1 Tuesday, 1 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before I give an opportunity -- the opportunity to the
11 Simatovic Defence to call its next witness, I'd like to deal with a few
12 procedural matters, and we were informed that the Prosecution wants to
13 raise a procedural matter as well.
14 The first is about scheduling in the week of the 14th of May.
15 Usually we sit on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, which would mean the
16 15th, the 16th, and the 17th of May. The session of the 16th is going to
17 be rescheduled to the 14th, which is Monday. And we are preparing for an
18 afternoon session on that Monday, the 14th; then to be followed by 15th,
19 morning session; and the 17th would be an afternoon session most likely.
20 Does this cause any problems as far as the parties are concerned?
21 MR. JORDASH: I -- I mean, I hesitate, because I do have a
22 professional engagement. I'd agreed to speak at a conference organised
23 in Amsterdam, but obviously this takes precedence. But I mention it just
24 in case there's an alternative.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Are you supposed to speak in the morning or in
1 afternoon, and is it on the Thursday or is it on the Monday?
2 MR. JORDASH: It's on the Monday. May I just check that? I
3 think it was the afternoon, but may I check that?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we then -- but again, we have to look at
5 our agendas as well. We might even consider, although I say it with
6 quite a lot of reservation, to sit in the morning, but ...
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I -- again, this obviously takes
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, of course, the Chamber would
10 not like to unnecessarily spoil your agenda.
11 Then the next item. I will deliver the reasons for the decision
12 on the urgent Simatovic motion requesting testimony via video-conference
13 link, a decision about the testimony to be given through -- via
14 video-conference link for Witness Opacic, a decision which was delivered
15 on the 6th of March, 2012, with reasons to follow. The decision itself
16 can be found on page 17.981 of the trial transcript.
17 On the 29th of February, 2012, the Simatovic Defence filed an
18 urgent motion requesting that witness Goran Opacic testify via
19 video-conference link. The Defence submitted that the witness was unable
20 to travel to The Hague due to his own disability and the fact that he
21 assisted in the care of his disabled father.
22 On the 1st of March, the Chamber informally instructed the
23 Defence to provide further information regarding the medical condition of
24 the witness and his father. On the 5th of March, the Simatovic Defence
25 provided the requested further information. On the 6th of March, the
1 Prosecution filed a response to the motion, deferring to the discretion
2 of the Chamber.
3 The Stanisic Defence made no submissions in respect of the
5 The Chamber refers to Rule 81 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of
6 Procedure and Evidence which provides that:
7 "At the request of a party or proprio motu, a Judge or a Chamber
8 may order, if consistent with the interests of justice, that proceedings
9 be conducted by way of video-conference link."
10 The Chamber also refers to its previous decisions on testimony
11 via video-conference link.
12 The Tribunal's jurisprudence has identified the following three
13 factors that must be taken into consideration when addressing whether it
14 is in the interest of justice to allow testimony via video-conference
15 link: First, the inability or unwillingness for good reasons of the
16 witness to travel to the Tribunal; secondly, the importance of the
17 expected testimony for the case of the requesting party; and thirdly, the
18 possible prejudice to the right of the accused to confront the witness.
19 With regard to the inability or unwillingness of the witness to
20 travel to the Tribunal, the Chamber considered the information provided
21 by the Simatovic Defence and accepted that Mr. Opacic, having been
22 awarded a hundred per cent disability status and being his disabled
23 father's principal caretaker, was unable or unwilling for good reasons to
24 travel to the Tribunal.
25 As to the testimony's expected importance, the Chamber considered
1 that Mr. Opacic would, inter alia, testify about the Golubic train camp,
2 the Skabrnja operation of November 1991, and the Kula ceremony of 1997,
3 which made his testimony sufficiently important to the case to make it
4 unfair to the Simatovic Defence to proceed without it.
5 Furthermore, the Chamber found that granting the motion would not
6 cause prejudice to the accused Stanisic and his right to confront the
7 witness in cross-examination. In line with the Tribunal's jurisprudence,
8 a video-conference link in effect constitutes an extension of the
9 courtroom to the witness's location and video-conference link testimony
10 should be given the same probative value as testimony presented in the
12 And for the foregoing reasons, the Chamber granted the motion as
13 consistent with the interests of justice.
14 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons for this decision.
15 I would like to deliver another decision on behalf of the
16 Chamber. I'll deliver the decision on the Stanisic Additional Motion for
17 Admission of Documents into Evidence from the Bar Table.
18 On the 17th of February, 2012, the Stanisic Defence requested
19 admission of three documents from the bar table, in addition to a motion
20 filed on the same date for the admission of 674 documents into evidence.
21 The three documents are 1D1503, 1D4585, and 1D4586. On the
22 6th of March, 2012, the Chamber granted an extension for the
23 Prosecution's response to the additional motion to the
24 23rd of March, 2012. On that date, the Prosecution responded to the
25 Stanisic additional motion. The Simatovic Defence did not make any
1 submissions in respect to the additional motion.
2 The three documents have been made available to the
3 Stanisic Defence under Rule 70 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and
4 Evidence and are therefore tendered under seal. The documents concern,
5 inter alia, stipulations about the role of the accused Stanisic in the
6 events that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1993 and 1995.
7 The Stanisic Defence argues that the three documents are highly
8 probative and relevant to its case. It submits that, first, the
9 proffered documents evidence the accused's co-operation with the
10 international community and his contribution to establishment of peace in
11 the region of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and secondly, support the Defence
12 case that the accused Stanisic did not co-operate with the Bosnian Serbs
13 in relation to any alleged criminal purpose. Although it does not accept
14 these conclusions drawn from the documents, the Prosecution does not
15 oppose their admission from the bar table.
16 The Chamber refers to Rule 89(C) of the Tribunal's Rules, which
17 provides that a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to
18 have probative value. Based on the submissions by the Stanisic Defence,
19 and considering that the Prosecution does not oppose admission, the
20 Chamber finds that the three additional documents are probative and
21 relevant. Moreover, the Stanisic Defence has demonstrated with clarity
22 and specificity where and how each document fits into its case.
23 Therefore, the Chamber grants the motion. The Chamber is also satisfied
24 that the documents were provided under Rule 70 and, therefore, admits the
25 three documents under seal.
1 The Registry is requested to assign exhibit numbers to these
2 documents and inform the Chamber and the parties once it has done so.
3 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
4 I move to the next item. The Chamber would like to inquire
5 whether, as matters stand now, the Prosecution intends to present any
6 rebuttal evidence. If so, the Prosecution should file any request or
7 notification to that effect no later than the 8th of May, 2012. Should
8 the Prosecution decide that it wishes to seek rebuttal evidence for
9 Defence evidence heard or admitted after that day, any such motions
10 should be filed no later than a week after the date of the introduction
11 of such evidence.
12 Any comments on -- any questions?
13 MS. MARCUS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. None. No comments
14 other than to confirm that we will be seeking to tender some evidence in
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus. If you would prefer to
17 remain seated when you address the Chamber, you are allowed to do so.
18 Then the next item deals with the re-calling or at least the
19 issue of re-calling Witness Novakovic. In relation to this issue, the
20 Chamber notes that in the Prosecution's motion to re-call
21 Witness Novakovic, which was filed on the 24th of April, 2012, references
22 made to the indications made by the Stanisic Defence that they would not
23 object the re-call of this witness. And I refer in particular to
24 transcript pages 13961, 14024, and 14168 and -169.
25 The Trial Chamber would like to know whether the Stanisic Defence
1 wishes to maintain their preliminary position on this matter.
2 MR. JORDASH: We maintain the position. I think the argument is
3 going to be the parameters. In particular, the Prosecution seek to put
4 to the witness parts of the Mladic diary, and I think we may object to
5 that. I need to look again at the finer detail of the motion, but in
6 short we -- we do not oppose the re-call.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Any position already by the Stanisic Defence?
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no objections
10 to the Prosecution request.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
12 So therefore what remains then is the parameters.
13 Mr. Jordash -- well, first of all, I think it's practical for you
14 to know already that there is no opposition. When would we receive
15 further details as to the parameters you have just referred to?
16 MR. JORDASH: We could send an informal response, I think, by
17 tomorrow or -- sorry, I just forgot whether it's Tuesday today or Monday.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's Tuesday today.
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Tuesday. By Thursday, if that would help to
20 expedite things.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would be appreciated.
22 Does the Simatovic Defence wish to make further submissions,
23 although not opposing the motion?
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll wait for the details of the Stanisic
2 I have no other matters on my list.
3 Ms. Marcus, I was informed that the Office of the Prosecution
4 would like to raise a matter in relation to bar table motions.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
6 On the 10th of April, 2012, the Simatovic Defence filed a
7 notification in which it first informed the Chamber that it would not be
8 calling proposed military expert witness Borojevic and second where it
9 stated "the Defence intends to prepare bar table motion and ask for
10 admission of selection of documents used in Borojevic's report."
11 The Prosecution would like to know when it can expect to receive
12 this bar table motion, bearing in mind that the Borojevic report, as we
13 all well know, had approximately 1600 sources. Even in the
14 Simatovic Defence were to seek to tender only a portion of those, unless
15 the number is very few, the Prosecution will likely need to request more
16 than the two-week response time for such a motion.
17 To the extent any translations are outstanding, of course, this
18 will impact upon the time we need to review and to respond.
19 And finally, Your Honours, a decision on any prospective
20 Simatovic Defence bar table motion, just as with the pending decision on
21 the Stanisic Defence bar table motion, would have an impact on the
22 materials the Prosecution might seek to tender during its rebuttal case.
23 Due to the fact that, by our time estimates, the Defence witnesses may be
24 completed by the third week in May at the latest, the Prosecution wishes
25 to express its concern about timing. I defer to the Chamber, as usual,
1 on matters of scheduling, but I just raise this as a concern.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
4 It was a question, an expression of concern; the latter is on the
5 record. The first was about when the Prosecution can expect to receive
6 the bar table motion.
7 Mr. Bakrac.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have already said
9 that I am very bad at assessing the time that is needed, but after having
10 said we wouldn't use or call expert Borojevic, we started comparing
11 documents that we want to present via bar table motion. We want to see
12 whether they've already been admitted, and we also want to see whether we
13 have translations of these documents. We are doing -- engaged in this
14 procedure, and this also involves other documents we want to present
15 through a bar table motion. We will try and do this as expeditiously as
16 possible, because we are aware of the fact that if we are late, this
17 could be to the detriment of the Defence case. So with your leave, allow
18 me to say that the Defence case is nearing its close. It's in our
19 interest to present this bar table motion as soon as possible, and we
20 will do this as expeditiously as possible, as soon as possible.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, could you give us an indication about
22 whether you are trying to -- whether you are seeking to have all 1600
23 documents in evidence or 50 or 20 or 500? What's ...
