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]
11 Pages 13058-13064 redacted. Private session.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the answer is no. At least not in front of
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 --
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 He told me that most of the monies --
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 subsequently participated in combat operations in the fall of 1991 in the
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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:
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
25 MR. WEBER:
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
1 Q. This is a letter from the Republic of Serbia state security
2 department special operations unit dated 6 July 2001. This letter
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
12 [Private session]
11 Page 13127 redacted. Private session.
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
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
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
25 Ms. Marcus, about this time path, ambitious date somewhere early
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 the Prosecution to specify the relief it requests with respect to future
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.