASH:  We leave it to the Trial Chamber's discretion,

12     Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  In those circumstances, we'll consider during the

14     first break whether for the sessions after that we would -- because it

15     would require at this moment a preparation of some 20 minutes to put

16     especially the voice distortion in place --

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. GROOME:  That was the original protection.  I believe I can

20     see the setup here now, so it may be immediately available, if the

21     Chamber wishes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I spent too many words without thinking thoroughly

23     and informing myself properly.

24             We turn into closed session.

25     [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]

Page 10576











11 Pages 10576-10578 redacted. Closed session.















Page 10579

 1                           Examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]

 2        Q.   JF-030, in light of the protections that the Chamber has extended

 3     to you, I will refer to you throughout my examination as JF-030.

 4             I do know that you are fluent both in English and Serbian; which

 5     language would you prefer to testify here in today?

 6        A.   I can use any of the two.  Is it possible for me to use Serbian

 7     when examined by the Defence, and when I'm examined by yourself, I would

 8     like to use English; is that possible?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think, as a matter of fact, if you'd say you

10     would prefer direct communication with the person who examines you by

11     using the same language, if that's your preferred choice, then I think

12     there's no reason not to follow that.

13             I would like to add two things:  First, whenever you feel, even

14     if you are speaking English, that you have difficulties in expressing

15     yourself in that language and that you would rather rely on your mother

16     tongue, that -- please indicate and change the language, but give our

17     interpreters an opportunity to make that switch with you.

18             Second, if you use the same language as the person that examines

19     you, then there is a risk that direct response will cause difficulties

20     for our interpreters.  So you're invited both when examined in English,

21     but also once you'll be examined in B/C/S, that you make a break, a small

22     pause, between question and answer.  And counsel will demonstrate how to

23     do that.

24             Isn't it, Mr. Groome?

25             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

Page 10580

 1        Q.   JF-030, did you, JF-053, myself, and investigator Gary Selsky

 2     have a brief meeting last evening after you arrived in The Hague?

 3        A.   [In English] Yes.

 4        Q.   And during this meeting -- and during this meeting, did you

 5     inform me that while you remain reluctant to give evidence in this case

 6     because of security concerns, it is your intention here today to answer

 7     questions that myself, the Defence, or the Trial Chamber may put to you?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   JF-030, in order to expedite your testimony here today, it is my

10     intention to tender three documents containing your evidence.  First a

11     statement signed by you and provided in August of 2003, identified as

12     65 ter 5771.  Second, on 14 September 2009, you reviewed your 2003

13     statement and informed Thomas Evangelos, an OTP staff member, of

14     corrections you wished to make.  I will seek to tender his notes from

15     that review, identified as 65 ter 5855.

16             And finally, in November of 2007, you met with another member of

17     the OTP by the name of Klaus Hoffmann and provided additional information

18     to him, which he recorded in a memorandum dated the 15th of February,

19     2008, identified as 65 ter 5851.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, could I ask you, the September 2009, you

21     identified them as 65 ter 5855; however, on a sheet we received, it is

22     5255.

23             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour, I --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Where is the mistake?

25             MR. GROOME: -- apologise; that was a typographical error that I

Page 10581

 1     should have corrected in advance of my testimony [sic].  The correct

 2     65 ter number in e-court is 5855.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That, then -- yeah, it's clear to me.  Thank

 4     you.  Please proceed.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   During our meeting yesterday evening, did I provide you with a

 7     copy of these three documents and ask that you review them prior to

 8     coming to the court here today?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Did you, in fact, review these documents last evening and this

11     morning and inform me that there were some changes you wished to make?

12        A.   Yes, I did.  I told that there's some details in the -- in this

13     statement what was written by Mr. -- the German guy I think so.

14        Q.   Mr. Hoffmann?

15        A.   Mr. Hoffmann, yes.

16        Q.   I'm going to take these in order and then we can address any

17     corrections you wish to make in an orderly fashion.  I would first like

18     to deal with your 2003 statement and the corrections that you advised

19     Mr. Evangelos of in September 2009.

20             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that 65 ter 5771 be called to the

21     screens before us.

22        Q.   Now, if you look to the screen, or the screen on your right, in a

23     few moments you should see 65 ter 5771.  I can see that it is now being

24     displayed.  Do you recognise this document?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10582

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Not to be shown to the public.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That goes without saying when we are in closed

 4     session.  Please proceed.

 5             MR. GROOME:

 6        Q.   Is this your 2003 statement?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Is that your signature in the line with "witness" written below

 9     it?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. GROOME:  Your Honours, at this time could I ask that

12     65 ter 5855 be called to our screens.  It is an information report dated

13     the 14th of September, 2009.

14        Q.   While we are waiting for both versions to be shown to us, can I

15     ask you, since you do speak English, what was the language that you

16     worked in and that you reviewed in advance of your testimony?  Did you

17     work with the English version or did you work with the B/C/S version?

18        A.   On that time, it was Mr. Garry Selsky -- actually, not.  In the

19     2003, it was -- it was Mr. Kaizer Rizvi.  And on that time I was

20     communicate and I was giving the statement in English to him.

21        Q.   And when you reviewed that in advance of your testimony today,

22     did you review the English version?

23        A.   I review English version.

24        Q.   Now, with respect to 5855, which is now on our screen, can I

25     first ask you, are these the notes of Mr. Evangelos recording corrections

Page 10583

 1     to your 2003 statement that I asked you to review before your testimony?

 2        A.   Yes, that's right.

 3        Q.   And did you -- there are two versions on our screens; which is

 4     the version that you reviewed for the purposes of this exercise?

 5        A.   Actually, I review both of them and I saw there was some missed

 6     points, some differences, because whoever was doing the translation, he

 7     didn't translate it from English to B/H/S [sic] as I was saying.

 8        Q.   So which should the Chamber consider the authoritative version,

 9     the more reliable version?

10        A.   English.

11        Q.   Now, after having reviewed the English version of 5855, did

12     Mr. Evangelos accurately record the corrections and clarifications you

13     wished to make to your 2003 statement?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. GROOME:  Can I ask that we return for a moment to 65 ter 5771

16     and to paragraph 89.

17        Q.   While that's being called up, perhaps I can refresh your

18     recollection.  That paragraph describes events surrounding the NATO

19     bombing of Serbia in March of 1999.  You provide information about people

20     you describe as Frenki's Men and say:

21             "They were putting on musk," m-u-s-k.

22             Can you describe for us what you meant to say in paragraph 89?

23     What were the men putting on?

24        A.   The mask what usually using -- actually, this is like a -- like

25     a -- or to put on the face, to cover your face, like Special Forces and

Page 10584

 1     other, let's say, police units, not to be recognised by their faces in

 2     publicity.

 3        Q.   And do you recall the colour of that mask or those masks?

 4        A.   Yeah, usually it's black.  Black.

 5        Q.   Now, are there any other corrections you wish to make to your

 6     2003 statement?

 7        A.   I think so there is nothing there to be -- to be changed.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Could I now ask that 65 ter 5851, an information

 9     report authored by Klaus Hoffmann and dated the 15th of February, 2008,

10     be brought to our screen.

11        Q.   The last document I'd like to deal with this afternoon is a

12     report that an OTP staff member Klaus Hoffmann drafted in February 2008,

13     after speaking with you on the 14th and 15th of November 2007.

