1 Thursday, 7 April 2011
2 [Rule 98 bis]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone after quite a long period
7 of time.
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
10 everyone in and around the courtroom.
11 This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica
12 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 This hearing is scheduled for the purpose of receiving
15 submissions under Rule 98 bis. But before we proceed to that, I'd like
16 to put a few matters on the record which were informally dealt with.
17 On the 1st of April, the Chamber has asked the Stanisic Defence
18 to inform the Chamber whether it intended to make any Rule 98 bis
19 submissions. We received the answer that you have decided not to make
20 any Rule 98 bis submissions, although you have -- when you confirmed that
21 you would attend this hearing, and Mr. Stanisic as well, you asked to be
22 allowed to make some brief submissions on the issue of Rule 98 bis which
23 is apparently not the same.
24 Mr. Jordash, before we proceed, how much time would you need for
1 MR. JORDASH: It's less in the way of submissions, more in the
2 way of a comment and an explanation concerning the way in which we'd
3 approached the decision.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. How much time would you need for it?
5 MR. JORDASH: Two minutes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Two minutes. Okay. We'll give you an opportunity
7 to do that, two minutes.
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber has informed the parties as a
10 result of this decision by the Stanisic Defence about the consequences
11 for scheduling. The decision was that the Simatovic Defence shall
12 present its Rule 98 bis submissions today, that's on Thursday, the
13 7th of April, and that the hearing scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, the
14 8th of April, will be cancelled. The Prosecution shall address the
15 Chamber in response on Monday the 11th of April, and the Chamber expects,
16 in view of the facts that the Stanisic Defence doesn't make any
17 submissions, that your initial assessment that you would need four hours
18 could be reduced in such a way that you finish your submissions on
19 Monday, the 11th of April.
20 Then finally, the Simatovic Defence and the Prosecution shall
21 make any submissions in reply on Tuesday, the 12th of April, and the
22 Chamber does not expect that that takes the whole of the session. It
23 will be limited in time.
24 Then other matters which are not on the record yet. The
25 Prosecution has filed a motion to schedule a hearing immediately
1 following the Rule 98 bis submissions and to conduct a limited inquiry
2 into the legal representation of Mr. Stanisic. We'll hear the 98 bis
3 submissions today and next week Monday and Tuesday. Normally for a
4 motion to be decided, first the other party has an opportunity to respond
5 and usually have two weeks for that.
6 Mr. Jordash, to the extent you are aware that if you take the
7 full two weeks, that the effects of the motion might be lost already to
8 some extent. I do not know, and I'm not putting any pressure upon you,
9 whether you intend to respond in such a time-frame that you would not
10 from the beginning leave the Prosecution with an illusion as to have a
11 hearing immediately after the 98 bis hearings. I'm not in any way at
12 this moment speculating on what the Chamber will decide or not decide,
13 but it's just I'm inquiring about the time you would consider to need for
14 a response, if you want to respond.
15 MR. JORDASH: I can indicate now, Your Honours, that we don't
16 wish to respond and we take no position on the motion. We are not
17 concerned one way or another with a hearing, and we leave it to
18 Your Honours' discretion.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Does the Simatovic Defence have any wish to respond
20 to that motion?
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, we have no
22 position regarding this.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac, for that answer.
24 The last thing I'd like to put on the record -- well, it's not --
25 it is on the record, as a matter of fact, because it has been officially
1 filed, after the Prosecution closed its case, I think, yesterday, you
2 asked for re-opening today on the basis of two photographs, Mr. Groome.
3 I think the Chamber has well understood that you are not in need of any
4 decision to be made before we hear 98 bis submissions.
5 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour, and we will not seek to
6 rely on that additional evidence in any way.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take the usual time for further dealing with
8 that motion.
9 Mr. Jordash, two minutes you said you would need. Please
11 MR. JORDASH: I'm grateful. First, may I offer our apologies to
12 the Chambers and to the parties for not indicating earlier what our
13 position would be. We formed an opinion somewhat late in the day when I
14 had had the opportunity to look at the jurisprudence and the history of
15 Rule 98 bis and the change that came about, I think, in 2004, which we
16 understand to mean that a challenge can be made to a count, effectively,
17 but not individual charges or discrete liabilities. We, therefore, have
18 taken the position that a challenge to a count, given the nature of this
19 indictment, would not at this stage succeed. We thought it important,
20 however, to indicate that had the Rule indicated that charges or
21 individual liabilities could be challenged, we would certainly have much
22 to say at this stage and we would not want our position at this stage to
23 be taken to mean that we accept that there is a case to answer on most of
24 this indictment. We take the position that many of the charges and many
25 of the liabilities would fall at this stage had the Rule been that which
1 was in place in 2004, and we thought it important at this stage to make
2 that indication and to make our position clear to the Chamber and to the
4 Thank you for the time.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash. Don't worry about any
6 inferences made on the way in which you proceed in your Defence.
7 That's ... the Chamber does not draw any negative inferences from this
8 step or any other decision. It's for the Defence to decide how they
9 think they best proceed in their Defence against the Prosecution.
10 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. I think perhaps I should also
11 add this: That one of the reasons we wanted to make clear our position
12 is that we do intend, despite the jurisprudence, to make an application
13 for provisional release in a short time, and we wanted the position to be
14 clear that we don't accept that the position vis-ā-vis the evidence has
15 put Mr. Stanisic's position in relation to provisional release in such a
16 position that he ought not to be granted it. In short, that the
17 evidence, we submit, in this case is overall weak, and particularly weak
18 in relation to many of the charges and the liabilities, and that's what
19 we will expand upon in a short while in a new application for provisional
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait to receive that and we'll carefully read
22 and analyse it.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, is it you or is it Mr. Petrovic who will
25 go first? Or perhaps only you.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm going to begin.
2 Although I have some problems with my throat, I will try to bring it to
3 an end. But if that does not happen, Mr. Petrovic is here, he will
4 continue, and I hope that we will not waste the valuable time of this
6 First of all, I would like to say good afternoon to the
7 Trial Chamber and to everyone else in and around the courtroom. I would
8 like to say that we have considered the standards and the jurisprudence
9 relating to Rule 98 bis and we partially agree with our learned friend.
10 However, we have decided that in the most part and in the concept of the
11 indictment there is no evidence that supports these standards, and we
12 would like to present our arguments in relation to 98 bis. And with your
13 leave, I will like to begin our presentation.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. With the
16 Trial Chamber's leave, the Simatovic Defence hereby orally submits its
17 motion pursuant to 98 bis Rule and requests that the Trial Chamber acquit
18 Franko Simatovic on all counts of the indictment. Rule 98 bis stipulates
19 that upon completion of the Prosecution case, the Trial Chamber will
20 deliver an oral ruling after having heard the arguments of the parties,
21 or one party, and will deliver a judgement of acquittal on any count in
22 the indictment unless there is no evidence that can constitute a basis
23 for conviction.
24 The Defence would like to present our position about the standard
25 of presenting evidence stipulated by 98 bis Rule and which is also part
1 of the case law of this Court. The Defence of Mr. Simatovic would like
2 to refer to an oral ruling pursuant to 98 bis Rule in the case against
3 Mrksic IT-98-13/IT. This decision can be found on pages 11311 through to
4 11313 in the transcript, and it reads:
5 "The standard that shall be applied to every count in the
6 indictment is to show that whether the evidence presented and taken in
7 the most favourable sense for the Prosecution are sufficient to have the
8 Trial Chamber deliver a convincing judgement beyond any reasonable
10 The facts presented in the Prosecution case against our client,
11 the Accused Simatovic, encouraged the Defence team to present our
12 arguments pursuant to Rule 98 bis and to ask the Honourable Chamber to
13 acquit the accused on all counts of the indictment.
14 What follows is -- in this Rule, is that whether the evidence is
15 sufficient enough to constitute a basis for a judgement about a specific
16 count of the indictment does not in any way make or give an indication of
17 the final position of the Trial Chamber regarding the guilt or innocence
18 of the accused with regard to a specific count in the indictment. The
19 reason for that is that at the time when this evidence is presented, the
20 Trial Chamber will not evaluate the credibility of the witness, the
21 strengths or the weaknesses are contradictory, or other evidence;
22 instead, the Trial Chamber should decide at this stage of the proceedings
23 whether the evidence are such that can be trusted at all.
24 Basically, the motion pursuant to 98 bis will be successful in
25 the areas where there's no evidence that support any count of the
1 indictment or where the only relevant evidence is such that they cannot
2 be trusted in any way and that cannot constitute a basis for a decision
3 not even when they were taken in the best possible context for the
4 Prosecution. Therefore, the Simatovic Defence would like to emphasise
5 that the motion pursuant to 98 bis Rule can be successful if there's no
6 evidence that support any count of the indictment or if the relevant
7 evidence is so inappropriate that it cannot be trusted and believed and
8 cannot constitute a basis for a decision even if this evidence is
9 interpreted in the best possible way to the benefit of the Prosecution.
10 The Defence of Franko Simatovic will try to show why we -- they
11 believe that the Prosecution did not prove their case against
12 Franko Simatovic and why this Honourable Chamber should render a
13 judgement of acquittal for Mr. Simatovic already at this stage of the
14 proceedings. Although sometimes it is hard to refrain oneself from
15 evaluating the evidence, and we think that that is neither the time nor
16 the place to do such a thing, the Simatovic Defence will try to point
17 to -- out to those parts of the Prosecution case for which we believe
18 that have not been proven even if the presented evidence were to be
19 accepted without any doubts or contradictory elements which is, at the
20 same time, a criteria to be applied when weighing them at this point in
21 time pursuant to 98 bis.
