Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13057

 1                           Wednesday, 20 July 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.  Madam Registrar, would

 6     you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

 8     IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanisic and Simatovic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.  We still have

11     the protective measures in place.  And I think we finished yesterday in

12     closed session.  Do we have to remain in closed session, Mr. Weber?

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I do have about maybe three to five

14     questions that should be in private session and then I'd be asking a

15     return to open session.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll move into open session once you've

17     put these small number of questions to the witness.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, may I --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Face and voice distortion.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, there's some confusion as to whether we are in

22     open session at this moment, yes or no.

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13058











11 Pages 13058-13064 redacted. Private session.















Page 13065

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   In paragraph 12 of your statement you describe events that occur

25     after the elections in Croatia in 1990 when you told Professor Raskovic

Page 13066

 1     about problems with Milan Babic based upon conversations you had with

 2     Milan Babic.  You provide an opinion that Milan Babic was paranoid and

 3     "if he did not know how to describe and justify an event, he would blame

 4     someone else including the DB or the Council of National Resistance."

 5     Could you please tell us what Milan Babic stated in 1990 regarding the

 6     DB?

 7        A.   Milan Babic would at all times mention the DB in disparaging

 8     terms and with fear.  He had this constant fear of being persecuted,

 9     followed, or that somebody was after him to kill him.  All the locals,

10     that's to say from the area of Knin and whom we knew had connections with

11     the DB, unless these individuals paid their full respects to him, held

12     him in high esteem, and in favour, they would immediately be denounced as

13     spies.  I would visit late Milan Babic in his home, as would he visit me

14     in mine very often.  I would often times find him reading cards or I

15     don't know what.  He would often start conversations about persecutions,

16     about various setup scenarios, et cetera.

17             After the well known cocktail party which took place at

18     Milosevic's on the 11th of January, 1991, that I already described, late

19     Raskovic --

20        Q.   Sir, sir, sir, I'm going to go into 1991 and conversations you

21     had, but let's keep focused on 1990.  In 1990 the SAO Krajina did not

22     have a State Security Service.  So when you are referring to the DB is it

23     correct that you are referring to the DB of Serbia?

24        A.   No, I meant the DB of Croatia.  The branch which existed in the

25     public security station in Knin.

Page 13067

 1        Q.   Okay.  You say that he complained about the DB and the Council of

 2     National Resistance.  What did Milan Babic state about the Council of

 3     National Resistance?

 4        A.   He didn't say anything specific about the Council of National

 5     Resistance, rather, the appointment of new individuals and ignoring the

 6     ones who were already there.  And let me tell you that these were no

 7     official meetings, they would be appointed wherever they happened to be,

 8     under a tree, in a private home, or wherever.  We wondered why the

 9     council existed since he kept ignoring it.

10        Q.   Sir --

11        A.   He was the president of the very council and yet he continued

12     ignoring it.

13        Q.   Sir, please focus on my questions.  I am asking you something

14     very specific.  What is it Milan Babic stated, so I'm asking you what his

15     statements, his words were, about the Council of National Resistance in

16     1990?

17        A.   He could behave in a very arrogant way too.  He would tell us you

18     are incompetent, this should have been done differently, I don't want to

19     be the one to take care if you have enough fuel or food, what have you

20     done, and we would ask him in turn what is it that we could have done.

21     He would say you should have gone there yourselves and seen to it that

22     it's done properly.  So we had these situations of conflict.  There was

23     no synchronised activity or agreements about anything, and then he would

24     shift the blame to someone else, why didn't you agree on this, why didn't

25     you organise this, I have other obligations to attend to, et cetera.  And

Page 13068

 1     in fact, we concluded the Council of National Resistance at that point in

 2     time was --

 3        Q.   Sir, you said that he complained about the appointment of new

 4     individuals and ignoring the ones who were already there.  I'm asking you

 5     very specifically who are the individuals that Milan Babic complained

 6     about that were newly appointed?

 7        A.   He complained about Jovan Opacic.  He appointed a man called

 8     Rodoljub Bjelanovic.  It's impossible to remember because one event

 9     followed another, but I know that there were constantly some new people

10     who I didn't know either, and then I would ask who is this, and then I

11     would be told that it was a new member of the council.

12        Q.   In paragraph 37 of your statement, you describe constant

13     conflicts with Milan Babic and others and refer to severe quarrels

14     between Milan Babic and Captain Dragan around 2 August 1991.  You again

15     provide an opinion in this paragraph that Milan Babic was paranoid with

16     people working for the police and intelligence and this was the reason

17     for the conflict.  You state:

18             "Milan Babic always claimed, doubted, and made accusations that

19     people were working for the DB or were being sent by Franko Simatovic or

20     Jovica Stanisic."

21             You say that he always claimed that people were working for the

22     DB or being sent by one of the two accused.  When in 1991 would

23     Milan Babic make these statements?

24        A.   I think that he might have always doubted the police, and he

25     started making such statements either in late 1990 not about

Page 13069

 1     Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic but in general police structures and

 2     police services, and I believe that in 1991 the very mention of the term

 3     "DB" he would start shaking, he would get nervous, and that's how he

 4     acted.  In principle the people whom he perceived as an obstacle in

 5     obtaining power such as the deputy Jovan Opacic at the time or Dusan

 6     Zelenbaba or Radoslav Tanjga and many others, he would say why didn't you

 7     help Jovan Opacic so he could continue living his life, so he wouldn't

 8     have to travel 20 kilometres on foot.  And his reply would be, don't

 9     bother with that.  He is an associate of the DB.  He didn't say of Jovica

10     Stanisic or Franko Simatovic.

11             Of course, at the time he was very interested in this, he was

12     interested in whom the late Raskovic saw, what he did, et cetera, and

13     once I stopped providing him with that information, I heard from people

14     who were still close to him that he labelled me a traitor and an

15     associate of state security.  In brief that's the description of the

16     situation.  It was very easy to label somebody a traitor or an associate

17     of state security because these were times when having somebody's head

18     was cheaper than giving them a haircut.  It was impossible to check

19     whether somebody was a traitor or an associate of state security but it

20     was also impossible to get rid of this label.

21        Q.   What would Milan Babic say about people being sent by

22     Jovica Stanisic?

23        A.   He didn't comment on these things with me.  After the infamous

24     cocktail party, we met less and less frequently.  And his statements

25     resulted in various accusations.  After the failure that he suffered at

Page 13070

 1     the negotiations in this phantom idea of joining the Serbian Krajina in

 2     Croatia with the Serbian Krajina in Bosnia, and where the radio talked

 3     about his great successes all the time which was always followed by music

 4     was just to make the people crazy, and then two or three days after the

 5     meeting in Celinac everything that was done in Bosanska Grahovo, for

 6     example, was recalled by Babic himself.  I recall that we met soon after

 7     that and we talked.  Professor Raskovic was present at that first meeting

 8     and we asked, what do we need this for, Milan.  Already then, his answers

 9     were of the type:  We've been had, some of the people are working for

10     state security, its impossible to turn things into action because we get

11     tripped up.

12             In fact, the real truth was that the formation of the Dalmatian

13     municipalities and these declarations where he always was looking for a

14     scape-goat would have been the easiest way to check what he was doing.

15     That's my opinion.  It was easiest to get him in some dark circles that

16     were not available to the public.  The ultimate goal, and I thought this

17     both then and now, a man who is very deep told me this, that this was a

18     man who loved bestial power and he loved himself and only himself, but

19     there's another thing that he likes more and that's power.

20        Q.   Who is the sweeping --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, sweeping statements followed by this is

22     my opinion, this is what I thought at the time, this is what I think now,

23     let's get back to the facts and let's focus on that, and please keep

24     control over the examination of the witness.  Please proceed.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 13071

 1        Q.   Sir, I'm asking you very specifically what are the accusations

 2     that Milan Babic made about Jovica Stanisic.  If you just please tell us

 3     what the statements were by him?

 4        A.   He didn't say anything specific about Jovica Stanisic in front of

 5     me.  We knew that the DB was under the command of Jovica Stanisic --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's stop there.  The answer is he didn't say

 7     anything specific about Jovica Stanisic.  That answers the question.

 8     Next question, please.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that period.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was without any time-limits, did

11     Mr. Babic make any accusation in relation to Jovica Stanisic?  Did he or

12     did he not?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Specific about Jovica Stanisic?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  What did he say, when, and where?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think -- actually, I don't think,

20     I know that he commented on this in 1991 in December after the visit to

21     Belgrade.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Circumstances.  Were you present when he said

23     anything about Jovica Stanisic?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't present.  I was told this

25     by all the others and I believe he said something to me.  I know he said

Page 13072

 1     something to me.  He said it in front of me.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  A second ago you said you weren't present.  Okay.

 3     He said it in front of you.  Where was that, when was that?  And if the

 4     answer would --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in 1992.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And, again, if the answer would reveal your

 7     identity, then you have to ask for private session, but if you can tell

 8     us without revealing your identity, it was in 1992 you said.  Where was

 9     it?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was at a cafe at Vrelo, we ran

11     into each other after his return from negotiations about the Vance-Owen

12     Plan.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And what did he say?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We talked briefly how things were

15     going, things that you would normally ask each other.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please focus your answer on what he said about

17     Mr. Stanisic.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian DB is tripping me up.

19     Jovica Stanisic, a man called Frenki.  They are capable of staging

20     anything, in the end they'll stage my assassination.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Did he say anything else about Mr. Stanisic at that

22     occasion?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He didn't say anything else that

24     time.  I am sorry, he said they've been following me for a while, tapping

25     me.  That's what he said.

Page 13073

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Was there any other occasion when Mr. Babic said

 2     something about Mr. Stanisic accusing him of something?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He didn't make any accusations in

 4     front of me and he didn't say anything else because he suspected me of

 5     being a traitor and of being an associate of state security.  At least an

 6     associate.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the answer is no.  At least not in front of

 8     you.

 9             Mr. Weber, please proceed.  I'd really like to hear facts rather

10     than again sweeping statements, opinions, thoughts.  We cannot always

11     avoid that, but it should not become 60, 70, or 80 per cent of the

12     answers of the witness.  Please proceed.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, and the Prosecution will endeavour to do

14     its best to control the witness.

15        Q.   Sir, were there any other statements that Milan Babic made about

16     Franko Simatovic other than the one that you just described?  If so,

17     could you please tell us who, when, and what was said?

18        A.   I don't know.

19        Q.   In your statement again you say that this is a reason -- excuse

20     me, I'll back up.  What is the reason that this was a basis of the

21     conflict between Captain Dragan and Milan Babic in August 1991?

22        A.   It was hoisting the flag of the Territorial Defence on the Knin

23     fortress and this was supposed to be done by Djoko Majstorovic.  I wasn't

24     present, but I heard from people who told me about this clash between

25     them.

Page 13074

 1        Q.   Are you now saying that to the best of your knowledge that this

 2     had no association with the Serbian DB?  Is that what you are now saying?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   What are you saying?  Are you making an association between a

 5     conflict between Milan Babic and Captain Dragan and information that

 6     Milan Babic would say about Jovica and Frenki?

 7        A.   No.  I think --

 8        Q.   Sir, sir, sir --

 9        A.   -- that at the time we already had the information --

10        Q.   All right.  The simple answer is fine.  In paragraph 67 of your

11     statement, you comment on Exhibit P1903, which is a decision to abolish

12     the State Security Service of the SAO Krajina dated 1 August 1991.  You

13     state that Milan Babic was afraid of the police structure and wanted to

14     appoint his own people.  Who, could you please tell us the specific

15     names, was Milan Babic afraid of in the police structure?

16        A.   He was afraid of everybody who worked for security.  He was

17     afraid of Jovica Dobrijevic, Jovo Pilipovic, Slobodan Pecikozic and all

18     those who were in state security structures.  He was afraid of Nenad

19     Maric, I don't know whether he was a member or not but he was afraid of

20     him, and he was afraid of many people who at the time were thought to be

21     courageous and people who had a heart, as people would say.  He had

22     fears.

