1 Wednesday, 2 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise again for the late start.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This -- good
9 afternoon, Your Honours.
10 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
11 and Franko Simatovic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 Before we continue, I put on the record that the witness has
14 worked on a copy of the diagram. It was received by the Registrar only a
15 few minutes ago. It has been given to the Simatovic Defence so that they
16 can consider what -- it has not been given, but it will be given to the
17 Simatovic Defence so that they can consider what to do with it, yes or
19 Then a second matter. Mr. Milosevic, I've forgotten to do
20 something which I think I've not forgotten before in the last ten years;
21 that is, to instruct you that you should not speak about your testimony
22 with anyone. Now, to forget this, you couldn't do it any better than
23 when the witness is a professor in criminal procedure, because he might
24 well understand what the position of a witness is. Again, this is not an
25 excuse, but may I take it that you have not discussed your testimony with
1 others? By the way, without an order you would not be under a strict
2 obligation not to do so, but may I take it that you did not discuss the
3 content of your evidence, either given or still to be given, with other
5 Mr. Milosevic?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I did not.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. And I should have been clearer
8 in my instructions.
9 Finally, could the parties give any expectation as far as the
10 time needed for cross-examination?
11 Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: At this point I request five hours, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I thought that under the present
14 circumstances you would agree that Ms. Marcus would be the first one to
15 cross-examine the witness because you were short in time to prepare for
16 the cross-examination; is that correct?
17 MR. JORDASH: That's correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, any problem with that?
19 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And time, Mr. Jordash?
21 MR. JORDASH: Presently three hours, but the Prosecution have
22 disclosed -- or not disclosed. They are seeking or may rely upon a
23 number of -- many new documents, so it will very much depend upon what
24 happens with them.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll now proceed.
1 Mr. Petrovic, are you ready, and is your estimate about less than
2 six hours still valid?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe I will
4 conclude my cross -- my examination by the end of the second session
5 today, which is less than my initial estimate of six hours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
7 I -- before I again forget to give you instructions,
8 Mr. Milosevic, I would like to remind you that you are still bound by the
9 solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony
11 WITNESS: Milan Milosevic [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpretation]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you may proceed.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Examination by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic. We shall
18 continue where we left off yesterday.
19 In your expert report, you mentioned the rules on organisation
20 from 1990, paragraphs from 110 to 118, and also the rules on organisation
21 from 1992, paragraphs 119 to 196. What is the importance of the rules on
22 work and organisation in the State Security Service when it occupies such
23 a prominent place in your report?
24 A. It is practically the two most important documents. They are,
25 indeed, bylaws, but their importance is great for the organisation and
1 for the very functioning of the State Security Service, because they
2 prescribe the purview, the tasks, and the description of the duties of
3 each employee, and in that sense these are the most important documents
4 in the State Security Service ever.
5 Q. Mr. Milosevic, these two, 2D938 and 2D997, are these the only
6 rules that were in application from 1991 to 1995?
7 A. In every particular period, the current rules are in force. At
8 each point in time there is one rule book in place. From 1990 to 1992,
9 one set of rules was in force; and from 1992 to 1995, the second one.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at 2D917, please.
11 Q. That's an appendix to your report, appendix number 5. And when
12 we get it on the screen, could you tell us briefly what we see on this
14 A. These are internal organisational units of the state security
15 department at the headquarters, that means the administration in the
16 headquarters. There are eight of them.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 2D918.
19 Q. Tell us, please, what kind of schematic is this and why we also
20 see here the centres of the service in Kosovo and in Vojvodina?
21 A. This is a schematic display of the organisation of the state
22 security department under the rules of 1992. This is the organisation of
23 the service outside the headquarters. We see the centres because the RDB
24 centre is now the main organisational unit, including the one in
25 Belgrade, and we also see the centres in Kosovo and in Vojvodina. Do I
1 need to read it? I don't see very well. I apologise to the Court.
2 Centar, Gnjilane, Pristina, Prizren, Novi Sad, Pancevo, and so on,
3 because under the new job specification the centres of the RDB covered
4 the entire territory of the Republic of Serbia, not only Serbia proper,
5 without provinces. The jurisdictions of these centres did not entirely
6 coincide with some other administrative divisions of the country, but
7 they were functionally organised so as to cover the entire country.
8 Q. Could you explain this unification in the names of branches of
9 the RDB from January 1992 compared to the situation before that was
10 governed by the 1990 rules? What are the changes in terminology in the
11 names of branches?
12 A. This equalizes all organisational units outside the headquarters.
13 No distinction is made any longer between the centre in Belgrade and --
14 I'm sorry for speaking to fast. I'll repeat. With this unification of
15 terminology, all the centres of the RDB are equalized in terms of
16 importance and everything else. All the units outside the headquarters
17 are equal. And this is also reflected in terminology and it is also more
18 correct. And each unit outside the headquarters has the same name.
19 Belgrade no longer stands out or above others.
20 Q. And what is the difference compared to the rules of 1990,
21 February 1990?
22 A. The greatest difference is that the centres are now integrated,
23 too. There are 18 centres and they cover the territory of Serbia proper
24 and the two autonomous provinces, Kosovo and Metohija as well as
25 Vojvodina; that's the most important change. The sectors of the RDB
1 until --
2 Q. Please slow down because only every second word you say is
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: This is so not true. And
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the interpreters feel that what you
7 just said is unfair. I may take it that it was a great exaggeration,
8 that you mainly intended to underline for the witness how important it is
9 that he speaks slowly.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. I
11 apologise to the interpreters. It was not my intention to be literal. I
12 was just trying to say that with this speed of speech, nobody could
13 humanly catch it all. I'm only worried about the record and I want it to
14 reflect everything.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I summarised in "exaggeration."
16 Please proceed.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I finish?
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Please.
20 A. The sectors of the RDB, until then -- as they were until then,
21 were reorganised and they were integrated in the newly established
22 centres of the department of state security so that all these sectors
23 including the RDB administration for the city of Belgrade, as well as the
24 organisational units that used to be in the provinces, were uniformly
25 organised in one and the same way, which is methodologically more
1 correct, of course.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Could you please look now at
3 paragraph 122 of your report which deals with Article 3 of the rules on
4 organisation from 1992.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D997 is the document I would
6 request, page 4.
7 Q. Could you please tell us, Mr. Milosevic, what is defined by this
8 Article 3 of the rules? Briefly.
9 A. Article 3 defines the purview of the department. It defines the
10 affairs and the tasks of the department as intelligence gathering,
11 counter-intelligence, standing in the way of terrorism, et cetera, and
12 extremism. And these tasks are singled out as more important because all
13 the other duties are in the category "other duties." So the most
14 important ones are counter-intelligence, intelligence, counter-extremism,
15 and terrorism.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we just move in the English
17 translation one page further, because the first paragraph of Article 3 is
18 on this page and the more important paragraphs are on the following page.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A definition is also given of
20 counter-intelligence, intelligence, and counter-extremism activity, and
21 anti-terrorist activity.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could we look more carefully at paragraph 3 of this article,
24 which says that intelligence gathering and other duties connected to the
25 collection of information, data, and intelligence of interests for the
1 republic in the spheres of politics, the economy, defence, and security,
2 as well as in other areas of importance for the republic, and duties of
3 collecting information, data, and intelligence on all forms of threats to
4 the national and cultural and historical identity of Serbs living outside
5 the republic.
6 Could you please make a comparison between this paragraph in
7 Article 3 and the equivalent passage from the previous rules from
8 February 1990, Article 42 of those rules that is dealt in paragraph 118.
9 And Article 2 of the previous rules deals with activities concerning the
10 national interests of all Yugoslav peoples living outside the borders of
11 the SFRY.
12 A. I spoke about that yesterday. Intelligence affairs --
13 intelligence work defined in this way includes collecting intelligence
14 about any threat, any form of threat, to the national, cultural, and
15 historical -- historic identity of the parts of the Serbian people that
16 remained outside the Republic of Serbia. This is a transformation of the
17 previous provision to make it closer to the political, social, and
18 historical reality of the moment. This new definition transforms the
19 previous generalised definition that belongs to previous times and some
20 previous cultural heritage. The new definition, in my opinion, is
21 completely adjusted to the reality of the moment, to the current
22 situation, and the actual needs for collecting this kind of intelligence.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P1043,
25 page 13 in B/C/S and page 20 in English.
1 Q. It is the constitution of the Republic of Serbia from 1990.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Page 13 in B/C/S and page 20 in
3 English, straddling page 21.
4 Q. Article 72 is an article that defines areas that the Republic of
5 Serbia governs and provides for. We see 12 items, and the last paragraph
6 here reads:
7 [As read] "The Republic of Serbia shall maintain links with the
8 Serbs living outside the Republic of Serbia for the purpose of preserving
9 their national as well as cultural and historical identity."
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we move to the next page in
12 Q. Mr. Milosevic, are there any similarities between this
13 constitutional provision and the provision from the rules we had just
14 looked at?
15 A. The resemblance is obvious, even in the grammar of it. In my
16 opinion, this is a constitutional principle or a constitutional provision
17 and obligation that was reworded or perhaps even copy/pasted into the
18 rules of the RDB, its definition of intelligence gathering. The
19 identical nature of the two is evident.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at D115. That
21 is a description of the specified job positions in the RDB from
22 April 1992. Page 12 in B/C/S, and that would be page 7 in English.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The document is under seal, Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It should
25 not be broadcast then.
1 Q. Mr. Milosevic, this is a description of the positions included in
2 the job specifications of the RDB from April 1992, and I should look
3 first to the description of the chief position, chief of the RDB.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we turn to the next page.
5 Q. Chief of the 2nd Administration.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We need bullet point 2. We need
7 the previous page in B/C/S. In English it would be page 7; in B/C/S, 13.
8 Q. Mr. Milosevic, the first bullet point on this page for you -
9 shall be responsible for performing tasks and duties of gathering
10 intelligence and information of interest to the republic in the area of
11 politics, economy, defence, security, and other areas of importance to
12 the Serbs outside the republic - from which document was this taken, this
14 A. If you mean the legal grounds - and I'm not sure I understand the
15 question - it's obviously the constitution of the Republic of Serbia that
16 we just looked at.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now turn to page 14 in
18 B/C/S and page 8 in English. Bullet point 2.
19 Q. Could the same be said with regard to the description of the
20 position of the deputy chief of the 2nd Administration of the RDB?
21 A. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely the same could be said for that
23 Q. Mr. Milosevic, given the description of the position of the chief
24 of the 2nd Administration and the deputy chief of the 2nd Administration,
25 the difference between the two is that it says that for the deputy chief
1 he is immediately responsible for carrying out duties. So what does this
2 difference in terminology actually mean in this situation?
3 A. Well, generally speaking, it means that the chief is the person
4 who has the responsibility for organising the work. He has to organise
5 the work and he's responsible for its efficiency, whereas the deputy is
6 directly responsible. That means he's immediately involved in carrying
7 out the tasks and performing the duties, so he ensures that the duties
8 are performed correctly, and that's why he has such responsibility. So
9 he is more personally engaged, more personally involved, in the work.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We will now move on to paragraph 126
11 of your report, where it says that the tasks are carried out according to
12 the annual programme of work. The duties in the purview of the
13 department shall be carried out according to the annual programme of
14 work. What sort of work is involved?
