1 Tuesday, 21 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I would have two decisions for which the reasons that have to be
11 given. I reserve them for a later moment, because we'd like to start
12 immediately with the first witness to be called by the -- by the Stanisic
13 Defence, and there are still a few pending matters in relation to
14 protective measures for which we would like to go into private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 11622-11623 redacted. Private session.
20 [Closed session]
11 Pages 11624-11636 redacted. Closed session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Mr. Groome, you would like to raise -- yes, Ms. Marcus, you would
9 like to raise some matters.
10 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours. On the 1st of April, 2011
11 the Chamber ordered the Defence to fulfil their disclosure obligations
12 pursuant to Rule 67(A) "no later than the 7th of June, 2011." To date
13 the Stanisic Defence have disclosed witness statements for only two of
14 their witnesses. The Prosecution urgently seeks disclosure of the
15 statements of all other Defence witnesses pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii) and
16 this Chamber's disclosure order.
17 On the 14th of June, the Prosecution requested in court at
18 transcript T-11517, all statements taken from Defence witnesses pursuant
19 to Rule 67(A)(ii). Apart from those for the witnesses of this week, no
20 statements have been forthcoming.
21 On the 17th of June, the Prosecution sent an e-mail to the
22 Defence, again requesting provision of any and all statements the
23 Defence -- from Defence witnesses pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii). In
24 response, the Defence stated that it does not agree with the
25 Prosecution's interpretation of its disclosure obligations and that it
1 deems all its notes taken from witnesses to be internal work product.
2 The Defence requested that the Prosecution provide it with the
3 jurisprudence upon which we rely in asserting that there is a disclosure
4 obligation. The Prosecution provided its response in detail that same
5 day, on the 17th of June, including citations to the jurisprudence and no
6 further response was received from the Defence.
7 Rule 67(A)(ii) provides:
8 "Within the time limit prescribed by the Trial Chamber but not
9 less than one week prior to the commencement of the Defence case, the
10 Defence shall provide to the Prosecutor copies of statements, if any, of
11 all witnesses whom the Defence intends to call to testify at trial and
12 copies of all written statements taken in accordance with Rule 92 bis,
13 Rule 92 ter, or Rule 92 quater, which the Defence intends to present at
15 Rule 67 is quite clear that when Defence counsel has witness
16 statements from its witnesses it is required to disclose them. I refer
17 the Chamber to the Prosecutor versus Milan and Sredoje Lukic. That's
18 case IT-98-32, on the 19th of January, 2009, at transcript T-4180.
19 In the application of Rule 66(A)(ii) -- 67(A)(ii), pardon me, the
20 Appeals Chamber has held that the fact that a statement is not in
21 standard form "does not free a party from its obligation to disclose it."
22 For this assertion I refer the Chamber to Prosecutor versus Niyitegeka,
23 the appeals judgement of the 9th of July, 2004, paragraph 35.
24 Interview notes have been considered witness statements by both
25 Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber under Rule 66(A)(ii). For this I
1 refer the Chamber to the Lukic and Lukic case decision on Milan Lukic's
2 motion to suppress testimony for failure of timely disclosure, dated 3
3 November 2008, at paragraph 16.
4 The Prosecution understands that because of time and resource
5 constraints, the Defence may not have prepared formal witness statements
6 for all of the Defence witnesses on its 65 ter list. Nevertheless, from
7 the level of detail included in the Defence's 65 ter summaries, it is
8 clear that the Defence has interviewed many of these witnesses, in some
9 cases quite extensively. I note that on the 14th of June, 2011,
10 Mr. Jordash stated at transcript 11513 that they started interviewing the
11 first two witnesses three to four months ago.
12 The Prosecution therefore seeks disclosure of formal witness
13 statements of any witnesses for whom such have been prepared and of
14 interview notes for any witnesses that the Defence may have interviewed
15 but with respect to whom no formal statement was prepared.
16 The Prosecution acknowledges, of course, that the Defence is
17 entitled to redact or remove from these notes the mental impressions or
18 other legitimate work product of Defence team members. In this
19 connection, the Prosecution notes that paragraphs 24 to 36 of the
20 Niyitegeka appeal judgement contain helpful guidance regarding what may
21 or may not be considered work product in the context of witness interview
23 Rule 67(A)(ii) clearly contemplates disclosure of Defence witness
24 statements where they are available. To allow Defence counsel to resist
25 the disclosure of witness statements simply by failing to reduce
1 interviews notes to a formal signed statement would be an absurd result
2 emphasising form over substance. Addressing such a situation
3 Judge Parker observed in the Djordjevic case:
4 "We have, or at least I have, with other Judges in the past
5 encountered situations where a practice was adopted by the Defence of not
6 taking a formal statement with a view to avoiding Rule 67. We dealt with
7 that by requiring that their proofing notes be provided in lieu of a
8 formal statement."