23        Q.   DST-043, I'm going to discuss with you two individuals and the

24     topic of the special units of the SAO Krajina police which you refer to

25     in your evidence.  After we discuss these topics, I will return to your

Page 13075

 1     opinion on whether Milan Babic was paranoid about the involvement of the

 2     Serbian DB in the SAO Krajina in 1991.

 3             Before we discuss these topics, do you understand that it is the

 4     Prosecution's case that the Serbian DB, in particular, Mr. Stanisic and

 5     Mr. Simatovic, directed, financed, and armed members of the SAO Krajina

 6     police in 1991?  Do understand that?

 7        A.   I understand that but I have no knowledge that of that.  I didn't

 8     have any knowledge of that.

 9        Q.   Well, sir, you comment on it in your statement.  So I'd like to

10     go through some individuals and units that you comment upon.  You discuss

11     Dusan Orlovic at paragraphs 64 and 65 of your statement.  In paragraph

12     65, you say that you first met Mr. Orlovic in 1989 or 1990.  Until what

13     date did you continue to know Dusan Orlovic?

14        A.   From what date or until what date?

15        Q.   Until.

16        A.   I can't be precise about that.  I know him to this day but I have

17     not seen him for years.  I believe I haven't seen him since 1991 or 1992,

18     but I can't tell you exactly.  However, I haven't seen him for years.

19        Q.   Are you saying that you did not see him as part of your functions

20     between 1993 and 1995?

21        A.   I never saw him in that period.

22        Q.   In paragraph 65 of your statement you state:

23             "We often met and exchanged opinions on various topics."  What

24     topics did you discuss with Dusan Orlovic?

25        A.   Your Honours, there's clearly a misunderstanding here.  In my

Page 13076

 1     quote I mentioned from when I knew him.  His wife Gorana was a

 2     gynaecologist at the hospital and my wife also worked at the hospital.

 3     We would go to pick up our wives and we would have a conversation or we

 4     would run into each other during walks and I'm referring to the period of

 5     1989, perhaps even 1988 and 1990.  He was there.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- why don't you answer the question.  You say

 7     in your statement that you often met an exchanged opinions on the various

 8     topics.  You've told us already that that was in the early years.  Now

 9     the question simply is what were the topics you discussed?  Was it

10     children, was it work, was it the weather, was it the DB?  What was it?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We talked about our children, about

12     work, about whether it rained, about current events in our area.  Nobody

13     had any idea, nor could anybody assume.  We thought he was unemployed.

14     He was out for walks every day.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Was that -- is that what you discussed with him?

16     You said he was unemployed.  Who was unemployed?  Mr. Orlovic?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Did he tell you?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Did Dusan Orlovic tell you that he officially became a member of

23     the Krajina DB in January 1991?

24        A.   Dusan didn't tell me, I could see for myself, he was appointed

25     chief of DB in Knin.  We all knew.

Page 13077

 1        Q.   How did you know this if he did not tell you?

 2        A.   His employees told us.  They said we've got a new boss,

 3     Jovan Pilipovic told me, Jovan Dobrijevic told me, and some others who

 4     were employed there whose names I cannot remember.

 5        Q.   In paragraph 65 you state:

 6             "I do not know anything about Dusan Orlovic being involved or

 7     affiliated with the DB Serbia."

 8             Did Dusan Orlovic ever tell you that he worked for the Serbian DB

 9     in any of your conversations?

10        A.   Never.  Not at any time did he mention the Serbian DB or that he

11     was working.  One time when we were asking questions about what in fact

12     he was doing and how he could allow his wife to support him, how he could

13     allow for that to happen, I heard that he was a medical student, that he

14     just needed to file his final paper, and then I didn't inquire about any

15     details, nor did I conduct an investigation, and he didn't tell me.

16             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P2684, not

17     broadcast to the public.  We are specifically requesting page 6 in the

18     B/C/S and page 3 in the English.

19        Q.   Sir, this is a decision of the state security department of the

20     Republic of Serbia dated 5 October 1992.  The decision gives permanent

21     employment to Dusan Orlovic as a junior officer as of 1 September 1992.

22     It is signed by the chief of the department who at that time was

23     Jovica Stanisic.  Did you know that Jovica Stanisic authorised the

24     permanent employment of Dusan Orlovic in the Serbian DB?

25        A.   No.

Page 13078

 1        Q.   Were you aware that Mr. Orlovic sent reports to the

 2     2nd Administration of the Serbian DB which is the administration that

 3     Mr. Simatovic worked in?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Is it correct that this information was kept from you by Dusan

 6     Orlovic?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   In paragraph 66 of your statement, you state that Uros Pokrajac

 9     worked in the DB SAO Krajina for a very short time as a sort of advisor,

10     probably in 1993 or 1994.  My question is when, approximately what year

11     did you first meet Uros Pokrajac?

12        A.   I believe it was the second part of 1993, or early 1994.

13        Q.   Were you aware of Uros Pokrajac prior to 1993 or 1994?

14        A.   Never heard or seen him.  I didn't know.

15        Q.   Could you please describe your relationship with Uros Pokrajac?

16        A.   Our relationship was in the beginning to the effect of good

17     morning, good morning when I met him in 1993, 1994.  Afterwards, he

18     stayed in the area as an alleged advisor to Milan Martic.  Milan Martic

19     said, that is he ordered me, that if he happened to need anything, to

20     just give him whatever he wanted so he wouldn't bother Martic.  He said

21     just call Djuro down there, let him give him some fuel or give him

22     whatever minor thing he needs.  I didn't have any special relationship

23     with him but on one occasion, I was invited to his home with a group of

24     people.  I was invited to lunch there.  We weren't close.  We had lunch

25     together that day at his place --

Page 13079

 1        Q.   Yes, sir --

 2        A.   And he was -- he was a communist.  And he got very angry with us

 3     because when we got a little tipsy, we started singing songs that he

 4     didn't like and that's my memory of him.

 5        Q.   Sir, sir, please keep your answers concise.  Is it through

 6     Milan Martic that you were informed that Uros Pokrajac was a member of

 7     the Krajina DB or affiliated with it?

 8        A.   Not through Milan Martic.  I learned this in front of the

 9     Municipal Assembly of Knin.  I met Milan Babic and Uros Pokrajac.  I

10     asked who is this man?  He said, he's our man, so since Milan Babic

11     introduced me to him, I thought at all times it was Milan Babic who

12     brought him over and not Milan Martic.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6245.  For

14     the record, this document is Defence 65 ter 1D2302.  Since the

15     translation wasn't available, the Prosecution obtained a translation and

16     we uploaded it under the 65 ter 6245.

17        Q.   DST-043, this is a BiH MUP request dated 17 June 1991 sent to the

18     federal SUP and Serbian MUP.  The document contains an account of events

19     related to Uros Pokrajac in May 1991.  Could you please read the first

20     paragraph of the document.  Sir, have you completed the paragraph?

21        A.   I have read the entire text.

22        Q.   This request states that in May 1991, Uros Pokrajac was driving

23     in a vehicle with the insignia of the Serbian MUP and he was an employee

24     of the Republic of Serbia MUP.  The document even specifies that his

25     official Serbian MUP ID number was 19136 which was issued on 17 July

Page 13080

 1     1987.  Were you aware that Mr. Pokrajac was an employee of the Republic

 2     of Serbia MUP since 1987?  Sir, did you hear my question?  Were you aware

 3     that he was a Serbian MUP employee since 1987?

 4        A.   No.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

 6     English and B/C/S.

 7        Q.   DST-043, directing your attention to the part of the full

 8     paragraph that states:

 9             "The column of terrain vehicles - jeeps with trailers and

10     equipment had set off to Knin from Bosansko Grahovo and near Strmica, at

11     the border of the Knin municipality and the Bosansko Grahovo

12     municipality, they passed through a barricade in the direction of Knin:

13     Uros Pokrajac spent a short time in the village of his birth and

14     according to his parents and his brother, immediately set off towards

15     Livno in a Toyota with police insignia."

16             Did you ever see Uros Pokrajac openly driving around Knin in a

17     vehicle with the insignia of the Serbian MUP in 1991?

18        A.   I didn't hear a thing.  Now it's okay.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you hear the question put to you by Mr. Weber?

20     Witness, did you hear the question that Mr. Weber did put to you, whether

21     you ever saw Mr. Pokrajac driving in a --

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we check that -- perhaps exchange the

24     headphones.  Do you now hear me, do you hear the interpretation Witness

25     DST-043?

Page 13081

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again I'm not hearing anything.

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are not receiving

 3     interpretation into B/C/S.  We can't hear the interpretation.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So the problem is not with you but the problem is

 5     with either the technicians or the booth.

 6             Mr. Petrovic, still no translation?

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Keep on talking until you receive translation again.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You still do not receive any translation?  I think

11     you would not because if I move to channel 7, I hear my own voice

12     apparently -- yes, yes, on channel 6 I now can hear interpretation in

13     B/C/S.

14             Witness, do you now hear translation?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I would like to check with you, did you hear

17     the last question that Mr. Weber put to you, which was about whether you

18     saw Mr. Pokrajac, whether you ever saw Mr. Pokrajac driving in a MUP

19     vehicle, MUP of Serbia vehicle?  Mr. Weber, I think you asked about --

20             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour.

21        Q.   My question was, did you ever see Uros Pokrajac openly driving

22     around Knin in a vehicle with the insignia of the Serbian MUP?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Is it correct that members of the SAO Krajina police were present

25     at the barricades in and around Knin in May 1991?

Page 13082

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Did you ever hear of Uros Pokrajac being led through the

 3     barricades in a vehicle with the Serbian insignia from any of these

 4     police officers?

 5        A.   No.  No.

 6        Q.   Sir, you were present in the area of Knin in 1991.  How is it

 7     that Uros Pokrajac was driving around the SAO Krajina in a vehicle with

 8     Serbian MUP insignia and you did not know about it?

 9        A.   It is only logical.  There were quite a few cars around with

10     various registration plates from Zagreb, Belgrade, even Macedonia.  What

11     I was preoccupied with mainly was my duties and activities I had to deal

12     with.  I didn't have time to think about traffic, stopping cars to see

13     who was inside.

14        Q.   Sir, this report indicates that Mr. Pokrajac was transporting

15     communications equipment to the Krajina.  Did this not concern you, yes

16     or no?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I think the witness has been asked about

18     this issue.  I think he has made it quite clear he doesn't know about it.

19     The last question would appear to be asking the witness to speculate.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's hear the answer of the witness and then

21     move on if it confirms what he earlier said.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23             MR. WEBER:  At this time the Prosecution tenders the exhibit.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number would be?

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours that will be Exhibit P3004.

Page 13083

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P3004 is admitted into evidence.  There's no need to

 2     have it under seal, is there.

 3             MR. WEBER:  No.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1554 on

 6     the screen.

 7        Q.   DST-043, the exhibit that's being called up is a permit for safe

 8     conduct dated 16 February 1993, from Milan Martic and signed on his

 9     behalf.  It provides safe conduct for Uros Pokrajac, a member of the MUP

10     of the Republic of Serbia, and identifies him with the same official SUP,

11     Serbian MUP identity card number referred to in the previous document,

12     19136.  How is it that the RSK and BIH MUPs knew that Uros Pokrajac was a

13     member of the Serbian MUP between 1990 and 1993 and even had record of

14     his official Serbian MUP ID and you are not aware of it?

15        A.   I wasn't aware of it.  I was not an official of the MUP between

16     1990 and 1993.  I've explained in my earlier evidence what the time-line

17     of my activities was.  As far as I can tell, Mr. Pavkovic signed this,

18     but Pavkovic was under no obligation to inform anyone of the fact that he

19     signed this.

20        Q.   Thank you, that was going to be my next question.  Mr. Pavkovic

21     was a member of the DB; correct?  For clarity, I'm referring to the RSK

22     DB.

23        A.   I don't think that's true, that Mr. Pavkovic was a member of

24     public security.

25        Q.   Were you aware that Uros Pokrajac worked in the office of the RSK

Page 13084

 1     Ministry of the Interior in Knin in 1993?

 2        A.   I did see him there but I didn't know that he worked there.

 3        Q.   Did you know that in connection with his activities there, that

 4     he was officially informed of the membership of the special purposes

 5     units of the RSK MUP?

 6        A.   No.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P1562 on the

 8     screen.

 9        Q.   Sir, this is a letter date 12 September 1993, from Ilija Prijic,

10     the secretary of the Knin SUP to Uros Pokrajac in the cabinet of the

11     minister of the RSK MUP in Knin.

