1 Tuesday, 8 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica
10 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 According to the clock in this courtroom, we start with 20
13 minutes to 9.00. I would appreciate if it could be adjusted soon.
14 The Chamber is privy of a conversation between the parties who
15 would continue or start cross-examination today. From what we've seen it
16 seems that the party -- that the Stanisic Defence does not oppose a
17 suggestion made by the Prosecution to continue -- or to start its
18 cross-examination now. There was something about the number of
19 documents. Has that been resolved?
20 MR. JORDASH: No, that hasn't. We didn't oppose in principle.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: But we wanted a clear indication from the
23 Prosecution concerning the amount of new documents they wished to use
24 because that, in our submission, impacts upon whether the Defence
25 beginning at this stage would in fact save the time that the Prosecution
1 claim it would.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
4 The usual order of cross-examination was varied for a specific
5 reason and that was because the Stanisic Defence was unable to
6 communicate with Mr. Stanisic.
7 Now, they asserted they needed a week's time and they've now had
8 that time, so the reason for changing the order no longer exists, so in
9 our submission we should revert to the usual order.
10 Now the Defence raise a new and separate issue; that is, the
11 Prosecution's use of documents not yet in evidence during
12 cross-examination. They're attempting now to argue that as a basis for
13 continuing with the inverted order of cross-examination.
14 So in our submission as this issue would not have been a
15 sufficient reason to reverse the order in the first place, it should not
16 be considered to be a reason to maintain the reversed order now, and I do
17 believe that it will save time -- additional time in cross-examination
18 for them to proceed first.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They do not only attempt to argue but even
20 argue. That's ...
21 Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure what to say. The Prosecution are
23 clearly unwilling to indicate how many new exhibits they intend to use.
24 And if they use 48 new documents, that will give rise to a multitude of
25 new issues which will then have to be dealt with afterwards. I mean,
1 if -- I don't want to make a big fuss of this, and if -- if -- I'm ready
2 to proceed if that's what Your Honours want, but it would have been
3 useful to have an indication from the Prosecution.
4 But I'm happy to proceed.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, could you give us any indication .
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. It's exactly as I communicated
7 to the Defence by e-mail. I itemised the individual documents that I
8 planned to call up individually, and I explained that with respect to the
9 documents underlying the charts, the three charts, I intend to deal with
10 those as a whole. That was -- that's -- as clear an indication as I can
11 give in advance as possible. That is precisely, at the moment, what I --
12 what I plan to do.
13 And the decision of -- use and tendering, in my view, is two
14 different issues. The use -- we have a perfect right to use whatever
15 we -- we seek to use. The tendering we will decide at the tail-end of
16 the -- of the witness's testimony, what we seek to tender, based on his
17 responses to the questions.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the Chamber is not blind for the
20 problems you may face, but the basic issue that the usual order is
21 Defence first and then Prosecution, that is what makes us conclude that
22 you're the one now to continue.
23 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, Your Honours.
24 WITNESS: MILAN MILOSEVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
2 Q. Good morning, Professor.
3 A. Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we start, I would like to remind you,
5 Mr. Milosevic, I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the
6 solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
7 But that would have been clear to you anyhow.
8 Mr. Jordash [sic], you have followed the discussion, whether
9 Ms. Marcus would continue and then conclude her cross-examination or
10 whether, which is the usual order, Mr. Jordash would now start his
11 cross-examination. You have heard the decision. So it will first be
12 Mr. Jordash, then the conclusion of Ms. Marcus, her cross-examination,
13 and then possibly re-examination.
14 Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
16 Q. First of all, Professor, I'd like to deal with the issue
17 concerning the Supreme Court of Serbia's participation in the
18 interception of telephones and such.
19 You indicated that - am I correct? - that the rules indicated
20 that that should take place, that the Supreme Court should be approached
21 to give approval before intrusive surveillance of certain kinds took
22 place; is that correct?
23 A. You're absolutely right. The president of the Supreme Court or a
24 judge that he designates takes a decision. That's the procedure. The
25 decision concerns the Ministry of Interior. Or, rather, he is the only
1 one who can suggest that such a decision can be taken, and then the court
2 has the power to take such a decision. I think that's what it says in
3 the text. The service can provide these suggestions that SDB most
4 frequently, but only the minister can officially submit such a suggestion
5 to the court. So the court has absolute control over the matter.
6 Q. Now you fairly said that you were talking about the rules and not
7 necessarily the practice and that you were not aware of whether this,
8 during the relevant period, had been followed to the letter or not. But
9 what you did discuss --
10 MR. JORDASH: -- at, Your Honours, page 18295 --
11 Q. -- was what I interpreted as a culture within the state security.
12 And, in particular, a culture arising from the misbehaviour of a chief of
13 police who was accused of intercepting the period of time the republic,
14 Tito, and the president of the party. Sorry, the president of the
15 republic and the president of the party, which was Tito.
16 Do you recall that testimony?
17 A. Of course, I do. The Brioni Plenum is what is concerned. That
18 is the name that is usually given to that event. I'm very familiar with
19 all the details concerning that affair.
20 Q. Am I correct, before we go into the details, that what you were
21 attempting to say was that it was well-known and a part of the culture
22 within the DB, by the time we get to 1991, that there was real potential
23 for the misuse of intrusive surveillance arising from this particular
24 affair, which we'll go into in a moment?
25 A. Yes, there was such a culture, as you say. Everyone was
1 cautious. They were well aware of the fact that anything that deviated
2 from the rules and regulations could be a big problem for those who were
3 involved. Everyone was, as a result, very cautious.
4 I stated here that there were no affairs at the time. There was
5 one later in the year 2000 and it doesn't concern anyone here. It
6 concerns different people. I can give you the details if you like. But
7 at any time there weren't any affairs in public view, and there were no
8 doubts that anyone had about such affairs.
9 Q. Well, perhaps I limit the culture too much because the culture,
10 in fact, was a culture which infected everyone who might be the subject
11 of surveillance if Tito, the logic went, could be intrusively bugged then
12 so could Milosevic, so could any of the leadership, and it was that
13 awareness which was -- defined the culture within the DB and outside of
14 the DB. Am I summarising things correctly?
15 A. Yes, you are.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the basis for all this is -- I mean, in
17 view of the expertise of the witness, I really have -- the culture, I
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, I'm referring to what the witness earlier
20 said about at, Your Honours, page 18926, where he talks about the
21 Brioni Plenum case where he --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I remember that. But then to create the
23 culture was major, mainly defined by the -- that requires a thorough
24 in-depth study of all that, instead of a kind of subjective feeling of
25 what the culture is.
1 MR. JORDASH: But --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, you'll understand that it's -- it's all of
3 such an abstract and vague nature that one wonders what it is exactly
4 based on more than subjective feelings. And, of course, one or two
5 incidents which may have taken place.
6 I mean, in order to find out what the feeling is within an
7 organisation, you would have to interview persons on that. If you want
8 to really establish something in a -- in an accepted psychological or
9 sociological methodology, but it seems that that is not the basis of the
10 answers of the witness in his report in this respect on the matter you
11 just touched upon.
12 MR. JORDASH: I will try and have the witness explain why he
13 concluded that there was this caution, at least, that was exercised in
14 these matters.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether it's mainly on the basis of subjective
16 feelings and speaking now and then, not in a systematic way, with a few
17 persons or whether it was based on more.
18 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
19 Q. You followed the discussion, Professor?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let's try to understand this as briefly as we can.
22 You said at page 18926 last week: "... but in Serbia much
23 caution was exercised in the matter, and people are very wary of
24 violating the rules on interception."
25 What's your source of information? Why did you testify that way?
1 A. Well, it's quite simply the case. If you like, there is a
2 certain culture as you say, that existed in the service, in the
3 department and outside. The service wasn't involved with politics and
4 politicians. They didn't want to mix the department and politics. Those
5 are two different things. That was the first matter. And then,
6 secondly, secret resources used by the SDB shouldn't be used without good
7 grounds. They should be used in a restrictive manner. One learned from
8 the past, because there was an accusation that Muslims used -- well, I
9 don't know to need go into further details, do I then?
10 Q. No, but I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion
11 that there was a culture within the service at around the time of these
12 events, in the -- in the early 1990s. Where do you -- why do you make
13 that -- why did you arrive at that conclusion?
14 A. Well, it's difficult to determine such facts, psychological
15 facts, but you determine them on the basis of external indicators. As
16 you know, the fact that there was no affair that broke out in public view
17 speaks for itself. Later such things occurred but not between the period
18 1991 to 1995. Naturally, the presidents and the prime minister of the
19 SRJ -- SRY were intercepted, their conversations were intercepted at
20 Karadjordjevo, but this has nothing to do with this story. But in Serbia
21 itself there were no problems in public view. At least I wasn't aware of
22 any such problems, and it's on that basis that I have drawn this
24 Q. So it's simply --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if you would not mind.
1 I would like to analyse your answer. You say the -- you know the
2 fact there was no affair that broke out in public view speaks for itself.
3 Now, that's totally unclear to me, especially if I listen to that
4 together with your last sentence: "But in Serbia itself, there were no
5 problems in public view. At least I wasn't aware of any such problems,
6 and it's on that basis that I've drawn my conclusions."
7 So whether something did not happen or whether you were not aware
8 it to happen is unclear in your answer. You were not aware, which can
9 mean two things: That it didn't happen; or that it happened, but that
10 you were not aware.
11 That's exactly also the problem with your answer, that the fact
12 that there was no affair speaks for itself. It doesn't speak for itself
13 at all, I would say, because if an affair does not break out in public,
14 it can mean that there is nothing to break out in public or that there
15 were other factors, which, although there was an affair, it did not break
16 out in public.
17 So, therefore, from an expert point of view, your answer, both in
18 the beginning and at the end, clearly demonstrate what the problem is;
19 that is, that without thorough investigation of certain matters, that you
20 wouldn't know. You may have an impression. You may be aware of certain
21 facts, you may not be aware of other facts.
22 That's exactly my intellectual problem with this specific answer
23 and that it was -- it was that point, Mr. Jordash, that I addressed in my
24 previous observation.
25 If you would like to further clarify your answer, fine. But I
1 think it would be good for everyone to know that your answer exactly
2 demonstrates what I earlier expressed as being my problem.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I answer?
4 JUDGE ORIE: You may -- although we are not in a debate, I give
5 you a fair opportunity to -- to bring to our attention whatever you think
6 relevant in relation to the general observation I made earlier and in
7 relation to the answer I just tried to analyse.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is my subjective
9 impression. I didn't carry out an investigation. I didn't carry out a
10 poll. But as a citizen who lived there at the time, I can't remember any
11 affairs. Someone would have had to bring such cases to court or would
12 have had to appear in the press. I can't remember any such cases. But
13 what I have been speaking about is the impression I gained at the time,
14 and that is what I have conveyed to you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Let's just continue this subject but moving it along, hopefully.
19 Paragraph 161 of your report. Let's have a look at that time. I
20 want to examine just briefly what controls existed in relation to the
21 work of the state security at the relevant time.
22 161 deals with the Council for the Protection of the
23 Constitutional Order being a working body of the Presidency of the
24 Socialist Republic of Serbia. And paragraph 163 concerns the Law on
25 Control of the State Security Service. Did either of these entities or
1 the council or the law have a supervisory role over such things as
2 intrusive surveillance?
3 A. Absolutely.
4 Q. Now the Council for the Protection of the Constitutional Order,
5 did that exist in 1991 through to -- let's just limit ourselves to the
6 indictment period, but 1995/1996?
