1 Thursday, 23 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.32 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 number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and
9 Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 First, the Chamber apologises for the late start. An incredible
12 small series of small unfortunate events kept my attention away from this
13 courtroom where it usually is solidly focused on.
14 We move into closed session, and could the witness be escorted
15 into the courtroom once we are in closed session.
16 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Page 11797 redacted. Closed session.
14 Rule 67 after the first break. I leave it to that at this very moment.
15 THE WITNESS: DST-051 [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness DST-051. We apologise for
18 our late start. Some -- there was some reasons why we couldn't start any
19 earlier. I also apologise for being very impolite in going on with
20 discussions with the parties when you entered the courtroom. Again,
21 apologies for that.
22 We'll continue in a second, but I'd first like to remind you that
23 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
24 beginning of your testimony that you would speak the truth -- oh.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot hear the interpretation.
1 I'm not getting interpretation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you now receive interpretation?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Did you miss everything I said before.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, all.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I apologised for the late start, I will not repeat
7 the reasons. I also apologised for being impolite and not -- in
8 continuing in my discussion with the parties when you entered the
9 courtroom instead of stopping and say welcome to you. And then I
10 reminded you, as I do now again, that you are still bound by the solemn
11 declaration given at the beginning of your testimony that you would speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 Then, Mr. Groome will now continue his cross-examination.
14 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
15 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. Can I ask that we return to
16 the screen 65 ter 6205. That's the document that we were working with
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]
19 Q. Good afternoon, DST-051.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. Make sure I have -- did you have an opportunity to read that
22 article over the night?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I'm going to ask that we go to e-court page 7. While that's
25 being called up, are you familiar with the report that is -- is included
1 in this article?
2 A. I know that report from reviewing the documents that I received
3 yesterday to analyse, and if you allow, I will ask the Trial Chamber to
4 say a few sentences about these two documents, because the Chamber
5 deserves to know the real truth. I would like to enable you thereby to
6 avoid wasting time on things that are useless for this Court.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you may address the Court to make your
8 observations. Please proceed.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I perused the two documents very
10 carefully. There is this article from 2004 and a document entitled
11 "Report to the State Security Centre in Belgrade," dated 15 March 2001.
12 I would like to direct your attention to three paragraphs in the
13 article published in "Vreme." Page 2, Article -- or paragraph 3, and I
14 can point out to you that this is a fake document full of false
15 information and maliciously drafted in 2001. On page 2 of the report
16 published in "Vreme," the third paragraph givens with "Zoran Mijatovic."
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Can you tell us what page number you're looking at, and this way
19 we can all see it. We can't see what you have there, but you --
20 A. Page 2 --
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. GROOME: So we can call that up now on our screens.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- from "Vreme."
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is -- this is the document you want to comment on,
25 the one you see on your screen now?
1 MR. GROOME: I apologise, Your Honour. The Prosecution has a --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
3 MR. GROOME: -- summary of the translation now. It's not an
4 actual summary. I meant to say that a full translation is being done, so
5 it's not possible to look at the actual text that he's referring to. My
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but is the -- original is?
8 MR. GROOME: Is the document on the right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: On the right. Okay. Yes.
10 Please proceed.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But this is not the page I mean,
12 the one I see on the screen. That's not it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness has referred repetitiously to the
14 "Vreme" article. Is this the "Vreme" article or is it not.
15 MR. GROOME: I believe it is --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Vreme."
17 MR. GROOME: -- Your Honour, but we're on e-court page 7. I think
18 if we go to e-court page 2 you'll be able to see it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: There we are.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is page 1. This is page. In
21 paragraph 3 of this text, Zoran Mijatovic, the journalist who writes for
22 "Vreme," states that immediately after taking over duty after the
23 elections held in Serbia 2001, he tasked to his co-workers to investigate
24 into the cases that Djindjic wanted to be clarified. He tasked an
25 operative whose initials are ZS. I know who that is, but out of respect
1 for this Court and the accused, I don't want to mention his name. It
2 shouldn't be recorded in the transcript.
3 Zoran Mijatovic says that --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Can I stop you there. Why should it not be
5 recorded, respect for the accused, respect for the Court, if you know the
6 name? The reasons you gave are not such -- that if you want to respect
7 the Court, you should leave the decision to the Court whether or not the
8 name should be mentioned or not. So we invite you to give the name if
9 you know who this person is.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you demand me to do it, I can
11 state the name. The name is Zoran Stijovic. It was his task to conduct
12 an internal investigation within the State Security Service of Serbia
13 with regard to the circumstances I'm discussing now. What is interesting
14 here is that Mr. Zoran Mijatovic, who was then the deputy head of the
15 State Security Service, refers to the Serbian Prime Minister, Zoran
16 Djindjic, ordering an investigation. Knowing the late Mr. Djindjic - I
17 knew him personally - and I know he was a democrat, I cannot believe or
18 moreover I'm sure that the prime minister of Serbia at that time could
19 have ordered what ZS did during the internal investigation in the
21 Mr. Mijatovic, in the third paragraph, says that they interviewed
22 over 180 people. He says:
23 "Because of the destruction of documents and other serious crimes
24 such as weapons trafficking, unauthorised surveillance, and others, we
25 arrested 180 people."
1 Your Honours, in a small State Security Service such as that of
2 Serbia, subject 180 people to operative treatment meant that from the
3 lowest level to the top, namely to the chief of the operative section or
4 group, everybody would have had to be involved in that action.
5 Mr. ZS, whose name I've mentioned, had many people on his list
6 who were to be arrested. In one interview Mr. Zoran Mijatovic, the then
7 deputy, informed me, I was head of the State Security Centre in Nis, that
8 he had an order to arrest us, but he failed to mention that it was an
9 order of the prime minister Zoran Djindjic because I wouldn't have
10 believed him. That internal investigation took a long time.
11 A hundred and eighty members of the service were subjected to
12 operative and technical activities and measures. Can you imagine that
13 any court or let alone the president of the Supreme Court of Serbia would
14 have ordered -- would have signed an order to place 180 members of the
15 service under surveillance? I can't imagine that.