15 A. Well, the documents concerned are basic documents that provide
16 certain guidelines for action to be taken, but naturally it's not
17 possible to foresee everything that can happen, all the situations that
18 might arise. So these are plans of a general kind that express certain
19 intentions that relate to planned action and so on and so forth. They
20 aren't really specific or concrete because it's not possible to draw up
21 such plans in advance.
22 Q. Thank you. In the following part of your report, from
23 paragraph 127 onwards, you deal with the rules on the positions according
24 to job specifications. Can you first of all tell us why the rules on
25 organisation is accompanied by new rules on job specifications, if that
1 is, in fact, the case?
2 A. It's always essential once the rules on organisation have been
3 changed to have a change in the rules on job specifications, because they
4 are new jobs and there is a new organisation, as a result of which the
5 number of staff members changes, goes up or down, and so on and so forth.
6 So these rules depends on the other rules. They are linked to each
7 other. When you change one set of rules, it's necessary to change the
8 other set of rules.
9 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 129 in your expert report mentions the
10 various sorts of jobs within the RDB - operative, operative specialist,
11 and so on and so forth. What's the relationship between operative jobs
12 and other jobs within the SDB?
13 A. Well, in brief, operative tasks are the most important ones.
14 They are the key tasks, that's the essence of the work that has to be
15 done, and all the other tasks, all the other duties that have to be
16 performed depend on operative duties. They are there to make sure that
17 the operative tasks are carried out correctly.
18 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 131, the last sentence of the paragraph
19 is the sentence I am interested in. It concerns the job specifications
20 in April 1990. And in comparison with the previous job specifications,
21 in this case the number of work posts was significantly increased. So
22 why was the number of work posts increased in relation to the situation
23 from February 1990 until April 1992?
24 A. Well, first of all because of the change in the rules on
25 organising work. The organisation of the RDB was different now in
1 comparison to the previous RDB system. The branch units outside the
2 headquarters was greater, so RDB branches were formed throughout the
3 territory of the republic, and therefore it's quite normal that the
4 number of staff members increased, the number of work positions
6 JUDGE ORIE: Page 12, line 13, refers to April 1990. May I take
7 it that it was either a slip of the tongue or a mistranslation and that
8 you wanted to refer to 1992?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance,
13 Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Milosevic, in paragraph 132, the rules on amending the
15 rules -- well, the number of staff members was increased by about 500.
16 Can you briefly tell us why this number increased by an additional
17 500 personnel?
18 A. In this case some staff members, in fact all the existing
19 employees from the SDB of the federal SUP at the time, were involved in a
20 merger incorporated into the RDB of the Republic of Serbia as I said
21 yesterday. And it was therefore necessary for there to be other
22 organisational units. It was necessary for all these staff members to
23 find certain positions within the RDB. And in my opinion that is the
24 main reason for this situation.
25 Q. We'll now move on to paragraph 137. Here, mention is made of two
1 basic ways of organising the security and intelligence system
2 institutions. And these two basic ways are the centralised way and the
3 decentralized way. Which method was applied in the Republic of Serbia?
4 A. The decentralized method was applied there. In fact, it's
5 difficult to explain this. If a centralised system is a system where one
6 service covers various duties, well, then, you could say that that was
7 the case in the Republic of Serbia or, rather, in the RDB. In Serbia
8 there was not a particular service for intelligence and a particular
9 service for counter-intelligence work, which is the case in certain other
10 countries. All these duties were performed within a single service, but
11 different administrations were responsible for these tasks. So the
12 system -- the organisation of the system and the service is not the same.
13 I think you were asking me about the service. As far as the
14 service is concerned, it was considered that it would be more practical
15 to perform all these duties in one service. But the tasks were
16 centralised and distributed and, given the principle of secrecy, those
17 performing some duties shouldn't be aware of the other body performing
18 other duties. A totally decentralized system also has certain advantages
19 when it comes to work specialisation in particular, but it also has
20 certain disadvantages and this is a matter for the tactics of the state
21 leadership. It's also a matter for deciding on how to organise things.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We have more details about the matter
23 in your report.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have a look at
25 paragraph 142, where you refer to offensive -- the offensive intelligence
2 Q. And you say that they performed the tasks more successfully in
3 the enemy's territory, and it locates its organisational units there. So
4 why are organisational units - sub-centres, points, and intelligence
5 pivots - located in an area outside the territory of the Republic of
6 Serbia in order to perform offensive intelligence work, the intelligence
7 work in those areas?
8 A. This concerns all the intelligence services. It also concerns
9 Serbia. So offensive intelligence work includes gathering intelligence
10 on foreign countries or certain organisation, and so on and so forth. So
11 it's normal to perform those duties there, at the source, or in the
12 territory of some third country. Since such activities are performed in
13 a continual matter, it is necessary to perform them over a lengthy period
14 of time. And then for practical reasons it's customary to establish not
15 only intelligence pivots but certain centres, certain stations, et
16 cetera. These were the various terms used in various countries. If
17 necessary, I can provide you with some examples.
18 Q. Could you just briefly make a distinction between intelligence
19 sub-centres, intelligence pivots, and intelligence centres. What's the
21 A. Well, there's a substantial difference. Intelligence pivots,
22 intelligence sub-centres, and centres, well, they're organisational
23 units. It's a matter of organising these things. Intelligence pivot is
24 a network. There is an intelligence officer who works in the field and
25 all the agents are his associates, and this is called an intelligence
1 network. If they are permanently located in that country, then it's a
2 residence. That's what it's called. So that is something that exists,
3 because that in fact is the most efficient way to obtain intelligence
4 abroad and also to obtain counter-intelligence abroad, because
5 offensive -- the offensive intelligence service is also an integral part
6 of that service and performs its duties abroad.
7 Q. In these sub-centres, points, and pivots, does one also use a
8 certain operations technology in order to obtain information and
10 A. Yes. Not only technology and equipment for gathering such
11 intelligence, but one also uses communications equipment. That's one of
12 the purposes of these intelligence points. It has to maintain
13 communications with the home country.
14 Q. We'll see about that.
15 A. But, yes. To answer your question directly, my answer is yes, it
16 does also include these technological aspects.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, let us briefly have a look at paragraph 155,
18 where it mentions the horizontal and vertical organisational principles.
19 Very briefly could you provide us with an explanation of the difference
20 between these two types of organisation, these two principles of
22 A. The horizontal method concerns co-operation between various
23 organisational units at the same level. These are organisational units
24 outside the headquarters and -- that have common tasks and then they
25 co-operate. Naturally, it's a matter of reaching agreements, and so on
1 and so forth.
2 So as for the vertical principle, the vertical principle involves
3 a certain hierarchy and the principle of subordination. The headquarters
4 administration is above these centres, so there is a hierarchy of
5 subordination that I spoke about yesterday.
6 Q. In paragraph 159 -- please have a look at paragraph 159 and tell
7 me whether one method of gathering information or gathering intelligence
8 is lacking there, in relation to the RDB in Serbia.
9 A. Yes, there is an omission there. I forgot to say "gathering
10 intelligence through technical sources." This is very important now.
11 It's perhaps the most important way of gathering intelligence throughout
12 the world, and especially in technologically developed countries. This
13 is something that is well known.
14 Q. Could you just tell us what this abbreviation is? Because it
15 hasn't been recorded.
16 A. Technical intelligence; "Techint" would be the abbreviation.
17 Human intelligence, for example, is "Humint." I hope that everyone's
18 heard of these terms.
19 Q. Yes, of course. Of course. Mr. Milosevic, in this very same
20 paragraph reference is made to undertaking secret or, rather, operations
21 actions. What sort of actions are involved?
22 A. Well, these actions are usually carried out in the country or
23 abroad, and a significant number of members of the service participate in
24 them. And several sources are used in order to obtain important
25 intelligence or in order to obtain information about certain activities.
1 These aren't ad hoc activities. This is something that is done on a
2 permanent and comprehensive basis in order to shed light on a certain
3 issue and to investigate it in the greatest possible detail.
4 Q. In paragraph 167, this entire part of your report concerns
5 monitoring the SDB's work -- or, rather, the RDB's work. With the
6 adoption of the Law on Internal Affairs in 1989 and 1991, what sort of
7 system for monitoring the work of the RDB and SDB was maintained? We can
8 see that previously there was a method for monitoring their work in the
9 Assembly. But as of 1991, what was the case?
10 A. Well, there was monitoring through the Assembly. There was a
11 system of civilian monitoring of the work of the RDB and of the
12 intelligence system as a whole, since the Assembly committee for security
13 was concerned with such issues.
14 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to internal informing and external
15 reporting on the work of the SDB and RDB. It's paragraph 172. It says
16 that the 5th Administration analysis of the RDB concentrated in its work
17 on creating documents of a higher degree of processing specifying a
18 circle of users. First of all, explain to us what is a document of a
19 higher degree of processing created in the 5th Administration?
20 A. Documents of a higher degree of processing are better verified
21 documents. They are based on information that has been verified from
22 many sources. They take the form of briefs and reports. They are the
23 result of operative work and analysis. First of all, certain information
24 is gathered through operative work, then it is verified, compared,
25 referenced, sourced. And based on that information, a report of a higher
1 degree of processing is created and submitted to a number of users.
2 Q. How is the circle of users of RDB reports defined?
3 A. There were some permanent users, and those were the highest
4 bodies of the state leadership, the highest bodies of authority, and they
5 received a certain amount of information through regular reports, daily
6 or weekly reports. Then the highest body in the Republic of Serbia, that
7 is, the Assembly, that would be briefed twice a year. And in
8 extraordinary cases, external information could be sent to somebody
9 ad hoc, to the public security department or some other body. In any
10 case, it was the chief who decided who would receive reports, but not at
11 his own discretion but according to the rules of the service that were
12 strictly observed, very rigorously.
13 Q. What are the features of a report submitted to external users
14 from the viewpoint of verification, completeness, contents, information
15 about the sources of information contained therein?
16 A. To start in reverse order, it should indicate not only the source
17 and the way -- it should not only keep hidden the source and the way the
18 information was received, but it should contain no information that could
19 possibly reveal the source, and of course the information had to be
20 verified. And external reports should not contain any unverified
21 information except in exceptional urgent cases when -- when initial
22 information had to be provided to somebody, but normally such reports
23 contained only information that was verified very carefully.
24 Q. We -- [no interpretation]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel begin his question again.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, could you restart your question.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour.
3 Q. Paragraph 179 talks about several types of administration in the
4 RDB; operative instruction or operative training, operative analysis and
5 training, operative technical training, and operative organisational
6 training. What does this qualification "training" mean?
7 A. That means that the personnel working in these administrations,
8 they did not carry out operative work in the field directly. They
9 trained employees in the centre who were directly involved in such work.
10 So they had great knowledge, they had great experience and skills in
11 certain areas, and they would train operative workers who did those jobs
12 in the field in Serbia.
