1 Thursday, 7 July 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is case number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 If there are no matters to be raised, we'll turn into closed
12 session in order to continue the examination of the witness.
13 We turn into closed session.
14 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We are in closed session, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
17 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
18 Meanwhile, I take it that the parties have received from the
19 Registrar the pre-assignment of exhibit numbers starting with D301 up to
21 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I further already inform, I think it's for you,
23 Mr. Jordash, that if you want to tender documents 5596 and 5595, then
24 Madam Registrar informed me that it would need to be uploaded under one
25 number and only one original and one translation, that is, in order to
1 have it assigned one number in e-court, this is what should be done.
2 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness DST-034.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
7 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
8 Mr. Bakrac will now continue his cross-examination.
9 Mr. Bakrac, you may proceed.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good
11 morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.
12 WITNESS: DST-034 [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] good morning, Mr. DST-034.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Mr. DST-034, I think that you had occasion to look at a document.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 2D871 on our screens.
19 Q. It's a document which was transcribed to a Croatian published
20 book titled "Croatian Homeland War." So let's have a look at the
21 document from the book. It's a letter by Dusan Busic to Milan Martic,
22 president of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina -- sorry, to
23 Milan Babic, president of the Serbian Republic of the Krajina. And the
24 title says wherein he alerts him to the mistakes inherent in his policy,
25 damaging the interests of the Serbian people. It's dated in 1992. Have
1 you had occasion to look at the document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Let's move to roughly halfway down the page, where Mr. Bursac
4 says that he was the person who launched the initiative for the Serbian
5 Democratic Party to be set up in Croatia in order for it to help settle
6 down tensions, that their intention was to join together the efforts of
7 both the Croatian and Serbian peoples and their interests and then the
8 Serbs should be resolving their problems in agreement with the Croats.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I only have a B/C/S version on my
10 screen. Any translation available?
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that the
12 translation is currently being done, and I don't want to tender it into
13 evidence until we receive the original of the document. I just wanted to
14 briefly introduce the document and point to one sentence which I believe
15 is important in order to see if the witness had this sort of information
16 of the events which in all likelihood happened before his arrival in that
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do understand how you want to proceed. At
19 the same time, of course, we don't have any context, neither has the
20 Prosecution, unless there is a translation available to the Prosecution.
21 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour. There's not a translation
22 available, and, yes, you're correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'll let you proceed, Mr. Bakrac, but this is not
24 the way in which the Chamber preferably receives evidence.
25 Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just so we are able to check it over the
2 next break, if Mr. Bakrac could please make a very specific reference as
3 to which paragraph in the translation that he's referring to. I know
4 he's summarising it, but if he could just indicate, in general, bottom
5 half, which paragraph, that way we know precisely what we are checking.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 And apparently, Mr. Bakrac, you are --
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- you want to focus on one specific line. Please
10 make it clear what line that is. And you meanwhile may proceed.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first paragraph --
12 the second paragraph on one page and the last one on the next page, which
14 "Therefore, the road to that objective should not have taken us
15 through rugged terrain, boulders on the road, and explosives laid at
16 railway tracks --"
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the reference.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] "... rather with reasonable and
19 patient negotiations --"
20 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreter missed a reference at the end. If
21 you could look at the -- at your screen, Mr. Bakrac. "Laid at railway
22 tracks," and then the interpreters didn't catch the reference.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes. I said that I was reading from
24 the 11th line from the bottom. It's line 11 from the bottom of the page.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, based on what I've read out, it seems that this
3 gentleman Mr. Bursac is holding something against Mr. Babic. First of
4 all, do you know he who Mr. Bursac is?
5 A. No, I don't know the gentleman.
6 Q. It so seems that he is critical of Babic's radical policies
7 against the Croatian people and that he should not have taken the course
8 of laying boulders on the roads, and railway tracks being mined,
9 et cetera. What Mr. Bursac is saying here, is it consistent with your
10 knowledge of the situation on the ground? Was the blocking of roads and
11 laying mines on railway tracks something that the Serbian people resorted
12 to in order to protect their villages?
13 A. Yes, this was one of the first forms of resistance against the
14 newly-established Croatian government which had exhibited policies of
15 harassment toward the Serbian people. They in turn placed boulders and
16 logs across roadways, laid mines along the railway tracks leading to
17 Zagreb. It was a spontaneous sort of revolt of the Serbian people. The
18 intention was to cut off Zagreb from the southern areas of Croatia in
19 terms of traffic and transport.
20 Q. Tell us, did the federal SDB have anything to do with the
21 blocking of roads by way of boulders, logs, et cetera?
22 A. Absolutely not. We were there to try and facilitate the
23 communication between Croatia and the Serbian peoples and to make these
24 passageways free of obstacles so that the citizens may move freely and
25 reach their work-places. We wanted to calm the situation down. We
1 wanted to make the roads passable and to facilitate communication between
2 the two peoples.
3 Q. As a member of the federal State Security Service and as an
4 individual who went out into the field as part of a mission, do you
5 believe that in these blocking of roads by ways of boulders and logs, did
6 the federal SDB have any role to play in that at all?
7 A. Absolutely none.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, that's approximately three times the
9 same question and the same answer. The witness answered to the first
10 question that it was a spontaneous action by the population. Then you
11 asked whether the SDB had something to do with it; the answer was no.
12 And then now you're asking whether the SDB had to play any role in that;
13 and, of course, the answer is no again. Why not focus and get answers
14 and move on. Please proceed.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, but I
16 asked about the federal State Security Service the first time around, but
17 then the second time, and my colleague is telling me this wasn't
18 reflected in the transcript, I asked about the DB of the Republic of
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we read in the last question the federal
21 SDB. I don't know what you said in the original language, but apart from
22 that, it was all spontaneous. So therefore the two questions were --
23 seemed to be rather superfluous even if third question you would have
24 asked, whether, well, let's say the whatever government had do anything
25 with that, of course the answer would be no again because it was a
1 spontaneous action, as the witness told us. Let's move on. No
2 official -- that's how I understand the answer, that no official
3 authority had to do anything with the blockades.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Witness, let's look at another document now, D56. You can see
7 the document in front of you now. Please tell us after you've looked
8 through it if you've had occasion to see it before.
9 A. Yes, I've read it and I've seen it.
10 Q. Does this document not indicate that the Federal Secretariat of
11 the Interior - we see that the date of this is the
12 24th of February, 1992 - played an important role in the organisation of
13 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina?
14 A. Yes. We were the ones charged with this, and I mean all of the
15 structures from both state and public security of the federal SUP.
16 Q. Did there exist earlier on certain attempts to set up the MUP of
17 the Republic of the Serbian Krajina, both its public and state security
18 branch, but conditions were not in place for it yet?
19 A. Well, yes, back in ninety --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the date.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- there were attempts to set up
22 the Council for National Defence of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
23 JUDGE ORIE: One second. The interpreters did not catch the date
24 you mentioned. Could you please repeat that date or year.
25 THE INTERPRETER: And can the witness please be asked to make a
1 pause before answering.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And further you are invited to just make a little
3 pause after Mr. Bakrac has finished his questions so as to give an
4 opportunity to the interpreters to follow both question and answer.
5 So could you please repeat the date or year.
6 You said that there were attempts to set up at a certain moment
7 in time. Which moment in time was that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first attempts existed during
9 our stay there, so the period between May and October 1991. At that time
10 certain individuals from the Council for National Defence, or I don't
11 know what exactly they were called, they tried to get in touch with me
12 directly with a view to obtaining technical and professional support for
13 the state security structure of Krajina.
14 At that point we had to refuse to do anything of the sort because
15 we didn't have orders to that effect. The document I see in front of me
16 dates back to February of 1992, by which time the entire procedure had
17 already gone ahead and the Federal Secretariat had taken upon itself to
18 organise the basic structure in the Republic of the Serbian Krajina. I
19 don't know if that is a sufficient answer for you.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Yes, let's move on.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, a pause for you as well.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to react
24 because the witness asked me if any more details were needed and I just
25 wanted to tell him that we wanted to move on.
1 Q. Witness, correct me if I'm wrong, the point of these subsequent
2 activities was to introduce legal law and order in that area which up to
3 that point had not been in the most pristine of states?
4 A. Yes, that was another one of basic tasks, because it was believed
5 that without a proper Ministry of the Interior in the Republic of the
6 Serbian Krajina there can be no law and order and there can be no rule of
7 law. For this reason it was proposed that the Federal Secretariat should
8 organise the structure and set up the various departments in order for it
9 to function properly.
10 Q. Thank you, sir. Before we leave this document, please look at
11 its heading in the upper left-hand corner. Having worked in the federal
12 service, tell us, please, was this the usual format of a document whereby
13 in the upper left-hand corner you would have the heading as well as the
14 date and the reference number whenever there was a document being sent
15 out of the service or coming in?
16 A. Yes, this is our stamp and this is Mr. Gracanin's signature. I
17 did see it on many occasions and I can confirm that this is certainly his
19 Q. Let's leave this specific document aside. When an operative of
20 the Federal Secretariat of the Interior sent -- would send a document out
21 of the Secretariat or to the Secretariat, would it always have this sort
22 of heading, would it always have a date and a reference number?
23 A. When we were in Belgrade, in Serbia, this is the sort of format
24 we would use. When we were outside of Belgrade, as a rule we would
25 always use a memo of the Federal Secretariat of the Interior, State
1 Security Service or Public Security Service, depending on which branch
2 produced the document, and the letter would be typed up on that memo.
3 But it always read in the left-hand corner "Federal Secretariat of the
5 Q. Thank you, witness.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Let's look at D55 now, please.
7 Q. [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. It is a rather long document, but look at it nevertheless. I
11 think you did see it before. Tell me, briefly, is this the document
12 based on which the basic structures of the Secretariat of the Interior of
13 the Republic of Serbian Krajina was set up and which was produced by the
14 federal SUP?
15 A. Based on what I can see here, yes. We were the ones charged with
16 this task. The only thing that I find puzzling is the title or the
17 heading in the upper left corner because I don't see our typical heading
18 of our letterhead.
