1 Thursday, 10 November 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-03-69-T. The Prosecutor versus
10 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Is there any follow-up on what we discussed yesterday, witness
14 MR. JORDASH: There is. Firstly in relation to DST-060, we would
15 like to make an application, an oral application for a subpoena.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And may I take it that it is based on the same
17 grounds as the application -- the earlier application as a matter of fact
18 which ended up in a summons? Let me just see.
19 MR. JORDASH: I did foreshadow this earlier but didn't make an
20 application. This was probably three weeks ago. I did --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see, yes, yes. I might mix up at this
22 moment. We'll have -- yes, the -- we heard yesterday that the
23 Prosecution would not oppose the application.
24 MR. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The basis seems to that the witness seems to
1 be reluctant or, at least, refuses to come and testify, yes.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not object
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything you would like to add to this,
5 Mr. --
6 MR. JORDASH: I think with the threshold criteria, I think Your
7 Honours, unless Your Honours need to hear further in relation to the
8 attempts we've made, the second threshold material is that the witness's
9 information may materially assist the case and our submissions have been
10 laid out when we made the application for a videolink, so they are there.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so we rely on that.
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider the matter. We'll do it with
14 priority. If we would need any further information, then we'll first
15 seek that information through informal means to be put on the record at a
16 later stage. I repeat, if.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then is there anything else? If not, could the
19 witness be brought into the courtroom.
20 MR. JORDASH: Whilst the witness is being brought into court,
21 perhaps we could just deal with one other matter which needs to be dealt
22 with at some point. In relation to the witnesses that Your Honours
23 issued the decision on yesterday, the 92 bis now no longer 92 bis, having
24 considered the matter overnight and consulted with our client, we have
25 decided not to proceed with those witnesses.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Neither of them.
2 MR. JORDASH: Neither of them.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Neither of them. Yes.
4 MR. JORDASH: We apologise for what might seem like a waste of
5 judicial resources considering the issue, but ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: We have considered it. The decision is there and
7 the Chamber decided for both the same and gave some suggestions for one
8 of them, but you have now decided not to call either of them. That's
10 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 MS. MARCUS: Can I just inquire as to the third who was part of
13 that application who was a 92 quater, whether this only applies to the 92
14 bis witnesses or also to the 92 quater witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, for 92 bis and 92 ter, of course it's relevant
16 whether you call the witnesses or not. Of course for a 92 quater
17 witness, that is not an issue, at least not for this 92 quater witness, I
18 wouldn't say never for any of them. But I think Mr. Jordash clearly
19 referred to the two witnesses on which the Chamber had decided yesterday
20 and I think I announced yesterday that we would postpone, or at least we
21 would give our decision for the third one, at a later stage. So I
22 understood it not to be covered by your observations.
23 MR. JORDASH: That's correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Dragicevic. First of all,
25 apologies for --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, apologies for being so impolite as to
3 continue our conversation when you are entering the courtroom.
4 Mr. Dragicevic, I would like to remind you again that you are still bound
5 by the solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
6 and nothing but the truth, the solemn declaration you gave --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- on Tuesday.
9 Mr. Farr will now continue his cross-examination.
10 Mr. Farr, you may proceed.
11 MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 WITNESS: VLADO DRAGICEVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Farr: [Continued]
15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dragicevic.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. To start with I want to clarify one thing I think may have been
18 incorrectly recorded in the transcript yesterday. Can you just confirm
19 that the uniforms you saw Rajo Bozovic, Zika Ivanovic and the other
20 special unit veterans wearing in the video of the Kula ceremony that we
21 watched yesterday are the same uniforms as the uniform that you saw
22 Franko Simatovic wearing and the other members of the DB escort wearing
23 during the hostage negotiations in 1995? Is it correct that those are
24 the same uniforms?
25 A. Yes, as far as I can remember.
1 Q. Okay. When we stopped yesterday we were discussing the
2 relationship between Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Milosevic. In paragraph 87 of
3 your statement you discuss one aspect of that relationship, specifically
4 the reason for Mr. Stanisic's dismissal. You say:
5 [As read] "There were a lot of talks in public and press about
6 the dismissal of Stanisic in 1998. It was said and written that Stanisic
7 had a clash with the Milosevic family. I think that the direct cause was
8 direct clash regarding the solving problems in Kosovo."
9 In paragraph 88 of your statement you say:
10 [As read] "Stanisic believed that the Kosovo crisis could be
11 resolved by political means through negotiations and agreement and not by
13 MR. FARR: And can we now please have 65 ter 477 -- sorry, 4777.1
14 on the screen. This document is a set of meeting minutes from meetings
15 of the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija in 1998. This is a
16 selection from a larger document of only those minutes that are relevant
17 to DB involvement in Kosovo and this document was received from the
18 Serbian government on the 19th of July, 2002.
19 Q. Sir, it's the Prosecution position that you are incorrect
20 regarding Stanisic's views on Kosovo. I'm going to show you a few
21 excerpts from the minutes of meetings of the Joint Command for Kosovo and
22 then ask you whether they affect your opinion.
23 MR. FARR: Can we please have page 5 in English and page 5 in
24 B/C/S around the middle of the page in both languages.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm informed that we have technical difficulties.
2 When the Registrar says to me that the system is down, it must be
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that the problem has been resolved.
6 MR. FARR:
7 Q. Sir, these are the meetings -- sorry, these are the minutes of a
8 meeting of the Kosovo and Metohija Joint Command from the 2nd of August,
9 1998, and I'm interested here in the comments of Mr. Gajic. First of
10 all, can you confirm that a man named David Gajic was a senior official
11 of the Serbian DB at this time?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Mr. Gajic is recorded as saying:
14 [As read] "Legija from the line tt trig point 751 to Istrelov vrh
15 tt-728 and Krstovo Brdo [phoen] and Raponja [phoen] Rakitnica. The aim
16 is to seal off Lausa. They reached the mosque in Lausa." At the
17 continuation of the meeting just below, he seems to say: "The JSO and
18 the 4th Detachment entered Lausa. The 3rd Detachment is at this former
19 lines. Move two companies to the 4th Detachment in order to reach
20 Ovcarevo more quickly. No."
21 MR. FARR: If we could now have the next page in both languages,
23 Q. This page shows the minutes from the meeting the next day, the
24 3rd of August, 1998. And at the beginning General Pavkovic is recorded
25 as saying:
1 "Frenki and everyone go to Likovac tomorrow." And then on the
2 bottom half of the page Mr. Radovic says "the Franko special unit, it
3 is," and then something was unclear to the translator, "going to between
4 Drenica and /illegible/ Mahala."
5 MR. FARR: If we could now have page 8 in both languages, please.
6 Q. This page reflects that these are the minutes from the 12 August
7 1998 meeting and that Jovica Stanisic was also present.
8 MR. FARR: If we can have the next page, we'll see what
9 Mr. Stanisic says.
10 Q. And I'll read it just in part. Among other things he says:
11 [As read] "Send the DB units from Lodza to Rausic had the
12 offensive not been" -- then a word that was illegible to the translator,
13 "we would be having big problems and it's part of a resolute stand by JV.
14 We shouldn't fool ourselves, the centres have not been cleaned. We need
15 more successes."
16 Just below that we see Mr. Sainovic say: "The DB should cover
17 and take over this third zone." And "the DB and the army should jointly
18 come up with ideas for what to do next."
19 Finally on the bottom half of the next page in both languages,
20 Mr. Minic is recorded as saying:
21 [As read] "We have crushed their military power part is in the
22 towns, part in Albania and part has been killed." He then lists under
23 important points at number 2: "Find the terrorists, keep flushing them
24 out and liquidating." And then in "(DB)".
25 There are other similar quotes in the other minutes in this
1 document but I think that this is a fair representation of them. Sir,
2 the Prosecution position is that these minutes show that you are wrong
3 when you say that Mr. Stanisic favoured a political solution in Kosovo
4 rather than a war. What is your response to that?
5 A. Before I begin, I would like to draw attention to the Prosecution
6 and the Honourable Chamber to the fact that I did not participate in
7 those events and I haven't seen this document before. As for my
8 statement that Mr. Stanisic based his main views on the basis of
9 resolving the crisis through negotiations and agreements rather than
10 through war, when I use the word "war" I did not have in mind global
11 meaning of the words but rather combat against KLA terrorist units with
12 all the means available to our country and our state.