22 The indictment against Franko Simatovic contains a large number
23 of allegations about his purported role in the events 1991 to 1995. The
24 Prosecution tried to prove some of these allegations, and quite a few of
25 their submissions did not contain not a single shred of evidence, not a
1 single word in witness testimonies, or any written document that would at
2 least indirectly support and confirm what is contained in the indictment
3 with relation to Simatovic's role.
4 Pursuant to 98 bis Rule, the Defence will try to point to the
5 allegations and charges in the indictment and the Prosecution brief trial
6 that have not in any way whatsoever been proven in the course of these
7 proceedings so far.
8 In explaining our arguments, we would like to try and begin with
9 the introductory part of the indictment. Although this part of the
10 indictment contained personal details of the accused, the Defence
11 believes that only citing personal details is important for determining
12 the place and the role of the accused Simatovic in relation to the events
13 for which he has been charged. Namely, in the indictment, in addition to
14 the date and place of birth, the Prosecution said that the accused
15 Simatovic started working in the state security department of Serbia in
16 1978 and that he worked there all the way through to 2001 doing a variety
17 of jobs.
18 They go on to say that after that the Accused Simatovic was
19 transferred to the newly-established counter-intelligence department, the
20 so-called second department, of the DB where he was a commander of a unit
21 for special DB operations. The Defence would like to point out that
22 there is not a single evidence, valid evidence, that will confirm that
23 Franko Simatovic, and at any point in time between 1991 and 2001 when he
24 was retired, was the commander of JSO as stipulated in the indictment.
25 There is not a single document that can support this claim, nor did we
1 hear from any witness that appeared before this Chamber saying that
2 Simatovic was the commander of this unit.
3 The Defence would like to bring to the attention of the
4 Trial Chamber the indictment refers to the period from 1991 to 1995 and
5 the acts committed in the territory of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 Therefore, the Defence believe that the Prosecutor should have presented
7 evidence about the positions and the movement of the Accused Simatovic in
8 the state security service within the relevant period. These facts are
9 significant and necessary in order to interpret other evidence, of course
10 with regard to the focus on the context and his position in that period.
11 It has been claimed by the Prosecution that he spent the whole of
12 1990 in Pec and in Kosovo [as interpreted] as a member of the state
13 security service. He is being attributed a role relating to a member of
14 a joint criminal enterprise whose members were presidents of republics,
15 the chiefs, the generals, staffs, ministers, and others, and Franko
16 Simatovic at the time had a title of a senior inspector in the second
17 department of the state security administration service in Belgrade.
18 Simatovic was appointed to this post on the 8th of January, 1991. That
19 is P2398.
20 Your Honour, I've been told that there is a mistake on page 10,
21 line 10, where it says that the Prosecution claims that Simatovic spent
22 certain time in Kosovo. This is something that it is the Defence claim,
23 actually. We have his personal files, and this is our position. The
24 Prosecution did not want to analyse his movement within the service
25 because certain posts are being registered under specific code-names in
1 compliance with the staffing rules, and the Prosecution did not shed any
2 light on that.
3 Further on, pursuant to the decision of Milan Prodanic, the chief
4 of the 8th administration of the state security service of the
5 Republic of Serbia, of the 14th of April, 1992, Franko Simatovic was
6 given a salary to which a senior inspector in the state security is
7 entitled. That is P2407. So in April 1992, pursuant to the decision of
8 Milan Prodanic, the chief of the 8th administration was given a salary as
9 a senior inspector in the state security service. The same decision was
10 rendered for the year of 1993. That is P2409.
11 On the 12th of May, 1993, Simatovic was appointed to the post of
12 a senior inspector. So in May 1993, Franko Simatovic, a member of the
13 JSE [as interpreted] along with Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and
14 the others, when this enterprise according to the Prosecution in their
15 pre-trial brief was already gaining momentum, he was given a position of
16 a senior inspector and received an appropriate salary in the state
17 security service. The position of Simatovic in the hierarchy of the
18 service per se constitute a key restriction of his abilities to affect
19 the operation of the service or to affect other processes in society that
20 might be the subject of interest or engagement on the part of the state
21 security department.
22 At the time when Simatovic is being spoken about as a person who
23 played a significant role in establishing training camps in the area of
24 Kninska [as interpreted] Krajina, Franko Simatovic was the head of a
25 sector in the 2nd department of the state security administration in
1 Belgrade. That is P2403. Therefore, in this period, between Simatovic
2 and the minister of the interior of the Republic of Serbia, there existed
3 three levels of -- four levels of management; namely, the chief of the
4 second sector of the SDB administration in Belgrade, chief of the SDB
5 administration in Belgrade, deputy chief of the security service, chief
6 of the state security service, and only after that comes the minister of
7 the interior. The Defence would like to emphasise all of this and
8 present this to the Trial Chamber because the Prosecution ascribes to
9 Simatovic such a role and influence that actually far overreaches his
10 real position in the service.
11 A striking illustration of Simatovic's position was the fact that
12 at the time when ranks were introduced in the DB of the Republic of
13 Serbia as one of the departments that constitute the
14 Ministry of the Interior, Simatovic received the rank of lieutenant.
15 That is P2389. So only in 1999 Simatovic was promoted to the rank of
16 captain. And he was retired with this rank as well. This is
17 Exhibit P2430.
18 The Defence would like to underline that the MUP of the
19 Republic of Serbia, at the time when Simatovic was afforded the rank of
20 lieutenant and later on captain, already had quite a few generals,
21 colonels, lieutenant-colonels, et cetera. At this point and for the
22 needs of this case and of course since we heard that from many a witness,
23 we may, for example, mention Obrad Stevanovic who was a general.
24 Radovan Stojicic, Badza, who was another person frequently mentioned in
25 this case, had also the rank of general in the security department. The
1 Simatovic Defence team would like to mention all these names because all
2 these names feature in the facts relating to this case or in witness
4 So if Franko Simatovic really had the role ascribed to him by the
5 Prosecution in the very introductory part of the indictment, but also
6 elsewhere in the indictment, then when the ranks were introduced to the
7 security department in 1998, would certainly have deserved and be given a
8 much higher rank, if not that of a general but probably that of a
9 colonel. However, Simatovic was given the rank of a lieutenant which,
10 according to the opinion of the Defence team, speaks volumes about his
11 position in the hierarchy and the role in the events relevant for the
13 Finally, the Prosecution claims in the indictment that throughout
14 the whole period covered by the indictment Franko Simatovic acted upon
15 authorisation by Jovica Stanisic. This allegation, although ambiguous
16 per se, was not supported by a single shred of evidence or any witness
17 testimony or clarified in that respect. What does that mean that he
18 acted on the authority of Jovica Stanisic? It's only reasonable to
19 assume that Jovica Stanisic acted on the authorisation that he got from
20 the minister of the interior and that all the officials who were below
21 the chief of the department Stanisic acted upon his authorisation, that
22 is to say, on the authorisation of the chief of the state security
24 Whether acting upon an authorisation from one superior
25 constitutes a crime, whether acting within the service in line with the
1 orders and instructions of the head also constitutes a crime in itself,
2 we say that it doesn't. The Defence believes that the Prosecutor did not
3 prove that the Accused Franko Simatovic received from Jovica Stanisic any
4 kind of unlawful, illegitimate order or that he carried out such an
6 The Defence asserts that Franko Simatovic, throughout the time
7 that is relevant to the indictment, acted only in keeping with the work
8 orders that had come from his superiors in the service and that these
9 work orders were fully in accordance with the authorities vested in the
10 state security service of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia and its
12 Further on, it is the position of this Defence that the
13 Prosecutor has not presented a shred of evidence to the effect that
14 Simatovic issued any kind of order, instruction, at any point in time to
15 any person which would represent an expressions of his wilfulness or
16 acting outside his official powers.
17 As we've already said in the introduction, the indictment says
18 that Simatovic was commander of the JSO. First of all, all the evidence
19 adduced shows that the unit called the special operations unit, the JSO,
20 was created after the period that this indictment speaks of, namely,
21 1996. Also its first commander was Milorad Lukovic. From the moment
22 when this unit was established, all the way up until its disbanding,
23 Franko Simatovic was never the commander of this unit. Nowhere in the
24 indictment does the Prosecutor state that Franko Simatovic was the
25 commander of any other unit or formation that the Prosecutor calls
1 special units of the DB of Serbia. In actual fact, when the Prosecutor
2 says special units of the DB of Serbia, they mean the unit for special
3 purposes of the MUP of Serbia, the unit for anti-terrorist actions of the
4 MUP of Serbia, and the JSO.
5 The Defence would like to note that the Prosecution had the
6 personal file of Mr. Franko Simatovic at their disposal and that it is
7 evident and quite clear from that file that he never held the position of
8 any -- of the commander of any special unit in the DB of the
9 Republic of Serbia.
10 The Prosecutor also states that these special units were secretly
11 established by the DB of Serbia or with its assistance. The Defence
12 asserts that that is absolutely untrue. The unit for anti-terrorist
13 actions, the JSO [as interpreted], was established in August 1993 by a
14 decision of the minister of the interior of the Republic of Serbia. The
15 unit had its own staffing --
16 Your Honours, again I'm being told that a correction should be
17 made: The unit for anti-terrorist actions, "JATD," not "JSO," was
18 established in August 1993. JATD.