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I think 10 to
25 20 per cent of those documents, certainly not all of them. Just the most
1 relevant to those parts of our Defence case that we believe they
2 corroborate. It's between 150 and 200 documents. Certainly not all
4 Just to be clear: I am only talking about the bar table motion
5 regarding Borojevic, that will be one bar table motion; and there will be
6 another one regarding our 65 ter list and those pieces of evidence that
7 have not been admitted yet through witnesses.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I would suggest --
9 [B/C/S on English channel]
10 JUDGE ORIE: That -- I would suggest that as soon as you have
11 made any --
12 There's apparently a technical problem, because I received the
13 B/C/S translation on channel 4. Therefore I will restart.
14 Mr. Bakrac, I would suggest that as soon as you have identified
15 documents you would like to include in your bar table motion in relation
16 to the Borojevic report, that you immediately inform the Prosecution.
17 That's one. And of course your further bar table motions, you know how
18 to proceed as far as relevance is concerned. You know exactly that it
19 will take some time to both prepare the motion and to present it to the
20 Chamber in the way which we have prescribed. And it will take some time
21 for the Chamber as well. It's -- the Chamber would wish not to be
22 flooded by material on unclear -- on an unclear basis.
23 Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: I should probably indicate that we intend to file a
25 further bar table motion. In short, we're still trying to get through
1 all the disclosure that's been served over the last -- well, over the
2 course of the trial, in effect, but mainly what's arrived in the last
3 year. I won't burden the Trial Chamber with the amount or the reasons
4 for why it's come at this stage, but there are thousands of documents and
5 we're working our way through them and selecting some which are, in our
6 view, relevant and probative.
7 So we will have them -- we will certainly be filing a motion.
8 We're not sure of the size of it yet. But I thought I'd better alert the
9 Trial Chamber to that. Yes, I think that's all I can say at this moment.
10 Unless, Your Honour, wants further information.
11 JUDGE ORIE: What we would like is to know as soon as possible
12 what the Stanisic Defence intends to do in this respect. And of course
13 volume is one of the issues, and of course good cause for presenting it
14 at this late stage is another matter. I am not going to exhaustively go
15 through all the relevant aspects, but you certainly have alerted the
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And so did the Simatovic Defence. And I take it
19 that the Prosecution was alerted as well. I leave it to that at this
21 The only thing we were talking about, you're checking whether
22 translations are available, Mr. Bakrac, in relation to the bar table
23 documents. Where are we as far as the translation of the documents are
24 concerned for the witness who we'll hope to see within a few minutes in
25 this courtroom? There seems to be some disagreement about the
1 availability of underlying documents of the expert report in a language
2 accessible to the Prosecution.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We have expended quite
4 significant resources and time to try to figure this out, check, and
5 re-check again, and re-check again. At the moment, we're trying to
6 finalise the last verification of the last group of documents that was
7 sent within the past -- between yesterday and today. I believe that
8 there are fewer than ten, and as soon as I have that list, I will share
9 it with the -- with the Simatovic Defence and the Chamber, if that's
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is. I was just -- I was a bit concerned
12 about the divergence between what the Prosecution thought was missing and
13 sometimes, of course, relevant e-mails are sent to Chamber staff. And we
14 are aware of the problem as perceived by the Prosecution, and the Defence
15 notification which was filed on the 10th of April saying that four
16 English translations were pending and that urgent translation of these
17 documents have been requested. But we are all now below ten, although
18 still a small divergence. Let's proceed and see what happens.
19 Any other matter to be raised by the parties after a considerable
20 time of not sitting? If not, is the Simatovic Defence ready to call its
21 next witness, and that is the expert Milan Milosevic?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We are ready to
23 call our next witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.
25 At the same time, Mr. Petrovic, there is an extensive report of
1 the witness. You nevertheless asked for six hours of
2 examination-in-chief. Would you always be very clear how your
3 questioning relates to the report; that is, what parts of the report are
4 clarified. Because usually if you call an expert witness, if the
5 Prosecution would have accepted the qualifications of the expert and the
6 conclusions, then the report should have spoken for itself. So,
7 therefore, the Chamber wonders what exactly is there to be clarified and
8 what is added to the report.
9 So could you always clearly indicate where we are and avoid
10 repetition with what is found in the report.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will endeavour to
12 do that, and that is how we have conceived our examination, but I want to
13 emphasise that out of this initial estimate of six hours, we will not use
14 all that time. It will certainly be reduced, but I dare not say exactly
15 how much because I don't know how quickly our examination of this witness
16 will proceed, but it will certainly not be the six hours initially
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information --
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Petrovic.
21 Good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic. Before you give evidence in this
22 court, the Rules require that you make a solemn declaration. The text is
23 now handed out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
25 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: Milan Milosevic
2 [Witness answered through interpretation]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Milosevic.
4 Mr. Milosevic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Petrovic.
5 Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
6 Mr. Petrovic, you may proceed.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Examination by Mr. Petrovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] And good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic. I would
10 kindly ask you to state your full name for the record, as well as the
11 date and place of your birth.
12 A. My name is Milan Milosevic. I was born on 23rd January, 1958, in
13 Prokuplje. Is this enough?
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I should like to ask you to look at
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D921.
17 Q. Mr. Milosevic, did you create this document, and what exactly is
19 A. Yes. This is my curriculum vitae in which I presented the most
20 important points from my professional career. It's a working biography
21 and personal biography where I included the most important elements of my
22 scientific, of my academic, and professional career.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to tender this CV as
25 a Defence exhibit, and also to look at 2D922.
1 MS. MARCUS: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, the biography, 2D9 -- what
3 was it?
4 THE REGISTRAR: 921, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 921, yes. Receives number ...
6 THE REGISTRAR: D790, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: D790 is admitted into evidence.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Milosevic, what are we looking at now?
11 A. This is my bibliography, that is to say, the list of all the
12 papers, books, articles, and other publications I authored since 1990 to
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I also tender
16 the bibliography of Dr. Milan Milosevic as a Defence exhibit.
17 MS. MARCUS: No objection.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the bibliography would reserve
19 number ...
20 THE REGISTRAR: The bibliography with 2D922 will receive number
21 D791, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D791 is admitted into evidence.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Milosevic, did you, as asked by the Defence team of
1 Mr. Franko Simatovic, make an expert report on the functioning of the
2 system of internal affairs and the security system of the SFRY and the
3 Republic of Serbia?
4 A. Yes. I provided that expert report.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now display on the screen
7 Q. Mr. Milosevic, is this the cover page of the report that you made
8 for the requirements of the Defence of Mr. Simatovic?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the benefit of
11 Mr. Milosevic, I should kindly like to ask you to provide him with the
12 hard copy so that he can find it easier, if that's acceptable to the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I hear of --
15 MS. MARCUS: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- no objections. Therefore, Mr. Milosevic may be
17 provided with a hard copy of his report.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Thank you.
20 Q. Could you tell us, please, in the period between 1983 and 1995,
21 where were you employed, Mr. Milosevic?
22 A. In that period I worked at the Republic Secretariat for
23 Internal Affairs of what was then the Socialist Republic of Serbia in the
24 security department.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't this found in detail in the paragraph (e) of
1 the witness ...
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes. That's just my
3 first question, and now I will be asking about things that are not
4 contained in this paper. I just wanted to put this question as an
5 introduction, but of course I agree; what you're saying is true.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Witness, in your biography it says that from 1987 to 1992, in
9 addition to working at the MUP of Serbia, you also taught at the higher
10 school of internal affairs. The subject you taught was state security.
11 What were the requirements of a lecturer who wanted to teach this
13 A. The statute of the higher school of internal affairs stipulated
14 that a teacher, a lecturer, for that subject had to be a full-time
15 employee in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. So he had to be in active
16 duty in order to teach there.
17 Q. Since you were teaching and working in the State Security Service
18 at the same time, tell us when you opted for the academic career and for
19 what reason did you remain in the State Security Service as an employee?
20 A. Well, immediately in 1987 I chose to become a professor. I chose
21 my academic career. But since it was a requirement to become a full-time
22 employee in the State Security Service, I had to remain there until
23 conditions were right for moving somewhere on a permanent basis.
24 Q. Why this requirement that you be a full-time employee of the
25 service as a prerequisite for teaching this subject?
1 A. The thinking was that nobody could be qualified to teach this
2 subject unless they were familiar with it from inside, unless they were
3 working on it in practice. In other words, it was considered that
4 theoretical knowledge was not enough, that practical experience was also
6 Q. From 1992 from 1995 [as interpreted] what was the focus of your
7 academic work?
8 A. I was working on my PhD thesis, preparing my doctorate in the
9 area of criminal procedure and criminal law in order to move to the
10 police academy where I also became a full-time employee.
11 Q. In your biography we see that between 1992 and 1995 your title
12 was independent instructor for the training of personnel in the
13 State Security Service of the Republic of Serbia. What were your duties
14 in that particular period?
15 A. This occupation is idiosyncratic because it is administrative
16 work. I was not doing the practical operative work, but administrative
17 work, so my job was to organise professional examinations and certain
18 preparation and education for people who were admitted to work on a trial
19 period, or interns.
20 Q. Did your duties at that time have anything to do with the
21 operative work of the State Security Service?
22 A. I've already said, my job was administrative. It had nothing to
23 do with operative work.
24 Q. In that period, did any operative reports or briefs come or pass
25 your desk, or any other papers created within the State Security Service?
1 A. By the very nature of things, it was impossible for any operative
2 reports to reach me in view of the kind of work I was doing. That's
3 simply the way the service was designed. I had no access to anything of
4 the kind.
5 Q. Did you ever attend a collegium, a meeting of the service, at the
6 time or some other large meeting?
7 A. No, I was never at a collegium at that time or any other time. I
8 didn't occupy a very high-ranking position, and I couldn't attend such
9 meetings given my position.
10 Q. Did you go to a working meeting or some other meeting with
11 Franko Simatovic or Jovica Stanisic?
12 A. No. Given the situation I was in, I couldn't have any
13 professional contact of any kind with them since the duties we had to
14 perform were quite different. There were no common professional
15 interests that we had.
16 Q. Were you on friendly terms or did you have another kind of
17 relationship with Stanisic or Simatovic at the time? Before that period
18 or afterwards.
19 A. No, we weren't friends. We knew each other by sight, so to
20 speak, but we never really socialised, never went out together. We
21 weren't really friends. We did not have close contact with each other.
22 We didn't even meet each other, since we were in various parts of the
23 building. And it wasn't customary for the employees to visit each other
24 on other floors of the building. There had to be other reasons to go
25 there, and there was no professional reason for us to meet up.
1 Q. Did you know anything about the professional tasks and duties of
2 Stanisic and Simatovic from 1991 to 1992, given the position that you
4 A. No. Because of the position I held, I couldn't have known
5 anything about it. And according to the rules of the service, everything
6 that you know is on a need-to-know basis. You only need to have
7 sufficient knowledge to perform your duties. So since the duties I
8 performed were of a different kind, I couldn't have information of the
9 kind you've been referring to.
10 Q. Who was the chief of the administration that you worked in?
11 A. If you're referring to the 8th Administration, it was
12 Milan Prodanic. He was the chief. It's the personnel administration, of
13 course. The 8th Administration is a personnel administration.
14 Q. What kind of terms were you on with Prodanic? Did you attend a
15 meeting with him, did you go to his office?
