1 Wednesday, 29 February 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Courtroom number III. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 There seem to be no preliminaries. Ms. Marcus, are you ready to
12 continue your cross-examination?
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then before we continue, I'd like to again,
15 Mr. Karan, remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration
16 you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
17 WITNESS: MLADEN KARAN [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Karan.
23 A. Good morning.
24 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P235, the
25 first page for now.
1 Q. Mr. Karan, a log-book of entries from the Pauk headquarters has
2 been admitted into evidence in this case. This is an operational
3 log-book containing hour-by-hour and sometimes minute-by-minute
4 operational activities regarding combat operations carried out by the
5 Joint Command in Operation Pauk.
6 Did you ever have the opportunity to see this log-book during
7 your visits to Petrova Gora?
8 A. No. I did not see that. The first time I've ever seen it was
9 here when I arrived in The Hague.
10 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 9 in English, which
11 corresponds to page 15 in B/C/S.
12 Q. Karan, this log-book contains entries describing, as I said, hour
13 to hour combat activities, including the activities of Milorad Ulemek,
14 aka Legija, and Raja Bozovic, both of who you agree commanded tactical
15 groups in Velika Kladusa in the Pauk operation. For your information,
16 there are 47 mentions of Bozovic and 78 mentions of Legija in this
17 operational log-book.
18 What you see in front of you is an example of one of the pages
19 from the log-book. These entries are from the 17th of November, 1994.
20 Let me give you just a moment to have a look at it.
21 Could I draw your attention to the middle of the page to the
22 entry at 1005. It says: "Observe targets, you will get fire."
23 And you can see the entry to Bozovic to the right of that. At
24 1040 it says: "Atalusa to be fired on by tanks, BOV-3." At 1120, you
25 can see helicopters landed near Cazin from the correction of Plitvice,
1 Muslims have abandoned Ripac and still hold half of Grabez. And to the
2 right of that, you see the entry Frenki and RPG.
3 A bit further down you will see at 1320 an entry which says:
4 "Muslims are organising a counter-attack from the direction of Vrnograc,"
5 and to the right of that you see again RPG and Frenki.
6 Do you know who bore the nickname RPG?
7 A. I never -- RPG [Realtime transcript read in error "APG"] is the
8 abbreviation for the radio interception group or, rather, the centre that
9 was on Petrova Gora.
10 Q. So based on what you have told us about Frenki's activities in
11 the context of the Pauk operation in terms of gathering reconnaissance,
12 isn't it a fact that these entries describe combat operations, not purely
13 reconnaissance activities?
14 A. No. Let's comment upon the entry at 1120 where it says: "Three
15 helicopters landed near Cazin from the direction of Plitvice." You could
16 observe that from the ground as well. However, when it comes to
17 electronic surveillance, electronic surveillance is the best to observe
18 such activities and at the same time Muslims are organising a counter
19 attack from the direction of Vrgorac which means that they were listening
20 into the communications of the 5th Corps. So it is easy to conclude that
21 this is, in practical term, an intelligence activity and not a combat
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise for interjecting, but I
1 would like to say that on line 7 the abbreviation is misrecorded.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It should be RPG. That's hereby corrected.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. Could the Court Officer please call up
5 65 ter 6402. Your Honours, this is a demonstrative exhibit which the
6 Prosecution has prepared. It contains excerpts of P235. There is
7 nothing in here which is not in P235. It's merely a copy in place of
8 excerpts and we only need to show one because the document has both B/C/S
9 and English on it.
10 Q. Mr. Karan, the log-book, the Pauk operational log-book which I've
11 been showing you contains 15 entries discussing the activities of Frenki,
12 Franko Simatovic, as part of the Pauk operations. I have taken some of
13 them and put them on this exhibit.
14 Could you have a look at some of the entries on this page which
15 are from the Pauk log-book, and then I will ask you a few questions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want the witness to look at some of them or
17 all of them?
18 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. All of them, please, sir. Could you tell me when you're finished
20 with page 1.
21 A. I'm done. I'm done.
22 Q. Could we have page 2, please.
23 A. Done.
24 Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Karan, that these entries describe Frenki's
25 involvement in the planning and carrying out of combat operations?
1 A. As I'm reading this, I can say that he was partly involved in
2 combat operation activities. However, I don't see his direct command
3 over the entire thing. This is more of informative nature, i.e., one can
4 see that he arrived for the briefings and briefings, and it was up to the
5 person who entered all those entries in the log-book how he did it. I
6 didn't see him there. I didn't go there that often, so I can't claim for
7 a fact whether he was the one who was in charge of combat operations or
8 not. As far as I know, electronic surveillance is a very complex
9 activity, so if he could and if he was able to command combat activities
10 and combat operations, then I would say "chapeau" to him. And I don't
11 know what General Novakovic would have been doing in that case. He was
12 the commander. He was an experienced officer as well as Colonel Bulat,
13 who was a lecturer at the high military school. He was well-versed in --
14 on combat operations. I really don't know how much Frenki knew about
15 conducting combat operations. I really don't know.
16 Q. On the 23rd of February, at page 17716, you were asked:
17 "Did you know what duties Mr. Simatovic discharged at that time?"
18 This was in connection to Pauk.
19 Your answer was:
20 "I knew that he had gathered a group of engineers and technicians
21 that were involved in electronic surveillance. He headed that group. He
22 co-ordinated their work, and that's all I knew and all I needed to know,
23 for that matter."
24 Coming from a security operative, your comment surprised me. In
25 fact, on the 23rd of February, at page 17686, you stated:
1 "I emphasised yesterday that I can only speak about the security
2 situation in my unit, and in that sense I can also talk competently about
3 the security situation in the area of that unit, that is Western Bosnia
4 and the area bordering Croatia."
5 Wasn't it then centrally within your responsibilities to know as
6 much as you can about the situation in your area?
7 A. I don't remember that I said that I -- that my responsibility was
8 the territory of Western Bosnia. Actually, I am now claiming that I
9 never said that. This may have been misinterpreted.
10 I absolutely claim that in my area of responsibility, the area of
11 responsibility of the 21st Corps, I was really responsible for the
12 security situation. Yes, the command of Operation Pauk was within my
13 area of responsibility, but it was not under the command of the
14 21st Corps but under the command of the Main Staff. I did not have any
15 operational needs to monitor the activities and actions of the Pauk
16 operation command because they were not our enemy, and that was the
17 simple reason. And it is true that I said that Mr. Simatovic worked on
18 Petrova Gora and that he was involved in electronic surveillance together
19 with a team of people. As I've already told you, this is a very complex
20 activity, and to this very day I still claim that it would be practically
21 impossible to do both things at the same time, because it doesn't suffice
22 only to intercept conversations. These conversations have to be analysed
23 and -- and then translated into valuable reports to be sent to those that
24 they were intended for.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Karan, you said you don't remember that you said
1 that your responsibility was the territory of Western Bosnia, and does
2 that include what Ms. Marcus read, Western Bosnia and the area bordering
3 Croatia? You said you don't remember that. And then you continued by
4 saying you even claim that you did not say it and that it might be
6 Now, it's relatively easy for us to verify whether you said that
7 or not. If it is your claim that your words were not -- that's not what
8 you said and that it may have been wrongly translated, we'll verify that.
9 Is that -- is your claim so strong as -- that we should verify it,
10 because we do not wish to misunderstand your testimony. So if you say
11 you still claim this is not what you said, we'll have it verified and
12 then it's all audio recorded, both your words and the interpretation, so
13 if you say, My claim stands, then we'll do that.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stick by my claim. I was in no
15 position to ever say that my responsibility was --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Whether you were in a position or not, the question
17 is whether you did say it or whether you didn't say it, and it will be
18 verified on the basis of the audio recording of both your words and the
19 translation and what is transcribed.
20 Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
21 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Karan, wouldn't it have been part of your responsibility
23 to at least be aware who was operating in the -- in your area of
24 responsibility, what their activities involved, for security reasons at
25 least but also for information-sharing purposes toward a common goal?
1 A. Well, you're right, yes. That's correct.
2 Q. In fact, twice you used a possessive term when you were speaking
3 about the police both on your testimony at 23rd of February. The first
4 time was at page 17692 where you said: "I know that we provided
5 Fikret Abdic with police escorts." And the second time at page 17702
6 where you said: "My police intervened in such incidents."
7 It seems you did view the police activities, at least as falling
8 into your purview, certainly your knowledge, in fact, it appears from
9 your comments your -- your direct involvement, but with respect to a
10 high-level Serbian MUP official such as Franko Simatovic, you did not
11 need to know more about what he was doing other than co-ordinating the
12 work of a group of engineers and technicians in electronic surveillance?
13 A. I don't know what your question is. If I was talking about my
14 military -- my police, maybe I didn't explain myself fully. It was the
15 military police, and I was responsible for them in professional terms,
16 and maybe it is my mistake that I used the possessive "mine." We did
17 provide some of the support in addition to the civilian police to
18 Fikret Abdic, and I was responsible for issuing permits for movement to
19 members of the armed forces in the Western Bosnia region. I was the one
20 who was exclusively responsible to issue them permits for their
21 unhindered movement in order to be able to carry out their activities in
22 gathering units together, preparing for combat operations and similar
24 Q. Could I please have page 1 again. Back to page 1.
25 Mr. Karan, today, just before at pages 4 and 5, when I asked you
1 about Frenki's involvement in planning and carrying out of combat
2 operations, part your answer was:
3 "I can say that he was partly involved in combat operation
4 activities. However, I don't see his direct command over the entire
5 thing. This is more of informative nature. One can see that he arrived
6 for the briefings, and it was up to the person who entered those entries
7 how he did it. I didn't see him there. I didn't go there that often, so
8 I can't claim for a fact whether he was the one who was in charge of
9 combat operations or not."
10 And you continue to explain how difficult and complex electronic
11 surveillance is.
12 In fact, wouldn't it be consistent with the role of security
13 operatives to gathering intelligence and reconnaissance and use that in
14 guiding combat operations?
15 A. You mean me or Mr. Simatovic? Who do you have in mind?
16 Q. Well, I would -- I think it applies to both, but let's answer
17 about Mr. Simatovic.
18 A. Mr. Simatovic could collect intelligence by electronic
19 surveillance. I did not have such means. I didn't do that. I'm not an
20 intelligence officer, for that matter.
21 Q. My question to you is: Isn't it consistent, isn't it possible
22 that he could have been gathering intelligence and reconnaissance and
23 using that in the planning of combat operations? Isn't that the entire
24 purpose of gathering intelligence and reconnaissance in the context of
1 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I -- I'm not sure that the question is as
2 clear as it could be, because it's not totally clear to me, or at least
3 it's not clear to me. It's not clear to me whether my learned friend is
4 suggesting that the security officer gathers the information and then
5 personally uses it to -- for combat or gathers the information and then
6 gives it to another to be used in combat? I think that might be the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, there is some merit in this observation,
9 I think. I mean, the use of intelligence and reconnaissance in combat,
10 even if that would be the purpose and the aim of gathering it, then that
11 doesn't say that much about how it is used, by whom it is used, whether
12 it's passed on, or whether that means that the person gathering that
13 is -- is using it himself for the follow-up or the simultaneous combat
14 operations. So there is some ambiguity in that question.
15 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. I was hoping the witness
16 could shed some light on the relationship between gathering
17 reconnaissance and combat activities.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then you should put your questions in such
19 a way that there's no ambiguity in it because the risk of getting more
20 confused is greater than that we better understand it.
21 Apart from that, the witness said what he knew and what he
22 doesn't know, and of course this is a question which is rather on the
23 theoretical level, whether this is the aim and whether it could be
24 understood as whether the witness seems to have no direct knowledge of
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, respectfully, I do think that he does
2 have knowledge. He was a security officer and engaged in combat
3 operations, so --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but when he asked, Are you talking about me or
5 about Mr. Simatovic, then you said, Let's focus on Mr. Simatovic. So if
6 you want to put the same question to him in relation to himself, then of
7 course that's a different question.
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. I will do that in a
9 few moments, sir.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed --
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- with the -- in the back of your mind the
13 observations made. Please proceed.
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Karan, let me try this again. With respect to Mr. Simatovic,
16 would it necessarily be inconsistent to say that Mr. Simatovic may have
17 been gathering reconnaissance, gathering intelligence, and also used that
18 information in the planning and carrying out of combat operations, based
19 on your experience?