19 Q. So you were able to see page 1. We can also go to the last page.
20 But would you allow for the possibility that this was a document that was
21 sent as an enclosure and that there would have been a cover letter
22 accompanying it which probably had a proper heading?
23 A. May I answer? Again, obviously, the meeting and the proposal was
24 produced through co-operation between the Federal Secretariat of National
25 Defence and Federal Secretariat of the Interior. Again it is possible
1 that there was a cover letter which confirmed that the federal SUP
2 produced the document setting out the structure for the RSK.
3 Q. Thank you, witness.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Let us go back to the previous
5 document for a brief moment, D56.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you're aware that the status of D56 at
7 this moment is marked, not admitted? It was withdrawn on the
8 18th of February of this year. So just for you -- to remind you what the
9 status is of this document at this moment.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Look at the first sentence, witness. Reference is made to
12 enclosures here. Can you confirm that this is precisely the document,
13 the cover letter, to which the other document was attached?
14 A. Yes. It says enclosure 3 and it does say here that "please find
15 enclosed material prepared in keeping with the conclusions," et cetera.
16 So I can state with a hundred per cent certainty that the document we
17 looked at earlier is in fact the document that was attached to this
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] If the Prosecution do not object, I
20 would now ask for these two documents to be properly admitted, D55 and
21 D56 -- I mean D56, yes, sorry.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe D55 is already admitted.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but D56.
24 MR. WEBER: With respect to D56, I think where this matter was
25 last left was that the Stanisic Defence was going to inquire and see if
1 they can find further information. The Prosecution received this
2 document in 2001 from Mr. Stanisic from his personal collection. If
3 that's the case, we just -- actually, before there's a decision on
4 admission, I'd just like to know whether or not there's any further
5 information provided or is this document from the personal collection of
6 Mr. Stanisic.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Any further -- because it was withdrawn by you,
8 Mr. Jordash. Any further information?
9 MR. JORDASH: Not at this moment. But I can inquire over the
10 break and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps if you would then remind us after the
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then D56 at this moment keeps the status it has, but
15 that may change soon, Mr. Bakrac.
16 Could I -- by the way, could I ask, in between, some questions to
17 the witness because I'm a bit confused, and since we have D56 on our
18 screen anyhow ...
19 Witness DST-034, I asked you yesterday a question about the
20 independence of Croatia and you said, well, somewhere in -- I think you
21 said 1992, April or May, that Croatia declared independence. I would
22 first like to clarify that with you in a bit more detail. Were you
23 referring yesterday in your answer to the recognition of Croatia as an
24 independent state or were you referring to a declaration of independence?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I meant the international
1 recognition of Croatia by most of the European countries.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Although my question was about declaration of
3 independence, do you have any recollection on when Croatia claimed
4 independence, for example, by a decision of parliament?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't state this with any
6 certainty, but I think that back in 1991, in the summer, when we were in
7 that area, there were some indications that certain semi-official
8 organisations in Europe had recognised Croatia, which meant that Croatia
9 had already sought recognition of its independence. So I think that the
10 HDZ and Tudjman did ask for recognition already in 1991; I just can't
11 give you the date.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And in the summer of 1991, you said, semi-official
13 organisations, would that include internationally recognised states?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, I don't think
15 that any of the countries that are member states of the United Nations
16 recognised Croatia at that point. It was much, much later. I said that
17 I do date Croatia's -- I mean the international recognition of Croatia's
18 independence to 1992.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, this document, D56, dates of the
20 24th of February, 1992. At that point in time was the position of the
21 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was the position that Croatia
22 was independent or was not independent, still part of the
23 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The position was that of Croatia
25 being part of Yugoslavia, although its representatives had already walked
1 out of the federal organs existing in the SFRY. They no longer
2 participated in the work of any of the ministries or any organisation
3 which existed in the territory of the then Yugoslav state, with its
4 capital in Belgrade. They basically left. They walked out of the
5 SFRY Presidency at the time.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, this document, February 1992, seems to indicate
7 that the federal authorities are addressing the Republic of Serbia on
8 legislation to be enacted in the Serbian Republic of Krajina. Now, I'm a
9 bit confused here. If you take the position that Croatia is still part
10 of the SFRY, then you would expect that Croatia would be addressed.
11 Now, if you consider, in view of the circumstances on the ground,
12 that there is, as is suggested in this letter, that there exists
13 something like a Serbian Republic of Krajina, then you would expect the
14 federal authorities to address the authorities of that entity or state or
15 whatever you would like to call it.
16 What we see here is that the federal authorities are addressing
17 the authorities of the Republic of Serbia in relation to legislation to
18 be enacted in what is here called the Republic of the Serbian Krajina,
19 which, as far as I understand, is not to be found on the territory of the
20 Republic of Serbia.
21 So I'm a bit confused about what actually happens here. Could
22 you provide me with an explanation. What was the role of the Republic of
23 Serbia and the relation between the federal authorities and the
24 legislation for the Republic of Serbian Krajina?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid answering your question
1 would take quite some time, given the complexity of the situation and the
2 general chaos that prevailed across Croatia at the time. One shouldn't
3 forget that shortly afterwards the war in Bosnia began, two months later,
4 that is to say. The Presidency of the SFRY believed that the Yugoslav
5 territory was still one, irrespective of this date.
6 It was precisely around this time the clashes erupted and
7 culminated in Croatia between the Croatian forces and the forces of the
8 SAO Krajina. The army was the one who spear-headed the conflict with the
9 Croatian Armed Forces. Any attempts of the Presidency to establish any
10 kind of MUP organisation vis-à-vis this document included all relevant
11 factors in our team, such as experts of the federal MUP as well as the
12 republican MUP, but not only of Serbia but also of Montenegro, Macedonia,
13 and Bosnia, who still at the time were legitimate members of the SFRY.
14 In other words, the composition was an expanded one including also
15 representatives of the SSNO as well as people from various ministries
16 such as the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and some
18 The Presidency of the SFRY could not turn to the Republic of
19 Croatia because, as I have said already, Croatia cut off any relations
20 with the rest of Yugoslavia by that time. It is for that reason that
21 this proposal was made. And the work on it included the four republics
22 which were still part of Yugoslavia.
23 Given the fact that it concerned the Serb population in the
24 territory of Croatia, it was expected that assistance would be sought
25 from the Republic of Serbia and its Ministry of the Interior.
1 I don't know whether I was sufficiently precise in this
2 explanation. And do not hesitate to ask me to clarify.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that there's no logical
4 constitutional explanation for this but that the steps are rather
5 explained by the chaotic situation, and because it was about Serbs, that
6 it was the Republic of Serbia which was addressed rather than any of the
7 other republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Is that
8 more or less how I have to understand your answer?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. However, as I said a moment
10 ago, in addition to Serbia, in the preparation of this document, also the
11 representatives of Macedonia and Montenegro were included, as well as
12 representatives of certain ministries, in addition to the ones referred
13 to, including people of other ethnicities, not only Serbs. This is what
14 I meant to say with respect to the Ministry of Finance and Foreign
15 Affairs. The people who worked on this document were not of Serbian
16 ethnicity but of different ethnicities.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Were similar letters sent to the MUP of any of the
18 other republics constituting the SFRY?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether similar
20 letters were sent to the other republics, but I do know that we as the
21 Federal Secretariat for the National Defence and the federal State
22 Security Service regularly informed all the republics about the situation
23 in the field in Croatia. We sent out confidential reports about the
24 situation in the field.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question that you do not know
1 whether similar letters were sent to the other republics.
2 I put these questions to the witness at this moment because it
3 may assist the parties as well in knowing at least a bit of what
4 questions are still on my mind and perhaps on those of my colleagues,
5 which might assist you in the further cross-examination of the witness.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. I
8 wanted to ask the witness anyway whether he knew of similar letters being
9 sent to the MUPs of the other republics, and that has been clarified.
10 Q. As far as I understood, you don't know that but you do allow for
11 the possibility that such letters were sent to the MUPs of the other
13 A. Yes, precisely. And I also wanted to say that we regularly
14 informed them of any MUP moves made by the federal MUP with regards to
15 the SAO Krajina.
16 Q. Thank you, witness. Let us go back to the Mladic diaries. I'm
17 interested in two entries and I will conclude my cross-examination by
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter 5596.
20 We will look at a transcribed page pertaining to that entry. That is
21 page 348 in e-court.
22 Q. Witness, yesterday you said that in November you were not in the
23 area of the Serbian Krajina since you returned to Belgrade, but you also
24 said that you were quite familiar with certain events taking place in
25 that territory even following your departure; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Let us look at -- we're still waiting for page 348 in e-court.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We have it in English. We need to
4 have it in B/C/S as well, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I see the hand-written B/C/S version on my screen
6 but apparently not the same page.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is not. I think in the
8 B/C/S transcribed version it should also be page 348.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What we see in the B/C/S version, that the
10 start of the date of the 16th of November is there, whereas so therefore
11 the next page most likely will correspond with what we see in English.
12 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt, may Mr. Stanisic step out for a
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As ever, if he wants us to have a break for
15 the proceedings as well, then he should indicate so, and, yes,
16 Mr. Stanisic is excused for a while.
17 MR. JORDASH: We can continue on.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is not the page.
19 My Case Manager is telling me that in the B/C/S it should also be
20 page 348. It is 0668-2799 to --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know what you are seeking at this moment.