13 What happened here is something to do exclusively with the
14 struggle against Albanian terrorist formations and one should understand
15 it solely in that way. In my view, Mr. Stanisic's position was also to
16 try and find a solution through talks with normal and reasonable people
17 with a view to putting a stop to all the events and chaos that prevailed
18 in Kosovo at the time. This is my opinion.
19 Q. Now, you've just made a reference to -- well, you said:
20 "When I use the word war I did not have in mind global meaning of
21 the words but rather combat against KLA terrorist units with all the
22 means available to our country and state."
23 The last quote that I read, which is spoken by a Mr. Minic, but
24 at a meeting where Jovica Stanisic is present, he lists under important
25 points at number 2: "Find the terrorists, keep flushing them out and
1 liquidating" then in "(DB)." Sir, doesn't that indicate that
2 Jovica Stanisic supported and, in fact, was involved in the execution of
3 precisely what you are talking about, combat against KLA terrorist units
4 as you describe them?
5 A. Well, that was exactly the purpose for having our anti-terrorist
6 unit, that would be used in such situations.
7 Q. So your evidence is that when you said that Mr. Stanisic was, in
8 your view, opposed to war in Kosovo, that didn't include opposition to
9 combat between the DB special unit and the KLA?
10 A. You have to understand that we perceived and understood KLA units
11 to be terrorist units. For that reason we used our anti-terrorist units
12 exclusively in fighting with them and not fighting the civilian
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dragicevic, just for my understanding, you say
15 Mr. Stanisic preferred peaceful solutions rather than war. And you said
16 but KLA those were terrorists, that's not war. Who else was there? What
17 military units were there else than the KLA to even consider to go at war
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know they were the only
20 ones. There was our army. As for the view held by Mr. Stanisic that
21 these two -- these means of combatting terrorists should also be used,
22 well, they are the means used world-wide but it does not mean that one
23 needs to resort to them at all costs. One also needed to engage in
24 discussions with those who one could speak to down there, engage
25 terrorist units and that was the way to go about it. But it was not a
1 struggle against the civilian population.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But of course you -- to conduct war against a
3 civilian population is not exactly what one would expect an army to do,
4 isn't it? You don't go at war with the civilian population, you go at
5 war with the armed forces of the other party and if I understood you
6 well, the only armed forces you could fight against in Kosovo was the
7 KLA, but you have now added to your answer that it was not only the --
8 targeting the KLA, but also to seek ways of peaceful negotiations, is
9 that how I have to understand your answer, that both tracks were on the
10 mind of Mr. Stanisic?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so. Of course, an army
12 is not used against the civilian population. It is only used against
13 alien or foreign armed forces. That was where Milosevic made a mistake
14 later on.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's another matter. Thank you for this
17 Please proceed, Mr. Farr.
18 MR. FARR:
19 Q. Sir, just one more question on this matter. You just said: "An
20 army is not used against the civilian population it's only used against
21 alien or foreign armed forces."
22 Isn't that the definition of a war, or have I misunderstood you
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes, but he also said -- sorry to jump up --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, while, Mr. Jordash, you may object against the
1 question, but to add to the question is not what -- if you say could you
2 please add what he said in line so and so, then Mr. Farr can decide what
3 he does.
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I am sorry.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's not for you to add to his question.
6 MR. JORDASH: No, you are right. I am sorry.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But you would like Mr. Farr to add something to his
8 question or give more context?
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think Mr. Farr missed out the essential
10 sentence which was the sentence immediately after the witness's --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, would you consider to rephrase your
12 question in light of what Mr. Jordash just said.
13 MR. FARR: Your Honours, in fact I think I'm happy to leave it
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we proceed.
16 MR. FARR: And at this point I would tender 65 ter 47771 --
17 4777.1 as a Prosecution exhibit. It contains minutes from meetings on
18 six different days. In the interest of time we've only used excerpts
19 from three of those days but the remaining three are relevant to the same
20 point and we offer this only for impeachment.
21 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do object insofar
23 as the document that we have before us is not minutes. These are notes
24 made by one of the individuals who took part in the meeting. We feel it
25 is inappropriate to call the document "minutes" and we do feel it is
1 inappropriate to have it admitted in the file in view of the nature of
2 the document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Farr would say that he seeks admission of the
4 notes taken at these meetings, would that change your position,
5 Mr. Petrovic? And second question would be, does it go to admissibility,
6 and if so, please explain, or does it go to weight?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it goes primarily to
8 the weight that can be attached to the document, but also in terms of how
9 far the answers can be -- given by the witness can be helpful since the
10 questions as termed when put to the witness characterise the document as
11 minutes, and that was how the witness answered these questions. And, of
12 course, it adds to -- terming the document as "minutes" adds to the
13 weight of the document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the questions that were put to the
15 witness, I think did not focus on whether you would call them minutes or
16 notes. As a matter of fact, he was asked whether what was contained in
17 that document, whether the substance did change his mind and I asked a
18 few questions in relation to the answers he gave to Mr. Farr.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, the contents of the
22 document are unreliable, unverified and on the basis of unreliable and
23 unverified notes, the witness was asked to answer a number of questions.
24 That's the basis of my objection in relation to the document itself, the
25 way it was used with the witness and in light of what the witness had to
1 comment on the document.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dragicevic, you've seen the document which
3 certainly does not appear as a verbatim record of what was said. Would
4 your questions -- would your answers have been any different if Mr. Farr
5 would not have called them minutes but notes where they appear to be
6 notes rather than verbatim minutes?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've already said
8 that this is the first time I'm seeing the minutes. However, I cannot
9 give any valuable answers because I didn't attend the meeting, nor was I
10 part of that team. I can only give my opinion on the matter and say what
11 the way was that Mr. Stanisic believed the crisis in Kosovo could really
12 be resolved. So I can comment on the document but I don't know how
13 helpful I can be in that regard.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: I spoke too soon. Having taken instructions, we
16 also object to the document. Our position is that it is not authentic.
17 It has Mr. Stanisic present in August of 1998 and he was not present in
18 the relevant location at that time. In fact, he was in Greece.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that the document will be -- authenticity
20 seems to be a matter which we should look at.
21 MR. FARR: Your Honour, could I --
22 JUDGE ORIE: The authenticity of course, of a document -- first,
23 Mr. Farr, I give you an opportunity to respond.
24 MR. FARR: Just briefly, in terms of authenticity, this document
25 was received from the government of Serbia and it's our position that
1 that's sufficient authentication for the purposes of admission.
2 Obviously other concerns about authenticity can go to weight. In
3 response to Mr. Petrovic's distinction between minutes and notes, I think
4 he concedes that it's a record of the meeting, whatever it's called.
5 It's offered for purposes of impeachment. It's not offered as the basis
6 for a conviction. And the Chamber will weigh the document against the
7 witness's evidence on this point.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, of course I see the document also for
9 the first time today. Where is the location of the meeting mentioned in
10 the document?
11 MR. JORDASH: I think it was the very first entry and I think the
12 location was Pristina. Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And we find that where exactly? Not on the very
14 first page at least. I have difficulties in finding. It's a meeting of
15 the KiM Joint Command. Date 27th July. So it's not only August but it's
16 also July. But that may not be the -- the meeting where Mr. Stanisic is
17 reported to be present.
18 MR. JORDASH: I think that --
19 JUDGE ORIE: The 2nd of August is, as far as I can see now, but
20 having a glance on the document, I do not see any location. Meeting is
21 continued in the evening hours.
22 MR. FARR: Your Honour, it's the 12th and 13th of August entries.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. 12th of August. That is on page 8 in
24 e-court. Let me see. I do not see yet a location. As far as the 13th
25 is concerned, I do not see any location either.
1 MR. JORDASH: I think all the meetings -- I don't think it says a
2 location in the notes but all the meetings of the command were held -- of
3 the KiM Joint Command were held in Pristina.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- at least that's the understanding of the
6 MR. JORDASH: And certainly Mr. Stanisic's understanding that he
7 was in Greece and they certainly weren't held there.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
9 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
11 one other point. Can Mr. Farr explain to us whether the document was
12 received from the government of Serbia? In that case, do they have an
13 RFA to which the government of Serbia responded, and if not, in what way
14 was the document obtained. If there is any relevant evidence to that
15 effect, we'd kindly ask to be informed of them.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, I think you told us already that you
17 received it from the government of Serbia?
