Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19133

 1                           Wednesday, 9 May 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 7     courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

10             This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus

11     Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             Ms. Marcus, are you ready to proceed?  And may I remind you that

14     the -- what we did in the last five minutes yesterday, that is, to try to

15     find out what the expert witness really wants to say in terms of facts or

16     an assessment of how it should be under the rules should -- if we keep

17     that in mind, that might save a lot of time, because we don't have to

18     explore a lot of factual issues which, in fact, are not there.

19             Would you therefore always pay attention to that aspect.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Absolutely, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             Mr. Milosevic, I would like to remind you again that you are not

23     bound -- that you are bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

24     beginning of your testimony.

25                           WITNESS:  MILAN MILOSEVIC [Resumed]

Page 19134

 1                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus will now continue her cross-examination,

 3     but only after she has given us an indication as to how much time she

 4     would still need.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, my original estimate, as you know,

 6     was five hours.  I believe I used an hour and 48 minutes on Thursday.

 7     Now, the Stanisic team's cross did not extend that time, so I would say

 8     that I would use about three hours today, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.

11             Before I do, I would just like to put one -- mention one thing on

12     the record, which can easily be done in the presence of the witness, with

13     your leave, Your Honours.

14             It pertains to a list of bar table documents that we received

15     yesterday from the Simatovic Defence.  The only thing I would like to

16     mention about that is that the chart, the table of 160 documents, did not

17     contain any information about origin or about the relevance of those

18     documents.  I wanted to make mention of this.  I don't know what the

19     time-frame is for that.  But we cannot, of course, begin -- we appreciate

20     being notified of which documents, but we cannot begin the process of

21     preparing our responses until we have that information from the

22     Simatovic Defence.

23             I just wanted to inquire as to that.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that the list which starts with the footnote

25     number and then the 65 ter number?  Or are you ...

Page 19135

 1             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.  The footnote number, I think that

 2     pertains to the MUP expert report.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  What I'm talking about now is something quite apart

 5     from the instant witness.  This was an e-mail that we received about the

 6     bar table documents which come, I believe, from the Borojevic report.  So

 7     it's a separate issue.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Petrovic.

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the first working

12     day after the break you remember that we said, we promised, that we would

13     inform you of which documents from the Borojevic report would be part of

14     our bar table motion.  We sent that list so that our colleagues could

15     prepare themselves with greater ease.  Our list hasn't yet been

16     completed.  It will soon be completed.  And naturally it will then

17     contain all the information that my colleague has requested.

18             This is something that we did in advance in order to facilitate

19     the work of the Prosecution in accordance with the instructions that we

20     received from you, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think we said come as quickly as possible

22     with at least what the documents are when you're still further preparing.

23             So I take it that you'll receive that as soon as possible.  And

24     where you have already relevant information, that you could start perhaps

25     working already.


Page 19136

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 3                           Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]

 4        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Milosevic.

 5        A.   Good morning.

 6        Q.   What was the specific task that the Simatovic Defence gave you

 7     with respect to the Franko Simatovic section of your report?

 8        A.   On the basis of his professional file, it was necessary for me to

 9     reconstruct his career in the service, and that is, in fact, what I did.

10        Q.   So they specifically asked you to reconstruct his career in the

11     service, based on his personnel file; is that correct?

12        A.   At the beginning of the report, all the issues I explained in

13     detail.  And I will read this out for the sake of precision.

14             In paragraph 7, on page 5, it says that on the basis of the

15     personnel file I analysed the professional biography of Simatovic, his

16     career path in the service, the positions he was appointed to, the rank

17     he was conferred, his annual assessments.

18             I do apologise to the interpreters.  I'll repeat this.

19             On the basis of his personnel file, I analysed Franko Simatovic's

20     CV, including his admission to the career in the service; the workplace

21     to which he was assigned; the titles, or rather, the ranks that he held;

22     his annual evaluations; and the positions he had relative to the internal

23     SDB or RDB and/or MUP of Serbia hierarchy.

24             So that would be my precise answer to your question.

25        Q.   So if you had not had Mr. Simatovic's personnel file, would you

Page 19137

 1     have been able to prepare, based on your own expertise - your own

 2     research, your own access to documentation - would you have been able to

 3     prepare a section on Franko Simatovic's duties and responsibilities, as

 4     part of an expert report?

 5        A.   I certainly wouldn't have been able to do that in this detail and

 6     this precisely.  No one's career path can be reconstituted without having

 7     access to that person's personnel file, and that is valid for

 8     Franko Simatovic and for anyone else, of course.

 9        Q.   Now, before I move on from the section -- from the Simatovic

10     section on to the JATD section, I have a few questions I'd like to ask

11     you about the documents which we provided to you, which were listed in a

12     chart, and which are documents which contain the signature or initials of

13     Franko Simatovic.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Could I request the Court Officer please call up

15     65 ter 6488.

16             I also have the hard copies, if, with the Chamber's leave,

17     perhaps the Court Officer to give the hard copy of the charts back to the

18     witness, in B/C/S.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the usher assist.

20             MS. MARCUS:

21        Q.   Now, I know a week has passed since you reviewed these materials,

22     but do you recall reviewing the documents in the binder, documents which

23     contain the signature or initials of Mr. Simatovic?

24             I believe it's the third chart in that package of charts that I'm

25     speaking about.  It has a yellow tab.  The third tab.

Page 19138

 1             Do you recall looking at these documents?

 2        A.   When?  Which period do you have in mind?  When did I have a look

 3     at them?

 4        Q.   I'm talking about last week when we provided you with these

 5     materials.

 6        A.   I can't remember precisely.  I'd have to have a look at the

 7     documents in order to answer that question.  No one could remember this.

 8     You didn't give me much time to have a look at the documents.  I don't

 9     know these documents by heart.  If you let me have a look at the

10     documents, I'll answer your question.  I assume that I did have a look at

11     them, but I can't be certain.

12        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I certainly will not put you on the spot with any

13     particular document in that way.  You have them in front of you.  If

14     there's anything that you feel you need to consult in order to answer the

15     questions I'll ask, then, of course, you will have the time to do that.

16     I just wanted to confirm for the record that these are the materials that

17     I provided to you.  This is one part of the materials that we provided to

18     you, which you reviewed last week.

19             That was my first question: Just to confirm that these are the

20     materials that you reviewed.

21        A.   I can't confirm that I looked at these documents.  There were

22     three --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, did you look -- did you look at binders which

24     look very similar to what you have in front of you now?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Three binders.

Page 19139

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then Ms. Marcus will go in more specific questions.

 2     And then if you then come across any document which you say, I don't

 3     remember that I've seen it, please tell us and have a closer look at it.

 4     Wait for the questions that Ms. Marcus will put to you.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Now, based upon your knowledge of and familiarity with DB

 7     documentation, and as an experienced researcher, if you had had the

 8     documents in the binder containing Mr. Simatovic's signature to consult

 9     in preparing your report, your professionalism would have obliged you to

10     compare the roles and tasks and responsibilities of Mr. Simatovic, that

11     he was carrying out according to those DB documents, with the DB

12     documents contained in Mr. Simatovic's personnel file, wouldn't it?

13        A.   In principle, yes.  I would have compared all the documents

14     available, including those ones, the ... there's no question about it.

15        Q.   And so it flows from that, then, that you would have drawn

16     inferences and conclusions about Mr. Simatovic's roles and

17     responsibilities based on all the documents you had at your disposal?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think we discussed

20     this issue on Thursday.  On Thursday there was a discussion about the

21     issue.  The Prosecution has asked whether the expert's conclusions would

22     have been different if he had had documents initialed by Franko Simatovic

23     that seem to relate to the JATD.  But for the expert witness to change

24     his opinion, he would have to examine the entire field.  In addition to

25     the documents that have Franko Simatovic's initials, he would have to

Page 19140

 1     examine hundreds of other documents initialed by others or signed by

 2     others.  He would have to examine orders from others that concern the

 3     same subject matter in order to reach a different conclusion about the

 4     position and role that Franko Simatovic may have had.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I think there's some confusion at this moment.

 6             Let me try to explain to you what, in my view, the confusion is.

 7             The witness has explained to us that he was given -- he was

 8     tasked to analyse the documents, he said, personnel file and set out

 9     clearly this was the position at that time, that's the rules that

10     regulate this, et cetera, et cetera, which, as far as I understand the

11     witness, does not include any research on whether or not Mr. Simatovic

12     acted in accordance with what he was tasked with, on paper.  That is,

13     position, ranks, are you stationed here; then, okay, then you're supposed

14     to work there, and not perhaps somewhere else.