22 The only thing I know is that at -- let me see. We find in the original
23 B/C/S on the page you indicated numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and that's
24 certainly what we do not see on the English. I wonder, the number 2
25 which appears in the lower part seems not to correspond with the number 2
1 on the top of the B/C/S page. Now, what I see is that the lower part of
2 the English starts with tasks 17th of November.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is precisely what
4 I need. By your leave, I need to have it in English for your sake and I
5 can read it out for the witness in the Serbian so that we don't have to
6 look for it in the B/C/S. It is important for me to -- for you to be
7 able to follow, and I can simply read it out to the witness and ask the
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's important for the witness to be able to follow
10 it as well, but we are in English on what e-court ... 348? We'll find
11 it. It's just a matter of preparation, Mr. Bakrac, to have these things
12 well organised and prepared.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did ask for the
14 reference. I don't want to blame anyone, but ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me see. What you are apparently looking
16 for is on page 352 in the hand-written version of the document. Lower
17 part, apparently, "tasks, 17th of November, 1991, direct channel with
18 Medak." Is that what you were looking for, Mr. Bakrac?
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, you are correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm happy that I could assist you. Please proceed.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise.
22 Q. Witness, can you read what it says in the hand-written notes?
23 "Tasks. 17 November, 1991. Direct channel with Medak. VON is
24 going to Sveti Rok today."
25 Task number 3: "The 180th Brigade to shake up the OKB towards
1 Skabrnja and Nadin."
2 Did you know that in the fighting in Skabrnja and Nadin, which is
3 something we discussed yesterday, the 180th Brigade took part, of the
4 Army of Yugoslavia? Sorry, it was still the JNA.
5 A. I can't confirm that. I wasn't in the field. I don't know if it
6 was the 180th or some other brigade. I do know, however, that the army
7 and the TO attacked Skabrnja and Nadin.
8 Q. Thank you, witness.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
10 further questions for the witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
12 Witness DST-034, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Weber.
13 Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution.
14 Mr. Weber, are you ready to proceed?
15 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
17 Q. Good morning, DST-034.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. Today I would like to start by clarifying some of your answers
20 from yesterday. Please listen carefully to my questions, as I am not
21 asking you to repeat your testimony but to explain particular statements
22 you made in a concise manner. Do you understand?
23 A. I do.
9 Q. Thank you, sir. On page 12407, you stated that in 1991:
10 "Individuals and Serb representatives turned to the Serbian MUP."
11 Could you please state the names of the Serb representatives who
12 turned to the Serbian MUP?
13 A. Could I see the document again? Because I'm not sure which one
14 you have in mind.
15 Q. This is not a document. This was during the course of your
16 testimony yesterday about in 1991 you were --
17 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. JORDASH: I think it would be fair if the full sentence was
20 put because --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if you could please read to the witness
22 the relevant portion of his testimony of yesterday and then perhaps
23 follow the suggestion made by Mr. Jordash. And perhaps give the witness,
24 as well, the context of what he was commenting on.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. You were being asked whether or not you have any knowledge of
2 interactions between the Serbian MUP and the SSNO and the request by the
3 SSNO or at least discussions with the SSNO that the JNA would be engaged
4 to prevent further escalation of the conflict in Croatia. During the
5 course of your answer, you stated:
6 "In many cases they turned to the Serbian MUP as well as to many
7 party committees and to the army as well as to us. It all depended on
8 who those people knew. They were trying to get help in resolving the
9 situation in the field. That is why individuals and Serb representatives
10 turned to the Serbian MUP rather than, for example, the JNA or the
11 federal MUP."
12 So I repeat my question: Could you please --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness DST-034, do you remember that this was one
14 of your answers yesterday in relation to a report which was put to you?
15 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Weber, your question.
17 MR. WEBER:
18 Q. My question to you: Could you please state the names of the Serb
19 representatives you are referring to that turned to the Serbian MUP?
20 A. As I explained yesterday, the general chaos and the situation
21 which prevailed in May and June 1991, apart from certain officials and
22 people turning to the federal MUP and the army, there were such cases in
23 which people turned to the Serbian Republican MUP. I had in mind first
24 and foremost Mr. Martic. He asked for assistance from both us and the
25 federal -- and the MUP of Serbia. I cannot confirm it 100 per cent, but
1 Nebojsa Mandinic, who I was in contact with on several occasions, told me
2 that he was going to ask for a meeting and assistance from the
3 Ministry of the Interior of Serbia through his acquaintances. He was to
4 request their help in the equipping of the MUP in the SAO Krajina.
5 Q. To the best of your knowledge, could you please tell us the names
6 of the individuals in the Serbian MUP to which these representatives
7 communicated with?
8 A. I can't. I don't know who they were in contact with. I can't
9 give you any such information. I can only presume who it was they got in
10 such with, if it is of any interest.
11 Q. Sir, I actually would prefer if you did not speculate today.
12 Do you know when these requests were made?
13 A. My discussions with those people took place during my say in the
14 territory of the Republic of Krajina, which was in 1991.
15 Q. Between May and October 1991, approximately how many times did
16 you personally meet with Milan Martic? I'm asking you for an approximate
17 number, so please do not describe the meetings at this time.
18 A. Thrice.
19 Q. Do I understand correctly that the purpose of your missions to
20 Croatia were to calm down the escalating conflicts between Croatian and
21 Serb forces?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Yesterday the Defence mainly asked you about the activities of
24 Croatian forces. Do you acknowledge that Serb forces in the region were
25 also participating in the escalating violence in Croatia?
1 A. If you have in mind an armed Serb force, then no such thing
2 existed. Only the JNA existed, as well as Martic with his unit in Knin.
3 The formation of the TO of the SAO Krajina had already -- had begun
4 shortly before that. Any armed conflicts could have only taken place in
5 certain villages with the village guards in those Serb villages. As I
6 said, by that time there was no higher level of organisation in the
7 Krajina on the Serb side.
8 Q. I would like to ask you about the basis of your knowledge for the
9 evidence you provided before the Tribunal. Is it correct that your
10 knowledge of events is based upon your two visits to Croatia in 1991 and
11 reports you received as a member of the federal DB?
12 A. I was only discussing my visit in the field, where I toured
13 basically the entire areas of Knin, Zadar, and Sibenik. I was in the
14 field daily with the representatives of the military security service and
15 of the army. I personally gained insight into the situation in the
16 field. I was only discussing my direct knowledge as someone who was
17 there at the time and witness to those events.
18 Q. Well, you did discuss the reports that you also saw as a member
19 of the federal DB. Were the reports that you received at the federal MUP
20 kept in the federal MUP building in Belgrade?
21 A. Yes, in our documentation department.
22 Q. On page 12404, you indicate that the federal SUP had an
23 obligation to inform all of the intelligence services across Yugoslavia
24 of all security-related intelligence. Could you please tell us who you
25 personally provided intelligence to at the Serbian DB?
1 A. I have to correct you. Not to intelligence services, but
2 counter-intelligence services. I was in one such counter-intelligence
3 service, and we communicated with the counter-intelligence services of
4 the other republics. It was our obligation to forward all relevant
5 information from the field in the Krajina and other areas to the other
6 republics. When I say the other republics, I have in mind Serbia,
7 Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as Slovenia, as
8 long as it was still in Yugoslavia. The reports we sent were addressed
9 directly to the chief of the State Security Services in the
10 aforementioned republics. In Serbia it was Mr. Janackovic at the time.
11 Pages 12482-12486 redacted. Closed session.
7 23 documents.
8 Those would be the reasons.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There certainly is a 92 ter element in the
10 chart, that's --
11 Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: Well, I'm not objecting to the Prosecution request,
13 but, one, we did not indicate three and a half hours viva voce.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I -- it's my recollection that it was always two and
15 a half hours.
16 MR. JORDASH: It was always two and a half.
17 MR. WEBER: If that's the case, I may have mixed up witnesses,
18 but that's just what I had noted.
19 MR. JORDASH: And, two, just for the record, that our estimates
20 were always judged taking on board that the Prosecution were adducing
21 exhibit charts with comments. That wasn't a reason for extending our
22 time. But as I said, we do not object to the Prosecution request for
23 whatever cross-examination they require with this witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll closely monitor how your cross-examination
25 develops, Mr. Weber, and it will be on the basis of that that we'll
1 decide whether you may proceed during the time you asked for.
2 We'll have a break, and we resume at quarter to 11.00
3 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, please proceed.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. DST-034, on page 12439, you provided an opinion as to the views
8 of Ratko Mladic in 1991. You stated:
9 "At that point in time, yes. He was resolutely in favour of a
10 united Yugoslavia. He was not in favour of dividing up Croatia as a
11 republic. His positions at the time were along the lines of the Yugoslav
12 policy of preserving the state."
13 Do you recall this testimony?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This is your opinion based on your personal conversations with
16 Mr. Mladic in 1991; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On page 12441, you provided your opinion as to the views of
19 Milan Martic in 1991. You stated:
20 "To my mind, his views board on ultra-nationalism, on extreme
21 nationalism, though whenever he spoke to us, he took great care to point
22 out that he was in favour of a united Yugoslavia for the protection of
23 the Serbian -- of the Yugoslav People."
24 My question to you is: What is your personal opinion of
25 Milan Martic based upon if whenever he spoke you to he expressed an
1 opinion that was similar to that of Ratko Mladic?
2 A. One must keep in mind that initially in his view our arrival in
3 Krajina was a threat to him. He was afraid that we would arrest him and
4 take him to Belgrade. That's why he was very cautious in his
5 conversations with us, very tactical, and presented his views in favour
6 of the preservation of Yugoslavia. Despite the fact that he presented
7 his wishes for the preservation of Yugoslavia, he did highlight in his
8 further discussions the need to protect the Serbian people in Croatia,
9 insisting that the Serbs were not able to live in an independent Croatia
10 because that would mean that genocide and crimes committed against the
11 Serbian people would repeat themselves in view of what had happened
12 between 1941 and 1945. That's why he said that the main priority was to
13 protect the interests of the Serbian people and that he would do
14 everything in his power to do so since he saw himself as the protector of
15 the Serbian people in Krajina.
16 Q. Do you allow for the possibility that Ratko Mladic also held more
17 extreme sentiments than the ones that he told you about?
18 A. Absolutely not. I can speak openly and say that Ratko Mladic
19 could not stand the sight of Milan Martic. I spoke to him often and I
20 can tell you that Ratko Mladic was a proper military officer at the time,
21 every inch an officer.
