1 Tuesday, 4 October 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus Jovica
9 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We've had a relatively long break. Before we invite the Defence
12 to call its next witness, I have a few procedural matters which I would
13 like to address first. And I'd first like to go into private session.
14 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
22 inquiring whether a shortened response time would be acceptable for the
23 Prosecution, because otherwise we would miss that witness.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, can I inform the Chamber that it is the
25 Prosecution's position that should this application be granted, the
1 witness should be called at the end of the witness list of the Stanisic
2 Defence so that we can conduct at least some investigations into the
3 background into -- information that might be available about the witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These are two, of course, two matters:
5 Whether or not the witness can be added to the 65 ter list; and the
6 second is when he would be then be -- have to be called for giving his
8 Would it be possible to respond by Friday noon?
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if the Chamber will allow me to respond
10 orally, I will endeavour during the break to inform myself of all the
11 issues and be prepared to state our full position at the next break.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Unless -- I don't think that there will be any
13 objection against an oral response.
14 Does the Simatovic Defence want to add anything or do they want
15 to respond?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We leave it in
17 your hands. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'd like to hear from you later today,
19 Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think we can move into open session again.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 The next item I would like to raise is the non-sitting week.
1 The parties have been informed last week about a non-sitting week
2 in October. Unfortunately, the Chamber had to change the scheduling in
3 this respect, and the non-sitting week would then be one week later than
4 we had announced at this moment. It would be the first week of November,
5 starting on the 31st of October, which is a Monday. So that would be the
6 non-sitting week; whereas, in the week before that, we would hear further
8 If the wrong announcement -- or at least the previous
9 announcements, and now the change causes the parties great difficulties,
10 we would then like to hear what those difficulties are.
11 Then I move onto my next matter. Dr. de Man has, through OLAD,
12 requested a one-week extension for submitting his 12-weekly report. And
13 he has given the reasons for that. He wants to complete his search for
14 additional relevant information. The Chamber grants that request and the
15 report, therefore, should be filed by the close of business on the 13th
16 of October, 2011.
17 In that respect, the Chamber wants to draw the attention of the
18 parties to the following. The latest filing of the Stanisic Defence of
19 today was, inter alia, for an order for a psychiatric evaluation under
20 Rule 74 bis. First of all, the Chamber observes that the Stanisic
21 Defence alleges that the most recent report from Dr. de Man was the
22 April 2011 report. The Chamber invites the Stanisic Defence to review
23 also Dr. de Man's latest report of the 14th of July 2011, and also the
24 new report now due to be to submitted by next week, the 13th of October.
25 The Stanisic Defence is given until the 20th of October, 2011 to
1 make further submissions, specifically on their request for a psychiatric
2 evaluation and the parties' response time will then start running from
3 the day of the filing of that further submission.
4 Mr. Groome, the Chamber considers it not very useful to receive
5 your response to that filing of today when we are still waiting for
6 another report which most likely will also refer to other medical
7 information Dr. de Man is seeking, so I said that in 15 minutes you would
8 be relieved from at least one response. That's this one.
9 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So effectively, we're talking about a freeze in
11 further exchange of views until we have received that report, including
12 all the related requests, Mr. Jordash. The Chamber doesn't think it very
13 useful to start exchange views and then to have to redo that after we
14 have received Dr. de Man's report.
15 I see you're whispering okay which didn't reach the audio, but
16 I -- I cannot lip read but ...
17 Then the preparation of the expert report of Mr. Brown causes the
18 Chamber some concerns.
19 The Chamber was involved that Mr. Groome would also like to raise
20 matters in relation to that, and I give him an opportunity to do so at
21 this very moment.
22 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 I want to express the Prosecution's concern over the lack of
24 transparency that has cloaked the process of preparing a protocol for a
25 Defence expert to examine the Mladic notebooks, currently in the
1 possession of the OTP. Over its objection, the Prosecution was not privy
2 to the discussions that led to the preparation and revision of that
3 protocol. We now have two different, very different protocols: One an
4 agreed protocol from yesterday, and one we just received today I --
5 identifying itself as a draft protocol, both authored by the NFI and both
6 with substantial differences.
7 Based on the protocol of yesterday, it became apparent that the
8 NFI will be playing a more active role than simply providing the
9 facilities and means for Mr. Brown to examine the notebooks. What began
10 as a request from the Defence to use the NFI facilities for their expert
11 to conduct his examination appears to have involved in a Defence NFI
12 joint examination of the notebooks using, among other things, a piece of
13 equipment that we had not heard of before, the VSC 6000, a matter which
14 has never been raised with the Prosecution. Our research into this piece
15 of equipment suggests --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down.
17 MR. GROOME: I apologise.
18 Our research into this piece of equipment suggests that it has a
19 number of uses, some of which carry the risk of degrading trace evidence
20 that may be on the notebooks. I want to make it clear that while the OTP
21 has endeavoured to be cooperative in this process, it cannot renege its
22 important duty to preserve the integrity of this very important evidence.
23 The Defence should not assume that simply because it has reached an
24 agreement with individuals in the NFI during private discussions that the
25 OTP will in any way consider itself bound by them. While we have no
1 right nor interest in the precise manners the Stanisic Defence is seeking
2 the advice of experts on, we can see no reason why it has insisted on
3 secrecy with respect to the protocol to be observed.
4 I would also like to make a second point.
5 At the outset, the Stanisic Defence sought a comprehensive and
6 very expensive examination of all of the notebooks seized from
7 Mr. Mladic's residence. It was our understanding that they sought to
8 contest the authenticity, generally. On 28 September, 2011, the Defence
9 filed a motion to recall Manojlo Milovanovic for the purpose of further
10 cross-examination on the Mladic diaries. In this motion in paragraphs 8
11 and 12, the Defence states:
12 "The notebooks contain a significant amount of information
13 relevant to the presentation of the Defence case and Rule 68 exculpatory
14 material. The Mladic materials in the main tend to assist the Defence
15 case and undermine the Prosecution case. Accordingly, the Mladic
16 materials are highly exculpatory."
17 The Prosecution is confused as to what the forensic purpose of
18 Mr. Brown's examination of the notebooks is in light of the fact that the
19 Defence appear to now rely on significant portions of the notebooks that
20 support their case.
21 If the Defence seeks to have Mr. Brown confirm the authenticity
22 of the notebooks, such is not necessary, since it is the Prosecution's
23 case that the notebooks are authentic, and doing so would expose the
24 notebooks to unnecessary risk during the examination. It is also our
25 position that if it is unnecessary that what has been estimated as a
1 coast of 13.000 euros would be wasted. If, on the other hand the Defence
2 case with respect to the notebooks is that a portion of the notebooks are
3 authentic and another portion are forged, it would appear that the scope
4 or the original scope of the intended comprehensive examination should be
5 re-examined and limited to those portions of the diaries or notebooks
6 which the Defence believes may be forgeries.
7 The Prosecution submits that this process having begun this year
8 in March has taken too long and would request that the Chamber consider
9 conducting a hearing into this matter sometime later in the week to
10 resolve these matters and that the Chamber also consider asking a
11 representative of the NFI to attend so that all of the information
12 necessary to reach a decision is before the Chamber.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
15 I will give an opportunity to Mr. Jordash to briefly respond.
16 Before doing so, perhaps I tell the parties what my recollection is, as
17 far as the purpose of the examination of the diaries is concerned.
18 It is my recollection that the primary purpose was not to
19 challenge the authenticity but that the Stanisic Defence wanted to
20 establish when, and perhaps under what circumstances, these diaries were
21 written and not necessarily to change the authenticity, which is a third
22 option apart from the two you mentioned. You talked about being
23 authentic, partly being authentic. You concluded from the fact that the
24 Stanisic Defence wants to rely upon it, that it's not entirely
25 unauthentic. But I think that earlier the issue was raised as when
1 exactly it was produced as an element which the Stanisic Defence wanted
2 to establish.
3 I give a brief opportunity to Mr. Jordash to respond.
4 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the microphone for one reason or another is
6 either not well connected or ...
7 MR. JORDASH: I think I will have to bend into it slightly.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that the connection
9 now is quite different because I hear you well at this point.
10 I would suggest that the lectern would be sent for repair because
11 the problem is the same already for quite a while.
12 Now it's working.
13 MR. JORDASH: Now it's working.
14 Your Honour sums up the situation exactly as it is. If I can
15 just briefly address Mr. Groome's points one by one.
16 Number one, the lack of transparency. The Defence came to the
17 view that our expert should be able to speak to the NFI and be free to
18 discuss with the NFI any aspect of his investigation so that the protocol
19 that came from those discussions was the correct one, which would best
20 preserve the integrity of the notebooks. There was no -- and we maintain
21 this position. There was no reason for the Prosecution to be privy to
22 that, and there was no helpful purpose served in restricting Mr. Brown in
23 the private discussions with an independent expert.
24 What the Prosecution need to know is what the results of those
25 discussions are.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but could you please focus -- first of all,
2 this took quite a lot of months to reach what apparently is still not a
3 final -- a final protocol. The main concern of the Prosecution is that
4 they are in the possession of that material and that whatever you agree
5 with them, fine from whatever point of view, that they are a party in
6 that as well because they have to protect that material and that they are
7 not bound by any conclusion you with Mr. Brown has made with the NFI as
8 what would be the proper level of protection, and that since we have to
9 start that discussion now after we four or five or six months already, or
10 even more, spent on that matter that it would have been far more
11 efficient to not to make them a party to the discussions but at least to
12 give them an opportunity for input on what their concerns are, because
13 after six month, we are starting now only to consider what appear to be
14 major problems for the Prosecution.
15 MR. JORDASH: Well, first of all, the Prosecution have had
16 opportunity. They set out their position clearly at the previous
17 meeting. There's nothing in the protocol which I've seen, the one of
18 yesterday and the one of today, which is complicated or goes against what
19 the Prosecution somewhere insisted should be part of the protocol.
20 The position we were in was that we couldn't say simply to the
21 Prosecution, Yes, can you listen to anything our expert has to say about
22 the issue.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let's cut matters short.
24 Mr. Groome tells us that only now he hears about the VSC 6000
25 machine and that causes major concerns to him, because I take it that the
1 ultraviolet light might weaken DNA -- that's at least what I think might
2 be your concern.