9 I refer the Chamber to Prosecutor v. Djordjevic, that is case
10 number IT-05-87, on the 20th of January of 2010, at transcript 10166.
11 This approach is eminently reasonable. Rule 67(A)(ii) like Rule
12 66(A)(ii) is intended to promote the truth-finding process by allowing
13 witnesses to be confronted with their prior statements. This goal is
14 promoted by disclosure of interview notes just as much as it is by the
15 disclosure of formal signed statements. In contrast, no legitimate goal
16 or policy would be advanced by an interpretation of Rule 67(A)(ii) that
17 required disclosure of formal statements but permitted interview notes to
18 be withheld. The reasonable interpretation of the Rule should be
20 The Appeals Chamber has made it clear that interview notes
21 prepared by the Prosecution do not constitute work product within the
22 meaning of Rule 70(A). The Prosecution notes that Rule 70(A) defines
23 work product for a party and does not make any distinction between
24 Prosecution work product and Defence work product. In light of this,
25 interview notes prepared by the Defence should not be considered work
1 product either.
2 The second of the two witnesses for whom the Prosecution has
3 received statements is likely to conclude his testimony next week. The
4 first witness for whom the Prosecution has not received a statement is
5 likely to begin testimony next week. To meaningfully prepare for
6 cross-examination of that witness and subsequent witnesses, the
7 Prosecution would need to receive witness statements immediately.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the Prosecution respectfully requests
9 the Chamber to order the Defence to immediately disclose all witness
10 statements, including all interview notes, proofing notes, and other
11 notes recording the evidence of Defence witnesses relevant to this case
12 for all the witnesses on the Defence's 65 ter witness list.
13 Your Honours, I have one more very brief additional matter to
14 raise. The Prosecution has made two requests to inspect pursuant to Rule
15 67(A)(i) to the Stanisic Defence, one request on the 16th of June and the
16 second request on the 18th of June. Both requests pertain to the first
17 two witnesses. The Defence has not responded to these requests except to
18 suggest that the Chamber not be copied on these requests. The
19 Prosecution notes that in spite of being in possession of witness
20 statements and prior testimony of Prosecution witnesses for months if not
21 years prior to the Prosecution witness testifying, the Prosecution always
22 prioritised Defence requests even when last minute pursuant to Rule 66(B)
23 even where requests came late at night on the eve of a witness's
24 testimony. In this case the Prosecution submits that in particular, in
25 light of the very late disclosure of the witness statements for the first
1 two witnesses that the Defence should treat our 67(A)(i) requests with
2 the utmost in urgency.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, it is not my intention to spend the
5 whole of this day on discussions on these matters, but if you would like
6 to briefly respond, if there would be need for a longer response, then we
7 should find time somewhere.
8 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour I'm not in a position to -- to
9 make a lengthy argument, because the Prosecution didn't provide notice
10 that they were going to raise this argument today. So I am somewhat
11 handicapped by that lack of notice.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then be very practical. If we would proceed
13 with the witness today, could you respond then tomorrow and not forget
14 about Ms. Marcus's urgent request to prioritise any request under
15 67(A)(i), because that's the most urgent matter, I would say, and not to
16 say that the remainder is -- could be postponed for days, but perhaps we
17 could deal with that tomorrow. Is that --
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, I can -- I can deal with those two matters
19 immediately. One, it's not correct that we didn't respond at all. Two
20 requests came. One was, as I understand the situation, a request as to
21 whether we'd received any documentary evidence concerning the 1991
22 commission or investigation into Mr. Stanisic that we allege -- or assert
23 was politically motivated.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the 23rd of July or the 18th of July report,
25 1991, in which apparently the results were given to the government. Is
1 that --
2 MR. JORDASH: This -- this is the investigation that --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm aware of what you're talking about.
4 MR. JORDASH: Right.
5 JUDGE ORIE: This resulted in a report which was sent and,
6 forgive me, it was either the 18th or the 20th -- I think it was the 23rd
7 of July, 1991 in which the results of the investigations of this
8 commission were reported.
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And I don't understand why my learned friend
10 has raised the issue in this way, because I responded immediately to that
11 request, and I informed the Prosecution that we had not received any
12 documentary evidence from the National Council.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Have you asked for it in this respect?
