1 Wednesday, 31 August 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
10 and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 If there are no procedural matters to be raised, we'll move into
13 closed session.
14 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're in closed session, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
17 May the witness be brought into the courtroom.
18 Mr. Bakrac, you needed a couple of more minutes to conclude your
19 cross-examination. Is that --
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. You're right.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness DST-063. I hope you feel
23 better by now.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. And I would like to
25 seize this opportunity to apologise to everyone for the fact that I was
1 unable to appear for my testimony on the scheduled day.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we understood that it was due to your
3 medical condition, there's even no need to apologise, because you -- it
4 goes without saying that you are excused during the time that you do not
5 feel well.
6 If there -- at any moment you would think that you, again, do not
7 feel well, please inform me so that we can take appropriate action.
8 I further would like to remind you that you're still bound by the
9 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony, that
10 is, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
12 Mr. Bakrac will now continue his cross-examination.
13 Mr. Bakrac, please proceed.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.
16 WITNESS: DST-063 [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac: [Continued]
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. Let us resume our
20 examination. I have two more documents to show to you, and I'd like to
21 have your comments on them.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we call up in e-court
23 Exhibit D201.
24 Q. Mr. Witness, while we're waiting for it to appear, let me tell
25 you that it appears that the document is a report on the application of
1 operative and technical equipment in respect of an individual. Let's
2 look at page 1.
3 The heading reads:
4 "The Republic of Serbia, Ministry of the Interior, State Security
5 Department, the State Security Department's centre of Novi Sad."
6 And while we're on page one, let's establish the following. You
7 do know how these documents were made. Can we agree that this has to do
8 with the surveillance of an individual, according to standard procedure,
9 between 7 and 16 November. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now turn to the last page so
12 that we can look at the signature of the operative involved.
13 Q. I'm sure you would be familiar with the individual, since he
14 worked for the Novi Sad centre.
15 Can you see it reads "Operative Slavko Vojvodic" and his
16 signature. First of all, let us establish if you know this individual,
17 Slavko Vojvodic.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he work for the State Security Department, specifically the
20 Novi Sad centre, and which specific section?
21 A. Yes. He did work at the Novi Sad centre of the RDB, and it was
22 the third line of work, as it were.
23 Q. When you say "the third line of work," what does it mean
24 specifically? What were they occupied with?
25 A. Well, I think the heading itself stated extremism. In other
1 words, internal matters. Domestic matters.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now turn to page 3. I think
3 the corresponding page in English is 3 as well.
4 Q. Have a look at the second paragraph. On the
5 12th of November, 1992, the source told us that at Kajmak, in inverted
6 commas, Zivojin Ivanovic was present, in brackets, supposedly a member of
7 the DB from Republika Srpska, who asked that -- who asked for people to
8 fight in Herzegovina. Is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if my understanding is correct, the operative work, which was
11 in fact the surveillance of telephone contacts, was Kajmak, and
12 Zivojin Ivanovic is supposedly a member of the DB from Republika Srpska.
13 Or at least that's what the operative producing the report believed or
14 that's how he introduced himself.
15 Is my understanding of this operative's report correct in this
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. Let's look at another report by the same individual but at a
19 later date. I deliberately drew your attention to this specific
20 paragraph where the operative states that Zivojin Ivanovic introduced
21 himself and that it was assumed that he was a DB member from
22 Republika Srpska.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D200.
24 Q. And while we're waiting, witness, let me tell you that this is
25 the same sort of document, produced by the same individual, and it also
1 involves the surveillance of one Kajmak but the date is the
2 4th of January, 1993. In other words, a month and a half later.
3 Apparently Kajmak is being listened in to again, and I'm sure that you'll
4 believe me if I tell you, and so will the OTP, that on page -- on the
5 last page we have Slavko Vojvodic, the same operative's, signature.
6 Now, let's look at page 3, paragraph 1. That's the top of
7 page 3.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 3 in B/C/S.
9 Q. I'll read the relevant part and put my question to you then.
10 Zivojin Ivanovic, a member of the DB of Krajina, told Kajmak that
11 he was leaving for Kosovo, et cetera.
12 This is my question: We were able to see that your colleague
13 Slavko Vojvodic stated in November, said that Zivojin Ivanovic was
14 supposedly a member of the DB of Republika Srpska; whereas in this report
15 the reference to the same individual is that he was a member of the DB of
16 Krajina but without the inverted commas?
17 Now, you, as a person who knew this operative and knew how the
18 Novi Sad centre worked, do you believe that an operative would write in
19 no uncertain terms that an individual belonged to the DB of Krajina if he
20 had not, in the previous month and a half, done something to ascertain
21 that this was, indeed, the fact?
22 A. Well, I'm sure that he would not have made a qualification of any
23 sort had he not been certain of it to a certain extent.
24 Q. If my understanding of what you're saying is correct, in November
25 he placed his qualification in brackets, saying a member of the DB of
1 Republika Srpska, and this was in November of 1992, whereas in
2 January of 1993, he wrote without the brackets that he was a member of
3 the DB Krajina.
4 Does this not mean that he checked the information in the
5 meantime to make sure?
6 A. Well, the time-frame involved certainly allows for such
7 information to be checked up on.
8 Q. Thank you. I have one more question left.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, in relation to the last two documents
10 you presented to the witness, if there's any issue - and you refer to it
11 several times - that names are in between quotation marks or inverted
12 commas, then, of course, in order to follow all that, the translation
13 should also reflect that.
14 Now, the translation does not in any way reflect any inverted
15 commas in the original. So, therefore, since it apparently is an issue
16 in dispute between Defence and Prosecution and where the Prosecution --
17 it's not quite clear to me, but suggests or makes an inference that it
18 has some meaning, then it should at least be in the translation as well.
19 So, therefore, I would like the translations to be verified on
20 the use of inverted commas in relation to names and then to be uploaded
21 again in e-court.
22 I take it that the parties would agree with that.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we agree with that.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Let me just
25 explain that our question at this point in time focussed on an individual
1 whose name was not in inverted commas. But I do agree with you that that
2 should be remedied.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether the specific questions dealt with
4 that, it is a point that is in issue, and therefore the translation
5 should reflect it so as to be able to further analyse the position of
6 both parties.
7 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I just wanted to raise another issue
8 regarding Mr. Bakrac's asking of leading questions of the witness.
9 My -- I have a submission on this, an objection to the asking of
10 leading questions and a brief submission in relation to that. But before
11 I make that submission, I'd like to know in fact whether Mr. Bakrac was
12 able to meet with the witness before his testimony.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, there's a question -- well, first of
14 all, leading questions, of course, Mr. Bakrac is cross-examining the
15 witness in which leading questions as such are not prohibited.
16 MS. MARCUS: That's exactly the matter I wanted to raise,
17 Your Honour. I wanted to object to Mr. Bakrac cross-examining a witness
18 who is a witness in his favour if he is in possession of information --
19 JUDGE ORIE: So you would say that Mr. Bakrac is not only
20 eliciting answers on the subject matter of the examination-in-chief or on
21 matters of credibility and reliability but he is also questioning the
22 witness under Rule 90(H) - what is it? - small (ii), I think, that is,
23 eliciting evidence from the witness which supports that party's case. Is
24 that ...
25 MS. MARCUS: That's right, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And there you would expect Mr. Bakrac to refrain
2 from leading questions.