12             MR. WEBER:  For the record, I would note that the date at the top

13     of the page is given as 1991, but in looking at the text of the letter,

14     the number in the document heading, and the date at the end of the letter

15     it becomes apparent that this is a mistake and it should read 1993.

16        Q.   DST-043, this letter is attached to a list of members of the

17     special purpose unit and is addressed to Uros Pokrajac in the cabinet of

18     the minister.  Did you ever see any information being transmitted through

19     the RSK ministry to Mr. Pokrajac concerning the RSK special purposes

20     units?

21        A.   No, no.

22        Q.   Same question I asked you for Mr. Orlovic, did Uros Pokrajac

23     conceal from you the fact that he was an employee of the Serbian MUP?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   During your examination on the first day, you provided your

Page 13085

 1     personal opinion of Milan Martic.  You stated:

 2             "I think that he is a very honourable, decent, respectable man.

 3     That's my personal opinion.  He persuaded me of that with his actions and

 4     his work while we were associated to each other."

 5             I take it from this opinion that you consider Milan Martic to be

 6     an honest man; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   You would agree with me that Milan Martic was in a much better

 9     position than you to know who was funding his own police force; is that

10     correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   In paragraph 56 of your statement you state:

13             "I have never heard of the funding of the police of the SAO

14     Krajina by the government of Serbia."

15             Are you saying that you never heard Milan Martic say anything

16     about the funding received from the government of Serbia?

17        A.   I never put that sort of questions to him along those lines and

18     he never told me about it.  When he complained to me back in 1991 that he

19     didn't have funds to pay salaries to policemen, he was quite desperate

20     and that was before my trip to Germany to collect that money.  My best

21     man, Mr. Milan Bauk was appointed finance minister in what was the first

22     government formed at the time in Knin in the month of May, and I pressed

23     my best man to tell me if he had enough money because I'm no financial

24     expert.

25             He told me that most of the monies --

Page 13086

 1        Q.   Sir, sir, sorry --

 2        A.   -- in the budget --

 3        Q.   Sorry to cut you off, I was simply asking you about whether or

 4     not you heard Milan Martic say this to you.  Please focus on my

 5     questions.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the witness has answered the question, I

 7     never put that sort of questions to him along those lines, that was not

 8     an answer to the question, was an addition.  And he never told me about

 9     it.  So that answers the question it seems.  Mr. Martic never told you

10     about funding received from the government of Serbia.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have exhibit --

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P2593 on

15     the screen.  We are going to be directing the witness's attention to the

16     middle of the page in both languages, in the paragraph with the words

17     beginning "as regards the aid to the Krajina police ..."

18        Q.   DST-043, this document is a published Tanjug news report dated

19     7 July 1991.  This article contains the public statements of Milan Martic

20     in July 1991 and states:

21             "As regards to the aid to Krajina police Martic said that the

22     'most significant aid came from the government of Serbia, in nearly all

23     forms.'"

24             How is it that you were not aware of the public statements of

25     Milan Martic, an individual whom you had regular contact with in 1991,

Page 13087

 1     how are you not aware of his statements?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, it's a statement, unless my learned friend

 3     has got references to other statements.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, for brevity I'm using one.

 6        Q.   How are you not aware of statements like the one that is now

 7     before you?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Well, again --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's ask the witness.

10             We'll ask him first why he is not aware of this statement and

11     then perhaps we extend that to any other existing statements.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't charged with archiving

13     statements or following the chronology of events.  This period of time

14     was very eventful.  I wasn't that interested in statements, I had plenty

15     of my own duties.  I was more interested in seeing deeds done and results

16     achieved.  I never saw the heavy weapons and this particular assistance.

17             MR. WEBER:

18        Q.   Sir, I'm trying to understand your testimony before this Tribunal

19     correctly.  You're appearing and you appear to be maybe providing

20     evidence that there was a certain source of funding that came through

21     humanitarian donations in the Krajina in 1991.  The reason I'm putting

22     this statement before you is because Milan Martic states that funding for

23     his police came from the government of Serbia in nearly all forms.  How

24     is it that you are not aware of Mr. Martic's public statements on this

25     topic, and if you are not aware of them, is your testimony limited to the

Page 13088

 1     individual items that you gave evidence on earlier?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  I still object to the suggestion that --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's -- Mr. Weber, the question is as good if

 4     we focus it on this one:  How is it that a public statement in which he

 5     said the most significant aid came from the government of Serbia in

 6     nearly all forms, how is it that you were unaware of such a statement

 7     which apparently was distributed by the media?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't aware of this statement

 9     published by the media.  I can tell you reliably that because of the

10     psychological moment of the time, well, why would Martic send me out to

11     collect aid?  Simply because it was uncomfortable because of the general

12     public and everyone else to say that we mobilised people to go around

13     raising aid because that would have shown us in an unfavourable light, so

14     that's why he probably said that all the aid had been coming from Serbia.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Again interpretations, opinions.  Apparently,

16     you are answering a question which was not put to you.  I do understand

17     that you say, I wasn't aware of it, but if you would ask me to interpret

18     why he said that, which by the way was not asked, then that would be your

19     answer.

20             Mr. Jordash.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I'd also object in the way that --

22     this statement, in our submission, is being misrepresented.  The witness

23     has testified at length about the way in which money was collected for

24     salaries.  This statement is most definitely about the provision of

25     weaponry and hardware.  You can see that from the paragraph which starts

Page 13089

 1     off with:

 2             "The situation in which the Krajina police act," and then "Martic

 3     concerns himself with modern and heavy weaponry."  And then goes on in

 4     the next paragraph to say linked to that paragraph, "as regards the aid

 5     to Krajina police, Martic said ..."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's not -- the question was why are you not

 7     aware, that question has been answered, about the statement, the

 8     statement is of course, contains, I do agree with you, several elements.

 9     The witness has looked at it, he is not aware of the statement

10     apparently, and he has given his opinion about what might explain that he

11     wasn't aware, and even what might explain what was said.

12             MR. JORDASH:  I agree, it's just that this statement at no stage

13     discusses financial aid to the Krajina police.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  At least it is not specific.  It says in nearly most

15     significant aid, nearly all forms, interpretation of that is left to the

16     parties first of all, and then finally to the Chamber if there's any need

17     to interpret it.

18             Mr. Weber.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, is it time for recess or --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's time for a break although I want to

21     briefly address a short matter in the absence of the witness.  Therefore,

22     Witness DST-043, we'll take a break, we'll resume in approximately half

23     an hour.  Would you please be so kind to follow the usher.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I briefly return to the source Mr. Jordash provided

Page 13090

 1     the Chamber with in relation to the ceremony.  He said, well, on page

 2     4844 the Prosecution put the ceremony in time in 1993 and therefore it's

 3     unfair to even suggest that it would be 1995, isn't it?

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  In reconstructing what happened is the following:

 6     It's true that on page 4844 the video was played, just the video, and

 7     that is clearly situated in 1993.  Then the examination started on this

 8     issue with showing the witness a video which was clearly announced as

 9     being the video of 1993 ceremony.  The witness then said, I wasn't

10     present at that ceremony.  Then Mr. Weber took the witness to his

11     statement where the witness gives a statement about an event in 1995, at

12     least when he talked about the ceremony, he said he attended a ceremony

13     in 1995.  He was then asked who were present at that ceremony in 1995, so

14     clearly not the one shown on the video.  The witness then gave a few

15     names of people who were present, and it was at that moment, I think,

16     that Mr. Weber took the witness to the list, the list without a year, and

17     drew the attention of the witness to the fact that the same names he just

18     mentioned as persons being present at a ceremony in 1995, at least he

19     thinks he remembers that it was 1995, were on that list.

20             Now, Mr. Jordash, Mr. Weber was clear on the video.  Mr. Weber

21     then examined the witness on what he said happened on perhaps a similar

22     ceremony in 1995 and then drew his attention to this list which is

23     undated and, I take it, that Mr. Weber thought that on the basis of the

24     fact that the same persons he mentioned as being present in 1995 appeared

25     on that list, that the witness might be able to establish a link between

Page 13091

 1     the 1995 ceremony and that list.

 2             It's not clear to me where Mr. Weber took a position about a year

 3     of any exhibit on page 4844, which he then changed, knowingly changed,

 4     while examining this witness.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Well --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And I tried to summarise what I read in that page

 7     and what I re-read on the transcript of the examination of this witness.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Well, he didn't take a positive point and assert

 9     that the list was from 1995.  He just presented the evidence in such a

10     way that the witness would have reasonably thought that this list related

11     to the same subject that had been discussed with him, that is an award

12     ceremony in 1995.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And then your objection was where clearly the date

14     was earlier 1993, that Mr. Weber was misleading the witness.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That was your objection.  Now, what Mr. Weber did,

17     as a matter of fact on the page you referred to, is to say that the video

18     of apparently a similar ceremony was 1993, that where the witness said he

19     wasn't present then, but he was present at a ceremony in 1995 that

20     appears in his statement, that Mr. Weber wondered whether a link could be

21     established between a list without a date on which appear the same names

22     as the witness mentioned of persons being present in the 1995 ceremony.

23     I still do not really see what's wrong with that.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Well, what's wrong with it is that the Prosecution

25     put forward an exhibit with a list of names, did not say to the witness

Page 13092

 1     that the list related to 1993, and tried to --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But does it?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, it does relate to 1993.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Why?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Because that's the Prosecution case, that's the

 6     case that's being put forward.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Weber, I think it's time for a cup of tea

 8     or a cup of coffee.  The Chamber will take a cup of tea or coffee as

 9     well.

10             MR. JORDASH:  But --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  But let's -- the 1993, again we asked you where did

12     the Prosecution take 1993 as the date for this list.

13             MR. JORDASH:  They have --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You referred us to 4844 where the video was played.

15     The video clearly was then said to originate from a 1993 ceremony, and

16     that same video was played to the witness, at least a portion of it,

17     clearly stating that this was a video of a 1993.  I do not see until now

18     any source for the list being linked to the 1993 ceremony rather than to

19     a ceremony in one of these years.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Well, if then I've wrongly presumed that the video

21     and the list evidence which supports a Prosecution case that Mr. Stanisic

22     received an award in 1993, then that is my fault.  However, perhaps the

23     Prosecution would like to indicate when the award ceremony was and then

24     we can avoid these types of confusions.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  On the basis of the evidence, there's even reason to

Page 13093

 1     assume that there have been two award ceremonies:  One in 1993, which is

 2     videoed; and one in 1995, about which the -- about which the witness

 3     testified where, as he said, he was present and only small tokens were

 4     given, that is a possibility.  But on the basis of my analysis at this

 5     moment -- but I'll think it over during the break and seek whether my

 6     colleagues share my analysis because then it would be the Chambers'

 7     analysis.  It's also not a matter which we should spend hours and hours

 8     on at this moment, but 4844 at least does not place the document, the

 9     list in 1993.

10             MR. JORDASH:  No.  But I would like to state for the record that

11     the Prosecution ought to be asked to state their case on this issue.  If

12     Mr. Stanisic received award in 1993 or if he received an award in 1995,

13     or both.  This could be avoided if the Prosecution state their case.

14     Once again this could be avoided.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now -- okay.  We'll think that over and we'll

16     first take a break, time for coffee and/or tea.  We resume at five

17     minutes past 11.00

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, are you ready to continue?

21             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   In paragraph 50 of your statement you state:

25             "I heard that the first volunteers came in April or May 1991.  I

Page 13094

 1     think Captain Dragan arrived in Golubic in April 1991.  At that time the

 2     Special Police of the SAO Krajina was formed.  Captain Dragan was

 3     training the police of the SAO Krajina."

 4             Who did you hear this from.

 5        A.   I heard it from Jovan Sljivar.

 6        Q.   Did you --

 7        A.   And Nebojsa Stupar, Stevo Plavsic, and many others.

 8        Q.   Did you hear about it from Dusan Orlovic?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Did you ever hear about it from Milan Martic or Milan Babic?

11        A.   Milan Martic, yes.  I did hear it from him.  I didn't talk about

12     it with Babic, not about the arrival of the -- and the formation of the

13     unit.

14        Q.   Did you visit Golubic yourself in April or May 1991?  Were you

15     ever physically present there?

