1 Thursday, 6 October 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus
10 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 If there are no procedural matters to be raised, I would like
13 to -- Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH: There's just one which I think will hopefully put
15 Your Honours' mind at rest a little.
16 The protocol has been agreed so there is no need for a court
17 hearing tomorrow.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That is a good message, but agreed between NFI,
19 Mr. Brown, and Prosecution.
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So agreement, a three-party agreement. I'm really
22 relieved. And if I was perhaps a bit -- if I seemed to be slightly
23 irritated that was done on purpose to urge further progress to be made.
24 MR. JORDASH: More than understandable.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, a piece of information that Mr. Jordash
1 may not have. The examination is scheduled for the 31st of October to
2 the 11th of November.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. The examination, Mr. Groome, is that
4 when Mr. Brown --
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Mr. Brown has requested that from the NFI. The
6 Prosecution took no position on the scheduling of the duration.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Examination -- I was thinking about examination of
8 witnesses but it is the examination of the documents.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Of that diary. That is -- which means that
11 Dr. Brown, then, or Mr. Brown, would need how much time then to prepare
12 his report?
13 MR. GROOME: Not to speak for Mr. Jordash, but Mr. Brown in a
14 conference call yesterday said about two weeks.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Two weeks. So then the Chamber now will seriously
16 consider to extend the time-limit until the 1st of December.
17 Yes, this kind of procedural information is very welcome.
18 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
19 And are we in private session or closed session, or are we in
20 open session?
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 I saw on the screens that the outside world might have thought
24 that we were not in open session.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I may.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Just in terms of one housekeeping matter.
4 Yesterday, at the end of the session, the witness was -- did
5 produce the notes, and we did make a copy, and we have the notes
6 available here in the court available to return to the the Court Usher to
7 give back to the witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think can be returned right away to the
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.
12 Mr. Novakovic, the usher just returned to you the small note you
13 gave yesterday to the Prosecution.
14 Mr. Novakovic, I would like to remind you that you're still bound
15 by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your
16 testimony on Tuesday. That is, that you will speak the truth, the whole
17 truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: RADENKO NOVAKOVIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.
21 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honours.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. Sir, today could you please listen carefully to my questions and
2 direct respond to what is being asked of you. Do you understand?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The head of the Uzice DB between 1990 and 2000 was Jakov Sokic;
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Sokic is now deceased; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. As part of your duties, did you ever go to Prizren in southern
10 Kosovo prior to 1996?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What was your assignment there?
13 A. My assignment there was, again, to work on counter-intelligence
14 tasks, and I also went to assist there in Prizren in their centre,
15 because the situation had become more complex, security-wise, and they
16 needed assistance.
17 Q. If you could give us approximate date of this assignment.
18 A. I can tell you approximately. I went sometime in November 1987,
19 and I spent there the entire year of 1988, and then I returned to the
20 Uzice centre.
21 Q. Is it your testimony, then, that you were never assigned to that
22 location in 1995?
23 A. In 1995? In that location? No, I was never again in Kosovo
24 after that. The last time was in 1988, and I returned from there in
1 Q. Did you receive any increases in your salary between the 10th of
2 July and 10th of August, 1995?
3 A. An increase in salary? I can't remember now. It's too long ago.
4 When I was on field missions, I received per diem.
5 Q. Do you recall if you received any per diem between the 10th of
6 July and 10th of August, 1995?
7 A. I received per diem in November 1995. Yes, I did receive per
8 diem in November 1995.
9 Q. So the record is clear: You did not -- is it your testimony that
10 you did not receive, then, a per diem between -- or in July or August of
12 A. Well, I cannot tell you exactly. It was 17 years ago.
13 Q. During your assignment to the Uzice sector, did you have access
14 to information reports of other administrations and other sectors?
15 A. As a more seasoned employee, I did receive surveys and overviews
16 from other areas. Or perhaps people from other centres came to be
17 briefed on the situation in Uzice. I would learn from them about the
18 problems in -- in their localities, especially if they were relevant to
19 the work of our centre. In the counter-intelligence field.
20 Q. On Tuesday, you stated that you were transferred to the
21 2nd Administration in Belgrade in November 1995. Were you ever assigned
22 to Sremska Mitrovica as a permanent employee between 1996 and 1999?
23 A. I was never assigned to Mitrovica, but that area that I went to
24 sometime was directly across from Mitrovica.
25 Q. You reported and received directions from Franko Simatovic
1 between 1994 and 1999; correct?
2 A. I would say it was from November 1995 to 1999.
3 Q. Mr. Simatovic is your former supervisor in the
4 2nd Administration; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. To the best of your knowledge, who in the State Security Service
7 had access to all information and reports from all administrations and
9 A. Well, ex officio, the chief of the service would have access. He
10 needed to be informed. Otherwise, I did not have access to material from
11 other administrations, except if there was something of common interest,
12 something that we needed to jointly work together on. The chief of
13 administration had access to all the documents created by that
15 Q. When you refer to chief of service, I take it you're referring to
16 Jovica Stanisic. Could you please confirm that and tell us the name of
17 the person that you're referring to as the chief of administration?
18 A. When I said that somebody had access to all the materials of the
19 service, that would be only the chief of the service. But when I say
20 chief of administration, I mean the senior chief, the head of that
22 Q. Sir, I'm asking you to provide the names of those two individuals
23 so that it's clear for the record.
24 A. Well, as an example, I can tell you the chief of the service was
25 Jovica Stanisic at the time --
1 Q. Sir --
2 MR. JORDASH: I was just going to suggest that my learned friend
3 gives a time-frame.
4 MR. WEBER: Four hours. Four hours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Mr. Jordash was asking you to giving a
6 time-frame for the witness. To answer the question when --
7 MR. WEBER: That --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Because you asked for names. I think the witness
9 first referred to functional description. But if you ask for names, then
10 you need persons during a certain time-frame to be on that post.
11 MR. WEBER: Fair enough.
12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, this case relates to a specifically charged
13 time-period between 1991 and 1995. I'm asking you who had access to all
14 information and materials from all administrations and sectors during
15 that time-period. If you could please provide us the names.
16 A. Let me tell you, from what I remember at the time, people changed
17 in both the position of chief of service and chiefs of administrations.
18 So if you're asking me specifically about 1995, the chief of service was
19 Jovica Stanisic; the chief of the 2nd Administrations was
20 Franko Simatovic.
21 Q. Did those two individuals have access to all information and
22 reports from all administrations and sectors? Sir, if you could please
23 focus on my question, it is quite specific.
24 A. Franko Simatovic as chief of the 2nd Administration had access to
25 the documents created in the 2nd Administrations or centres that were
1 under the 2nd Administration in terms of their intelligence line of work.
2 Franko Simatovic [as interpreted] had access to all the
3 documents, but, of course, he is not going to burden himself with all the
4 documents. He is going to be briefed by chiefs of sections about things
5 he needs to know. He didn't have time to look through all the documents.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Page 8, line 2, the name that was
8 written is not the name that was said. The paragraph refers to another
9 person, not the one named in line 2, page 8. That's what I heard in
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do not see any name in the second line of page 8.
12 Oh, yes, I see that my neighbour to my left has a -- oh. Yes. What
13 is -- what is page 8, line 2 for me is -- line 1 for me is line 2 for
14 others. That comes as a bit of a surprise in the system.
15 But let me try to clarify this.
16 You told us that Franko Simatovic, as the chief of the
17 2nd Administration had access to the documents created in that
18 administration or centres, or that were -- I think sent to or up to the
19 2nd Administration in terms of their intelligence line of work.
20 Now, you then said and you mentioned a person that a person had
21 access to all the documents but, of course, he is not going to burden
22 himself with all the documents. What name did you mention there?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned the chief of service
24 ex officio, Jovica Stanisic. Ex officio, he had access to all the
25 documents, but, of course, he was presented with selected documents by
1 chiefs of administrations.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So what you said is that Jovica Stanisic had access
3 to all the documents but, of course, he was not going to burden himself
4 with all these documents and he is going to be briefed by the chiefs of
5 sections. That's what your testimony is?
6 Yes. No, it was transcribed and translated to us in a different
7 way so that has been clarified now.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
9 Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Throughout your entire time in the Serbian DB, the principle of
12 secrecy applied to all activities undertaken by you and your colleagues;
13 is that correct?
14 A. Absolutely. Throughout my work, the main principle in the work
15 of the service was the principle of conspiracy, subordination, and
16 rationality and professionalism. Those were the four main principles
17 that were absolutely observed in the work of the service.
18 Q. I would like to change topics with you now and talk about a
19 little geography.
20 There were three border crossings points in the Uzice sector
21 between Bosnia and Serbia. If you could confirm these points for me.
22 These crossings were along the Drina river at Mokra Gora on the road from
23 Visegrad to Uzice. A second point at Uva on the road from Rudo to
24 Priboj, and the third one being located between Bajina Basta and Skelani;
25 is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is it correct that the Serbian MUP was responsible for
3 controlling all three of these crossings points?
4 A. The Serbian MUP was in charge of crossings.
5 Q. Were you aware of paramilitary units that were present in the
6 area of Skelani and Bajina Basta in 1992, through your employment?
7 A. I heard they were present, but I did not have direct insight into
9 Q. Mount Tara is located within the area of responsibility of the
10 Uzice DB; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The Serbian DB used facilities at Tara; correct?
13 A. Yes, I know that in one period they used.
14 Q. You are aware of the JATD; correct? A simple yes or no is fine
15 at this time. It is something that we'll discuss further.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Members of the JATD wore red berets and were known by others as
18 such; correct?
19 A. Well, JATD was JATD. But others were -- called it the
20 Red Berets. It was an anti-terrorist unit, but some people called them
21 the Red Berets because they wore red berets.
22 Q. Milan Radonjic was one of the deputy commanders of the JATD;
24 A. I don't know about that. Possibly. I can't be sure.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5061 shown
1 to the witness.
2 Q. Sir, this is a Serbian DB JATD proposal for awards dated
3 9 May 1996. Did you along with Zoran Rajic and Dragoslav Krsmanovic
4 receive pistols as awards for service in the JATD?
5 A. This document, I suppose, is authentic. But I've never been in
6 the service of the JATD. In my whole career, I never served the JATD.
7 But it's true that I was rewarded that year with a pistol, probably at
8 the proposal of some of the leaders of JATD for my service in Krajina.
9 Q. Sir, could you please give us a brief explanation as to the
10 reason that you did not mention any knowledge of the JATD during the
11 topics that were discussed with you in the last two days?
12 A. Because nobody asked me about it at any point.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders
14 1D5061 into evidence. It was received by the Prosecution from the
15 Republic of Serbia pursuant to a RFA. It is one of many documents that
16 came from a personnel file of Dragoslav Krsmanovic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar, the number would be
19 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3018, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under seal, Mr. Weber
21 of ...
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, based on the content in this exhibit and
23 the fact that Serbia did not provide it with any redactions, we would
24 submit that it is not necessary to be under seal. However, if the
25 Chamber would like to take a cautious approach on that, that would be
1 fine too.
2 JUDGE ORIE: There's no present member of any intelligence
3 service mentioned here.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, so I can give you 100 per cent certainty
5 on that, if I could please have just the next break and I will check on
6 one name.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Provisionally under seal. But, then, of course, it
8 may have been shown to the public. That should be provisionally be
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, when did you first hear of Operation Tomson?
13 A. I heard of it sometime in 1994 or 1995, perhaps. That operation
14 was conducted by the 3rd Administration that was in charge in
15 encountering, extremism and terrorism.
16 In Uzice we mainly followed the guide-lines of that operation
17 from the beginning of war operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to
18 the fact that Uzice is in the border-line territory.
19 Q. Individuals or groups who were not considered a security threat
20 would not be included in Operation Tomson; correct?
21 A. Absolutely. Both individuals and groups who were considered a
22 security threat were subject of surveillance under Operation Tomson.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have D428, marked for
24 identification. This is formally 65 ter 1D392. This document is
25 provisionally under seal, and we request that it not be broadcast to the
1 public. It is a lengthy document, and we have seen that the witness does
2 like to have hard copies, so we do have a hard copy of the exhibit to be
3 presented to the witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist.
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. Mr. Novakovic, before you is the 19 September 1995
7 Uzice State Security Department report on the results of Operative Action
8 Tomson. Could you please confirm whether you reviewed this report in its
9 entirety prior to your testimony in this case?
10 A. Yes. I reviewed the document in its entirety. The Defence
11 provided me with the document to peruse.