7 A. The question concerns the Council for the protection or the
8 comission for control. Could you please repeat your question, because
9 I'm not sure what it was.
10 Q. Paragraph 161 deals with the Council for the Protection of the
11 Constitutional Order. Let me try to break this down.
12 Did that council have a role to play in supervising the legality
13 of intrusive surveillance conducted by the State Security Service in 1991
14 through to 1995?
15 A. Yes, it did.
16 Q. And who was on that council?
17 A. The members were prominent politicians at the time. Civil
19 Q. Presumably, then, in 1991 onwards, as the breakdown occurred,
20 these were prominent politicians close to Milosevic.
21 A. In the parliament there are various politicians. Milosevic
22 didn't appoint members of the parliament. This was something that was
23 decided at freely held elections. The majority appoints a government. I
24 don't really understand your question.
25 Q. I think I've taken that as far as I want to. But the law -- did
1 the council have a role in ensuring that the Law on the Control of the
2 State Security Service was complied with?
3 A. Well, that was its purpose, amongst other things.
4 Q. So do we take your answer that you gave a few moments ago when
5 the learned Judge was querying your answer, do we take your answer to be
6 that you would have expected this council to have closely supervised
7 whether the state security was conducting intrusive surveillance within
8 the law, and you would have expected that, if they hadn't been, this
9 council would have seen that and been concerned about that, given that
10 they, themselves, might be targets?
11 A. That's right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if you wouldn't mind, a few matters you
13 touched upon.
14 The first was the role in the intrusive surveillance. What the
15 role was has not been further elaborated so we do not know.
16 Then, second, who were members of the council. They apparently
17 were politicians. Then you took it to whether they were close to
18 President Milosevic. We have no answer to that. Neither do we know how
19 they were exactly appointed because that's not described, I think, in 161
20 and 162.
21 So we now know that members of parliament were elected. That
22 doesn't come as a shocking, new, information. But all the other issues
23 was touched upon. Apparently you have some concerns about it or at least
24 you would like to know more about it, but whenever the question about the
25 role, about how were people of the council appointed, was there any
1 selective methods that those close to the political position of
2 President Milosevic would be the ones on -- on the council, we still do
3 not know. So everything --
4 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I apologise. I think I'm just trying
5 to go too quickly today, and I think you're absolutely right. I'm
6 missing bringing some clarification to these issues, and I'll certainly
7 do my best --
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you want us to consider it, then --
9 MR. JORDASH: Of course.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- please give us the information through the
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
13 Q. Let's try to -- if I can try to be more direct and you can try to
14 be more direct in your answer, and we can try to assist the Chamber in
15 understanding these issues.
16 Did the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia appoint the members of
17 the council?
18 A. The assembly appointed the members of the commission. For
19 overseeing the State Security Service, that is. And that is what I
20 meant. That's the one that dealt with direct control.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I thought we were dealing with the council; that is,
22 161 and 162 in the report. It now appears that apparently the witness is
23 talking about the commission, which is described in 163 and following,
24 isn't it?
25 MR. JORDASH: No. I -- oh -- 16 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's what he -- you asked about members of the
2 council. I took it that your question was about the council described in
3 161. And then the witness said the assembly appointed the member of the
4 commission for overseeing State Security Service. That is a commission
5 which I find in 163.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I think we --
7 JUDGE ORIE: So there seems to be a -- question and the answer
8 have not got much to do with each other.
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I can see that.
10 Q. Let's focus -- let's try to do this systematically,
11 Mr. Milosevic. Paragraph 161 is talking about the council. What do you
12 know about how the council was elected in 1991 to 1995?
13 A. I really don't know that. I did not really deal with the council
14 except I mentioned it here. As a matter of fact, I don't even know --
15 well, I can talk about the commission that dealt with this directly.
16 Q. Okay. So your previous answers concerning the control of the
17 State Security Service were intended to apply --
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. -- you were talking about the commission and not the council.
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. Okay. So let's go to paragraph 164 of your report. "The
22 assembly of the Republic of Serbia set up the commission for the Control
23 of the State Security Service."
24 What do you know about the way in which the president and six
25 members were elected by the assembly? Do you know anything about how
1 that election took place?
2 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, can we get the years that we're talking
3 about for this commission.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think in earlier questions Mr. Jordash always
5 talked about 1991 to 1995/1996.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And that's --
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is the time-frame in which I understood all
8 these questions to be put to the witness.
9 MR. JORDASH:
10 Q. Professor, what do you know about the election of the president
11 and the six members by the assembly?
12 A. They were elected from the ranks of the assembly delegates. I
13 mentioned these 185 in a footnote. And I even said which house of
14 parliament they belonged to. So they were appointed by the assembly.
15 Q. And do you --
16 A. This is from 1986 until 1990. And that was further elaborated by
17 the rules of procedure, as is written here, of the Republic of Serbia.
18 So every year in the rules of procedure, it was clearly stated how this
19 would be done. The rules of procedure are the valid document on the
20 basis of which all of this is done.
21 And, actually, that is all written here.
22 Q. What about 1990 to 1995? What was the situation there with the
23 commission? You haven't spoken about that in your report. Do you know
24 anything of it?
25 A. According to the Law on Interior, from 1989 the Assembly of
1 Serbia was supposed to supervise the work of, et cetera, et cetera. And
2 a commission was to be established. I assume that it was done in the
3 same way. However, in the rules of procedure, I did not find a specific
4 elaboration of that. It would only be logical for it to be completely
5 identical, but I truly haven't found anything about that.
6 Q. But why do you limit it, then, to 1990? Are you saying that the
7 law came to an end in 1990 or the last law that -- or the last
8 regulations you found in place were those that were promulgated in 1990?
9 I don't understand why you haven't considered this post-1990.
10 A. Because I found rules of procedure of the assembly only up to
12 Q. So it's not that you found a set of rules saying it all no longer
13 applies post-1990. It's just the latest rules you found related to 1990.
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Do you know anything about the way the commission operated
17 A. I think that it operated the same way it did until then. That is
18 to say that they had the right to ask for any file, to look at any file.
19 They could check things any way they wanted to. The service had to
20 comply, of course. There couldn't have been any difference.
21 Q. Well, Professor, you say there couldn't have been any difference,
22 but I want to make sure we're dealing in facts.
23 Do you, in fact, know anything about the work of the commission
24 from your own personal observation, from speaking to others? If you
25 don't, you don't. That's fine. But I want to make sure we're dealing in
2 A. Well, the commission could operate only in that way. I don't see
3 how else it could operate. How else it could have insight without having
4 access to files, documents, et cetera. But, indeed, I did not take part
5 in the work of the conference. I am not a fact witness. I was not in
6 attendance when the commission met.
7 Q. Okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could I ask --
9 Do you know how the commission was composed, on from 1990? Who
10 were the members? I mean, for the first -- for the first, you said you
11 said that in the footnote. But for the others, you didn't know who the
12 members were?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Did you know whether they met, or whether they
15 frequently met, or whether they actually did send reports?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
19 Could I just take instructions, please.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Do you know anything about at this -- and, again, we're talking
23 about 1991 to 1995, do you know anything about a board of security within
24 the assembly, where the -- which the minister of the interior had to
25 report to?
1 A. Certainly. That was the parliamentary committee that was in
2 charge of overseeing all the security services and the entire field of
3 internal affairs in Serbia. So this was the parliamentary committee that
4 received reports from the minister of the interior, and the minister
5 submitted these reports on the basis of the reports that he received from
6 the RDB and the SDB. I assume that your question pertains only to the
7 SDB part. So that is what was done.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you asked something.
9 Where do we find this parliamentary committee or board of
10 security, as Mr. Jordash mentioned? Where do we find it in your report,
11 Mr. Milosevic?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is mentioned in several places,
13 Your Honour, and I'll try to find them now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you remember the official name, then we could
15 easily do a search through your report.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Committee for Security and
17 Defence. Or the Parliamentary Committee for Security and Defence. And I
18 think it's mentioned in several places.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If I search for "parliamentary" I have difficulties
20 in -- but I may have misspelled, as a matter of fact, in my search.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Committee for security," "security
22 committee." Those are the key words. So perhaps it could be found on
23 the basis of those key words.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I may be of
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In paragraph 166 of the report,
4 footnote 179.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, 166, we dealt with that, because that was the
6 subject where we had to establish that the witness did not know about the
7 functioning of the commission. But if that's the same commission, then
8 I'm a bit surprised by the question, after Mr. Jordash had taken
9 instructions. Because 166 we dealt with in quite some detail. The
10 missing further rules of procedure on from 1990.
11 So, therefore, if that's the same, then I'm really surprised by
12 the formulation of the question. Because it apparently was seeking
13 something different from what we had discussed and where the witness had
14 no knowledge about the functioning of that commission.
15 Mr. Jordash, would you agree?
16 MR. JORDASH: Yes. I hadn't presumed that 166 was what we were
17 talking about.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No. Confusion seems to be almost complete by now.
19 Let's -- no, no, I'm not blaming you Mr. --
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps I contributed to the
21 confusion. I am sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But let's try to reduce it.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Perhaps, Professor, you could look for that during a break to
25 save you the panic at the moment.
1 What I could ask you about, though, and we could return to this
2 subject, is paragraph 167 where you detail a law -- the Law on the
3 Internal Affairs, 1989, which appears to detail or mandate the assembly
4 to set up a commission for the political control of the legality of the
5 work of the State Security Services.
6 Are we talking about a continuation of the commission that we
7 were talking about in paragraph 164, or are you talking about something
8 else here?
9 A. This is the wording from the law itself. De facto, that is a
10 continuation of that control because the assembly, the highest organ of
11 government, primarily exercises political control.
12 Q. Okay. So that's the same commission as the Commission for the
13 Control of the State Security Service. And the 1989 law envisaged that
14 the assembly would keep setting up that commission going forwards?
15 A. That is what the law says.
16 Q. Okay. Let's return to this subject once you've had a chance to
17 look through the report to identify the security commission you've
18 referred to a moment ago.
19 Let's go to paragraph 45 of your report. I want to understand a
20 little more about the process by which the Kosovo province and the
21 Vojvodina province, DBs -- or provincial DBs became part of the Serbian
23 Prior to the merging of the three DBs, did the rules envisage
24 that they would act and conduct their work autonomously with some
25 co-ordination through the federal DB?
1 A. The law explicitly said that the republican secretary, that is to
2 say the minister, and the provincial secretaries, that is to say the
3 ministers of the interior, will co-ordinate the work of the security
4 service that is in a way that would be of interest to the entire republic
5 protecting the constitutional order and so on and so forth.
6 So they were supposed to act independently - but how do I put
7 this? - in a synchronised manner. Of course, only with regard to those
8 matters that are of interest to the entire republic.
9 Q. So looking at paragraph 52 of your report, you speak of the
10 change in the law adopted on the 17th of July 1991 where the three
11 organisations would, by law, be merged, and then the second half of the
12 paragraph states:
13 "However, in conformity with the provisions of Article 70 of the
14 said law, the provincial SUP, and thereby also the SDB of the Autonomous
15 Province of Vojvodina, continued to discharge the duties entrusted them
16 in this field pending -- pending the adoption of appropriate sub-laws on
17 the organisation of work and staffing specifications. In this way, the
18 State Security Service of the SUP Vojvodina continued to discharge duties
19 entrusted it up until January 1992."
20 Could you clarify this a little. Do you know, first of all, when
21 these appropriate sub-laws were eventually promulgated and operative?
