1 Friday, 7 October 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Stanisic appearing via videolink]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Before I invite
7 Madam Registrar to call the case, I'd like to verify whether the
8 videolink with the United Nations Detention Unit is functioning well.
9 Mr. Stanisic, I can see you. Can you hear me?
10 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Microphone not activated]
11 JUDGE ORIE: You are nodding yes, could you perhaps speak a bit
12 louder so that I know for sure that I can hear you as well.
13 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Microphone not activated]
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not quite sure that -- let me just check. Could
15 you please speak a few more words so that I'm certain that I can hear you
16 in the microphone, please.
17 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can hear
18 you loud and clear.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I receive now translation, so that means that
20 our interpreters can hear you. Mr. Jordash, has the telephone line been
21 tested so that Mr. Stanisic, if he needs to contact you ...
22 MR. JORDASH: There isn't a phone apparently. I just checked
23 with the technician and apparently because it's a very temporary
24 situation a phone isn't available, which I wanted to flag up as a
25 potential issue.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because I was used to a telephone line to be
3 Mr. Stanisic, if at any point in time you would like to consult
4 with Mr. Jordash, and, Mr. Jordash, of course the same is true for you,
5 then please make that clear so that there will be a confidential way of
6 communicating and we would, if need be, we would interrupt the
7 proceedings for that purpose.
8 These are all the practicalities. Madam Registrar --
9 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
12 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 Mr. Jordash, I did understand from your response that you do not
15 oppose against proceeding even when the telephone line is not available
17 MR. JORDASH: That's right.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Then if there are no other procedural matters, the witness could
20 be escorted into the courtroom.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Registry further explores about the availability
22 of telephone lines in need, if need be.
23 Mr. Weber, yesterday you indicated that you needed 15 minutes. I
24 said that you would certainly not be granted more than 30 minutes which
25 is not an invitation to use 28 minutes, but rather 17.
1 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour, and if it assists, I am going to
2 resume with the document that we left off on, which is 65 ter 6270.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could have that then already on our
5 Now, I've forgotten one final thing, that is Rule 15 bis, Judge
6 Picard is unavailable for urgent personal reasons. I announced already
7 yesterday that we might have to sit Rule 15 bis, Judge Gwaunza and
8 myself, we have -- we are satisfied that it's in the interests of justice
9 to proceed in her absence. So, therefore, we ordered that the hearing of
10 the case continue in the absence of Judge Picard.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, dobro jutro I should say, perhaps.
13 Good morning, Mr. Novakovic. I would like to remind you that the solemn
14 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony is still
15 binding, that is that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
16 nothing but the truth.
17 Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.
18 Please proceed.
19 WITNESS: RADENKO NOVAKOVIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
22 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please have page 3 of both
23 the B/C/S and the English versions of this report for the witness.
24 Q. First of all, good morning, Mr. Novakovic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. We are going to continue with the document that we left off with
2 yesterday, which is the report involving the six tasks that were being
3 performed by the JATD during Operation Pauk. Sir, if you could please
4 read part 6, the sixth task of this report entitled "Conducted Sniping
5 Operations." The section here continues over the next page, so if you
6 could please let us know when you need the next page in the B/C/S.
7 A. Yes, go ahead. Yes.
8 Q. Were you aware that the Serbian DB was conducting sniping
9 operations by day and night during Operation Pauk?
10 A. I absolutely know nothing about that. I've not seen anything
11 about that before. This is the first time I see it in this document.
12 Q. Did you have any knowledge that the Serbian DB carried out a
13 sniping operation against a house and a hotel using a submachine and a
14 90-millimetre hand-held OSA launcher, Osa launcher?
15 A. No.
16 Q. This report ends:
17 "A list of the special equipment issued follows:"
18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 5 of the
19 original document and page 4 of the English translation for the witness.
20 Q. Mr. Novakovic, according to this list, the Serbian DB issued
21 Raja Bozovic an automatic pistol with 160 rounds, night vision goggles, a
22 sniper rifle, and a laser pointer. Legija on this list was also provided
23 with a sniper rifle. Based on your assignment did you know that the
24 Serbian DB was issuing weapons like this?
25 A. No.
1 Q. The opinion that you expressed in your comment chart indicates
2 Jovica Stanisic and the Serbian DB were gathering information and did not
3 have the capacity or logistics to provide materiel assistance. Based on
4 what I've shown you, do you agree that this opinion is not accurate
5 because you were not in a position to know this information?
6 A. The Defence have shown me these documents which show that
7 operations were undergoing sometime in August 1994, and I provided
8 comment on that information. Sniper rifle doesn't mean that there was an
9 operation undergoing. I do not have that kind of military logic to be
10 able to comment upon this. As far as I can see, these are things that
11 were issued in mid-November, equipment and ammo issued in mid-November.
12 Q. I want to make sure that we would then understand your evidence
13 correctly. Is it correct then that your comments were solely based on
14 two documents that were shown to you from August 1994 and that you don't
15 have knowledge of events that occurred from November onward in
16 Operation Pauk?
17 A. I provided comments on four documents, those that were shown to
18 me and that are contained in the binder, and I provided my comments on
19 the contents of the documents. As for the information as to what was
20 going on and what was subsequently noted here, I didn't know anything
21 about that. I've not seen this before.
22 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution at this time tenders 6270 into
23 evidence as a public exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3024, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence. No need to have it under
2 seal, Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution re-tenders
6 the four 1992 reports on the White Eagles. These were 65 ter 6263 to
7 6266 and we would tender those under seal.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the numbers would be.
9 THE REGISTRAR: 6263 will receive number P3025. 6264 will
10 receive number P3026. 6265 will receive number P3027. And 6266 will
11 receive number P3028, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: 3025 up to -- before, I -- Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, my
14 reaction may be a bit belated. Some of the documents, especially 6263,
15 have been redacted. There has been redaction with regard to the
16 addressee, the signature, and I believe that there are other documents in
17 the group of the same kind and that's why I object to their admission,
18 because I think we should wait and we should be provided with the
19 unredacted versions of those documents before we are able to admit them
20 into evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if the Prosecution possessed the
23 unredacted versions, those are the ones that we would have uploaded. We
24 don't have them. We asked that they be admitted based on the evidence
25 that has been offered by the witness and, of course, we are willing to
1 inquire about obtaining unredacted versions of those documents.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
3 MR. JORDASH: We are -- I don't know if Your Honour remembers the
4 conversations we had many weeks ago about unredacted documents. For
5 Your Honours' information, we are about to file a Rule 54 motion in
6 relation to our documents which remain redacted. We would invite the
7 Prosecution to do precisely the same with the documents that they rely
8 upon. We would submit a simple inquiry is clearly not enough. What they
9 need to do is what we have been urged to do which is to file a motion
10 pursuant to Rule 54.
11 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you would include a motion under
12 Rule 54 to be included in your efforts to get unredacted copies,
13 Mr. Weber, if you don't have, if you are unsuccessful in getting them in
14 any other way.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, in all fairness to the Republic of
16 Serbia, I believe we should first request and see if they would provide
17 them, but then if for some reason that there's trouble with it, yes, of
18 course we'd follow through.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you communicate with Mr. Jordash to see what
20 efforts have shown to be successful or unsuccessful so as not to waste
21 time and as to expedite matters.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe the Prosecution may be able
23 to -- I don't know what the situation is with the Stanisic Defence, but
24 we are in contact and I believe we do have occasion to speak with them
25 even in the near future to attempt to resolve this.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we also had the experience that sometimes you
2 were unsuccessful in these efforts, but, Mr. Jordash, every effort is
3 included. Yes.
4 Then whether or not we finally would admitted, if we would not
5 receive the unredacted copies is still to be seen, we'll mark them for
6 identification at this moment. Of course, the evidentiary value is not
7 always totally destroyed if there are redacted copies, although the
8 Chamber has insisted until now always on receiving unredacted copies.
9 For that reason, for that reason alone, we will mark for identification,
10 under seal, P3025 up to and including P3028.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution indicated that it would return with
13 further information on Exhibit P3018, a proposal for awards dated 6 May
14 1996. This was 65 ter 1D5061. The Prosecution further reviewed the
15 names and submits there are no names that require protection and the
16 document can become public.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the status of P3018 therefore
18 changes into public. Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: Lastly, Your Honours, as I stated at the outset of
20 this witness's evidence we have a number of outstanding requests to the
21 government of Serbia with respect to materials. We did receive some
22 preliminary information during the course of the examination of the
23 witness which I did try to formulate some general questions to the
24 witness on. However, we did not have those materials and we have not
25 received them yet. They appear to contain relevant information. This
1 may likely cause the witness to be recalled in the future. In addition
2 to this circumstance, we stand by our submissions regarding the lack of
3 disclosure and notice for several aspects of this witness's evidence. We
4 will further look into these matters and evaluate the circumstances and
5 any prejudice to the Prosecution. With that in mind, the Prosecution
6 would ask that the Chamber instruct the witness not to discuss his
7 testimony with anyone pending a recall.
