1 Wednesday, 12 October 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 There being no procedural issues, we can --
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Situation apparently has changed.
14 Mr. Bakrac, any procedural matter to raise?
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. Considering that
16 we are dealing with a videolink, I just wanted briefly for the record to
17 announce some -- a filing and a 54 bis. We have spoken to the Serbian
18 authorities, and we have a response to that. I have talked to Mr. Groome
19 and I just want to inform the Chamber that we are working on it and I
20 think it would be more appropriate to address you tomorrow after the
21 videolink is over. I don't want to take up too much of your time now,
22 because we have this videolink. Or perhaps tonight before the end of
23 working hours I would address you with the 54 bis motion regarding
24 Witness JP-057.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus -- well, Mr. Bakrac, it's not clear to me
1 why this had to be raised at this moment at all, but let's have a look at
2 any filing that is there.
3 Ms. Marcus.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, just one comment as to timing.
5 I've substantially reduced the number of questions that I intend to put
6 to the witness. My best guess normally would be approximately one
7 session. There is some unpredictability in the circumstances, but I
8 wanted to let everyone know about that. I did inform the Defence before
9 we began and in case the Chamber wishes to have the next witness ready
10 for the third session or ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, of course it depends on Mr. Jordash,
12 whether he has a witness ready.
13 MR. JORDASH: We had assumed he was going to start tomorrow. I
14 had arranged to see him this afternoon for a very short conference, but
15 potentially he could be ready. But our preference would be tomorrow.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, preference, but let's use our time. Of course
17 there's always some uncertainty in when another witness concludes his
18 evidence, but I would really appreciate and the Chamber would appreciate
19 if you would seek the witness to be ready later today in case we might
20 finish early.
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then good morning to you as well, Mr. Lekovic. Can
23 you hear me, can you see me?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President. I can
25 hear you very well and I can see you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I inquire with the booths in The Hague whether
2 the sound quality is better today than it was yesterday. I'm listening
3 to the English channel.
4 I don't have any response yet.
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear anything.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then I asked whether the sound quality from
7 the other side of the videolink is better today than it was yesterday.
8 THE INTERPRETER: There's still a lot of interference.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. To the extent the technicians can help us out,
10 they are invited to do so. We need working circumstances which are good
11 for everyone.
12 Mr. Lekovic, I would like to remind you that you are still bound
13 by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your
14 testimony, that is, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
15 nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: MILORAD LEKOVIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 [Witness testified via videolink]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac and Mr. Petrovic, do matters stand as
20 they stood yesterday, that you have no questions for the witness at this
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, precisely.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, are you ready to cross-examine the
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, you'll now be cross-examined by
2 Ms. Marcus. Ms. Marcus is counsel for the Prosecution. Would you please
3 very much focus your answers on what Ms. Marcus asks you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. I'll try to be as
5 rational in my answers as possible.
6 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Lekovic, can you see me and hear me clearly?
8 A. Yes, I can hear you and I can see you well.
9 Q. Mr. Lekovic, I have prepared very specific and focused questions
10 for you, all of which, perhaps with the exception of one or two, can be
11 answered with either a yes or a no. If I would like additional
12 clarification, I will ask you, and the Chamber will do so as well.
13 So I request, please, that you do not give explanations in
14 response to my questions but you simply answer yes or no. Do you
15 understand me?
16 A. Yes, I understand you.
17 Q. You yourself would not have initiated an investigation targeting
18 the accused Stanisic on your own initiative; is that correct?
19 A. Yes. I did not participate in that.
20 Q. To the best of your knowledge, Radmilo Bogdanovic would not have
21 undertaken an investigation targeting the accused Stanisic on his own
22 initiative; is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So it was Zoran Janackovic's initiative exclusively which led to
25 the establishment of the commission; is that correct?
1 A. Yes. Yes, at the insistence of Janackovic, a commission was set
2 up by Radmilo Bogdanovic.
3 Q. You were reluctant to take on the role of president of the
4 commission; is that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. You felt, as you say in your statement at paragraphs 18 and 19,
7 that since the aim of the establishment of the commission was the aim of
8 Janackovic, that he should preside over the commission; is that correct?
9 A. I suggested to Bogdanovic when we were discussing this, and when
10 he informed me that Janackovic was insisting that the commission be set
11 up, he said it would not be good for me to be even a member of the
12 commission, let alone the chairman. And then I said, as undersecretary
13 for state security, Janackovic could be the chairman if the issue at hand
14 was leakage of information from the MUP of Serbia, that's correct.
15 Q. And Bogdanovic agreed with you, but Janackovic refused, and thus
16 you were requested to take on that role; is that correct?
17 A. Yes. At first Radmilo agreed to my proposal, but ultimately he
18 caved in under pressure from Janackovic, and the commission was set up
19 with five members and I was even appointed chairman.
20 Q. Bogdanovic instructed you to carry it out as quickly as
21 possible --
22 MS. MARCUS: It seems, Your Honour, there's some problem with the
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I think that -- at least I can see the
1 witness at this moment.
2 MS. MARCUS:
3 Q. Mr. Lekovic, can hear me and see me?
4 A. I can hear you now, but I can't see you. I only see Ms. Marcus.
5 Q. Thank you. I'm going to repeat my last question. Bogdanovic
6 instructed you to carry out the work of the commission as quickly as
7 possible; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that's what was written in the decision, to set up the
9 commission which also defined its tasks.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I'd just like to verify whether, in the
11 videolink room, whether it is just a representative of the Registry, the
12 witness, and the technician that is present, because I see people walking
13 around. Could I be informed about ...
14 Could we re-establish the videolink.
15 Restoring the videolink apparently causes some problems.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: It is unclear how much time it will take to restore
18 the videolink connection. We will have a break, but everyone is expected
19 to remain standby as the Chamber will remain standby as well.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps this is the moment you would like to
22 make a submission. We could use the time for that. Please proceed.
23 And there were some submissions to be made by you as well,
24 Ms. Marcus. Let's see -- I hope, as a matter of fact, that there's
25 insufficient time for you to do it, but ...
1 Mr. Bakrac.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps we are
3 switching priorities now, but I wanted to ask you, since you suggested to
4 Mr. Jordash that he should bring the witness. I had an agreement last
8 I'm sorry, I thought that we were in private session, so I
9 mentioned the name. I'm very sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Ms. Marcus, and I mean no criticism,
12 informed us only this morning that she would take much less time in her
13 cross-examination, and that changes my possibilities of talking to the
14 witness who only arrived yesterday and was proofed by Mr. Jordash, and
15 that's why I wanted to ask the Chamber to delay the witness, not have him
16 start today, but to allow me to speak to him this afternoon.
17 The second thing, why I addressed you with 54 bis motion, the
18 reason is that the National Council for Co-operation has written to you
19 about their talks with us, and since these talks are not resulting in
20 anything for a very long time now, we were asked to inform the Chamber of
21 the outcome, and I thought I should just mention it without taking time
22 away from the videolink. That's why I only took a minute to remind you
23 that this issue is still outstanding.
24 My colleague Mr. Petrovic and I reviewed the documentation
25 regarding JF-057 during the break, and we saw that the Prosecution has
1 received all the documentation that the MUP has at this time, with some
2 redactions. As for our Defence team, we do not need unredacted versions.
3 And if the Prosecution agrees that we use redacted documents and that
4 they be admitted, we can then withdraw our submission under 54 bis.
5 Otherwise, we will require all the documentation unredacted, of course,
6 to be used in these proceedings.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I had a brief discussion with Mr. --
9 with the Simatovic Defence this morning. He informed me that he has seen
10 the unredacted document. I would like an opportunity to see specifically
11 the documents that he wants to tender, but I informed him that since it
12 was his exhibit, that he wanted to tender it, that I would not insist on
13 what's underneath the redaction. I would accept his representation that
14 it was simply the name of a person unrelated to this case who filled out
15 the paperwork.
16 If I have an opportunity to confirm that, then the Prosecution
17 will be deferring to the Chamber. I know the Chamber has a particular
18 policy with respect to redactions. It may, in fact, not accept the
19 document in a redacted form. But I informed Mr. Bakrac that I would not
20 insist on a redaction if I had an opportunity to discuss that with him
21 and verify that it was completely relevant to the case.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, I think the Chamber would then need
23 a similar confirmation by Mr. Bakrac as what is found under the
24 redactions. And I still do not fully understand why Mr. Bakrac is
25 allowed to look at the -- what's under the redactions and the Chamber
1 would not be, but let's -- if you have an agreement with Mr. Bakrac
2 finally, then you perhaps put it together to the Chamber and then in a
3 kind of a joint motion or joint submission, then the Chamber will
4 consider it.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. We will discuss
6 this issue. I just wanted to raise the issue of the 54 bis motion in
7 order not to leave you with the impression that nothing is being done and
8 that there is no progress. But I will try to make a joint submission
9 with Mr. Jordash.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I would choose Mr. Groome under these
12 But, Mr. Jordash, of course, your position in the matter is not
13 irrelevant either, so if you would please join the gentlemen in their
14 discussions or in their outcome of their discussions.
15 MR. JORDASH: We have drafted a Rule 54. We're going to file it.
16 I know I said we would file it on Friday, but things got delayed. But we
17 will file it either today or at the latest tomorrow. So it's ready with
18 voluminous annexes dealing with these issues.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. We'll then see what we find in there.
20 And, of course, to the extent matters could be resolved by mutual
21 agreement, of course that's preferred. But of course the Chamber would
22 have its own position in the matter as well.
23 Then let me inquire whether the videolink is restored yet.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you asked for some time. You had an
1 extension of time for one day. The only thing I'd like to know is
2 whether you are going to address us in open session, which has some
3 consequences for the witness in Belgrade. Because if you address us in
4 private session, we should empty the room in Belgrade in case the
5 videolink would be restored. If you address us in open session, there's
6 no need to do that.
7 MS. MARCUS: I do not see any reason why it needs to be in
8 private session. Both those witnesses were -- testified publicly, both
9 DST-070 and DST-072 testified publicly previously; although, I will say
10 that the motion was a confidential motion. So perhaps Mr. Jordash can
11 just confirm that with respect to the UN witnesses, they would be public
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes, the intention is.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, therefore, no action is in need to be taken in
15 Belgrade. Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
16 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 This is an oral response to the motion, the 92 bis motions, filed
18 by the Defence on the 27th of September, 2011, specifically with respect
19 to Witnesses DST-070 and DST-072.
20 The Prosecution does not oppose the 92 bis motion with respect to
21 DST-070. With respect to DST-072, we do oppose the motion but we do not
22 oppose the admission of the testimony and related exhibits of this
23 witness into evidence. However, we seek that the witness be required to
24 appear for cross-examination.
25 In this witness's proposed 92 bis evidence, referring to a video,
1 he says:
2 "So there's Professor Koljevic again. And the people in the
3 military uniforms that he's talking to, they are from the
4 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that is, Serbia, not Bosnia-Herzegovina,
5 and I understood that they were a special unit from their Ministry of the
6 Interior. And this is just prior to our release on the 18th of June, and
7 these soldiers or special police were there to provide an escort for us
8 into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
9 That -- end quote. That is from the Karadzic case, open session,
10 on the 2nd of February, 2011, at transcript 11134.
11 The relationship between this unit and the RS authorities is a
12 key issue in this case. This witness clearly has some knowledge of it,
13 knowledge that was not explored in his prior evidence. He may have
14 significantly more knowledge about how this unit was treated by the
15 RS authorities. For example, he may have witnessed interactions between
16 this unit and the RS military or police units. He may have seen the
17 treatment at check-points, observed the manner in which they crossed
18 borders, observed the demeanour of RS leaders toward them, et cetera.
19 Fairness requires that the Prosecution have the opportunity to examine
20 and test this knowledge.