14             I'd ask you to look at the document on your screen.  It is

15     currently identified as 65 ter 5851.  Are these the notes of Mr. Hoffmann

16     that I asked you to review in advance of your testimony?

17        A.   Yeah, that's it.

18        Q.   After reviewing this document, did you have a number of

19     corrections you would need to make to Mr. Hoffmann's notes in order for

20     them to accurately reflect your evidence?

21        A.   Yes, definitely.

22        Q.   This morning did you identify for me the paragraphs you wished to

23     either change or add text to before you adopt this document as accurately

24     reflecting your evidence?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10585

 1        Q.   The most orderly way that we can proceed is the following:  I

 2     will draw your attention to each paragraph you indicated you wished to

 3     make a change to, and I would ask the usher to display that paragraph on

 4     the screen before you.  When we all can see the paragraph on the screen,

 5     would you please tell us what amendments you wish to make to that

 6     paragraph and that paragraph only.  Once we have finished with a

 7     paragraph, I will advance until we come to the end of the document.

 8             MR. GROOME:  I'd ask that we first look at paragraph 4, which is

 9     on the screen presently in the English version.

10        Q.   Would you please tell us, after you have refreshed your

11     recollection by reading it, what, if any, changes you wish to make to

12     this paragraph.

13        A.   First of all, I would also say there would need to be a minor

14     change also in the number 3, paragraph number 3.

15        Q.   Please tell us what that change would be.

16        A.   Yeah.  Here is stated that it was necessary to get a

17     recommendation from DB for any post, even in the SJB.

18             In Yugoslavia it was always necessary, whenever somebody were

19     applying to get a job in the state institutions, need to have a good

20     recommendation which was done by the service people who were taking the

21     acknowledge about the person on the ground, on the field, to find out who

22     he is, is he okay or not, his family, et cetera, et cetera.  On that time

23     also was very interested political, also, orientation of the people; so

24     if you were politically, let's say, okay, and you have a good background

25     and family good background, they were giving recommendation, and this

Page 10586

 1     recommendation was always accepted and requested, actually.  To get the

 2     good position, good job, and the responsible position, you needed have

 3     this kind of recommendation.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Now, with respect to paragraph 4, what, if any, changes do

 5     you wish to make to that paragraph?

 6        A.   Yeah.  In the paragraph number 4 it is stated that Ilija Kojic,

 7     Milan Milanovic, aka Mrgud, from time to time they went to Belgrade to

 8     report directly to Stanisic.  I didn't say this, that, and I wouldn't say

 9     this, directly to Stanisic, because they went to Belgrade.  They didn't

10     say to me, Okay, we are going to Stanisic.  But they went to Belgrade to

11     give the report about the situation, about the needs on the fields, what

12     was necessary about standard things.  And they went to Belgrade for,

13     let's say, giving the report to the people who are on top, who can make

14     the decision and who can give the further instructions what to do, how to

15     do it, I mean, who were on top.

16        Q.   Now can I draw your attention to paragraph 5.  That was a

17     paragraph you indicated that you wanted to add some information to.

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23             During that time it was territory of Yugoslavia, and it was some

24     intention of necessities to cut the part of Yugoslavia.  And the people

25     who were deployed on the fields, they were supposed to get the salaries.

Page 10587

 1     And that salaries, it's normally coming -- came from Belgrade, from

 2     capital, for -- to pay people who were deployed to -- to that area.  So

 3     it was normal situation during that time.

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10588

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7             MR. GROOME:  Now, if we could advance to paragraph 12.  Looks

 8     like we may have gone too far.

 9        Q.   What, if anything, would you want to change in this paragraph?

10        A.   Yeah, here it's stated that I was saying that Red Berets, a unit

11     in Ilok under the direct command of the Serbian DB and Frenki Simatovic.

12     I would change this.  It was on that time the Red Berets were formed by

13     the instruction of Badza Stojicic, and on that time, as I know, my

14     knowledge is that Frenki was not involved in this, that meaning

15     Mr. Simatovic.

16             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we go to paragraph 14.

17        Q.   What, if anything, do you wish to change to this paragraph?

18        A.   Yeah.  It was also stated here that Arkan was responsible in

19     reporting only to Stanisic.  I never said like this.  Arkan was --

20     whatever he was doing, he was giving the report to the head of the -- of

21     the -- of the responsible people in the state.  That mean to DB or to

22     whomever, but I never mentioned that he was under his command direct.

23             And also this I would change:  The name, this word "criminals," I

24     would put there militants who were not -- they would not be easy to be

25     controlled.

Page 10589

 1        Q.   There are two -- that word is used twice in this paragraph, first

 2     in the second line.  Which --

 3        A.   Yeah, two times, yes.  "Commander of criminals who could not be

 4     controlled."  I would put:  "The militants who could not be controlled."

 5        Q.   And what do you mean?  How do you define militants?

 6        A.   Militants are the people who are extremists; it doesn't matter

 7     they are criminals or not.  You have a people who are -- who have very

 8     strong national feeling, and you have them everywhere.  Most of them,

 9     during that time, Arkan knew them and they knew Arkan from the time when

10     he was leader of the -- of the, let's say, football funds, Delije, who

11     were very extremes, et cetera, et cetera.  Therefore I would not put

12     "criminals," because they were not everybody criminal who was there.

13     Maybe there were some people with a criminal back or past, actually, a

14     criminal past, but not to say criminals.

15        Q.   The next paragraph you indicated you wanted to make a change to

16     was paragraph 18, which we can see on the screen at the moment.  What, if

17     any, change to do you wish to make to that paragraph?

18        A.   Yeah.  In this paragraph 18, I can say reference to Stojicic,

19     Badza, and Zavisic; I can't remember that I say -- referenced to

20     Mr. Franko Simatovic.

21        Q.   So are you requesting that the Chamber not consider that use of

22     Franko Simatovic, aka Frenki?

23        A.   Yeah.  Yeah.

24        Q.   Paragraph 19 is the next paragraph you indicated you wanted to

25     make a change to.

Page 10590

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness's B/C/S microphones be

 2     switched off, please.  We can hear them loudly in the headphones.  Thank

 3     you.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, as I says, that deployed people who were

 5     coming from -- from the Ministry of Internal Affairs from Serbia, they

 6     would get paid usually by the way as I explained in the situation before.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Just going to pause for a moment.  There seems to be

 8     a technical issue with respect to one of your microphones.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I received a request that the B/C/S microphone

10     be switched off for the witness, as long as you keep in mind that

11     this ...

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  There appear not to be different microphones,

14     but ...

15             THE INTERPRETER:  It's the headphones, Your Honour, I'm very

16     sorry.  We hear the B/C/S coming through the headphones and it's picked

17     up by the microphones of the witness, so we hear the B/C/S very loudly.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it -- if the witness is not using his headphones,

19     they should be put at the minimal volume so that the sound from the

20     headphones does not reach the microphone used by the witness.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I notice the time.  I wonder if this

22     would be ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I was wondering whether -- how many further

24     corrections there were to be made.  It came to my mind as well,

25     Mr. Jordash.

Page 10591

 1             Mr. Groome.

 2             MR. GROOME:  There are eight more, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Eight more.  Then I think it would be better to have

 4     a break first, because that would take us too far.