16 Once they were replaced, a commission found out that there was a
17 grave misuse in the -- or abuse of power in this investigation against
18 180 people. One of my colleagues was interrogated, and to say that they
19 used the methods of the Inquisition would be an understatement. If they
20 could collect false documents about our alleged crimes, they would get
21 some advantages.
22 I was also on that list, among the first dozen or so, and there
23 were dozens of people on that list. Some people were interrogated very
24 harshly. Psychological pressure was exerted on them, and unfortunately,
25 some of them are no longer alive due to that. And the following stayed
1 after this internal investigation. There was a -- there were
2 pre-criminal proceedings, and during these proceedings, people were also
4 You see that it says here that criminal reports were filed.
5 However, an honest and fair prosecutor at the District Court in Belgrade
6 refused to launch an investigation against these 180 people. There are
7 documents about that. And I'm surprised why the state of Serbia does not
8 give you genuine documents but instead gives you fake documents that
9 compromise me and other people before this Court.
10 This is what I have to say. And the last sentence, by this
11 forging of things, the -- these people from the service did not protect
12 the constitutional order, and nor did they protect personalities, the
13 consequence of which was that the democratically elected president was
14 shot dead in front of the government building because they weren't doing
15 their job. They were dealing with false accusations against their
16 colleagues. That is what I have to say.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME:
19 Q. Sir -- DST-051, I want to try to clarify some of the things now
20 you've said. You've spoken for quite some time. I just want to ask you
21 if you can answer some questions simply "yes" or "no" just to confirm
22 that we have understand -- or I have understood correctly. The article
23 which is 65 ter 6205, you dispute much of its contents; is that correct?
24 A simple yes or no if you can answer.
25 A. I do not dispute it.
1 Q. You don't dispute the article that you've read, that you've just
2 talked about. Do you agree with it's contents, or do you disagree with
3 of its contents?
4 A. I disagree with the contents of the article. It was written
5 based on false documents. The article as such is all right.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you do seem to confirm that there was an internal
7 investigation by the State Security Service; is that correct? That there
8 was some internal investigation.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You also seem to confirm that you were one of the people who was
11 investigated in this internal investigation; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was the investigation -- was the allegation being investigated
14 related to destruction of documents?
15 A. Among other things, yes.
16 Q. And finally, when the results of the investigation were referred
17 to a criminal prosecutor, a public prosecutor, the case was not pursued
18 in a criminal court; is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Now, you made a statement that the -- you were surprised that the
21 Serbian government had given the court fake documents. Are you referring
22 to the documents that are cited by the author of this article?
23 A. Yes. I mean this report, this one.
24 Q. Okay. I've showed -- yesterday I showed you a number of
25 documents provided by your government. You did -- you're not saying that
1 those documents were forgeries, are you?
2 A. I'm saying that only this document is fake, not the others.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you. I think we clarified that. Could we go back
4 now to e-court page 7. I wanted to focus on one item. It's number 15 on
5 a list of documents that were alleged to have been destroyed. Could I
6 ask you to simply read item 15. Can you simply read that aloud so that
7 we can have it translated.
8 A. "Destroy documents related to collaborators, associates for
9 special purposes, insofar as the centres had these."
10 Q. Now, can you with your experience help us understand. What would
11 collaborators and associates for special purposes -- what type of person
12 would that refer to?
13 A. I must admit to the Trial Chamber and to you that for the first
14 time in my practice have I now seen this term, associate for special
15 purposes. I'm not familiar with this term, but that doesn't mean that
16 there weren't any.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I ask that 65 ter 6205 be marked
19 for identification.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections, or not yet of any
22 MR. JORDASH: Well, the -- the -- it's a query as much as an
23 objection as to the precise relevance. If it's relevant to the witness's
24 credibility, that's one thing. If it's relevant to the charges directly,
25 that's another.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm not seeking to tender it at this
2 moment. This document will be used with future witnesses, and at that
3 stage if the Prosecution feels there's a proper basis, it will move to
4 admit the document. It simply seeks to mark it for identification at
5 this point.
6 MR. JORDASH: But that's just avoiding the issue as to what is
7 the preliminary relevance of the document.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Evidence has to be relevant. I do understand
9 that the establishment of the relevance of this document would not be
10 limited to one witness but would be presented through more witnesses and
11 then the decision on the relevance of this document as an exhibit would
12 be -- would then be sought by the Prosecution.
13 MR. JORDASH: Well, I would like to, and I think I might have to,
14 but then again I might not have to, re-examine on the subject depending
15 upon its alleged relevance with this witness.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only question I had intended to ask
17 this witness was to read 15 and whether he could interpret that for us.
18 He says that he is unable to assist us. All of the other questions I
19 asked related to this document was just to clarify what the witness
20 wanted to volunteer about the document.
21 MR. JORDASH: That doesn't answer the question. The question
22 still remains why did we go through that process. If the Prosecution
23 have not considered what its relevance is, then it ought not to be
24 admitted even as an MFI document, and we ought not to have gone through
25 that process. If they have considered what its relevance is, even
1 minimal relevance, we ought to be told in [indiscernible].
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, first of all, I don't think it would be
3 the best thing to do, to discuss the relevance in the presence of the
4 witness. Therefore, Mr. Groome, if you would like to respond to that, I
5 would give you an opportunity the last minute before the break.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, perhaps I can save us all some trouble.