14 MR. JORDASH: We asked for it, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
16 MR. JORDASH: And I informed the Prosecution of that, so I'm not
17 sure what that's about.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not -- it's clear now what the concerns of
19 Ms. Marcus are. If we're talking about this 67(A)(ii) request, let's not
20 start struggling about whether you did respond or whether you -- let's
21 try and see -- apparently it's important for Ms. Marcus that to the
22 extent you're able to prioritise, and I do understand from your words
23 that in some respects you -- well, you may prioritise it, but it will
24 produce no difference in result, that perhaps the cup of tea in the next
25 break will help us a bit out, and then of course, then we have the more
1 extensive disclosure discussion which I think we'd like to hear your
2 response, but if you say, "I wasn't aware that it would be raised today,"
3 then we might like to receive your response tomorrow.
4 MR. JORDASH: That would be absolutely fine. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And then meanwhile, we don't have to ask the witness
6 to wait for another -- for another hour to hear the details of your
8 MR. JORDASH: In -- if I can just very briefly deal with the
9 Prosecution's second 67(A) --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. JORDASH: -- (i) request. It was a request as I understood
12 it for any diary the witness may have, full stop, without any caveat that
13 that diary was relevant to his testimony. But putting that aside, the
14 answer is he doesn't have a diary relevant to his testimony. And I
15 apologise for the one-day delay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What you say, diary is not in the Defence's
17 custody or control.
18 MR. JORDASH: Absolutely not.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Which is an answer, whether you like it or not,
20 Ms. Marcus.
21 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is an answer. Then we are close to the point
23 where we would have a break anyhow, perhaps it's better not to start
24 examination-in-chief for five minutes and then to have a break. I
25 suggest that we take the break now and that we'll start at five minutes
1 to 4.00, immediately move into closed session and start hearing the
2 testimony of the witness.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.23 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 3.57 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We will turn into closed session.
6 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in closed session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Could the witness be
9 brought into the courtroom.
10 Mr. Jordash, associated exhibits or documents, I always expect
11 them to be referred to in the 92 ter statement. I had some difficulties
12 in finding clear references in the 92 ter statement to all of these
13 documents, but --
14 MR. JORDASH: I would hope that they are there, but I accept that
15 they're not clearly --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Identified, perhaps.
17 MR. JORDASH: Identified.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But we'll get used to -- we'll understand each
19 other's ways.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Groome.
23 MR. GROOME: I had precisely the same difficulty. It was going
24 to be the basis of an objection. If -- perhaps by tomorrow morning
25 Mr. Jordash could at least put another column and the paragraph number
1 where it's referred to, I think it would assist all of us. For example,
2 there's one reference to Law on Arms but it's -- there are two different
3 documents that have the Law on Arms in there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's the first witness. Mr. Jordash
5 certainly will accommodate our concerns in the near future, I take it.
6 Witness DST-051, I explained to you before the break and before
7 we had to deal with some procedural matters which were not related to
8 you. I explained to you that we would proceed at this moment in closed
9 session. We are in closed session. At the same time, voice distortion
10 and face distortion is active, which means that after we've heard
11 relevant submissions that we can move in the appropriate direction. At
12 this moment, no one can see you, no one can hear you, apart from those in
13 this courtroom.
14 Mr. Jordash, are you ready to start your examination of
15 Witness DST-051?
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
17 Examination by Mr. Jordash:
18 Q. Good afternoon, DST-51. Could you please state your full name
19 for the record.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I think, as a matter of fact, that we
21 work with the pseudonym, as I said before, with face and voice
22 distortion, so therefore a pseudonym sheet would be better placed to keep
23 all options open for the future.
24 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It doesn't make much sense to call the witness
1 DST-51 and then ask what his name is. But I would not mind exceptionally
2 that you prepare a pseudonym sheet and that we identify the witness by
3 name on a piece of paper after the next break. It may not be that
4 difficult to produce and upload a pseudonym sheet.
5 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. At the moment, then I'll deal
6 with it by having the witness look at a statement where his name also is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's also a way of dealing with it.
8 MR. JORDASH: Could I ask the Court Officer, please, to give
9 DST-051 1D4850. Well, rather, it should come up on the screen not to be
10 shown to the public.
11 Q. Mr. Witness, on the monitor in front of you there should and
12 document purporting to be a statement given by you on the 13th of
13 January, the 10th of March, and the 27th of May, 2011. Do you recall
14 giving a statement to members of the Stanisic Defence on these dates?