21 Chambers have identified a number of discretionary factors,
22 militating in favour of a witness appearing for cross-examination. These
23 factors are listed in the Chamber's 7th October 2010 decision on the
24 Prosecution 92 bis motions at paragraph 35.
25 Application of those factors in this case supports the
1 Prosecution's application that DST-072 appear for cross. First, the acts
2 and conduct of the JATD are sufficiently close to the acts and conduct of
3 the accused to make it appropriate for a witness who testifies about them
4 to be required to attend for cross-examination. In this regard, the
5 Prosecution submits that this is similar to the situation of the two
6 Prosecution witnesses who were ordered to appear for cross-examination
7 pursuant to paragraph 51 of the Chamber's 7th October 2010 decision on
8 the Prosecution's 92 bis motions.
9 Second, this evidence does relate to a live and important issue
10 between the parties. The relationship of the DB special unit to the
11 RS authorities is clearly such an issue.
12 Third, this evidence is not cumulative in the sense of
13 Rule 92 bis (A), which defines cumulative evidence as evidence that other
14 witnesses have given in oral testimony.
15 Finally, the issue of the JATD's involvement in the release of
16 the UN hostages was not addressed at all in cross-examination in the
17 prior proceedings in which this witness testified. Therefore,
18 Your Honours, the Prosecution opposes the motion with respect to DST-072
19 and requests that the witness be called for cross-examination.
20 Your Honour, I have two other brief submissions. If we still
21 have time and if you grant me leave, I would seek to make them now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: As long as the videolink has not been restored, we
23 can use our time by hearing further submissions, so please proceed.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
25 The first submission is an order response to the 4th October 2011
1 motion by the Republic of Serbia for protective measures; that's for
2 DST-052, DST-036, and DST-083. Your Honours have already ruled with
3 respect to DST-052. With your leave, I would present our position with
4 respect to the other two witnesses, DST-036 and DST-083, right now.
5 Thank you.
6 The Chamber announced on the 7th of October that it would take
7 the same approach with DST-052 that was taken with DST-046. That was at
8 transcript page 14194. The Prosecution submits that this approach
9 strikes an appropriate balance between Serbia's interest in protecting
10 its national security and the right of the accused to a fair and public
11 trial. In response to Serbia's motion for protective measures for
12 DST-036 and DST-083, we thus request the Chamber to follow the same
13 approach that it has followed for DST-052 and DST-046.
14 In addition, we note that prior to the Chamber's decision to take
15 this approach we began hearing the evidence of DST-040, provisionally in
16 closed session. We request that the Chamber follow the approach taken
17 for the other witnesses in hearing the remainder of the evidence for
19 Finally, Your Honours, this is a brief submission in relation to
20 DST-060. On the 6th of June, 2011, the Stanisic Defence filed summaries
21 for its witnesses. DST-060 was listed as witness number 21 on this list.
22 The witness summary for DST-060 contains a brief paragraph which
23 references only one municipality and the year 1995. According to the
24 filing, DST-060 is scheduled to testify for four hours viva voce. On the
25 9th of June, 2011, the Prosecution filed an urgent motion related to the
1 non-compliance with Rules 65 ter (G) and Rule 67. In paragraphs 24 and
2 25 of this filing, the Prosecution outlined the problematic nature of
3 DST-060's witness summary and requested specific relief in
4 paragraph 33(d).
5 At this time, the Prosecution maintains its position with respect
6 to notice provided for DST-060. The Prosecution has not received any
7 statements or proofing notes for this witness. The Prosecution only
8 considers itself generally apprised of very limited facts that relate to
9 one specific location and one year. Based on the foregoing, the
10 Prosecution requests the Trial Chamber to instruct the Stanisic Defence
11 to either provide a witness statement or a more detailed witness summary
12 covering all the issues anticipated to be led through this witness, and
13 allow the Prosecution a reasonable period of time to further investigate
14 any facts that were not part of the original notice for DST-060.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
17 Mr. Jordash, if there is any matter on which you could
18 immediately respond, you are invited to do so. For example, the last
19 issue raised about DST-060. But any other matter, please feel free to do
21 MR. JORDASH: If I may address you briefly on DST-060 and also if
22 I may make an application to very briefly reply to the submissions made
23 in relation to DST-072. And I can do the latter within two or three
24 minutes, I think.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as long as the videolink is not restored,
1 please proceed.
2 MR. JORDASH: In relation to DST-060, as far as I am aware, his
3 evidence will relate to the one municipality and the one year. That
4 witness is a senior serving police officer and it's been extremely
5 difficult to meet him and obtain any details concerning that evidence.
6 We are in the process of trying to put together a statement to file a
7 Rule 92 ter motion. What I can say is that I sent an e-mail this morning
8 to Belgrade urging them to try again to meet him. With any luck we can
9 meet him in the next few days and he can sign the statement and we can
10 file the statement or serve a courtesy copy immediately.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The statement is drafted by now?
12 MR. JORDASH: It's drafted, but it hasn't been reviewed by the
13 witness. That's the position.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there is any way that you -- to the extent
15 that the draft statement gives further details, without, of course, going
16 into such a level of detail that the witness has to prove that, because
17 65 ter summary only reflects what you expect the witness to testify
18 about, it's not a final statement or anything like that, is there any way
19 that you could already meet some of the concerns of Ms. Marcus who
20 apparently is worried about the fact that she has a very short 65 ter
21 summary for four hours viva voce testimony?
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I'm sure that either we can -- I haven't
23 looked at the latest version of the statement, but I am sure that I can
24 commit to filing at least aspects of that and providing significantly
25 greater detail than the Prosecution have at this stage.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you say filing, but it's mainly disclosing
2 to --
3 MR. JORDASH: I mean disclosing, sorry, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- to Ms. Marcus.
5 Ms. Marcus, would it be wise to wait for one more day to see what
6 Mr. Jordash is going to reveal to you?
7 MS. MARCUS: Yes, I appreciate that. And if -- so by tomorrow,
8 is that my understanding, we can --
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, by tomorrow. Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: By tomorrow. Okay. That's agreed.
11 Any other response, Mr. Jordash?
12 MR. JORDASH: No. In relation to that, no. But if I may just --
13 JUDGE ORIE: DST-072?
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. JORDASH: If I may just briefly apply to reply.
17 In a reply, what we would submit, very briefly, is two things.
18 First of all, that the Chamber or certainly the Tribunal's jurisprudence
19 has taken a restrictive view of what constitutes acts and conducts of the
20 accused, and they are defined as personal acts and statements of an
21 accused and do not involve all conduct attributed to or related to an
22 accused or implicating an accused or concerning the underlying conduct or
23 crime-based charged, and I'm citing from Prosecutor versus Galic decision
24 on interlocutory appeal concerning Rule 92 bis, 7th of June, 2002.
25 We submit that the aspect of DST-072's evidence that my learned
1 friend is concerned about is a very, very long way away from the
2 accused's acts and conduct.
3 Secondly, even putting aside that issue, we submit that the
4 aspect of the evidence my learned friend is concerned with is of
5 negligible significance in the case at large. If the witness is called
6 and the witness says - and I think this is my learned friend's concern -
7 the special unit was given preferential treatment, people were respectful
8 to the unit when it crossed the border, it had no problem crossing the
9 border, it was a unit which was clearly treated with a degree of
10 courtesy, if not favour, that will not inform Your Honour of anything
11 other than an agreement had been reached between the Republika Srpska
12 authorities and the Republic of Serbia that this unit would be allowed to
13 escort the hostages to a safe place within Serbia.
14 That's as much as that evidence could ever say. An agreement had
15 been struck. I don't think there's any dispute that an agreement had
16 been struck. We say Mr. Stanisic was pivotal to that negotiation, and as
17 a result of that, all concerned parties had been informed that this unit
18 would remove the hostages and should not be prevented from doing so.
19 That is as much as that witness is ever going to be able to say. That is
20 as significant as that evidence is ever going to be.
21 Those are our submissions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash. We'll consider the matter.
23 I hear promising telephone sounds. I better would have said I
24 hear telephone sounds.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
1 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I would just note for the
2 record at this point, rather than at the end of the witness's testimony,
3 that we have received a partial response to our RFA in relation to this
4 witness, that's Mr. Lekovic, and we are following up on that. As with
5 the other pending partial responses in relation to other witnesses, we
6 may need to seek leave to recall the witness if anything critical turns
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's clear that you cannot anticipate on what
9 you do not know yet.
10 I wish I could order someone to answer the phone, unfortunately
11 I'm not in that position. We'll -- I'm just thinking about what would be
12 best to do, if we -- I suggest that we take a break, that everyone remain
13 standby. But if the break and if the -- takes more than 20 to
14 25 minutes, that we would then consider that to be the first long break
15 and make it half an hour. So if the videolink would not be restored
16 before quarter past 10.00 then we would restart as soon as the videolink
17 is restored but not earlier than 20 minutes past 10.00.
18 We have a break of unknown length.
19 --- Break taken at 9.49 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.26 a.m.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber had on its mind to immediately proceed,
23 that's why we entered the courtroom. But we -- nevertheless we need
24 three or four more minutes to deal with the matter. And I apologise
25 because this is not the efficiency which we require from the parties, so
1 we are -- it's a clear shortcoming of the Chamber. Is that clear in
2 Belgrade as well, that we take another three or four minutes?
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We take a very short break.
5 --- Break taken at 10.29 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.37 a.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, the Chamber still owes you a decision on
8 your last request to postpone the start of the testimony of the next
9 witness. The Chamber has considered it. A similar request was made by
10 Mr. Jordash and was denied. On the basis of your submissions, the
11 Chamber finds no reasons to grant your request, which means that we'll
12 start with the witness as soon as we have concluded the testimony of the
13 present witness.
14 The videolink is working again. The microphone is now switched
15 on, as I see it.
16 Ms. Marcus, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Lekovic, can you hear me clearly?
21 A. [No interpretation]
22 Q. Based upon your analysis in the commission of the analytical
23 materials and the commission's interview with Bogdanovic, there was a
24 conclusion that there had been no wrong-doing on the part of the accused
25 Stanisic; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, in relation to the next series of
3 questions where I intended to mention the names of the other commission
4 members, I discussed with the Defence in advance, they told me that none
5 of them are active members of the service, so I am not going to seek
6 leave to move into private session for those questions.
7 Could we please have Exhibit D288 MFI, not to be shown to the
8 public. Page 30 in English; page 30 to 31 in B/C/S.
9 Q. Mr. Lekovic, at this page in this report which you drafted you
10 discuss the meeting of the commission on the 22nd of May, 1991, the day
11 after interviewing Bogdanovic. And you describe how the commission
12 became polarised. In particular, you wanted to continue the commission's
13 work, whereas the other commission members, Marko Lazovic, Punisa Djuknic
14 or Djukic, and Milun Miljkovic, wanted to wrap it up as quickly and
15 briefly as possible; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Just for the purpose of the record, Mr. Lekovic, we have some
18 documents that name Punisa Djukic as "Djukic" and some as "Djuknic."
19 Which was his correct name or did he use both interchangeably?
20 A. No, his true family name is Djukic. You will find it in the
21 decision on the setting up of the commission which also sets out the
22 names of the commission members. So the name is Djukic, not Djuknic.
23 Q. Thank you very much. Now, in fact, there has been other evidence
24 in this case that you and Janackovic were the only ones who wanted to
25 continue the work of the commission after May 1991 and even to restart it
1 in another form. Do you agree with this?