7 We can just simply recall it at a later stage by the 65 ter number. The
8 record is clear what document we've used. It's not essential that it be
9 given an identification number at this stage.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, of course the advantage of having it
11 marked for identification is that any discussion about what document
12 questions were asked about is eliminated. That's the only purpose at
13 this moment. And I do understand for marking it for identification, that
14 a question was put in relation to this very document. Whether we do it
15 by 65 ter number or whether we do it by an MFI number might not be that
17 MR. JORDASH: I will -- if that's the situation, I'll be
18 re-examining blind, because I really don't know what the point of this
19 document is. It relates to a period long after the indictment --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You're free to make up your mind as to what
21 questions you would like to put to the witness in re-examination. That's
22 not for the Chamber to decide that. The situation is clear at this
24 The document will be marked for identification.
25 Madam Registrar, the number will be?
1 THE REGISTRAR: The document will become Exhibit P2979, marked
2 for identification.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Any need to have it
4 under seal or --
5 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. It's a public document.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. Now, DST-051 --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the Defence needs a little while to --
10 [Defence and accused Stanisic confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. DST-051, during the course of this trial there has been some
15 evidence about the Serbian Volunteer Guard, also known as Arkan's men,
16 and the vehicles that they had, a vehicle with the emblem of the
17 organisation on the side. My question to you is: Have you ever seen
18 that vehicle in your work, vehicles with the Serbian Volunteer Guard
20 A. No.
21 Q. Thank you. I would like to now turn your attention to the attack
22 on Bosanski Samac. The Chamber has heard evidence that this commenced on
23 the 11th of April, 1992.
11 Pages 11810-11815 redacted. Closed session.
17 MR. GROOME: Could I now ask that P1425 be brought to our
18 screens, and could we please focus on the top half of the first page in
19 both languages.
20 Q. DST-051, we've seen Slobodan Miljkovic's name on the list. Do
21 you have any knowledge about what his relationship was with the State
22 Security Service?
23 I'll read the passage of this letter I wish you to comment on,
24 but do you know what the relationship was between Lugar and the State
25 Security Service?
1 A. When Defence asked me about Veljkovic [as interpreted], I said
2 that to my knowledge concerning Slobodan Veljkovic [as interpreted], was
3 never in any organised relationship with the SDB. He was operationally
4 treated in the sense of his opposition to extremist activity. I don't
5 know who wrote this document that was supposedly sent to the Kragujevac
6 branch of the SDB.
7 Q. Do you know whether -- whether Lugar is living or dead?
8 A. I think I've explained in my testimony that Lugar, in 1998, was
9 killed by members of the SDB -- or, actually, by Mr. Lukovic. I think it
10 was in 1998.
11 Q. So --
12 A. I believe I said so when I was examined by the Defence.
13 Q. I apologise if I missed that, but -- so you're saying that in
14 1998, Lugar, Slobodan Miljkovic, was killed by members of the State
15 Security Service. Can you tell us the circumstances under which he was
17 A. I already have, but I'd be happy to repeat. Slobodan Miljkovic,
18 for a number of years exhibited significant hatred towards the State
19 Security Centre and its members in Kragujevac. His background is quite
20 different, and that is why he hated the members of our service.
21 Our colleague, Mr. Lukovic, committed that murder in a restaurant
22 in Kragujevac. He was the son of an anti-fascist hero who fought in
23 World War II, and at the same time, on the other side, there were
24 relatives of Slobodan Veljkovic [as interpreted], Lugar. They were part
25 of the Chetnik Movement, and these were two ideologically opposed sides
1 in that war.
2 Since Lukovic was the son of a World War II hero, he was exposed
3 to bursts of anger and hatred by Lugar. He would cut his tyres and do
4 such things. When the murder took place --
5 Q. I'm not sure we need all of the detail about it, but it seems
6 that you're now saying Lukovic murdered Lugar? Is that your
7 understanding of what happened?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. After his murder, his lawyer provided number of documents to the
10 Office of the Prosecutor and a copy of the letter you now see on the
11 screen before us as P1425. I want to read you a short passage of that
12 letter which is in evidence:
13 "In 1992, I went to Lezimir Pajzos with a unit for special
14 physical training. After having completed the training, as a platoon
15 commander I was transferred by helicopter to Bosnia (Batkusa near Samac).
16 Then I had the task to attack the town of Bosanski Samac and occupy one
17 of the most important points (the State Security Service). The operation
18 to seize the town was completed in a record time of 37 minutes."
19 Having heard Lugar's account that was given to the State Security
20 Service in this letter, do you -- would you acknowledge that he -- that
21 the State Security Service played a direct role in the attack on Bosanski
23 A. No. I don't think that the SDB centre in Kragujevac played any
24 role in the attack on Bosanski Samac.
11 Pages 11819-11830 redacted. Closed session.
5 Q. The document is dated the 11th of March, 1996. In 1995, the BBC
6 published a documentary in which Vojislav Seselj in a videotaped
7 interview stated what -- was asked about what happened in Zvornik, and he
9 "This was devised by key people from the SDB, amongst whom was
10 Franko Simatovic, Frenki, and he was one of the main executors. Our
11 volunteers gathered and their central meeting point was in Loznica from
12 where they headed towards Zvornik. Duk [phoen] Cvijetinovic was in
13 charge and he directly received orders from the commander of the special
15 This is Exhibit P18 in this case.
16 You or senior law enforcement officer. Is it ever appropriate
17 for a person publicly named as a participant in an event to be involved
18 in the investigation into that event?
19 A. To the extent I understood the Prosecutor, he quoted from an
20 interview given by Vojislav Seselj to the BBC in 1995 or 1996. I fail to
21 understand that I'm being asked before this Court to comment on Seselj's
22 interviews given to international news agencies and the like. If you
23 think that these interviews are serious, then I must say that I haven't
24 read the interview, and I'm not willing to comment on it.
25 Seselj has said so many things in 10 or 15 years that there's
1 nobody who can keep track of all of that and to tell right from wrong,
2 and I'm really not willing to listen to Seselj's speeches.
3 Q. Sir, my question is actually something far simpler. Is it ever
4 appropriate for a person who has been publicly identified as a
5 participant in an event to be involved into the investigation of that
7 A. Theoretically, no, but I don't know what this is about.
8 Q. Sir, isn't it a fact that the real goal behind Operation Tompson
9 was not to bring war criminals to justice but to deal with the problem
10 that these very dangerous people, armed with weapons, the danger that
11 they presented to the citizens of Serbia when they returned home from
12 committing their crimes in places like Zvornik?