22 Q. On page 12410 you testified that you were assigned to monitor the
23 situation around Sibenik. You have explained to the Trial Chamber your
24 familiarity with this particular location. During this time, did
25 Ratko Mladic and you talk about his views about the situation in Sibenik?
1 If you could please just tell me yes or no, and then we'll later go into
2 some substance.
3 A. Yes, we spoke about the situation in Sibenik, of course.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] My apologies, it may prove
7 important, so we should have it in the transcript. Page 33, lines 4, 5,
8 and 6, the witness said or, rather, my suggestion is that he should
9 repeat what he said, what sort of an officer Ratko Mladic was.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read to you what is on our transcript. And if
11 there's anything missing or anything inaccurate, I invite you to correct
12 it. You said, about Ratko Mladic:
13 "I spoke to him often and I can tell you that Ratko Mladic was a
14 proper military officer at the time, every inch an officer."
15 Is there anything missing or anything inaccurate?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, but a proper
17 Yugoslav officer.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That apparently repairs the matter.
19 Mr. Weber, I earlier said that I would carefully monitor the
20 cross-examination. Now, you asked the witness whether he would exclude
21 for the possibility that Mr. Mladic held opinions different from what he
22 told the witness. Of course, you can never exclude for that possibility
23 because you cannot look in someone's mind, and, not surprisingly the
24 witness told us what he learned from the conversations.
25 Now, that was exactly what you were not asking about; it was
1 whether, apart from what he told the witness, so -- and then you moved
2 on. So these are -- both question and answer might not really assist us
3 very much. Would you please be very precise and accurate. And
4 apparently you were happy with the -- well, happy -- at least you were
5 satisfied with the answer, which of course went beyond what you were
6 asking the witness.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I haven't concluded this line of the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 9 of the
11 translation for 65 ter 6215 and page 7 of the B/C/S.
12 Q. This is an excerpt from the Mladic audio files reflecting a
13 conversation between Ratko Mladic and Lieutenant-Colonel Miroslav on the
14 6th of October, 1991.
15 MR. JORDASH: I rise to object again to the use of exhibits which
16 have not formed part of the Prosecution case. I object on the basis that
17 a foundation has to be laid and a request has to be made and there has to
18 be a proper consideration of the issue so that the Defence are not
19 further prejudiced by a lack of opportunity during the Prosecution case
20 to deal with exhibits.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I provided notice that we'd use this
23 during the cross-examination last evening after the examination,
24 yesterday, in chief. It relates to discussing an exhibit with this
1 JUDGE ORIE: If it directly follows from the
2 examination-in-chief, of course the Prosecution cannot be blamed for
3 further inquiring into matters raised in chief, Mr. Jordash. Of course,
4 I do not whether that will be the case or not, so let's wait and see what
5 the question is and --
6 MR. JORDASH: It's -- the objection isn't that the Prosecution
7 didn't provide notice, nor that it may be relevant insofar as it relates
8 to the subject or a subject raised during examination-in-chief. The
9 issue is: How much are the Prosecution allowed to keep adding to their
10 case through the use of exhibits which we have not had the opportunity to
11 deal with during a two-year Prosecution case?
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies the objection, expecting,
14 Mr. Weber, that the matter arises from examination-in-chief and that the
15 Prosecution is not engaging in an exercise as depicted by Mr. Jordash.
16 We'll closely he monitor that. Please proceed.
17 MR. WEBER:
18 Q. DST-034, I'd like to direct your attention towards the bottom
19 half of the transcript page that is in front of you. In this recorded
20 conversation, Ratko Mladic states:
21 "Nothing will get out of Dalmatia except children under the age
22 of 10 if they carry on like this."
23 Lieutenant-Colonel Milosav responds:
24 "That's what I said. If we get hurt here, then they from 301 to
25 306 and these ones here, they will have to pay."
1 To which Ratko Mladic responds:
2 "Listen, Milosav, not from 301 to 306. All that is older than
3 ten and younger that 75 will come to harm in Sibenik, and we will not
4 leave a single house standing unless they finish the job like it was done
5 in Sinj."
6 Did Mr. Mladic express any views like this to you in your
7 conversations about Sibenik?
8 A. I am familiar with this way of speaking that Mladic has; it's
9 part of his image, if you will. I recall that when he discussed certain
10 issues with representatives of Sinj and certain other locations which
11 were in the hands of the Croatian forces it would happen often that once
12 truce had set in, they would organise a sabotage action or provocation
13 where people would be killed and then Mladic would respond by saying,
14 Unless you stop, I'll raze this whole area to ground. That was the way
15 Mladic used to speak. But rest assured he would never do what --
16 literally what he said. This was the way in which he would send his
17 messages across to the Croatian forces. I believe that I know what this
18 particular conversation was about.
19 Q. Sir, would you consider that these sentiments would not be in
20 favour of a united Yugoslavia, these messages?
21 A. Well, listen, this is what an officer was saying, an officer who
22 was negotiating with enemy forces intent upon breaking up Yugoslavia.
23 There was no time left for tactics or any word mincing. But this cannot
24 be looked at when you are searching for a reflection of what
25 Ratko Mladic's Yugoslav attitude may be.
1 Q. Did you ever hear Milan Martic express any views like this?
2 A. No. He wasn't important at the time, and I didn't have occasion
3 to hear him say something like that ever.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could I ask one question --
5 MR. WEBER: Sure.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- to better understand the portion quoted.
7 The reference to "301 to 306," could you explain to me what that
8 stands for?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't tell if it has to do with
10 an area 301 to 306. I wouldn't be able to tell what the letters stand
11 for. I can't decode them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, perhaps it would be good that when
13 interpreting the language one uses, to at least understand what he's
14 talking about. Please proceed.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would ask that this be
16 marked for identification at this time.
17 MR. JORDASH: We object for the same reasons.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash, yesterday you were specifically
19 asking the opinion of the witness - it was rather opinion than facts - on
20 how he looked at the political attitudes of Mr. Martic, Mr. Mladic. In
21 view of that, would you consider that the Prosecution first asking the
22 same subjects to the witness and then getting answers it apparently was
23 not satisfied with in cross-examination would not be allowed to put to
24 the witness a certain portion of an audio which would -- may shed or at
25 least would elicit further comments of the witness on how we have to
1 understand the language used by one of those persons? Would it not even
2 be in favour for the Chamber to know how the witness interprets this type
3 of language used by -- apparently by Mr. Mladic? Because you are
4 objecting, I'm just trying to find out exactly.
5 MR. JORDASH: But that it is relevant is not an issue. That it
6 is done in this way, whereby every witness that is called the Prosecution
7 use as an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. With an indictment of
8 this kind, with a case which is so broad, it will always be a point to
9 argue, for the Prosecution to say, This is relevant, we ought to be
10 allowed to use it. But there will come a point in the next six months
11 where the Prosecution case is enlarged to such an extent we will be
12 forced to apply to re-call a huge number of witnesses. That's our
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's your concern and your fear. The Chamber will
15 consider admission.
16 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
17 THE REGISTRAR: Number would be P2989, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification. No need to have
19 it under seal, Mr. Weber?
20 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. DST-034, in 1991 the JNA was the military of the federal
24 republic; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The Republic of Serbia did not have its own military in 1991,
2 did it?
3 A. No, it did not. In other words: Yes, it did not have its army.
4 Q. Thank you for clarifying my question. Mr. Tomislav Simovic, the
5 minister of defence for the Republic of Serbia, had no authority over the
6 JNA in 1991; correct?
7 A. Please repeat his position.
8 Q. The minister of defence of Serbia, Mr. Tomislav Simovic. I'm
9 asking whether or not he had any authority over the JNA in 1991.
10 A. No, he had no authority over the JNA. But he was a member of
11 their inner collegium of the General Staff of the JNA.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit D300.
13 Q. DST-034, do you recall being shown this document on at least two
14 occasions, once during your preparations with the Defence and a second
15 time during your testimony yesterday?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have the top half of
18 page 3 of the translation and the bottom half of page 2 of the B/C/S.
19 Q. Sir, yesterday on page 12450, you offered a response when you
20 were asked about this document. You stated:
21 "I claim in full responsibility that the items from this request
22 by the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina is something that only the
23 army could provide."
24 Do you remember that statement?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. When you say the "army," are you referring to the JNA?
2 A. Yes, I was referring to the JNA.
3 Q. Directing your attention to items 9 and 10 under section 2 which
4 pertains to the Bankovac TO, the items listed here are hand-grenades and
5 rifle grenades. Are these the type of items you say the JNA could only
7 A. I think that this entire list with its contents was under the
8 authority or jurisdiction of the JNA.
9 Q. Sir, my question was a little bit more specific. I'm asking you
10 whether or not hand-grenades and rifle grenades could only be provided by
11 the JNA.
12 A. Yes, in my view.
13 Q. In this case, the Trial Chamber has admitted a news report from
14 the BBC as Exhibit P424. According to this exhibit, Milan Martic made
15 the following statement at a protest meeting in Knin on 1 April 1991:
16 "The president of Serbia has promised that he would send arms to
17 the Krajina."
18 Were you aware of Mr. Martic's public statements before you went
19 to Croatia?
20 A. Yes. We had reports of Milan Martic's statements given to the
21 press and TV. However, we interpreted it as a propaganda war aimed at
22 intimidating the other side.
23 Q. Did Minister Martic repeat similar statements to you or members
24 of your group during your missions to Croatia?
25 A. No. As I said, Martic stuck with the official statements in
1 relation to the preservation of Yugoslavia and that the Serb population
2 should live in Croatia as part of Yugoslavia. He did highlight the need
3 to protect the Serbs though. In that regard, we never discussed the
4 procurement of any equipment or weapons with him.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Defence
6 65 ter 1D2385.
7 Q. DST-034, I'm now going to show you a Defence document in this
8 case. This is an Official Note from Milan Tepavcevic of the Serbian DB
9 dated 12 April, 1991. Could you please read this Official Note and let
10 us know when you've completed your reading.