12 I had not had an occasion to see it beforehand, but I did have an
13 occasion to see it when the Defence provided it to me.
14 Q. According to your comments in the Defence chart, is it correct
15 that you considered this report a "high quality analysis by the Uzice
16 centre dealing with both Muslim and Serb extremism."
17 A. Precisely. I thought that this material was of a very high
18 quality because it did not adopt a selective approach to the arming of
19 various groups. It, rather, represents a cross-section of the work of
20 the Uzice centre dealing with both Muslim and Serbian extremism. This is
21 a collective overview of all the things that were done, what arms were
22 seized, what measures were undertaken, what about the co-operation with
23 the Ministry of Interior with this regard. This material even lists
24 somewhere, but I'm not sure where, that all the documents that the Uzice
25 centre dispatched with this regard did not contain the wording "Operative
1 Action Tomson" in the heading. However, in its work, the Uzice centre
2 absolutely complied with everything that was defined by the Operative
3 Action Tomson. The Uzice centre behaved in that way. In 1992, 1993, and
4 1994, and this is an overview leading up to 1995 and spilling even over
5 that period.
6 Q. Sir, I'm going to go through this report with you in more detail.
7 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please have page 2 of the
8 B/C/S and English versions of this report.
9 Q. And, sir, if you could please keep your answers as precise as
10 possible to the questions that I'm putting to.
11 First, the Prosecution would like to discuss with you the groups
12 that were considered extremists by the Serbian DB according to this
13 report. The second paragraph of the introductory remark states:
14 "Tectonic political shifts within the FRY, in particular the
15 introduction of a multi-party parliamentary system, provided an incentive
16 in space for reactionary, extremist nationalist and separatist forces to
17 appear on the political stage. Enveloping their extremism in the shroud
18 of legal political parties these forces displayed extreme hostility and
19 intolerance towards other parties, in particular the ruling one. Unable
20 to reach their political goals through normal and regular parliamentary
21 procedures, some of these parties resorted to other means, primarily
22 military ones of achieving their goals. They set up groups and
23 organisations with the overtones and characteristics of paramilitary
24 formations, which, at a given moment could be used as a framework for the
25 unconstitutional, illegal, or rather, unlawful overthrow of the actual
2 My first question to you: Is it correct that Operation Tomson
3 was directed at disarming paramilitary formations that were politically
4 opposed to the ruling party in Serbia and could potentially overthrow the
5 authorities in power, including Slobodan Milosevic?
6 A. The primary goal of the Operative Action Tomson was to control
7 and disarm individuals and groups that either returned from the front
8 line or were supplied with weapons in a different way, in order to
9 provide security for the territory of Serbia. Inter alia, the arming of
10 such groups for the reasons that you, yourself, spelled out could have
11 threatened the constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia, i.e., it
12 could have threatened the authorities in power at the moment.
13 Q. Sir, what I just read to you doesn't discuss all groups. It
14 addresses particularly ones that may pose a threat to the ruling party
15 and the authorities in power. Is that correct that that's what that
16 section states?
17 A. Yes, that's what it says. But the sentence goes on and explains
18 what the whole thing was all about.
19 Q. I'm going to go through this document with you in greater detail.
20 If we could please go section at a time and we'll discuss the different
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if the witness is asked a question about
23 a certain section where he considers that read in isolation it gives a
24 wrong impression, he is entitled to include a reference to other parts in
25 his answer.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
3 Could the Prosecution actually please have e-court page 5 of the
4 B/C/S original and page 3, middle of the page, of the English translation
5 of this document.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. In my copy -- oh,
7 well, no, yes.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. Sir, at the end of the remarks.
10 Directing your attention to the last paragraph of the
11 introductory remarks which is before you on the monitor. This
12 paragraph begins:
13 "Illegal arming organised by parties and paramilitary forces
14 organised by Muslim extremists and cessationists in the area of Raska and
15 the Republic of Montenegro, under the aegis of the SDA constituted a
16 special security problem in the Republic of Serbia and the Federal
17 Republic of Yugoslavia in the past period and still partially does."
18 Sir, nothing in this sentence that I just read to you indicates
19 that the Serbian DB was concerned about the crimes being committed by
20 Serbs against Muslims or Croats outside of the borders of Serbia;
22 A. It is correct this concerns the years 1992, 1993, and 1994.
23 Q. The --
24 A. If I'm reading the correct page. I -- I think it's page 4, isn't
1 Q. Sir, you are, the paragraph before you continues to state that:
2 "Successful actions carried out by the MUP of Serbia and
3 Montenegro in 1992, 1993, and 1994 have resolved most of the problem, and
4 legal sanctions were used to bring into custody the participants and
6 My question to you on that is: Is it correct that the Serbian DB
7 considered Operation Tomson a successful means of disarming Muslim
8 extremists and paramilitary formations who were politically opposed to
9 those in power?
10 A. Operative Action Tomson was an operative action conducted by the
11 state security sector of Serbia. And it applied exclusively to the
12 territory of Serbia. Muslim terrorists was -- were just one of the
13 groups of terrorists. And in that passage, it is stated that Muslim
14 extremists were a security threat and the threat for the constitutional
15 order of Serbia, amongst all the others.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, page 16, line 22, an
19 organisation is mentioned, or there is a record of the organisation in
20 the transcript that I didn't hear the witness mention at all.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic I will read the beginning of your last
22 answer and I invite you to then repeat what you said after the words I
23 read to you.
24 You said, "Operative Action Tomson was an operative action
25 conducted by...," by whom?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By the state security sector of
2 Serbia with all of its organisations and centres in the territory of
3 Serbia. And not in the territory of --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I continue to read:
5 "And it applied exclusively to the ..."
6 And then you said? Did you say the territory of Serbia?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The territory of Serbia. What I
8 meant by that was armed groups, illegally armed groups, paramilitaries.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that the matter has been the --
10 The translation and the transcription gave us a different
11 impression but it has now been corrected.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have e-court page 10 of
14 the B/c/S original and page 6 of the English translation of this report.
15 Q. Mr. Novakovic, for your information this is the page with the
16 number ending in 9931 in the lower right-hand corner.
17 I would like to look at some examples of how Operation Tomson was
18 implemented by the Serbian DB between 1992 and 1995. I will then have
19 some further questions for you.
20 This report details the seizure of weapons, ammunition and other
21 equipment from a group of nine Muslims in October 1993.
22 MR. WEBER: For the record, Your Honours, I believe there is a
23 typographical error in the date on the English translation.
24 Q. The report indicates that criminal reports were filed against
25 every one of these individuals. Do you know where the Serbian DB
1 initiated criminal proceedings with the public prosecutor's office
2 against all of these individuals who were considered Muslim extremists?
3 A. The only thing I can say is what I see in the document. That's
5 Q. Which is?
6 A. Which is that in October 1993, based on operative work and
7 intelligence gathered, we know that the group of Muslims from Prijepolje
8 was in possession of illegal arms that they had obtained with the help of
9 individuals of -- with the help of individuals of Serbia ethnicity. The
10 state security sector searched several houses and other facilities in
11 Brodarevo in Gracanica and Prijepolje villages.
12 Q. What is the reason that the State Security Service would consider
13 important to initiate criminal proceedings against all nine of these
14 individuals, based on what you just said?
15 A. Well, you know what? Illegal possession of arms and the arms
16 were found on them. Ammunition and other equipment. That was a good
17 enough reason to instigate proceedings which consisted of checks, seizure
18 of illegal -- illegally possessed weapons, and further legal measures
19 that could be applied in such cases.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have e-court page 18 of
21 the B/C/S original and page 11 of the English translation.
22 Q. Sir, this the page number ending in 9939 in the lower right-hand
24 This report continues to detail the seizure of weapons from 49
25 individuals in 1994 who are associated with the White Eagles, a Serbian
1 military extremist group. According to this document, criminal reports
2 were only issue against nine of these individuals?
3 MR. WEBER: For the record this information can be found on
4 e-court page 19 of the English translation.
5 Q. Do you know why the Serbian DB initiated proceedings against some
6 of the White Eagles and the majority were released after being issued a
7 weapons receipt and providing a statement?
8 A. It was customary in the work of the service and, to be very
9 specific, that was one of the most radical groups in the territory of
10 Priboj and in the territory of our centre so it was customary for such
11 individuals that weapons be seized from them, that they be prosecuted,
12 and the rest of the individuals would continue to be monitored by the
13 service and would be subject to other types of procedures applied by the
14 state security sector.
15 And this example speaks about the non-selectivity and the equal
16 measures being applied to all extremists found in the territory of our
18 Q. Are you saying that you don't find any selectivity in the fact
19 that the Serbian DB decided to initiate criminal proceedings against only
20 nine of the 49 individuals, and with respect to the remainder, let them
21 go after receiving a weapons receipt and taking a statement?
22 Isn't that selective treatment?
23 A. I believe that you will found -- find a comment here regarding
24 all the measures that were applied against those individuals.
25 In addition to the illegal possession of arms that were seized,
1 it says that criminal reports were filed, that they were interviewed,
2 that the weapons were seized from them, and that a large majority of the
3 cases were then transferred onto the authority of the state security and
4 that all the information was transferred to them.
5 Q. Sir, fine. We will go -- let's go through a specific example
6 then and then we can come back to this.
7 The Prosecution would like to direct your attention to the
8 White Eagle named --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise.
11 Page 20, line 11, the -- the authority of a different sector, not the one
12 that is indicated in here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'll read part of your answer. Could you
14 please then repeat what the following part of your answer was.
15 You said arms were seized. It says that criminal reports were
16 filed, that they were interviewed, that the weapons were seized from
17 them, and that a large majority of the cases were then transferred to the
18 authority of ...
19 What organisation or institution?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the public security sector. The
21 authority of the public security sector.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And that all information was transferred to them.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Sir, the document doesn't reflect that that's the case, so I'd
3 like to go through a specific example so we can deal with details.
4 The Prosecution would like to direct your attention to the
5 White Eagle named Milomir Djurovic who is listed on number 28 on e-court
6 page 24 of the B/C/S and page 15 of the English translation. If we could
7 please have those pages on the screen.
8 Sir, this is it on page 9945 in the lower right-hand corner of
9 the hard copy in front of you.
10 Sir, could you please review this information for Mr. Djurovic
11 only and let us know if prior to your testimony you were provider with a
12 3rd Administration report related to this seizure?
13 A. Did I receive or was I provided with a report here? I didn't
14 understand what you -- you're asking me. What report? And who I was
15 provided report from?
16 Q. I'm happy to explain, sir.
17 With respect to the person listed at number 28, Mr. Djurovic,
18 did the Defence provide with you a 3rd Administration report related to
19 this seizure?
20 A. Absolutely not. This is a collective document and that was what
21 was provided to me by the Defence. This is how I'm looking at it, and
22 based on what I see, I provide my comments to you.
23 Q. Is your knowledge then limited to the document that was provided
24 by the Defence?
25 A. I provided comments to the documents that were provided to me by
1 the Defence for my perusal. As for my knowledge, I can say that this is
2 a summary report provided by the analytical department of the Uzice
3 centre. This is a collective overview of all the tasks accomplished
4 pursuant to Operation Tomson. I understand your specific example.
5 However, when you look at the list containing the names of 49
6 individuals, that list ends with the concrete taxative enumeration of
7 what was done, how many reports were filed, how many interviews were
8 taken, what would follow, what procedures would be undertaken, and so on
9 and so forth.
10 Q. Thank you, sir.
11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D1024 shown
12 to the witness.
13 Q. This is the Uzice DB 3rd Administration report dated 8 April 1994
14 on the possession of illegal weapons by Milomir Djurovic.
15 The second paragraph of this report states, quote --
16 MR. WEBER: I apologise, Your Honours. I do not know if there
17 are any restrictions to this Defence document. I did ask that it not be
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: I -- I -- I would just need a moment to have a look
21 to see if there's any material falling within Your Honours' order.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we provisionally not show it to the
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. The second paragraph of this report states:
1 "In return for occasional repair work on a car while he was at
2 the front in Dobrun, 1992, Zoran Bojovic gave Djurovic a Schmeizer
3 submachine-gun and a semi-automatic rifle. Later, Djurovic gave the
4 submachine-gun to Dragan Papic of Priboj, and on Bojovic's order he gave
5 the semi-automatic rifle to Mr. Dragoje Zvizdic."