13 A. The main goal of Operative Action Thomson is precisely stated in
14 the decision on the establishment and the implementation of the operative
15 action. I'm certain that all my colleagues in Serbia, and they did
16 investigate all extremism there, that during the period from 1991 onward,
17 they were able to come by judicial documents about war crimes -- or,
18 rather, if they had been able to do that, they would have seen to it that
19 these persons stand trial. They were dealing with extremism, and one
20 form of -- one form of extremism is committing war crimes.
21 Q. Sir, Mr. Jordash, towards the end of his examination of you
22 yesterday asked a similar question, and I'm going to read it to you, and
23 nowhere in the answer did you say it was about bringing war criminals to
24 justice. This is at T-11712:
25 "During the period from the launch of the operative action in
1 mid-1991 and through mid-1995, I believe when all organisational units of
2 the State Security Service, 18 of them, gave their respective
3 contributions for the analysis of the results of the Operative Action
4 Tompson, it becomes clear that the State Security Service of Serbia,
5 together with the public security service, implemented a number of
6 measures daily, from surveillance of the persons involved in the Tompson
7 operation, the confiscation of large quantities of weapons, filing
8 criminal reports for illegal possession of weapons, and so on, all the
9 way through to something that can't be seen in these documents; namely,
10 preventative actions in order to prevent the spill-over of war activities
11 into Serbia."
12 Isn't the truth that you were concerned that these people might
13 start killing Muslim civilians, Muslim Serbian civilians, living in
14 places like Sandzak? Isn't that the real reason, the real goal behind
15 Operation Tompson?
16 A. When you began quoting my -- something I said yesterday,
17 something was wrongly translated, namely that we contributed to the
18 analysis, right at the beginning, that the SDB members contributed to the
19 analysis of the Tompson action. I don't have the text, but it should be
20 contributed to the implementation. The analysis was made in 1996,
21 because it turns out that SDB members from mid-1991 through mid-1996 were
22 analysing something that they were in the course of carrying out. So it
23 shouldn't be analysis, but it should be contributed to the implementation
24 or the carrying out of the tasks from the Tompson operative action.
25 Q. Sir --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you blamed our interpreters and
2 transcribers for this mistake. Is there any chance that you expressed
3 yourself not accurately? We'll check it on the basis of the audio.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's probably a mistake.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. Sir --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is possible.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before you start blaming others for mistakes, would
10 you also have a look at the possibility that you made a mistake. We will
11 verify it on the basis of the audio.
12 Please proceed.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is possible.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Sir, out of the combined work of the 18 operational units of the
16 State Security Service, of all the people surveilled and investigated,
17 apart from the Vuckovic brothers, those two brothers, how many
18 individuals were referred for prosecution to the courts of Serbia for war
19 crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Croatia?
20 A. I understand the question. However, there is a problem
21 concerning the 18 centres of the State Security Service and the results
22 of Operative Action Tompson. It is difficult for me to understand, and I
23 believe I said so to the Defence as well, that the SDB received 18
24 reports from the centres about the implementation of the Tompson action.
25 The analysis of the Fifth Analytical Department of the SDB was to take
1 all 18 reports, collate them, and carry out an analysis of the results of
2 the Operative Action Tompson. That analysis, I presume, was put on some
3 30 or so pages. You asked me whether I could read that analytical
4 document. If I had, I would have been able to provide precise answers.
5 It is unclear to me why neither you nor the Defence received that
7 JUDGE ORIE: You spend a lot of words, but apparently as far as I
8 see - but I could be wrong, Mr. Groome - you missed the core of the
10 The question by Mr. Groome was: In how many cases, apart from
11 the two Vuckovic brothers, how many cases could you tell us -- how'd all
12 these activities, in how many cases they resulted before a court? Who
13 sent what? I think Mr. Groome is mainly interested to see the activities
14 described, whether 18 or 17 or 19, whether directly reporting, indirectly
15 reporting, this resulted in how many cases that were brought before
16 courts in Serbia? That's the question, Mr. Groome, if I understood you
18 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer that question. If you know,
20 tell us. If you don't know, tell us as well.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a number of reports,
22 although I cannot recall how many off the top of my head.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Again, the question was: How many cases were
24 brought before the court, if you know?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
2 MR. GROOME: You've referred to a document, this analytical
3 summary or some analytical report. Is it your evidence that there is a
4 document generated by the State Security Service which referred
5 identified individuals for prosecution before the courts of Serbia for
6 war crimes committed outside of Serbia?
7 A. I do not assert that such a document exists. What I assert is
8 that there is an analysis of the results of Operative Action Tompson. It
9 is a document that the leadership of the service was familiar with,
10 including Mr. Jovica Stanisic as the chief of the service. Here you have
11 18 reports which only form part of the overall reports from the centres.
12 It is not a complete set of information. Somewhere in the service there
13 must be this analytical document which was created in the latter part of
14 1996, and it seems you did not receive it.
15 Q. Can you tell us as best you're able, and with as much precision
16 as you're able, the name of the document? What should we request from
17 your government?
18 A. If you put one of the reports back on the screen that mentioned
19 the analysis, I might be able to say that the theme or the topic for that
20 year was analysis of the results and forthcoming tasks of Operative
21 Action Tompson. That was the topic requested by the leadership of the
23 The Fifth Analytical Administration was collecting information up
24 until mid-1996, and in the second part of 1996, all those 18 reports
25 containing hundreds of pages were put together in a single document,
1 which is called: "Analysis of the Implementation and Results of
2 Operative Action Thomson and Further Tasks." I was looking at that
3 document, and Mr. Stanisic was familiar with it because he was the head
4 of that team on behalf of the State Security Service regarding Operative
5 Action Tompson.
6 Q. When was the last time you saw that document?
7 A. During -- or towards the end of 1996.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, that concludes my examination of
9 DST-051. The Prosecution does ask that a Defence exhibit, 1D01121, be
10 marked for identification. It is an internal report of the State
11 Security Service, dated the 1st of April, 1995, providing a historical
12 account of the activities of extremists and paramilitaries in Bosnia.