2 A. I have to emphasise here that Zoran Janackovic and myself were
3 not on the same wavelength, as it were, with this regard. But as the
4 commission president or chairperson, I had to advocate the prolongation
5 of the work of the commission to close the circle, to wrap it up
6 properly, and to provide an adequate evaluation. That's why I insisted
7 that the commission either continued its work or that it be stated that
8 the commission had stopped working and it was up to those who had set it
9 up and who were supposed to evaluate its work to say whether the
10 commission's work was of some use or not.
11 Q. You wanted to continue the work of the commission after its final
12 report was submitted in May 1991; is that correct?
13 A. No. The report that was submitted by the commission to the
14 republican secretary with an accompanying note was signed by all the five
15 members of the commission. In the meantime, the secretary had changed.
16 Bogdanovic was replaced by Sokolovic. And the only thing I requested was
17 for somebody to call up the commission and to say, You did your job as
18 you should have done it and hereby you will stop working. I did not
19 insist on the reinstating of the commission or the continuation of its
20 work because we had provided a report. I just wanted the circle to be
21 closed and that somebody competent, in this case it was the secretary, to
22 hold a meeting with the commission members and Jovica Stanisic and
23 Zoran Janackovic and other people from the top echelons of the MUP. I
24 wanted to hear the secretary to voice his opinion on our work and on our
25 report, and the secretary told me, I don't want to deal with that.
1 Radmilo Bogdanovic started it, that was during his term of office, I
2 don't want to deal with that. So I had to insist, as the president of
3 the commission, although it was started by the previous person, it had to
4 be finished by his successor. And in that sense I insisted not on the
5 continuation of the commission's work.
6 I even said that if the commission's report was not valid and
7 that the new commission had to be set up, that none of the old members
8 should be members of the newly set up commission, that that new
9 commission should comprise new members who would be in a position to
10 draft a better report at the end of their work.
11 Q. We understand that you sought an official decision ending the
12 commission's work. My question to you is: The commission as comprised,
13 in fact, ceased functioning after the 23rd of May, 1991; is that correct?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me or Mrs. Marcus,
15 Mr. President?
16 MS. MARCUS:
17 Q. Mr. Lekovic --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking anything. Ms. Marcus is putting this
19 question to you. Mr. Lekovic, you -- the questions are put to you
20 through the intermediary of interpreters and sometimes it is a man and
21 sometimes it's a woman. So if you hear a man's voice, it is not my voice
22 but it's the voice of the male interpreter.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ah, I apologise. I'm sorry.
24 The commission submitted its report, you have the date when the
25 report was drafted and when it was forwarded to the republican
1 secretariat with an accompanying note. With that the commission did not
2 cease to exist. This is what I'm trying to explain. It only submitted a
3 report. Somebody was supposed to look at that report and evaluate it.
4 And just like a decision had been made on the setting up of the
5 commission, its tasks and its members, somebody also should have made a
6 decision on the cessation of its work. It should have been done
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, witness, if you would focus on the question
9 that was put to you, is whether "The commission as comprised, in fact,
10 ceased functioning after the 23rd of May ..." So irrespective of whether
11 you considered it necessary to have a decision taken, but whether in fact
12 it ceased working, functioning after the 23rd of May, 1991. That was the
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, the fact that it
15 ceased its operations on the 23rd of May, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Milun Mirkovic was not involved in any additional tasks in
19 relation to this subject matter after --
20 A. Not "Mirkovic," but "Miljkovic."
21 Q. Pardon my pronunciation. Milun Miljkovic was not involved in any
22 additional tasks --
23 A. Miljkovic.
24 Q. He was not involved in any additional tasks in relation to this
25 subject matter after May 1991; is that correct?
1 A. Milun Miljkovic was a commission member. He was also an advisor
2 to the chief of administration of the state security for the city of
3 Belgrade. That means that he was my advisor, as a matter of fact. After
4 the 23rd of May, he did not have any particular duties, at least
5 according to what I know as the president of the commission. He was only
6 working on his current tasks, his normal tasks. That was all.
7 Q. Punisa Djukic was not involved in any additional tasks in
8 relation to this subject matter, the subject matter of the commission,
9 after May 1991; is that correct?
10 A. As far as I know, that's correct, because Punisa Djukic was the
11 chief of the organisational unit in Sabac, or, in other words, the
12 security centre in Sabac. As far as I know, he did not have any special
13 tasks with this regard.
14 Q. Mr. Lekovic, if you you can please answer my questions with a
15 "yes" or a "no," I would greatly appreciate it.
16 Marko Lazovic was not involved in any additional tasks in
17 relation to this subject matter after May 1991; is that correct?
18 A. As far as I know, that is not correct, at least as a commission
19 member and at least according to what I was supposed to know as the
20 commission's president.
21 Q. Zarko [sic] Kostic was not involved in any additional tasks in
22 relation to this subject matter after May 1991; is that correct?
23 A. It was not Zarko Kostic. If you look at the decision, you will
24 see that it says Kostic was a commission member and he was also a chief,
25 like Djukic was the chief of the security centre in Sabac. The former
1 one was the chief of the organisational unit in Kraljevo, and a
2 commission member.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question, witness.
4 Mr. Kostic, it was put to you that he -- Mr. Kostic "was not involved in
5 any additional tasks in relation to this subject matter after May 1991;
6 is that correct?"
7 Yes or no?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And for the previous witness -- for the previous
10 name mentioned, Mr. Lekovic, you said that as far as Mr. Lazovic was
11 concerned that it is not correct that he was not involved in any
12 additional tasks in relation to this subject matter after May 1991.
13 Ms. Marcus, are you going to give any --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I answered that -- I answered
15 that I don't know, because Marko Lazovic was working in the headquarters
16 of the service.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you don't know. That's an answer.
18 Ms. Marcus.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So, yes, I don't know.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MS. MARCUS:
22 Q. To clarify this, first of all maybe I should correct: It's not
23 Zarko Kostic, it's Zivko Kostic, according to the commission report.
24 That was my error.
25 Now, in terms --
1 A. Zivko, yes, you're right. Zivko is his name.
2 Q. With respect to Marko Lazovic, you are not aware of any
3 activities that he undertook after May 1991 in relation to the subject
4 matter of the commission; is that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And then the same would go for Zivko Kostic; is that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Yesterday you stated that:
9 "When Zoran Janackovic became head of the service,
10 Jovica Stanisic was bypassed whenever that was possible."
11 You were asked: "Why was that?"
12 And your answer was: "It was not only my impression. It was an
13 impression shared by others in the service."
14 This was your impression, you say. When you say "bypassed," do
15 you mean that Janackovic ignored Stanisic at meetings and refused to
16 greet him?
17 A. Not only did he not greet him, at meetings he tried not to give
18 him a chance to have his voice heard. And then in between the meetings
19 one could see that things were not functioning as they were supposed to
20 function, and the chief of service was the main factor in that kind of
22 Q. To your knowledge, what was the frequency of the interaction
23 between Milun Miljkovic and the accused Stanisic between May and
24 September of 1991?
25 A. Milun Miljkovic was still an advisor to the chief of the
1 administration for the city of Belgrade. And Jovica Stanisic obviously
2 had the right to interact and to co-operate. I don't know whether they
3 had any particular conversations, what they spoke about, and they were
4 from the top echelons of their respective services. I really wouldn't be
5 able to tell you what they talked about when they did see each other.
6 Q. I take it from your answer that you are also not able to tell us
7 anything about how many times Miljkovic and Stanisic may have met between
8 May and September of 1991. Do I understand your evidence correctly?
9 A. Yes, you understood my evidence correctly.
10 Q. To your knowledge, did Milun Miljkovic engage in any activities
11 in relation to the DB outside of the territory of Serbia?
12 A. DB in? Could you please repeat?
13 Q. I'll repeat the question. Would you need me to repeat the
14 question, Mr. Lekovic?
15 A. No, no, actually not. Milun Miljkovic, before he became my
16 advisor, was the chief of one of the departments in the Belgrade
17 administration. When he became an advisor to the chief of the
18 administration, he was given certain tasks. I don't know whether he also
19 had tasks that took him out of the DB of Serbia or not related to the DB
20 of Serbia. And the chief of the service in Serbia or somebody from the
21 top echelons had a right to call an operative or one of the leading
22 people and give them a task and by doing so they could circumvent me. In
23 other words, they didn't have to inform me about that.
24 In other words, I can't give you an answer to the question
25 whether Mr. Milun Miljkovic had certain tasks beyond the DB of Serbia or
1 whether he had to perform some duties given to him by somebody.
2 Q. My specific question was: Are you aware of any activities that
3 Miljkovic engaged in, in relation to his work within the DB, activities
4 that he engaged in with the DB outside the territory of Serbia?
5 A. I don't know about that. In fact, I didn't know about it, so I
6 can't say anything nor can I give a more precise answer.
7 Q. Mr. Lekovic, the work of the DB is carried out under a policy of
8 secrecy; is that correct?
9 A. Well, according to the rules of the service and our methodology,
10 most of our activities and work are done in secrecy.
11 Q. Yesterday you stated that:
12 "... most of the people were happy when Jovica Stanisic was
13 appointed chief of service because everybody knew that he was a
14 professional, somebody who was very familiar with the inner workings of
15 the service ..."
16 You also testified that Janackovic, just like you, was an
17 outsider to the service.
18 Since Stanisic was a professional and experienced DB official and
19 operative and Janackovic was not, it would have been quite easy for
20 Stanisic to continue to carry out covert actions without Janackovic
21 knowing; would you agree?
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, can I just object. I think a time-frame
23 should be given so that we're clear about the answer.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
1 Q. I'm talking about the time during which the commission was
2 functioning. Your evidence is that that was April to May, but I would
3 extend the time through to August or September 1991.
4 A. Those words that you are quoting, I wish them to be understood
5 properly. Stanisic is a man who was a career serviceman, starting from
6 the lowest and going to the highest level, did not abuse any of his
7 underlings and he didn't play any games with Janackovic to get to his
8 position as chief of the service, and his work was no secret to anyone in
9 the service. It's secret for the public, but not to Janackovic. It
10 doesn't mean that Janackovic was unable to get Stanisic to get some of
11 the operatives involved in particular tasks.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, what happens now is to some extent the
13 result of what you're asking from the witness. You're asking whether he
14 would have, due to his professional experience against someone who was
15 not a professional, whether he would be able to. So you're asking for a
16 possibility, where, of course, witnesses expect you to ask about their
17 knowledge, what they observed, et cetera.
18 It is a kind of an assessment or judgement you're asking, rather
19 than finding facts. So either rephrase your question or ask for specific
20 facts, whether he has any knowledge.
21 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. I will return to this in a different
22 way, Your Honour. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
24 MS. MARCUS:
25 Q. Mr. Lekovic, to your knowledge, there were no DB regulations
1 which would have banned an individual whose work is supervised by a
2 commission from any work, were there?
3 A. You mean the commission that I chaired?
4 Q. Any commission, sir.
5 A. Well, there were no other commissions. We know all very well how
6 the service is regulated, governed by the rules. It's based on the
7 territorial principle. And there were organisational units covering
8 certain territories --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continued] Witness --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And in the head office of the
11 service, there were various administrations and lines of work.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, could you please focus on the question.
13 That is: Was there any rule which banned Mr. Stanisic, when a commission
14 was established, to supervise or investigate his conduct? I mean, a rule
15 which banned Mr. Stanisic from performing his duties.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With all due apologies, I must say
17 that the question is phrased a bit strangely. There was no rule that was
18 introduced, introduced then or that existed earlier, to set up the
19 commission in that way with those people. And regardless of the way the
20 question is phrased, I want to say that in the course of the work of the
21 commission there was no rule banning Jovica from appearing at the head
22 office, from showing up at work, occupying his work-place, or receiving
23 his salary.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So the simple answer is --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said yesterday that a suggestion
1 had been made to -- for him to take a vacation while the commission is
3 JUDGE ORIE: So the simple answer is: "No, such a rule did not
4 exist." And we heard your testimony of yesterday that he could have
5 taken a vacation; he was not required to show up at work by his chief at
6 the time.