3 MS. MARCUS: Correct, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, the questions you have put to the
5 witness when did you put leading questions to him, was that in any way
6 related to the examination-in-chief; or were you eliciting evidence under
7 Rule - and let me be very precise - Rule 90(H)(i), last part, where it
8 reads: "The witness is able to give evidence relevant to the case for
9 the cross-examining party to subject matter of that case."
10 Were you eliciting that kind of evidence or were you challenging
11 the evidence which was led in-chief?
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was not challenging
13 the credibility of the witness. My question was more pursuant to 90(H),
14 as you said.
15 And I can respond to what my learned friend said. I did have an
16 occasion to meet with the witness for ten minutes. I did not make any
17 notes. I didn't have a pen or paper in front of me. We discussed
18 matters in general. I never showed the witness these two documents. We
19 didn't discuss them. And this is something that the witness can confirm.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And that was before the witness started giving his
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think, in view of your answer, that the
1 appropriate way of questioning the witness would be not to put leading
2 questions to him.
3 Is that, Ms. Marcus ...
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please keep that in mind. You may
6 proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Please bear with me for a moment.
9 [Defence counsel confer]
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Witness, one minute and one question more.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1.
13 Q. Can you look at the third bullet point, please, which reads:
14 "He continued maintaining contact with members of the Army of
16 As part of your operative work, did you monitor individuals who
17 had some dealings with or were in any way associated with the security of
18 the Army of Yugoslavia?
19 A. Not in that line of work. That was not part of our duty. But
20 if -- we would come across them as part of some other work.
21 Q. In that case, would you also report to the military security
22 structure, or did it remain strictly within the authority of the MUP?
23 A. Well, I can't tell you exactly. I think it was treated as
24 internal information.
25 Q. Thank you very much, witness, for the answers you gave me.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, for the time
2 assigned to me. I have completed my examination.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
4 Ms. Marcus, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You will now be cross-examined by Ms. Marcus.
7 Ms. Marcus is counsel for the Prosecution.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:
11 Q. Good morning, DST-063.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. During your testimony last week, you were asked whether the
14 Vojvodina SUP and the Serbian MUP had a joint or a separate chain of
15 command. You stated, at transcript page 13562:
16 "... I think that at some crucial moments, they had a joint chain
17 of command, absolutely. A Joint Command function."
18 Early 1992, they had a joint command. Can you explain what you
19 meant by "joint command"?
20 A. Well, if I cast my mind back to that, an event which would have
21 trigged our joint work, well, I wouldn't refer it -- refer to it as
22 "command." Rather, it would have been joint co-operation. Command would
23 sound like we were in the army, and we didn't have that sort of work.
24 Q. This co-operation you refer to existed prior to 1992 as well,
25 didn't it?
1 A. But, of course. But it was with all the services of all the
2 republics, and not just Serbia. We were a separate service only formally
3 at the level of the province of Vojvodina. But that was formally only.
4 Q. Now, with respect to the DB, the state security, isn't it true
5 that prior to 1992 the federal DB governed this co-ordination, direction,
6 and reconciling of the works of the SDBs throughout the provinces and the
8 A. Yes. As far as I know, that's true. They treated on equal terms
9 all the provinces and republics.
10 Q. Now, during your testimony at page 13559, you were describing
11 your only chain of reporting as a DB operative. This was when you were
12 an operative in the Vojvodina DB in 1990. You stated that your superior
13 "was the chief of the group, working on counter-intelligence activities,
14 and he was" - pardon my pronunciation - "he was Stevan Pecelj.
15 "He answered to the chief of the department, Djordje Gojkovic, of
16 that section."
17 Then you said that Gojkovic's superior "was the chief of the
18 provincial State Security Service. At that time, it was Ratko Sikimic."
19 You then go on to stay that Sikimic was responsible to the chief
20 of the federal service.
21 Now my question to you is: Therefore, according to your
22 evidence, if we understood you correctly, the reporting line from the
23 Vojvodina DB went straight up to the federal DB in 1990; is that correct?
24 A. As far as I know, both to -- up to the federal and the
25 republican DB. And I mean the DB of Serbia.
1 Q. And that was the case in 1991 as well?
2 A. I am referring to 1991, yes.
3 Q. Now, during your testimony last week when you were asked about
4 the changes in the work of the Vojvodina SUP after the multi-party
5 elections, you replied that the situation: "Required a greater effort on
6 our part, in terms of taking in the overall security situation."
7 Can you explain what you meant by that?
8 A. Well, what I said the last time, I believe, was that the
9 elections had taken place in the various republics and that the
10 assessment made at the time was that there was an extremely aggressive,
11 and, at times, very hostile attitude coming from the Republic of Croatia.
12 Since my centre has under its purview territory which borders
13 with the Republic of Croatia along the length of some 130 and
14 140 kilometres, and since in my territory we had a sizeable Croat
15 population, the situation required the service to invest more efforts in
16 collecting information with a view to averting a conflict in that area.
17 Q. Now, at page 13586, you were asked what territory you were trying
18 to protect by gathering this information that you just described.
19 Your answer was: "The territory of the Republic of Serbia."
20 So is it your evidence that matters of overall security are those
21 which would impact upon the territory of Serbia as a whole?
22 A. I would first like to say that the term "defence" is something
23 that does not stand, in my view, here. Having control over the territory
24 bordering Republic of Croatia for the purpose of preventing possible
25 problems that could occur in our territory; that's what it implied.
1 Q. Okay. Well, perhaps there was something I said which was maybe
2 misconstrued. But I was asking specifically about your
3 information-gathering activities. And you said that you had to put a
4 greater effort in to take in the overall security situation.
5 So my question to you was: These matters that affected the
6 overall security are, in fact, matters that affect the entirety of the
7 Republic of Serbia; isn't that right?
8 A. At the time, no. I'm talking about late 1990 and early 1991.
9 That was regular procedure, part of our service's work, making
10 assessments of possible problems. What we did was we had operatives
11 focussing more on that specific territory.
12 Q. Okay. I understand. And what about after May of 1991?
13 A. Now that you've mentioned the date, and it was a date that made
14 the overall situation much more complex, but this time I'm talking about
15 the area of Croatia, the area of Vukovar, yes, it required additional
16 involvement of operatives, and that was the period when my involvement
17 started. Until that point, I was not involved.
18 Q. And the matters relating to security at that time impacted on the
19 Republic of Serbia as a whole, not just on Vojvodina; isn't that correct?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. And these matters would be the kind of matters which would
22 require sending of information up to the hierarchy at the highest levels,
23 because they are matters which affected the overall security; isn't that
25 A. Yes. But I cannot confirm to which level all this went. I was
1 just an operative. You must understand that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, your question in relation to the highest
3 levels in the hierarchy does not specify what hierarchy and what highest
4 levels, which makes the answer, at least, ambiguous.
5 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes.
6 Q. DST-063, I was specifically referring to this information about
7 the overall security and its path up to the leadership of the Serbian DB.
8 Does that change your answer at all?
9 A. At my level, or, rather, my understanding of who was informed
10 went up to the chief of my centre. I -- and my colleagues would brief
11 him either in writing or orally. Everything else was outside of my
12 scope. It was in -- in part of his duties. He would choose whom to
13 forward it to.