18 MR. FARR: That's correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Or at least you said it originated from the -- you
20 didn't say, I think were those words that you obtained it. But at the
21 same time what the gist of all this is, Mr. Farr seeks to undermine the
22 value of the evidence of this witness in relation to what he says were
23 Mr. Stanisic, his intents as far as the resolution of the Kosovo problem
24 is concerned. The document is exclusively used for impeachment purposes.
25 Now, the witness says, I wasn't involved. And the witness has not
1 expressed himself on whether it's accurate or not what is written down
2 here, but he says, more or less, in my assessment, I have not included
3 this information, whether true or not true, but he has not considered
4 that information. And he has then explained further what he meant when
5 he said that Mr. Stanisic was rather peace-negotiation oriented than war
6 oriented, what he understood to be war and not to be war, which is all
7 relatively separate from what we find in the document. It's only the
8 document triggered these observations. The witness did not in any way
9 rely on them.
10 So I'm just wondering what we are actually talking about at this
12 MR. JORDASH: Well, I share Your Honour's query. From the
13 Defence perspective we accept, or Mr. Stanisic accepts that the JSO was
14 used in military action against the KLA, which we, the Defence, say was a
15 terrorist organisation, and to that extent in our submission, the
16 document is now of little value given that Mr. Farr has put those
17 suggestions to the witness, the witness has responded. In our submission
18 to put a huge document like this in front of the court with all these
19 potential problems doesn't really add to the cross-examination exchange
20 in our submission.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So if Mr. Farr would have introduced his questions
22 by, what would you say if reports would exist which says that
23 Mr. Stanisic this and this and this which he is allowed to do, then we
24 wouldn't need the whole document for the understanding of the evidence of
25 this witness.
1 MR. JORDASH: Unless Mr. Farr's case goes beyond Mr. Stanisic
2 using the DB resources as a means of combatting the KLA, then since that
3 is accepted between the parties, then -- and has been put to the witness,
4 it seems that the document doesn't take the matter any further.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and apart from that it goes without conflict of
6 course, it's just you are -- Mr. Farr, you are --
7 MR. FARR: I was just going to say the concession is that it was
8 used against the KLA but then part of it is also that the KLA was a
9 terrorist organisation, which makes it sound like these were -- it's
10 essentially allowing the Defence characterisation of this as being
11 anti-terrorist operations, which has a connotation of police work. What
12 the notes make clear is that this was in fact a military operation. This
13 was an armed conflict. This was a war.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, any party inclined to include the whole of the
15 Kosovo conflict into this case?
16 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you. And --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr?
18 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I don't think that's what I'm asking for.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, it was about impeachment, isn't it? You wanted
20 to confront the witness with documentary evidence and where the
21 documentary evidence in itself and the truth of it is not the basic thing
22 to see. You are testing the assessment of this witness whether
23 Mr. Stanisic was inclined to a more peaceful approach or that he would --
24 and I think -- it's a peaceful approach or that he would also take an
25 option of the use of armed force in the Kosovo context. Let me try to
1 explain it. I mean, the witness has answered those questions. I can
2 even imagine that you wouldn't need the document anymore, so apart from
3 whether it's authentic or not, because you said you would only use it for
4 impeachment. Now, whatever you needed from the document to seek the
5 impeachment of the witness, I think you've told him. Not -- of course,
6 we'll fully research the authenticity and go into all the details, but
7 that's not the point, is it? I'm looking at all three parties now. Both
8 Prosecution and Defence. Prosecution in tendering it, Defence in so
9 strongly objecting to it.
10 MR. JORDASH: I thought you were with us then, Your Honour, but,
11 yes, we agree.
12 MR. FARR: Just one more point. This isn't an attempt to
13 introduce the entire conflict. This is notes from six days --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, Mr. Farr, you are not going to explain
15 that I think if you focus on ten days in August that I wanted to say that
16 ten days in August is the whole of the conflict. Of course not. I mean,
17 that doesn't need any further explanation. You have to understand my
18 words, that is, are we going to -- are we going to discuss in the context
19 of this case the armed conflict character of what happened in Kosovo.
20 MR. FARR: Just more point, Your Honour. And perhaps I should
21 have made this clear. The witness purports to understand the
22 relationship between Stanisic and Milosevic, one aspect of that is the
23 reason that he says Milosevic dismissed Stanisic. Stanisic's views on
24 Kosovo are, therefore, relevant to this witness's understanding of the
25 relationship between Milosevic and Stanisic. I didn't put that to him,
1 but that's argument.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The ruling of the Chamber: The document in itself
4 used for impeachment reasons having heard the answers of the witness does
5 not add probative value, and, therefore, it's not admitted. Not for any
6 authenticity concerns, but just that for your exercise seeking to impeach
7 the witness, that -- and you said that that is what you wanted to use the
8 document for, that the probative value is not such that we should admit
9 it. Therefore, admission is denied.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. FARR: Your Honour, that's the end of my examination. No
12 further questions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's a dramatic end, Mr. Farr.
14 Mr. Petrovic, do you have any further questions for the witness?
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like to put
16 several questions to the witness, if I may.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Farr, this does not mean,
20 and I also explained this to the Defence teams, that the non-admission
21 doesn't mean that the answers the witness has given, triggered by quoting
22 this document, that that evidence is in any way not there. It's there.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's clear, Your Honour. Thank
1 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
2 Q. Mr. Witness, in relation to the last line of questioning by my
3 learned friend, can you tell us do you know if in 1998 the KLA at least
4 according to the American State Department, Mr. --
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpret didn't catch the name.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Was characterised as a terrorist organisation; right do you
8 recall that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you also recall in the summer of 1998 -- the name of the State
11 Department official is Robert Gelbard. I notice that it was missing from
12 the transcript.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and is the spelling as we find it on the
14 transcript correct at this moment?
15 MR. PETROVIC: G-e-l-b-a, I think. A.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honour.
18 Q. Witness, do you remember that at the time in the summer of 1998
19 almost 40 per cent of the territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo
20 was under the control of the Kosovo Liberation Army?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you, witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The previous answer, at least I take it from the
24 transcript has not been answered. Whether the witness is aware,
25 Mr. Dragicevic, that the official from the State Department referred to
1 the KLA as a terrorist organisation? Oh, now, I see there is a -- let me
2 see, yes, it's a bit confusing, the question was answered, then you added
3 to the name and then, of course, the question was answered. Apologies.
4 Please proceed with your next question, Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Witness, my learned friend began his examination today by asking
7 you about the uniforms that you saw in the footage at Kula and during the
8 hostage crisis. Do you distinguish between the various types of
9 uniforms? Are you a person who would have any knowledge of the various
10 patterns used for camouflage uniforms?
11 A. Unfortunately, I was just an ordinary soldier and have no ability
12 to draw that distinction. The only thing I can say is that at the review
13 held in Kula, the unit that was lined up wore the so-called dress
15 Q. Can you distinguish between two types of camouflage uniforms?
16 Are you able to draw that distinction?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, there is a clear suggestion in these
20 questions that there may be different uniforms. If that's your point,
21 then, of course, we would like to explore that. We have pictures of both
22 and it might assist the Chamber that you point the differences. The
23 witness has told us that from looking at it, it very much looked the
24 same, and that seems not to be a thorough expert opinion on the matter,
25 but if you see any difference between the two, please assist us and say
1 look here the patches there or different colour or the -- that assists us
2 more than further questions on this witness may not be the most
3 appropriate person to make such distinction and that his layman's eye
4 doesn't see at this moment from what he saw very briefly the distinction.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, but
6 my learned friend's question was formulated in the same way. He saw one
7 photograph at one time, then he saw another photograph and the question
8 was were those uniforms identical. He couldn't make a comparison. He
9 was simply asked whether they were identical so he expressed his views
10 based on his layman skills.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I'm asking your assistance. I'm
12 asking your assistance. The Prosecution apparently wants to establish
13 that the uniforms are the same. Now, with all relativity this witness
14 not being an expert, the Prosecution asked, well, in your eyes was it the
15 same, yes or no. Now, apparently you are challenging that. I mean, your
16 question is saying you can't make a distinction, isn't it. There's a
17 clear suggestion there that it's different and I'm seeking your
18 assistance, show us, apart from what this witness can tell us about it,
19 that the uniforms are clearly different. So that we can focus on that
20 because without this challenge, you could, with all relativity, the
21 evidence not given by an expert but with a layman's eye, you might be
22 inclined to believe that the uniforms are the same, they look more or
23 less the same, and if you are challenging that, we need your assistance
24 to say look at that, look at that, look at that, so that we are better
25 able to either follow the non-expert evidence and using our own layman's
1 eye, or that you say no. If you look there, open our eyes for any
2 difference between the two.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understand your
4 suggestion but with your leave, I would like to proceed in the following
5 way. I just wanted to get an answer from the witness whether he was ever
6 involved in comparing uniforms, whether he had any skills in that
7 respect. With your leave, the assistance that you are seeking we shall
8 of course do our best to provide it to the Trial Chamber during our
9 presentation of evidence. At this point in time, we don't think that
10 this is an appropriate approach, we are happy with this answer but we do
11 understand your need for us to research and explore this issue further
12 on. I would then try, when we come to presenting our case, to provide
13 appropriate photographs and comparisons if it is agreeable with you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Can the witness be shown document P3017.