7 Ms. Marcus --
8 Could you again try to focus on the question and first answer
9 that. And if any further explanation is needed, Ms. Marcus will ask you
10 for such explanation.
11 MS. MARCUS: I would like to just refer the Chamber to the
12 evidence of DST-035 at transcript page 12255 to -56 dated the
13 4th of July, 2011.
14 Q. Mr. Lekovic, based upon your observations of Jovica Stanisic, did
15 you view him as the kind of operative who would abandon his professional
16 engagements and responsibilities while some political appointees
17 investigate baseless charges against him?
18 A. This is a question that's a bit more complex, but let me try to
19 give a brief answer.
20 Although there was talk even in the service that a commission had
21 been set up with a task of putting Jovica Stanisic on the carpet and that
22 the chief had something against him, even during the work of the
23 commission Jovica Stanisic remained what he was, a man of integrity. He
24 never interfered with the commission or put any pressure on any member of
25 the commission. He remained honourable and he cared very much about
1 that, which I appreciated a lot. We had graduated from the same
2 university school, although we didn't know each other as students, and
3 the impression I had was that he was very stoic about the decision to set
4 up the commission. He didn't know whether any sort of sanction would be
5 proposed against him or what kind of report the commission would write.
6 So as a man and as a professional of the service, he had my respect for
7 that. And he didn't ever try to impeach me as a political appointee just
8 because I was not one of them.
9 I'm sorry that I had to give a more extensive answer, but the
10 question is rather complex and rather strangely phrased.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, there's no need to comment on how a
12 question is phrased. We leave that to the counsel that put questions to
13 you, or sometimes even the Chamber.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. MARCUS:
16 Q. You are not aware of the extent of the interaction between
17 Slobodan Milosevic and the accused Stanisic during May through
18 July of 1991; is that correct?
19 A. No, I had no particular knowledge about that, nor did I get
20 involved in any sort of information of that kind.
21 Q. You are not aware of any meetings between the accused Stanisic,
22 Goran Hadzic, and Slobodan Milosevic on several occasions between May and
23 August 1991; is that correct?
24 A. Correct, I don't know. I'm not aware.
25 MS. MARCUS: I note for the record the transcript dated
1 28th June, 2010, at pages 5972 to 5973.
2 Q. Mr. Lekovic, you are not aware of a May 1991 meeting between
3 Stanisic, Simatovic, Babic, Martic, and Karadzic in Sarajevo; is that
5 A. Correct, I'm not aware.
6 Q. According to evidence presented in this case, in February or
7 March of 1991 the accused Stanisic, the accused Simatovic, and
8 Milan Martic met with Minister Bogdanovic in his office. You are not
9 aware of this; is that correct?
10 A. I don't know if that meeting ever took place, and I don't know
11 anything about the meeting.
12 MS. MARCUS: I refer Your Honours to Exhibit P978, paragraph 36.
13 Q. And you are also not aware of a meeting in the MUP in Belgrade in
14 Minister Bogdanovic's office between Bogdanovic, Stanisic, and
15 Janko Milakovic which reportedly took place sometime between May and
16 July of 1991; is that correct?
17 A. I was not informed along any line of work, and I don't know if
18 that meeting ever happened.
19 Q. There has been evidence --
20 MS. MARCUS: Before I continue, I refer Your Honours to
21 Exhibit P402, e-court pages 21 to 30.
22 Q. There has been evidence in this case that in April 1991
23 Radmilo Bogdanovic, Janko Milakovic, Ilija Kojic, and the
24 accused Stanisic held a meeting to discuss the establishment of the
25 police force in SAO SBWS. You are not aware of this meeting; is that
2 A. I don't know about that meeting.
3 MS. MARCUS: I refer Your Honours to transcript dated
4 3rd of May -- 3 May, 2010, at pages 4647 to 4651.
5 Q. Mr. Lekovic, in fact, you do not have any direct knowledge
6 regarding the accused Stanisic's movements between April and
7 July of 1991; isn't that right?
8 A. Well, it was not my job to know about Stanisic's movements and
9 where he could have been in that period of time, what places he could
10 have visited. He had the position that he had in the service. And as
11 for meetings of the kind you mention, with Radmilo Bogdanovic, I was not
12 invited, nor did I have access to such information, nor did I try to find
13 out. I was not interested.
14 Q. So your answer is no, you did not have any such direct knowledge?
15 A. So, no, I did not have any direct knowledge.
16 Q. You do not have any direct knowledge as to how often the
17 accused Stanisic met with the accused Simatovic between April and
18 July of 1991; is that correct?
19 A. In the period you mention, Simatovic, as far as I'm able to
20 remember, and I can't trust my memory 100 per cent, had some tasks in
21 Kosovo, operative work that took him to Kosovo to collect some
22 information, so I don't know how often and if Stanisic and Simatovic met.
23 Q. You do not have any direct knowledge as to meetings between the
24 accused Stanisic and Milan Martic between April and July of 1991; is that
1 A. I know that in April and May the commission we've discussed was
2 active. And throughout the work of the commission, Jovica Stanisic was
3 at the head office of the service, but I can't say whether he met with
4 Martic or not. I just don't have that kind of information.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, could I again invite you to consider
6 whether you can answer a question by "yes" or "no," because a yes, that
7 it is correct that you have no direct knowledge, appears from your
8 answer. Ms. Marcus is trying to be very focused and trying to be as
9 efficient as possible, could you please assist her.
10 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
11 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Lekovic, you do not have --
13 A. I apologise, but I have to respond to this. If we are talking
14 about the period of April and May, we're talking about Jovica Stanisic
15 from two different angles --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, witness --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was in the sights of the
18 commission that I led --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you here. The answer -- it
20 appears clearly from the answer that you have no direct knowledge;
21 therefore, what Ms. Marcus did put to you was correct and you could have
22 just confirmed that. If at the end of your testimony you think that we
23 are missing something which is very important, then you may have one or
24 two or three minutes to address those matters.
25 Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
1 And, Mr. Lekovic, please refrain from commenting on rulings I
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Lekovic, you do not have any direct knowledge as to how often
6 the accused Stanisic travelled to Knin between April and July of 1991; is
7 that correct?
8 A. Correct, I don't have that knowledge.
9 Q. You do not have any direct knowledge as to how often the accused
10 Stanisic travelled to the SBWS region of Croatia between April and
11 July of 1991; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. In fact, you do not actually have any direct knowledge regarding
14 the activities of the accused Stanisic between April and July of 1991; is
15 that your evidence?
16 A. Yes. But despite all the criticism I received from
17 Mr. President, I must say I did not have the duty to know about the
18 movements of Mr. Stanisic. And I do not have that knowledge. That's my
19 answer to your question.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, no one talks about you having a duty.
21 We are interested in what you observed, whether you have any direct
22 knowledge. You are not in any way criticised for whether or not you had
23 to do any such thing. Let that be clear.
24 Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: I refer the Chamber to Exhibit D270, paragraph 58;
1 D271; and D289. As well as to the transcript at the 30th of June, 2011,
2 at pages 12179 to eight -- to -80, in reference to the work of the
4 Thank you, Mr. Lekovic, I have no further questions.
5 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I do think what my learned friend has just
6 done -- I don't think the witness needs to hear this, but I do think what
7 my learned friend has just done in listing transcripts is somewhat
8 unfair. I don't know what these transcripts say. I don't know what the
9 relevance is to my learned friend's cross-examination. We were not, as
10 far as I'm aware, told what the relevance is. And, in fact, what we've
11 had is a long list of questions of what the witness isn't aware of
12 without saying from the Prosecution what it is they say Stanisic did and
13 what it is the witness failed to notice or was not in a position to
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, whether it's fair or unfair, I would
16 say, first of all, what Ms. Marcus did is to inform the Chamber about the
17 context in which we -- in which she put the questions to the witness. Of
18 course, I do not know them either. I think, as a matter of fact, it's
19 perfectly fair for you to know that already at this point in time that
20 Ms. Marcus will connect the answers to other evidence and even give you
21 an opportunity now to look at that evidence so as to assist you in
22 preparing for any further questions in re-examination. That's one.
23 Second, if I remember well, you always very much insisted,
24 whether or not the Chamber supports that position, that the Prosecution
25 should always put to the witness or at least elicit from the witness
1 evidence on what they could possibly tell about what apparently would be,
2 if the witness knows, either in support of or contradicting its case. I
3 think, to that extent, Ms. Marcus has done what you insisted. And,
4 again, I'm refraining from any position of the Chamber in this respect.
5 What you always urged the Prosecution to do.
6 MR. JORDASH: Was to put a positive case, not do what has just
7 happened, which is to put what the witness isn't aware of but without
8 saying what it is the witness should have been aware of or might have
9 been aware of.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If what Ms. Marcus did is to explore whether the
11 witness has any knowledge, knowledge that could possibly contradict the
12 Prosecution's case, in which case if this is at least to be considered as
13 eliciting evidence in support of the Prosecution's case rather than to
14 deal with matters which were touched upon in chief, but if the witness
15 says, I do not know, lack of knowledge is not contradicting the
16 Prosecution's case as far as I can see now, because the Prosecution's
17 case is not that Mr. Lekovic has knowledge about certain activities, but
18 the Prosecution's case is about activities.
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour's completely -- I can see
20 Your Honour is completely against me, and that's --
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not against you --
22 MR. JORDASH: But what I would, just for the record, say, that in
23 our submission what the right approach would have been, to identify what
24 the Prosecution's case is in relation to meetings and so on with various
25 prominent people, put it to the witness in a concrete form, and allow
1 Your Honours to see what, if anything, the witness could say about it and
2 so that Your Honours could understand properly the witness's lack of
3 knowledge and the significance of it. But I'll leave it there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash, I object against a expression
5 that I would be against you. I certainly disagree with you; that's a bit
6 different phrasing. The matter, of course, is a matter which has come up
7 many, many times. The Chamber has asked the parties for guidance on how
8 to conduct cross-examination, especially in relation to Rule - what is
9 it? - 90(H)(ii), I think it is. That guidance or that decision is about
10 to be issued. So therefore you'll find the Chamber's position in
11 relation to these matters in quite some detail in a decision which is in
12 its latest stages of preparation.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes. I meant nothing when I said that Your Honour
14 is against. It's an English phrase, and old habits die hard.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's accepted, Mr. Jordash.
16 Then Prosecution has no further questions.
17 Mr. Bakrac, have the questions by the Prosecution triggered any
18 need for you to put additional questions to the witness -- or to put
19 questions to the witness?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I still don't know. I
21 did not want to interrupt my learned friend, Ms. Marcus. However, on
22 pages 31 and 32 when Ms. Marcus asked him about various meetings, she
23 also provided us with references to P evidence. However, she asked the
24 witness about a meeting that took place in May 1991 involving Babic,
25 Karadzic, Martic, and others in Sarajevo, that's pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. We
1 were not provided with a reference. She did not tell us what the basis
2 was for the question. We would like to be provided with the reference.
3 We would like to look at the document during the break. And since the
4 witness responded and said that he remembers where Mr. Simatovic was in
5 1991, we might have questions for the witness, but we don't have any
6 references as to the basis for the Prosecutor's question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, could you assist Mr. Bakrac? Or was it
8 that you just wanted to exclude ...
9 MS. MARCUS: I will do my best, Your Honour, to find that and
10 provide it to him within the next few minutes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Any other questions at this moment, Mr. Bakrac?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Apart from this,
14 we have no other questions.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a request to be given two
16 additional minutes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, it's your witness. Would you --
18 perhaps it would be good to give the witness an opportunity to say
19 something for two minutes so that you -- if it triggers any need for
20 further questions, that you know about it.