6 The sentence indicates that the semi-automatic rifle wound up in
7 the possession of Dragoje Zvizdic. Do you know why Mr. Zvizdic was not
8 included as one of the 49 White Eagles listed in the 1995 Tomson report
9 we have been looking at?
10 A. You're asking me.
11 Q. Yes, I'm asking if you know why he wasn't included in the report?
12 A. Why Zoran Bojovic didn't making it to the report?
13 Q. No, sir. Why the person who wound up in possession of the
14 weapon, Mr. Zvizdic -- he is not referenced in the report. There's no
15 need to look at it. Do you know why he wouldn't make it into that
17 A. I don't think. I suppose that he was subject of further
18 operative work. I have no doubts that the service continued dealing with
19 him. Maybe he was not available to the service at the time, but I'm sure
20 that the service continued working on his identification.
21 Q. Okay. At the end of this report, the document provides the
22 personal details of Dragoje Zvizdic and indicates that he is unemployed.
23 The Serbian DB had the ability to check these personal details at the
24 time the report was compiled, didn't it?
25 A. It certainly had, but I'm telling you again, in that period, a
1 certain number persons and a certain number of measures were handled but
2 we were concentrated then on -- on routes of arms smuggling and supply,
3 because that's the time when people went to war in other areas. They
4 were from the area of Priboj but at that time they were active in the
5 area of Bosnia. I don't know why he wasn't included in the report, but
6 he was certainly included in our surveillance measures, in our operative
8 Q. This report does not indicate that the Serbian DB even issued a
9 receipt or obtained a statement from Mr. Zvizdic. Do you know why the
10 Serbian DB would not have undertaken either of these measures?
11 A. He was probably not accessible to them. I don't know the reason.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P2896 for
13 the witness. The exhibit is presently under seal and we ask that it not
14 be broadcast to the public.
15 MR. JORDASH: While that's coming up, Your Honour, I think
16 there's a name of the operative on the previous exhibit --
17 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore should not be shown to the public and
18 to the extent it has been, a video redaction should be made.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. WEBER: Thank you to the Stanisic Defence for that
21 information. With that information, we tender the document under seal,
22 at this time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
24 Madam Registrar, the number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3019, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under seal.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Mr. Novakovic, this is a MUP Republic of Serbia certificate for
4 Dragoje Zvizdic dated 15 March 1994 for performing tasks on behalf of the
5 MUP. The certificate is issued by Milan Radonjic the same person who
6 signed you're award proposal. Did you know that Mr. Zvizdic was a member
7 of the JATD in 1994?
8 A. I didn't know anyone under that name.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. My learned friend
10 is asking the witness whether he knows that Zvizdic was a member of the
11 JATD. Nothing in this document indicates that. It says a member of the
12 serve force of the MUP.
13 I don't see from this that this person, if it is the same person,
14 is defined as a member of the JATD. I think one should be fair to the
15 witness when putting questions of this kind.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that as well, Mr. Petrovic. Whether it's
17 fair or unfair to the witness may depend on other documentation to
18 follow. I think the comment would have been appropriate at a later
19 stage, once we would have dealt with the subject matter.
20 Mr. Weber, any follow-up on the specific assignment you just put
21 to the witness?
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, there is --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore under those circumstances, Mr. Petrovic,
24 you should have allowed Mr. Weber to continue. I noticed it as well, but
25 you were a bit early with your comments.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Did you know whether or not Mr. Zvizdic was a member of the JATD
4 or even a reserve unit of the MUP of Serbia in 1994?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, have you listened to the last answer of
6 the witness?
7 MR. WEBER: I see the last answer. Thank you, Your Honour. I'm
8 sorry I missed it with the [Overlapping speakers] Mr. Petrovic. That's
9 my fault.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Putting questions one but listening to the
11 answers is also a very relevant part of cross-examination.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. Sir, if someone was actually employed by the MUP of Serbia, would
15 that explain the reason that they would not be included as part of
16 Operation Tomson?
17 A. Yesterday, it was mentioned that there was a possibility for the
18 service to use sources or to use as sources people who were close to the
19 subjects we had a security interest in, but it happened rather rarely
20 that we would be interested in a member of the reserve force of the MUP.
21 But we did look for our sources in the environment where activities took
22 place that were relevant to us. I have no idea whether the operative in
23 charge or the centre in charge knew that Zvizdic was on the reserve force
24 of the Ministry of Interior.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1512,
1 page 5 of the B/C/S and English versions. The Prosecution requests that
2 this exhibit not be broadcast to the public.
3 Q. Before you, sir, is a JATD payment list of daily allowances
4 provided by the Serbian DB in the first half of April 1994. This is the
5 same time in which the report that I showed you earlier was from.
6 This list is similar to the per diem list, D429, which you
7 commented on in the Defence chart that includes your name. The
8 individuals on this list include Raja Bozovic, Davor Subotic
9 and Mr. Zvizdic among others. Is it correct that members of certain
10 special units such as the JATD were not included as part of Operation
11 Tomson because these individuals had a relationship with the Serbian DB?
12 A. You say these persons were covered by Operation Tomson? I can't
13 understand that.
14 Q. I'm actually asking you. These persons were not covered by
15 Operation Tomson because they were associated with the Serbian DB. They
16 received payments from them.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Weber, is your real question whether,
18 if a name pops up in Operation Tomson of a person who is the member of
19 the JATD that no further action would be taken against that person.
20 Is that ...
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Tomson reports that we have been
22 provided, for example, the one that we looked at with the witness, does
23 not include any of these names. So our position and my question would be
24 [Overlapping speakers] intentionally.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In the reporting in Operation Tomson, that if,
1 during the operation, it would come across a person who is a member of
2 the JATD, that that person would not be included in the Tomson report.
3 That's the issue.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea of whether those
5 people ever cropped up, because I had nothing to do with the JATD then.
6 I had nothing to do, no contact with the newly established unit. The
7 only contact I had was in the area of Krajina in November 1994.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. The JATD was never considered an extremist group; correct?
10 A. The JATD was a unit established by decision of the
11 Ministry of Interior, as far as I know. It was not an extremist group.
12 Q. Returning more generally to the topic of the White Eagles, the
13 Prosecution possesses 3rd Administration reports that describe the
14 exceptions and activities of the White Eagles as early as April 1992. Do
15 you know why the Serbian DB did not undertake actions to disarm this
16 group in 1992 and, instead, waited until 1994?
17 A. Let me tell you, the way the RDB worked was when they got some
18 initial information they would develop it further with the application of
19 further operative measures in order to be able to get to the subject and
20 process them. Rumours about the subjects in the -- the territory of
21 Croatia, Bosnia didn't mean anything to us, and that's why I still have a
22 reservation regarding these people. They might have been processed later
23 either by us or by the public security sector.
24 I don't know, in fact, what kind of activities you are talking
1 Q. Would it be important to act immediately if you were concerned
2 with the safety of Muslims? Wouldn't it be important to act in a timely
3 manner and not wait and collect information, if that was your concern?
4 A. If there was a specific danger to a specific Muslim person or a
5 specific group of Muslims, of course it would have been important to act
6 immediately. No doubt about that.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time, the Prosecution seeks to
8 bar table four documents to show information possessed by the Serbian DB
9 about the White Eagles in 1992. These documents are 65 ter 6263 to 6266.
10 The documents are Uzice DB 3rd Administration reports dated 24 April,
11 4 June, 27 August, and 5 October 1992. The Prosecution is offering these
12 documents to show the information that was known to the Serbian DB in
13 1992 and failed to act upon until 1994. All of these documents were
14 received by the Office of the Prosecutor pursuant to official requests
15 for assistance 1695 from the Republic of Serbia on 15 September 2008.
16 These documents originate from the BIA archives. The Prosecution made a
17 copy of this RFA available to the Defence and I know one was provided to
18 the Simatovic Defence in particular prior to this examination. The
19 documents are being offered at this time due to the evidence being
20 offered by the Defence in relation to Operation Tomson which did not
21 derive originally from the Prosecution's case.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: I'm -- first of all, could I just raise the issue
24 of I'm not sure where the Prosecution obtains the conclusion that the DB
25 didn't take action. It's been presented as fact, but with no
1 corresponding exhibit or testimony referred to. So I think that -- that
2 might be useful if we knew where Mr. Weber derives that conclusion before
3 it's presented as fact.
4 In relation to --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, facts, of course, it's a position taken by the
6 Prosecution, which is, of course, not accepted for its factual accuracy.
7 What I do understand is that, Mr. Weber, with this witness, went
8 through operational activity in 1994 has put to the witness that
9 information was available already in 1992. Of course, whether 1994 was
10 the first action taken or not, that may be the position of the
11 Prosecution, but that's, of course, still to be considered.
12 MR. JORDASH: It was --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Your argument is totally valid. That, if you point
14 at an action taken in 1994 that that does not mean, in itself, that no
15 action was taken in 1993, and I can imagine that would be an argument by
16 the Defence. But at this moment we are just focussing, I think, on
17 documentary evidence which would demonstrate what kind of information was
18 available in 1992. I think that's the limited purpose of what Mr. Weber
19 seeks to establish.
20 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever conclusions he may have on his mind,
22 Mr. Jordash, might not be the conclusions you would have on your mind,
23 and what the conclusions of the Chamber will be, will become clear at the
24 end of this case.
25 MR. JORDASH: In relation to the application to add documents
1 through the bar table, we'd oppose that application. I think where we
2 have got to relates to Your Honours' guidance on the admission into
3 evidence of documents tendered by the Prosecution during the Defence
4 case, the decision dated 26 August 2011, which allows the Prosecution to
5 use documents with a witness in order to elicit evidence. The first
6 step, we would submit, that the Prosecution must do is to use the
7 evidence to elicit evidence in favour of their case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the matter, Mr. Jordash,
11 not exactly in line with what you argued but also not exactly in line of
12 what Mr. Weber asked. Mr. Weber did put to the witness that the OTP has
13 material that shows that information was already known in 1992.
14 The witness then is -- in his answer, not knowing what that
15 material was. Said something about rumours, well, we -- of course then
16 you would have to investigate and it could well be that at a later stage.
17 The Chamber considers it appropriate that the witness, first of all, will
18 be provided with those four reports so that the witness who apparently
19 was not familiar with the details of the information available about the
20 White Eagles in 1992 has an opportunity to read that material and then to
21 see whether what he suggested in his answer, whether there's a good
22 ground for that, for example, if it would just be rumours, that would be
23 a -- and then we'll then decide once the witness has had an opportunity
24 to look at it, to comment on it, whether or not it's appropriate to admit
25 those documents into evidence.
1 That is what the Chamber is inclined to do, and I'm looking to
2 both of you, and I -- no one is stamping with his feet on the ground, so
3 apparently -- Mr. Weber, were you willing --
4 MR. WEBER: That's fine, Your Honour. The Prosecution proceeding
5 the way it did just to -- trying to make efficient use of the time
6 [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think we could use the break for that. We are at
8 a point for a break anyhow. And perhaps if the Chamber could briefly
9 look at that material so that we could better understand the -- the
10 possible comments the witness may have after the break.
11 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour. If the Prosecution could
12 just have a couple of minutes to go upstairs to get clean copies. We
13 only have marked copies with us in court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think it's time for a break.
15 Mr. Novakovic, we have some work for you to be done during the
16 break. You may have noticed that the Prosecution referred to information
17 which was available in 1992 about the White Eagles and you were not
18 familiar with that information. You'll get the four reports, and you'll
19 have an opportunity to answer questions and to comment on those reports,
20 especially in view of the action taken in 1994, because that's the focus
21 of Mr. Weber, his questioning.
22 Would you be so kind to read through those four documents. You
23 will receive them once they are copied. And could the Chamber have
24 English translations.
25 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Then we take a break, and we resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, did you have an opportunity to read
6 the documents? Did you receive them and did you read them? Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber may have some questions or may invite you
9 to comment.
10 Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, over the recess, you were provided with four
13 reports from the 3rd Administration of the Uzice DB in 1992. Do these
14 reports reflect information that the DB centre had in 1992?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did one of these reports, 65 ter 6263, dated 24 April 1992,
17 include a poem that was a part of a leaflet which expressed the intent of
18 the White Eagles in June of 1992 -- I'm sorry, excuse me, in April of
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Directing your attention to the hard copy of 65 ter 6264 that's
22 in front of you, it's the report dated 4 June 1992.
23 In this report, it states:
24 "The White Eagles basic activities boiled down to slaughtering
25 and killing of the Muslims."