19 The JATD, that is to say, the unit for anti-terrorist action, had
20 its own staffing. Members of the unit received appointments made by the
21 organ in charge. It is not true what the Prosecutor says, that this is
22 some kind of a secret unit outside the system and beyond the control of
23 appropriate organs. All the evidence indicates that this was a unit that
24 was part of the system of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.
25 The Prosecutor has also not proven that Franko Simatovic at any
1 point in time, either formally or in fact, commanded this unit. The
2 Prosecutor states that in April 1991, or around that time, Simatovic
3 helped open the training centre in Golubic, near Knin. That is paragraph
4 3 of the indictment. The Defence claims that this allegation has not
5 been proven at all. On the contrary, the witnesses called by the
6 Prosecution in order to support the indictment provide grounds for
11 (redacted) It is transcript page 7951.
12 The people who had received weapons from the JNA and the
13 Territorial Defence were sent to Golubic for training. That is asserted
14 by this very same witness on page 7952. This witness says that the
15 special unit of the MUP of Krajina was sent for training in Golubic
16 before Captain Dragan came on the 15th of May, 1991. Transcript page
17 8004. Another Prosecution witness, JF-039, confirms as well that Golubic
18 was opened a few months before Captain Dragan arrived in Knin. That is
19 transcript page 7339.
20 Witness JF-031 confirms that the training at the camp in Golubic
21 was basically the same as JNA training. The Defence would like to
22 indicate to the Honourable Trial Chamber the following transcript pages:
23 7436 through 7437. Furthermore, this witness confirms that in Golubic,
24 even before April 1991, there was a special unit of the MUP of Krajina
25 that was stationed there headed by Dragan Karna, who was at the same time
1 the commander of the camp too. We would like to indicate to the
2 Trial Chamber transcript page 7438. This same witness adds that this
3 unit was under the command of Milan Martic. Transcript page 7440.
4 Finally, the witness confirms that there was no unit of the SDB
5 of Serbia in Krajina from April until September 1991. Transcript page
6 7442. And also the witness states that his superior was Dragan Karna,
7 Milan Martic, and no one else. Transcript page 7443. Therefore, it is
8 clear that the Prosecution witnesses themselves refute the allegations
9 made in the indictment that Simatovic helped (redacted)
14 In paragraph 3 of the indictment, it says that Simatovic
15 organised, supplied, and financed the training of Serb forces and was in
16 charge of that training as such. Only from the beginning of July 1991
17 about 15.000 small arms were distributed from JNA depots. In July 1991,
18 20.000 weapons were distributed. In the period between August and
19 October 1991, an additional 20.000 weapons were distributed.
20 Your Honours, that is D118.
21 Witness JF-041 states that weapons were distributed to the local
22 population in mid-1991 in Knin and it originally came from JNA depots and
23 depots of the TO. That is transcript page 7948. Witness Miljanic, a
24 former JNA officer and, at the time real relevant for the indictment, a
25 member of the ministry of the interior of Croatia, also says that there
1 were numerous depots of the JNA in that area. We would like to draw the
2 attention of the Honourable Trial Chamber to transcript pages 2423
3 through 2425.
4 Therefore, it is clear that Franko Simatovic did not affect or
5 could not affect the arming of the population and TO units and the MUP in
6 the area of the SAO Krajina. Thousands of tonnes of weaponry were
7 distributed from JNA depots and there were a significant number of them
8 in this area. No role of Simatovic can be called arming because all the
9 evidence indicates that the main and dominant source of arming was the
10 JNA, that armed the local population from their own depots and those of
11 the TO, not only in Knin but throughout the SAO Krajina and later on in
13 We wish to note that the evidence in this case has proven that
14 this arming was a response to the previously-started secret arming of the
15 Croatian and Bosniak population. As for organisation, the Defence
16 believes that the Prosecution has not adduced a single shred of evidence
17 indicating that Franko Simatovic took part in the organisation and
18 financing of the Golubic camp. We have already pointed out that the
19 Golubic camp was organised for the training of special units of the MUP
20 of Krajina considerably before Franko Simatovic came to this area, where
21 he spent a very short period of time, as we would like to note.
22 The Defence claims that he came to this area with tasks that were
23 quite different from those presented by the Prosecutor in the indictment.
24 The Prosecutor has not proven by way of any evidence that Stanisic and
25 Simatovic determined the establishment of the camp, the time and way in
1 which the training would take place, the length of the training, the type
2 of training involved, et cetera. So if the Prosecutor is proving --
3 trying to prove throughout the Prosecution case that Jovica Stanisic and
4 Franko Simatovic organised the camp in Golubic, then it was necessary for
5 us to see or hear some evidence that would indicate any one of these
6 elements on the basis of which the Golubic camp functioned, that is to
7 say, how long the training would last, who would be admitted for
8 training, how long it would last, what type of training it would be,
9 et cetera. If we say that somebody organised that, then we have to prove
10 it, don't we? The Prosecutor has not adduced a shred of evidence to that
12 The Defence would also like to say to the Trial Chamber that in
13 paragraph 3 of the indictment there is a totally unsupported assertion
14 that Stanisic and Simatovic later in certain parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina
15 and Croatia opened additional centres for training that were financed by
16 the DB of Serbia. There is no evidence as far as the Simatovic Defence
17 could see of the existence of such centres and what Stanisic and
18 Simatovic had to do with any such centres, if any. There is no evidence
19 as to what kind of link exists between these centres referred to with the
20 DB of Serbia, let alone what their link is to Franko Simatovic. There is
21 no evidence whatsoever. And we are saying that there are no centres
22 anyway, so there's no evidence of financing such centres.
23 In paragraph 4 of the indictment, in addition to the special
24 purposes units, the anti-terrorist action units, and the unit for special
25 operations that the Defence has already spoken about, the Prosecutor
1 states that the DB of Serbia, or with the assistance of the DB of Serbia,
2 the units of the Skorpions were established, as well as the
3 Serb Volunteer Guard, also known as Arkan's Men, and the elite unit of
4 the Serb Volunteer Guard, Arkan's Tigers.
5 It is quite clear that all the facts from the Prosecution case
6 are not proof of the participation of the DB of Serbia in the
7 establishment of these units, the Skorpions, the Serb Volunteer Guard,
8 and Arkan's Tigers. Also, the Defence claims that there is no proof
9 whatsoever that these units at any point in time that is relevant to this
10 indictment were under the control of the SDB of the Republic of Serbia.
11 The Defence will first deal with the Skorpions and the evidence
12 adduced by the Prosecution to support their allegation that it was the
13 state security of Serbia or, more specifically, Jovica Stanisic and
14 Franko Simatovic established these units or assisted in their
15 establishment. As far as the Skorpions units is concerned, a great deal
16 of evidence has been adduced before the Honourable Trial Chamber that
17 indicates that this unit was not established by the DB of Serbia or that
18 it was at any point in time under the control of this service.
19 JF-029, a Prosecution witness who was closely linked to the
20 Skorpions units and who has direct knowledge of all the facts that are
21 relevant to the establishment of the creation, status, and activities of
22 this unit, during his direct examination before the
23 Honourable Trial Chamber stated that the Skorpions were established in
24 1991 at the request of the then director of the oil industry of the
25 Krajina, Petar Golubovic, with the task of protecting the oil fields in
1 Djeletovci. This is also corroborated by a conclusion of the government
2 of the Serb region of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, dated the 21st
3 of January, 1992, this conclusion is a league basis for the establishment
4 of the Skorpions. The Defence would like to draw the attention of the
5 Honourable Trial Chamber to D217.
6 Witness JF-029 further on states that this unit during 1991 was
7 within the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and
8 that in 1992 it was under the command of the PJM of the Krajina and that
9 in 1993 it became an integral part of the Army of the Republic of the
10 Serb Krajina.
15 (redacted) Transcript page 10049. This witness
16 states further on that the Skorpions in 1994 took part in Operation Pauk,
17 Spider, under the command of Mile Novakovic. Transcript page 10050
18 through 10051.
19 Witness Goran Stoparic confirms that the main task of the
20 Skorpions was securing the oil fields in Djeletovci, as well as the
21 border-line between the Republic of Serb Krajina and Croatia that ran
22 along the Bosut River. The Defence would like to indicate to the
23 Trial Chamber the following transcript reference: 10333 through 10334.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Bakrac, but
4 could I ask that we go into private session just for a moment.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
6 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I shall now say
5 something, but I hope that I'm not going to overstep already in the first
6 sentence. But the mentioned witness testified saying that orders for the
7 use of this unit came from General Loncar. And JF-029 conveyed these
8 orders to the unit. Transcript page 10358 through 10360, and 10445. So
9 the establishment and the further work and the orders for the use of this
10 unit came from General Loncar, and it is evident and it has been clearly
11 proven that he was the commander in the area of Slavonia, Baranja, and
12 Western Srem.
13 The Skorpions never had joint actions with the Red Berets or with
14 the JSO. That's why this is referred to in 10499 through 10501.
15 Although the Prosecutor alleges in the indictment that all the special
16 units of the DB acted together, this witness, on that transcript page,
17 denies this allegation of the Prosecution and he says that the Skorpions
18 never had any joint actions with any one of these units.