14 Q. So if I understand you correctly, it was the chief of the
15 centre - I suppose you mean the Novi Sad centre - who had the authority
16 to determine how far the information would be sent or to whom; is that
18 A. Yes, you understood me well.
19 Q. Now, if there were information that -- that you felt, as an
20 operative, would have to be sent up to the leadership of the Serbian DB,
21 and if the head of the Novi Sad DB decided not to, what would be the
23 A. Well, the chief would decide, and things would be that way.
24 There would be no consequences, of course.
25 Q. Were you always informed of where your information -- what path
1 your information took after you provided it? Were you informed of where
2 your reports ended up?
3 A. No, I wasn't told about it. The practice wasn't that we get
11 Pages 13657-13666 redacted. Closed session.
23 Q. Now, on page 5, your entry, in relation to D205, which you say is
24 a report by you, your entry -- this -- this report also contains
25 information relating to combat activities, including your assessment of
1 the combat readiness of the Army of the RSK.
2 Your comment on this document is that:
3 "I obtained this information by talking to people in
4 Eastern Slavonia. This does not mean that this information is absolutely
6 Now, my question to you is: I was not able to see anywhere in
7 the report where you state that the information may not be correct. How
8 did you distinguish in your reports between reports which were correct
9 and reports which were not correct?
10 A. It is difficult to pronounce any report as fully correct on the
11 face of it. That's why there was a practice in place where every
12 document would be double-checked repeatedly. This also included looking
13 into the reliability of the source.
14 In other words, a report would be written and -- well, now I
15 can't recall. But based on the information it contains, this specific
16 report, I think it definitely merited the attention.
17 Q. I'm not sure I understood your last comment. You said:
18 "... a report would be written -- well, now I can't recall. But
19 based on the information it contains, this specific report, I think it
20 definitely merited the attention."
21 My question to you had been: How would the reader of this report
22 know that the information may not be correct if you didn't say so in that
23 report? That really was my question.
24 A. A reader would review the contents of the document and would then
25 get back to me and tell me what needed doing in order to verify the
1 information contained therein.
2 I said that the information was supposed to be double-checked.
3 But what sort of information returned, I don't know.
11 Pages 13670-13672 redacted. Closed session.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, you have given evidence about a meeting attended
15 by Zoran Janackovic, Goran Hadzic, Ratko Sikimic, Ilija Kojic, and others
16 from the JNA and SDB and SSDB. Aside from Mr. Janackovic, what other
17 members of the Serbian DB were present at that meeting?
18 A. As far as I can remember, he was the only one.
19 Q. Who was it who called the meeting?
20 A. I don't know who proposed for the meeting to be held. My chief
21 told me to appear there at a specified date and time.
22 Q. Your chief being Ratko Sikimic?
23 A. My immediate supervisor was Djordje Gojkovic.
24 Q. Apart from those you listed in your testimony who attended the
25 meeting, do you recall anyone else who attended?
1 A. Well, in addition to four of us that I named, there may have been
2 up to ten people in total. No, I don't think I missed anyone.
3 Q. You testified that according to what was discussed and assigned
4 at the meeting, the intelligence-gathering process was to be changed.
5 And this gathering of security information from Croatia was primarily due
6 to the hostilities in that area.
7 Would that be accurate?
8 A. I don't understand. The result of the information and hostile
9 activities. I don't understand that part.
10 Q. Let me take it step by step.
11 How would the intelligence-gathering process be changed according
12 to what was discussed and assigned during that meeting?
13 A. It would be changed in such a way that the presence of operatives
14 in the areas in question was possible. In other words, there was
15 possibility of direct insight into the situation. Up until that point,
16 all intelligence was based on information received from citizens fleeing
17 Croatia and coming to Serbia. The change in the situation was in the
18 fact that I could cross the border.
19 Q. Now, these security concerns would implicate potential security
20 risks not only for the Vojvodina area but for the entirety of Serbia.
21 Wouldn't that be correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Now, during your testimony last week, at page 13571 and 2, you
24 were asked what happened at the meeting.
25 You said that:
1 "On behalf of the State Security Service, actually, the position
2 of the State Security Service was that I should go there and the
3 colleague of mine from Novi Sad, Radovan Vucurevic. And from the public
4 security service, Momcilo Radovic, aka Pujo, and Boro Predragovic."
5 So you your colleague Vucurevic were the ones to be dispatched
6 from the State Security Service; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What was it, to your knowledge, that led the Serbian DB to select
9 you and Vucurevic for this particular mission?
10 A. I would link it up with an event that took place one or two days
11 before the meeting. As part of our regular duties, Mr. Vucurevic and
12 myself were escorting a member of the SFRY Presidency, Mr. Branko Kostic,
13 to a meeting in Borovo Selo. If I'm not mistaken, it was on the
14 27th of July, 1991. My task, as well as Vucurevic's, was to take the
15 state's delegation across the Danube river to secure them during their
16 visit and bring them back to the territory of Vojvodina or Serbia safely.
17 I can only assume that this was then just a continuation of my
18 crossings of the border.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: I do think there is a possibility of the Court
21 being mislead, that there is a hidden question or hidden premise in my
22 learned friend's previous question which has not been either noticed by
23 the witness or certainly hasn't been addressed, which is the -- the
24 premise being that the state security of Serbia sent the witness. The
25 witness hasn't said that. I don't think his previous testimony said
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that is not a kind of
3 comments -- of course you can raise this matter, but the witness now is
4 aware of everything you mention. And I think that it should have been
5 done in the absence of the witness or the witness having taken his
6 earphones off.
7 MR. JORDASH: Well, if that's Your Honours' ruling, then, yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Ms. Marcus, you've heard the comment which, again, appropriately
10 should have been made in the absence of the witness or with the witness
11 taking his earphones off. But if you want to further pursue this
12 specific aspect, you're invited to do so.
13 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. I didn't realize there was
14 any confusion on this issue.
15 Q. DST-063, who did you view was deploying you to Croatia, to the
16 areas that you were deployed to, as a -- as a DB operative? Who was
17 it -- under whose authority were you being deployed?
18 A. Me and my colleague were selected by my chief, Djordje Gojkovic.
19 Q. But the ultimate mission and -- which was the result of the tasks
20 assigned at that meeting was a federal DB/Serbian DB mission; isn't that
21 correct? Thus, the presence of the highest level DB officials.
22 A. On one hand, yes. But I believe the republican state security
23 and the federal state security were interested in gaining insight of the
24 situation in the area of question. We're talking about 1991, when this
25 was all one state.
1 Q. Now, you stated during your testimony last week at 13573 that
2 your mission was to:
3 "... obtain data and information such as could indicate that a
4 part of these interethnic conflicts would be, could be, spilled over to
5 also the territories of Vojvodina and Serbia."
6 Now, you were -- were you in a position to have refused this
8 Basically, my question is: Did you, on the ground, in the
9 Novi Sad DB, have the authority to say to those in the federal DB at that
10 meeting, "No, I'm sorry, we cannot carry this out"?
11 A. I don't see any purpose in refusing to do that. And, secondly,
12 we are professionals. There was no reason for us to refuse it. I don't
13 believe anyone would have.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That is not an answer to the question. You said, as
15 a matter of fact you had no reason to refuse it.
16 The question was: If you would have had reasons, would you have
17 been in a position to refuse this assignment and this deployment?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in a position to refuse such
19 a deployment, yes.