16        A.   I had never been physically present there from the moment.  I can

17     explain this.  From the moment --

18        Q.   Sir, sir --

19        A.   -- from the second Captain Dragan got there, I never stepped foot

20     in it.

21        Q.   Again, I apologise to cut off your question; however, I do want

22     to complete your examination very shortly here, if possible.  Mr. Jordash

23     and the Chamber may have extra questions from you, I don't know.  If I

24     need extra information, I will ask you.

25             Is it correct that individuals who are trained in Golubic

Page 13095

 1     subsequently participated in combat operations in the fall of 1991 in the

 2     Krajina?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   How do you know this?

 5        A.   From the media, the press, newspapers, television, and radio.  As

 6     well as from my communications with individuals from that area.

 7        Q.   Did these individuals include Milan Martic?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6246 for the

10     witness.

11        Q.   DST-043, what is going to be shown to you is a criminal

12     investigation report from Milan Martic dated 18 March 1992.  This report

13     states that Predrag Baklajic and two other individuals were former

14     members of the special purpose units --

15             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, objection to the use of the exhibit based on

16     the Prlic Appeals Chamber decision.  The Prosecution must indicate and

17     specifically justify its request and justify why it's in the interest of

18     justice to use the document, explain to the Chamber when and by which

19     means it obtained these document, when it disclosed them to the Defence,

20     and why they are being offered only after the conclusion of its case.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness DST-043, do you understand English?  Do you

22     understand the English language?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you to take your earphones off for a

25     second.

Page 13096

 1             Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Prosecution response to the Defence objection is

 3     without merit.  First of all this document is not fresh evidence.  The

 4     exhibit is referenced in e-court page 183 of the Theunens report which is

 5     admitted as P1575.  Evidence of this report is already part of the trial

 6     record.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Thank you for slowing down.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Thank you from the booth.  Evidence of the report is

 9     already part of the trial record and the individual reference in the

10     report is already known to the Defence.  This report was disclosed to the

11     Defence on 30 July 2010 well before the evidence of Mr. Theunens.

12     Additionally, the evidence related to individual reference in this report

13     relates to the scope and context of the witness's testimony that is now

14     before us.  This witness also provided a broad opinion as to the

15     statements or beliefs of Milan Babic, this evidence and this individual

16     that the Prosecution intends to go into falls within the scope and

17     context of this opinion.

18             Further, the Simatovic Defence, on their exhibit list, has

19     multiple exhibits which reference an individual in this report which I

20     would also plan on discussing with this witness in relation to the

21     activities in the Krajina.  This witness may have knowledge about that.

22     It also then apparently appears to constitute part of the Simatovic

23     Defence case.  As such, the use of the materials related to this

24     individual referenced in the report falls within the scope of both

25     Defence cases and is not fresh evidence.

Page 13097

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  So I'm not sure I followed the Prosecution's

 3     submission.  Are the Prosecution suggesting this has been tendered as an

 4     exhibit already or not?  If it has been tendered as an exhibit then

 5     obviously I withdraw the objection.

 6             MR. WEBER:  It was not tendered at the time.  It is directly

 7     referenced in the Theunens report.  It was disclosed to the Defence.  Now

 8     based on evidence that they are offering through this witness and the

 9     Simatovic Defence and the evidence that they may be offering related to

10     an individual, I'm seeking to put questions in relation to this document,

11     but this exhibit was known to the Defence and has been known to them for

12     almost a year.

13             MR. JORDASH:  So I simply repeat the criteria that must be met

14     which have not been met by my learned friend's submissions.  The

15     Prosecution must explain when and by which means it obtained these

16     documents, they've dealt with when it was disclosed to the Defence, they

17     have not dealt with the additional threshold, why they are offering it

18     only after the conclusion of its case.  May I also add, what we do not

19     know is what the alleged probative value of this exhibit is and that is

20     significant because Your Honours need to weigh what consequences will

21     accrue for the use of this document, and I mean by that what additional

22     investigation and work the Defence will have to conduct in order to be

23     able to deal with the case now being advanced through this document.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe that we have explained why we

Page 13098

 1     are using it at this time.  I explained for multiple reasons why we are

 2     using it.  The witness is being called to give evidence in relation to

 3     individuals who are trained in Golubic, individuals who are part of the

 4     barricades in 1990, and individuals then the relationship of the DB

 5     possibly to these people.  The name that I'm going to go through is an

 6     individual who was at the barricades in 1990, went to Golubic, and

 7     Mr. Martic had knowledge of.  This falls directly within the scope of the

 8     evidence presented, and additionally it appears that the Simatovic

 9     Defence may be intending to introduce evidence that they have put on

10     their exhibit list, which I also plan on discussing with this witness,

11     which obviously we weren't aware that the Simatovic Defence would be

12     using prior to the conclusion of our case.  Again, it is material that

13     was known to the Defence.  This individual was known to the Defence

14     through the Theunens report.  And this document was disclosed quite

15     awhile ago.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, I haven't heard your position.

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know which

18     particular part of the Simatovic Defence my learned friend, Mr. Weber, is

19     referring to.  That's number one.  Number two, I do endorse everything my

20     colleague Mr. Jordash has said and I can also reference other documents,

21     although perhaps it's not the most appropriate time to do it now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, a specific question by Mr. Petrovic.

23             MR. WEBER:  The two documents the Prosecution intends to use out

24     of four with respect to the individual that we'd like to bring up include

25     2D76, 2D41.  If that assists Mr. Petrovic.

Page 13099

 1             With respect to the origin of the document itself, just so that's

 2     on the record, the Office of the Prosecutor obtained this document from

 3     the police administration in Sibenik, Knin, on the 16th of January, 2004.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand your argument to be, in this respect

 5     at least, that you were unaware of the content of the 65 ter list of the

 6     Simatovic Defence and that you find relevant documents on that list?

 7     Yes.

 8             Mr. Jordash.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  We are still left in the dark.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me first see whether, you have objected,

11     Mr. Weber has responded, you have given an opportunity to make further

12     submissions, Mr. Weber now with two rounds of exchanges, let me consult

13     with my colleagues.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  As I announced earlier,

16     the Chamber will give further guidance also in relation to the Prlic

17     Appeals Chamber decision very soon.  Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   DST-043, this is a criminal investigation report from

20     Milan Martic dated 18 March 1992.  I apologise.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I believe we have to instruct the

22     witness to --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we should first ask him to put his earphones on

24     again.  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 13100

 1        Q.   DST-043, this is a criminal investigation report from

 2     Milan Martic dated 18 March 1992.  This report states that

 3     Predrag Baklajic and two other individuals were former members of the

 4     police special purpose units of Korenica and Vrhovine, were you aware of

 5     this special purpose unit?

 6        A.   I did hear of it but I didn't know.

 7        Q.   Could you --

 8        A.   I had information to that effect.

 9        Q.   Could you please very concisely explain the information that you

10     knew and you heard of?

11        A.   That the special purposes units were deployed to the bordering

12     areas and checked these areas for possible unlawful activities such as

13     smuggling.  I heard of it but didn't have specific knowledge about it.

14        Q.   The report indicates that during the course of October 1991,

15     while the fights were waged in Drenov Klanac, two Serbian volunteers were

16     killed by members of the special unit under the command of

17     Predrag Baklajic.  Were you aware of crimes being committed by members of

18     special units from October 1991 onwards?

19        A.   No, this is the first time I hear of it.

20             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 2D76.  Your

21     Honours, I do not actually know since this is from the Simatovic list,

22     whether or not there's any conditions that apply to these documents.  If

23     I could be informed as we -- as I call them out.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, any limits in the use of 2D76?

25             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

Page 13101

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed, Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   This is a report of Commander Pajzos from Predrag Baklajic dated

 4     6th June 1992.  This report purports to be from a special purposes unit

 5     of the RSK MUP.  Were you aware of any units that were considered part of

 6     the Krajina MUP and based in Ilok?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   This report indicates that there was training being conducted on

 9     various types of weapons, including sniper rifles, automatic rifles,

10     various pistols mortars.  Were you aware of any training being conducted

11     by the RSK MUP in relation to these matters?

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.  The question should be

15     made complete by reference to the location that my learned friend has in

16     mind.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it about Ilok, is that --

18             MR. WEBER:  I'm asking him in general about the RSK MUP.  I've

19     referenced Ilok, I was then going to follow with more specific.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The question may be put to the witness in

21     general terms and then to go further down into details if therefore the

22     witness may answer the question, the objection is denied.

23             Were you aware of any training being conducted by the RSK MUP in

24     relation to the matters mentioned by Mr. Weber, that is types of weapons

25     including sniper rifles, automatic rifles, various pistols, mortars?

Page 13102

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew, or, rather, I heard of

 2     training being conducted in Ilok, but I never was in Ilok and I didn't

 3     hear it in reference to the weapons mentioned here.  I was never there

 4     and I know very little about it.  As for the list of individuals on the

 5     report by this commander, a certain Pajzos, I don't know anything about

 6     it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you aware of any other place where such training

 8     was given?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember.  I don't know.

10     Except for Golubic.

11             MR. WEBER:

12        Q.   You just stated that you heard of training being conducted in

13     Ilok.  Who did you hear this from?  I'm just asking for the name or

14     names.

15        A.   I learned about it from the press too, but I believe that the

16     following individuals told me about it, I'll mention but a few:

17     Milan Martic, Nikola Rastovic, but Ilok and the training at Ilok were

18     also covered in the press.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 2D41.  I would have

20     the same question to the Simatovic Defence, if there's any restrictions

21     that apply to the document.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll hear from you, Mr. Petrovic, if they would

23     apply.

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 13103

 1        Q.   Sir, this is a list of individuals that were issued RSK MUP ID

 2     cards from Ilija Vuckovic and dated 2 June 1992.  Did you know that

 3     individuals in special units possessed RSK identification cards?

 4        A.   I know that those who had gone through training did have IDs.

 5        Q.   How is it that a unit commander such as Mr. Vuckovic, were able

 6     to issue RSK identification?

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.  The question does not

10     arise from the document.  That's my understanding of it.  If there's any

11     other foundation for Vuckovic issuing these cards then I'd like to hear

12     it from my learned friend.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, apparently the issue is that you say that

14     whether Mr. Vuckovic issued them or not here at least he administrates

15     the fact that the IDs were issued.  Is that your problem, Mr. Petrovic?

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If that is your understanding of

17     it, Your Honour, then it's all right, that he is the one handing them

18     over.  As for the issuing authority, that at least cannot be gleaned from

19     this document.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Were unit commanders such as Mr. Vuckovic authorised to issue RSK

23     identification?

24        A.   No.  This is the first time I hear of Ilija Vuckovic.  As for the

25     authority to issue ID cards to official -- authorised officials and as

Page 13104

 1     for everything else, there were services in place for that.  I think that

 2     the document refers to the hand-over of cards and not issuing.  I was

 3     also the head of a section but could not issue myself with any document.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you know anything about these specific ID cards,

 5     then tell us, but what you think is not primarily what we are looking

 6     for.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know anything about

 8     these IDs.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

10             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution at this time tenders 65 ter 6246,

11     2D76, and 2D41 into evidence.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Perhaps I would just indicate that I'm not

13     objecting but only because of the Chamber's previous order.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You would say since the Chamber denied your

15     objection to use them, that you are not fully confident that we would

16     grant an objection to admission.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I think that the document is effectively part

18     of the record and Your Honours' decision is already made, so that's the

19     position we'll take in the future as well.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you'd like to have that on the record.

21             Mr. Petrovic.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards 6246, I

23     object to its admission because the document has flaws which make it

24     fully inappropriate for admission.  The document has not been filed and

25     it doesn't have the hallmarks of a proper document.  We have the blank

Page 13105

 1     line in the upper left-hand corner, we don't see who received it, where,

 2     and when, and we simply don't know whether the document was sent and who

 3     it was sent to and whether the receiving party did in fact receive it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, my first impression was -- is that this is a

 5     list which was perhaps not sent but mainly served for the purpose of

 6     administering the issuance of these IDs to the persons mentioned, and

 7     that's the reason why we see signatures on it apparently as evidence of

 8     having received the documents.  That is my initial and provisional

 9     interpretation of this document, which would not make it a flaw that it

10     is not sent to anyone because that may not have been the purpose of the

11     document.