13 Q. Would operatives of some training administrations, such as the
14 1st, 2nd, 3rd one, also able to be involved sometimes directly in
15 gathering intelligence?
16 A. Any employee of the service, not only of the service, but anyone
17 in the Ministry of the Interior who was an authorised officer, had to
18 carry out any task that he was given. So if an operative situation made
19 it imperative that somebody be involved in a job, and if it was justified
20 and purposeful, of course they could be involved. All the more so
21 because they were more familiar and more skilled than the average person.
22 But that was, of course, up to the leadership of the given
23 administration. It was not prohibited for them to get involved in
24 operative work occasionally.
25 Q. Paragraph 191. The part that speaks about the relations between
1 organisational units within the department. My question is: Was there
2 any hierarchy among the administrations in the RDB?
3 A. No. They were all equal. There was no administration that was
4 superior to another.
5 Q. Was there any overlapping of interests between various
6 administrations or branches in their lines of work, and how would such
7 overlapping be resolved if it occurred?
8 A. That occurred very frequently by the very nature of things, but
9 that was solved very easily by agreement between the chiefs at the
10 appropriate level. Some other centre would be informed that they should
11 do some part of the work. It never happened that people arrogated
12 certain competencies or lines of work to them or use them. It was just
13 an organisational matter.
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. MARCUS: Yes, um --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
18 MS. MARCUS: Can we have the foundation for the last answer? It
19 seems not to be based on the rules but to be based on some other direct
20 factual knowledge.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's the same issue as you raised yesterday a few
22 times, and which I raised, Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will try to clarify that with
24 the witness.
25 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I'm asking you: In the spirit of the rules on
1 work and organisation, how would this be resolved? All my questions are
2 framed in this way: How would the rules deal with a situation where
3 information was collected that was of interest for two different lines of
4 work, two different administrations, or where a type of information would
5 be of interest to different lines of work?
6 A. It's absolutely based on the rules. Such situations under the
7 rules are resolved by informing a different organisational unit -- the
8 other organisational unit. But in any case, the immediate superior would
9 provide instructions how to deal with it. In such strictly
10 hierarchically organised state agencies, this could not be a problem.
11 Nobody could or even thought of refusing a task that was given to them.
12 That is in the spirit of the rules, if that is a sufficient answer.
13 So there was territorial jurisdiction. But in case of
14 overlapping of territorial jurisdiction, the higher leadership and the
15 leadership of administrations would decide to give priority to one or the
16 other side.
17 Q. Paragraph 216, which deals with the position of the deputy chief
18 of RDB. Towards the end it says, inter alia, deputy chief is responsible
19 for the implementation of self-protection measures in the service. What
20 are "self-protection measures"?
21 A. The deputy chief of the department was responsible, and that also
22 means he was responsible for organising certain measures of
23 self-protection. Those were counter-intelligence measures within the
24 service itself, and that is quite normal and natural for that kind of
25 service, because the service needed to protect itself in terms of
1 counter-intelligence from foreign services, from being infiltrated, from
2 planting moles, and thus inflicting great damage. If I may say again,
3 this work was done in great secret for understandable reasons, and that's
4 why the measures were secret as well.
5 Q. Could we now look at paragraph 229. It deals with surveillance
6 measures, surveillance techniques. Who would initiate -- who would make
7 proposals for applying surveillance?
8 A. The operative on that case, in charge of that case.
9 Q. To whom would he make the proposal for surveillance, and who
10 would approve these proposals?
11 A. The chief of the organisational unit or the chief of the RDB
12 would approve surveillance measures. Of course, other chiefs at
13 different levels also had to approve. In other words, it was not
14 possible to go over anyone's head. The whole procedure had to be
15 observed. Of course, technical conditions for putting somebody under
16 surveillance also had to exist, and that was part of the proposal.
17 Q. Paragraph 231 deals with the methodology of work in the State
18 Security Service. Could you tell me, who defines authorities of the RDB?
19 Who makes decisions about the programme orientation of the service
21 A. If you mean the RDB, but even if you mean any other service, it
22 is quite clear that it would be the highest political bodies, the highest
23 political executive authority. That means the government, the prime
24 minister, the president; they - along with other bodies outside the
25 service - would provide general guidelines. Those are the
1 representatives of the people and their task -- their job is to protect
2 the constitutional order, so they provide guidelines to the service,
3 including the technical services.
4 Q. What is the initiative base in terms of defining tasks of the
6 A. That is the initial stage or the preparatory stage in one cycle
7 in which these highest political bodies take stock of the situation in
8 terms of political situation, economic situation, and other aspects of
9 the situation in the country at a certain moment. And based on that they
10 draft an initiative specifying what would need to be done for the
11 protection of territorial integrity, protecting constitutional order, and
12 the vital interests and national interests of the country. That is how
13 the priorities are defined.
14 Q. How would these vital interests be defined by political actors?
15 How would they transmitted to the service? How would they
16 operationlised? How are the methods and ways defined for obtaining these
18 A. In countries where the national security council or a similar
19 body exists, it could be called a commission of chiefs of services or
20 joint chiefs of services. They would be the first step, the first
21 filter, who would translate these general guidelines into something more
22 specific. But in our country, as far as RDB is concerned, the minister,
23 who is a member of the government and the highest chiefs in the service,
24 would agree about these tasks. And then within the service itself, the
25 tasks would be operationalised based on principles of rationality,
1 efficiency, deciding how best to achieve them. That is how the service
2 would operationalise these tasks.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm now moving to a
4 different area. And looking at the clock, perhaps this would be a good
5 moment to break.
6 JUDGE ORIE: This is a good moment for a break. We'll resume at
8 --- Recess taken at 3.28 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the interpreters told me that if you
11 do not make a pause between the answer and your next question, even your
12 first word will not be translated. They are struggling more with you
13 than with the witness.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. And I'd
16 like to thank the interpreters, too. I will try and bear that
17 instruction in mind.
18 Q. Mr. Milosevic, just one question that concerns the area we were
19 discussing a minute ago. We were talking about the technology used by
20 the service and authorisation provided for the use of such technology.
21 Did anyone from the judiciary -- was anyone from the judiciary included
22 in authorising the use of technology for the service?
23 A. Well, since this is a serious means of tampering with
24 constitutional rights and freedom as a matter of restricting someone's
25 freedom, someone's rights, the president of the basic court acted,
1 because according to the Law on Criminal Procedure he has to participate
2 in authorising such acts.
3 Q. Could you please repeat the name of the court.
4 A. The court, the supreme court. It's now called the Supreme Court
5 of Appeal, the Supreme Cassation Court. But then it was called the
6 Supreme Court of Serbia. I hope that this term is a term that is
8 Q. Mr. Milosevic, in your report, in paragraphs 240 to 244, mention
9 is made of gathering and processing and assessing information. And in
10 relation to those paragraphs, I just have a few questions for you in
11 order to clarify the stages involved in the service's work when gathering
12 information is at stake. What sort of actions have to be taken in order
13 to obtain reliable information that can be used and can be disseminated
14 externally outside the department?
15 A. Well, first of all, it is necessary to gather intelligence, to
16 have the raw intelligence, and this is done by using various means. Live
17 sources, human sources. And then we have technical sources, or it would
18 better say one uses technical means to obtain information. Or
19 information can be gathered from open sources in exceptional case, but
20 this is used more to check certain things. But information is gathered
21 through secret sources, through associates, or through operative
22 technology. That is the first stage. This is raw intelligence that has
23 not been verified. It can be correct and it might not be correct. This
24 has to be checked and determined when further processed. So it's
25 necessary to categorise and check the intelligence obtained. One has to
1 see how logical the intelligence obtained is and how logical it is in
2 comparison to other intelligence gathered by the service or by other
3 sources. And it is only then and on that basis, after having processed
4 the information, that certain information is extracted from it. You have
5 higher level documents in which this information is processed and then
6 this intelligence is conveyed to internal or external users.
7 Q. How are the sources of intelligence assessed in terms of the
8 weight that can be given to those sources?
9 A. Several indicators are used. The most important one is the
10 source of intelligence itself. First of all, an assessment is made as to
11 the reliability, the level of reliability of the intelligence. One tries
12 to determine whether the intelligence is reliable, whether it's been
13 checked, whether it's being checked, or one tries to establish whether
14 someone has tried to plant intelligence within the service. So this is
15 one of the most important indicators, but it is not the only indicator.
16 I will slow down, I do apologise.
17 Naturally the intelligence has to be checked. Intelligence or
18 information that is checked can prove to be correct or incorrect, but
19 incorrect information that has been checked can also be important. It
20 can show that information has been planted, and so on and so forth. In
21 certain cases, some information may have only been partially checked,
22 maybe partially correct. So as in the case of all evidence, you check
23 information by carrying out an analysis through induction, deduction, by
24 trying to think about things logically.
25 Q. Is it possible that the raw intelligence that you have mentioned
1 that's obtained from checked sources are in fact incorrect? Are such
2 situations possible?
3 A. Absolutely. Such situations are possible.
4 Q. Could the contrary be the case: You have an unreliable source
5 that provides you with a correct and precise intelligence?
6 A. Yes, of course. If I can answer that in greater detail. Those
7 two things aren't that close to each other. If you have a source that
8 has been checked, it doesn't mean that the information you obtain will be
9 correct. Perhaps you have a well-intentioned source who wants to provide
10 correct information but he provides misinformation, because information
11 has been planted. Or he has made an incorrect assessment or the source
12 was under the influence of alcohol. There could be many other reasons.
13 It's a matter for assessment. So you have to assess the information, not
14 the source. The source is just a means through which one obtains
15 information, but the information has to be checked.
16 Q. So the raw information or intelligence is only the first stage
17 when it comes to assessing the reliability and the truth of the
18 information provided?
19 A. Absolutely. That's why this is the initial information provided.
20 You start off with this information. That's the beginning of the story.
21 Q. What sort of information can we talk about within the department?
22 What types of information?
23 A. Well, you have operative information; the operative agents deal
24 with that. And you have analytic information dealt with by analysts.
25 Q. When you compare these two types of information from the point of
1 view of reliability, which type of information is more reliable?
2 A. Analytic information is more reliable because such intelligence
3 is a higher-level intelligence.
4 Q. I would now like to ask you --
5 JUDGE ORIE: A pause between question and answer and a pause
6 between the answer and the question. Let's restart with the question you
7 put to the witness, saying: "When you compare these two types of
8 information, when you compare these type of information on
9 reliability ..." And then you started an answer, telling that:
10 "Analytic information is more reliable..." could you resume from
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such information or such
13 intelligence is higher-level intelligence, so in these cases we have
14 secondary and tertiary documents. Operative information is the primary
15 source. So you have the initial information that you use to obtain other
16 information or processed information but it still hasn't been checked.
17 So it still isn't higher-level intelligence, so to speak.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. I'd like to have a look at P079, at that document. I
20 am not asking you about the facts in this document or your opinion about
21 the facts. All I'm interested in is your interpretation.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The document is under seal, by the
24 Q. This is information that was provided to the SSNO security
25 service, September -- the national defence ministry, in fact. And in the
1 penultimate paragraph it says that the source of information provided
2 information according to which Arkan, together with his escort, killed a
3 volunteer. And in the last paragraph, it says that the SUP organs
4 established that the volunteer was being provided with medical treatment.