19 Stoparic confirmed that in June 1995 he was not a member of the
20 reserve force of the MUP of Serbia. Transcript page 10373 through 10374.
21 Afterwards, he confirmed that on the 11th of August, 1995, that is to
22 say, only on the 10th of August, 1995, he joined the reserve force of the
23 MUP of the Republic of Serbia. Which means that until the
24 11th of August, 1995, as a member of the Skorpions, he was not part
25 either of the active or reserve force of the MUP of the
1 Republic of Serbia. The transcript reference is 10374 through -- 10373
2 through 10374. It is clear that the Skorpions were not a unit that had
3 anything to do with the MUP of Serbia, let alone with the DB of the
4 Republic of Serbia. There is a lot more evidence that we have referred
5 to stating that this unit had nothing whatsoever to do with the state
6 security of the Republic of Serbia.
7 As regards Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and his Serb Volunteers
8 Guard, as well as Arkan's Tigers, the Defence asserts that Arkan and his
9 unit had no organisational or functional ties to the Serbian DB.
10 Witness JF-0030 stated that the JNA took over command of the TO and all
11 other formations including Arkan in Slavonia, Baranja, and
12 Western Sirmium in the month August 1991. Transcript page 10669 and
14 Here the Defence wishes to refer to Witness JF-029 again. We
15 know what his position was. We wish to point out that his testimony is
16 important because he was one of a total of only two or three Prosecution
17 witnesses who could have had any knowledge in matters of organisation,
18 financing, and mutual ties between different military and police
19 structures in the area relevant to this indictment.
20 The Prosecution will understand, as will the Chamber, that all
21 other witnesses who were called by the Prosecution were such witnesses
22 who could speak to the key issues of organisation, financing, command and
23 control, as well as other key issues in this indictment, only based on
24 hearsay, without any immediate or direct knowledge of the relationships,
25 position, and roles of the persons tried before this Court.
1 Witness JF-029, whom I've mentioned already, testified that Arkan
2 had his own unit and that the unit in early 1991 was under TO command of
3 the region of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Sirmium. Once the
4 international forces arrived in the region, according to the Vance Plan,
5 it fell under the command of the PJMs. In that area, PJM units were
6 formed in April 1992. The PJMs were under the command of the MUP of
7 Republika Srpska Krajina, as stated by JF-029 at transcript page 10035.
8 Arkan's immediate commander was Bozidar Kosutic, a JNA officer. He told
9 you that, Your Honours, at transcript page 10036. Finally, the witness
10 stated that as of 1993, Arkan with his unit fell under the Serb Army of
11 the Krajina in its Vukovar corps. Transcript page 10034.
12 The same witness, JF-029, confirmed that Badza had a co-operative
13 relationship with Arkan during Arkan's stay in the region of Slavonia,
14 Baranja, and Western Sirmium. When we say Badza, the Defence have in
15 mind Radovan Stojicic. This can be found at transcript page 10108. The
16 witness also asserted that while Badza, or Radovan Stojicic, was in the
17 region, Arkan implemented all of his orders. Your Honours, it is in
18 transcript page 10109.
19 In contrast to the relationship of Badza and Arkan, the Defence
20 wishes to point out D204 and D206 where we can see that Arkan was
21 observed by the state security service. This unambiguously indicates
22 that the Serbian Volunteers Guard and its commander were under
23 operational investigation by the state security service. As such, they
24 could not have been a special unit of theirs, as is we can find in the
1 Based on the two aforementioned documents, it becomes clear that
2 the state security service of the Republic of Serbia investigated Arkan
3 and the Serbian Volunteers Guard as a unit which had nothing to do with
5 Witness JF-015 testified that Arkan had at his disposal weapons,
6 ammunition, and armaments of the JNA and that he made use of it in combat
7 outside Erdut, which is transcript page 4098 to 4106.
8 Your Honours, I am being told that we ought to have a break
9 because of Mr. Stanisic. I would kindly ask you for your indulgence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's approximately the time where we usually have a
11 break. Mr. Bakrac, could I briefly ask you: The time granted to you was
12 three and a half hours, that was expected to be one day, is that --
13 you're still on track as far as time is concerned?
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I'll be shorter
15 than even three hours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's one thing.
17 Before we take a break, the -- it was apparent that a few
18 redactions were made today. Since there was public in the public
19 gallery, including persons who professionally work on the proceedings of
20 this Tribunal, I would instruct anyone who wants to quote from this
21 hearing, and especially those who are professionally dealing with it, to
22 first consult the public record where it may become clear what portions
23 are redacted. There are four redactions made.
24 Having said this, we'll take a break and resume at 4.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 3.29 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, are you ready to proceed?
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 Your Honour, before the break we discussed evidence proving or
5 disproving the fact that Arkan's Tigers belonged to the Serbian SDB. We
6 assert that there was no link whatsoever. Before the break, I referred
7 to JF-015's testimony, who stated that Arkan with his group had at his
8 disposal weapons, ammunitions, and armaments of the JNA, and that he used
9 it in combat outside Erdut, which is at transcript page 4098 to 4106.
10 Before the break the transcript pages seemed to have been
11 incorrectly recorded.
12 The witness also never saw Arkan receiving any orders from the
13 DB. He said as much at transcript page 4109. I apologise.
14 Witness CO-15 confirmed that Radovan Stojicic, Badza, told him that the
15 TO in the region was supposed to follow JNA instructions, which is at
16 page 1661. As well as that Badza himself was under JNA command. The
17 witness confirmed that Arkan was a volunteer, that he was under TO
18 command, and that he bore the insignia of the TO. This is at transcript
19 page 1663.
20 Witness JF-011 states that in operations Arkan with his volunteer
21 guard -- Your Honours, I apologise. There is a mistake in the
22 transcript. I misspoke. The same witness, CO-15, stated that during
23 operations Arkan and the Serb Volunteer Guard were under JNA command,
24 which is at transcript page 1664. He also stated that the commander of
25 the Novi Sad Corps, Andrija Biorcevic, sent Arkan to the parts of the
1 theatre where there was combat. It is transcript page 1714. The witness
2 testified that Andrija Biorcevic, commander of the Novi Sad Corps, sent
3 Arkan and his Serb Volunteer Guard to the parts of the front lines where
4 there was combat. Therefore the JNA and Andrija Biorcevic of the
5 Novi Sad Corps issued orders to Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and his
6 Serb Volunteer Guard.
7 Another witness who was a senior official in the region, his
8 pseudonym is JF-034, and in order to protect his identity we won't
9 specify his position within the government, stated that by the end of
10 1991, or until the end of 1991, the JNA controlled the TO in the region.
11 The same witness confirmed that Arkan occasionally attended government
12 sessions as well as that he was constantly in touch with Goran Hadzic,
13 the regional president. This can be found at transcript page 5987 and
15 This witness who held this senior position stated that the
16 ministers in the government of the region of Slavonia, Baranja, and
17 Western Sirmium had no contacts with the Serbian DB and that he doesn't
18 know what sort of role the Serbian DB could have had in that area. This
19 assertion is found at page 6009.
20 Furthermore, the same witness said that Arkan's influence relied
21 on the links that existed between Arkan and the JNA or, to be more
22 specific, between Arkan and General Biorcevic, commander of the Novi
23 Sad Corps. This is at his transcript page 6084, when D78 was shown to
25 Finally, Defence showed you D196, which is a footage from the
1 period covered by the indictment, where Raznjatovic, Arkan himself
2 confirms that he and his units were under the TO of Slavonia, Baranja,
3 and Western Sirmium and that the TO in turn was under the armed forces of
4 the JNA. With his Serb Volunteer Guard, Arkan was in the territory of
5 Republika Srpska Krajina in 1993 and he participated as part of the
6 Army of the Serb Krajina, as testified by JF-035 at transcript page 5414.
7 The witness stated that Arkan's unit acted in keeping with the orders of
8 the Main Staff of the Serb army of the Krajina. This part of the
9 witness's statement is at transcript pages 5489 and 5490.
10 Witness Stoparic asserted that the Skorpions never carried out
11 joint operations with the JSO. This is something that has already been
12 mentioned. By the same token, Witness JF-048 confirmed that the JATD
13 never carried out joint operations, neither with the Skorpions -- either
14 with the Skorpions or with Arkan's units. This is at transcript page
16 Regarding the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Prosecution
17 also put forth evidence which led us to the following conclusions: First
18 and foremost, the Defence displayed D52, which shows that Arkan and his
19 Serbian Volunteer Guard arrived in Bijeljina in 1992 upon invitation of
20 the local TO. Biljana Plavsic, who was a senior politician in
21 Republika Srpska, accompanied Arkan in Bijeljina during the operations
22 there. Witness JF-025 secured their meeting, as can be seen in D84 and
23 at page 6285 of the transcript. All of this clearly indicates how Arkan
24 arrived in Bijeljina with his unit and on whose invitation.
25 Witness JF-026 who was another witness who, due to his position
1 at the time, was privy to events in the area of Zvornik stated that
2 Biljana Plavsic had a meeting with Major Pejo, who was in Arkan's unit,
3 on which occasion she demanded that Arkan be invited to Zvornik. This is
4 at transcript page 9744 and 9745. The witness confirmed that the JNA
5 participated in the take-over of Zvornik, as well as that Arkan with his
6 unit was under JNA command in that operation. The witness stated this at
7 transcript page 9751 and 9752 when he was shown D158.
