1 Thursday, 3 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
10 and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Before we continue, a few procedural matters.
13 Mr. Jordash, the scheduling on the 14th of May in the afternoon
14 is definitive, but I hate that I have to say this. And before you take
15 very drastic steps for yourself, the scheduling is there, but if it would
16 turn out that we would have only one witness that week, we might consider
17 to start at 4.00. So much on what actually will happen on the 14th
18 depends very much on the presentation of evidence, and if that would
19 leave sufficient room -- I mean, we would not risk a witness not being
20 able to leave before the weekend, et cetera, but if there is a commitment
21 of the parties and if there is a clear and realistic expectation that
22 even without the first two hours in that afternoon we -- we would not
23 lose anything, then, of course, we would seriously consider that.
24 So therefore, perhaps, you speak about the matters with
25 Mr. Bakrac as well. We are trying to accommodate you to the extent
1 possible, and we'll be very flexible, but Monday afternoon is the
2 scheduled court session.
3 MR. JORDASH: I'm grateful for the flexibility. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Then, Mr. Petrovic, as far as the attachments to the report of
6 Mr. Milosevic are concerned, you've used them. Could you include them in
7 the list, at least to the extent you've used them, of source documents so
8 that they receive a number as well, because in e-court they are not part
9 of the report itself.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We'll do that, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Then, Mr. Milosevic, we'll continue. I first would like to
13 remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've
14 given at the beginning of your testimony. And when I now invite
15 Ms. Marcus to proceed, I also -- what I have again forgotten yesterday is
16 to introduce Ms. Marcus as counsel for the Prosecution. But again, being
17 a specialist in criminal procedure, you would have noted already that
18 Ms. Marcus was a member of the prosecutorial team in this case.
19 Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 WITNESS: Milan Milosevic [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpretation]
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Yesterday you told us that you chose to title your report
2 "Discharge of Internal Affairs" because the Serbian language does not
3 provide for another option which would better describe the nature of your
4 study. I would say that a simple title such as "Study of the Rules and
5 Structures of Internal Affairs" might have done the trick, but you are
6 the author, not I. However, I note that throughout your report you
7 continually use terminology which describes not only the applicable
8 rules, laws, and regulations, but which denotes the application of those
9 rules, laws, and regulations. There are scores of examples. To name
10 very few, in paragraph 199 you state that:
11 "The overall financial operations of the RSUP MUP were transacted
12 in the framework of the joint financial service."
13 In paragraph 202:
14 "In accordance with the instructions, the SDB special expenditure
15 resources were used for," and then you say what they were used for.
16 In paragraph 228, you state:
17 "The chief and the leadership of the service department, in the
18 framework of exercising their managerial function, were informed of all
19 the more important primary documents stemming from the operative work of
20 the SDB RDB."
21 You do use conditional language in many places. But in others
22 you chose to use quite concrete and unequivocal terminology. So what --
23 so that we understand what you are saying about these assertions in your
24 report, any time you use terminology in your report which states that
25 something was carried out or records were kept, rules were applied, all
1 of this we should understand to mean that if the applicable rules had
2 been applied, then this would have been the factual result. But you have
3 absolutely no information about whether or not these applicable rules
4 were, in fact, applied.
5 Is that a correct understanding?
6 A. Well, I think the report I provided is quite clear and explicit,
7 and I will leave it to the Chamber to decide about the matter. I don't
8 know how I could now supplement my testimony. Everything contained in
9 this report is quite explicit, and I'll leave the matter in the hands of
10 the Chamber.
11 I'll repeat what I said yesterday, and that is that there were
12 rules of service that were in existence and it was necessary to strictly
13 adhere to all the rules. Failing to do so would entail certain
14 consequences, and therefore I don't know what else I could add.
15 Q. In paragraph 9 of your report, you state that:
16 "This methodological approach in the expert report, based on the
17 relevant documents ..."
18 You said yesterday that you inspected "personnel files and other
19 decisions including letters of appointments and assignment and the
20 payrolls." Did you have direct access to internal DB documentation in
21 preparation of your report?
22 A. What documentation do you actually have in mind? I'm not sure
23 that I have understood your question. What specific documentation do you
24 have in mind?
25 Q. I'm sure some of my questions will use lay terminology that may
1 not be the official terminology. Please bear with me; I'll do my best.
2 You mentioned, I believe, personnel files, other decisions, including
3 letters of appointments and assignment and the payrolls. I'm trying to
4 determine exactly what those materials were and how you obtained access
5 to them.
6 A. What we're dealing with are a certain number of decisions on
7 appointments and a certain number of decision on salaries. When someone
8 is assigned to a certain work position, then that person is provided with
9 a decision on the salary and on that position. I had access to such
10 decisions that related to some of the staff members of the anti-terrorist
11 unit. I'm not certain that I saw all the decisions, but I used all the
12 documents I received from the Defence.
13 As for Franko Simatovic's case, well, naturally what I received
14 were photocopies, not originals. I received a photocopy or photocopies
15 of the documents that were contained in his personnel file. And
16 naturally I also examined documents that concerned certain payments made
17 and they were documents that had been assigned, but the key documents for
18 me were documents that concerned individual members of the anti-terrorist
19 unit, because it was on that basis that I established the date of the
20 creation of that unit, because that document officially created the unit.
21 That was in mid-1993, as I have already said. I said yesterday that I
22 haven't seen the original of that document. But I don't think that there
23 is anything that is in dispute here.
24 Q. Thank you. We will return to that issue. I will return to ask
25 you questions about that a bit later.
1 The materials that you say you reviewed, and you said that you
2 "used all the documents I received from the Defence." So all the
3 materials that are these internal DB documents were documents that you
4 received from the Defence; in other words, you didn't obtain access
5 yourself directly through the Serbian authorities to additional
6 documentation. Do I understand that correctly?
7 A. Well, some of the documents that are state secrets are not
8 documents that I could have requested access to. I believe that you'll
9 understand that that quite simply wasn't possible. Naturally, I had
10 certain documents at my disposal as a researcher, but these documents
11 aren't confidential. All the documents that concern the RDB were there,
12 were included, and all other documents that I could find were documents I
13 used to draft this report. I can produce a list of the literature I
14 used, if you like. I was involved in all the details. But as far as
15 other documents are concerned, the rules on the organisation and work and
16 on jobs specifications, well, these are state secrets, so I could not
17 have such documents. I could not have access to such documents because
18 in order to have access to such documents I would have had to break the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I intervene. There was a certain category of
21 documents Ms. Marcus referred to and which you mentioned yesterday. The
22 question of Ms. Marcus was whether those documents, that is,
23 appointments, personnel files, et cetera, whether you received those
24 documents exclusively from the Defence or whether you received them also
25 from official sources. And what would violate the law and what not,
1 Ms. Marcus is interested in the facts.
2 Did you receive any of the documents falling in that category
3 from anyone else than from the Defence?
4 That's the question, I think, Ms. Marcus.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please try to briefly answer that
7 question. And not what would have happened if you had asked for other
8 things, just what happened.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 The documents that concern the personnel file of Franko Simatovic
11 and that concerned decisions on salaries and assignments of various
12 members of the anti-terrorist units are documents that I received from
13 the Defence, but I have absolutely no doubts as to their authenticity,
14 since the documents are photocopies.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, sometimes photocopies are not always
16 authentic, but that's not yet in the question of Ms. Marcus. There may
17 be other issues as selectivity, et cetera. But Ms. Marcus -- listen
18 carefully to her next question and try to focus very much on what she
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Milosevic, apart from those documents that you actually cited
22 in your report, and apart from the bibliography which you produced for us
23 as well, could you produce for us a list of the documentation that you
24 consulted in preparation of your report that would include all the
25 documents that the Defence asked you -- the Defence provided to you and
1 which you consulted in preparing your report but which we can't find
2 cited in your report. Essentially, those are source -- that's source
3 material for your report which we don't have. Could you provide that
4 list to us if we asked you to do that?
5 A. There's a list of the bibliography of the books that I used and
6 of other secondary material, but there are no other documents. I don't
7 know what you have in mind, exactly. I don't know how I would compile
8 such a list. I have provided everything, and everything has been
9 referenced. If you like, I can go through the material once more, but I
10 really don't understand what you have in mind.
11 Q. Apart from the personnel file of Mr. Simatovic, which other
12 documents from personnel files, letters of appointment, et cetera, were
13 you provided with by the Simatovic Defence?
14 A. Well, there were decisions that concerned Milan Radonjic and so
15 on and so forth. If necessary, I can provide you with a precise list.
16 These are standard things. It's just a matter of a sort of textbook
17 example that's provided.
18 Q. I would, in fact, appreciate if you could at some point -- I
19 don't know how soon you think you could produce that list. With leave of
20 the Chamber, I would request if you could put together that list, the
21 decisions. You said "decisions that concerned Milan Radonjic and so on
22 and so forth." And you mentioned -- you refer to some additional
23 documents of that kind which are not in your bibliography and which are
24 not footnoted in your report. If you could prepare a list for us at some
25 point and provide that, I would very much appreciate that.
1 MS. MARCUS: With the Chamber's leave.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Are you willing to prepare such a list,
3 Mr. Milosevic?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, in
5 the previous version, before the redactions, there was a detailed list of
6 the bibliography. It's not included in the list that the Chamber now has
7 before it. We could, perhaps, provide the Chamber and our colleagues
8 with the original list. In fact, our colleagues from the Prosecution
9 have had it for several months now, but we could provide you with the
10 original list prior to these redactions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus --
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- have you looked at the previous version and have
14 you looked at whether a list attached or contained in that would help you
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I will have a look at that again. We
17 have looked at it.
18 Can I just understand my colleague Mr. Petrovic: Does that mean
19 that every document that was provided by the Simatovic Defence to the
20 witness in preparation of the report would be contained in that
21 bibliography? Is that my understanding?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's a list of the
23 bibliography that was compiled by Mr. Milosevic. It's his list, his
24 bibliography, and it consists of several pages, of about ten pages if I
25 remember this correctly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. But the question is whether
2 it contains all the material that you have provided to Mr. Milosevic.
3 That was the question. If you don't know, please tell us. If you do
4 know -- or --
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have to have
6 another look at that list and then provide you with a precise answer.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
8 Mr. Milosevic, in an earlier version of your report, the
9 bibliography was far broader, as I understand. In that bibliography of
10 the previous version, had you included a reference to every single
11 document you received from the Simatovic Defence, or would we not find a
12 reference to each and every of those documents?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd have to have a look at it to be
14 able to provide you with a precise answer. I provided a very extensive
15 bibliography, and for certain reasons it was not included. And in that
16 bibliography you can see all the sources that I availed myself of, but I
17 would have to have a look at it again.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because even if you did not use certain
19 documents, you may have received them, you may have considered them, and
20 then not used them.
21 I take it, Ms. Marcus, that that's part of what you would like to
22 know as well.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Would you be willing - I'm talking in the -- would
25 you be willing if Ms. Marcus, after having reviewed your bibliography
1 attached to your previous version of the report, would you be willing to
2 make such a list? What Ms. Marcus wants to know is exactly what material
3 you received from the Simatovic Defence. That's what she's -- what she
4 would like to know.
5 I don't know whether you're able, whether you have written it
6 down for yourself anywhere; so, on that I received A, B, C, D, E, because
7 if you don't have that written down, then it might be problematic to
8 produce such a list.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. At this point in time it's
10 practically impossible, but I can cite the material that I took into
11 consideration. But I didn't use all the material I had because there are
12 these documents, for example, on appointments and there are quite a lot
13 of such decisions. It would be absolutely pointless to reference each of
14 those decisions. But if you like, I can try to do so. I can't do this
15 off the top of my head, though. That's impossible.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I'll leave it for the time being in your
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. And just to clarify, for you, Mr. Milosevic: In your
21 bibliography, which is on page 116 of your original report, all that is
22 there are the constitutions, laws, sub-laws, monographs, studies, text
23 books, and articles. There is no DB documentation listed there. So to
24 the extent you are able to piece together as much of a list as possible,
25 the documents pertaining to Milan Radonjic which you just referred to for
1 example, I would very much appreciate that. Now I'll continue.
2 I would think that with your professional background and your
3 experience you would be following this case with great interest. Have
4 you seen the indictment against Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic?
5 A. As far as I know, there were several indictments. The indictment
6 was amended, wasn't it? I don't know which one you have in mind. I only
7 read the third amended indictment, the last one. I didn't read the
8 previous ones.
9 Q. So based upon your consulting the third amended indictment, which
10 is the operative indictment, you do know what the case is about. Would
11 you say that's accurate?
12 A. Yes, in general. But I didn't go into any of the details because
13 that is not the purpose of my presence here. As an expert witness, I am
14 completely neutral.