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And I would then apply for a short
22 adjournment to just check these transcripts to see if there's anything
23 there which I'd like to ask the witness about.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But let's first give an opportunity to the
1 You asked for two minutes, Mr. Lekovic. I'm very generous; I
2 grant you four minutes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President,
4 for this time. But in the interests of truth and justice, I accepted to
5 testify as a Defence witness because I was a member of the commission
6 that we discussed.
7 Second, Madam Prosecutor, Mrs. Marcus, put certain questions to
8 me that I found confusing and I understood they were tendentious, and
9 they tend to disqualify my evidence yesterday and today. This insistence
10 on those meetings and saying that Stanisic was somewhere, in some places,
11 with some people, I want to support Mr. Wayne in his comment --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, Mr. Lekovic, I'm going to stop you. I
13 gave you an opportunity to bring further information you have available
14 to our attention. I did not give you the four minutes to comment and
15 criticise on the way in which the examination was conducted. Please,
16 please. There was one matter which, however, may be --
17 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, would you -- please do not interrupt
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, there was one observation you made
22 which was about questions being confusing. If there's any question
23 that --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tendentious.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Lekovic, I limited my observations to
1 what you said about confusing questions. If there has been any question
2 which was confusing you, I would have expected you to ask for a
3 clarification so as to take away the confusion. If there's any question
4 at this moment you remember that you -- that confused you and where you
5 would like to seek clarification in order to verify whether the answer
6 you've given is given in a right understanding of what the question was,
7 you may specifically address any such questions. Apart from that, you
8 can add whatever knowledge you have about the events at the time which
9 you consider necessary for us to know, and you are not allowed to comment
10 and criticise on the way in which the parties have conducted their
12 So, please proceed. Do you have any question clearly on your
13 mind which you say that confused you? because then I'll invite the party
14 that put that question to you to put it again to you in a clearer way.
15 Is there any such question?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you again for
17 the time you have given me. I agree with Mr. Wayne and I think that some
18 questions -- I'm not criticising the Prosecutor, I'm not criticising
19 Madam Prosecutor who put questions to me on behalf of the Prosecution,
20 but some of the questions were not fair. From the aspect of my role as a
21 witness, I'm not here to testify about all areas. I'm not here to answer
22 all of the different questions. And as to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, Mr. Lekovic --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would -- I wanted us to
25 understand each other. I wanted to clarify things in that respect.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, I specifically asked you whether there
2 was any question that you now remember confused you so that it can be put
3 again to you. If questions are unfair, it's the other party - that is,
4 if these are questions by the Prosecution, it will be the Defence; or if
5 it is the Defence, it will be the Prosecution - which will object to such
6 a question considered to be unfair.
7 Therefore, I repeat my question to you: Do you remember at this
8 moment any question you considered was confusing you which may have
9 impacted on your answer? So I'm not seeking any general comments on
10 questions, but whether there was any specific question you now say, That
11 confused me. Please tell us what questions it was, and I'll invite the
12 parties to put that question again to you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a question about my
14 knowledge about a meeting in Radmilo Bogdanovic's office where Stanisic,
15 Martinic [as interpreted], and others were present; that was one
16 confusing witness [as interpreted], and the interpretation was that the
17 witness was not aware of the meeting hence the answer was incomplete. I
18 was confused about that as well as with the questions about Krajina
19 and ... just bear with me, please.
20 So those questions were confusing, and my answers were not -- I
21 was not avoiding answers. I was surprised that my answers were
22 interpreted as the witness not being aware of things or that the witness
23 was avoiding to provide an objective or correct answer.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any concern about the translation of your
25 words, then -- and we have native-speaking persons here who will draw the
1 attention of the Chamber to that and seek a correction of the translation
2 if the need be, Mr. Lekovic.
3 The question about the -- a meeting in Radmilo Bogdanovic office.
4 Ms. Marcus, you put that question to the witness. Could you perhaps put
5 that question to the witness again.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. One moment, please, just to
7 verify. There were two questions relating to two separate meetings in
8 Minister Bogdanovic's office.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please revisit that matter.
10 MS. MARCUS: I will do.
11 Q. The question was:
12 "According to evidence presented in this case, in February or
13 March of 1991 the accused Stanisic, the accused Simatovic, and
14 Milan Martic met with Minister Bogdanovic in [the minister's] office.
15 You are not aware of this; is that correct?"
16 JUDGE ORIE: So in order to --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So you do not -- you have no awareness of such a
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know about it, no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I still do not know what was confusing in the
22 question. But the other question, Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS:
24 Q. Yes, the other question was: "And --"
25 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, please.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you.
3 Q. "... you are also not aware of a meeting in the MUP in Belgrade
4 in Minister Bogdanovic's office between Bogdanovic, Stanisic, and
5 Janko Milakovic which reportedly took place sometime between May and
6 July of 1991; is that correct?"
7 A. You link that with the issue of Baranja and the problem of
8 Baranja, so my answer is this: I didn't know about the meeting, but I
9 was surprised that you insisted on me answering whether they discussed
10 the issue of Baranja or what, and that's why I saw that question as
11 confusing. That's how I understood the question, as being confusing.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, what you do, as a matter of fact, you -- you
13 interpret the question and link it to matters which are not in the
14 question itself. You have no awareness of that meeting; that seems to be
15 clear from your answer at this moment.
16 The Krajina questions.
17 MS. MARCUS: There was a question about SBWS.
18 Q. The question was:
19 "There has been evidence in this case that in April 1991 Radmilo
20 Bogdanovic, Janko Milakovic, Ilija Kojic, and the accused Stanisic held a
21 meeting to discuss the establishment of the police force in the SAO SBWS.
22 You are not aware of this; is that correct?"
23 MS. MARCUS: That was the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not aware of that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that confusing
1 questions turn out to be less confusing. But, Mr. Lekovic, is there any
2 information in relation to the questions that were put to you which you
3 consider important for the Chamber to know? I'm not asking for
4 impressions or judgements or opinions. But if you would know that a
5 certain event took place which is directly to be connected with the
6 questions that were put to you, you have an opportunity to inform us
7 about such information which is within your knowledge. But wait a second
8 to add anything until counsel has concluded his consultations with
9 Mr. Stanisic.
10 Mr. Jordash --
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We have dealt with the confusing questions. I gave
13 an opportunity to the witness to add anything in his direct knowledge
14 which he considered important for us to understand his testimony.
15 Ms. Marcus.
16 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I just wanted to give Mr. Bakrac
17 the reference he was seeking before with respect to the meeting in
18 Sarajevo. I apologise for not citing that specifically in my cross. The
19 reference is to Exhibit P1878, which corresponds to the testimony of that
20 witness in the Milosevic case at page -- at Milosevic transcript
21 page 13082, which is contained within P1878.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps a little note would have served better,
23 because this might really confuse the witness.
24 Mr. Lekovic, I invited you to add any information, any -- within
25 your direct knowledge. You have an opportunity to do so now.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will that be my final word or will
2 there be more questions put to me after that? Will that be my final
3 address before this Trial Chamber?
4 JUDGE ORIE: You're not invited to address the Trial Chamber.
5 You're invited to add any piece of information you consider important in
6 relation to the answers you've given. And Mr. Jordash will have some
7 further questions for you after the break.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In addition to what I provided in
9 my written statement and the answers I provided yesterday and so far
10 today, I have nothing to add. I will be prepared to answer any new
11 questions after the break, if there are any.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll now take that break, and we resume at
13 quarter past 12.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 11.48 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, being provided with the sources, any
17 questions for the witness now?
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We know that the
19 witness is 92 quater witness and we don't see a need to put any questions
20 to this witness. Therefore, no questions.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I would not call him a 92 quater witness because he
22 is on our screens, so he is available, to be silent on the -- on that
23 worse situation.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume that you
25 understood that the reference was referred to as 92 quater. God forbid
1 that I refer to this witness as a 92 quater, no.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any need for re-examination?
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please. I haven't as yet managed to see all
4 the transcripts. I'm hoping that the remaining ones are going to be
5 brought to me, but I can begin.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's get started.
7 Further question will be put to you, Mr. Lekovic, by Mr. Jordash.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
9 Q. At transcript 34, during the questions by Ms. Marcus, you noted
10 that Mr. Stanisic was in the sights of the commission that you led, and I
11 just want to ask you a little more about that to seek clarification of
12 what that means or meant.
13 First of all, in your statement --
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, D450 MFI.
15 Q. -- at paragraph 12, you noted that Janackovic was sending
16 information to Milosevic three times a day. Could you just indicate when
17 that was? Was this during the time of the commission or otherwise?
18 A. First of all, let's understand each other. Maybe I have received
19 an erroneous translation. I did not say that Stanisic was targeted by
20 commission, but, rather, that he was in sight of the commission. The
21 commission was primarily set up because of Mr. Stanisic, and
22 Mr. Janackovic insisted. Let's be clear on that.
23 Second of all, as far as the second part of your question is
24 concerned, it was not just myself and the commission that noticed that.
25 Even Mr. Radmilo Bogdanovic and his deputy Predrag Todorovic told me on
1 several occasions that it was their impression and that they convinced
2 themselves that Mr. Janackovic sent a lot of information to
3 President Milosevic, that he even swamps him with very irrelevant
4 information, unselected information, that he did that quite frequently.
5 Sometimes as many times as three days envelopes would go to Milosevic
6 with information either prepared by the analytical service or by an
7 operative in the service. So it was not only during the --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, the specific question was whether this
9 happened also when the commission was working.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That happened even before the
11 commission was set up and during the work of the commission and to a
12 certain extent it went even beyond the cessation of the work of the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 Next question, please, Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH:
17 Q. What was the working relationship between Janackovic and
18 Milosevic as far as you're aware?
19 A. The working relationship?
20 Q. Yes, during the time we are discussing.
21 A. Are you referring to working ties, not working relationship?
22 Let's be very precise here, please.
23 Q. Working -- let's start with working ties. What was Janackovic's
24 working ties with Milosevic?
25 A. We had a system of internal communication, which means that it
1 was a closed system of communication. Some of us officials, several of
2 us from the top echelons, including the minister, the president of the
3 state, i.e., President Milosevic, we had a possibility to use special
4 telephone lines and talk to each other. We could exchange information
5 and we could consult each other on things. In addition to that,
6 Janackovic could also go very often to the president and --
7 Q. Okay. Now, go ahead and finish that. "Janackovic could
8 also ..." Go ahead. "Janackovic could ... go very often to the
9 president and ..."
10 A. As the chief of the service, he had a green light. And every
11 time when he deemed necessary to go and see the president, to convey a
12 piece of information to him or to seek consultation with him, he could go
13 there even unbeknownst to the minister or any of the rest of us from the
14 leadership of the service. In other words, the working ties, or
15 communication, was of such a nature that Janackovic could make his own
16 decisions or respond to the invitations by the president. When the
17 president invited him, he could go to his office or he could pick up the
18 telephone and call him on that special line.
19 Q. And was Janackovic entitled to do that privately?
20 A. What do you mean by "privately"?
21 Q. Alone, without anyone else, unbeknownst to anyone else.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the witness said: "He could ... there
23 even unbeknownst to the minister or any ... rest of us from the
24 leadership of the service."
25 That answers your question, doesn't it?
1 MR. JORDASH: Fair enough. Your Honour, it does.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Next question.
3 Q. Did anyone else during nineteen --
4 A. Yes, I've already answered that. Yes.
5 Q. Did anyone else during 1991 from the service, as far as you are
6 aware, have that same green light?