8 The witness was also familiar with the arrest of Zuca from the
9 Yellow Wasps as well as the arrest of Ulemek Legija in Zvornik, who were
10 later released upon insistence by General Jankovic who was the commander
11 of the 17th Corps of the JNA in Tuzla and Colonel Boskovic from Belgrade
12 who was a member of the military security service. This can be found at
13 transcript page 9752 to 9754, as well as at page 9783.
14 Therefore, Arkan arrived in Zvornik following an invitation of
15 the local authorities in co-ordination with the state leadership of
16 Republika Srpska. In that operation he acted under JNA command. And as
17 testified by JF-026, Arkan left Zvornik following Colonel Tacic's order
18 to leave. This can be seen at transcript page 9833.
19 Arkan arrived in the area of Sanski Most on invitation by the
20 leading people of the SDS in the area as asserted by Witness JF-010 at
21 transcript page 3809. In October 1995, General Talic issued an order to
22 the VRS and the MUP of Republika Srpska as well as to the
23 Serb Volunteer Guard, headed by Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, which is
24 something we can see in D146. Therefore, General Talic in 1995 was a VRS
25 general who was in charge operations around Sanski Most and Banja Luka.
1 The order used to issue tasks to the Serb Volunteer Guard can be found in
2 item 2 of D146. Between September and October of 1995, Arkan acted under
3 the command of Republika Srpska MUP. Clear evidence of it is a dispatch
4 by the Ministry of the Interior of the RS, Tomo Kovac, dated the
5 11th of October, 1995. Arkan was ordered to carry out arrests of
6 deserters and those who abandoned the front lines in the area of the
7 public security centre of Prijedor. This is something that can be seen
8 at transcript page 3819 and 3820, as well as in Exhibits D28 and D140.
9 Even before 1995 Arkan was active in Bosnia-Herzegovina through
10 the benevolence of the MUP of Republika Srpska, which is something that
11 can be found in D59. In Republika Srpska, Arkan was active based on an
12 invitation which came from the most senior officials of Republika Srpska,
13 which is a conclusion that can be drawn from the letter dated the
14 16th of April, 1994, which is D29. This can be found at transcript pages
15 3819 and 3820.
16 Here the Defence particularly likes to point out document D190 of
17 the 30th of September, 1995, where the president of the RS,
18 Radovan Karadzic, directly authorised the SJP MUP units of the RS, called
19 the Tigers, to assist the military and civilian police in bringing in all
20 deserters and run-away soldiers from the ranks of the VRS, instructing
21 that they should be handed over to their respective commands in order to
22 be sent to combat. This is D190. It indicates that Arkan's Tigers,
23 during the relevant period, were part of the MUP of Republika Srpska and
24 that their engagement was ordered directly by the RS president.
25 It is clear, therefore, that in this comprehensive action in
1 Sanski Most which developed under General Talic's command, who was a VRS
2 general, the RS MUP participated as well. Following an invitation of the
3 state leadership of the RS, Arkan and his Serb Volunteer Guard arrived in
4 the area to be included in the RS MUP.
5 All of the above indicates that the Prosecution did not manage to
6 prove that the Skorpions and the Serb Volunteer Guard as well as
7 Arkan's Tigers were formed by the DB of Serbia or with its assistance,
8 even if all of that evidence were seen in the light most favourable to
9 the Prosecution.
10 There is also no evidence that the Serbian DB was involved in the
11 deployment of these units at various locations in Croatia and
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina where they were subordinated to or where they acted in
13 co-operation with other Serbian forces. The Prosecutor, in its initial
14 document, that is to say in the indictment, alleges that the accused,
15 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, took part in the deployment of the
16 Skorpions or the Serbian Volunteer Guard and Arkan's Tigers to various
17 locations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and that they acted there in
18 concert with other Serbian forces.
19 The Defence, through a series of evidence presented by the
20 Prosecution, demonstrated that the Prosecution did not offer any proof
21 for these allegations of theirs but that, quite the contrary, there is a
22 bulk of evidence indicating that the Skorpions, the
23 Arkan's Volunteer Guard, and Tigers went to Bosnia-Herzegovina and
24 Croatia and were deployed there on orders of all the political and state
25 officials that we named so far or the institutions that we made reference
2 Everything that exists about the connection between the state
3 security service of Serbia with the Skorpions, the Serbian Volunteer
4 Guard, and the Arkan's Tigers can, in view of the Defence, only be
5 described as evidence negligible probative value upon which no conviction
6 can be based. The Defence would particularly like to point out that
7 there is no evidence about the connection and involvement of
8 Franko Simatovic in the formation, assistance, or deployment of these
9 units in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which, even if interpreted in
10 the most favourable way for the Prosecution, can bring about a
11 conviction. Everything that exists against Simatovic with regard to
12 these circumstances are testimonies of the persons who did not have any
13 direct knowledge about Simatovic's activities, his position, and his role
14 in the events at the relevant time. Everything that we can find contrary
15 to the solid evidence that we presented to this Trial Chamber are only
16 rumours and hearsay which can only establish the connection between
17 Franko Simatovic and these units in an extremely remote way.
18 The indictment says that Stanisic and Simatovic were responsible
19 for special units of the Serbian DB and that they organised, supplied,
20 financed, and supported their participation in the operations in Croatia
21 and Bosnia-Herzegovina and that they directed this participation. It is
22 also stated that the accused have individual criminal responsibility for
23 the crimes described in the indictment, that they he had planned these
24 acts, ordered them, committed them, and/or the planning of which, the
25 preparation of which, and/or the commission of which they aided or
1 abetted in some other way. The responsibility of Stanisic and Simatovic
2 includes their participation as co-perpetrators in the joint criminal
4 The indictment also alleges that the accused have provided
5 communication channels between key participants of the joint criminal
6 enterprise in Belgrade in specific areas and at local level, that they
7 organised and controlled the formation of special units of the Serbian DB
8 and other Serbian forces, and that they organised and managed the
9 financing, training, logistical support, and other forms of aid or
10 support for special DB units and other Serbian forces. The
11 Simatovic Defence believes that the Prosecution failed to prove a single
12 allegation from the indictment. The Prosecution did not present any
13 concrete evidence about the acts or omissions on the part of Simatovic in
14 the context of the allegations contained in the indictment.
15 It is not clear on the basis of what evidence that would meet the
16 standards set down by Rule 98 bis did the Prosecutor establish that
17 Franko Simatovic took part in the organising, financing, supplying, and
18 directing the units that are listed in the indictment. The Prosecutor
19 also failed to demonstrate what was it that the Accused Simatovic omitted
20 to do which was -- which he was duty-bound to do within his powers and
21 duties contained in his purview in the service. We already said that the
22 Prosecutor failed to demonstrate in a clear and unambiguous way the
23 movement of Simatovic within the service as well as what his rights and
24 obligations were in the period between 1991 and 1995 that he was to
25 discharge as part of his job and according to the job classification.
1 Quite the contrary, the Prosecutor mainly heard witnesses who
2 came beyond relevant structures of the state security service or the MUP
3 of Republic of Serbia. And what was it that he omitted to do as part of
4 his duties and responsibilities? Quite simply, there is nothing to that
5 effect contained in the Prosecution case.
6 Their witnesses came mainly from the relevant -- from outside the
7 relevant structures of the state security service or the MUP of
8 Republic of Serbia who had knowledge about Franko Simatovic which was
9 mainly based on rumours or hearsay. Unlike the witnesses who were -- who
10 had this limitation concerning their knowledge about the events because
11 they did not have access to true and relevant information about
12 Simatovic, were those individuals who held positions of importance in the
13 structure of authorities and who testified about Simatovic in the
14 following way: For example, Witness JF-029, who we know which position
15 this witness held in the period relevant for the indictment and was
16 directly involved in all the important events in this area, testified
17 before this Honourable Chamber that he first saw Franko Simatovic after
18 the signing of the Erdut Agreement on
19 15th of November [Realtime transcript read in error "September"], 1995,
20 at a meeting that was held for the purpose of the implementation of the
21 Dayton Peace Accord and at which Franko Simatovic never took to the
22 floor. This assertion, Your Honours, can be found at transcript page
24 Your Honours, I apologise, I think I said 15th of "November," not
25 15 "September" as the transcript reads, and I kindly ask this correction
1 to be entered into the transcript.
2 So a highly positioned official from this region saw
3 Franko Simatovic in November of 1995 when peace had already been agreed
4 and when measures were to be taken to solidify this peace. It is
5 impossible that Simatovic in this region played a role of an organiser, a
6 supplier, a planner, and the manager of special units without the
7 Prosecution witness, bearing in mind the position that he held, being
8 aware of that. Further on, Witness Charles Kirudja, who, at the time
9 relevant for the indictment, was a high UN official in the area of the
10 former Yugoslavia and for a specific area in Croatia, never saw Simatovic
11 and never met him. You can find this on page 9167.
12 Further on, Witness JF-041, another senior official at the time,
13 said that he had never seen Franko Simatovic nor did he hear of him,
14 although he testified about the events that took place in the area of the
15 Knin Krajina in the period relevant for the indictment. You can find
16 that on page 8005. (redacted)
17 (redacted) Your Honours, I'm not sure whether at this
18 point we should move to private session because there is a pseudonym but
19 I don't know if this is a protected witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
21 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The aforementioned witness, JF-026,
23 who played a very important, if not decisive, role in the bringing of
24 Arkan's units to the area of that town, testified that he had never seen
25 Franko Simatovic and that Simatovic had no relation whatsoever to the
1 events in Zvornik. You can find that on transcript page 9756. This
2 Prosecution witness said that he first heard of Franko Simatovic at the
3 time when an indictment was issued against him. He stated that before
4 this Honourable Chamber on transcript page 9757.