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And if the person using it is not
4 probably versed or trained in using it, there is a heightened risk. So
5 we have no idea whether Mr. Brown has any training or certification in
6 the use of this machine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is a purely technical matter where, I think,
8 the Prosecution could have been involved without being a witness to all
9 the discussions the NFI may have had with Mr. Brown. It's just -- okay.
10 But let's --
11 MR. JORDASH: The situation is this. And it's not as suggested
12 by the Prosecution. The protocol is to all intents and purposes agreed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But when Mr. Groome says, I was informed
14 about VSC 6000 only very recently --
15 MR. JORDASH: As were we.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Brown, has he -- was he not considering to
17 use that machine or -- which seems to be a -- from I know, a relatively
18 normal machine to do comparative analysis?
19 MR. JORDASH: There's no dispute that the machine can be used, as
20 I understand the Prosecution's position. The dispute is - and it's not
21 really a dispute - but the dispute was this morning who can use the
22 machine. The Prosecution say the Defence expert cannot be trusted to
23 uses the machine effectively. It has to be done by an independent
24 forensic examiner. Our experts says fair enough. Let the independent
25 examiner handle the machine. So as far as we're concerned, there is no
1 dispute on this protocol.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the dispute, as far as I understand, is about
3 the potential damaging effect by using that machine on the material.
4 MR. JORDASH: There's no dispute. But there is a -- it is
5 accepted, and the experts agree, that such a machine can damage DNA
6 material. Therefore, what's been agreed between the experts is that
7 there will be the use of the machine under certain conditions. The
8 Prosecution want the condition to be that Mr. Brown, our expert, doesn't
9 handle the machine. Mr. Brown agrees. There is it no dispute.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then -- Mr. Groome if the machine is handled
11 by the NFI expert, does that resolve your problem?
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, this may assist the Chamber. The
13 latest version of the protocol says the following with respect to the
14 roles of the different examiners: With respect to Mr. Brown, document
15 examiner on behalf of the Defence, will preform the examination --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Groome please read out a bit more
17 slowly. Thank you very much.
18 MR. GROOME: Document examiner on behalf of the Defence will
19 perform the examination. If assistance is required, Mr. Brown is
20 expected to arrange this independently.
21 Our understanding of that is that at present state, Mr. Brown
22 intends to use this equipment by himself, and if he needs assistance, he
23 will arrange this independent of the NFI.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have seen only one version of the protocol
25 in which two names were mentioned by -- as being NFI people who would
1 handle the machine at the instructions of Mr. Brown.
2 Is that the latest or the previous one? I've got no idea.
3 MR. JORDASH: I think yesterday the protocols suggested that one
4 or both -- it suggested the two possibilities. Today's protocol, as
5 Mr. Groome has just read out, it suggests that if Mr. Brown wants to use
6 the machine, then he -- and if he needs assistance to use the machine, he
7 will arrange this independent of the NFI.
8 I mean, I reiterate: Mr. Brown does not want to use the machine.
9 He --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's at least then clear. Whether that -
11 and that was my question to Mr. Groome - whether that resolves his
12 problem, he has not answered that question. He has quoted from the
13 version. If Mr. Brown keeps at a distance with his hands of at least 10
14 centimetres from the machine would that resolve your problem?
15 MR. GROOME: It's unclear who is working the machine then. The
16 NFI is stepping back from what they said yesterday. It seems that they
17 don't want to be involved. They are saying now the Defence has to seek
18 the assistance of an independent expert.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Is that -- I don't know whether that's true
20 or not. Whether the independent expert -- again, I haven't seen the last
22 I suggest that I intervened, I interrupted Mr. Jordash. Perhaps
23 it would be wiser to let him finish.
24 MR. JORDASH: I would just refer Your Honours back to what
25 Mr. Groome has just read out, where today's protocol, at line 7, the
1 relevant section is outlined where the NFI suggested if Mr. Brown wants
2 to use the machine, and he needs an assistant. That's what the NFI is
3 talking about, is if Mr. Brown insists on using the machine and he's not.
4 So, in those circumstances, we are waiting for simply the protocol to be
5 signed off on, which involves Mr. Brown confirming in writing that he
6 doesn't want to use the machine. The machine will then be operated by
7 the NFI lab and hopefully that will be the end of the Prosecution's
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- any other matter in response, Mr. --
10 we have -- you have dealt with the allegations of improper secrecy and
11 we -- you have confirmed my recollection, as far as the authenticity is
12 concerned. We have now briefly discussed who will turn the knobs on the
13 machine. Any other matter?
14 MR. JORDASH: The only other matter that I would want to put on
15 record is this. That we understand the Prosecution's concerns, as we
16 will outline at a later stage, those concerns about the integrity of the
17 diaries come a little late, but we understand them.
18 But what we would also ask the Prosecution to understand and also
19 put on record is this then: With the use of any expert, whether it's a
20 Prosecution expert or the Defence expert, there has to be an element of
21 trust, and that element of trust comes from looking at the expert's
22 background, looking at his adherence to professional bodies, and from
23 that, saying, Well, we are prepared to let this expert handle these
24 exhibits and we trust that, given his background, he knows what he is
25 doing, and he will do it properly.
1 What's lacking in the interaction with the Prosecution on this
2 issue is precisely that lack of trust, which is essential to get such an
3 examination done. The very fact that the Prosecution are insisting that
4 an expert cannot use a particular machine, yet, at the same time when
5 they come to examine these documents, no doubt they will say their expert
7 Now, we've agreed that our expert will not because we want to get
8 this done, but we do not accept in principle that the Prosecution's
9 position is the right one.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, most important for the Chamber is at
11 this moment, and after a discussion of six or seven or eight month, that
12 the Stanisic Defence very much insists - and rightly so - to do their
13 examination. That whatever has taken place, no examination, and that's,
14 of course, the Defence case is -- is in progress.
15 We want primarily that a situation where we established where the
16 examination can take place and rather than have litigation on it forever,
17 and let me be very -- was there anything else you would like to add
18 Mr. Jordash? I do understand that you're -- perhaps you or even
19 Mr. Brown feel a bit offended about a lack of trust. Let's --
20 MR. JORDASH: It's not really that we're offended, Your Honour.
21 It's just that to some extent that's what the delay has been about. But
22 the delay, again, to put it on the record, is not anything that is -- has
23 been caused by the Stanisic Defence. We have tried to --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not blaming anyone. Who goes on holiday when
25 and whether they can meet with others. The only thing that I
1 established, that a relatively simple matter has now taken six months and
2 that it's time to conclude it. As far as I'm concerned, as I said
3 before, by the examination to be done.
4 MR. JORDASH: I -- Your Honour -- I completely agree.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then let's leave it to that.
6 The Chamber, of course, it may be clear to the parties that the
7 Chamber has shown a growing interest in results rather than discussion.
8 And we do not know exactly what this week looks like in terms of
9 witnesses, so whether it would be on Thursday or on Friday, if the matter
10 has not been resolved by then, including who turns off the light of the
11 room and who changes the gloves from going from one document to another,
12 if the matter has not been resolved, we'll have a hearing on the matter,
13 as you requested, Mr. Groome. The Chamber has not yet considered whether
14 or not we would invite an NFI specialist on the matter. But either on
15 Thursday, if there's no witness examination, or on Friday, we'll then
16 hear from you.
17 Of course, the Chamber would by far prefer to receive a message
18 that the problems have been resolved, and who then is -- is the one, if
19 it's not Mr. Brown, who turns the knobs of this machine. I hope that you
20 can resolve the matter because it seems that we're close to resolution.
21 Otherwise, the Chamber will then more deeply be involved in getting that
22 evidence before it and what courses that will take, don't be surprised if
23 the Chamber, under those circumstances would play a more active role,
24 because after six months, we think that results should be achieved.
25 So, therefore, we hope there is no need to have a hearing on
1 Thursday or Friday. If we have one, we will go through all of the
2 details. Everything that keeps the parties apart, see how they can be
3 resolved between the parties, and if not between the parties with perhaps
4 the involvement of the Chamber. We would then, of course, also pay
5 further attention to what the whole exercise is about, what the purpose
6 of it is, what the methods are used is -- will be that are used. Then we
7 really will spend a lot of time on it ourselves, because, for the
8 Chamber, as matters stand now, it has taken, by far, too long.
9 I leave it to that. And the Chamber expects to receive well in
10 time a message.
11 Then, yes, there's one -- let me just have a look.
12 Yes, I would like to address the following. On the 22nd of
13 August, 2011, the Republic of Serbia has filed a motion requesting
14 protective measures for one witness, that is DST-030, who was when
15 scheduled to testify following the four-week adjournment. On the 2nd of
16 September, the Chamber invited the Republic of Serbia to file further
17 submissions and informed the parties an informal communication on the 5th
18 of September that they were invited to respond to the further submissions
19 within one week of their filing.
20 On the 9th of the September, the Republic of Serbia filed its
21 further submissions in relation to Witness DST-030.
22 On the 19th of September, the Stanisic Defence informed the
23 Chamber in an informal communication that they would no longer be calling
24 Witness DST-030 and therefore the Republic of Serbia's pending motion for
25 protective measures for Witness DST-030 is declared moot, and I hereby
1 instruct the Registry to so inform the Republic of Serbia.
2 Yes, then before we invite the Stanisic Defence to call its next
3 witness, I would like to briefly go into private session.
4 [Private session]
11 Pages 13912-13913 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 Are there any other matters the parties would like to raise
8 before we invite the Stanisic Defence to call its next witness?
9 Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: With leave of the Chamber, the Prosecution wishes to
11 place a matter on the record at this time concerning its pending Request
12 for Assistance for materials for the next witness.
13 There are a number of developments which led to this witness
14 being advanced here today. At this time, we have not received RFA
15 responses from the Republic of Serbia concerning this witness. While we
16 do not oppose proceeding this week with this witness, and making optimal
17 use of the scheduled sitting days, the Prosecution would like to inform
18 the Chamber of the outstanding RFAs and reserve the ability to later
19 introduce these materials or recall the witness, if necessary, to
20 confront the witness with information subsequently obtained from the
21 Republic of Serbia.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weber, that is now on the record.
23 Any other matter?
24 Then, Mr. Jordash, is the Stanisic Defence ready to call its next
1 MR. JORDASH: Yes, we are.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher please escort the witness into the
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness.