7 A. That green light and that possibility to go to the president's
8 office frequently or talk to him frequently, as far as I know, nobody had
10 Q. You've given evidence about Janackovic bypassing Stanisic before,
11 during, and after the commission. What did you mean precisely when you
12 say "bypassing"? Who did Janackovic bypass Stanisic -- sorry, let me
13 rephrase that. Who did Janackovic approach, having bypassed Stanisic?
14 A. Maybe the term "bypassing" is not adequate. I don't know how
15 this has been translated. To be more precise, I would say that he was
16 evasive. He avoided him. He didn't want to communicate with him. He
17 didn't want to discuss certain topics and subjects. He did send Jovica
18 or one of us to inform the president about something, and he stopped
19 doing that, which is what I meant when I said that he was evasive and he
20 bypassed Stanisic. And all that was done with a view to gradually
21 devaluate Jovica's weight of value and to change the people's impression
22 of Jovica. He wanted people to become aware of the fact that Jovica was
23 being marginalised by the new chief of the service.
24 Q. What was Janackovic's personal relationship with Milosevic during
25 these times?
1 A. What was what?
2 Q. What was Janackovic's personal relationship with Milosevic during
3 these times?
4 A. Janackovic tried very hard to grovel up to him and to show
5 himself as the right person for the place that he occupied. And that
6 personal relationship between the president and himself was something
7 that Janackovic insisted more on than the president himself. Janackovic
8 wanted to impose himself, to prove himself, and that personal
9 relationship was at the required level, but it was a working
10 relationship. It was not a personal relationship. Janackovic tended to
11 exaggerate in everything. He communicated too much and he insisted too
12 much on getting in touch with the president.
13 Q. Do you know if they saw each other outside of work?
14 A. I wouldn't be able to say. However, according to some rumours,
15 they did meet socially, the families socialised ostensibly, but I don't
16 know to what extent, how often.
17 Q. Okay. Let's move to another subject, the subject of what
18 happened after the commission report was filed in May of 1991.
19 I want to try to clarify what happened when the commission had
20 filed its report. And you commented that the commission did not cease to
21 exist. What did you mean by that?
22 A. On the 22nd of May, we drafted the report for what it was worth.
23 The accompanying letter was drafted on the 23rd of May, and that was
24 dispatched to the minister.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you.
1 Mr. Jordash, this has been dealt with in cross-examination. It
2 was perfectly clear there was no formal decision to end the existence of
3 the commission, although the commission did not function any further.
4 So, therefore, you are asking -- unless there's any focussed question you
5 would like to know about it, let's try not to repeat what we heard
6 already in cross-examination.
7 Again, if there's any specific matter you would like to raise,
8 fine. But this has been dealt with in quite some length, explaining what
9 it means, report being finished, presented, but the witness said that
10 there was need to decide whether the commission had done its job and then
11 not to exist any more. I'm a bit concerned about -- about the matters
12 you are raising in these questions. Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. What did it mean, Mr. Lekovic, for Mr. Stanisic that although the
15 commission had filed a report, there was no formal decision to end the
16 existence of the commission? What did it mean in terms of Mr. Stanisic
17 and his position within the service?
18 A. I can answer the question from two different aspects. The first
19 one would be this: That meant that the commission's report, such as it
20 was, did not highlight anybody, not even Jovica Stanisic, although
21 everybody in the commission knew that the commission had been set up
22 because of Jovica. That was a relief for Mr. Stanisic.
23 The second aspect is this: Bearing in mind that nobody wanted to
24 bite the bullet to gather the commission, to analyse the report, and to
25 evaluate the work of the commission, nobody wanted to say that was that,
1 the commission officially ceased to exist. Things were still up in the
2 air and there were comments in our midst that the thing surrounding
3 Jovica was not over and that Jovica was still under a magnifying-glass,
4 as it were, and that it was only a matter of time when the final
5 evaluation of his work would be formulated and as a result of that he
6 would be disqualified.
7 When you look at both of these elements, you can see that
8 immediately after the commission had drafted its report, the situation
9 was still unpleasant for Jovica, because nothing was finalised, the issue
10 was still on the table, the circle surrounding Jovica was not closed.
11 MR. JORDASH: Okay. Can I have, please, D289, MFI. Just this
12 last subject. 1D04883. Sorry, 4880.
13 Q. This purports to describe a conversation you had with Bogdanovic
14 on the 20th of July, 1991; is that right?
15 A. Yes, this conversation took place on the 19th in
16 Radmilo Bogdanovic's office. On the following day, I drafted this;
17 therefore, the document bears the date the 20th of July.
18 Q. Let's cut this short --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I think you wanted to inform us that
20 the document is under seal.
21 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Not to the shown to the public.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH:
25 Q. Let's cut this short, Mr. Lekovic, so that I can finish. In
1 relation to your conversation with Bogdanovic on the 19th of July, how
2 long before that was it when he'd ceased being the minister of interior?
3 A. In the statement that I provided in a written form, in one
4 paragraph or two I explained in the month of May, when the football team,
5 the Red Star went to Bari to play the game and finally became the
6 European champion, Radmilo was with that football team, the Red Star, in
7 Bari. Before the journey, he had agreed with Milosevic that his deputy
8 would act as the minister while he was away, because the poling board of
9 the Assembly of Serbia had issued a report about the March demonstrations
10 and the weaknesses of the police, and Radmilo therefore resigned.
11 When he returned from Italy and --
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of that
14 MR. JORDASH: I'm sorry to the interpreter. I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I think you wanted to interrupt, and rightly
16 so, the witness.
17 Mr. Lekovic, when did Mr. Bogdanovic quit his job as minister of
18 the interior?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't give you the exact date,
20 but it was in the month of May. In the first half of May.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer. By the way, a matter I
22 think one could easily agree upon, but --
23 MR. JORDASH: I don't think there is agreement on this,
24 Your Honour.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the new minister was
1 appointed, and that was Sokolovic --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Lekovic, before we end up with having the
3 results of the football match, listen to the next question that
4 Mr. Jordash will put to you, please.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. From this conversation note, it appears Bogdanovic, in
7 July of 1991, wanted to recommence the commission. Do you know why?
8 A. He wanted to recommence what?
9 Q. The commission.
10 A. Mr. Radmilo Bogdanovic, well, he was the secretary. And then the
11 minister in the first election that took place was elected an MP. And
12 when he ceased to be minister and when Zoran Sokolovic took over, as it
13 says here, he continued coming to the MUP office and he used to sit in
14 the office of the Deputy Minister Todorovic and he carried out some of
15 his duties there. That's where the conversation took place, in that
17 Q. Why --
18 A. He was interested in my opinion --
19 Q. Why -- why, Mr. Lekovic?
20 A. What why? What do you mean by "why"?
21 Q. Why, in your view, if you formed a view or were told by
22 Bogdanovic, did he want to recommence the commission?
23 A. If you look at the note very carefully, and the note is very
24 concise on three pages, you see that the conversation was rather heated.
25 I warned him that he did not have any legal grounds to issue any orders
1 because he was no longer minister.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, the question was not whether he was in
3 a position to ask for the commission to reconvene, but: Why did he --
4 did he tell you why he so much insisted on the commission to reconvene
5 and develop further activities? That's the question.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He wanted to find out from me that
7 discussion, if there was anything new in the communication between the
8 target Paloma and Jovica Stanisic. And he said, If there are new
9 elements there, then at that point the commission could restart its work.
10 And then the commission would supposedly have to write a new report. I
11 did not agree with that and I said the only solution would be for the new
12 minister, Sokolovic, to gather all of us, five members of the commission,
13 and perhaps other people he judges necessary, the chief of the service or
14 someone else, to evaluate the report of the commission to say whether the
15 report of the commission is acceptable or not, whether the commission had
16 worked properly or made errors in its selection of method. And if the
17 evaluation is positive, then a full stop should be put there and it
18 should be said the commission terminates its work. If the evaluation is
19 made that the commission did not work well, then a new commission should
20 be formed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I stop you there. Apparently you are not asking --
22 you are not answering the question. The question was why it was that
23 Mr. Bogdanovic so much insisted on reactivating the commission. While
24 you've told us a lot of things, but you have not given an answer to the
1 Ms. Marcus.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I don't know if my
3 microphone is on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It is.
5 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Mr. Jordash's line of
6 questioning, and as reiterated by Your Honour just now, is about
7 recommencing the commission or reinitiating the commission's work. I've
8 looked through this document. I'd like to -- it seems to me that this
9 document is all about Bogdanovic trying to finally wrap up and end the
10 commission's work, to meet for that purpose. So I'd like
11 Mr. Jordash - maybe I've missed something - to actually point to the
12 place in this document that specifies that Bogdanovic was seeking to
13 recommence or reinitiate the work of the commission.
14 MR. JORDASH: Page 2 of the English, page 2 of the B/C/S.
15 Lekovic responded -- sorry, four lines from the bottom of the page:
16 "He," Bogdanovic, "continued to insist on this, saying that he
17 wanted to meet with the commission to clear up some questions."
18 Not suggesting that -- all I'm suggesting is he wanted to re --
19 continue the commission. It's a matter of interpretation, and the
20 witness can answer that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The document may not be entirely clear in every
22 respect in this. On the one hand it is the new information, we should
23 process that, or that's how it starts, that's what the witness just told
24 us. Mr. Jordash is now aware of that you slightly -- in a slightly
25 different way interpret the document.
1 The witness has for one reason or another failed to answer the
2 last question. Mr. Jordash, I leave it to you whether you you want to
3 put it again to him or perhaps, in a rephrased way so that -- such as:
4 Did Mr. Bogdanovic explain why he insisted so much on the course he
5 proposed? That --
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I'll put it neutrally.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the witness has three or four lines
8 to answer the question, otherwise we'll move to our next question.
9 MR. JORDASH:
10 Q. Mr. Lekovic, please help me to assist the Court with some
11 information. We don't need a long explanation; we've had many. We just
12 need a very short answer to this question: Why was it that Bogdanovic
13 came to visit you and made the suggestion he did concerning the
15 A. Well, Mr. Wayne, I don't see where you find in this document that
16 Bogdanovic insisted the commission should continue its work.
17 Q. Well, I'll rephrase the question if you'd like --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, please carefully listen to the
19 question. The question was: Do you know why Mr. Bogdanovic came to see
20 you and discussed matters about the commission such as to reconvene for
21 whatever purposes? Why did he, if he told you, come to see you on this
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now that's something different. He
24 invited me to the office where he was spending time in that period, the
25 office of the deputy republic minister. So he didn't come to see me; he
1 invited me to his office.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lekovic, Mr. Lekovic, it should be perfectly
3 clear that we are not interested in the office but in the reasons why
4 Mr. Bogdanovic initiated a meeting with you in which he discussed any
5 further activity, reconvening, whatever, of the commission. Can you tell
6 us? You have an opportunity to do that in two or three lines. If not,
7 we'll move to the next question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He emphasised in that conversation
9 that he would like to convene the commission although a new minister was
10 already in place, or that he should like to attend if the new minister
11 convenes the commission, to assess the report and see if the commission
12 should continue or terminate its work.
13 I responded to that by saying, On what basis are you going to
14 attend that meeting if it's a meeting in the office of the new minister
15 attended only by people from the service?
16 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered the question. Apparently
17 Mr. Bogdanovic wanted to discuss whether the work of the commission had
18 been terminated or whether it should continue. That apparently was on
19 his mind.
20 Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Do you know, Mr. Lekovic, what professional or personal ties
23 Bogdanovic had with Milosevic at this time?
24 A. I know that there was some sort of chill between Milosevic and
25 Bogdanovic at the time because there was this 9th of March and the
1 protests and then the inquiry board in the Assembly of Serbia. And after
2 the report of the inquiry board, Milosevic wanted Bogdanovic to remain
3 Ministry of the Interior. However, since that previous agreement had not
4 been honoured, namely that Predrag Todorovic should be acting minister
5 for a while before a new person is found, while Radmilo Bogdanovic was in
6 Italy, Milosevic appointed Zoran Sokolovic minister. And, therefore,
7 Radmilo Bogdanovic was no longer minister of the interior. And --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, before we go into --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Milosevic was kind of ticked off
10 with Bogdanovic because he did not obey.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that the question has basically been
12 answered, apart from to what extent it arises from cross-examination.