5 With regard to organising any of the units listed in the
6 indictment, the Prosecutor failed to present a single evidence that would
7 indicate that Franko Simatovic undertook any organisational manners in
8 this respect. Furthermore, the Prosecutor failed to provide a single
9 evidence that would demonstrate that Simatovic directed or otherwise
10 supported the units identified in the indictment.
11 The Prosecutor said that Stanisic and Simatovic held positions of
12 power that they used to issue instructions to other people to commit
13 criminal offences. It has already been said that the Prosecutor did not
14 even make an effort to try and prove which position Franko Simatovic
15 held, what kind of rights and obligations he had within the service, how
16 and in what manner could he wield any sort of power, when and over whom.
17 For example, if the Prosecution analysed Simatovic seriously,
18 they would have established that in 1991 when he allegedly initiated the
19 enterprise that is the subject of this trial, Simatovic had the title of
20 a senior inspector, that in 1991 he was an ordinary operative in the
21 Belgrade centre of the state security service, and he was one of dozens
22 of operatives who worked at this centre. As such, he did not have any
23 powers and he could not wield any power over anyone, least of all over
24 the units that are mentioned in the indictment.
25 The Prosecutor alleges that the accused intended for the crimes
1 to be committed or that they were aware of how highly likely it was that
2 these crimes would be committed during the implementation of the plan or
3 an order. The Prosecutor said that Stanisic and Simatovic took part in
4 the joint criminal enterprise and that they shared the same intentions
5 like other participants in this enterprise.
6 The Prosecution did not present any evidence about the mens rea
7 of Simatovic at the relevant time. Simatovic is nowhere qualified -- or
8 Simatovic is not positioned vis-ā-vis the alleged objectives of the joint
9 criminal enterprise in any way. No intercepts have been recorded of
10 Simatovic conversations about these circumstances. Simatovic did not
11 attend any significant meeting with other alleged participants in the
12 joint criminal enterprise where general or specific objectives and goals
13 were discussed or where policies or strategic and tactical objectives and
14 activities of any armed formations were defined. That means that the
15 Prosecutor failed to present a single document and evidence in order to
16 prove that Simatovic shared the same intentions allegedly demonstrated by
17 the other participants of the joint criminal enterprise and that that was
18 his mens rea at the time.
19 So they failed to prove that he had identical intentions, if
20 there were any intentions at all, demonstrated by other participants in
21 the joint criminal enterprise.
22 That is to say that Franko Simatovic was charged with committing
23 the mentioned crimes as a co-perpetrator in joint criminal enterprise
24 whose objective was the permanent and forcible removal of most non-Serbs,
25 primarily Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Bosnian Croats, from large parts
1 of the territory of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He did that by way
2 of the commission of crimes persecution, killings, deportation and
3 forcible transfers.
4 Jurisprudence requires three basic prerequisites for a conviction
5 for joint criminal enterprise: First of all, there have to be several
6 persons involved. Secondly, there has to be a common objective that
7 presupposes the commission of crimes. And thirdly, what is necessitated
8 is the participation of the accused person in the implementation of that
10 The Defence points out that there is no evidence regarding a
11 joint objective. What is of particular importance is that there is no
12 proof whatsoever that Simatovic was part of a group consisting of several
13 persons that acted with the joint purpose of furthering a common criminal
14 objective as stated in the indictment. Finally, in order to find the
15 Accused Simatovic guilty on these charges, what is required is a
16 significant contribution to have been made by him. The Defence claims
17 that the Prosecution did not prove by way of eliciting any evidence that
18 Simatovic did contribute to the fulfillment of such an objective.
19 With regard to mens rea for the first category, the basic
20 category of joint criminal enterprise, the Prosecutor has to show that
21 the accused wanted to have the crimes committed. It is the view of our
22 Defence that the Prosecution did not present any evidence whatsoever with
23 regard to the mens rea of the Accused Simatovic, that is to say, in view
24 of the commission of these crimes.
25 As for the third expanded category of joint criminal enterprise,
1 what is required is that the accused could have envisaged that the crimes
2 that go outside the joint criminal purpose would truly happen. The
3 Defence would like to point out that there is no evidence regarding
4 Simatovic's mens rea. We looked into the -- this part of the Prosecution
5 case in detail. However, our conclusion is that there is no evidence
6 regarding mens rea on the part of Franko Simatovic with regard to this
7 third category of joint criminal enterprise. We believe that there is no
8 evidence regarding criminal intent or any evidence to the effect that
9 Franko Simatovic either de facto or de jure had any authority, influence,
10 or power or any other kind of link to the alleged incidents from the
11 crime base.
12 Finally, Witness JF-034 states -- I do apologise, Your Honours.
13 There is a mistake in the text. The Prosecutor states that the
14 Accused Stanisic and Simatovic participated in the conception of crimes.
15 It is unclear on the basis of which evidence the Prosecution concludes
16 that Franko Simatovic took part in any way in conceiving persecutions,
17 deportations, murders, and other inhumane acts that he is charged with in
18 the indictment. It is unclear and unproven that there is any connection
19 between the alleged crimes and Franko Simatovic. There's also no proof
20 that Franko Simatovic knew or was informed of any crimes that are charged
21 in the indictment. Also, there is no evidence that the crimes that are
22 alleged were committed or ordered by persons who can be linked up with
23 the Accused Simatovic.
24 The Prosecutor alleges that Franko Simatovic is responsible for
25 crimes of persecution, murder, deportation, and forcible transfer that
1 were committed in the territory of the SAO Krajina or Slavonia, Baranja,
2 and Western Srem. The Defence asserts that the Prosecution did not
3 manage to establish any link whatsoever between the perpetrators of the
4 alleged crimes and Franko Simatovic.
5 In order to support this assertion of ours, we are going to deal
6 with the testimony provided by certain witnesses in this courtroom. For
7 example, Witness JF-040 confirms that Franko Simatovic had no influence
8 whatsoever over the Territorial Defence of the Krajina. You can see that
9 on transcript pages 6846 through 6848.
10 According to the words of this witness, the Territorial Defence
11 received money through the public accounting service. And that witness
12 also states that part of the money came through commercial banks.
13 Transcript page 6855 through 6856.
14 This witness further on explains that as for the armed forces of
15 1991 in Krajina, the only ones that existed were the 9th Corps of the
16 JNA, the milicija police, and the Territorial Defence, and that no
17 Special Forces existed at all. He adds that even if there had been some
18 Special Forces, they would have immediately been subordinated to the JNA.
22 Oh, Your Honours, I don't know, I do apologise --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- we move for a second into private session.
24 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Anyone in the public gallery, the reason for going into private
21 session causes me to instruct you to look at the public transcripts and
22 to verify what is non-public information and therefore also not to use
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. So this
1 same witness, JF-040, explicitly states that at the time relevant to this
2 indictment and the area where he was, the MUP of Serbia provided only
3 technical assistance to the police of the Krajina. So this witness says
4 not the DB of Serbia, and then he explains that the MUP of Serbia is only
5 providing technical assistance and no other type of assistance or
6 support. Transcript page 6915 through 6916.
7 The witness states that in the special unit of the MUP of
8 Krajina -- that as for the special units of the MUP of Krajina, he
9 doesn't know anything. Transcript reference 6969. And that the unit
10 that was called a special unit was an ordinary unit that had not
11 undergone any kind of special training whatsoever. You can find that on
12 transcript page 6970 through 6971.
13 Finally, and most importantly in the view of the Defence, this
14 witness concludes that throughout his stay in the Krajina the JNA was the
15 protagonist of military operations and that the MUP was only in charge of
16 maintaining public law and order. You can find that on transcript 6987.
17 Witness Marko Miljanic, a former officer of the JNA who in
18 May 1991 joined the MUP of Croatia, states that in May 1991 he was sent
19 by the MUP of Croatia to Skabrnja to organise the Defence. This witness,
20 as a former JNA officer and as a direct witness of the attack against
21 Skabrnja, confirms that the attacks against the village were launched by
22 the JNA using artillery, mortars, and aircraft. You can find that on
23 transcript page 2360 through 2361.
24 Further on, he says that the JNA kept Skabrnja under artillery
25 fire throughout the day. Transcript page 2375. The witness describes
1 JNA tactics during the attack against Skabrnja. In military terminology,
2 it is well known as pliers. That is transcript page 2386. The witness
3 confirmed during cross-examination that the attack against Skabrnja was
4 carried out by the JNA only. Transcript page 2399 through 2400. The
5 witness stated further on that local Serbs also participated in the
6 crimes; they were wearing JNA uniforms though. Transcript page 2408.
7 This witness confirms or, rather, concludes that the operation of
8 attack against Skabrnja required a higher level of organisation and
9 co-ordination that only could have been provided by the JNA. You can
10 find that on transcript page 2427.
11 Witness JF-006, who was mobilised in 1991, in August of 1991,
12 in -- was mobilised into a particular part of the Territorial Defence of
13 this area and he says that in November 1991 it was the JNA that organised
14 units in the field and that his Territorial Defence, of his area,
15 that is, established a brigade that was named after the area concerned
16 and that it consisted of three battalions consisting of approximately
17 300 men respectively. In addition to side-arms, the brigade had six to
18 eight tanks, five or six APCs, three Howitzers, and he claims that all of
19 this weaponry was received from the JNA. That can be found in P103,
20 page 3.