 5             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes past 4.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 3.39 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 4.13 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Witness JF-030, the Chamber has

 9     heard that a lot of the changes you make, where you either say, "I

10     haven't said that" or "I don't remember having said such a thing," are

11     specifically where in your statement or in your -- in the report

12     Mr. Hoffmann writes down that you referred to one of these accused.

13             I would like to bring two things to your attention:  First, that

14     also in respect to these kind of changes, that you are bound by the

15     solemn declaration you've given.  Second, I would like to draw to your

16     attention that if Mr. Hoffmann apparently in so many instances always

17     wrote down what you did not say or what you don't remember to have said,

18     that the Chamber might want to verify that and that we could, for

19     example, inquire into whether there's an audio recording of that

20     conversation you had or to ask Mr. Hoffmann to tell us more about it, and

21     the Chamber will then have to consider, at least may consider, whether

22     they would believe what is put on paper, perhaps after having heard

23     Mr. Hoffmann on the matter, or whether we would believe your changes,

24     which -- and, of course, we further have to analyse that -- which seems

25     to show a certain pattern.  And that's what I want to bring to your

Page 10592

 1     attention.  So, your obligation to tell us what you remember, and also to

 2     inform you that we might further verify and that we may consider to use

 3     your statement also to the extent you have not attested to it.  Of

 4     course, that would need further submissions by the parties, and we would

 5     have to carefully and cautiously consider that, but I just wanted to

 6     inform you about all this before we move to the next changes you had on

 7     your mind.

 8             Mr. Groome, you may proceed.

 9             MR. GROOME:

10        Q.   JF-030, moving to the next paragraph that you indicated you

11     wished to make some changes, it's paragraph 21.

12             MR. GROOME:  We would have to change the page that we are looking

13     at now in e-court.

14        Q.   And after having read 21, what, if anything, do you wish to

15     change?

16        A.   Yeah, in 21 it's stated that on the top was Milosevic and below

17     him, Stanisic, whom he trusted.  Actually, Stanisic was -- Mr. Stanisic

18     was the man to whom Milosevic was -- he trusting to him.  But referenced

19     to control the military intelligence, I didn't say that.  I says possible

20     he have people there inside and can have an influence, but to have

21     somebody in control and to have power to control military intelligence,

22     everybody knew that in Yugoslavia it was like frivolity [sic] between the

23     military intelligence and intelligence service.

24        Q.   JF-030, the record records you as saying "frivolity" between the

25     two; did you mean "rivalry"?

Page 10593

 1        A.   Let's say sometime they didn't -- always they exchanged

 2     information between themselves but sometime they -- they didn't let

 3     somebody from another service to tell them straight what to do, how to

 4     do.  In co-operation, yes, they could change these things, exchange the

 5     opinions and co-ordinate the work, but to have to control, I didn't say

 6     that Mr. Stanisic was controlling military intelligence.

 7        Q.   Could I now direct you to paragraph 32.  And you had indicated

 8     earlier that you wished to add something to this paragraph.  Once you are

 9     able to read it, can you tell us what that would be.

10        A.   Yeah, as I say in my previous statement, and it was usually

11     normal to supply the units on the fields with the weapons, ammunition,

12     and military equipment, because it was, on that time, during that time,

13     it was considered as a part of Yugoslavia.  People were trying to keep

14     the territory under the one part, as it was before; and another group

15     cessationists, they were trying to cut off this territory, so therefore

16     it was normally that the major warehouses were in Belgrade.

17        Q.   So the record is clear, your comments recorded in paragraph 32

18     refer to 65 ter 2682, which is now in evidence as P1916.

19             If we can look at paragraph 33, is there anything you wish to

20     change to that paragraph?

21        A.   Yeah, no, it's okay.  I thought I have to change, but I see that

22     "Pupavac" is changed to "Pupovac."  If my -- by my knowledge, his name is

23     Pupovac.  So I wouldn't change nothing.  It's okay.

24        Q.   So to the best of your knowledge, the spelling that we see in

25     this paragraph is the correct spelling?

Page 10594

 1        A.   [No verbal response]

 2        Q.   Can I ask you to repeat your answer; it wasn't recorded.

 3        A.   One more time?  I didn't --

 4        Q.   The record didn't seem to catch your answer.  Is the spelling

 5     that we see for Pupovac --

 6        A.   Yes, yes.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Now if we could please advance to paragraph 35.

 8             THE WITNESS:  35, yeah.  As I say before, as I said before,

 9     Milosevic was the main man, and the person to whom he trust obviously was

10     Mr. Stanisic, but I will repeat again that I don't believe that

11     Mr. Stanisic could control the military intelligence totally.

12             MR. GROOME:  If we could now advance to paragraph 38.

13        Q.   I believe you wanted to give some explanation of what you

14     intended to -- the information you intended to provide in this paragraph.

15        A.   Yeah.  Reference to illegal money and goods, that mean the money

16     which was not reported, let's say, not declared at the border.  People

17     were trying to bring the money inside for various purposes, and that

18     money was confiscated normally, as goods which were confiscated.

19             And that is the only thing what I would change.  Yeah.

20             MR. GROOME:  If we could now advance to paragraph 41.

21        Q.   Is there anything you wish to change about this paragraph?

22        A.   Yeah, 72nd Battalion.  It was not "battalion"; "72nd Brigade and

23     other units which were deployed to the war zone."

24        Q.   So instead of "72nd Battalion," the paragraph should read,

25     "72nd Brigade and other units deployed to the war zone"?

Page 10595

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now, the last two corrections.  Paragraph 42, can you review this

 3     paragraph and tell us what, if any, change you wish to make.  You see

 4     this?

 5        A.   Yeah.  I would also not -- I would say that I didn't say that the

 6     Red Berets were under direct control of Simatovic/Stanisic; they were

 7     under control of the DB definitely.  And from whom Mr. Bozovic was taking

 8     the direct instructions, I cannot say direct.  I didn't know that.  But

 9     they were under -- under their [indiscernible].

10        Q.   I believe the final change you wish to make was in paragraph 44,

11     which we can still see on our screens.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, could I ask for the witness to repeat the

13     last word which didn't -- I didn't catch and wasn't translated.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

15             THE WITNESS:  I says --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If -- translated might not have helped you,

17     Mr. Jordash.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you repeat:  "I didn't know that ...

20     they were under their ..."

21             You see that -- can you see that on the --

22             THE WITNESS:  They were under their -- under their integration.

23     That mean they were commanding -- they were under integration of the DB,

24     of the HQ in Belgrade.  So, who was giving them direct instruction,

25     Mr. Simatovic or Mr. Stanisic or somebody else, I -- I really cannot say

Page 10596

 1     this because I was not involved in this.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Did you say -- well, first of all this now

 3     appear as being my words, but you were talking about integration?

 4             THE WITNESS:  No.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Apparently -- could you -- I could not

 6     recognise the word in English.  Could you please use the word in B/C/S.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  Okay.

 8             [Interpretation] They were not under -- or, rather, they were

 9     under the authority of the state security.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That clarifies the matter, I think.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

12             MR. GROOME:

13        Q.   And, finally, can I draw your attention to paragraph 44.  What,

14     if anything, do you wish to change in that paragraph?