13 This report appears to be constructed from analysis of source documents
14 from the period 1991 to 1993. We were given notice it would be used with
15 this witness, but ultimately it was not. I ask for it to be marked for
16 identification at this stage. The Prosecution will undertake an
17 investigation into its authenticity and report to the Chamber about any
18 further applications we might make regarding it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections against this document to be MFI'd?
20 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document will become
22 Exhibit P2981, marked for identification.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
2 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Bakrac.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, no need to have the document under seal?
5 MR. GROOME: It's a Defence document. I'll be guided by
6 Mr. Jordash on that.
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It should be under seal then. It's marked for
9 identification as P2981 under seal.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, and I will take the opportunity to indicate
11 on the record that previously marked document P2980 is also under seal.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's hereby on the record as well.
13 Mr. Bakrac.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, new questions arose
15 from cross-examination by Mr. Groome that I would like to address in
16 redirect, and I presume we will keep the order as usual, and I will be
17 guided by your instruction on when and how best to address that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. By using the word "redirect," you suggest that
19 this is your witness, and I did understand that despite Rule 90(H) that
20 you had cross-examined the witness. But let's be very practical. If you
21 would save your questions until after Mr. Jordash has used, if he wishes
22 to do so, his right to re-examine the witness. That's redirect, I would
23 say. And then you could even put questions to the witness in response to
24 what Mr. Jordash asked in redirect.
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I would request that Mr. Bakrac put
1 his questions before I redirect since the purpose of my redirect will be
2 to clarify issues which remain unclear or perhaps need further
3 elaboration, in our view, and I'd like to do it knowing --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
5 MR. JORDASH: -- what the whole series of questions and answers
6 have been.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, do you have any comments on that?
8 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need, Mr. Bakrac?
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to go back to
11 two or three documents shown by Mr. Groome. Basically I'll have three or
12 four topics, but together with the bringing up of documents, I might
13 require between 15 and 20 minutes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, since all parties seem to agree on it,
15 the Chamber does not oppose, you may put these additional questions.
16 Please keep in mind that the time you spend on these questions is
17 considered time which you would ordinary use after Mr. Jordash would have
18 re-examined the witness. Please proceed.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
20 focus only on what I believe was of interest with relation to my client
21 during cross-examination.
22 Could we look at D246, which is the last document shown by
11 Pages 11840-11841 redacted. Closed session.
6 Q. Thank you, Witness. Please look at 2D858.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the translation is
8 still pending. However, it is a brief document. It is actually a
9 criminal report referred to by Mr. Groome against the Vuckovic brothers.
10 Q. Please have a look at it, Witness. On the left-hand side it says
11 "The Republic of Serbia, District Public Prosecutor's Office, Sabac, May
12 6, 1994." The title -- or actually addressed to the Ministry of the
13 Interior, Centre of the State Security Service in Valjevo. Thereby, they
14 inform the Valjevo centre that an indictment was issued against Dusko
15 Vuckovic for a war crime and the crime of rape, as well as a number of
16 other crimes.
17 In the second paragraph it says:
18 "Your criminal report number mentioned above was dismissed as
19 submitted against Vojin Vuckovic for the war crime against civilian
20 population of Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the FRY, because there
21 is no reason to suspect that the accused Vojin Vuckovic committed that
23 Was the Second Administration supposed to be familiar with this
24 communication between the SDB centre and the public prosecutor in Sabac?
25 A. No, it was not.
1 Q. My second question is this: Did the centre in Valjevo have the
2 possibility to investigate in detail the information that Vojin Vuckovic
3 provided them with in the field in the area of Zvornik and
5 A. The centre of state security in Valjevo, as part of their regular
6 activities and tasks had no legal authority to act in Bosnia-Herzegovina
7 in order to investigate war crimes. They could, however, collect
8 information and gain knowledge about war crimes in their own territory
9 in -- from such persons who appeared in their territory during the
10 relevant time as people who returned from the RS or came there as
12 Q. All the information Mr. Groome read out to you, was it forwarded
13 to the district public prosecutor, and was it under our law -- was it up
14 to the prosecutor to decide whether he would initiate any further
15 criminal procedure under the law?
16 A. All the documents assembled concerning the crimes committed by
17 the Vuckovic brothers, including his confession he gave to the authorised
18 officials of the SDB in Belgrade, and based on prior consultations
19 conducted in the public prosecutor's office in Belgrade, as well as based
20 on an agreement that the criminal report be submitted to the district
21 prosecutor in Sabac because some activities of the Vuckovic brothers also
22 happened there, that is why the prosecutor's office in Sabac was to deal
23 with it. All that documentation was, for all those reasons, handed over
24 to the public prosecutor's office in Sabac. What we can see based on
25 this, that the prosecutor decided that there were insufficient grounds to
1 bring any charges against one of the Vuckovic brothers.
2 Q. Witness, is it correct that the prosecutor, based on all this,
3 had information about the crime committed -- allegedly committed by
4 Marko Pejic, member of the Serb Volunteer Guard, and was it the
5 prosecution who decided whether there was sufficient grounds to initiate
6 any proceedings against him?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 MR. GROOME: I don't believe he's established the foundation that
10 this witness could know that answer. I would ask that we explore upon
11 what does he have this information.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome -- Mr. Bakrac, let me just --
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may. Mr. Groome
14 read out the statement of one of the Vuckovic brothers who stated that
15 Marko Pejic was a member of the SDG. As far as I know, that information
16 was handed over to the prosecution.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think what the problem of Mr. Groome is that he
18 wonders whether you have laid a sufficient foundation that the witness
19 would have any knowledge about the reasons for the decision and even the
20 decision whether there was sufficient grounds to initiate any proceedings
21 against Pejic. That apparently is what is bothering Mr. Groome.
22 Do you have any knowledge about why and on what grounds the
23 prosecution formed an opinion about whether there was sufficient grounds
24 to initiate any proceedings against Pejic? Have you knowledge of that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only have two more
3 questions about two documents.