22 Was that in January 1992?
23 A. Yes, in January. Those were the regulations on the organisation
24 and work that we discussed several times. I think that we practically
25 lost two days analysing only those regulations. That was from 1992.
1 So the answer to your question is yes.
2 Q. So the Vojvodina SUP remained autonomous effectively until
3 January 1992. Maintained its own hierarchy and maintained its own annual
4 work-plans and so on, at least on paper. That's what I'm talking about:
5 On paper.
6 A. Of course. They continued carrying out all their functions as
7 they had been doing up until then. So this is the period from July 1991
8 until January 1992.
9 Q. Now -- sorry, go on.
10 A. Well, this has to do with all of it. Say, the secondary school
11 for internal affairs and the post-secondary school. They all continued
12 operating until further notice, if you will. So my response to your
13 question is: That it was from July 1991 until January 1992.
14 Q. And let's be clear because your answer is a bit ambiguous.
15 Are you suggesting the rules and the laws and the regulations
16 effectively remained the same within the Vojvodina SUP; or are you
17 suggesting the rules and the laws and the regulations, plus practice,
18 stayed the same? Are you talking about practice here or limiting your
19 answer to the rules and regulations?
20 A. Well, obviously laws and regulations were in force. I believe
21 that practice was in force, if you well. It wasn't possible to change it
22 over such a short span of time.
23 So that's the way things went on until January 1992.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You say, "It wasn't possible to change it over a
25 short span of time. I believe that practice was in force..."
1 Do you know it? I mean, I do understand that if the sub-laws
2 have not been adopted that school system, for example, education, that
3 that remained the same. But do you know whether, on the operational
4 level, on the ground, whether they were, up till January, that they were
5 still operating independently?
6 Do you know anything about it? Or that it merged already. Or
7 that -- what can you tell us about the operations on the ground during
8 this period where the system had been changed but not all the sub-laws
9 had been adopted?
10 If you know. If you don't know, then tell us as well.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The State Security Service can only
12 operate on the basis of regulations on their work organisation, et
13 cetera. Since these regulations had not been adopted yet, then the
14 practice that existed until then was continued until the new regulations
15 were adopted. That's what I know, as I've said several times.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Your answer is ambiguous again. You say the State
17 Security Service can only operate. The question is whether they could
18 only operate but whether you have any factual knowledge about how they
19 did operate. Because to say that if the regulations have not been
20 adapted, the practice was continued, that -- that requires factual
21 knowledge of the operations themselves. Not what they should be, but how
22 these operations took place.
23 Do you -- could you give us examples of that? To say, Okay, look
24 at that. Those and those operations of Vojvodina went on independently
25 from any inference, from the branch with which it was merged once these
1 bylaws had been adopted.
2 Could you give us examples? Do you know anything about facts in
3 this respect? There's no problem if you do not, but we'd just like to
4 know whether it's your conclusion that it should have been, as you
5 describe it here, or whether it was, as you describe it here.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My conclusions are always based on
7 the interpretation of regulations. That is to say, I have no personal
8 knowledge of whether some operation evolved this way or some other way.
9 I'm just saying that that is what it was like on the basis of
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Do you know why there was a delay in these -- in the promulgation
15 of sub-laws in regards to Vojvodina compared to Kosovo?
16 A. The Kosovo SDB in a certain sense had already merged, had a
17 different status in relation to certain events and constitutional changes
18 that had previously taken place. This is explained in detail in my
19 report. The service in Kosovo for well-known events, for well-known
20 reasons, had already merged.
21 Q. Now the -- at the time that the Vojvodina SUP was a separate
22 organisational unit, it had its own head of state security, according to
23 the rules; correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And its own minister of the interior.
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And had -- the Vojvodina SUP had no obligation, according to the
3 rules, to report to the Serbian SUP.
4 A. It's interesting that in the Law on Internal Affairs the
5 Vojvodina SUP didn't have any obligations with respect to the RSUP of
6 Serbia. This wasn't logical, given that this was an autonomous region
7 within a state, but it's a fact.
8 Q. And the Vojvodina SUP hierarchy had no obligation to -- according
9 to the rules, to accept instructional orders from the Serbian SUP
11 A. In principle, no. They didn't have any such obligation.
12 Q. Are you able to confirm that the - and I'm sorry if I've missed
13 this in your report - are you able to confirm -- actually, I don't need
14 to deal with that. I was going ask you about the constitutional
15 amendments which were necessary to allow this merger to take place, but I
16 think that's dealt with in paragraph 50 of your report.
17 Let's go to paragraph 22 -- 240, please, of your report. I want
18 to deal with processing, evaluation, and analysis of operative
19 intelligence data and reports.
20 I want to try to understand what the rules concerning reporting
21 envisaged in relation to the transmission of information up from the
22 ground towards the -- and to the chief of the DB.
23 The reports which are -- and I'm trying to paraphrase so as not
24 to repeat, so forgive me if my language is a bit loose. But the reports
25 which -- or the documentation produced at the ground level by operatives
1 are, and I summarise, the primary documents?
2 A. Is your question what was done with such reports?
3 Q. No. I'm talking about definitions at the moment. Documentation
4 produced by operatives on behalf of centres, for example, documents which
5 emerge from gathering intelligence or counter-intelligence on the ground
6 are the primary documents within the rules of the DB; is that right?
7 A. That's right. The general term for such information was raw
8 information. This information hadn't been processed or verified, and it
9 was necessary to process such information. First, to categorise the
10 information on the basis of certain fields. It would then have to be
11 verified, supplemented. More details would have to be added. It would
12 have to be analysed. So in the grammatical sense of the term, one could
13 say that this information was raw information.
14 Q. And as it passed up the system -- and we'll talk about how it
15 passed up the system towards the chief and then eventually to the
16 political sphere, the material became less raw and more refined in terms
17 of policy. Does that make any sense to you whatsoever?
18 A. Not in political terms. It wasn't processed in terms of
19 policies. I don't know where you got that idea from. Material, any
20 kind, would arrive in the service from various sources. This was
21 voluminous material and a selection had to be made, first of all, because
22 some facts were incorrect, misinformation would sometimes be planted, and
23 so on and so forth.
24 Perhaps the sources were well intentioned but they didn't notice
25 these deficiencies. So all these things had to be verified. However,
1 the material was categorised on the base of their importance, not on the
2 basis of political criteria of any kind. Politics has nothing to do with
4 And it was very important to verify the facts and determine
5 whether they were relevant with regard to posing a threat to the country.
6 They would then be relayed to high-level organs in the service itself.
7 The entire process was called internal intelligence [as interpreted].
8 Anything that was sent outside the service was called external.
9 So some documents went up to the level of chiefs of units. Other
10 documents were sent up to the level of the chief of the service. And
11 only extremely important information would be sent outside the service,
12 if the information contained warnings of some kind.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave.
14 Page 26, line 13, it says "internal intelligence." I think the witness
15 said something else, and perhaps it's not appropriate, but I would like
16 to ask the witness to slow down because it really is difficult for the
17 interpreters to keep up with the witness.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I'll repeat
19 everything that I said. I forgot that I had to speak more slowly.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Let me try to assist.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I have it on a different line. I have it
23 on line 18: "The entire process was called internal...," and what did
24 you then say, Witness?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's the way in which
1 information circulated within the service. So this was internal. It
2 didn't go outside the service. The information went from the source, so
3 to speak, to the leadership. To the management level. But all this was
4 done within the service. Naturally, raw source information isn't sent to
5 higher levels. Only processed information is sent to higher levels. I
6 think that I have stated that quite clearly.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What word - and I'm not seeking for an
8 explanation -- when you said anything and -- the entire process was
9 called internal, and did you then use a word which may have been
10 misunderstood or misrecorded.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Information.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. [Overlapping speakers]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Information. It's a matter of
14 providing information internally and externally.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please stop. No, no. You've answered. I was only
16 seeking the word that you used, which is "information" rather than
17 requesting "intelligence."
18 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Let's -- I -- let's -- what -- what do you define as raw
21 material? I know it's difficult, but try to make it concrete so that we,
22 lay people, understand what raw material is or was?
23 A. This is information that the service would receive directly from
24 a source, from a collaborator, from a citizen, from some other service,
25 perhaps. So any initial information received. Any information that
1 demonstrated that there might be some events of a certain kind is raw
2 information. This information can be processed at several levels. It
3 doesn't always have to be processed at the lowest level.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I think the witness clearly
5 explained the raw information is what comes in, which then has to be
6 verified, has to be categorised, has to be -- et cetera, in order to --
7 he used that word not only today but earlier as well.
8 MR. JORDASH: No. And I -- sorry.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's perfectly clear and we can move on.
10 Unless there is any specific matter in this, if I could call it this --
11 this verification and polishing exercise of the materials to end up at
12 higher levels, whether that's -- any specific points needs further
14 MR. JORDASH: Well, I would like to have the -- put to the
15 witness certain descriptions of information and have him confirm or
16 otherwise whether that would be raw.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please to do.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
19 Mr. Stanisic is asking for a break, but I'm in Your Honours'
20 hands as whether I ask the next question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's - not on the clock, but on my computer -
22 is 40 minutes past 10.00, so this would be an appropriate time. And
23 since you started a series of examples, I take it, it might be a good
24 moment as well. We will resume at quarter to 11.00.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to put on the record
5 that through VWS Mr. Milosevic has delivered a list of sources, and I
6 think he has added three appointment decisions, although in the original
7 language attached to it. I take it that the parties have received copies
8 of that material and that the originals are in your hands, Mr. Petrovic,
9 at this moment, so that you can consider what to do with them.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. I'll
11 agree on how we should proceed with the matter with my learned friends
12 during the break.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Then, Mr. Jordash, if you are ready to proceed, please do so.
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Raw material collected by operatives on the ground would include
17 such things as reports about illegal weapons being held by a particular
18 individual or group; is that right?
19 A. Absolutely.
20 Q. About, for example, crimes being committed, such as murder or
21 sexual violence on individuals, and in locations within Serbia?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And also in locations such as the SBWS and the RSK and Bosnia
24 during the war. Would that be, in your view, raw material?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So if an extremist group in the SBWS captured and detained 12
2 civilians and killed them, that would be raw material which would be
3 presumed not to go up the system to the chief of the service. Am I
5 A. Well, at the time that the information was received, if it was
6 received, because I'm not familiar with the circumstances, but, at the
7 time, it would be necessary to verify that information and then to send
8 it up the chain. The information wasn't immediately provided to the
9 chief of the service. It had to be verified. One person couldn't do
10 this. If you're asking me about this in general terms, well, yes, that's
11 interesting information, but it wouldn't immediately be sent up to the
12 chief of the service. It would first be necessary to verify and analyse
13 the information.
14 Q. Well, this is the way the rules envisaged it would happen. Stop
15 me if I go in the --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- wrong direction. The operative on the ground would record
18 such information, whether through interview or personal observation or
19 however way that information was placed into the operative report, and
20 the operative would then give that to his superior in the centre;
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. The centre would then analyse that information, verify it
24 perhaps, or seek further information, and then the head of the centre
25 would decide whether to send that information to the relevant head of the
1 administration dealing with that line of work?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And the head of the centre would make that decision on the basis
4 of whether the head of the centre considered that to be sufficiently
5 important to send to the next stage of the relevant administration?