12             Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe Mr. Petrovic was referring to

14     actually a different document, 6246.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, then I -- that's -- then I apologise for

16     adding -- no, for creating confusion, not adding confusion.  Could we

17     have that on the screen so that the Chamber can have a look at it.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, with your leave I would again put on the

19     record that we received this document from the police administration of

20     Sibenik and Knin on 16 January 2004.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and the empty line, Mr. Weber?

22             MR. WEBER:  I believe that Mr. Petrovic is referring to the

23     header, if I'm correct.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. WEBER:  Where the --

Page 13106

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The number.

 2             MR. WEBER:  The number would -- yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Is not filled in.

 4             MR. WEBER:  It would be the Prosecution's position that these are

 5     matters of weight, not admissibility.  The Prosecution does have

 6     additional exhibit that's going to be referring to with this witness.

 7     The witness did confirm actual knowledge about the individual and the

 8     unit.  At this time we believe it's proper to admit the document.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just consult with my colleagues.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies the objection against admission.

12     Madam Registrar, would you please assign the numbers.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 6246 will be Exhibit P3005.

14     65 ter 2D76 will be Exhibit P3006.  And 65 ter 2D41 will be

15     Exhibit P3007.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  P3005, P3006, and P3007 are admitted into evidence.

17     Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6240, page 8

19     of the English and page 11 of the B/C/S.  We are asking at this time that

20     this exhibit not be broadcast to the public.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Objection on the basis that the Prosecution need to

22     meet the Prlic appeal threshold -- sorry the appeal decision threshold.

23             MR. WEBER:  For the record, this is the Serbian DB personnel file

24     of Mr. Baklajic who we've been discussing.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Which clearly does not relate in any way to the

Page 13107

 1     Prlic appeal threshold.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's not a lengthy explanation for why it

 3     meets the threshold by Mr. Weber.  Let me just -- one second.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  Mr. Weber you may use the

 6     document.

 7             Again, the Chamber announced that it would say more words about

 8     the Prlic appeals decision and we are working on that at this moment, so,

 9     therefore, I have to ask for the patience of the parties, but the

10     objection is denied.  You may proceed.

11             MR. WEBER:

12        Q.   DST-043, before you is a biography of Predrag Baklajic from his

13     Serbian DB personnel file received from the Republic of Serbia.

14     Directing your attention to the section that states:

15             "Having returned home from active service in 1990, I joined the

16     work aimed at the fight against the Ustashas.  I armed Serbian people,

17     trained them, and prepared them for the fight.  Then I was a participant

18     of the battle of Borovo Selo.  After that I went to my village, I

19     gathered and organised people and took them to the barricades in various

20     place, thus preventing the Ustashas from breaking into Serbian territory.

21     "Then I went to Golubic to the training centre in Knin.  There I was a

22     platoon commander of the special unit for the area of Korenica and

23     Vrhovine that until 15th February 1992.  And that was by Minister Milan

24     Martic's written order.

25             "I do not wish to speak much about the success of my unit because

Page 13108

 1     the Ustashas and their mercenaries know that best.  That was the best

 2     unit in the Krajina.  A unit which knew no defeat.  There was no battle

 3     in Krajina it did not participate in and won.  During that whole time of

 4     waging war, I had only one man lightly wounded.  All those young men who

 5     are under my command are now themselves commanders of special units."

 6             I have a number of questions for you related to this statement.

 7     Did you know that individuals like Mr. Baklajic who participated in

 8     setting up the barricades in 1990 were arming the Serbian people in the

 9     SAO Krajina?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Is it correct that individuals who participated in organising the

12     barricades in the Krajina went on to training at Golubic between April

13     and July 1991?

14        A.   I don't know about that.

15        Q.   Is it correct that special units of the SAO Krajina police were

16     under the command of Milan Martic and received orders from him?

17        A.   That's true.

18        Q.   Were you aware that individuals like Mr. Baklajic commanded

19     special units and those individuals under their command then became

20     trainers or commanders of other units in the SAO Krajina?

21        A.   No.

22             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 10 of the

23     English and page 12 of the B/C/S of this exhibit.  This is Mr. Baklajic's

24     official request for entry into service of the special purpose unit of

25     the Serbian MUP dated 20 April 1992.  In this request, Mr. Baklajic

Page 13109

 1     states:

 2             "There is not much I can write about myself because everything is

 3     already known."

 4             DST-043, how is it that everything about Mr. Baklajic was already

 5     known to the Serbian MUP but not to you?

 6        A.   That's his opinion.  I really knew nothing.  All those who wrote

 7     their biographies wrote them in a similar way.  I'm not familiar with

 8     this.  This is just one of those men.

 9        Q.   My question to you is a little different.  Could you please

10     explain to us how it is that the Serbian MUP would know about

11     Mr. Baklajic but that these items were not known to you?

12        A.   He offers no proof here that would lead me or Serbia's MUP to

13     know anything about it.  This is an assumption that he makes.  I don't

14     know how the MUP could have known.

15        Q.   Sir, that's not my question.  This is his -- from his official DB

16     file.  My question to you is --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, apparently the witness is looking at the

18     document.  First of all, I do understand that you were not aware of any

19     history with the Serbian MUP of Mr. Baklajic.  Do you have any

20     explanation that you were not aware where Mr. Baklajic, at least on

21     paper, states that the MUP of Serbia is aware of his past, everything

22     already known?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, it's just as you

24     said it, Your Honour.  I apologise, if I had known at the time that it

25     worked like this and that the fate would befall the Republic of Serbian

Page 13110

 1     Krajina that eventually did, I could have written up an application like

 2     this in relation to myself.  I perhaps would have been better off that

 3     way, this strikes me as strange.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You are still not fully understanding the question.

 5     You are contesting the content of what Mr. Baklajic wrote, that's what

 6     not asked from you.  Mr. Weber, please put your next question to the

 7     witness.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would

 9     tender the exhibit into evidence.  We have referred to two pages, we are

10     tendering those -- we are tendering those two pages.  We have uploaded

11     the entire personnel file, though, along with all available translations,

12     in the event that the Simatovic or Stanisic Defence would like additional

13     portions of the file.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  So what we'll then do is that the document should be

15     marked for identification so that we do not forget at a later stage to

16     reduce it to the two pages you just referred to, if the Defence does not

17     use the document in a broader way.

18             But before doing so, any objections?  Mr. Jordash, may I take it

19     that on the same grounds that you raise for a prohibition to use this

20     document, that you would in a similar sense --

21             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- object admission.

23             Mr. Petrovic.

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support what

25     Mr. Jordash said about the document in principle.  Secondly, I don't see

Page 13111

 1     how the OTP could possibly tender this document through this witness.

 2     The witness has said multiple times that he knows nothing about the

 3     document.  He challenges the substance of the document, he finds it

 4     strange.  I think it is inadequate to try and tender this particular

 5     document through the present witness.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the witness is purporting to give

 8     evidence of knowledge of units that were involved in the Krajina in 1991.

 9     He is attempting to disassociate or has attempted to disassociate the

10     Serbian DB from this.  We are -- we use the document to confront him with

11     information that we had regarding the DB or Serbian MUP's knowledge of

12     units that were in the Krajina.  This is an authentic file that we

13     received pursuant to official request for assistance.  Many other

14     personnel files have been admitted, and at this time we believe it should

15     be admitted.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The document will be MFI'd not only for the

17     technical reason I just raised but also in order to further consider the

18     objections.  If you would like to add anything to your objection,

19     Mr. Jordash.

20             MR. JORDASH:  I would because as I understood it, the Prosecution

21     wanting to admit the document for the truth of its contents, but the

22     Prosecution have just appeared to suggest that it's for impeachment

23     purposes and the Prlic decision also suggests that the Prosecution ought

24     to indicate for what purpose the document is admitted, if it's for

25     impeachment purposes, that's one thing.

Page 13112

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If I understood you well, Mr. Weber it's for both.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll then consider both these purposes.

 4     Madam Registrar, the number would be?

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be P3008 marked for

 6     identification.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And keeps that status for the time being.

 8             MR. WEBER:  If we could please have that under seal.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's MFI'd under seal.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6241, page 4

12     of the English and page 7 of the B/C/S.  We are asking that this also not

13     be broadcast to the public.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours, I do object to the use of the

15     document for the same reason, and what I also object to is the fact that

16     the Prosecution are aware that they have to meet a threshold but each

17     time just try to introduce the document without meeting it, forcing me to

18     my feet to take a position which I ought not to have to take if the

19     Prosecution followed even just a glimpse of the Prlic appeal decision.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I understood your objection to apply to

21     all of these documents of this kind, but I also understood that the

22     submission made by Mr. Weber had also a broader aspect, that it would

23     apply to all of the documents.  Are there any specifics for this

24     document, Mr. Weber?

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, again, the Defence with very late notice

Page 13113

 1     has served upon the Prosecution in violation of the disclosure rules

 2     evidence relating to this witness in a statement form about people that

 3     were participated in the barricades --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, late disclosure of these documents is, as

 5     far as I understand, a matter which is totally separate from whether you

 6     can present fresh evidence during the Defence case.  I mean, Mr. Jordash

 7     is relying on a decision where late disclosure or not seems not to be the

 8     relevant issue, the relevant issue is can you, as Prosecution, present

 9     fresh evidence during the Defence case.  So therefore, the late

10     disclosure seems to be to me at least at this moment not a relevant

11     element in this discussion.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, again the scope of this witness's

13     testimony relates to people that were in barricades in 1990, then went on

14     to training in Golubic, and then went out and participated in combat, and

15     he is attempting to disassociate from the Serbian DB.  We are using this

16     file in the context of that information.

17             It is, in our submission, of consideration that there was late

18     disclosure of this evidence in the sense that we, instead of seeking more

19     harsh or more firm position with respect to the disclosure violations, we

20     we've tried to be moderate in our approach.  And with respect to

21     information that is lately disclosed to us, in terms of remedy, I did at

22     the outset indicate that instead of seeking a delay of the witness's

23     testimony or additional time to further investigate, that I'd be allowed

24     to fully explore and have room on cross-examination to challenge the

25     witness's evidence and find out what the basis of his knowledge is.  I'm

Page 13114

 1     putting evidence to him using fresh evidence to challenge the witness's

 2     evidence concerning what the relationship was between the Serbian DB and

 3     those who were trained and present in the Krajina.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, my learned friend conflates two things which

 6     ought not to be conflated.  If there are disclosure violations by the

 7     Defence which is denied, then there are remedies for that disclosure

 8     violation.  A remedy to a disclosure violation by the Defence on

 9     disclosure is not to keep adding to the Prosecution case.  That is, with

10     respect, obvious.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             Mr. Petrovic.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a single

14     sentence that I would like to add.  I think my learned friends is

15     creating a confusion about these documents.  The documents obtained from

16     the Republic of Serbia include documents that are in relation to DB, such

17     as the one in relation to this witness dated 1996.  There's a whole

18     series of documents that he has been showing the witness that only relate

19     to Serbia's MUP and that is what creates the confusion which might

20     potentially inflict damage on the accused, because matters are not being

21     clearly represented.

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if I may add, I am specifically using

23     this personnel file to draw it back to the Serbian DB

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The document will be MFI'd.  We have the several

Page 13115

 1     aspects of the objections which we will consider.  Meanwhile, you may ask

 2     the witness questions about it.  Madam Registrar, the -- yes, that has

 3     been done.  Madam Registrar, the number would be?

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 6241 will be P3009 marked for

 5     identification.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Any need to have it under seal?

 7             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Under seal, keeps that status.  Please proceed.

 9             MR. WEBER:

10        Q.   DST-043, this is a curriculum vitae of Slobodan Majstorovic from

11     his Serbian DB personnel file received from the Republic of Serbia.  This

12     CV states:

13             "After returning from the army, I joined the defence of the

14     Krajina.  I took part in raising the barricades after which I went to

15     Golubic for training.  After completing the training, I joined the

16     special purposes unit of the Krajina MUP.  I took part in the fighting to

17     defend Lika, Northern Dalmatia, Banija and Kordun, Slavonia, Baranja, and

18     Western Srem, and I fought in the operations in Republika Srpska."

19             Were you aware of members of the special units of the Krajina MUP

20     who were trained in Golubic fighting in these locations.