8 With that, Your Honour, the Prosecution has no further questions.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections against the request from Mr. Weber.
10 MR. JORDASH: No objections.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Petrovic, apparently you are sharing the
12 view of Mr. Jordash.
13 Mr. Weber --
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, at the same time -- well, first of all
16 the Chamber will give the instruction as you asked us to do. You said
17 you have not received documents, you have some information. You are
18 expected at this point in time to do everything you reasonably can do,
19 and of course if circumstances, including the material you have received,
20 do not allow for certain further examination, then of course we will
21 consider a request for a recall of this witness, but please be aware that
22 what you can do now you are supposed to do now.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I fully understand that, and the
24 Prosecution did try to do its best. We received very minimal, a
25 paragraph of some general information from -- that was provided through
1 an opportunity with BIA, there's a large quantity of documents and we
2 have not obtained those documents. So I was severely limited in some
3 basic information that I could provide without having that material.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I see your point and it is accepted. I'll give the
5 instruction to the witness before he leaves this courtroom.
6 Mr. Petrovic, any further questions for the witness.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd ask for your
8 leave to put several questions to Mr. Novakovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Novakovic, Mr. Petrovic will have some
10 further questions for you, listen carefully and please answer them.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And make a break between question and answer, but
13 also between answer and question, Mr. Petrovic.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. We will
15 do our best and I speak also on behalf of Mr. Novakovic.
16 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Novakovic, as of the setting up of the
18 2nd Administration in 1992 through to the end of 1993, is it true that
19 Marko Lazovic was the head of the 2nd Administration in that period, if
20 you know?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Are you aware that after Marko Lazovic, it was Zoran Mijatovic
23 who became head of the 2nd Administration in 1994?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you know that Franko Simatovic had never been appointed as
1 head of the 2nd Administration, rather he was acting chief of the
2 2nd Administration; right?
3 A. Precisely so.
4 Q. Witness, a short question regarding the criminal procedure as it
5 was applied in Serbia at the time. Members of the Ministry of the
6 Interior were authorised to file a criminal report. Would there follow
7 any criminal proceedings thereafter is something that is out of their
8 hands; right?
9 A. That's correct.
10 MR. PETROVIC: Bear with me for a moment, Your Honours.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Witness, at the time you worked for the Uzice centre, did you
14 ever receive information about extremists and their activities in Bosnia
15 and Croatia from the services in Bosnia, Croatia, the Republic of Serbian
16 Krajina, and Republika Srpska, was there any sort of communication in
18 A. Between 1992 and?
19 Q. Your departure from the Uzice centre.
20 A. I'm not aware of it having happened in the Uzice centre.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have a look at
23 Exhibit P3019.
24 THE REGISTRAR: This is confidential document, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore not to be shown to the public.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation].
2 Q. Mr. Witness, yesterday you looked at this document while being
3 examined by my learned friend. It is an Official Note by RDB members.
4 There is mention made of an automatic rifle be provided on the order of
5 Bojovic, et cetera, et cetera. This is my question: This is
6 intelligence obtained from the conversation with Djurovic. Was that
7 information checked? Is what is contained here what Djurovic said and
8 what the official noted and of which the official did not ask that it be
10 A. That's precisely so because there is no reference made to a
11 source other than Djurovic and the interview with him.
12 Q. And nowhere in this note is there a mention made of the
13 information having been checked anywhere; right?
14 A. Precisely so.
15 Q. Tell me, please, professionally speaking, what is the importance
16 of the note? What follows once such a note has been drawn up? What is
17 required for a piece of information to be checked and used further on?
18 A. Professionally speaking, this is initial information that needs
19 further processing based on the means available. Based on whether this
20 sort of activity is recurrent and whether there is urgent need of it
21 being discontinued, et cetera.
22 Q. Thank you, witness.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have a look at 1D5062,
25 JUDGE ORIE: We ask one follow-up question exactly in relation to
1 this document, the note about Mr. Djurovic. You told us that the
2 document doesn't say anything about verification of the information
3 contained in this Official Note. Do you have any personal knowledge
4 whether at a later stage verification took place or not, or are you just
5 unaware and are you commenting on what you see in this document?
6 THE REGISTRAR: This document is preassigned number D429,
7 Your Honours, and temporary under seal.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's the document which comes on the screen now,
9 not to be shown to the public. I'm still talking about the Djurovic
10 document. Do you have any personal knowledge on whether in the follow-up
11 whether further processing the information was verified or not?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As can be seen in the heading of
13 that earlier document, these are problems along the third line of work
14 and I was supposed to be commenting on it. I was charged with
15 counter-intelligence affairs, whereas this subject matter was dealt with
16 by my colleagues who were charged with extremism and I had nothing to do
17 with that. So I would say that I assume that the information was checked
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you have no personal knowledge about that,
20 so we are just focusing on this one.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't. No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Witness, please, look at the document. You had occasion to see
1 it over the past couple of days. Do you know that under the
2 constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia, the Presidency of the
3 Republic of Serbia as an institution existed until the adoption of the
4 1990 constitution?
5 A. Well, I can't really tell you with any certainty what the year
7 Q. Very well. If I were to tell you that this is a form that was
8 produced in an earlier period and which was used for the payment of
9 per diems, would you agree with such a statement?
10 A. Well, I could, yes, I could agree. It was yesterday or the day
11 before yesterday that I said that I am no expert for financial matters.
12 I'm not familiar with forms of this type. What I can tell you is that I
13 presume on the basis of the heading that the per diems were paid out in
14 accordance with the decision of the Presidency of the Republic of Serbia.
15 And of course, it does not state when this decision was taken by the
16 Presidency, but it was paid to PJM members.
17 Q. Thank you, witness. Can you clarify for us, the PJM within the
18 system of the interior of the Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia
19 fell under public security and their competence, did they not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you, witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: I don't know if everyone else can hear Mr. Stanisic
24 speaking. I wonder if he ought to be told that his voice can be heard
25 just in case he discusses any confidential information.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I can't hear him at this moment because
2 whatever he would say would first go to the interpreters, but perhaps
3 it's good, Mr. Stanisic, that you are aware that the microphone in the
4 room where you are is constantly open. I see your lips moving, although
5 I do not hear what you say, but please be aware that it might be caught
6 by the microphone before you.
7 Now, I also see that the microphone sign in the left bottom
8 corner -- yes, Mr. Stanisic, in addition to what I just said, I would
9 like to inform you that you cannot call Mr. Jordash but if you would like
10 to consult with Mr. Jordash, you can ask for a communication through the
11 videolink and then Mr. Jordash will call you on an extension which will
12 be given to you, Mr. Jordash, by Madam Registrar. Perhaps you are aware
13 of it already, but otherwise, the number is available. Internal phone
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have one question
16 left for this witness and for that I would need us to move into private
17 session or closed session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move into -- private session will do?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Move into private session.
21 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Witness, have you testified before this Tribunal earlier, and
1 if so, in what case?
2 A. I testified in 2008 in the case against the accused Milan Lukic.
3 I was called to appear by the Prosecution.
4 Q. Did you testify as a Prosecution witness in that case?
5 A. Well, my only request --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just want to flag this. This was
8 something that if raised earlier, the Prosecution would have had further
9 examination on. So I just wanted to note that for the record, that this
10 questioning, even out of the gate here, could trigger further questioning
11 by the Prosecution or we'd ask leave for further questioning on this.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see what happens. At the same time,
13 Mr. Weber, the Chamber was not informed about any earlier testimony, I
14 think, of this witness before this Tribunal. Of course it sheds some
15 light on exploring the background of the witness, et cetera, if you have
16 used him as a witness before, if you have called him as a witness before,
17 I take it that you have interviewed him and that, for example, things
18 like the existence of criminal records, et cetera, has been verified at
19 the time.