1 Does this information indicate that the Uzice DB was aware of
2 these activities. As can you see from this document that you indicated
3 dated 4 June 1992, those were members of the White Eagles from the areas
4 of Obrenovac and Valjevo and it was written by the Uzice centre without
5 indicating specific names and surnames who was in charge.
6 A. If you allow me to explain, all the four documents --
7 Q. Sir, if you could provide a general comment on them that's fine.
8 On the four documents.
9 A. All these four documents say that, at the time, the Uzice centre
10 was working to identify occurrences of hostile nature like the work of
11 various organisations. The first document dated 4 June mentions
12 Zoran Penezic from Priboj and this amalgamated material indicates that a
13 criminal complaint was filed against him later. This is initial
14 information. When the war in Bosnia just began and when they first came
15 to the attention of our centre. It took a lot of meticulous work to
16 identify and find out about the work of this individual.
17 Q. I'm sorry, sir. I know I invited you to give a global comment on
18 all four. But because you are mentioning something here, when you say
19 Zoran Penezic, is it correct that he was not arrested until later in
20 1994, in the Tomson report that you were referring to, the criminal
22 A. Precisely. But because he had a weapon him, monitoring the work
23 of political parties was not commonly accepted in Serbia by the society.
24 The multi-party system was just emerging and what the political parties
25 did not manage to achieve in parliament, they tried to pursue by creating
1 military wings and paramilitary unit. But it's obvious that they
2 focussed their activity on propaganda under the territory of Serbia. But
3 the other activities were pursued by paramilitary formations in the war
4 in Bosnia.
5 From this information, you can see that initially they were
6 identified as potential vehicles of hostile activity in the territory of
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and you can see that from the first document
8 among the four. He was processed either by the seizure of his weapons or
9 via concrete forms of work.
10 I would like to emphasise that amalgamated material --
11 Q. Sir, if I -- I know that there --
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time, the Prosecution -- the
13 document speaks for themselves and the witness is repeating what the
14 documents are.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to -- to cut matters short.
16 MR. WEBER: Yeah.
17 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, when you talk about the first
18 document, you say the document of the 4th of June, I see the first
19 document dated 24th of April.
20 MR. WEBER: I believe Your Honour is referring to 6264, the
21 65 ter documented 4 June 1992?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't have 65 ter numbers here.
23 I see one document dated the 24th of April, Uzice DB State
24 Security Department Centre. Extremism, Official Note of the employees of
25 the RDB. That's the first -- in chronology, that's the first one I see.
1 Now, I think, second -- let me try to -- in response to one of
2 the questions put to you by Mr. Weber, more or less saying why nothing
3 was done, that was the gist of that question, you said these people had
4 arms. Is it correctly understood that if persons affiliated with
5 political parties and carrying arms that if information was known about
6 them, that the fact that they were carrying arms and that they were
7 linked to a political movement or party, that that would be a reason not
8 to intervene?
9 And I'm talking about 1992.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. That was sufficient
11 reason to react, if we established they had weapons and you can see that
12 from this material. But if they were not armed on the territory, and
13 they pursued propaganda activities, it was not easy to just start
14 processing them.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me then be very clear to you. Then I do
16 not understand your answer saying, Well, they had weapons and it was not
17 customary to proceed against political people. That's what your answer
19 And in view of this answer, I have great difficulties in fully
20 understanding your previous answer.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, then, I was misunderstood.
22 That's not what I meant at any point.
23 Illegal possession of weapons, regardless of what political party
24 they belonged, would be subject to prosecution. The person would be
25 brought in, interviewed, and the charges would be filed against him,
1 according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, and then he would -- then he
2 would be processed further by the public security sector.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from what happened in 1994, could you give us
4 an indication of arrests of any of the persons mentioned here in 1992
5 and/or 1993?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I see from these four
7 documents, Penezic was arrested and he was processed from this materiel.
8 He was tried, Zoran Penezic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: When was that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say. I don't know. I
11 wasn't dealing with these cases myself but I can see from the documents
12 he was prosecuted.
13 JUDGE ORIE: My question clearly was about 1992 and 1993 because
14 that is the issue apparently raised by Mr. Weber whether and why no
15 effective action was taken in 1992, where certain information was
16 available and why action, and then not complete but only limited, was
17 taken in 1994. That's the matter Mr. Weber is raising with you.
18 Do you have any further -- apart from what you told us until now,
19 do you have any further comment on that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The documents contain references to
21 1992, 1993, and 1994. And there is a list of actions that were taken, at
22 what time, against whom, what was undertaken, and what was then
23 transferred onto the authority of the public security sector.
24 If you look at the document, if you read it, will you see it.
25 There are individual names and the names of individual activities.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this.
3 MR. WEBER: I believe there is some source of confusion occurring
4 since the witness has one additional material in front of him right now
5 which is the Tomson report which indicates the individuals were arrested
6 in 1994.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was relatively clear to me. And the
8 witness was not able to give any further details about the date. And so
9 the only thing we have, as far as the date is concerned, we have before
10 us is this 1994 date.
11 Now, one additional question. You told us about propaganda but,
12 of course, if people would have arms it would be quite different.
13 Now, in the 4th of June 1992 report, it reads that the activities
14 boiled down to slaughtering and killing of Muslims. Was any action
15 taken, to your knowledge, at that point in time, in relation to this
16 information? And --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is about crimes in the
18 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not in the territory of Serbia.
19 At that time, we had information about crimes in the territory of
20 Visegrad of the so-called Visegrad theatre of war. However, judging by
21 the information no reference is made to any individuals. There's just an
22 indication that those persons are from Obrenovac and Valjevo. In the
23 Uzice centre we didn't have anything to do with Obrenovac and Valjevo.
24 Those places belonged to the authority of a different centre.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the Uzice centre was right to report
1 about it, so that they had nothing to do with it is, to some extent,
2 contradicted by you reporting on it.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But there where no names. The
4 report was drafted and sent to the headquarters in Belgrade, to the
5 headquarters of the 3rd Administration who --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I see that. Do you know enough knowledge about any
7 investigation trying to identify those persons by their names? I'm not
8 asking whether you did it, but whether you know of any such activity, to
9 try to find out who it exactly were that had committed such crimes.
10 If you know tell us; if you don't know say, Well, I don't know.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that the Uzice centre worked
12 on the issues surrounding Sjeverin and Strbac. And as for the others
13 that others investigate, I don't know. I didn't deal with that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 Mr. Weber please proceed.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. Mr. Novakovic, I will come back a little bit to Visegrad in 1992
18 in a little bit.
19 But before I do that, I'd like to change the topic completely.
20 Yesterday at transcript page 14004, you stated:
21 "The Presidency of the Republic of Serbia made a decision that
22 special police units, the PJM, would be paid in this way, in per diem.
23 In fact, they received salaries in their original units when they were
24 employed but when they would go into the field, on field missions, to
25 areas where security was disrupted. They would be paid in the form of
1 per diem in keeping with that decision of the Republic of Serbia or,
2 rather, its Presidency."
3 Sir, are you talking about Slobodan Milosevic?
4 A. At that time President Milosevic was at the head of the
5 Presidency of Serbia. I said that I was not a financial expert, but I'm
6 reading this in the document that this was the way per diems were paid.
7 Q. Do you acknowledge that Milosevic authorised the payment of state
8 security officials for their activities outside the Republic of Serbia?
9 A. You can see from the decision that all the employees dispatched
10 on missions out -- outside of the headquarters, or actually, the main
11 office of the security office, primarily in the territory of Serbia.
12 Q. Sir, are you stating -- I just would like be to clear with you,
13 if we could.
14 Are you saying that President Milosevic authorised, by decision,
15 the payment of state security officials outside the Republic of Serbia,
16 including Croatia and Bosnia?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would kindly ask
19 the Prosecutor to show the witness the document. On page 14004, in the
20 heading there's something that is very important for the witness's
21 answer. It doesn't say the president of Serbia but the Presidency of
22 Serbia. I'm going to deal with that in my additional questions, but this
23 is of the utmost importance, and the witness should be shown the document
24 in order to be able to answer appropriately.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, are you putting these questions to the
1 witness because you think that the witness would have any direct
2 knowledge of the involvement of President Milosevic in the preparation
3 and/or the signing of that decision? That's my first question to you.
4 Or would you -- or are you seeking him to draw conclusions from
5 the fact that if there was a presidential decree, decision, whatever it
6 is, that given the date of that decision that was at the time when
7 Mr. Milosevic was president of Serbia? I mean, what -- what of the two
8 matters are you raising?
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not agree with the
10 Simatovic Defence [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I was asking you a
12 question, Mr. Weber. It's fine that you want to respond to Mr. Petrovic,
13 but I put a question to you.
14 Is it the first issue that you are raising with the witness or is
15 it the second issue you're raising with the witness?
16 MR. WEBER: It relates to his personal knowledge and with respect
17 to the document that the witness is being shown, but I'm --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then apparently have you not understood my question.
19 Do you think this witness, and we could ask him, has any
20 knowledge of the role of Mr. Milosevic in this decision, direct
21 observation? I know that he did this or did that. Or is it that you
22 expect the witness to make deductions from the fact that at a certain
23 date there is a presidential decision and that because Mr. Milosevic was
24 the president at the time that, therefore, it must have been from
25 Mr. Milosevic.
1 Which of the two?
2 MR. WEBER: It's the first, and it's based on his own knowledge
3 that he expressed yesterday during the testimony. It is why I sought to
4 confirm --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then please ask him very specific questions
6 about this.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. Sir, yesterday you were shown your own per diem with your payment
9 on it and you made a comment on that which I just read to you
10 which does not reflect the content of that per diem fully. I'm asking
11 you, that based on what you said, that the Presidency of the Republic of
12 Serbia made a decision that special police units would be paid by per
13 diems, whether it's correct or do you acknowledge that Milosevic
14 authorised payment of state security officials for activities outside of
15 the Republic of Serbia
16 THE INTERPRETER: Please switch off unnecessary microphones.
17 Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I can say with full
19 responsibility having seen the document, this is my comment to the
20 document and the way per diems were paid, and this is what I see in the
21 document. According to that document, the Presidency of Serbia made a
22 decision on paying special police units. At that time the state security
23 sector was part of the Ministry of the Interior. And the only legal way
24 for our employees, for the employees of the state security to be paid
25 when going outside was for them to be paid pursuant to the decision of
1 the Presidency of Serbia. Whether Mr. Milosevic was directly responsible
2 for that or not, I don't know. In any case the Presidency of the Serbia
3 was the body that issued and drafted the document that I have just
4 commented upon.
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. And the last part that you said, this fund that paid the salaries
7 for those outside, or per diems for those outside Serbia who were
8 deployed out there, that is your understanding of how that was done while
9 you were in the State Security Service; correct?
10 A. I said that I was paid in that way, me and my colleagues who went
11 with me. We received per diems. The financial official of our centre,
12 from Uzice where I worked, took the money from the 8th Administration of
13 the headquarters in Belgrade. I suppose that the 8th Administration
14 acted pursuant to the decision of the Presidency of Serbia for the
15 payment of special police units, given the fact that the state security
16 sector was part of the Ministry of Interior of Serbia.
17 The document which shows the names of my two colleagues and mine
18 also shows that the official of the financial sector of my service took
19 the money from Belgrade from the 8th Administration, that, at the time,
20 was involved in the logistics issue, and the issues of payment.
21 Q. Was the fund that was used to pay these per diems also spent on
22 weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the special anti-terrorist forces
23 of the Serbian DB, such as the JATD?
24 A. I don't know. I don't have a clue, really.
25 I'm not a financial expert to know how things were done.
1 Q. Sir, I put it to you that you have knowledge about the JATD, that
2 you have seen this organisation, and that you're aware that they were
3 armed and were provided equipment by the Serbian DB; is that correct?
4 A. I know that the unit was established pursuant to a decision by
5 the Ministry of the Interior as part of the state security sector. I
6 assume that the ministry also armed it, i.e., that the sector armed it,
7 not any third -- other, third party. I only assume, as I say.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. Sir, you were a member of the 2nd Administration for a while.
11 Are you aware that funds were allocated through the Presidency of Serbia
12 for weapons and ammunitions of the special units of the Serbian DB?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH: I think the witness has answered the question and
15 said he --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, half yes, half no. Let's hear the answer of
17 the witness.
18 There is a constant confusion about funds, funding, arming. Of
19 course, you would expect that if you arm someone that you fund that
20 arming as well but that is not entirely clear and has been mixed up in
21 some of the previous questions.