5 My question is why this document contains this -- these two pieces of
6 information that contradict each other with regard to the fate of that
8 A. Well, in the first part of the document, you have the so-called
9 raw intelligence or raw information. The operative agent had write down
10 [as interpreted] the information that he obtained from his personal
11 source. As I said yesterday, he can't change or alter anything in any
12 way. But after that stage in the second part, he stands back a bit
13 because the information has been partially checked. He partially checked
14 some of the information that he obtained. And he determined that with
15 respect to one piece of the information provided -- well, that
16 information was quite simply true [as interpreted]. Then there is the
17 other information that has to be checked.
18 So although it has not been explicitly stated here, these last
19 two paragraphs, or, rather, the last paragraph, in the sentence before
20 the initials, are in fact the opinion of the agent. The agent expresses
21 his personal opinion with regard to the information provided. So I think
22 that what is at stake is quite clear here.
23 Q. Thank you. We will now briefly have a look at paragraph 245.
24 Could you briefly tell us how information is conveyed to the users, and
25 is there an established way for handling and conveying information to
1 external users?
2 A. Yes. Naturally there is a prescribed way that has to be
3 respected. Information can't be conveyed in any other way. The most
4 important external information is provided via courier, and one has to
5 sign for it. And there's a certain manner of handling intelligence; that
6 is to say, the information, or, rather the documents in an envelope that
7 are being -- that is being handed over to a user, these documents have to
8 be returned, and then the document is taken back to the service and it's
9 kept in a safe. So this is a state secret and one has to be cautious.
10 These are documents that can't be sent to users by post.
11 Q. We'll now move on to paragraph 251. Here factors involved
12 when -- factors involved are mentioned which concern gathering secret
13 intelligence, and one of the factors concerns accessibility. One of the
14 factors is the factor of accessibility. Could you please tell us what
15 the factor of accessibility means within the context of applying the
16 operative technique? What does the factor mean within that context?
17 A. Accessibility is the most important factor. According to that
18 factor, the service will obtain the information -- it can obtain the
19 information that is accessible. Operative technology is used so that
20 information that is usually not accessible becomes accessible to the
21 service. So that is the purpose of using such operative technology and
22 other means. So this isn't public information that can be obtained in
23 any other way. It's necessary for the service to have the technical
24 means for obtaining such information.
25 Q. With regard to operative technology and the factor of
1 accessibility, how can you explain the manner in which technological
2 means are set up outside the Republic of Serbia in order to obtain
3 information needed by the service?
4 A. Well, that's done just as it's done everywhere else in the world.
5 There are two types of operations technology. The first kind concerns
6 planting certain microphones at certain sites. That has to be done on
7 site. You can't do that from a distance. You have to plant microphones
8 in the area that you are interested in in order to eavesdrop on people.
9 If it's abroad, you have to be abroad. If you're dealing with the
10 equipment that is used in order to intercept certain channels, then it is
11 necessary to locate such means at sites where such tasks can be
12 efficiently performed. The closer you are to the source of the
13 intelligence you are interested in, the closer you are to the
14 communications that have to be intercepted, the better it is. Naturally
15 you have to respect the principle of secrecy when acting in such a
17 The communications of the person being intercepted must not be
18 aware of what is being done, so such a system can be established in the
19 territory of a third country or in your own country. This is all a
20 matter that has to be assessed.
21 Q. Security factor, what does that mean in relation to what we have
22 just been discussing, in relation to gathering intelligence by using
23 surveillance techniques?
24 A. Well, it means that you have to ensure that the work you are
25 doing is secret. You have to have physical security so, to speak. What
1 is being done must remain secret, because in other cases information
2 might be planted. There may be this sort of a double-game, if you like.
3 If you discover where the equipment is located, it's very dangerous. It
4 could be very dangerous. So security is of the utmost importance.
5 In many countries, many intelligence services have such centres
6 in military bases that they have abroad so that they can protect their
7 means. They even moved some of those pieces of equipment from embassy to
8 military bases.
9 Q. Another factor you mention is timeliness. What does timeliness
10 mean in collecting information by surveillance techniques?
11 A. Timeliness is one of the two most important features of
12 intelligence, along with accuracy. Intelligence must be timely, and
13 that's very important.
14 I'll speak more slowly, if necessary.
15 The intelligence service and the state security department always
16 act preventively, to prevent crimes, unlike the public security service
17 which act after the fact. That's why it's important to learn about the
18 plans, ideas, intentions of those who pose a threat to the constitutional
19 order of the country or otherwise pose a threat to the country's vital
20 interests in order to be able to act in good time.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Please go ahead.
24 A. Information that is not obtained in good time is not completely
25 unimportant. It can serve for purposes of reconstruction, verification,
1 et cetera, but they are less important. It's very important to get some
2 information about the opposite side in good time in order to be able to
4 Q. Thank you. The next I'd like to ask you relates to
5 paragraph 252. Could you just clear up this concealed intelligence
7 A. What is meant is collection of information from open sources, but
8 by trained, skilled personnel who have deeper knowledge, and that's why
9 they can conduct surveillance and monitoring in a more efficient way by,
10 for instance, reading foreign and émigré literature or observing foreign
11 military parades, et cetera.
12 Let me just finish. This is collection of intelligence from open
13 sources but in a way that is not completely open. It is known that
14 somebody is gathering this information but not for which purpose. That's
15 why we call it concealed or covert.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We discussed yesterday the rules on
17 work of the SDB from 1992, and you told us that those rules were in force
18 throughout because of their universal nature, and I would now like to
19 look at some passages from these rules. That's D239.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The translation was admitted under
21 a different number, but I hope we'll be able to display it.
22 For the moment I am interested in para 6, that's page 2 in both
23 versions. Next page in English, please. Item 6.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Do you see this item?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. It says that the RDB may establish co-operation with its own
2 citizens and foreign nationals both in the country and abroad. Does the
3 RDB have any restrictions regarding the place where such co-operation is
4 done or the persons with whom it co-operates?
5 A. No restrictions. No service in the world has any restrictions
6 regarding the nationality or the location of its sources. That's simply
8 Q. Can we look at item 8.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] And for the Chamber, next page in
10 English, please.
11 Q. What does this paragraph tell us about the motives of such
12 co-operation with one's own or foreign nationals?
13 A. Which paragraph do you mean?
14 Q. Eight.
15 A. Paragraph 8 elaborates on the engagement of foreign nationals.
16 When we say "foreign national," we mean the citizen of another country or
17 an "apatride." Anyone other than a citizen of Serbia. And it specifies
18 motives for such co-operation.
19 Q. What could possibly motivate a person to start co-operation with
20 the agency, in this case the state security department?
21 A. Any motive could be adequate. Here we see mentioned friendly
22 co-operation, political or other affiliation, as well as other financial
23 or other interests. It also says co-operation may be established with a
24 member of the foreign intelligence service or a military's structure of a
25 foreign country or a foreign organisation, which means that this involves
1 intelligence work in its narrow definition and counter-intelligence. The
2 service can co-operate with a foreign national for any number of reasons,
3 as long as it serves a purpose.
4 Q. Does that mean co-operation could be established with a member of
5 a terrorist organisation as well?
6 A. Yes. That's common practice everywhere in the world. The
7 problem is, however, that it's very hard to infiltrate terrorist
8 organisations, because if it were easier, 9/11 would not have happened.
9 It is ideal if a service has its own member infiltrated into a terrorist
10 organisation precisely for the preventive aspects of its work
11 ante delictum in order to be able to prevent a terrorist act. In any
12 case, that's common practice.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at item 10, next
14 page in B/C/S and next page in English.
15 Q. It says that the service infiltrates its agent or plants him on
16 an individual or a terrorist organisation when it finds such infiltration
17 to serve a purpose in terms of security of the country and operative
18 interests of the service. What does this mean?
19 A. That means that an agent of the service, a source, not an
20 employee of the service, is planted on the target, gets close to the
21 target in order to be able to conduct surveillance and tailing. Planting
22 or infiltration means that the agent should get as close to the -- as
23 possible to the target in order to be able to monitor them. They should
24 get as close to the target as possible. Become part of their close
25 entourage. Get on the inside, in other words.
1 Q. Let's look at paragraph 60. That's page 7 in B/C/S and page 14
2 in the translation.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] One page further in English.
4 Q. The last bullet point in para 60: Creating high-quality
5 positions for the work of the service under extraordinary circumstances
6 in the state of immediate threat of war or war. What does this mean, the
7 powers of the service? Can it be done both inside the country and
9 A. This is one of the purposes of a double combination, and I
10 explained what a double combination is in my previous answer. One of the
11 main purposes of a double combination is to prepare the service for
12 acting in cases that fall out of the ordinary, that happen not in a
13 regular situation but in complex situations, such as in extraordinary
14 circumstances in the state of immediate threat of war or war. Under
15 those circumstances, it is difficult -- more difficult to communicate
16 with agents. Communications are threatened, not secure. And that's why
17 it's important to create intelligence bases and strongholds. It is a
18 very particular situation that has to be planned for in advance in case
19 it becomes necessary, as in contingency planning.
20 Q. Mr. Milosevic, paragraph 261 of your report. At the end of that
21 paragraph, the last few words, mention is made of offensive operative
22 techniques and the maintaining of secret communications for special
23 purposes. What does that mean?
24 A. These are particular ways of communication between the agent and
25 his runner in the service. Because under the principle of secrecy, great
1 caution has to be displayed to prevent the planting of misinformation,
2 and that makes it necessary to communicate in a secure way using specific
3 equipment. That's what "special purpose" means. These communications
4 are agreed in advance. The equipment used is special and the agent is
5 taught how to use it in advance, but of course this has to be used
6 sparingly. They cannot be used for any other purpose, because that
7 increases the risk of detection.
8 Q. What about these means of communication for special purposes?
9 Does this activity also include maintaining communications between the
10 headquarters inside the country and its bases in the country and abroad?
11 A. Yes. That's the usual way.
12 Q. Does maintaining special communication also include
13 self-protection measures at the base of these communications?
14 A. I've answered this question already. I've answered that question
15 already, I think. These measures have to be taken at the place where the
16 communications are based. It's very important to prevent detection that
17 could enable the enemy side to use them for a double-game.
18 Let me just remind you: Huge losses were suffered by the Dutch
19 resistance movement during World War II precisely because the Nazi
20 counter-intelligence service detected their communications and managed to
21 play a double-game with them. And many patriots were killed because not
22 enough caution was displayed in handling these special communication
24 Q. Mr. Milosevic, paragraph 263. Operative and technical
25 wiretapping means. It follows from this they can be set up both inside
1 the country and abroad. Are self-protection measures involved here as
2 well, at the base from which wiretapping is done of targets abroad?
3 A. This is used not only in interception but in wiretapping, and
4 protection is always necessary, especially when the target is abroad.