15             But I did not understand from the answer of the witness that he

16     was also tasked with checking whether the activities, as they appear in

17     other documentation, not in the personnel file, whether that fits into

18     his formal position and into the rules and regulation which govern that

19     formal position.

20             So, Ms. Marcus, I think when you asked the question to the

21     witness, If you would have looked at all this, would you have analysed

22     that and that and that, that it's not only different material, but it

23     would also have been another task.  The task being:  Would you please

24     analyse and research whether what we can see from the documentary

25     evidence as apparently the activities Mr. Simatovic, whether that fits in

Page 19141

 1     what you have analysed.

 2             So not only different documents, but also a different task.

 3     Would you agree with that?

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, with your leave, and I do apologise for

 5     this request, I would like to respond, but outside of the hearing of the

 6     witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We could -- and you'd like to do that now, I

 8     take it?

 9             MS. MARCUS:  If possible, yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Milosevic, I have to ask you to briefly

11     leave the courtroom, then, but remain stand by.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             The Prosecution's position with respect to this expert report is

17     essential as follows, especially with respect to the portions on

18     Mr. Simatovic and on the JATD:

19             The Simatovic Defence provided to the witness a very carefully

20     selected, limited selection of DB documentation.  The witness took that

21     on its face.  That's what he looked at.  I don't know whether he asked

22     for anything else.  I was going to ask him if he asked for any other

23     materials.  Our position is that his professionalism should have led him

24     to ask for other materials, especially where he was given excerpts of

25     personnel files.  And he may not - I don't know yet until I ask - whether


Page 19142

 1     he asked to review the remainder of those personnel files.

 2             So in our view what the Simatovic Defence did was they gave him a

 3     selection, and directly based on that selection he produced an expert

 4     report that is focussed because of the selection provided to him by the

 5     Simatovic Defence.

 6             Now, if -- and that is our position especially, Your Honours,

 7     with respect to the JATD section, but I submit that it applies also to

 8     the Franko Simatovic section.

 9             Now, I understand what Your Honours are saying.  His task was to

10     analyse the personnel file.  But as we have here, if this expert report

11     is going to come into evidence, the way it reads, it's not qualified in

12     any way.  It's not limited in conclusions that can be drawn from it.  The

13     only relevance the report can possibly have to their case is that the --

14     what ought to have happened was actually what happened.  Otherwise it has

15     simply no relevance.

16             So what I'm --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I --

18             MS. MARCUS:  What I was planning to do --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  There, I think, there's the big disagreement.  The

20     report says what it says, and that's not much.  I would agree with you.

21     But, apparently, the Prosecution - and, Mr. Petrovic, if you again draft,

22     a chart, I would use the word "Prosecution" rather than "persecution,"

23     because that might be misunderstood, that's the chart you apparently sent

24     yesterday - if you say it's of limited probative value, I would agree

25     with you.  Because -- and that's apparently -- apparently the Prosecution

Page 19143

 1     fears that the Chamber would understand this expert report as reflecting

 2     reality beyond the paper reality of the rules and the decisions to

 3     appoint.

 4             Apparently the Prosecution fears that the Chamber would

 5     understand that if someone is tasked with A, B, C, D, and E, that the

 6     person appointed to perform those tasks did so.  If we look at the expert

 7     report, what you could conclude is that he was appointed in a position

 8     where A, B, C, and D were the task -- in a position where A, B, C, D, and

 9     E were what someone was supposed to do when performing his duties in that

10     position.  Nothing more; nothing less.

11             So, therefore, whether he did that or not, whether he did X, Y or

12     Z or whether he did X, Y, and Z next to A, B, C, D, and E or whether he

13     did not do A, B, C, D, and E at all and whether he did M and O, that --

14     the report doesn't answer those questions.  And what you said is that

15     it's therefore -- it gives support to the extent that the Chamber is now

16     able to verify what the tasks and duties were for someone appointed in

17     such a position, but does not in any way - and I think the witness has

18     repeated that five, ten, 15, 20 times by now - that he does not give any

19     insight in what actually that person appointed in that position did or

20     did not.  And it seems that you want to explore:  Would not -- would your

21     position not have been different, Mr. Expert, if you would have known

22     that and that and that?  It's my expectation that the witness would say,

23     No, still these are the rules which regulate what someone appointed in

24     such a position was supposed to do.  Whether he did it or not, the

25     witness has no idea, apparently.

Page 19144

 1             MS. MARCUS:  On this point, Your Honour, if I might just respond.

 2             What I'm actually seeking to do on the matter of Mr. Simatovic is

 3     not show him what actually -- is not to ask him about evidence of what

 4     actually took place, but, rather, to present to him the same kind of

 5     documents that he reviewed in drawing his conclusions as to the -- what

 6     ought to have been done.

 7             So in other words, if he had these documents with the same task

 8     he was given, Your Honour - just bear with me for a second --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

10             MS. MARCUS:  If -- with the same task that the witness was given,

11     not to -- not to analyse what actually happened, but to analyse what it

12     appears Mr. Simatovic's roles and tasks and responsibilities were, if he

13     had had these documents, his analysis of the roles and tasks and

14     responsibilities would also have been different, regardless of any

15     knowledge of it actually being carried out.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So -- so what we would then expect, and it has

17     got nothing to do with whether he should have reviewed other material,

18     whether it would have affected his conclusions, what you'd like to say

19     is, If your task is to take care of the weekly payment of subordinates,

20     if that's your task - and then you show him a document where he ordered

21     hamburgers for his neighbourhood - and say does this fit into that task?

22             That's apparently the kind of questions you -- what we see him do

23     here, ordering hamburgers, is that -- how does that fit in your task to

24     take care of the daily -- of the weekly payments for your subordinates?

25     That's the kind of -- of course, this is not --

Page 19145

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- an example from reality.  But I'm trying to

 3     understand that we do not dwell into any area which the witness just

 4     doesn't have -- looked at.  And apart from that, sometimes there may be

 5     some -- some areas where could you have some doubt.  But if he buys a

 6     tank or an airplane, I don't need a witness to explain to me that buying

 7     an airplane is not the same as taking care of the weekly payments of your

 8     subordinates.  Sometimes it's obvious.  There may be matters where you

 9     say, Well, is there any way that you could explain it in such a way that

10     it would fit into the tasks; if not, then it apparently falls outside the

11     scope of that task.  But sometimes there may be an explanation, so as

12     to -- to better understand why this was not, not outside the scope of his

13     task.

14             But I want to -- we have listened now for days and days

15     extensively to all kind of questions that were put to the witness, where

16     he finally says, I didn't look at it.  And if you say, Well, then it may

17     be of limited support for the Simatovic Defence, that may be true or not

18     true, but that's the choice the Simatovic Defence makes.  If they think

19     that it greatly assists the Chamber to know all the regulations and to

20     look at this kind of paperwork only, then we'll see what we'll do with

21     it.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, what I'm simple seeking to do is to

23     challenge and contextualise the witness's evidence, which is, in fact, my

24     job to do that.  So the witness has presented certain evidence.  I -- I

25     hear what the Chamber is saying about what his task was.  I hear from him

Page 19146

 1     what he was saying.  In my first few questions he agreed that had he had

 2     these materials he would have had to consider them and compare and come

 3     to different conclusions.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Not -- I -- I would like to put further questions to

 5     the witness that would -- within what he was tasked with, it would not

 6     have led him to any conclusion, because he was not tasked to find out

 7     whether documentation on what Mr. Simatovic did fit into what he was

 8     supposed to do.  The task was limited to describe to us what a person

 9     appointed in position A is supposed to do as his task.  And whether what

10     he actually did fits into the picture was not his task, as I understand

11     it.  I can tell you that I would have further asked further questions

12     about when he said, Yes, of course, I would have looked at those

13     documents because they are irrelevant for his task.  And we are giving

14     him more documents and implicitly we're expanding his task by the way you

15     proceed.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I will take the Chamber's instructions.

17     I must respectively disagree that --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me first check it all that I ...

19             MS. MARCUS:  -- but I will do as Your Honours instruct.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Overlapping speakers.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  My colleagues, although there's no fundamental

23     disagreement with my -- with my analysis, by majority would give you a

24     bit more room.  So, therefore, I would join in that.  And, Ms. Marcus, if

25     you say that you respectively disagree, then I always have to check


Page 19147

 1     whether I'm performing my role as a Presiding Judge appropriately, and

 2     you have a -- again, on the theoretical level -- and, of course, the

 3     whole issue is caused by the witness using often language which doesn't

 4     reflect what he really wants to present.  His assessment of the reality,

 5     as you read it now and then, asked about it, seems not -- has not to do

 6     anything with reality, but, rather, about rules and appointments and --

 7             But, therefore, I'll be cautious in further intervening.

 8             Could the witness be brought into the courtroom again.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I just want to -- your answer to my last question

13     wasn't recorded because we began our discussion, so I just want to ask

14     you that question before I proceed.