15 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up
16 Exhibit P2397, but not broadcast it to the public.
17 Q. What you will see before you in a moment, Mr. Milosevic, is a
18 decision on the appointment of Jovica Stanisic to the position of
19 assistant republican secretary of the interior, dated the
20 12th of June, 1990. It says in the first paragraph:
21 "Jovica Stanisic, assistant chief of the State Security Service
22 of the republican secretariat of the interior, is hereby appointed
23 assistant republican secretary of the interior."
24 If we understand this document correctly, Mr. Stanisic, by this
25 decision, was promoted to a higher position; is that correct?
1 A. No, that is not correct. Chief of state security was a position
2 that was at the same time the position of the assistant secretary for the
3 interior. I don't see how he would have been promoted. He shared
4 several positions at the time. That position was also the position of an
5 assistant secretary for the interior. He remained chief of service. He
6 never stopped being chief of service, if that was your question.
7 Q. Thank you, yes. And how did the position of assistant republican
8 secretary of the interior differ from the later position of assistant
9 republican minister of the interior?
10 A. I really don't know what the difference was. If he remained in
11 that position -- I'm afraid I don't understand your question. He
12 remained in the position as a chief of service of state security, which
13 later on became the state security department. I can consult my -- the
14 documents. I don't remember that I've ever stated that there was a
15 difference there.
16 Q. That's fine, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
17 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. I'm finished with this document.
18 Q. Now, in paragraph 28 of your report, you say:
19 "At the time of the constituting of FR Yugoslavia, the State
20 Security Service, in the federal secretariat of the interior, was
21 nominally organised as ten administrations and two independent
22 departments. However, as of October 1992, actually, and as of 2001 also
23 formally, the federal MUP no longer comprised state security organs."
24 The reason that as of October 1992 actually the federal MUP no
25 longer comprised state security organs, this was because of the Serbian
1 MUP take-over of the federal MUP which we discussed -- which you
2 discussed earlier; is that correct?
3 A. I've already explained in my testimony so far that at that moment
4 there were those administrations on paper, but they were completely
5 nonoperational. They existed only on paper, effectively. They didn't
6 have personnel. They were not active. It was a transitional period in
7 the state of chaos that reigned. I've already testified about that.
8 After that, the federal SUP was reorganised. Some administrations
9 remained. But when it comes to state security, everything, save for the
10 protection of individuals, everything was merged, as it were, with the
11 republican ministry of the interior. In other words, that ministry
12 didn't completely disappear. The state security didn't completely
13 disappear. Their activities were significantly reduced, as you will find
14 it stated in here.
15 Q. Mr. Milosevic, you have quite a lot of information, and I have
16 quite a lot of material to cover with you. I'm doing my best to ask
17 quite specific questions. If you would be so kind to please answer as
18 briefly as you can. If I'm asking for a further explanation or if the
19 Chamber would like further explanation, we will certainly ask you
20 follow-up questions.
21 Now, you make very brief mention of this take-over in the
22 one-sentence paragraph 29 of your report, and then you move on from
23 there. You provide no analysis, no assessment of the legality of the
24 circumstances, no presentation of the rules governing the take-over. You
25 did, as you said now, discuss the take-over during your testimony, and
1 you gave a few reasons for it. However, you explained it as some sort of
2 agreed-upon solution to a problem of office space and to "overcome the
3 problem of working on a double-track and duplication that had lead to a
4 lot of unnecessary costs." That's at transcript page 18836.
5 The take-over of the federal MUP by the republican MUP was
6 forcible, was it not?
7 A. Was your question about the take-over, and did you ask me if it
8 was forcible? You spoke quite at length and then you put a question to
9 me, and I'm just trying to make sure whether I understood the question
10 properly. Did you ask me if the take-over was forcible, and is that the
11 question that I'm supposed to answer?
12 Q. Yes, that was the question.
13 A. I can just give you my personal opinion. Personally I believe
14 that it wasn't forcible because all the employees continued working
15 there. No coercion was used against anybody. There was no force used.
16 To be more precise, I don't have information to the effect that the
17 process was forcible. I didn't find it anywhere in any of the literature
18 that I perused. There was no shooting. There was no force used. There
19 was no violence. I don't know.
20 Q. You present it as some sort of a merger or an agreement. And I'm
21 trying to ask you about the circumstances which were, in fact, not
22 pursuant to an agreement. Now, what happened later on may have permitted
23 you to go back and draw a conclusion based on what must have happened,
24 but that's exactly what I'm trying to ask you. This take-over was not
25 pursuant to the rules and it was not pursuant to an advanced arranged
1 agreement; isn't that correct?
2 A. I don't know. I can't answer the question.
3 Q. The take-over occurred late on a Sunday evening; isn't that
5 A. As far as I can remember, that's correct.
6 Q. What kind of a major organisation would carry out a merger on a
7 Sunday evening?
8 A. I believe that this was very leading.
9 JUDGE ORIE: In cross-examination leading questions are allowed,
10 but there is no need to comment on the question.
11 Please proceed and please answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I'm not
13 familiar with the rules here.
14 As far as your question is concerned, I can only share my
15 opinions as a citizen. I can give you my personal opinions. I've not
16 seen any documents about that, and I couldn't find what the nature and
17 the details of the process were in any of the documents of a more general
19 I really can't testify about that because I never studied this
21 MS. MARCUS: Could I request private session, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
23 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 MS. MARCUS:
21 Q. You did not directly take part in any high-level Serbian
22 government meetings where the reasons for the take-over were discussed,
23 did you?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. In fact, your comments as to the underlying reasons for the
1 take-over are based upon the laws and regulations and the resulting
2 structural changes; correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. So you deduced from the merger which later occurred what the
5 reasons for the take-over had originally been; is that right?
6 A. It's only logical. I was not aware of any other reason.
7 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P2993.
8 Q. Now, this take-over caused a degree of outrage in certain sectors
9 of the government, didn't it?
10 A. I don't know anything about that. This is the first time I hear
11 any such thing, from you.
12 Q. Well, what you see before you are minutes from the session of the
13 council for reconciliation of standpoints regarding state politics, held
14 just after the take-over on the 2nd of November, 1992.
15 MS. MARCUS: May I please have page 2 in both English and B/C/S.
16 Q. In attendance at this meeting - you can see those who attended;
17 I'll just name a few for the record - Prime Minister Milan Panic;
18 president of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic; chairman of the
19 Presidency of the Republic of Montenegro, Momir Bulatovic; federal
20 minister of internal affairs, Pavle Bulatovic; and a few others.
21 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 3 in both languages.
22 Q. Can I ask you, please, to read the paragraphs starting with,
23 "Further on during the session ..." And we will read it as well. Let us
24 know when you are finished, please.
25 A. I have completed reading the passage.
1 Q. This meeting describes the republican MUP blocking federal DB
2 employees from reaching their offices, taking over equipment,
3 documentation, registries, essentially rendering the work of the federal
4 DB impossible. This was not an insignificant event, was it?
5 A. I really don't know that things evolved that way, that people
6 were blocked. As far as I know, everybody turned up for work on the
7 following day. I accept documents of this kind at their face value. I
8 personally have no knowledge about that. But I'm sure it was a very
9 important event, but I'm not sure that things happened in the way that
10 they are described here. I was not there, so I can't say anything about
12 Q. The take-over itself was not provided for in any of the rules or
13 regulations, was it?
14 A. Things like that could not have been provided for. It was a
15 historical moment, one of its kind -- a kind. I don't know how it could
16 have been provided for. But even at that moment it was not understood
17 that something that was against the constitution or negative in any other
18 way. What is mentioned here are some financial problems that were
19 previously mentioned in the press, but I didn't know anything about that.
20 I was not a member of any high-top -- high-level leadership or I was not
21 in the top echelons of the government, so I can't say anything about
23 Q. In the following paragraph of your report, after you make very
24 brief mention of this event, you state that Zoran Sokolovic, the
25 republican minister of the interior, amended the rules on the internal
1 organisation of the DB. So essentially the republican MUP took over the
2 federal MUP building, kicked out the employees, seized all their
3 documents and equipment, lied to the public to cover this up, and then
4 within a few weeks changed the DB rules. Yet you did not consider this a
5 sufficiently significant event to discuss in your MUP expert report.
6 A. If that had been the case, if those people had been fired, why
7 would then the organisation of work be changed and why would have the
8 list of jobs expanded? And why would then those people have been allowed
9 to come back? I only know that the job specification was expanded after
10 that, and that's all I can testify about. I didn't participate in any of
11 that. I believed that one of the consequences of the take-over was the
12 enlargement of the job specifications. It really doesn't make sense for
13 the employees first to be fired and then asked to come back based on the
14 new job specification. It doesn't make too much sense.
15 Q. My question, Mr. Milosevic, specifically is: This is an example
16 of a violation of the rules, and in your report, which deals with the
17 rules, you gloss over what I think is clearly a very serious and
18 significant event which blatantly violated the standing rules. That is
19 my question to you. Why did you not expand upon this in your report? Is
20 it because you didn't know about it? You didn't know the details? Is
21 that what your evidence is?
22 A. I still don't know what regulations were breached. I didn't know
23 at the time what rules were violated, and that's why I did not refer to
24 that in my report. I did not pay too much attention to that because I
25 thought that it was a fact. I, however, spoke about one of the
1 consequences of the event and that was the passing a new book of rules.
2 Q. Okay. I'll leave it at that.
3 MS. MARCUS: I am done with this document, thank you.
4 Q. In paragraph 175, you state:
5 "Pursuant to Article 9 of the Law on Internal Affairs of the
6 Republic of Serbia, at the request of the National Assembly and the
7 president of the republic, the minister of the interior was required to
8 submit a report on the work of the Ministry of the Interior and on the
9 security situation in the republic, which also included the work of the
10 service department."
11 I'd like to ask you a few questions about this. I hope you won't
12 mind if I sit down for a little bit.
13 From the way this is unequivocally worded, much like in many
14 other places in your report, you appear to have direct knowledge or, at
15 least, you do not cite to any other source for this assertion, that this
16 report also included the work of the service department. Can I take it
17 from the way this is worded that according to your evidence such reports
18 were, in fact, provided by the minister of the interior to the
19 National Assembly and to the president of the republic containing
20 information on the work of the service? Is that your evidence?
21 A. I really don't understand what's in dispute in this statement.
22 This is based on Article 9 on the internal affairs of the Republic of
23 Serbia. Pursuant to that article, it says explicitly in that article
24 that the Ministry of Interior is duty-bound to report on the work of the
25 Ministry of the Interior. Since the state security department was one
1 part of the Ministry of the Interior as well as the public security, it
2 was implied that that would be comprised within that rule. It was a
3 legal obligation of the Ministry of the Interior. And if the Ministry of
4 Interior violated the law and didn't do that, I don't know. What I'm
5 saying here is that that was his obligation. He was duty-bound to report
6 to the general assembly, to the National Assembly, at its request.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave.
9 With your leave I believe that perhaps we could see this article in the
10 law to make a clear distinction between what is written in the law and
11 what my learned friend is implying that is the expert's personal
12 experience and his personal position. If we have an opportunity to look
13 at the wording of that article of the law, I'm sure that everything
14 which -- will be much clearer to us.
15 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I'm asking the witness about
18 assertions in the report, and I -- Mr. Petrovic is more than welcome to
19 put the rules, the law, to the witness on re-examination, but at the
20 moment I want to ask the witness about what he says in his report about
21 this. If he has no personal knowledge, he will clarify that for us.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, apparently Ms. Marcus is not inclined
23 to follow your suggestion, but she rightly pointed out that if you want
24 to deal with it, Article 9, that you have an opportunity to do so on
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours,
2 just one sentence, if I may.
3 When my learned friend puts this type of questions in the future,
4 could she then be very clear and say what part of the expert report
5 refers to the rule and, on the other hand, what has been made a part of
6 the report as a personal experience? And that will make things easier
7 and we will then be able to shed more light on the matter during
9 JUDGE ORIE: I --
10 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I put -- sorry.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
12 MS. MARCUS: I put to the witness the exact part that I was
13 quoting. It's paragraph 175. I quoted the whole paragraph. It's
14 verbatim what the witness says, and it's a question about what the
15 witness said and the assertion which -- in which, I submit, it is
16 entirely unclear whether his words, which also included, are based on
17 what the rule says or what he knows to be true, and I'm going to ask him
18 in my questions whether he can clarify what comes from the rule and what
19 comes from other information he has. He's already answered that, and my
20 next question will delve into that more. I'm sure that it will be very
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
23 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
24 Q. So if I understand you correctly, you've heard our discussion.
25 You do not have any direct information about whether these provisions
1 were actually enforced and observed. You just know that the rules
2 provided for such. Is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Now, who would have had the final decision as to what information
5 from within the service would have been included in these reports?
6 A. The minister of the interior.
7 Q. If the president of the republic or the National Assembly found
8 the information to be lacking in the report provided by the minister of
9 the interior, did they have the authority to instruct the head of the DB
10 to provide additional information?