22 So, therefore, Mr. Weber, unless Mr. Petrovic has something
23 important to raise, I would allow the witness to -- yes.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, the
25 question is not clear, given the difference constitutional or legal
1 status of the categories that are mentioned.
2 The Presidency of Serbia is one category, the president is
3 another category, and the witness has to be clear in that. Things
4 existed at different times and the witness may be aware of that or may
5 not be aware of that. In any case, the question is not very precise or
7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from him. I don't think that this
8 relatively long comment on the question was appropriate.
9 But, Mr. Weber, could you also keeping in mind the time, the
10 timing of -- of the events, could you perhaps rephrase your question so
11 that any ambiguity is taken out of it.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. Sir, I'm asking you about the JATD, which formerly existed
14 between 1993 and 1996. I'm asking you specifically, based on your
15 employment with the State Security Service, whether you were aware that
16 funds were allocated by the Serbian DB, I'll be specific to that, for
17 paying for their weapons and ammunition?
18 A. Absolutely. As far as I am concerned, absolutely. That wasn't
19 within my purview. I was not in a position to know that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then perhaps let's -- let's keep matters
22 Let's forget about funds. I think earlier one of your answers
23 was - and let me check that very precisely - you said: I know that the
24 unit, talking about the JATD, was established pursuant to a decision by
25 the Ministry of Interior as part of the state security sector. I assume
1 that the ministry also armed it, that the sector armed it, not any third
3 Do I understand your testimony to be that equipment, arms for
4 this unit, were provided by the Ministry of Interior as part of the state
5 security sector and that you are not aware of any outside funding of it,
6 funding by a third party?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it was set up by the ministry, I
10 assumed that was the case.
11 As I also said, I'm not familiar with the logistics of how things
12 were done.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
14 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. I just want to get back to the central issue that I originally
17 asked you about which was about a fund used for per diems.
18 Do you know whether this fund was also used for ammunition and
19 weapons, the fund that was used for per diems?
20 JUDGE ORIE: That question has been asked and that question has
21 been answered.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
24 Q. I'd like to return to Visegrad in -- in the early 1990s.
25 In 1991, is it correct that about 63 per cent of the population
1 of Visegrad was of Muslim ethnicity?
2 A. I don't know. I wouldn't know that. I am not familiar with
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, have you tried to reach agreement with
5 the Defence on what -- if you're referring to 1991, most likely you're
6 referring to the census all well documented.
7 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. Happy to discuss this with the
8 Defence over the next break.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why would we ask the witness about percentages
10 if there is full documentation about the census in 1991.
11 MR. WEBER: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. At the beginning of 1992, there were increasing tensions between
15 the Muslim and Serbian population of Visegrad; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The Uzice Corps occupied the municipality of Visegrad from the
18 14th of April until they withdrew on the 19th of May [Realtime transcript
19 read in error "April"], 1992; is that correct?
20 A. I'm not sure about the date, but I suppose you are right. In any
21 case, it was either before war started or as soon after the war started.
22 But in any case, it was the Uzice Corps that was responsible for that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, just to verify the transcript, did you
24 never to the 19th of May or ...
25 MR. WEBER: It was the 19th of May.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because it has been transcribed as the "19th
2 of April." So there apparently was one of the very few mistakes in the
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. Were you aware that Sredoje Lukic was being held prisoner at a
7 hydro-electric dam in Visegrad and was released immediately upon arrival
8 of the Uzice Corps on April 15, 1992?
9 A. I don't know anything about that. I've never heard it before.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6267, page 1
11 of the B/C/S original and page 2 of the English translation. The
12 Prosecution requests this document not be broadcast to the public.
13 Q. This document is an Uzice DB 3rd Administration report dated
14 4 June 1992 that relates to Sredoje Lukic and Niko Vucic who committed
15 crimes in Visegrad. Directing your attention to paragraph which is --
16 the second paragraph from the bottom in your copy, it begins:
17 "Upon the release from captivity in the Visegrad HE, they left
18 their jobs as policemen. They stole a sour cherry-coloured Golf car with
19 Sarajevo registration plates and left for Serbia. About a month ago,
20 they returned to Visegrad."
21 Based on the date of this report which is 4 June 1992, is it
22 correct that the Serbian DB was aware Sredoje Lukic was not in Visegrad
23 and returned in early May 1992?
24 A. This document would indicate that they knew that they had
25 operative information, given the date of the document. But it says here
1 that he first left Visegrad and then he returned to Visegrad. This is a
2 statement based on the conversation with a source that took place in
3 June, so he -- the document talks about something that is in the past.
4 Q. This information also indicates that the Serbian MUP allowed
5 Sredoje Lukic to leave and return from the Republic of Serbia; correct?
6 A. The MUP of Serbia?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Well, look, it doesn't say anywhere that the MUP allowed it.
9 This is an interview which took place on the 30th of June, and the
10 operative who conducted the interview learns what had happened. He
11 learns that from the interview with the source. He learned of what had
12 happened a month before the interview. This is just operative
13 information that hasn't been checked.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- before we --
15 Witness, you said this is an interview of the 30th of June. I
16 see in my copy and in the original that it's the 3rd of June, not the
17 30th of June.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 3rd of June. I misspoke. I
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Sir, please listen to my question specifically, and I'm asking
23 you this in the context that this is the information that was available
24 to the Serbian DB. That is well understood.
25 The paragraph continues to state:
1 "They set up their own group consisting of 30 individuals from
2 Visegrad, Uzice, Belgrade and Smederevo. They presented themselves as
3 White Eagles. They are accommodated in the Visegradska Banja spa in a
4 bungalow in the immediately vicinity of the Vojina Vlas hotel. During
5 that time they had liquidated by slaughter between 270 and 300
6 individuals of Muslim nationality."
7 This paragraph references a particular incident and concluded:
8 "They bring Muslim women to Visegradska Banja, rape them and then
9 liquidate them by slaughter."
10 The next paragraph states:
11 "Such conduct on Vucic and Lukic's part," referring to
12 Sredoje Lukic, "irritates loyal Muslims who have stayed on living in the
13 area of Visegrad municipality that they too take up arms and fight
14 against Serbs?"
15 Sir, is it correct that the Serbian MUP possessed jurisdiction
16 over crimes being committed by citizens of the Republic of Serbia who
17 lived in Uzice, Belgrade and Smederevo?
18 A. Whether the court had jurisdiction to prosecute people who lived
19 in Uzice and Smederevo? Is that what you're asking?
20 Q. You had authority over citizens who resided in Uzice, Belgrade,
21 and Smederevo; correct?
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I think -- could I just object to the
23 question. It's unclear. Authority to do what? Jurisdiction to do what?
24 I think my learned friend should be specific.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Weber, I'm seeking the parties to agree on
1 the following. Usually if a court has jurisdiction in relation to
2 certain criminal behaviour, that entails also the competence of the
3 investigative authorities of that state to investigate. I'm not saying
4 where they would investigate but at least to -- because you can't prepare
5 a case file for a case over which the courts have jurisdiction if the
6 investigative authorities would have no competence to investigate.
7 Do we agree on that? As a general rule.
8 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
10 Mr. Petrovic, you as well?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We agree, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's good.
13 Then in your question, Mr. Weber, I think it should be -- it
14 should be perfectly clear that there is a distinction between the -- if I
15 could call it the active personality principle, that is, that the
16 jurisdiction of a state to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes
17 for their own nationals is not exactly the same as the jurisdiction to
18 investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes by those who are -- have
19 their domicile on -- in the territory of that state.
20 Your reference to people living somewhere was unclear in this
21 respect. Therefore, I invite you to rephrase your question.
22 MR. WEBER: If I could come back to it. I do understand what
23 Your Honour is saying.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We were talking about jurisdictional issues and if
25 we want to deal with them, we should be precise in our language.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Mr. Novakovic, are you aware that the Lukic group did continue to
4 slaughter the Muslim population of Visegrad, including two incidents
5 where groups of Muslim women, children, and elderly were burned alive?
6 Do you know of those incidents?
7 A. I heard about them later. In fact, I mostly read about it in the
8 press, found out about it from the media. It was not part of my work at
9 the time.
10 Q. The information in this report directing you to -- if we could
11 actually have page 2 of the B/C/S for the witness. It is at the bottom
12 of page -- the page 2 in the English before the Chamber.
13 This report includes information that:
14 "Vucic and Lukic's group conducts looting in the area of the
15 municipality of Visegrad. They transport the goods to Serbia by vehicle.
16 At the check-points they use friendships which have been struck up
17 earlier with their colleagues from the Uzice SUP as well as hand out
18 bribes so that they take the goods into Serbia and sell it. I have
19 learned unofficially that one of the heads of the Uzice SUP is helping
20 them in these dealings."
21 My question to you, sir, is: The Serbian MUP had the ability,
22 the authority, to stop individuals at the borders that were transporting
23 goods into Serbia that were proceeds of crimes; correct?
24 A. Yes. It had the ability, it had the right to stop anyone trying
25 to cross the border, if they had reason to believe the goods were stolen
1 or something.
2 Q. The information in this report indicates that Sredoje Lukic and
3 Niko Vucic were not stopped by the Serbian MUP; is that correct?
4 A. Well, the document seems to indicate that. But it doesn't say
5 what or when. It says they were crossing the border. It refers to prior
6 friendships. I'm seeing this document for the first time, and it's
7 precisely the state security sector as the creator of this report notes,
8 that the SUP, the Secretariat for Internal Affairs, is not stopping them.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would
10 tender 6267 into evidence under seal.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objection.
12 Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...
13 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3020, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P3020 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. At the end of October 1992, you received orders from
17 Mr. Jakov Sokic to go to the Uzice SUP and conduct an interview of
18 someone who was in custody; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is it correct that Mr. Sokic did not tell you over the phone who
21 was this custody at that time?
22 A. Correct.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly sit closer to the
24 microphones. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come a bit closer to the microphone,
1 Mr. Novakovic.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. You've referred to the fact that you received a direct order from
4 Belgrade to conduct this interview. How were you informed of that order?
5 A. I was informed by Jakov Sokic. I came to the centre at his
6 invitation, and he told me there was an order to conduct an interview
7 with Milan Lukic.
8 Q. I'm a bit confused about that. If Mr. Sokic did not tell you the
9 name of the person in custody, how did you learn that it was Milan Lukic?
10 A. When I came to the centre, may I explain this in some detail? I
11 was in my apartment. The chief of the centre called me to come to the
12 centre. I came there. The chief told me, Milan Lukic, who had been
13 arrested in the area of Priboj, needed to be interviewed on the orders of
14 the leadership in Belgrade because in the meantime he had talked to the
15 headquarters of the service with the administration in charge. It's
16 standard procedure.
17 Q. Did this order to interview Milan Lukic come directly from
18 Jovica Stanisic?
19 A. Well, the leadership of the service. I suppose
20 Mr. Jovica Stanisic knew about it, or perhaps it was the chief of the
21 3rd Administration at the time which dealt with extremism. Maybe he is
22 the one who conveyed the instruction to Sokic. I don't know about that.
23 But the subordination is clear. The chief of the administration
24 in charge contacts the centre that is concerned, and the chief of the
25 centre concerned invites whatever operative officer he believes to be
1 best for the job.
2 Q. Did you report everything that Mr. Lukic - referring to
3 Milan Lukic - told you during your interview to Belgrade?
4 A. The entire interview was recorded, and the most interesting
5 passages from that interview were written up in a document, and that
6 document was submitted to the public security sector but also to the
7 chief of the relevant administration in Belgrade. The audiotape is
8 normally kept for a month, primarily in order to be able to draft the
10 Q. Once you arrived at the SUP, you learned Milan Lukic was detained
11 at the Uvat [phoen] border crossing when he and another individual named
12 Dragutin Dragicevic attempted to enter Serbia with a large quantity of
13 weapons; correct?
14 A. Correct, correct. Carrying a side-arm and forged documents.
15 Forged IDs.
16 Q. At the border crossing, Milan Lukic presented himself as
17 Negos Popovic and provided the false identification in this name;
19 A. I saw that, and I heard that from the colleagues from the SUP of
20 Uzice who took him into custody. And they received that information from
22 Q. Is it correct that the Priboj SUP recognised Milan Lukic at the
23 check-point, despite the fact that he presented himself as someone else?
24 A. That's what I was told.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P2448 shown
1 to the witness. At this time we ask that the document nod be broadcast
2 to the public.