16 A. Well, we weren't close associates if that's what you have in
17 mind, and naturally we weren't on friendly terms either. He was an
18 officer. When he thought it was necessary, he could call me and assign
19 me a task of some kind. But we didn't co-operate in professional terms,
20 and I didn't have any private contact with him because, well, quite
21 simply, that was the situation. The duties I performed did not require
22 that I had a lot of contact with those who were in charge of the
24 Q. Mr. Milosevic, how did this Defence team get in touch with you?
25 Could you tell us?
1 A. Well, since I'm a prominent individual, I'm a professor in
2 Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'm a public figure, in other
3 words, and I've been involved in theoretical research into security and
4 intelligence for a long time, and I therefore assume that the Defence
5 heard about me because I'm a public figure and you can find my name on
6 the internet, et cetera, and that's why they took the decision they took
7 and got in contact with me last spring.
8 Q. Mr. Milosevic, let's now have a look at your expert report. We
9 won't repeat everything that is contained in your report. But on the
10 basis of your report, we'll try and clarify certain matters. We'll refer
11 to your report in order to clarify certain issues.
12 Could we now have a look at paragraph 15 of your report. In
13 paragraph 15 you speak about the Law on the Basic System for
14 State Security. This law was adopted in the SFRY in 1984. Could you
15 tell us what the significance of this law was at the time that the law
16 was adopted? So in 1984.
17 A. The law was adopted in 1986, 1986, but it is based on the concept
18 of All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection, and also on the
19 constitution of the SFRY and on the constitutions of the republics and
20 regions. The idea of this -- behind this law was to define the
21 relationship between the federal and republican and regional organs with
22 regard to state security. It didn't go into the details of state
23 security. The law only provided certain general and basic guidelines and
24 norms. Is it necessary for me to go into further detail?
25 Q. I'll ask you the following: In 1984, if I have understood you
1 correctly, this law was the basic law, the fundamental law, on the basis
2 of which the state security system in the SFRY and republics and regions
3 were established. Have I understood this correctly?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we have a look
6 at P2614, article 2, item 3.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated] ... document is under
8 seal, Your Honours.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask the Registrar not
10 to broadcast this document outside the courtroom.
11 We don't have the B/C/S version yet.
12 Q. Please have a look at it.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's the second
14 column, the third paragraph. That's the paragraph I'm interested in.
15 Q. Mr. Milosevic, at the bottom of the first page and of the first
16 column, reference is made to certain subjects within the state security
17 system. Given the way these subjects are listed in Article 2, could you
18 tell us in -- within what context are these subjects of importance in
19 order to understand the system of state security established in the SFRY
20 and in the republics and regions?
21 A. I have already said that this law is based on the idea of social
22 self-protection, and this is quite evident in Article 2. Similarly, I'd
23 like to emphasise the fact that the concept of state security concerns to
24 social order established in accordance with the constitution. In
25 Article 2, it says that the security system for the citizens of the SFRY
1 is carried out for all administrative units.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to slow down for
3 the sake of the interpretation.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you to speak more slowly so that the
5 interpreters can translate what you are saying.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Please go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.
9 A. This law is a typical example of the idea of social
10 self-protection. It says the protection of the constitutional order is
11 the right and the duty of all of the subjects. This means all the
12 working people and citizens, organisations and working communities, other
13 self-management organisations, and then social and political
14 organisations. This includes political parties at the time. For
15 example, the Communist League, and so on. Then it's also the task of the
16 association of citizens and of social and political communities, which
17 includes the republics and regions and the local self-management system.
18 So they were all subjects concerned with the protection of the
19 social and constitutional order, but the organs of state security were
20 considered to be the professional services concerned with social
22 Q. So the law was established on the following concept: On the
23 concept of communal work. On the basis of the constitution from 1974, on
24 the basis of that concept and on the basis of that law, how were the
25 duties divided when it came to state security? What were the
1 federation's responsibilities, what were the responsibilities of the
2 republics and of the regions? Could you please just answer that,
4 A. Well, the state security duties were performed in republics and
5 in regions, but at the federal level things had to be harmonised. There
6 was a certain amount of co-ordination and control of the duties
7 performed, of this work that was carried out. And there were also
8 certain duties that were the exclusive responsibility of the
9 federal Ministry of Internal Affairs, the federal SUP, secretariat of the
10 interior, at the time.
11 Q. Mr. Milosevic, this law, which is the basic law regulating the
12 sphere of state security, was in force up until when exactly? Could you
13 tell us?
14 A. It's difficult to say when it ceased to be in force, since when a
15 law is no longer valid -- well, this is not always explicitly stated.
16 It's not necessarily a fact that there's another law that replaces it
17 with other provisions. So perhaps it no longer has any force regardless
18 of fact that there's no new law.
19 Q. Could you tell us, in official terms, how long was this law valid
20 in Serbia?
21 A. Well, it was certainly valid right up until the time that the
22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established. So it was in force after
23 1990, 1991, and 1992.
24 Q. This law, such as it is, was it applicable after the system
25 changed, after a new constitution was adopted after 1990 and 1991?
1 A. Well, obviously it wasn't applicable in most respects. These
2 subjects, these social subjects, no longer existed, these subjects for
3 social protection. But after 1993 when this law on social
4 self-protection was officially terminated, these subjects of social
5 self-protection were, in fact, no longer relevant.
6 Q. Do you know whether at the time of the existence of the
7 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a law was ever adopted regulating the
8 basics -- or the basic system of state security?
9 A. No, no such law was adopted at that time.
10 Q. If I have understood your testimony correctly, at the time the
11 state security system was based on the provisions of this law. Or,
12 rather, there wasn't really a basic law that would regulate the way in
13 which it functioned, that would regulate its responsibilities and its
14 position in the system of state security.
15 A. There was not a general law that covered this issue, but there
16 were certain other rules and regulations that determined the position,
17 the function, and the organisation of state security in the republic.
18 Q. Thank you. Could we now have a look at paragraph 16 in your
19 expert report, which deals with the SFRY constitution from April 1991 and
20 it defines the responsibilities of the federation. It also refers to
21 defence and the security of the country.
22 Were laws ever adopted in the SFRY regulating the security system
23 in the country? And as is stated here, it's one of the exclusive
24 responsibilities of the federation of Yugoslavia.
25 A. If you mean protecting the social order when you refer to
1 security, no. No such laws were adopted.
2 Q. Thank you. Now let's have a look at paragraph 20 in your expert
3 report. In this paragraph it says that the Law on Internal Affairs of
4 the SAP Vojvodina didn't contain a single provision on the
5 responsibilities of the regional secretariat and the republican
6 secretariat for internal affairs. In the context of this law, what were
7 the consequences of the fact that the way in which it was necessary to
8 co-operate with the secretariat, the republican secretariat for internal
9 affairs, was not defined?
10 A. Well, the consequences of that fact were that it was necessary to
11 have an agreement between the federal and republican levels. Between the
12 organs of internal affairs of the republic and of the federation. This
13 was necessary so that they could take certain measures. There was no
14 duty established in law that showed that the region secretariat for
15 internal affairs had to be subordinated, so to speak, to the republican
16 or federal secretariat for internal affairs.
17 Q. Mr. Milosevic, does this also concern state security duties?
18 A. Well, yes, it does, because at the time the state security system
19 was only regulated and defined by the Law on Internal Affairs.
20 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 26 of your report, you deal with the
21 Law on Internal Affairs in the Republic of Serbia from the year 1991.
22 And a provision from that law is quoted here, which concerns co-operation
23 with other ministries in the then-SFRY. What is your assessment of this
24 provision on the Law of Internal Affairs in the Republic of Serbia? Is
25 it of an integral or separatist kind in relation to other ministries in
1 other republics and regions of the time?
2 A. It's integrational in nature, unifying in nature. It talks about
3 co-operating -- co-operation with other ministries in the federation, and
4 this should be based on the rights and the duties on providing
5 intelligence, on co-operation, and so on and so forth. So I don't see
6 anything that would be a matter of dispute, anything that would reflect
7 separatist tendencies.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm looking at the
9 time. I don't know whether it's time for a break now. I can see that
10 Mr. Stanisic would also like a break.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's time for a break.
12 Mr. Petrovic, when following your questions and what I read in
13 the report, then I now and then wondered what I learned in addition to
14 what I read already by listening to the witness. For example, if the
15 text is on the discharge of joint tasks, mutual co-operation, and
16 informing, the idea of separatist tendencies would not, on the basis of
17 this text, even come to my mind.
18 We take a break and we resume at 4.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.29 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue - and apologies, Mr. Milosevic -
22 Mr. Jordash, did I understand well that you are scheduled to lecture at
23 1.30 on the 14th?
24 MR. JORDASH: That's right.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, moving from morning to afternoon, it
1 doesn't change anything, because either you'll have to leave early and
2 rush to Amsterdam or you'll have to arrive late when we sit in the
3 afternoon. Is there any way that you could, perhaps, move your, if you
4 would -- if you could move in the -- either earlier in the day, or I
5 don't know. I think I've seen a programme of a conference which I
6 couldn't attend because I had to be in court. Therefore, could I -- as
7 matters stand now, our preference to sit in the afternoon is clear. So
8 therefore, if there's any way you could move to another part of the
9 programme, that would be appreciated. Or I don't know whether it's a
10 two-day programme, but whether --
11 MR. JORDASH: No, it's a one-day.
12 JUDGE ORIE: A one-day.
13 MR. JORDASH: It's a panel, so it's unlikely to move, but --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: -- I'll be in touch with them and report back.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Even if you there would need any support by
17 the Chamber, I may know some of the organisers as well, but, of course,
18 this is not a promise of any -- of any result.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's the risk why I, and perhaps you the same,
21 always accept invitations under one general clause, that if attendance
22 here is needed, that I have to be absent. That's ... but, again, we
23 really would like -- we would have liked to assist you. If there's any
24 way out, if we can do anything for you, don't hesitate to ask.
25 MR. JORDASH: Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Then our apologies, Mr. Milosevic. There was some matters
3 pending from prior to your arrival.
4 Mr. Petrovic, are you ready to continue?
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I would like to ask you one question which is in a
8 way a follow-up to what we discussed before the break when you told us
9 that in the relevant period from 1991 to 1995 no law was passed governing
10 internal affairs. Do you know if any other law was passed in the same
11 period governing the position and the role of military security services
12 in the SFRY, that is to say, in the Republic of Serbia in 1991/1995?
13 A. I don't think any law was passed in that area in that period,
15 Q. Could we now look at paragraph 28 of your expert report, which
16 says that the security service within the federal secretariat at the time
17 when the FRY was established was organised as ten administrations and two
18 independent departments. Why does it say it was nominally organised?
19 A. The State Security Service as part of the Federal Secretariat for
20 Internal Affairs formally had these organisational units, these
21 administrations and departments; however, at that time the service had by
22 that time significantly broken down. A lot of personnel had left. There
23 were even a lot of cases of people unlawfully taking items away from
24 their work-places. And the service was not simply carrying out the tasks
25 and missions expected of it. There was even insistence on the part of
1 some authorities and chiefs to reduce the service to the minimum.
2 Q. Could you please speak a little slowly because it is not easy to
3 transcribe or interpret at this rate. I asked why it was nominally
4 organised into two administrations, and the transcript says "nomally"
5 instead of nominally. I hope this is clear now.