17 Q. It's a document, Mr. Dragicevic, that my learned friend showed to
18 you yesterday.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we first look at page 1,
21 Q. Mr. Witness, this is a report compiled by an employee of the
22 federal Ministry of the Interior on the 8th of August, 1992, as it says
23 here. On this front page, do you see any incoming step, any protocol,
24 register number, any indication at all confirming that this document was
25 received by the competent service of the ministry?
1 A. Your Honours, if I may look a little bit closely at the document.
2 Thank you. It's all right now.
3 Q. Do you see any designation indicating that the document was
4 submitted and received?
5 A. These kind of documents are not submitted. Therefore, there is
6 no official incoming stamp.
7 Q. There is no incoming stamp at all?
8 A. Yes. Usually such a stamp is put on the right-hand side and it
9 confirms that the document was received by the ministry.
10 Q. In the upper part of the document can you see any marks that
11 would suggest that this document was sent by fax or by any similar means?
12 Can you infer anything from that?
13 A. No, I cannot.
14 Q. You would agree that documents were sent by fax from one address
15 to the other?
16 A. Yes, I heard of that especially within I look at these red
18 Q. This is irrelevant because this was a designation made by the
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Now, can we move to page 6 in
21 Serbian and page 7 in English.
22 Q. Could you please look at the first few lines in the Serbian and
23 for the benefit of the Chamber, it's the lower half of the page in
24 English, where it reads that Ivanovic, aka Crnogorac, had a group
25 numbering about 40 members who identified themselves as officials of the
1 MUP of Serbia. My question for you is, do you know if the author of this
2 report ever checked with the MUP of Serbia or the State Security of
3 Serbia, whether Zivojin Ivanovic was really an official of the MUP of
4 Serbia, or if he had any genuine connection with the ministry, or did he
5 falsely represent and introduce himself?
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please try not to overlap.
7 The interpreters didn't catch the answer of the witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer because since
9 there was no pause between question and answer, the interpreters were not
10 able to translate your answer.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer now? No, I don't know
12 anything about that.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I continue?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Witness, are you aware that after the 1991 demonstrations in
17 Belgrade that President Milosevic's security detail took over from the
18 state security service, the public security service of the MUP of Serbia?
19 A. That is correct. We used to have the so-called
20 2nd Administration which provided protections to the VIPs and facilities
21 that was under the jurisdiction of the state security of the
22 Republic of Serbia.
23 Q. Is the fact that Milosevic was engaging public security instead
24 of state security illustrates the existence or the absence of Milosevic's
25 trust vis-a-vis the state security department?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
2 MR. FARR: That's clearly an invitation to speculate.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] May I rephrase my question,
4 Your Honours?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if that's a spontaneous offer, then please do
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. How do you understand the reasons that prompted Milosevic to have
9 the public security station take over his security obligations and
10 responsibilities post-1991 demonstration?
11 MR. FARR: Your Honour, same objection. In the absence of a
12 foundation, it's still an invitation to speculate. There's no basis to
13 believe that this witness would know why Milosevic made that decision or
14 what the reasons were.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then take it step by step. Are you familiar
16 in any way with the reasons that prompted Milosevic to have the public
17 security station take over his security and the responsibilities after
18 the 1991 demonstration?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I understood it, that was only
20 one of the elements that demonstrated President Milosevic's mistrust. I
21 am sorry I just wanted to make a brief introduction.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But my first question is whether you are familiar
23 with the reasons, then we'll further explore, or Mr. Petrovic will
24 further explore what that familiarity is based on and then as a third
25 step what those reasons were. First, are you familiar with the reasons?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no proof for that and I
2 don't know what the underlying reasons were. All I know is that it was
3 done that way.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, there seems to be not a lot of basis
5 for step two and step three. Please proceed.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Witness, do you know for how many years prior to 1992 the
8 state security provided security services to presidents of the republic
9 and other state dignitaries?
10 A. Ever since I joined the State Security Services, the protection
11 of VIPs and other dignitaries was within the jurisdiction of a special
12 administration within the service that was in charge of that.
13 Q. Minutes ago you mentioned a 2nd Administration. Now, are we
14 really talking about the 6th Administration within the state security
15 department that was in charge of providing the protection of VIP, that it
16 has this specialised duty?
17 A. I mentioned a second section and I had some other section in
18 mind, but, yes, you are right, we are actually talking about the
19 6th Administration of the state security of the MUP of Serbia.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. Mr. Witness, are you aware that after
21 the dismissal of Mr. Stanisic in 1998, were the ranks introduced in the
22 State Security, Service introduced for the first time after the
23 Second World War?
24 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
25 Q. Do you know that after the departure of Mr. Stanisic, the key
1 points in the service were filled by members from the public security
3 A. Yes, for the most part, that is correct.
4 Q. Do you know -- just one moment, please.
5 [Defence counsel and accused Simatovic confer]
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Witness, in the speech that you analysed yesterday with my
8 learned friend, the speech read out by Mr. Simatovic in Kula, there was
9 mention of 1991 and the 2nd Administration. Would you agree with me that
10 in 1991, the 2nd Administration did not exist at all in the state
11 security department; is that correct?
12 A. [No interpretation]
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the answer.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreters have not heard the answer. Could
15 you please repeat your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Witness, you mentioned your encounter with Captain Dragan in
19 2000, if I'm not mistaken, during the October coup. Do you know if
20 Captain Dragan took place in these turmoil events that took place in
21 October 2000, and if you know, on whose side was he?
22 A. As far as I know, I heard that he sided with the forces that were
23 against Milosevic who carried out the coup.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have
25 no further questions.
1 Thank you, Mr. Dragicevic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's time to take a break. Could you give us
3 an indication as to how much time you would still need, Mr. Jordash?
4 MR. JORDASH: 25 minutes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 25 minutes. Then we'll take a break, but before
6 doing so, Mr. Jordash, the Chamber would be assisted by knowing the last
7 known address of the witness we talked about earlier, so as to
8 finalise -- to give follow-up on your oral application.
9 MR. JORDASH: A member of my team tried to call him this morning
10 and spoke to somebody in his office and we are waiting for him to call
11 back, so there's instructions to obtain his address.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Could we go briefly into private session.
14 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 We take a break and resume at ten minutes to 11.00 and expect you
11 to finish by quarter past 11.00, Mr. Jordash.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Again, apologies for the delayed start.
15 Mr. Jordash, are you ready?
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
19 Q. Mr. Dragicevic, I want to just return to a matter that my learned
20 friend for the Prosecution dealt with yesterday at the close of the day
21 and it's the issue relating to the relationship between Milosevic and
22 Stanisic. And my learned friend dealt with it generally, or in a general
23 sense at page 14885 of the transcript, and put to you that at line 21:
24 [As read] "We can agree on that basis, i.e., on the basis that
25 Stanisic had kept his position from 1992 until 1998 that whatever their
1 subjective feelings for each, Milosevic and Stanisic worked together
2 professionally and effectively."
3 And my learned friend asked you in a general sense: "In other
4 words Milosevic valued and appreciated Stanisic's work."
5 And you said: "Well, if you view it that way, yes."
6 I want to have you clarify that answer as compared to some of the
7 comments you made in your statement concerning the mistrust between the
8 two. And I don't want to deal with it in a general way, I want you to
9 try to give some concrete examples concerning your view that there was
11 MR. JORDASH: Could we please turn to the witness's statement at
13 Q. At paragraph 85 where you say:
14 [As read] "I think that Stanisic managed to keep his position
15 because Milosevic was smart enough to keep someone on that position who
16 was good in his job. Stanisic was from the DB and had a good team."