6 A. Yes. That was the criterion: The importance of the information.
7 And whether it was timely, of course.
8 Q. And am I correct that importance was at the heart of whether the
9 information continued to travel upwards towards the chief?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And importance was viewed within the lens of whether that
12 information would, or could, impact upon the security of Serbia.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Which means, of course - is this right? - that even if the
15 information recorded the most horrific of crimes, if it didn't impact in
16 the view of the operative or the view of the head of the centre on the
17 security of Serbia, it would not be deemed as important, or it would be
18 deemed as less important?
19 A. It'd depend on the circumstances of the case. But if it was
20 important for the protection of the constitutional order and the security
21 of Serbia, then the information in question was important. That would be
22 the criterion.
23 Q. Now the head of the centre who decided a particular piece of
24 information was important would send that information to both the
25 administration dealing with that line of work but also the
1 5th Administration, which was the analytical administration; correct?
2 A. Yes. That was compulsory. Everything was sent to the
3 5th Department. Documents were made in four copies and one was sent to
4 them, that was compulsory and that is what the report says specifically.
5 Q. And if the head of the administration, the relevant line of work
6 administration considered that information required to be verified or
7 supplemented, the head of the administration would send the request back
8 to the centre; is that correct?
9 A. In principle, yes. Of course, things are checked on the ground,
10 where the information comes from. Or perhaps in some other area, if it
11 comes from another area, but it's always checked on the ground. How
12 shall I put this? Not in the office.
13 Q. If the head of the administration concluded that the information
14 was sufficiently important and sufficiently verified, the head of the
15 administration would then send it -- there would be a presumption that
16 the head of administration would send it to one of the chief's
17 assistants; is that correct?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. And the head of the administration of a particular line of work
20 would send it to the relevant assistant. So the counter-intelligence
21 administration would send it to the assistant of the chief, who was
22 designated to deal with counter-intelligence; is that correct?
23 A. In principle, yes, of course.
24 Q. And then, at that point, the assistant of the chief would make a
25 further analysis as to whether he felt that it was important enough to go
1 to the next stage, which would be the deputy of the chief; is that
3 A. In principle, yes.
4 Q. And, finally, the deputy would make that same decision and decide
5 whether the document was -- or the information was important enough to go
6 to the chief.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And would you have expected in that line of reporting for the
9 information to have changed from raw material to more general - how can I
10 put it? - general descriptions of security threats to Serbia?
11 A. I'm not sure what you meant. I didn't understand the question.
12 Could you please be so kind as to clarify?
13 Q. Certainly. The raw material, as it works up the system - and
14 we'll come to the 5th Administration shortly, but I want to deal with
15 this line. The raw material, as it heads up in the system, would tend to
16 be verified and supplemented and -- verified and supplemented according
17 to the criteria of what this means in terms of a security threat to
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So it would lose its -- perhaps it would lose some of the raw
21 data but gain from the expert analysis of the more senior members of the
22 service, in terms of defining how this might impact on the constitutional
24 A. Not only analysts. Also, there are some senior personnel
25 involved. They were the ones who made these assessments. That's the
1 criterion. The importance of the information or the data. And that is
2 why it went through all of these instances, if you will, these filters.
3 Q. Yes. And, for example, one of the things that the process would
4 do would be to remove all mention of the associates and sources which
5 were not for transmission up the service, and certainly not for
6 transmission out of the service; correct?
7 A. I would kindly ask the interpreter to repeat this once again or
8 could you repeat your question because I don't understand what you're
10 I do apologise to the Honourable Court. However, I believe that
11 this requires a specific answer and I'm not sure I understand.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so.
13 Mr. Jordash, let's try to get matters clear. I tried to
14 understand your questions and your line of questioning. Is it that you
15 are putting it to the witness that once this raw material was processed,
16 was refined, was et cetera, that the factual information would more or
17 less disappear and that the -- that the abstract description of what was
18 at stake in terms of risks for the -- security risks, that that would
20 MR. JORDASH: I'm reluctant to ask -- or answer while the witness
21 is here, because I would like to answer, obviously, but I don't want to
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. JORDASH: -- prejudice the answer.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because if that would be the case, I'm not
1 insisting on an answer, why not bluntly put that to the witness and say
2 this and this and this?
3 MR. JORDASH: I thought I had been --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
5 MR. JORDASH: -- relatively blunt. I was trying not to -- I
6 won't be able to --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could do it on the basis of an example.
8 If you start with the murder of a group of people, terrorist
9 acts, the question is whether that.
10 MR. JORDASH: Let me -- I can --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- information remains if it is processed, and --
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that's the case, then we perhaps could ask
14 whether in the final report assessing risks for the constitutional order
15 or security whatever, but it would still mention what it all started
16 with. That apparently is some -- I think that's at least the impression
17 I gained that it was a matter which you would like to be clear.
18 I leave it at this moment in your hands, but --
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, I --
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- if it's not sufficiently clarified, then of
21 course we have an opportunity to put questions ourselves as well at
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Did you follow that discussion, Professor --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I would prefer if, you know, put focussed
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I followed.
3 MR. JORDASH:
4 Q. Let's take an example. Perhaps we can deal with one aspect quite
6 If there was a primary document which recorded a crime which
7 indicated, for example, that there was going to be a rebellion in
8 Sandzak, one would expect that to go straight to the chief because
9 it's -- or certainly to the hierarchy of the service because it's
10 important for the security of Serbia; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, in a situation where, for example, specific incidents or
13 specific crimes are mentioned in operatives' reports and they are put
14 together and analysed together as they go up the system, and by the time
15 they arrive at the assistant to the chief, it's quite clear that an
16 over -- the overall picture suggests that there's a security threat to
17 Serbia, even if a single report or a few of the reports wouldn't in and
18 of themselves have led to that conclusion. How much of that raw data
19 would you expect to be presented to the upper echelons of the service and
20 to the chief in that circumstance, where the analysis has revealed, over
21 all, a security threat?
22 JUDGE ORIE: This is a story rather than a question, Mr. --
23 What Mr. Jordash would like to know is that if it all starts with
24 this specific incident, the crime which was reported and which may hint
25 at a -- a possible rebellion, so a crime committed but indicative for
1 rebellion, would then in the -- if this would be processed further up,
2 would only the risk of rebellion remain or would still the crime which
3 triggered thinking about rebellion would also still be part of the report
4 if that raw information was processed and polished and ended up at the
5 level Mr. Jordash described?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it would contain that event.
7 Because that would indicate the possibility of a rebellion. So it would
8 contain that. Perhaps an additional remark would be made, if necessary.
9 So if the information is not of interest, it will not go up to
10 higher levels, but if it is interest, as this one -- of interest, as this
11 one is, then it would certainly go further up and contain that
13 JUDGE ORIE: And to be quite clear, if it goes up to the higher
14 levels, both the incident triggering fear for a rebellion would still be
15 part of the report and it would not just talk about, We fear that there
16 may be a rebellion in the near future on the basis of information be
17 received without even describing the incident.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the way it is, in
19 principle. But it is possible for analytical material to be collected in
20 several ways. However, the answer to your question is basically yes,
21 because there has to be a factual basis for inferring something.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say the answer is yes, you mean that
23 still the incident would be mentioned?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you have any personal knowledge about to
1 what extent facts which were indicative for a broader security concern,
2 how that was reported? Have you ever followed such a -- that processing
3 of the raw material and what it looked like if it was at the higher
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The way this is being done is
6 identical in each and every service. So the SDB is no different from any
7 other service. So the same things are done in the FBI and in any other
8 service. Information is received and if it is of interest, then --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. But have you ever seen at the
10 FBI what remains in the reporting higher up and what, perhaps, is left
11 out and is dealt with on a more abstract level?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. No, of course I've never
13 seen any such thing.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Would you say to me --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that that's the way it is.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would not be surprised if it was. But what
17 we therefore, if you say it's the same as with the FBI but you have never
18 seen the FBI practice in this respect, so I return to my question: Did
19 you ever follow on certain incidents the -- the processing of the raw
20 material? Are you describing it in the abstract or do you say, Well, I
21 remember this and this incident, how that was processed, and what
22 remained in the reports when it reached the higher levels?
23 Do you have any practical examples or is it just an abstract
24 description of how you think it was done and how it should have been
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that I'm not supposed
2 to testify here as a fact witness. I cannot really say anything about
3 that. I cannot say that I personally participated in ... if that is what
4 is needed. I mean, I can talk on the basis of the procedure that existed
5 in the service. So, in abstract terms.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you say, I'm not supposed to testify here
7 as a fact witness. Indeed, you are called primary as an expert. But if
8 would you have any knowledge and you're asked about it, then you're
9 supposed to answer that question on the basis of your personal knowledge.
10 But do I well understand that the process you described from raw
11 material, starting with an incident or a crime but not irrelevant for
12 broader security interests, that you have never personally observed how
13 this material, once verified, once categorised, once processed, what it
14 looked like at the end of the hierarchical journey, that information
15 would make?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, I was not in higher
17 echelons, so I cannot ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
20 Q. Now, dealing with the 5th Administration very briefly -- no,
21 before we move onto that.
22 Are you able to indicate or cast any light on whether a
23 particular issue -- no. Let me put it differently.
24 It's possible, isn't it, that with this system, as -- a
25 particular security issue or an issue which was considered might impact
1 on security, could circulate within the system for months, if not years,
2 before reaching the upper part of the system, according to the rules?
3 A. Theoretically, yes.
4 Q. The 5th Administration, was this the administration that was
5 responsible for external reporting?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. According to the rules, the 5th Administration made the decision
8 after analysis concerning who - for example, the minister of interior,
9 the president of the government or the president of the assembly, and so
10 on - would receive that information; is that correct?
11 A. This was sent from the 5th Administration. There was this
12 constant practice of having this sent.
13 Q. And so it would -- there was an external reporting team within
14 the 5th Administration who would make that decision; correct?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. And it was presumed within the rules that the written reporting
17 externally would be done by the 5th Administration; whereas, the chief of
18 the service would be expected to report orally to the minister of the
20 A. Yes, in principle. As far as I know, yes.
21 Q. Would the chief, according to the rules, even know who the
22 relevant or important sources were within the work of the DB?
23 A. He didn't have to know. He could have, but he didn't have to.
24 Q. He could have inquired, but it wasn't presumed that he would be
25 told, according to the rules.
1 A. No. You're right.
2 Q. Now, you ...
3 MR. JORDASH: If I could just have a moment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, apart from giving you that moment, if
5 we go into very details of the rules, I'd very much appreciate to know
6 exactly where it is in the rules that you can ask for information but not
7 automatically receive that, because that's -- because I then would like
8 to know whether it is a specific rule or not. If there's no specific
9 rule, it might well be that the witness is interpreting rather wide rules
10 in his own way without -- without relying on -- on practical information
11 that this is what the rule came down to in reality.
12 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, Your Honour.
13 Q. Let me move onto paragraph 214 of your report, Mr. Milosevic.
14 And I want to understand a little more about the role of the deputy chief
15 of the service.
16 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry, perhaps --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Perhaps I missed something, but I was hoping
19 for the answer to His Honour Judge Orie's question as to which rule the
20 witness was referring to.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if that rule is not given then ... it was more
22 guidance for the future than that I asked for that specific rule to be
24 But, of course, it could -- it could assist, Mr. Jordash, if
25 already that specific last matter, if there's a specific rule on it, it
1 would certainly strengthen the answer of the witness. It was about that
2 he could have inquired but that under the rules it was not presumed that
3 he would be told.