15        A.   [In English] I would say the same.  The Red Berets were under the

16     control of the DB, or the top of DB.  Who was commanding, who was giving

17     the orders, I can't say.

18        Q.   JF-030, with these corrections, does this document, identified as

19     65 ter 5851, accurately reflect your evidence on the matters discussed

20     with Mr. Hoffmann?

21        A.   Yeah.

22        Q.   If the Chamber considers the content of these three documents,

23     identified as 65 ters 5771, 5855, and 5851, along with the corrections

24     you have given testimony about today, do they have an accurate and

25     truthful account of your evidence?

Page 10597

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   If I were to take the time to ask you the questions underlying

 3     this evidence here today, would you provide the same evidence in

 4     substance?

 5        A.   Yes.  May -- just one more thing.  I remember I was giving some

 6     notifications somewhere else in this evidence but I can't remember on

 7     this moment which part of this I was giving.

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10598

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, could I ask you one of two questions in this

25     context.

Page 10599

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You said you would tell us what you think you told

 3     Mr. Hoffmann at the time.

 4             THE WITNESS:  What I can remember.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, what you can remember.  Now, so apparently you

 6     say, This is what I remember I told Mr. Hoffmann.  Which means that

 7     Mr. Hoffmann uses the name of Mr. Stanisic four times in this one

 8     paragraph and it was all because he invented that himself; is that your

 9     position?

10             THE WITNESS:  My position is that what I'm saying that I can't

11     remember I was saying that.  What I can remember during that time - as I

12     says, during that time I was also not in the good health condition, and

13     when they met me I was under the fever, et cetera, et cetera - what I can

14     remember from that time, I know that approximately, approximately, I can

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, there are two issues.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  What you now say is what your recollection is at

22     this moment, and the second issue is what your recollection is as far as

23     what you told Mr. Hoffmann.  And you said you were in a bad condition

24     which, if Mr. Hoffmann did not have any fever, he might have been better

25     aware, apart from that he put it on paper, and at a risk of you denying

Page 10600

 1     what he wrote down.  So what you actually are saying is:  I have now

 2     recollection that I said something rather different from what

 3     Mr. Hoffmann put on paper.  And, of course, that's not the first time you

 4     do that.  There is in many respects.  And very often if the names of the

 5     accused are at stake, you say:  That's not what I said.  So Mr. Hoffmann

 6     must have done a very bad job.  Is that --

 7             THE WITNESS:  I'm not saying this.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but I'm putting it to you because it's the

 9     logical consequence of what you are telling us now.

10             Is your recollection of what you said with Mr. Hoffmann, is it

11     any more firm as what you tell us now that it's now your recollection

12     that at the time you may have said something else?

13             THE WITNESS:  That is the -- what I can remember.  That is what I

14     said, as I can remember.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

16             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

17             MR. GROOME:

18        Q.   Taking that additional correction into account, do you -- now

19     that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the

20     truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of these three documents?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. GROOME:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders,

23     pursuant to 92 ter, 65 ters 5771, 5855, and 5851 into evidence under

24     seal.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

Page 10601

 1             If not, Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 5771 would be ...

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P02091 under seal, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  65 ter 5855 would be ...

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P02092 under seal, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  65 ter 5851.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P02093 under seal, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P2091, P2092, and P2093 are admitted into evidence

 8     under seal.

 9             Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

10             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask the usher at this time to pass out a

11     courtesy copy of the associated exhibits to the Defence and to the

12     Chamber.

13             Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would tender

14     12 additional exhibits as being associated to the 92 ter evidence.

15     Earlier today I distributed, as a courtesy, a table enumerating all of

16     the exhibits associated with the evidence of this witness.

17             When the witness provided his original statement in 2003, he drew

18     eight diagrams and provided one document.  The Prosecution tenders these

19     nine exhibits, numbered 1 to 9 on the courtesy sheet, as associated to

20     that 2003 statement now in evidence as P2091.

21             When JF-030 was interviewed again by Mr. Hoffmann in 2007, he

22     provided information in relation to 15 pieces of documentary evidence.

23     These are associated exhibits of what is now P2093 in evidence.  However,

24     at this late stage of the Prosecution's case, 12 of these documents are

25     already in evidence.  Their exhibit numbers are indicated in the courtesy

Page 10602

 1     chart.  The Prosecution, therefore, only seeks to tender the remaining

 2     three, bearing the 65 ter numbers 4811, 1806, and 4712.  These are

 3     numbers 10 through 12 on the courtesy sheet.  In total, the Prosecution

 4     tenders 12 new exhibits as associated exhibits.

 5             I believe it might assist the Chamber to have ready access in the

 6     future to the courtesy chart enumerating these exhibits and therefore

 7     would ask that the chart itself, which Mr. Laugel has uploaded in e-court

 8     as 65 ter 6135, be marked for identification.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to serve as an aide-memoire for the Chamber and

10     for the parties.  Is that what you had in mind?

11             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?  If not, Mr. Registrar, the first

13     12 exhibits, 11 of them sequentially numbered from 5773 up to and

14     including 5780, would -- and then the last one being 65 ter 4708, and I'm

15     always referring to 65 ter numbers, would receive what exhibit numbers?

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 5773 shall be

17     Exhibit P02094.  65 ter 5774 shall be Exhibit P02095.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And perhaps we could just move to the last one

19     and sequentially number them in a similar way.  Let me see.  We are

20     talking about up to 5780.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, may I -- may the Registry file a

22     subsequent internal memorandum?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you sequentially number them, then it

24     should not be too much of a problem.

25             5774 would be 2095.

Page 10603

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  5775 --

 3             THE REGISTRAR: -- will be 2096.

 4             JUDGE ORIE: -- 2096.  5776 --

 5             THE REGISTRAR: -- will be 2097, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  5777 --

 7             THE REGISTRAR: -- will be 2098.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  5778 --

 9             THE REGISTRAR: -- will be 2099.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  5779 --

11             THE REGISTRAR: -- will be 2100.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  5780 --

13             THE REGISTRAR: -- will be 2101.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And, finally, that the last one in this first series

15     is 65 ter 4708.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Will be 2102, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then we have three left.  The first one:

18     65 ter 4811.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P02103, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  65 ter 1806.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P02104, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And the last one:  P4712.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P02105, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Any need to have them admitted under seal and to

25     what extent, Mr. Groome?

Page 10604

 1             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I would ask P numbers from P2094 to

 2     2102 be tendered or admitted under seal.  And with respect to 2103 to

 3     2105, there is no necessity for them to be tendered under seal.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  P2094 up to and including P2102 are admitted under

 5     seal.  P2103 up to and including P2105 is -- are admitted into evidence

 6     as public exhibits.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. GROOME:

 9        Q.   JF-030, I just have two more questions and they relate to your

10     2003 statement.

11             MR. GROOME:  And could I ask that P2091 be once again brought to

12     our scenes and that we go to paragraph 15.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

14             MR. JORDASH: [Microphone not activated] ... having a

15     technological --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you activate your microphone.

17             MR. JORDASH: [Microphone not activated] It's not activating.  The

18     screen also is not working, to my left.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the transcript on our screens, I'm struggling

20     with it as well.

21             MR. JORDASH:  The microphone is now working though.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Your microphone is not working?