11 A. Yes, I've read it.
12 Q. This Official Note states:
13 "On 4 and 7 of April, 1991, on the order of the minister of
14 interior, two convoys with weapons and ammunition (three trucks and two
15 jeeps) were sent to Knin."
16 You would agree that this document indicates that the
17 Serbian MUP, specifically the State Security Service of Serbia, sent
18 convoys with weapons and ammunition to Knin in April 1991?
19 A. This is what one could conclude from this document.
20 Q. The note continues to state the amount of weapons and ammunition
21 that were sent:
22 "A total of 1.450 different weapons and 60.000 different calibre
23 rounds, including 180 rifle grenades."
24 These rifle grenades weren't provided by the JNA according to
25 this note; correct?
1 A. I think the weapons specified here in their entirety originated
2 from the JNA. The MUP of Serbia or the federal MUP at the time had
3 neither 180 rifle grenades or one and a half thousand different weapons,
4 40 bulletproof vests. I could understand if we discussed the handcuffs
6 Q. You do not see any reference to the JNA in this document, do you?
7 A. No, there's no mention made of the JNA. However, I can say with
8 certainty that the weapons specified for the most part come from the
9 arsenal of the JNA.
10 Q. In the context of Minister Martic's statement on 1 April 1991,
11 which was three days before the first convoy, does this evidence show
12 that the Serbian MUP carried out Mr. Milosevic's promise to deliver arms
13 to the Krajina?
14 A. Having the territory of the Serb Krajina in mind, the three
15 truck-loads of weapons is the minimum, the bare minimum, that should have
16 arrived in the Krajina. I was in the area of Knin, Zadar, and Sibenik,
17 and the question is where those weapons went. In any case, I'd like to
18 repeat that the weapons sent by the Serbian MUP to Knin mostly comes from
19 the arsenal of the JNA. I can accept that it went through the MUP of
20 Serbia and their organisation in order to have the weapons finally arrive
21 in Knin.
22 I just wanted to add this: You can rest assured that the JNA in
23 the field was informed of this convoy. If these weapons were indeed
24 handed over to Martic or to the MUP of the Krajina, it must have been
25 done through the army or was organised by the army.
1 Q. You're touching on a question that I'd like to ask you
2 specifically about.
3 In order for these convoys to go from Serbia to Knin, they would
4 have had to pass through check-points controlled by the Serbian MUP, the
5 JNA, and the SAO Krajina Police; is that correct?
6 A. This convoy could move through Serbia unhindered. Serbia was
7 still part of Yugoslavia and there was no need to carry out any checks.
8 From Serbia it was supposed to cross over into Bosnia-Herzegovina, which
9 was another republic. That is why I said that most likely the inspection
10 of this convoy did not -- an inspection did not take place because it was
11 probably escorted by the JNA. Save for Croatia and Slovenia, it had
12 unlimited freedom of movement across Yugoslav territory. The MUP alone
13 could not use its own truck and transport to go into Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 unhindered. It was only the JNA that could freely move about in
15 Yugoslavia. No one had the right to inspect such a convoy save for the
16 military police.
17 Q. You've answered most of my question, the last point being, would
18 this convoy have also had to go through the check-points of the
19 SAO Krajina Police?
20 A. The check-points of the SAO Krajina, they were barely there save
21 from a couple of locations where there was a greater danger of conflict
22 from the Croatian forces. The check-points of the SAO Krajina mainly
23 existed in the direction of the separation line with Croatia, along the
24 Sibenik and Zadar axis, some 10 to 15 kilometres from the coast. This
25 convoy, however, came from Bosnia and Herzegovina and across the Bosnia
1 and Croatia border, which was not controlled by the Croatian forces or by
2 the forces of the SAO Krajina.
3 The entire area in question was secured by the JNA. They were
4 tasked with providing security along the entire border in that part.
5 Q. Did you ever hear about this shipment from Milan Tepavcevic?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And just for clarity: We've been referring to Milan Tepavcevic
8 in two ways; is it correct that Milan Tepavcevic is also known as Tepa?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. After these convoys, "Politika" published an article on
12 7 July 1991 containing an interview with Mr. Martic.
13 MR. WEBER: This is Prosecution 65 ter 1909. For the Chamber
14 reference, the comment that I'll be referring to is on page 3 at the
15 bottom of the English translation.
16 Q. In this article, Milan Martic is quoted as saying:
17 "The situation changed significantly --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please provide some kind of
19 reference for the sake of interpretation.
20 MR. WEBER: I'm going to read out the exact quote.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I think that the interpreters would
22 appreciate if they have the text before them as well, to the extent
24 MR. WEBER: Sure. If we could please then have 65 ter 1909.
25 Q. Sir, just to aid you, since I see the B/C/S original of the
1 article is up, I'm going to be directing your attention to the second
2 column from the right, underneath Mr. Martic's photograph, three
3 paragraphs down.
4 MR. WEBER: If I could please have page 3, the bottom half of the
6 Q. Sir, during this interview, Mr. Martic stated:
7 "The situation changed significantly over the last few months.
8 With the acquisition of more modern and heavier weapons, our combat
9 operations have been considerably expanded."
10 Were you aware of this public statement by Mr. Martic while you
11 were in the Krajina or in Croatia?
12 A. What date does this pertain to?
13 Q. This pertains to an interview that was published on the
14 7th of July, 1991.
15 A. My comment on his statement is this, given the fact that I was in
16 the field: To say the least, this is nothing more than a propaganda
17 statement. At that time, Martic's police, or whatever we call them, had
18 no bearing. They had no ability to carry out any significant military
19 armed operation without the assistance of the JNA. Their strength was
20 neglectible [as interpreted] and their stock was more than poor.
21 Q. I see that you're maintaining your sentiments here. However, I
22 ask you to consider that having now seen an official document from the DB
23 of the Republic of Serbia showing that weapons and ammunition, including
24 weapons that you considered to be of the calibre of an army, were
25 delivered to Knin, I ask you to consider that you're mistaken about the
1 Serbian DB's role in the arming of Martic's police.
2 A. I will repeat yet again. I was in the field daily in Knin,
3 Zadar, and Sibenik. I was there mostly with members of the military
4 security service. I toured the entire area without exception. I also
5 visited the area on the separation lines with Mr. Mladic. I repeat: On
6 no occasion did I see any significant unit or a group of Martic's
7 policemen that I could call a significant force or any threat to the
8 Croatian MUP. And I stand by it. I was there. And I say that without
9 any hesitation whatsoever.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ...
11 Witness DST-034, I get the impression that you're focusing very
12 much on the strength and the importance of Martic's men, whereas the
13 Prosecutor seems to very concretely want to establish whether weapons
14 were sent, by whom they were sent, whether they were received. Now,
15 these are two matters I wouldn't say are totally unrelated to each other,
16 but the focus of Mr. Weber seems to be rather different from the focus of
17 your answers. And perhaps it would assist the Chamber if you would
18 follow the focus expressed in the questions by Mr. Weber, not to say that
19 you couldn't add something to that, but first answer the question as
20 formulated and in the focus Mr. Weber presents to you.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. You've expressed your views as to the statements of Milan Martic
24 and whether or not he was armed by others. What I'm asking you is: Now
25 that you've seen an official document from the State Security Service of
1 Serbia showing that the Serbian DB was involved with providing ammunition
2 and weapons to Knin, I'm asking you if you are mistaken about your belief
3 that the Serbian DB armed Martic's police?
4 A. One would conclude from the documents that the weapons mentioned
5 therein were sent. However, I assert yet again that it comes from the
11 Pages 12505-12508 redacted. Closed session.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please bring up 65 ter 6214.
24 Q. DST-034, this is a svjet [phoen] article documenting an interview
25 dated 25 April 1996 with former JNA colonel Veselin Sljivancanin
1 discussing the fall of Vukovar in 1991. Drawing your attention to the
2 last paragraph of page 1 in the English and B/C/S, Sljivancanin states in
3 this interview:
4 "We have no control over them. All of the weapons of the
5 White Eagles, the Tigers, and Seselj's Radical Party came from the
6 Serbian MUP. There were criminals and even Albanians among them who only
7 looted and got in our way. And there was even fighting between our
8 forces and them. When I complained about that, I was ordered by
9 Jovic's [Realtime transcript read in error "Jovica's"] office to offer
10 logistical support to the paramilitary formations because that had been
11 agreed to among the Presidency, the General Staff, and the MUP. I think
12 that everything at the MUP was organised by Jovica Stanisic."
13 Sir, does this statement accurately portray what you have
14 described as your understanding as to the relationship between the JNA
15 and Arkan's Tigers?
16 A. My views related to 1991 and the territory where I was present.
17 I was talking about 1991 when the armed conflicts broke out. When
18 Mr. Sljivancanin spoke here, it was 1996. And I have to note that by
19 1996 I was retired and I cannot mention either the White Eagles, Tigers,
20 or Seselj's Radical Party. The last paragraph, where
21 Mr. Jovanovic Stanisic is mentioned, I cannot comment on either because
22 Mr. Sljivancanin himself is advancing an opinion which does not mean that
23 it is the truth. We, on the other hand, are only discussing facts.
24 Q. Mr. Sljivancanin says that -- first of all, Mr. Sljivancanin is
25 speaking about events that occurred in 1991 in Vukovar. And he indicates
1 that he complained about the activities of the these paramilitary groups
2 and Mr. Jovic's [Realtime transcript read in error "Jovica's"] office
3 ordered him to provide logistical support to the paramilitary formations
4 because of an agreement.
5 Very specifically, I'm asking to you: Did you have any personal
6 knowledge in 1991 about an agreement between the Presidency, the General
7 Staff, and the Serbian MUP as to the use of Arkan?
8 A. Absolutely not. As I said, the clashes around Vukovar began at a
9 later date, after our return from Krajina. Therefore I'm not privy to
10 the details of the discussions between the president of the Presidency,
11 Jovic, the General Staff, and the MUP. I have no knowledge about it.
12 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution at this time tenders 6214 into
13 evidence as a public exhibit.