20 MR. WEBER: There would be some circumstances that we would raise
21 and this is outside the scope of the cross-examination that was by the
22 Prosecution. It was not raised during that. So --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that was not the point I was -- what I was
24 doing, as a matter of fact, is I was establishing that due to contacts
25 the Prosecution will have had earlier with this witness, that perhaps
1 there is already more information about him known to the OTP such as, I
2 take it that you don't call a witness without knowing even about whether
3 he has a criminal record or not, that you have certainly explored
4 something about this witness, wouldn't it be?
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the witness -- the Prosecution will not
6 describe as co-operative beforehand. He didn't -- refused to meet with
7 us, the information that we had was limited to Official Note and one
8 other report with respect to Milan Lukic, and he didn't meet with us when
9 he came to The Hague and he was called, and he asked to be a Chamber
10 witness, and those were the circumstances.
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That, of course, is not a complete answer. You say
13 we had difficulties in exploring the background, may be true, may not be
14 true, but you certainly have made efforts and what you could obtain
15 without the co-operation of the witness, I take it that you would have
16 obtained that.
17 MR. WEBER: It was very limited. We asked -- it was very
19 JUDGE ORIE: So the answer is yes, although it was very limited.
20 MR. WEBER: Correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I just wanted to ensure that there's no
23 misconception. Whilst the witness did refuse to meet with the
24 Prosecution, he also refused to meet with the Defence. His wish was to
25 be a, as he described it, an impartial Chamber witness, but in the end
1 what he was a Prosecution witness. So that I think is important to --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you want to say that he was called by
3 the Prosecution, to that extent he was a Prosecution witness.
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, the characterisation as a
6 Prosecution witness if someone refuses to talk with the calling party
7 prior to giving testimony is not a normal Prosecution witness.
8 MR. JORDASH: No, that's right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So there are limits in there. Of course, if a party
10 calls a witness, a Chamber witness is -- we usually leave it to the
11 parties even if there are difficulties first to call witnesses, and
12 usually Chamber witnesses are considered those witnesses called by the
13 Chamber where the parties, for whatever reason, finally decide not to
14 call that witness, whether or not co-operative, but that's usually what
15 we qualify as Chamber witnesses in this Tribunal. The attitude of the
16 witness, and that's, I think, what Mr. Weber draws our attention to, was
17 one that he would not -- he would prefer not to be affiliated to one of
18 the parties in the case but rather to come without such preparation with
19 one of the parties or any affiliation with one of the parties. That's
20 how I understand the observations made by Mr. Weber, although finally it
21 was the Prosecution who called him.
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes, and he was led by Mr. Groome in direct
23 examination and relied upon by the Prosecution.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we accept what Mr. Jordash said, that's
1 accurate as to the circumstances and, really, if there's any cross on
2 this, we don't dispute what was just said. Those were the circumstances.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So I take it that from my observations, not being
4 contradicted, that I have a proper understanding of what both Prosecution
5 and Defence has submitted.
6 Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one more
9 Q. Did you provide a signed statement to the representatives of the
10 OTP of this Tribunal?
11 A. When they invited me to provide a statement, I signed the
12 statement and my only request with regard to my appearance at the trial
13 was not to be a witness either for the Prosecution or the Defence. I
14 wanted to be the Chamber witness.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
16 further questions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Weber, this is a new element which comes
18 up. Could you give us an indication as to whether this would trigger all
19 kind of additional questioning or ...
20 MR. WEBER: It would not if the parties were to agree that the
21 witness did not appear voluntarily to provide a statement, that he was
22 subpoenaed to do so and the scope of the subpoena indicated that it was
23 limited to a discussion of specific documents in the Lukic case.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Any dispute about this.
25 MR. JORDASH: No dispute about that, perhaps, though, the
1 Prosecution would, perhaps not now, but at least indicate therefore what
2 investigation they did conduct into this witness having decided to call
3 him, having located him and having sought a subpoena, that implies a
4 certain level of inquiry which may be important in the future in terms of
5 any application to recall.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would, as a matter of fact, I would invite
7 the Prosecution to keep all the material available, but as long as
8 there's no such request, I would say let's not anticipate -- let's
9 prepare for such a situation but let's not yet at this moment do this
10 exercise and rather wait until you've made up your minds on a potential
11 recall. Would you agree with that, Mr. -- because I immediately
12 responded to Mr. Jordash without giving you an opportunity to.
13 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution is willing to proceed in that manner.
14 We would disagree with what Mr. Jordash just said in terms of the
15 opportunity that we were provided.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic -- it is queuing before the microphones
19 at this moment. Mr. Petrovic.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one remark with
21 regard to your previous question. I cannot say anything about the nature
22 of the relationship between the witness and the OTP. I just have a
23 comment. The witness has obviously shown a level of co-operativeness
24 with the Prosecution just based on the fact that he provided a statement
25 and signed it.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, may I say something?
2 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, whether the glass is half full
3 or half empty, Mr. Petrovic, that is something we could discuss for the
4 next century. The Prosecution has emphasised that they needed a subpoena
5 to get him there for limited purposes for a statement, so co-operative
6 attitude or non-co-operative attitude, let's think about the glass half
7 full or half empty. That's clear.
8 Mr. Jordash, you are -- any further questions for this witness?
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, Mr. Jordash will now further examine
12 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
14 Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
15 Q. It was suggested to you by my learned friend by the Prosecution
16 that if during Operation Tomson the --
17 MR. JORDASH: We are in private session apparently, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we shouldn't be in private session. Can we
19 return into open session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. It was suggested to you by the Prosecution that if during
25 Operation Tomson you came across the name of somebody in the JATD, then
1 any investigation into that person for extremism or the like would come
2 to a halt. Are you aware of any record or central database or --
3 MR. WEBER: If we could please just have -- is that a direct
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first listen to the question and then you have
6 an opportunity to object.
7 Mr. Novakovic, don't answer the question yet. First Mr. Jordash
8 will phrase his question, then Mr. Weber will say something, and only
9 after that you are invited to answer or perhaps not to answer the
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. Are you aware of any record or central database or something
13 similar which you had access to at that time which recorded all the names
14 of those in the JATD? Did you have access to any such database?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I think the question actually stands
17 independent and fine without the reference to the submission that was
18 earlier, so I have no objection to the question as posed.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the introduction was a reference to the
20 evidence that triggered you to put this question to the witness.
21 MR. JORDASH: The position that the Prosecution --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Did you have any database, any such database,
23 Mr. Novakovic, did you or did you not have it?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know, and if there was any
25 such database, it was not accessible to me.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
2 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, on the screen, P3027.
3 Q. I want to deal with the suggestion that the DB didn't take action
4 against the White Eagles until 1994. We can see this document which
5 you've been shown, the 27th of August, 1992, and as we know, it's a
6 document recording an Official Note of an interview with information
7 about the White Eagles.
8 MR. JORDASH: Could we go, please, to the last page. Page 2.
9 Q. And we can see there at the end of the document:
10 "We informed the CJB about the announced extremist actions of the
11 White Eagles from Priboj, in order for the appropriate measures to be
13 In light of this Official Note of interview and the information
14 within, what might such appropriate measures have encompassed?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we don't know yet. There a risk of
18 speculation. Perhaps you phrase the question in such a way first,
19 concrete, whether the witness has any knowledge about what kind of action
20 was envisaged, and then perhaps in what general terms, what kind of -- so
21 we go from the concrete to the more general question.
22 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
23 Q. You hadn't seen this document before, but having seen the
24 document, do you have any independent recollection of the information
25 contained within and what, if any, measures were taken by the public
1 security in relation to the information in August of 1992?
2 A. I saw this document yesterday. However, what I see at the end of
3 the document is something that shows that the state security sector
4 informed public security sector about certain activities, and then the
5 latter would step up their activities by way of patrols, interviews with
6 the population, longer duration of stay in the area that is indicated as
7 a possible hub of terrorist activities. Here there's reference to four
8 facilities owned by Muslims, a village with the Muslim population and so
9 on and so forth.
10 So this is the only way that the state security sector could
11 prompt the public security sector to patrol the area as much as possible
12 and to surveil the area as much as possible while pursuing their
13 operative activities.
14 Q. Now, I just want to be clear about making the distinction between
15 what you know happened in relation to the White Eagles, and what you are
16 inferring must have happened from your knowledge of documents such as
17 this with information that was being passed to the public security.