23             MR. JORDASH:  It is now.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It is now, yes.

25             Apparently there are some problems with connection to the server

Page 10605

 1     as far as -- and let me see.  I will try to disconnect and then to

 2     connect again.

 3             I'm just looking at the other screens within my view, and some of

 4     them are apparently working fine; others are not.

 5             MR. GROOME:  We have the same problem.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Same problem.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 8             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I am able to get the LiveNote

 9     transcript on the court monitor.  We could, if possible, for others.

10                           [Technical difficulty]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The latest expectation, and if we do everything we

12     need to do, that is, to first disconnect, we are disconnected already,

13     then to reconnect, but it might take a couple of minutes before it

14     actually is working again.

15             I suggest that we proceed on the basis of the still functioning

16     screen.  I suggest that we proceed in this way, and if it takes too long,

17     then we'll see how to ...

18             Mr. Groome, you may proceed.

19             MR. GROOME: [Microphone not activated]

20        Q.   JF-030, you should be able to see paragraph 15 --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Groome, please.

22             MR. GROOME:  I apologise.

23        Q.   JF-030, you should be able to see paragraph 15 of your

24     2003 statement on the monitor before you.  Can you see that?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10606











11 Page 10606 redacted. Closed session.















Page 10607

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I have no further questions.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

16             Which party will be the first to cross-examine the witness?

17             MR. JORDASH:  The Stanisic Defence, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And you have made a clear division of time with the

19     Simatovic Defence?

20             MR. JORDASH:  We haven't actually discussed that.  I indicated, I

21     think, to the Prosecution and the Court that I would like somewhere in

22     the region of three hours.  I would hope to finish a bit less than that,

23     but that's what my estimation is at the moment.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And we'll further look at the schedule, but I

25     want the parties to be constantly aware of how to use and divide their

Page 10608

 1     time in the best possible way.

 2             Meanwhile, I'll take the opportunity to seek an MFI number for

 3     the chart in which Mr. Groome explains all the documents we have.

 4             That would be, Mr. Registrar ...

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  It will be given Exhibit P02106 marked for

 6     identification.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And it will keep that status.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

11        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.

12        A.   Good afternoon.

13        Q.   Let's go straight to your clarifications that we heard from the

14     Defence side only in the last hour or so.  So I may return to the subject

15     later, but I want to ask you some questions, first of all, about some of

16     them.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have P2092 -- 2093, please, on e-court.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  All the screens of the Judges are now functioning

19     again.  I hope that the parties -- it's a matter of logging in again and

20     then ... but the whole system seems to be a bit slower than usual.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Mine isn't working yet, but I can have that

22     arranged.  Thank you.

23        Q.   Let's go to paragraph 3.  Just as a point of clarification,

24     please, did you actually say that sentence to Mr. Hoffmann?

25        A.   I say that it was necessary to get a recommendation, but not for

Page 10609

 1     any post, because for the positions, for the commanding position,

 2     et cetera, yes.  And also not only in the -- in the police or et cetera.

 3     You, as I explained to -- this before, you should have recommendation

 4     even for the -- another state, let's say, duties.  You have to have a

 5     good recommendation, first of all political, because from the beginning

 6     in Yugoslavia it was very important to have a political -- to be clean,

 7     politically, and to be recommended for some high position.

 8        Q.   And which time-period are you referring to?

 9        A.   From 1945 up to Yugoslavia was destroyed.  Even still now I

10     believe so it's the same situation.  You have to be very straight with --

11     I believe so, with your political direction.

12        Q.   But did --

13        A.   And also to be clean, to have a clean background, your family to

14     be clean, your family not to be related -- in the past it was, let's say,

15     to some organisations, political organisations which are outside, which

16     are -- which were working against Yugoslavia, against the regime in

17     Yugoslavia, et cetera, et cetera.

18        Q.   But do you have any concrete facts concerning 1991 to 1995 to

19     back this up, that this happened in practice rather than it being the

20     norm prior to the war?

21        A.   No, I didn't have any facts directly.  I told you direct facts, I

22     was this -- I was saying this as a -- in a discussion.

23        Q.   It happened prior to 1991; you assumed it continued to happen

24     during the war?

25        A.   And before --

Page 10610

 1        Q.   Yeah, you --

 2        A.   All the time.

 3        Q.   -- you -- you assumed, because you had been told it happened

 4     before the war; and then you assumed, on the top of that, that it must

 5     have continued to happen between 1991 and 1995?

 6        A.   I believe so, yes, because it was to give --

 7        Q.   Was it a presumption though?

 8             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... could -- could the

 9     witness --

10             THE WITNESS: -- to just give the brief explanation, if I can.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could the witness finish his answer.  You

12     interrupted him, Mr. Jordash.  Yes, you said you believed and then you

13     wanted to explain.

14             THE WITNESS:  After the Second World War, the communists took

15     power in Yugoslavia, and you know that.  And they were in Serbia, and

16     still in Yugoslavia there were people who did not agree with this and

17     they were monarchist, and they never agreed with that what happened.

18     Therefore, if somebody in your family was a cousin or related to these

19     kind of monarchists, et cetera, et cetera, it was not possible to get a

20     good -- always possible position in the state.  Up to now I hope so this

21     stop over in Serbia and Yugoslavia, but during that time it was

22     obviously.  It was obviously.  You have to have recommendation from MUP,

23     that mean from DB, service, that you are okay, you have a good and clean

24     background, and your dossier is clean so you can get a good position.

25             MR. JORDASH:

Page 10611

 1        Q.   Do you know that this occurred in 1991 to 1995, or are you basing

 2     it on what you understood to be the general practice before that?

 3        A.   I know that it was before, and I believe so and I know so that it

 4     was continued.

 5        Q.   Well, you believe or you know?  I mean, what -- can you offer

 6     something --

 7        A.   I know for a matter of fact, actually, there was one period of

 8     time when they says they going to open the folders so everybody can see

 9     what was written for whom, et cetera, et cetera, so people found in their

10     folders what exactly was written there even that was not truth.  Because

11     most of time, most of time, some of the people were subjective on the

12     basis of this do they like somebody or don't like or do they belong to

13     the family, which, during the Second World War, was collaborating with

14     the monarchists, et cetera, et cetera, Chetniks, or police, or whatever.

15     So if somebody wrote for you, for instance, for you some bad record, that

16     was taken as a truth, nobody wouldn't dare to ask:  Is this okay or not?

17     It came from the top.  It is in the records.  Don't asking nothing,

18     that's it.

19        Q.   Do you have any concrete evidence that this occurred for any

20     person in the SBWS between 1991 and 1995?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   No.  Thank you.

23             Paragraph 4.  Did you say to Mr. Hoffmann:

24             "The witness - with regard to his time in Eastern Slavonia -

25     mentioned that Ilija Kojic and Milan Milanovic, aka Mrgud, from time to

Page 10612

 1     time went to Belgrade to report directly to Stanisic"?