11 Pages 11846-11858 redacted. Closed session.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, yesterday we looked at a payment list which had
24 your name on it, and you said that you thought this represented the
25 issuance of DSAs or per diems. Do you recall that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did the issuance of per diems to you at that time have anything
3 to do with Mr. Stanisic? Did he have a role within that issuance?
4 A. As far as I know, and it wasn't only at the time when
5 Mr. Stanisic was the head of the service but also before and after that,
6 the heads of service never dealt with the payment of per diems. It was
7 part of standard procedure with standard forms to be filled out, and that
8 issue was dealt at a much lower level, usually between the operative
9 administration and the Eighth Administration. Not even the deputy head
10 of service discussed such issues with the chiefs of administrations.
11 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, the Prosecution asked you about a
12 statement by Jovica Djordjevic. Do you recall that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that man had provided a statement to the OTP, and it made
15 within it various allegations about the taking over of the federal MUP
16 building. Do you recall?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Did -- did you know Jovica Djordjevic when he was an operative
19 worker at the State Security Service?
20 A. Yes, I did. He worked in the State Security Centre in Leskovac,
21 and he worked on domestic extremism and terrorism.
22 Q. Did he continue working in the State Security Centre?
23 A. His conduct was problematic. Sometime in 1995 or 1996, although
24 I lack precise information, the head of service established a commission
25 comprising operative inspectors from the Third Administration, which had
1 to review the overall operative work carried out by Jovica Djordjevic in
2 the course of that year, although again I must specify that I'm not sure
3 as to what year it was. It turned out that the results of their inquiry
4 were that his work was basically a disaster.
5 Q. Was there any consequence --
6 A. It was the commission's conclusion -- well, the consequences were
7 that they concluded that he should be fired, as far as I remember.
8 Q. Was he fired?
9 A. He was.
10 Q. Now --
11 A. If I may add just one sentence. His role in the taking over of
12 the federal MUP building was in terms of duty service --
13 THE INTERPRETER: As the witness says.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and it didn't include only him
15 but most of the people who had per diems paid out to them.
16 Q. Thank you. One more subject, if I may.
17 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, P2979 on the screen.
18 Q. I want to ask you about this Article in "Vreme" and the
19 investigation that is referred to within.
20 Now, am I correct that the investigation took place in 2000? Is
21 that right?
22 A. The investigation was initiated sometime in -- well, it says here
23 December 2000. It began following the removal of Radomir Markovic, who
24 was the head of the state security sector, at the moment when
25 Zoran Mijatovic as the deputy and the chief of the service took over the
1 service. Their first task allegedly issued to them as the prime
2 minister, whereas it is my belief that they received the task from some
3 other institution, was to carry out an investigation with relation to
5 Q. Could you try to just shorten your answers a little bit. I want
6 to ask about some very specific issues. Thank you.
7 Did the investigation relate to state -- or purport to relate to
8 state security activity in the year 2000 or before that? When -- when
9 was it -- what was its target?
10 A. In 2000, it pertained to the period between September and the end
11 of that year, exclusively.
12 Q. Now, I think it's agreed that Mr. Stanisic left the service in
13 1998. Had there been any changes in the State Security Service between
14 1998 and 2000 which you would consider to be unhelpful?
15 A. If I understood the gist of your question, I'd say this: The
16 investigation covering the period between September and December, that is
17 to say from the federal elections and until the end of 2000, that
18 investigation is, under no circumstances, connected with Mr. Stanisic.
19 Q. What I'm focusing on is whether you observed any changes within
20 the State Security Service from the time Mr. Stanisic left to the point
21 of this investigation which you considered, as a professional, unhelpful
22 for the service.
23 A. The changes were for the worse. In what sense? As in 1990 and
24 1991, we got a new head who had previously never dealt with state
25 security. A number of employees of the service felt the consequences of
1 such personnel policy decisions or choices.
2 Q. I'm talking about between 1998 and 2000, Mr. Witness.
3 A. Yes. I'm speaking about that period. What I said pertains to
4 that period.
5 Q. The translation --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Jordash, he says: "As in 1990 and 1991,
7 we got," that is in 1998. That's how I understood it.
8 MR. JORDASH: I have it now.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
10 MR. JORDASH:
11 Q. And in a nutshell, what were those personnel policy decisions?
12 What were those personnel policy decisions?
13 A. I understand the question. A number of professionals from the
14 period, from 1992 through 1998, lost their jobs with the service. There
15 was stronger influence from some party structures on personnel policy
16 decisions within the service. Some people lost their positions in the
17 service. The Yugoslav left was strongly present in the service.
18 Q. From which party did those personnel come from, or parties?
19 A. The name of the party is the Yugoslav Left. It was the party of
20 the wife of President Milosevic.
21 Q. And do you know what her relationship was with Mr. Stanisic at
22 this time?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it just seems like a new area. I don't
25 believe I've raised this in cross-examination, and I don't know --
1 Mr. Jordash gone into an area beyond cross.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
3 MR. JORDASH: I don't know the relevance of this investigation,
4 so I'm trying to cover everything which I think might reasonably arise
5 from it, and if the suggestion is that this wrongdoing and this
6 investigation had something to do with Mr. Stanisic, then the question
7 I've just asked concerning the changes in the DB and their relationship
8 to Milosevic's wife I think is pertinent.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I could imagine that, for example, the questions
10 were raised in the context of credibility and reliability of the witness,
11 for example, and then of course it would be a different matter, but
12 perhaps, Mr. Groome, you could assist Mr. Jordash in considering whether
13 he should further pursue this line of questioning.
14 MR. GROOME: I can give an undertaking, Your Honour, that the
15 Prosecution will never argue that Mr. Stanisic is somehow responsible for
16 the allegations in this article.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, is that helpful?
18 MR. JORDASH: It's very helpful.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then proceed. You announced 30 minutes, I
20 think we're now at approximately 40, but --
21 MR. JORDASH: Oh, I thought I was just on 30.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I think we resumed at five minutes to 6.00, where we
23 announced ten minutes to 6.00.