20 A. I'm saying again it was practically impossible physically to do
21 both, because anyone involved in gathering intelligence through
22 electronic surveillance knows what demanding work it is, and it would
23 take a super man to plan combat activities at the same time to the extent
24 I've done the same things within my service. I know this, because what
25 would be the purpose of that? If he did it, then the Pauk command was
1 not necessary, nor was it necessary to attach part of the corps command.
2 The general would not have been needed at the head of it all. The
3 Chief of Staff who was in the rank of colonel or general would not need
4 to be attached to that.
5 Q. Mr. Karan, I hear your reasoning and you were speculation. Let
6 me ask you specifically about your knowledge. Let's look at the first
7 page of the -- that's in front of us. The first entry on the 18th of
8 November 1994:
9 "Frenki requests that Alatusa and Plazikur be the first targets.
10 Do the job with 82-millimetre mortars. Do the job with our
11 co-ordination. What I am sending I will send to Ramici. When you get to
12 Atalusa open fire on Plazikur."
13 Let's move to the next one, same day a little bit later:
14 "Frenki is looking for Bozovic to insert our forces (MUP)."
15 Next entry:
16 "Frenki is sending four Maljutkas operators and two suitcases to
17 Kole in Katinovac."
18 Now, these entries, Mr. Karan, do describe, as you said earlier,
19 Frenki being involved, at least in planning, and arguably with the first
20 one even co-ordinating combat operations; isn't that correct?
21 A. From what is written here you could say that's true. However,
22 he's the first one to learn the movements of the enemy, and he's the
23 first one in a position to react, because you can see here that he is
24 informing someone.
25 Q. That is precisely my point, Mr. Karan. Frenki was in a position
1 to obtain this information and use that information in the planning of
2 combat operations. Isn't -- did I understand your evidence correctly?
3 A. No. No, because the person who first learns about the movements
4 of the 5th Corps, or whichever other enemy, must pass on that information
5 to the units that are involved, that are fighting that enemy. You can
6 see -- or you can't see from this that he is involved in the
7 co-ordination of any activities.
8 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this demonstrative
9 exhibit. It's 65 ter 6402.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. Could I just inquire whether this has been
12 in another form exhibited before. I'm not sure.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think Ms. Marcus told us it's an extract from a
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, these are excerpts from --
16 just simply cut and paste excerpts from the log-book admitted as P235.
17 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6402 will receive number P3091,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: P3091 is admitted into evidence.
22 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P3024.
23 Q. What you see in front of you is a document which is in evidence
24 in this case. It is a report from the Serbian DB JATD dated
25 February 1995 several months after we say the Serbian DB became directly
1 involved in the Pauk Joint Command.
2 On the first page you can see an overview of command post
3 security. May I please have page 2 in both languages.
4 On page 2 you see descriptions of convoy escorts and laying an
5 ambush. It says under "laying an ambush":
6 "The following members participated in the ambush:
7 "Keres," that is, by the way, Janko Keres, the author of the
8 document, "Jankovic, Dukic, Kuburovic, two Z-M Strela shoulder-launched
9 rocket system operators from the ARSK and two communications
10 operators ..."
11 Could I please have page 3 in both languages.
12 Here on page 3 you find an entry describing the conduct of sniper
14 Near the bottom it says:
15 "Keres, Jankovic, Suvara, Dukic, and Davidovic took part in the
17 Our position, Mr. Karan, is that this report describes the
18 co-ordinated joint combat operations in which the JATD participated with
19 the SVK during Operation Pauk. Would you like to comment on that?
20 A. As far as I remember, when the group for electronic surveillance
21 arrived, and that was in about 20 vehicles carrying equipment, there
22 arrived also 40 to 50 persons who secured that convoy and who were
23 engaged up there in providing security to the facility at Petrova Gora
24 itself. From this document, one could say that some of those persons who
25 had arrived took part in the activities.
1 Q. Combat activities you mean?
2 A. Yes. You can see that.
3 Q. Could I please have page 5 in B/C/S and in English page 4.
4 Mr. Karan, you told us earlier that you knew Rajo Bozovic and Legija to
5 be commanders of two of the tactical groups which operated in Pauk. As
6 you can see according to this Serbian DB report, Bozovic and Legija were
7 issued with military equipment by the Serbian DB in November and December
8 of 1994. Were you aware that Bozovic and Legija were operating in
9 Operation Pauk, deployed and equipped by the Serbian DB?
10 A. I didn't know the two of them. I only heard of them the first
11 time when they arrived in 1994. I described to you how I addressed my
12 superior for an explanation. I've never seen a document like this
13 before, and I don't know that they received special equipment from the
14 Serbian DB. I just don't have that information.
15 Q. Finally could I please have page 5 in English and page 6 in
17 The last page of this document lists special equipment and those
18 to whom it was issued. Do you recognise any of the names on this list?
19 A. No, I don't know anyone from this list.
20 Q. So you were not aware then that the individuals, these
21 individuals, were members of the JATD of the Serbian DB during the time
22 they were operating as part of Operation Pauk?
23 A. No. I believed my superior when he told me about these two, but
24 I suppose that they had arrived with some more members of their service
25 for security purposes, which would be normal, but I don't know any of
1 these people.
2 Q. On the 23rd of February, at page 17707, you were asked:
3 "Do you know that the MUP of Serbia in October 1994 or perhaps
4 later ever sent any material and technical equipment that would be used
5 in Operation Pauk?"
6 And you answered:
7 "I don't know if I was clear enough. Material and technical
8 equipment, when it comes to counter-intelligence, are not cannons or
9 ammunition. Those are some special-purpose equipment. So when the
10 commander talks about MTS is one thing, and my MTS is a different thing.
11 Our MTS is not visible, whereas the material and equipment for command
12 and its units are lethal weapons."
13 Would you agree with me that the equipment issued on this page
14 and the previous page is not equipment for counter-intelligence
15 activities, not for reconnaissance activities, but, rather, equipment
16 directly related to armed combat operations?
17 A. What I see on these lists are lights. I don't know why they
18 would be specifically intended for combat, perhaps only movement by
19 night. Could you perhaps show me again that previous list so I can
20 comment, but this tells me nothing.
21 MS. MARCUS: Could I have the previous page, please, in both
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. On this list you see that
24 some of these are MTS for combat.
25 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer now please call up P1285,
1 page 4 in English and page 3 in B/C/S.
2 Q. Mr. Karan, Mr. Bakrac showed you this document during his
3 examination last Thursday, the 23rd of February, at page 17692. If you
4 recall, this document dates from June 1994. It discusses the provision
5 of weapons and ammunition to Fikret Abdic by Slobodan Milosevic through
6 the RSK government. At page 17694, Mr. Bakrac asked you:
7 "Sir, do you know that already in June 1994, Fikret Abdic had
8 meetings with the President of Serbia?"
9 And your answer was:
10 "According to what I know, he met with the President of Serbia
11 even before that. I know that we provided Fikret Abdic with police
12 escorts. We even provided him with temporary force ID bearing a Serbian
13 name so he could cross the territory of Republika Srpska on his way to
15 Now, you explained to us a bit earlier that when you said police
16 escorts, you were referring to military police escorts. What temporary
17 force ID did you provide Abdic with?
18 A. You did not understand me well. IDs were provided to
19 Fikret Abdic for his trip to Belgrade by SUP Vojnic. We just provided
20 escort from Velika Kladusa to Vojnic to ensure safe passage, but we were
21 not in a position to provide documents like that because it was not
22 within our jurisdiction, and I said earlier that I provided temporary
23 laissez-passers to the members of the armed force of Fikret Abdic.
24 Q. One of the paragraphs you were shown by Mr. Bakrac appears on the
25 page in front of you. It begins with the words "at these meetings Abdic
1 accepted." Could I ask you to please re-read that paragraph again to
2 remind yourself.
3 A. I'm done.
4 Q. As you can see, in addition to meeting with President Milosevic,
5 this paragraph describes Jovica Stanisic as having been present at this
6 early planning and organisational meeting. Our position is that in
7 addition to Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic was also involved in the
8 organisation of military support to Fikret Abdic and the autonomous
9 province of Western Bosnia, and this is how command and control, in fact,
10 worked. First there was a political decision-making process, and then as
11 we see in the specific combat order, the military command levels use the
12 political instruction in order to develop military plans whereby they
13 establish specific missions for specific units.
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I refer the Chamber to the transcript
15 of 2nd November, 2010, at page 8640.
16 Q. Mr. Karan, does what I just put to you conform with your own
17 understanding of how the support to Fikret Abdic was initially planned?
18 A. That's not how I would read this. You are just taking the name
19 of Jovica Stanisic out of here, and you are omitting Momcilo Perisic. He
20 could have also been, based on your thinking, in command of the combat
21 operations in Western Bosnia. I believe at this meeting Jovica Stanisic
22 is the closest associate of President Milosevic, was present because
23 somebody from the security sector should have been present. I don't see
24 any link between Jovica Stanisic and the command from this. Perisic
25 could have equally been in command based on that thinking.
1 Q. That's not exactly question I asked. It is clear from this that
2 Jovica Stanisic was involved in the planning meetings, isn't it?
3 A. I don't think these meetings represented planning. Agreements
4 were only made that something needed to be done. Planning was left to
5 military commanders. I don't see the link, at least not from these few
6 sentences, that he would be the only one who would be planning
7 activities. Based on this, Perisic could have done that. What is
8 Celeketic doing here then, or Mladic? They were certainly not just
9 figureheads at this meeting.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Karan, I don't think the question of Ms. Marcus
11 included that Mr. Stanisic was the only one but purely that he was
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand what Mrs. Marcus
14 meant, but I cannot confirm what she wants to hear from me. Based on
15 these five lines, I cannot give an opinion about a matter so important,
16 although I can't rule it out either.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
18 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
19 Q. I actually think we agree on a lot of this. What -- your answer
20 was, though, one thing I wanted to ask about, you said:
21 "Agreements were only made that something needs to be done.
22 Planning was left to military commanders."
23 The paragraph Mr. Bakrac and that I just showed you says in the
24 first line: Abdic accepted a proposal on the offensive activities. So
25 the agreement in this paragraph is talking about an agreement about
1 military activities, offensive activities; isn't that right?
2 A. I don't see anything controversial about that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That wasn't the question, whether it's
4 controversial. Would you please carefully listen to the question
5 Ms. Marcus puts to you and then try to answer those questions. The
6 question was not, Do you see anything controversial? The question was
7 whether this agreement, what should be done, was about military
8 activities, whether you agree with that.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree.
10 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter --
11 yes, I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I'd like to ask a follow-up question on
13 a matter which is already a couple of minutes behind us, but perhaps the
14 memory is still closer at this moment than if I would put the question to
15 the witness later.
16 Witness, you were asked by Ms. Marcus about this report, DB JATD,
17 and she went with you through certain parts of that report. I'm talking
18 about P3024. One of them was sniping operations conducted. You were
19 asked about that, and Ms. Marcus wanted to know whether this report of
20 February 1995, whether it showed a direct involvement of the Serbian DB
21 in the joint -- in the Pauk Joint Command, and then on page 3 where the
22 sniper operations are described, she read to you that -- some names were
23 read to you, were -- took part in the action.
24 Now, you responded to the question as follows, you said:
25 "As far as I remember, when the group for electronic surveillance
1 arrived, and that was in about 20 vehicles carrying equipment, also some
2 40 to 50 persons arrived who secured that convoy and who were engaged up
3 there in providing security to the facility of Petrova Gora," and you say
4 from this document one could say that some of those persons who had
5 arrived took part in the activities.
6 Now, the two activities, sniping operations are described. I'll
7 read to you what is the second one. A member with a submachine-gun,
8 day/night site covered a marksman with a 90-millimetre RB, and after
9 their fire the -- after their fire, the area around the target was
10 covered by mortar fire, and the targets were hit.
11 Now, I do understand that this action was taken against a hotel
12 building in which the enemy were, and then it's described how -- how this
13 was done.