18 So firstly, in August of 1992, did you have -- sorry, let me
19 start that again. Did you have any knowledge of what measures were being
20 taken by the public security in August of 1992 in relation to the
21 White Eagles and their activities?
22 A. I did not have any specific information about that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- Mr. Jordash, there's another matter that
24 came to my mind, please correct me whether I'm wrong, I'm also addressing
25 Mr. Weber, the issue about action taken only in 1994 in relation to
1 matters that happened in 1992 was about -- and please correct me when I
2 misunderstood the issue, I'm just defining the issue, nothing more. I'm
3 not expressing any opinion or judgement about it. But I think the issue
4 was that the Prosecution sought to establish that where the reports
5 indicated that crimes had already been committed, that no investigation,
6 prosecution, adjudication was started until 1994. Whereas the document
7 we are looking now at this moment is about information that crimes or at
8 least certain activities may develop. And I see -- I'm not saying that
9 it's not relevant what you are talking about, but that there's a
10 distinction between investigating crimes that have been reported as
11 already been committed, compared to activities which are announced and
12 where you take measures whatever those measures will be. I see a
13 distinction there because you introduce this matter now as something,
14 that's actually the way you introduced it, to more or less challenge what
15 the Prosecution sought to establish that no action was taken until 1994.
16 Whereas I see that the circumstances in which action was taken is
17 different in the two situations, the one crimes already reported to have
18 been committed, and here activities, but whether I should call them
19 crimes or not I leave that open, but still to take place and I think even
20 scheduled for the 28th of August, where the document dates from the
21 27th of August.
22 MR. JORDASH: Well --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking you whether my understanding of the
24 issues -- I'm not going to stop you, but whether my understanding of the
25 issues to be different in this respect, whether you share that or whether
1 you do not share that because then I have to ask myself why I don't
2 understand the issues raised by the parties.
3 Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution believes the Chamber is
5 correctly interpreting what the Prosecution was using the evidence for.
6 The only second component to it that we would add is not only the
7 knowledge of the fact that crimes were committed, but then when action
8 was taken, the action was not taken against those crimes but for
9 different crimes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But it was the follow-up of crimes already
12 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I just -- it's probably me, but just
13 if I could be clear what the Prosecution are alleging. Are the
14 Prosecution alleging that the White Eagles committed crimes in 1991 and
15 1992 and 1993 and the DB was aware of those crimes and failed to take
16 action, does that summarise the Prosecution position?
17 MR. WEBER: The Defence is raising Operation Tomson as one of its
18 defences. In rebuttal of Operation Tomson, Mr. Jordash has made a number
19 of submissions as to the way in which this was implemented, how it was
20 implemented, so we are offering that evidence to rebut what the Defence
21 has put forward in terms of the DB acted -- showed certain concerns, that
22 these concerns were egalitarian between a bunch of different ethnic
23 groups, that they acted as --
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's another aspect of what you raise, but I think
25 that your main rebuttal was if this was the reaction, it was not only
1 incomplete, but it was also two years after the events.
2 MR. WEBER: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And the events, the reporting on the events was
4 about events that had taken place already, whereas here we are looking at
5 a report on events still to take place so therefore the measures could
6 hardly be to investigate the crimes because if there were any crimes,
7 they were not yet committed, they were just announced. That's what I
8 wanted to --
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: From your "yes" I take it that you agree at least
11 with the analysis of the situation.
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 MR. JORDASH: -- and I hope that the position will become clear
15 or clearer.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. Let's just return to this document briefly, Mr. Novakovic. When
19 you look at the Official Note or unofficial note such as this were there
20 observation that the writer of the note informed the public security
21 about announced extremist actions, are you able to just give us a quick
22 rundown, a quick list of what such an author might anticipate the public
23 security would do, or would have done at that point in time?
24 A. Talking from practice, when the public security sector in charge
25 of the relevant area is informed about possible threats, the public
1 security sector then steps up control measures, patrols, interviews with
2 people, checking information provided to them. All that means that the
3 territory will be controlled in the upcoming period when activities are
4 expected to take place.
5 Here reference is made to Operation Tomson. I would like to say
6 something about that. Operation Tomson was carried out by the Republic
7 of Serbia on the territory of Serbia. The document that we referred to
8 yesterday dealing with Operation Tomson, the one shown to me by
9 Mr. Weber, is an amalgamated document that speaks to the state security
10 sector activities from 1992 through 1995. In that document, you can see
11 what was done and what needs to be done in the future, and these are
12 separate documents and in general terms, all these documents have been
13 incorporated into the amalgamated document.
14 Q. Okay. Let me -- my time is limited so I want to just focus you
15 if I can. Thank you for the information, though.
16 MR. JORDASH: Could we have 1D03220.
17 Q. Just take your time to look at this. I don't think you've seen
18 it, or maybe you have, but we haven't shown it to you. Do you -- have
19 you seen this before? Have a look.
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Just take a few moments to glimpse through it and see what
22 it is. 15th of May, 1991, Zajecar state security, 3rd Administration.
23 JUDGE ORIE: While the witness reads, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Objection, foundation. At this time the witness has
25 never seen the document before. We are now discussing a new document in
1 a different area and region and this should have been led in chief, and I
2 did not discuss certain events. I focused on this witness's
3 administration and experience, security sector and we would object to
4 proceeding in this way. Using the document in this fashion may be
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you don't know yet what the question is.
7 Perhaps Mr. Jordash wants to establish that the witness can read, isn't
8 it? That is still a possibility. Or that -- let's object to questions
9 when we have questions.
10 Mr. Jordash, I do not expect you to establish that because that
11 was clear already.
12 MR. JORDASH:
13 Q. You can see there in the -- I'm particularly interested in the
14 comment in the last paragraph relating to the White Eagles. And let me
15 just focus you on the following:
16 "Earlier we obtained the information about an alleged plan to
17 form a volunteer detachment in the Majdanpek area, so now we do not rule
18 out the possibility of receiving the idea to form such a detachment.
19 Especially now by Milanovic and Radivojevic or Radojevic, because on his
20 return from" --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you really need to pronounce it, the
22 names are so similar. The first one you referred to Zoran Radivojevic or
23 Radojevic because otherwise the transcript will be very difficult to
25 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
1 Q. "Because on his return from Borovo Selo, Misko Milanovic told our
2 agent that they had received the task of finding two volunteers each to
3 take part in any new action. This assumption is supported by the
4 information we have about the existence of a number of supporters of the
5 Beli Orlovi, White Eagles, youth organisation of the SCP Serbian Chetnik
6 Movement in the Majdanpek area. It cannot be categorised as a
7 paramilitary unit now, but at the initiative of extremists, they may go
8 on to arm the organisation."
9 Is that information anything that you are able to comment on,
10 that the view of the State Security Service in May of 1991, that the
11 organisation of the White Eagles was not armed at that point?
12 A. I've not seen this document before. I can see that it was
13 drafted by the Zajecar centre, that it was sent to the
14 3rd Administration, and they're referring to a document from the office
15 the secretary by which this information was sought. This points to the
16 fact that during that period of time that there were organisational
17 measures being dealt with, but in the last sentence it is stated that
18 this is a youth organisation of the Serbian Chetnik Movement but that it
19 was still not a paramilitary formation, but that it was possible that
20 they were dealing with the arming of extremists. I'm basing this on the
21 information that was available to the centre at the time.
22 Q. Did you have any information of a similar kind in 1991?
23 A. Well, this was a subject of interest in the territories of Priboj
24 and Prijepolje where the activities were going on when the activities of
25 the White Eagles were launched in our area. The White Eagles appeared
1 everywhere in every area as --
2 Q. And when they appeared in 1991, how did they appear, in which
3 sense --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, please, first of all, the appropriate
5 way of dealing with the matter would have been that you ask the witness
6 whether he knows anything about the activities of the Beli Orlovi youth
7 organisation which is, of course, we are not focusing until now on the
8 youth organisation, so first to explore that. Now, let's try to remain
9 concrete. What happens if the football hooligans enter Belgium? I mean,
10 these kind of questions, please focus and aim at obtaining concrete
12 MR. JORDASH:
13 Q. Do you know when the White Eagles started to arm themselves?
14 A. As far as I know, in the territory of my centre, in the territory
15 of Priboj where their activities was the most intense, they started
16 arming themselves in 1992, when the war started in the territory of
17 Bosnia. That's my opinion. That's as much as I know about the whole
19 MR. JORDASH: Could I tender this as an exhibit, please,
20 Your Honour.
21 MR. WEBER: We have no objection for it being marked for
22 identification pending some further information on origin. We would like
23 to see the RFA.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us something about the origin.