11 A. I am not sure if we understand each other. I -- I'm -- I believe
12 that we have some terminology issues. When it comes to reporting, we're
13 talking about periodical reporting every six months or every year, and
14 those reports provided information to the superior bodies about the work
15 of the service. This is a lengthy report that was usually sent to the
16 National Assembly, and it was reviewed by one of the committees of the
17 National Assembly.
18 I believe that -- or perhaps you're talking about some interim
19 reports, some reports that were not regular. And this is Article 9, the
20 meaning of Article 9, that the ministry is duty-bound to report to the
21 National Assembly, and within that report the DB service provides input,
22 and all that is merged within one report. And it was a matter of
23 routine. I don't think that any of those reports called for additional
24 information. It was a matter of routine.
25 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I've listened very carefully to your response, and
1 I don't -- I still don't see what was wrong with my question. The -- I
2 understand that they were periodical reports. I understand that it was
3 routine. My question was about -- was: If the president of the republic
4 or the National Assembly found the information to be lacking, did they
5 have the authority to instruct the head of the DB to provide additional
6 information? That was my question. I don't see why that doesn't have an
8 A. Well, this concerns certain information, but they could have
9 acted in this way but through the minister of the interior. If they
10 weren't happy with the report, they could have asked for it to be
11 supplemented or for certain parts of the part [as interpreted] to be
12 elaborated on, but this would be done through the person submitting the
13 report. They could have made such specific requests. For example, the
14 assembly committee could have acted in this way. So this was possible,
15 but it had to be done through the subject submitting the report.
16 Q. Thank you very much. Now, you state in paragraph 296 of your
18 "The means and methods envisaged by the rules on the work of the
19 State Security Service brought by the federal secretary of the interior
20 on 6 July, 1990, pursuant to the powers vested in him by Article 23,
21 paragraph 2, of the Law on the Principles of the State Security System,
22 were applied in the work of the State Security Service of the RSUP of
23 SR Serbia, the state security department of the MUP of the Republic of
24 Serbia, in the 1991 to 1995 period."
25 In the next eight paragraphs, you continue to describe the
1 application of the SDB operative and surveillance means and methods,
2 continually citing to these rules on the work of the State Security
3 Service. Your source in the footnote refers to D239.
4 In paragraph 296, which I just quoted to you, you state that
5 these rules on the work of the State Security Service were applied in the
6 work of the DB in the 1991 to 1995 period. Now, in paragraphs 303 and
7 304, you then describe the role of the federal secretary of the interior
8 with respect to the means and methods of operative application of the SDB
9 operative and surveillance means and methods. At the end of
10 paragraph 304, you then say that after the DB of the federal MUP "stopped
11 functioning in October of 1992, the aforementioned powers of the federal
12 secretary of the interior were no longer applied."
13 Now my question is: Who was the one who carried out these
14 functions you describe in paragraph 304 after the federal secretary of
15 the interior stopped functioning?
16 A. Obviously it was the republican secretariat for internal affairs.
17 That's my opinion.
18 Q. On what do you base your opinion?
19 A. Well, it's a matter of logic and of drawing analogies. The
20 federal secretary is, in fact, the federal minister. When the republican
21 ministry was responsible, well, the logical thing would be for the
22 republican ministry to perform such duties. What's at stake here is the
23 adoption of certain rules. Nothing specific or concrete is at stake
25 Q. But it's still not clear to me which rules applied. You said
1 "the aforementioned powers of the federal secretary of the interior,
2 although not repealed, were no longer applied." So this appears to me to
3 be a situation where the standing rules in practice were not applied;
4 isn't that correct?
5 A. I don't know how to answer your question. I think the report
6 provides a clear answer. The rules on work that were adopted at the
7 federal level were applied, so all the republics and regions applied
8 them. But the other republics and regions, or at least some of the them
9 at the time, had already created their own state. So the rules were in
10 fact only applied in Serbia and in Montenegro. State security rules
11 weren't applied at the federal level anymore. I testified to that effect
12 in detail yesterday. I don't know whether it's necessary to go into it
14 If your question was whether the text of the rules doesn't
15 correspond to what was done, well, in my opinion, because I have no
16 experience of the matter, well, I would say yes.
17 Q. Okay. So if I understand you correctly, although your report
18 says that the rules, although not repealed, were no longer applied, in
19 fact what your evidence is is that they were applied but differently.
20 Not at the federal level anymore, but only at the republican level. Is
21 that what you meant to say?
22 A. I believe that that was the case.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I see what time it is, and I'm about
24 to broach a different subject. If this would be a good time for the
25 break, I could do it after the break.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although I would like to seek one
3 I do understand a federal institution to work on behalf of the
4 federal state, that is, serving the interests also of those republics
5 forming that federal institution. Is that correctly understood?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By definition, yes, that is so.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now you tell us that the malfunctioning federal
8 institution more or less was adopted, or at least became part of the
9 Serbian republican state security institutions. Is that correctly
10 understood? People came to work, did their job, but not on the federal
11 level anymore but now for the -- at the republican level?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time there was no federal
13 level anymore. Those institutions were formed as if all the republics
14 and regions participated in them, as if they had the will to remain
15 within that state and do everything for the benefit of territorial
16 sovereignty and the integrity of that state, but in reality the situation
17 on the ground was quite different. It was necessary for someone to take
18 over these functions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My question is: What about Montenegro at that
20 point in time?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Federal level duties in Montenegro
22 were carried out by the security service of the Republic of Montenegro at
23 the time. They took over all the duties that concerned their territory,
24 and this was done within the borders that they considered to be their
25 own. This knowledge I gained on the basis of the literature that I
1 consulted, but I wasn't part of the leadership, so I do not know what
2 sort of matters they discussed at meetings and for -- and so on and so
3 forth. All these matters were legalised when the Law on the Common State
4 of Serbia and Montenegro was adopted.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So you can't tell us whether the Montenegro state
6 security system also had the benefit of having part of the premises, part
7 of the staff, now working for their republican state security services?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is nothing I can tell you
9 about that matter in relation to Montenegro.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 We'll take a break, and we resume at 4.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
15 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Milosevic, can you hear me clearly?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You are an experienced academic and you have both direct
19 professional experience as well as extensive academic knowledge of the
20 MUP. You've served as a trainer and teacher and educator for many years.
21 There is no doubt that many of your students look up to you. Isn't it a
22 fact that as part of the work of a professor you must ensure not only
23 accuracy in the work of your students, in terms of conclusions and
24 analysis, but also accuracy in terms of citations to sources?
25 A. That's correct. One always strives to follow such rules.
1 Q. When you review a research paper prepared by a student, you would
2 verify the accuracy of their assertions; isn't that right? What I mean
3 is in terms of citing to the source material upon which they have based
4 their analysis. Correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. If you were to find, say, approximately 10 errors in one research
7 paper where the student either incorrectly cited the source material or
8 where the student made an assertion which could only be reasonably based
9 upon source material but did not cite the source, you would find that
10 research paper to not meet the standards you would expect as a professor;
11 is that right?
12 A. Well, first, one should determine the nature of the mistakes
13 made. Perhaps the student had a different understanding of the method of
14 referencing work, so perhaps there was a problem in the methodology.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I intervene.
16 Ms. Marcus, before we start a long debate and long question and
17 answers about what you would expect students to do, I take it that you
18 want to point at inaccuracies in sourcing. Why not directly go to that
19 so that we do not first have an academic debate on whether it would be
20 the students in the 2nd grade which should do better than the ones in the
21 1st grade and whether the other department who used them -- who would
22 teach them how to use sources was deficient in its functioning. Let's
23 get to the core of the matter.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. That's my next question.
25 Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6487.
1 Q. Mr. Milosevic, we have compiled a spreadsheet, you will see
2 before you in a moment, of unsourced assertions we have found in your
3 report. I will provide a hard copy of this document for you to consider.
4 MS. MARCUS: With leave of the Chamber, I have copies in both
5 B/C/S and English. Perhaps the Court Usher could hand it to the witness
6 and the Chamber.
7 Q. While you look at this, I would like to emphasize that where we
8 were able to decipher what source you most likely meant to refer to, we
9 did not include that in here. These are assertions where we truly were
10 not able, with what I consider to be due diligence, to determine what the
11 source was for an assertion that you made.
12 Now, as you will see when you look through it, in our view there
13 are 136 unsourced assertions in your report, again using the criterion
14 that I just set out for you. So where you do not provide a source for an
15 assertion in your report, are you basing that assertion on your own
16 personal experience or on your expertise?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] At this point in time, I'm not
20 sure where my learned friend is going. If she expects the professor to
21 look at a document that contains 136 statements that aren't sourced, and
22 if she thinks he can provide any answers about such a list, I don't think
23 this is possible. It's a -- not possible to analyse 136 statements that
24 have been sourced. He should be given -- the professor should be given a
25 few days to have a look at the list and then to say whether or not
1 there's a source for what has been listed here.
2 I don't think proceeding in this manner at this point in time is
4 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I fully intend to give the witness the
5 opportunity to study this. Based on my estimate that I gave and which I
6 think will be accurate, I do believe I will have to continue, at least
7 briefly, next week. So I have no problem with him considering that. I
8 only have a question for him about if there are unsourced assertions, are
9 we to take it that it's based on a source or is it based on his expertise
10 or personal experience? That's a general question about any unsourced
11 assertions which might be found in his report.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I deny the objection. But I'll
13 carefully monitor that Ms. Marcus is really staying on the general level;
14 that is, if no source is mentioned in the report, does that mean that you
15 have not specifically used a source for that assertion.
16 Now, the other question, whether he relies on his expertise. Of
17 course, expertise relies often to sources which you've seen in the past
18 but not specifically used when you drew up the report. So the witness
19 will then have an opportunity, I take it, to add anything to the answer
20 to the very general question by giving further details on any specific
21 matter contained in this -- in this spreadsheet.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You have heard my comments and my decision on the
24 objection, Mr. Milosevic. At this moment we -- Ms. Marcus is asking you
25 a rather general question. If you could briefly answer that question and
1 then you'll have a further opportunity to -- to further choose your
2 position in -- on any specific matter in this list.
3 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I only have two general questions for you on the
5 matter of unsourced assertion, generally. So to ask you again the one
6 that I asked before: In cases where you do not provide a source for an
7 assertion in your report, are you basing that assertion on your own
8 personal experience or on your expertise in terms of your research and
10 A. It's difficult to say without having a look at each individual
11 assertion, but in general I didn't think it was necessary to provide
12 sources for all the assertions made because I took it for granted -- or
13 we take for granted that I'm an expert and that on the basis of my
14 expertise I can form certain opinions. So I used my scientific knowledge
15 in a general sense, if that's what you're asking me about. But I would
16 have to look at each individual assertion to be able to answer your
17 question. I'm not sure what you have in mind.
18 Q. That does answer my question as well as my other question.
19 Before we leave this with you for now, I'll just make mention: Because
20 of the timing on when we prepared this, there are some comments in there
21 regarding translations. You are free to ignore those. Those are about
22 an administrative consideration. We need English translations for the
23 materials. So to the extent any comment in there accidentally is
24 included that relates to translations, please -- please just ignore that.
25 The focus for this issue is on the lack of sourcing, and it'll be clear
1 from the entries.
2 MS. MARCUS: So I'm done with this document at the moment, thank
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I take it that you wish that the witness
5 keeps his copy so that he ...
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you would keep your copy.
8 And, well, the practical way of dealing with it, if the witness
9 goes through it, Ms. Marcus, I don't expect you that he gives all his
10 specific answers in every single detail here in court when giving
11 testimony, or would you ...
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I think it's fair for him to have a
13 chance to comment on it, but I did not intend for the witness no note one
14 by one what the sources were. In fact, from my point of view his answer
15 is clear. What he gave just now is the answer that I was looking -- the
16 information I was seeking.
17 Now, it is fair only for him to have an opportunity to respond,
18 but I certainly don't -- wouldn't ask him item by item.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So what we are seeking -- but perhaps, Mr. Petrovic,
20 I first give you an opportunity to respond.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 I think that this is an impossible mission or a failure to
23 understand the nature of an expert report. Have a look at item 1,
24 Your Honour, which relates to paragraph 99. Here it says the
25 responsibility of the department is defined in detail in the documents on
1 internal organisation. You have at least 15 pages in this report that
2 deal with this issue, at least 15 pages, and my learned friend puts a
3 question about the source. She must have read the report and she can see
4 that there are at least 15 pages in the report that go into the details
5 of these documents on organisation. So I really do not understand what
6 is expected of this expert witness.
7 I do apologise, Your Honour. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to -- to intervene for a second. It may
9 be a very clear example. The expert has given his answer to the general
10 questions. If, for example, number 1 and a few other items would receive
11 an answer like, "I have not detailed the source here, but in many other
12 paragraphs I gave the detailed sources when I went to the details of this
13 observation," then that is a comment on the question and the general
14 answer given.