3 JUDGE ORIE: While waiting for this document, I might just raise
4 a matter I had for gotten at the beginning of this session.
5 Mr. Jordash, could I have for one second your attention. During
6 the last break I was informed that the exact date for the videolink?
7 Was not yet communicated. I don't know whether that has been
8 restored. But that was the message I received so I would say could you
9 please pay specific attention to communication of videolink --
10 MR. JORDASH: I'm surprised by that. But one of the issues --
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you would, most important for me is, that there's
12 no malcommunication. Please try to confirm, seek confirmation that
13 there's no malcommunication.
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes. The problem is the current witness we don't
15 know if he is coming that's [Overlapping speakers] ... issue.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. Then perhaps he has to wait
17 or whatever. But, as I said yesterday, you can't organise a videolink if
18 you do not have a date.
19 MR. JORDASH: I apologise for the delay. I'm surprised by that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please try to get that resolved.
21 I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Weber. I should have done that at
22 the beginning of the session. I apologise for that.
23 Meanwhile the document is on everyone's screen.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. Sir, before you is the Official Note that you compiled dated
2 2 November 1992.
3 Does this first page of the Official Note accurately reflect the
4 items that were found in the possession of Milan Lukic on
5 26 October 1992?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the B/C/S
8 and English of this exhibit.
9 Q. Yesterday, the Stanisic Defence paraphrased a portion of this
10 statement further down in the paragraph containing the direct quotes of
11 Milan Lukic. I'm going to read the actual statements contained in this
12 paragraph and then have I some further questions for you.
13 Is it correct that Milan Lukic told you the following:
14 "I came to Visegrad from Zurich on 10 April but I went to
15 Obrenovac first. And from there, I went with my relatives who are all
16 natives of Rujiste, Visegrad to undergo training in Ilok officially as
17 the Obrenovac group. Fifteen men. At the time -- at the same time when
18 my group was undergoing training, a group from Zvornik was also there.
19 It also consisted of 15 men and was led by a man called Bude. The train
20 was provided by men called Pupe and Zoran, Red Berets and Knindzas. When
21 the training was completed, we went to Visegrad where we placed ourselves
22 under the command of the Visegrad SUP, as part of the Visegrad TO."
23 Is that what Milan Lukic told you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Milan Lukic indicated to you that he left Visegrad after the
1 10th of April, 1992, with relatives and he subsequently returned to the
2 municipality. Did you seek to confirm whether the Serbian DB possessed
3 information that his cousin --
4 A. That he came to Visegrad on the 10th. Not that he left Visegrad.
5 He came to Visegrad.
6 Q. Sir, my statement was they left Visegrad after the
7 10th of April, 1992, with relatives and subsequently returned to the
8 municipality. Did you seek to confirm whether the Serbian DB possessed
9 information that his cousin, Sredoje Lukic, also left Visegrad around the
10 same time as indicated in the note that I showed you earlier?
11 A. Mr. Weber, all my knowledge about Milan Lukic is derived from
12 this interview and my conversation with a colleague who conducted the
13 next interview. I reported all that I found out from that interview to
14 the relevant administration in Belgrade. And among other things, this
15 report is used for further work on the case.
16 Q. Sir, if you could just -- that's a no; correct? And if you could
17 please respond to my question that you did not do anything to check it.
18 A. I did not do anything. I sent a report to the relevant
19 organisational unit in Belgrade.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please wait for the next question.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Yesterday at transcript 13983, you provided the following
23 evidence about this passage. Question that was put to you:
24 "Now half way down that page, Lukic claimed that he was trained
25 by Pupe and Zoran, Red Berets, Knindzas in Ilok. Did he ever claim that
1 he was trained by the Serbian DB in Ilok?"
2 And your answer was:
3 "Well, he said exactly what is written here. I was not familiar
4 with the subject so I quoted him in that part."
5 Are you saying that you had never heard of the Red Berets,
6 Knindzas, before October 1992?
7 A. Whatever Milan Lukic said I quoted verbatim. I was no not in a
8 position to comment on who Knindzas and Red Berets were. I heard about
9 Knindzas, but who they were and what they were -- so I was not competent
10 to comment on this piece of information. I just reported that passage of
11 the interview.
12 Q. Sir, please listen to my questions clearly. I'm asking you about
13 your knowledge independent of the document. Are you saying that you had
14 never heard of the Red Berets or Knindzas before October 1992?
15 A. Well, it was reported in the media about Red Berets and Knindzas.
16 I didn't know anything about them.
17 Q. If you didn't know anything about this and you were interested in
18 extremist activities, why then did you not ask Milan Lukic to clarify
19 what he said to you concerning these units?
20 A. My priority in interviewing Milan Lukic, for which I was briefed
21 by a man from the Territorial Defence who was familiar with that theatre
22 of war, was to try to get information from him that would indicate he was
23 involved in the kidnapping in Sjeverin. I put in the report item by item
24 whatever he said. But at that moment when the interview was conducted, I
25 was not qualified to talk to him about those units, and that's the main
1 reason. First of all, I didn't want to show my ignorance about those
3 Q. Did you seek to confirm, so I'm speaking about your actions
4 subsequent to the interview, whether the Serbian DB possessed any
5 information about any training facilities in Ilok or the Red Berets,
7 A. Certainly not. That was not of interest to me. I was doing
8 counter-intelligence work, and this is my only participation in this kind
9 of interview.
10 Q. Did you check whether the Serbian DB possessed any information
11 related to either an individual named Pupe or Zoran?
12 A. No, no.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6200, page 9
14 of both the B/C/S original and the English translation shown to the
16 This exhibit contains the personnel file of Nikola Pupovac, aka
17 Pupe, received from Republic of Serbia. The Prosecution requests that
18 that exhibit not be broadcast to the public at this time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: Could we know what the Prosecution intends to do
21 with the document because the witness has said he doesn't have
22 information. So if my learned friend is seeking to follow Your Honours'
23 guidance concerning the tendering -- sorry, the use of documents during
24 cross-examination then he ought to indicate what information he expects
25 to elicit from a witness who says he doesn't know.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I think it would be fairly obvious from
2 the page I'm calling up. If not, I could further explain.
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, I know what the document says, or I know what
4 the document purports to indicate, but that's not the issue. The issue
5 is what my learned friend wants to do with it in light of the witness's
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first hear what the witness's answer is.
8 Because to speculate on what will happen later is not what I'm seeking to
9 do at this moment.
10 Mr. Weber, we have the document now in front of us.
11 MR. WEBER: If I could also please have page 9 of the B/C/S.
12 Q. The document before you is from the personnel file of
13 Nikola Pupovac, aka Pupe. This document is a request for admission into
14 the active service --
15 MR. JORDASH: I do beg your pardon but --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean that Mr. Weber is already interpreting
17 the document by ...
18 MR. JORDASH: By claiming the nickname Pupe which hasn't been
19 established through this document. It's a comment by Mr. Weber.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it has been established through other
22 evidence in this case. I had specifically referred to Exhibit P1001
23 correlating the nickname. If I can --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And you take it for certain that that's
25 evidence which is truthful and it could well be, I don't remember it
1 exactly. But I think the appropriate way of dealing with the matter
2 would have been that this is a file in which Mr. Pupovac, where other
3 evidence has -- suggests that Pupe was the name also used by this person.
4 If would you have introduced him in that way, I don't think that
5 Mr. Jordash would have had any -- any objections.
6 We're looking now at document which is in relation to
7 Mr. Pupovac, and there's other evidence in this case in which it is
8 suggested that Mr. Pupovac was also known by the name Pupe.
9 Mr. Weber, what's your question?
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. This document is a request for admission into the active service
12 of the Republic of Serbia MUP special purpose unit dated 21 April 1992.
13 The request indicates it is from Nikola Pupovac who was stationed in
15 Now that you see there's corroboration of a Serbian MUP special
16 purpose unit in Ilok in April 1992, does this impact your views on who
17 trained Milan Lukic?
18 A. Let me tell you, I'm looking at this now. It just says the MUP
19 of Serbia. It doesn't say State Security Service. I don't know this
21 Q. Yesterday at transcript page 12054 to -55, the Simatovic Defence
22 showed you a JATD per diem payment list from the send half of
23 November 1994.
24 Nikola Pupovac is listed on 45 of these payment records of the
25 JATD --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, may I stop you here for a second. This
2 witness has, as he told us, made an Official Note of an interview he had
3 with Mr. Lukic, in which Mr. Lukic told him that he was trained by a
4 person by the name of Pupe.
5 Okay. Now there is all kind of other evidence. What we would
6 like to know is what this witness can tell us more about that. Not --
7 and that's what you are doing. You are asking this witness to combine
8 that information with all kind of other information and then to draw
9 conclusions that it must have been Mr. Pupovac. Whereas, this witness
10 has no knowledge about that.
11 Of course, it might well be that on the basis of the evidence of
12 this witness and the other evidence that the Chamber would reach such
13 conclusions or not reach such conclusions, also in view of whether
14 there's any evidence which contradicts this, and then it's for -- but
15 what is the use, if the witness doesn't know anything about it, to ask
16 him to interpret the documents and the document he drafted. He has any
17 personal knowledge about it, fine. Ask him about it. But do not say,
18 Well, Mr. Lukic told you it was Pupe. Now, if you see this and this and
19 this, would you agree with me that inevitable it must have been
20 Mr. Pupovac?
21 I mean, you're asking him to draw conclusions on the basis of a
22 tiny little bit of the evidence he gave himself and all kind of other
23 evidence on which I think it would be guided by the parties interpreting
24 that evidence. It would finally be for the Chamber to establish whether
25 Mr. Lukic was trained or not trained, if that is a relevant issue, by
1 Mr. Pupovac. That is, I think, the procedural situation we find
2 ourselves in.
3 So if the witness could add anything more, and I think he said
4 that he didn't have any knowledge beyond what Mr. Lukic us, but if he has
5 any further knowledge, ask him about it but don't ask him to interpret
6 the various pieces of evidence to see whether what he heard from
7 Mr. Lukic should lead us to draw certain conclusions.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, of course, I will follow the Chamber's
9 guidance. I was -- that is what I will do.
10 At this time, the Prosecution tenders this exhibit into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
12 Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...
13 THE REGISTRAR: Next number would be P3021, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P3021 is admitted into evidence. Under seal,
15 Mr. Weber or ...
16 MR. WEBER: Yes, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm looking at the time. Is this a
19 opportune time for a break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's time for a break.
21 We resume at a quarter to 1.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to raise a matter, and
25 I think, Mr. Novakovic, to some extent, it might affect you as well. So
1 it's -- it's -- it's the following: We are hearing the evidence of a
2 witness who was scheduled for -- in my briefing it said two hours but it
3 may have been two and a half hours. We're now three and a half -- a viva
4 voce witness. We're now here three full days and it appears to me that
5 we'll not finish the testimony of this witness. I have, here and there,
6 been critical on the way in which the examination-in-chief and
7 cross-examination was conducted. I verified, I always spoke on behalf of
8 my colleagues as well. They fully share my views I expressed. We also
9 had great problems with notice. That's for sure. It has been admitted.
10 So I would say things did not go as they should have gone, and the
11 Chamber is not satisfied that we could do it in a similar way in the
13 Now we have scheduling problems for next week, to some extent the
14 problems, Mr. Jordash, with the witnesses are beyond your control.
15 Sometimes some earlier action might have led to easier solutions. Okay,
16 but let's forget about that.
17 For next week, as matters stand now, Tuesday, either there's a
18 videolink. There, again, the malcommunication. I mean, the working can
19 start only today where I already emphasised yesterday how important it
20 was to have a date, because every day counts if you are preparing a
22 Okay. For next Tuesday, we either have a videolink in which
23 case, we are having difficulties because a videolink is difficult to --
24 to -- to delay, and then we would not have heard all the evidence of
25 Mr. Novakovic. He would then have to wait, which is good for no one, or
1 we have no videolink, in which case Mr. Novakovic has to wait for -- for
2 quite a while for the last portion of his evidence.
3 Therefore, the Chamber suggests that we would sit, although it
4 would most likely be 15 bis tomorrow, but I would like to hear from the
6 Mr. Weber, where are we? And I already put a flag here. What I
7 earlier said and I have not spoken out everything that was on my mind,
8 the cross-examination was not always very effective, and was also not
9 always direct and focussed. How much time would you still need?
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution is endeavouring to do
11 its best and I will try to conclude in -- in a full session.
12 JUDGE ORIE: In this session we have another --
13 MR. WEBER: Yeah. Your Honours, there were --
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- 55 minutes to go. Okay.