14 Now, this description of this action, how can I reconcile that
15 with, as you said, providing security to the facility at Petrova Gora
16 itself? You say this can be explained by that description of -- of the
17 duty of these 40 to 50 people. This seems to be an attack on a hotel
18 where the enemy is lodged. Could you explain to me how should I
19 understand this activity against this hotel or the same would be true for
20 the two-storey building which is described as securing the facility at
21 Petrova Gora.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have knowledge about any
23 activities of a certain number of persons who arrived there as a security
24 detail. That's how they came, to provide security, and we can see from
25 this document that there was fighting using the hand-held launcher of
1 19-millimetre calibre and that it was in the Cazin Krajina.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could I then put the following to you: If an
3 activity is described and if you say people came to provide security to
4 the facility of Petrova Gora, would you agree with me that there are two
5 possibilities if you see this -- this -- this operational activity
6 described? Either you can put that activity in one way or another in the
7 context of providing security to the facility of Petrova Gora -- that's
8 one option. The other option is that what is described just fell out of
9 that context, which would mean that whatever their task may have been,
10 that they may not have performed those tasks but were engaged in
11 activities which are foreign to their task. Would you agree that that
12 are the two options?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on what we can see here, it
14 is more probable that the second option that you have just laid out is
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
17 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Could I request the
18 Court Officer, please, to call up 65 ter 5608, page 188.
19 Q. My colleague Mr. Bakrac showed you this entry that you will see
20 in a moment from the Mladic diary, dated 8th of July, 1994. This is
21 where Mladic held a meeting attended by Milosevic, Perisic,
22 Jovica Stanisic, Martic, Mikelic, and Djukic. The topic of conversation
23 was what is to be done to help Fikret Abdic. Do you recall -- well, it's
24 not up yet. When it's up, could you please tell me whether you recall
25 having looked at that entry and then I will compare it to another one.
1 A. I've read it.
2 Q. Do you recall being shown this by Mr. Bakrac?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 MS. MARCUS: Could I now please request the Court Officer to call
5 up 65 ter 5609, page 83 in both English and B/C/S.
6 Q. This will be another entry from another part of the Mladic
7 diaries. This is another excerpt that was shown to you by Mr. Bakrac.
8 It was shown on the 23rd of February at page 17704. This one relates to
9 a meeting which took place on the 4th of October, 1994.
10 Mr. Bakrac did not tell you the participants at this meeting. In
11 attendance were President Milosevic, General Perisic, General Celeketic,
12 Jovica Stanisic, and General Mladic.
13 Mr. Bakrac asked you:
14 "Do you know something about the agreement between Milosevic,
15 Martic, and Karadzic? What was that about?"
16 You answered:
17 "That was about an absolute support of Fikret Abdic in every
18 term, especially in military terms, to help him return to the territory
19 of Western Bosnia. That is political framework for something that the
20 army would have to do."
21 It seems to me in that comment that you agreed with me about the
22 meetings establishing the political framework that set the stage for what
23 would happen militarily. Do I have that right?
24 A. Yes, you have that absolute right.
25 Q. Thank you. I've finished with this document.
1 Mr. Karan, isn't it a fact that in the context of war and active
2 combat operations there are many individuals who participate in combat
3 operations who do not stand at the front lines firing weapons and
5 A. Yes, that's a fact.
6 Q. So, for example, there are those who carry equipment, those who
7 drive vehicles, who fly helicopters, there are those who organise
8 logistics, and there are senior-level officers who also do not
9 necessarily fire weapons or artillery but pass down the orders to those
10 who do; isn't that right?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. Similarly, there are also members who gather intelligence or
13 reconnaissance all with the aim of protecting and ensuring the success of
14 combat operations; isn't that correct?
15 A. Absolutely correct.
16 Q. And all those individuals in the context of armed conflict are
17 considered to have participated in combat operations, even those who
18 didn't necessarily fire the weapons and artillery at the front lines
19 because they all contribute to the effectiveness of the combat; isn't
20 that correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. The question has been answered, but I would
23 have objected to the question. It's asking the witness effectively for
24 an opinion, but an opinion from which perspective? I mean, from a
25 lawyer's perspective, from a witness's perspective, from an intelligence
1 officer's perspective, from a humanitarian worker's perspective? I mean,
2 it can be answered in so many different ways.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I was more thinking about asking the obvious.
4 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I was more thinking in terms of asking for the
6 obvious. Is it true that someone who is in charge of using a telex
7 machine contributes to the -- of course. The one who cleans this
8 building contributes to the success of this Tribunal, isn't it. I mean
9 it's so obvious, Ms. Marcus. That was more my comment and it's so
10 obvious because it's put in such general terms, and that seems to be the
11 problem with Mr. Jordash. So both Mr. Jordash and I have some problems
12 with this question and invite you to come to your point.
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I will do. Could the
14 Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6404.
15 Q. Mr. Karan, this is a document from your military personnel file.
16 It appears to be an assessment made of your military performance on the
17 8th of November, 1995.
18 MS. MARCUS: Could I please request page 3 in English and page 2
19 in B/C/S.
20 Q. What it says here in the last line of the third paragraph is:
21 "During combat operations, he took all measures to protect unit
22 commands from any type of threat."
23 That does not mean that you were at the front line firing
24 artillery. You were consistently engaged in security-related tasks
25 throughout the war; is that correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. So the mention of combat operations pertains to your work as a
3 security operative for the military in the context of combat operations;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 MS. MARCUS: Could I now please ask for 65 ter 6405.
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
9 MR. JORDASH: Just would things. If my learned friend's position
10 is that contributing intelligence to a combat operation is a contribution
11 to a combat operation, then we agree with that. And then the second
12 thing is would we be able to have a break, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Marcus, the first one there seems to be
14 agreement that if that's your position, could you confirm that.
15 MS. MARCUS: That was the position I was putting forth with this
16 document, and then in that case I would not continue with any more
17 questions on this but I would request that this document be admitted into
18 evidence; that's 65 ter 6404.
19 MR. JORDASH: Could I just understand the relevance and probative
20 value of it, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
22 MS. MARCUS: Well, the relevance was what we just discussed,
23 which is that this witness's involvement in combat operations involved
24 gathering intelligence and the role of intelligence in planning and
25 organising and contributing that information to combat operations.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know whether you are reflecting exactly
2 what -- because the witness's involvement in combat operations involved
3 gathering intelligence or is it that gathering intelligence would
4 contribute and would be in support of -- could be in support of and may
5 have been here in this document, may have been in support of combat
7 MS. MARCUS: Our position would be both, and this is only one
8 part of that -- that argument, Your Honour. So this is one piece of it.
9 There will be other pieces of it, of course, yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, we have to look at the
11 evidence in its totality.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have an objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, let me give the decision on
15 admission. This -- the objection is denied.
16 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I wasn't objecting. I was just inquiring
17 and I withdraw the objection. Sorry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So then, Madam Registrar, the number would
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6404 will receive number P3092,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 Mr. Karan, you had an objection. Do I not know yet against what,
24 but please tell us.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An objection to the gathering of
1 intelligence. That was not within my purview at all. I did not gather
3 JUDGE ORIE: You'll have an opportunity after the break, in light
4 of the document, to further explain what you meant. We'll first take a
6 Ms. Marcus, would you please take the witness back to the
7 document and give him an opportunity after the break to comment on what
8 he did and what he didn't do.
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break and we resume at a quarter to
12 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Ms. Marcus, I would like the
15 witness to look at a short video of part of his testimony given earlier.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I hear a language which I think will be B/C/S on
18 channel 4 which -- oh, let me see whether -- could it be I had not my --
19 could it be played again. And, Witness, could you please carefully
20 listen and look at yourself.
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpret with like to know whether the
22 portion should be interpreted.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we can start without interpretation.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you have had an opportunity to look at your
1 own testimony and hear it. Is it still your claim that you were
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not claiming that. I repeat:
4 The autonomous region of Western Bosnia was not within my authority, but
5 I used information that I received from that territory.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'm not asking you to comment on your
7 testimony. Earlier, you suggested that it would be a mistranslation.
8 You claimed that you had not said what was written in the transcript. I
9 asked you whether you were sure your claim that what is in the transcript
10 is not what you said. My question simply now is: Do you still claim
11 that you have not said what was read to you as being part of the
12 transcript? That's the only question I'd like to receive an answer.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not claiming that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, you shifted the blame to
15 interpreters instead of explaining what you had intended to say but what
16 you did not say. We took the effort to verify it after I specifically
17 asked you whether it was still your claim that you had not said what
18 appeared on the transcript.
19 This Chamber, the parties know that, never accepts the
20 interpreters to be blamed for something they should not be blamed for.
21 Is that clear to you?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just before the break, Your
25 Honour instructed that the within should be shown again, I see it's on
1 the screen, that's admitted as P3092.
2 Q. Mr. Karan, you wanted to add something about this document.
3 A. Not to this document but to the comment that I was involved in
4 intelligence work.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that -- I
6 believe the witness is looking at the first page and I think he should be
7 looking at the second page. I believe that my learned friend was showing
8 him the second page before the break and now he has the first page before
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, that's correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's correct. Could we look at the second page.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's no comment to what it says
13 here. My only objection was to the Prosecutor's word to the effect that
14 I was engaged in gathering intelligence, and that was not what I did.
15 That was not within my purview. That was my objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Would you like further clarification, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you put something to the witness and he says,
19 That's not what I did.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Further clarification for us or to ask further
22 questions to the witness, I leave it in your hands.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I think what happened is that
24 Mr. Jordash and I engaged in a discussion, and I put our position which
25 talked about intelligence, and the witness interpreted that as what I had
1 put to him, but, in fact, my last question to him was:
2 "Your mention of combat operations pertains to your work as a
3 security operative for the military in the context of combat operations."
4 And his answer was that that was correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we can proceed, I think.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you. Your Honour, before I do that,
7 before we pass this subject and move on to another, I'd like to clarify
8 something with the Stanisic Defence. My colleague Mr. Jordash said:
9 "If my learned friend's position is that contributing
10 intelligence to a combat operation is a contribution to a combat
11 operation, then we agree with that."
12 I'd like to understand very clearly what the Defence is agreeing
13 to. It's the Prosecution's case that the accused, as members of a JCE,
14 were part of the planning and direction of military operations during the
15 indictment period. That's part of our case. Additionally, we've alleged
16 that the accused made a significant contribution to the JCE by providing
17 an important channel of communication between the JCE members.
18 The Prosecution submits that the evidence in this case has shown
19 that the intelligence collected by the DB of Serbia includes information
20 on the upcoming movements of enemy units and formations and other related
21 military matters.
22 For clarity, is the Defence agreeing that the DB of Serbia
23 collected intelligence and communicated this intelligence to military
24 structures as part of combat operations?
25 MR. JORDASH: I think I was very careful in the words that I used
1 and I stick by those words, and my learned friend's attempt to have us
2 agree to something which is quite, quite different, we refuse to be drawn
3 into that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: What happened, as matter of fact, there seemed to be
5 an agreement, although limited, on the theoretical level, the abstract
6 level, whereas Ms. Marcus wants to explore what that means on the
7 concrete level and that's where the parties quickly and strongly take
8 their own routes, and I think we should leave it to that, if the parties
9 would agree with my brief analysis of what happened.
10 MR. JORDASH: I certainly do.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I fully agree. I think
13 Your Honour --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed as you deem fit.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Karan, do you recall the date when Operation Pauk ended?
17 A. That was the date when Krajina fell, in practical terms. It was
18 either on the 9th or 10th of August, I believe, 1995.
19 Q. Isn't it a fact as well that Tactical Groups 2 and 3 under Legija
20 and Bozovic were operating in the context of Operation Pauk in the
21 Velika Kladusa area then throughout May, June, July, and into August, as
22 you say, until the Krajina fell?
23 A. Tactical Groups 2 and 3 functioned during that period of time.
24 However, I don't know whether Bozovic and Legija stayed until the very
25 end. I really don't know that.
1 Q. Mr. Karan, I'd like to clarify to you what our position is with
2 respect to Operation Pauk before I move on to a different subject. Our
3 position is that the accused Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic in
4 their capacity within the Serbian DB directed, financed, equipped, and
5 otherwise supported groups who participated in the Pauk Joint Command.
6 Among the groups supported by the accused and the Serbian DB in their
7 operations in Velika Kladusa were special units of the Serbian MUP under
8 Bozovic, Arkan's SDG, and the Skorpions under Slobodan Medic, aka Boca.
9 We do not dispute that as part of his direct participation in
10 Operation Pauk Franko Simatovic may have been gathering intelligence;
11 that would be logical in his position in the Serbian DB. However, our
12 position is that Mr. Simatovic was also directly involved in day-to-day
13 operations in connection with this Joint Command.