15             I had asked you if you had had, for example, these documents in

16     analysing the role and responsibilities and tasks of Mr. Simatovic, if

17     you had had these as well, you would have compared them with the official

18     tasks he was assigned as per his personnel file.  You said, in principle,

19     Yes, I would have compared all the documents available including those

20     ones.  There's no question about it.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are talking about

23     a collection of 45 different documents which depict only Simatovic's

24     initials.  I would like to hear exactly what was it that Simatovic did

25     and that was initialed instead of the --

Page 19148

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, Mr. Petrovic, have you an opportunity

 2     to re-examine the witness at a later stage.  We are -- you're now

 3     entering in a debate.  You can oppose, you can object against the

 4     question.  We are, at this moment, at a level where the witness is asked

 5     about what he think he would have done if he would have seen those

 6     documents and what he considers would have been his task when he would

 7     have been provided with those documents, and that's the question the

 8     witness should answer first.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, just

11     one sentence.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  One sentence, Mr. Petrovic.  But ...

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm asking for a very precise

14     qualifications of the documents that are being shown to the witness.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It is about the documents given to him to look at.

16     That's what we're talking about now.  And if, when we are proceeding,

17     specific documents will be discussed, we'll have them on our screen and

18     we'll look at them very precisely.

19             Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.  Perhaps you better repeat your

20     question.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, I will.  I will, Your Honour.

22        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, before I repeat the question, just for your

23     information --

24        A.   I understood your question.  You don't have to repeat it.  I can

25     answer immediately.

Page 19149

 1        Q.   Okay.  Please do so.

 2        A.   May I answer?  I would have certainly looked at all the

 3     documents; however, my report would be absolutely the same because for me

 4     only the documents within his personnel file would bear some weight.  I

 5     would have looked at everything else out of curiosity or for some other

 6     reason.  However, in keeping my task, I did what I was supposed to do.

 7     And I would have done the same again, irrespective of any other kind of

 8     documents that I might have seen.

 9             I would have always used the personnel file as the only relevant

10     set of documents.

11        Q.   Now, just to clarify that before I move on, just so we understand

12     your answer:  I do understand that the task you were given was to analyse

13     Mr. Simatovic's roles and responsibilities as per his DB personnel file.

14     I understand that.

15             Now, if you had been asked, without it being limited to that as

16     your source, to analyse Mr. Simatovic's roles and responsibilities, as an

17     expert, then you would agree with me that these other documents which

18     also come from DB personnel files - every one of them is an official

19     document from a personnel file from a DB official personnel file, so they

20     are the same kinds of documents - that these would have been relevant to

21     a proper expert analysis of Mr. Simatovic's roles and responsibilities.

22             Would you agree with that?

23        A.   I would not.

24             MS. MARCUS:  I see Mr. Petrovic.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

Page 19150

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have a wrong

 2     qualifications of the documents.  It says from the official personnel

 3     documents of the DB.

 4             I will not go into the documents.  I just want to say that the

 5     qualification, as given, does not really correspond to the nature of

 6     those documents.

 7             I just want this to be clear and on the record.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

 9             MS. MARCUS:

10        Q.   Could you explain your answer, why you wouldn't agree with what I

11     suggested?

12        A.   When I reconstruct a career path of a person in service, you use

13     personnel documents, not operative or any other documents.  The only

14     relevant documents are those that can be found in somebody's personnel

15     file.

16             It is impossible to reconstruct anything based on hundreds of

17     thousands of documents.  I don't know what you mean.  And I repeat,

18     although I believe that everybody in this room understands that, only the

19     personnel file of the accused in this case were relevant for

20     reconstructing his career path.

21             This is my professional opinion, and I'm sure that you don't have

22     to agree with it.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you say the report would have been the same.

24     Nevertheless, Ms. Marcus wants to explore certain matters with you which

25     are closely related to the career path, as you researched it, on the

Page 19151

 1     basis of the files that were given to you.

 2             Ms. Marcus, if you would start with that, then ...

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I -- I don't want to debate this.  I just want to

 5     make sure that we completely understand.

 6             The report, the way it's written, doesn't qualify it and say it's

 7     only about his career path.  It talks -- it -- it does say that you

 8     were -- that you had a methodology which permitted you to conclude what

 9     Mr. Simatovic's de jure and de facto responsibilities were.

10             Now, I know that you have said that you don't have information

11     about facts.  I accept that completely.  But these documents demonstrate

12     Mr. Simatovic carrying out duties that go beyond what you set out in the

13     report.  Whether he did it or not, again, is another question that you

14     may or may not know.  But if the documents are taken on their face, as

15     you took the other DB documents on their face, they suggest duties and

16     responsibilities which are outside the duties and responsibilities you

17     set out.

18             That's the basis for my putting these questions to you.  Do you

19     understand?

20             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I really apologise.  We're talking

23     about duties and tasks.  Could my learned friend please specify which

24     documents and which tasks arise from these specific documents?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, we are not yet at that point.  That is

Page 19152

 1     to further develop by Ms. Marcus.  At this moment we're only on the

 2     rather theoretical level, what Ms. Marcus intends to do and what she

 3     would have expected, rightly or wrongly, that the witness would have

 4     done.

 5             So, therefore, let's wait and see when we come to specific

 6     documents, where, as I understand it, Ms. Marcus would like to explore,

 7     which she expected the expert would have done even of his own initiative,

 8     to explore to what extent what we see in another document fits into the

 9     picture which we find in the report.  And one of the reasons being for

10     making this exercise, that the report, although very much focussing on

11     appointments, rules, regulations, et cetera, here and there, goes already

12     beyond that.

13             Ms. Marcus, is that well understood?

14             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

16             Mr. Petrovic, I would like you to be -- to limit your objections

17     to the bare minimum.

18             Ms. Marcus.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, what I'm going to do --

21        A.   I apologise.  I believe that you put a question to me and I

22     didn't answer because there was an objection.  You asked me something

23     about whether I agreed with you or not.  I said I didn't.  I don't know

24     whether I have to repeat the answer that I provided or whether I actually

25     answered your question at all.

Page 19153

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you were then asked to explain why you

 2     disagreed.

 3             But, Ms. Marcus, perhaps you phrase a question.  Whether you

 4     rephrase it or whether it's a new question, I leave it in your hands.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I had actually, just before we stopped, I had just

 7     explained, in fact, to you what led me to asking that question.

 8             I had explained that this documentation taken on its face

 9     presents different duties and responsibilities.  Not asking you about the

10     facts.  But taking the documents on their face, as you do throughout your

11     report, you take the DB documents on their face, and you analyse them and

12     draw conclusions.  I'm suggesting that these documents, taken on their

13     face, demonstrate duties and responsibilities of Mr. Simatovic which were

14     outside those that you presented.

15             That was the basis for my putting the questions to you.  And then

16     I asked you whether you understood that.  If you'd like to respond,

17     please do, and then I'll move on.

18        A.   I understand your question.

19             If the Chamber agrees with this method of questioning, I will

20     repeat -- I will answer.

21             I repeat:  If I were asked to do this report again, my analyse

22     would have been the same because I used documents from the accused's

23     personnel file.  Again, I repeat, if you want me to, I can answer all

24     your questions along this line.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You are supposed to listen carefully to what

Page 19154

 1     Ms. Marcus asks and then answer that question to the best of your

 2     abilities.

 3             Ms. Marcus, I think the sooner we get to the concrete level, the

 4     sooner we can leave behind us this discussion.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm doing that now.  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to show you certain of these

 7     documents and ask you specific questions.  I'm going to fold that into

 8     the next part of my -- of my questioning.

 9             So let me ask you:  What -- with respect to the JATD section,

10     what were the instructions given to you by the Simatovic Defence in

11     preparing your report with respect to the JATD section?

12        A.   In order to be precise, let me quote from my own report.

13        Q.   I'm sorry to interrupt you.  If you're just going to quote back

14     to us paragraph 8, then we all have that.  If that would be your answer.

15        A.   Precisely.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now my next question.  Did the Simatovic Defence ask you

17     to include a section in your report on the JATD, or did you determine

18     that to be an important chapter for your report on your own?