15 MR. WEBER: There are some things we'd like to put on the record,
16 though, with respect to the witness, though, which believe that we are
17 still conducting further investigation and we did receive -- so.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That is all that has to do with the notice
19 and it has to do with possibly that you would like to recall the witness.
20 Let's, at this moment, stay away from that.
21 Mr. Petrovic, how much more time would you need with the witness?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, between 15 and 20
23 minutes, not more than that. With your leave.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, re-examination?
25 MR. JORDASH: As matters stand, 30 minutes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Which would mean that with a relative short
2 session tomorrow, we might conclude the testimony of this witness.
3 Of course, then the next question is about Mr. Stanisic's medical
4 condition. I know that it is not welcomed to sit a fourth day. It would
5 certainly not, on the basis of what I've heard until now, it would be a
6 relatively short session. I also make the following comment that when we
7 have been sitting for more than three days, it was not often and always
8 after consultation with the parties.
9 I also emphasise that for a very relatively short session, then,
10 of course, the option of the videolink with the United Nations
11 Detention Unit remains open. Therefore, I would like, having said all
12 this, I would like to hear from the parties whether they would agree to
13 have a relatively short session tomorrow, to finish hearing the evidence
14 of Mr. Novakovic, and then, on Tuesday, we do not know, it might well be
15 that this extra day will be compensated by not sitting on Tuesday anyhow,
16 because the videolink is not technically already prepared, but it could
17 also be that if the videolink is there, that we would then also sit on
18 Tuesday where it is uncertain for how long next week we would sit,
19 whether there would be any other day in which we would not be sitting.
20 So it is a bit uncertain, everything, but the suggestion is that
21 we finish at least the testimony of Mr. Novakovic tomorrow.
22 Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: May I just add for Your Honours' information that
24 our best estimate as to the length of the next witness, the videolink
25 witness, would be -- that he would be completed in two days.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which leaves it open that perhaps next week
2 the third day would -- depending on what happens with the witness on
3 which we have still uncertainty, that is Witness DST-040, I think.
4 So there are uncertainties. At the same time, a videolink is
5 reserved, is prepared, and then someone is sent there, so to delay that
6 is rather problematic. If it could, for example, be established for
7 Wednesday, not on Thursday -- on Tuesday, then we might have an empty
8 Tuesday and then finish that -- it's all uncertain. But our suggestion
9 is that we would finish hearing the testimony of Mr. Novakovic tomorrow
10 in a relatively short session. I can imagine that you perhaps want to
11 consult with Mr. Stanisic.
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Which you can do immediately, if you wish to,
14 because it all requires some organisation as well.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I'll do that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. JORDASH: Mr. Simatovic would like to be present via
19 videolink tomorrow, please.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And has -- does this mean that he says, If I
21 can be present through videolink, then I do not oppose this suggestion.
22 Is that --
23 MR. JORDASH: That's right.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's how we understand it.
25 Mr. Petrovic.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if this is your
2 decision, we are fully prepared to sit tomorrow.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It may have been clear -- if you have listened well
4 to me, we have not decided any matter and we are seeking the input of the
5 the parties. So if you say, Well, even if it's not your decision, we do
6 not oppose such a decision then it is well understood.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We do not object, Your Honour.
8 However, we have sensed a certain degree of preference in the tone of
9 your voice, which is why we will go along with your decision, whatever it
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Preference and decision is to be clearly
13 Mr. Weber, what's your preference.
14 MR. WEBER: We're available whenever it is most convenient for
15 the Chamber.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, you have followed our discussion.
17 What we would like to do is to have a short session tomorrow and then
18 excuse you after that so that you can travel home and you don't have to
19 wait until the beginning of next week.
20 I take it that that's no problem for you? Yes.
21 Then, Mr. Weber, please proceed. And one -- one -- one last
23 If we need a short session we could just start at 9.00. We also
24 could consider to start a bit later. As long as we know for sure that we
25 finish, we could, for example, start at 10.00 or 10.30. If that would
1 accommodate Mr. Stanisic, even a bit more, then we would consider that.
2 MR. JORDASH: 9.00 is fine. Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: 9.00 is fine.
4 Then it is hereby decided that we will have a session tomorrow
5 morning at 9.00. And, as I said before, most likely we'll sit 15 bis.
6 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
7 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. Mr. Novakovic, following your interview, Milan Lukic was released
9 from custody a few days later; correct?
10 A. I don't know about that. As far as I know, he continued being
11 remanded in custody. He was taken over by the public security, once he
12 was interviewed, and I believe that they were kept in custody, him and
13 his colleague.
14 Q. Is it your testimony, then, that Milan Lukic was detained for
15 more than 48 hours? Or do you not know?
16 A. I believe that after the interview, after we took his statement,
17 he was transferred to a detention unit. What happened then, I don't
19 Q. Is it correct that you were never called to testify at a hearing
20 or trial related to the Sjeverin murders?
21 A. You mean the trial that took place in Belgrade?
22 Q. Yes, I'm asking you, Milan Lukic was detained in custody, and
23 you've explained that you were investigating him for Sjeverin.
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6269.
1 Q. Mr. Novakovic, coming up before you will be the Belgrade District
2 Court judgement dated 15 July 2005 against Milan Lukic for the murders
3 committed at Sjeverin on 22 October 1992.
4 Could you please review the first paragraph of this judgement and
5 confirm the fact that an indictment was not filed for these murders until
6 17 October 2002?
7 A. I can see that in the document.
8 Q. It is correct, then, that an indictment was not sought against
9 Milan Lukic for the murders at Sjeverin until after Mr. Stanisic had left
10 the office?
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, that -- objection. That's quasi-logic,
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it is about a point in time.
14 Mr. Weber, there -- the appropriate way of dealing with the
15 matter is to ask the witness whether he knows when Mr. Stanisic left
16 office and then to say whether it is after or before. If we establish
17 the date, if we have the two dates, the Chamber is still able to see
18 which is the latter date and which is the earlier date.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. When did Mr. Stanisic leave office?
22 A. I can't say with any degree of certainty when Mr. Stanisic was
23 pensioned off. I believe that that was in 2008, or perhaps 2009. I
24 really don't know.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether that is accurate information can
1 seriously be doubted.
2 Do the -- have the parties --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1998, actually. 1998.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Have the parties any dispute about when Mr. Stanisic
5 left office.
6 MR. JORDASH: No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay and the date was? The year date?
8 MR. JORDASH: 1998.
9 JUDGE ORIE: 1998. Okay, fine.
10 Then we have an indictment before us which, as the judgement
11 says, was issued the 17th of October, 2002.
12 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. My objection, Your Honour, was not that
13 point precisely. My objection was that to go from looking at an
14 indictment which is dated in 2010 and then to suggest to a witness that
15 an indictments wasn't sought until then, that's the quasi-logic. We
16 don't know at this point.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The only thing at this moment that we can
18 establish is that this judgement refers to the date of 17th of October of
19 2002 as the date on which the indictment was issued. There we are.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please have the lower
22 portion of the first page here for the witness.
23 Q. Sir, I'm going to direct your attention to the person who is the
24 third accused in this case. The co-accused in this case was
25 Dragutin Dragicevic. Is this the same individual who was this custody
1 with Milan Lukic when you interviewed him in 1992?
2 A. As far as I know, the other person's name was
3 Dragutin Dragicevic. I did not interview him.
4 Q. Do you know what happened to Mr. Dragicevic after he was detained
5 by the MUP in 1992? Do you know when he was released?
6 A. I don't know absolutely, no. My only activity involving them was
7 that interview. The rest was within the authority of the
8 3rd Administration.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would
10 tender 6269 into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objection.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Next number would be P3022, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P3022 is admitted into evidence. No need to have it
15 under seal, Mr. Weber?
16 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Mr. Novakovic, are you aware that less than a year after you
20 interviewed him, Milan Lukic committed a second similar massacre of
21 non-Serbs when he and his group took from a passenger train these
22 individuals at Strpci.
23 Are you aware of that incident?
24 A. I'm aware of it.
25 Q. Did you personally investigate that incident?
1 A. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation of that
2 incident. The only involvement on my part concerning Milan Lukic was
3 that interview that I conducted in -- in 1992.
4 Q. Okay. I'd like to go back to a topic that we talked about
5 earlier, and it was something that was somewhat confusing so I'd like to
6 try to go through it with you in a clearer fashion. It relates to the
7 question where funds came from that were used for payment of Serbian DB
9 Sir, I'm going to read a quote to you from your testimony
10 yesterday at pages 14006 to 14007. You stated:
11 "I've said I'm not an expert in financial matters, but I'm able
12 to understand that much. At that time, by virtue of a decision made by
13 the Republic of Serbia, a certain fund was established for payments to
14 members of the special police unit who went on field missions in the
15 territory of -- of the Republic of Serbia and every member of the
16 State Security Service, that is, the special police unit, was paid from
17 that fund whenever they went to other areas to assist."
18 What do you know about this fund?
19 A. Absolutely nothing. I said that I saw that in the title of the
20 document. The document showed that a decision was made by the Presidency
21 of Serbia, and that, based on that decision, per diems were paid.
22 I suppose that fund had been established within the
23 Ministry of the Interior as part of budgetary resources or funds.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 1D5062.
25 Q. Sir, could you please look at the title of this document that you
1 were referring to. Do you see any reference in this title to a fund?
2 A. The payment of per diems to special police units in keeping with
3 the Presidency decision. That's how I'm reading it. Per diems were paid
4 in keeping with the decision of the Serbian Presidency. I may have just
5 decided to call it a fund, although it perhaps wasn't even a fund.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's the answer to the question. No reference is
7 made to a fund in this document. Only a reference is made to per diems
8 paid in accordance with a decision.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution this time please have 65 ter
11 4865; page 1 of the B/C/S, and page 2 of the English.
12 Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to look at what Slobodan Milosevic has to
13 say. This is a statement to an investigating judge in Belgrade on
14 2 April 2001 after his arrest.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. In our submission, the Prosecution ought to
17 indicate again precisely what they intend to do. Because this looks very
18 much like it's an attempt to put in this documentary rather than an
19 attempt to actually elicit evidence from the witness. The witness has
20 been clear that he -- if you wouldn't mind.
21 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Mr. Jordash may finish his line.
22 MR. JORDASH: The witness has been cross-examined uphill and
23 downhill concerning his knowledge abut financing. He has been very
24 clear, in our submission, concerning what he doesn't know.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's -- I -- one second.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied, Mr. Jordash.
3 Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. Sir, I'd like to direct your attention to a specific paragraph of
6 this statement of Slobodan Milosevic. The paragraph states:
7 "As regards the resources spent for weapons, ammunition and other
8 needs of the Army of Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbian
9 Krajina, these expenditures constituted a state secret, and because of
10 state interests could not be indicated in the Law on the Budget which is
11 a public document. The same applies to the expenditures incurred by
12 providing equipment from a needle to an anchor for the security forces
13 and special anti-terrorist forces in particular from light weapons and
14 equipment to helicopters and other weapons which still remain where they
15 are today, and this was not made public because it was a state secret, as
16 was everything else that was provided for the Army of Republika Srpska.
17 In my opinion, these matters should still constitute a state secret, but
18 court organs can certainly look into them. These anti-terrorist forces
19 today still carry the heavy burden of security-related tasks in the south
20 of Serbia."
21 My question to you is: Is this the same fund that you were
22 referring to with respect to the per diems?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: I don't want to go behind Your Honours' order but
25 the question has confirmed, in our submission, our suspicion which is
1 that it's not designed to elicit evidence. It is designed to have this
2 document tendered. Because the witness has made it very clear. He
3 doesn't know --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, no, Mr. Jordash. I --
5 Mr. -- your objection at this moment is denied. The document is
6 not yet tendered. We will consider whether or not it will be admitted if
7 Mr. Weber tenders it, but he is, at this moment, allowed to put this to
8 the witness.
9 Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Sir, is this the same fund that you were referring to?
