Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11796

 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]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11797











11 Page 11797 redacted. Closed session.















Page 11798

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14     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.

Page 11799

 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

17     yesterday.

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

Page 11800

 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?

Page 11801

 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

 6     apologies.

 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

Page 11802

 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

20     service.

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."

Page 11803

 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

Page 11804

 1     after this internal investigation.  There was a -- there were

 2     pre-criminal proceedings, and during these proceedings, people were also

 3     interrogated.

 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.

Page 11805

 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

Page 11806

 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

21     objections.

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.

Page 11807

 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

Page 11808

 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

16     important.

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

23     moment.

24             The document will be marked for identification.

25             Madam Registrar, the number will be?

Page 11809

 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

19     insignia?

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.

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11810











11 Pages 11810-11815 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 11816

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17             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?

Page 11817

 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

16     killed?

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

Page 11818

 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

22     Samac?

23        A.   No.  I don't think that the SDB centre in Kragujevac played any

24     role in the attack on Bosanski Samac.

25   (redacted)

Page 11819











11 Pages 11819-11830 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 11831

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 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

 8     said:

 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

14     units."

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

Page 11832

 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

 6     event?

 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

Page 11833

 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 --

Page 11834

 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

Page 11835

 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

 6     analysis.

 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

 9     question.

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

17     well.

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.

Page 11836

 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

22     service.

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,

Page 11837

 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.

Page 11838

 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

Page 11839

 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

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11840











11 Pages 11840-11841 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 11842

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 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

22     crime."

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.

Page 11843

 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

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 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

11     refugees.

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

Page 11844

 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?

25     No.

Page 11845

 1             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] No.

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only have two more

 3     questions about two documents.

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11846











11 Pages 11846-11858 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 11859

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23        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?

Page 11860

 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

Page 11861

 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

Page 11862

 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

 4     documents.

 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

Page 11863

 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 --

Page 11864

 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.

Page 11865

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.  Could we have page 7 on e-court,

 2     please.

 3        Q.   You were asked --

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have the next page of the English version,

 5     please.

 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

15     destroyed.

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 --

Page 11866

 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

24     1647.

25             MR. GROOME:  And 1641 is the indictment and 1647 is the

Page 11867

 1     judgement.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar, could you please assign

 3     numbers.

 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

Page 11868

 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

Page 11869

 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.

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11870











11 Pages 11870-11873 redacted. Closed session.















Page 11874

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18             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.

Page 11875

 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

21     opportunities.

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

Page 11876

 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

Page 11877

 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.

Page 11878

 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.

Page 11879

 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

 9     interviews?

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

Page 11880

 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.