19        A.   It is certainly an important chapter, and the -- the report would

20     not have been complete without that -- that chapter.  I believe that this

21     is self-evident.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please answer the question.

23             The question was whether you were specifically asked to include a

24     JATD paragraph, or that you included it because you considered it

25     important.

Page 19155

 1             Now, you've explained to us that you consider it important.  You

 2     have not answered the question whether you were specifically asked to do

 3     that or whether it was just on the basis of your own assessment of the

 4     importance that you included it.

 5             Would you please answer the question.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Defence asked for that, inter

 7     alia.  And even if they hadn't, I would still believe that this chapter

 8     is very important.

 9             MS. MARCUS:

10        Q.   On the 2nd of May, at page 18948, Mr. Petrovic asked you:

11             "When drawing up your report, did you have at your disposal any

12     documents relating to the establishment of the unit for anti-terrorist

13     action JATD, or did you make your conclusions about the establishment of

14     this unit in some other ways?"

15             You answered:

16             "I had to draw my conclusions in a round-about way, because I did

17     not see the decision to establish the JATD specifically.  Rather, based

18     on personnel files and other decisions, including letters of appointments

19     and assignment and the payrolls, I reconstructed the moment when they

20     were established."

21             On the 7th of May you sent to us, through the Victim/Witness Unit

22     the information that to the best of your recollection the

23     Simatovic Defence had provided you with four JATD decisions on employment

24     and salary, all dated 1994 and all coming from separate DB personnel

25     files, and that they had provided you with JATD payment lists from 1993

Page 19156

 1     to 1995.

 2             You also informed us that you have seen many other rules and

 3     documents - you estimated at least 100 - provided to you by the Defence

 4     but that you did not use them, as they were irrelevant.

 5             On the 7th of May, the Simatovic Defence informed the Prosecution

 6     and the Chamber that:

 7             "Milosevic was provided with per diem lists for JATD and various

 8     decisions of employment status in JATD."

 9             Now, here are my questions:  Did the Simatovic Defence

10     spontaneously provide you with documentation relating to the JATD from

11     which you should draw your inferences, or did you ask them for

12     documentation in order to write that chapter?

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have a problem

14     with my learned friend quoting from Mr. Milosevic's document.

15             It says:

16             "Documents that I was provided by the Defence."

17             That's bullet point 3.  "In drafting my analysis, I reviewed a

18     lot of documents and letters, at least 100, as well as books, brochures,

19     and articles, that were offered to me by the Defence or which I obtained

20     through my individual research works in archives and libraries."  The

21     second part of the sentence, meaning, "which I obtained through my own

22     individual research work," was not read out to the witness in -- as part

23     of the question that my learned friend put to the witness.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, that second part relates to other laws and

25     rules and regulations.  I'm talking about the DB documents.

Page 19157

 1             It's true that I quoted part of it.  I was focussing on the DB

 2     documents.

 3        Q.   So, Mr. Milosevic, my question:  Did the Simatovic Defence

 4     provide you with the documents from which you should draw your

 5     conclusions on the JATD section, or did you ask for them, for that

 6     documentation, in order to draft that chapter?

 7        A.   As you can see in the report, some of the documents were provided

 8     to me by the Defence, and some were obtained through my own individual

 9     research.

10             I'm not sure whether you quoted my words properly in your

11     question --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, could you just -- there's no need to add fuel

13     to this little fire which started a minute ago.

14             The question was -- you say documents were provided to me.  I

15     obtained some documents through my own individual research.  Did you ask

16     for any additional problems [sic] to the Simatovic Defence, where you

17     said, I don't have documents in this area, you have not provided me with

18     those documents, do you have them and could you provide them to me?

19             Did you ask for any additional documents from the

20     Simatovic Defence.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't ask for anything else.  I

22     tried to find the rules on organisation of the JATD and the regulations

23     on salaries; however, I was not able to find the two, nor was I provided

24     the two.

25             And then -- maybe I should explain, actually.

Page 19158

 1             I looked at a certain number of decisions on appointment in the

 2     JATD as well as decisions on determining the coefficient for salaries.

 3     Those were the documents that I looked, nothing else.  And since they

 4     were all of the same format, they always involved the same rules.  I can

 5     tell you exactly what they were.  Based on that, I drew an inference that

 6     those documents existed but I did not see them personally.  In order to

 7     be precise, I will read from my analysis.  I could not personally inspect

 8     those documents, because I never saw them.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, I don't think that was part of the

10     question I did put to you.

11             I would seek -- like to seek one clarification.  You said:

12             "I didn't ask for anything else.  I tried to find the rules on

13     the organisation of the JATD and the regulations on salaries; however, I

14     was not able to find the two, nor was I provided ..."

15             My question was:  Did you ask for it?  Did you ask the

16     Simatovic Defence:  These and these documents which I was trying to find,

17     I did not manage to find; do you have them?  Could you provide them to

18     me?

19             Did you ask that?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if they had had those

21     documents, they would have given them to me.  It's clear, is it not?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Sometimes people make mistakes.  Sometimes

23     people are not aware of your position that it's relevant.  So, therefore,

24     I would invite you -- if I ask you:  Did you ask for it?  The first I

25     expect you to do is to say "yes" or "no," whether you asked or not.  And

Page 19159

 1     then if you want to explain why you didn't ask for it, that's the second

 2     step.

 3             But let's focus, first of all, on answers on the question.

 4             Ms. Marcus.

 5             MS. MARCUS:

 6        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to ask you very specific questions about

 7     this very issue, so please bear with me.  If we need further

 8     clarification, we will ask.

 9             Now, had -- if the Simatovic Defence had not given you those

10     decisions, those few decisions on appointment and the decisions

11     determining the coefficient for salaries, if they had not provided you

12     with that, and in the absence of the rules on the organisation or

13     formation of the JATD, would you have been able to put together a chapter

14     of your expert report on the JATD?

15        A.   I wouldn't have been able to do that with such precision.  I

16     wouldn't have been able to refer to certain fundamental documents

17     relating to its establishment.

18        Q.   And the documentation that you were provided with by the

19     Simatovic Defence you deemed sufficient in order to write your analysis,

20     as an expert, on the rules governing the JATD; is that correct?

21        A.   Given what I had available to me from earlier on, I thought that

22     the documentation I had was quite sufficient and relevant.

23        Q.   What do you mean what was available to you from earlier on?  Are

24     we talking still about the materials provided to you by the Defence?

25        A.   No.  I've been involved in research for several decades -- well,

Page 19160

 1     I don't want to exaggerate.  So I already had information on the

 2     existence of the JATD.  I didn't hear about the existence of the JATD

 3     from the Defence.  When I was involved in research, I had certain

 4     information.  I carried out research by consulting archives of various

 5     kinds, and so on and so forth.  I can't say that everything I learned

 6     about the JATD was something that I learned because the Defence provided

 7     me with certain documents.

 8        Q.   Okay.  In paragraph 371 of your report, you quote the 1977 Law on

 9     Internal Affairs of Serbia.  Specifically, you reference the provisions

10     of the 1977 law which state that the republican secretary of the interior

11     may form special police units.

12             This 1977 law was replaced by the 1991 law that you cite in the

13     next paragraph; correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   So, actually, the provisions regarding the formation of special

16     police units in the 1977 law are not applicable in the post-1991 period;

17     correct?

18        A.   Here, I said that you could see that the special police units

19     weren't created in 1991.  They also existed in a previous period on the

20     basis of a former law, an earlier law, but after the decision on creating

21     special police units was adopted in 1993, those units were established.

22     There was a legal basis that existed earlier on as well.  That's what's

23     important.

24             It says which units were created in 1993 and where.  But I don't

25     think it's necessary for me to repeat what it says here.

Page 19161

 1        Q.   I'm going to go through it to make sure we understand.

 2             When you -- in the next paragraph, that's paragraph 372, when you

 3     cite to the 1991 Law on Internal Affairs - for our purposes that's

 4     P1044 - you refer to the minister of the interior's role in specifying

 5     the purview of organisational units, their organisation, seats, and areas

 6     for which they are set up.

 7             You do not cite to where that law, the 1991 law, gives the

 8     minister of the interior the power to actually establish or form these

 9     special units.

10             Under the 1991 law, who had the authority to establish special

11     police units, as the 1977 law called them?

12        A.   The minister of internal affairs.  And that is quite explicitly

13     stated here.

14        Q.   What's explicitly stated is the role of the minister of internal

15     affairs in establishing organisational units.

16             Are you saying that organisational units and special police units

17     are the same thing?