4 MR. JORDASH: Are you able to -- I know it's a task. Are you
5 able to say which rule that was --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Which specific rule that --
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
8 Q. -- which specific rule you were referring to when you said in
9 principle, "The written reporting would be done by the
10 5th Administration; whereas, the chief would be expected to report
12 A. The rule on work. The work rule as far as the 5th Administration
13 is concerned. If you allow me, I can explain a bit.
14 Q. Yes, please.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I'm not that much -- I wasn't seeking
16 lengthy explanations but, rather, whether, if it said this was in
17 accordance with the rules, to see how specific the rules. Because if the
18 rules are very specific, then it's self-explanatory. We don't need
19 further explanations. If the rule, however, is not very specific then,
20 of course, it might need further explanation. But first I would like to
21 know what rule. Where do I find that rule so that can I read that
22 rule and see to what extent that rule gives the information I need in
23 order to assess to what extent it was really a matter of following the
24 rules or whether it was that the rules gave more discretion or more
25 liberty to act in the spirit of the rule.
1 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. May we return to this to save time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please. I leave it in your hands.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Let's deal with another subject and we'll come back to that. I
5 don't want you have to be sitting there panicking looking for rules, but
6 we'll see if we can expedite this in due course. Unless, of course, you
7 have an answer at your fingertips, then feel free.
8 A. Well, this pertains to the part of my report that has to do with
9 the work of the 5th Administration. That is where there is a reference
10 to the rules on its work and that is where I talk about that.
11 I don't know if it's necessary for me to go into any more detail
12 than that?
13 Q. No. We'll leave it there for the movement and we shall check
14 that out and I'll come back to you on that.
15 Let's deal now with the chief -- sorry, the deputy chief.
16 I want to try to understand what you were trying to say in
17 paragraphs 214 and 218. You appear to describe a change in 1992 where,
18 in 1991, the deputy chief had a particular position, the office of
19 assistant secretary, and therefore were appointed to the Executive
20 Council of Serbia at the proposal of the republican secretariat minister
21 of the interior, compared with 218 where you describe the deputy and a
22 number of other -- well, and the assistant chiefs as being in the
23 competence of the minister, i.e., an official authorised by him.
24 What does all that mean?
25 A. First of all, I think that the interpreter did not interpret this
1 properly. What I heard in the interpretation does not fully
2 correspondence to the facts.
3 It's not that he was elected into the federal Executive Council.
4 It is the federal Executive Council of the government that chose him. I
5 will be very specific on this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, it is a good custom in this courtroom
7 that if we have problems with translation by our interpreters that we
8 express our concerns and that we repeat what we said so that it in the
9 back of the mind of our interpreters that were the concerns, that it can
10 be -- the same words can be spoken again and then we'll see whether this
11 is any translation problem or not.
12 We are not used to tell that the interpreters did their job
13 wrongly. We are seeking verification. It's raw material, you see, so it
14 needs to be verified, and so, therefore, if you have any concerns, please
15 say exactly or repeat the words you spoke and say that you have concerns,
16 possible concerns about the translation.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. I
18 certainly had no intention of offending anyone or disturbing the work
19 process in general or interfering with the good customs prevailing here.
20 It just seemed to me, as I was listening to the interpretation, that the
21 Defence attorney put a question that was a bit illogical or perhaps the
22 interpretation of his question was a bit illogical, so I kindly ask for
23 the question to be interpreted to me again or to be repeated to me once
24 again, and then I will try to answer. I don't know what the exact custom
25 is here, but I will do my best to comply.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash will repeat the question, and listen
2 carefully so that you can answer the question.
3 MR. JORDASH:
4 Q. Perhaps I can just simplify it, and you can explain what you
6 What was the change you describe in paragraph 214 and 218
7 concerning the deputy chief of the State Security Service.
8 A. According to the rules from 1990, the deputy chief of the service
9 was an official who was the assistant to the secretary, that is to say,
10 the minister. He would be appointed by the government, called the
11 Executive Council at the time, and this was at the proposal of the
12 republican secretary, the minister of the interior. In fact, in 1992, at
13 a later date, he was no longer the assistant to the minister. The
14 government did not appoint him. The minister or someone that he
15 authorised, an official that he authorised, would appoint him.
16 Q. So, in 1991, the practical effect of that was that the deputy
17 would report directly to the minister or could report directly to the
19 A. All officials, all staff members in the service, whether they had
20 been appointed by the government or the minister, all reported to the
21 minister of the interior.
22 Q. Sorry. When you said "all staff members in the service reported
23 to the minister of the interior," you mean literally or figuratively, or
24 indirectly, through their hierarchy?
25 A. This was done within the hierarchy. But they had to carry out
1 any task that they were ordered to carry out.
2 Q. So the only distinction that you're seeking to make in 214 and
3 218 is the appointment, the way of appointing the deputy chief; is that
4 right? And the assistant chiefs.
5 A. Yes. In principle, that's right.
6 Q. Okay. Let's go to paragraph 225 of your report. I want to try
7 to understand what these sub-laws that you refer to in this paragraph and
8 above meant for the role of the deputy chief?
9 First of all, "preparing and proposing the operative programme of
10 work to -- of the service department and seeing to the realisation of the
11 same from which stems his co-ordinating function vis-a-vis the heads of
12 the organisational units of the SDB/RDB."
13 So that the deputy chief -- the deputy chief played a hands-on
14 role, and the heads of the administration were supposed to report to him
15 and he was supposed to organise and co-ordinate them; correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. So he was engaged on a day-to-day with the direct co-ordination
18 of the administrations. That was the core of his work, according to the
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. If, according to the rules, the head of the 8th Administration
22 had a problem with supply of logistics or a manpower problem, his port of
23 call, his first port of call, was the deputy chief; correct?
24 A. As a rule, yes. Although, the deputy chief was primarily
25 involved in operative affairs, not logistics. But my answer to your
1 question is: Yes.
2 Q. And when you say "operative affairs," you mean what?
3 A. Well, I mean the duties you mentioned a minute ago. He proposed
4 an operative programme for the service and concerned himself with its
5 implementation and that is the essence of the service's work.
6 Q. Now, moving down the paragraph:
7 "Organising the conduct of special actions in conditions of a
8 state of emergency, a threat of war, or war."
9 Special actions include what kind of activities?
10 A. Well, by definitions these were actions carried out in
11 extraordinary circumstances or when the security of the country was under
12 threat. And he would then be directly in charge of such actions.
13 Q. What does "directly in charge" mean? Does it mean that he would
14 be responsible for ensuring the correct planning of a special action?
15 A. The planning and action and for carrying it out. He was directly
16 in charge of officers in the field, and he concerned himself with the
17 implementation of the plan itself.
18 Q. "Concerned himself with the implementation ..."
19 So the special action, let's say, unit, or special action group,
20 would be expected to report to him during -- before, during, and after
21 the special action?
22 A. Yes. Especially after the action.
23 Q. Why especially after?
24 A. Well, to be able to see what the results were. If he was
25 involved in the plan, one would expect there to be feedback, information.
1 That's quite logical.
2 Q. And if -- presumably, then, he would be responsible that the
3 special action was properly financed and supplied.
4 A. He was concerned with such matters, yes.
5 Q. Now we'll come back to that shortly.
6 I wanted just to ask you about one exhibit, a document that's
7 exhibited in this trial, and you may or may not have any information on
8 it because it does deal with some facts.
9 MR. JORDASH: P2990, please, on the screen.
10 Q. Now it's a report -- Official Note, I should say, concerning
11 supply of weapons and ammunitions which appears to, according to this
12 note, are assigned -- I think it's agreed by Bogdanovic and Tepavcevic.
13 And I was wondering if you're able to cast any light in terms of the
14 rules how the assistant chief, in 1991, was able to, or did, arrange with
15 the minister of the interior to supply weapons and ammunitions to Knin?
16 Do you know anything in the rules that would suppose that the minister
17 would go to the assistant chief for such a thing?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Did you know Tepavcevic in 1991? Had you heard of him? Or did
20 you know him?
21 A. I'd heard of him, and I knew him by sight. But we weren't close.
22 Q. He was a -- an older man at that time and a man of long-standing
23 within the DB; correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Are you able to confirm that he was also hugely respected within
1 the service by other members of the DB?
2 A. That's correct.
3 MS. MARCUS: Can we have --
4 MR. JORDASH: I'm about to ask him how he knows that.
5 Q. How do you know that, Professor?
6 A. That's what was said. He was a person who had authority. I
7 didn't investigate the matter with members of the service in order to see
8 to what extent they respected him, but that is the impression I had.
9 Q. Did you have any information on whether he effectively bypassed
10 the chain of command and went straight to the minister, as this
11 Official Note might suggest?
12 A. No, I have no such information.
13 Q. Are you able to confirm that he became the deputy of the DB in
14 February of 1992?
15 A. He became the deputy chief of the State Security Service.
16 Q. Am I correct that, in terms of facts, you are not able to confirm
17 or otherwise whether Tepavcevic reported faithfully his activities to the
18 chief, Stanisic?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Let me move to a slightly different subject, and I'll come back
21 to this in due course.
22 The 8th Administration. The 8th Administration came into
23 existence sometime in 1992. Is that in accordance with your knowledge?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And it created effectively another layer of administration, in
1 that the joint services, which had existed prior to that, continued to
2 exist, but the DB would obtain its logistics by going through the
3 8th Administration, which would then go to the joint services.
4 Is that a fair summary?
5 A. In principle, yes. The 8th Administration was involved in
7 Q. Well, what I'm asking is how was it involved in logistics. How
8 did the -- what role did it play?
9 And please indicate whether you're answering from the rules or
10 whether you're answering from your personal knowledge.
11 A. On the basis of my personal experience, since I was involved in
12 administrative matters in the 8th Administration, so I can just speak
13 about the things that I did, so everything else is on the basis of the
14 rules. The 8th Administration was involved in providing security for
15 buildings, providing protection at gates so to speak, at entrances.
16 Perhaps that's not a nice way of putting. Then it was also involved in
17 solving housing issues for staff members and repairing or obtaining motor
18 vehicles. It was also involved in financial issues, salaries, and so on
19 and so forth. It was also involved in education, and I also dealt with
20 such matters so I know about that. It would organise professional
21 examinations for trainees.
22 Q. So -- sorry.
23 A. But each member only knew about his own duties. So I don't know
24 what the finance section or the -- or the transport section did, so I
25 can't testify about that. But can I testify on the basis of the rules.
1 Q. Can you testify to this: That if, for example, the head of an
2 administration, say, Administration 1, wanted resources, wanted vehicles,
3 wanted side-arms, wanted whatever, they would approach the
4 8th Administration directly and make a request. Is that how it worked?
5 A. As a rule, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: This is so typically an example. I'd like to see
7 the rule, because the witness said that because of his work in the
8 8th Administration, the only thing he knew what he was doing himself, but
9 he could answer all the other questions on the basis of the rules.
10 So, therefore, I'd like to see the rule which supports the
11 answer. Because the witness's answer was not, that is how it worked.
12 But he said, As a rule, that's how it worked.
13 So I'd like to see that rule, then, to find out, to be able to
15 MR. JORDASH: But personally I'm not aware of one, but I'll try
16 and find out.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. That's my concern. If there is a
18 rule, I'm easily satisfied that the answer is adequately given on the
19 base of that rule; however, if that rule doesn't exist, then there may be
20 a problem.