20 MS. MARCUS:
21 Q. Would the Novi Sad DB have been in a position to refuse a
22 deployment? I'm just trying to clarify. You individually, personally,
23 may have refused, but would your authorities have been in a position to
24 refuse the assignment?
25 A. I don't know. I cannot give you a comment on that. I don't know
1 what my chief or Chief Sikimic could have or should have done. I don't
2 want to engage in any guess-work here.
3 Q. DST-063, do we understand correctly that this mission was one
4 which lasted, for you, from the moment of that meeting in July 1991 all
5 the way through to the Erdut Agreement in 1995?
6 A. Yes. I was going to the area throughout that period, yes.
7 Q. During that time, were you deployed to any other regions, apart
8 from the area of Eastern Slavonia?
9 A. No.
11 Pages 13679-13684 redacted. Closed session.
7 Q. During your testimony last week at page 13592, when you were
8 asked about a document relating to events in Dalj on the
9 21st of September, 1991, you stated that at this time you were in
10 Borovo Selo and you probably went to Dalj. "I cannot dispute that," you
12 Do you recall saying that?
13 A. I suppose I did say so.
14 Q. So on and after the 21st of September, 1991, you were in Dalj
15 gathering information as a DB operative; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Were you also in Dalj gathering information on or about the
18 4th of October of 1991?
19 A. I probably was.
20 Q. There has been evidence in this case that in September and
21 October of 1991 Serb forces, particularly SAO SBWS TO and SAO SBWS MUP
22 forces, arrested Croat civilians and kept them in a detention facility in
23 the police building in Dalj. On the 21st of September, 1991,
24 Goran Hadzic and Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan, visited the detention
25 facility and ordered the release of two of the detainees.
1 According to the evidence, Serb forces, in particular the SBWS TO
2 and MUP forces, and Arkan's SDG shot and killed 11 detainees and buried
3 them in a mass grave in the village of Celije.
4 You told us that you did not find out about this incident until
5 at least 1993 when you heard it from Cizmic. Are you saying that in
6 spite of being in Dalj and in the area of Dalj during and after the
7 21st of September, 1991, that you never heard of the detention and
8 execution of ethnic Croat civilians in the Dalj Police Station?
9 A. Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. And if you want me to, I
10 can explain.
11 Q. Please do.
12 A. First, the incident in itself is horrific. Being there, under
13 those circumstances, in an area of combat activity, I don't think I'd be
14 able to find a person who would have the courage to report it. And I'm
15 talking about 1993. The situation settle the down. The local
16 authorities became operational. I met Cizmic. I think he was the
17 commander of the Dalj Police Station at the time. That was different.
18 Whereas, this particular incident was in 1991. Everything was possible.
19 Anything could happen anywhere. And it did.
20 Had I known of this incident, I would have included it in my
21 report, without going into what should happen beyond that. But I would
22 have stated it as information, yes.
23 Q. A witness who testified recently told this Chamber that everybody
24 in Dalj knew about this incident at that time. In particular, those in
25 the police.
1 A. I believe him.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. MARCUS:
4 Q. How is it that you are the only police officer who was there who
5 didn't hear about this incident?
6 A. First of all, I don't know even that there was a
7 Dalj Police Station in 1991. I'm not sure.
8 Well, as for all the policemen being aware of it, that's
9 something that I can accept as his statement, a generalisation. I myself
10 did not go into -- to Dalj to investigate. I had a mission, and I was
11 supposed to check something in respect of an individual that I was
12 supposed to identify. Perhaps they had a kind of deference for me from
13 the police service there, so they didn't approach me on this. But I'm
14 speculating now.
15 Q. Why would they have had a kind of deference for you?
16 A. Well, how would I know that?
17 Q. There has been evidence in this case that on the
18 4th of October, 1991, Serb forces, including Arkan's SDG, and members of
19 the SAO SBWS TO and MUP returned to the police building in Dalj and shot
20 26 ethnic Croat civilians who were detained there. The bodies, according
21 to the evidence, were then dumped into the Danube river.
22 You testified that you were in Dalj on or about the
23 4th of October, 1991. In your comment chart, D388, MFI, on page 1, you
24 commented on Exhibit P11, which is a report on this incident. You stated
25 that you heard about these events considerably later.
1 Do you recall how you heard about these events?
2 A. Can I make a correction? I cannot state with any certainty that
3 I was in Dalj on the 4th of October. It was a period of time when I made
4 trips there. But it's difficult for me, 20 years on, to know where I was
5 on a specific date.
6 Now let me answer your question. After I got to know
7 Zeljko Cizmic, I suppose we were reminiscing about the events from the --
8 these war-torn areas. He may have brought it up and told me the story.
9 But that's where this story between us ended as well.
10 Q. But that was a couple of years later; is that correct?
11 A. Well, after this incident, yes, I suppose that's correct.
12 Q. So in spite of being in or, as you've now clarified, near Dalj at
13 this time, you did not hear anything about the execution of 26 ethnic
14 Croat civilians in the Dalj Police Station on the 4th of October, 1991,
15 at that time?
16 A. Now, really, I can't be as precise about the dates, and this is a
17 very precise date. So, simply ...
18 Q. Now, earlier you tried to explain to us that if Arkan had -- and
19 his forces had attacked civilians, if there were potentially to be
20 serious security consequences of that attack, it would then have been the
21 kind of information that would have been of importance to you in your
23 So is this an instance where the assessment would have been that
24 there were no serious consequences of this kind of a killing? Why would
25 this particular instance not have come to your attention, not have been
1 something that would you have come across in your work?
2 A. Such an incident would definitely merit our attention. But let
3 me underline the fact that we are talking about 1991, a period of intense
4 combat activities.
5 What followed beyond 1991 was a period of peace and stabilisation
6 in the area. There is an enormous difference between what the situation
7 was like in 1991 and the subsequent years.
8 Q. And in this particular instance, you did not see or learn about
9 the bodies of these ethnic Croatian victims floating down the Danube from
11 A. As far as I remember, I did not. And I most certainly did not
13 Q. Did you ever hear of the SAO SBWS TO committing crimes alongside
14 Arkan and his men in 1991?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What about the SBWS MUP? Did you ever hear about MUP members
17 committing crimes, along with Arkan's SDG and the TO, in 1991?
18 A. No.
19 Q. There has been evidence in this case that in 1991 the SNB was
20 also participating in crimes in co-operation with Arkan, the TO, and
21 other Serb forces in the region.
22 Did you learn of any co-operation between the SNB and Arkan and
23 his SDG to commit crimes in the region?
24 A. No.
25 Q. There has been evidence in this case that on the
1 9th of November, 1991, Arkan led the SDG and the SBWS TO and MUP in
2 arresting at least nine ethnic Hungarians and Croat civilians and took
3 them to the Erdut training centre. They shot and killed these civilians
4 the next day, according to the evidence.
5 Did you know anything about this incident at the time?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So I suppose you also don't know anything about several days
8 after this when members of the SNB of the SBWS, in co-operation with the
9 SDG, arrested and killed some relatives of the original victims and threw
10 their bodies into a well in Borovo.
11 Have you heard of that incident?
12 A. No.
13 Q. There's also been evidence that on the 11th of November, 1991,
14 the SDG, SBWS TO and MUP forces arrested seven non-Serb civilians and
15 detained them in a house in Erdut. They beat and interrogated them in
16 that house, according to the evidence.