18        A.   Yes.  In this case, yes.

19        Q.   Okay.  Now, in the second sentence of paragraph 372, you describe

20     the decision on the setting up of the special police units PJM.  For our

21     reference, that is Exhibit D87 in our case.

22             You say that this decision was taken "In accordance with the

23     above legal powers."  Which presumably refers back to the 1991 law or the

24     1977 law.  But upon looking at D87, it states that the decision is in

25     accordance with the February 1992 rules of internal organisation of the

Page 19162

 1     Ministry of Interior.

 2             So from where did you derive that the decision was based on the

 3     1991 law or the 1977 law?

 4        A.   In the Law on Internal Affairs, Article 6, item 2, from 1977.

 5             All sub-laws, as you are well aware, have to be in accordance

 6     with the law.

 7        Q.   Now, with respect to D87, that is, again, the decision on the

 8     formation of the PJM, which you discuss in these two paragraphs, the PJM

 9     was a unit of the public security; correct?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all I would like to

12     ask is for the witness to be shown D87 so that we are quite clear with

13     regard to what is being discussed.

14             MS. MARCUS:

15        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, would it help you to look at the document that

16     we're talking about?  That's the document, the decision, you quote in

17     paragraph 372 of your report.  Decision setting up the special police

18     units.

19             Would you like to see the document to answer the question?

20        A.   That would be good.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up D87.

22        Q.   Do you recall my question?  My question was:  The PJM was a unit

23     of the public security; is that correct?

24        A.   They were units that came under the ministry.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Could I just have one moment, please.

Page 19163

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             MS. MARCUS:

 3        Q.   I'll return to that in one moment.

 4             Let me ask you my next question.

 5             You move from the discussion of the PJM, in your report, straight

 6     into the discussion of the JATD.  You do not link in the text the

 7     discussion of the PJM with the JATD, so you leave us to interpret what

 8     you're trying to say.

 9             Now, presumably, you did that because you do see the formation of

10     the PJM and the JATD to be somehow linked or comparable.  Are you saying

11     that the same rules apply to the formation of the PJM as to the JATD?  Is

12     that what you meant to say?

13        A.   There's a special chapter about the JATD.  I'm not sure what I

14     should say in relation to your interpretation.

15        Q.   Well, this is the -- these are the introductory paragraphs in the

16     JATD section, so they must be in the JATD section for a reason.  I'm

17     trying to understand what you view as the connection between the PJM and

18     the JATD, because you don't explain that.

19             Are you saying that the same rules applied to the formation of

20     the PJM as to the formation of the JATD?

21        A.   This concerns members of the reserve forces above all, and you

22     could see that in the text and reach that conclusion.  It's in the last

23     sentence.  But as a rule, well, I don't know how this should be

24     interpreted in your opinion.  I don't know how to answer your question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You were asked to assist Ms. Marcus.

Page 19164

 1             You introduce, in a chapter which is under the title,

 2     "anti-terrorist operations unit, JATD," you have a kind of an

 3     introductory paragraph where you speak about the competences and powers

 4     of the minister of the interior to bring a decision establishing

 5     anti-terrorist units and special purpose police units.  So you bring the

 6     two together in this paragraph, in these two paragraphs.  And Ms. Marcus

 7     asks you whether it's the same or under the same rules and -- because

 8     there's not much of an explanation on why you introduce the special

 9     police units here.

10             So please explain -- Ms. Marcus, that is what you're seeking,

11     isn't it?

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             It's a clear question, Mr. ...

15             Yes.  Now, I --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reason is that the special

19     police units were formed by a decision on forming special police units

20     that was signed by the minister of internal affairs.

21             The JATD was also formed by the minister of internal affairs.

22     The basis is the same.  Article 6, paragraph 2.  The Prosecution could

23     have interpreted the language, but the basis here is legal, and I thought

24     the legal issues were well known.  So I was a bit confused by the

25     question.


Page 19165

 1             So the basis for the formation of this -- these units is the

 2     same, and the way they are brought up to strength is the same.  The legal

 3     basis is the same.  It's Article 6, paragraph 2 on the Law on

 4     Internal Affairs.  And it's the minister who takes that decision.

 5             I was a little confused, because what we are dealing with is the

 6     legal basis, and I wasn't quite sure what the purpose of your question

 7     was.

 8             MS. MARCUS:

 9        Q.   That was exactly the purpose of my question.  Thank you.

10             So are you then saying that in your view the JATD was a

11     formalisation of the PJM?

12        A.   No.  That's a special unit formed by the minister of internal

13     affairs on the basis of the same authority, and it had the same legal

14     force as in the case of the other unit.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, if Your Honours would like to take a

16     break, this might be an appropriate time.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if this is a good moment for you, then we would

18     take a break and resume at quarter to 11.00.

19                           [The witness stands down]

20                           --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we move into private session.

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 19166

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18                           [Open session]

19             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

22             Meanwhile, I'd like to instruct Madam Registrar to provisionally

23     assign numbers to the list of source material to the Milosevic report

24     that the Simatovic Defence intends to tender into evidence.

25             I think I addressed already the matter that there's one document


Page 19167

 1     on your list, Mr. Petrovic, which is a marked, not admitted, document,

 2     which may need specific attention.

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  We provided

 4     information on that document that we think could be useful.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think Madam Registrar has already assigned a range

 8     of numbers.

 9             Perhaps we could put them on the record.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  The list of exhibits will receive numbers from

11     D797 up and including D853, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then let me just have a look.

13             I think D228 was suggested to be vacated.  But since it has been

14     used as a source now, I think it could be re-tendered if -- unless

15     there's any objection to that.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I would like to have a look at that

17     before expressing our position.  But, of course, for an MFI at the

18     moment, there's no problem.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's not -- yes, it could then be MFI'd again

20     under the same number for the time being, the status now being changed

21     again.  And whether or not there's any objection to admission, we'll hear

22     from you before tomorrow, close of business?

23             MS. MARCUS:  Of course, Your Honour.  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             Then, Mr. Milosevic, we'll continue.


Page 19168

 1             Ms. Marcus.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, in paragraph 373 of your report, you describe the

 4     decision on the establishment of the JATD.

 5             Now, you do not footnote it, and now you've told us, both on the

 6     2nd of May as well as earlier today, that you did not see that decision.

 7     You told us on the 2nd of May that you had to draw your conclusions in a

 8     round-about way.

 9             Would it not have been more accurate when making reference to a

10     source that you have never seen to clearly set out that you have not

11     actually seen it?

12        A.   I stated that explicitly on a number of occasions here, and this

13     is also that I put in the writing in the annex that you were provided

14     with.

15        Q.   Yes.  But my point is, you provided the expert report and you

16     didn't say that at all in the expert report.  Have you been forthcoming

17     when we asked you.  But had we not asked, the way your expert stands you

18     appear to have seen the decision.  That's how it reads, any way.  I'm

19     just asking you from an academic professionalism point of view.  Wouldn't

20     it have been more accurate to say that you gleaned this in a round-about

21     way rather than just stating the conclusion as if you had seen the

22     decision?

23        A.   I wasn't trying to reach such a conclusion.  I didn't have any

24     ill intentions.  I wasn't attempting to plant anything on anyone.  It's

25     absolutely impossible to refer to this decision on -- on salaries if

Page 19169

 1     there is no such legal basis.  This couldn't have been fabricated.

 2     Perhaps you don't like the style, but what I did is, in my opinion, in no

 3     way incorrect.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You would not have thought it more transparent if

 5     would you have written:  The anti-terrorist -- it was, although I have

 6     not seep the decision itself, but on the basis of reconstruction, it must

 7     have been established by a decision, so and so, which I have not seen?

 8             Would that not be more transparent -- would that not have been

 9     more transparent than the way in which you present it in paragraph 373?

10             I'm not talking about bad intentions.  I'm not -- it's just

11     transparency in a research report.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's just a matter of

13     style.  I didn't have any ill intentions.  I didn't want to plant

14     anything.  I quite simply didn't conceal anything.  I wrote it down.

15     It's quite clear.

16             Well, perhaps the way it was put is something you don't like.

17     That what you said is -- is correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Please proceed.

20             MS. MARCUS:

21        Q.   You've also not seen the job specification in the JATD which you

22     also describe in that paragraph; correct?

23        A.   What do you have in mind exactly?

24        Q.   You say that an integral part of the decision on the JATD was the

25     job specification.  Then you describe Article 37 of that document.

Page 19170

 1             I will ask you many detailed questions on that.  But you didn't

 2     see the job specification itself, did you?