14 The Pauk Joint Command was just, in our position, one example of
15 both accused directing, financing, equipping, training, and otherwise
16 supporting special units of the Serbian DB who then acted in
17 collaboration and co-ordination with other Serb forces throughout the war
18 in both Croatia and Bosnia.
19 Would you like to provide any comment on that position?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Our position with respect to your evidence regarding the
22 Serbia -- Serbian DB's participation in Pauk, and in particular
23 Franko Simatovic's participation in Operation Pauk, is that either you
24 were genuinely not aware of the scope of Mr. Simatovic's and the Serbian
25 DB's activities, or you have not been entirely forthcoming with us about
1 what you do know. Would you like to comment on that?
2 A. Yes. I want to be entirely forthcoming, indeed. I have nothing
3 to hide. I was not aware of all these things you just enumerated. I
4 don't know if I'm to blame for that. I know what Franko Simatovic was
5 doing, but whether he was doing anything else, I don't know. In fact, I
6 didn't know until I came here.
7 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, could we try to get matters clear.
9 You say, in fact, I didn't know until I came here. Well, you
10 still do not know, although you have seen some documents which may, I'm
11 cautious in saying, may shed light on what has happened and what was
12 being to your knowledge. Do I understand that what was put to you as the
13 Prosecution's case, which is not necessarily the truth, that you have no
14 knowledge about what Ms. Marcus told you, what goes beyond your own
15 personal knowledge of Mr. Simatovic's activities and that because you
16 don't know you can't tell us whether it's true or not true, and that you
17 have been candid as far as your own knowledge is concerned, and what is
18 beyond your knowledge, you cannot comment on.
19 Is that -- is that your position? Did I understand you well?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So if you say, I didn't know until I came here, you
22 still do not know. The only thing you now know is you have seen a few
23 documents which may suggest that you had no full knowledge of what may
24 have happened.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said looking at the documents
1 that were shown me here that they could be read to mean that they
2 assisted in certain combat activities with their involvement at
3 Petrova Gora.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You still cannot confirm, because of lack of
5 personal knowledge, whether what these documents suggest is true or not?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no personal knowledge, no
7 other personal knowledge. I can only comment on the document before me.
8 My personal knowledge did not go that far.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Ms. Marcus.
11 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Could I please have
12 Exhibit P468, page 15 in both languages, please.
13 Q. During your testimony, Mr. Bakrac showed you this page from this
14 exhibit. You will see it coming up in a moment.
15 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, this is a confidential exhibit.
16 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry, yes. Could it then not be broadcast to
17 the public. Thank you.
18 Q. This is a list of name with Mile Mrksic's name at the top, a list
19 of servicemen. When you see it, perhaps you will tell us if you recall
20 having seen this.
21 A. I see only the front page. I don't see the list of persons.
22 Yes. Now, I see it. I remember this document.
23 Q. You identified many names on this list as active-duty servicemen
24 at the time that they were on this list. That's July 1995, and you
25 provided us with their unit and rank. Do you know the individual at
1 number 30, Nenad Bursac?
2 A. No. No.
3 Q. I'll turn to this document in a few minutes to ask you some more
5 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6411.
6 Your Honours, this is a document that was received by the OTP
7 from the government of Croatia.
8 Q. Mr. Karan, this appears to be a transcript of a summary of an
9 intercept provided by the Croatian government. The date is 29th of June,
10 1995. I'll give you a moment to read this and see if you have any
11 factual knowledge to corroborate it. As you can see, it says:
12 "Aside from all this --" now I'm reading from somewhere in the
14 "Aside from all this, a certain Frenki is also mentioned,
15 possibly from KSS special forces corps Yugoslavia, who could resolve this
16 problem for them and through whom everything was, most probably,
17 organised. Also, from the same conversation, we learn that there was a
18 rotation of instructors on the 29th of June, 1995 (the shift consisting
19 of Colonel Bursac Nenad, Warrant Officer 2nd class Borojevic Predrag and
20 Staff Sergeant Milosavljevic Milisav), and they went to the rotation in a
21 vehicle with a trailer carrying their equipment. It is not known what
22 kind of instructors they are or where they went for the shift
23 rotation ..."
24 You said you didn't know Nenad Bursac. Do you know either
25 Predrag Borojevic or Milisav Milosavljevic who are mentioned in this
2 A. No. I don't know either of the three.
3 Q. Were you aware of a rotation of instructors that took place on
4 the 29th of June, 1995?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Then I'll leave this document. Could I now please have
7 65 ter 6412. And also this should not be broadcast to the public,
8 please. It was received from the Serbian government in response to
9 RFA 1851.
10 Mr. Karan, could I ask you to have a look at this document. I
11 will read the first paragraph and then I'll ask you to read the rest of
12 the document. It's not that long. Maybe you could let us know when
13 you're finished the page so that we can move on to the next one. This is
14 a military secret report on assignment -- on an assignment called Splav,
15 and it states at the beginning:
16 "On the 24th of June, 1995, after the preparation of troops and
17 materiel and technical equipment, they were placed and stored
18 accordingly. The material equipment was stored and secured by a Serbian
19 MUP unit in the castle 'Tikves,' and the troops were accommodated in
20 Bilja, in the facilities of the Serbian MUP. The arrival and
21 accommodation of both troops and equipment was executed in full secrecy.
22 In the following period, until the beginning of the activities,
23 reconnaissance of supply and infiltration routes, in co-operation with
24 the 63rd Parachute Brigade, the 37th Infantry Brigade BOS, combat
25 security, and Serbian MUP units has been carried out."
1 Could I ask you to read further and let us know when you need the
2 page turned.
3 MS. MARCUS: Could we perhaps also move to the second page while
4 the witness is on the B/C/S page.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can turn the page.
6 MS. MARCUS:
7 Q. As you can see here on page 3 in English and page 2 in B/C/S, it
9 "The entire action was prepared and conducted professionally and
10 skillfully, combining the efforts of both troops and specialist organs."
11 A bit further down it states:
12 "In the course of the execution of the assignment, one MUP Serbia
13 member has been seriously and another slightly wounded, as well as the
14 commander of the group which was working at the water."
15 Isn't it a fact that this report is another example of joint
16 combat operations carried out by a combination of Serbian MUP and active
17 military servicemen?
18 MR. JORDASH: Objection to the question. Isn't it a fact that
19 the document says X, Y, and Z? In our submission that's what the
20 question amounts to. It's not seeking facts from the witness.
21 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Sorry. I believe that it will be very clear
24 what my point is.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Your point is perfectly clear. Your point is
1 perfectly clear. The question is whether you can put it to the witness
2 in this way. What you apparently are asking the witness is the
3 following: I show you a document which gives facts of which you
4 apparently are unaware. For the Prosecution, these facts indicate that,
5 and then you put what your conclusions are on the basis. Do you have any
6 comment on that?
7 I think that's, Mr. Jordash -- because whether this demonstrates
8 or not would -- first of all, would require that the witness forms an
9 opinion about whether this is an adequate report, whether it's a forgery,
10 whether -- whatever. Of course, the witness cannot know. You say the
11 Prosecution concludes from this document that this and this and this
12 happened, which apparently is not within your knowledge. Can you comment
13 on any of it?
14 Mr. Jordash, would that resolve your --
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it would.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, is that a question which would provide
17 you with an answer? You -- the only thing you're missing is that the
18 witness agrees this should be the conclusion from this document, or
19 perhaps he does agree, I do not know, but let's ask him this way, what's
20 his knowledge about it. Yes?
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I will do that.
22 Q. Mr. Karan, do you have any knowledge about this joint operation
23 described in this document, assignment Splav?
24 A. No. This operation was executed in Eastern Slavonija, and at
25 that time I was still with the 21st Corps. I don't know anything about
2 Q. You can see that the document was signed by Nenad Bursac. Our
3 position is that Nenad Bursac received payment from the Serbian DB for
4 services he provided in the context of joint Serbian DB military
5 operations. Would you like to comment on that?
6 A. I see in this document that he's chief in the special forces
7 corps. He got appointed by the army and he certainly is receiving his
8 salary from the army. I don't see why he would be on the payroll of the
9 state security sector. If he was in the field and from this document we
10 see that he went on field missions, he could have received per diem only
11 from the unit that sent him and that's the special forces corps of the
12 Army of Yugoslavia. That's the only comment I can give because I have no
13 choice. It's an authentic document I'm looking at. I know that from the
14 rectangular stamp, and that's -- there's nothing else I can say about it.
15 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have P468, page 15, again, not to be
16 broadcast to the public.
17 Q. You've said you don't know see why Nenad Bursac would be on the
18 payroll of the state security sector. You see that he is here among some
19 other military members. Our position is that some military members like
20 Nenad Bursac received payments by the Serbian DB for services performed
21 at the Serbian DB's bidding, and that explains why they're on this
22 payment list. Would you like to comment on that?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness is
25 receiving interpretation they were receiving salaries. I think it should
1 be made clear to the witness that we're actually discussing per diems so
2 he can answer appropriately.
3 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the word I chose to use was payments
4 which is neutral in English. Perhaps in English it doesn't specify what
5 type of payment whether it be a salary or a per diem.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please again put the question to the
7 witness. Everyone is now fully aware of why you have chosen the words
8 you are using.
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Sure.
10 Q. Our position, Mr. Karan, is that some military members like
11 Nenad Bursac received a payment by the Serbian DB for services performed
12 at the Serbian DB's bidding and that explains why they are on this
13 payment list. I ask if you'd like to comment on that.
14 A. I see the list, but I don't see what financial authority's
15 providing these payments. I can see it's a list of persons receiving per
16 diem, but I cannot conclude from this where the funds came from. I can
17 only see that they received payments in a certain period, and I know some
18 people among the names on the list, but I can't see the source from which
19 payments were made so that they would be doing this work in a certain
20 period. It's an unusual document in some way.
21 Q. I'll show you the first page of this document. It's a 21-page
23 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please turn to page 1.
24 Q. And meanwhile I'll ask you a few additional questions. When
25 Mr. Bakrac showed you this list he asked if you knew these people to be
1 members of the JATD of the Serbian DB. So is it your evidence then that
2 you were not aware of payments being issued by the Serbian DB to military
3 servicemen whose names appeared on page 15 of this document?
4 A. No, I did not know of any such thing. I only recognised persons
5 from a list shown to me because I'm friends with many of them, I know
6 them, and those people I identified.
7 Q. I'm going to show you a few other pages from this same document
8 and tell you what our position is on that and give you an opportunity to
9 tell us your comments on that. Could I please have page 4.
10 As you see, Radojica Bozovic is at the top of this list. Our
11 case is that Bozovic was a central member and in fact leader of a special
12 unit of the Serbian DB and that he was paid by the Serbian DB in
13 July 1995, on this list, due to his continued operations in Pauk as
14 commander of Tactical Group 3.
15 I would note for your information that Bozovic appears on 58
16 payment records, at least, from the Serbian DB from mid-1993 to the end
17 of 1995?
18 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 6.
19 Q. Do you know Vasilije Mijovic and Zivojin Ivanovic or either of
21 A. No.
22 Q. As you can see, these individuals were also paid by the
23 Serbian DB. I note for the record that Mijovic appears on 47 payment
24 lists between 1993 and 1995, and Zika Ivanovic, aka Crnogorac, appears on
25 six payment lists between December 1994 and July 1995.
1 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 8.
2 Q. Here you see Milorad Ulemek, aka Legija, whom we discussed
3 earlier. Our position is that others on this list are also members of
4 Arkan's SDG. As you can see the Serbian DB paid Arkan's men for their
5 assistance in combat operations in Operation Pauk, and their appearance
6 on payment records through the rest of 1995, we say, is consistent with
7 their participation in joint combat operations with other Serb forces
8 under the direction and support of the Serbian DB.
9 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 13. I will give you a
10 chance to make your comments after.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Prosecution kindly slow down while
12 reading. Thank you.
13 MS. MARCUS: I will do my very best.
14 Q. Mr. Karan, our position is that those on this list are family
15 members of individuals who died in the context of Serbian DB operations,
16 some of whom died as early as 1992. For example, Branko Dimic at number
17 2, his son, Milan, died in combat operations in Doboj on the
18 13th of July, 1992. That is our position. And that Branko Dimic, his
19 father, was paid by the Serbian DB for his son's services in furtherance
20 of the DB operations in Doboj.