5 It's only logical. Self-protection is always necessary and it's always
6 required to protect and defend the security of these bases, of these
8 Q. Paragraph 264, the last sentence, speaks of covert eavesdropping
9 on telephones and other means of telecommunications that could yield
10 important information for the security and vital interests of the
11 country. What does it mean "information of broader interest to the
12 security of the country"?
13 A. It means the contents of intelligence. Intelligence work
14 collects information not only on the intentions of the enemy to threaten
15 the security of the country, but information of broader importance to the
16 security of the country. That's common practice everywhere in the world.
17 Q. Paragraph 274 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move on, some questions were asked to you,
19 Mr. Milosevic, about the wiretapping.
20 In paragraph 263, we find that wiretapping was applied also in
21 respect of foreign organisations and institutions in the country and
22 abroad. Would that mean that you would have a system of wiretapping
23 outside the boundaries of your country?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not in a position to know that,
25 and I can't answer your question because I know nothing about that. All
1 I can do is interpret the rules here. However, if you read --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- one can see that there is such a
4 possibility, and that is quite in accordance with the Rules of Service.
5 But I really don't know.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Just so -- [Overlapping speakers] --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But here --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you where in the rule anything is said
9 about wiretapping outside of the country? Is there a specific -- do you
10 need the permission of a judge for that? Or I don't take it that you
11 asked the foreign government for it. Where is the rule about wiretapping
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's in paragraph 263 that we
14 have just been reading. You can see there that it's possible. The
15 procedure for intercepting communications is always the same. I don't
16 believe that anyone acted on their own initiative, and naturally you
17 don't ask foreign countries to authorise you to intercept their
18 communications. No country in the world would act in such a manner.
19 If you want me to explain this in greater detail, there is a pact
20 between five countries in the world, and they intercept the
21 communications established throughout the world, and they don't ask for
22 the permission of any of the countries that they intercept.
23 As a rule --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me interrupt you there. Is your country one of
25 the five?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm interested in the practice in your country, not
3 in what others legally or illegally are doing. What -- if you want to
4 wiretap abroad, how did you do that? How did it work? Who decided?
5 Would you need a judicial order for that?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as a rule, you needed an
7 order for any type of interception, if this was being done through the
8 usual surveillance equipment. When you're intercepting radio
9 communications, then as a rule you don't ask for authorisation of any
10 kind because you can never know in advance what you'll encounter. So
11 that, at least, is my opinion, but I can't go into all the details
12 because I don't know what the common practice was.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I will --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hope I've answered the question.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, because you limited to radio communications. I
16 was interested in wiretapping, for example, telephones abroad.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When wiretapping telephone
18 communications and when planting interception devices, well, you need the
19 same sort of authorisation that you need for intercepting communications
20 in your own country. In our country, the rules apply to foreign
21 countries. That's not the case in certain other countries, but I won't
22 mention them.
23 So the procedure is the same with regard to the traditional type
24 of wiretapping and other types of interception.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So you would get a judicial approval for wiretapping
1 telephone conversations abroad?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: How would you technically do that? I mean, would
4 you have intercepts on French telephone conversations or -- you would
5 suspect someone in Paris to engage in undermining activities against your
6 state; how would you listen in to those telephone conversations? Would
7 you seek a judicial order for that in your own country?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the technical conditions existed
9 for that, then it would be done. But it's inconceivable, given the
10 technology of traditional interception, it's difficult to do something
11 like that. But it wasn't prohibited. So one would have to proceed as
12 one proceeded, so to speak, on your own ground. Intercepting
13 communications in that manner is a complex affair, and this is done under
14 certain circumstances. I don't know if I have to go into all of the
15 details. It's quite difficult. But certainly I wouldn't contact the
16 French authorities, the French organs, because it wouldn't be easy to
17 obtain their authorisation. Perhaps it would be a matter of
18 international co-operation, but if such intelligence was obtained, then
19 the rule would be to ask for authorisation from the French state, from
20 the French service. But what we are talking about now concerns cases of
21 intercepting radio communications, and such interception can be done
22 anywhere in the -- in the world.
23 But the rules of service don't prevent one from acting in this
24 manner. As to whether it's possible to proceed in that manner, that's
25 another issue. I personally don't believe that it is. I don't know
1 whether such a thing could be done, because it's a very complex matter.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, one of your earlier answers, when you
3 were still focussing on the radio communications, you said: "Well, I
4 can't go into all the details because I don't know what the common
5 practice was." Does that mean that you're describing the system and the
6 rules without knowing what the common practice was?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, common practice, what is
8 common practice? It's difficult to define that. I am trying to provide
9 you with information on the exclusive basis of -- I apologise, I didn't
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, common practice. You used the word, so I
12 take it that you know what you meant by using it.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My testimony relates, above all, to
14 what one can find in the rules of service and in the rules of work, so I
15 don't know whether something was applied or not. I wasn't involved in
16 that. I can tell you whether something was allowed or not, but I can't
17 tell you whether something was done or not if I wasn't present.
18 Perhaps I haven't understood your question very well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think you understood my question well and I think
20 I did understand your answer as well. One of the reasons I am asking is
21 the following: We have seen in the various cases before this Tribunal
22 that perhaps not in the whole world always all the rules which prescribe
23 how you have to seek authorisation for wiretapping, telephone tapping,
24 are not always under all circumstances applied, and I was trying to find
25 out what knowledge you had on practice apart from the legal rules on to
1 see whether it may have happened that sometimes, without observing those
2 rules, technical methods may have been used in your country as it may
3 have been done in other countries, even on the Balkans.
4 Was practice always in line with legal theory?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They -- there is a crime of illicit
6 interception, and if proof were obtained --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that if you violate the rules,
8 that that's forbidden. That's what rules are for. My question was a
9 different one.
10 My question was, and perhaps you have answered it earlier,
11 saying, "what the practice was, I do not know, I only described the
12 rules," which for me, and that's the reason why I put it that strongly,
13 would mean that you couldn't tell us whether the rules were observed, yes
14 or no, because you did not know about what was practice or common
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how to answer that
17 question. But there was an important historical event. It concerned the
18 violation of the rules on intercepting communications, and this affected
19 the course of history, I would say, in Serbia, and it also affected what
20 I discussed yesterday. The chief of police was accused of intercepting
21 the president of the republic and the president of the party, Tito. His
22 name was Plenum, I think. I won't go into whether this was the truth or
23 not, whether this was politically abused or not. But in Serbia much
24 caution was exercised in the matter, and people are very wary of
25 violating the rules on interception. I am not, however, familiar with
1 any cases of violations of the rules on interception. There were one or
2 two cases that involved certain accusations, but I'm not aware of the
3 service being involved in any such cases. I don't have any personal
4 knowledge. The case I referred to earlier was called the Brioni Plenum
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I do understand your answer to be that
7 although you have noticed that there have been cases, and you're
8 referring to case, especially in the past, that there was a case about,
9 whether true or not, a case about illegal wiretapping or telephone
10 tapping, and that you have heard about this at later stages but you have
11 no thorough knowledge of whether this actually happened or not.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I have no knowledge of the
13 measures of interception being abused, but this case I mentioned was in
14 1966. This Brioni Plenum case. It was a historical event.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do see that. Of course, I'm more interested
16 to know whether it happened in the 1990s as well, but you have no factual
17 knowledge about that, and you are -- your testimony is therefore
18 primarily focussing on what the rules were that had to be applied.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'd like
21 to be of assistance in this discussion. Could we have a look at D239,
22 item 37. It should be page 5 in the B/C/S version and page 8 in the
23 English translation. Page 9 in the English translation, item 37.
24 Item 2, in fact, is what I'm interested in here. Could we scroll up in
25 the B/C/S. Thank you.
1 Q. Have a look at item 2. It says the technical resources are being
2 used for nationals of Yugoslavia or foreign groups and organisations in
3 the country. Is this the legal basis for intercepting conversations
4 abroad, the legal basis that we were discussing a minute ago?
5 A. I didn't quite understand what I had to have a look at.
6 Q. You should have a look at paragraph 37 -- or item 37,
7 paragraph 2. Could you read it out and could you tell us whether this is
8 the legal basis for wiretapping communications abroad?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With the Court's leave, with the
12 Chamber's leave, I will now move on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is this a legal basis or is this a rule about the
14 operative and technical resources for something? It doesn't say anything
15 about procedure or ... But let's move on. Let's ...
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. Was
17 that question put to me or --
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, it was perhaps a question I put to myself aloud,
19 which perhaps I should not do, but it allows you to read at least some of
20 my mind.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Just a
24 Q. Mr. Milosevic, let's just clarify another issue with regard to
25 the relationship between the Law on Internal Affairs and the rules of
1 service. Was there such a relationship, and if so, what was the
2 relationship? What is the law with regard to the work of the service?
3 A. The rules of the service are based on a legal act, a legal
4 document. You can see that. If you have a look at Article 1, it says on
5 the basis of the law, pursuant to such and such a law. So these
6 important issues were dealt with or covered by the law, but these other
7 issues, particular issues, that just concern the work.
8 Q. So the Law on Internal Affairs is the basis upon which the rules
9 on the work of the SDB are adopted?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Could we now look at paragraph 274 of your report. It deals with
12 agents' files. Could you give us a brief definition of the term "agent
13 of the RDB," of the State Security Service?
14 A. By definition an agent, literally from Serbian, a collaborator,
15 who consciously collaborates with the State Security Service, helping the
16 service to carry out the tasks in its purview. It implies also -- it is
17 implied that the person collaborates secretly. I thought that is implied
18 and goes without saying, but now I'm emphasizing it. In an organised
19 way, consciously, and secretly.
20 Q. In this paragraph of your report it is said that each agent had a
21 file. Who kept these files and who had access to them?
22 A. The file of an agent was kept by the runner, as we call it in our
23 terminology. Agents' files were kept in the greatest secret in order to
24 protect the person involved, the agent, but also to protect the methods
25 and techniques of the service. So only the operative running the agent
1 and the chief of the organisation could have insight into the list of
2 agents and their real names. Agents were always referred to by their
3 code-name to protect their identity.
4 Protecting an agent's identity and protecting the agent was a
5 priority in running an agent. The files were kept in a still safe-box.
6 Nobody who did not work with the agent personally was supposed to know.
7 Nobody was able to know.
8 Q. I have a problem that is perhaps due to my insufficient knowledge
9 of English, and it is with the word "agent," whereas in Serbian it's
10 "collaborator," or I would say "associate." Perhaps this is due to my
11 lack of knowledge, but perhaps not. Perhaps we should clear this up,
12 because "agent" could mean something entirely different.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you think it -- perhaps together with Mr. Jordash
14 who may have -- I don't know whether the terminology causes him any
15 problem. I leave it to you, Mr. Petrovic, to clarify, because since I do
16 not know where the problem is, I am not in a position to assist you in
17 resolving it.
18 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure of the problem either.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to clear it up through
20 the next question.
21 Q. An associate, is he an employee of the service in active duty or
22 reserve duty?