6 A. May I add something?
7 Q. Please.
8 A. In fact, only one administration operated and that was the VIP
9 security administration, which continued to operate even later out of the
10 former SDB administration. That administration was formed and this
11 administration dealt with VIP security at the state level and the federal
12 level. I'm sorry if I'm speaking too fast.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
14 Paragraph 29, it says on 18 October, 1992, the building of the
15 federal MUP in Kneza Milosa Street was taken over. Was that something
16 done by the MUP of the Republic of Serbia or by the State Security
17 Service of Serbia?
18 A. That's an activity of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. It
19 involved also members of the State Security Service as well as the public
20 security service. The decision was made at the level of the ministry,
21 and it was carried out at the level of the ministry.
22 Q. A moment ago we were discussing the state of affairs in the
23 federal Ministry of Interior, but bearing in mind your explanation, the
24 one you've just given, could you please tell us why the building of the
25 federal MUP was taken over on 18 October, 1992, in light of what you've
1 just said and also certain other reasons that you may be able to provide?
2 A. In my opinion, the main reason is precisely this: In the
3 territory of Serbia, in the territory of Belgrade, literally across the
4 road from each other there were two buildings of the ministry, and in one
5 of them no work was being done. There were, instead, lots of cases of
6 theft of documents and even valuable paintings, and the chief of the
7 state security also left that service. The then-leadership of Serbia,
8 the Republic of Serbia, was practically financing two administrations,
9 the federal one and the republic one - the federal MUP and the republic
10 MUP; whereas, the federal one was unable to do anything in view of the
11 situation prevailing at the time. On the other hand, there was the
12 problem of available office space. The republic MUP lacked offices and
13 the offices in the other building were going unused, and that's, from
14 what I know, the main reason why this building was taken over.
15 Q. Mr. Milosevic, being familiar with the structure of both the
16 federal and republic MUP, tell us what was going on with the affiliated
17 services from both the federal and the republic MUP with this take-over?
18 A. They merged and that was a kind of rationalisation. All the
19 staff, all the members of the federal Ministry of the Interior, including
20 the State Security Service, were taken over. They were offered to
21 continue working, and all of them accepted. Out of some organisational
22 unit, some were expanded, some new were created, and a sort of fusion was
23 implemented. These two services became one single new one.
24 Q. Could this be called a rationalisation drive in the area of
25 internal affairs?
1 A. In my opinion, absolutely. And it also helped overcome the
2 problem of working on a double track and duplication that had led to a
3 lot of unnecessary costs.
4 Q. Could we now look at paragraph 30 of your report. It says:
5 After the take-over, the minister of the interior,
6 Zoran Sokolovic, adopted the rules amending the rules of the internal
7 organisation of the state security department in the Ministry of the
9 Why these new rules were adopted after the take-over to amend the
10 hitherto rules and the internal organisation of the SDB?
11 A. These amendments were made precisely for the reasons I stated in
12 my previous answer. It was necessary to carry out a merger. These new
13 employees, so to speak, had to be assigned to new jobs, and their job
14 specification had to be expanded to enable these people to continue doing
15 the same kind of work in the newly created organisation.
16 If necessary I can explain in more detail. There were, for
17 instance, employees of the car park or the IT section who were taken over
18 from the other building, and they needed to be included in the job
19 specification to enable them to continue to work.
20 Q. Thank you. I would now like to take a look at these amendments.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's P2369, Article 1, para 1.
22 Pages 2 and 3 in B/C/S and pages 2 and 3 in English. Page 2 in B/C/S,
23 please, and page 2 in English. Page 3 in English, please.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the previous number of questions to the
1 witness, I'm not sure what the foundation was. We don't -- we don't have
2 it in the report. We don't have a source being cited. Is it based on
3 personal information? I think before we understand this kind of
4 evidence, where it's coming from, it would be good to know what his
5 authority is. What's the foundation for that evidence?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all it
8 follows from the legislative consequences of this event. We have
9 described the event, but I'm interested in the legislative consequences,
10 and they are reflected precisely in this document that I want to show.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but this is a bit of a chicken/egg
12 solution [sic], I'm afraid.
13 Ms. Marcus, first, for my understanding, were you talking about
14 this functioning of the federal SUP, items being taken away, and that,
15 the factual part of it; is that what you were referring to?
16 MS. MARCUS: That as well, Your Honour, yes. In addition, that
17 the merger was a kind of rationalisation. In addition to that, the
18 reasons why it was necessary to carry out a merger. All of this
19 demonstrates some kind of knowledge of inside discussions and a
20 background to the legislation, which is not sourced.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Mr. Petrovic, your answer says "I'm interested in the legislative
23 consequences." Now, the issue raised by Ms. Marcus is whether these were
24 legislative consequences. And in order to establish that these were
25 consequences, you would need to know what the factual basis is for
1 triggering such legislative changes.
2 To say, "The law has been changed, therefore this must be the
3 reason," is in itself not yet conclusive without further information.
4 And I think that that's mainly what Ms. Marcus is pointing at. I leave
5 it to you whether you want to further explore it or not, but please be
6 aware that without that basis, the Chamber might have more difficulties
7 in adopting any conclusions the expert witness draws.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. Thank
11 Q. Mr. Milosevic, a moment ago when we were talking about this
12 process of take-over and the adoption of new rules, could you explain to
13 us what happened with the personnel employed in the federal MUP in terms
14 of their legal status? What was their legal status and what document
15 governed the legal status of those who wanted to continue to work in the
16 republic MUP of Serbia?
17 A. The answer to that question is what I'm looking at. That's the
18 rules amending the rules on the internal organisation of the State
19 Security Service with the Ministry of the Interior, where Article 1 says
21 [As read] "The department from that moment on shall also carry
22 out state administration tasks relevant for the protection of the
23 security of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the prevention of
24 activities aimed at undermining or destroying the constitutionally
25 established order of the FRY on the territory of the republic."
1 That means that they are all included now. They all continued to
2 do their work as before with the provisio that the Republic of Serbia
3 took upon itself the protection of the FRY as well, in terms of those
4 institutions and territories and areas that were within the Republic of
5 Serbia. The Republic of Montenegro did the same on its own territory.
6 Q. Tell us, then, what was the reason why the RDB of the Republic of
7 Serbia began to include protecting federal interests on the territory of
9 A. The reason is that the purview of state security was previously
10 exclusively in the -- at the federal level. The problems themselves and
11 the job itself did not disappear, and the Republic State Security Service
12 was the only entity who was able to continue this work. Of course, the
13 State Security Service is only one of the factors, only one of the
14 players, that participated in the protection of the state security of the
15 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
16 Q. In paragraph 31 of your report, we read that:
17 [As read] "The organisation of internal affairs on the
18 constitutional basis, as it was then, was never terminated, particularly
19 because member republics were opposed."
20 What is behind this statement? What was the political
21 disagreement that you only briefly touch upon in this paragraph? You
22 only hint at it.
23 A. It is well known that the political and state leadership of the
24 Republic of Montenegro did not wish to accept any agreement or any
25 initiative that would lead to any kind of integration, to making anything
1 common within this two-member federation. And that obviously paralyzed
2 the system, because it was still based on consensus decision-making
3 despite the fact that the federation now consisted of only two members,
4 instead of six plus two as it had been until then.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I seek some clarification, Mr. Petrovic.
6 You asked the witness how the legal status of staff, of personnel,
7 changed. The witness responded by referring to the change in the tasks;
8 that is, that state security would, from that moment on, also deal with
9 federal security matters. Is that well understood?
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now, that, then, explains that those who were
12 working for the state security got a broader task. I understood your
13 question to be, but I haven't heard the answer, what happened with the
14 status of those who were working in the federal security before? Were
15 they incorporated in the ranks of state security and were they now
16 working together with the former state security officials in dealing with
17 that broader task? Because we have two groups of personnel: the one is
18 state security, the other one is federal security. You have explained
19 that state security personnel stayed where they were with a broader task,
20 but I have not heard an answer yet on what happened with personnel of the
21 federal security. Were they, again, incorporated in a different
22 organisation? Were they paid by different authority? Did they -- that's
23 unclear what happened with the status of federal security personnel.
24 And I thought that that was, if not your question, at least part
25 of your question. Could you please seek this to be clarified, and
1 perhaps the witness could provide this clarification immediately, having
2 heard my question.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They all entered the republican
4 SUP. The SUP was expanded and they were included in it. So this is how
5 these changes occurred. I don't know if I have been sufficiently clear.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, this was exactly the missing element in -- for
7 my understanding of the situation. Does that also mean that they were
8 fund by a different budget now?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they were all financed from the
10 same budget. They were all part of a single organisation, and they were
11 all financed from the budget of the Republic of Serbia. It was, so to
12 speak, a unified, single organisation that they all worked for. It was
13 one state organ. There were no -- there was no longer a dual track
14 system. They no longer had two state organs, only one.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, I thought that perhaps previously
16 they may have been paid by federal budget and that they now moved into
17 the republican budget, those who moved from the federal state security to
18 the republican state security.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I answer that?
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you can, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the previous period, from 1974,
22 let's say, onwards, there was the federal secretariat for internal
23 affairs, the federal secretariat for the interior, and it was financed
24 from the federal budget at the time. But during the period that we are
25 talking about, these republics and regions no longer existed, the regions
1 and republics that were formerly part of the federation, and these bodies
2 contributed to the federal budget.
3 So at the time the Republic of Serbia, and to a lesser extent the
4 Republic of Montenegro, could only pay for these services from the
5 federal budget, but I think that things were stream-lined in this matter
6 to avoid this dual-track system, to have less administrative work, and to
7 reduce the expenses incurred.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. With reference to the question put to you by the Presiding Judge,
12 the rules on the amendment on the rules of organisation, what was the
13 main purpose of these regulations? Why were they adopted within the
14 context of these changes we've been discussing?
15 A. Well, for this very reason, so that these people could somehow be
16 integrated within the system. There were more employees and it was
17 necessary for job specifications to be expanded. There were to be new
18 positions and new staff members for those positions.
19 Q. So were there new job specifications that meant that there were
20 new positions for people who had been taken over from the federal state
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. After this process of integration had been completed, did a
24 certain part of the federal state security system continue to exist?
25 A. I've already said that under the first administration that was
1 concerned with protection of subjects remained [as interpreted]. It was
2 in existence until about 2001. But it only provided protection for
3 certain individuals at that level.
4 Q. Who financed this administration that remained part of the
5 federal MUP?
6 A. It was obviously the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's budget that
7 financed them. The Republic of Serbia and its organs, excise and customs
8 I think were involved, but I'm not really an expert in terms of budgetary
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. In paragraph 33 of your expert report,
11 reference is made to the decision of the federal executive council on
12 specifying state security duties discharged by individual federal
13 administration organs.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see 2D989, page 3 in the
15 B/C/S version, and page 2 in the English translation.
16 Q. Mr. Milosevic, in this decision that you have already seen and
17 that is referred to, or, rather, quoted in your report, the duties of the
18 federal secretariat for internal affairs are mentioned. I am interested
19 in the duties described under items 4 and 5 here, and it says that the
20 federal SUP or, rather, the federal state security - and this is on the
21 basis of the decision from 1984 - it collects data and information abroad
22 on activities of foreign intelligence services, and item 5 says it
23 collects intelligence abroad which is of relevance to security and other
24 matters of interest to the SFRY.