 3        A.   I didn't see that document.  Or, rather, I didn't see those

 4     rules, if that's what you're thinking of.

 5             Should I provide you with a more detailed explanation?  I saw the

 6     job specifications, or, rather, schematic concerning the job

 7     specifications, and it had information on individuals who were appointed

 8     to certain positions.  If that's what had you in mind, I saw that.  But I

 9     didn't see the job specifications that form an integral part of what we

10     are discussing.  But if I haven't seen what I told you I saw, I wouldn't

11     have known how many job specifications there were.  Or, rather, how many

12     workers there were.  But this can change.  However, the number of jobs

13     remains the same.  But there was this chart, this table.

14        Q.   I'm going to go into that and give you an opportunity in detail

15     to speak about the chart you're referring to, which is P974, which I will

16     call up in a few moments.

17             Now, how did you know that the job specification was an integral

18     part of the decision if you've never seen the decision and you've never

19     seen the job specification?

20        A.   Well, it's just the way things are.  It has to be.

21        Q.   I'm trying to understand what you base that assertion on.

22     "... just the way things are."

23        A.   It's that kind of a document.  It contains that other document

24     that we're talking about.

25        Q.   So you presumed that, because you didn't see the documents, but

Page 19171

 1     you're presuming that.  Am I right?

 2        A.   It's a logical presumption that is based on analogy, and I derive

 3     my conclusions on what I did see.

 4        Q.   Now, in paragraph 374 you describe incomplete records.  You say:

 5     "Pursuant to incomplete records it may be concluded ..." et cetera.

 6             How can anything be concluded from incomplete records?

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  374, it's a short paragraph, so ...

 9             MS. MARCUS:  It's in paragraph 373, not in 374.  I apologise.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I drew my conclusions based on what

12     I did see.  Therefore ...

13             MS. MARCUS:

14        Q.   What did you mean when you said "incomplete records"?  Which

15     records are incomplete?

16        A.   Records on the payment of per diems, for example.

17        Q.   What was incomplete about them?  I'm sorry, I'm just trying to

18     understand.  You used the term in your report "incomplete records."

19     Which records were incomplete?  I will go into which documents you

20     consulted.  I will go into that.  But I just want to understand what you

21     meant here when you said, "pursuant to incomplete records."

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, it is not for the first time.  It is

23     a frequent thing to happen that you seek eye contact with the Defence

24     side before you answer a question.  Would you please refrain from doing

25     that.  And would you please focus on the one who examines you, that is,

Page 19172

 1     Ms. Marcus.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is this all right, Your Honour?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it was the eye contact.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It really wasn't my intention.

 6     It -- it is a misunderstanding for which I sincerely apologise.

 7             I will continue sitting like this.

 8             From the sources that I subsequently submitted, you can see

 9     exactly which months did those records cover.  Per diems were paid out

10     twice a month, and only the last month, the month of November, they were

11     paid for the entire month.  So I can't say that I had access to

12     everything from beginning to end, and I drew my conclusions on -- on

13     those things that I had available to me.

14             MS. MARCUS:

15        Q.   But you knew -- I'm not exactly sure why you're answering about

16     the per diems.  Is that -- that's what you meant to refer to when you

17     said "pursuant to incomplete records," that refers only to the per diems?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   So you had per diems and you understood them to be incomplete.

20     Is that what you meant to say?

21        A.   I had per diems but not for all of the months.  I based my

22     conclusions on those things I actually had.

23        Q.   And you were told that they were incomplete, or you drew the

24     conclusion that the records were incomplete?

25        A.   I had nothing after the month of November.

Page 19173

 1             Madam Prosecutor, it is all written down, and I really don't see

 2     anything ambiguous here.  Some months, at the end of the period, were

 3     simply missing.

 4        Q.   I'm not sure we understand each other.

 5             What you say here, and this is at the end of paragraph 337:

 6             "Pursuant to incomplete records, it may be concluded that the

 7     strength of this unit varied during the existence of the JATD, since

 8     workers on temporary contracts were admitted to it, but there is no data

 9     if all the work posts, according [sic] to the staffing specification, had

10     ever been filled."

11        A.   I could not conclude whether all the posts were filled.  The

12     numbers varied.  I really don't understand what is unclear in my report.

13        Q.   What does that sentence have to do with the per diems?

14        A.   All the employees in that unit received per diems.  And that is

15     my indicator.  That was at least the logic that I employed.

16        Q.   Okay.  Among the documents upon which you apparently drew your

17     conclusions in this paragraph, which we've learned in the course of your

18     testimony and through, as you say, the annex of sources that you've sent

19     to us on Monday, it appears you drew your conclusions from four

20     individual documents that were provided to you by the Simatovic Defence.

21             MS. MARCUS:  For the record, and I will use these individually,

22     these are P2724, that is from the personnel file -- a document from the

23     personnel file of Milan Radnic; P481, a document from the personnel file

24     of Milenko Milovanovic; P475, a document from the personnel file of

25     Janko Keres [phoen]; and P477, a document from the personnel file of

Page 19174

 1     Zoran Rajic.

 2        Q.   Now, I'm going to ask you a few questions about these documents.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  I have a copy of the first three in a hard copy in

 4     B/C/S, which can be handed to the witness.  I've requested a copy of P477

 5     as well, which will -- shall which will be provided hopefully soon.

 6             Can I ask the court usher to hand this out, please.  For the

 7     witness.  Thank you.

 8        Q.   We're going to look at some of those documents a little bit

 9     later.  For now I would just like to ask you to confirm that, in fact,

10     those documents are the ones on which you relied in reaching your

11     conclusions in paragraph 373.

12        A.   Yes.  This is a conclusion to the effect that a decision was

13     passed by Zoran Sokolovic on the 4th of August, 1993, under number

14     DT 012497.

15             Based on those documents, I will explain in detail:  I concluded

16     that the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia established a

17     unit for anti-terrorist activities and that the decision under which this

18     was done bore number 012497; the decision was signed by the minister.

19     And I also concluded that the minister of the interior on the

20     5th of January, 1994, also issued regulations on the payment of salaries

21     of that unit.  And that regulation was passed on the 5th of January.

22             I also told you that there were a number of other similar

23     decisions.  I used the method of random sampling to see that all of those

24     decisions referred to the same basic documents, the same decisions, and

25     that's what I based my conclusions on.

Page 19175

 1             I don't know how else would I have made my inferences.

 2             I don't know what other method should I have employed.  The

 3     method that I opted for was the method of random sampling.  I don't know

 4     if there's any other method that could be considered more adequate than

 5     that.

 6        Q.   I'm questioning the fact that you didn't explain the method in

 7     this section.  So you didn't footnote to any of these documents.  We

 8     found it out through informal communications and through asking you

 9     questions.  But as your report stands, it's entirely not clear in here on

10     what you drew these conclusions.

11             Why did you not cite in your footnotes or your original

12     bibliography these decisions that you consulted?

13        A.   I simply did not consider this to be important.  If this is my

14     mistake, then it is my methodological mistake which was not based on any

15     bad intention.  But as far as I knew, oral testimony would be part of my

16     overall evidence.  I did not intend to hide anything.  I didn't hide

17     anything.  I simply did not use the right method, perhaps.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The whys are not -- the answers to the whys

19     are not greatly assisting the Chamber.

20             Let's just establish what was the case, that it was not sourced,

21     and that -- you can think about that, whether that's good methodology,

22     yes or no, but let's move on.

23             Please proceed.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.  And thank you to the

25     Chamber for the permission to sit down.

Page 19176

 1        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to examine the entire DB personnel

 2     files for Milan Radonjic, Milenko Milovanovic, Janko Keres, and

 3     Zoran Rajic from which these documents were taken?

 4        A.   No.  There was no need to do that.  I never asked for those.  I

 5     didn't see a purpose in doing that.

 6        Q.   Now, of the four documents, the four decisions upon which you

 7     drew the inferences in paragraph 373, which of those four documents you

 8     referred to is the document from which you deduced that Article 37

 9     contained the job specification for the JATD?

10             Perhaps, until I have a hard copy of P477, we could call that up

11     on the screen for the witness.  Then he has the three hard copies in

12     front of him and P477 on the screen.  Then he'll have all four to answer

13     the questions.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  The document is under seal, Your Honours.

15             MS. MARCUS:  I apologise.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing on the screen.  Were

17     you referring some other screen?  Or ...

18             MS. MARCUS:

19        Q.   No, I'm sorry, we had to wait a moment to call it up.  So what

20     you see in front of you is the fourth one that you mentioned to us.  So

21     you have three in hard copy and the fourth one is on your screen.