21 MS. MARCUS: Finally, could I please have page 17.
22 Q. Mr. Karan, auction see here Janko Keres is at number 8. He was
23 the author of the JATD report for the Pauk operation that we looked at a
24 short while ago and he's on this payment list. By the time he wrote the
25 report which we looked at and certainly by the time he was paid on this
1 list, July 1995, he was indeed a member of the JATD. That is our case.
2 However, our position is that he was operating as a member of the special
3 units of the Serbian DB since 1993.
4 Isn't it a fact that you were simply not aware of the degree of
5 involvement of the Serbian DB in participating in and supporting joint
6 combat operations in the areas in which you served as a security
7 operative or, indeed, in other regions?
8 A. I was not aware of those activities.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
10 MR. JORDASH: I would like to note for the record that what my
11 learned friend has just put to the witness concerning the family members,
12 son Milan who died in combat operations in Doboj, Branko Dimic, the
13 father being paid by the Serbian DB for his son's services in Doboj, and
14 the allegations concerning Janko Keres are the very first time we've
15 heard allegations, I think, in this case. For three years into this case
16 the Prosecution are now specifying what their case is in relation to
17 these payment lists, and this is a problem I flagged up several years
18 ago, that producing payment lists without any indication of what those
19 individuals have said to have done, who they were, what their acts and
20 conduct were, how it contributed to the crime and how they are linked to
21 the accused was always going to be a problem, a big problem about notice.
22 It's impossible -- sorry, it's not impossible, but now it's highly
23 impracticable for the Defence to deal with these allegations now
24 specified. If they'd been identified and dealt with and specified three
25 years ago, we could have cross-examined a huge number of witnesses, we
1 could have called Defence evidence to deal with these allegations, but as
2 it is, at the dawn of the closing of the case, we are now understanding
3 what significance the Prosecution intends to place on these individuals.
4 Completely unfair, in our respectful submission.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Your Honour as Mr. Jordash forecasted
7 yesterday, our pleadings have been quite clear about how the payment
8 lists prove our case or support the evidence in our case. They are one
9 part of the evidence. We have included very clear submission on that in
10 98 bis. Going person by person is detail all included in our general
11 submissions about how the payment records demonstrate the DB's role.
12 We've shown what contribution we allege the DB to have been involved in.
13 We never said that every single member on these payment lists was a
14 member of the JATD. We never made that submission. We made it quite
15 clear what the payment lists show.
16 Now, I've given detailed examples which are fully consistent with
17 our overall submissions regarding the payment lists. So I'm going to
18 make this quite clear, even clearer to the witness, give him an
19 opportunity to comment on it, and in our submission we've met our
20 obligation clearly in our pleadings.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: I don't want to detain the witness obviously, but I
23 do invite -- I would like to respond very briefly to what my learned
24 friend has said, which is, in our submission, completely inaccurate.
25 I've been proceeding, maybe it's my fault, but I've been proceeding on
1 the basis that the payment lists are a reflection, according to the
2 Prosecution, of who was in the JATD, and I suspect the Simatovic team
3 have been proceeding on the same basis. Until, of course, now when we
4 have what is effectively a volte-face and the Prosecution now saying,
5 Well, actually, it's not just the JATD, it's something quite different.
6 And in relation to the individuals that have just been mentioned, these
7 are the specifics in relation to them.
8 And the problem is that there are hundreds of people on the
9 payment lists. If we have a misunderstanding about what the Prosecution
10 case is in relation to something as basic as whether the members on
11 the -- those mentioned on the payment list represent the JATD or
12 something else, then we are heading into multiple misunderstandings when
13 it comes to the specifics that the Prosecution now are going to seek to
15 The closing brief is going to be the first time that many of
16 these individuals are identified properly by the Prosecution and a proper
17 description put as to what it is the Prosecution say they did in
18 connection to the accused. Of course we can't deal with that at that
19 stage, but in relation to most of the names, that is the situation it
20 seems that we're now into because of this shift from the idea that the
21 payment lists represent the JATD to now actually they represent something
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honour, my
25 learned friend Mr. Jordash said that he assumed that our team shared his
1 position, and would I like to state for the record that we share the same
2 position. And that one of the main reasons for that was when we showed
3 per diems to this witness, we were surprised that the per diem lists
4 contained the names of active-duty officers who were still serving in the
5 army, and practically it is only now that we receive information from the
6 Prosecutor about their thesis with regard to the vast number of
7 individuals whose names can be found on those payment lists.
8 MR. JORDASH: May I just add two sentences, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, two.
10 MR. JORDASH: In our respectful submission, that's precisely why
11 the Prosecution have shifted their position, because it has become clear
12 to the Prosecution through Defence evidence that people on this payment
13 list were not members of the JATD but were members of other military
14 formations, and the Prosecution's shift is to deal with that evidence
15 whilst purporting to maintain consistency in their case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. First of all, if Mr. Jordash
18 would point to anywhere where we alleged that every name on the payment
19 lists was the name of a member of the JATD, we will certainly consider
20 that to have been in error. I do not believe we have ever said that
21 because that has never been our case.
22 Secondly, Your Honour, and more broadly, there are general
23 pleadings in the case. There is the indictment. There is the pre-trial
24 brief, and we've also at the conclusion of our evidence had 98 bis.
25 We don't go through every paragraph of every document and explain
1 every single paragraph. Neither does the Defence. They put forward
2 their general pleadings and then they tender evidence in support of that.
3 The evidence is discussed with witnesses. Witnesses contextualise that
4 evidence. Some of it comes in in bar table motions and not every single
5 line is dealt with.
6 What our position is is that the payment records are another
7 example of documentary evidence. We have clearly said what our position
8 is with respect to what the payment lists show in terms of the
9 accusations against the accused. These examples support that position
10 and are merely that, example of how the payment records fit in.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- Mr. Jordash showed some self-restraint. If
12 you'd do the same at this moment, Ms. Marcus.
13 I do understand. What keeps the parties at this moment apart is
14 that the Defence says, We were under the impression, an impression given
15 by the Prosecution, that persons which appear on the payment list were
16 JATD members and it's only now at a later stage that we learn from the
17 Prosecution that their actual position is that those the Prosecution
18 claims were members of the JATD appear on these lists but possibly
19 together with others who were not members of the JATD. And apparently
20 the discussion is about whether you have been clear in this respect or
21 not and whether your initial position was misleading and that you're now
22 shifting your position so as to fit within what you now know the evidence
23 to be.
24 Have I summarised the dispute between the parties correctly?
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then next question, Mr. Jordash, remedy? Not at
2 this moment, may I take it, that you take the same position as we
3 discussed earlier this week that you're at a certain moment looking at
4 the whole of the evidence will suggest to the Chamber what conclusions we
5 should draw from what you consider to be shortcomings in the presentation
6 of the Prosecution's case and the explanation, the notice given by the
8 MR. JORDASH: Yes, and we take the view that a named individual
9 on the payment list, it described to attribute certain conduct to them --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- I tried to summarise what the positions of
11 the parties's were in rather general terms, and I asked you about remedy.
12 My question mainly was: Are you seeking remedy at this moment from the
13 Chamber? If so, please tell us what that remedy you're seeking is; or do
14 you say, No, we'll consider this at the final stages of the proceedings
15 and then we'll indicate to you what kind of remedy we consider
16 appropriate under those circumstances?
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it's an issue of notice, and Your Honour's
18 right, we'll consider that when we have all the information at the end of
19 the case.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then, I think, Ms. Marcus, we can proceed.
21 MS. MARCUS: Just one more very brief point, Your Honour. We
22 would very much appreciate the opportunity, however, in whatever format,
23 to give examples of where we clearly explained certain names, where we
24 put our position with respect to the payment lists and where through at
25 least witnesses and documents we have -- if that would be helpful.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that if Mr. Jordash seeks a remedy at the
2 stage he indicated, that having heard your answer two minutes ago, that
3 he'll take care to provide a proper factual basis for his position that
4 you misled him. So I take it that that will then be the first thing to
5 be established, that is how you presented those lists as part of the
6 Prosecution's case. Let's wait and see.
7 Meanwhile, since we are interrupting the flowing of the evidence
8 anyhow, you may have received a provisional courtesy copy of a slight
9 amendment to the interpretation given on a matter on which I specifically
10 asked the witness. So where the witness claimed that he had not said a
11 certain thing, we should be aware that, of course it was put back to him,
12 in interpretation, and that's how you did it, and of course I do not know
13 how it was again translated, but I thought for transparency, for
14 accuracy, that it would be important that you know. I'm not saying
15 whether the gist of the testimony is any different by adding the words
16 "adjacent to," but at least that you are aware now of what a review of
17 the translation tells us.
18 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Karan, before we move on from this, I will just tell you what
21 our position is. You've probably gathered it from our debate.
22 Our position is that on these payment lists there are indeed some
23 individuals who we say were full-fledged members of the special units of
24 the Serbian DB and others who we say were participating in operations
25 which were funded, directed, supported by the Serbian DB; for example,
1 through direct salary and/or per diem payments to them following
2 co-ordinated field operations. Some of those on this list received
3 payments for other services performed for the benefit of the Serbian DB.
4 Would you like to offer any comment on that?
5 A. No. I can only provide comment about the individuals whom I
6 know, and I cannot agree with your conclusion. That is your position,
7 and I can't have an opinion about it. I only told you that I knew some
8 people who were members of the 72nd Brigade from Belgrade. That's all.
9 I cannot offer any comment about what you have just alleged.
10 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'd just like to foreshadow that I
11 don't envisage being able to finish in this session. I will do my best.
12 I have cut out certain portions of it, but I do think I would need to go
13 somewhat into the next session.
14 JUDGE ORIE: How much time?
15 MS. MARCUS: Maybe by 20 to 30 minutes. I will try to reduce it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: How much time as matters stand now, Mr. Bakrac, you
17 would need?
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 15 to 20 minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash?
20 MR. JORDASH: Ten minutes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that there's a possibility that we could
22 conclude the testimony of this witness in the next session.
23 If the parties share my optimism, then I'll not take any action
24 at this moment to see whether we can have an extended session either
25 today or -- the parties should also be aware that if that's not possible,
1 that we'd have to continue tomorrow if only for 15 or 20 minutes. So
2 you, to some extent, are also deciding on your own fate tomorrow.
3 Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Could I please have 65 ter 6406.
6 Q. This is another document from your military personnel file. It
7 is a note on your work and it contains remarks on your work performance.
8 It says in the first paragraph:
9 "He carried out his duty as chief of security in the 21st Corps
10 in an extremely difficult and complex situation; in particular, the big
11 pressure and influence the Croatian Army and Muslim services,
12 particularly in the Bihac area, had on the units of the corps.
13 "In addition to this, different smuggling channels criss-crossed
14 the area. With his work and unselfish dedication he succeeded in
15 bringing to light and documenting different crimes which directly
16 sabotaged our defence system."
17 What smuggling channels does this relate to?
18 A. This relates to the smuggling channels run by the civilian
19 population and aimed at the -- at Cazin Krajina and members of the
20 5th Corps. I can tell you what the scope of that was. Smuggling or
21 assisting the enemy was a popular movement. That activity was so
22 all-encompassing and tangled our structures that it undermined our
23 efforts greatly and undermined the quality of the work of our units and
24 their capability to perform tasks at hand. This is the smuggling
25 activities that I described.
1 Q. Who -- perhaps you could elaborate. Who was it who was
2 benefiting from these smuggling channels that tangled your structures?
3 A. Those who benefitted most from the smuggling channels were
4 certain individuals with private businesses and certain members of the
5 command structures. In practical terms, the commands of certain of our
6 units were tantamount to private companies that procured goods, and then
7 disseminated the goods in Kladusa and Cazin Krajina through small
8 distributors and all ended up with the 5th Corps. In other words, every
9 combat activity, in practical terms, increased the price of goods and
10 benefitted the established smuggling channels, at the end of which some
11 individuals acquired and amassed huge wealth.
12 Q. I'll return to that in just a moment before we lose track of this
13 paragraph. The document refers to different crimes. What crimes were
14 those that you documented which directly sabotaged the defence system?
15 A. I can state that there were between 12 and 20 murders or killings
16 that members of the Serbian Army of Krajina perpetrated. They killed
17 each other. Even a wife murdered her husband. We had to secure the
18 crime sites. We had to document the crime scenes. We had to file
19 reports with the judiciary.