17 That night, Arkan's Men took them to the training centre in
18 Erdut. There, they killed the five civilians.
19 Did you learn about these killings?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, DST-063, from your answers to these questions, it is clear
22 that for the killings that the Prosecution has charged in the SBWS
23 region, you did not even learn that a crime had been committed during the
24 time that you were an operative in Eastern Slavonia in 1991. You only
25 found out about these murders long after they had been committed.
1 Would you agree that you are not able to provide accurate
2 information on the Serb forces who were involved in crimes in
3 Eastern Slavonia during that time?
4 A. I can confirm that you understood me well. You enumerated
5 several cases that I'm hearing of for the first time here and now.
6 If I may add: November was a period of intense combat activities
7 and operations around the city of Vukovar, and my activities at the time
8 were minimal. And I'm not even sure whether I was physically present
9 there at the time.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MS. MARCUS:
12 Q. So you confirm that you do not have information about the Serb
13 forces and their activities and involvement in crimes in Eastern Slavonia
14 in 1991; is that correct?
15 A. I confirm that.
16 Q. The Defence informed us that you have knowledge of the appearance
17 of Arkan in the region, Arkan's training camp, and Arkan's relationship
18 with Badza.
19 Did you tell the Defence that can you provide information about
20 Arkan's arrival in the region, his Erdut training camp, and his
21 relationship with Badza?
22 A. No. I don't know how this came about.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: Again --
25 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to have it literally quoted?
1 MR. JORDASH: Well, yes -- the summary says the witness will --
2 [Overlapping speakers] ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, let's -- let's --
4 Ms. Marcus, there apparently is a comment on the way in which you
5 put it to the witness. Would you please literally use the words the
6 Defence has used.
18 MS. MARCUS: Would the Court Officer please call up Exhibit D31.
19 Q. DST-063, what you will see on the screen in front of you is a
20 military security report regarding the SDB's training centre in Erdut,
21 which is dated 19 October 1991.
22 On page 1, it states that a certain Lieutenant Blagojevic had
23 contacted Arkan at the Erdut centre, and Arkan had told him that:
24 "Weaponry, ammunition, and mines and explosives had been supplied
25 by the MUP and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia and that
1 he had been distributing them to the TO staffs in Erdut, Sarvas, and
2 Borovo Selo ..."
3 Did you know that these ministries of the Republic of Serbia were
4 involved with Arkan's training centre?
5 A. Absolutely not.
6 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer now please call up P1078.
7 Q. This is another military security report regarding Arkan and the
8 SDG, dated January 1992.
9 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 3 in the English and page 2
10 in the B/C/S.
11 Q. This report lists the vehicles and weapons that Arkan has at the
12 Erdut centre. The report goes on to state that these weapons and
13 vehicles were acquired from the TO, MUP, and JNA.
14 Then on page 4 in the English, it states that Arkan is:
15 "... openly supported by the MUP, TO, and MNO of the Republic of Serbia."
16 And that he is officially subordinated to the JNA, but this is only
17 formal. And he enters and leaves the combat area as he pleases.
18 Do you know where Arkan got the authority to come and go as he
19 pleases, without being reprimanded by any of the authorities?
20 A. No. This report was provided by a military man who had such
21 information. I'm not saying it is correct, but that person was in a
22 situation where he could obtain this type of information, number of
23 vehicles, and so on. I could not.
24 Q. Isn't it possible that had you gathered information, you would
25 have learned, yourself, about Arkan's relationship with the Serbian MUP
1 and DB?
2 A. How could I have gathered such information? Who was I supposed
3 to ask?
4 You must understand that I was an operative, and that is the
5 lowest level within my service at the time.
6 Q. Thank you. I'm done with the document.
7 DST-063, I understand from your testimony last week that the
8 1st of August, 1991, was the date of your first trip into Croatia
9 following the meeting in July.
10 Is that accurate?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You testified that on that day you went to Borovo Selo and met
22 between March 1991 and August 1991.
23 Is that your evidence?
24 A. I cannot say that it was on the 31st of March, that that was the
25 start date. But after the events in Borovo Selo, they did organise on
1 their own, yes.
3 inform you of his Serbian DB affiliation?
4 A. No, I hear this for the first time. The only contact was through
5 me, as far as I know.
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, this might be a good time for our
7 break, if you're --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us an indication as to how much time
9 would you need after the break.
10 MS. MARCUS: I will certainly use the entirety of the next
11 session, with your leave. I'll do my best to finish by the end of the
13 JUDGE ORIE: That would be appreciated.
14 We'll take a break. And we resume at 12.30.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
18 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 I just wanted to mention that we have a submission we'd like to
20 make in relation to the next witness and the circumstances. If possible,
21 we'd like to make it before the end of today. I think that would be
23 JUDGE ORIE: And how much time would that take?
24 MS. MARCUS: Maybe about ten minutes or so.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes. I will give you ten minutes at the end
1 of this session.
2 MS. MARCUS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
5 Q. DST-063, did you tell the Defence before your testimony that it
7 get in touch with? Did you inform them of that before your testimony?
8 A. As far as I recall, I -- no, they did not. I did not.
9 MS. MARCUS: Could I have D398 on the screen, please.
10 Q. The document we're about to look at is one which you commented in
11 your comments chart and page 7, and you testified about this last week at
12 pages 13603 to 4. You confirmed that this report was prepared by you.
13 The front page is apparently a cover page forwarding your report
14 to Jovica Stanisic personally at the Serbian DB, which, you say, was done
15 on your suggestion.
16 This report details an incident on the 16th of February, 1993,
17 when the RSK army surrounded the RSK MUP building in Vukovar in an
18 attempt to forcibly remove some of the RSK MUP leadership.
19 Do you recall this incident?
20 A. Yes.
21 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 3 in B/C/S and page 2 in
22 English. Focussing, please, on the bottom of page 3 in B/C/S.
23 Q. Now, on this page it states that the demand was for Ilija Kojic,
24 who was Assistant Minister of the RSK MUP, to be replaced, in addition to
1 replaced, and he was accused - pardon me - he was accused of allegedly
2 cooperating with the RDB of the MUP of Serbia.
3 To your knowledge, why was there a demand for Ilija Kojic to be
5 A. Where co-operation with the DB and the MUP of Serbia is referred
6 to, what is meant there is my -- is my contacts with him. I don't know
7 of any other co-operation with the MUP.
8 As for the demands, that's not something I can speculate about.
9 Q. Perhaps there might be some misunderstanding.
10 My question was that in this document it states that
12 MUP of Serbia.
13 And then my question to you, which I think you've answered now,
14 was that there was a -- why -- do you know why there was a demand for
15 Ilija Kojic to be replaced.
16 Now, you've told us that you -- you do not know.
17 So certainly by the time you prepared this report you were aware
15 for the Serbian DB in 1991; is that accurate?
16 A. Yes. I'm not aware of it.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MS. MARCUS:
19 Q. Now, I asked you a few questions ago, How do you know that he
20 didn't work for the DB. You told us that this is what you know. How did
21 you know that he never worked for the Serbian DB?
22 A. Well, I can't be positive about it, but I suppose the man would
23 have told me so.
24 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P407, on
25 which the witness provided comments in his comments chart on page 4.
3 was working in counter-intelligence in the Novi Sad SDB in 1991. That's
4 at page 13587.