23 A. No. It could be anyone but a staff member of the service. That
24 person cannot be employed by the service. It cannot be a member of the
25 service. An associate can be anyone but a member of the service. It's
1 an outside associate, an external associate.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, your question was about an associate. Did you
3 use the terminology similar to "agent"? Is it -- you used the word in
4 your language which was translated to us perhaps in a different context
5 as agent, and you were concerned about the meaning of the word "agent" to
6 be "acting on behalf of"? Is that what your concern was, and that you
7 thought that by using --
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my concern is the
9 colloquial understanding of the word "agent." In my language, it implies
10 a different relationship than that with an associate. It implies that
11 the person is a policeman. It's part of the internal structure of the
12 service; whereas an associate is somebody on the outside of the service,
13 somebody who is not part of the service.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the word "agent" in English has several
15 meanings. One of the them, perhaps, being in that respect similar to my
16 language, a police officer. Another one is someone who is, I take it,
17 but I should have a look at a dictionary, is working for a company, being
18 an agent working for the company. But I think certainly one of the
19 meanings, and that apparently is the meaning in which it is used here, is
20 that you are working not necessarily on the instruction or being employed
21 by but that you're working and that you work as a link. That you're --
22 although you're not depending on the institution or entity you're
23 working -- your work is beneficial for, that -- let me check again.
24 I should leave this, as a matter of fact, to the native
25 English-speaking persons. That there is a link, although you're not
1 employed by, you can be an agent preparing, for example, for contractual
2 relationships with -- between parties working, perhaps in favour of one
3 or even both parties and, at the same time, not being employed by them
4 but perhaps being paid for your services you provided to them.
5 So if that's the confusion, then I hope that we have resolved it.
6 It's not someone being employed in the strict sense of being an employee
7 of a labour contract with the institution or the entity, but still work
8 which is beneficial and can assist the party by whom he's not strictly
10 Well, Mr. Jordash, I saw that you are nodding yes. It was a bit
11 of a bad attempt to seek to remove Mr. Petrovic's concerns.
12 MR. JORDASH: And I think, if I can just add, I think what
13 Mr. Petrovic was trying to do was to distinguish the type of agent like
14 James Bond, secret agent, working for the British government, from the
15 situation, I think, described by Mr. Milosevic. I think that's the
16 distinction sought --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. JORDASH: -- to be made. I'm sorry to introduce James Bond.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a simple matter, although I do not know by whom
20 he was employed, but a simple example sometimes clarifies matters very
21 quickly. Thank you for your assistance.
22 Ms. Marcus, you know who James Bond is, isn't it? Yes, let's
24 MR. JORDASH: May we take a break, Your Honour, please?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we take a break.
1 Mr. Petrovic, where are we when taking a break?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, unfortunately my
3 estimate was not quite adequate. I will need at least 45 minutes more.
4 I apologise for that, but perhaps it will run even to --
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll check.
6 Madam Registrar, could you provide during the break both the
7 Chamber and Mr. Petrovic with the time he has used until now, and then
8 we'll consider your request for going beyond the second session,
9 Mr. Petrovic.
10 We take a break, and we resume at a quarter to 6.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 5.15 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 5.49 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, in view of the time you have used
14 until now and the way in which you conducted the cross-examination [sic],
15 the Chamber grants you this session to conclude your cross-examination --
16 examination-in-chief, I apologise.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I would kindly ask you to look at paragraph 279 of
19 your report. It relates to operative actions of the service department.
20 Can you tell us where it is possible to carry out operative actions? Are
21 there any restrictions for the personnel of the department in that
23 A. No restrictions whatsoever, if you mean inside the country or
24 abroad. Moreover, operative actions are usually carried out abroad. In
25 the course of the travel of an important official, when a VIP travels
1 abroad, an operative action is put in place to prevent assassination
2 attempts or attacks against that person. Another type of operative
3 action is carried out when it is necessary, as I said before, to collect
4 information from a greater number of persons in a broader area either
5 inside the country or abroad or both at the same time, depending on the
6 scope of the action.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D239.
8 Q. That's the document we've looked at several times today, the
9 rules on the work of the service.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Para 58; page 6 in B/C/S, page 14
11 in English. Yes. Now we have it on the screen.
12 Q. Item 58(c) says that one of the reasons for such an action would
13 be to collect or verify certain information or intelligence of particular
14 importance for the security, the international, economic, or other
15 interests of the country.
16 This formulation, "other interests of the country," which
17 interests could fall under these other national interests in terms of
18 operative actions of the RDB?
19 A. Any interest. Any national interest apart from those that have
20 been specified before. It could mean protection of Serbs outside Serbia
21 from attempts at denationalisation or restricting their national identity
22 or any other interests. For instance, offensive counter-intelligence
23 could be meant. Anything that is assessed to be of interest.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Speaking of operative tactics of the
25 personnel of the department, are there any situations when an employee of
1 the department, an operative, does not conceal from his source that he's
2 an intelligence officer and does not tell him that he's actually the
3 target, but collaborates with him under another guise?
4 A. Yes. That could be part of an operative combination. If the
5 intelligence officer approaches the target in order to recruit them, to
6 turn them, that would be a good approach. It is well known in practice.
7 The intelligence officer can also hold himself out to be a member of
8 another service than the one he's actually working for.
9 Q. Is that what you call double-combination under the rules of your
11 A. Precisely.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We are now moving on to the part of
13 your report that relates to the 2nd Administration of the RDB.
14 Paragraph 329. Here we can read about voting on and then proclamation of
15 the Law on the Validity of the Legal System on the Part of the
16 Territory of the SFRY, which was under the special protection of the
17 United Nations. And it was adopted on 18 March, 1992. What happened
18 with the proclamation of this law by the Assembly of Serbia -- of the
20 A. It relates to the situation that existed since 1974 when
21 republics and autonomous provinces came into existence, if you mean
22 co-operation between services. The co-operation existed before between
23 republics and provinces, and now it is established between Serbia and the
24 territories that are specified here on the same footing as before; that
25 it's on equal footing, in keeping with mutual interests, et cetera.
1 Q. So this law opens the door for co-operation between RDB services
2 and the services that are created in the territory of Krajina and in
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 332. This is the part that relates to
6 Franko Simatovic. A very brief answer, please. It mentions a training
7 course Simatovic completed. What kind of course is that?
8 A. It's a basic specialised course for RDB personnel. It's a course
9 that everyone who gets employment with the service must finish. First of
10 all, they are on trial employment, they pass an exam for a full-time job,
11 and then they complete this basic course.
12 Q. Mr. Milosevic, could you please explain the following: In the
13 Republic of Serbia MUP and in the RDB, what is the difference between a
14 profession and a work post? What's a profession and what's a work post?
15 What are these terms -- what do these terms cover?
16 A. Well, a work post covers certain duties that an employee has to
17 perform. That would be the work post. And the title one has -- the
18 professional title one has to do with a certain rank. The more senior
19 one is, the more experience one has at a certain post, the higher the
20 title will be. But these two things don't depend on each other. They
21 don't overlap. There is no overlapping of these titles and the position
22 one has.
23 Q. What sort of document regulates these professional titles and
24 what sort of document regulates the work post one has?
25 A. The job specification regulates the work post. We discussed
1 these rules on job specifications, but titles are covered by special
2 documents in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs. So these are
3 totally different laws or sub-laws that we are dealing with.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Now let's have a look at
5 paragraphs 333 and 335. In the first paragraph, Simatovic is referred to
6 as the chief of the SAD -- of the USA group in the 2nd Administration of
7 the Belgrade SDB. And in paragraph 335, which concerns the period after
8 the 15th of December, 1990, reference is made to the chief of the
9 department for the US in the 2nd Administration of the SDB in Belgrade.
10 Is there a difference between these two work posts described in these two
12 A. No, there is no difference. There's only a difference in the
13 name. There's only a nominal difference. But in essence, there is no
14 difference. As far as the work is concerned, there's no difference.
15 It's identical.
16 Q. Could you tell us how it is that there was such a nominal
18 A. Well, before the rules in 1990, the Belgrade SDB was divided into
19 sectors. And later, after 1999 [as interpreted], it was divided into
20 departments. So it's just a matter of the term used. There is no
21 difference between the sector and department. In any event, there's no
22 difference between these two things. The duties performed were
23 absolutely identical. They were performed at the same level.
24 Q. Mr. Milosevic, here it says -- in the transcript it says, on
25 page 54, line 24, it says that you said "after 1999." Did you say "1999"
1 or did you mention another year?
2 A. No, I said after 1990. I said before 1990 and after 1999 --
3 1990. Before the rules on the work from 1990 were adopted. I don't know
4 how this error slipped in. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue.
5 Q. So the year 1999 has nothing to do with what we are discussing
7 A. No, not at all. I'm not sure how this error occurred.
8 Q. In paragraph 335, it says that Franko Simatovic was assigned as a
9 senior inspector. You've had a look at Mr. Simatovic's personal file.
10 Was this the time at which Mr. Simatovic was promoted to the rank of
11 senior inspector?
12 A. Yes. That's why he was assigned to such a post with such a
14 Q. Was Simatovic also assigned to the position of deputy chief and
15 special advisor to the SDB? Was he assigned to that position in the same
16 capacity, with the same title?
17 A. I'd have to have a look at the document.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have a problem
19 with the translation. With your leave, I don't think my question -- I
20 apologise. I see that everything is fine now.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. It was the
22 same title, the same post. The position was that of senior inspector, if
23 I have to mention the fact.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. And this can be seen in paragraphs 337 and 338 of your expert
1 report; isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 351, this paragraph deals with the tasks
4 and duties of the chief of the USA section in the 2nd Department of the
5 USDB in Belgrade. And amongst other things, this paragraph states that
6 as a chief of the department one is involved in performing tasks, in
7 documentation, research, monitoring. So bearing in mind what this
8 paragraph states, does this mean that the chief of the department can
9 directly gather information that has to be processed? And can he cover
10 the field so that -- in accordance with the job specification?
11 A. Well, yes. Naturally that can be done. He can do that. That's
12 a logical interpretation of what you have just read out. He can directly
13 perform such tasks and duties. I don't see why that should be in
14 dispute. That's what it says.
15 Q. Does that mean that the chief of the department for the USA can
16 also travel outside of Belgrade or can travel abroad in order to gather
17 intelligence that relates to a certain subject that has to be processed?
18 A. Well, if there is such an operative need, the chief can,
19 obviously, act in that way. The chief can directly perform certain
20 tasks. He can assign tasks to others. If his subordinates can carry out
21 his tasks, then he can delegate such activities to those subordinates.
22 But he is in the best position to take action, and he will act as he
23 deems fit.
24 Q. As for the position of the chief of the department in the USDB in
25 Belgrade, where is this position actually located in terms of the
1 hierarchy of the SDB?
2 A. Well, it's a low-level position. It's not a very high managerial
3 position. If you have a look at the number of work posts above the post
4 of chief of department, you have several such work posts that are
5 higher-level work posts.
6 Q. You mention these positions somewhere else in your report. In
7 paragraph 354, which concerns the duties and authority of the special
8 advisor to the chief of the department, does the special advisor have the
9 ability to independently take decisions within the RDB?