14 MR. JORDASH: Objection. Firstly, for the same reasons that I
15 keep advancing, the Prosecution simply trample roughshod over disclosure
16 rules: No need for the Prosecution to adduce evidence during their case
17 subject to Rule 66, simply wait and adduce it during the Defence case.
18 Secondly, my learned friend has now widened the Prosecution case
19 significantly. Apparently now Mr. Stanisic is responsible for supplies
20 and supplies going to the destruction of Vukovar, not something which
21 I've noticed in the indictment, pre-trial brief, or the case that they've
22 led in the court, the case now put directly to a Defence witness for the
23 first time, two years after the Prosecution case is opened.
24 And thirdly, my learned friend has misquoted the exhibit. It is
25 not "Jovica's office"; it's "Jovic's office."
1 MR. WEBER: I intended to say Jovic's, Borislav Jovic, not --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's clear from what we see in the document
3 that reference is made to Jovic's office and not Jovica's office.
4 Although in the last line there may be a relation to that, of course
5 specifically Jovica Stanisic is mentioned. But I think that is clear
6 now. I do not know whether misquoting is a valid objection to admission
7 into evidence of the document, but we have until now, until there's a --
8 unless there's a fourth, Mr. Jordash, then I would invite you to proceed.
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, the fourth, or perhaps an overview of the
10 first three, is that it's an exhibit indicating a speech by a convicted
11 person from this court expressing an opinion without reference to
12 anything in support of that opinion, I think that everything at the MUP
13 was organised by Jovica Stanisic. It's the kind of evidence, even if it
14 had been submitted during the Prosecution case subject to the rules which
15 protect the Defence, which is of little value. Its prejudicial value far
16 outweighs its probative value. It's of little significance. It amounts
17 alongside the breaches of the disclosure rules to a smear campaign.
18 It's -- every time the Prosecution find anything, whether the -- of any
19 real evidential value or not, it's used to create an impression that
20 somehow it has probative value. It doesn't.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, the first objection, we have briefly
22 discussed that before. Unless there's anything specific you'd like to
23 add in relation to this document, I would invite you not to further
24 respond to that. We'll consider that anyhow in relation to one of the
25 previous documents.
1 The second one, however, I'd like to hear your response.
2 And as far as the third is concerned, there seems to be some
4 And I would say the fourth is an umbrella argument which is clear
5 might not need further response, but especially the second one, that you
6 broaden your case.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we're not broadening our case at all.
8 Arkan's Tigers are part of the Serb forces alleged in the indictment.
9 We've alleged that the accused provided substantial assistance to
10 Arkan's Tigers and Zeljko Raznjatovic. We've led a significant amount of
11 evidence about the fall of 1991 and the activities of the
12 Serbian Volunteer Guard, including in the indictment we still have
13 forcible transfer, I believe, in the last paragraphs of the indictment
14 related to Vukovar. This is well within the context of the Prosecution's
15 case. This is a perfectly acceptable use of a witness who has provided,
16 himself, broad opinions about evidence and individuals that are relevant
17 to this Chamber, including the prominent role of the JNA.
18 In order for the Prosecution pursuant to 90(H) to put its case to
19 the witness, which he broadened to not just say Krajina but Croatia as a
20 whole, we are putting this document to him to test the basis of knowledge
21 that he has for his own opinions.
22 We ask that it be admitted.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, a brief response, please.
24 MR. JORDASH: Well, the Prosecution are equating a witness
25 providing what they say is opinion with their responsibilities, and of
1 course the two are not even nearly the same. I invite Prosecution to
2 indicate where it is in the Prosecution indictment and pre-trial brief
3 and Prosecution disclosure whereby the accused has been put on notice
4 that he supplied weapons to Vukovar and the forces in Vukovar. Of course
5 they can't and of course they won't.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we just say we have alleged that Serb
7 forces include the Territorial Defence of the SBWS and members of
8 Arkan's Tigers and special units -- well, the first, Arkan's Tigers as
9 special units of the DB. So it is part of our case that material
10 assistance, substantial assistance, was provided to them, including
12 MR. JORDASH: But that's a statement in the indictment. The
13 factual basis for the Prosecution case has to be in the pre-trial brief.
14 Standard trite law. My learned friend can't simply just return to the
15 indictment, read a generalized statement which could cover all and
16 everything within Croatia and Bosnia practically, and then say, Well, we
17 meant it. Point it out in the pre-trial brief. Point it out in the
18 disclosure. It's simply not good enough, in our submission, to point to
19 the indictment, a generalized statement, and say, Well, we meant that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Now, Mr. Weber, I think the Chamber has sufficient -- if you want
22 to bring to our attention because -- the specific pages or paragraph
23 numbers of any of the documents mentioned by Mr. Jordash, you may briefly
24 do so by -- we'll put it then later on the record, by saying an e-mail
25 said look at paragraph so-and-so of the pre-trial brief, et cetera. If
1 you refrain from doing so, the Chamber will consider the matter.
2 Madam Registrar, for purposes of marking the document for
3 identification, the number would be ...
4 THE REGISTRAR: 6214 will receive number P2992 MFI'd,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, P2992 keeps that status for the time being.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. DST-034, your evidence before this Tribunal is based in part upon
10 documentation that you received in your official capacity at the federal
11 MUP in Belgrade. The Simatovic Defence today even put some of this to
12 you. As this appears to be a significant basis of the assessments you
13 provide, I would like to discuss with you what happened to the
14 documentation from the federal MUP building in relation to the take-over
15 of this building by the Serbian DB. In particular, I would like to
16 address the possible motivations of the Serbian DB. This is a topic that
17 the Defence notified the Prosecution, of your knowledge of these events
18 and motivation. Our discussion today will include events that occurred
19 both before and after the actual take-over in 1992.
20 First, I want to ask you why you think the federal MUP building
21 was taken over by the Serbian DB in October 1992?
22 A. I think that I said at some point that I found this step
23 puzzling. I accounted for it by the political situation that prevailed
24 at the time. The president -- or, rather, the prime minister of the
25 federal government at the time was Mr. Milan Panic. It was a fact that
1 Milan Panic surrounded himself with associates from the West,
2 specifically the United States. There occurred a clash between Mr. Panic
3 and Mr. Milosevic.
4 Since the federal MUP was part of the federal government headed
5 by Mr. Panic, I believe this to be the cause why the top political
6 leadership of Serbia thought that the State Security Service of the
7 federal MUP could not be within the remit of Mr. Panic. I think that
8 Mr. Milosevic was afraid that the information we come by -- we came by
9 could actually be to his detriment and his political interests. That's
10 why the State Security Service of the MUP of Serbia took over the federal
11 MUP building.
12 Q. I want to ask you about two individuals who we'll come back to
13 later. Is it correct that Pavle Bulatovic was elected as the federal
14 minister of the interior prior to take-over?
15 A. Yes, he was the federal minister before the take-over of the MUP
16 by the MUP of Serbia.
17 Q. Is it also correct that Mr. Dobrica Cosic was the president of
18 the FRY at the time of the take-over?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Prior to the elections of Mr. Bulatovic and Mr. Cosic, was there
21 co-operation between the State Security Service of Serbia and the federal
22 security service under the administration of Petar Gracanin?
23 A. Yes. My sector of counter-intelligence co-operated closely with
24 the Belgrade centre of the State Security Service of Serbia. As far as I
25 know, there were no major problems in that co-operation.
1 Q. The Federal Ministry of Interior possessed the authority to
2 provide expert assistance in support at the request of state organs such
3 as the MUPs of the republics; correct?
4 A. Yes, and we did.
5 Q. The federal minister of the interior had the authority to further
6 investigate individuals who were undermining the constitutional order of
7 the FRY?
8 A. Yes. However, the procedure depended on the territorial
9 jurisdiction specifically. If an individual who was undermining the
10 state interests resided in Macedonia or in any other republic, then the
11 DB who had jurisdiction over that particular territory would be the one
12 monitoring the individual and operatively processing him.
13 Q. If a federal invest -- excuse me. If a federal inspector
14 discovered that a state organ was undermining the constitutional order of
15 the federal republic, that inspector would have been required to report
16 that information to the federal minister of the interior; is that
18 A. If the federal organ was involved, then, yes, it was within our
20 Q. This would be reported directly to the federal minister of
21 interior; correct?
22 A. It would be reported if -- if -- first it would be reported to
23 the chief of state security who would then forward it on to the federal
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 1 of
1 65 ter 6213. This is a document that is also the subject of a pending
2 submission. We do not intend to rely on the handwriting in the B/C/S
3 version of this document. We do have a submission at the end of our
4 examination today on this document.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, we resumed at 10 minutes to 11.00. It's
6 now ten minutes past 12.00. Would this be a suitable moment --
7 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- to have a break?
9 Then we'll resume at 20 minutes to 1.00.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, Mr. Groome mentioned something that I
11 think would be of assistance. It's a long document. I do have a B/C/S
12 version available to me. Would it be acceptable with the Chamber, and I
13 can also show it to the Defence, to show the witness the report over the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And are there specific portions you would like
16 to examine him about?
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm going to go through the report in
18 detail during the remainder of my cross-examination, so if he could just
19 read the whole thing.
20 JUDGE ORIE: How long is the document?
21 MR. WEBER: It is -- the B/C/S version is nine pages.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. WEBER: And, excuse me, I have handwriting on it, so I do
24 have to obtain a clean copy.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Witness DST-034, would you be willing to use your break to read a
2 nine-page document on which questions will be put to you after the break?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: We object again. It's the same point; new
6 evidence. The accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause
7 of the charges, the factual base for the charges, and that means promptly
8 and that means before the Prosecution case begins.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the problem for the Chamber is that we do
10 not know what the document is about. So to what extent your objection
11 stands depends very much on the content of the document. I, therefore,
12 would ask Mr. Weber to provide us with an English copy so that at least
13 we can have a look at it and see to what extent your objection is with
14 merit. Again, nine pages and to find out exactly what the links are is
15 not easy, but let's give it a try.