21 This witness states that a rumour spread among the soldiers to
22 the effect that an attack was being prepared against Saborsko after the
23 visit of Colonel Bulat to Colonel Trbovic, and the likelihood of an
24 attack was clearly there when the JNA sent soldiers and tanks in the
25 direction of Licka Jesenica. You can find that in P103, page 4. The
1 witness said that Colonel Bulat was the Commander-in-Chief for all of
2 these units. You can find that in P103, page 5, and transcript pages
3 2514 through 2515.
4 Witness JF-019 confirmed that the JNA armed the local Serbs.
5 Transcript page 5346. Witness JF-041 states that the weapons that were
6 distributed to the local population in mid-1991 in Knin originally came
7 from the depots of the JNA and the TO. You can see that on transcript
8 page 7948. This witness confirms, further on, that the special unit of
9 the MUP of Krajina was under the command of the JNA and that the JNA
10 provided to this unit a certain quantity of equipment and weapons. You
11 can also find this on transcript page 8006 through 8007.
12 Witness JF-039 testified that up until the end of July 1991
13 Franko Simatovic, better known as Frenki in the area, left Knin.
14 Transcript page 7332. When you look at the crime base in the indictment,
15 you can see that all the crimes charged in the indictment pertaining to
16 the area of the SAO Krajina were committed in the autumn of 1991, that is
17 to say, at the time when Franko Simatovic was not even physically present
18 in the area. Even more importantly, the ample evidence that we have
19 referred to clearly and unequivocally shows that military operations in
20 the places where crimes were committed were planned, co-ordinated, and
21 carried out under the exclusive command of the JNA.
22 The Prosecutor did not even try to prove by providing a shred of
23 evidence what kind of influence was exercised by Franko Simatovic, who at
24 the time was an operative in the Belgrade Administration of
25 State Security, what kind of influence he could have exercised over
1 senior officers of the JNA. So all the crimes committed in
2 Kninska Krajina were committed in the autumn of 1991, primarily October
3 and November according to Prosecution witnesses, under the direct
4 command, planning, and co-ordination of the JNA. Franko Simatovic, who
5 briefly came to the area in the summer of 1991, according to the
6 statements made by Prosecution witnesses, towards the end of August
7 physically left the area and was no longer present there. So the
8 Prosecutor did not demonstrate or prove any link between Franko Simatovic
9 and the crimes committed in Kninska Krajina that are alleged in the
11 As for the area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, the
12 Defence wishes to highlight the following: Witness CO-15 states that the
13 Territorial Defence and volunteers were subordinated to the JNA and were
14 under its command. You can find that in the transcript on page 1656. He
15 also adds that in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem
16 the Novi Sad Corps was present and that Radovan Stojicic, Badza, at the
17 time a member of the public security of Serbia, was commander of the
18 Territorial Defence. You can find that on page 1658.
19 Further on, this witness confirmed that the JNA provided the TO
20 with weaponry and equipment. This was stated on page 1659 of the
21 transcript. And he also said that Radovan Stojicic, Badza, told him that
22 the Territorial Defence should follow the instructions of the JNA. You
23 can find that on page 1661 of the transcript.
24 This witness confirms that Arkan was under the command of the JNA
25 and General Andrija Biorcevic in these operations. Transcript page 1664
1 and 1714. And that Arkan's Serb Volunteer Guard had vehicles that it had
2 received from the JNA. Transcript page 1711.
3 Witness C-1118 stated that the JNA armed the Serbs in his town
4 and that the process took around two months. This can be found at
5 transcript page 1987. Witness JF-015 testified that he attended a
6 meeting between TO and police commanders and Radovan Stojicic, Badza, and
7 his deputy Miodrag Zavisic. At the meeting which was held in Bobota,
8 Badza made it known that he was to be TO commander and that as of that
9 moment the TO was in charge of all civilian and military affairs. It is
10 P306. The witness confirmed that at the time the conflict broke out, the
11 public and state security were separate, with two separate chains of
12 command, as can be seen at transcript pages 4083 and 4084.
13 The witness stated that he never saw and that he did not have a
14 single piece of evidence to show that Arkan and Stevicevic [phoen]
15 received their orders from the DB. This is transcript page 4109. Before
16 having said that, he stated that Arkan had weapons, ammunitions, and
17 trucks of the JNA. It is at transcript page 4105. The witness asserts
18 that all TO members were Serbs from that place. That is transcript page
19 4118. He also said that one of them were SDS members which assembled
20 most of the Serbs. That is transcript page 4119. The leading positions
21 within the TO and the Crisis Staff were held by SDS members. That is
22 transcript page 4119.
23 The JNA units which entered Dalj arrived in the area from the
24 direction of Bogojevo and they belonged to the Novi Sad Corps. This is
25 transcript page 4121. The witness stated that the liberation of the area
1 was carried out as a co-ordinated action of the JNA and the TO. This is
2 transcript page 4123. As well as that the JNA and the
3 Serb Volunteer Guard jointly participated in combat. That is transcript
4 page 4127.
5 Witness JF-018 stated that the JNA in 1991 brought weapons to the
6 area in trucks which was then distributed to local Serbs. That is
7 transcript page 4163. Witness JF-034 testified that the Government of
8 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Sirmium had no contacts with the
9 Serbian DB and that he, although he was a senior official, and you can
10 see that for yourselves, doesn't know what kind of role the Serbian DB
11 could have had in that government. This is at transcript page 6009.
12 Based on D76, this witness concluded that the final say during
13 the relevant period of time in those areas was in the hands of the JNA.
14 It is at transcript page 6067. He continues to confirm that in the fall
15 of 1991 the structure of the federal SUP was still in effect. In other
16 words, it meant that the MUP of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina was
17 independent of the Serbian MUP in Belgrade. This is at transcript page
19 The witness also confirms that the JNA deployed tanks and
20 artillery in the environs of Ilok in July 1991. After Ilok surrendered,
21 some 8.000 people were transported to Croatia on board JNA trucks. In
22 the negotiations concerning the movement of the population, it was the
23 JNA who participated. No one participated on behalf of the government of
24 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Sirmium. He also stated that the
25 remaining non-Serb population remained in their homes until the area was
1 peacefully reintegrated. Which is at transcript page 6071 through 6073.
2 We would, here, like to re-affirm that Witness JF-029 testified
3 that Radovan Stojicic, Badza, save for the taking over control of the TO,
4 also conducted tasks which had to do with the establishment of police
5 forces which were supposed to keep order and uphold law in the area and
6 that it was his assessment that Badza held a certain sway over Arkan and
7 that Arkan implemented Badza's orders. This is at transcript page 10097,
8 10108 and 10109.
9 Contrary to this knowledge, the same witness saw Franko Simatovic
10 for the very first time in late 1995 after the Erdut Agreement was
11 signed. Based on all the aforementioned evidence, an ambiguous
12 conclusion can be made that Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and his SDG were
13 part and parcel of the regional Territorial Defence commanded by a member
14 of the public security service of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia,
15 Radovan Stojicic, Badza, and that the TO and the SDG were commanded by
16 the JNA Novi Sad Corps and its commander, General Andrija Biorcevic,
17 during the time when all of the crimes in this territory took place that
18 are charged in the indictment.
19 The Simatovic Defence wishes to point out that the crimes which
20 took part in the region also encompassed the fall of 1991 at the time
21 when Franko Simatovic held the position we are aware of and at the time
22 when JNA influence, in terms of command and armament, took place as we
23 have described and as can be seen in the evidence.
24 This covers the alleged crimes that Franko Simatovic is charged
25 with in the territory of Croatia. As for the crimes that
1 Franko Simatovic is charged with which took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
2 the Defence wishes to point out that Simatovic has no points of contact
3 with the crimes committed in the territory of the municipality of
4 Bijeljina and that he did not order, aid, organise, or in any other way
5 substantially assisted and supported the expulsions or deportations of
6 non-Serbs from that municipality. We have already stated that it is
7 undisputable that Biljana Plavsic as a senior politician of the RS
8 directly invited and brought in Arkan and his Serb Volunteer Guard to the
9 area of Bijeljina.
10 We wish to stress that earlier in this presentation we explained
11 in detail why this Defence believes that there is no link whatsoever
12 between Simatovic, Arkan, and his forces. Here we wish to point out that
13 it is note worthy to see that Biljana Plavsic, who was a senior official
14 of the Bosnian Serbs at the time, directly contacted
15 Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, inviting him to Bosnia with his unit.
16 Had the Serb Volunteer Guard been in any way related to the state
17 security service, it is clear that such an invitation should have been
18 forwarded through either the MUP or the DB of the Republic of Serbia. As
19 regards Bosanski Samac and the crimes which were committed in the
20 territory of that municipality in April and May 1992, the evidence led
21 shows that members of the Serb Radical Party who had earlier fought in
22 the area of Eastern Slavonia arrived in Batkusa on board a military
23 helicopter. They were immediately put under the command of the
24 Posavina Brigade. There is no group that this group which arrived in
25 Samac in a military helicopter was a special unit of the Serbian DB as is
1 alleged in the indictment. As regards the take-over of Bosanski Samac,
2 the 17th Corps command of the JNA informed its superior command that
3 members of the TO and of the MUP of the Serb municipality took control of
4 the key facilities in Samac. They also informed that the forces of the
5 17th JNA Corps are in Samac and that they were deployed along various
6 positions in town. You can see that in D124.