21 MR. JORDASH: Well, I was trying to focus the witness on his
22 factual knowledge given that he worked in the 8th Administration because
23 I wasn't aware of a rule and that's why I moved to that, but maybe the
24 witness does know about a rule.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And the last half line before you put this question
1 to the witness, he said:
2 "But I can testify on the basis of the rules."
3 And he explained quite clearly that he could tell us about his
4 personal experience, as far as in the 8th Administration.
5 Now, unless - and that's, of course, important - that you focus
6 him on whether he has any personal experience with this. That's
7 apparently -- because then the answer: "As a rule, yes," is that he
8 experienced that this usually happened, or is it on the basis of the
9 rules that is how it should happen? That's the issue.
10 MR. JORDASH:
11 Q. Professor, are we talking about a specific rule, about the heads
12 of administration reporting to the -- sorry, making a direct request to
13 the 8th Administration? Are you unable to point to a rule but point to
15 A. Well, the rules on work are the only rules I can refer you to.
16 But I personally can't testify about that since I wasn't in the
17 leadership of the 8th Administration. I wasn't part of the management
18 team, so I didn't receive or authorise any of the requests.
19 The entire service functioned on the basis of the rules of work.
20 The rules on organisation and job specifications. But I don't know
21 whether there is a particular rule. I haven't heard about it, and I
22 didn't find any such rule in the documents.
23 Q. So do you have any personal knowledge, then, of the way in which
24 the heads of administration or any other relevant personnel would obtain
25 supplies from the 8th Administration or via the 8th Administration?
1 A. No, I can't testify about that. I don't know. Requests would,
2 in general, be submitted in writing, but, no, I really can't make any
3 claims. To the extent that I can testify about this, requests were made
4 in written form. But I really cannot testify about something that I did
5 not participate in.
6 Q. Well, what -- what would you do if you wanted or needed supplies,
8 A. I would contact the 8th Administration, make a request, and
9 explain why I needed certain items. It wouldn't be the matter of my
10 whim. It would be something that was necessary in operative terms. So I
11 would submit a request and explain why I was making the request. That is
12 how I would have acted.
13 Q. Who would you make the request to --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, now the witness has testified that he
15 has no experience with it, he has no personal knowledge. He doesn't know
16 about specific rules. We are now, more or less, inviting him to invent a
17 situation. Why is what this witness would do be any more relevant than
18 what Ms. Marcus would do under the circumstances or what you would do
19 yourself under the circumstances?
20 He is called as an expert witness. Apparently his expertise
21 doesn't help him out. Then he might have knowledge because he worked in
22 the system. He says, I don't have one. I don't have that knowledge.
23 And then we start, What would do you if. Is that -- is that a proper
24 question to put to the witness?
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, it's not the -- I wasn't intend -- if I
1 conveyed that I was asking a hypothetical, then that's my sloppy
2 language. I was exactly asking him what he actually did. Presumably, he
3 required supplies at some point during his --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know.
5 MR. JORDASH: -- occupation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know. Ask the witness.
7 MR. JORDASH: Well, that's --
8 Q. Did you require supplies during your time at the
9 8th Administration or your time before the 8th Administration?
10 A. It wasn't necessary for me to have supplies of any kind in order
11 to perform the duties that I had to perform. Therefore, I did not
12 contact the 8th Administration.
13 Q. Did you ever receive per diems?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Let's leave the subject there then. If you can't assist,
16 you can't.
17 Let's go into paragraph 200, please.
18 Now, we -- I want to discuss with you special purpose resources.
19 Let's go straight to the instruction for the use and control of
20 distribution of funds for special expenses.
21 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please -- or perhaps
22 we can deal with the report itself.
23 Q. In paragraph 201:
24 "The special expenditure resources ... were determined by the
25 annual estimate of special purposes [sic] resources of the republican
1 secretariat/Ministry of Interior."
2 Were these decided at a meeting of the government or where would
3 they be determined?
4 A. They would be determined at the collegium of the republican
5 secretariat. The ministry -- it was at the top level of the ministry
6 that these decisions were taken.
7 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 2D937. These
8 are the instructions themselves. Let's go straight to them.
9 Q. Now in paragraph 1 on page 2 of the B/C/S and page 2 of the
10 English, paragraph 1 states:
11 "These instructions regulate the use and control of distribution
12 of funds for special expenses ..."
13 And then further:
14 "With the exception of use and distribution which is in
15 compliance with the law, carried out in a manner determined by the
16 Executive Council of the Assembly of the SR of Serbia?"
17 Can you cast light on what was the anticipated role described
18 here of the Executive Council?
19 A. No, I don't know anything about that.
20 Q. Okay.
21 Paragraph -- sorry, item 6:
22 "The funds in dinars --"
23 MR. JORDASH: May we have a break, please, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break and will resume at 12.30.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I asked to start without the witness. The Chamber
4 is very worried about the present situation where it takes an enormous
5 amount of time to find out what the witness doesn't know. That's -- and
6 that's not only in your examination, Mr. Jordash, but I think whenever
7 you would want to elicit any evidence of fact, the witness says I do not
8 appear as a witness of fact. I think I explained to him clearly that if
9 he knows anything, if asked about it, then he should come. At the same
10 time, we could not have after the experience we have over the last few
11 days a high expectations as far as the factual knowledge of the witness,
12 and the Chamber is unanimous in that we should, whenever we want to
13 elicit anything else than a reproduction of rules and the context of
14 rules and when they were adopted, that we should first establish whether
15 the witness is able to tell us anything.
16 Mr. Jordash, if you would conclude your cross-examination in the
17 next session, which I hope you would do, would you net -- not have your
18 three-hour, but, nevertheless, the Chamber would like to limit you to the
19 next session. Some of my questions have assisted in being able to move
20 on a bit.
21 So the other parties keep this in mind for the continuation of
22 the evidence of this witness. Of course, I can't tell exactly what you
23 should and what you shouldn't ask, but I think -- do we call this
24 learning on the job? That's what I would like you to do, is to learn
25 very much on this job.
1 Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
2 If I look at the list of the source material, I see that, at the
3 very end of the list, not only a 65 ter number appears but also an
4 exhibit number, D228. I'd like to draw the attention of the parties to
5 the fact that D228 was marked, not admitted.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, it cannot be just relied upon by
8 referring to this exhibit number.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. I'm going to try to shortcut things so that we can move a bit
13 more swiftly, Professor.
14 Let's go to paragraph 203 of your report, please.
15 MR. JORDASH: Could we have it on the screen, please. Just find
16 the ... 2D00 -- it's there, thank you.
17 Q. 203. As I read this, I see you, on the basis of the rules, make
18 a distinction between the way in which special expenditure resources was
19 dealt with and the way in which foreign means of payment was dealt with;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Yes. That's the way it is in the regulations.
22 Q. And you define "special resources" elsewhere in the report, but
23 it includes, does it not, the issuance of resources for the engagement of
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. So the distinction you draw from the rules in relation to, inter
2 alia, the issuance of resources for associates as compared to foreign
3 means of payment is that the first can be dealt with by personnel
4 authorised by the chief, whereas the foreign means of payment remain
5 tightly within the authority of the chief as an individual?
6 A. Well, you can put it that way too.
7 Q. Well, how would you put it?
8 A. As is written here. That is to say, special expenditure
9 resources in dinars, that is to say the domestic currency, were handled
10 by an employee so authorised by the chief; that is to say, at
11 headquarters. Whereas, in other administrative units, it was employees
12 who were authorised to do that by their supervisors because it is only
13 natural to do this at the level of all organisational units, because the
14 chief of the service itself would be way too busy if he were to authorise
15 all of that.
16 This is simply inherited from the days when everything went
17 through the SDB of the SSUP.
18 Q. You told us before the break that the chief did not have to know
19 who the associates were; correct?
20 A. Correct. Every associate was kept under a certain code. This
21 was done for the following reasons --
22 Q. No --
23 A. -- so that no one would know who this individual actually was.
24 Q. Actually, yes. Sorry, I sorry to interrupted.
25 A. [In English] Okay.
1 Q. I'm interested in this. Please continue that description.
2 A. [Interpretation] That means that he received reports and he could
3 receive some information that had been provided by that associate under
4 his pseudonym. So if he really wanted to, he could have insisted, but it
5 simply wasn't customary to ask for that.
6 Q. And from what you've just said, also, it certainly wasn't
7 practical because we are talking about a service with hundreds of -- if
8 not thousands of associates. So to expect under the rules the chief to
9 know who each and every associate was, would not be practical; is that
11 A. It wouldn't be possible. There's too much of all of that.
12 Q. Why -- why was there a distinction with the foreign means of
13 payment, according to the rules? What did the -- was -- was there a
14 rule which dealt with foreign means of payment? Because paragraph 203
15 isn't footnoted at this point, when you deal with foreign means of
17 A. You're right. There is no reference to the footnote.
18 This goes back to the times when foreign exchange transactions
19 went only through the federal organs, the federal Ministry of Interior,
20 that was quite simply in charge of everything that had to do with foreign
21 countries. So, from that point of view, you see for yourself that it
22 says the SDB of the SSUP. So this is a regulation that was taken over,
23 inherited, if you will.
24 Q. Do you have any information concerning whether the deputy chief
25 whose job was to implement the special-purposes actions was authorised to
1 deal with the special-purposes resources during 1991 to 1995? And I'm
2 asking you a factual question.
3 A. I assume that that's the way it was, but I don't have any proof.
4 I don't know. I cannot confirm that as a witness. It would be logical
5 for it to be that way.
6 Q. Sorry, why it would be logical?
7 A. Because he was in charge of these operative actions, if we can
8 put it that way, and it would be logical for him to take care of that.
9 But this is my opinion. I cannot actually invoke any kind of
10 experience here.
11 Q. I'm not going to push you on it.
12 Now, looking at the instruction for the use and control of
13 distribution of funds, I want to try to summarise - and please correct me
14 if I'm wrong in my summary - the role of the chief.
15 The role of the chief was to help to decide on the overall annual
16 budget - correct? - for the special purposes?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. To authorise for special purposes funds, subordinates to deal
19 directly with them; correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And, according to item 17, which we can turn to, if you want, of
22 these rules, "to form a committee appointed by the chief of security, to
23 control the use of the resources for special expenses in the basic
24 organisational units of the State Security Services once a year."
25 Let's turn to that so we have it in front of us.
1 MR. JORDASH: 2D00937, please. Let's go to paragraph 7 -- or
2 item 17.
3 Q. There, you have it in front of you. And the committee's role,
4 according to this rule, was to make inspections and submit a report on
5 the proposal of the chief of the service.
6 So according to the rule, am I correct the chief was not presumed
7 to be accessing the actual documentation detailing the allocation of
8 resources but was supposed to be receiving a report from a committee who
9 oversaw the issuance of the resources; correct?
10 A. That's correct. That's this internal commission that had that
11 task. They did not deal with all the details.
12 Q. Now, let's have a look at -- we -- we haven't had translated
13 until now when we've translated it -- item 14.
14 "Chief of the State Security Service may authorise chiefs of
15 primary organisational units to approve payments of means for special
16 expenditures; namely: ..."
17 And I won't read out. But, effectively, this is the allocation
18 of authority by the rules to subordinate members of the state security to
19 deal with these special-purpose funds - is that right? - up to certain
21 A. That is right. And that is strictly in accordance with the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, may I seek clarification of one of the
24 previous answers, which I did not fully understand.
25 Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Jordash asked you, and I read again the
1 question. Mr. Jordash asked whether he was correct when he said that the
2 chief was not presumed to be accessing the actual documentation,
3 detailing the allocation of resources but was supposed to be receiving a
4 report from a committee who oversaw the issuance of the resources, and
5 asked whether that was a correct understanding.