15 I can imagine that for number 25 - I have not looked at it - that
16 he says, "You're right, I've forgotten to mention the source which I
17 specifically have but failed to put in the footnote." Or on another
18 matter, to say, "Well, in general, numbers 2, 15, 17, 21, they are mainly
19 based on my experience in the service rather than on academic sources or
20 legal texts which I specifically used to make that assertion." That is
21 the kind of comment we would allow the witness to give to the extent that
22 he thinks this it's fair in addition to his answer to the general
23 questions that would be fair for him to give.
24 Is that, Ms. Marcus, approximately what you had on your mind?
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, precisely, Your Honour. We have endeavoured to
1 focus on those where we couldn't really determine, but that doesn't
2 exclude the possibility, that there may be some in there that are easily
3 explicable. That's correct, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Either by reference to other parts of the
5 report. And we do not expect the witness to go through that in detail,
6 but to give him a fair opportunity to respond to what seems to be a
7 question of not being very accurate, even as suggested, but I stopped at
8 worse as a student. Let's just focus on what the witness would like to
9 say without going into every single detail of the list, but, rather, in
10 similar general terms to say, 20 per cent of it I've forgotten to give
11 the source. Such kind of remarks.
12 And, Ms. Marcus, would you agree with me that such comments could
13 be given in -- if the witness would prefer to write them down, that that
14 may be okay, but that otherwise some comments on your list could be given
15 in some ten to 12 minutes, is that ... I'm trying to manage this trial as
16 well --
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- [Overlapping speakers] --
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I would say maximum. But yes,
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
22 Then, Mr. Milosevic, I saw you raising your hand. Yes, you may
23 address the Chamber.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but obviously either I
25 don't understand the Prosecution or the Prosecution doesn't understand
1 what is written here. Well, if one casts just a brief glance at this
2 first page, last item, that concerns paragraph 127, it says the author
3 referred to such and such an article, 93, item 2, if that's the one. But
4 he says -- but it says he didn't provide it -- a source.
5 In footnote 167, however, a source is referred to. On the rules
6 on job specification --
7 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to slow down when
8 reading out parts of the text as it's impossible to follow.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you slow down, because it's a common
10 experience that once you -- once you start reading, that you usually
11 start speaking more quickly as well.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the information provided in the
15 footnotes, the notes that were made and that relate to this specific
16 example we're discussing, well, we can see that in Article 127, in
17 brackets. The decree on the professions of authorised officials of the
18 organs of internal affairs and on the professions of the republican
19 secretariat for internal affairs, published in the official bulletin of
20 the Socialist Republic of Serbia, number 58, in 1989. I can't see
21 anything missing here.
22 So I said that things could be quoted in various ways.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if I may just briefly inquire into that. What
24 is different in paragraph 127 is that the sources are not in the
25 footnotes but in the text themselves. Now, I haven't seen the list of
2 Now, does that include the sources which are contained in the
3 text, or would it be just the sources in the footnotes, Mr. Petrovic?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, some documents are
5 mentioned in several places. Therefore, they will be found in footnotes
6 in the places where it is most logical for them to be found. For
7 example, the 2D941, the decree on jobs and positions, is in
8 paragraph 358, footnote 346.
9 In the part that is directly concerned with that decree where
10 that decree is the main topic, there is a source there, and, again, the
11 indication of the document, the Official Gazette, and the 2D number,
12 obviously. Paragraphs are 358, 359, and so on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the issue is perhaps not primarily that
14 it's not sourced, because paragraph 127 gives sources, but whether that
15 source is available to the Prosecution and in such a way that it also is
16 able to locate where to find it, that source.
17 Ms. Marcus, is that part of the problem?
18 MS. MARCUS: That would be part of the problem, Your Honour.
19 That doesn't -- in other words, this list includes sources which were not
20 provided and therefore we couldn't verify --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. MARCUS: -- as well as where a source for an assertion was
23 not provided at all.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we have to look at it either -- but that
25 might be more a problem for Mr. Petrovic than it is for Mr. Milosevic,
1 that to the extent source material is not yet in evidence and is not
2 provided in a way so that Ms. Marcus can locate it, then there may be a
3 problem. Of course, the Chamber has the same problem, because what is in
4 evidence we can look at, but when reading the report, not even having
5 lists of supporting material, let alone that we have seen them all and
6 that they are in evidence, that creates a procedural problem,
7 Mr. Petrovic, for which you -- we cannot blame Ms. Marcus at this moment.
8 But apparently there are also other matters in the list that are
9 assertions where the problem is not where to find the source or whether
10 the source is available because a reference to that source exists, but a
11 reference is not yet the source itself. But the other category is
12 assertions which are without sources at all, and that was, I think, one
13 of the main subjects of the question put by Ms. Marcus to the witness a
14 minute ago.
15 Is that ...
16 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I just would like to add one
17 brief point. There were a number of people who worked very, very hard on
18 this. This list is under-inclusive, if anything. Where we could
19 determine through reasonable investigations which, if there was a
20 cross-referencing issue, was very difficult to do, we -- I did not
21 include that here, so we had a much more extensive list. And then for
22 those which we could determine with our own investigations, we -- we
23 tried really not to include them. So I -- as I say this, there may be
24 something in here which is just simply because we could not determine
25 what the source was. We -- as far -- to the best of our knowledge, we
1 simply couldn't find it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, therefore, we -- giving this list to the
3 witness, wouldn't it be fair to ask him to primarily focus not on matters
4 he sourced but where the source may not be available to you? So I think
5 the one paragraph 127 seems to be clear in that respect and doesn't need
6 any further comment, not to even deal with matters of translation but to
7 focus mainly on those items where the Prosecution alleges that no source
8 is given at all, and then not to go through them one by one but to read
9 them, to consider them, and to see whether there is a kind of an answer
10 to those assertions by the Prosecution.
11 Mr. Petrovic.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave.
13 Everybody who's benevolent can see what the whole thing is all about.
14 Look at 358, look at footnote that accompanies that paragraph, and look
15 at 127. I simply cannot believe that there is somebody who cannot
16 collate these two things and cannot understand what we're talking about.
17 I'm sorry for being a bit aggressive, but a lot of effort has been
18 invested in this.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Petrovic, perhaps I should be the last at
20 this moment to not forgive you some small eruption of emotion. Yesterday
21 I didn't always use the most gentle words when I -- we were discussing
22 the matter of the levels above Mr. Simatovic. Although my colleagues
23 agreed with the content of my remarks, I also noted that they certainly
24 would have used a more gentle tone, and I take that as guidance for the
1 So I'm not blaming you for being a bit upset about the matter,
2 but we are not going to spend time on this discussion in court. I would
3 suggest that you try to resolve this matter with Ms. Marcus in such a way
4 that you assist her and say, "Well, we have difficulties in understanding
5 why you couldn't resolve this or this or this," and then to try to find
6 common ground for that and to see what really is important to know more
7 about, perhaps strike a few items. Try to see how far you could come.
8 And then if that does not resolve the matter, if you could not
9 come to an agreement on that, rather than spending time on it in court in
10 the way we just started to do that, I would invite you to meet with me at
11 7.00 in the morning to further discuss the practical approach of this
12 matter. Perhaps, in view of circumstances, that I would delay it until
13 8.00 or that Ms. Marcus, apparently relying on the work of some others,
14 would seek assistance or even replacements by those who worked hard on
15 this. And then I'm almost certain that we would have resolved most of it
16 by 9.00 and then we could spend our time in court again on what we're
17 here for, that is, to hear evidence.
18 Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
19 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. The section of your report which deals with the position of
21 Franko Simatovic, that is, section 8 of your report - it contains
22 39 paragraphs - it is entirely based upon his personnel file and the
23 applicable DB rules and regulations. You state that you did view some
24 personnel files and other decisions, as we discussed earlier, but you
25 don't cite to them.
1 You make the following assertions in the Franko Simatovic section
2 which, the way they are worded, suggest that you do have or did obtain
3 some concrete information about Mr. Simatovic's actual activities. You
4 say in paragraph 338, for example, that Mr. Simatovic discharged certain
5 duties. You use that same term in paragraphs 356 and 364.
6 I would like to focus now on your assertion in paragraph 336 and
7 ask you some questions about that. In paragraph 336, you describe
8 Frenki's purported assignment to Kosovo from the 12th of April, 1991, to
9 17th of October, 1991. You state:
10 "From 12 April 1991 to 17 October 1991, Franko Simatovic was
11 assigned for a stint of duty to the State Security Service of the
12 provincial secretariat of the interior of AP Kosovo and Metohija."
13 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P2403. I'm
14 not sure if this is under seal. Perhaps I could ask the -- it is? Okay,
15 and not broadcast it, please.
16 Q. Now, you also mention Mr. Simatovic's alleged deployment to
17 Kosovo in footnote 335, which is a footnote to paragraph 348. This
18 assertion is based purely upon the document in Mr. Simatovic's personnel
19 file which describes his deployment to Kosovo, which you cite as P2403
20 and which is on our screens; is that correct? Yes or no, please.
21 A. I did not understand your question. Could you please be more
22 specific and tell me what you want me to say? Maybe the interpretation
23 was not good. What am I supposed to answer? Is this the document or
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me intervene here. Listen carefully,
1 Mr. Milosevic, to what Ms. Marcus asked you. The question was whether
2 the assertion you made in the report was based purely upon the document
3 we see in front of us. So that this -- was this your one and only
4 source, or was there any other source for your assertion?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, this is the decision
6 by which he was dispatched. There is another document showing that a few
7 individuals were deployed at the same time. In this case, in a decision
8 on deployment it has to say that somebody is deployed. I really don't
9 know what's in dispute. I didn't accompany him personally to Kosovo to
10 see whether he really went there. I base my assertions on this public
11 document, and that public document is true unless proven not true.
12 It says very clearly here from the 12th to -- the date is here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your answer apparently is: "I based my
14 assertion on this document and also on the fact that I've seen similar
15 documents for other persons."
16 Your comment on whether the public document is true unless proven
17 not to be true is, first of all, for this Chamber and, second, is more
18 complex than you present it. Because the document may be true in the
19 sense of authentic; the document may be true in the sense of that it was
20 produced on the date it gives; the document may be, for example, not true
21 on whether what was written down as a decision or an order was executed
22 after that. So the truth of a document is a complex matter. I don't
23 have to explain that to you as a specialist in criminal law and
24 procedure, and there is no need to further discuss that because we'll
25 have to do that circle.
1 Therefore, it's this document that you rely upon and you add to
2 that that you have seen similar documents, apparently, of persons who
3 were assigned to similar tasks in the same period of time. Is that
4 correctly understood?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
7 MS. MARCUS:
8 Q. Now, in paragraph 336, where you cite this document, you do not
9 discuss anything specific about this document. You do not note, for
10 example, that this document, which is your source regarding Frenki's
11 alleged deployment to Kosovo, is dated the 18th of March, 1992; thus,
12 this was a retroactive deployment. You do not mention that Frenki's
13 retroactive deployment to Kosovo was signed by Jovica Stanisic, the first
14 accused. You are aware --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I kindly ask you to
17 look at footnote 320 where it says clearly that the document was issued
18 on the 18th of March, 1992.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That may be true. The report, although giving the
20 information, does not point at retroactivity, and I think that's mainly
21 what Ms. Marcus is talking about.
22 Ms. Marcus, am I correct?
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MS. MARCUS:
1 Q. As you've told us that you've seen the indictment, you are aware
2 that both Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic have been charged with crimes
3 allegedly comitted in Croatia in 1991; correct?
4 A. Yes. As far as I can understand, they are charged with
5 participating in a joint criminal enterprise. However, I -- I did not
6 ponder the whole thing. I was just curious and that's why I read it, but
7 I didn't delve too much into it.
8 Q. But you did know that the issue of Mr. Simatovic's whereabouts in
9 1991 is a critical issue to this case, didn't you?
10 A. I don't understand what you are implying here. But whatever you
11 are trying to imply, it doesn't really hold water. I based my assertions
12 on the document. I said when it was issued. I didn't go into any other
13 detail because I'm not aware of them. I can't testify about something
14 that I don't know and that I didn't see. I can only testify about this
15 document. I told you, and I stated when it was issued, and everybody can
16 see that. It's clear.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, the question simply was whether you
18 did know that the issue of Mr. Simatovic's whereabouts in 1991 is a
19 critical issue to this case. That's the question.
20 Now, either you knew, then you answer by "yes," or you didn't
21 know, then you answer by "no." That's the issue. It's not the start of
22 a debate between you and Ms. Marcus.
23 Please proceed. And please answer the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know. I read the
25 indictment only after I had written my report. It was only then that I
1 actually saw it, and it could not have affected my work on the report.
2 MS. MARCUS:
3 Q. Did you not find the retroactive nature of the deployment to be
4 significant to discuss in this paragraph?
5 A. I believe that I have already answered that by stating the
6 precise date when this document was issued. You will see that clearly
7 stated in the footnote. I didn't consider that I should do anything
8 else. When I analysed his career and his moves in the career, I used
9 documents. And that's what I did. I did not think that I had to do a
10 complete reconstruction of his tours at every moment.