15 A. Yes. I remember, and the information contained in my statement
16 is fully accurate.
17 Q. Let me if I can just take it one step at a time. Do you --
18 perhaps the statement could be moved upwards so we can see the bottom.
19 Do you recognise one of the signatures or initials on the bottom of the
21 A. This is my signature, and the initials are those of the lawyer
22 who interviewed me.
23 Q. And do you recall giving the statements on the days that I
24 referred to?
25 A. Yes. 13 January, 10 March, and 27 May.
1 Q. Have you had an opportunity prior to attending court today to
2 carefully review this statement?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And in your own language?
5 A. Yes, in the Serbian language.
6 Q. Is there anything that you would wish to change in the statement?
7 A. No.
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, at this time I would ask the -- or I
9 think Your Honours may have the courtesy copy of the list of exhibits
10 associated with this witness's statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, we received that.
12 MR. JORDASH: And we would seek to have the statement and the
13 exhibits, the associated exhibits, admitted pursuant to 92 ter.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe there's just one more
15 foundational question that needs to be asked.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're not -- you've not dealt with all the --
17 all the formalities, Mr. Jordash.
18 Witness DST-051, you read your statement. It reflects what you
19 said and what you said is in accordance with the truth.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That completes the -- there was one missing element,
22 Mr. Jordash.
23 And if similar questions would be asked today, you would give the
24 same -- basically the same answers?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Mr. Groome?
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no objections to the admission
3 of the statement. I do object to the admission of the associated
4 exhibits until I have some understanding of where and how they're covered
5 in the statement. I would ask that they be marked for identification
6 now, and I will speak with Mr. Jordash during the break to see if we're
7 able to come to an agreement on that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Jordash had not even yet asked to have
9 them admitted. But Mr. Jordash, would you agree with the suggestion of
10 Mr. Groome?
11 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the witness statement would receive
14 THE REGISTRAR: 1D4850 would receive number D227.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D227 is admitted into evidence under seal.
16 Madam Registrar, would you please prepare and reserve numbers for the
17 associated documents and so that we can mark them for identification
18 awaiting further submissions by the parties before admitting them.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. JORDASH: May I have the chart which we prepared which has
21 been given to the legal officer, please, to be given to the witness.
22 This is a chart of exhibits and comments by the witness.
23 Q. Could I ask, Mr. Witness, that you look at the chart. Do you
24 recognise the chart?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And do you recognise the signature or initials at the bottom
2 right-hand corner of each page?
3 A. Yes. And the signature at the end.
4 Q. Were you asked --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Just -- I still have the statement on my screen.
6 Have you identified the chart by its doc ID number, Mr. Jordash, so that
7 Madam Registrar can put it on the screen.
8 MR. JORDASH: The chart hasn't been uploaded.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers].
10 MR. JORDASH: We have copies for Your Honours and the parties. I
11 hope that you've been given them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you want later us to do something with it,
13 then you're encouraged to upload the chart, because you're talking about
14 a signature, and I think I have to check whether I received them both in
15 English and in B/C/S. I don't think I did, so therefore I -- for
16 example, I can't check whether the -- where that signature is, but let's
17 proceed. It's -- no. No. I see that these ...
18 Apparently I have a different copy, but let's proceed. I don't
19 think that this will finally in any way obstruct the further proceedings.
20 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I see -- I can borrow from one of my colleagues.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Were you asked yesterday to look at these documents and
25 provide --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And provide your comments, if any?
3 A. I had some remarks and comments in connection with each and every
4 one of these documents.
5 Q. And do the documents -- do the comments accurately reflect what
6 you wanted to say about the documents at that time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And is there anything at this point that you want to change?
9 A. No. I believe that this is what I wanted to say.
10 Q. And do you confirm that it is the truth?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I would seek to have these exhibited
13 at this time. I understand the Prosecution have some queries they would
14 like to have answered, so I would ask that it be MFI'd and the exhibits
15 underlying the chart be MFI'd.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, so it's clear, I don't object to the
18 admission of the witness's observations about these documents, but the
19 witness doesn't speak to anything about authenticity of the documents,
20 and in fact, in item 15, the witness says that he's not familiar with the
21 document. So I've asked Mr. Jordash to provide some information about
22 the provenance of the document.
23 Could I also ask, Your Honour, that there's some abbreviations
24 here which have not been used before in the trial, CRDB is one, and I
25 believe there's -- in items 8, 9, and 11, the initials RS are used. That
1 has been used over the course of this case to indicate Republika Srpska.