25 MR. JORDASH: At this point no, but I can have our Case
1 Manager --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then it will be marked for identification.
3 Madam Registrar, the number would be.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This would be D448, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D448 is admitted into evidence. Mr. Jordash, I'm
6 looking at the clock. I do not know, it's not mainly to limit your time,
7 but on whether one extended session by five or seven minutes would do or
8 whether we need to continue after a break anyhow?
9 MR. JORDASH: I would like another 20 minutes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Another 20 minutes. Then I think you are stepping
11 beyond the time I gave you yesterday, but we'll verify that during the
12 break. You need a break anyhow.
13 We'll have a break and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 11.00, but
14 before doing so, I would first like to verify with Mr. Stanisic whether
15 at this moment there's any need for consultation and whether there are
16 any other wishes as far as he is concerned. If you nod no, Mr. Stanisic,
17 then I'll put that on the record, and if you confirm that you need
18 further consultation, I'll put that on the record as well.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters can't hear Mr. Stanisic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreters cannot hear you. Could you speak
21 closer to a -- I think the microphone is switched off, from what I see on
22 my screen. Could it be switched on first of all. On the left bottom of
23 my screen it says "far" and then there's a microphone with a -- it's
24 stricken through in red.
25 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have tried
1 on several occasions to communicate with the Defence, but I did not
2 succeed. I don't know whether you can hear me now?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stanisic, I can hear you now, and apparently
4 there is a problem with the microphone being closed on your side of the
5 communication. I suggest that Mr. Jordash will call you under the number
6 that will be given to him by Madam Registrar. And, Mr. Jordash, is there
7 any way that you or your team could keep an eye on the microphone,
8 because earlier we said the microphone is open, please be aware that
9 everyone can hear you, which apparently led to closing the microphone.
10 But of course if you want it to be in touch with us, then you should open
11 it again because otherwise the interpreters do not receive any audio from
12 the UNDU.
13 Mr. Stanisic, is it clear that if you want to contact
14 Mr. Jordash, that you should take care that the microphone is open and,
15 otherwise, I'm not constantly looking at the video from the UNDU.
16 Therefore, perhaps someone could keep a close eye on any attempts by
17 Mr. Stanisic to reach Mr. Jordash.
18 I, for the time being, leave it, Mr. Jordash, to a telephone
19 conversation you may have with Mr. Stanisic during the break, and we'll
20 resume at ten minutes to 11.00, but only after I have urged the parties
21 to provide the material for the videolink on Tuesday in relation to
22 DST-052 by today to the Registry because it has to be copied, it has to
23 be taken to the place of the videolink, and if you provide it at any
24 later stage, there is no guarantee that it can be processed and copied
25 and therefore be used during the videolink.
1 Then there is one other matter for which we'll go into private
2 session immediately after the break. We resume but then in the beginning
3 for three minutes without the witness and we will move in private session
4 at ten minutes to 11.00.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, did you have an opportunity to consult,
9 to speak with Mr. Stanisic and raise any additional matter?
10 MR. JORDASH: No -- I did communicate with him. He provided some
11 instructions and I'm ready to go.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we move into private session for a
14 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, can I just raise one issue, which is
18 just for Your Honours's information in relation to the Rule 54
19 application that we will file I think today. One of the requests is for
20 the DB's annual reports which we hope will deal with some of these
21 subjects and assist with clarifying some of the issues about what the DB
22 did and when they did it. Unfortunately, until we receive those, we are
23 somewhat hampered in relation to, for example, these issues in terms of
24 getting the full picture about what the DB was doing in relation to the
25 White Eagles.
1 JUDGE ORIE: When did you for the first time ask for these annual
3 MR. JORDASH: Off the top of my head I don't know, but I know it
4 was several years ago.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Several years ago, yes, that's what one would expect
6 to be done.
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, it's a pity that you have not
9 sought at any earlier stage an order to be issued because we are close --
10 coming closer and closer to the end of your case and, of course, the
11 Chamber is concerned if you are unable to -- to investigate relevant
12 material and to present it to the Chamber if that research would make you
13 believe that it is relevant material. It's still very late.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, Mr. Jordash will now put some more
16 questions to you and most likely will be done in half an hour
17 approximately. So it will be a short session. Mr. Jordash, please
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Novakovic, please keep your answers as brief as possible so I
21 can get through the material as quickly as possible.
22 MR. JORDASH: Please can we have on the screen 1D01006.
23 Q. You mentioned before the break about the White Eagles starting to
24 carry weapons sometime in 1991. When in 1991, beginning, middle, or end?
25 A. I think it was towards the end of 1991. I think, I am not sure.
1 Q. And as far as you are aware, was action taken by either the
2 public security or the state security in relation to that carrying of
3 weapons within Serbia?
4 A. In the territory of Serbia, anyone found carrying weapons,
5 especially long-barrelled weapons, military ones, would be detained.
6 That was our practice.
7 Q. Let me just have you pay some attention to the document on the
8 screen. 2nd of August, 1995, Operation Tomson report from the
9 Sremska Mitrovica state security. And the first two paragraphs are
10 pertinent to this subject. The paragraphs note two essential facts.
11 One, that the White Eagles seem to, according to this report, morph or
12 change into these other formations such as the Serbian Chetnik Movement,
13 and, two, that in the early stages of the war, the White Eagles avoided
14 bringing weapons into the FRY and did not expose themselves as a
15 paramilitary organisation or formation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: I don't know if there's a question, but this is
18 leading. He is summarised a document and is paraphrasing it and asking a
19 witness whether or not he agrees.
20 MR. JORDASH: I've not asked a question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then now think well about your question,
22 Mr. Jordash, because you might be in trouble.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, I'm going to ask the witness whether he has a
24 comment to make upon this particular report and its contents, which I
25 think is common practice.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although always first explore with the witness,
2 we are talking about a specific time-frame, we are talking about an area,
3 isn't it. There is -- whether he knows about the report. We first
4 explore what the witness knows without just reading the report and say I
5 think it will be right or I think it will not be right. Apart from that,
6 of course, much of this information of a very general character and that
7 requires quite a bit to establish what the witness -- whether the witness
8 really is able to have an overview over all the events, whereas we had a
9 lengthy examination of the witness on what he knew exactly about what
10 happened in the next street and in the next village. So, therefore,
11 please first explore, but let's proceed at this moment as you suggest.
12 Any comment?
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. Mr. Novakovic, any comment?
15 A. I see this document from the centre of the state security in
16 Sremska Mitrovica, which is close to the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina
17 and Croatia. The war had begun in Croatia much earlier than in Bosnia.
18 That is characteristic that the White Eagles appear on the ground and
19 they are armed especially -- exactly at the moment when the war begins.
20 They are using this occasion to go to the war as volunteers and then come
21 back to Serbia with their weapons. That's my general comment about the
22 distinction between these two areas, the centre in Uzice and the centre
23 in Mitrovica. I worked in Uzice.
24 Q. Can I ask you this: Were you able within the Uzice centre to, at
25 any stage from 1991 to 1995, define who was in the White Eagles, what the
1 membership was, the numbers, the identities of the members?
2 A. In that period it was established and the amalgamated document
3 that speaks to the Operation Tomson defines this precisely and it says
4 that in 1994 the work of that organisation was broken. The commander of
5 the White Eagles was the subject of our intensive work and that implied
6 significant measures on the ground. It also mentions other individuals.
7 That document specifies what was done in 1992, 1993, 1994. It's a
8 document that speaks of the achievements, the results of our work, and
9 further directions we intend to pursue.
10 Q. Are you able to identify now the time when the DB, the Uzice
11 centre had a clear picture of who the White Eagles were and the
12 identities of the members? Are you able to recall roughly which year
13 that information was obtained in some depth with some detail?
14 A. I was not working on this myself. It could have been 1993 when
15 the activities of these people became known in some detail.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you there. If you say it could
17 have been 1993, that means, as you started your answer, that you are not
18 working on the matter, you have no detailed knowledge about it, and what
19 could be, Mr. Jordash, is not what assists the Chamber.