11 And as to your question, I believe that I have answered your
12 question already by citing the document and the date when it was issued.
13 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier some other documents that you also say
14 that you consulted in reaching the assertion that you reach here. Can
15 you tell us what those other documents are? The way you referred to them
16 is, "There is --" oh, it's one document. I apologise. What you said
18 "There is another document showing that a few individuals were
19 deployed at the same time."
20 Is that another document in Mr. Simatovic's personnel file or is
21 that yet another document that you consulted?
22 A. I believe that this was a document in which the minister of the
23 interior deployed a certain number of individuals to Kosovo. I'm not
24 sure whether it was at that moment that -- but that was common practice,
25 for people to be deployed based on such decision -- decisions. The
1 minister issued a decision, and then each employee who was deployed would
2 be issued with their individual deployment decision. I'm talking about
3 what common practice was. First there was a decision, and based on that
4 decision individual decisions would be issued and filed in each of the
5 individuals' personnel files.
6 Q. Was it common practice for these deployments to be issued
8 A. I know nothing about that, really.
9 Q. When you saw that the date of the deployment post-dated the
10 date -- the alleged date -- sorry, the date of this decision on
11 deployment post-dated the alleged date of deployment, did you not think
12 to ask the Simatovic Defence whether they had any additional
13 documentation, or simply, in your researcher's mind, did you not query
14 the retroactive nature of this document?
15 A. No. I did not want to delve on that because I thought it would
16 be tantamount to dealing with facts, and I thought that what I pointed
17 out would suffice, because it looked very non-ambiguous to me, so I did
18 not go into the matter any further.
19 Q. There are in evidence, in fact, at least three other retroactive
20 deployments of DB members to Kosovo, all dated March 1992, all pertaining
21 to purported deployments to Kosovo in 1991, all signed by
22 Jovica Stanisic, all contained in DB personnel files for these
24 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I refer the Chamber to P2723; P474,
25 page 6 in English and 45 in B/C/S; and P3012.
1 Q. There are also in evidence three other retroactive deployments on
2 documents dated late 1995, all for retroactive deployment to
3 Sremska Mitrovica in -- earlier in 1995, one signed by Jovica Stanisic
4 and two signed by Milan Prodanic.
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, for your reference, that is P474,
6 page 17 in English and 54 in B/C/S; P548; and P2755.
7 Q. Now, in the case of all six of these purported retroactive
8 deployments, there has been evidence in this case that during these --
9 the time-period of these deployments to Kosovo and Sremska Mitrovica,
10 these individuals were actually operating as part of the DB in Croatia
11 and Bosnia.
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I refer the Chamber to the following:
13 The transcript of the 1st of September, 2011, at pages 13749 to 13782; to
14 the transcript of the 2nd of February, 2012, at transcript pages 16909 to
15 16911; the transcript of 31 January, 2012, at page 16707 to 16708. I
16 refer you to P537. And, finally, P466, page 3.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Milosevic, I'm sorry for that list of references.
18 Here's my question: In this document that you see in front of you,
19 P2403, under what legal provisions would it have been possible -- let me
20 change the introduction to my question.
21 Under what legal provisions would it have been possible to deploy
22 DB members to Croatia in 1991 and Bosnia in 1995 to engage in joint
23 combat operations with other Serb forces in those areas?
24 A. I cannot answer your question because I really don't know what to
1 Q. Does that mean you don't know what rules would have provided for
2 that, or the rules did not provide for that?
3 A. No. I don't know what the legal foundation for that was. I
4 really don't know. I -- personally, I don't know whether there was a
5 legal foundation and what it was. Unless we go back to what we said
6 yesterday, and that was that there was a legal foundation. That was
7 discussed yesterday. But if you want me to answer your question more
8 specifically by citing a law or an article there, I can't do that.
9 MS. MARCUS: I thank the Chamber again for the permission to sit
11 Q. So you're not able to answer the question of whether it would
12 have been possible, legally, for the DB to officially deploy individuals
13 to Croatia in 1991 and Bosnia in 1995 to participate in joint combat
14 operations; do I understand your evidence correctly?
15 A. I can't answer your question if you're asking me to refer to the
16 exact article. We spoke about a constitutional basis, a legal basis for
17 co-operation, yesterday, but I can't tell you exactly which article of
18 the rules is concerned. I don't know what to say. Yesterday I explained
19 in detail that there were -- there was a constitutional and legal basis
20 for combat operations in particular. I really don't know what to say.
21 Q. I'm not sure I understand your very last comment. You said that
22 yesterday you explained in detail that there was a constitutional and
23 legal basis for combat operations. Does that mean that you know that
24 there was a legal basis for these deployments by the DB to Croatia in
25 1991 and Bosnia in 1995 but you just can't cite the article for us, or
1 you don't know whether it was possible, legally, to carry out those
2 deployments for the purposes of joint combat operations?
3 A. Well, I think that they could be involved in intelligence
4 operations. I'm only speaking about the intelligence component within
5 the service, not the combat component. So I don't know where this
6 terminology comes from. I never mentioned combat operations yesterday.
7 I only mentioned intelligence and security tasks.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if I may analyse, what happens at this moment
9 is the following. Ms. Marcus asks you whether there was a legal basis
10 for DB members to be sent abroad to participate, and she gave the places
11 that the -- the republics and the time-period. Whether there was a legal
12 basis for them to be sent to participate in combat operations.
13 Your first answer was, I wouldn't know exactly what legal
14 provision would provide for that. Then you refer to what you said
15 yesterday, and from what I remember from yesterday is that you pointed at
16 certain provisions which would allow for intelligence activity both
17 within the state borders and outside the state borders. And then you
18 say, But I never used the word "combat." I think that's accurate.
19 Therefore, apparently the crux of the matter is where Ms. Marcus
20 asks you whether there would be a basis for sending DB members for combat
21 operations, that what you said yesterday, apparently, does not apply.
22 That's at least how I understood your last observation, that you never
23 used the word "combat."
24 So we are back, more or less, at square one. What you said
25 yesterday, if I understand you well, is not an answer to the question of
1 Ms. Marcus and whether any provision exists which would allow for DB
2 members to be sent abroad in that period of time to the places mentioned,
3 you just say, I -- I do not know of the existence of such a legal
4 provision, which is -- does not mean that it does not exist but at least
5 that it does not come to your mind at this moment.
6 Is this analysis of a rather confusing question and answer
7 situation, is that analysis accurate as far as you are concerned,
8 Mr. Milosevic?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And is it also accurate as far as you are concerned,
11 Ms. Marcus?
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we can proceed.
14 MS. MARCUS:
15 Q. Isn't it a fact that if the DB were deploying individuals to
16 Croatia and Bosnia in 1991 and 1995 to participate in joint combat
17 operations they would have had to create documents to conceal this
18 deployment in order to fit into the rules and regulations?
19 A. Well, my understanding is that it's possible to put leading
20 questions in the course of cross-examination. I do understand that. I
21 can't confirm that anyone created documents of any kind to cover anything
22 up. I don't know what the Prosecution is getting at.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, that wasn't the question. The
24 question was that if it would be true that DB were deploying individuals
25 to Croatia and Bosnia in 1991 and 1995 to participate in joint combat,
1 that you would have to create documents to conceal that this happened
2 because it would not fit into the rules and the regulations, so therefore
3 you could not put on paper what actually happened.
4 That is a different question from whether such documents were
5 produced to conceal. It's a more or less theoretical question. Could
6 you answer it? If you can, please do so. If you say, I can't answer it,
7 then we'll move on.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer that question?
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you can, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the legal basis is
11 concerned, I said I knew nothing about such a basis. But as you,
12 yourself, said, Your Honour, that doesn't mean that there is no such
13 basis. All it means is that I can't remember anything about it now. As
14 far as covering up things, I really don't think that there was the need
15 to act in that way. If everything was done in compliance with the rules
16 of service, in accordance with the rules of service there would not have
17 been any reason to try and conceal anything. So I really cannot say
18 whether there were such cases or not, and I don't even know how I would
19 answer that question in a purely theoretical way. It would be more
20 logical not to create documents of any kind apart from documents that
21 could subsequently prove to be compromising, but I really don't know.
22 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P979.
23 Q. Now, what you will see in a moment is an order signed by Frenki,
24 dated the 16th of June, 1991, in Golubic, RSK, ordering weapons and
25 armament to be removed from the fortress to Golubic. What rules would
1 have permitted Frenki's involvement in the movement of weapons in Croatia
2 and Golubic in June of 1991?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Two comments: The witness is not
6 a factual witness. And my second comment concerns this document which is
7 presented as if one had determined that this was Frenki's signature.
8 This is in dispute. It would be fair to tell the witness what the status
9 of this document is. This is an exhibit, but it is an exhibit that is
10 contested by one of the parties.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, since Ms. Marcus did not ask for facts, she
12 could also have easily left out the question as to who signed it, because
13 it's a matter of whether you can issue such decisions yes or no, whether
14 it was by Mr. Simatovic or by anyone else, isn't it? Because we're
15 talking about the rules and what was permitted under the rules.
16 To that extent, I think, Ms. Marcus, you're not asking for facts
17 but rather whether there would be a legal basis for a decision like this
18 where the Prosecution believes that it was signed by Mr. Simatovic. But
19 even if that would not be true, still the question remains.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. However, and perhaps it was the
21 faulty language in my question, I did want to know -- I am focussing on
22 this section of the report on Mr. Simatovic. I did want to know which
23 positions the rules governing the positions that have been set out by the
24 witness would have permitted his involve -- Mr. Simatovic's involvement
25 in the activities in here. But it is true I did not mention that it --
1 that it is -- the signature is contested.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you are asking what rule would allow a
3 person in the position of Mr. Simatovic, leaving apart whether he was the
4 one who assigned this or not, but which rule would allow for this
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, based on --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MS. MARCUS: -- the documents that the witness studied in
9 Mr. Simatovic's file.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Knowing what his position was.
11 Could you answer that question. So don't bother about whether
12 the signature is the one of Mr. Simatovic or not, but you may answer the
13 question on an assumption that the document was signed by a person in a
14 position like the one you knew at the time was held by Mr. Simatovic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that the authenticity of
16 the document is contested because in the heading it says "The Republic of
17 Serbia, the SAO Krajina," and so on and so forth. So I have doubts about
18 its authenticity.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The authenticity we'll discuss elsewhere. I would
20 invite you to answer the question that was put to you by Ms. Marcus and
21 which I rephrased. What rule would allow a person in the position of
22 Mr. Simatovic which would -- rule would allow for the activity as
23 described in this document? That's the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the rules of service,
25 he could go abroad and be involved in intelligence work there. That's
1 what I can say in general terms. He could have done everything in
2 accordance with those rules. But there's nothing I can say about this
3 particular case. This document, I've never seen it before. But as I
4 have said, it is odd.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. Could I then ask you, because you are again not
6 answering the question, because I referred to the activity described in
7 this document. Then a simple question is: Is an order to have weapons
8 and armament to be retreated from the fortress to Golubic, is that
9 intelligence activity or is that anything else? Or let's say if it's not
10 intelligence, to issue such an order.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document doesn't show that the
12 activity concerned was a matter for intelligence. So if we interpret the
13 language of this document, I'd say that isn't the case. It's obvious
14 that other activities are at stake.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, therefore, you would agree with me that
16 you have not answered the question, because the question was: What is
17 the legal basis for the activity described in this document for a person
18 in the position of Mr. Simatovic? Your answer was that Mr. Simatovic
19 could have done other things abroad, that is, intelligence, but the
20 question was: What is the legal basis for these activities described in
21 this document for a person in the position of Mr. Simatovic? Could you
22 answer that question. First, perhaps, does a legal basis for this kind
23 of activity, does that exist; and if so, where is it to be found?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we exclude the usual
25 constitutional and legally basis, well, I don't know on the basis of what
1 sort of documents that this could be done. I don't know.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Could the Court Officer please call up P1121 --
5 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt. May we have a break,
6 Your Honours, please?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 We'll take a break, Ms. Marcus, and we'll resume at a quarter
9 to 6.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.12 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
13 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Is this P1121 that we see
14 on our screens? Yes. Yes.
15 Q. Now, this is a report dated the 19th of July, 1991,
16 Mr. Milosevic, regarding TO and MUP combat operations in the Republic of
17 Serbian Krajina in the areas of Benkovac and Obrovac. The report states
18 that it's copied to Frenki. What would have been the MUP regulations
19 which would have provided that Frenki is to be copied on such reports in
20 July 1991 during the time he was purportedly deployed to Kosovo?
21 A. Shall I answer that?
22 Q. Yes, please.
23 A. Well, here we have the same case. Again, I really am not an
24 expert for these issues. I can't answer such a question. The SDB of the
25 Republic of Serbia didn't draft this document, so I really can't comment
1 on it. You can see that those who authored the document are not from
2 that body, and I know nothing about the facts that relate to this case,
3 so I can't say anything. All I can say is that this is not a report from
4 the SDB or, rather, the RDB. Given the layout, that is not the case.