25 Mr. Milosevic, this decision is from the year ... Mr. Milosevic,
1 this decision is from the year 1986. The 8th of May, 1986. I want to
2 know whether this decision, item -- under item 4 and 5 on gathering
3 intelligence, I want to know whether this decision can be applied
4 within -- in a context in which the SFRY is disintegrating in 1991 and
5 1992. So within the context of the breakup of the SFRY.
6 A. I've already answered that question. I said that motivation was
7 very low and the situation, the political situation, was such at the time
8 that the federal service wasn't really capable to act. I don't think
9 they could perform these duties and obtain significant results of any
10 kind, the results that were needed during that period.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Could we please have a foundation
13 for that? Is that based on his own personal experience, is it based on
14 research, is it based on public open sources? What's the foundation?
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Milosevic, could you tell us the basis upon which you made
17 the claim that you just made.
18 A. I made that claim on the basis of my own research. Amongst other
19 things, I published a few articles, a few books in which I dealt with
20 this period. So this claim is the result of my research. It is the
21 result of my understanding of the historical situation, the circumstances
22 under which these events occurred.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. So the federal secretariat -- the
24 federal state security couldn't perform these duties. Does this affect
25 the need for performing these duties in the Republic of Serbia or the
1 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
2 A. Well, it's not only that it didn't affect that need. I think the
3 need was even greater for such work. I can provide you with more
4 details, if you like.
5 Q. Please.
6 A. The duties that are mentioned here under item 4 and item 5, well,
7 item 4 concerns offensive counter-intelligence work. That's what it's
8 called. There was the need for the department to gather intelligence
9 abroad, intelligence on the activities of foreign intelligence services,
10 and their activities had been stepped-up given the breakup of Yugoslavia.
11 They had always performed such duties, but their activities had been
12 stepped up.
13 And then there's gathering intelligence about enemy emigration,
14 that is, co-operating with the internal enemy in trying to topple the
15 state. So new republics - in Croatia, for example - those who emigrated
16 were returning to the countries. Some terrorist, for example, who had
17 been convicted in the Sweden and had been given lengthy sentences for
18 terrorist acts.
19 Under item 5 it says it was necessary to gather abroad
20 intelligence that is relevant to security and other matters of interest
21 to the SFRY. So just prior to the breakup or when the breakup occurred
22 it was naturally necessary to gather as much intelligence as possible on
23 the intentions, reactions, plans of certain foreign countries, above all
24 on neighbouring countries. But also it was necessary to gather
25 intelligence on all other foreign countries.
1 So I think all countries would step up their activities in such a
2 situation. They wouldn't reduce the sort of activities they had to carry
4 Q. Mr. Milosevic, since we said that the federal state security
5 could no longer perform those duties, what would the logical solution
6 then be? How could the need to gather this intelligence be satisfied?
7 To gather intelligence that was relevant to the Republic of Serbia.
8 A. Well, intelligence duties and offensive counter-intelligence
9 duties that we have been discussing is intelligence based on certain
10 principles, for example. Based on the principle of professionalism --
11 Q. I apologise for interrupting you, but could you just answer my
12 question in terms of the institutions involved. The organ involved in
13 those duties was disbanded, so were those duties to be performed in some
14 other way by some other organ?
15 A. Well, this is what I was going to say. There was a certain
16 principle according to which it was necessary to use the resources
17 available. That's the principle of available resources. Those organs
18 that could perform those duties, that could carry out that task, and this
19 is a task of social importance, well, these organs had to perform those
20 duties. The existing security organs in the territory of Serbia had to
21 take over these duties.
22 Q. Very well. We'll get back to that later. I'd also like to ask
23 you the following, since we have this up on the screen now. Under item
24 6, it says: "Collect data and information of relevance ..."
25 So everything that we have said about the tasks under item 4 and
1 5, is that also applicable to the task we have under item 6?
2 A. Yes, absolutely.
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, we are now going to look at
4 paragraph 35 of your report, that deals with the rules on employment in
5 the State Security Service.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's D239.
7 Q. These rules were adopted in 1990.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see D239.
9 Q. These are rules on employment passed in 1990 at the time when the
10 SFRY existed.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] D239. The translation is 1D1276,
12 item 1. Could we see the second page in B/C/S.
13 Q. We'll be dealing with these rules later as well. I would just
14 like to ask you: Do these rules apply? What type of rules are they?
15 Are these very specific rules linked to a specific socio-political order,
16 or are they of a general nature? That's the first question. And second:
17 Do they also apply -- did they also apply in the period from 1991 to
19 A. With the Court's leave, I would like to answer the second
20 question first. The answer is affirmative, of course. Of course they
21 applied. But they applied precisely because they were universal. They
22 were not linked to any specific socio-political order. These rules
23 explained the methodology and the techniques of the work of the State
24 Security Service, and they are more or less the same across the world.
25 They were phrased and formulated in a high-quality manner, and that's why
1 they continued to apply even later. These rules are more or less the
2 same as those governing any other service in the world of this type. To
3 the best of my knowledge, of course.
4 Q. In paragraph 36 of your expert report, where you also deal with
5 these rules, the co-operation between republic and provincial services is
6 mentioned, as well as organising broader investigations and research in
7 order to assess issues of interest to the security of the country. Does
8 this affect what you just said, that these rules are by nature such that,
9 despite these anachronous parts, they were usable and used in 1991 to
10 1995 as well?
11 A. The passages that referred to the techniques of the service, the
12 methods used, nothing could really affect these rules. But they were
13 anachronous and in a way obsolete even at the time when they were
14 adopted. That's indisputable. My opinion is that this part that deals
15 with the techniques of the service was absolutely correct; whereas the
16 other part dealing with relations between provincial and republic
17 services, agreement-reaching, et cetera, that was anachronous even at
18 that time.
19 Q. Thank you. Now we'll be dealing with paragraph 40 of your expert
20 report. It deals with the services that make up the state security
21 system of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And you mention, in
22 addition to the State Security Service, you mention also the information
23 and documentation service, SID, and the security service in the ministry
24 of foreign affairs, intelligence and security institutions within the
25 Army of Yugoslavia, the intelligence administration, and the security
1 administration. In addition to these services that were part of the
2 state security system of the FRY, were there any other services, or did
3 you list them all?
4 A. I listed all the services that had any tasks related to this
5 area, even if they were defensive functions, such as VIP security.
6 Q. Mr. Milosevic, for the duration of the existence of the
7 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were the relations in terms of
8 jurisdiction between these various components of the state security
9 system institutionally solved? Were there any institutional arrangements
10 made for these relations?
11 A. Never completely. It was never made quite clear, and if the
12 Court allows, I could explain why not.
13 Q. I believe we have the Court's leave for you to explain concisely.
14 A. Yugoslavia, both the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the
15 Socialist Federal Yugoslavia before that and even the Kingdom of
16 Yugoslavia before that, had never had any experience with services that
17 did not belong to ministries. There was never a professional --
18 co-ordinating and controlling professional service, nor was there ever
19 one single professional service that gathered all the information, all
20 the intelligence. There was no national security council or any other
21 such body. Although the legal grounds existed and specific services had
22 specific purviews and jurisdictions clearly defined, there always
23 occurred some intertwining and overlapping complications resulting from
25 Q. What were the consequences of these various overlaps and
1 inconsistencies in the state security system?
2 A. That leads to a certain amount of rivalry and envy and struggle
3 for primacy between various parts of the system. I'm not talking about
4 the Republic of Serbia now, but of the system as a whole. If there is no
5 body that would oversee all that, it's always possible to succumb to some
6 amount of rivalry and fight for leadership.
7 Q. [No interpretation]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please begin the question again.
9 It's going very fast.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to take a break, Mr. Petrovic. But
11 you're also invited to restart your question because the interpreters
12 missed it.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
15 Q. Mr. Milosevic, what is the comparative practice in situations
16 where there is more than one service and more than one agency dealing
17 with state security affairs? How do their inter-relationships function
18 in different systems?
19 A. In most countries, they have what I just said we missed. They
20 have a body of political co-ordination and control, where all the
21 intelligence flows in and which somehow unifies the work results of all
22 service, collates this intelligence, and submits it to the political
23 leadership for decision-making. And at the same time, this overseeing
24 body also provides guidelines to services. Sometimes it is an
25 independent body, and sometimes it is a department of a big central
1 service that integrates all of this.
2 Q. Mr. Milosevic, the last sentence in paragraph 40 says:
3 "Inconsistencies in work were particularly manifest between
4 military intelligence and security institutions on the one hand and the
5 state security organs and the member republics on the other hand."
6 Could you clarify which inconsistencies you mean and which
7 consequences you mean?
8 A. The result of these inconsistencies is the very fact that there
9 was no body to oversee and regulate all this. There was a rivalry
10 between military security services, especially the military security
11 service, or if you want to call it counter-intelligence service, and the
12 state security services in various republics, especially Montenegro.
13 That rivalry existed all the time and it probably made the results of
14 their work worse than it could have been if there had been unity in the
15 work of all these services, and such unity is provided by the existence
16 of that body that we were missing.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let's now move to paragraph 52 of your
18 report. It says a new law on the internal affairs of Republic of Serbia
19 was adopted based on the new constitution of Serbia. It was adopted on
20 17 July, 1991. And your report says that the provincial secretariat for
21 internal affairs of Vojvodina would continue to conduct these affairs as
22 entrusted to them pending the adoption of the new rules or, rather, the
23 adoption of new sublaws on the organisation of work and new staffing
25 First of all, explain to me what is meant by "entrusted to them"?
1 A. At that time, all state security affairs were supposed to be
2 concentrated in the republic Ministry of Internal Affairs. However,
3 since the law or, rather, the rules on internal organisation and job
4 specification was not yet adopted, some time was needed to prepare that,
5 so the State Security Service of the provincial SUP of Vojvodina
6 continued to conduct these affairs for the following few months.
7 Q. What does that mean in terms of decision-making in the service?
8 Do these affairs entrusted to the province mean that the province had
9 autonomy in decision-making?
10 A. That means that nothing changed compared to the previous period.
11 It remained exactly the same.
12 Q. Thank you. Tell us also until when the Vojvodina DB preserved
13 this autonomous position vis-à-vis the republic MUP of Serbia; more
14 specifically, the State Security Service of Serbia.
15 A. It was from mid-July 1991 when the Law on Internal Affairs of the
16 Republic of Serbia was adopted until January 1992 when the new rules on
17 internal organisation and job specification were adopted. That means
18 about six months.
19 Q. Mr. Milosevic, paragraph 53, in your report, the last sentence,
21 "'The provincial State Security Service of Vojvodina'
22 definitively ceased to be a separate organisational unit."
23 In January 1992. Does that mean that we should take this date
24 when the new rules on internal organisation is the date when this
25 provincial service ceased to exist [as interpreted].
1 A. The new rules on organisation organised the State Security
2 Service in Serbia in a different way. Under the previous rules, only the
3 jobs were regulated that were concentrated in the territory of the
4 republic itself. Now, under the new rules, various centres of the RDB
5 were created, and they encompassed the whole territory of Serbia, not
6 just Serbia proper as before, but also the two provinces.