20 I hope to tell you that the military judiciary did not function
21 in the RSK territory, whereas the civilian judiciary did work but not
22 very well. So it did occur that people with a lot of smuggled goods on
23 their hands would return from the office of the -- of the court in Vojnic
24 than the police who investigated the crime, because they had better cars
25 and they could travel faster. When investigating, judges heard from the
1 perpetrators, Yes, I did that. They didn't really care about any further
2 investigation, and that's how the judiciary functioned at the time.
3 There was also theft of kitchen appliances and weapons. A member
4 of the military destroyed a unit when he sold the equipment intended for
5 the 5th Corps. Instead of delivering the equipment to the 5th Corps, he
6 actually sold it, and that's how he disabled the entire unit. This is
7 what we had to counter. This is what we had to document, and we had to
8 take measures, appropriate measures, against all those activities.
9 Q. Was your documentation and work to quash the smuggling activities
10 related to your ultimate removal by the Serbian DB from the region of the
11 21st Corps?
12 A. I'm afraid I did not fully understand your question.
13 Q. Was there a connection between the work that you did to quash the
14 smuggling activities and the fact that you were ultimately removed from
15 the region by the Serbian DB?
16 A. No. I was never removed from the area where I worked, if you
17 mean the 21st Corps. Is that what you have in mind, the 21st Corps, and
18 when I was involved in the 21st Corps; or do you have any other time in
19 mind, because whatever I've just told you relates to the 21st Corps?
20 Q. You were ultimately removed from the region by the Serbian DB;
21 isn't that correct?
22 A. I joined the column that was pulling out from the territory of
23 the 21st Corps when Krajina fell. I joined the column with military
24 police and the rest of the people. That was on the 10th of August, and
25 we travelled by way of the highway.
1 Q. Where were you ultimately removed from?
2 A. After that, when I returned to Serbia and after having spent a
3 few days at home, I was sent to the 11th Corps in Vukovar. That was also
4 the Serbian Army of Krajina.
5 Q. So you were removed from the 11th Corps in Vukovar by the Serbian
6 DB; is that correct?
7 A. No, I was not removed from there. The corps commander,
8 General Loncar, issued me an order one day, according to which myself and
9 21 members of the security organ had to leave the territory. I received
10 that task. I requested a written order. He said that a verbal order
11 should do.
12 According to him I was a criminal, and that's why I was expelled
13 from the area. I was a traitor according to him. And the rest of that
14 group were only traitors. There were 22 of us. I was a criminal and a
15 traitor, and the others were just traitors. There were 22 members of the
16 security office in the 11th Corps.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, perhaps for follow-up, if Your Honours
18 would like to take a break now, I can continue after the break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll take a break. I would like to try to
20 keep matters strict after the break. You said 20 to 30 minutes,
21 Ms. Marcus, which still keeps you within the time limit you have
22 announced. You said you would try to do with less time. Not more than
23 30 minutes.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, 20 minutes for you then. Mr. Jordash,
1 ten minutes. And that makes altogether 60 minutes, and we have a few
2 matters perhaps we'd like to raise ourselves, procedural matters.
3 We'll take a break and we'll resume at five minutes to -- 25
4 minutes to 1.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed, and I'll be strict in
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Karan, we're going to come back to what we were talking about
11 before the break.
12 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6409.
13 Q. This is a report about you which we received from the Croatian
14 authorities pursuant to a request for assistance. As you can see this is
15 a report dated the 3rd of February, 1995. It is signed by
16 Colonel Raseta. I'll give awe moment to read the first few paragraphs
17 and then I'll quote what comes afterwards.
18 Now, the fourth paragraph states:
19 "It is unquestionable that Mladen declared war on crime and in a
20 very short period achieved exceptional results in crime prevention.
21 "At that time, Mladen came into conflict with MUP organs because
22 this action was an inconvenience for them."
23 Which MUP organs would this relate to?
24 A. I think it's the MUP of the Serbian Krajina in Vojnic.
25 Q. Why would your efforts to stop crime be an inconvenience to the
1 MUP organs?
2 A. You couldn't say that about the entire MUP, only the individuals
3 in the MUP. Even they were involved in crime precisely for that reason.
4 Q. Okay. I'd like to call up one more document, 65 ter 6410. This
5 document is a daily report which you authored. It's dated the
6 17th of March, 1994. I'll give awe moment to look at the first page to
7 familiarise yourself and remind yourself, and I'm going to ask you
8 something about page 2. So please let me know when you are ready to turn
9 the page.
10 A. I'm done.
11 Q. Could I draw your attention to the paragraph starting, "In order
12 to provide a substantiated explanation of the situation," and I'll just
13 ask you to read through the next two paragraphs, and I'll ask you a few
15 Now, it appears what is being discussed here by you are smuggling
16 activities which certain individuals were involved in contrary to their
17 bat orders from the corps commander, and three of those involved in this
18 smuggling activity were Nikola Torbica, Sinisa Loncar, and Jovica Djuric.
19 Do you recall the events you describe in this daily report?
20 A. I find it hard to remember this one. There were so many of these
22 Q. So you don't recall with which combat groups these three
23 individuals were affiliated?
24 A. That's clear. The 21st Border Detachment was newly established
25 unit holding the territory facing AP Western Bosnia. That unit
1 practically replaced the mixed detachment, and testifies joined by those
2 from the reconnaissance and sabotage unit commanded by Torbica, and they
3 were notorious for their criminal activities.
4 Q. Were you aware in 1995 the DB provided payments to
5 Nikola Torbica?
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, P347.
7 A. No, not in September 1995.
8 Q. Your answer, at least the way I understood it, seems to imply
9 that you were aware of other payments at other times by the Serbian DB to
10 Nikola Torbica. Can I just clarify your answer, please?
11 A. No. I don't know that he was paid by the DB at all.
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, could I please tender into evidence
13 the past three documents I've shown to the witness, 65 ter 6406, 6409,
14 and 6410, all public, please.
15 MR. JORDASH: May I just seek why -- whether they are for
16 impeachment purposes or for the truth of the contents?
17 MS. MARCUS: Well, Your Honour, they're for both. They came --
18 they're directly related to the witness's evidence, directly
19 contextualised by the witness. One of them is from the witness 's own
20 personnel file, one of them was perceived pursuant to a RFA relating to
21 this witness, and actually the last two -- sorry, one was from the
22 military personnel file and one was from a RFA pertaining to the witness.
23 The third one, of course, is authored by the witness himself.
24 MR. JORDASH: We don't object to them being used for impeachment
25 purposes, but we do object to them being to the truth of the contents;
1 them being fresh evidence with no indication from the Prosecution as to
2 the relevance or probative value of the fresh evidence, nor any
3 indication as to why they couldn't have obtained these documents before
4 or used them before as part of their case during the Prosecution case.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. These documents are directly
7 related to this witness's evidence. We would not have tendered these
8 documents in our case absent the presence of the witness. They can
9 clarify the witness's involvement. They -- the witness has explained
10 what -- what his activities were. The next document will also become
11 clear what -- I don't want to put this in advance. We're going to ask
12 the witness some follow-up questions directly related to this topic.
13 These are put to the witness for contextualising his evidence that he
14 gave and challenging the evidence he gave in chief. I -- I think that
15 they are quite appropriately tendered in this context.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, final sentence.
18 MR. JORDASH: Yes. I would only add challenging the witness we
19 have no problem with, as I've indicated, but the adopting of the word
20 "contextualising" by the Prosecution to justify the admission of any
21 evidence at any particular time we continue to object to.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. More was said than just contextualise but the
23 Chamber admits the documents. Numbers to be assigned to them without
24 limitation as far as the use is concerned.
25 Madam Registrar, the numbers would be?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6406 will receive number P3093.
2 Document 6409 will receive number P3094. And document 6410 will receive
3 number P3095, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, none of them in need of any protection,
5 I take it.
6 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then P3093 up to and including P3095 are admitted
8 into evidence.
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. Could the Court Officer please call up
10 65 ter 1447. Your Honours, I have hard copies. I think because of the
11 length of the document and the detail to which I'm going to ask the
12 witness about it just for the ease of reference - I brought hard copies
13 in both languages - with Your Honour's leave perhaps the Court Usher
14 could give one to the witness and then the appropriate language is
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may proceed as suggested.
17 MS. MARCUS:
18 Q. Mr. Karan, I'll give you a moment to have a look at this moment
19 which you authored. I will be calling your attention to specify
20 portions, but in case you wish to have a look at the whole document,
21 obviously you have a hard copy in front of you.
22 Do you recall preparing this document?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. There is no date on the document, but it appears from the context
25 to date after the 28th of August, 1995, based on the first two
1 paragraphs. Can you confirm that for us?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Is this a common format used by members of the military security
5 A. No, it's not the usual format. It's a chronology of events and
6 description of what actually happened regarding the stopping of this
7 little boat and how everything unfolded. I haven't read the whole
8 document through, but I remember this incident.
9 Q. Okay. Well, we will go through it, but can I just understand
10 your answer. I asked you: Is this a common format used by the military
11 security organs and you said, "No it's not the usual format. It's a
12 chronology of events." So if a member of the security military security
13 organs were to write a chronology of events, would this be the kind of
14 format that would be used?
15 A. This is practically an explanation of something that happened.
16 This is preceded by another document that I suppose the superiors thought
17 did not contain enough facts, was not good enough, so I was told to
18 prepare this one. I didn't do it of my own accord, because I personally
19 thought the previous document was quite sufficient, but this is a
20 supplement to something that had already been provided.
21 Q. Now, on the first page it describes the subject matter of this
22 report as "operations of the OB," that's Coastal Battery, "11th Corps of
23 the SVK army, hindered by the MUP RDB, the sequence of events."
24 Could I please have page 4 in English corresponding to page 2 in
25 B/C/S. I know we're all using the paper versions.
1 On this page you state in your report:
2 "Branko Curcic from the MUP of the Republic of Serbia,
3 Radojica Bozovic, and an RDB officer nicknamed Gavra, were in
4 General Loncar's office when we arrived. I informed them of the results
5 of our work. General Loncar ordered me to hand over the entire file to
6 the said officers of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia because they were
7 going to take over from there. Neither General Gligorevic nor I made any
8 comments or opposed this order."
9 Do you know the full name of the RDB officer named Gavra?
10 A. It's not Gavran, it's Gavra. I believe his last name was
12 Q. Now I'm going to move down on the English page, the same page,
13 and I'll ask you something about page 3 in B/C/S.
14 So following what we just read, you describe how Bozovic swore at
15 you, threatened to beat you, all the while keeping his hands on his
16 unbuckled holster, as you said. To what do you attribute Bozovic's anger
17 at you on this date?
18 A. I don't know why I phrased it this way, but that's how it seemed
19 to me at that moment. That's how his behaviour seemed to me.
20 Q. Let's look at page 5 in English, the bottom half corresponding to
21 page 3 in B/C/S so you're still, I think, on the same page. Here you
22 write about the night between the 28th and 29th of August, 1995, saying:
23 "When Kragujevac arrived at the KOG in Dalj around 0630 hours, he
24 conveyed Bozovic's order which stated that Bozovic and Gavra were chief
25 security officers of the corps and that they requested a meeting of
1 chiefs of security organs of all brigades and independent units to be
2 held on th 28th of August at 2030 hours on the OB premises.
3 "Before the meeting began, everybody was expected to write a
4 short CV specifically citing the following: Where they had come from,
5 how long they had been with the OB service, how long they had been in
6 Eastern Slavonija and Baranja; also to be included was a short review of
7 previous positions and assignments within the service. The same order
8 applied to both members of the KOG and the Corps Security Section."
9 What was your understanding of the source of the authority of the
10 Serbian DB and Serbian MUP officials to issue orders to you and your
11 subordinates in the military?
12 A. I don't know from what they draw such force, but it is the corps
13 commander, the general, who made those things possible and who approved
14 it, because he did not act like the corps commander. He accepted
15 somebody else's position, and he issued orders that we must leave the
16 territory of Eastern Slavonija.
17 Q. Let's look at the second to last paragraph on page 6 in English,
18 which is on page 4 in B/C/S.
19 Here you report that you ordered your subordinates not to attend
20 this meeting. A bit after that, you describe a phone call from
21 General Loncar informing you that he had received an announcement from
22 Obrad Stevanovic, Branko Curcic, and a few others that they are coming to
23 see him and that he believes that the purpose of this visit is to tell
24 Loncar that you are persona non grata. Loncar, as you say, advised you
25 to leave for Belgrade right away. You refused and stood your ground
1 according to your report.