5 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I didn't ask you about the document. I asked you
6 about the MUP regulations. That is your expertise - MUP regulations and
7 rules and laws. In all my questions, I've been asking -- not all, but in
8 most of my questions, that's the point I'm trying to ask you about.
9 You've told us, according the documents you've consulted, what Frenki's
10 position was. You've told us about what the rules and regulations would
11 have said about what tasks and responsibilities he would have carried out
12 pursuant to those rules.
13 Now, my question specifically was which MUP regulations or rules
14 or laws would have provided for Frenki to be copied on reports in
15 July 1991 during the time that he was purportedly deployed to Kosovo?
16 A. Let me repeat what I said. I just don't know how to answer this
18 Q. Then let me just clarify with one last follow-up question on
19 this. Isn't it a fact that you do not know of my MUP regulations which
20 would have provided for Mr. Simatovic to have been copied on documents
21 such as this in July of 1991?
22 A. I apologise. I haven't quite understood that question. Perhaps
23 the interpretation was not quite right.
24 Q. Perhaps I spoke too quickly and the interpreters couldn't follow
25 me. I apologise if that was the case. Let me repeat my last question.
1 Isn't it a fact that you do not know of any MUP regulations which
2 would have provided for Mr. Simatovic to have been copied on documents
3 such as this in July of 1991?
4 A. I am not saying that there were no such rules or that there are
5 no such rules. All I'm saying is that I'm not aware of any such rules,
6 so I can't provide you with a precise explanation.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MS. MARCUS: Before I move on, I'd just like to refer the Chamber
9 also to Exhibit P1122.
10 I am finished with this document, thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I just wonder what precisely my learned
13 friend is doing. First of all, this witness hasn't asserted that there
14 was a regulation. Secondly, the witness - quite fairly, in my
15 submission - said, well, this document doesn't come from the Ministry of
16 the Interior, so why would there, effectively, be a rule? If I, for
17 example, send the Prosecution a document, one wouldn't expect the
18 Prosecution --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I must say that what you're saying now
20 came to my mind as well. I sometimes receive mail without any rule
21 providing for me receiving that mail. Nevertheless, it becomes
22 argumentive. And to be quite honest, Ms. Marcus also when she lists a
23 long series of sources which give a different -- sheds a different light
24 on the events which is the subject of the examination, then, of course,
25 no one could reasonably expect at that moment the Chamber to verify all
2 And, as a matter of fact, I think it's already summarising what
3 the evidence is, which is, during the testimony of a witness, not
4 strictly necessary and should perhaps even be avoided, and then later in
5 final briefs or at any other moment you could put that all in the right
7 Ms. Marcus, if there's one specific document you think it would
8 assist us to look at when hearing this evidence, yes, of course, that
9 would help, but to receive seven, eight, or nine sources with all the
10 numbers, I could not even have them on my screen at the same time.
11 Let's try to -- the point you're apparently seeking to make,
12 Ms. Marcus, is that for some activities, including some of the accused,
13 for which evidence has been presented, that you would, through this
14 witness, want to establish that there was no legal basis for that. If
15 that is the point you intended to make, I think whether we accept it or
16 not is another matter, but you have, I would say -- what you wanted to
17 establish is perfectly clear to the Chamber.
18 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. That was, indeed, part of
19 the point. I hope the rest will be clearer from the examination.
20 Now, in terms of references, Your Honour, what I try to do is to
21 provide the basis for my questions and put that right in the record at
22 the point where I ask that question. There have been other times where
23 I've put a question and the Defence has asked what the basis was for that
25 So now I'm doing it. I do it as a matter of course now. And
1 it's become something which I think could be helpful to both parties and
2 the Chamber in terms of cross-referencing.
3 Now, that said, if Your Honour prefers me to not do that, then I
4 will not make those references during the examination.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you listened well to me, I didn't say never
6 do it, but do it within certain limits and only when it assists the
7 Chamber at the very moment of hearing the evidence to better understand
9 Now, I can imagine that if you have looked for all these sources,
10 you might -- it might assist the other parties fairly well in preparing.
11 So if you have a list and say, okay, this and this is it, then to prepare
12 for re-examination, et cetera, might be very helpful. So I'm not saying
13 don't do these kind of things, but let's avoid that it becomes argument
14 more, such as there is a lot of evidence that contradicts what the
15 witness says. That's appropriately done at another moment.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Milosevic, in the JATD section of your report you do not
19 mention the role of Franko Simatovic or Jovica Stanisic. Is it your
20 evidence that Franko Simatovic and Jovica Stanisic had nothing to the
21 with the JATD?
22 A. Well, I said what is stated quite explicitly here, what is
23 written quite explicitly here. I don't know what else I could say. I
24 didn't say that they were aware of anything else. I don't really know
25 what your question is about. Jovica Stanisic didn't establish the JATD.
1 It was based -- it was formed on the basis of the Law on
2 Internal Affairs, as you can see here, by the minister of the interior,
3 Zoran Sokolovic. So I don't understand where I made a mistake.
4 Q. Mr. Milosevic -- sorry to interrupt you. I simply asked you
5 about what was not there and whether it was intentionally not there. So
6 you did not mention the roles of the accused in the JATD. My question
7 was simply: Is it your evidence, therefore, that Franko Simatovic and
8 Jovica Stanisic had nothing to do with the JATD, and that's why you
9 didn't make mention of them in that section?
10 A. The reason for which I didn't mention that is that here it says
11 quite explicitly who formed the unit and when. It states who was in
12 command of the unit, and you can see who the deputy commander was and
13 where the centre was located. The individuals that you have asked me
14 about are not mentioned in the documents that I examined. None of them
15 was a commander or assistant. So I don't see why I should mention this,
16 given the manner in which I compiled my report.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, again, you are going around the
18 question. You say, well, they were not commanders, et cetera. The
19 simple question was: Did you not mention Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Stanisic
20 because on the basis of the material you went through that you did not
21 find any link, any personal link, of one of the two or both with the
23 And I take it, Ms. Marcus, that you did not include the mere fact
24 that they were working in the same state organ but whether there was any
25 personal dealing by Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Simatovic with the JATD.
1 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I answer?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How I prepared this part and the
5 materials that I had at my disposal in a way led me to write what I did.
6 I just enumerated those individuals in various positions based on
7 documents. I repeat once again, and I regret that I have to repeat over
8 and over again, that I am not a fact witness and I don't know what the
9 roles of all the individuals were. I only know what has been confirmed
10 officially by documents. I'm talking about people's position and jobs.
11 Of course chief of service was well aware of activities, but it
12 is only my assumption. I cannot confirm that for a fact, because there's
13 no document relating these individuals to any of the places that are
14 mentioned in here.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, the simple answer to my question
16 would be "no," because on the basis of the material you went through, you
17 did not find any link, any personal link or any personal dealing with --
18 of Mr. Simatovic or Mr. Stanisic with the JATD. A simple "no" would have
19 answered my question, I think, unless I misunderstood your question --
20 your answer.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You understood me well. You can't
22 tell that based on these documents.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Which leaves another question. If you would have
24 any personal knowledge, then, of course, although you were called here as
25 an expert and you are writing a report, then I would put the question to
1 you as well whether you have any knowledge outside of your expertise, and
2 this would then not be a clarification of your report but seeking
3 evidence from you to the extent you know any facts about Mr. Stanisic or
4 Mr. Simatovic in a link with the JATD.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yesterday I saw some
6 signatures, but I can't remember what they were. I believe that they
7 belonged to a different administration, but I'm not sure. One signature
8 was put on behalf of somebody else, of the deputy commander Radonjic. I
9 believe it was Franko Simatovic who signed on his behalf. And if you
10 remember, the Defence counsel asked me whether it would have been
11 customary for Franko Simatovic to sign on somebody's behalf if that
12 person was there, if the commander was there, but I can't confirm or
13 deny. I can't say --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, I'm not interested in what you
15 learned in this courtroom through the questions. I'm interested in any
16 knowledge you may have, and you may have had before you arrived in
17 The Hague, about any personal dealing or any personal involvement of
18 Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic with the JATD. That's my question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were certainly linked to that,
20 but I don't know what facts we're talking about. If I were to see
21 documents, I could provide comments on those documents. But without any
22 documents, I don't know what we're talking about.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, sometimes people know things even without
24 looking at documents. What I'm asking you is about any personal
25 knowledge you may have about that, and not whether when inspecting
1 documents you would find something. I'm interested: Do you have any
2 knowledge, any factual knowledge, about any dealing of one of the two
3 accused, Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Stanisic, with the JATD? If you have it,
4 please tell us what it is. If you don't have it, tell us as well.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no personal knowledge about
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6488.
11 Your Honours, what's going to come up on our screens is a
12 demonstrative exhibit which we have prepared. I would compare it most
13 closely to the slides, for example, that we've prepared for our 98 bis
14 submission. It is not intended to be evidence. It is merely a tool to
15 cross-reference evidence to assist the Chamber and the Defence.
16 Now, there are three of them, each one containing underlying
17 documents, and those were the documents that were in the three respective
18 binders that the witness was asked to review. Now, I have prepared --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I would ...
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir. I have hard copies, Your Honour, for the
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we had two B/C/S versions earlier on
23 our screen, and now we have a B/C/S and an English version.
24 MS. MARCUS: With the Chamber's leave, I would hand out the hard
25 copies. The electronic versions were sent to the Defence previously.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
2 Please, could the usher assist.
3 MS. MARCUS: Each of the packets that are handed out - there is
4 an English version -- there's an English packet, B/C/S packets - each one
5 contains all three charts.
6 JUDGE ORIE: For Mr. Jordash an English copy, please.
7 MS. MARCUS:
8 Q. Now, Mr. Milosevic, of the charts in the packet, the one that I
9 am going to ask you to look at and which is on our screens, appears to be
10 the third one in the packet, if they're all in the same order. It's the
11 one containing what we say is a list of --
12 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honours. I -- I do think that I do
13 have an objection to this.
14 First -- I mean, obviously I don't know what the Prosecution is
15 going to do, but what I can see in relation to these demonstrative
16 exhibits, as they are termed, are essentially submissions. Let's take
17 page 1 of this package. Evidence -- it's entitled "Evidence Relating to
18 Killed Members of the Unit."
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. We are back now to the first one.
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes. "Evidence Relating to Killed Members of the
21 Unit." First of all, it appears, on the face of it, a way of packaging
22 the Prosecution evidence to make submissions to the Court in a way which,
23 I submit, we've seen my learned friend doing today and we've seen her
24 doing it before. It's a way of making submissions to Your Honours,
25 effectively. That's the first point.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So could we first ask Ms. Marcus what she's
2 intending to do with it. If she wants to say, Well, I want the witness
3 to count whether number one consists of four pages, and then establish
4 that. Or ... I mean, I've got no idea what Ms. Marcus is intending to
5 do. It -- although I can imagine that one thinks of going into facts
6 where the witness until now has clearly stated that he has no knowledge
7 of any facts. And I would not expect him, but of course it would be for
8 the witness to say -- would be for the witness to say that he would have
9 knowledge of these kind of fact where he has shown earlier not to have of
10 many, many factual activities.
11 Ms. Marcus, what is it that you would like to do with this
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours.
14 Now, what -- what Mr. Jordash says is partially accurate, and we
15 would be happy -- I would be happy later, if the Chamber prefers, to
16 tender this through a submission. At this point what it's meant to do
17 was to organise material for the witness to consider. The questions that
18 I will ask the witness will pertain to selections of documents that are
19 noted on these charts. I will ask him questions directly pertaining to
20 his expertise and the rules and regulations. I will, of course, ask him
21 if the documentary evidence that he has consulted might change his
22 opinion. And I will -- and this is, essentially, putting our case very
23 clearly to the witness and rebutting the assertions that he makes in his
25 Now, in terms of the quantity of materials underlying these
1 charts, I'm in the Chamber's hands. Some of it is to assist -- it's
2 presented in this way to assist to present our case very clearly as to
3 what documentary evidence is linked to what other documentary evidence.
4 It is, in fact, a representation of a piece of our case. Absolutely.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. MARCUS: I've done it in this context because these are the
7 materials that we've provided to the witness and he can also have an
8 opportunity to understand how that -- those documents that we showed to
9 him, how they fit into our case.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the witness is not here to learn about the
11 Prosecution's case. The witness is here to give evidence. And until
12 now, one of the them -- one of the main elements of the evidence has been
13 that the witness has presented a lot of documents on the structure, the
14 rules, as far as Mr. Simatovic is concerned, about his positions, his
15 appointment, et cetera, et cetera. And whenever we entered into any area
16 where we asked him what happened, whether the reality was in accordance
17 with the rules or not, usually the witness said that he couldn't tell us.