 2             Did you say that sentence to Mr. Hoffmann?

 3        A.   As I says previous, and I request this to be changed, that I know

 4     that they went to Belgrade to report --

 5        Q.   No, did you --

 6        A.   But to report direct to Stanisic, no.

 7        Q.   Did you say that to Mr. Hoffmann?

 8        A.   I can't remember that I say that went to -- direct to

 9     Mr. Stanisic to report to him.

10        Q.   Do you have any evidence about Mrgud reporting to Stanisic?  No.

11     Do you know why Mr. Hoffmann might have written that down?

12        A.   Because he asked me, Do you have any knowledge about these

13     things, that -- what is going on, to whom they give reports?  I says,

14     yeah, I know that they have to go to report to Belgrade, to the

15     superiors, and to get advice --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, if you ask the witness why he did write

17     that down, whereas the witness just changed, to some extent, his

18     statement that he doesn't remember that he has said this to Mr. Hoffmann,

19     there are two possibilities: either the witness doesn't remember but he

20     said it, or he didn't say it.  Now, to ask the witness, who doesn't

21     remember whether he said it or not, at least not clearly, his

22     recollection at this moment is that he would not have said it, but he

23     retracted slightly when you put the question so clearly.  Why could we

24     then possibly ask this witness why Mr. Hoffmann did that?  I can say two

25     things: because he wanted to distort my statement, or he wanted to write

Page 10613

 1     down what I said.  I mean, both speculation for the witness, who says I

 2     do not remember.  And you may have noticed a slight difference.  Did you

 3     say that to Mr. Hoffmann:  "I can't remember that I said went direct to

 4     Mr. Stanisic."  So the witness apparently has no firm recollection of not

 5     having said it, neither, certainly not of having said it.  And that makes

 6     your question a bit speculative.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the witness said he had no evidence about

 8     Mrgud reporting to Stanisic, which suggests that he wouldn't have said,

 9     if we take what the witness is saying as correct, as truthful, that he

10     wouldn't have said that to Mr. Hoffmann.  So I was exploring, then, why

11     Mr. Hoffmann -- if the witness could offer any insight as to why

12     Mr. Hoffmann might perhaps be --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That's exactly the question I was -- there are so

14     many ifs and ands in between that -- it's clear that the witness said he

15     has no evidence on that.  Sometimes people would say something even

16     without having evidence, previous line of questioning is similar.

17     Whereas I would not feed all the people who said that people were

18     screened for more important state functions even without having evidence

19     on that that's happening.  So the fact that someone says something, even

20     if he has no evidence on it, may well be the case and may even be

21     frequently the case.

22             But I was focusing on your question that this witness explained

23     why Mr. Hoffmann did it.  That's something -- unless you have good

24     reasons to believe that he may have some insight in that, it's not a

25     question you could reasonably ask from this witness.

Page 10614

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I mean, to be clear with the Court,

 2     Your Honour, it's not our case that Mr. Hoffmann did write this down from

 3     the top of his head.  It's our case that the witness told him that.  And

 4     now isn't able to substantiate it and he's retracting it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's then leave it to that, rather than ask the

 6     witness to speculate on why Mr. Hoffmann may have done what the witness

 7     considers he might have done but which you do not believe he has done.

 8     So that makes matters too complex.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. JORDASH:

11        Q.   Do you know if -- who Kojic went to see when he went to Belgrade?

12        A.   They didn't say direct they go to see Mr. Stanisic or somebody as

13     that.  They always says they have to go to Belgrade to report, to give

14     report, or to ask for something, for some needs, for some supply.

15        Q.   Did Mr. Kojic or Mrgud never mention going to the Ministry of

16     Defence in Belgrade?

17        A.   To Ministry of Defence?  I -- they says they have to go to

18     Belgrade to superiors to request for help.  On that time, they were

19     going -- my -- that was -- I was hearing that they went to MUP and

20     possible they -- I didn't hear for the Ministry of Defence in that time.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   Because during that time, in the beginning, the military on the

23     beginning was -- used to be like buffer zone between the two fighting

24     sides.

25        Q.   They were -- Kojic and Mrgud were going to Belgrade to seek help;

Page 10615

 1     is that right?

 2        A.   Exactly.

 3        Q.   They were not seeking instructions; they were seeking help.  Help

 4     to, for example, form police stations; is that correct?

 5        A.   Yeah, they were seeking for help and supply.

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25        Q.   Djordjevic worked for the public security of the Serbian MUP?

Page 10616

 1        A.   Exactly.

 2        Q.   Who did he report to in 1991?

 3        A.   Pardon me?

 4        Q.   Who did he report to in 1991?

 5        A.   I do not have knowledge about these things.  Because my -- what I

 6     know that they he have to deliver, further informations, whatever

 7     informations were collected in the fields, further delivered to the

 8     analytic service, and analytic service dispersed further to whom they

 9     need and to get.  That is actually how this went.

10        Q.   Do you know whom he reported to in 1992?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   Wasn't his superior Radovan Stojicic --

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   -- Badza?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So Djordjevic reported to Badza, didn't he?

17        A.   Possible.

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10617

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4        Q.   But there was no doubt in your mind, was there, that Badza was

 5     Djordjevic's superior?

 6        A.   During that time, yes.

 7        Q.   During 1992?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   1993?

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly pause between questions and answers.

11     Thank you.

12             MR. JORDASH:

13        Q.   Until the time of Badza's death?

14        A.   Exactly.

15        Q.   And then Djordjevic took over?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, it's now for the third time.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry.  I apologise to the --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The pauses are asked for, and I thought you would --

19             MR. JORDASH:  I really apologise.

20             JUDGE ORIE: -- take it into account.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. JORDASH:

23        Q.   When Badza was killed, Djordjevic took over as chief of the

24     public security?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10618

 1        Q.   Could I suggest that you did tell Mr. Hoffmann that you went

 2     several times to Belgrade for informal talks with Stanisic but you did so

 3     because you were trying to assist the Prosecution and you've changed your

 4     account now because you cannot substantiate that statement?

 5        A.   I do not understand this question.

 6        Q.   I'm suggesting Mr. Hoffmann didn't make a mistake; you told

 7     Mr. Hoffmann, Mr. Hoffmann wrote it down, and now you've retracted it

 8     because it's simply not true.

 9        A.   As I says, I can't remember that I ever mentioned that I went to

10     see Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Okay.  Let's go to paragraph 9.  No, we'll leave

12     that one.  Let's go to paragraph 12.

13        Q.   Am I correct you've retracted that Frenki Simatovic was involved

14     with the Red Beret unit at Ilok, but you maintain that the Red Berets was

15     a unit under the command of the Serbian DB; am I summing that up

16     correctly?

17        A.   The Red Beret were formed in Ilok on 1992.  I didn't say that

18     Mr. Simatovic was involved in this because it was direct initiative of

19     Mr. Stojicic, Badza, and as I can remember, Zika Crnogorac was involved

20     in this.  But later on, the unit -- the unit become -- they move it --

21     them move them out to -- to Serbia, and then they were under -- under --

22     as a separate unit, as a war unit or whatever, they were under the

23     control of DB.  That is what I know.

24        Q.   And which time-period are you speaking of when you say "it

25     became"?

Page 10619

 1        A.   I don't know when they -- they were -- they were relocated from

 2     Ilok to -- I can't remember, actually, when they were relocated from Ilok

 3     to -- to Serbia.  It was in Vojvodina.  I can't really remember that.

 4     But during that -- during the time when they were in Ilok, they were

 5     controlled by Zavisic, and Badza Stojicic was coming there.  There is

 6     what I know.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Well, we'll return to that in a moment.