2 Now could I draw your attention to page 8 in English, starting in
3 the middle. This corresponds to page 5 in B/C/S.
4 According to your report, on the 20th of August, 1995,
5 General Loncar called you and ordered you to come to his office. There
6 you found, among others, Branko Curcic from the MUP of Serbia,
7 Obrad Stevanovic from the MUP of Serbia, and Gavra from the SDB of
9 You were instructed to take down the following order - it
10 continues now on the next page in English but the same page in B/C/S:
11 "The below-mentioned officers shall report to you at Mitica by
12 1530 hours. They shall take all the gear they had brought with them.
13 You shall leave this area without the right of return. You shall hand
14 over your files to Lieutenant-Colonel Kragujevac."
15 Those listed for removal are yourself, Zemunja and others, and
16 you were told:
17 "You would be provided with a motor vehicles and an escort?"
18 The Boco squad that escorted you were the Scorpions from
19 Djeletovci; is that correct?
20 A. I didn't know they were from Djeletovci. When I say escorted,
21 that's under quotation marks. That is to say they did not escort us the
22 way they would escort a column. They were just on our side.
23 Q. But did you confirm it was the Skorpions Unit?
24 A. Later on I learned that that was their name. At the time I
25 didn't know that they were Skorpions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you are close to your 30 minutes.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
3 Q. What was it that you did that caused the Serbian DB officials to
4 have you and the others removed from the region?
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would I kindly ask my
6 learned friend to rephrase and be very precise. It was not just one
7 service that decided that. There were other organs involved.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well -- Ms. Marcus.
9 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, that's something I think Mr. Bakrac can
10 put. I'm asking about the involvement of the Serbian DB officials. What
11 was it that caused their involvement in having the witness removed from
12 the region.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Objection is denied. Please invite the witness to
14 answer the question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say exactly what the
16 motives were. I don't know what they were governed by. This did occur,
17 and that's a fact.
18 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I have only one more question. It
19 relates to one more document, with your leave, sir.
20 JUDGE ORIE: One question.
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes. For that one question could the Court Officer
22 please call up 65 ter 4929.
23 Q. This one will be on your screen, Mr. Karan. What you see in
24 front of you is a list of names which was attached to an exhibit, P1075.
25 It was inadvertently not tendered as part of that exhibit. We will deal
1 with that procedurally afterwards.
2 These annexes describe awards of various kinds which were given
3 at the ceremony in 1996 on the observance of the day of security organs
4 and service.
5 Could I please have page 3 in English and page 2 in B/C/S for my
6 final question.
7 As you can see, Rajo Bozovic is under number 22, Branko Curcic is
8 under number 25, and Momir Gavrilovic, aka Gavra, is under the second
9 list at number 7, and they were all granted awards by the Serbian DB at
10 this ceremony. Were you aware of this?
11 A. No. I don't know anything about that ceremony.
12 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karan.
13 MS. MARCUS: I have no further questions, Your Honour. I would
14 just like to tender the long document that we looked at all together.
15 That was 65 ter 1447. And I would like, with your leave, to tender this
16 attachment which was purely accidentally not attached to P1075. If the
17 Defence would like to check that we can certainly MFI it for now. It is
18 part of that document. This was a complete -- just an error that it
19 wasn't attached when we tendered it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start with the long document. No objections?
21 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1447 will receive number P3096,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
25 Now, the next one, the --
1 MR. JORDASH: May we MFI this so I can take instructions, please?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 4929 will receive number P3097,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. That document is marked
6 for identification -- for -- yes, MFI'd, and we'll hear from the
7 Stanisic Defence later.
8 Then, Mr. Jordash, your ten minutes start now.
9 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
11 Q. Just a few questions if I can, Mr. Karan, and I want to pick up
12 on the subject of your knowledge about the DB and in particular
13 Mr. Stanisic financing and supplying operations such as -- well, in
14 particular Pauk. Could we have 1D02024 on the screen, please, and while
15 that's coming up, did you come across Mr. Stanisic at any stage in your
16 various roles before the beginning of Pauk? Did you see him? Did you
17 speak to him, have any indirect contact with him?
18 A. No. I did not see Mr. Stanisic before November 1994, and even
19 then I met him only once at a meeting at the corps command. We didn't
20 talk to each other.
21 Q. So as far as you were concerned, in your posts and in particular
22 those tasks you conducted with the 21st Corps in Kordun, Stanisic had
23 nothing to do with you or those tasks, as far as you're concerned?
24 A. That's correct, yes.
25 Q. Now, just moving to Pauk. If you'd have a look at the document
1 on the screen and have a quick read through it. As you can see, it's a
2 document emanating from the Main Staff of the Serbian Krajina Army,
3 10th of April, 1995, and sent to Milosevic personally, Martic personally,
4 and Perisic personally.
5 A. Yes, I've seen it here.
6 Q. And if we can -- it's a report which appears to describe, amongst
7 a number of things, details about the Pauk operation, and I just want to
8 ask you if you can confirm some of the details or not so that we can
9 understand the scale of this operation.
10 Page 2 of the English and 2 of the B/C/S, please.
11 If you look at the -- well, at the English it's the second to the
12 last paragraph and it says:
13 "Seven hundred fighters from the SVK (from the 21st and
14 39th Corps) are engaged in Operation Spider in the territory of the
15 AP ZB."
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I can see that.
18 Q. Is that an accurate number, as far as you're concerned?
19 A. Yes. This is an accurate reflection of the strength, but I
20 believe that there were a few more of our men among the 700 combatants.
21 What I'm saying is that the ratio was not 50/50.
22 Q. Okay. Let's go to page 4 of the English and 3 of the B/C/S. And
23 towards the top of the page in the English it says:
24 "The Spider Command group with the strength of 11.000 men is
25 receiving logistic support from the SVK which is providing large
1 quantities of MTS from its own reserves."
2 Do you know anything about that figure, 11.000 men, and who they
3 were in relation to the Spider Command group?
4 A. The 11.000 men involved over 10.000 members of the defence of
5 Western Bosnia, and the rest making up to 11.000 were the forces of the
6 21st and the 39th Corps. It is true that the security was provided by
7 the Serbian Army of Krajina provided a lot of weapons, a lot of -- a lot
8 of ammunition from their own depots. I've already spoke been that.
9 Q. And do you know how big the groups were that were commanded by
10 Bozovic and Legija?
11 A. Tactical groups are small. They are the strength of a company,
12 which means that they had around 100 men. However, TG2 had a brigade,
13 but that brigade did not number more than a thousand men or so.
14 Q. And the remainder of the 11.000 then were commanded by men other
15 than Legija and Bozovic; is that right?
16 A. That's right, because the brigades of the National Defence of
17 Western Bosnia had their own commanders. They had their own chief, i.e.,
18 the commander of the Main Staff, their supreme commander. They had an
19 entire military structure.
20 Q. And the TG2 brigade, who -- who were the thousand men? Were
21 these Fikret Abdic's men?
22 A. Yes. It was them.
23 Q. And TG1, the hundred men, who were they?
24 A. I don't know about TG1.
25 Q. Fair enough. Could I ask you to have a look at B/C/S page 4 of
1 this document and 4 of the English, and the comment which begins:
2 "With the receipt of material from the Republic of Serbia and the
3 VJ in February and March of 1995, the necessary reserves of ammunition
4 and food for war requirements were created, significantly alleviating
5 PoOb problems."
6 One interpretation there of this document is that the SVK were
7 complying the Pauk command up until March of 1995 when certain material
8 arrived from Serbia. Do you know if that's an accurate interpretation or
10 A. I'm not sure that I can provide an answer to this question.
11 Q. Okay. If you can't, you can't. Let me just finish then with you
12 told us earlier today about the ending of Pauk coinciding with the fall
13 of Krajina on the 9th and 10th of August, 1995. Were the two events
14 linked in any way? Was one the cause of the other or were they linked in
15 any other way other than coincidence in time?
16 A. There was a coincidence in time, and that's all the coincidence
17 there was.
18 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Thanks very much, Mr. Witness.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Bakrac, if you're ready
21 start, and while Mr. Jordash is taking instructions, he'll tell us
22 whether he has one more question for the witness.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
1 Re-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Karan. My learned friend
3 Ms. Marcus asked you earlier today when she showed you the operative
4 diary of Pauk command, that's P235, and when she showed you some entries,
5 she told you that the operative diary which was kept from the
6 16 November 1994 until the end of May 1995 contained 15 entries where
7 Frenki is mentioned, and after that she suggested that the diary shows
8 that Frenki was involved in daily operations relative to that command.
9 Would you expect from somebody who was involved in daily
10 operations relative to the command of Pauk operation and who participated
11 in the commanding and the planning operations from 16 November 1994 until
12 the end of May 1995 would be mentioned in the diary 15 times?
13 A. No, I wouldn't expect any such thing.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Karan. And now I would like to call up D139.
15 THE REGISTRAR: This is document [Microphone not activated].
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, your microphone was not activated.
17 Is it a document which is confidential and not to be shown to the public?
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour -- Your Honours, I just said the
19 document is marked not admitted so it's not in the exhibits, but I can
20 show it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's a document marked for identification.
22 Mr. Bakrac, your last question would be mentioned in the diary 15
23 times. Was your suggestion that that is a very low number?
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I merely asked --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question and, of course, I try to -- to
1 understand what the probative value is, would you expect that he would be
2 mentioned 15 times, which could be that's a very low number or that's a
3 very high number or that the witness has a reason to believe that you
4 would expect 14 times or 16 times? The question is not clear to me,
5 neither is the answer, what it tells me.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the Prosecution
7 suggests that Franko Simatovic was involved in the daily operations of
8 Pauk command, I asked the witness whether during that period which lasted
9 for over six or even seven months, as many as 200 days-plus, whether a
10 person who was involved in everyday operations should not have mentioned
11 more times than that in an operative diary.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now the question is clear, and when I earlier asked
13 you was your suggestion that it's a very low number, apparently that is
14 your suggestion, that it's a very low number and under normal
15 circumstances you would expect a higher number. That's, however, not
16 clear from your question and it's not clear from the answer, but now it
17 is clear.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I probably --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] -- misunderstood your suggestion,
21 Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Karan, let's look at this order. It seems to be an order
23 from Mile Novakovic. And it says, "Pauk command, 15 December 1994." I'm
24 going to draw your attention to bullet point 1 where it says, "SUP
25 Vojnic" and it says send -- and send the following organisational
1 establishment units to the Pauk command as agreed and discussed. And
2 then it goes on to say other things, but one of the things is SUP Vojnic,
3 a company 60 to 80 men, SUP Glina 60 to 80 men. Are you aware of the
4 fact that Major-General Mile Novakovic also included the members of the
5 local SUP, SUP Glina and Vojnic in the command of Pauk?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Karan.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now look at
9 65 ter 6402. I apologise. This is one part of the -- the Pauk diary
10 that my learned friend has separated. I may have omitted the fact that
11 it has a new number, but it's part of P235.
12 Q. Mr. Karan, who is normally in charge of maintaining an operative
13 diary? Who is it?
14 A. A staff member. In this case a member of the Pauk command,
15 usually the Chief of Staff, designates the duty operations officer, but
16 this lies within the authority of the Pauk command or the Chief of Staff
17 of the Pauk command, in this case Colonel Bulat.
18 Q. Mr. Karan, when you look at the second entry where it says,
19 "Frenki's looking for Bozovic to insert our forces ...," when Colonel
20 Bulat says our forces MUP, what MUP does he have in mind? The MUP either
21 from Vojnic or from the Manija [as interpreted] Corps, both from Kordun.
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'm not sure how the witness can know
23 what Colonel Bulat has in his mind. This is the witness's understanding
24 but the witness -- I mean, the witness has to have particular knowledge
25 of that particular date and those events to know what was being said.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And re-reading the transcript, it's not entirely
2 clear. Well, sometimes you may have facts to your knowledge which shed
3 some light on somewhat someone may have on his mind because he says
4 something about it, but could you try -- if you can ask the witness this
5 question, could you try to find out what the source of knowledge is which
6 would allow him to answer that question, Mr. Bakrac. Could you rephrase
7 it, apart from that the document you are referring to seems to be P3091,
8 because it has been admitted into evidence. Please proceed. Rephrase
9 your question.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Witness, are you familiar with the fact that Pauk command also
12 engaged the MUP forces from Vojnic and Glina?
13 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that fact.