6 Your answer was:
7 "That's correct. That is this internal commission that had this
8 task. They did not deal with all the details."
9 Now the question by Mr. Jordash was more or less suggesting that
10 the chief would not deal with the details but read the report. Now you
11 say that's correct. That was the task of that commission, and they did
12 not deal with the details.
13 So I've now -- apparently the commission is not dealing with the
14 details, and, at the same time, the chief is not dealing with the
15 details; but, nevertheless, relies on a report, which is supposed to be
16 based on -- on a detailed review.
17 Yeah, I was a bit confused about the "they," they are supposed
18 not to deal with the details.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what this is
20 about. Actually, I don't dare say this, obviously. I mean, I'll explain
21 this answer. All right. I'm not going to criticise the interpreters
22 that they misinterpret. So the chief of service did not deal with all
23 the details. He just dealt with the report, whereas the commission dealt
24 with all the details.
25 It is my mistake if I did not state this clearly enough, but I
1 think that I've clarified it now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So you say the commission did deal with the details
3 but the chief did not.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Q. Let me just ask you very briefly about the JATD in the context
8 that we're discussing.
9 A witness here, I think, was public. No, he wasn't public, so
10 I'll keep ... D409, a witness here said the following at paragraph 49.
11 This is a witness who was involved in the JATD, and he said:
12 "Requests for per diems were signed by the deputy commander of
13 the JATD. The administration of the unit would process such requests and
14 send them to the 8th Administration."
16 "Based on the approval of Deputy Chief Tepavcevic, one would
17 procure the money from the administration for the joint matters of the
19 Did you follow that? I can repeat that, if you want.
20 A. No, I fully understood.
21 Q. From your knowledge of the rules, would that testimony be
22 entirely consistent with the presumptions laid out in the rules for the
23 expense -- or allocation of resources for special purposes?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Reserve forces, I want to just ask you briefly about them.
1 You --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Are we leaving the area of the expenditures or --
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask, then, one question, so as to
5 better understand.
6 Mr. Milosevic, I looked at this document about the instructions
7 for the use and the control of funds for special expenditures or
8 expenses. And if I read number 1 -- could we have that on our screen?
9 We're still with the same document we used before. Could we go to the
10 first page, also in English, yes, the first paragraph.
11 The instructions start by saying that they regulate the use and
12 the control of distribution, et cetera, so it explains what it does.
13 And then the second part of the first sentence reads as follows:
14 "... with the exception of use and distribution which is, in
15 compliance with the law, carried out in a manner determined by the
16 Executive Council of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia."
17 If I read this, it sounds as these are the instructions, how to
18 do it, with the exception of a situation where it was determined that it
19 would be done otherwise. That's what, at first glance, seems to be -- so
20 we do it in accordance with this rule, or if it's determined otherwise,
21 we'll do it otherwise.
22 Could you shed some light on this exception and whether you
23 have -- know of any examples of this exception being applied or any
24 documentary evidence on that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I've already answered that
1 I don't know. I can assume a certain situation, if that would be
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. Unless you have specific basis for making such
4 an assumption, then I would -- it might come down to speculation, which I
5 would like to avoid.
6 Which means that paying a lot of attention to this document,
7 which starts by saying, This is how we'll do it unless we do it
9 Have you any comment on my interpretation of this first sentence?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for example, if there were
11 some major expenditures involved like renovating a building or something,
12 then the Minister of the Interior had to give his consent. Perhaps that
13 is what is meant.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that the document specifically deals
15 with the immovable property so that that is included in those rules?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I would be speculating.
17 I really don't know.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't invite you to do it, but since you
19 did it, I respond to that.
20 If have you no further comments, I'll invite Mr. Jordash to
22 Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. We have just been discussing the allocation of special-purposes
25 funds, and the example I offered was the allocation of funds in the
1 circumstances where associates were being engaged.
2 If reserve forces were being engaged for special purposes, would
3 you expect -- would you anticipate that they would fall within the
4 instruction for the use and control of distribution of funds that we've
5 been looking at? That's a long way of saying: Are reserve forces
6 included and governed by this instruction, if they're employed for
7 special purposes.
8 A. These resources concerned, above all, certain rewards given to
9 associates. It was less frequent or almost never done for associates,
10 but sometimes associates were rewarded from those
11 resources [as interpreted]. These resources were also used for certain
12 expenses incurred by operative officers when they had contact with
13 associates and other sources; for example, citizens, operative
14 connections. So that was the basis upon which these resources were
15 allocated, these special resources were allocated. But I really can't
16 answer your question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the second sentence
19 in the answer in the last answer given by the witness doesn't make much
20 sense, I think. Perhaps it wasn't correctly recorded, what the witness
21 said wasn't correctly recorded.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to verify.
23 You referred to certain rewards given to associates. And then -
24 and I read now our transcript, and please correct when you think that you
25 said something else:
1 "It was less frequent or almost never done for associates, but
2 sometimes associates were rewarded from those resources."
3 Is that what you said or ...
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then please repeat that last -- that line.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was very seldom or almost --
7 associates were almost never paid when they were engaged. It was quite
8 infrequent. But regardless to how they were engaged, they were
9 occasionally rewarded.
10 So I don't know how to put it more precisely.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You say associates were now and then rewarded from
12 those resources but they didn't get a regular payment. Is that ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I'll try and
14 explain this to make it clearer. May I?
15 So earlier on, when testifying, I said that associates could be
16 engaged on various bases. The material motive was only one such basis.
17 Such an associate was naturally remunerated immediately after having been
18 engaged, but occasionally other associates could be remunerated, other
19 associates who had been engaged on some other basis, on any other basis.
20 The other purpose of these resources was to reimburse certain
21 expenses incurred by an operative officer in the course of establishing
22 contact with an associate, or an agent, or some other source in the
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
2 May we turn to item 7 in these instructions so I can try to
3 repeat my question about reserve forces.
4 7(1) states that the special use of funds, includes:
5 "... work with operative positions of the service, allowances and
6 awards for associates and other persons who provide information and
7 intelligence of interest to the service, operative actions, and other
8 activities of the State Security Service."
9 My question is: Is your understanding of that rule, that
10 special-purpose expenses could be allocated pursuant to this rule to
11 reserve forces engaged in operative actions, on behalf of the state
13 A. Well, I can't answer that question in concrete terms. Under
14 (5) [as interpreted] you have a very general phrase. It says there the
15 other operatives and operative and analytic work. So this is a very
16 general way of putting things. It doesn't allow one to make an
17 exhaustive list, so I can't answer that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the reference to paragraph (5) came as
19 a bit of a surprise to me, but ...
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I think we have
21 a problem with the interpretation. Item (5) was not adequately
23 JUDGE ORIE: When you referred to the very general phrase, you
24 referred to what paragraph of these instructions Mr. Milosevic?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, under item (7), we
1 have a list of everything that is included and then it mentions another
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Mr. Petrovic's comment
4 perhaps concerned the written translation itself and the adequacy of the
5 written translation in item 7.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it may be, and that's exactly the reason why --
7 interpretation and transcription, of course, they work closely together,
8 and sometimes if there is any question, we might not always be able to
9 know exactly where the problem lies, and therefore, rather focus on
10 resolving the problem than to find out what -- who may have done
11 something wrong by not pronouncing the words well, by a slip of the
12 tongue in translation, or a slip of the fingers in transcribing. That's,
13 again, I'm, as always, expressing my surprise that it happens only so
15 When I asked you to which paragraph you referred, the simple
16 answer would therefore be paragraph (7). And that's understood.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. JORDASH:
19 Q. Let me ask you this then: Apart from this instruction, for the
20 use and control of special-purpose funds, were you aware of any other
21 instruction, regulation, or law, which allowed the allocation of
22 special-purpose funds existing between 1991 and 1995?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Thank you. Let's have on the screen, please, P2401. I'm moving
25 to another subject.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Your last question --
2 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the earlier matter which I raised with
4 the witness, your last question is a bit ambiguous and I'd like to know
5 exactly what the witness tells us.
6 Mr. Jordash asked were you aware of any other instruction,
7 regulation, or law. Now, we earlier discussed the beginning of this
8 instruction, which says, This is how we do it, or unless we decide to do
9 it otherwise.
10 When you said you were not aware of anything, were you focussing
11 on any -- any document you have found? And can you tell us that there
12 are no laws with different instructions? Or do you say, I'm not aware of
13 it but I might not have a complete image of what may be there in terms of
15 And the second issue I would like to raise with you, whether the
16 exception provided for clearly in the first sentence of this instruction,
17 whether you can positively affirm that it was never done in the other way
18 described there, or that you say, Well, may have happened, but I'm not
19 aware of it.
20 So, first: Rule, laws, regulations, well, let's say published.
21 Can you positively affirm that they do not exist? Or do you say, I did
22 not come across any of -- any law, any regulation which would deal with
23 the same matter?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not familiar with any such
25 documents. I never came across such documents.
1 As for the second part of your question, I haven't fully
2 understood it, so could you please clarify it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, here we have an instruction; that's a
4 written instruction. Mr. Jordash was, first of all, asking about other
5 laws. I do understand laws to be written documents, published,
6 regulations which might not have to be public. But regulations of a
7 general validity. Whereas, in paragraph 1, reference is made to an
8 exception, although in compliance with the law, but use and distribution
9 carried out in a manner determined by the Executive Council of the
10 Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia.
11 Which I understand could also be an incidental determination of
12 doing it differently so not in the kind of a rule with general validity
13 but, rather, on a very specific occasion. Because that's, for me, the
14 difference between laws and regulations. They have a kind of a general
15 validity, whereas to determine that you do it otherwise does not need to
16 have a general character -- do not need to have the character of general
18 If you say, Neither rules nor laws nor such a determination I am
19 aware of, then that would answer my question. If, however, you would be
20 aware of anything, either in the field of legislation, regulations, or in
21 the field of the exceptions, as referred to in the first sentence of
22 paragraph 1, please let me know.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not familiar with any such
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. I want to deal very swiftly with this issue of Stanisic and him
3 being appointed to the position of chief. Because you gave an answer on
4 the 3rd of May --
5 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, page 18972.
6 Q. -- which might be considered to be ambiguous. What was your
7 understanding of when Stanisic became the chief of the DB? Was it
8 consistent with this appointment we see in front of us?
9 A. It's a fact that he was first appointed -- I apologise. I can't
10 see this very clearly. I'll have to have another look at it.
11 Yes, that's the decision in which he was appointed as the chief
12 of the SDB of the RSUP, and he was appointed to the position of an
13 advisor. The date of this decision is the 31st of December, 1991. So
14 from the date that this decision entered into force, he was in that
16 Q. Do you know what his position was before that? I'm asking you a
17 factual question, if you know.
18 A. No, I don't. I'm not sure.
19 Q. Okay. Let's move on then.
20 Let's have a look, if we can, at page 2 of the English. And if
21 we can go up to the bottom of the page in the B/C/S. This is a decision,
22 as we can see, indicating Stanisic became chief on this date. And at the
23 end it says:
24 "This decision is to be sent: To the employee, the
25 administration for material and financial affairs, and the administration
1 for personnel and work relations of this ministry."
2 Now, I looked at the rules on staff planning -- let me -- let me
3 shortcut this.
4 The -- are you able to assist -- in relation to the
5 administration for material and financial affairs at the time of this
6 decision and the administration for personnel and work relations of this
7 ministry at the time of this decision, do you know whether they were
8 situated within the DB or were these more broad Ministry of Interior
9 departments or sections or however they were termed?