18 There's not much - I'm not saying nothing - in his report about
19 what happened in reality, but I'm -- would you just allow me to consult
20 with my colleagues.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, we have some concern about in what
23 direction it will go. That concern has not been removed entirely by your
24 explanation. You have five minutes to put questions to the witness in
25 relation to whatever material is in here, and we'll stop you once you go
1 beyond what you said you would do, that is, to elicit evidence based on
2 the expertise of this witness.
3 So, therefore, you are limited to that. We don't want to have a
4 repetition of a few other things that we heard today, and we are not at
5 this moment assisted by -- through this witness giving the Chamber an
6 overview of elements of your case which is -- of course everything is
7 linked to what the witness says, but we would like to avoid that to
9 Mr. Jordash.
10 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to jump up now, but I also did want to point
11 out that -- and this is an equal concern, that listed within this
12 document are 48 - that was my quick count - 48 pieces of fresh evidence.
13 Sixty -- for all the 65 ter numbers are fresh evidence. It's -- this is
14 not only, in our submission, an attempt to make a lengthy submission, but
15 an attempt to, at the close of the case, introduce as much of the
16 Prosecution's archives as they can possibly manage under the guise of
17 this cross-examination.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I hadn't noticed that, but I see that a footnote
19 usually starts with the words "65 ter."
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We have been to some extent generous in this
22 respect, to say that if the evidence of the witness triggers -- if he
23 knows something specific which the Prosecution could not have foreseen,
24 they could not have made that selection in advance. Until now, I do not
25 see any part of the evidence which is mainly about rules and regulations
1 and legislation which would trigger specific knowledge about individual
3 But, Mr. Petrovic, I had started speaking before I had given you
4 an opportunity to add something to what Mr. Jordash said.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 I just wanted to say this, maybe somewhat belatedly, but I hope
7 you will allow me to say what I'm going to say. One of the reasons why
8 my learned friend has presented this to the witness is whether the
9 witness faced with the documents might change his opinion.
10 She has provided 45 documents about the JATD that allegedly bear
11 Simatovic's signature. And now if the witness is expected to form a
12 different opinion on a set of new documents, it would only be fair that
13 he were provided with all the documents about the same topic, but a lot
14 of them bear different person's signatures or they are not signed at all.
15 If he is expected to change his opinion, then he would have to be
16 provided with a whole set of documents, not only those that were signed
17 by or initialled by Simatovic. So he should be provided with all the
18 rest of documents, those bearing other people's signatures or initials.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That might even make it worse, because the change of
20 opinion, of course, Ms. Marcus, I do not know what it is, what opinion
21 you are talking about.
22 But if it -- if there's any suggestion that this witness's
23 opinion as an expert was that Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic were not in
24 any way linked -- to be linked, no personal dealings with the JATD, then
25 that is not the opinion of this witness. This witness's opinion is that,
1 reviewing the materials he has reviewed, and that's mainly rules and
2 regulations, that he did not find anything in those documents which would
3 link Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Simatovic to the JATD in terms of personal
4 dealings with that.
5 Now, the witness did not tell us that they had no personal
6 dealings with it. The witness said that on the basis of the inspection
7 of the documents he did not find any such link. So if it would be your
8 intention, by showing a lot of documents to the witness, to challenge
9 that finding, I mean, even if he would be convinced at the very end of
10 this -- of these documents that he would be -- say, "Well, of course; how
11 could you think of any other thing?" that wouldn't change his opinion,
12 because his opinion is limited to what he found when he inspected the
14 Now, to put to a witness new material and then to ask him what
15 conclusions he would draw from that is certainly not something which
16 falls within the scope of the expertise of this witness. You would
17 seek -- perhaps he would know a bit more about the context, but you would
18 seek him to draw conclusions on the basis of documentary evidence for
19 which he is not specifically trained, it's not within his specific
20 skills. And apart from that, it's for the Chamber to draw such
21 conclusions on the basis of these documents.
22 May that be of guidance when I give you five minutes to
23 demonstrate that the only thing you are doing, including with this
24 material, is to elicit further expert knowledge, expert evidence, from
25 this witness.
1 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 May I -- before I commence with my five minutes on that, may I
3 please respond to what's been going on, to make a submission?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, what happened is we had
5 objections in two rounds; first the general ones, and then the second
6 one. I did not yet touch upon the fresh evidence issue. I just briefly
7 referred to the Chamber's approach to this, but I didn't elaborate on
9 If that is a matter you would want to include or if there would
10 be anything else you would like to further say in response to Mr. Jordash
11 and Mr. Petrovic, you may do so now.
12 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 On the matter of fresh evidence, just in response to your last
14 comment, Your Honour, we can -- we do intend to tender the underlying
15 materials in rebuttal, and my intention was to deal with that at the end
16 of the witness's testimony, and I will be prepared at that time,
17 obviously, to respond to any matters relating to the admissibility of
18 that material.
19 I would like to respond to some other points that were raised by
20 the Defence.
21 This is a case about the Serbian MUP, and this is the Defence MUP
22 expert. In fact, this is the only MUP expert to testify in this case for
23 either party. Now, I recognise that the Defence and the expert both
24 concede and that the Chamber acknowledges that the intention underlying
25 this report was, perhaps, not to say what actually happened but, rather,
1 to present what should have happened had the rules been followed.
2 That said, Your Honour, the report the way it stands does not
3 read as conditional. The author states as early as in his introductory
4 remarks: The police expert report shall present a study on the
5 functioning of organs of the interior. That's paragraph 1. Paragraph 4:
6 Part five of the study analyses, among other things, the exercise of the
7 managerial function of the chief of the SDB. Paragraph 6: Part seven of
8 the study deals with the establishment and activity of the
9 2nd Administration. Paragraph 8: Part nine of the study - which is the
10 JATD section - pursuant to the legal documents related to the JATD,
11 issues are discussed including the relationship between active and
12 reserve members, the manner of recruitment and engagement, the rights and
13 obligations of numbers, and the pay for engaging the reserve force in the
14 field. And finally, and most prominently, paragraph 9 of the
15 introduction: This methodological approach in the expert report, based
16 on the relevant documents, makes it possible to ascertain in detail the
17 place and role of Franko Simatovic in the functioning of the SDB of the
18 MUP of the Republic of Serbia; i.e., the duties that he de facto and
19 de jure discharged in the period from 1991 to 1995.
20 Now, if the Defence acknowledges and the Chamber believes that
21 the witness has no knowledge of these matters, no basis for these
22 assertions, then this evidence is inadmissible, and the parts that are
23 not conditional on the rules should be stricken from the report. If the
24 Defence is prepared to create a redacted version of the report that
25 removes all matters related to anything other than the de jure structure
1 of the MUP, then perhaps much of my questioning may not be necessary.
2 As long as these de facto matters remain in the report, through,
3 they will be the evidence of this witness. Regardless of what the
4 intention was in creating the report, they need to be tested. The
5 report, and in particular the sections which focus on the role of
6 Franko Simatovic and the JATD, if left the way they are and tendered into
7 evidence without being rebutted, will leave as part of the record not
8 only an incomplete piece of evidence but also unequivocal assertions
9 which, even if partly true, are not the whole truth, even in our view as
10 known by the witness based upon documentation he has reviewed.
11 My cross-examination would focus - and will focus - heavily on
12 the section on Franko Simatovic and the section on the JATD. I will
13 focus on unsourced assertions in the report, the incomplete and, in our
14 view, inaccurate presentation of what the author clearly represents as
15 the status quo at the time, and the omission of what we say the author
16 did know based upon documents he asserted that he reviewed in preparation
17 of his report but did not cite to.
18 In short, our view is that the report is not purely focused on
19 the de jure situation but that it either clearly suggests or explicitly
20 states that the de facto situation was in line with the de jure
21 situation. And in order to do so, the author omits additional
22 information which was at or could have been at his disposal.
23 As we have seen, it is not unusual for the Defence to rely
24 affirmatively upon what is not said, and the fact of that not having been
25 said not only upon what actually is said.
1 Finally, Your Honours, unless the Defence will not be relying
2 upon the report, either its inclusions or its omissions or part of the
3 report in support of its case, the Prosecution submits that we should
4 have a full and fair opportunity to rebut in detail. In particular the
5 sections focused on the accused Simatovic and the JATD.
6 Now, part of that rebuttal, Your Honours, would be through my
7 questioning, and part of it would be through putting certain documents to
8 the witness. If the Chamber prefers that the cross-referencing tools
9 that I have prepared not be used, I have no problem in using that later
10 in submissions. It was a means of making sure that the witness
11 understood how some of the documents I'm going to show to him fit into
12 our case so that he understands clearly the context, and absolutely to be
13 a tool for the Defence and the Chamber to understand what our case is
14 with respect to individual documents that I would put to the witness.
15 The other materials underlying those charts will be tendered by
16 us in rebuttal of the report of this witness because of the submissions
17 that I've just made.
18 Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We now -- thank you, Ms. Marcus. I should have
20 given you an opportunity earlier, because I do understand that where I
21 instructed you to show that it was the expertise of the witness which you
22 could further explore, that what you are saying is that the witness has
23 not limited himself to -- to the structure, to the rules, to the
24 legislation, but also it was conclusions of a factual nature.
25 I'd like to give an opportunity to the Defence to briefly respond
1 to especially the -- I wouldn't say the shift, but at least the inclusion
2 of the factual parts of the report in the examination.
3 MR. JORDASH: If I may just briefly deal with the issue relating
4 to the JATD and the section of the report which deals with that, and I'll
5 leave the Simatovic team to deal with the issue of Mr. Simatovic.
6 But in relation to the section of the report which deals with the
7 JATD, I don't think my learned friend is right. The witness has been
8 clear that he based his report on the documents. He hasn't asserted that
9 he has factual knowledge of the JATD beyond what the documents say. And
10 the section in his report dealing with the JATD is, as far as I can see,
11 wholly uncontroversial. It doesn't, as far as I can see, assert anything
12 which the Prosecution will, in fact, disagree with. They may say, "Well,
13 he hasn't included things which we know to be the case," but that's not
14 the point. The point is that he's made -- the expert has made assertions
15 about the JATD as far as he is able to according to the documents, and he
16 hasn't made an assertion which the Prosecution, as far as I can see,
17 would disagree with.
18 If that's wrong and they do have a problem with the content of
19 what he said about the JATD, then obviously they're entitled to
20 cross-examine on it. What they're not entitled to do is simply say,
21 "Well, we assert - with no basis whatsoever - that you know all about the
22 JATD, and we're going to prove that by relying upon 48 new documents
23 relating to the JATD in order to assert that you do know about the JATD,"
24 and in doing so, elicit a huge amount of fresh evidence.
25 There's no basis for it, in our submission.
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. MARCUS: -- with all due respect, I haven't commenced my
4 cross-examination on the JATD section yet. I think it's quite premature.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I -- I know that. But I think the problem
6 for Mr. Jordash is that you should not start that. Well, whether he's
7 right or wrong, it may depend very much on what questions are put to the
8 witness during cross-examination.
9 First of all, Mr. Petrovic, would you like to add anything to ...
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Just a few
12 It's my impression that Mr. Milosevic's position is quite clear.
13 Mr. Milosevic is interpreting the rules and the regulations, the rules of
14 service, in his report. As to whether there are other facts in this case
15 that correspond to what we have heard from him, well, that will be a
16 matter of debate. Mr. Milosevic is not trying to lead us to any
17 conclusions with regard to the facts to decide whether the reality
18 corresponds to the rules and regulations. This is for us to convince the
19 Chamber of the fact. Whether we are successful in doing that, well,
20 we'll see. But that is not what the witness is doing. The witness is
21 providing a normative basis, so he analyses the rules and regulations,
22 but as to situation on the ground, as to the reality whether it is in
23 accordance with the norms and regulations and to what extent, well, the
24 Chamber will decide on the matter.
25 He's interpreting Franko Simatovic's personnel file that the
1 Prosecution has access to. He draws conclusions on the basis of
2 documents. The Chamber has his personnel file, the interpretation of
3 that file, and other evidence. The Chamber will then take its own
5 So what my learned is attempting to do, in my opinion, is an
6 inadequate view of the Defence's intention. The norms are being analysed
7 according to which the service worked, the norms and regulations
8 according to which Franko Simatovic and Jovica Stanisic acted at the
9 time, and everything else is something that concerns the facts.
10 So if my learned friend is disputing his interpretation of the
11 norms, his expertise when it comes to interpreting the norms, if she is
12 going to present some other norms and regulations to him, well, that's
13 fine. But if she wants to show him 45 documents initialed by
14 Mr. Simatovic, well, that just leads us nowhere.
15 Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you apparently ignore what Ms. Marcus
17 is saying, that is that the report is not just about rules and
18 regulations. That's part of her submission.
19 Let me just confer with my colleagues for a second.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you have added an element to the
22 discussion of the cross-examination of this witness that you also want to
23 challenge factual parts.