7 The Defence wishes to direct the Bench's attention to D11, dated
8 the 18th of June, 1992, that is to say, following the months of April and
9 May when the alleged crimes took place in Bosanski Samac. The chief of
10 the Posavina Brigade, Srecko Radovanovic, aka Debeli, turned to the
11 Serb Radical Party and the War Staff commander in Belgrade for a
12 promotion to the rank of lieutenant for three of his members.
13 I would kindly ask to of move into private session briefly, Your
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
16 [Private session]
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 You say you've got 15 minutes left. I'm looking at the
12 Stanisic Defence. We usually have sessions of one hour and 15 minutes.
13 I could, however, imagine, and I'm not in any way pressuring, that being
14 released in 15 minutes from now and not have to return might be
15 preferable. But I leave it entirely in the hands ... it's not favouring
16 the Chamber; it's just what is most convenient for those who have to
17 return to the UN Detention Unit.
18 MR. JORDASH: May I have a moment, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, no pressure whatsoever. We'll be glad
20 to be here and listen, after a break of half an hour, to the last
21 15 minutes.
22 And, Mr. Bakrac, if you say 15 minutes, then, of course, if we
23 would go in that direction, then it -- of course, it should be 15 minutes
24 and not more. That should be clear.
25 [Defence counsel and accused Stanisic confer]
1 MR. JORDASH: We can go on, Your Honour, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Bakrac, I'm looking at the clock,
3 and now I'm going to be strict in time because ... 15 minutes.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Regarding the crimes in the municipality of Doboj, it is our view
7 that the Prosecution did not adduce evidence or at least did not adduce
8 evidence that a conviction could be based on even if that evidence were
9 taken in light the most favourable for them. Namely, they assert that
10 during the take-over of Doboj special units of the DB of Serbia
11 participated, without any proof whatsoever existing that a single
12 Serbian DB unit was assigned to the area. One of the key witnesses of
13 the Prosecution, Edin Hadzovic described a certain local Karaga as a
14 member of a military formation -- paramilitary formation wearing
15 camouflage uniforms and red berets. That is transcript page 2235. He
16 went on to explain that the commander of the Red Berets went under the
17 nickname of Golub. Since he spoke in a Montenegrin accent, he was called
18 Crnogorac, Montenegrin. He stated that he had a noticeable scar on his
19 face and that during the lineup of the prisoners to form a human shield,
20 he wore a camouflage uniform and a red beret. It is transcript page
21 2242. According to his allegations, it was these volunteers and
22 paramilitary groups that reported to the garrison commander Stankovic
23 upon their arrival in Doboj who then billeted them in JNA barracks. This
24 is transcript page 2271.
25 The witness also added that the local Serbs were in the reserve
1 force of the police and army or in paramilitary formations such as
2 Predini Vukovi, the White Eagles, and that the Red Berets comprised
3 people from the Krajina and Banja Luka. This can be found at transcript
4 page 2282.
5 When he uses the term the "Serb army," he includes all the
6 Red Berets, military, and the police, as well as all armed Serbs. He
7 explained as much at transcript page 2283.
8 Finally, when discussing the issue of the human shield, the
9 witness confirmed that the Red Berets which used the prisoners as a human
10 shield were local Serbs, save for the Montenegrin, and that he knew
11 several of the Red Berets. It is at transcript page 2318.
12 The witness reiterated his description of Golub, or the
13 Montenegrin, at transcript page 2343. The Defence wish to state that the
14 witness confirmed that members of a local group called Micas also wore
15 red berets. It is at transcript page 2344. The Simatovic Defence
16 believe that the Prosecution attempted to suggest that the Montenegrin,
17 aka Golub, with the large scar was in fact Rajo Bozovic. It is their
18 thesis which, in our view, caved in because we presented evidence that
19 Rajo Bozovic at the time of the alleged incident was hospitalized, having
20 previously been wounded in combat. In document D121 we can see that
21 Bozovic was hospitalized between the 26th of June and the 23rd of July,
22 while the incidents alleged in the indictment took place on the
23 12th of July, 1992.
24 Therefore it is clear that the OTP witness stated that the crime
25 was committed by local Serbs, including members of the Micas wearing
1 red berets, who had nothing to do with the Republic of Serbia and least
2 of all with its DB.
3 As regards Sanski Most, according to the indictment allegations,
4 Arkan and the Serb Volunteer Guard were marked as perpetrators of the
5 alleged crimes in the area in 1995. The Defence would, here, like to
6 assert that there is no link between Arkan and his unit and
7 Franko Simatovic, as we have elaborated thus far. The sending of Arkan,
8 his activities, the potential crimes committed by him or his unit are in
9 no way linked to Franko Simatovic.
10 The Prosecution did not put forth a single piece of evidence that
11 Simatovic -- to show that a Simatovic had anything to do with the events
12 surrounding Sanski Most and Arkan's role in those events. The Prosecutor
13 charges in that Stanisic and Simatovic for having ordered the Skorpions,
14 which is indicated as a special unit of the Serbian DB, to travel from
15 their base in Djeletovci to Serb-held territory close to Sarajevo where
16 the Skorpions arrived in early July 1995 and set up camp in Trnovo at the
17 foot of Mount Treskavica near Sarajevo.
18 Earlier, the Defence made reference to the testimony of JF-029
19 who knew all the details about this unit and who in his testimony did not
20 offer a single confirmation or insinuation of Simatovic's involvement in
21 the deployment or command over this unit in the area of Treskavica.
22 Earlier it has already been pointed out the fact that there is evidence
23 that Stanisic and Simatovic had nothing to do with the formation of this
24 unit, starting from the date of its induction until the date it was
25 disbanded. The Defence would like to draw to the attention of this
1 Honourable Chamber part of the testimony of JF-029 which particularly
2 refers to the fact of who ordered the movement and the dispatch of these
3 units to the Trnovo front. Witness JF-029 states that the Skorpions were
4 sent to the Trnovo front based on the decision taken by
5 Slavko Dokmanovic; Radovan Stojicic, Badza; Ilija Kojic; and
6 General Dusan Loncar. That can be found on page 10194.
7 So this Prosecution witness gave us a list of names of people who
8 ordered the sending of this unit to the Trnovo front, whereas the
9 indictment says that Simatovic and Stanisic were the ones who ordered the
10 movement and the dispatch of these units to the Trnovo front. It is
11 clear that this Prosecution witness who was close to this unit has no
12 knowledge about Simatovic's involvement in any way whatsoever in the
13 deployment of this unit to the Trnovo front, particularly that he had no
14 influence whatsoever of their activities because Witness JF-029 testified
15 that the operation at Trnovo was commanded by general of the Army of
16 Republika Srpska, Dragomir Milosevic, including the activities of the
17 Skorpions. That can be seen on pages 10195 through to 10197 and in
18 Exhibit D212. This witness particularly emphasised at the end that the
19 Skorpions were sent to Trnovo as a unit of the Army of the
20 Republika Srpska Krajina. You can find this on transcript page 10197 to
22 Finally, speaking about Zvornik municipality, the Defence already
23 described how the Arkan's units arrived to Zvornik and at whose
24 invitation. The Defence also presented its view about the absence of any
25 connection between Arkan and his SDG on the one side and the DB of
1 Serbian on the other side. The Defence would particularly like to
2 underline that the Prosecution did not offer a single piece of evidence
3 about the existence of any link and the activities of the
4 Serbian Volunteer Guards in the area of Zvornik and the
5 Accused Franko Simatovic.
6 We would like to remind the Honourable Chamber that the
7 Prosecution heard a witness who at the time when the crimes were
8 committed in the area of Zvornik was a highly-placed official and was
9 privy to all the details relating to the events that took place in the
10 territory of this municipality relevant for the indictment. The
11 Witness JF-026 said that he had never heard of Franko Simatovic and that
12 he emphatically stated that Franko Simatovic had no link whatsoever with
13 the events in Zvornik. You can find that on transcript page 9757.
14 And finally, the Defence would like to note that the Prosecution
15 failed to prove that Franko Simatovic played any role in deportations or
16 forced relocation, and they particularly failed to provide any evidence
17 that could indicate that there was an intent on the part of Simatovic to
18 have these acts committed. The Defence believes that in the proceedings
19 conducted so far, the Prosecution failed to prove that Franko Simatovic
20 is responsible for Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the indictment against
22 In view of all the reasons stated herein above, the Defence would
23 ask the Trial Chamber to acquit the Accused Franko Simatovic at this
24 stage of the proceedings with respect to all counts of the indictment
25 that contain charges against him.
1 I would like to thank the Trial Chamber and everybody else in the
2 courtroom for the patience that they displayed in listening to our
3 presentation pursuant to Rule 98 bis.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
5 Mr. Groome, could you give us any indication, in view of the fact
6 that the Stanisic Defence has decided not to make any 98 bis submissions,
7 how much time you would need on Monday.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe we will take the entire day
9 Monday, but we will keep it within that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we adjourn for the day. We will resume
11 on Monday, the 11th of April.
12 Madam Registrar, if I'm not mistaken, we are scheduled for the
13 morning hours in Courtroom II, which means that we'll resume at the
14 11th of April, 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom II.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.30 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day
17 of April, 2011 at 9.00 a.m.