22             Three of these documents all cite Article 5 of the decision on

23     the formation of the JATD rather than Article 37.  P475 is the only one

24     which cites Article 37.

25             What was Article 5 of the decision on the formation of the JATD;

Page 19177

 1     do you know?

 2        A.   I really don't know.  I don't see why you are asking me this.

 3     What is the gist of all this?  Why are you showing me this document?  In

 4     my statement that I provided, I said that these are the three documents

 5     where this is explicitly spelled out, so -- and now you're showing me a

 6     fourth document.  Why are you doing that?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, please answer the questions.  Do not comment

 8     on -- to -- to explore --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- explore the reasons why Ms. Marcus puts certain

11     questions.

12             Mr. Petrovic.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave,

14     these documents refer to bullet point or item 5, not Article 5.  This

15     makes a big difference and will probably change the question as well.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  In the English translation on our screen,

18     this -- it says item 37 --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MS. MARCUS:  The B/C/S, I think, says "cilan [phoen]," which --

21     well, I'll leave it to the interpreters on that.  I could change my

22     question according to that.

23        Q.   Before I do that - and I will repeat my question - I would not

24     want to confuse you Mr. Milosevic.

25             The fourth document on the list that you provided to us on Monday

Page 19178

 1     is the one on the screen, so ...

 2             The Simatovic Defence had informed us of the first three that you

 3     in your hand.  The fourth one, P477, is what you list as the fourth

 4     document from the personnel file of Zoran Rajic on your report that you

 5     provided to us.  That's where I got it from.

 6             So this is the material that you informed us that you relied

 7     upon.  That's why I'm asking you about it.

 8             Now, so, what I'm trying to do is to understand where you drew

 9     your conclusions from.  You make assertions in the report; I'd like to

10     know what the source for those assertions is.  So you state -- you -- you

11     state that Article 37 contained the job specification, but in three of

12     the four documents, Article 5 - I should say, item 5 - is cited, not

13     item 37.

14             So I was asking you:  Do you know what item 5 of the decision on

15     the formation of the JATD was?

16        A.   Item 5 refers to posts, or jobs.  Item 5 lists all the posts and

17     jobs, and each of those posts is then specified.  For example,

18     Milenko Milovanovic is assigned to 25/5.  Janko Keres, item 5.6.  This is

19     it.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, that is it not difficult to understand.

21     I think what Ms. Marcus would like to know is where these documents refer

22     to certain items.  Whether you have ever seen the list containing those

23     items, or whether you just said, Well, if it refers to item 5, it must be

24     item 5.  That goes without a lot of explanation.

25             Have you ever seen the list of items?

Page 19179

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that I didn't.  I

 2     drew my inferences in a round-about way.

 3             How many times do I need to repeat this?  That's why I have shown

 4     you these decisions in order to demonstrate that.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             Now, apparently what Ms. Marcus also would like to know is where

 7     you say that the job specification in the -- is found in -- found in

 8     Article 37.  Have you ever seen Article 37?  Or was it by mistake where

 9     you refer to Article 37 where you apparently want to refer to item 37, as

10     we find it in the document on our screen?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  This decision is somewhat

12     different.  This was issued to hire Zoran Rajic to work at the DB

13     starting on the 1st of June, 1994, at job 1.7, according to the rule of

14     job specifications.  I saw this document, like we did all, because it was

15     displayed here in the courtroom.  I can't remember off the top of my head

16     what this item was all about.  But this document is not based on the

17     decision on the establishment of the 8th JATD [as interpreted].  It is

18     based on the regulation on the job specification of the State Security

19     Department.

20             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... now --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that's why I did not list that

22     document as such.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

25        Q.   So is the job specification under item 5 or item 37 of the

Page 19180

 1     decision on the formation of the JATD?

 2        A.   Based on item 5, the decision on the establishment of the JATD.

 3     That's my opinion.  I concluded that on having perused other documents.

 4     And those are the documents --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't understand the last bit

 6     of the witness's answer.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you repeat the last part of your answer

 8     because the interpreters were unable to hear it.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in order to answer

10     Ms. Marcus's question, I would have to say this.  According to my

11     opinion, item 5 is the decision on the establishment of the JATD, and

12     based on that decision, the decision on the job specification of that

13     unit was passed.  And that's my opinion.

14             MS. MARCUS:

15        Q.   So if I understand you correctly, where you said Article 37 in --

16     in your -- in paragraph 373 in your report, you meant to say Article or

17     item 5; is that correct?

18        A.   To be precise, I'm going to read.

19             The answer to your question is as follows:  I believe that we're

20     talking about item 5 on the decision of the establishment of the JATD,

21     and in front of me, I have a document --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is reading too fast.  The

23     interpreter cannot catch up.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You have to read more slowly because -- or to speak

25     more slowly because interpreters cannot follow you.

Page 19181

 1             Could you please resume, well, let's say, a couple of lines ago.

 2     Perhaps where you said ...

 3             You said:  "I believe that we are talking about item 5 of the

 4     decision on the establishment of the JATD ..."

 5             That's what you started.  Could you then further complete your

 6     answer.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.  That's right.

 8             That's the answer.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

10             MS. MARCUS:

11        Q.   In that same paragraph of your report, 373, you say:

12             "Pursuant to Article 37" of the document that you have not seen,

13     "there were 27 work posts in the JATD according to the staff

14     specification with a total of 438 workers."

15             How did you know that there were 27 work posts with a total of

16     438 workers?

17        A.   Based on the attachments that I received from the Defence.  Or,

18     rather, I received from the Defence a representation of what things

19     looked like.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P974.  It's

21     probably also not to be broadcast to the public.  And I have a hard copy

22     for the witness.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  It is under seal.

24             MS. MARCUS:

25        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, this document is a tabular overview of posts in

Page 19182

 1     the JATD.  We have been calling it the systematization document.  That

 2     may not be the proper term for it, but that's how we've been calling it.

 3             Now, you did cite to this document in paragraph 376 of your

 4     report, so you did see this document.  Is this the document that you're

 5     referring to on which you based the number 438 posts [sic]?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  In order to avoid further confusion:  In 373, it's

 8     27 work posts and 438 workers.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, I apologise, Your Honour.

10        Q.   And is this also the document from where you got Article, or

11     item, 37?

12        A.   I apologise.  I was looking at the document, and I failed to pay

13     attention to your question.  Could you please repeat it?

14        Q.   Absolutely.  I just wanted to know if this was also the document

15     where you got Article, or item, 37 from.

16        A.   37?

17        Q.   You talk about the job specification from item 37, and in this

18     document the posts are listed under Article, or item, 37.

19        A.   That's that.

20        Q.   Now, when I count the number of work posts, including those

21     filled and unfilled, so regardless of whether there's a name appearing or

22     not, I get approximately 207 posts.

23             Now, I might have slightly miscounted, but there were certainly

24     nowhere near 438 work posts -- workers' posts listed in here.  So I'm a

25     little bit confused both about the number 27 work posts and about the

Page 19183

 1     number 438 workers.  Neither of those numbers appear to come from this

 2     document.

 3             Can you clarify for us where you got those numbers?

 4        A.   Well, under number 37 you can find that number, in fact, in

 5     column 2.

 6             As far as these numbers are concerned, though, I really cannot

 7     remember where they come from.  I certainly did not invent them, but I

 8     can't remember where they come from now.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Well, if you can't remember, then you can't remember.

10             Now, in paragraph 374, you cite the rules on the salaries of

11     workers in the JATD of the 5th of January, 1994.  You also have not seen

12     that document; is that correct?

13        A.   Correct.  And I have already explained the manner in which I

14     reached that conclusion.

15        Q.   And if I understood you correctly, that conclusion was also drawn

16     from decisions on salaries that you saw.  Is that where you drew that

17     conclusion from?

18        A.   Correct.

19        Q.   In the list of additional sources you provided to us, you didn't

20     list decisions on salaries.  Of course, I don't have an English

21     translation, so I'm doing my best with the B/C/S.  But you listed the

22     four documents we've been discussing, three collections of per diems --

23     no, four collections of per diems.  That's all you listed.

24             So can you clarify for us which documents you relied upon to cite

25     the rules on the salaries of workers of the JATD?

Page 19184

 1        A.   Naturally.  Well, for example, the decision in which

 2     Milan Radonjic was given a salary coefficient, which was 4.43.  According

 3     to this decision, the salary was paid from the 1st of December, 1993.  In

 4     the statement of reasons provided in this decision, it says the level of

 5     the coefficient, 4.43, was established on the basis of the decision on

 6     appointments and on the basis of Articles 4, 5, and 6 on the salaries of

 7     staff members of the unit, and so on and so forth.