2 If that is not the case in this instance, I would ask Mr. Jordash to ask
3 the witness what does he mean when he says "RS."
4 JUDGE ORIE: For some of the documents, especially when we're
5 talking about laws which were published, it may be that the authenticity
6 is not a vital issue, because of course there's one official version,
7 but -- if the text is the same, but for the others, certainly,
8 Mr. Jordash, is there anyway you could meet the concerns expressed by
9 Mr. Groome as to the authenticity of these documents the witness has not
10 seen before?
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes. We can deal with that after the court
12 session. We did write to the Prosecution with that query.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome, any objection against proceeding
14 at this moment and another cup of tea to be spent on your communications
15 with Mr. Jordash?
16 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Madam Registrar, would you please
18 prepare and reserve numbers both for the chart itself with the comments
19 on it in the two languages and for each underlying document to the extent
20 they have not yet been admitted into evidence where I see that --
21 MR. JORDASH: May I indicate, Your Honour, that number 1, 8, 14,
22 and 17 in the chart have already been admitted. That's 1D2613 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I even see far more of them. A lot of P exhibit
24 numbers appear as well. So I would come to -- close to 14, if I'm not
25 mistaken. Fourteen, 15. It looks even 16 out of 35, that's -- but I may
1 have made a mistake.
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The instruction from Madam Registrar to assign
4 numbers to the underlying documents, of course, would only be applicable
5 for those who have not yet been -- who have not yet received numbers.
6 Madam Registrar will provide a list in which the numbers are given
7 together with the previous -- previous series of documents.
8 Please proceed Mr. --
9 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I could -- I think I could -- no. We also wait to
11 admit the chart until you have sat together with Mr. Groome. So all
12 those documents, including the chart, would be marked for identification
13 to start with.
14 Please proceed.
11 Page 11654 redacted. Closed session.
24 MR. JORDASH: Could I have 1D01276, please.
25 Q. When you mentioned, as that document is coming up, Mr. Witness,
1 when you mentioned the border police, which section of the ministry of
2 the interior or other organisation are they from?
3 A. Within the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia,
4 there is an administration for border affairs and aliens. That's its
5 name. Its organisational unit outside the ministry are parts of the
6 secretariat, and its remote units are at border crossings.
7 Q. And who does it answer to, the Administration for Boarder Affairs
8 and Aliens?
9 A. All these organisational units report to the Administration for
10 Boarder Affairs and Aliens, and that administration, which is part of the
11 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia, is responsible to the
12 director of the police and the minister of the interior.
13 Q. Is the chief of state security in that chain of command?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Now, if you would look at the document in front of you on the
16 screen: "Rules Governing Activities of the State Security Service." Are
17 you familiar with these rules?
18 A. Yes, I can see them. Yes, I am.
19 Q. And what role, just briefly, did they play in the operation of
20 the State Security Service at the time they were published and
22 A. These rules governing the activities of the State Security
23 Service were published, I think it was in 1984. They were promulgated by
24 the federal minister of the interior at the time, and they are in force
25 for all members of the State Security Service of the then SFRY. These
1 rules were applied in the entire territory of the former SFRY. All
2 active members of the State Security Services were acquainted with these
3 rules. These are the basic rules that every freshman in the service must
4 learn in order to be able to conduct himself in compliance with the rules
5 and go about his or her duties in that manner.
6 Q. Looking at the bottom of the page, of the English page, and I
7 think that's the same as the B/C/S page:
8 "Within the meaning of these Rules, the operative means and
9 methods of the State Security Service are secret co-operation with
10 SFRY --"
11 Going over the page, please.
12 " -- citizens or foreign nationals, informative interviews,
13 secret surveillance ..." and so on.
14 Could you in one or two sentences define an informative
15 interview, please.
16 A. Let me find it.
17 Q. Sorry, it should be on --
18 A. I saw it. In the carrying out of activities, operative methods
19 and means are used. Secret co-operation with SFRY citizens or
20 foreigners, and in some cases informative interviews are made with
21 domestic citizens and sometimes with foreigners. This is a basic
22 technique for -- for members of the service whether they work in
23 counter-intelligence or in the combatting of extremism and terrorism, get
24 information relevant to their lines of work. Without this basic method
25 of collecting information, no service of this kind can function.
1 Q. And who potentially would be the subject of informative
3 A. Any citizen for whom a member of the service has reason to
4 suspect that he or she has knowledge or information about activities
5 aimed at the undermining of the constitutional order of the state.