12 A. Mr. Weber, I keep telling you that I'm not a financial expert to
13 be able to discuss to which fund it belongs. There is a paper that shows
14 the names of myself and a colleague that speaks to the form of
15 remuneration our employees received for certain missions, and it says
16 that it was keeping with a decision of the Presidency of Serbia. I don't
17 know whose and what intent it was, but it shows clearly that the funds
18 were paid out from the budget of the administration that was put in
19 charge of those things within the state security sector at the time.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders
21 this exhibit into evidence. We're offering it though -- the witness
22 writes as his credibility -- the witness was shown a document that didn't
23 say anything about a fund and then supplied additional information
24 outside the title of a document that discussed a fund. We are now
25 offering information that shows that a fund existed and it went more --
1 just to add to that segment, it also didn't say anything about people
2 being dispatched outside of Serbia, which the witness also added in his
4 We are now offering this as it relates to this evidence that was
5 offered by the witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Only for credibility reasons or also for the truth
7 of its content, Mr. Weber?
8 MR. WEBER: Both.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
10 MR. JORDASH: We accept that the document could be tendered for
11 the impeachment purposes. What value it has is another issue, but we
12 accept it could be put for impeachment purposes. For truth of its
13 content, there is no basis being argued and no basis is before the Court
14 and no basis is reasonably discernable.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Simatovic [sic] any ...
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are opposed to
17 any kind of admission of this document. First of all, it was
18 misrepresented. Mr. Weber refers to it as a statement of
19 Slobodan Milosevic. It's not a statement of Slobodan Milosevic. It's a
20 procedural document. It's an appeal by Slobodan Milosevic against a
21 decision to remand in custody. What he wrote, why he wrote it, the
22 context of the whole case, all these are uncertainties that cast large
23 shadow on this document.
24 This is it a procedural document. A decision to remand on --
25 into custody.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, to both
4 you and the interpreters.
5 The gist is this: This is a document of procedural nature. It's
6 not a statement, it's not an interrogation or a questioning. We do not
7 know the circumstances under which Milosevic wrote this, if he wrote
8 this. We do not know the circumstances of the case in question. I don't
9 want to testify but I know that there was a large major case that may
10 still be on trial in Belgrade. We don't have a statement before us. We
11 have an appeal against a decision to remand in custody.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will decide on admission of this
13 document in due course. It will be marked for identification for the
14 time being.
15 Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number would be P3023. Thank
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification under that number.
19 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, of course the Prosecution is available
21 should any further submissions be necessary.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider whether on the basis of
23 the submissions made until now whether it can reach a decision. If not,
24 we will certainly invite you for further submissions.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Yesterday at transcript page 13997, you stated with respect to a
3 meeting on 8 November 1994 the following:
4 "The meeting was chaired by Mr. Jovica Stanisic, and he told us
5 that the meeting had been organised together with security and
6 intelligence segments of the services of the Serbian Army of Krajina, the
7 MUP, and the state security, and the aim of the meeting was to unify all
8 the intelligence about the goings-on in the territory and stepping up the
9 security level in the Krajina. The security was threatened by the
10 refugees from the Autonomous Province of western Bosnia who arrived in
11 the Republic of Serbian Krajina."
12 My first question to you is: How do you recall the specific date
13 of this meeting?
14 A. How do I know about the nature of this meeting? I was there.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's about the date, the 8th of November. How
16 do you remember that after 17 years?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said the 8th or the 9th. I said
18 clearly I'm not sure about the date, the 8th or the 9th of November.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the same question would apply, how do
20 you know that it was exactly on the 8th or the 9th and not on the 7th or
21 the 10th. And how do you remember after --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I had arrived in Krajina
23 two or three days earlier.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, please proceed.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. Where did this meeting take place in Petrova Gora?
2 A. It was in a building right at Petrova Gora. There's some sort of
3 facility there.
4 Q. How did you arrive to the meeting?
5 A. Two or three days earlier, I arrived in that region, and members
6 of the service from the Republic of Serbian Krajina and myself came to
7 that meeting.
8 Q. I'm going to ask you about a series of individuals who were
9 present -- that you say were present at this meeting. If you could
10 please just provide me with the names in response to my questions.
11 Who was present from the SVK?
12 A. There was a man named Knezevic. I don't know his rank. And
13 another one called Smiljanic [phoen]. I also don't know the rank. They
14 were both from the security services of the Army of the Republic of
15 Serbian Krajina.
16 Q. Who was present from the RSK DB?
17 A. Is this in private session?
18 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session at this moment.
19 Would you like to move into private session?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it's possible.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
22 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. On transcript page 13993, you stated that before you left for
1 Petrova Gora that you first went from Uzice to Belgrade and reported to
2 the 2nd Administration. Who did you report to?
3 A. I can't now recall exactly who received us. One of the people
4 from the administration met us there.
5 Q. Do you recall anyone that you met with during this occasion?
6 A. We did not meet anyone on that occasion. We were sitting in one
7 office waiting, waiting to be taken somewhere.
8 Q. I'd like to refer to your -- some comments on your comments
10 Prior to your testimony here today, the Prosecution received your
11 comments on two military reports from the SVK in August 1994. These
12 exhibits are P1288 and P1299. You indicated the following with respect
13 to these documents: You came to Pauk in November 1994; the documents
14 show that information was just being provided to Jovica Stanisic so that
15 he would be informed about what is going on; and Jovica Stanisic or the
16 service did not have the capacity or the logistics to provide material
18 Based on these comments and what you've said so far about
19 Operation Pauk, is it your evidence that the role of the Serbian DB
20 during Operation Pauk was limited to only information gathering?
21 A. What I can say about myself and the two colleagues from my
22 service, members of the RDB of the Republic of Serbia, is that in the
23 territory of Krajina, the northern part of Krajina, we were there only to
24 collect counter-intelligence about the security situation in that
25 territory, together with members of the service from the RSK.
1 Q. Sir, your comments can be interpreted much more broad than what
2 you are saying here.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6270 for the
5 Q. Mr. Novakovic, this is a Serbian DB JATD report from
6 Janko Keris [phoen] dated 6 February 1995. As can you see from this
7 report, at the very outset, it relates to the tasks performed by the JATD
8 1st Combat Group between 10 December 1994 and 1 February 1995.
9 There are six tasks described in this report. Could you please
10 read the first task entitled: "Command post security," and let us know
11 when you need the next page in B/C/S.
12 A. Could you turn the page.
13 Q. Sir, I just asked to you read the first section, so we'll just go
14 one by one. If you can let me know when you have completed the first
16 A. [No interpretation]
17 Q. Sir, while you were in Petrova Gora, did you see command post
18 security for the location that you went to?
19 A. When I went there, I saw the place was secured by members of the
21 Q. And you will agree with me that providing security for
22 installations outside Serbia is something more than information
23 gathering; correct?
24 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. Objection. My learned friend is engaged,
25 in our respectful submission, with the same kind of attempt to put
1 documents into evidence using the guise of suggesting that it is
2 eliciting evidence.
3 The witness has, once again, said this is what me and my
4 colleagues were doing. He hasn't said anything further than that. So
5 to --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you please rephrase your
7 question --
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe the witness has said something
9 more than that at page 83, line 19, that he said that when I went there
10 "I saw that the place was secured by members of the unit."
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's apparently no the issue. You're asking the
12 witness to tell whether an apple is the same as a pear. To the extent we
13 have to decide that, we can do that ourselves. If you want to emphasise
14 that what he saw -- let me check carefully.
15 Yes. Mr. Novakovic, do you have an explanation for having seen
16 persons providing security for installations where, as we took it from
17 your answers, it was your understanding that the gathering of information
18 was the main purpose of your people to be present at that spot?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reason my colleagues and I went
20 into the field was to collect information. That meeting was indeed held
21 at Petrova Gora, and there was security for the meeting, no question
22 about that.
23 However, about those activities that I see in the document, I
24 know nothing. I'm seeing this for the first time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I -- you may proceed, and for me, the
1 matter is not concluded by the answer to my question, so if you want to
2 further explore, you may do so.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. Mr. Novakovic, so you're clear as to the reason I'm asking about
5 this document, it's because you offered many opinions about what was
6 going on and the role of Jovica Stanisic during Operation Pauk.
7 To further make this clear to you with respect to your comments
8 on P1288, you stated that you think that:
9 "Jovica Stanisic's presence at Operation Pauk occurred after the
10 events relating of the fall of the APZB and I think that his role was to
11 unify the data gathering of all the services with the aim of assisting
12 the return of Fikret Avdic and refugees to improve the security?"
13 Since you have expressed these opinions, I would like to deal
14 with specifics as to what is reflected in the documents of the JATD.
15 Could you please read the second section of this report entitled:
16 "Convoy escorts."
17 Have you read that second section?
18 A. Item 2, yes.
19 Q. Now your comments indicate that Jovica Stanisic or the service
20 did not have the capacity to provide logistics. Do you consider the fact
21 that the DB was actually providing convoy escorts as logistical support?
22 A. I have no clue what kind of convoy that was, what's the purpose
23 of that convoy.
24 My knowledge was certainly not at that level that I could know,
25 because after that meeting, I was sent to the Slunj area and had no
1 more -- anything to do with this.
2 Q. Okay. I want find out if you have knowledge about some of these
3 other things and then I'll come back to your opinion.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of English
6 Q. Directing your attention to section 3 of this report entitled:
7 "Laying an ambush."
8 Could you please read this short section and then let us know
9 when you have completed the reading.
10 A. I've read it.
11 Q. Did you have any knowledge of joint operations being conducted
12 with rocket-launchers or participation in combat operations by the
13 members of the Serbian DB in Operation Pauk?
14 A. Well, I had no knowledge about that. I was outside the unit,
15 separate from the unit.
16 Q. Okay. If could you please read the section entitled:
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is it your understanding that the information gathering performed
20 by about the Serbian DB during Operation Pauk included daily
21 reconnaissance of enemy positions, communications and facilities, in
22 order to identify targets of operations?
23 Sir, you don't need to read the document for that. Is that your
24 understanding of what the information gathering was?
25 A. Well, it's also a kind of gathering of information, but ...
1 Q. Is this the type of information gathering that you were taking
2 part of [sic]?
3 A. No.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of both the
5 B/C/S and English versions of this report.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Mr. Weber, I'm looking at the
7 clock. I have a few messages to give to the parties, so --
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I could have then 15 minutes in
9 tomorrow's session to --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Fifteen minutes in tomorrow's session.
11 Let's talk about tomorrow's session.
12 I'm going to multiply every request by three, as would be perhaps
13 the wisest thing to do. Tomorrow, Mr. Weber, you have not more than half
14 an hour and that's strict, so I'll stop you at 30 minutes exactly.
15 Mr. Petrovic, as matters stand now, you need?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, around 20 minutes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That makes all together 50 minutes. You get not
18 more than half an hour.
19 Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: Thirty minutes, as matters stand, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You don't get more than 40 minutes. I give already
22 the bonus in advance --
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- so as to avoid that -- which means that we have
25 tomorrow a little bit over one session. And there may be questions by
1 the Bench, we do not know yet, but we'll start tomorrow at 9.00.
2 As far as next Tuesday is concerned, the preparation for the
3 videolink seemed to proceed well. From the technical experts, we hear
4 that they managed to have a videolink on the 11th and the 12th of
5 October; that is, the Tuesday and the Wednesday. VWS seems to be well on
6 its way to deal with everything they have to deal with, and there are
7 another few other logistical matters which still have to be resolved.
8 But there is a fair expectation that the videolink will work on Tuesday
9 and Wednesday.
10 Mr. Jordash you had scheduled this witness for
11 examination-in-chief for two hours, isn't it?
12 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now two hours this week, meant, all together,
14 three and a half days. I think that we should really give it now --
15 well, not for examination-in-chief but the total time for the witness
16 was ...
17 MR. JORDASH: Two to three hours, I think we said.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, apart from even if it would be three
19 hours, the videolink most likely will function on Wednesday and -- on
20 Tuesday and Wednesday. The Chamber expects from the parties to have a
21 division of the time for those two days, calculating new questions that
22 may arise, additional time you'd need because you're not present,
23 whatever it is, and we'll be very strict on that. So that two hours
24 examination-in-chief will certainly not be more than two days for the
25 evidence of the witness in its entirety, and we'll be really more strict
1 because the way it went this week was not acceptable.
2 Mr. Novakovic, tomorrow we need you for a little bit over one
3 session. We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00, and I,
4 again, to the extent a human being can guarantee anything at all, but I
5 can guarantee you that we'll conclude your testimony tomorrow morning,
6 most likely in the second session.
7 I again instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in
8 any other way with anyone about the testimony, whether given during the
9 three days you've testified now, or whether for the one and a half
10 session tomorrow.
11 Is that clear to you?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We stand adjourned, and we'll resume on Friday, the
14 7th of October, Courtroom II.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Friday, the 7th day of October,
18 2011, at 9.00 a.m.