7 We have under the new rules a new integrated service, which means
8 that we also had more personnel, because these people also had to be
9 integrated into the system with their job titles.
10 Q. We'll come to that later. Could we now look at paragraph 63. It
11 says that according to the relevant regulations there were three groups
12 of personnel within the MUP: elected officials, appointed officials, and
13 those who would be employed by a decision of the minister. Tell me, why
14 this categorisation, appointed, elected, and employed by a decision of
15 the minister?
16 A. This applies to all state agencies, including the Ministry of the
17 Interior. It is because the criteria for obtaining an office are
18 different. First of all, elected offices, such as the parliament, the
19 highest authority; appointed offices, those are ministers who were
20 elected or relieved of duty by the government, those are also civil
21 servants who are employed also in state agencies but by a decision of the
22 minister, that means the remaining personnel. In other words, the
23 grounds for employment, the method of employment, is not the same between
24 these three categories.
25 Q. Let's try to explain the criterion. What is the reason? Why
1 this distinction between these three categories?
2 A. First of all, the kind of work they do, the complexity, and the
3 responsibility involved. The type of duties they are supposed to
4 perform. The first category is the minister. His job is the most
5 complex and he is elected by the Assembly, by the parliament. Two,
6 assistant ministers and other officials that are appointed by the
7 government of the Republic of Serbia. Those are high-ranking persons in
8 the state agency, and they helped the minister perform his duties
9 efficiently and well. And three, the remaining personnel, the remaining
10 officials, who are employed by a decision of the minister or a decision
11 of the state agency.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honours.
14 Q. Mr. Milosevic, let's please have a look at paragraph 73 now.
15 Paragraph 73 in your expert report. And in this paragraph it says that
16 the State Security Service had 11 administrations that had been
17 established on a realistic principle. Please, could you tell us whether
18 the department, through the this period of time, had 11 administrations
19 or not?
20 A. This is the largest number of administrations that the state
21 security department had at one period of time, but these things varied,
22 and it depended on a series of factors. Sometimes the department
23 consisted of eight administrations or had eight administrations and then
24 the number could be increased or reduced. It all depended on the needs
25 that had to be assessed. So my answer to your question is that it didn't
1 always have 11 administrations. It had 11 administrations at one point
2 in time. And that was when this merger we've discussed was established,
3 and it was necessary to create new administrations as a result.
4 Q. Let's have a look at an attachment to your expert report,
5 attachment number 4.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D916 is the reference number. I
7 hope we'll have the English translation in a minute. Yes.
8 Q. Here it says the main organisational units of the SDB in the
9 headquarters of the republican secretariat of the interior in February
10 1990. Please, could you tell us the following. Here we can see that
11 there are seven administrations, and with some of the administrations
12 there are centres and sectors. Let's have a look at the fourth
13 administration. Do these departments -- are these departments part of
14 the administration or are they part of the department? Because this
15 isn't very clear to me. So what is the relationship between the
16 administration and the departments and sections? Because this diagram
17 isn't quite clear to me.
18 A. With regard to the organisation of the state administration, well
19 administration is divided into departments, departments into sections,
20 and so on and so forth. So these are lower-leveled units that are
21 specialised on the basis of the task that they have to carry out. So
22 departments and sections aren't in competition. The administration is
23 divided into departments, and the department into sections, in general
24 terms. But this also refers to the way in which the state administration
25 is organised as a whole.
1 Q. Thank you. On the basis of what document on organisation and
2 work was this diagram drawn up?
3 A. Well, as you can see, that this is dated February 1990, and it
4 concerns the organisational units of the state security in the
5 headquarters of the republican secretariat of the interior. So it is
6 therefore clear that this was on the basis on the rules on job
7 specification for that year, 1990, because the terminology employed here
8 and everything else was subsequently changed, amended.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have a look at 2D917.
11 Q. It's another attachment to your expert report, attachment number
12 five. Could you first tell us on the basis of what document was this
13 table or this diagram compiled?
14 A. This diagram was drawn up on the basis of the rules on the
15 organisation and work in the department of state security in the year
16 1992. So this is the department for state security which was in the MUP,
17 not in the republican secretariat. You can see that that is the case
18 when you have a look at the terms used here.
19 Q. It's not necessary to repeat this, but the administrations
20 consist of departments again, the departments of sections, and the
21 sections consist of operations groups; isn't that correct?
22 A. Yes. A number of operation groups form a section, a number of
23 sections form a department, a number of departments form an
25 Q. I'm putting this question to you -- could you please repeat your
1 last answer, but slowly so that it can be recorded. Operation groups
2 form what?
3 A. Operation groups form sections. A number of operation groups
4 form sections. A number of sections form a department. A number of
5 departments form an administration. The number can vary. You can have
6 two, three, or five such units. It all depends on the situation, but
7 this is the system that is followed.
8 Q. So it's the Law on State Administration that regulates this
10 A. Naturally.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we have a break
12 now, if you agree?
13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break. But I would like to make one
14 observation, Mr. Petrovic.
15 There is an inherent problem in the relation between your
16 examination - at least for me, I'm speaking for myself - in relation
17 between your examination and the report. The report analyses, mainly,
18 and looking at the footnotes that's -- the main source is the legal
19 structure. And if I just refer to the last answer of the witness, he
20 said: "It all depends on the situation, but this is the system that is
22 Now, that's constantly part of your questioning, but apparently
23 not part of the report. Your questioning often, not always, but often,
24 deals with the social political functioning of the system, whereas the
25 report deals with the legal structure. A clear example is, for example,
1 the malfunctioning of the federal security which led into taking over of
2 the building in - what was it? - October 1992, I think. Well, the
3 structure, the legal structure, which is footnoted and which is sourced,
4 is something different from the social political functioning, that is,
5 people not performing their functions. Some of the -- people not
6 performing their functions but also some parts not being implemented.
7 The state security department in the MUP seat comprised
8 11 administrations, but the social political reality, apparently, was
9 that they were not at all times all 11 there.
10 Now, the sources for the social political functioning are almost
11 completely absent. That creates, for me, a problem in understanding and
12 appreciating and evaluating the evidence of this witness. I thought it
13 wise to make you aware that at least for me - and I'm not speaking on
14 behalf of my colleagues - we might discuss the matter during the break -
15 that the absence of a clear distinction between what is the legal
16 structure, what are the rules, and what is the social political
17 functioning. You asked this a couple of times, could they perform their
18 functions. Whether they could or not, that's the social political
19 reality. Or was the system still such that -- or was it applied or not?
20 That, again, is the social political reality. And again, the report is
21 about the structure and about the formal matters and your questioning is
22 about a different subject.
23 Please take your time to think this over. I'll discuss it with
24 my colleagues. And also try to understand my problem and see how you can
25 deal with it, because it's for us to finally understand and to appreciate
1 and evaluate the evidence of this witness.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With your
3 leave, I'd just like to give you a brief clarification.
4 With regard to this expert witness, we would like you to only
5 have a look at the interpretation of the legislation that he presents
6 here. As for the social political context that is touched on, well, that
7 is done only to put the changes into the relevant context. We are not
8 asking you to base your decision on that. There is other evidence that
9 concerns that issue in this case.
10 So this is only a matter of providing a context for the
11 legislative changes introduced. That's our only intention. That's all
12 we want to do through this witness when we deal with the social and
13 political context within which the system that he has been discussing
15 JUDGE ORIE: But to understand that, it would need to be sourced.
16 I mean, the social political context. If you wanted -- first of all, you
17 have not explained yet how important it is, because you said we have
18 other evidence on how it functioned. So, therefore, it's nice to
19 understand perhaps why something happened or why it was not applied, but
20 at the same time that needs to be sourced on a factual basis just as much
21 as sources are given for the legal structure.
22 We take a break and we resume at five minutes to 6.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 6.05 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise for our late start. Sometimes I have a
1 problem that there is a huge competition between what has to be done in
2 court and out of court. This is not a justification. It is perhaps not
3 even an excuse. But it's at least an explanation.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Milosevic, would you now kindly look at paragraph 77 of your
7 expert report where we can read:
8 [As read] "The public and state security departments in the
9 Ministry of the Interior are equal and are required to co-operate in
10 doing their work to exchange intelligence and other information of mutual
12 At what level are agreements made about co-operation between
13 departments in the MUP of Serbia?
14 A. Agreements about the co-operation between the two departments are
15 made at the highest level, the level of ministers of the interior, if
16 that's the question.
17 Q. Paragraph 78. It regards the position and powers of the minister
18 of the interior vis-à-vis chiefs of the departments. It says:
19 "The chiefs of departments in the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
20 were answerable to the minister."
21 And considering that they were appointed and relieved by the
22 government of Serbia at the suggestion of the minister, they were also
23 answerable to the government for their work.
24 Mr. Milosevic, how is this double-pronged responsibility adjusted
25 and arranged as indicated in paragraph 78?
1 A. All officials appointed by the government were answerable also to
2 the government, as the law says, in the way provided for by the
3 government. In this case, they were responsible doubly to the
4 government, both as officials appointed by the government and as civil
5 servants in the Ministry of the Interior. So they were answerable,
6 again, through the minister. The minister was they're supervisor and he
7 was also a member of the government. That's what I mean.
8 Q. Is there also a division in terms of type of work, type of duty,
9 or is it just the division you described?
10 A. No. There was no division in terms of types of work for which
11 they would be responsible to the minister or the government,
13 Q. Paragraph 80. It says all employees of the ministry are
14 duty-bound to obey the orders of the minister. Does it mean that the
15 minister can skip levels of leadership and issue appropriate orders?
16 A. The minister is a member of the government, the highest excessive
17 authority, and under the principle of subordination, all employees of the
18 ministry, regardless of which department they work in, are required to
19 carry out the tasks he gives them. They are all authorised officers of
20 the MUP, regardless of their department, and they are required to carry
21 out the tasks they are given.
22 Q. This sentence continues:
23 [As read] "... except those orders whose execution would
24 constitute a crime ..."
25 What crime is meant, what type of crime is meant, when it says
1 that some orders can be refused?
2 A. General criminal offences are meant. The type of crime that
3 existed always that is meant by every law, such as murder, theft -
4 general crime. I can explain in more detail if you wish.
5 Q. A few sentences, if you need.
6 A. If an employee is given a task that he believes to be unlawful,
7 he is required to point that out to the minister. And if he gets that
8 order again, in writing, he is required to carry it out except if it
9 involves committing a crime such as murder, theft, arson.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We'll now move to paragraph 84. It
11 deals with the reserve force of the Ministry of the Interior of the
12 Republic of Serbia, and it describes requirements for induction into the
13 reserve force. It says: The reserve force could be filled with recruits
14 who fulfill the legally prescribed requirements for working in the
16 How is compliance with these requirements checked for the reserve
17 force, although the reference here is for requirements to work in the
18 ministry, generally?
19 A. Vetting was done. It was important to establish whether a
20 military conscript had prior convictions for crime against armed forces,
21 against businesses or property, or some type of crime.