24 Now, first of all, if it is not the factual parts, you can put
25 questions to the witness and elicit evidence -- any evidence which isn't
1 in the realm of his expertise. As far as factual parts are concerned,
2 the Chamber does not yet or would not immediately positively agree with
3 you that what you quoted from the introduction part, whether those claims
4 materialise in the report itself. Nevertheless, the Chamber also
5 understands that you find some factual elements here and there, and the
6 appropriate way of dealing with that is not to put to the witness a lot
7 of material, but first of all to identify exactly what factual portion
8 you are going to deal with; second, then to explore with the witness on
9 what knowledge that factual elements in the report are based. And we'll
10 see after that whether there is any need or whether it assists in putting
11 additional material to the witness.
12 If the witness would show a very flawed basis of his knowledge,
13 which may come down to knowledge not to be taken that seriously, because
14 if he would say, "Well, that's what I thought already on my conversations
15 with my neighbours for the last five years," then I think there would be
16 no need to put specific material, because that would not be a basis on
17 which the Chamber would easily rely and therefore it would not assist the
18 Chamber to hear from the witness that the witness is -- could or could
19 not commence on all kind of material of a totally different nature.
20 Is this sufficient guidance? So we clearly distinguish between
21 expert evidence, then we should limit it to that. If we are going to
22 factual evidence, actual -- factual parts of the report, identify clearly
23 where they are, first explore what the basis of it is, and we'll then
24 decide to what extent it would be appropriate to put other matters to the
1 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will proceed.
3 MS. MARCUS:
4 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to show you an example of one of the
5 documents that is contained in this chart.
6 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P2772 but not
7 broadcast it to the public.
8 Q. What you see before you is a page from the DB personnel file of
9 someone named Milenko Milovanovic. Now, this document --
10 MS. MARCUS: Perhaps we could go to the signature line.
11 Q. -- is signed by Dragoslav Krsmanovic, who you said in your
12 report, at paragraph 375, was the assistant commander of the JATD. This
13 request by Krsmanovic for a background check on 31 candidates for active
14 and reserve duty in the JATD is initialed, we say, at the top by
15 Franko Simatovic.
16 MS. MARCUS: Perhaps we could return to the very top so that the
17 signature is visible.
18 Q. That is why this is one of the documents on that chart containing
19 documents which we say were signed by or initialed by Mr. Simatovic.
20 My question is: Which aspect of Frenki's official positions and
21 role that you described in paragraph 8 -- sorry, in part eight of your
22 report would have involved signing or initialling documents relating to
23 the JATD?
24 A. First of all, I am not a handwriting expert. I can't confirm
25 that this is his initial. And I'm not familiar with Mr. Simatovic's
1 initials or with his signature. I apologise for laughing a bit. So I
2 can't confirm that it's authentic. But if it is, this could mean two
3 things. It would probably mean that he's familiar with this material.
4 If that's his initial, that was probably the case; he was probably
5 familiar with the material. But I am not aware of all the details. This
6 is the first time I've seen this document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, could you focus on what Ms. Marcus
8 clearly asks you. She didn't ask you to verify whether or to tell us
9 whether this is Mr. Simatovic's initials. What she wants to know is what
10 in the description of -- of his job would match with the activity or with
11 the -- would match with being made familiar with a request as the one in
12 this document, that is, the request by Krsmanovic, for a background check
13 on 31 candidates for active and reserve duty in the JATD. Where do we
14 find anything in his job description which would -- which could be
15 matched with this activity?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These initials mean that he was
17 familiar with this. But I have certain reservations about the initials,
18 so I would have to check whether at the time he was -- I do apologise.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am not asking you to say anything about the
20 initials. Just on an assumption that this, with or without the initials,
21 that this request would have been brought to the attention of
22 Mr. Simatovic at the time the document indicates - that is, in
23 August 1993 - what is it in the job description that would make us
24 understand that this would be brought to the attention of Mr. Simatovic?
25 And just ignore the initials.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't say exactly. I'd have
2 to have a look at the document. At the time I think he was already the
3 special advisor to the chief. If you allow me to have a look at the
4 documents, I'll answer the question. If he was the advisor, then perhaps
5 that's why his initials are here. The date is the 16th of August, 1993.
6 At the time, he was already the special advisor to the chief of the RDB,
7 so it's quite possible that he had those duties to perform.
8 I have already said that with regard to special advisors, it
9 wasn't known in advance which special advisors would be responsible for
10 certain duties. It was a matter of a specific assignment. And these
11 responsibilities were decided on a case-by-case basis, so this is the
12 only way in which I can understand the matter.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If I understand your answer well, you would say the
14 position of Mr. Simatovic as a special advisor would not make it
15 illogical to keep him informed about this request and to have knowledge
16 of it. Is that ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we have a request for
18 operational verifications that concerns certain individuals, and this
19 also involves gathering certain intelligence. In Montenegro,
20 intelligence information on place of residence, place of birth, and so on
21 and so forth. And as to the special advisor, he was probably aware of
22 this matter because it's a complex issue and concerned a number of
23 individuals, so he must certainly have been familiar with this case in
24 one way or another. That is my understanding of this document.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's all conclusions, what he certainly
1 must have been familiar with. We leave those conclusions most likely to
2 the Chamber.
3 Ms. Marcus.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
5 Could the Court Officer please call up P2933.
6 Q. Mr. Milosevic, what you will see on the screen in front of you in
7 a moment is an excerpt from the diaries or notebooks of Ratko Mladic.
8 This entry, as you can see, is dated the 16th of December, 1991. In the
9 first line, it says:
10 "Dule Orlovic, Filipovic - Fica and Frenki (Serbia DB/state
11 security/) they want to give some 3.000 barrels to the Muslims in Bihac."
12 For your information, there has been evidence in this case that
13 in this context the word "barrels" means infantry weapons. Perhaps in
14 B/C/S that was clear to you.
15 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, that's the 8th of December, 2011, at
16 page 15510.
17 Q. Now, my question to you is: Which aspect of Frenki's official
18 position and role, as you describe in paragraph 8 -- sorry, again, in
19 part eight of your report, would have involved providing infantry weapons
20 to the Muslims in Bihac in December of 1991?
21 A. There's no way I can answer this question which only relates to
22 facts. I have no knowledge about anyone delivering anything to anyone or
23 of someone having such tasks on the basis of one's job specifications.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, I again have to interrupt you. The
25 question is not whether this happened. The question is that what is
1 described here, that Frenki - which is a name often used for
2 Mr. Simatovic, but you don't have to bother about that - involved in
3 wishing to give 3.000 barrels to the Muslims in Bihac, whether you, from
4 the point of your expertise, are able to point at any part in the job
5 description or in the description of the function of Mr. Simatovic in
6 December 1991 which would make us understand how this matches to his
7 function. That's the question.
8 And I can imagine that you would first of all look exactly at
9 what his position was in December 1991, and I think what we find about it
10 is primarily in paragraph 364 of your report.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've seen that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The question again is: Did you --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have understood the question,
14 Your Honours. And I did have a look at paragraph 363 and paragraph 364.
15 And in 364 it says that at the time Simatovic was the head of the
16 department for the US intelligence service, so there's no way I can link
17 this to the issue of delivering 3.000 weapons to the Muslims in Bihac. I
18 don't see how this would be part of his job description.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 I see that I have only a few minutes left.
22 Q. Before I conclude, Mr. Milosevic, I would like to ask you,
23 please, if you could prepare for us, to the best of your ability, either
24 based on what you remember or perhaps based on some notes or e-mail
25 communications - I don't know - to draw up for us, and if possible - with
1 the Chamber's leave, of course - to provide through the Victim and
2 Witness Section any other documents that you consulted in preparing your
3 report which are not either cited in the footnotes or -- and which are
4 not contained in your bibliography.
5 So I'm referring specifically to a few things that you said.
6 Yesterday, at page 18948, you said:
7 "Based on personnel files and other decisions, including letters
8 of appointments and assignments and the payrolls."
9 Today, at page 7, you said:
10 "There were decisions that concerned Milan Radonjic, and so on
11 and so forth."
12 Today, at page 8 -- I'm sorry, today at page 11, you said:
13 "... I didn't use all the material I had because these are a
14 lot [sic]. For example, on appointments and there are quite a lot of
15 such decisions. It would be absolutely pointless to reference each of
16 those decisions. But if you like, I can try to ..."
17 So, Mr. Milosevic, what I'm asking you - and again, this is only
18 with leave of the Chamber - is to try to the best of your ability to
19 reconstruct which were the other documents that you consulted which you
20 did not provide for in the footnotes or in the bibliography.
21 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, with your leave, could the witness --
22 would that be acceptable to the Chamber?
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to hear from the Defence whether
24 there are any objections with inviting the witness to try to write down
25 what other sources which we do not find in the report he may have
1 consulted when preparing his report.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't have any
3 objections to that. I don't know if it's possible. But I won't go into
4 that. I have no objections.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is what we'd like to hear from you, of
6 course. Whether the witness is able to do it ... if he refers to certain
7 materials, then I would expect that at least he would give us some
8 insight in it.
9 But, Mr. Jordash, any objections?
10 MR. JORDASH: No objection, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Milosevic, would you be willing to dig
12 deep in your memory and see whether -- if you are talking about other
13 personnel files, whether you would remember, for example, how many
14 approximately you've seen - is it in the hundreds, is it five, is it
15 fifty - to try to remember what names you may remember or to try to
16 remember what other decisions you have seen which you may not have used.
17 Are you willing to do it? Let's start with that.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I'm willing to help in
19 any way I can in order to shed light on the truth, but personnel files
20 aren't concerned here, and mistakes continue to be made here, because
21 here the reference is made to salary lists, but what's concerned are
22 decisions on salaries. That's just a one-page document. Whereas, lists
23 of salaries consist of a lot of pages. Or perhaps the Prosecution
24 doesn't understand me. But the only thing that can be done is to mention
25 key documents that perhaps haven't been mentioned here, and I'll go
1 through the list she shows me to see whether there is anything of
2 significance that could be added.
3 I really don't know exactly how to perform this exercise. This
4 isn't something I could do exhaustively. I could try and identify
5 certain key documents that aided me to draw certain conclusions; for
6 example, the date on which certain units were established.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, I'm happy that you are willing to
8 offer that assistance, but I'd like to urge you to go a bit further.
9 When I, for example, said, personnel files, whether you remember how many
10 you've seen - and I'm not asking you whether it was 43 or 44 - but I'd
11 like to know whether it's one, or ten, or a hundred, and whether you
12 remember, apart from the personnel file from Mr. Simatovic, whether you
13 remember any names. That, in addition to what you considered to be key
14 documents. And also to think about if it is about decisions on payment,
15 whether you have seen one or two or whether you have seen the whole
16 series of it. Whether you have seen any payrolls. That's --
17 And again, quantity and the type of document, I take, Ms. Marcus,
18 you are certainly interested in as well.
19 MS. MARCUS: Absolutely, Your Honour. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you try to do your utmost best not only on
21 what you consider to be the key documents, but also keep in mind what I
22 just added.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I apologise. Could we just clarify
24 that the witness would provide that to us in advance of -- not when he
25 comes to court next time perhaps, but as soon as he's ready. Perhaps
1 through the Victim and Witness Unit.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Preparing such a list, Mr. Milosevic, would
3 take you approximately how much time?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to say. I really
5 don't know. But there's only one personnel file that is important. It's
6 Franko Simatovic's file. The other documents are only a few decisions.
7 Perhaps by Monday.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, when you say there is only one
9 important, that wasn't the question, which one you considered to be
10 important. What we wanted to know is approximately how many you've seen.
11 If you've seen only Mr. Simatovic's personnel file, then it -- the
12 question is easily answered. If you have seen five, you might remember
13 names or you might not remember names. So don't make your selection on
14 the basis of what you consider to be relevant, but try to be as complete
15 as possible in relation to the type of documents that Ms. Marcus was
16 referring to.
17 Now, let's have a look at the court schedule. If you say could
18 have finished it by Monday morning, then I take it - I'm not intending to
19 spoil your weekend, but there is a Friday in between as well - would you
20 be able to give such a list reflecting, as completely as possible, your
21 reflection on these matters by Monday, well, let's say, 10.00?
22 Mr. Milosevic.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can try to do that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Milosevic, you've got, then, three days.
25 You are an experienced academic. You would know whether or not you are
1 able to produce that by Monday morning. That's, giving it your best
2 efforts, you just suggested yourself to do it by Monday.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then could it be arranged through the Victims and
5 Witness Section that the list could be received from Mr. Milosevic Monday
6 morning, 10.00.
7 Would that serve your purposes? Because we'll adjourn until
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we adjourn for the day.
11 And I again instruct you, Mr. Milosevic, that you should not
12 speak with anyone about your testimony either given or still to be given,
13 and we'd like to see you back Tuesday, the 8th of May, at 9.00 in the
14 morning in this same courtroom, II. And I wish all of you a good
16 We stand adjourned.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day
20 of May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.