6 Before you will be examined by the parties, I would like to
7 inform you about a few matters.
8 The Republic of Serbia has requested protective measures. I do
9 understand that you, for your own personal reasons, you have not
10 requested any protective measures.
11 Is that correct?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am personally not seeking any
13 protective measures, but given the persons and locations I will mention
14 in my testimony, I believe it was unprofessional and not collegial of me
15 not to be protected, in a way, whereas the others I might refer to would
16 not be. I cannot with any certainty estimate whether what I'm going to
17 say in my testimony would impact on the security and safety of the
18 persons involved. That is why I would kindly ask you to consider the
19 possibility of my testimony in closed session.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
21 be asked to approach the microphones.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come closer to the microphone because the
23 interpreters are having difficulty hearing you. And perhaps the
24 microphone could also be slightly adjusted.
25 The Chamber has decided that, on the basis of the submissions
1 which were made by the Republic of Serbia, that we were not satisfied
2 that protective measures should be granted.
3 Now, the Republic of Serbia has requested closed session
4 testimony. As I said, the Chamber is not convinced that we have to hear
5 your testimony in closed session. But we've also considered what
6 categories of information Serbia seeks to remain confidential, and --
7 because of state security interests.
8 The Chamber has decided that we will not hear your testimony in
9 closed session; but I would like to instruct you, as I have instructed
10 the parties, that you should ask me to go into private session if the
11 questions or the answers you are about then to give would or might reveal
12 either the identity of a person who acted as a BIA source. So I'm not
13 talking about staff or personnel but also sources of the BIA, or if it
14 would reveal the identity of a BIA operative, or if it would -- or if it
15 might reveal a location used by the security services.
16 So whenever we touch upon such an area, you're invited, and the
17 parties are invited already to ask for private session, which means that
18 your testimony, the words you're speaking, will not become public.
19 Later, we'll then send the transcripts of those portions of your
20 testimony to Serbia, and then we can further discuss to what extent even
21 what was said in private session still needs to be confidential or could
22 become public.
23 We are dealing with these matters in such detail because the
24 public character of a trial, as you may understand, is very important.
25 Is this all clear to you?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is clear.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then could I invite you to make a solemn
3 declaration, since we are now at the start of the examination. The text
4 of the solemn declaration -- I would like to invite to you stand and make
5 that solemn declaration.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
7 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Witness.
9 Mr. Jordash, are you ready to examine your witness? And we have
10 not yet established his identity. That's clear to you.
11 Please proceed.
12 WITNESS: RADENKO NOVAKOVIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Jordash:
15 Q. Mr. Witness, would you give your full name, and age, date of
16 birth to the Court, please.
17 A. Radenko Novakovic, born on the 19th of May, 1953.
18 Q. And you're Serbian; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. And currently you are retired, a retired operative worker of the
21 state security; is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Now, before we move into the substance of your testimony, I want
24 to ask you about some documents and a chart that you completed.
25 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, on the screen 1D05081.
1 Q. If you look on the screen, you'll see a chart in a moment. Is it
2 correct that upon your arrival in The Hague you were given a number of
3 documents, to look at this chart, and asked to fill in the right-hand
4 column with any comments you wished to make?
5 A. Yes, absolutely.
6 Q. Do you recognise the signature at the bottom of the page on the
8 A. Yes, that's my signature.
9 Q. And if we look at the document to the left, the left-hand column,
10 look at the title of the document, and then look across to the right-hand
11 side where your comments are, is this the chart that you completed, as
12 indicated by your signature?
13 A. Yes, this is the chart, indeed.
14 Q. And were the comments that you made in accordance with the truth
15 concerning the contents of the document?
16 A. Yes. In keeping with what I know and how I understood those
17 things that I saw.
18 Q. And if you were asked to look at these documents again, these are
19 the comments which you would make, in substance.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And, finally, did you have an opportunity to review the chart,
22 having filled in the comments, and make any corrections that you wished
23 to make?
24 A. Yes, I did that, and then I signed.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this chart with the underlying
2 documents to be MFI'd. The Prosecution have a number of objections to
3 the underlying documents and I think the comments corresponding to those
5 I should tell the Court that a number of the documents are not on
6 our 65 ter list and we wish to make a request to add them to the list
7 before then making a subsequent application to admit them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: This witness is a viva voce witness. There are a
10 total of 29 exhibits which are commented on on this chart. The
11 Prosecution objects to the admission of the chart itself and has
12 objections to admission of many of the underlying documents. Our
13 objections to each document and each comment are set out one-by-one in a
14 chart that we have prepared which I can also provide to the parties and
15 Chamber at this time, if you would like. While the Prosecution
16 objections are set out document by document in this chart, there are
17 three categories of objections that warrant specific comment.
18 First, there are a number of comments in the chart that are
19 without foundation. The Prosecution objects to any use of the chart with
20 these comments unless and until a sufficient foundation is established.
21 In particular, the Prosecution anticipates objecting to any
22 leading questions off of the chart containing those comments.
23 In this context, we again note that this witness is a viva voce
24 witness and therefore the situation is very different than that of a
25 92 ter witness. Often 92 ter witnesses, because we have statements, it
1 can be ascertained or derived what that foundation would be for comments
2 on a chart. This chart was just provided to us yesterday evening and we
3 do not have any statement for the witness. Therefore, we do not have
4 adequate information upon which we can ascertain what that foundation
5 would be.
6 Second, there are nine documents on the chart that are not on the
7 Defence exhibit list. We do not have a motion to add these documents and
8 we are opposing any comments related to the documents or any use of the
9 chart until the Stanisic Defence has filed a motion to add them. We
10 would make this exception if the comments were minimally related to
11 comments on the authenticity, basic comments along those lines, of the
13 JUDGE ORIE: There is an oral motion by now, isn't it?
14 MR. WEBER: Which was just made.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution has, a week ago, asked for additional
17 information upon which we would be able to respond to that motion which
18 we were just provided immediately before court. So I'm not fully in a
19 position to fully respond to what good faith, things of that nature, that
20 the Defence would have to add to them at that time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, at that time or at this moment, the
22 Chamber hasn't heard anything about the reasons why to add them to the 65
23 ter list, so I can imagine that it's difficult for you to formulate a
25 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER: In addition, with respect to these new documents
3 there are a number of topics that are not contained within the
4 notification for this witness in their summary, which makes it even
5 further difficult for the Prosecution to evaluate or conduct any
6 investigations in relation to these materials. Although there are nine
7 documents, we are aware of one of these documents, 1D5062, through our
8 own preparations for the witness. Because we are aware of this document
9 and not prejudiced by it, we do not object to its use or the comments.
10 Lastly, the third category. We have a number of objections to
11 the authenticity of the documents being tendered for admission. This is
12 pending a review of the RFA responses that led to the acquisition of the
13 documents by the Defence. The Defence has provided further information
14 on this, and we will review that information during the course of the
15 testimony of the witness and hopefully be in a position to further inform
16 the Chamber as to our position on the admissibility of those documents.
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand, and would it not be simplest, not
19 to positively decide on the -- on 1D5062 but have everything, at this
20 moment, marked for identification, and that we'll -- would you also
21 oppose against continuing, at this moment, to the examination-in-chief?
22 Apparently not, because you say we'll find out how matters develop and
23 then we'll take our final position.
24 MR. WEBER: You're correct, Your Honour. And with leave of the
25 Chamber, we'd also like to file our chart with our comments just so our
1 comments are a matter of record in this case.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is the Defence aware of the content of your
4 MR. WEBER: We did send them by e-mail in an excel spreadsheet;
5 however, we have not provided them with a hard copy, which we have
6 present here.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would provide copies to the Chamber and
8 to the Stanisic and the Simatovic Defence. And then meanwhile, perhaps
9 we could already assign a number to the chart.
10 Madam Registrar, the chart would be?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Chart would receive number D424, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: D424.
13 Mr. Jordash, any objection against the comments being admitted
14 into evidence?
15 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the chart containing the
17 Prosecution -- or would you not want to have it in evidence, Mr. Weber?
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we don't want to unnecessarily admit
19 another exhibit if it doesn't have to be. We are happy to file the chart
20 as a pleading --
21 JUDGE ORIE: To file the chart as a pleading; that is, that we'll
22 get it on our desk tomorrow and have already a courtesy copy now.
23 MR. WEBER: If that's all right with the Chamber.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any problem with that approach?
25 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Weber, you can file your chart with the --
2 with the OTP comments and we'll have a look at it already at this moment.
3 For the related exhibits, the exhibits referred to in the chart,
4 Madam Registrar, do you have the numbers?
5 THE REGISTRAR: The reserve numbers for 21 exhibit, not numbered
6 yet within the chart, would be from D425 up to and including D445,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then D424 and D125 up to and including D245, the
9 last series, the related exhibits, are marked for identification, and it
10 is already on the record, Mr. Weber, that against one of these exhibits
11 there would be no further objection to admission.
12 Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to now move to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, at the same time, I'm also looking at
16 the clock. We are 75 minutes under way. Perhaps it would be better to
17 take the break now and continue at 4.00.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we'll take a break. You had to wait quite
20 a while before we started. We had to deal with a few procedural matters
21 since we had not been sitting for four weeks. That took quite a bit of
22 time. Some other procedural matters were interrupting also your started
23 testimony. But after the break, there will be more attention to what you
24 can tell this Court.
25 We have a break and resume at 4.00.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, Mr. Jordash, I'd like to give
5 an instruction to the Registrar.
6 Earlier today, the Chamber decided, with reasons to follow, on
7 Serbia's request for protective measures for Witness DST-046,
8 Radenko Novakovic. As a courtesy, the Registry is instructed to already
9 inform the Republic of Serbia of this decision, again, with reasons to
11 Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Novakovic, I just want to deal in the first instance, with an
14 overview of your career.
15 It's correct, isn't it, that you graduated from the faculty of
16 law at the Belgrade university in 1977?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you then obtain a scholarship from the DB, in order to attend
19 the university?
20 A. I obtained that scholarship during my studies. When I graduated,
21 I applied for a job.
22 Q. And the job you applied for was?
23 A. A job in the state security.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly speak into the
25 microphones and could they be raised a little bit? Thank you very much.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. The usher is just going to adjust your microphones and raise them
3 so you can speak more directly into them.