20 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
21 Q. Mr. Novakovic, let's just put this exhibit to the side. I just
22 want to ask you about a finding in the Lukic judgement, paragraph 78, the
23 judgement from this court, and paragraph 78 notes that there has been no
24 convincing evidence presented to the Trial Chamber as to Milan Lukic and
25 Sredoje Lukic's membership of the White Eagles or Avengers or any linkage
1 between the White Eagles or Avengers and any of the crimes with which
2 Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic are charged. So the finding of this court
3 was that the Prosecution haven't established Lukic was a member of the
4 White Eagles. Were you aware of that finding?
5 MR. WEBER: Objection. First of all, leading and also this is
6 very misleading way of doing this. There is lots of evidence presented
7 in the Lukic case which this witness is not privy to and to present all
8 that that's related to that and then have the witness comment on that, he
9 would need much more additional information, so at this time we would
10 object to using that in this way. We believe that if the Defence does
11 want to seek adjudication of facts that were found in different
12 judgements, they have a vehicle to do so.
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, the Prosecution have made much
14 suggestion that the state security didn't do enough in relation to
15 prosecuting Milan Lukic as a member of the White Eagles. It's
16 significant, we would say, that the Prosecution in this court were
17 unable -- notwithstanding a trial lasting nearly two years and all the
18 resources at their fingertips were not able to establish Milan Lukic's
19 membership of the White Eagles.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me read again your question. Well, the only
21 question that's put to you at this moment, would you please restrict your
22 answer to that, whether you were aware of a finding in a judgement,
23 paragraph 78, about the membership of Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic of
24 the White Eagles? Are you aware of that finding in a case that was
25 brought against these two persons?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not aware.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, that's an answer to your question.
3 MR. JORDASH: I'll leave it there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You'll leave it there. Please proceed.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. Let me move to another subject, Mr. Witness. Pauk, you've been
7 shown evidence relating to the DB's alleged contribution to the military
8 operation Pauk. Are you aware of any criminal purpose that existed in
9 relation to the objectives for Operation Pauk?
10 A. Criminal?
11 Q. Yes, do you know if there was, from what you observed in your
12 presence there, from your information gathered, whether their objectives
13 of Operation Pauk included any criminal purpose?
14 A. I don't know about that from my point of view. I saw that those
15 activities were unfolding in order to get the refugees to return from the
16 RSK to Bosnia.
17 Q. You've been shown evidence of the participation of some members
18 of the JATD in Operation Pauk. Are you able to provide any evidence
19 concerning the number of corps, military corps, which took part in
20 Operation Pauk?
21 A. Absolutely not. I did not have access to such information. I
22 did not have any insight into military matters or contacts with the army.
23 Q. Thank you. Did you observe any crimes being committed during
24 Operation Pauk?
25 A. I did not have any contact with that.
1 Q. Thank you. The last subject. I want to ask you about Ilok. You
2 were shown a document purporting to be the -- part of or the personal
3 file of a man the Prosecution say was called or nicknamed Pupe, Nikola
4 Pupovac, and the Prosecution suggest he is a member of the Serbian MUP,
5 special purposes unit in Ilok.
6 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen please, 1D05095.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just the way it's been going, I do know
9 what this exhibit is. It's not on their exhibit list but it does come
10 from the Prosecution. I ask that a foundation be laid with what his
11 knowledge of Ilok is before the document is even being shown.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Foundation for any questions, yes, well,
13 Mr. Jordash, I -- although Mr. Weber is on his feet usually very early,
14 which is sometimes good, we know what the witness said about what he
15 learned about a person by the short name Pupe during an interview and I
16 think the witness also told us that that is all he knows. So therefore,
17 if you want to put documents to the witness and to ask him to further
18 consider or comment, perhaps it would be good that you, knowing what the
19 document is about, first explore whether the witness has any knowledge on
20 the matters contained in that document apart from reading it and then
21 gaining for the first time in his life the information you want to ask
22 questions about.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour, the way in which the Prosecution
24 dealt with this was to put to the witness Mr. Pupovac's alleged personal
25 file -- I see Mr. Weber is on his feet again.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but he certainly will allow you to finish your
3 MR. JORDASH: And what we'd like to do is put to the witness
4 various other personnel files which relate to 1992 Ilok special purposes
5 unit MUP Krajina, not MUP Serbia, and go through the same process that
6 the Prosecution went through.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, isn't it true when the Prosecution tried to
8 establish that Mr. Pupovac was a member of that, we stopped the
9 Prosecution doing that and said that it was inappropriate where the
10 witness doesn't know anything else to draw conclusions from documentation
11 that -- is my recollection right that I in rather strong wordings said
12 that this is not what would assist the Chamber, to ask the witness to
13 interpret and to evaluate pieces of evidence he was totally unaware of,
14 and where the only thing he knew is that Mr. Lukic once referred to Pupe.
15 Now, the same would apply to you. The Prosecution has tried to
16 do that. I think that the Chamber has in rather strong words said that
17 this is really what we did not expect a party to do. We would not expect
18 you to do a similar thing either, and if you say, well, it's unfair
19 because they started already doing it and we don't get even a chance to
20 make that mistake, then I would -- you have to accept that if it was
21 useless for the Prosecution to do, it will be useless for you to do as
22 well. Again, this is a kind of a general warning not knowing what kind
23 of questions and what kind of material you are going to put to the
25 Mr. Weber.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, one comment and potential solution.
2 With respect to this, there's a big difference between the Prosecution
3 leading something and the Defence now having to in an open-ended fashion
4 direct examination elicit evidence, so what we did in a leading fashion
5 we'd also add would be improper now to do and suggest to the witness.
6 Possible solution: There are documents that the Defence have uploaded,
7 individual selected documents from entire personnel files of ten
8 different individuals. We believe that it would be fine if the Defence
9 wanted to upload the entire personnel files of each of these ten
10 individuals in the -- with complete translations because there are
11 documents that further put into the context the selected documents by the
12 Defence, that would ensure that there is no misleading nature to taking a
13 individual document out of context for the other documents of the file.
14 And then with respect to these ten individuals, it would be necessary to
15 properly place these ten individuals into the context to have two
16 additional files, and those would be the files. So we would not oppose
17 if the Defence wanted to do that and introduce evidence in that fashion,
18 the admission of the files in their entirety.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I see that you are, where we yesterday said
20 that the way in which you proceeded was not assisting the Chamber, that
21 you are making an utmost effort to assist Mr. Jordash, but let's see what
22 Mr. Jordash thinks about it.
23 MR. JORDASH: I think the Prosecution -- well, I'm grateful for
24 the suggestion. I hope they don't mind if we decline. The Prosecution's
25 approach has been throughout this case to select documents from the DB
1 files and put them forward in support of their case. It's not been the
2 practice to put every single document that they have, and that's the way
3 they've proceeded, and what my learned friend is doing now is --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to cut it short. Mr. Jordash, I get the
5 impression that what you'd like to do is to bring to the attention of the
6 Chamber that there are documents in the personnel files of persons or a
7 person where that person is linked to an organisation of an other state
8 than Serbia.
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And now, of course this Chamber had heard evidence
11 on how you can be subordinated to one organisation or to another, and
12 that sometimes at least some witnesses told us that that was also linked
13 to the mission you were on. I mean, I leave that open on what evaluation
14 is. If you want to establish that, do we need the witness for that, or
15 could you agree with Mr. Weber that such a document or two or three or
16 four documents where you want to draw our attention to because it gives a
17 heading which links the person to another one, if the witness knows
18 anything about it, fine. If not, why not establish that such documents
19 do exist and that you may interpret those documents in a different way
20 than Mr. Weber does. That's another matter. But that's apparently what
21 you want to bring to your attention.
22 From my observation only, you may understand that it is already
23 now brought to my attention that they exist. If you agree on that, we'll
24 have a look at it and that's --
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I agree. There's no need to make an
1 elephant out of a mosquito. We can just indicate to Your Honour what the
2 documents are in response to the Pupovac document. We don't actually
3 probably need the witness. We can bar table them with Your Honour's
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we would believe the most efficient
7 manner to do that is that if they are seeking individual documents from
8 these files, we would like the Chamber to be privy to the entire ones.
9 So if we could select additional documents in there --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, Mr. Weber says if you extract one
11 document from such a personnel file, that you might miss the whole of the
12 picture. You want to draw our attention that at least such documents do
13 exist and are found this those files. Would you oppose to then for the
14 context -- then submit the whole of that file in which at least one or
15 perhaps more documents are found which certainly go in a direction away
16 from Serbia?