 8             When -- which year do you say they relocated to Serbia?

 9        A.   I can't remember, I say.  I can't remember.

10        Q.   Well, between 1991 and 1995 you cannot offer any insight?

11        A.   This was on 199 --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly reminded to break between questions and

13     answers.  Thank you.

14             THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... 1993.  End of 1992 or --

15     I can't remember, really.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I wrongly indicated to you that counsel

17     would show you how to make pauses.  But perhaps we should do it the other

18     way around.  You show Mr. Jordash how to make pauses between question and

19     answer.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. JORDASH:  I apologise again to the translators.

22             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

23             MR. JORDASH:  No, it's my fault.

24             Can I just take instructions, please.

25                           [Defence counsel and Accused Stanisic confer]

Page 10620

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8        Q.   When you say they, at some point, became under the control of the

 9     DB, what precisely do you mean by that?

10        A.   I do not understand the question.

11        Q.   Well, the DB was a relatively --

12        A.   Yeah.

13        Q.   -- large organisation.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   It could be under the command of part of the DB, the very top of

16     the DB, and so on.

17        A.   Let's say DB, as the name says, Drzavna Bezbednost, which mean

18     the state security, they were formed to protect the state from any kind

19     of, let's say, enemy inside, outside, et cetera, et cetera.

20     That for [sic], the should have the top of the -- let's -- the people,

21     equipment, and everything what was necessary to be for them.  That for, I

22     know that, and I believe so, the unit which was as a Red Beret formed

23     from the people who are top trained for any anti-terrorist situations,

24     et cetera, et cetera, I believe so and they should be under control of

25     the DB.

Page 10621

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Let's go to paragraph 14, please.

 6        Q.   Arkan was responsibile in reporting only to Stanisic, Arkan was

 7     used by the Serbian DB, as a commander of criminals, could not be

 8     controlled otherwise.  And you've changed or you've offered a

 9     clarification and you say you never said this, that he was reporting to

10     Stanisic, but maybe the DB, but I never mentioned that he was under the

11     direct command of Stanisic.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Yeah, as I says, I changed this because this, my statement -- let

13     me just to have a brief explanation.  When I gave the statement, I sign

14     it, it was Mr. Kaizer Rizvi there, and I didn't check it actually

15     whatever was inside.  I trust to Mr. Kaizer Rizvi, and I signed it and

16     after that they informed me that my statement will never be used in these

17     kind of -- in any case in Den Haag in front of the Court, and that for I

18     didn't pay attention and I forgot most of things what he wrote there.  As

19     I says, I didn't read it carefully, the statement, I was just signing it.

20     And that for when I read it again, when I came here and statement was

21     given to me, then I request changes in this statement.

22        Q.   Do you have any evidence that the -- that Arkan reported to

23     anyone in the Serbian DB?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Other than Stanisic, which you've now retracted.

Page 10622

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   So do you you retract that then?  That -- do you accept you don't

 3     know that Arkan reported to anyone in the Serbian DB?

 4        A.   As I was saying, as I was saying on the beginning of the

 5     statement, that when Arkan came to Borovo Selo and from that time I

 6     believe so -- I was believing that he supposed to report and give the

 7     reports to the highest level command, and as I say --

 8        Q.   Can I just stop you there.

 9        A.   Yeah.

10        Q.   Why do you say that?  Why do you say that's what he was supposed

11     to report and give the reports to the highest level of command?

12        A.   Because he -- when he arrived to Borovo Selo, as I was saying in

13     the statement, he was saying he came from Belgrade, from the top level,

14     he have instruction to help, to organise defence, and to protect the area

15     from the attack of, let's say, separatists who were trying -- or who were

16     killing the Serbians, and et cetera, et cetera.  So as I says on the

17     beginning of that statement, but furthermore, therefore, when I read the

18     statement, I changed these things, and I -- I ...

19        Q.   But why, even today, do you say -- or did you try to link him to

20     the Serbian DB?  The top command in Belgrade could have been a number of

21     groups, couldn't it, from Milosevic to Simovic, Ministry of Defence, to

22     the federal Ministry of Interior, and so on?

23        A.   Could be.  You're right.  But, as I says, in -- in the state,

24     such a thing to command, to have your own unit and to have full support

25     in equipment and et cetera, whatever is necessary for that kind of unit,

Page 10623

 1     I don't think so without knowledge and suggestion of the DB that will be

 2     done.  This is --

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10624











11 Page 10624 redacted. Closed session.















Page 10625

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Was Your Honour indicating the time?  That that

 5     would be --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I was not, as a matter of fact.  But we are

 7     75 minutes past the moment when we started, so if this would be a

 8     suitable moment for you ...

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes, thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll have a break, and we resume at 6.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, please proceed.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Mr. Witness, how often in 1991 did Stanisic see Milosevic?

16        A.   I don't know.

17        Q.   Do you know how often he saw him in 1992?

18        A.   I don't know.

19        Q.   1993?

20        A.   I don't know.  It was not part of my job to follow when they are

21     going to meet and what they going to do.

22        Q.   How often do they speak on the telephone in the same period?

23        A.   I don't know.

24        Q.   How many meetings did they have in the same period?

25        A.   I really don't know.

Page 10626

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  What Mr. Jordash wants to ask you is whether you

 2     have any factual knowledge on the frequency of any communications, direct

 3     or indirect, between Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Milosevic.  May I take it that

 4     your answer is that you have no factual information about that?

 5             THE WITNESS:  I don't have any knowledge about these things.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.  I take it that you want to --

 8     whatever is in the statement, that you then want to question that.  But

 9     seven questions, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, that -- unless there's any

10     reason to --

11             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I was trying to avoid compound questions.  I

12     was trying to break it down so there was no doubt and --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's proceed, let's proceed.  I see your

14     point.  It's appreciated.  At the same time, it can be done in a quicker

15     way with the same result.

16             MR. JORDASH:

17        Q.   Did you -- do you know what Milosevic's view was concerning

18     Mr. Stanisic and the role he played as chief of the state security?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   So you cannot say, can you, that Stanisic was below Milosevic and

21     trusted by him?

22        A.   I do not understand the question.

23        Q.   Well, let's have a --

24        A.   Could you be so kind just to --

25        Q.   Certainly.

Page 10627

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Let's have a look at paragraph 21 of -- let's call

 2     it the Hoffmann interview.  P2093.

 3        Q.   And it says, "On the top was Milosevic and below him Stanisic,

 4     whom he trusted.  Stanisic was very powerful ..."

 5             Do you accept that that is a conclusion you are not qualified to

 6     draw?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Now, moving to the next assertion in paragraph 21 about Stanisic

 9     controlling the military intelligence.

10             Now, you've withdrawn, or you say that's not what you told

11     Mr. Hoffmann.

12        A.   Exactly.

13        Q.   In fact, you'd go further than that and say, I'm fairly certain

14     that that is not true, that I know of a conflict between the military and

15     the civil intelligence; agreed?

16        A.   As I says, I don't believe that Stanisic could control the

17     military intelligence, could -- it was possible and it is possible that

18     maybe he, Mr. Stanisic, have some people inside, I'm not, let's say,

19     qualified to give this -- to be sure hundred per cent.  But I didn't say

20     there was a conflict, direct conflict, between the services because both

21     of services they were working on protecting the country from the enemy,

22     inside or outside, whatever.