21        A.   After this period I had received information that men trained at

22     these locations were involved in the defence of Krajina, and also in the

23     fighting in Republika Srpska breaking through the corridor.  I don't know

24     this gentleman specifically, Slobodan Majstorovic, I do apologise.  But

25     I'd like to say something about the previous gentleman whose name escapes

Page 13116

 1     me who says I'm well known and I believe there's no further need for me

 2     to --

 3        Q.   Sir, if we could focus on this individual and if we he need to

 4     come back, we can.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, yes, you said if we could focus on this

 6     individual.  Well, your question was not focusing on him, was it?  Were

 7     you aware of members of the special units who were trained, so you are

 8     putting a very general question to the witness.  Now, the witness in

 9     explaining what the purpose of those operations was goes beyond the

10     question.

11             The question simply was did you know that those trained in

12     Golubic after that participated in operations of special units?  I should

13     say special purposes unit of the Krajina MUP in combat activities.  Were

14     you aware of that?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   Who did you receive this information from?  If we could please

20     just have the names.

21        A.   I can't give you the names.  This is information that was known

22     to all citizens throughout Krajina.  I don't wish to speculate regarding

23     the names.

24             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 16 of the

25     English and page 22 of the B/C/S of this personnel file.

Page 13117

 1        Q.   This is a letter from the Republic of Serbia state security

 2     department special operations unit dated 6 July 2001.  This letter

 3     states:

 4             "Member of the reserve complement Slobodan Majstorovic was

 5     engaged on certain duties and tasks in the special operations unit from

 6     4 May 1991 to 30 May 2001 and during this period he sustained a serious

 7     spinal injury (in 1993)."

 8             Were you aware that according to the official records of the

 9     Serbian DB, that individuals who trained in Golubic and fought in Croatia

10     in the fall of 1991 were members of special operations units of the

11     Serbian DB?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that you have offered opinions about other

14     individuals, including Milan Babic, without a sufficient basis of

15     knowledge to support those opinions?

16        A.   I don't understand the question, can you please repeat.

17        Q.   Sir, you have offered opinions about Milan Babic and the

18     involvement of the Serbian DB.  I'm asking you, you do not have

19     sufficient knowledge of these events to offer such opinions; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Sir, throughout your testimony --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not quite sure -- what Mr. Weber says to you is

23     that where you gave opinions about Mr. Babic, that your knowledge to

24     support such an opinion would be defective.  Do you agree with that?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 13118

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 2             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would tender the present exhibit.  We

 3     are asking that it be marked for identification.  And with that no

 4     further questions.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Weber.

 6             I take it, Mr. Jordash, that the same objection applies to

 7     admission, but so the marking this document for identification is --

 8     covers all of the grounds of the objections raised.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number would be?  Yes,

11     Mr. Petrovic.

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I reiterate my

13     objections in relation to this.  The witness knows nothing about this.

14     This is a collection of documents that warrant close and careful study.

15     We are in no position to conduct that study here and the witness may be

16     in even less of a position to do that for us.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the witness is certainly not invited to study

18     the whole file.  The document, the exhibit will be marked for

19     identification.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  This is another page of the total exhibit which was

22     already MFI'd, Mr. Weber, and there were I think, as with the previous

23     one, it was your intention to upload only the pages you've dealt with

24     unless the Defence would pay attention to other parts of the personnel

25     files as well.  Therefore, the MFI number P3009 applies also for this

Page 13119

 1     page for the time being.

 2             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, the usual order is that Mr. Petrovic now

 4     further examines the witness.  Are you ready to do so, Mr. Petrovic?

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for

 6     offering this opportunity, but I have no further questions for this

 7     witness.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 9             Mr. Jordash.

10             MR. JORDASH:  I'd like to raise the issue of 90(H) at some point,

11     which we submit is being violated again.  I don't know if this is an

12     appropriate time or we can wait until --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, as a matter of fact, I would first -- I prefer

14     to first see whether we can conclude the examination of the witness, and

15     then there are a few procedural matter which we'd like to deal with after

16     that and perhaps that could be part of it.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

18                           Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:

19        Q.   The only issue I'd like to deal with is the question you were

20     asked about your knowledge about Babic.

21             I want to make sure you understand what you were saying "yes" to.

22     You were asked at page 61 whether the opinions you've given about

23     Mr. Babic over the last few days were opinions you believe you have the

24     knowledge to give.  Were your opinions about Mr. Babic based on

25     knowledge, do you stand by those opinions?

Page 13120

 1        A.   I'm not qualified to provide opinions like that.  Nevertheless,

 2     Professor Raskovic, an academic, a neuropsychologist, while he was still

 3     alive I kept a diary.  It was at Palace Hotel in Belgrade of all places

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7     that ran into about 1.600 pages.  Unfortunately, I left it behind in

 8     Krajina.  So he said go ahead and write this down.  I specified the name

 9     because as a matter of principle he described the statesmen involved, the

10     soldiers involved at the time, and even before and after that time.

11     Milan Babic, he said, the narcissist swings from one extreme to the other

12     and goes even as far as treason just to make sure he remains where he

13     believes he should be.  He is not only a narcissist, he is also paranoid.

14     Jovan Opacic, you and others formed a much clearer picture of who he was

15     than I did at the time.

16        Q.   Sorry, perhaps we misunderstand each other.  The evidence you've

17     given about, let's leave out opinion.  The evidence you've given about

18     Mr. Babic, his conduct, his behaviour, his relationship to Martic and

19     others, do you stand by that evidence or not?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MR. JORDASH:  I have no further questions for this witness.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You might not be surprised, Mr. Jordash, that, of

23     course, the last three or four questions are confusing me a bit because

24     the answer to your question does not necessarily invalidate the previous

25     answers.

Page 13121

 1             That's -- the issue just raised with you is:

 2             "Do you stand by all your evidence about Mr. Babic?"

 3             Your answer was a clear "yes."  Now, your evidence about

 4     Mr. Babic also included, if I could say so, an interpretation of his

 5     behaviour, his state of mind now and then, subjective elements of his

 6     behaviour.

 7             Now, earlier, Mr. Weber said, isn't it true that you have

 8     insufficient factual knowledge to allow you to draw any conclusions about

 9     the state of mind or the -- to interpret the subjective elements of his

10     behaviour, Mr. Babic, his behaviour, or to give an opinion about that.

11     Now, then you said, yes, that's right.  Now, I'm' a bit confused at this

12     moment because I put a similar question to you, do you consider that the

13     knowledge you have, specific knowledge, is such that you can or that you

14     cannot draw conclusions as to the state of mind interpretation of his

15     behaviour?  Do you think that your information is sufficient for drawing

16     such conclusions or do you consider that your information is -- makes

17     such conclusions of doubtful quality?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that my conclusions are

19     quality conclusions.  I was not the only one to arrive at these

20     conclusions but other people, full-fledged professionals who are

21     qualified to reach such conclusions, court experts, expert witnesses such

22     as Mr. Raskovic were qualified to offer an opinion.  I was simply the

23     person who recorded what Raskovic believed.  And I can say with certainty

24     before this Tribunal that I recorded nothing but the truth as conveyed to

25     me by Raskovic regarding the situation as it was.

Page 13122

 1             As for my description of Mr. Babic, who is no longer among us,

 2     and I'm still here, it is in the eyes of God and before this Tribunal

 3     that I claim with absolute certainty, I recorded the truth and nothing

 4     but the truth.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, any need -- I was hesitant to put

 6     further questions but I think it introduced one new element, that is the

 7     recording of a diary.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we ask -- you said you recorded what

10     Professor Raskovic told you.  You said you had left that in Krajina.

11     Does that recording still exist?  Does still exist what you wrote down?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I very much doubt that.  After the

13     fall of Krajina, I didn't go back.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not in your possession therefore, I understand?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not in my possession, that's

16     correct.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us where you left it?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I kept all of those documents in

19     my native home.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And the present state of your native home is what?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The condition is quite bad and the

22     house is ruined.  It was all in a green suitcase.  As for the documents

23     that I have brought here to be used as evidence, I was only able to do

24     that because I found them in the pocket of an old coat that I had which

25     at one point had been discarded and thrown into a ditch somewhere.

Page 13123

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I'd like to just put on the record why

 3     we do not have any further questions of this witness at this point in

 4     relation to Predrag Baklajic and Slobodan Majstorovic.  In short, that

 5     there is no mention of these individuals in the indictment or the

 6     pre-trial brief or the opening speech.  We do not have at this point in

 7     time any information as to their alleged precise relationship to the DB,

 8     their alleged acts and conducts in pursuance of crime, how they are

 9     linked to Mr. Stanisic, how that link is alleged to give rise to criminal

10     responsibility, and the legal categorisation of that legal -- of that

11     criminal responsibility.

12             We deny that these individuals were members of the DB and in due

13     course we will be able to read the several hundred DB personnel files

14     which have been served in B/C/S.  Until that point in time, we are unable

15     to re-examine this witness on these issues.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

17             Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would just put on the

19     record that Mr. Baklajic again is referred to in the Theunens report, and

20     Slobodan Majstorovic, the Defence knows who he is too.  He is on 60 per

21     diem payment records between 1993 and 1995.  They are also admitted, just

22     so the Defence is aware.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I stop you there for a second.  You've given

24     some additional information which might assist Mr. Jordash in making

25     further inquiries.  I take it, Mr. Jordash, that you have put on the

Page 13124

 1     record why you are unable to put further questions to the witness and

 2     that you'll seek such a remedy as you consider appropriate when you have

 3     done what you think you should have been enabled to do before.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I can say at this point that the application

 5     would be that the Prosecution are ordered to disclose the case as I've

 6     outlined.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not saying what it is, but I just want to make

 8     sure that you said, this is why we can't do it at this moment, we'll

 9     think about it, we'll further inquire into it, we'll see what we'll do,

10     but we may well seek remedy for what you consider to be a violation of

11     the rules, and then we'll hear from you.  And at that point in time, I

12     expect Mr. Weber, the Prosecution to respond to any such request for

13     remedies.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Well, Your Honour, it's slightly different to that.

15     There are two aspects, one is the lack of notice and I make the

16     application now, and I've indicated why we submit the disclosure of the

17     case is deficient.  I think the jurisprudence is clear as to what should

18     be done in relation to these disclosure documents, not in the evidence as

19     my learned friend has just indicated, but in the disclosure documents,

20     the primary disclosure document being the indictment.

21             And the second aspects of it is, as the personnel files and our

22     inability at this stage to actually have read this thousands of pages,

23     our inability to be able to deal with it in terms of assessing and

24     assimilating it their contents, even when we've assimilated and assessed

25     their contents, perhaps we'll be able to mount a Defence to what we can

Page 13125

 1     speculate might be the Prosecution case but that's as far as we are ever

 2     going to be able to do absent disclosure.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness DST-043, Judge Picard has one or more

 6     questions for you.

 7                           Questioned by the Court:

 8             JUDGE PICARD:  [Interpretation] Yes, I have two questions for

 9     you, witness.  The first question is about Mr. Babic.  During your

10     testimony you said that in your view Mr. Babic suffered from paranoia,

11     that he saw spies everywhere around him, et cetera.  Here is my question:

12     You've seen all these documents that showed that there was indeed around

13     him in the Krajina a large number of people working for the Serbian MUP,

14     so do you maintain your view that he suffered from paranoia or have you

15     changed your mind?  Could you be of the view that after all it was not

16     paranoia, that he was right in the end?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by my view.

18             JUDGE PICARD:  [Interpretation] Do you still believe that he

19     suffered from paranoia?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do stand by my view.