5 Now, this report, as can you see, is dated the
6 22nd of February, 1993, and it's an update on the same incident. The
7 first paragraph of the report discusses a conflict between Ilija Kojic
8 and what is described as the head of the "non-existent Vukovar TO,"
9 Miroljub Vukovic.
10 Can you assist us in understanding what is meant by "non-existent
11 Vukovar TO"?
12 A. I cannot confirm all the statements made during in that period of
13 time, but I do know for a fact that Milorad Vujovic [as interpreted] had
14 been a commander of the Vukovar TO for a while. Why it is referred to
22 Q. Okay. Now, the report states that the information has gotten out
23 of control and turned against Ilija Kojic, Slobodan Ivkovic, Lazic, and
24 Kostic. The source of this information suggests that Kojic staged the
25 conflict in order to effect a change of leadership of Vukovar TO.
1 The second paragraph reads:
2 "The source said Serbia was to blame for all these developments,
3 that is, the assistant minister of the Ministry of the Interior of
4 Serbia, Jovica Stanisic, who tried to use Ivkovic, Kojic, and Kostic and
5 others to turn the Krajina into a twilight zone."
6 Can you explain, if you know, what was meant by Stanisic trying
7 to "use Ivkovic, Kojic, Kostic and others to turn Krajina into a twilight
9 A. Well, I don't know what the author of the text or the source of
10 information meant. It is a subjective view, after all.
11 But I can't see how it was possible for anyone at all to change
12 anything significantly in the region, apart from a political solution.
13 That's my view.
14 It is up to the source of information to provide explanations for
15 his statements.
16 Q. Lazic and Kostic are mentioned in this report, which follows up
17 on the incident that you reported about just a few days previously. But
18 your report did not mention either Lazic or Kostic.
25 interpretation of the events by Vodolija.
1 Q. What did you know about Ivkovic and Lazic's connections to
2 Jovica Stanisic at the time of these reports?
3 A. Absolutely nothing.
4 Q. Do you have any reason to disbelieve whether Stanisic would have
5 done something to encourage conflict?
6 A. I cannot comment on it. I can give you a general statement. I
7 don't see that anything significant could change over there. And who
8 would have wanted to have a "twilight zone" over there? The area was
9 inhabited. There were people living there. And nobody could permit
10 themselves to lead them into such a situation. And who would have dared
11 to? Individuals mattered least under those circumstances.
12 Q. There is nothing which would cause you to doubt the source's
13 assertion about Mr. Stanisic's relationship with Ivkovic, Kojic, and
14 Kostic, is there?
15 A. I have no doubts. With a high degree of certainty, I can say
16 that the individuals mentioned here never, ever saw Mr. Stanisic. Had
17 they seen him, they would have boasted about it. Mr. Stanisic was the
18 leader of my service. To me, this sounds incredible.
19 Q. I'm finished with the document. Thank you.
20 Now, you testified last week that you had never seen or met Boro
21 and Pujo until the meeting that you all attended with Janackovic; is that
23 A. No, I had never seen Boro, but I knew Bojo [as interpreted]
24 through various sports activities. I wasn't familiar with his
25 professional dealings.
1 Q. And after you were dispatched along with Boro and Pujo and
2 Vucurevic to Vukovar, you testified that did you not know what activities
3 they conducted; is that correct?
4 A. In principle, yes. I know that they toured the newly established
5 police stations, that's all.
6 Q. So I take it you didn't know that Boro and Pujo were involved in
7 meetings of the SBWS TO along with Ilija Kojic and Dragan Lazic; is that
9 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, can I object to the way that's phrased. Is
10 that the Prosecution's case? Does that arise from evidence? It's
11 presented as fact, but we don't know the basis for that.
12 MR. GROOME: I'll clarify.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please to do.
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you.
15 Q. That has been evidence in this case that Boro and Pujo were
16 involved in meetings in the SBWS TO, along with Ilija Kojic and
17 Dragan Lazic. Are you aware of that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. There has also been evidence in this case that Boro and Pujo were
20 involved with the Serbian DB in 1991 during the same time that you were
21 in Eastern Slavonia. Did you know anything about this?
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. Could I --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 MR. JORDASH: Could I object, with the witness's headphones being
25 taken off, please.
11 Pages 13704-13707 redacted. Closed session.
19 Q. DST-063, would you agree that in 1991, during the time that the
20 security situation in Serbia was getting more complex, there was
21 something of a reorganisation of police forces, and special police units,
22 or PJM detachments, were formed. Isn't that right?
23 A. I don't know about that, the special police and reorganisation.
24 Q. Are you aware of the instruction by the minister of the interior
25 to form PJM detachments?
1 A. No.
2 Q. So you're not aware of a PJM detachment in Novi Sad under the
3 command of Obrad Stevanovic; is that your evidence?
4 A. No. I am aware of that. But I don't know when the minister took
5 the decision to establish the PJMs. I am aware of it, but only of it
6 existing at a later date.
7 Q. According to your knowledge, from what time are you aware of the
8 PJM detachment in Novi Sad under the command of Obrad Stevanovic?
9 A. I cannot specify when, but it was 1992 or 1993. That was when I
10 became aware of this term "PJM."
11 Unfortunately, I cannot help you beyond that. And I'm hearing
12 for the first time that Mr. Stevanovic was the commander of the PJM in
13 Novi Sad.
14 Q. According to the information we have, Obrad Stevanovic was the
15 commander of the PJM overall. But the commander of the PJM in Novi Sad
16 was Boro Predragovic. Were you aware of that?
17 A. Yes. That, yes. But Obrad Stevanovic was not the commander of
18 the PJM in Novi Sad, as you told me a moment ago.
19 Q. According to your knowledge, was Obrad Stevanovic the overall
20 commander of the PJM in the region?
21 A. In what region? I apologise.
22 Q. In the broader region surrounding Novi Sad, in the Vojvodina
24 A. It is possible, but I was not aware of it. And I'm not aware of
25 it now.
1 Q. From what date are you aware of Boro Predragovic being the
2 commander of the PJM in Novi Sad?
3 A. It was certainly later than 1991, but I cannot tell you anything
4 more precise than that.
5 Q. Were you aware of Dragoslav Krsmanovic being Boro Predragovic's
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now, at the time the security situation was worsening, namely in
9 May 1991, the Serbian minister of the interior adopted a decision on
10 Operative Action Danube.
11 Are you familiar with Operative Action Danube?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So you will be able to confirm for us that under
14 Operative Action Danube operative staff monitored the territory along the
15 border with the Republic of Croatia; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the staff of Operative Action Danube were situated in
18 Novi Sad; is that right?
19 A. That I do not know. I'm not even sure we're talking about the
20 same action, because my service was forwarding its report as a part of
21 this operative action. Now, what the public security service was doing,
22 I would not want to speculate on that.
23 Q. So you confirm that your operative work was, in fact, a part of
24 Operative Action Danube.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you mention this to the Defence before you came to testify
3 A. No.
4 Q. Now, correct me if I'm wrong: As far as I know, the territory
5 covered by this Operative Action Danube was divided into three parts; is
6 that correct?
7 A. That I don't know. You reminded me of the action. I wouldn't
8 have remembered its name on my own without your help.