4 Did you obtain a job in the Uzice DB centre?
5 A. Yes. When I graduated, since I resided in Uzice, I obtained a
6 job in the Uzice DB which was a territorial unit of the State Security
8 Q. And how long did you work in the Uzice DB centre?
9 A. From the 1st of February, 1977, until sometime in November 1995.
10 Q. In 1995, did you change employment?
11 A. I changed my position. In the centre I worked on
12 counter-intelligence. And when I arrived in Belgrade, I started working
13 more on intelligence duties; although, while I was working at the Uzice
14 centre, I already started working on intelligence.
15 Q. So, as I understand you, in 1995, you moved to the Belgrade
16 centre; is that correct?
17 A. I did not move to the Belgrade centre. I moved to the
18 headquarters in Belgrade, which was also a different administration.
19 Q. Which administration had you been working in when you were in the
20 Uzice centre?
21 A. While I was working at the Uzice centre, I was involved in
22 counter-intelligence, which was the equivalent of the first line of work,
23 i.e., that was the counter-intelligence administration in the
25 Q. And when you moved to the headquarters in Belgrade, which
1 administration did you start to work in?
2 A. The 2nd Administration, which dealt with the intelligence duties.
3 Q. In 1996 and 1997, were you the chief of a department within the
4 intelligence administration?
5 A. Yes, I was the chief of operations. Or the operative department.
6 Q. Could you just indicate what that meant.
7 A. The intelligence administration was involved in gathering
8 intelligence and information from the areas of politics, defence,
9 security, all in the interests of Serbia. That's what I did.
10 Q. And when the state security turned into BIA, did you become head
11 of the intelligence administration?
12 A. When the state security became BIA, I was appointed chief of
13 intelligence administration.
14 Q. Did you retire on the 31st of December, 2006?
15 A. Precisely so. On the 31st of December, 2006, I was pensioned
17 Q. Could I ask to you look at the screen, please.
18 MR. JORDASH: Could we have 1D05082.
19 Q. This is a map -- or I should say two maps, indicating locations
20 which are important for your testimony. Would you just confirm that I
21 described this accurately.
22 A. Yes. These are the locations that were covered by the Uzice
23 centre, as well as the locations within the catchment area of our centre,
24 which are located in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is also one addition,
25 which is Lipovica in the territory of Belgrade, and also Herceg-Novi in
1 the territory of Montenegro.
2 Q. Would you be able to indicate with a pen the precise area on the
3 map which the Uzice centre was concerned with, please.
4 A. I believe that that would be that, more or less.
5 Q. Thank you. Perhaps you would put your initials against that so
6 it's clear in the future.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Thank you. Could we go to the next page, please. Oh. Sorry, I
9 think I have to tender this now. Yes.
10 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this as an exhibit, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, map marked by the witness.
12 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be D446, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And, in the absence of any objections, is admitted
14 into evidence.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. JORDASH:
17 Q. The next page should be another map.
18 Could we go ...
19 Are these locations relevant to your testimony concerning
20 Operation Pauk?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And are they, as indicated, locations of refugee camps?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. We'll come back to this. But were you working in a refugee camp?
25 A. During my stay in the area, I was often deployed near Batnoga
1 refugee camp, between Slunj and Kladusa.
2 Q. Like I say, we'll come back to this. But which year was that?
3 A. That was in 1994.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this as an exhibit, please.
6 MR. WEBER: No objections, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
8 THE REGISTRAR: This would be D447, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. Now I want to now focus on your work in the Uzice centre in 1991
14 First of all, how many people worked in the DB centre in
16 A. The Uzice centre, as an organisational unit, covered a total of
17 ten municipalities. And in those ten municipalities, we had about 42
18 employees, or, rather, precisely 42 employees, of whom one-third were in
19 the Uzice centre itself, in the city, and the remainder covered the rest
20 of the ten municipalities.
21 Q. Are you able to indicate what kind of square kilometre these
22 personnel were dealing with?
23 A. Not with certainty, in terms of square kilometres. I know that
24 we were the continental centre at the time, but when the country fell
25 apart, we became an aside centre, so to speak, or an auxiliary one, which
1 covered an area of approximately 160 kilometres of the border with
3 Q. Of the 42 employees, how many were operative workers?
4 A. Two-thirds, including the managing personnel.
5 Q. And the remainder were?
6 A. The remainder were administrative workers within the centre.
7 Q. What was your position in 1991/1992 within the Uzice centre?
8 A. In 1991 and 1992, I worked on counter-intelligence in Uzice. I
9 dealt with specific issues along my professional line as opposed to other
10 operatives who had their respective territories to cover. In other
11 words, I dealt with specific issues; whereas, such operatives covered
12 areas, and, for the most part, they received initial information.
13 Q. Did you have a post, title?
14 A. I was an operative in charge of counter-intelligence.
15 Q. Briefly, what did that entail.
16 A. Counter-intelligence tasks included acquiring information on the
17 activities of foreign security services, police, and other institutions
18 which may threaten the security of Serbia. As an employee of the centre,
19 I was gathering such information object behalf of the centre, which could
20 impact on the safety of the area I worked in which could also have an
21 impact on the overall security of the country. I was in charge of
22 operative work, which included applying all tactical operational
23 measures. In other words, this meant conducting interviews, gathering
24 information, verifying information, and categorise them by virtue of
25 types of documents which we would then forward to our headquarters.
1 I also had my own associates' network, et cetera.
2 Q. When you say you would forward the documents to our headquarters,
3 which headquarters do you refer to?
4 A. I meant the seat of the service. That is to say, to the
5 1st Administration, in terms of the jobs I was tasked with.
6 Q. In 1991 or 1992, did the nature of your work change or did the
7 volume of the work change, as a result of the disintegration of the
8 former Yugoslavia?
9 A. As we all know, that was the period when the country fell apart.
10 In Yugoslavia, we were a continental centre, meaning we occupied the
11 centre of Serbia. When the country fell apart, we ended up on the
12 periphery; in other words, we covered 162 kilometres of border with
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. This, of course, had an impact on
14 the complexity of our tasks. By sheer nature of the events in question,
15 our job changed, although I was still mainly preoccupied with
16 counter-intelligence as my core task. However, on occasion, I was used
17 for different purposes as well. Most of the issues we dealt with was
18 part of the work of the 3rd Administration, which is terrorism and
19 extremism. These were growing problems in our area as we were a transit
20 area throughout that time.
21 Q. What do you mean when you say you were a transit area?
22 A. In 1991 and 1992, we saw threats to the security situation in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina and, at the time, in Serbia, as well as in the other
24 republics, different national political parties were formed resulting in
25 an increase in tension between the ethnic communities. When the war
1 broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, our area was used by main groups and
2 individuals en route to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 This is what impacted on the worsening security situation in the
4 area of our centre.
5 Q. Could you describe, please, what the ethnic composition was of
6 the Uzice centre in 1992.
7 A. As I have said at the beginning, the Uzice centre covered some
8 ten municipalities. Out of those, three had mixed population;
9 Prijepolje, Priboj, and Nova Varos. In the area of those municipalities,
10 for example, in Prijepolje there were two Muslim employs, in Priboj there
11 was one, and there was another Serb employee who was married to a Muslim
12 woman. There were people of different ethnicities who worked for our
13 centre as was the case with most companies and other bodies. What I'm
14 trying to say is that there were people of different ethnic backgrounds
15 in our centre.
16 Q. Did that change in 1992 or 1993 onwards? Did anybody lose their
17 job in the Uzice centre?
18 A. No, no one did. All of the employees remained in their jobs
19 until they retired.
20 Just to make sure you don't misunderstand me. Most centres,
21 including the Uzice centre, had a multi-ethnic composition. This was an
22 asset. This enabled us to be able to view the different problems in the
23 ethnic communities in a better way.
24 Q. Did you observe any objection within the service to the
25 continuation of non-Serbs working within the service?
1 A. No. One of the largest centres, the Belgrade one, considered it
2 to be asset. They had members of different ethnic communities.
3 At the level of the federal service, this was also viewed as an
4 extra. They wanted to keep people of different ethnicities, and they
5 frequently sent them to attend to important tasks, in order to simply
6 observe all the issues which were occurring in the field at the time.
7 Q. Can you, at this distance from the events, recall the names of
8 any non-Serbs working in the Uzice centre and their positions?
9 A. Yes, I can. In Prijepolje, there was --
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... one moment, sorry. Perhaps
11 we could go into private session, please, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 13933-13937 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Now I want to focus a little on the type of work that you were
25 doing in the Uzice centre from 1991 onwards. Were there any -- and I
1 just want to deal with it generally and then we'll turn to some
2 documents. But were there any particular disturbances which arose as a
3 consequence of the breakout of war in the former Yugoslavia?
4 A. Yes, absolutely. I was witness to those events. The beginning
5 of the war made the security situation in the area of the Uzice centre
6 far more complex. I mentioned that three municipalities from the Uzice
7 area had a mixed population. The situation became more complex primarily
8 in those areas. It was because during that time, in those
9 municipalities, too, there were different national parties that were
10 organised. There were Serb parties, as well as Muslim parties, the seats
11 of which were mainly in Bosnia-Herzegovina; however, they had branch
12 offices in our area as well. This was particularly pronounced at the
13 beginning of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Another important issue was the transit I mentioned of people
15 through our territory. We covered 162 kilometres, and we saw many people
16 moving to the Bosnian theatre, fighters mostly. They were the metaphor
17 of the time, including their insignia, their background, and the impact
18 they had on particularly these areas of mixed population. Many such
19 volunteers left our area unarmed, but once they started coming back, they
20 were no longer unarmed. This became an ever-more pronounced security
21 issue in the area.
22 There were all sorts of such people on the Serb and the Muslim
23 side. Many organisations began developing their own military wings, and
24 the service particularly focussed on such occurrences.
25 Q. What was the position that the service took in relation to
1 volunteers, groups of volunteers, leaving the Uzice centre, heading
2 towards the Bosnian war theatre?
3 A. We could only observe and register their departure. We increased
4 the level of activities in such border municipalities, primarily,
5 Bajina Basta and Priboj. We were trying to register all such departures.
6 We were also able to observe and register people returning. Those people
7 mostly came back in uniform, although sometimes without weapons.