6 Q. Further down the page in the English version and page 2 of the
7 B/C/S, point 4.
8 "Within the meanings" -- sorry -- "Within the meaning of these
9 Rules, forms of complex operative work are check on personal data,
10 preliminary processing, operative processing, operative action ..." and
11 so on.
12 Could you just briefly define these terms? Firstly, are these
13 terms in order of seriousness or in any other type of order? Check on
14 personal data, is that at the beginning for a particular reason?
15 A. This sequence of the forms of complex operative work is as stated
16 here, because the first thing -- stated as here, because the first thing
17 you do is check on a person. You check the personal information of the
18 person to interview, especially with regard to information significant
19 for the security of the state. Check his or her police files or possibly
20 misdemeanour files for persons to be interviewed or persons to be subject
21 to any of these complex operative methods, the basic form being
22 preliminary processing. This is the lowest level of processing to which
23 a person is subjected. May I continue?
24 Q. What is preliminary processing?
25 A. If I may continue. Preliminary processing is the lowest level of
1 complex operative work, meaning that the service or its member has some
2 preliminary information that the person engages in activity that is
3 subject to processing by the State Security Service. There is no full
4 information, though, but there are indicia, preliminary information.
5 This form of operative work is done within half a year. Possibly if some
6 of this information that's collected within half a year is such that
7 another half year is required, if --
8 Q. Sorry to stop you. How might this information be recorded? Is
9 there a particular form or format?
10 A. There is a form. The organisational unit that comes by the
11 information that this person should be subject to processing drafts a
12 proposal to the head of the operative department and the State Security
13 Service of Serbia, be it the first or the Second Administration. If you
14 talk about the period from 1992 on, this could also only be the first or
15 the Second Administration. So a note is made stating that this person
16 deserves to be subjected to processing. Then a proposal is made to
17 file --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat this.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. DST-051. Could you just repeat the last
21 sentence, please, or repeat the last two. The translator missed it.
22 Remember, the translator's trying to keep up with you.
23 A. I apologise. After the proposal comes to the administration of
24 state security from the organisational unit from which it originated,
25 that is the first or the third, and if the management of these two
1 operative administrations assesses that this person should be subjected
2 to processing by state security, a proposal is made in accordance with
3 these rules.
4 This proposal is forwarded for approval, and the chief of the
5 State Security Service or his deputy makes a decision on initiating
6 preliminary operative processing.
7 Q. And just trying to move fairly briefly, Mr. DST-51, operative
8 processing is what?
9 A. It's a higher level. It's the highest level of processing a
10 person, and in this case it means that the service has information that
11 the person in question engages in some activity. Extremist or --
12 extremist activity or has information that the person works for some
13 foreign intelligence service. The same -- the procedure is the same with
14 regard to drafting a proposal and getting approval from the head of the
15 service as in the previous case.
16 Q. And an operative action?
17 A. An operative action is something that follows from the activities
18 of a greater number of persons or institutions; that is, it applies not
19 only to one person but a larger number of persons or institutions
20 involved in some activity that is subject to processing by the State
21 Security Service. There are examples from practice.
22 Q. Let me take you now down the page to point 6, and it's
23 entitled: "Means and Methods of the State Security Service, Operative
24 Means and Methods."
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And it says:
2 "The person with whom the service has established the secret
3 co-operation, (hereinafter co-operation), are associates and operative
4 connections, a network of associates."
5 Could you please just define an "associate," please. Perhaps we
6 can go over the page before you answer that and have a look at the
7 definition given there, and perhaps if you could explain it a little.
8 Page 2 of the B/C/S, and page 2 -- page 3 of the English.
9 A. Yes, yes. Here in item 9 there is a precise definition of an
10 associate. I wouldn't change anything here. It is a person who is
11 conscious, secret -- in a conscious, secret, organised, and continued
12 manner collects data and information for the needs of the service. This
13 is a definition of an associate, that is any person who accepts to
14 co-operate with the State Security Service. It means it must be
15 conscious and secret, and it is -- were laid down clearly how such an
16 associate is treated.
17 Q. And an operative connection? How would you define that?
18 A. This same rule applies to an operative connection. That, in a
19 way, is a lower level of co-operation. For somebody to become an
20 associate, in practice it would happen often that the person previously
21 was an operative connection. An associate is a higher level of
22 co-operation, a more reliable person; whereas, an operative connection is
23 an initial stage from which a serious relationship with the service can
24 develop when someone becomes an associate.
25 Q. Is there a difference between an associate and a source or an
1 operative connection and a source?
