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.
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
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]
11 Page 10565 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session, thank
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
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
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
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.
1 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session. Thank
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
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
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;
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,
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.
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
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.
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]
11 Pages 10576-10578 redacted. Closed session.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 other, let's say, police units, not to be recognised by their faces in
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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"?
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?
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"?
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
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
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?
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
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.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could I ask you one of two questions in this
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
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
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
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
25 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
11 Page 10606 redacted. Closed session.
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
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
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
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 --
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:
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
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
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.
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
25 Q. They were -- Kojic and Mrgud were going to Belgrade to seek help;
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.
25 Q. Djordjevic worked for the public security of the Serbian MUP?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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]
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.
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.
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,
1 I don't think so without knowledge and suggestion of the DB that will be
2 done. This is --
11 Page 10624 redacted. Closed session.
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.
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.
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
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 --
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
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,
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,
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
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?
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.
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.
11 Pages 10633-10651 redacted. Closed session.
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
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
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.