8 In any case, it all had an impact on the security situation.
9 Many even tried to smuggle in weapons which would then be seized. Or, in
10 other instances, we forwarded all such information to the public security
11 sector, in order to deal with it.
12 Q. Did you make any exceptions concerning those who returned with
14 A. No, absolutely not.
15 You know what? People were frequently found with weapons,
16 military weapons. These were not personal licence weapons. If such
17 people were found, they would be brought into custody and charged and
18 eventually prosecuted. Weapons were seized without exception.
19 Q. Are you able to indicate what kind of resources were turned to
20 deal with this task? How many operatives of the Uzice centre were tasked
21 with collecting and -- information about weapons and seizing them in 1991
23 A. I'll tell you this. When we worked on collecting information
24 about people who had weapons, we included a large number of persons. We
25 had organised campaigns, actions with the consent of the MUP and the
1 service, and we arrested individuals and entire groups at a time. These
2 were mainly people who came from the border areas, such as Bajina Basta
3 and Prijepolje, and the operatives employed there were the principal
4 personnel who were in charge of seizing weapons from people in the
5 territory of Serbia who were found with weapons. Another such organ in
6 charge of seizing weapons was the public security sector and police
7 personnel, if they ever came across people with weapons.
8 Q. And what kind of cooperation did you have with military organs,
9 or the military, generally? In relation to this work.
10 A. If we had information that military personnel was involved in
11 possessing weapons who had come back from the war, then we forwarded that
12 information to the military because we were not competent to take it any
14 In that period, because of the breakup of the country, the
15 military also had a worsening situation in their ranks as well.
16 Q. Was the cooperation good? Did the military have the same aims as
17 the DB service within the Uzice centre?
18 A. Well, the army was in charge of military issues in the area of
19 the Uzice region. And our service was this charge of civilian affairs.
20 However, it was noticeable that the army dealt with some civilian issues
21 as well.
22 Q. What was the -- what you did observe was the military's position
23 within the Uzice territory, in relation to the formation of paramilitary
25 A. I can say with certainty that they did not look upon that
1 favourably; although, I must say, that their position was far more
2 liberal than the position of our service.
3 Q. In which sense?
4 A. In the sense that all those volunteers who went to Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina were made part of the TO, which is a military structure in
6 Republika Srpska. And the ties between the TO and the Army of Yugoslavia
7 were far better, far tighter than the ties between the TO in Republika
8 Srpska and our service.
9 MR. JORDASH: Could the witness please be given 1D02554. With
10 Your Honours' leave, we would ask that the witness be given a paper copy.
11 He has expressed a preference to look at the hard copy.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can give a paper copy.
13 Could I ask a few questions.
14 You said:
15 "It was noticeable that the army dealt with some civilian issues
16 as well."
17 Could you mention one of these civilian issues or several of
18 these civilian issues the army dealt with?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in that period of time, as I
20 said, the multi-party system came into being in the state. It was
21 noticeable in the field that the army was taking care of the security of
22 their own units, but that they also expressed some interest in the
23 political party life in the field, and this was certainly not one of
24 their competencies.
25 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean by that "expressed some interest in
1 the political party life"? Would it mean that military men would be
2 active in political parties, is that what you are saying?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. These were civilian
4 structures in the state. This was no job of the army.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's still not clear to me. Were they protecting or
6 were they assisting political structures, or what was their role? What
7 did you mean by "expressed some interest in the political party life in
8 the field"?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the sense that they were
10 interested in who was a member of what party. This was not within their
11 remit. They were interested in certain structures in the field.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You mean they gathered information about what
13 happened in political life? Is that ...
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I don't think this was a part
17 of their remit.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I have one other matter which I might not
19 have fully captured.
20 You said:
21 "All those volunteer who went to Bosnia and Herzegovina were made
22 part of the TO, which is a military structure in Republika Srpska."
23 Would you say that volunteers from Serbia who went to Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina were made part of Republika Srpska TO or what TO were you
25 referring to?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I had in mind the TO of
2 Republika Srpska.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how do you know this? What's the source
4 of your information, in relation to the volunteers becoming part of the
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have said already, our
7 employees who worked in the border municipalities with Bosnia conducted
8 interviews with those returning from Republika Srpska, or from Bosnia in
9 general, and we gathered such information through their interviews.
10 That was the source of our knowledge.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And do you know how they were made part of the
12 TO? Is that -- was it the local TO commanders that adopted them or was
13 there a Republika Srpska policy to subordinate them into the TO ranks?
14 Or do you have any information about how that happened.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't. It is my opinion that the
16 people in Republika Srpska also wanted to have the volunteers under some
17 kind of control.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you say it's your opinion. Do you have
19 any knowledge about this? Could you give us the source of your
20 knowledge? Or is it just an impression?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an impression of mine.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you said:
23 "They also wanted to have the volunteers under some kind of
25 Who else was interested in having the volunteers under some kind
1 of control, apart from the Republika Srpska TO?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a way, I think the service was
3 interested because they were returning to Serbia. They wanted to keep
4 them under control. We observed such people. We gathered information on
5 whether they were organising themselves inside our country in order to
6 monitor any kind of disturbance of law and order. We knew they were
7 coming back from those areas where they had been trained, and most of
8 those people were members of the militant wings of certain parties which
9 existed in the country. The way they were organised was usually that --
10 that one, through such channels.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Would you have a look at a document, Mr. Witness?
14 MR. JORDASH: It's at, Your Honours, number 1 in the chart.
15 Q. You've seen this document before, and you've provided comments,
16 general comments about the content of it. And I just want to ask you
17 some more specific questions.
18 Do you recognise the document?
19 A. Yes. I saw this document for the first time during proofing.
20 Q. Would you turn, please, to page 3 of the document.
21 MR. JORDASH: It's, Your Honours, page 3 of the English.
22 Q. And it's a document, as we can see, from the State Security
23 Department Belgrade, July 1993. And I'm interested in the description
24 there about the relations between the intelligence and security organs of
25 the Yugoslav Army and the RDB which, according to the document, "have
1 been burdened by numerous problems by quite a while. They are regulated
2 by the August --"
3 MR. WEBER: Objection, leading. He is using the document as a
4 means of introducing information. We have placed the Defence on notice
5 that we would be objecting to this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: I'm asking the witness to comment on an exhibit
8 which is standard practice. I've introduced the topic as -- concerning
9 the relationship between the military and the DB, and I -- what I'm doing
10 is unobjectionable in -- in line of the practice of the court.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the objection is denied.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. Have you found the relevant section, Mr. Novakovic?
15 A. Do you mean Kragujevac or the worsening situation in the area of
16 the Valjevo centre? Is it the third page.
17 Q. Yes. Are you looking at 1D02554. If you look at the front of
18 the page -- at the document for a moment. Let's make sure you're
19 looking -- yes.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Page 3 there's a title there: "Relations and Cooperation Between
22 the Military Security Organs and the RDB." Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. And there's a discussion there about the intelligence and
25 security organs of the Yugoslav Army and the RDB having been burdened by
1 numerous problems for quite a while.
2 And then down the page it notes that:
3 "Currently cooperation between the military security organs and
4 the RDB is minimal and in some important areas of operative work even
5 non-existent. Cooperation is mostly one-directional and mainly reduced
6 to meeting requests from military security organs for background checks
7 on persons of interest to the Yugoslav Army."
8 A. Yes, I have read it.
9 Q. And do you have any comment on that? Do you have any experience
10 with that?
11 A. I agree, absolutely. That cooperation was mainly one-way. They
12 sent in requests to carry out checks of certain individuals. And this
13 was mainly on the periphery of events. For example, they didn't bother
14 to check many of the people who worked in their service, and this was a
15 reflection of the, so to say, falsity of that cooperation.
16 Q. Can you turn to page 7.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, page 6. 6 of the English. And 7 of
18 the B/C/S.
19 Q. And the title there is: "Attitude of the Yugoslavia Army Towards
20 Paramilitary Forces."
21 Do you have it?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. And the second paragraph underneath that title notes that, and I
24 just select part of it:
25 "That in order to maintain the continuity of manning levels in
1 the JNA and the TO, requests from front line commands for fresh troops
2 should be met also by recruiting criminals in Serbia, which implied
3 releasing a certain number of convicts from prison.
4 "According to given explanations, these volunteer units were
5 placed under the direct command of the JNA and were provided with
6 training in military facilities and training grounds, after which they
7 were sent to the front line. State security organs of the MUP of the
8 Republic of Serbia were requested not to create problems in the field
9 over these volunteers, but no readiness was shown for any kind of
10 cooperation on this matter."
11 Do you have any comment to make on this operative information
12 concerning the conduct of the JNA, in relation to volunteer units?
13 A. When I said that the situation deteriorated and that the
14 relationship worsened at the time, this is one of the illustrations. JNA
15 and TO units had to be replenished, and that's why we had to meet with
16 their requests, and even criminals were used. Certain checks were done
17 at the request of the army, but I don't know if that had any impact on
18 their decisions because we noticed that even people with criminal records
19 were still engaged and recruited for the army and the TO.
20 Q. Was the Uzice centre requested to do these checks? I just want
21 to be as specific as we can.
22 A. There were such requests, certainly. I was not responsible for
23 that, but one of the centre's regular duties was to respond to the
24 requests for checking people earmarked for military duties.
25 Q. Are you aware of any request that was not taken up, was not
1 carried out?
2 A. In the Uzice centre? No, no. Whenever the Uzice centre received
3 a request with regard to something that we were supposed to deal with, we
4 would reply with such request issued by the military security department.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, if you put the document aside and we'll move to
6 a different subject.
7 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, D446, the map.
8 Q. Did anything happen in Kremna in 1991 of interest to the service?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Objection. Outside the scope of the notice for the
11 witness and relevance.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH: The notice provided indicated that the witness
14 would talk about the work of the Uzice centre and the -- I'm just reading
15 it just to make sure that I'm on solid ground. And that the witness
16 would talk about the collection of intelligence and that he would
17 test [sic] about the role of the DB in relation to crimes committed along
18 the borders.
19 This falls within that. That's the first point.
20 The second point is this: Perhaps the Prosecution would indicate
21 whether they disagree or dispute that -- I'm just guarding what I say in
22 front of the witness, dispute whether this event did -- happen in Kremna
23 which I think is important in relation to the Prosecution's objection.