21             JUDGE PICARD:  [Interpretation] Even after seeing that there were

22     a lot of people who worked for the Serbian MUP around him?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13126

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13127











11 Page 13127 redacted. Private session.















Page 13128

 1                           [Open session]

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 4             Witness, I was at a point to allow you to leave so because this

 5     concludes your testimony -- Witness DST -- this concludes your testimony

 6     Witness DST-043.  I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague

 7     and for having answered the questions that were put to you by the parties

 8     and the questions that were put to you by the judges, and I wish you a

 9     safe return home again.  You may -- you are excused.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm grateful.  This is

11     a great experience for me, and I will convey this positive experience to

12     my family and to all the future ones.  Thank you.  I didn't expect this

13     experience to be the way it was.  I thank you again and my best wishes to

14     all those present.  It is an important thing that I will be able to say

15     that this looks nothing like our domestic courts and that the stories

16     bandied about in the press about this Tribunal are not accurate and thank

17     you for that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for your kind words.  A comparative

19     analysis between the domestic courts and international court will be made

20     perhaps by others at a different time.  Thank you very much, could you

21     please follow the usher.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I see that you are on your feet.  What

24     I'd like to do is to have a break first and to deal after the break with

25     some procedural matters.  Hopefully we can conclude it today so that we

Page 13129

 1     don't need another session this week.  We have an out-of-court meeting

 2     with the parties anyhow scheduled for this afternoon, this was a request

 3     by the Prosecution, and we might deal with very practical matters there.

 4     We take a break.  We resume at 1.00.  I will read a few decisions or

 5     reasons for decisions.  I further announce that we have to stop at 1.45

 6     sharp due to appointments elsewhere.  We resume at 1.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 12.38 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to deal with a few procedural matters at

10     this moment and I invite the parties to add any matter.  I have already

11     on my list that Mr. Jordash would like to make submissions in relation to

12     new Rule 90(H).  Are there any other requests?

13             MR. JORDASH:  The only other request is to deal with the

14     dead-line which Your Honours set for the service of the Brown expert

15     report which was set for the 15th of August, and we would like to apply

16     to vacate that date.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I understood from my staff that a meeting had

18     been planned to discuss the practicalities of the preparation of the --

19     of the examinations Mr. Brown would like to perform.  Now, has it got

20     something to do with that?

21             MR. JORDASH:  It has to do with that.  We met yesterday with the

22     Prosecution and also with members of the forensic laboratory and with

23     OLAD and the core management, and certain decisions arising from that

24     have pushed back the examination of the diaries.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any agreement on a final date or is there

Page 13130

 1     disagreement between the parties about it?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  There's no disagreement between the parties, but

 3     there is no agreement on the final date.  In short, we, the Defence, have

 4     put Mr. Brown in touch with the experts from the --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  NFI.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  -- NFI.  They will agree upon a protocol for

 7     examination which will then be circulated to the parties and hopefully an

 8     agreement will be reached on what he can and cannot do with the diaries.

 9     At that point a date can be set for his examination.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What is the time path at this moment?

11             MR. JORDASH:  It's difficult to say other than we would hope that

12     a protocol can be decided upon certainly between the experts in the next

13     week or so and then it will be sent to the Prosecution to agree or not

14     agree, and my best estimate at this point is that Mr. Brown will be able

15     to begin his examination sometime in September, and his examinations at

16     the moment he expects them to last about ten days and the compilation of

17     the report will take another week or so.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So you are heading for the 1st of October, is

19     that --

20             MR. JORDASH:  That might be ambitious but it might also be

21     something to focus minds.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I slowly start learning that in itself nothing

23     is wrong with ambitions but depends on how everyone is trying to achieve

24     them.

25             Ms. Marcus, about this time path, ambitious date somewhere early

Page 13131

 1     October, not to be set -- not to be carved in stone yet.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  The Prosecution, Your Honours, agrees with the

 3     proposal in terms of the time-frame that's being discussed.  We agree

 4     that the discussion yesterday occasioned certainly a delay that's

 5     necessary.  I would just like to note for the record that there is no

 6     agreement between the parties as to how the expert would proceed and that

 7     we are awaiting this protocol, this proposal from the Defence, and upon

 8     that -- consideration of that we can see whether we agree or not, Your

 9     Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, now, this seems to be very much a finally a

11     practical problem, not to say that no principles are involved, but

12     finally it's how are we going to organise to agree upon the method,

13     et cetera, et cetera.  I do understand that what we have to do at this

14     moment is to vacate any time-limit that was set at the moment.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The time-limit which was earlier set is vacated.

17     The Chamber expects a short report by the parties after the summer recess

18     because then we would know whether there is an agreement on the protocol,

19     and we would also know whether it's still a realistic expectation that

20     Mr. Brown could perform his examinations in early September.  And then

21     we'll further deal with the matter.

22             I earlier -- you may have noticed that sometimes if practical

23     matters are not resolved, I have a natural inclination to start dealing

24     with them myself.  If there are major problems, I would like you to

25     inform my staff, even during the recess, I'm not saying that I'll

Page 13132

 1     interrupt my holidays, but don't be surprised if I would personally

 2     intervene because I'd rather focus on what has to be done here in court

 3     and I want any obstacle which is not directly related to that, I want

 4     that to be removed to the extent possible and I'll do my utmost best to

 5     contribute to that.

 6             This matter sufficiently dealt with.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes, thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then you are still on the list for 90(H) but

 9     I would like to deal with a few other matters first.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to intervene, I've just noticed that leave

11     has been granted to appeal the indigency decision.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. JORDASH:  And I note that the time set is for a

14     application -- an appeal next Wednesday.  I would request that we be

15     granted an additional week.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it this Trial Chamber or is it the Appeals

17     Chamber that should grant any additional time?

18             MR. JORDASH:  Actually, let me check that, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps you -- first you think about that.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And of course, if it would be us, then let us know

22     as soon as possible so that we can consider the matter before the recess

23     starts.  If it's the Appeals Chamber, then --

24             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The first matter I have on my agenda is the

Page 13133

 1     following:  It's about the questions to be put to Mr. Eekhof.  On the

 2     12th of July, the Stanisic Defence requested that the Chamber put

 3     specific additional questions to Dr. Eekhof.  The Prosecution also

 4     submitted some suggested questions.  The Chamber has decided that it

 5     would not put any additional questions to Dr. Eekhof at this stage but

 6     that it may invite submissions in the future when considering scheduling

 7     additional sitting days.  So at this very moment we'll not put any

 8     additional questions to Dr. Eekhof.

 9             Second item, scheduling.  We gave up more or less one day this

10     week.  We had a fourth day scheduled for this week.  Due to all kind of

11     reasons we are using only three days this week.  The Chamber announces

12     that it will seek compensation for this lost fourth day that we are

13     seeking compensation in August.

14             Then I have three decisions or statements to read.  The first one

15     is the Chamber's clarification on admission of P2093.

16             I will give on behalf of this Chamber a statement on the status

17     of Exhibit P2093.  This Exhibit P2093 is a February 2008 memorandum

18     describing an interview that the Prosecution had with Witness JF-030 in

19     November 2007.  On the 2nd of February, 2011, the Chamber requested that

20     the parties make written submissions on the use of Exhibit P2093 by the

21     Chamber.  The Chamber hereby clarifies its position with regard to this

22     exhibit.

23             Witness JF-030 testified on the 25th and 26th of January of this

24     year, pursuant to Rule 92 ter.  Initially, Witness JF-030 refused to give

25     testimony in the present case as the witness was fearful that this would

Page 13134

 1     compromise his personal safety and security and that of his family.

 2             During testimony, Witness JF-030 gave statements that were partly

 3     inconsistent with the content of the aforementioned February 2008

 4     memorandum, Exhibit P2093.  This memorandum had not been signed by

 5     Witness JF-030 to verify that it truthfully and accurately reflected his

 6     conversation with the Prosecution.  It also appears that the memorandum

 7     was only shown to the witness shortly before giving testimony in January

 8     2011.

 9             On the 25th of January, 2011, the Chamber granted the

10     Prosecution's request for admission into evidence of P2093, which the

11     Defence had not opposed.  On the 2nd of February, the Chamber requested

12     written submissions from the parties on how it should treat the

13     unattested parts of P2093.  On the 8th of February, the Prosecution filed

14     its "Prosecution Submission Regarding the Unattested Portions of the

15     Statement of Witness JF-030."  The Defence made no submissions on the

16     matter.

17             The Chamber was cautious in analysing the issue at hand.  The

18     Chamber observes the Prosecution's approach to the issue in the Lukic and

19     Lukic case.  There the Prosecution took the view that unsigned proofing

20     notes are not evidence, and should not be introduced in the manner that

21     P2093 was, in fact, introduced in the present case.

22             The Chamber has considered the Prosecution's submissions of the

23     8th of February, as well as the case law on this matter.  Amongst others,

24     the Chamber considered the Appeals Chamber's decision of the 7th of June,

25     2002, in the Galic case entitled "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal

Page 13135

 1     Concerning Rule 92 bis (C)"; the Appeals Chamber's decision on the 30th

 2     of September, 2002, in Slobodan Milosevic entitled "Decision on

 3     Admissibility of Prosecution Investigator's Evidence"; as well as the

 4     Trial Chamber's decision of the 25th of April, 2005 in Limaj et al.,

 5     "Decision on the Prosecution's Motion to Admit Prior Statements as

 6     Substantive Evidence."

 7             Lastly, the Chamber was guided by the Gotovina et al. Chamber's

 8     guidance of the 30th of March, 2010, entitled "Guidance on the

 9     Admissibility into Evidence of Unattested Parts of Rule 92 Ter Statements

10     As Previous Inconsistent Statements."  The Chamber recalls its decision

11     of the 28th of January, 2011 entitled "Decision on Admission into

12     Evidence of Prior Testimony, Statement, and Related Documents Concerning

13     Witness JF-052."

14             In closely analysing the above, and particularly in considering

15     the way in which P2093 was introduced through Witness JF-030, the Chamber

16     states the following:  The Prosecution specifically introduced P2093

17     through the process of Rule 92 ter, which the Defence did not oppose.

18     Witness JF-030 was asked to attest and make corrections to P2093 in the

19     same fashion as he was asked to attest to documents the witness had

20     signed and reviewed, namely P2091 and P2092.  During

21     examination-in-chief, Witness JF-030 made important corrections to P2093,

22     mainly in relation to the acts and conduct of the accused.

23     Witness JF-030 was cross-examined on P2093 by both Defence teams.

24             The witness did not deny that he spoke to the Prosecution in 2008

25     on the issues reflected in P2093.

Page 13136

 1             One second, please.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to interrupt the reading for a second,

 4     withdraw for a second with my colleagues, and then to continue after only

 5     two or three minutes.

 6                           --- Break taken at 1.22 p.m.

 7                           --- Upon commencing at 1.25 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I resume the reading of the Chamber's clarification

 9     on admission of P2093.

10             The witness did not deny that he spoke to the Prosecution in 2008

11     on the issues reflected in P2093.  Witness JF-030 could not properly

12     explain why his testimony in court was different from what is reflected

13     in P2093.  In most instances, the witness attributed this to his memory

14     of the events when giving testimony before the Chamber, or his health

15     condition when he talked to the Prosecution in 2008, rather than denying

16     that the record of the statement he made was inaccurate.

17             I should correct that, there's a double negation.  Rather than

18     stating that the recording of his words was inaccurate.

19             The Chamber must carefully consider whether parts of the

20     witness's testimony were in any way affected by the fear he expressed for

21     his personal safety and security and that of his family.  The Chamber

22     hereby clarifies that, pursuant to Rule 89(C) and the case law on this

23     issue, the aforementioned inconsistent statements contained in P2093 will

24     be treated by the Chamber as substantive evidence, i.e., as evidence of

25     the truth of their contents.  The Chamber emphasises, however, that the

Page 13137

 1     facts that P2093 was not signed, was not shown to the witness at the

 2     time, and was drawn up several months subsequent to his interview with

 3     the Prosecution require the Chamber to assess with the utmost caution the

 4     probative value of P2093 as a whole, and the statements contained in

 5     P2093 that are inconsistent with Witness JF-030's testimony in court in

 6     particular.  The Chamber will examine P2093 in conjunction with what

 7     Witness JF-030 said in court and determine what weight to give to his

 8     evidence as a whole, if any.

 9             And this concludes the Chamber's clarification on the status of

10     P2093.

11             The next is a decision on the Prosecution's motion regarding the

12     scope of the Simatovic Defence case.

13             On the 14th of June, 2011, the Simatovic Defence declined to give

14     an opening statement.  The Prosecution raised a concern in court that

15     this fact, in conjunction with previous indication by the Defence that

16     they now deviated from the position outlined in the pre-trial brief,

17     meant that neither the Prosecution nor the Stanisic Defence was

18     adequately placed on notice of the scope of the Simatovic Defence case.

19     The Prosecution suggested that this constituted a breach of Rule

20     65 ter (F) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal.