22 Q. Slow down, please.
23 A. Paragraph 84 specifies for what types of crime one must not be
24 convicted or even prosecuted in which case he would be banned from being
25 called up or from working in the ministry for a time specified. So
1 people with prior convictions could not be employed and could not be part
2 of the reserve force, and that was ensured through vetting.
3 Q. You say these requirements were determined by vetting, by
4 operative vetting. What types of operative vetting exists, and what is
5 the difference if there are several types?
6 A. Generally there are two types. Partial or file vetting, and that
7 means just looking into records, criminal or misdemeanor records, to see
8 if the person had been sanctioned or prosecuted before. And the other
9 type of vetting involves also the vetting person personally and their
10 immediate family and entourage in their place of residence, their place
11 of employment, and their place of birth.
12 Q. Thank you. Regarding paragraph 86, the rights and duties of
13 members of the reserve force are described. It is said that they are
14 authorised officers. Do reservists have IDs and for what period of time?
15 At what time do they have the right to have an ID, an official ID?
16 A. They also had a uniform, which is an even higher mark of
17 distinction in the MUP. They had an official number, the uniform, the
18 cap, and everything else, so it -- they were recognisable at first sight.
19 The ID was important for persons who were working in "mufti," but they
20 had even more of these marks of distinction than they necessarily needed.
21 Q. What about official IDs for reservists, who signed them?
22 A. The rule was that all such documents were signed by the head of
23 the organ, the chief. The highest chief in the department or the
24 ministry, or by whoever the chief authorises. It could be the assistant
25 minister or the chief of the public security department, et cetera.
1 Q. So you say --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask -- one of the previous answers is:
3 "The ID was important for persons who were working in
4 'mufti,' ..."
5 I just don't know the word. I know the word mufti as it is
6 written here.
7 THE INTERPRETER: If we may, Your Honour, it means "civilian
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's not how I -- I didn't know the
10 meaning -- that meaning of the word. Thank you very much for your
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Milosevic, you say the highest-ranking chief within the MUP.
15 It's not clear from your previous answer.
16 A. The minister of the interior.
17 Q. Thank you. Let's now look at paragraph 102 of your report.
18 There is a reference to the unified programme orientation of the
19 State Security Service. We have that programme orientation - it's in
20 evidence - but would you kindly give us an evaluation of its nature?
21 What type of document is it?
22 A. By definition, it is the highest guiding document providing
23 guidelines and indicating the focus of activity and the thrusts of
24 activity of security and intelligence services. These should be
25 landmarks showing in what direction, for what purpose, the service would
1 be working in the following period, because these guidelines and these
2 documents were drafted for a certain period of time. Not forever.
3 Q. How specific are these documents on programme orientation? How
4 much detail is provided on the work that is expected or planned?
5 A. They are very abstract. And it's very difficult to find out from
6 them what exactly the specifics would involve. They needed to be worked
7 out in greater detail. These are really very general guidelines. And
8 they had, at least in certain periods, an idealogical connotation, which
9 created problems in interpretation.
10 Q. And in paragraph 104 you cite passages from the unified programme
11 orientation for the 1990s. How would you assess the content of this
12 programme orientation? How workable was it, how applicable was it?
13 A. It's a complete failure. It envisaged that in this period from
14 1986 to 1990 that there would be no major shifts between various blocs --
15 between the two blocs, rather, because it was a time when the Berlin wall
16 had already fallen and it was completely useless.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We'll move on to para 111, the part
18 that talks about the rules on the organisation and work of the RSDB in
19 the MUP of Serbia. We see part of the contents of these rules on the
20 organisation and work of the State Security Service from 1990, and it
21 says: Undertaking other measures and activities, pursuant to the law,
22 the rules on the work of the SDB and other regulations brought in
23 accordance with the law, as well as the decisions and guidelines of
24 socio-political communities and their executive organs.
25 Do these rules from 1990 go in step with the changes that are
1 going on in the social and political system? Are they adjusted to the
2 latest developments?
3 A. It's obvious that it retained the rhetoric typical of the
4 previous period. Probably out of lack of flexibility, but it may also
5 have been a desire to preserve continuity. In any case, at the time when
6 these rules were adopted, they were burdened with these idealogical
7 commonplaces and boilerplates. They refer to decisions and guidelines of
8 socio-political communities when this concept did not exist anymore.
9 There were no socio-political communities as a term.
10 Q. These rules from 1990, did they survive the change of the system,
11 and when were they replaced by new rules on the organisation and work of
12 the State Security Service?
13 A. It was replaced very quickly, already in 1992.
14 Q. Could we now look at 2D914, that is, annex number 2 to your
15 report. And it shows the State Security Service. On the left side of
16 the schematic we see the organisational units at the headquarters, and on
17 the right-hand side we see organisational units outside the headquarters.
18 Under these 1990 rules on organisation, which were the basic
19 units of the State Security Service outside the headquarters? How are
20 they marked here?
21 A. This is a very basic schematic. There were two types of
22 organisational units. At least nominally there were two types of units
23 outside the headquarters: One was the administration for the city of
24 Belgrade, which is named the same as the units in the headquarters, which
25 may cause some confusion to laymen; and within secretariats of internal
1 affairs outside of Belgrade, but only in Serbia proper without provinces,
2 there existed sectors, State Security Service sectors. And there were
3 18 of them.
4 Q. If I understand correctly, this schematic should be supplemented
5 in this part that talks about branches and branch offices in the State
6 Security Service for the city of Belgrade?
7 A. Yes, but then the schematic would be even more complicated, and I
8 was afraid it would confuse you.
9 Q. I asked the question a moment ago, but it's important, and I want
10 it clarified. We also see here lower-level units below the sector -
11 sections, centres, groups, and departments. Does this division apply not
12 only to sectors but the state security administration in the city of
13 Belgrade, which is not in this schematic for the reason you stated?
14 A. The state security administration for the city of Belgrade was
15 divided into sectors, sectors were divided into departments, et cetera.
16 I hope this will suffice as an answer. This was the division. Every
17 sector was divided into departments, departments into centres, et cetera,
18 except that in Belgrade - which was a very large -- the largest unit, and
19 it also dealt with the specific type of work, it was working in the
20 capital of the country where the security problems were complex - it had
21 organisational units that were called sectors and then below the other
23 Q. As we said a moment ago, sections are not part of the
24 administration. They are part of the department. And groups are part of
25 the sections, et cetera.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know -- sorry.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I am trying to understand. Are we --
4 the Belgrade -- let me just check whether I still understand the
5 testimony. State security administration in the city of Belgrade, is
6 that what we find on the left side of the diagram?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. Okay. Then -- but is it one of the -- where do
9 we find it on this? Or do we not find it?
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the problem with this
11 diagram is that the administration for the security service in Belgrade
12 is a regional unit of the security department and it should really be
13 represented on the right part of the table, where you see these units --
14 such units of the state security. It hasn't been shown for the reasons
15 that Professor Milosevic stated, but I tried to make this diagram more
16 complete and clearer since there are two types of area units for the
17 State Security Service at this time.
18 One of the units is the administration for the -- for Belgrade,
19 and the other units are sectors. The other regional units are sectors.
20 But both are area units. We're talking about the rules from
21 February 1990.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I must admit that I'm pretty much lost on what is
23 here, and, looking at my colleagues, I'm not the only one, which is of
24 some comfort to me.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I
1 apologise, because this diagram should have been clearer. That's the
2 first thing I would like to mention. But we could try and ask the
3 Professor to clarify this for us.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit hesitant to do it in this way. I would
5 say a focussed question or a clear explanation of what we see here
6 exactly, and I'm just trying to re-read the transcript to see how this
7 was all introduced to us, whether that makes it any better
9 I leave it in your hands, Mr. Petrovic. You say it is a diagram
10 which does not excel in clarity. If you want us to seriously consider
11 it, then please make sure that we understand it.
12 Ms. Marcus, you're on your feet.
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Just to add that Mr. Petrovic's
14 last comment appears to be of an evidentiary nature, so I just wanted to
15 get that out of the way.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear to us. I considered it to be a
17 desperate attempt to assist us in understanding the diagram.
18 Mr. Petrovic, I leave it in your hands.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll try and deal
20 with the matter in the following manner.
21 Could the witness be allowed to supplement this diagram and to
22 mark the places where the branch unit of the State Security Service for
23 Belgrade is, in fact, located? Could the witness be provided with a
24 special pen and could he use it to mark what is missing here? With your
25 leave, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I would suggest that the witness does that this
2 evening. If he would be provided with a hard copy of this diagram, then
3 he can add whatever he thinks would clarify.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We'll do
6 it that way.
7 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, perhaps while Mr. Petrovic is
8 consulting, I could just request two minutes before the end of the
9 session. We'd like to provide some materials to the witness, so I'd like
10 to introduce that to the Chamber and see if we can get that ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, we are all preparing for giving you a
12 hard evening, relying on your willingness to look at some materials
13 before we continue tomorrow. Or even tomorrow morning because we'll
14 continue tomorrow in the afternoon, so that creates some additional time.
15 You'll have an opportunity to do that, Ms. Marcus.
16 Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I would now like to have a look at 2D938, from
19 pages 11 to 14 -- from page 11 to 14. From page 11 to page 14.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If we could see that document on
21 the screen.
22 I apologise, Your Honours, because there has been some confusion.
23 Could we see 2D990. Could we see 2D990. First of all, page 3
24 and then page 4.
25 Q. These are rules on organisation from February 1990. Under
1 Article 42, Article 42 concerns the administration of the State Security
2 Service in Belgrade.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see those pages in the
4 B/C/S version. The following page in this language, please. And the
5 following page in the English. Thank you.
6 Q. Witness --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, apparently there is a need for
8 Mr. Jordash to consult his client. Could we just wait for a second.
9 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Witness, we can see the definition of the head of section USA.
13 First of all, what does this position relate to, the USA section,
14 under 18?
15 A. It relates to the head of the section. The second
16 administration -- or, rather, in the second section of the State Security
17 Service for Belgrade, which is involved in counter-intelligence issues
18 relating to the US intelligence service. So this is a broad definition
19 of the position. It's a simplified decision. AOAS is the abbreviation
20 for the US intelligence service. If necessary, I can provide you with
21 further details.
22 Q. Could you please just answer my specific questions. This section
23 is part of which department in Belgrade?
24 A. It's part of the 2nd Administration.
25 Q. What sort of duties did the 2nd Department concern itself with in
2 A. It was concerned with counter-intelligence in NATO countries and
3 in other western countries.
4 Q. Thank you. We will return to this later and deal with it in more
5 detail. We'll return to this tomorrow.
6 In paragraph 118 of your report -- or this, in fact, is part of
7 the rules on the organisation of work from 1990. And it says that within
8 the purview of the State Security Service, there is work on detecting,
9 monitoring, documenting, and neutralising political intelligence, police,
10 and other actions and measures aimed at the de-nationalisation and
11 assimilation and other subversive activities targeting segments of the
12 Yugoslav peoples living outside the borders of the SFRY. And this is a
13 sentence that can be found in the rules from 1990.