24 And --
25 JUDGE ORIE: What we have now is a map on our screen which
1 mentions Kremna, and the only question is whether something happened
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- it's -- earlier also, Mr. Weber, when
5 Mr. Jordash asked for some comments, we didn't know yet what his question
6 would be. Now we are at a point where Mr. Jordash is not any further
7 than whether the witness knows anything about what happened in Kremna.
8 So, therefore, it's -- let's wait and see how matters develop.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, of course, we'll follow the Chamber's
10 guidance. However, what we're objecting to is the discussion of what
11 happened in Kremna in 1991. This was not something that was noticed to
12 us. There are many municipalities upon which locations that this witness
13 could testify across many years, and we are prejudiced by not receiving
14 notice of what happened in the individual -- in the areas.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But Kremna, it could be anything. It could be a
16 visit of the German emperor or -- and perhaps it's -- we do not know.
17 The only thing we know at this moment is that apparently Mr. Jordash is
18 seeking some evidence in relation to something that happened in Kremna.
19 Let's wait for a while and see whether, from the answer and from any
20 follow-up questions, whether it's really outside the scope or inside the
21 scope. That's -- Mr. Jordash, you may proceed.
22 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Did anything happen in Kremna in 1991 of interest to the work of
24 the Uzice centre?
25 A. Yes. In the month of June 1991, a terrorist attack was carried
1 out in Kremna. A gas station was blown up. And on that same evening,
2 the evening of the incident, matters of the Uzice SUP came to
3 investigate. At the same time, there was another explosion in the
4 direction of Mokra Gora, some 2 or 3 kilometres away from that gas
5 station. All traces indicated that the criminal acts had been carried
6 out by persons from Bosnia, which means that that incident happened even
7 before the war even started in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 Since there was still no war going on in the territory of Bosnia,
9 the public security put us in the picture. They told us about the
10 registration plates of the car that had been seen there very shortly
11 before the explosion. We sought assistance from our colleagues in
12 Gorazde, Gorazde which is in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 However, that assistance never came forth due to the fact that the
14 relationship between the two services had already deteriorated and due to
15 the fact that war was being prepared in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Through our operative work, we managed to establish that the
17 explosion at the gas station as well as the explosion at the transformer
18 station, which is about 2 or 3 kilometres away on Sargan mount, was
19 carried out by the same people.
20 Q. You've testified that the relationship between the service in
21 Gorazde and your service had deteriorated.
22 Could you just elaborate on that a little? What was the
23 relationship in 1991 between the two services?
24 A. Let me tell you, before the break up of Yugoslavia the
25 relationship between the republican units in the two services were good.
1 We had our means of communication between the republican units in the
2 territory of the former Yugoslavia. For example, between Serbian Bosnia,
3 between Serbia and Montenegro, and so on and so forth. However, when the
4 disintegration processes started, first, with Slovenia and Croatia, and
5 then immediately before the beginning of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
6 those relationships had deteriorated and all our contacts were
7 discontinued, and this is a typical example of what was going on at the
9 Q. Were you in the Uzice centre able to gather information from
10 within Bosnia at this time; and, if so, how were you able to go about
11 that, given the relationship with that service?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly please speak into the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please speak closer into the microphone.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're talking about the year 1991
16 and the practices that prevailed at the time. With persons who hailed
17 and came from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we conducted
18 interviews. Our service approached those people and talked to them about
19 the situation in the territory within the catchment area of our centre.
20 Through those contacts and interviews, we were able to learn about the
21 situation in the territory in depth of Bosnia and Herzegovina but still
22 within the catchment area of our centre.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Let me move you forward to 1992.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one follow-up question.
1 You told us about two attacks, one on the gasoline station and
2 one on the -- what was it? The other.
3 You said these acts were committed by the same people. Did you
4 identify them by name, that it was Mr. X or Mr. Y that committed --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Before the end of 1991,
6 those people were arrested, tried before the court in Uzice, and were
7 sentenced to a jail term that they served in Uzice in the prison there.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is there documentation about that?
9 Because you're telling us that you were able to establish, but what I now
10 understand is that a court established that they were the perpetrators.
11 Is that true?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true. We investigated
13 together with the Secretariat of the Interior, i.e., the public security,
14 and then the court established that they were, indeed, the perpetrators
15 of those terrorist acts. Of those two acts, that is.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And also who they were.
17 Mr. Jordash, of course, if you want to establish, apparently,
18 what you wish to do, is that certain persons were responsible for attacks
19 which the witness says were terrorist attacks, the easiest thing to do
20 would be to provide us with the judgement in those cases because that
21 gives us a -- isn't it? Because now only and through these follow-up
22 question, we do know that it was not only established that they were the
23 same people but they were identified as such and that the matter was
24 brought before a court, and so that gives far more accurate information
25 than the relatively vague information the witness gave in his first
2 MR. JORDASH: Well, the point, from our perspective, was to
3 establish the kind of activities the service was dealing with. 1D05069
4 and 1D5071 gives further detail and --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have not -- of course, I have not gone
6 through all the other documents.
7 MR. JORDASH: They, they --
8 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know them in advance. That's --
9 But please proceed. I just wanted to let you know that it only
10 now becomes clear to me what kind of an investigation it was and -- but
11 you are focussing primarily on the kind of activities the service --
12 MR. JORDASH: How the resources of the service were employed at
13 this point in time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
15 At the same time, I'm also looking at the clock, Mr. Jordash. We
16 are beyond our 75 minutes. I, at the same time, would like to deal with
17 another matter in private session, so could the witness already be
19 We take a break of approximately a half-hour, and then we'd like
20 to see you back and -- could you escort the witness out of the courtroom.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: And could we move into private session.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 13955-13957 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
5 We'll take a break, and we'll continue in open session at 6.00
7 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the examination-in-chief was scheduled
10 for two hours, if I remember well. Could you give an update as to how
11 realistic that [Overlapping speakers] --
12 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I thought -- I thought we'd indicated
13 two to three.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'll have a look at it, but could you give us any
15 information about where we are at this moment?
16 MR. JORDASH: I think I could, with a fair wind, finish in one
17 and a half hours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's try to achieve that. Please proceed.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. We were talking about attacks and activities that the DB was
21 engaged in, in relation to changes brought about the conflict.
22 Just returning very briefly to Kremna, did you, in the service,
23 or you personally form a view as to -- well, let me go back.
24 Who were the culprits, as it turned out? Which ethnicity?
25 A. They were Muslims who hailed from the territory of Visegrad.
1 Q. Were there other such terrorists attacks at around that time that
2 you recall at this stage?
3 A. Yes. In the spring of 1992, there was a terrorist attack on the
4 bridge across the Bistrica, near Priboj.
5 Q. Just briefly what was that attack? And was it dealt with from a
6 security perspective?
7 A. That was an attack on the railroad bridge. Over 70 kilos of
8 explosives were planted, some of which did explode and the rest didn't.
9 The Uzice SUP was in charge of the investigation, and experts came from
10 the Ministry of Interior. They were experts in counter-sabotage
11 activities, and they looked at the entire investigation. And according
12 to all the indicia that -- acts were committed by the same group of
13 terrorists who had arrived from the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Unfortunately, we did not manage to investigate fully who the
15 perpetrators were because about that time, war started in Bosnia and
17 MR. JORDASH: Could the witness please be given 1D05065.
18 Q. And as that's being handed to you, Mr. Witness, what was the role
19 of the state security in relation to the Uzice SUP investigation that you
20 just mentioned?
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution does have an objection
22 with respect to the document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And the objection is, Mr. Weber?
24 MR. WEBER: It's not on the Defence exhibit list. We don't have
25 notice of this. We have not been afforded a reasonable time to
1 investigate it or -- this matter, like the Kremna matter, which also then
2 relates to two brand new exhibits. The Defence is back dooring in
3 evidence that we've not been provided notice with. We don't understand
4 the relevance or appreciate the relevance of the matters to the case, and
5 we're objecting to proceeding in this way.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: The evidence relates again to --
8 JUDGE ORIE: The first question was 65 ter list. It's part from
9 those that you seek leave to add it to the 65 ter list?
10 MR. JORDASH: It is. These are documents which we've received --
11 I think this document, in fact, we received back from translation in
12 April or May, and it was only when we made a decision concerning this
13 witness that we would definitely call him that we decided that -- this
14 document should be used. It's a document which relates to attacks along
15 the border, and the relevance is that we say that the resources of the
16 state security were few and were engaged almost exclusively in this type
17 of activity, and despite these attacks being perpetrated by extremists
18 from Muslim factions, the DB nonetheless continued to act in a none
19 discriminatory fashion.
20 That's the relevance.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's the relevance.
22 Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: We still oppose it. We don't have notice of this and
24 even what the submission just was is somewhat concerning. This witness
25 was a part of their original witness list filed back in June, so if
1 there's a decision to put this individual on their witness list who could
2 potentially offer evidence, that is the whole point of a witness summary
3 and providing us relevant exhibits.
4 We now have not one, two, three, but a whole group of exhibits
5 that are substantive in nature that don't have any immediate appearance
6 or relation this witness being provided to us at the last moment without
7 being added to the exhibit list in the proper fashion by filing a motion,
8 seeking leave to amend the 65 ter list, and at this time we have not had
9 the opportunity to look into all these events to distill the information
10 that we may possess with respect to these documents, and the Defence has
11 had four days to prepare this witness, and we're getting a comment chart
12 the very evening before. They're not commenting on these new documents.
13 We are prejudiced, and we do not have the opportunity this week to
14 process the information we may have in relation to these documents.
15 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour, if my learned friend wishes to
16 apply to recall the witness on this issue, we would not object to that.