2 A. The rules state precisely what an associate is and what an
3 operative connection is and I have also explained. Reports are written
4 about interviews with associates and operative connections. The source
5 can be either an associate or an operative connection. That is under
6 item 1 of the report. Or the source can be a person with the full name
7 or a person who is not an associate and wants only his or her initials to
8 be mentioned without other personal information. A source can be either
9 an associate or an operative connection but also a person who is
11 Q. And finally, just dealing with definitions for the moment, an
12 operative worker, what's an operative worker in DB terms?
13 A. An operative worker or an operative is a member of the State
14 Security Service. In other words, an inspector or an authorised official
15 of the State Security Service in possession of an official ID and who is
16 permanently employed by the State Security Service.
17 Q. And the role of an operative worker?
18 A. The role of an operative is to act within the prescribed
19 framework or scope of activities of his organisational unit. In other
20 words, he's to implement the tasks and plans of the service.
21 Specifically, an operative who works on counter-intelligence receives a
22 task such as opposing or countering the activity of another service, and
23 in that situation he is to fulfil all the tasks within that particular
24 aspect of his service. He does research, collects information, engages
25 associates, and in such cases where -- where I was involved in combatting
1 internal extremism and terrorism, we were also in charge of collecting
2 criminal files and documents when such activities occurred.
3 Q. Engages associates. And in what way are associates engaged by an
4 operative worker?
5 A. As I have described, an operative worker deals with specific
6 issues he was tasked with. He follows or monitors the activities of
7 those persons who are involved in activities related to the undermining
8 of the republic. He can conduct interviews and carry out checks in
9 certain institutions or places where this enemy activity occurs. He or
10 she can also check personnel, take part in the conducting of interviews,
11 and based on his assessment and the assessment of his superiors, he can
12 recruit people who can provide information about certain types of enemy
13 activity. In this sense, he can recruit an associate or an operative
15 Q. And is there any limit on who he can recruit, the type of person
16 he can recruit?
17 A. The rules state that an inspector or an operative can recruit a
18 citizen of that state, and in one segment of the rules there is also some
19 mention of a possibility of recruitment of a foreign national. In cases
20 when a citizen is being recruited, the procedure to follow is simpler.
21 He can recruit any citizen of Serbia provided that citizen can provide
22 information by which the service can oppose any such enemy activities.
23 In cases of foreign nationals, the procedure was somewhat
24 different. The rules specify that a decision on such recruitment must be
25 made by the chief of the federal State Security Service. The procedure
1 to follow was different, and it was abided by the service.
2 Q. Returning to the issue of recruiting a citizen of Serbia. If the
3 citizen has a criminal record, can he or she be recruited? If not a
4 criminal record, then a known criminal past.
5 A. In the statement I provided, I explained the changes which took
6 place in 1990, 1991, and 1992, regarding the activities the State
7 Security Service was involved in up to that time. The Third
8 Administration dealt with the activities of the so-called internal enemy.
9 That internal enemy was then categorised in several different groups. In
10 order to clarify the process of recruitment of associates, I have to
11 compare the two situations.
12 There were two groups of internal enemies, such as
13 Anarcho-Liberals, Liberals, Serb nationalists, and other types of
14 nationalists. Following the constitutional changes and the changes which
15 took place in 1991 and 1992, and following the period when tensions rose
16 in terms of the conflict in Bosnia and Croatia, also following the
17 appearance of different paramilitary groups, the service focused its
18 attention within the third line of work on internal extremists and
19 terrorists and the name was changed accordingly.
20 In other words, we were conditioned by those historical events.
21 We no longer dealt with, say, educated persons who had previously fallen
22 in the category of internal enemy. Now we had to focus on the activities
23 of different paramilitary formations, extremists, criminals smuggling
24 weapons, and many other groups which undermined the constitutional order.
25 In the preceding period, it was not practice to recruit criminals
1 or extremists. Our associates at that time were of a higher level, so to
2 speak. If we, for example, surveilled Seselj or Dobrica Cosic or
3 Vuk Draskovic, we required different types of associates. It was
4 dictated by the type of people who were internal enemy at the time.
5 Following early 1990s, the service was forced to look for
6 associates in the circles of extremists and people who, on occasion, were
7 people with a criminal file. In that sense that, relationship changed
8 greatly despite the requirement of the -- those in charge of the service
9 that we should pay maximum attention to who we were to recruit. We were
10 still supposed to steer clear of criminals, people with criminal files,
11 and people who were prepared to carry out acts of terrorism. However,
12 conditionally speaking, we were forced to look for individuals in such
13 circles who could be of any use, and we did so.