17 Now, of course it's a legitimate question as to how and why
18 Stanisic kept his job, especially in light of what you say was mistrust
19 between the two. Could you try to clarify how that mistrust manifested
20 itself from what you observed in the years between 1992 and 1998? What
21 conversations were you having or what were you observing? Could you make
22 this as concrete as possible, please.
23 A. President Milosevic was intelligent enough as a human being and
24 politician to make sure that he did not get rid of individuals who were
25 professionals and dedicated to their work that easily, especially if they
1 were people who would try to perform any task they were given in the best
2 possible way.
3 Let me give you a few examples to illustrate what I've just said
4 and to support my belief of there having been mistrust on Milosevic's
5 part vis-a-vis Stanisic. It was already stated here that the
6 6th Administration, charged with the protection of VIPs, provided its
7 services to all leaders and very important persons, VIPs, whenever it was
8 called upon to do so. Milosevic changed all that. Instead of hiring
9 people from state security, he drew upon people from the Ministry of the
10 Interior and even his personal escort was a policeman.
11 Should I give his name?
12 Q. Certainly.
13 A. Senta Milenkovic.
14 Q. Let me just pause you there. In relation to other VIPs what was
15 the situation, was it only Milosevic who received security from outside
16 of the state security?
17 A. That's right, only Milosevic. No one else. The
18 6th Administration serviced everybody else. The second example, on the
19 night when Mr. Stanisic flew to Bosnia in order to obtain from
20 Mr. Radovan Karadzic a document to the effect that he was withdrawing
21 from politics and all the positions he held, the weather was terrible and
22 his life was at risk. I stayed behind at Uzicka Street villa and I
23 remember that Mr. Holbrooke had already gone back to the American
24 embassy. Those left behind with me were Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Sainovic and
25 Mr. Milan Milutinovic.
1 At one point Mr. Milosevic took my arm in his and suggested that
2 we should take a walk in the garden. As we were strolling, he asked me
3 what it was that we also discussed with the Americans, with the CIA at
4 Langley. My answer was that I had drawn up a report on this matter and
5 that the president was given a copy of it. I said that I had one
6 objection to make and Milosevic asked me what it was that you can object
7 with the president of a state. I said that I drew up the report in one
8 copy only and that I'd like to have that copy back.
9 Q. Sorry, I'm limited in time. I want to really stay on the focus.
10 What do you mean when you say that Milosevic or what do you mean when you
11 imply that Milosevic appreciated Stanisic's work? Which work are we
12 talking about?
13 A. I think that Mr. Milosevic highly appreciated the professional
14 work exhibited by Mr. Stanisic as an intelligence officer, as well as a
15 counter-intelligence, topnotch analyst who had the political flair as
16 well. After all, he had a degree in political science and was an
17 educated man.
18 Q. You describe in your statement a cat-and-mouse relationship
19 between Milosevic and Stanisic. That's at paragraph 70. What does that
21 A. Well, at this point I wouldn't be able to tell you who had the
22 role of mouse and who of the cat. However, there was this constant game
23 of upmanship where Stanisic insisted on concrete issues that he believed
24 he was right about and that needed to be appreciated, and on the other
25 hand the manipulations that politicians are normally given to
2 Q. At paragraph 72 you discuss the Kula award ceremony and you note
3 that in the last three sentences:
4 "There were a lot of people around Milosevic who were against the
5 DB and he alone was rather distrustful, and perhaps in a way that
6 celebration was supposed to improve the position of the service."
7 In which way was that celebration supposed to improve the
9 A. Well, there were certainly a great deal of suspicion around at
10 the time. I can state upon full responsibility that the State Security
11 Service was one of the most respectable institutions in the country, one
12 which was fully aware of the job it was doing and what sort of job it
13 was. That's something I would not be able to say of other institutions.
14 There was a great deal of resistance to state security on the part of
15 some individuals, it was just the human nature, I don't know. At any
16 rate, there was a great deal of suspicion.
17 Q. Which individuals had this distrust, or, sorry, a good deal of
19 A. Well, I mean above all the circle of people around
20 President Milosevic, politicians. I'm not sure about the army. At any
21 rate, primarily people from the political circle around
22 President Milosevic and from the Socialist Party of Serbia. And if I may
23 be allowed to explain, my understanding of the ceremony at Kula, I
24 believe that the ceremony was conceived in such a way that Milosevic
25 should be impressed by it, by our intention to create a modern centre and
1 put together an anti-terrorist unit that would be equal to all similar
2 units world-wide, a unit that would be bent on fighting international
4 Q. Was it significant or not that, as you've said in your statement
5 at paragraph 84, that the service, according to Stanisic, was not
6 supposed to interfere with politics? Was it significant that Stanisic
7 wasn't a politician?
8 A. I think it was one of the main points that I personally agreed
9 with, if I can be allowed to give my opinion. To this day, I believe
10 that every service must be outside of politics, though in part I can say
11 that none of the services --
12 Q. Mr. -- was it significant that Stanisic wasn't a member of the
13 SPS? Please answer concretely, I'm running out of time.
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. In which way? From what you observed, what you saw, what you
17 A. Well, if you don't belong to a single political party then you'll
18 allow me to say then you enjoy a bit more freedom than everybody else in
19 doing your job concretely. If you are tied to a party, then you are
20 bound by the decisions of the party leadership. I had been a member of
21 the Yugoslav League of Communists, when the party ceased to exist, I did
22 not join another and have not in fact to this day.
23 Q. Okay. Just to finish off Kula award issue, did you receive an
25 A. Yes, I did. A wrist-watch.
1 Q. What for? Why?
2 A. Well, I don't know. If you view the footage from Kula, I
3 can't -- I don't know if you heard -- if you were able to hear what was
4 being said there but when my name was read out, Mr. Stanisic asked and
5 what was it that you got this award for.
6 Q. Were you a member of the anti-terrorist unit?
7 A. No, no, I wasn't. Perhaps it was for my contribution to the
8 organisation. I don't know.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, Kosovo. We heard that -- or you testified that
10 the US State Department had designated the KLA as a terrorist
11 organisation. Now, putting aside the United States designation, are you
12 able to testify as to why the state security or Stanisic considered the
13 KLA at that point in time to be a terrorist organisation? What you saw
14 and what you heard is what I'm interested in.
15 A. I did not have firsthand experience because I did not go to
16 Kosovo to be able to witness specific activities and KLA actions, but on
17 TV you were able to see fully-armed units with full gear who were engaged
18 in terrorist activities, attacks on the civilian population, and attempts
19 to cleanse huge areas of Kosovo of any Serbs whilst at the same time
20 committing atrocities.
21 MR. JORDASH: Can I have, please, on the screen 1D05246.
22 Q. And this is a visit of the CIA to, I think, Belgrade. Perhaps
23 you can assist with this.
24 A. Yes, it's the visit to Belgrade.
25 Q. In May of 1996?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Were you part of this visit and meeting of intelligence services?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. JORDASH: Could we go, please, to page 1 -- to page 4 of the
5 B/C/S and page 1D082206 of the English. Perhaps this shouldn't -- this
6 should be under seal. There are some names in it which ought not to be
8 Q. I only want to go to this page because it just contextualises the
9 report and deals with the visit of the, as you can see there on the
10 screen, the visit of a respective person from the CIA. And then if we
11 move over to the B/C/S page 7 and 1D082209 of the English, and it's a
12 report there of what Stanisic is reporting to the CIA in 1996. And you
13 can see there Jovica Stanisic said that:
14 [As read] "He just returned from Pristina so he was in a position
15 to provide information on the merit. Having given a short description of
16 the terrorist actions in Decani, Stemunje [phoen], Peja and the village
17 of Sipolje near Kosovska Mitrovica, he said that these are synchronised
18 acts of Albanian extremists, which is collaborated [sic] by the fact that
19 they occurred within the time interval of only about 40 minutes. He said
20 that it would be a dangerous task to destabilise the local area, Serbia,
21 and the entire country."
22 Then Stanisic goes on to, during this meeting, disclose the names
23 of various officials who in his view the instigators of these crimes and
24 then later on refers to the so-called president of Kosovo's government in
25 exile Bujar Bukoshi. Were you present when Stanisic was reporting
1 terrorist actions to the CIA?