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I think the -- I'll need to check
18 this, but I think the answer will be we won't object. What we do object
19 to, though, is the shifting position of the Prosecution who up until now
20 when its favoured them, they have been happy to select documents, but now
21 that it favours the Defence, they want the whole document, but --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You can ask for contextualisation and then we
23 would approach it in a similar way, but of course, most important at this
24 very moment is, can the witness add anything to that or not. I am afraid
25 that he might not be able to do it. If you have any reason to believe
1 that that is different, then I suggest that you put questions to the
2 witness in relation to that perhaps before even showing the document,
3 inquire whether he has any knowledge. If he has any, then the document
4 can be put to him, I would say. And if the witness has no knowledge, to
5 find another way of bringing to the attention of the Chamber that where
6 the Prosecution is linking Mr. Pupovac to the --
7 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] May I help you, Jordash?
8 MR. JORDASH: Probably best we do it confidentially, Mr.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that if Mr. Stanisic would
11 like to --
12 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] May I help you, Jordash?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stanisic, I give an opportunity to Mr. Jordash
14 to give a call to you and you will then be able to decide what you want
15 to bring to the attention of Mr. Jordash and whether Mr. Jordash finds it
16 wise then to bring it to the attention of the Chamber. You have an
17 opportunity to call. Madam Registrar has the number.
18 MR. JORDASH: Could I say this as well, Your Honour, that as far
19 as I'm concerned, Your Honours' approach is the better one. I don't
20 intend to put the documents to the witness. We'll bar table either the
21 documents we want or we'll go along with the Prosecution's suggestion and
22 put in the whole file, but we won't detain the witness on this issue
23 anymore, and that will be, subject to Mr. Stanisic's instructions, the
24 end of my re-examination.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then I think it would be wise to verify
1 whether those are Mr. Stanisic's instructions. I give you a moment to
2 make that phone contact with him.
3 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, I think I'll have to use that phone
4 there, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Since you are speaking English, don't speak too
6 loud, Mr. Jordash, or use a phone somewhere else in the building.
7 MR. JORDASH: I'll try here so that the Court isn't disturbed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'll keep my earphones on so we'll not hear you.
9 MR. JORDASH: But will Mr. Weber, though.
10 JUDGE ORIE: He will put his earphones on as well. Mr. Weber,
11 isn't it, we are closing our eyes for whatever Mr. Jordash tells ...
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We can hear Mr. Stanisic.
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Mr. Jordash, I do understand you are
15 now going to call Mr. Stanisic. It's important at the beginning of your
16 telephone conversation that you emphasise that Mr. Stanisic should switch
17 off the microphone which links him to this courtroom, otherwise we would
18 be privy of all the details of your conversation.
19 MR. JORDASH: I do.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We wait for a second until Mr. Jordash returns.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: I would like to ask one question and I'd like to
24 ask the witness the question concerning the nature of the document, the
25 format of the document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Fine.
2 MR. JORDASH: That's it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I take it that you've expressed some
4 concerns about using documents, but here it's apparently a matter of
5 possible authenticity issue or -- yes, and I think that's --
6 MR. WEBER: We agree, they are authentic.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but whether you agree or whether you disagree
8 with Mr. Jordash will become clear if we have heard his question and
9 perhaps the answer to it.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if that's going to be the case, we ask
11 that the question be posed in a very open-ended fashion and that any
12 comments be restricted to not contain anything about the substance of the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash has heard your request, and Mr. Jordash
15 is aware that he is using a document for the first time to that extent
16 finds himself in examining the witness in chief.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: Could we have please on the screen 1D05095.
19 MR. WEBER: I am sorry, but I do not think that this was one of
20 the ones that we even got notice of. I have 1D5083 to 1D5092.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: We have provided notice, but just to save time
23 let's go then to 1D05083.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if we could just have it noted for the
25 record that at this time we are not being put in a position to use other
1 materials in these files due to the timing and the fact that the other
2 materials are not uploaded.
3 MR. JORDASH: These were notified to the Prosecution yesterday.
4 And they are uploaded and they come from the Prosecution's own files.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Defence had an opportunity to
6 conduct a very lengthy direct examination over four hours --
7 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any specific question in relation to
8 this -- we'll consider any request for one or two additional questions in
9 relation to this.
10 Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, you've been in the -- you were in the DB for in
13 excess of 20 years, and what I want to ask you about is the format of
14 this document and whether you've seen this type of document and its
15 heading and its format during your time in the Serbian DB, emanating from
16 the Serbian DB?
17 JUDGE ORIE: We ask the witness now whether he is familiar with,
18 whether he has seen before this or similar documents.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've never in my life seen a
20 document like this before. I think -- I see this refers to the MUP of
22 MR. JORDASH:
23 Q. Forget for a moment its actual contents. Have you seen the
24 format before? Does this document -- sorry, let me start that again. Is
25 this --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, please be clear when you are talking
2 about format. Format is usually a standard form of a document. Now, you
3 say apart from the content, there's not much specific and standard in
4 here in you've never seen such a document before, so you should be very
5 clear on what exactly you then mean by format, because if you say it's
6 typewritten with the name of the authority to which it relates to the
7 left top corner, I could tell you that I've seen a million documents of
8 such kind. Whether there's any specific format in that at all is the
9 first question that came to my mind. This witness has never seen this or
10 any similar document before in his life. Could you please, if you have
11 any additional questions, be very focused on what exactly you mean and to
12 phrase your question with well-defined terms.
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. May I just consult with
14 Mr. Petrovic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. This is a document which purports to be a request to be admitted
19 into a service. Have you ever seen a request to be admitted into the
20 Serbian DB?
21 A. I did. I have, but that has nothing to do with this.
22 Q. And the document you've seen, requests to be admitted into the DB
23 service, could you describe how they differ from the document on the
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- that's already leading. You suggest that
1 there's a difference. They could be the same.
2 MR. JORDASH: The witness said he had nothing to do -- I'll
3 rephrase the question, if Your Honour thinks its leading.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. The documents that you've seen --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- you said you have seen requests to be
8 admitted in the DB of Serbia. Could you tell us when did you see that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Primarily in the last stage of my
10 work in the service. The last period of my work in the sector before
11 retirement. Before that, people were not admitted based on requests.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So in the later stages you say they were admitted
13 upon request?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the last stage. First of
15 all from the establishment of the security information agency onwards
16 until -- before that it was the service who would usually contact
17 potential recruits.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us when you said "from the
19 establishment of the security information agency onwards," could you give
20 that a date, a time-frame, month, year?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Recruiting younger people in the
22 BIA's interest in expanding began with a democratisation of society, that
23 would mean from 2001 onwards. When open announcements on the BIA website
24 were made.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say requests to be admitted into the
1 service in relation to Serbia, you know that from after the year 2000 and
2 not from any earlier year?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling you that requests as a
4 way to apply for a vacancy is something that I know about from 2001, when
5 vacancies were announced openly on the website, and then people were able
6 to contact the agency in this way.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any further questions?
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. What was the procedure, if you know, in 1992 for recruitment of
10 members of the DB?
11 A. The procedure was that the service itself identified persons in
12 whom they had an interest. They would be interviewed, and after the
13 interview, the conclusion would be made if the candidate was fit for
14 working in the service. And if the service decided that the candidate
15 was fit, the candidate was asked to write a CV.
16 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, I've got nothing further. Thank you,
17 Mr. Novakovic. Thank you, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, have the questions by Mr. Jordash
21 triggered any need to further questions.
22 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour, I would like to show one document
23 based on the last questions and also ask the witness if he is also
24 equally unfamiliar with something.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, there may be a lot of material where we
1 could ask the witness whether he is unfamiliar with it, then I have a --
2 yes, please.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6272,
4 page 12 of the B/C/S original and page 14 of the English translation.
5 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
6 Q. Sir, could you please take a look at the document that's before
7 you, and my question directly relates to the formatting, not the content,
8 but are you also unfamiliar or are you familiar with a heading or format
9 used like this by the Serbian DB based on your experiences through your
11 A. I'm absolutely not familiar with this.
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would just -- I believe
13 the rest of it the witness isn't needed for. We would ask that
14 Prosecution 65 ter 6272 and 6271 be considered in conjunction with any
15 submissions related to the documents.