16 MR. JORDASH: But that's why, we submit, that there is an
17 obligation on the Prosecution to inform the Chamber and the parties what
18 the document contains and the significance of it for their case and meet
19 the admissibility threshold.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll ask the witness to already leave
21 the courtroom. He will be provided or not provided with the document
22 later on. He is at least willing to spend, I should then say, part of
23 his pause to read the document. And we would further discuss the matter
24 in the absence of the witness.
25 Could you please follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
11 Pages 12521-12529 redacted. Closed session.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness DST-034, I take it that you've read the
19 document, however, the document will not be put to you, so I would ask
20 you as a matter of fact to return it to the usher. The document will not
21 be put to you, but questions may be put to you which are related to the
22 content of the document.
23 Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. DST-034, did the federal MUP possess the authority to provide
1 expert assistance and support to the SRBH MUP in relation to the matters
2 of stabilising a security situation, establishing the legality of work
3 and normal functioning of organs of Internal Affairs, and ensuring the
4 legitimacy of the organs of authority?
5 A. In what area? That is what I didn't understand.
6 Q. I'm asking you more generally. Did the federal MUP possess the
7 authority to provide expert assistance and support to the SRBH MUP in
8 relation to the following three matters: stabilising the security
9 situation in, let's say, north-eastern Bosnia in 1992, establishing the
10 legality of work and normal functioning of organs of Internal Affairs,
11 and ensuring the legitimacy of organs of authority?
12 A. Yes, yes. The federal MUP had the authority to assist in the
13 organisation of work to the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Q. Through your position at the time in 1992, were you personally
15 informed of security problems in the area of north-eastern Bosnia between
16 April and June of 1992? Please simply say yes or no at this time.
17 A. I can't say yes or no directly. For the most part it is a yes
18 for the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 Q. What were you aware of?
20 A. We were aware of the situation in certain areas in the field and
21 the problems which existed there from the Drina, which is the border with
22 Serbia, to the border with Croatia.
23 Q. Were you aware of a federal SUP unit being sent to
24 north-eastern Bosnia in June of 1992?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. This unit was headed by Milorad Davidovic; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Were you aware of problems that were discovered by Mr. Davidovic
4 and this federal SUP unit which included the presence of so-called
5 paramilitary formations, in particular, members of the Serbian Volunteer
6 Guard, Captain Dragan's Red Berets, and members of the Serbian Radical
7 Party, which had taken part in liberating parts of north-eastern Bosnia
8 and in particular Zvornik, Brcko, and Bijeljina?
9 A. Yes, we had information to that effect.
10 Q. Did this information indicate that these paramilitary units used
11 the passivity, disorganisation, and chaos of the existing organs of
12 authority and the slowness to which the organs in Bosnia were being
13 organised to form their own parallel authorities?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were these paramilitary -- were you in possession of information
16 that these paramilitary units did this with the help of certain domestic
17 structures and they often used physical force and weapons to achieve
18 their goals?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. These problems would undermine the constitutional order of the
21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and be illegal; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I just want to ask you about the term of paramilitary formations,
24 since I've used that. Is it your understanding that the word
25 "paramilitary" means outside of the regular chain of command of formal
1 military structures?
2 A. For the most part, yes.
3 Q. And you say "for the most part." Paramilitary units still
4 operated in Joint Commands with formal military structures in 1992;
6 A. That's why I said "for the most part, yes." Some of these
7 paramilitary units eventually came under the framework of the JNA and
8 acted upon the orders of the military organs in the area and in keeping
9 with the law, some of them. Others were completely out of hand and
11 Q. Were you aware of whether or not this federal SUP unit undertook
12 preventive operative work which uncovered a number of groups which were
13 involved in organised crime?
14 A. Yes, I was aware of the fact that they had problems in the field
15 and that they undertook actions in order to put a stop to the criminal
16 activity of these units.
17 Q. What is preventative operative work?
18 A. First of all, collecting information in the field, taking
19 statements and gathering evidence of criminal activity of these groups,
20 identification of individuals and groups engaging in such activities, and
21 preventing them from acting further.
22 Q. Would the collection of this information, including taking
23 statements and gathering evidence of criminal activity, would all of this
24 have been documented and kept at the federal MUP building in Belgrade?
25 A. Such reports were sent to the federal MUP and kept in our
1 analysis division.
2 Q. You've mentioned that the federal SUP unit undertook certain
3 actions. Did these actions include the arrest of members of this
4 group -- of these groups that I have mentioned who were involved in
5 activities in Bijeljina, Zvornik, and Brcko?
6 A. Yes. I do know that certain groups and individuals were arrested
7 for the crimes they committed in the area.
8 Q. Was this federal SUP unit particularly engaged in the disarming
9 and suppression of these paramilitary formations?
10 A. Yes. During the arrest and taking into custody, all the weapons
11 and equipment the paramilitary units had was seized from them.
12 Q. All of this would have been kept as a part of investigative files
13 on each of these groups; correct?
14 A. I don't understand. As part of which investigative files?
15 Q. These arrests that were conducted by the federal SUP unit and the
16 RS MUP, they would have been all documented and kept as a part of
17 investigative files on each of the paramilitary groups; is that correct?
18 A. In any event, yes. Whatever action is taken out in the field, it
19 is a duty of the organs to make a note of it, draw up a report, and send
20 it to their superior organs. And such reports are kept in the files.
21 Q. And there would have been reports for each arrest that was
22 conducted by this federal SUP unit; true?
23 A. Absolutely. It was an obligation on their part.
24 Q. Are you aware that this federal SUP unit uncovered evidence that
25 the Serbian Volunteer Guard, Captain Dragan's Red Berets, the
1 Yellow Wasps, the police force of the SAO Krajina, otherwise known as
2 Martic's police, were directed to the area of Bijeljina, Brcko, and
3 Zvornik by the Serbian MUP?
4 MR. JORDASH: Could I just object to the conjunctive nature of
5 the question or composite nature of the question.
6 MR. WEBER: I can break them each up if counsel --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. Are you aware that this federal SUP unit uncovered evidence that
10 the Serbian Volunteer Guard was directed to the area of Bijeljina, Brcko,
11 and Zvornik by the Serbian MUP?
12 A. I didn't hear or read any such report and don't have that
14 Q. Were you aware that the federal SUP unit uncovered evidence that
15 Captain Dragan's Red Berets were directed to north-eastern Bosnia by the
16 Serbian MUP?
17 A. I never had this sort of report in my hands and never read it
19 Q. Okay. Were these reports not put into your hands, as you've
20 explained to us many times, because you were involved in
22 A. My counter-intelligence activities were directed primarily to the
23 work of the intelligence -- foreign intelligence services in Yugoslavia.
24 In other words, to detect and uncover foreign intelligence agents in
1 What you're asking me about, let me tell you that the federal SUP
2 unit did not come under the competence of the State Security Service at
3 the federal level, rather of the Public Security Service. The
4 information we received -- or we would receive information only if these
5 paramilitary units involved a segment that would have
6 counter-intelligence significance that was the case. And you have to
7 understand the differences between public and state security. What you
8 are asking me about, this special unit which was present in the field, it
9 was under the competence of public security.
10 Q. Sir, I understand what you're saying --
11 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
12 Witness DST-034, I notice that when Mr. Weber asked you, Are you
13 aware of this and this having happened, that your answer then is "I never
14 had a report, I never read a report, about it." Now, the question is not
15 limited to written reports which you may have read or not have read, but
16 awareness can be from other sources, informal information, conversations
17 with others. So would you please understand the questions in that sense
18 and that if there's awareness by other means than reading reports, you
19 should include it in your answer.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Actually, DST-034, I'm going to ask you some more questions about
23 whether or not you are aware. If you could please consider what the
24 Chamber just said to you and provide a concise answer as to yes or no and
25 the reason you are aware. Do you understand?
1 A. [No verbal response]
2 Q. Are you aware that this federal SUP unit documented -- or
3 obtained evidence that members of paramilitary groups were mistreating,
4 terrorising, robbing, and not infrequently killing innocent people during
5 the take-overs in Bijeljina, Brcko, and Zvornik?
6 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
7 Q. How are you aware of that?
8 A. In connection with your question, I think there was a very brief
9 report on the criminal activity of these paramilitary formations in
10 Bijeljina and Zvornik. I received additional information in my
11 conversations with the colleagues who were present in that area.
12 Q. Did that include Milorad Davidovic?
13 A. No, I never met him. I don't know what the man looks look.
14 Q. Were you aware that Zivojin Ivanovic, also known as
15 Zika Crnogorac, was arrested by this federal SUP unit and made statements
16 to them concerning his relationship to the Serbian MUP DB, including the
17 fact that he had been sent there by Tepa and Frenki? Were you aware of
19 A. No, I wasn't aware of it. But I have to make an observation: At
20 the time, quite a few criminals in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
21 tried to cover up a great deal of their criminal activity through
22 statements that they were connected with such and such a member of the
23 State Security Service precisely to protect themselves or attach to
24 themselves significance that didn't exist. There were many such cases.
25 There were cases where individuals invoked their acquaintances with
1 members of the federal State Security Service, and, of course, these
2 individuals had no relationship or acquaintance with them.
3 Q. Franko Simatovic, Frenki, wasn't a publicly known figure in 1992,
4 was he?
5 A. I had only heard of Mr. Frenki's first and last name. Although
6 we were in a similar line of work, this was the first time I saw him,
7 now, in the courtroom.
8 Q. Now, an individual who would be arrested and would possess a
9 Serbian MUP ID card, would a federal inspector be able to recognise
10 whether or not that is an authentic ID?
11 A. Well, firstly, they would have to check; and secondly, let me
12 tell you that the IDs of the MUP of Serbia and of that of the federal
13 level are not the same, so it would depend on which sort of ID the
14 individual produced. Was it the MUP of Serbia or State Security Service?