13 But please proceed. Any further questions?
14 MR. JORDASH: Well, I don't think the witness has answered the
15 question concerning why Bogdanovic was interested in the work of the
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, we asked him five times and he apparently has no
18 answer or doesn't give an answer. We cannot spend another hour on doing
19 that. Unless you have any suggestion, you may have noticed that I was at
20 least interested in knowing the answer and I pointed the witness to the
21 question several times but apparently without success.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. JORDASH: I'll leave that. There's no point, perhaps,
24 continuing that.
25 Q. One last question, if I may, Mr. Lekovic.
1 As a consequence of Janackovic's relationship with Stanisic
2 during 1991 or April until late 1991, in your view what decisions could
3 Stanisic take in relation to the work of the state security?
4 A. In April 1991, the commission that had been established in early
5 April was working. Stanisic was deputy chief for counter-intelligence,
6 according to the decision of the government of Serbia, appointing me
7 chief. That appointment was not changed, but his position was such
8 de facto that he could not make any decisions, he could not issue any
9 orders, and he was not in a position to distribute assignments from his
10 own line of work to heads of administrations and leading people in the
11 service who were working in that area.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel's microphone is on while the witness is
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The very fact that the commission
15 was working in that period, and bearing in mind all that we've said,
16 Jovica's ability to act was diminished and his ability to show his
17 professionalism and act to his full capacity and participate in the work
18 of the top echelons of the service was also degraded. If you understand
19 what I've said so far, if you understand it properly --
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. -- that means that Mr. Stanisic was practically on standby.
22 Q. That's fine. Thank you.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. No further questions, Your Honour.
24 Thank you, Mr. Lekovic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
1 Mr. Bakrac, still same position.
2 Ms. Marcus, any further questions for the witness?
3 MS. MARCUS: One question, please, with your leave.
4 JUDGE ORIE: One question.
5 Mr. Lekovic, carefully listen to the one question Ms. Marcus is
6 going to put to you.
7 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:
8 Q. Mr. Lekovic, isn't it a fact that you were the one who said that
9 the commission had not finished its work and that Bogdanovic disagreed
10 with you?
11 A. It's correct that I said it. But what I meant, Ms. Marcus, is
12 that the commission had not completed its work because its report had not
13 been considered by anyone or evaluated by anyone, and nobody had said
14 whether the commission should go on and do something, because we could
15 not abolish ourselves because we did not set ourselves up, and we did not
16 decide who would be the members of the commission.
17 And Bogdanovic was sent to Italy and his report had not been
18 considered before the appointment of the new minister was saying that
19 perhaps the commission should reconvene and continue [as interpreted].
20 So it wasn't me who said that the commission had not completed its work
21 and that I wanted something else written in the report. I said that for
22 other reasons the work of the commission had not been completed. Nobody
23 had formally made the decision to disband it.
24 MS. MARCUS: With your leave, Your Honours, one follow-up
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes if it is not inviting the witness to repeat
2 again what he said already so many times.
3 MS. MARCUS: It's actually --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Focused question, focused answer.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 Q. Please, Mr, Lekovic, look at that document in front of you,
7 that's D289 MFI, the document just quoted to you by Mr. Jordash. I'm
8 looking at page 3 in English, the top paragraph. That would be the
9 bottom of page 2 for you in the Serbian version.
10 It says, and I quote -- and this is you. You wrote this
11 document, so it's you I'm quoting: "To these --" Quote:
12 "To these proposals, I responded by saying that bearing in mind
13 that he no longer held the position of minister, that he does not call
14 together the commission, it would be most logical if he were to write his
15 assessment and positions concerning the report he received from the
16 commission in which he would have to conclude, in addition to other
17 matters, that the commission had not completed its work, that the report
18 was rather general and incomplete, and that the commission had not put in
19 enough effort to be able to specify in the report the elements that
20 indicate that information representing an official or state secret is
21 leaking out of the service."
22 Now I'd like to turn to page 4 in English, the first full
23 paragraph there, corresponding did --
24 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, sorry, to -- I do think that the paragraph
25 before that on page 2 is a significant paragraph. If you take out the
1 top paragraph on page 3 away from the bottom paragraph on page 2, then
2 you can construe it in the way that my learned friend is going to, but
3 the two together make sense.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm inclined to agree with --
6 MS. MARCUS: -- the point I'm trying to -- sorry.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Jordash in that
8 respect, Ms. Marcus.
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. This comment that you write here
10 is in response to Bogdanovic's request to hold a meeting to convene the
11 members and speak with other individuals, so he's requesting the
12 convening of a meeting. We do not disagree that this document says that
13 Bogdanovic wanted to have a meeting. Our position is that document says
14 that he wanted to convene the meeting to finish the work of the
16 MR. JORDASH: Convene the commission.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's --
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, convene the commission. Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus. Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. Now --
21 JUDGE ORIE: The portion you just read, isn't it important for us
22 to know whether the author of the report explains how he told
23 Mr. Bogdanovic how he could -- what would be the avenues for reaching
24 what he wanted to achieve or whether he expressed what he himself wanted
25 to achieve? I think that's the issue, isn't it, raised by Mr. Jordash?
1 Let's then put that to the witness.
2 Mr. Lekovic, Ms. Marcus just read a passage of the report; you
3 remember that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's your -- your response to what Mr. Bogdanovic
6 said and what would be logical in view of you -- now, did you express
7 there what you personally thought should be done, or did you tell
8 Mr. Bogdanovic by what ways he could achieve what apparently he,
9 Mr. Bogdanovic, wanted to be done?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I would
11 appreciate it if you would take into account what Mr. Wayne said, that
12 the previous paragraph is also important.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. -- Mr. --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for what I said in the paragraph
15 that the lady has read out, that's answer to --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- yes, as a matter of fact, then phrasing the
17 question, I did consider what Mr. Jordash told us. I carefully tried to
18 do that.
19 Now, in this answer, did you reflect what in your view should be
20 done or whether this would be the logical way for Mr. Bogdanovic to
21 achieve what he wanted to be done rather than you wanted to be done;
22 which of the two?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suggested to him in these words:
24 If I were you, I would put down in writing what I think about the work of
25 the commission because it's you who make the decision to set it up, and I
1 would give my evaluation of the report submitted by the commission to
2 him. And it was not my stance that I think the commission should
3 continue working. I was just telling him what I would do if I were him.
4 He was minister at the time when the decision was made to set up the
5 commission, set the dead-lines for submitting reports, et cetera, but at
6 that moment he no longer held that position.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness has answered my question. Of
8 course it's not easy to establish whether he did, but I got the
9 impression that he did.
10 Ms. Marcus.
11 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, may I put one more line to him on this?
12 JUDGE ORIE: One more, but let's remain practical.
13 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
14 Q. Mr. Witness, Mr. Lekovic, at the bottom of page 2 in English,
15 that's the paragraph which I hadn't read before, the very first line
16 states -- sorry, that is the third -- the - one, two, three - fifth
17 paragraph for you on page 2 of the Serbian version.
18 You were asked by Bogdanovic to convene the commission to
19 complete the work started. To that, you say: "I told --" Quote:
20 "I told him that there was no point in convening the commission
21 because this job cannot be finished on the basis of the report provided
22 by the commission."
23 Isn't it the case that you were suggesting to Bogdanovic that in
24 your view the work of the commission should continue and that Bogdanovic
25 was saying he wanted to convene the commission in order to conclude its
2 A. No, you didn't understand me. I insisted that the new minister
3 to whom I had talked before that and whom I had asked to do something, as
4 the new minister, about the report submitted to him, I asked that the
5 work of the commission be terminated or that it simply be said officially
6 and formally before that group of people that the commission ceased to
7 exist and the members of the commission are no longer bound by that duty.
8 And Radmilo said, I quoted, I should convene the commission to complete
9 the job we started. So it's not me who suggested that the commission be
10 reconvened. I was just saying that it was not me who decided to
11 establish the commission, so I was not in a position to disband it
12 either. The decision was made by the secretary and I was just chairman
13 of the commission and therefore I had to speak on behalf of all the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
16 Mr. Lekovic, Judge Picard has one question for you.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] On this last point --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could Judge Picard please repeat her question.
20 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Did the commission find the
21 origins of the leak, because you're saying that the commission had to
22 finish its work, but in reality it had not reached its goal; is that
24 A. Please, this decision to establish the commission specifies that
25 it is being established under article such and such of the rules of the
1 State Security Service, and it has the task to identify how confidential
2 information from the MUP is leaked out, and if the source can be
3 identified, the individuals responsible should be named. In the
4 materials from that commission, you could see that some targets like Lari
5 and Paloma were under surveillance. They were followed by operatives.
6 And some materials from that surveillance were even published, because
7 it's not the only commission that works that way, but the commission was
8 not entitled to determine who would be held liable in which way, what
9 sanctions should be applied.
10 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I understand your
11 answer. As far as I'm concerned, it was clear to me that the commission
12 had among its goals the duty to inquire about the origin of the leakings
13 which affected the minister of interior and that Mr. Stanisic was
14 supposed to be initially the person who had provided these informations
15 to the press, to the media.
16 A. I've just told you, when the decision by the commission was read,
17 it seems that it applied to the entire MUP and the entire security
18 service. However, bearing in mind how many times Mr. Janackovic spoke to
19 Radmilo and insisted on the setting up of the commission and Radmilo
20 refused and how many times Radmilo, i.e., Mr. Bogdanovic, spoke to me and
21 complained about the pressure being put on him about the commission, he
22 asked me what I thought, and I said that the commission at that moment
23 was not necessary. He even told me that Janackovic had suggested who the
24 members should be and that I should be the president. I said that that
25 was not smart for several reasons. He was targeting Jovica, and Jovica
1 was one of the candidates for the chief of the state security of the city
2 of Belgrade, and I was appointed. I said that it wouldn't be good for me
3 to be either a member of the commission or president of the commission.
4 If you understand that, if you have been following me closely, I don't
5 know what word has been used in English or French translation when my
6 words are translated to you. Then --
7 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I think I did understand what you
8 just mentioned right now. I had a feeling you had not totally answered
9 my question, but it may be that I lost something. But please tell me,
10 What was the main duty of the commission, the main duties in terms of
12 A. The commission's primary duty -- actually, it convened the same
13 day when the decision was made. The chief of the service was there, he
14 read out the secretary's decision, the secretary was absent. We drafted
15 a work-plan of the commission. I believe that that has been translated
16 to you. And then we --
17 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I will stop you because my last
18 question was aimed at getting information from you about the methods you
19 were using in your investigations. The investigations of the commission,
20 did you use telephone tapping or did you monitor the mail the person was
21 receiving? Could you describe the methods you were using, briefly.
22 A. There was phone tapping of the facilities that had already been
23 under surveillance pursuant to previous decisions. The commission
24 applied a certain method of work, and the facilities that were targeted
25 even before the commission was set up, and the commission had studied all
1 the materials there. Obviously we read all the new reports containing
2 the intelligence that had been gathered.
3 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] This is something I had already
4 understood, but I'll try to be more specific. Since the main target of
5 the commission was Mr. Stanisic, did you tap Mr. Stanisic's phone or did
6 you monitor his mail or was he followed physically?