23             But it was like - I should say this on the B/H/S [sic] - [B/C/S

24     spoken] [Interpretation] a rivalry [In English] between these two

25     services --

Page 10628

 1        Q.   Right.

 2        A.   -- who is better.  And therefore sometime there was some kind of

 3     things hidden from one or another side.  But they were co-operating in

 4     the major, let's say, problems.

 5        Q.   Right.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I'd like one question, to be quite

 7     certain.

 8             Mr. Jordash asked you about paragraph 21, Mr. Stanisic

 9     controlling the military intelligence.  Now, do you positively say, "I

10     never said that to Mr. Hoffmann," or is it that you say, as you said at

11     some earlier occasions, "I don't remember whether I said that to

12     Mr. Hoffmann"?

13             THE WITNESS:  As I says before, I don't remember that I say, but

14     I don't believe.  It was a question as I understood Mr. Jordash:  Do you

15     believe about the conflict between these; I says I don't believe that he,

16     Mr. Stanisic, could control, completely, the military.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But the question is about whether you are positive

18     that you did not say such words to Mr. Hoffmann, or is it, as you

19     previously said at a couple of occasions, "I don't remember that I have

20     said that"?  That's different from, "I positively affirm that did I not

21     say it."  Which of the two is here the case?

22             THE WITNESS:  As I says, I can't remember that I says to

23     Mr. Hoffmann these things.  But furthermore, I was continuing that,

24     saying I do not believe that Mr. Stanisic could control, completely,

25     military.

Page 10629

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's clear and that was clear already.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   We've had -- perhaps I'm being over-picky, Mr. Witness, but

 5     you've now slightly amended and you have repeated twice that you do not

 6     believe Mr. Stanisic could control, completely, the military.  Are you

 7     now moving your position and saying he could control some of it?

 8        A.   Misunderstanding.  He couldn't control it.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  And you've had that belief since before 2008, haven't

10     you?  You believed he didn't or couldn't control it, prior to your

11     interview with Mr. Hoffmann?

12        A.   Yeah, definitely.  And before.

13        Q.   Before.  Thank you.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have a look at paragraph 27 of this P2093,

15     please.

16        Q.   "SDG was set up by Giska Bozovic in spring 1991, after the March

17     demonstration in Belgrade."

18             Did you say that to Mr. Hoffmann?

19        A.   Yes, I did.  That I think so, yeah, I think so I did it, I told

20     him this.  Because there were discussion, reference to how the SDG was

21     formed.  I can remember that thing.

22        Q.   Just so that we're clear, you're saying the SDG, i.e., Arkan,

23     what became known as Arkan's Tigers, was in fact set up by Giska Bozovic?

24        A.   Because the Arkan was commanding the Srpska Dobrovoljacka Garda,

25     SDG, and Tiger Battalion was the name of his SDG.  But on the beginning

Page 10630

 1     everybody knew it was SDG, Srpska Dobrovoljacka Garda.

 2        Q.   So Arkan, in spring 1991, according to you, had nothing to do

 3     with the SDG?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   And only came to have something to do with it in June of 1991?

 6        A.   I don't know does he have anything to do with this, with the

 7     killing of Bozovic.

 8        Q.   No, sorry, I'm ask -- if you look at the second-to-last, sorry

 9     the last sentence.

10        A.   Yeah.

11        Q.   "When he, Giska Bozovic, was killed in June 1991, (his deputy was

12     killed as well at that time), the Serbian DB set Arkan on top of the SDG

13     to be controlled by the DB."

14        A.   They didn't -- they didn't put him immediately.  SDG, as I know

15     that on that time, was not formed completely, because after killing Giska

16     and his deputy, but later on.  I didn't mention exact time that -- after

17     1991, that on that year the SDG was formed immediately by Arkan or was --

18     he come on top immediately after killing of Giska on the top of DB.  I

19     was not so precise.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just take instructions please, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

22                           [Defence counsel and Accused Stanisic confer]

23             MR. JORDASH:

24        Q.   Did you tell Mr. Hoffmann that the Serbian DB set Arkan on top of

25     the SDG to be controlled by the DB?

Page 10631

 1        A.   It was in the global conversation I was saying in the previous

 2     that the militants which come to Arkan, they were easy for control,

 3     because he was that one who was authority, a charismatic person, and they

 4     were listening to him.  So therefore he was -- as I says, nobody cannot

 5     form such a unit to get a weapon and all equipment, military equipment,

 6     everything what is necessary, if he is not recommended by the highest

 7     level of the state, that mean from services as DB, military, whatever,

 8     but only because he was not -- under the control of the --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- one second.  You are explaining --

10             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

11             JUDGE ORIE: -- what you think now.  The question was a different

12     one.  Mr. Jordash asked you:  "Did you tell Mr. Hoffmann that the Serbian

13     DB set Arkan on top of the SDG to be controlled by the DB."

14             Is -- what Mr. Hoffmann wrote down, is that what you told him?

15             That was the question.

16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  I -- I was saying this.  I was saying this

17     in the -- in the conversation.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the answer is yes to that.  And if we need

19     further explanations, then Mr. Jordash will certainly ask you for it.

20             Mr. Jordash, there seems to be some opinion in those statements

21     as well, if you want to explore that.  This was not to cut you off, just

22     to get a clear answer to the question you did put to the witness.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Even -- and don't be too concerned that this Chamber

25     is usually able to distinguish between what is opinion and what is facts.

Page 10632

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Right.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 3             MR. JORDASH:

 4        Q.   You were offering an explanation, Mr. Witness, about why you'd

 5     come to that conclusion.  And were you suggesting that you'd come to the

 6     conclusion that a unit such as Arkan's had to have authority from the

 7     highest level of the state, from the DB or the military or whoever?

 8        A.   Yes, for sure.  It's a military operative unit.  A war operative

 9     unit, as I says so.

10        Q.   Right.

11        A.   They cannot exist if there is not, let's say, support or

12     permission from the highest level.

13        Q.   Okay.

14        A.   Otherwise it would be treated as a terrorist organisation.

15        Q.   Well, I think we can move on from that, if that's the basis of

16     your conclusion about the DB.

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 10633











11 Pages 10633-10651 redacted. Closed session.















Page 10652

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, perhaps you think a bit about your next

 2     question because it's really time for a break.

 3             But before we do, I would like to adjourn in open session.  So

 4     therefore, Witness JF-030, I hereby instruct you that you should not

 5     speak to anyone, and that includes family members.  You should not

 6     discuss, communicate, in whatever way exchange any information about your

 7     testimony, whether that is testimony given today or still to be given

 8     tomorrow.  Is that clear?  Then I'll ask the usher to escort you out of

 9     the courtroom, after which we'll go into open session.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We'd like to see you back tomorrow.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.  Thank

15     you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

17             Before we adjourn, I'd like to inform the parties that where the

18     Chamber has an opportunity to have one not-sitting week in the spring,

19     that the Chamber at this moment is seriously considered to take that

20     week, the week starting the 18th of April, which is the week before

21     Easter, would then not sit until the 25th, Monday is then the

22     Easter Monday.  We would then resume on Tuesday, the 26th of April.  That

23     is what is on the mind of the Chamber at this moment.

24             We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow, the

25     26th of January, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this same

Page 10653

 1     courtroom.

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 26th day.

 4                           of January, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.