14 Can you please tell us how this provision can be interpreted in
15 the context of the year 1990 and 1991, a situation in which the situation
16 was changing and the SFRY ceased to exist, yet the Serbian people was
17 within these newly created states and in the immediate vicinity of the
18 republic of Serbia? So within that context, how would this provision
19 from the rules drafted in February 1990 should -- is to be interpreted?
20 A. Well, this provision was taken over from the previous period.
21 One of the tasks of the State Security Service was to protect minorities,
22 Serbian minorities in other countries who were living there as a result
23 of de-nationalisation and assimilation. So naturally this concerns the
24 Serbian people and other peoples. Given the forcible breakup of the
25 SFRY, given that situation, the Serbian people found themselves in other
1 neighbouring republics from the former Yugoslavia, and they didn't want
2 them to be exposed to de-nationalisation, assimilation, and other
3 subversive activities. So this provision could be interpreted in a
4 broader manner, in that manner.
5 Q. Could we please now have a look at paragraph 121 in your expert
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the last sentence of the witness was:
8 "... so this provision could be interpreted in a broader
9 manner ..."
10 Broader than what interpretation? That's unclear to me. Or did
11 the witness intend to say that apart from aiming at the protection of
12 minorities in whatever state, that it was -- could be understood as
13 focussing on Serbs in neighboring republics? It's unclear to what extent
14 it's broader.
15 Could you explain what you meant by that? Broader than what,
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says "outside the borders of the
18 SFRY," here. At the time, the SFRY no longer existed, so it concerns
19 Serbs who were living in former Yugoslav republics that used to be part
20 of the SFRY but at the time had been recognised by the international
21 community. So I think that this is sufficiently clear now. Such
22 protection was also necessary for those who were living in those
23 republics that had seceded.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So broader in the sense that where it could be
25 interpreted as out of the boundaries of the former Yugoslavia to also
1 including parts of the former Yugoslavia which had seceded and then
2 therefore not the big outside world but also the closer areas which once
3 used to be in the SFRY.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now I understand it.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. In paragraph 121 in your report, we can see that we are dealing
9 with the rules on the internal organisation of the state security
10 department. These rules are from January 1992. Therefore, what I am
11 interested in, in paragraph 121, is the following. It mentions certain
12 principles upon which the department bases its work. Several principles
13 are mentioned. Could we briefly have an explanation of these principles,
14 the principle on secrecy and work, on confidentiality. What does this
15 mean, in fact?
16 A. This means that the methods and the technique used by the
17 department to obtain certain intelligence, certain information, is to be
18 done in a conspiratorial manner. Only those who are authorised can know
19 about such matters. Unauthorised individuals aren't provided with such
21 Q. What does this mean when you say in a conspirative manner if you
22 have two employees who share the same office and perform various duties?
23 A. Well, in principle, that means that they shouldn't know what --
24 each individual shouldn't know what the other one is doing.
25 Q. I apologise, but my question was a hypothetical one. It
1 concerned two individuals in a department who shared the same office but
2 performed different duties.
3 A. Well, that's how I understood your question.
4 Q. I apologise. I am clarifying this for the sake of the
5 transcript. We understand each other because we speak the same language.
6 Mr. Milosevic, what is the principle of subordination in the
7 State Security Service of the Republic of Serbia?
8 A. Well, this principle means that there's a unified manner of
9 organising and carrying out work. An employee at a lower level has to do
10 everything he's asked to do. He has to provide his information to a
11 higher level, and there is no return information. As a rule, there's no
12 feedback. So the person at the head is responsible for these matters.
13 He issues tasks and provides the final -- obtains the final information.
14 Q. As for the principle of professionality?
15 A. Well, this means that you have to be objective. The most
16 important thing in the work of the department, in the work of any
17 intelligence department, is to be unbiased and to provide impartial
18 information. It has to provide information to the political organs that
19 reflects the actual situation. As to how politicians and the state
20 organs will use the information, well, that's a different matter. But
21 what is important is for the department to be aware of the facts and to
22 report to its superiors in a timely manner.
23 Q. So what does this mean in relation to the personal attitudes of
24 those gathering information or the personal experience of those people?
25 A. Well, personal attitudes can't be included in the information
1 provided. It shouldn't be biased information. It should be objective.
2 Q. Finally, the principle of rationality.
3 A. This principle means that you should use the minimum resources or
4 adequate resources to obtain the results desired. One always tries to
5 use the easier method, the cheaper method, in order to be efficient and
6 to obtain the expected results.
7 Q. Are these principles for such departments universal principles or
8 are they principles characteristic of this department that we are
10 A. Well, these principles are universal for all departments in the
11 world, without any exceptions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, when I read this sentence before, of
13 course I was reading it on the basis of the plain meaning of those words.
14 Subordination, professional, all those words were known to me. What have
15 I learned in the last minute which would make me better understand what
16 seems to be quite clear language? I mean, the word "efficiency." And
17 it's also now explained that this is universal. How does it assist this
18 Chamber in understanding the core issues, this further explanation of
19 what seems to be plain, simple language?
20 If the principle of secrecy in this context would have meant tell
21 all your neighbours what you know, then, of course, there would have been
22 a need of further explanation. But secrecy is: Don't tell anyone who
23 doesn't have to know. I mean, what -- what are we listening at, at this
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I
1 could try to clarify this. The principle of secrecy concerns all
2 employees in the department. Your close colleagues, not your neighbours.
3 So the question is whether you can share information with your colleague.
4 That's the first thing.
5 And then we also have the issue of how secret information is
6 conveyed. Is it conveyed to those higher up and is there any return
7 information that is sent down the chain? So that's what I wanted to
8 clarify. I didn't want to simply clarify the literal meaning of these
9 terms, but naturally I understand that this could be understood
10 differently, too.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. For another three minutes --
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- because I promised Ms. Marcus another two
15 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I grab a minute or two as well,
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we better start with the small portions
18 of minutes rather than ...
19 Mr. Petrovic, it's perhaps not very wise to ask you whether this
20 would be a suitable moment to -- I think you are moving to another
21 subject; is that true?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I'll manage.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Then, Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 We have some materials that I'd like to provide to the witness.
2 They are among the documents that we've noticed to the Defence that we
3 plan to use in cross-examination. I spoke with them briefly about it.
4 With our best efforts we haven't yet finalised the binders. I assure you
5 that they contain the documents that we noticed in the e-mails to the
6 Defence. We would like, with the agreement of the Defence and leave of
7 the Chamber, to provide them tomorrow morning. I will discuss with the
8 Registry how to do that from logistically in terms of VWS, but they
9 are -- and it's in a matter of fairness and efficiency to provide them to
10 the witness in advance so that he can consult them and be able to more
11 efficiently comment on them tomorrow.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see your point. I see that Mr. Petrovic is
13 not objecting.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, of course not, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then the only thing that cause me some concerns is
16 you were using the word "binders" in the plural, which means how many
17 days would the witness need to go through it?
18 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we've -- they are in three separate
19 groups. They are small binders, but there are a number of documents.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could you give us a rough estimate of the
21 number of pages? And another matter, of course, which may be relevant:
22 Whether the witness is familiar with the material, yes or no, because if
23 you present some to him which -- with which he is already familiar, then,
24 of course, that may change matters.
25 MS. MARCUS: I have no idea, Your Honour, whether the witness is
1 familiar with them.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And what's approximately the volume of what
3 you want him to read?
4 MS. MARCUS: This is a very rough estimate, Your Honour. I would
5 say approximately 50 documents.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Fifty documents. And, now, a document can be a
7 hundred pages or one page.
8 MS. MARCUS: No, 50 documents, short documents, of a page or two
9 each, approximately.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any -- have you prioritised start
11 with binder one or with binder three or ... so I don't want to overburden
12 the witness and I want to ensure that the exercise is effective to the
13 extent that if he starts reading three and you start asking questions
14 about one, then that's not the most effective way of dealing with the
16 MS. MARCUS: I can certainly provide a list of priorities if you
17 think that would be -- that would help, Your Honour. I could give the
18 witness a suggestion binder, one, two, and three, in terms of the order
19 in which I'd planned to cover them.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that's a very practical approach. No
21 objections. So therefore you'll find your ways through VWS to make it
22 arrive to the witness.
23 Then, Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes. This just concerned our earlier conversation
25 about the 14th of May, and I thought I should alert Your Honours to the
1 fact that Mr. Stanisic had booked a family visit from the 10th until the
2 14th. That was arranged during his recent trip to Belgrade.
3 He indicated that he would, of course, miss a morning or an
4 afternoon, but, obviously, he'd prefer not to.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, at the same time, of course, I wouldn't
6 know by heart what evidence we'll hear on that same 14th, but the problem
7 is that some of the Judges dealing with more than one case at this moment
8 have some difficulties in --
9 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, could I just take --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I won't do anything
13 to prejudice my colleagues. This is the diagram we discussed, and if my
14 colleague agrees, we could provide it to the witness so that he can
15 supplement it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If a hard copy could be provided to the
18 And you're invited to add whatever you think you should add,
19 Mr. Milosevic.
20 Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour. The family trip was arranged
22 prior to Mr. Stanisic's recent trip to Belgrade. That was the only
23 additional piece of information.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I do not know whether it would extend to
25 the whole of the day of the 14th.
1 MR. JORDASH: It's until 4.00, I think. That's visiting hours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One could even imagine - again, I do not know
3 what evidence we'll hear on that date - if Mr. Stanisic for, well, for
4 personal reasons would prefer to take full advantage of the family
5 visiting him and would waive his right to be in court for one or two
6 hours, that, of course, would be - I think I'm speaking on behalf of my
7 colleagues as well - that we would fully understand such a decision.
8 At the same time, of course, I am not the one who should say that
9 Mr. Stanisic would miss part of or would give up his right to be present
10 at trial. But it's a balance to be struck, and the Chamber accepts
11 whatever way Mr. Stanisic resolves it.
12 MR. JORDASH: I raised it just in case --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. JORDASH: -- there was an alternative for the court schedule,
15 but if there isn't, then obviously I'll discuss with Mr. Stanisic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if -- well, then we'll further hear from
17 you. We will adjourn for the day.
18 Mr. Milosevic, you're invited to read as carefully as possible a
19 number of documents that will be delivered to you tomorrow. I am aware
20 that we are asking you to sacrifice some time out of court. Are you
21 willing to spend your time on reading those materials? And you have
22 heard that it's approximately 50 short documents.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then you're invited to do so.
25 We will adjourn for the day and --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, just a moment.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. When should I deal
4 with this, immediately or tomorrow? The chart that needs to be
5 supplemented, when should I deal with that?
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you do that at your earliest moment convenient to
7 you. If you would do it this evening, then perhaps when VWS, the Victims
8 and Witness Section, delivers the binders, they perhaps could take the
9 redacted copy of the document with them so that if there is any need of
10 translation, maybe only just a couple of words, that it can be prepared.
11 Could I take it that Prosecution and Defence will organise in
12 such a way with VWS that we have the best, the optimal effect.
13 So if you could do that this evening already that would be
14 appreciated and then perhaps deliver it to those who are delivering the
15 other documents to you tomorrow morning.
16 Then we adjourn for the day. And we'll resume tomorrow,
17 Wednesday, the 2nd of May, at quarter past 2.00 in this same courtroom,
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd
22 day of May, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.