17 But this is relevant and, we would submit, useful evidence. It tracks
18 the work of the Serbian DB and it stands in contradistinction to the work
19 which the Prosecution say the DB was doing.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Notice is it relatively late, isn't it, Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH: Notice is late in relation to this document. In
22 relation to the issue of what the DB was doing, we informed the
23 Prosecution many years ago that the role of the DB was, in fact, to
24 prevent war from spilling over into Serbia rather than engaging in war
25 activities outside of Serbia. So it's consistent with that. My learned
1 friend hasn't indicated whether they in fact dispute that these attacks
2 were taking place or, more importantly, whether the DB was in fact
3 engaged in dealing with these disputes. We don't know the answer to
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the last part of Mr. Jordash's
7 submission skirts the topic. The issue is we haven't had the opportunity
8 to look into who was involved, where did this happen, what information we
9 may have, what information we may need. And the whole point of notice is
10 that we should be afforded that opportunity. And we've been deprived of
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Although the way this material was disclosed to the
15 Prosecution is of some concern to the Chamber, the objection is denied.
16 You may proceed, Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Do you have the document in front of you, Mr. Witness? I want to
19 ask you about some of its contents. You've given some general comments
20 in the chart - Your Honours, number 7 - this is an Uzice state security
21 Official Note of an interview. And as we see from paragraph 2:
22 "The information refers to terrorist actions across bridges --"
23 sorry, "against bridges across the river Drina that have been announced
24 by the extreme wing of the SDA headed by Ahmo Tihic, a split within the
25 SDS in Skelani and Srebrenica. And the founding of the Serbian Radical
2 What issues were arising in March of 1992, generally, in relation
3 to the extreme wing of the SDA party of concern to the Uzice DB centre?
4 A. During that period, according to the intelligence that we had,
5 the extreme wing of the SDA in Skelani planned to blow up the electric
6 facility downstream from the largest hydroelectric plant on Perocac.
7 That facility supplied with electricity most of Serbia, including Bajina
8 Basta. The level of danger for society was high. They even had a cannon
9 in Skelani from which they were planning to fire at the facility.
10 Q. Were the extreme wing of the SDA a coherent group within the
11 Uzice territory? Could you identify who they were and their structure?
12 A. In Uzice, that was not the case. But Skelani was in Bosnia, and
13 they were planning to fire at the dam and the electric facility from
15 MR. JORDASH: Could we just have on the screen, please, D421
17 Q. Do you recognise that, Mr. Novakovic?
18 A. This is the hydro electric plant at Perocac. Half of it is in
19 the territory of Serbia and the other half in the territory of Bosnia and
21 Q. As we look at the photograph, what lies to the right-hand side of
22 the map -- the right-hand side of the dam? What is downstream is
23 effectively what I'm asking.
24 A. Downstream? The Serbian territory of Serbia is downstream. And
25 as you look at the image, you see the territory of Bosnia on the
1 right-hand side. If you look at the image, that's how the image is
3 Q. And I'm not suggesting that you're an expert, but what would
4 happen if the dam was burst? What would be affected downstream?
5 A. Everything down to Zvornik would have been affected, i.e.,
6 everything would have been flooded. Kilometres would have been flooded.
7 This is a huge accumulation of water. You can see only a fragment of the
8 structure, which is 70 kilometres long, down to Visegrad.
9 Q. Just returning to the SDA very briefly.
10 What was observed about their impact on the Muslim population
11 within the Uzice centre? Was there a reaction? Was there a fear of
12 reaction? What was the situation?
13 A. I don't know if I understood your question properly.
14 Q. Within the Uzice centre territory, are you able to gauge what
15 percentage were Muslim?
16 A. I could tell you approximately and during that period of time.
17 In Prijepolje, there were 45 per cent Muslims, 45 per cent Serbs, and 10
18 per cent were others. I wanted to say that Uzice had three different
19 municipalities. Prijepolje one of them. Priboj, the second one, there
20 were about 29 per cent Muslims, 40 per cent Serbs, and there were also
21 others. And then in Nova Varos, there were about 7 per cent of Muslims
22 in the city centre only. They did not reside in rural areas there.
23 Q. Did you observe any military activity by any Muslim groups within
24 the territory that you've just described in 1992 or 1991?
25 A. In the territory of the Uzice centre you mean, in Sandzak?
1 Q. Sandzak, yes.
2 A. During that period of time there were some traces of illegal
3 organisations. We were privy to the intelligence about some individuals
4 trying to obtain weapons. At that time, people had already fled to
5 Bosnia. I mean Muslims. And when the war started in Bosnia, they were
6 the first to join the ranks of the Green Berets, particularly in the
7 territory of Sarajevo. That was the time when the militant wings of the
8 Muslim party started arming themselves in our part of the Sandzak region.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could we have some clarification as
10 where the Perocac electrical plant is?
11 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. If we could have on the screen
12 D446. If we just go to the -- back to the map.
13 Q. Mr. Novakovic, and if you would indicate on the map, if this is a
14 suitable map, where the dam we see in the photograph is located?
15 A. [Overlapping speakers]
16 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon. The map we want is D447. It's
17 the second map we looked at earlier.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be Perucac? Is that --
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes, this is the wrong [Overlapping speakers] --
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's written with an -- let me then -- yes. I'm
21 trying to find it on Google maps at this moment, and I think I found
22 something which is called Perucac. Is that -- not Perocac but Perucac,
23 the electrical plant?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perucac, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And then river in which this electrical plant is
1 found is which river?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Drina.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Does that mean that -- is the Drina the border
4 river between Bosnia and Serbia.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So I do understand it well that, because you asked
7 questions about it, what was downstream, that downstream you found, on
8 the one hand side Bosnia; on the other hand side, Serbia.
9 So if the dam would break, that would inflict similar damage to
10 both of these countries. Is that ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Of course, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, larger urban settlements
15 could be found in the part of the territory which belonged to Serbia.
16 But you were right.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think specifically Zvornik was mentioned. Is the
18 larger settlement, as far as Zvornik is concerned, in Serbia, or is the
19 larger settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
21 Mali Zvornik is on the other side. But what I said was that it would
22 have affected the area all the way down to the Zvornik dam. The Perucac
23 lake is a huge accumulation of water which would have swept everything on
24 its way.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There's -- that's not what -- I was just
1 wondering whether the major damage would be in one or the other. But
2 there's apparently no doubt that if you -- if a -- if a dam breaks with a
3 huge reservoir of water behind it that it causes quite some damage
4 downstream. There's -- that doesn't need any further elaboration, I
5 think. At least not from me.
6 But please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: Could I have the witness look at 1D01012, please.
8 Q. Mr. Witness, I don't think you have that yet. One second. It's
10 MR. JORDASH: This isn't in your Your Honours' chart.
11 Q. Would have you a look at that document. Have you ever seen this
12 document before, Mr. Novakovic? DB --
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. Oh, it is in the chart, I beg your pardon. It's 19. Let me ask
15 you some of its contents in relation to the SDA. If you look at page 2
16 of the B/C/S and page 2 of the English, the first paragraph:
17 "In the past several years, the security situation in the area of
18 the Uzice district has become more complex, especially in ethnically
19 mixed areas such as Prijepolje and Priboj but also in other areas near
20 the border with the territory of the former BH in which, more or less,
21 intense military clashes have been underway for the past two years. A
22 number of factors have had an impact on the complication of the
23 situation, primarily organised cessationist activities institutionalised
24 within the Party of Democratic Action in cooperation with subversive
25 foreign factors, as well as the vicinity of battle-fields with numerous
1 implications such as the desire to spread military clashes to the
2 territory of the FRY."
3 And then there is a list of problems such smuggling of weapons,
4 extreme paramilitary groups, and the extreme paramilitary groups from the
5 territory of Republika Srpska in some villages along the border,
6 Sjeverin, Strpci, and so on.
7 First of all, what, as you observed, was the political objectives
8 of the SDA that impacted upon the Uzice DB centre?
9 A. What was the political objective of the SDA during that period?
10 It was to prepare for a possible war in the territory of Serbia. Arming.
11 And the activities of the militant wing of the SDA. All that was aimed
12 and arming the Muslim population in the territory. We followed the
13 situation for two or three years. We followed all the documents. And
14 those documents demonstrated that the activity that was carried out had
15 been the result of the information collected over the past two or three
16 years and that the plan had been drafted in order to seize the weapons by
17 the security organs. The plan had been prepared for nearly six months,
18 and then it was approved by the highest leadership of the Ministry of
19 Interior and the services therein. A joint action was carried out once
20 the MUP of Republika Srpska approved the plan in January 1994.
21 Q. Sir, let me just --
22 A. And --
23 Q. Go on. Sorry. Finish what you were saying.
24 A. -- 22 employees, 22 operatives of the state security, 22
25 inspectors of public security, 108 policemen, and 10 operative
1 technicians participated in the action. The work-plan for the action
2 encompassed 17 individuals for whom there was reasonable grounds to
3 suspect they were in possession of weapons and other lethal means and
5 The document lists all the things that were found on that
6 occasion, how many persons were incarcerated, how many criminal reports
7 were filed as a result of that action, and there were no objections or
8 complaints about the activities of the State Security Services and the
9 Ministry of Interior. Everything had been carried out by the book,
10 according to the rules and regulations. That action was carried out to a
11 certain extent, and then it was interrupted on the order of the chief of
12 sector, Mr. Jovica Stanisic, because it was deemed that the sufficient
13 level was reached; although, we had other intelligence showing that there
14 were different branches that could have prompted us to continue the
15 action to cover those branches as well. However, due to the security
16 situation, we decided to call off the action at that point.
17 Q. Let me just clarify a couple of things.
18 The action encompassed 17 individuals. What was the overall
19 objective, then, of the action? Just briefly, Mr. Novakovic. What was
20 the overall objective of the action.
21 A. The overall objective of the action was to deal with any
22 potential militant activities in the area.
23 Q. Where were the 17 individuals suspected of acting in a militant
25 A. We had information at the time which was to the effect that many
1 people from Sandzak spent some time in the war theatre in Bosnia and
2 returned. We also had operative information confirming the departure of
3 certain extremists from Sandzak to Turkey to attend training in military
5 Q. So let me just understand this if I can, or clarify for the
7 When you say these individuals had spent time in the war theatre
8 in Bosnia, what was the ethnic -- what was the ethnicity of these
9 individuals, and what were they doing - as suspected - in the war theatre
10 in Bosnia?