7 A. Mr. Stanisic was not the target of our measures. He was an
8 official. There was no wire-tapping. There was no -- nothing of the
9 sort. But if Paloma was a target and if either I or Mr. Stanisic called
10 Paloma, then that would be recorded on a tape. So that conversation
11 between Jovica Stanisic and Paloma would be recorded. But there was no
12 special decision on the surveillance measures for Jovica Stanisic.
13 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Right. All right. I understand.
14 In fact, I'm asking these questions because I'm a bit surprised.
15 A commission was set up in order to determine what was the source of
16 leakings towards the media, and you are telling us that this commission
17 was set up with the main purpose of investigating Jovica Stanisic for
18 political reasons which are not very significant for us. But in any
19 case, we could expect that Mr. Stanisic be put under surveillance under
20 such circumstances, Mr. Stanisic and perhaps the journalists, but
21 Mr. Stanisic to begin with, and apparently this has not been the case.
22 And something else is surprising to me. It is the fact that being the
23 number one in terms of person interested in the work of this commission,
24 you have no idea of what happened to him during the existence of the
25 commission. When you are asked whether you know if he went to Sarajevo,
1 met certain people, you are answering that you have no idea about it,
2 which may seem surprising.
3 A. Please, I would like you to understand me properly. I did not
4 have any official interest or reason to put Jovica under a
5 magnifying-glass. I was very sorry that the commission had been set up
6 in the first place. I was sorry to see who its members were, that nobody
7 from the public security was a member, that I was the president of the
8 commission, and for the fact that it was known that the commission was
9 set up in that way, i.e., the decision was worded in that way, that
10 Jovica was not highlighted. I didn't have a reason for Jovica to be
11 highlighted in the report, because when we had studied everything, I
12 didn't see any elements for Jovica to be targeted.
13 As the president of the commission, I contributed to the fact
14 that the report was drafted in the way it was. Punisa didn't sign on the
15 first day. He walked out the first day, but then the second day he
16 returned and signed, together with the rest of the members of the
18 It was never my intention to attribute to Jovica something that
19 did not hold water, for Jovica to be highlighted, to be targeted. Unlike
20 those who had insisted on the setting up of the commission and that they
21 had Jovica in mind as the primary target.
22 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I understand what you mean. What
23 you are telling me right now is that in fact Janackovic was the only one
24 who had this idea of putting Stanisic in the main focus of the attention
25 of the commission but that this was not the goal of the commission as
1 such. This is what I understand from what you just said right now.
2 I don't have any more questions for you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Have the questions of the Bench triggered any
4 further questions?
5 Mr. Lekovic, this concludes your testimony. I'd like to thank
6 you very much for having come to the videolink room, and, to some extent,
7 to the court, and for having answered all the questions that were put to
8 you by the parties and by the Bench. I'd like to thank you for it, and
9 I'd like to wish you a safe return home.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for your understanding
11 and thank you for allowing me to address you from this videolink office.
12 I hope that I have contribute to shedding some light on the whole issue
13 and on arriving at the truth.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The videolink can be terminated.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then, is the next witness ready to be escorted into
17 the courtroom?
18 MR. FARR: Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Farr.
20 MR. FARR: Could I just address the Chamber briefly as the
21 witness is being brought in?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. FARR: I wanted to reiterate for the record that the
24 Prosecution has not finished its investigation with respect to this
25 witness. In particular, we have not received responses to our RFAs sent
1 to Serbia. We have started but not completed the review of our own
2 document collection. And for a few of the materials we have identified,
3 we have requested but not yet received translations. We understand that
4 we are required to do everything today and this week that can be done,
5 and we will certainly do that, but I just wanted to restate for the
6 record that there is a chance that this witness may need to be re-called.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think Ms. Marcus already told us in some
8 other terms that this risk does exist.
9 Could I ask you, Mr. Jordash, we have at this moment a request
10 for protective measures by the Republic of Serbia. Anything to be added
11 in this respect for which we would need to go into private session?
12 MR. JORDASH: No. No, thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll verify with the witness.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, as that's happening, I'd like to, if I
16 may, or perhaps we can do it later, tender the exhibits from the last
17 witness. Perhaps now the witness is here.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do that, perhaps if there is a videolink which
19 is not functioning.
20 Witness, I call you Witness DST-083.
21 Could we go into private session for a moment, unless, Mr. Farr,
22 there would be anything you would like to add to the matter I just raised
23 with Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. FARR: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session for a second.
1 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 For your information, there being no protective measures for you
20 personally, Mr. Corbic, the request of the Republic of Serbia is granted
21 in part. We'll hear your testimony in private session as soon as we
22 touch upon the identity of a BIA source, the identity of a BIA operative,
23 or a location used by the security services.
24 Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed that the Republic of
25 Serbia will be informed about this decision.
1 So whenever your answer would reveal the identity of a BIA source
2 or a BIA operative or a location, please address the Court and ask to --
3 that we move into private session so that that will not be publicly
4 known. And the parties are invited to do exactly the same.
5 Before you start your examination, I would invite you to make a
6 solemn declaration of which the text is now handed out to you by the
7 usher. Would you please stand.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: VLADIMIR CORBIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Corbic. Please be seated.
13 Mr. Jordash -- Mr. Jordash, who is counsel for Mr. Stanisic, will
14 start his examination.
15 Examination by Mr. Jordash:
16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Corbic.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. I want to go through some formalities with you first of all.
19 You are looking slightly inquisitive, curious.
20 A. I apologise. My name is Vladimir Corbic, not "Covic."
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash will further train to pronounce names,
22 Mr. Corbic. He is trying hard. Please proceed.
23 MR. JORDASH: I think a long trial has already passed and no
24 improvement has been seen, unfortunately.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Vladimir. My family
1 name is Corbic.
2 MR. JORDASH:
3 Q. I have you. And please forgive me. What year were you born?
4 What's your date of birth, please?
5 A. 28 April 1953.
6 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D05109.
7 Q. What you are going to see in front of you is a document which
8 purports to be a statement. Do you recall being interviewed on the
9 1st of September, 2011, and the 21st of September, 2011, and do you
10 recognise the signature on the left-hand corner of the document?
11 A. Yes. Yes, this is my signature.
12 MR. JORDASH: And if we turn to the next page, please.
13 Q. Does this look familiar? Is this your statement?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Bottom right-hand corner, do you recognise the signature?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Are the contents of the statement in accordance with the truth?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review this statement and make any
20 clarifications you wanted to make?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And did you sign the statement after that review?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if you were asked the same questions, would you give the same
25 answers in substance?
1 A. Absolutely.
2 MR. JORDASH: Can I tender this statement, please, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
4 MR. FARR: Your Honour, to best of my knowledge, I haven't seen a
5 signed version of this statement yet. But if counsel can represent that
6 this is the same as the statement that was filed with their motion
7 had [sic] this witness, then there's no objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The one uploaded appears to be a signed version.
9 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, yes, we -- if I can clarify: We filed a
10 92 ter motion without a signature. When the witness arrived, we signed
11 it, and this is the same as that with the motion. I'm sorry that we
12 didn't indicate that earlier to the Prosecution.
13 MR. FARR: No objection, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number of the 92 ter statement
15 of Mr. Corbic would be ...
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be D451.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, have you verified, in view of the
18 Chamber's decision on protective measures, whether the document contains
19 any information which should remain confidential? If not, then we
20 provisionally would admit it under seal.
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please, if it could be admitted under seal, I
22 think --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And would you please inform us by tomorrow
24 whether it should remain under seal, yes or no.
25 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D451 is admitted into evidence, provisionally under
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D05107.
5 Q. When you -- do you recall, when you arrived in The Hague, being
6 given a number of documents to look at, this chart, and being asked to
7 comment about those documents in the right-hand column?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you recognise the signature at the right-hand corner of the
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. JORDASH: And if we go to the next page.
13 Q. And is that your signature again?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. Did you have an opportunity, having completed this chart, before
16 signing to review the chart and make any clarifications or corrections
17 you wish to make?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And were the comments you made about the documents in accordance
20 with the truth?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And would you make the same comments again if provided with the
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. JORDASH: May I tender the chart, again provisionally under
1 seal, please.
2 MR. FARR: Your Honour, we just received this chart about two
3 hours ago. We would ask that we have overnight to formulate a position
4 both with respect to the comments and with respect to the underlying
6 JUDGE ORIE: The chart will be marked for identification.
7 Madam Registrar, under seal, the number would be ...
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be D452 marked for
10 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.
11 MR. FARR: One further matter, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. FARR: I've noticed that the witness has some papers in front
14 of him. I wonder if he could be asked what those are before he begins
15 his testimony.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, or to remove them.
17 MR. FARR: One or the other.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Do you need the papers -- do you need the papers at
19 this moment, witness?
20 Is it the statement and the --
21 MR. JORDASH: The statement and the chart and then I think some
22 personal notes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you -- I do not mind, Mr. Farr, I take it
24 you would agree that --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The witness statement, my
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Statement and chart, any problem, Mr. Farr?
3 MR. FARR: No problem with that, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So that -- no, it's fine, Madam Registrar -- no,
5 Madam Usher.
6 You may keep the statement and the chart with you, but any
7 personal notes should be removed. If you want to consult any personal
8 notes at any point in time, please address me and ask for permission to
9 do so. Otherwise it shouldn't -- they shouldn't be there.
10 Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen now, please, 1D05106.
14 Q. Would you have a look at this map and would you confirm that
15 these are the locations of particular relevance to your testimony?
16 A. Yes. Novi Pazar, Sjenica, and Tuti are within my area of
17 responsibility when I worked for the state security.
18 Q. Would you like to, if you're given a pen, indicate the location
19 or the area which was within your area of responsibility.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. And would you also indicate the area covered by the Kraljevo DB
22 centre as a whole.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Perhaps you could indicate your area of responsibility with an A
25 and -- yes, go ahead and do that.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. And the Kraljevo centre responsibility with a B.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you. Let me just ask this before we move from the map:
5 The Novi Pazar department or section was an organisational unit within
6 the DB of Kraljevo and yet the two areas seem not to overlap. Is there a
7 reason for that?
8 A. This was one organisational unit, the state security of Kraljevo,
9 including Novi Pazar, Kraljevo, Cacak, and Krusica.
10 Q. So just so that we're clear: The two areas that you've indicated
11 were administered by the Kraljevo centre as a whole? Did the Kraljevo
12 centre --
13 A. Yes, that's the way it was, yes.
14 Q. Were there any other areas administered by the Kraljevo centre?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Would you indicate what they were as well?
17 A. No, no.
18 Q. So just so we're clear: The two areas in -- are those areas
19 which fell within the territory administered by the Kraljevo DB centre?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Your question now is different from what you
21 apparently were seeking.
22 Thus, do the areas A and B as you marked them on the map, do they
23 cover the complete geographic area of the Kraljevo centre?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they do.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this as an exhibit. I'm not
2 altogether sure whether this would fall within Your Honour's order or
3 not. I suspect not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think at this moment there's no reason to have
5 this under seal.
6 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be D453.
8 JUDGE ORIE: D453 is admitted into evidence.
9 Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock; we have one and a half
10 minute left.
11 MR. JORDASH: Do want to use it, Your Honour?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you start reading my mind. Mr. Jordash, let's
13 be -- you apparently want to enter a new area.
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, therefore, I think it's better to conclude for
17 Mr. Corbic, we'd like to see you back tomorrow. Let me see.
18 We'd like to see you back tomorrow, Thursday, the 13th of October, at
19 9.00 in the morning in this same Courtroom II. And I hereby instruct you
20 that you should not speak or communicate in any other way with anyone
21 about your testimony, whether that's testimony already given today or
22 still to be given tomorrow and perhaps after tomorrow.
23 We stand adjourned, and we'll resume on the 13th at 9.00 in the
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of
3 October, 2011 at 9.00 a.m.