9 Q. Based on your evidence, you carried out your functions within the
10 Novi Sad DB in Bac municipality; is that correct?
11 A. Not only in the municipality of Bac. The municipalities
12 bordering with Croatia are Bac, Backa Palanka, and Beocin.
13 Q. So who was the commander within Operative Action Danube to whom
14 you were responsible?
15 A. That I don't know. My reports that were part of this action were
16 drafted by me and sent to the centre, which does not necessarily mean
17 that such reports, if the contents merited it, were forwarded to the
18 centre down there. But who was leading the action, that I don't know.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that Miodrag Zavisic was the commander of
20 Operative Action Danube in the area of Bac municipality?
21 A. I cannot agree with you because I don't know. He was there, but
22 what his position was, I don't know.
23 Q. Can you explain to us how is it possible to be an operative
24 within an operative action and not know who's the commander of the
25 operative action in which you're working?
1 A. I can explain it in quite simple terms.
2 First of all, we have two different services involved here. My
3 level of awareness at the time is very modest. And the name of the
4 commander of the Operative Action Danube was not something that would
5 mean anything to me then or now. I had very clear tasks, and I just list
6 them as being related to the Operative Action Danube, and that's all.
7 MS. MARCUS: Could I have one moment, please, Your Honour.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MS. MARCUS:
10 Q. DST-063, I'm going to ask you about something you said earlier.
11 I'm just looking for the transcript reference. It was today.
12 Now, on page 36 of the temporary transcript, I asked you:
13 "Do we understand correctly that this mission was one which
14 lasted, for you, from the moment of that meeting in July 1991 all the way
15 through to the Erdut Agreement in 1995?"
16 Your response was: "Yes. I was going to the area throughout
17 that period, yes."
18 Then you were asked: "During that time, were you deployed to any
19 other regions, apart from the area of Eastern Slavonia?"
20 Your answer was: "No."
21 That's the end of the quote.
22 Can you confirm for us that you did not take part in any other
23 operative tasks anywhere else other than Slavonia and the Vojvodina area
24 in 1991?
25 A. I can absolutely confirm that, yes.
1 Q. Have you ever seen your DB personnel file?
2 A. I may have, but I don't remember.
3 Q. Well, let's take a look at your personnel file. Your official
4 record does not seem to correspond to what you were actually doing.
11 Pages 13714-13716 redacted. Closed session.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour. Thank you.
17 Q. Now, DST-063, are you aware that Jovica Stanisic also had
18 Milan Radonjic retroactively officially deployed to Kosovo from May to
19 November of 1991?
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the name of the
22 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. It was Milan Radonjic.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 MS. MARCUS:
25 Q. Are you aware that Jovica Stanisic also had Dragan Filipovic
1 retroactively officially deployed to Kosovo from April to November 1991?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you aware that Jovica Stanisic also had Franko Simatovic
4 retroactively officially deployed to Kosovo from April to November 1991?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Were you operating in co-ordination or co-operation with
7 Franko Simatovic in Eastern Slavonia in 1991?
8 A. No. And I've never seen him there.
9 Q. So your evidence would be that all of these retroactive
10 assignments to Kosovo would have been for the purpose of justification of
11 financial expenses incurred in SBWS.
12 Is that your evidence?
13 A. I can only speak for myself. And roughly, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you: You say, I can't speak for
15 the others. To what extent can you confirm that it was the financial
16 aspects that caused your retroactive deployment in Kosovo?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot be absolutely certain
18 about it. I can see that as the only possible reason, because I do know
19 that there was a problem of that nature.
20 JUDGE ORIE: How did you know that; and what was exactly that
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that I was supposed to get
23 some finances that would cover per diems and separated life and that
24 there was no modus that could be found to take care of it. And I do
25 remember that it took a while before it was resolved, if it was resolved
1 at all. That's all I can say.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Did you receive those per diems?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so, but after quite a
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're talking about the delay. Is it true
6 that you did receive them, although delayed; or do you say, It was
7 delayed but whether I received it finally, yes or no, I do not remember?
8 Which of the two?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I did receive it. I'm
10 convinced I received it. But I cannot remember when or any details about
11 it. But I do believe that it was resolved positively for me.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
13 I was asking the question because initially the witness said that
14 he -- he could only assume a certain explanation, where there seems to be
15 at least some factual ground for it.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Last clarification I have on this particular issue.
19 So are you saying that this financial payment that you received,
20 that you ultimately received, per diems, reimbursement for expenses,
21 et cetera, which you say was justified by this false deployment document,
22 that you received that from the Serbian DB in recognition of a work that
23 you did in the SBWS in 1991?
24 A. I wouldn't describe it as some kind of recognition for my work.
25 I believe it was something that I was due anyhow, and there was no other
1 way of resolving it. I just cannot see what other intention may have
2 been behind a decision such as this. What would be the intention of it?
3 What would be the purpose of it?
4 Q. So, in your view, due to your work in SBWS in 1991 for the
5 Serbian DB, you were due this money as compensation, reimbursement for
6 expenses, et cetera.
7 Do I have that right?
8 A. Yes. It was due to me, but there was also the administrative
9 problem of the close proximity of that region. Very often I would return
10 to Novi Sad, and simply a mode was found. I could have been deployed to
11 the Nis centre, which is about 300 kilometres away from Novi Sad, and I
12 would get the same.
13 Q. So you were being paid as if you were carrying out operations or
14 operative actions in Kosovo, although you were actually carrying out your
15 operative actions in SBWS; is that right?
16 A. Yes, I think now you've come closest to the truth.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have, I would say, about a half an
18 hour to 40 minutes more of cross-examination, and I'm conscious of the
19 decisions that we have to make about the next witness. I just wanted to
20 raise that for Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 We'll -- Witness DST-063, we would need a bit more of your time
23 tomorrow. And we'd like to see you back tomorrow in the afternoon. I
24 again instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your
25 testimony, whether already given or still to be given tomorrow, and I'd
1 like to invite you to follow the usher and leave the courtroom. See you
2 back tomorrow.
3 [The witness stands down]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, now everything -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 MS. MARCUS: Let me just verify that.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MS. MARCUS: This morning before court I sent around electronic
16 versions of this submission and another one that I was going to make, so
17 I'm sorry that that didn't reach -- seems not to have reached the booths.
18 We're going to send one through right now. I don't know which booth is
19 going to get the hard copy. If someone tells us, tells the Case Manager,
20 which person to send it to by e-mail, we will do that immediately.
21 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, were they sent to the Defence? We haven't
22 found them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I do understand it's for the purposes of --
24 we usually, Mr. Jordash, also do not send to the parties already a copy
25 of what are read-like statements or these kind of things. It's purely in
1 order to facilitate the interpreters to do their job. Nothing else.
2 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus, if you would, at least when you read,
3 do it slowly.
4 MS. MARCUS: I will do so, Your Honours.
5 The Prosecution submission is that we have been detrimentally
6 prejudiced in the context of our preparations for the testimony of
7 DST-040. For the reasons I'm going to set forth, the Prosecution
8 requests that cross-examination be postponed until after the adjournment.
9 The Defence informed the Prosecution on Wednesday, the
10 24th of August, at 7.15 p.m., that the next witness, who was to be
11 DST-030, would not be coming to testify the following week. Just a day
12 prior, the Defence had informed the Prosecution that we could anticipate
13 receiving the 92 ter statement for DST-030 very soon.