11 A. When I say that they spent certain periods in the war theatre in
12 Bosnia, I had in mind Muslim individuals from that area who went to
13 Bosnia, which was particularly frequent at the outbreak of the war in
14 Bosnia and the spring when clashes occurred in Sarajevo.
15 Q. And on which side were they fighting?
16 A. They fought on the Muslim side; the Federation side.
17 Q. Just so that there's no doubt: Against who?
18 A. They fought the Serbs in Bosnia.
19 Q. What was the focus of their activity?
20 Let me start that again.
21 What was the state security looking to do in relation to those
22 people when they returned? What was it that was of concern to the state
24 A. It was concerned much the same way it was concerned with Serb
25 volunteers returning to Serbia. It was a threat to security.
1 There was another dimension at the time. According to the
2 information we had, those who attended training in Turkish camps and who
3 had spent periods of time in the theatre of war in Bosnia fighting on the
4 Muslim side, all those people were being prepared for possible action
5 during civil unrest in Serbia, and their activities were to be aimed at
6 both the military and the police structures in the area of -- in Sandzak.
7 Q. Was the service, the Uzice DB centre, concerned with their
8 activities in Bosnia?
9 A. We tried to obtain operational information in order to identify
10 the individuals from our area who went there, since we believed they
11 could be potential proponents of unrest upon their return to Sandzak.
12 Q. And what I'm asking you is, we understand when you've just --
13 that you've explained that the focus was what they did within Serbia.
14 Was the service interested in the fact that they were in Bosnia fighting
15 against Serbs? Were you operatively interested in that?
16 A. As a piece of information, it was interested, but there was very
17 little that we could do about that. Once they returned --
18 Q. Thank you. Sorry, I interrupted you.
19 A. We mainly focussed on registering those people so that, once they
20 returned, they be put under some kind of control so as to avoid their
21 involvement in any activities which may have spilled over into Serbian
23 Q. Thank you. You mentioned a few moments ago that Mr. Stanisic
24 brought that operation - is this right? - to a close. Could you just
25 clarify, first of all, how you know that; and, secondly, what the precise
1 reason was?
2 A. The action was interrupted on a particular day, and the decision
3 arrived from the top of the service. In and of itself, it attracted much
4 attention, especially among the population in Sandzak and among the
5 general public. The party SDA became activity addressing the -- its
6 political audience, as well as international elements, trying to paint
7 this as an attack on the Muslim population in the area of Sandzak. We
8 kept receiving further operational information which could have been
9 followed up on in order to go through the various channels to arrive at
10 the corps, but the operation was stopped, and I believe they thought it
11 was sufficient.
12 Q. It was sufficient in what sense? Try to answer directly. What
13 was it --
14 A. It was sufficient in the sense that the political, or, rather,
15 the SDA, was contemplating a cessation of Sandzak as an independent
16 territorial unit. They thought it could be an administrative unit within
17 Serbia, and we believe that by this action any further contemplation of
18 elaborating that idea of independent Sandzak was cut off. Since we put
19 an end to some of their activities, we believed it would put a stop to
20 their further ideas of gaining independence.
21 Q. Are you able to indicate - and I hope I haven't missed this - but
22 are you able to indicate what the percentage of Muslims -- sorry. What
23 was the -- in Sandzak, do you know how many Muslims resided there and
24 what percentage of the overall population they made up?
25 A. As for the part of Sandzak in our centre territory, I believe
1 there were many Muslims but there were even more towards Kraljevo and
2 Montenegro, although I don't know any percentages. I'm trying to say
3 that in that other area, Muslims were in the majority.
4 Q. Now, looking at -- let's just finish with this document. If you
5 look at page 2 just below the paragraph that I was reading, it notes:
6 "Within the existing context, trends, and tendencies in this
7 area, the most significant security problem is posed by the cessationist
8 activities of Muslim extremists who have started forming parapolitical
9 authorities and paramilitary formations and sending young men to turkey
10 for military training with the goal of achieving autonomy, special
11 status, or a Republic of Sandzak."
12 How big a problem was it as the service saw it that men -- Muslim
13 men were heading to Turkey for training?
14 A. Based on this paragraph and on what I know about the period, it
15 was a realistic option to come into being in our area once those people
16 returned from training. They were supposed to be made active at a
17 particular point in time in order to further violent realisation of the
18 goals they envisaged.
19 Q. And if you go to page 7 of the B/C/S and page 5 of the English,
20 the last paragraph there speaks about two goals that were held by the SDA
21 representatives, the first which you have been talking about in relation
22 to the overthrowing of the constitutional order; and secondly -- can you
23 see that? Are you with me?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And secondly, to use all of this to internationalise the
1 situation and prove their claim about the vulnerability of Muslims in the
2 Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
3 Within the Uzice territory, would you, from what you observed,
4 characterise the Muslims as vulnerable in 1991, 1992, 1993?
5 A. In 1991, 1992, and 1993, the Muslims were threatened the most by
6 different activities in Bosnia, such as the kidnapping at Sjeverin and
7 Strpci. This caused much tension and nervosity in our part of Serbia.
8 They were also probably bothered by the transit of volunteers
9 through the border areas en route to Bosnia. But to say that they were
10 in danger, well, especially in the part of Sandzak belonging to the Uzice
11 centre, that part was very different from the part belonging to the
12 Kraljevo centre. In our area, the interethnic relationship was always
13 rather good, especially because in Prijepolje and Priboj, for example,
14 the population was equal when divided among Serbs and Muslims; whereas,
15 in the Kraljevo centre, Muslims were in the majority. In certain areas,
16 their population amounted almost to 100 per cent.
17 Q. And how would you characterise the efforts of the Uzice DB centre
18 in protecting the Muslim population in -- during these times?
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly speak closer to the
20 microphone? Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come closer to the microphone, is what the
22 interpreters ask.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When looking at the work of our
24 centre during that period of time, it was done on objective terms with
25 the goal of protecting the Muslim population in the area, especially
1 following the events in Sjeverin and similar incidents. At the level of
2 the republic, a decision was made within the Ministry of Interior to send
3 units of policemen to that area, in particular to protect the population
4 and increase the level of security. During that period of time, our
5 activities increased and a staff was formed with the police in Prijepolje
6 in order to deal with the situation, since it became obvious that there
7 were interethnic tensions which came about as a result of the incidents
8 that had taken place.
9 MR. JORDASH:
10 Q. And just a follow-on question. What kind of resources were used?
11 How much of this work -- how -- how -- let me start that again.
12 You've described the personnel within the Uzice centre, and the
13 percentage of -- the number of operatives and so on. How much of these
14 resources was employed to assist in protecting Muslims?
15 A. I can state with full responsibility that our entire force was
16 dedicated to that. Our priority was to maintain good neighbourly
17 relations between the ethnic communities in the area.
18 The three municipalities with their mixed population was
19 something we focussed on and dedicated our personnel to trying to
20 preserve good relations among the communities and in order to ease
22 MR. JORDASH: Could the witness please be given 1D01072, at
23 number 12 in the chart.
24 Well, I think this is loaded up -- sorry, I should have said
25 1D01072.1. There's a redacted copy uploaded, and unredacted copy
1 supplied kindly supplied by the Prosecution.
2 Oh I think the witness has got the redacted copy.
3 Q. Would you, Mr. Novakovic, look at the screen for this one,
4 please, because the copy you've got has an edit. I'd like you to look at
5 the screen.
6 Do you recognise the document and the subject matter?
7 A. I do. I authored this document, together with a colleague of
9 Q. Let's start from the beginning then. Did you have anything to do
10 with Milan Lukic, in terms of your security job?
11 A. I had a specific task. When he was arrested by the public
12 security forces in Serbia in Priboj and taken to the Secretariat of
13 Internal Affairs, on orders of the management of the centre and pursuant
14 to a decision made in Belgrade, I conducted an interview with him.
15 Milan Lukic was arrested at a border crossing in Serbian territory, and
16 he was armed, in possession of weapons that our citizens are not allowed
17 to possess, and with falsified documents. This was the reason he was
18 brought in.
19 Q. Perhaps if I can -- I don't think there's any dispute between the
20 Prosecution and the Defence on this issue, that the witness was involved
21 in interviewing Milan Lukic.
22 MR. WEBER: Of course, we accept the fact that this witness
23 interviewed Milan Lukic. However, I don't know what the -- this is going
24 to -- that might arise out of it, but if it's a fact with a
25 [overlapping speakers] --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the involvement of the witness in
2 interviewing Mr. Lukic is not in dispute.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
5 Q. Lukic was brought in - is this right? - for possession of
6 weapons, and you were asked to interview him in relation to those
7 allegations; is that right?
8 A. That is right. Look, he had weapons and falsified documents,
9 such as driving permit. Together with a friend of his, he was stopped at
10 the border crossing. That was the reason for which they brought him in.
11 Once they ascertained that it was Milan Lukic, they compared that to the
12 information they had involving a murder of Stanko Pecikoza in Visegrad.
13 That is why they brought him to Uzice. The SUP, of course, put the
14 security service on notice, and we forwarded that information to our seat
15 in Belgrade. At the time, the service did have initial information about
16 a kidnapping in Sjeverin, which was prime news at the time. Sixteen
17 citizens were actually kidnapped.
18 Q. What -- sorry. What ethnicity were the civilians?
19 A. The civilians were Muslim.
20 Q. Sorry. I interrupted you. Continue, please.
21 A. The main task of the service at the time was to put all our
22 resources in order to determine what was the fate of those kidnapped.
23 When Milan Lukic was arrested and brought to Uzice, and when he was
24 brought before me, we were still in the dark about their fate. Given the
25 fact that at the moment I was not busy in trying to discover that - I was
1 busy with detecting any extremist activities - I was tasked by the centre
2 to conduct an interview with him, together with a colleague, which
3 covered the territory towards Visegrad. The two of us interviewed him on
4 the premises of the Uzice centre.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock.
6 MR. JORDASH: That's a good moment. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Mr. Novakovic, we'll adjourn for the day. We will need some more
9 time tomorrow. Mr. Jordash will then finish his examination-in-chief.
10 You'll then be cross-examined by the Simatovic Defence and by the
11 Prosecution, and perhaps there will be further questions for you.
12 I hereby instruct you that you should not speak with anyone or
13 communicate in any other way with anyone about your testimony, whether
14 that is testimony you've given today, or whether it is testimony still to
15 be given tomorrow.
16 Is that instruction clear to you?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would like to see you back tomorrow, the 5th
19 of October, at 9.00 in the morning, in this same courtroom.
20 We stand adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day of
23 October, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.