24 MR. JORDASH: May I have two more minutes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Two more minutes. Please proceed.
1 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. Could we have page 7 on e-court,
3 Q. You were asked --
4 MR. JORDASH: Could we have the next page of the English version,
6 Q. You were asked by Mr. Groome about number 15, the "destruction of
7 documents related to collaborators for special purposes, insofar as the
8 centres had had these."
9 Just to be clear, are there any DB rules which entitle operatives
10 or the DB hierarchy to destroy documents. Is this legislated or ...?
11 A. I can repeat that in the 30 years of my service in the state
12 security, I've never heard of that. I can't rule out, though, that some
13 documents provide for the existence of associates for special purposes.
14 A colleague of mine may be able to better explain, but no documents were
16 JUDGE ORIE: That was not the question. The question was whether
17 you're aware of any rules governing the destruction of documents. That
18 was the question. Do you know about such regulations?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I want to speak about.
20 Since the service was established, there has been a rule book on the
21 keeping and maintenance of documents. Nothing could be destroyed. We
22 had to work in accordance with the rule book which every operative worker
23 had to honour fully.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So the rule book says never any document ever to be
25 destroyed. Is that --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The rules of service say --
2 the rule book on documents and their maintenance regulates the manner of
3 keeping documents and which documents may be destroyed, but only in
4 accordance with the provisions that have rule book, not beyond that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
7 Q. And were you ever requested or have you ever heard of a request
8 from Mr. Stanisic to destroy documents outside of those rules?
9 A. Never.
10 MR. JORDASH: I've got nothing further. Thank you, Mr. DST-051.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Jordash.
12 Mr. Bakrac, nothing further?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] After my bad experience after my
14 previous examination, I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no questions of the witness, but
17 given all of the discussion about the Vukovic brothers and the
18 jurisdictional questions, the Prosecution would tender the indictment and
19 judgement for that case. They're 65 ter numbers 1641 and 1647. This way
20 I think it would be informative of the Court to be able to read the legal
21 accusatory instrument and judgement.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against this? Then you have mentioned
23 the 65 ter numbers. Could numbers be assigned. It was 65 ter 1641 and
25 MR. GROOME: And 1641 is the indictment and 1647 is the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar, could you please assign
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document bearing 65 ter 1641 will
5 become Exhibit P2982, and the second document, 65 ter 1647, will become
6 Exhibit P2983.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Both documents are
8 admitted into evidence under seal.
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I don't believe they need to be under
10 seal. I believe they're public.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. I made a mistake there. It's good that you
12 correct me immediately.
13 Judge Picard has one or more questions for you.
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Yes. Good evening, sir. I want
16 to make sure that I understood your testimony properly, therefore, I have
17 a question for you.
18 At the time when you were working in the MUP State Security
19 Service, you were in the Third Administration; is that right?
20 A. That is correct.
21 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] The Third Administration is the
22 one in charge of extremist -- internal, domestic extremist and terrorist
23 movements; is that right?
24 A. That is correct.
25 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] The reason why I'm asking this is
1 that many questions were put to you during these hearings as to whether
2 you might know operatives who worked for the security service for the
3 Second Administration. To be more precise, the administration in charge
4 of gathering intelligence generally and for intelligence for actions or
5 activities outside the country.
6 Now, I must say that at times - how shall I say? - you were quite
7 specific in your answers. You said, "No, it could not be. He could not
8 have been an operative. He could not have worked for the State Security
9 Service," but in fact there was no way in which you could have learned
10 about the identity of operatives working outside the country. There was
11 no way you could know their identity, could you?
12 A. That is correct, but I have a remark. It was not possible for
13 somebody to be a member of the state security service, including the
14 Second Administration, and at the same time be subjected to operative
15 processing by the state security centre in Kragujevac, and operative
16 processing is the most demanding and most complex type of processing.
17 That would be my reply.
18 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I'm not quite sure I understood
19 your answer. Could you be more specific? Could you explain some more?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying is this: I was
21 shown a list of persons and asked whether they were members of the State
22 Security Service. Those persons were on list of extremists who were
23 subjected by operative measures by the State Security Service which
24 countered their activities. That is why I think it was impossible.
25 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] But given the situation at the
1 time, the situation, it was war on the borders of Serbia, don't you think
2 that these individual could have had activities outside the borders?
3 Maybe not within Serbia, but outside Serbia.
4 A. I maintain that they should not be members. Whether it was
5 possible, well, I am not in a position to say with full certainty that it
6 is impossible.
11 Pages 11870-11873 redacted. Closed session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then this concludes your testimony in this
19 courtroom, Witness DST-051. I would like to thank you very much for
20 having come to The Hague. I noticed by the way, Mr. Jordash, that you
21 have not presented the document to the witness. If you are -- you may
22 have understood between the lines that the Chamber might be interested to
23 once receive it in evidence. That might be your interest as well. And
24 then, of course, not to be faced with authenticity problems --
25 unnecessarily faced with authenticity problems.
1 MR. JORDASH: But my concern was, Your Honour, that there is many
2 pages as I'm holding in my hands, and I didn't think it fair to ask the
3 witness to go through --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
5 MR. JORDASH: -- [Overlapping speakers] bundle.
6 JUDGE ORIE: There, of course, might be a possibility to, perhaps
7 in co-operation with the Prosecution, apparently also interested in
8 knowing what the document is and what it is about, to try and find an
9 out-of-court possibility to see whether any agreement could be reached on
10 authenticity, perhaps with the assistance of this witness.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution would have no objection
12 to the witness being given the packet of documents tonight and if he,
13 Mr. Jordash wishes, that he would be called first thing tomorrow and deal
14 with it then.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, first of all, we're not sitting tomorrow
16 morning. So first thing in the morning would be at 1.00. But if
17 Mr. Jordash and you would agree on -- that this witness, at least, does
18 not challenge the authenticity, that's established, so that if need be we
19 could ever recall him, but I don't know whether its necessary at this
20 point. I leave it in your hands. The only thing is let's not lose
22 MR. JORDASH: If DST-051 doesn't mind looking at the documents
23 and also doesn't mind coming back early tomorrow afternoon, then that
24 would be our preferred course.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not know what your time schedule is as
1 far as returning home, Witness DST-051.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For me to return tomorrow?