14 Until that point, the Prosecution was heavily engaged in
15 preparatory work for DST-030 and DST-042. The ISU Unit was engaged; the
16 Translation Unit informed of the prioritisation of documents pertaining
17 to DST-030 from his ISU search. Rule 66(B) disclosure requests were
18 being prepared. Rule 70 providers were contacted in relation to
19 restricted documents in the ISU search results, and the team itself
20 focussed all its work on DST-030. Following that, the team would turn to
22 When DST-030's testimony was postponed, the Defence informed us
23 of their plan to call DST-040, who was scheduled to be the third witness
24 following DST-030. The Prosecution does very much appreciate the Defence
25 providing the draft statement of DST-040 that same evening, as well as
1 their preliminary documents list containing approximately 236 documents.
2 The Prosecution would note, however, that the draft statement provided to
3 the Prosecution was compiled to a certain extent on dates in 2009 and
4 2010. Therefore, this draft statement could have been provided to the
5 Prosecution by one week prior to the commencement of the Defence case, as
6 we submit, was required pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii).
7 The change in the witness orders implicates not only the
8 Prosecution's preparation for the witness but it has other implications
9 which cause something of a domino effect on other units in the Tribunal
10 as well. The last-minute change affects the timing of the ISU searches
11 for this witness, the consequent Rule 70 clearance requests, the shifting
12 of priorities for translation, and the responses from RFAs to Serbia.
13 We made those shifts urgently on Friday to the best of our
14 ability. In that context, the Prosecution notified Serbia that DST-040
15 will be testifying next week, that is, this week. And Serbia expedited
16 the response to the RFA in respect of DST-040. The expedited response
17 was provided. I would note that is only partially responsive to our
18 request. It was provided on Monday, the 29th of August, at the close of
19 business, containing 681 pages. Upon a brief view of those documents,
20 they are directly and centrally relevant to the credibility of the
22 Just prior to that, the Prosecution had also received the RFA
23 response in relation to DST-063 who is currently on the stand. That
24 response contained 150 pages.
25 One very serious concern is that the RFA responses which we
1 receive, including these and others, are redacted in ways which impact
2 upon the substance. In particular, names are redacted which could be
3 highly relevant to our case.
4 I will just show Your Honours one example. It's not from these
5 two witnesses, but it's from another RFA response relevant to the case,
6 and this -- these very extensive redactions that I've shown you --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, for the record, you've shown us one
8 piece of paper with some five squares covering approximately a third of
9 the surface of that piece of paper fully in black.
10 Please proceed.
11 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 The Prosecution may be seeking to engage the Chamber on this
13 matter which we feel impacts upon Serbia's co-operation with the
14 Tribunal. With respect to this, the Prosecution puts on the record that
15 for any witnesses whose RFA responses from Serbia contain substantive
16 redactions we may be seeking leave to re-call those witnesses once we are
17 able to review the unredacted versions.
18 In the mean time, additional language resources were requested
19 and some language staff had to work yesterday during the holiday on the
20 response for the witness that's currently on the stand, DST-063.
21 On Monday, the 29th of August, at 7.38 p.m., the Prosecution
22 received the final statement for DST-040. At 10.08 p.m., we received the
23 final list of documents, containing 127 documents. At 1.38 p.m.
24 yesterday, the 30th of August, the Prosecution received the comments
25 chart for DST-040 containing 56 documents. But this morning the Defence
1 added a number of documents to his exhibit list yet again.
2 Now, the Prosecution understands the challenges involved in
3 calling witnesses. However, the Prosecution's ability to prepare has
4 been severely hampered in the instant circumstances. The
5 Stanisic Defence requested the adjournment and they also requested the
6 shift in the witness schedule. Now they ask for the schedule to be
7 adjusted yet again to add additional hearings.
8 We submit that in light of the circumstances this would unfairly
9 prejudice the Prosecution. Due to the fact that the Prosecution has had
10 the final statement only three days prior to commencement of testimony,
11 we are still unaware of whether his comments chart contains the final
12 selected exhibits or only some of them, and due to the RFA response which
13 contains 681 pages which cannot be processed in one week, the Prosecution
14 requests that the schedule remain as it is and that cross-examination of
15 DST-040 be conducted after the adjournment.
16 This proposed solution would not result in any prejudice to the
17 ability of the Defence to present its case.
18 In addition, we request the Chamber to order the Defence to
19 provide us with all draft statements of upcoming witnesses pursuant to
20 Rule 67(A)(ii) to enable us to prepare for those witnesses' evidence
21 during the adjournment.
22 And finally, Your Honours, we request that the Defence confirm to
23 us the order of witnesses to be called after the adjournment.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
1 Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock. I do not know whether it
2 would be good to ask you to answer, which would be a matter of one or two
3 minutes only, or whether I would invite you to make brief submissions
4 either in writing in an informal way and then we put that on the record
5 or whether you would start tomorrow morning -- well, tomorrow afternoon,
6 it would be, first, to address the matter.
7 I'm just looking -- at the same time, I'm also aware that, of
8 course, tomorrow afternoon means another day of uncertainty.
9 MR. JORDASH: The only problem I can envisage that if the
10 Prosecution are right, in relation to this latest disclosure, and that it
11 impacts upon their ability to cross-examine the witness, then -- and
12 Your Honours agree with that, then it follows that it would impact upon
13 our ability to lead the witness in direct. So it may be that leaving the
14 argument until tomorrow might -- well, I'm thinking aloud. It could be
15 level until tomorrow, but that certainly would be part of the submission.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know whether I fully understand that it
17 would impact on your ability to lead the witness in direct. Is that
18 because the RFA information came so late? Is that what you're referring
20 MR. JORDASH: Well, one thing that I would want or prefer would
21 be that the Prosecution indicate what it is within the RFA that makes it
22 so difficult for them to cross-examine the witness. I'm -- at least
23 generally speaking. Because we've gone through it and can't see what the
24 problem is because most of it relates to the trial of a number of people
25 for the killing of Djindjic in 2003. There's nothing in that RFA, as far
1 as we can see, which relates to this trial.
2 So perhaps we've missed something, and we'd like the Prosecution
3 to identify it so we can all know what we're dealing with.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that the first thing you would do is
5 to spend ten minutes together and that you explain that the 750 pages --
6 and I might remember your words, Mr. Jordash, that 750 pages, just a
7 couple of days is quite sufficient. If you know more or less what the
8 problem is, that would be really sufficient. I will remember those
9 words. I'll not hold them against you, but I'll not forget them.
10 And perhaps you spend ten minutes on the matter together so that
11 you convince Ms. Marcus that it's only the shopping lists of Mr. A, B, or
12 C, or that it's just the hairdresser's invoices over two years. So that
13 Ms. Marcus, tomorrow, could report to the Chamber that she agrees with
14 you and that there's no reason to postpone the cross-examination.
15 What I'm suggesting is that you try to find out what really that
16 material is about and to see to what extent you could meet each other's
17 concerns. And then the Chamber, of course, will finally decide on how we
18 will proceed and whether we'll grant the request by Ms. Marcus.
19 But it seems that some more homework needs to be done before the
20 Chamber is fed with the right information to decide on the request, at
21 least in the respect of the postponement of the cross-examination.
22 We adjourn for the day. And we'll resume tomorrow, the
23 1st of September, at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this same
24 courtroom, II.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day
2 of September, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.