10 A. Well, given the title of this post, you can see that it concerns
11 someone who advises the chief of the department. He advises the
12 highest-level managerial organs in the service, so therefore this means
13 that he doesn't take decisions on an independent basis, but assists the
14 chief to take decisions. He provides advice, but he shouldn't take
15 decisions on his own. Then he would be acting independently. He
16 wouldn't be an advisor.
17 Q. In paragraph 355 it says that there are six special advisors to
18 the chief of the RDB in accordance with the job specifications. Are the
19 special advisor positions allocated on the basis of certain fields within
20 the service?
21 A. Well, no. Not really, because this document specifies their
22 tasks in a general manner, but naturally these duties could be shared out
23 in an internal manner. But the rules didn't cover that. They were all
24 authorised to perform all the relevant duties, the tasks. The duties
25 weren't divided in any manner.
1 Q. In 356, in paragraph 356, it says that the special advisor also
2 had certain special-purpose resources for which the chief would
3 authorise -- give him authorisation. Who within the service had such
4 resources? What sort of resources are concerned? And for what purposes
5 were these resources used?
6 A. Well, the entire managerial team, mid-level and high-level
7 members of the managerial team, had certain resources, and these
8 resources were used to perform one's duties efficiently and to reward
9 associates. So they did not use these resources for themselves. These
10 resources could be allocated to ensure that the work was carried out
11 well, for example, to reward an associate. But all the teams at that
12 managerial level had such resources, had such possibilities.
13 Q. I'm now moving away from what these paragraphs deal with, and I'd
14 like you to provide me a -- a brief answer to the following: When
15 intercepting enemy communications and gathering intelligence outside
16 Serbia, or when establishing communications with intelligence centres
17 outside of Serbia, what sort of category of intelligence work would such
18 activities be placed in?
19 A. In intelligence offensive work or intelligence counter -- or
20 offensive counter-intelligence work.
21 Q. Could you briefly make a distinction between offensive
22 intelligence work and offensive counter-intelligence work?
23 A. Offensive counter-intelligence [as interpreted] work involves
24 gathering intelligence in foreign countries or about foreign countries or
25 about foreign subjects abroad. The purpose is to discover their secrets
1 and to inform the political leadership of their secrets. So this is a
2 manner of discovering enemy secrets. But offensive counter-intelligence
3 work is part of that activity and only relates to the forces and means
4 that a foreign country uses to obtain intelligence of ones -- regard --
5 relating to one's home country. So one tries to discover who the
6 associates are of foreign intelligence services. One tries to discover
7 to what extent and how they managed to infiltrate our intelligence
8 service. Offensive counter-intelligence work always yielded the best
9 results. So it's -- the best thing is to have an associate in a foreign
10 intelligence service who will obtain information, so this has been proven
11 to be the case on numerous occasions. And this is a system that has
12 always applied whenever possible.
13 Q. [No interpretation]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, Mr. Petrovic, reading the answer, you
15 asked the witness to make a distinction between "offensive intelligence
16 work" and "offensive counter-intelligence work." The answer reads
17 offensive counter-intelligence work involves ..." and then it's described
18 what is involved. And then it continues: "... but offensive
19 counter-intelligence work is part of that activity," which is not very
20 clear and is not distinguishing between what you asked the witness.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Your Honour, at the
22 beginning of the answer, it should say "offensive intelligence" not
23 "offensive counter-intelligence." That is at page 59, line 3.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
25 The interpretation has been corrected and my question is
1 therefore moot.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Milosevic, let's please have a look at paragraph 363 now, in
5 your report. Could you first tell us whether something is missing in the
6 text. Here it says during that period his superiors were the assistant
7 chief of the sector, the chief of the sector, the chief of the USDB for
8 Belgrade, the chief of the RSUP of Serbia, and the republican secretary
9 of the interior. Is there anything that is missing here in this list of
10 those who were superior to Simatovic from 1986 to 1990?
11 A. The assistants and deputies are missing. The assistant chief,
12 the deputy chief of the USDB for Belgrade. Here it says the chief of the
13 RSUP of SR Serbia; it should say the chief of the RSDB of the SR Serbia.
14 That concerns the chief of the service. So his assistant and deputy are
15 missing, and then there's the chief of service, and then the minister.
16 So there were seven other positions. I am not sure whether I have
17 counted them correctly. I can count them again for the sake of the
18 transcript, if necessary.
19 Q. Be so kind as to do that. In the first period, from 1986 to
20 1990, which positions were above the position that Franko Simatovic held?
21 A. So, there was the assistant chief of the USDB for Belgrade, there
22 was the deputy chief of the USDB for Belgrade, there was the assistant
23 chief of the RDB of the SUP, and there was the deputy chief.
24 Q. And then?
25 A. Well, there was the chief of the RSUP -- I'll repeat this again.
1 First of all, he had the assistant to the chief of the sector. And then
2 there was the chief of the sector. That's the second position. Then
3 there was the assistant who covered that field in the USDB, the assistant
4 chief. And then there was the deputy chief of the USDB. And then the
5 chief of the USDB. Then the assistant of the chief of the RDB. We had
6 the RDB. Then the deputy chief of the RDB. And then it says the chief
7 of the RSUP of SR Serbia. It should say "the chief of the RDB of
8 SR Serbia." And then there was the minister, the republican secretary
9 for internal affairs. That was the title at the time.
10 Q. Mr. Milosevic, we should now look at paragraph 364 relating to
11 the duties and responsibilities of the head of section, which is the
12 position occupied by Simatovic from 1990 to 1992. Since there are
13 inconsistencies in the text itself, could you please, starting from "head
14 of group" until "republic secretary," enumerate, slowly, the levels above
15 "head of group" for the record.
16 A. Relative to the head of group, there was assistant chief of
17 sector, because the group is part of the sector, although already in this
18 paragraph they talk about "section," but it's the same thing. So head of
19 group. Then assistant chief of sector. Then chief of sector. Then
20 assistant chief of the administration of the SDB for Belgrade. Then
21 deputy -- I apologise.
22 Q. From the beginning, please. Explain slowly. The interpreters
23 can really not follow the speed at which you speak.
24 A. So the first level above the chief of section, his first
25 immediate superior, is assistant chief of sector. The next level is
1 chief of sector. The next level is assistant chief of the department of
2 state security for Belgrade. The next level is deputy chief of the
3 administration of state security for Belgrade. The next level is chief
4 of the administration of state security for Belgrade. The next level is
5 assistant chief of the State Security Service, at the republic level.
6 The next level is deputy chief of the State Security Service, and above
7 him is the chief of the State Security Service. And the last, the
8 highest one, is the republic secretary for internal affairs, which means
9 the minister.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Could we now look at paragraph 365.
11 It refers to the position of deputy chief of the administration. It says
12 he did not run the service independently, except in the absence of the
13 chief. You have reviewed the personnel file of Mr. Simatovic. While he
14 was deputy chief, was there all the time a chief of administration -- of
15 the 2nd Administration of the RDB all the time?
16 A. Yes, there was. There was the chief of administration. In fact,
17 there were two chiefs of that administration within that period. Do I
18 need to name them?
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. We can see that in paragraph 370 of
20 your report. I should now like to ask you to tell us about the deputy
21 chief. How many levels were above him, that is to say, between him and
22 the minister, at the time when Simatovic was deputy chief of the
23 2nd Administration?
24 A. Could you repeat the question again, for the record, so I answer
1 Q. So, at the time when Simatovic was deputy chief of his
2 administration, how many levels of management were between him and the
3 minister of the interior? Just list the positions, and we'll count them
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, we are now talking about levels, levels,
6 levels. Is there any dispute about the organigram of who was in a higher
7 hierarchical position, which doesn't answer any question on -- on who did
8 what, but about hierarchy organigram structure?
9 MS. MARCUS: No dispute, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you have kept us busy now for five to
11 ten minutes on a matter which is not in dispute. And apart from that
12 is -- I mean, five levels, what is still missing is to see where someone
13 is in the organisation apart from looking what is still above him. You
14 should also look at what is beneath him so that you ... but there is no
15 dispute about that.
16 What are we doing? I mean, you have a report. It says what the
17 position of Mr. Simatovic was. There's no dispute about the hierarchical
18 structure, how many positions were above him. So why do we have to
19 listen to all that?
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I agree with you
21 completely --
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... then please move on.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] -- we all remember the
24 instructions -- just one sentence, please. We all remember the
25 instructions from the Trial Chamber to indicate which parts of the report
1 were not in dispute. Unfortunately, we never agreed about this. That is
2 why this remained unclear, but I'm moving on.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But this is not part of the report. What you are
4 eliciting is evidence which goes beyond what is found in the report, and
5 apparently there is no dispute about that. I do not know how intensive
6 the negotiations have been on all these levels, whether you ever
7 discussed it.
8 I'm looking at you -- I'm looking at you, Ms. Marcus. Was the
9 number of levels ever discussed to seek an agreement on that?
10 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour. We didn't discuss it specifically.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. And there's no dispute. It's not even worth
12 discussing. And we are kept busy with it for I don't know exactly how
13 many minutes, but please proceed.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I am
15 going to conclude very soon.
16 Q. In paragraph 366, you write Franko Simatovic, speaking of his
17 position of deputy chief of 2nd Administration, you say he had a pretty
18 lowly position or a relatively low position. Why do you designate it as
19 relatively low?
20 A. Because there were several more positions above that.
21 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 369. In fact, before that, let me ask you
22 this: Was it possible that somebody holds two jobs in the service at the
23 same time; for instance, special advisor and deputy chief of
25 A. As a rule, its completely impossible for anyone to cover two jobs
1 at the same time because they would have two letters of appointment, two
2 salaries. They would have to pay double contributions for pension and
3 other benefits, et cetera. That is absolutely impossible under the Law
4 on State Administration.
5 Q. Mr. Milosevic, in the documents you reviewed out of the personnel
6 file of Mr. Simatovic, did you ever find an appointment of Mr. Simatovic
7 as chief of the personnel administration of RDB?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Let's move to paragraph 372. In that paragraph --
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my question on
11 page 65, line 8, refers to personnel administration and Simatovic as its
12 chief, whereas I was asking about the personnel file of Mr. Simatovic,
13 and the position involved was chief of the 2nd Administration.
14 Q. We are coming back to paragraph 372. Here, in the context of the
15 establishment of the unit for anti-terrorist actions, you refer to the
16 decision of the minister of the interior to establish special units of
17 the police. Why is this decision of the minister to set up special units
18 of the police important in the context of the JATD?
19 A. It preceded the establishment of the unit for anti-terrorist
20 action. The situation was that by his legal authority the minister of
21 the interior formed special units of the police. As we see here, the
22 strength was 15 detachments, and he filled them - among others - with
23 members of the police and the reserve force of the ministry. That was
24 happening in 1991.
25 Q. When drawing up your report, did you have at your disposal any
1 documents relating to the establishment of the unit for anti-terrorist
2 action JATD, or did you make your conclusions about the establishment of
3 this unit in some other ways?
4 A. I had to draw my conclusions in a round-about way, because I did
5 not see the decision to establish the JATD specifically. Rather, based
6 on personnel files and other decisions, including letters of appointments
7 and assignment and the payrolls, I reconstructed the moment when they
8 were established.