21             These submissions can be found at transcript pages T-11504 up to

22     11509.  The alleged departure from the Simatovic Defence pre-trial brief

23     is found in the "Defence Reply to Prosecution Response to Appeal Against

24     'Scheduling Order and Decision on Defence Request for adjustment of

25     Scheduling Order of 16th of February, 2011,'" which was filed

Page 13138

 1     confidentially on the 17th of May, 2011.

 2             In particular at paragraph 5 of this reply, the Simatovic Defence

 3     described its pre-trial brief as being "more like a repeated not guilty

 4     plea than a hint of meaningful defence strategy."  The Simatovic Defence

 5     responded that its pre-trial brief challenges the allegations made in the

 6     indictment and that this remains the thrust of its case.  The Chamber

 7     indicated that it would consider further whether to invite the Simatovic

 8     Defence to provide additional clarification in respect of the scope of

 9     its Defence case.  This discussion can be found at transcript pages

10     T-11509 up to 11511.

11             The Prosecution subsequently filed a motion in respect of this

12     issue on the 21st of June.  In this motion, the Prosecution requested

13     that the Chamber order the Simatovic Defence to file a valid pre-trial

14     brief, and, in addition, a limited statement setting out in general terms

15     the nature of its Defence, in compliance with Rule 65 ter (F)(i) of the

16     Rules.  On the 5th of July, 2011, the Simatovic Defence filed a brief

17     response, opposing the motion and indicating its belief that it had

18     outlined its case with sufficient specificity during the course of the

19     trial.

20             The Chamber has considered the parties' submissions on this

21     issue.  The Simatovic Defence filed a pre-trial brief in accordance with

22     Rule 65 ter (F).  Whilst the Simatovic Defence subsequently raised

23     nonspecific criticisms of this pre-trial brief, this was part of an

24     argument that it was ill-prepared, an argument which was raised in reply

25     to an issue on appeal.  The Chamber considers that submissions of such a

Page 13139

 1     general nature are not sufficient indication of a "departure" from the

 2     pre-trial brief, in themselves.  In addition, the Chamber considers that

 3     through its submissions in court on the 14th of June, 2011, the Simatovic

 4     Defence maintained that its pre-trial brief continues to reflect the

 5     broad scope of its case.  And under these circumstances, the Chamber

 6     considers that the Simatovic Defence does not need to take any further

 7     steps, at this stage, to outline its case.  Accordingly, the Prosecution

 8     motion is denied.

 9             And this concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.

10             Finally, I deliver a statement on behalf of the Chamber regarding

11     the Prosecution's request for measures to ensure appropriate notice.

12             On the 29th of June, 2011, the Prosecution filed a response to

13     the Stanisic Defence motion for the admission of written evidence of

14     Witness DST-035, inter alia requesting that the Chamber consider other

15     means and orders which may be necessary to ensure that the Prosecution

16     has proper notice of the evidence of future Defence witnesses.

17             On the 30th of June, 2011, the Stanisic Defence filed an

18     application for leave to reply and was granted leave by the Chamber on

19     the 4th of July.  On the 13th of July, the Stanisic Defence informed the

20     Chamber through an informal communication that it would not reply to the

21     Prosecution's response of the 29th of June, 2011.

22             The Chamber stresses the importance of adequate notice to be

23     given to the other parties in relation to documents to be used or

24     tendered in order to allow for a fair and efficient trial.  If the

25     Prosecution requires further Chamber intervention, the Chamber invites

Page 13140

 1     the Prosecution to specify the relief it requests with respect to future

 2     witnesses.

 3             Then earlier today I summarised what we found guided by

 4     Mr. Jordash about the video-clip and the list of persons.  I take it that

 5     it is clear to you, Mr. Jordash, was P12 and the other document was P428.

 6     I summarised the history.  I was not complete in that respect because on

 7     the pages 4844 and following not only the video was introduced as dating

 8     from 1993, but also the list was presented to that witness at that time.

 9     I add to that, that that witness also gave testimony that he was unable

10     to link the list to the video which dates back from 1993.  That was a

11     small part of the history which I had not summarised.  I've done it

12     hereby.

13             Then finally, Mr. Jordash, I would like to give you an

14     opportunity to -- well, perhaps to make short submissions on the

15     Rule 90(H), however, I also had a short question.  This morning you said,

16     and I quote:  You said:

17             "It's slightly different.  There are two aspects:  One is the

18     lack of notice, and I make the application now, and I've indicated why we

19     submit the disclosure of the case is deficient.  I think the

20     jurisprudence is clear..." and you continued there.

21             It was not entirely clear to the Chamber what the application

22     exactly was, what you said you made at that moment, whether you referred

23     to what you had done during this morning's session or whether you had

24     something else on your mind.  I would like to give you an opportunity to

25     make brief submissions on Rule 90(H), and if you could answer this

Page 13141

 1     question, that would be appreciated.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Well, if I can answer the question first,

 3     throughout the Prosecution case we've argued that the Prosecution have an

 4     obligation to state in the indictment or the pre-trial brief or the

 5     opening speech, the latter two being secondary disclosure documents, if I

 6     can put it that way, documents which can cure a defective indictment, and

 7     we've argued that the obligation is that if the Prosecution seek to

 8     allege that named persons commit or have acted in furtherance of crime

 9     and their act and conduct are to be attributed in some way to the

10     accused, then the obligation is to state that in the indictment.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I was mainly focussing on the word "application."

12     Were you seeking a relief in general so as, you have not met your

13     obligations in this respect and we make an application that you will do

14     in the future?  It's -- it's that point rather than an understanding of

15     what you apparently your problem is.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the application is that if the Prosecution

17     seek to attribute criminal responsibility to the accused on the basis of

18     named perpetrators, then the Prosecution make the appropriate application

19     to amend the indictment and have those names included in the indictment.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  All right.  If that's -- if that is what you refer

21     to, then it's now on the record.

22             90(H).

23             MR. JORDASH:  90(H), we submit the Prosecution violated 90(H) in

24     relation to the cross-examination the witness we've just heard.  The case

25     of -- we will be making more detailed submissions on this point pursuant

Page 13142

 1     to Your Honour's order that the parties file submissions, but I put this

 2     on the record very briefly now that we submit that the Prosecution have

 3     an obligation pursuant to 90(H) to put to the witness the nature of its

 4     case and that is done by explaining the general substance of the case

 5     which conflicts with the evidence of the witness.  And that obligation,

 6     we submit, extends beyond the one positive assertion that was made by the

 7     Prosecution at transcript page 18 where they put to the witness:

 8             "Do you understand that it is the Office of the Prosecution case

 9     that the Serbian DB, in particular Mr. Jovica Stanisic and Franko

10     Simatovic, directed, financed, and armed members of the SAO Krajina

11     police in 1991?"

12             That is not putting the nature of the case.  That's just putting

13     a sentence in the indictment and, in our submission, 90(H) plainly

14     envisages much more than that.  What it envisages is that the witness has

15     a proper opportunity to deal with portions of his testimony, and I use

16     the word "portions of his testimony" because "portion" is the word that

17     appears in the case of Popovic 6th of March, 2007 which is an order by

18     the Trial Chamber there setting forth guide-lines for the procedure under

19     Rule 90(H)(ii) which we say are the correct guide-lines.

20             And what 90(H) envisages, we submit, is that the Prosecution look

21     at some of the detail -- of the important detail of the Prosecution case,

22     that the witness's testimony plainly contradicts, and give the witness a

23     systematic opportunity to deal with those portions.  And in this case the

24     Prosecution case against the accused in relation to the Krajina crime

25     base is a detailed and involved one which involves many different

Page 13143

 1     substantive allegations ranging from specific weapon supplies, specific

 2     training, specific involvement in the politics and the governmental

 3     activities of the Krajina.  None of that, we submit, was put in a

 4     positive way to the witness to give him an opportunity to deal with it

 5     and to express his disagreement.

 6             An expression of that disagreement, we submit, is what will give

 7     Your Honours perhaps the best indication of whether the Prosecution case

 8     might be correct or not.  In our submission, the Prosecution are

 9     systematically avoiding doing that to the witnesses and in fact focusing

10     much more on leading a fresh new case through personnel DB files which

11     they submit are fresh evidence which ought to be admitted.

12             Prosecution spent a substantial amount of their case dealing with

13     those personnel files and put a much more positive case in relation to

14     those DB files and the members of the -- alleged members of the DB than

15     they did in relation to the evidence of Babic and other witnesses who

16     testified in relation to the Krajina.  As I understood the Prosecution

17     case against the accused in relation to the Krajina, they argue, the

18     Prosecution argue that Mr. Stanisic was at the head of this parallel

19     structure.  They allege that he used this parallel structure to achieve

20     certain aims.  None of that could be discerned from the Prosecution

21     cross-examination and the witness, in our submission, was perfectly

22     capable of offering probative answers if those allegations had been put.

23             We've been denied that evidence, we, as in the Defence, but more

24     importantly Your Honours have been denied that response.  And there's

25     reason why we submit why the Prosecution are routinely failing to put

Page 13144

 1     their case is because they don't want the response.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I earlier announced that we have to stop

 3     sharp.  Ms. Marcus, perhaps the observations made by Mr. Jordash give you

 4     a lot to think about, not necessarily to agree with, at least, well, of

 5     course it's free for you to agree or to disagree.  I -- Mr. Jordash

 6     announced that he would make further submissions in writing as he was

 7     invited to do.  Unless there's any very urgent matter you would like to

 8     respond to now immediately, I would suggest that you have had a preview

 9     now of what Mr. Jordash has on his mind and that you respond in written

10     arguments.  But if there's any matter you would like to immediately deal

11     with, please do it as briefly as possible.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.  It was only to say

13     that we would respond in writing.  Can I just clarify, is this going to

14     be a motion from the Defence that we would respond to?  Because we were

15     preparing -- pursuant to the Chamber's order, we were preparing a

16     submission on our view on 90(H), but perhaps we could clarify

17     procedurally who is doing the first motion and who --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I would suggest that in order not to lose

19     momentum that Mr. Jordash would file first his, to say, complaints

20     whether or not to seeking any remedy, what that remedy would be, and that

21     you would then -- I also could imagine that you would just make

22     submissions on how you understand Rule 90(H), what in your view the

23     Prosecution should do, and that you encourage the Chamber to act in

24     accordance with your views because for every upcoming witness, of course,

25     we do not know yet, we haven't seen anything, we do not know the

Page 13145

 1     circumstances.  I leave it to some extent.  I've not a very clear view on

 2     what would be the best way to proceed.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  We'd acted on the presumption that we'd file on the

 4     same day so that we get the -- but I'm in Your Honours' hands.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You see, you are, to say so, the complaining party

 6     at this moment, so therefore I could imagine that, and I think as a

 7     matter of fact that the Prosecution was in one of the previous

 8     submissions where the Defence did not make any submissions that you

 9     already expressed some of your views, especially also on the fresh

10     evidence, and the fresh evidence, of course, has got something to do,

11     there is a relation between the two items.  So, therefore, Mr. Jordash,

12     you do not hear any strong opposition, I would invite you to make the

13     written submissions first.  And you'll have an opportunity, of course, to

14     respond to whatever the Prosecution will then raise.

15             Do you have any -- do you have anything on your mind as far as

16     timing is concerned?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Well, we would appreciate if at all possible a

18     fairly long time-scale.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that point.  At the same time, of course, the

20     Chamber seeks your submissions in order to be guided also by your

21     submissions, and then of course we are unable to make up -- well, we can

22     make up our minds but rather do it with your input than without.  I do

23     not know what you consider to be relatively long.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Two weeks.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Two weeks, fine.  Within a week after that.

Page 13146

 1             MS. MARCUS:  No problem, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Within a week after that, Ms. Marcus.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  That's fine.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's put on the record.

 5             Then we adjourn and in accordance with the latest calendar, the

 6     hearings are to be resumed on August the 16th, that is a Tuesday, at

 7     quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom II.  We'll not see each other for awhile.

 8     I do understand that we are all in different circumstances for holidays.

 9     I nevertheless hope that everyone will be able to, apart from perhaps do

10     quite a bit of work, also to enjoy the time of what we call the summer

11     holidays.  We stand adjourned.

12                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.

13                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of

14                           August, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.