2 A. Yes. In contact with a representative of the CIA in Belgrade, we
3 furnished information and evidence in support of our statements that such
4 activities were indeed happening in Kosovo.
5 MR. JORDASH: Can we go over to the next page, please. That's
6 page, I think, 8 of the B/C/S and 1D082210. And again we won't refer to
7 the name, but you can see halfway down the page in the English there's a
8 name mentioned, senior member of the CIA, "... reiterated that they are
9 concerned about the possibility of an escalation of terrorism in Kosovo,
10 the outbreak of conflict that would lead to armed conflicts and the
11 intervention of the Yugoslav Army ... And especially the expansion of the
12 crisis to neighbouring countries. In this context, he singled out
13 Macedonia and predicated that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of
14 Albanian refugees could destabilise the situation in that country.
15 Jovica Stanisic agreed with these findings and pointed out that a
16 potential armed rebellion in Kosovo and Metohija, Albanians would have no
17 chance and besides they are not ready for war."
18 Were you there during that discussion when that particular
19 American CIA agent agreed with the assessment of an escalation of
20 terrorism in Kosovo? You still with us?
21 A. Yes, yes, I am.
22 Q. Were you there during this discussion?
23 A. I paused because you were talking. Yes, I was.
24 Q. And can you recall what was said about the concerns of the
25 intervention of the Yugoslav Army into the conflict or into the
2 A. Well, the American side was particularly concerned or worried by
3 the Army of Yugoslavia. Were there to be a crisis or military conflicts
4 as Mr. Stanisic said, the ethnic Albanians would not stand a chance but
5 that would, at the same time, expose the civilian population to a great
6 deal of suffering. The conflict would probably spill over to the
7 territory of the Republic of Macedonia and there were conflicts brewing
8 in that part of Greece which is known as --
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the name.
10 MR. JORDASH:
11 Q. Which part of Greece, what was the name of the --
12 A. Chameria [In English] The northern part.
13 Q. To wrap up this subject, let's go back to your statement in
14 paragraph 87 and 88 you discuss there Stanisic and his conflict with
15 Milosevic over the issue. Can you just in two sentences or three
16 sentences just summarise the core of that conflict over Kosovo, please.
17 A. After the initial events, Milosevic opted for the use of force
18 and this was the main reason why he came into conflict with Mr. Stanisic.
19 Mr. Stanisic had contacts with certain leaders of the Kosovo Albanians
20 and I still fully agree with his views. I think he was right. It was
21 possible through -- to solve the crisis through negotiations and
23 Q. How often was Stanisic leading with Kosovan Albanian leaders at
24 the time?
25 A. I don't know that. I wasn't there at the time.
1 Q. Did Stanisic meet with any American officials in Belgrade
2 concerning the issue about how to resolve the Kosovan crisis or how to
3 prevent it escalating?
4 A. Almost every meeting Mr. Stanisic had with representatives of the
5 American administration had to do with the crisis in Kosovo, and with how
6 to resolve the crisis in the best possible way.
7 Q. Over which period of time?
8 A. I think that it applied to the early days from the first
9 indications of the conflict in Kosovo through to the end of Stanisic's
10 term of office.
11 MR. JORDASH: Could we just go into private session for a moment,
13 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
14 MR. JORDASH: I'm almost finished, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. Just to clarify one final issue which I don't think we've really
3 specified in the type of detail that I hope we can. The issue of force.
4 You just said that Milosevic wanted to use force, on the other hand we've
5 seen documents which show that the JSO was involved in the use of force.
6 Could you try to clarify what the distinction was between the approach
7 Stanisic wanted to take in relation to force and the approach that
8 Milosevic wanted to take in relation to force?
9 A. I cannot comment on Milosevic's approach to this notion because
10 I'm not fully aware of what he was thinking. I can only speak about
11 Mr. Stanisic's approach. It was based on the principle of pure
12 anti-terrorist combat, which is the principle applied by each and every
13 country in the world. That means, in other words, to annihilate the
14 terrorists and to proceed thereafter with political negotiations with a
15 view to finding a peaceful solution.
16 Q. Thank you. And finally, were there any political murders that
17 you are aware of during Stanisic's reign as chief of the state security,
18 and the second question was: Was there any after he resigned?
19 A. I know for sure, because I was in the service at the time, that
20 while Mr. Stanisic was chief of the State Security Service there were no
21 murders of that kind. After his departure and after General Markovic was
22 installed in that position, assassinations started taking place in
24 Q. Do you know what Stanisic's relationship was like with Djindjic
25 before his unfortunate murder?
1 MR. FARR: Your Honour, this doesn't arise from cross.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, in our submission, it does. The Prosecution
4 have tried to link through this case in general Stanisic with political
5 or the activities of the JSO after his resignation --
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think the issue is Mr. Farr says it doesn't
7 arise from cross-examination, not that it may not be relevant in the case
8 as such. Could you indicate where this matter was touched upon in cross?
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, there was a discussion between my learned
10 friend and the witness concerning Djindjic and the timing of this
11 witness's resignation and --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the objection is denied. Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. This is my last question --
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. This is my last question, could you just answer that question:
17 Do you know what the relationship was like between Stanisic and Djindjic?
18 A. I believe that they had an extremely good relationship.
19 Q. Why do you believe that?
20 A. On several occasions I saw Mr. Djindjic in the office of
21 Mr. Stanisic.
22 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you,
23 Mr. Witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
25 Any need for further questions.
1 MR. FARR: I would have just one matter briefly, Your Honour, if
2 I may.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do.
4 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Farr:
5 Q. Sir, during cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic you were asked
6 whether you were aware that after the dismissal of Mr. Stanisic in 1998
7 ranks were introduced in the State Security Service for the first time
8 after the Second World War. And you said, "Yes, I am aware of that."
9 When we watched the Kula video yesterday we saw Zika Ivanovic and
10 Radojica Bozovic both being introduced as colonels, and then following
11 that in a portion of the video that we didn't watch, a number of other
12 men are introduced as colonels, there are then lieutenant-colonels,
13 captains, and so on down the ranks. Can you explain, I guess, your
14 answer that there were no ranks in light of that?
15 A. I can tell you that the special operations unit was a military
16 unit and it had ranks. Members of the State Security Service, however,
17 were people in civilian clothes and we didn't have any ranks. I
18 personally was against that. We just had titles.
19 Q. So ranks existed in the JSO but not in the rest of the DB; is
20 that your evidence?
21 A. Correct.
22 MR. FARR: Your Honour, at this time I would renew my motion for
23 the admission of P -- sorry, of 65 ter 4777.1. That's the document that
24 the Chamber ruled on immediately before the break, and I'm renewing my
25 motion because I believe circumstances have changed. The issue of Kosovo
1 was explored quite extensively and I would just call the Chamber's
2 attention to one answer in particular, page 42, beginning at line 2, the
3 witness was asked about Mr. Stanisic's approach in relation to force, he
5 "It was based on the principle of pure anti-terrorist combat
6 which is the principle applied by each and every country in the world.
7 That means, in other words, to annihilate the terrorists and to proceed
8 thereafter what political negotiations with a view to finding peaceful
10 In my submission, that makes the admission of 4777.1, as
11 impeachment, appropriate.
12 MR. JORDASH: Can I just briefly take instructions, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 [Defence counsel and accused Stanisic confer]
15 MR. JORDASH: We would remove our objection if I can ask one more
17 JUDGE ORIE: There's an offer there, but Mr. Petrovic, would you
18 take -- would you also have one question and then --
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I still stand by to
20 everything I said and I really cannot discern any change in the situation
21 based on Mr. Jordash's questions. His questions can be formulated in the
22 same way like Mr. Farr's questions, so this document is not helpful at
23 all. It will remain in evidence and it will be the subject of your
25 MR. FARR: And Your Honour, just to be clear, I'm offering it for
1 the same person, for impeachment only. I'm not offering it as a basis
2 for conviction.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't hear any objection to Mr. Jordash asking an
4 additional question. Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
6 Further re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
7 Q. Staying with the subject of Kosovo, do you know anything about
8 Al-Qaeda in relation to Kosovo?
9 A. No.
10 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is withdrawn, I do understand,
12 Mr. Jordash.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies the objections still standing as
15 expressed by Mr. Petrovic and will admit into evidence the document and
16 has taken notice of the Prosecution telling us that it is still seeking
17 admission for impeachment purposes at this moment.