9 Q. Could we now look at P3039. This document provides a few
10 examples, or, rather, samples, bearing purportedly Simatovic's signature
11 taken from several lists of per diem payments, and it is not in dispute
12 that it says "deputy commander of JATD," and Simatovic puts his initials
13 and writes: "On behalf of the commander of the JATD." On behalf of the
14 commander. The parties agree that it is not in controversy; that it says
15 "deputy commander," in fact.
16 For what reason and in what circumstances does one put this
17 addition "za" before a signature?
18 A. When a person other than the one indicated in the typewritten
19 signature is signing. If that person whose name is typewritten is not in
20 a position to sign himself, then somebody else is signing for him.
21 Q. If Simatovic had been deputy commander of the JATD, would it have
22 been necessary to put "za," meaning "for"?
23 A. Certainly not. When somebody is higher in rank in hierarchy, he
24 would sign himself, and he certainly wouldn't need the word "for." This
25 happens only when somebody of lower rank is signing, even in normal
1 office work. Of course, I have to state the reservation that I'm not an
2 expert in signatures. I'm just trying to answer your question.
3 Q. I'm certainly not asking you about facts, Mr. Milosevic, just
4 about the practice and the procedure regarding the signing of documents
5 in the service and in state administration generally. My question was,
6 since it's not very clear in the record: If Simatovic had been the
7 commander of JATD, would he be signing with this word "za" any document?
8 A. No, he wouldn't.
9 Q. Thank you. This is my last question. Look at paragraph 378
10 dealing with the JSO as a separate organisational unit within the
11 department. According to what you have seen, was JATD also a separate
12 organisational unit within the RDB?
13 A. Am I waiting for something or should I answer?
14 Q. I'm going to repeat. What is the status of the JATD in the state
15 security department?
16 A. It's a special organisational unit.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
20 Mr. Milosevic. But I would request that the report drafted by
21 Mr. Milosevic be admitted into evidence as well as the annexes to that
22 report, and I would also request that the documents on the basis of which
23 this report was drafted also be admitted. And they have been referred to
24 in the footnotes of the report. This obviously concerns only the
25 documents that haven't already been admitted in this case.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have a list of those? Or ...
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Your Honour, no, we
3 don't have such a list, but we will compile such a list. I apologise for
4 that. And this is the best approach that you have suggested, and we
5 omitted to do this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Otherwise the Chamber or the Registrar would have to
7 go through all the footnotes, find out where the doubles are, find out
8 what is already admitted into evidence. That seems not to be the right
9 approach. We are waiting for your list.
10 As far as the admission of the report is concerned, any ...
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 Perhaps the report could be MFI'd. I'd like to have the
13 opportunity to express our position at the tail-end of the witness's
14 testimony. So if it could be MFI'd for now, that would be appreciated.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: We take no position. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then the report itself, Madam Registrar, do you have
18 the -- yes, you have the number. It would receive what exhibit number or
19 what number to be MFI'd?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Report number 2D913.1 will receive number D795,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
23 Before we continue, could I ask one question seeking
24 clarification of an answer of the witness.
25 In relation to P1079, do you remember that you have seen a
1 document in which it was described that Arkan had killed a volunteer and
2 that it said that the SUP organs established that the volunteer, which
3 was mentioned by name, that the volunteer was being provided with medical
4 treatment? Do you remember that question? Do you remember the document?
5 Otherwise we'll ask it to be on the screen. It's P1079, if I'm not
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember that document,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then I read part of your answer as it has been put
10 on the record now. You said:
11 "As I said yesterday," and you were referring to the raw
12 information, "he can't change or alter anything in any way. But after
13 that stage in the second part, he stands back a bit ..."
14 And you have the document, and I think we need this second page.
15 At least in English.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the document is under seal. I should have
18 remembered that. You said:
19 "... after that ... he stands back a bit because the information
20 has been partially checked. He partially checked some of the information
21 that he obtained. And he determined that with respect to one piece of
22 the information provided -- well, that information was quite simply
24 If you were referring to that person by the name of Kedo being
25 killed by Arkan, then I'm surprised if you would have said that
1 information was quite simply true, because from what follows one would be
2 more inclined to conclude that it was untrue that he was killed. Could
3 you clarify this? Or is it a mistake in translation or transcript?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a mistake in interpretation
5 and in the transcript. It should say it was determined to be untrue,
6 "false," not "true." So checks were carried out, verifications were
7 made, and it proved to be untrue. This was done in security organs. The
8 technology is the same. So it was proved to be false. Something was
9 partially checked and proved to be incorrect, and others things were
10 being checked. So this report consists of two parts.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you -- first of all, do you know whether
12 Mr. Kedo was killed by Arkan or not or whether he survived these days
13 when they were sent to -- I think it was to Erdut? Do you have any
14 knowledge about it?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I know nothing about that. I'm
16 just commenting on what I have read here. I have never heard that name
17 before. I was speaking about the procedure, the technology involved in
18 drafting a report. Not about that particular case.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So whether the verification of the death was
20 untrue or whether the report of the death was untrue, you couldn't tell
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I know absolutely nothing
23 about this case. I was just mentioning this case as an example to show
24 how one indicates that some information has been checked and other
25 information hasn't.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So either the information is wrong or it has not
2 been checked adequately and the verification is wrong. Either of the
3 two, because it's contradicting information.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have already said, this report
5 wasn't drafted as it should have been. The first part of the information
6 is separated by the second part by a break, by nothing else. So the
7 agent should have indicated that there was a note he wanted to make. The
8 last part of the information of the report, the last two paragraphs,
9 would then have been completely clear, and there would have been a clear
10 distinction between the part where the initial raw information was
11 provided and the part where the agent expressed his opinion formed on the
12 basis of the information he obtained from his source.
13 So there is only a break here that makes a distinction between
14 these parts. Nowhere does it say that the agent is noting that there is
15 an important distinction to be made.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I'm asking you this question because the
17 matter had been raised with Mr. Theunens at the time, Mr. Bakrac, and
18 there we made a clear distinction between what the report says and what
19 the witness can tell us. It is clear that there is contradicting
20 information in this report. But the conclusion that the information is
21 false - and would you agree with me? - depends on the accuracy of the
23 If the statement of the organs of the Ruma SUP are correct, the
24 information was false. If this statement of the Ruma SUP was not
25 accurate, the original information may be true and may not be true.
1 Would you agree with that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know if I have
3 understood you correctly. In any event, this information, given the way
4 the information was obtained -- well, the information was obtained in the
5 way that it was -- it was conveyed in the way it was obtained. An agent
6 carried out additional verifications through certain individuals and
7 established that it was false, so perhaps those individual lied. I know
8 nothing about the case. I was just talking about the processes, the
9 technological process involved. I'm not a factual witness here.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I take it from your answer that you agree with my
11 analysis that if the verification is not true, if that's a lie, then the
12 initial information is not necessarily true but could be true or could be
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Ms. Marcus, we have only a couple of
16 minutes left. If you have a few questions to start with, then we could
17 use those seven minutes. If you think that you cannot start with a small
18 subject, then we would leave it until tomorrow.
19 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I would be happy to wait until tomorrow
20 but I could -- I could -- I do have a few questions. It's entirely in
21 Your Honours's hands. I would also ask, perhaps, if the witness would
22 prefer, I could take the binders. If he's finished with the binders that
23 we gave to him, I could take them. I'll hold them here and if he needs
24 to look at them during the testimony, that's fine. It's both for his
25 convenience as well as for security reasons generally, because many of
1 them are confidential.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have you been able to go through the binders?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. I brought them with me,
4 but I didn't know how to return them. I have them here by my side. I
5 went through them. The official could take charge of them, I think.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would give it to the usher that would
7 then return it to Ms. Marcus. And if you at any moment need to consult
8 her tomorrow during your further cross-examination, Ms. Marcus will
9 provide it to you.
10 Mr. Usher, could you please assist.
11 Ms. Marcus, if you have a few questions, please start.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:
14 Q. Mr. Milosevic, if you don't understand or can't hear me clearly
15 at any point, please just let me know.
16 A. Very well.
17 Q. You testified yesterday that you never attended a collegium, that
18 it was impossible for you to receive operative reports, that you did not
19 have any professional contact of any kind with Mr. Stanisic or
20 Mr. Simatovic, that you did not know anything about the professional
21 tasks or duties of Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Simatovic in 1991 or 1992, and
22 that you did not have a lot of contact with Prodanic, the head of the
23 8th Administration. So you are not an expert on the actual activities of
24 the DB in 1991 or 1992; would that be accurate?
25 A. I don't know how I should understand your question. I'm not a
1 factual witness. I can't testify about what happened at the time, about
2 what they did or about what anyone did. I've testified here on the basis
3 of an expert report that I compiled. I think you fully understand the
4 distinction to be made, so I would not agree with your statement. That
5 would also be the case if I had never worked in the service, but
6 naturally it's better if someone worked in the service. But my expert
7 report is not based on any personal experience. Otherwise I wouldn't be
8 an expert witness, I would be a factual witness.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think, Ms. Marcus, is that what you meant to say,
10 that when you said "you are not an expert on the actual activities of the
11 DB," that you wanted to ask the witness whether he could testify as a
12 witness of fact on the activities developed in the DB in 1991 or 1992?
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think matters are clear.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. And just to make sure that we understand this clearly: Since my
18 question only pertained to 1991 and 1992 - because that was what you
19 testified to yesterday - I wanted to ask you about the latter period.
20 Would the same -- would your same position apply to the latter period
21 relevant to the indictment, that would be 1993 to 1995. During that
22 period as well, isn't it the case, then, that you do not have any factual
23 information on the actual activities of Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Simatovic
24 during that latter time-period?
25 A. That's correct. There's no difference.
1 Q. Now, the title of your report is "Study on the Discharge" - that,
2 I think, is "vrsenje" in B/C/S - "of Internal Affairs and on the State
3 Security System." This title strongly suggests that you will be studying
4 and analysing how the DB actually discharged its duties, not only what
5 the duties were pursuant to the rules and regulations which would have
6 been applicable.
7 Since you've testified that your task was actually purely to rely
8 on the laws, rules, and regulations rather than on how those duties and
9 rules were actually carried out in fact, it wasn't quite accurate to say
10 that your study was on the discharge of internal affairs, was it?
11 A. I wouldn't agree with you. In the Serbian language we don't have
12 a more adequate term to describe what is contained in the analysis. In
13 fact, our language is poor. There is not a good term for this. But I
14 think that we understand each other. The duties of the service are
15 carried out on the basis of the rules mentioned. It can't be done
16 otherwise, for acting in another manner would be a violation of the
17 rules. So it's not possible to find a more adequate term in the Serbian
18 language to refer to what I have been testifying about. But if there is
19 another term, I would accept it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, we'll have to adjourn for the day.
21 I should not forget, Mr. Milosevic, to instruct you that you
22 should not speak to anyone about your testimony, whether already given or
23 still to be given, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow in the
24 afternoon. We adjourn until Thursday, the 3rd of May, quarter past
25 2.00 - Courtroom II - in the afternoon.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 3rd day
4 of May, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.