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know when -- when you are scheduled to
4 return to -- to Serbia.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was told by the Victims and
6 Witnesses Unit that I was to leave tomorrow and the plane was to leave
7 from Amsterdam at around noon.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it in the hands of the parties what action
9 they wish to take or not. The Chamber has done enough, I think, to draw
10 the attention to the problem.
11 You are excused, Witness DST-051. If you receive a copy of a
12 certain set of documents, and I don't know whether you want to give it
13 under the present circumstances, yes or no, then I would instruct you
14 that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony until this
15 obligation has been lifted by the Chamber, and that is specifically in
16 relation to the documents which you are invited to have a look at.
17 May I take it that Mr. Jordash and Mr. Groome will take the
18 appropriate measures how to deal with these documents which are now given
19 to the witness? Then I await your further initiatives.
20 I take it that an extra copy will be given sooner or later to
21 Mr. Groome, or if he has received it already.
22 Witness, you're invited to have a look at those documents.
23 Mr. Bakrac, do you still want to see it, or do you want to have a look at
24 another copy?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] There's no need. I believe there
1 will be no problem in Mr. Jordash providing a copy.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then a copy is now provided to you. You're
3 invited to have a look at those documents. You're hereby instructed not
4 to copy them.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here?
6 JUDGE ORIE: No. That would take by far too much time. We give
7 it to you. You should keep it for yourself, you should not copy them,
8 and you should not discuss the content with anyone apart from the
9 Prosecution and Defence.
10 Then you are excused.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, does this mean that I
12 have to return to the courtroom tomorrow?
13 JUDGE ORIE: If -- no. It depends on the parties whether they'll
14 invite you to do that. They'll certainly then immediately contact the
15 Victims and Witness Section. They would -- at this moment it is not
16 decided that you will return to the courtroom tomorrow. If that changes,
17 you'll be immediately informed, and the Chamber will also be informed. I
18 would suggest that the parties are ...
19 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I wondered whether you -- whether you received
21 any instructions or whether the consultation led to any other conclusion?
22 MR. JORDASH: No, it didn't. I can indicate I'm going to
23 communicate with Mr. Groome's commission through the VWS as to the
24 witness's practical arrangements, and we'll go from there.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I even can imagine -- yes. Let's not.
1 You're hereby excused for the moment. It's -- chances that
2 you'll be called tomorrow are there but are limited, if I could say so.
3 Please follow whatever requests you will receive. Thank you.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into open session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 I will be extremely brief on the last matter.
10 Mr. Groome, you have requested that the Defence would immediately
11 meet its obligations under Rule 67, that is, to provide any statement by
12 a witness they intend to call. That request is granted. Of course, the
13 Chamber does not know whether there are any more than the two statements
14 you had received.
15 Your request to receive notes taken by those who have interviewed
16 prospective witnesses as a substitute for compliance with Rule 67, that
17 request is provisionally not granted.
18 Parties are invited, Prosecution first, to make any additional
19 submissions on the matter, the Prosecution by Wednesday the 29th of June,
20 responses by the Defence by the 4th of July close of business.
21 The parties are invited to address both legal aspects of the
22 problem but also factual aspects such as how many statements have been --
23 were taken? Have people been interviewed? Have they -- are there -- do
24 notes at all exist? So to give not only your legal position but also
25 where we stand as far as facts are concerned.
1 We will give further guidance after we received these submissions
2 from the parties.
3 And now I can't -- yes. I already can tell the parties that of
4 course the function of Rule 67 is to give notice to the other party of
5 what they can expect so as to enable them to prepare for
6 cross-examination. There are a lot of -- of details involved such as are
7 statements taken? Is there an obligation to take a statement? Are --
8 have there been any interviews? Is there an obligation to conduct any
10 Finally, the Chamber will not easily accept a situation in which
11 the function of Rule 67, that is giving adequate notice to the other
12 party, would totally be undermined by a chosen practice. We'll consider
13 all that, but if -- for example, if no more than the two statements would
14 be ever produced, if we would have to look at a request postponement of
15 cross-examination for every witness, thus delaying the proceedings, then
16 the Chamber would actively seek procedural remedies for such a situation.
17 That is the practical side. At the same time, the Chamber
18 expects, on the basis of the submissions of the parties, also to
19 carefully consider other elements involved in this matter such as
20 privilege, such as the right to remain silent and not be under an
21 obligation to incriminate yourself, but we'll finally give this total
22 guidance after we've received your submissions.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. GROOME: Can I simply say that we can file our submissions
1 tomorrow, and I would ask that the schedule be adjusted accordingly.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. I don't know, Mr. Jordash, whether you had
3 anything to do over the weekend, but -- yes. I certainly know that the
4 interpreters have something to do over the weekend and we are already
5 past 7.00. Could you consider when you could respond. If the
6 Prosecution is quicker, that enables you to look at their argument first,
7 that might speed up. At the same time, of course, the time limits were
8 also chosen in order to give you adequate time to think about it. Could
9 we hear from you tomorrow?
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And the only thing I would add is that we are
11 intending to put -- to try to file a 92 ter for the third witness so that
12 Your Honours understand the -- the problem is not quite as imminent as it
13 might at first appear.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll further hear from you tomorrow. We --
15 I apologise to the interpreters, technicians, and all others who are
16 assisting us. I always forget security.
17 We stand adjourned. We'll resume tomorrow, Friday, the 24th of
18 June, but we'll start at 1.00 p.m. So not the usual time of quarter past
19 2.00 but 1.00 p.m. in this same courtroom.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.10 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 24th day of June,
22 2011, at 1.00 p.m.