18 Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH: There was one issue from yesterday which was the
20 47th extended session of the --
21 JUDGE ORIE: If we could please perhaps first deal with this one
22 or is there any ...?
23 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, no, I apologise. I jumped the gun.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Because we have to do all the formalities for
25 admitting it into evidence. Madam Registrar, the number of the document
1 which is, let me have a look --
2 THE REGISTRAR: 4777.1, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It would be?
4 THE REGISTRAR: P3046, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any need to have it under seal?
6 MR. FARR: Not that I am aware of, but I would prefer to check
7 that just to be sure, so perhaps provisionally under seal.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P3046 is admitted provisionally under seal,
9 Mr. Farr, could we hear from you say within the next 24 or 48 hours.
10 MR. FARR: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: We do not object to the Prosecution tendering the
13 65 ter 6303 which is the 47th extended session of the FRY Supreme Defence
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We have no objection either,
16 Your Honours.
17 MR. FARR: And, Your Honour, for the record we have uploaded the
18 portions only the portions that we rely on that we indicated to the
19 Defence counsel yesterday as 6303.1.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If there would be any need for further
21 contextualization to have other portions we'll hear from you, but may I
22 take it that you accept this limitation at this moment.
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, 65 ter 6303.1 would receive
25 number ...?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Number P3047, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And any need to have it under seal?
3 MR. FARR: Again, Your Honour, I'd prefer to check.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P3047 is admitted provisionally under seal. Same
5 time-limit applies, Mr. Farr.
6 Is there any other matter in relation to documents used or ...?
7 MR. JORDASH: There is, will but there's a long list I don't
8 think there's any need to detain the --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, we don't need to keep the witness for that
11 Mr. Dragicevic, this concludes your testimony. I'd like to thank
12 you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering the questions
13 that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench. And I wish you a
14 safe return home.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ORIE: As matters stand now we have no witness for next
17 week, Mr. Jordash?
18 MR. JORDASH: No, I am, I guess, hoping that the witness who is
19 scheduled next may avoid the -- may come of his own volition.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would say then this might resolve the
21 problem of having no witness. There is no alternative scenario so that
22 we could use our time in court?
23 MR. JORDASH: The alternative scenario is the UN personnel who --
24 I forget his, DST-069, who again is subject to -- not again, who is
25 presently subject to a subpoena, we are trying to contact his ministry
1 again in the hope that he will not require a service of it, but will
2 actually, again, get on a plane and be here for next week. But apart
3 from that, I think we have run out of witnesses. I think we have some --
4 one or two, I think, outstanding 92 bis applications and then we have our
5 proposed expert for the Mladic diaries, and also a prominent witness from
6 England who we've indicated to the court that we wish to apply to have
7 them attend out of turn and probably during or after the Simatovic case,
8 so that's the situation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because we have some uncertainties here now,
10 and of course this raises another question that is where the Simatovic
11 stands in preparing its case presentation. I mean, we have at least one
12 where you applied to be able to call the witness after the Simatovic
13 Defence had started. And of course, we urged the Simatovic Defence to
14 prepare for the start of their case presentation. Under the present
15 circumstance, of course, we cannot be sure that we are not losing a lot
16 of time up until the moment when you have presented your last witness,
17 so, therefore, the Chamber is even more -- more than it was before
18 interested in where the Simatovic Defence stands as far as the
19 preparation of their case presentation is concerned. Yes, Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: May I just indicate in relation to the two
21 outstanding witnesses, DST-060 and DST-069, those that we -- if they were
22 here we could call, it may well be that we can finish those in three
23 days. I'm speculating, but certainly in relation to DST-060, we do not
24 intend to spend more than 45 minutes in addition to his 92 ter statement,
25 if he arrives here. And in relation to DST-069, he has a voluminous
1 transcript and I suspect that he is not going to be the most contentious
2 of witnesses to say the least. So it may well be that if we lose next
3 week, we could still, in substance, finish the Stanisic Defence the week
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the witnesses are here.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's --
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's, of course, what I'm inquiring about, where
8 the Simatovic stands in preparing for their case presentation. I mean,
9 if they would not appear, if we would have another empty week and another
10 empty week, of course we would have to seriously consider to see whether
11 the remaining witnesses, once they appear, that they could be heard even
12 if that would be after the start of the Simatovic Defence case
14 MR. JORDASH: We would have no objection to whatever keeps the
15 trial moving, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course I'm not anticipating on any
17 decisions yet, but I'm just inquiring in how we can proceed without
18 losing time. And that's the reason why I address the Simatovic Defence
19 at this moment where we earlier urged them to seriously prepare for their
20 case presentation, where we stand and what could be done if the situation
21 would arise that we can't hear any Stanisic evidence.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our Defence team are
23 doing our best to get ready for starting our case. You are aware of our
24 problems that date back to the earlier period. However, we believe that
25 we can accommodate the Trial Chamber with their intention to avoid
1 wasting time, or rather, wasting weeks while we wait for specific
3 I think that within the next two weeks it will be unrealistic to
4 expect us to call our first witness. It would also be useful and
5 beneficial to us if we were not on stand-by next week in anticipation of
6 a possible appearance of a witness which would give us some spare time to
7 prepare ourselves better for our Defence case and the examination of our
8 first witness. Therefore, at this point I think it is not realistic to
9 expect us to begin our examination of witnesses before the week starting
10 on the 28th, specifically because certain unpredicted things happened in
11 the meantime, we expect a 92 bis witness to appear plus another two
12 witnesses, and we counted upon on that to happen within the next two
13 weeks. And I also think that in that category is the undefined status of
14 a protected witness, an OTP witness, for whom the Stanisic Defence team
15 requested to be recalled and examined in relation to the Mladic diary.
16 So before the 28th we are technically not in a position to start
17 calling our witnesses. However, it would be beneficial to us to know if
18 there were no witnesses in the next two weeks, I, myself, and my
19 colleagues have some free time to become and get prepared better.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you are on your feet.
21 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour, yes. On the 3rd of November
22 we sent an e-mail to the attention of the Simatovic Defence requesting
23 information about the order for the first five witnesses. To the best of
24 my knowledge we didn't receive a response. I think that that would be
25 very helpful to our preparation if we could receive that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You are saying you are just asking for the order,
2 not the date on which --
3 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I would add one question to that. You are talking
5 about 92 bis witnesses. Have statements been taken and are they on paper
6 at this moment, Mr. Bakrac?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe I wasn't precise
8 enough. I was not referring to our 92 bis witnesses, but rather the
9 witnesses called by the Stanisic Defence and it was decided today not to
10 recall them for cross-examination. All these circumstances have improved
11 our situation in terms of our accelerating our work.
12 Now, as regards to the remark raised by Ms. Marcus, it is no
13 problem, we see no problem for us to send in the shortest possible time
14 the list of witnesses starting from the 28th onwards until the recess
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say you see no problem to send in the
17 shortest possible time. What is the shortest possible time? Is that
18 this week, is that Monday, Tuesday? I'd like to have concrete
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we were not working
21 next week and if my colleague and I can go on the required trips in the
22 field, I think that at the beginning of the week after we can give you
23 the list of witnesses that we intend to start with. And besides we have
24 no objection to the Mladic's diary expert be examined either during or
25 after our case, but if you allow me, I would like to express our opinion
1 with regard to the Prosecution witness.
2 Now, for clarity, I would kindly ask for us to go to a private
3 session for a minute.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We will do that, but first, what Ms. Marcus is
5 asking is the order of the first five witnesses. So we start with A,
6 then B, C, D, E. Would that really need another ten days? I mean, they
7 can start inquiring in the background of those witnesses, they can see
8 whether they have testified before, what is known about them, so as to
9 start the preparation. I take it that's what you want?
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: She is not asking for the full list at this moment,
12 but at least to know in which order the first five will appear. Is there
13 any way you can provide that earlier than in ten days from now?
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, tomorrow is Friday and
15 if we are not working next week I'm going to check on Monday already with
16 the witnesses that we intend to call according to certain sequence,
17 whether they are able to come over and after that we can provide
18 Ms. Marcus with a list. But before that we have to check all the
19 logistical issues involved and whether all these witnesses are really
20 ready to travel and come to The Hague.