11 Pages 11666-11671 redacted. Closed session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I am looking at the clock. Could you
5 find an appropriate moment. We are now here for 80 minutes.
6 MR. JORDASH: This is a good moment, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is a good moment. Then could I ask -- before
8 we adjourn, could I ask a question to Ms. Marcus.
9 We now went through all the -- the first seven administrations,
10 and then we see now that an Eighth Administration is added in the later
11 years. Is there any dispute about what the tasks of these first seven
12 administrations was, that the one was dealing with the internal enemies
13 and the other one was -- is -- are these matters in dispute?
14 MS. MARCUS: No, they're not, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, why are we listening to matters which
16 apparently are not in dispute rather than to focus on what keeps the
17 parties apart, what --
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, we'd not been told that it wasn't in dispute.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Jordash, no. The way to find out whether
20 something is in dispute is to ask questions and to provide information
21 and to search for whether a matter is in dispute, yes or no. You start
22 with an organigramme, which is a P exhibit, and then you ask the witness,
23 "Is this correct?"
24 I take it that if the Prosecution seeks admission into evidence
25 of such a document, that they consider it to reflect correctly the
2 Now, you come up with further details. Of course, it could be
3 that -- that one to seven -- I mean, the Eighth Administration clearly
4 appears as something new, so I can imagine that you pay some attention to
5 it, especially if that further information adds something to what we find
6 already in the statement, but we really have listened quite a bit to
7 where the Prosecution accepts that at a certain point in time there were
8 seven administrations and that we know from this statement of the witness
9 that some had specific tasks, that -- I would ask the Prosecution, "Is
10 there any dispute about this?"
11 I don't know how important it is for you. I don't know how
12 important it is for the Prosecution, but let's not -- whenever there's
13 not an established situation of non-dispute, if we would deal with
14 everything where you have not positively established that there's no
15 dispute but you have not explored it, then we are here until 2017.
16 MR. JORDASH: But I quite agree, and I would invited the
17 Prosecution to indicate if such issues arise. I mean, the Prosecution
18 could have said, "You can lead on that," and I would be happy to lead on
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I must say that from the statement of the
21 witness I could not understand that you wanted to go through the specific
22 tasks of the -- you have a bit of attention paid to the First
23 Administration, to the Third Administration, who was in charge of the
24 Second Administration, but it didn't seem to be a matter which you would
25 go into such detail as you did now, so -- but more tea is there to be
1 drunk together.
2 We --
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME: Can I just say briefly the Prosecution's position.
6 Clearly any document that the Prosecution put forward with respect to the
7 structure of the organisation is a document that we believe to be true.
8 When Mr. Jordash was questioning about the document, we were assuming
9 that there was something -- a contrary interpretation of the document
10 that he was advancing for the Tribunal, but just so that it's on the
11 record, we accept anything that we put into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: These documents were tendered from the bar table,
13 which means that - at least that's how I understand it to be - that the
14 Prosecution expects us to rely on this as reliable information.
15 Otherwise, they would have introduced it through a witness or would have
16 sought comments from witnesses on these documents, but let's really try
17 to use our time as efficiently as possible, because my next question is
18 you have now used approximately half of the time scheduled. You said two
19 and a half hours in chief. We started at five minutes to 4.00. Let's
20 just say that the first couple of minutes a bit more time was taken with
21 tiny little matters in dispute. Then we had 75 minutes. I expect you to
22 be halfway. Is that correctly understood?
23 MR. JORDASH: It's very much understood, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then perhaps questions like what
25 counter-intelligence is, of course, I mean, even if I wouldn't know, I
1 would look in the dictionary and I would find exactly the same answer as
2 the witness gave, but I wouldn't need a dictionary, as a matter of fact.
3 So therefore, let's focus on really what is in dispute and rely on
4 documentation if need be. An informative interview, I would expect to be
5 an interview on which you seek information and that appears to be the
6 case. Even it's more or less defined in that way in the document we have
7 now seen.
8 We resume at quarter to 6.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.21 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Pages 11676-11701 redacted. Closed session.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 We will adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow morning,
13 the 22nd of June, in this same Courtroom II at 9.00, but we'll certainly
14 move into closed session almost immediately after we've resumed.
15 Mr. Jordash, I took 11 minutes of your time. In return you get
16 15 tomorrow.
17 And is the assessment by the Simatovic Defence that you'd need
18 one hour still valid?
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We will strive to
20 be even shorter.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we expect that the Prosecution can start
22 its cross-examination either before or at its latest after the first
24 We stand adjourned.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day
2 of June, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.