14 Q. Do you know that Franko Simatovic -- or, rather, my question is
15 this: If a corps commander, i.e., if a chief of the corps who writes the
16 operative diary, if he says, Frenki's looking for Bozovic to insert our
17 forces, what would you expect that was on his mind? Who does he mean
18 when he says that?
19 A. It is clear that he means MUP members from either Vojnic or
20 Glina. This is absolutely clear to me.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are interpreting a text. Do you have any
22 knowledge which would support this reading, this interpretation of this
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that members of the reserve
25 MUP forces were mobilised. A unit was established, and that unit was
1 transferred to the area of Maljevac. It was at that time that one part
2 of the 21st Corps Military Police Unit was also engaged. The military
3 police carried out their task on a different axis. We were in the
4 village of Kuplinsko. There was a line-up of the military police force
5 there, and I know that they were deployed in the direction of the Western
6 Bosnia region.
7 JUDGE ORIE: What do you know about Frenki's involvement or
8 Frenki, why he was looking for Bozovic, because you more or less separate
9 the activity entirely from Frenki, whereas there seems, in the text at
10 least, to be a link, whatever that link is. Could you explain to us
11 whether you have any knowledge about what Frenki's involvement at that
12 point in time was.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that Mr. Simatovic, by
14 way of electronic surveillance, learnt about an event and that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking you what you assume, but I'm asking
16 you about what you know.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards this specific event, I
18 don't know anything about it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I think that the answer the witness
21 gave support exactly what my point was before. First he says they were
22 MUP members from either Vojnic or Glina, then he says they were military
23 police. Clearly the witness does not have any personal knowledge to
24 comment on -- on this entry.
25 JUDGE ORIE: This is commenting, Ms. Marcus, which is not
1 appropriate at this point in time.
2 Mr. Bakrac, you may proceed.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Karan, yesterday you testified about a commission from the
5 security administration that arrived after the fall of Vukovar. Who were
6 members of the commission as far as you can remember after such a long
8 A. It's not easy to remember, but I know that there were about 10 to
9 12 men, but after such a long time it's very difficult to remember. It
10 would take me a long time to try and remember, but I know that they had
11 been dispatched from the security administration.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Karan. Can you remember and do you know what was
13 the task of that commission?
14 A. That commission was supposed to interview people selected by
15 physicians from the hospital who were not wounded and who had been
16 treated in the hospital before.
17 Q. Mr. Karan, just to make it clear for the record, we're talking
18 about the previous issue regarding Pauk and the document I showed you.
19 Do you have knowledge that members of the MUP of Vojnic and Glina were
20 engaged by the Pauk commander Mile Novakovic? Do you have any direct
21 knowledge about that?
22 A. I said I was present myself at the inspection of the MUP unit and
23 the military police unit that was engaged at the time. They were both
24 sent to the Maljevac sector, whereas my military police unit had another
25 task on a different axis, and they went to the right, toward a different
1 place, Cetingrad.
2 Q. Thank you. I believe that is clearer now. My learned friend
3 from the Prosecution asked you about a document that you drafted
4 concerning your departure from Slavonia in 1995. Can you tell us if you
5 knew at the time who Obrad Stevanovic was?
6 A. I didn't know what position he occupied. I learned later that he
7 had the rank of general, but I didn't know where he worked.
8 Q. Did you learn later if he was perhaps in command of some units in
9 that area, and if you know, which?
10 A. I cannot recall the exact name of that unit now, but I know he
11 was a general and that he held high position in the MUP of Serbia.
12 Q. Can you tell us about the security situation in the area of
13 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem in September 1995, specifically the
14 security of the border of the Republic of Serbia?
15 A. I wasn't there very long. I was just trying to organise the work
16 of security organs in the depth of the territory, appointing security
17 chiefs in brigades, and I didn't have time to assess the security
18 situation in the area of the corps, so I can't answer that question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, could I seek a clarification of one the
20 previous answers.
21 When asked about whether Obrad Stevanovic was commanding a unit
22 in the area, you said, "I cannot recall the exact name of that unit now."
23 Does this mean that you confirm that he was in command of a unit in that
24 area, although you do not know what the name of that unit was? Is that
25 how I have to understand your answer?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I didn't phrase it well. I
2 did not, in fact, know that he was in command of any unit in that area.
3 That would be a better answer.
4 JUDGE ORIE: What then triggered you to tell us that you do not
5 know the name of that unit if no unit was in your mind at all?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot really answer that
7 question. I don't know how those words came to me. They just slipped
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Those were
11 all my questions for this witness.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Has the re-examination triggered the
13 need for any further examination?
14 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour, thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, same answer. Then --
16 MR. JORDASH: May I just turn to an exhibit, please, the one that
17 I used in the examination. 1D02024.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Registrar.
19 MS. MARCUS: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The number would be?
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D2004 will receive D758, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D578 is admitted into evidence.
23 Mr. Bakrac, I earlier told you that D139 was not an exhibit but
24 was marked for identification, well, that was the situation until the
25 18th of February of last year, because the words by Mr. Petrovic were
1 then, "We withdraw it, Your Honour." "D139 is withdrawn by the
2 Simatovic Defence" were then my words which means that it's marked not
3 admitted. If you want to seek it to be re-tendered, then we first have
4 to look at what exactly was the reason it was not admitted at this time.
5 We don't need the witness for that at this moment. I just bring this to
6 your attention that it's not --
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I only used
8 it as a basis for questions. We'll look into the real reason and then
9 we'll address you when the time comes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then this concludes your testimony,
11 Mr. Karan. I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and
12 for having answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties
13 and by the Bench, and I'm glad that we could finish your testimony today,
14 and I wish you a safe return home again. The usher will escort you out
15 of the courtroom.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I've few matters, and I have asked for a very small
19 extension of time so that we could -- that there's no need to -- to have
20 a session tomorrow for just five or ten minutes.
21 The first issue is for the Simatovic Defence. The
22 Stanisic Defence has made an application for provisional release for
23 Mr. Stanisic. Now, as you remember, Mr. Bakrac, there was some issue
24 about guarantees and there might be any need for a follow-up in this
25 context with the Republic of Serbia. At least the Chamber is considering
1 whether there would be any need for such a follow-up, but then we'd like
2 to know whether the follow-up would be just for the Stanisic Defence or
3 also for the Simatovic Defence, and therefore is there any intention to
4 file a request for provisional release for Mr. Simatovic?
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do intend to file
6 that request, but today we prioritised the scheduling of witnesses and
7 complying with the order you gave us yesterday, but we are going to work
8 on it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Do that as quickly as possible so that we do not end
10 up in a situation where there's insufficient time if we would want to
11 give it follow-up but that we would be unable.
12 Then I move to my next matter, which is the follow-up on a
13 decision we provided orally to you yesterday about the adjournment the
14 Simatovic Defence has asked for.
15 We will hereby set in this same context certain deadlines,
16 deadlines which are closely related to the one-month adjournment which
17 will take place in April 2012.
18 First, the Simatovic Defence is instructed to file a motion
19 requesting any additions to it Rules -- its Rule 65 ter witness list by
20 the 12th of March, 2012. These additions could concern the six proposed
21 witnesses mentioned in the Simatovic Defence's adjournment motion filed
22 on the 20th of February, 2012, and in its further notification which was
23 filed on the 23rd of February.
24 Point two, the Simatovic Defence is further instructed to notify
25 the Chamber and the parties no later than the 26th of March, 2012,
1 whether it intends to call Witnesses DFS-1 and DFS-3.
2 Three, the Simatovic Defence is also instructed to notify the
3 Chamber and the parties no later than the 20th of April, 2012, whether it
4 intends to call any of the witnesses who it seeks to be added to its
5 Rule 65 ter witness list. The Chamber, however, strongly encourages the
6 Simatovic Defence to give such indications as early as possible.
7 That could -- the earlier notification could concern one or two
8 witnesses already, even if you would need until the 20th of April to make
9 up your mind for the others.
10 Four, as for the proposed expert witness Milosevic, the
11 Simatovic Defence is instructed to file a revised report of Mr. Milosevic
12 having removed all portions it considers irrelevant or on which it does
13 not intend to rely. Furthermore, parts not disputed between the parties
14 should be removed from that report and can be submitted to the Chamber
15 separately through a record of agreed facts. This report should be filed
16 no later than the 10th of April, 2012.
17 I see that there is no clear deadline yet for the filing of
18 the -- no. I think -- yes. The report to be filed not later than the
19 10th of April is the new expert report, and, of course, a record of
20 agreed facts is -- if it is there, is -- should be filed not later than
21 that same date.
22 I now move to number five. As for the proposed expert witness
23 Borojevic, the Chamber stays the notice deadline of Rule 94 bis. That's
24 of course mainly for the Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence and
25 instruct the Simatovic Defence to do the following: First, to indicate
1 to the parties whether or not after having had a discussion with the
2 parties, more specifically with the Prosecution, to indicate to the
3 parties which chapters or areas the Simatovic Defence will strike from
4 the report. This indication should be communicated to the parties no
5 later than the 12th of March, 2012.
6 Also in relation to the expert witness Borojevic, the
7 Simatovic Defence should respond to the Prosecution's motion requesting
8 that the Chamber follow the approach taken by the Gotovina Trial Chamber
9 in relation to the witness Theunens and Konings not later than the
10 19th of March, 2012. This response should include information about any
11 good cause for filing the report at this stage of the proceedings. It
12 should also include as much information as possible about which chapters
13 or areas of the report will be stricken and an explanation of the
14 relevance of the remaining portions.
15 It may be clear to the Simatovic Defence that the Prosecution
16 asked for the -- what they call the Gotovina trial approach, which
17 includes that a Trial Chamber can consider whether or not to admit at all
18 an expert report in view of timing, among other matters, size -- well, it
19 may be clear that a decision on admission of this expert report still has
20 to be taken and that you're invited to provide the Chamber with the
21 relevant information, including, if it's downsized, that of course might
22 have consequences as well.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'm very sorry to interrupt. Just
24 before we get too far, I believe there's a pending protective measures
25 motion for the witness that was just being discussed in open session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll --
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we mean the same
3 thing, then I believe you've already made your decision.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I was thinking about. I think
5 that there was an application which was denied, if I remember well,
6 Mr. Bakrac.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That is my
8 recollection too.
9 MS. MARCUS: [Overlapping speakers] my apologies, Your Honour.
10 My apologies.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You're reported as an overlapping speaker,
12 Ms. Marcus.
13 MS. MARCUS: I was just apologising, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. It's good to have that on the record.
15 Now let's -- yes. I move to the next one in relation to the same
17 The Simatovic Defence is instructed to file a revised version of
18 the report of Witness Borojevic, having removed all portions it considers
19 irrelevant or on which it does not intend to rely. Parts which are not
20 disputed between the parties should also be removed and can be submitted
21 to the Chamber separately through a record of agreed facts. This filing
22 should be submitted no later than the 13th of April, 2012; that is three
23 days after a similar report for expert witness Milosevic.
24 Finally, the last portion. The parties' notice deadline in
25 relation to the Borojevic report is hereby set to the 4th of March, 2012,
1 having taken into account that the parties have exchanged information
2 about portions to be stricken already by the 12th of March.
3 Mr. Jordash, I -- yes, I said the 4th of March apparently. Of
4 course that should be the 4th of May. So the deadline is a bit short
5 compared to the date on which the new report should be filed. At the
6 same time, relevant information has reached the parties already by the
7 12th of March and that is the reason why the deadline is slightly shorter
8 than as provided for in the Rules.
9 Mr. Bakrac, you're on your feet.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm on my feet because
11 I realised that you were addressing me, and I thought it would be
12 courteous of me to listen to your words on my feet, and that's the only
13 reason why I stood up.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then I now address everyone, but I do not
15 expect everyone to be on its feet because we'll adjourn, unless there are
16 any questions about the deadlines I just gave to primarily the
17 Simatovic Defence but also some relevant for the other parties.
18 MS. MARCUS: No questions about that, Your Honour, but we would
19 very much like to know who the next witnesses are.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the three witnesses who are
21 DFS-7, I think, 10, and 11. Is that --
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Within the next
23 half an hour, the Trial Chamber and the parties will be provided with a
24 detailed information as to what has been planned as well as the important
25 details of the upcoming witnesses' testimonies.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Patience for half an hour, Ms. Marcus.
2 We adjourn for the day, and we will resume on Tuesday, the 6th of
3 March, at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon in Courtroom II.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day
6 of March, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.