21 JUDGE ORIE: One -- I can imagine that even if it's not certain
22 yet whether finally that order would be followed, Ms. Marcus would be
23 happy to receive in which order you are going to ask these witnesses to
24 come and then it may well be that one is not available or another one is
25 not available, but at least that you have some guidance as to where to
1 start. Ms. Marcus, is that --
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we need to know, perhaps in the
3 way that the Stanisic Defence did. They put in order, at times that
4 order had to be changed, we tried to be flexible. But we would like to
5 see the order that you anticipate as soon as possible, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: When could you provide what you have at this moment
7 on your mind as the order you would wish -- the order in which you would
8 wish the witnesses to appear? Could you already provide Ms. Marcus with
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, if it is
11 acceptable for Ms. Marcus we can have it ready for her on Monday.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, would that assist?
13 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked for us to go
16 briefly to a private session, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
18 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Any other matters? Any other matter to be raised?
13 MR. JORDASH: Only seeking some guidance. We received, I think,
14 an e-mail in informal communication from the Chamber concerning the
15 expectation that we would not, I think, seek to admit -- apologies if I
16 don't get this completely accurate, but I think the gist of it was that
17 we shouldn't seek to admit evidence during the Simatovic case or
18 subsequently that we ought to have admitted during our case. The
19 position is this: That we considered long and hard about filing another
20 application for an adjournment because we have received a huge amount of
21 disclosure over the last six weeks, I think in excess of 100.000 pages.
22 There is, before the Prosecution jump up, no criticism of the
23 Prosecution, it's just 66(B) requests and material from other cases and
24 so on. Having considered whether to an apply for an adjournment, we took
25 the view that the better approach, especially bearing in mind
1 Mr. Stanisic's health, was to review that material during our own case
2 and continue reviewing it during the Simatovic case and then seek to have
3 admitted any evidence we discover in that -- discover from that
4 disclosure on perhaps an on-going basis, which doesn't mean to say that
5 we'll be bombarding the Chamber with applications. We'll obviously do it
6 in a sensible way, but we would hope that Your Honour would appreciate
7 that way of proceeding rather than having to deal with another
8 application to adjourn.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are putting a marker here to say where the
10 Chamber expects you not to start presenting evidence once you have
11 finished, apart from that one exception of course, I hint that the
12 possibility that there may be other instances, although we'd really like
13 to not to seek you to go on presenting your case, that you say in view of
14 disclosure over the last six weeks, not blaming the Prosecution, which of
15 course also raises a question whether all these requests for this
16 material to be disclosed was timely done, but let's not discuss it at
17 this moment but I just put that. You put a marker here and say that if
18 that material triggers any need to call any further evidence, we might
19 ask for that.
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's hereby on the record. I'm not in any
22 way anticipating on how we would react to that, but it's clear that you
23 would rather not have your hands bound by that guidance of the Chamber in
24 view of this specific material, and whether your hands are still bound or
25 not will be decided once we have received any application in this
1 respect. And you already indicate that such applications would mainly
2 rely on recently disclosed material.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, we intend to file bar table motions in the
4 next - we hope - in the next two weeks in relation to our 65 ter list.
5 It's material which hasn't as yet made it on there that we are concerned
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll see how matters develop. I'm not
8 granting anything in any way at this moment, any application will be
9 seriously considered by the Chamber, and we have given our main ideas on
10 this matter in the earlier communication with the Defence. That is, no
11 new evidence after, that's our main, and you say we might nevertheless
12 apply for specific material to take a different approach.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's on the record.
15 Nothing else? Then -- yes, Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: To avoid being in trouble with my Case Manager, may
17 I request to tender certain documents, please, in relation to this
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I asked earlier whether there was anything
20 outstanding and then I gained the impression that there was not, but that
21 I must have wrongly understood the signals and there was another matter
22 where it may be that Mr. Bakrac may have misunderstood, he said about two
23 witnesses that you indicated this morning that they would not need to be
24 called for cross-examination. As a matter of fact, I understood your
25 message to be that they would not be called at all.
1 MR. JORDASH: Correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: All right. That's hereby then corrected as well.
3 The documents, Mr. Jordash.
4 MR. JORDASH: There is a long list, so I don't know if
5 Your Honour want to do it now or we can send Your Honours an e-mail with
6 the designation and the agreement between us and the Prosecution and the
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think numbers have been provisionally assigned. I
9 think I indicated that earlier.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that not all the documents were
12 covered by the previous provisional assignment of numbers. For that
13 reason, I think it would be best that you prepare it together with
14 Madam Registrar and of course it should then be -- a decision should be
15 pronounced in open court but we'll do that as soon as we resume and even
16 a possibility I think there is a -- there is a housekeeping session
17 announced, we might deal with it at that housekeeping session.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour. There's one further issue,
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. JORDASH: It's the public summary for DST-036.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. JORDASH: Should I.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you are able to read it, let's have that done.
25 MR. JORDASH: The witness stated that he was from -- sorry, the
1 witness stated that from 1975 to 1979 he worked for the state security of
2 the Republic of Serbia. In 1985, the witness started working for the
3 federal State Security Service. In late 1992, the witness became special
4 advisor to the chief of the service before progressing to the head of the
5 9th Administration. In 1997 he became the assistant chief of the DB.
6 The witness testified that he met with representatives of foreign
7 services and reported back to Mr. Stanisic. If necessary, Stanisic would
8 also meet with the representatives. During the time that Stanisic was
9 chief, the service raised its contacts with foreign services from around
10 40 to around 60 states. The situation deteriorated once Stanisic was
11 fired in 1998.
12 The witness described meeting a number of people from the CIA.
13 The first contact between Stanisic and the CIA was secret and took place
14 in early 1992. The witness was also present. They discussed how to
15 resolve certain situations and how to assist the CIA in collecting
17 The policy of the service was to emphasise contact and
18 co-operation with other countries. Following the signing of the peace
19 agreement in Dayton, the witness together with Stanisic went to Zagreb to
20 discuss the implementation of the Dayton Accords.
21 The witness describes the hostage crisis that occurred in
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 where United Nations personnel were captured
23 and used as human shields to forestall NATO attacks. The accused
24 Stanisic was responsible for the negotiations with the Republika Srpska
25 state leadership. The negotiations succeeded and in early June of 1995,
1 the first convoy was taken out of Bosnia and into Serbia. Over 450
2 soldiers were eventually freed and transferred into safety.
3 The witness also described the accused Stanisic and the
4 State Security Service's participation in the liberation of the French
5 pilots captured in Republika Srpska in the second half of 1995. Stanisic
6 also participated in the liberation of a journalist, David Rohde from
7 Christian Science Monitor. The witness also testified to participating
8 in secret operations together with the CIA and representatives of the
9 FRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs in locating or searching for potential
10 mass graves in Eastern Bosnia.
11 The witness also stated that in 1996, the State Security of
12 Serbia detained Erdemovic for war crimes and arranged his delivery to
13 The Hague Tribunal. The witness escorted Erdemovic to The Hague. The
14 witness believed that Milosevic's attitude toward the
15 State Security Service and Stanisic was characterised by mistrust. The
16 witness testified to the relationship between Stanisic and Milosevic.
17 The State Security of Serbia was not responsible for Milosevic's
18 service -- sorry, security.
19 Finally, the witness was in charge of the protocol in the Kula
20 ceremony of 1997. He believed that the point of the ceremony was to show
21 Milosevic that they had a modern unit to fight against terrorism and to
22 improve the position of the state security in Milosevic's eyes.
23 According to the witness, the accused Stanisic was a professional who did
24 not belong to any political party. He directed the work of the service
25 towards combating nationalism and did not express discriminatory
1 behaviour within his role. Stanisic insisted that rules, especially
2 procedure regarding obtaining approvals for measures such as phone
3 tapping, be obeyed. The witness believed the direct cause of Stanisic's
4 dismissal was a clash with Milosevic regarding the approach to the
5 Kosovan crisis. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
7 Then we adjourn and we'll -- the date I announce that we'll
8 resume would be the Tuesday, the 15th of November at quarter past 2.00 in
9 the afternoon, but I already add to that that there's a fair chance that
10 we'll not resume on that date because there will be no witnesses. And
11 then we'll inform the parties and the public after having heard from
12 Mr. Jordash when we actually will resume.
13 MR. JORDASH: I shall send an e-mail as soon as my consultant has
14 met with the witness. She is waiting for his call.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
16 We stand adjourned.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.12 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of
19 November, 2011 at 2.15 p.m.