10 A. No, they weren't integral parts of the SDB. They were part of
11 the joint services. They were, in fact, within the MUP, the Ministry of
12 Interior. So these were organisational units of the Ministry of
13 Interior, not of the SDB.
14 Q. And do you -- do you -- do you know why such a decision would be
15 sent to the administration for material and financial affairs and the
16 personnel and work relations?
17 A. Well, it's quite logical. In order to work out the salaries and
18 pay the salaries.
19 Q. To -- so the -- such a decision -- let me start that again.
20 These administrations were principally concerned with the
21 issuance of salaries; is that correct?
22 A. Amongst other things concerned with paying salaries. The
23 administration for these financial matters dealt with all such matters;
24 buying cars, other equipment, and so on and so forth. It wasn't only
25 involved in paying salaries, but in this particular case salaries are
1 referred to. But the administration for personnel and work relations was
2 concerned with personnel files and it was responsible for appointments
3 within the ministry and for termination of employment within the
5 Q. Thank you. And you would expect - is this right? - such a
6 decision would only be sent to, as it states, the employee it concerns
7 and these administrations; is that correct?
8 A. That's what it says quite explicitly in the decision. Have a
9 look at the last paragraph:
10 "This decision is to be sent to ..."
11 And then it says to whom.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, P2403.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document is under seal as the previous one.
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. Sorry.
16 Q. You were shown this -- I think you were shown this document by my
17 learned friend for the Prosecution, and it's the retroactive decision
18 suggesting that Simatovic had been sent to Kosovo during certain dates.
19 Now, if we turn to page 2, please, of the English, would it be
20 logical to you that this decision, likewise being sent to the material
21 and financial affairs administration, would have something to do with
23 A. That would be logical.
24 Q. And you wouldn't expect if this document was, as you've just
25 said, was placed within a file with a clear decision that it go only to
1 these internal administrations and to the employee that anyone else would
2 see it; correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. So the -- the -- the fraud suggested by the Prosecution would
5 logically be a fraud on the internal administrations we see mentioned
7 A. That's correct. Yes. If it's a fraud, because I don't know the
9 Q. Are you able to confirm that at the time of this decision, if one
10 was sent to Kosovo, one would be able to apply to the material and
11 financial affairs administration for an uplift in salary and an increase
12 in expenses?
13 A. Whoever was sent to assist in Kosovo would receive a high salary
14 because there would be other expenses incurred by living there. So
15 anyone who was sent to work in Kosovo requested that such expenses be
17 Q. Do you know if that was covered by -- let's go back to the first
18 page, please, of this document in English and the top of the page in the
20 Are you able to confirm that these salary issues and expenses
21 issues were dealt with by the Law on Internal Affairs, Article 72, and
22 the special edition number 4/90 and authorisation 01 number 1130/91-2,
23 these regulations and laws dealt with this issue of an uplift in salary
24 and expenses? Are you able to confirm that or not?
25 A. Well, yes. If you refer to all these articles in the
1 introduction, one could say that that is the basis for increasing the
2 salaries. The employee didn't make such a request. The administration
3 would provide that increase. It wasn't necessary for the employee to
4 constantly make requests. If there was a legal basis for this to be
5 done, then the employee would receive his, or her, salary on that basis.
6 Q. Are you aware of any law or order or such that would have
7 mandated the paying of a higher salary or expenses if personnel, such as
8 Simatovic, was working in Croatia or Bosnia at the time of this decision?
9 Was there anything governing the paying of expenses in those
10 locations? Or the paying of salaries.
11 A. I'm not aware of that.
12 Q. Now, finally, I want to ask you about a decision.
13 MR. JORDASH: Please, could we have on the screen 1D01231.
14 Q. This is a related but it is a different subject. If you take
15 some time just to read the decision, dated 2nd of July, 1991.
16 A. I've read the document.
17 Q. I think we need to go over the page as well, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm just wondering ... okay. I'm
20 sorry, I was looking at a different document.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
22 MR. JORDASH:
23 Q. We were -- I'll -- you were discussing with my learned friend
24 from the Prosecution previously what the Serbian DB was or was not
25 authorised to do outside of Serbia.
1 Were you aware of this decision by the minister of the interior
2 at the behest of the government or to -- to allow the DB to operate in
3 the way suggested outside of Serbia? Operation Pauk but a different Pauk
4 to what we're used to.
5 A. I was not aware of this decision.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
7 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I -- we don't know what the
8 provenance is of this document, but if it came from the Serbian
9 authorities, then perhaps in an abundance of caution it shouldn't be
10 broadcast. It looks like an official DB document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, it's your document.
12 MR. JORDASH: I'm content with it being public.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we can proceed.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. You were not aware of this decision anyway. Is that what you
16 said, Mr. Milosevic?
17 A. I was not aware of it.
18 MR. JORDASH: May I apply to bar table this decision,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
21 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to have information, please, about the
22 provenance of the document. We don't know anything about it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: It was a document which the accused, Mr. Stanisic,
25 had, and he gave it to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2003 during his
2 MS. MARCUS: In that case, I am afraid it suffers from that
3 problem of coming from the accused's personal collection and we object.
4 If the Defence wants to try to obtain the original, it can be MFI'd,
5 perhaps, until they can obtain it.
6 MR. JORDASH: I'm not going to get into the previous discussions,
7 but I'm happy for it to be MFI'd and we'll do what we can to provide
8 further information, but our position is that it's sufficiently -- it
9 crosses the threshold but we're content with the --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I know that there is a debate, a dispute about the
11 documents which were provided by Mr. Stanisic.
12 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D1231 will receive number D796,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
16 When we were talking about documents, we had a look P2401
17 recently, Ms. Marcus, I noticed that most likely there are parts missing
18 in the translation. I, for example, see a clear reference to the date
19 the 1st of January, 1992, in the original, whereas at the same place I do
20 not find anything in the English translation. Further, there's
21 handwriting at the bottom of that document which is also not reflected in
22 the translation.
23 MS. MARCUS: I'll check that, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And it's not that it may change things that
25 dramatically, but there's always a risk that if the translation is not
1 accurate that it affects in one way or another the document.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
3 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
4 Could we have on the screen, D113.
5 Q. And this, Professor, is the final very brief subject I want to
6 ask you about. It's related to the last subject --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document is under seal.
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. Sorry, again.
9 Q. Whilst that's coming up, it was suggested to you by the
10 Prosecution that if the DB were deploying individuals to Croatia and
11 Bosnia in 1991 and 1995, to participate in joint combat operations, they
12 would have to create documents to conceal this deployment in order to fit
13 into the rules and regulations.
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, page 19010.
15 Q. Now, I want to ask you about D113, and in particular Article --
16 or item, I think it's item 3. Yes, Article 3. Page 3 of the English and
17 page 4 of the B/C/S. And if you would just read Article 3, please.
18 MR. JORDASH: And just for context to assist Your Honours, this
19 is a set of rules which are dated January 1992.
20 Q. And if you just read -- you've already read that?
21 MR. JORDASH: If we go over the page in the English and we should
22 stay on page 4 of the B/C/S. In fact, no, let's go to page 5 of the
24 And it states there - and this is the particular bit I want to
25 direct your attention to:
1 "Other republic security duties are in particular the duties of
2 providing counter-intelligence protection to republican organs,
3 organising and carrying out preparations for defence and work in case of
4 an imminent threat of war and in war, preparing appropriate contributions
5 to the plan for the defence of the republic, planning and co-ordinating
6 the duties of protecting facilities, areas, and workplaces important for
7 the defence of the republic, and organising and providing cryptographic
8 data protection and special-purpose communication [sic]."
9 Now, keeping that in mind, Professor, a Prosecution witness,
10 JF-095, from the state security, agreed that that provision would have
11 permitted the state security of Serbia to form such military units as the
13 MR. JORDASH: Page 7096.
14 Q. Do you agree with that interpretation, that this would have
15 enabled, by law, the DB to create the JATD?
16 A. Well, in view of the wording here, it could be put that way.
17 Q. And the JATD, from the wording, would then -- or could have been
18 used to organise and carry out preparations for defence? I'll leave it
19 at that.
20 No more questions. Thank you, Professor.
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
23 I'm looking at the clock. I don't think it makes much sense to
24 continue your cross-examination. Unless you have a limited series of
25 questions, Ms. Marcus, which you could easily put to the witness.
1 MS. MARCUS: I'm in the Chamber's hands, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you could feel five minutes in a meaningful
3 way and not being stopped halfway in the middle of a subject, then you
4 are invited to do so, and if you say no, I can't, then.
5 MS. MARCUS: I think I can do that, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed.
7 Ms. Marcus will now continue her cross-examination for a couple
8 of minutes.
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic.
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions about the section of
13 Franko Simatovic of your report, which is part 8. And in that section,
14 in addition to describing the documents contained in Mr. Simatovic's
15 personnel file, you make several factual assertions as well.
16 In paragraph 338, for example, you state in relation to
17 Mr. Simatovic that he:
18 "Discharged the duties and tasks of deputy chief of the 2nd RDB
20 You state in paragraph 356 that:
21 "From the above description of the duties and tasks of special
22 advisor to the chief of the DB, which Franko Simatovic discharged from
23 May 1993 to April 1996," et cetera.
24 Your factual assertions appear not to question that Mr. Simatovic
25 was, in fact, carrying out the duties and responsibilities strictly
1 according to the decisions you analysed?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic is on his feet. I do not know
3 whether --
4 Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a problem with
6 the very beginning of the question; namely, the assertion that these are
7 facts. Factual allegations. These are actually claims based on the
8 personnel file.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's comment on the question.
10 Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
11 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Now, your assertions, in addition, appear to presume that the
13 circumscribed duties and responsibilities restricted Mr. Simatovic's
14 ability to do anything else. And that's what I'd like to ask you a
15 little bit about.
16 First, let's take paragraph 369.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus --
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes?
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- wouldn't it be better to first try to understand
20 what the witness meant in those paragraphs because that might resolve a
21 lot of matters.
22 When you said in these two -- two paragraphs which were read to
23 you by Ms. Marcus that Mr. Simatovic discharged his duties as, did you
24 mean to say that those were the duties he was supposed to -- to perform,
25 to discharge of those duties, or did you want to indicate that he really
1 did that, or was it just, This is what the rule says, and what his duties
2 were, he was in that position so he must have discharged them.
3 Which of the two?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these are the duties that he
5 had to carry out in accordance with the decision on his appointment. He
6 actually had to behave in accordance with that decision. He could not
7 decide whether he wanted to do that or not. He had to do it. Whether he
8 did something else as well, that, I don't know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Or even whether he did what he had to do. You never
10 verified whether he discharged his duties.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I don't know.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, this at least gives, I think, a better
13 understanding of the word "discharge." The witness did not intend to
14 express it -- his opinion in the way you understood it.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I agree. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MS. MARCUS: Would Your Honour like to pause at this point?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think this is the right moment.
19 We will adjourn for the day.
20 Mr. Milosevic, it may become a bit boring, but I again have to
21 remind you that you should not speak or communicate in any other way with
22 anyone about your testimony, whether given or still to be given. We'd
23 like to see you back tomorrow morning. Let me just check that. Yes.
24 We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning, the 9th of May, at 9.00 in
25 this same courtroom, II.
1 We stand adjourned.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of May,
5 2012, at 9.00 a.m.