15 These are two different things.
16 Q. Well, let's say it's one or the other. Would a federal
17 inspector, as a matter of course in their arrest, if an individual
18 produced a MUP of Serbia ID or a State Security Service of Serbia ID,
19 would they check whether or not that is a legitimate piece of
21 A. Well, the ID would more or less of course be checked. But what
22 we also did, and we were under an obligation to do so, we would make
23 contact with the relevant MUP and ask them if the individual who -- on
24 whom the ID was found was a legitimate holder of that ID.
25 Q. So if Zivojin Ivanovic was arrested and produced a Serbian MUP
1 ID, the federal inspector would check with the Serbian MUP to see if that
2 was a legitimate piece of identification, thereby informing him of his
4 A. Yes. If an individual produced an official MUP ID, it is an
5 obligation of the inspector to make contact with the MUP and ask the MUP
6 to -- for feedback as to whether that individual had been issued a MUP
7 ID, whether he is a legitimate holder of it, and whether he indeed works
8 for the MUP.
9 Q. Now, if an individual possessed a Serbian MUP ID and also a
10 Krajina ID, would it be difficult for the federal inspector to identify
11 which MUP that individual belonged to?
12 A. In principle, it wouldn't. It's very easy to check. It only
13 takes a couple of telephone calls or a dispatch which can be sent out
14 quickly and received pretty quickly, especially when these are the issues
15 in question.
16 Q. Another witness in this case indicated that the federal MUP was
17 taken over because the federal DB used their position to carry out
18 activities "directly against the leadership of Serbia, including DB and
19 MUP officials." These activities included wire-tapping and
20 eavesdropping, according to this witness. To the best of your knowledge,
21 was the take-over --
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, sorry to interrupt. Could we have a cite,
24 MR. WEBER: I'm quoting from the 92 ter evidence of the last
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. To the best of your knowledge, was the take-over because the
4 federal authorities were carrying out operative activities against the
5 Serbian DB?
6 A. As chief of the counter-intelligence sector of the State Security
7 Service of the federal SUP, it was within my powers to issue orders for
8 wire-tapping. I state upon full responsibility that not a single order
9 was issued for wire-tapping anyone from the State Security Service of
10 Serbia or from anyone from the political leadership of Serbia while I was
12 Q. When the Serbian DB took over the federal MUP building in 1992,
13 it took over its documentation, communications equipment, and other
14 vehicles and supplies; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. This documentation would have included any incriminating evidence
17 related to these paramilitary units, including the Red Berets,
18 Serbian Volunteer Guard, Martic's police, and the Yellow Wasps; correct?
19 A. Yes. The entire documentation was in the documentation and
20 archives, so I suppose it would be included as well.
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please call up page 2 of the
22 B/C/S and English versions of Prosecution 65 ter 1441.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I meanwhile ask one additional question.
24 You were asked about whether the take-over was because the
25 federal authorities were carrying out operative activities against the
1 Serbian DB. You said: I never gave an order to that extent. Did you
2 ever hear that others thought that the federal SUP was involved in such
3 operative activities; true or not?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would have to give
5 you a somewhat broader answer to that question. It was something that I
6 got to know orally. It was more of an opinion to the effect that the
7 State Security Service of the federal MUP was listening in on the
8 republican organs. Unfortunately, my colleague who was charged with
9 technology in the State Security Service, and who has passed away in the
10 meantime, boasted in an intoxicated state in front of some leaders, and I
11 mean political leaders of Serbia and Montenegro, about the fact that he
12 as the chief of technology was wire-tapping, that he had limitless
13 technology at his disposal, and that he could practically listen in to
14 everything and everyone in Yugoslavia.
15 Unfortunately, as a result, his boasting and the information he
16 provided were misconstrued. And this was one of the reasons why there
17 were suspicions that the federal service was listening in to the
18 republican organs. Nothing was ever written about it. In our circles,
19 we are aware of that statement having been made and unfortunately
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, misunderstood is -- I do not know yet whether,
22 because you have not told us how it was understood apart from what he
23 said. Now, did he have the technical facilities, I'm not saying legally
24 to be used, but did he have the technical facilities to do what you said
25 he boasted he had done?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The technical facilities of the
2 federal DB were quite powerful. However, there was a chain of command.
3 The individual in question could not undertake a single action without
4 receiving written consent from the chief of the State Security Service.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you there for a second. I do understand
6 that in the chain of command he was not allowed to do such a thing. The
7 question is whether he could have done it just on the technical level
8 even without consent.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the technical level he could
10 have, but not without consent.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me say the following: If he did not have the
12 consent and he nevertheless, for whatever reason, wished to use those
13 technical facilities, could he do so? Just as a matter of fact, not of
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. My answer is no. In order to
16 do that, he had to engage the services of technical operators, those in
17 charge of manning technical facilities, as well as the services of
18 operatives. As a result, this request would have ended up on my desk for
19 consent. That's why he could never have done that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Unless they would have conspired together.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, this job requires many
22 more people. We were a relatively small group, only some 220 persons in
23 the federal State Security Service. Given that number, we knew exactly
24 what each person was doing.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, please proceed, although for a very short
1 time, looking at the clock.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. DST-034, I'd like to direct your attention to the exhibit before
4 you. These are the minutes from the session of the council for
5 reconciliation of standpoints regarding state politics on
6 2 November 1992. As you can see from this page now before you, the
7 session was attended by Dobrica Cosic, Slobodan Milosevic, Zivota Panic,
8 and Pavle Bulatovic, and the first item on the agenda was the
9 "jeopardising of the constitutional order of the FRY"; is this correct?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Do you invite the witness to read that paragraph?
11 MR. WEBER: Yes, I just want him to confirm those are the
12 individuals who were present and that was the first item of the agenda.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on the basis of this document?
14 MR. WEBER: On the basis of this document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you don't have to ask the witness, isn't it?
16 We can read.
17 MR. WEBER: Okay.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: Then if I could actually have page 3 of both the
20 B/C/S and English versions.
21 At this time, Your Honour, I will ask the witness to read.
22 Q. DST-034, could you please read the paragraph under the first item
23 of these minutes that begins with the text:
24 "Further on during the session, federal minister of
25 Internal Affairs informed the members of the council about the event that
1 took place on 18 October this year."
2 Do you see that paragraph? I believe it should be one towards
3 the top of the B/C/S original in front of you. If you could please read
4 that one paragraph and let us know when you're finished.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. According to these minutes, Minister Bulatovic described the
7 take-over as a forceful occupation of the federal MUP building. Is this
8 an accurate description of how the take-over occurred?
9 A. Yes, this statement of his is correct. There was a forceful
10 occupation of the building of the federal MUP.
11 Q. These minutes state that the Serbian MUP took over the carpool.
12 Did the carpool have federal MUP vehicles with M900 plates?
13 A. Yes. All of our vehicles in addition to regular registration
14 plates also had blue registration plates with M900 on them.
15 MR. WEBER: I have two more questions, if I may, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the booth. If it's really two
17 questions, I would seek the co-operation of those assisting us.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I don't hear -- I should go through all the
20 channels, but, yes. I'll take the blame, Mr. Weber. You would ensure
21 that I have to be blamed only for two questions.
22 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
23 Q. These minutes state that the Serbian MUP took over the
24 communications and cryptographic systems of the federal MUP. Did these
25 systems and technical equipment allow for a secure channel of
1 communication with other MUPs in Croatia and Bosnia?
2 A. Technically speaking, yes. But as far as I know, our technical
3 department did not have contact with the MUPs and the entities in
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the SAO Krajina.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, actually at this time the Prosecution
6 would tender 65 ter 1441 into evidence. I do have some more questions,
7 but it's not --
8 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need on Monday?
9 MR. WEBER: Probably a half-hour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Half an hour.
11 Any objection against the document tendered? No.
12 Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be P2993, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Any need to have it under seal, Mr. Weber?
15 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P2993 is admitted into evidence.
17 Let me just ...
18 We'd like to see you back most likely on Monday.
19 But perhaps, Mr. Jordash, would the next witness be ready by
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So because we had provisionally scheduled an
23 additional -- that had something to do with visa, et cetera, now I'm just
24 a bit -- because it was also to some extent because there was a risk that
25 we would lose this Thursday, I think, but I'm not perfectly sure about
1 this scheduling matter.
2 MR. JORDASH: I've just been reminded. Yeah, we planned to proof
3 the next witness on Monday. Tomorrow and Monday.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I'm wondering whether it would be
5 worthwhile to have, then, perhaps not a full session on Monday afternoon
6 to conclude the testimony of this witness, which would take altogether, I
7 would say, another hour or hour and a half, whether that would be --
8 remain sufficient time for you to proof the next witness and then start
9 his testimony on Tuesday, the 12th?
10 MR. JORDASH: That would be fine. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That would be -- let me just check. One second.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: It has to be checked whether this would be a viable
14 way to proceed. The parties will be informed as soon as possible. But
15 as matters stand now, most likely we would then have a short session on
16 Monday and then that would be a short session in addition to the three
17 scheduled hearings next week, the sessions of normal duration.
18 It was all triggered by the uncertainty about the next witness's
19 arrival, I think. That's ...
20 Any further questions in this respect?
21 MR. JORDASH: No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No.
23 Then as matters now stand, Witness DST-034, in all likelihood
24 we'll continue on Monday, next Monday, which is the 11th of July, at
25 quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon. It's not entirely certain yet. It
1 might also be Tuesday, but we assume that it would be Monday. So
2 therefore we'd like to see you back then.
3 And I give you the same instruction as I did before, that is, not
4 to speak or communicate with anyone about the testimony still to be given
5 or already given. And I invite you to follow the usher.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We move into open session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 I take it that there's nothing to be raised in open session.
12 We adjourn for the day. And we resume in all likelihood on
13 Monday, the 11th of July, at quarter past 2.00 in -- most likely in this
14 same courtroom. Although it's not on my agenda, I see it's confirmed by
15 the Registrar. There is, however, a small chance that we would resume on
16 Tuesday, the 12th. So all parties and the public is invited to closely
17 monitor the court agenda.
18 We stand adjourned.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of
21 July, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.