16 MR. JORDASH: I don't know the full contents of this document, I
17 haven't had a chance to review it. We haven't been notified of it. We
18 would like the opportunity to see it first before advancing a position.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would also make
21 our position clearer in detail which we are not able to do now, but we
22 have a general comment about what we call personnel files here. There is
23 a major dilemma whether these are indeed personnel files or collections
24 of material that were developed and kept for an entirely different
25 purpose. We will discuss this later on in the case, but for the moment I
1 would like to make this distinction in terminology clear.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we have no definition yet of what
3 exactly a personnel file is but it's certainly a collection of documents
4 in relation to a person, and whether there's then a personnel file and
5 who put it together, that's a matter that the parties have ample
6 opportunity to further discuss.
7 Let me see, have numbers -- has a number been assigned to the
8 previous one. Do you tender that one, the one where the witness said he
9 had never seen that before --
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it that you would like to have the other
12 two documents to be in evidence as well, Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: Well, Your Honour, we'd ask that the -- for the other
14 document that was used by the Defence that the entire file be uploaded.
15 We'd have no objection to the admission of it with the entire file, and
16 then we would ask for 65 ter 6271 and 72 to be admitted to further put
17 that into context, and in all fairness to the Defence, I believe they
18 should have an opportunity to review the files.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep matters short at this moment. What I'm
20 going to do, I'm going to ask the Registrar to assign a number to the one
21 document taken from what you say was a personnel file, we mark it for
22 identification, we ask the parties to seek an agreement on what
23 contextualisation they would like to have. If you agree on it, we'll
24 then consider to have the one document replaced by the series or the
25 whole file in accordance with your agreement, and at the same time I'll
1 ask the Registrar to assign numbers to the other two documents. So we --
2 at this moment there are three individual documents which will be
3 assigned numbers, they will be marked for identification, and whether
4 that first one will later be replaced by a broader file or a series of
5 documents, we'll hear from you whether you could agree on that or not.
6 If not, the Chamber will decide on whether the whole of the file will be
7 admitted in addition to the one document filed, or a selected series of
8 it. We'll see that, but that's how we are going to proceed.
9 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, without detaining the Court, there are
10 375 files altogether and we are at this point in time considering how
11 best to present that material to Your Honours without overloading
12 Your Honours but presenting a fair picture of what those files contain.
13 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent the parties can agree -- could agree
14 on what would be a representative sample of such files, of course, we
15 would welcome any such agreement and then we'll decide.
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the three documents which we have
18 seen, the first one was the request for being admitted into the RSK unit
19 was number, could you please tell us the 65 ter number and then that
20 number assigned to it.
21 MR. JORDASH: I think it was 1D05083.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And that receives number?
23 THE REGISTRAR: Number D449, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And that should be under seal, not under seal. I
25 think we dealt with it in open court.
1 MR. JORDASH: Yes, strictly speaking, because there's the name of
2 somebody who I don't know might have ended up working for some
3 intelligence service.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know either, so it's ...
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, with respect to the Prosecution two
6 65 ter numbers, it's the entire files not just the document, just to make
7 the Chamber aware of that. And the document that was shown was okay to
8 be broadcast but we would ask that the 65 ter numbers be under seal.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so now there is confusion about the parties at
10 what 1D05083 stands for, that's only the one document. Yes. And then we
11 have two other documents and you are hereby instructed, Mr. Weber, as
12 matters stand now, to upload either under this number or on any other
13 number the two documents, the requests for admission, but now to the
14 Serbian organisation, to say so, separate for the time being, waiting for
15 any agreement between the parties, you may revisit the question and have
16 the entire file uploaded if there is no agreement with the Defence. So
17 you reserve that right. But those two documents and do we know which one
18 exactly they are?
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I've used the specific page of 6272 in
20 court which was page 12 of the original B/C/S and page 14 of the English
21 in e-court, so we can replace under a point 1 that specific page.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. WEBER: With respect to the other --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Page -- Madam Registrar, is it sufficiently clear to
25 you although not uploaded as such?
1 THE REGISTRAR: I'll try to repeat. So the page 12 in original,
2 14 in English translation of current 65 ter 6272, that will be uploaded
3 as 6272.1, 65 ter number, will receive a number, P3029, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification. And that one page
5 needs to be under seal, not to be under seal.
6 MR. WEBER: It does not need to be under seal.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, it does not need to be under seal. Yes.
8 MR. WEBER: With respect to the other one, the Prosecution is --
9 there's one entity being discussed and another entity being discussed and
10 the other file puts into context the two. So there's a document in that
11 that is not being offered because it's an admission for active service so
12 we would --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the witness -- I take it that this
14 witness will not be able to tell us anything about it. Apparently the
15 parties want to draw to our attention the various type of documents found
16 in files of which Mr. Petrovic says it's unsure whether we could call
17 them personnel files, but at least they are in there, and that the issue
18 you want to draw our attention to is that it's how to enter a service
19 from what state, what is the method in being employed, and the second is
20 in what organisation, was it a Serbian organisation, was it an SRK
21 organisation, in which the people were employed, the people to which
22 these files relate. That's the issue. And then I take it that apart
23 from any authenticity challenges, et cetera, that the parties could reach
24 an agreement to inform the Chamber in such a way that it assists us in
25 whatever direction but in better understanding what documents are there,
1 what they say, and of course then we'll have to evaluate what findings
2 they -- what kind of findings they would justify the Chamber to make. Is
3 that --
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions?
6 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, we have -- we appreciate very much
8 that you came to The Hague, that you've answered all the questions you
9 have, apart from that you have -- well, you have been a witness not only
10 telling us your testimony but also a witness of what happens in this
11 court on all kind of procedural matters. I would like to thank you very
12 much for coming to The Hague, for having answered the questions that were
13 put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return
14 home, luckily and hopefully even before the weekend rather than after the
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. With your leave, I
17 would like to address the Court, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, please you may briefly address the Court but
19 since I do not know what you are going to say, it might be that at a
20 moment I say please stop it. Please proceed.
21 * THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is about my previous stay here
22 in The Hague in 2008 because there was some discourse with this regard
23 just awhile ago.
24 JUDGE ORIE: This was a matter I think we dealt with in private
25 session and I think it's not appropriate. If you -- I'd rather leave it
1 out. Unless you say there is a something important for us to know, then
2 we move into private session first.
3 THE WITNESS: [Inter*pretation] I would kindly ask you --
4 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
5 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 One second.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, we are in private session. What
11 would you like to tell us?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will be literally short. In 2008
13 I was invited by the district court in Belgrade, court for war crimes,
14 and this was done through the agency that I worked on. They wanted me to
15 come to the premises of the court in Belgrade for an interview. I
16 voluntarily responded and I went to the office, and on two or three
17 occasions, I spoke to the inspectors' representative representing the
18 Prosecutor's Office. What I'm saying is that I went voluntarily in
19 keeping with the decision on the co-operation between Serbia and
20 The Hague Tribunal, the only request that I had at the time was this:
21 I -- they drafted a statement, I signed the statement and my only
22 requirement was to testify not as a Defence or a Prosecution witness, but
23 as a Chamber witness. And this is the only truth about the whole event.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think that we have dealt with this matter before.
25 There seems to be no disagreement among the parties about what in that
1 respect happened. Some of the terms are a bit unclear of when you are a
2 Chamber witness, I think we have set out the matter in sufficient detail,
3 there's no dispute about it, so I would like again to leave it to that.
4 We move again into open session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Mr. Novakovic, again, I wish you a safe return home again. We
9 adjourn and we will --
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: But before we adjourn, Mr. Novakovic, you may have
12 noticed that the Prosecution does not exclude for the possibility that
13 they would ask you or to call you again to testify. That's uncertain at
14 this moment. But out of caution, I would like to instruct you that until
15 that matter has been clarified, so either you are recalled or you receive
16 a message that you will not be recalled, that up until that moment, that
17 you would not speak with anyone about your testimony as you've given it
18 before the Tribunal or any testimony still to be given in the future. So
19 please don't communicate or speak about it.
20 We -- that's clear to you now. I take it?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn and we'll resume on Tuesday -- my agenda
23 is slightly different now, Tuesday will be the 10th -- 11th of October at
24 9.00 in the morning -- someone has changed my agenda programme in my
25 computer so I'm a bit lost. Tuesday, the 11th of October, quarter past
1 2.00, Courtroom II.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.05 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day of
4 October, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.
* The bold and italicised text was previously confidential pursuant to a redaction order of the Chamber. The status of this redaction order has been changed from confidential to public per Chamber's decision of 14 June 2012.
* The bold and italicised text was previously confidential pursuant to a redaction order of the Chamber. The status of this redaction order has been changed from confidential to public per Chamber's decision of 14 June 2012.