 8             So one can't doubt the existence of those rules.  Otherwise, how

 9     would it have been possible for there to be a reference in the decision

10     to something that didn't exist?  And we have the same case that concerns

11     Milenko Milovanovic.  This is the second document.  His coefficient was

12     somewhat lower.  It was 3.77.

13        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I'm going to

14     interrupt you.  We have those documents.  You've provided the answer.

15     You got it from P2724; that is the decision your reading from for

16     Milan Radonjic.  And P481; that's the document relating to

17     Milenko Milovanovic.  So I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have those

18     materials.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, could I go back for a second because you

20     are putting a lot of questions to the witness and sometimes he doesn't

21     know how to answer which.  You said:  In this document, where's the basis

22     for 27 posts?  That was one of your questions.

23             Well, if you look at the document, you find it easily, isn't it?

24             If you look at the column "rules," you see that it always starts

25     with Article 37, and that then slowly the number, which is the sub-column

Page 19185

 1     of the rules column, that apparently describes the item.

 2             Now if you follow that page by page, you'll see that at number --

 3     at page 16 out of 17, you've reached number 27.  So I'm both surprised by

 4     the question, because apparently what is described here is the posts as

 5     to be found in Article 37.  Article 37, I'm not aware of.  But that

 6     apparently 37 - and that also is a bit surprising on your question about

 7     37 - throughout this document, Article 37 of whatever is used as the

 8     basis for his description of jobs.  Whereas, under Article 7 [sic],

 9     slowly moving this document, we find 27 categories.

10             So I both have problems with the question but also with the

11     witness not being able to answer that, where it looks pretty obvious to

12     me that if what we find in the report is taken from this document, then I

13     have no great difficulties in finding it in the document.  Unless my

14     analysis is -- is made in error.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             I understand your point.  I take your point.  One of the points

17     I'm trying to make is that, of course, the witness doesn't cite to where

18     he gets the information.

19             You're absolutely correct, Your Honour, that there are

20     27 sub-numbers under Article 37, according to this document -- and --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And always every new number gives another

22     description.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And then apparently there are several of such posts.

25     Or at least that that description is valid up till the next item, which

Page 19186

 1     then gives a new description.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's how I understand this document.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  That's how I understand it too, and this is the only

 5     source we have for this.  So ...

 6             But when you count up the individual entries, including all the

 7     numbers underneath, you get to -- what I got to was approximately 207.

 8     So the number 438 workers filled or not filled [Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'll have to -- I'll have to further analyse --

10             MS. MARCUS:  -- is the next question.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll have to further analyse that, whether there's a

12     logical explanation for that as there was for Article 37 and for the

13     27 posts.

14             Let's proceed.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all I would add to

18     your analysis is something about the column, where the number of

19     perpetrators, or, rather, the number of individuals is referred to, and

20     this then clarifies everything.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As I said, I would need a bit more time making

22     additions.  Whether we would come to that.  So, therefore, the 438, the

23     witness has not explained it, but it may well be that the document itself

24     can explain it.  We'll have a further look at it.

25             Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

Page 19187

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             And if Mr. Petrovic has any evidence in support of that, we would

 3     certainly be interested in seeing the evidence that he's referring to

 4     with respect to the number of executors, as it says in the English

 5     translation.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that he's saying that

 7     it's found in the document itself.  That's the evidence.  We'll have a

 8     look at it.  And let's not spend further time on it.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.  No.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, I would have expected the witness to be

11     able to -- to deal with the matter in a second and guide you to where you

12     can find what he most likely, if taken from this document, has summarised

13     accurately in the report.  At least the 27 posts are clearly to be found

14     in this document.  Again, whether the one document is a sufficient source

15     for drawing these kind of conclusions is a totally different matter, but

16     if looking at this document, it seems to be clearly as far as Article 37

17     are concerned, then 27 posts.

18             Please proceed.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   In paragraph 375 of your report, you state that:

21             "The position of commander of the JATD was never filled during

22     its existence.  And from 1 December 1993, the unit was under the

23     commander of Milan Radonjic who had been assigned to the work post of

24     deputy commander of the JATD."

25             You cite in footnote 362 a document which is admitted as P476 in

Page 19188

 1     this case.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P476 but not

 3     broadcast it to the public.

 4        Q.   As you will see when the document comes up - perhaps you remember

 5     it since you used it yourself - this is a document which contains another

 6     two documents from Milan Radonjic's personnel file, that is, in addition

 7     to the one that you've been discussing with us which was P2724.

 8             Now, unless I am mistaken, which is certainly possible, I don't

 9     think it says in P476 that Radonjic was assigned to the work post of the

10     deputy commander of the JATD.

11             Can you assist me in telling me where in this document you found

12     that from?  This is a document you cite to that assertion.

13        A.   Gladly.  I was a bit confused earlier on.  I'm surprised by the

14     way I'm being asked about this because it's there in writing.

15             I'll answer your question.

16             This document says that Radonjic, Milan was assigned to a post

17     under item 5, number 2 of the decision.  When you have a look at P974,

18     which is a document we had a look at a minute ago and it's a document I

19     now have, we can see that this concerns the post of deputy commander.

20     I'll show it to you now.

21        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic --

22        A.   You see the name: Radonjic, Milan.  When you compare the two

23     documents, that's the conclusion I reached.  But under 1, there is

24     nothing.  So the post of commander wasn't filled.

25        Q.   Now, there were two parts of this that confused me, and that's

Page 19189

 1     why I'm asking for your help in understanding it.

 2             First you say item 5 instead of saying item 37, and that goes

 3     back to our discussion earlier.  Then you don't cite to P974.  Of course

 4     we have P974 - we can see it there - but you are drawing conclusions and

 5     we didn't know exactly where -- we had to do our own investigation in

 6     order to figure out where you drew your conclusions from.

 7             Now, where did you get the information that the position of

 8     commander was never filled during the JATD's existence?  Is that also

 9     from P974? because the line is empty.

10        A.   That's correct.

11        Q.   What's the date of the document, P974; do you know?  It's

12     undated.  It's not a trick question.  There's no date on.  So I'm

13     wondering how, from this one document which we don't know what

14     time-period it's from, how do you know that throughout the entire

15     existence of the JATD the position of commander was never filled, based

16     on one document such as this?

17        A.   This is a document in which reference is made to all the changes

18     made.  It is filled in when a certain decision is taken, and then various

19     names put down.  But this can change.  One position can be filled,

20     another can become vacant, and so on and so forth.  So this decision, in

21     my opinion, should state that the position was filled at a certain point

22     in time.  And then if there was a vacancy, that would have been deleted.

23     So there has to be a trace.  This is what led me to that conclusion.

24     That's the logic.

25        Q.   So your conclusion, if I understand you correctly, is that this

Page 19190

 1     document is from a late enough date that it would have referred back to

 2     anyone who was ever holding that position?  So if it's empty, that means,

 3     in your conclusion, it was never filled.

 4             Do I understand you correctly?

 5        A.   This isn't a document that is only used on one occasion.  It's a

 6     permanent document.  If there are any changes, they are noted in the

 7     document.

 8             So this document is used on a permanent basis.  If anyone was

 9     appointed that position at any point in time, a reference would have been

10     made to the fact.  You can see that under 3, where it says

11     deputy commander of the unit, and certain other names were added there at

12     a subsequent date.  And then the dates are also put down, the dates that

13     concern the period during which someone was in a certain position.

14             So in my opinion this is absolutely relevant.

15        Q.   I see.  So you're familiar with this kind of a document - do I

16     understand you correctly? - and based on your familiarity with this kind

17     of a document, what we're telling us is that that's what would be here in

18     this kind of a document; is that right?

19        A.   That's right.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P2730 but not

21     broadcast it to the public.  2730.

22        Q.   What you will see before you in a moment is another document from

23     Milan Radonjic's DB personnel file.  This is his employee evaluation

24     form.

25             Now, you said you did not see, nor did you ask to see, any other

Page 19191

 1     documents in the DB files other than those that were provided to you.

 2             As you can see, Milan Radonjic is, as you say in paragraph 375,

 3     he is described here as deputy commander of the JATD.  The Prosecution's

 4     position is that the person signing as Radonjic's supervisor is

 5     Franko Simatovic.  If you had been provided with this document by the

 6     Simatovic Defence, just as you drew inferences about positions from other

 7     documentation, you could have drawn the inference that the commander of

 8     the JATD post did not have to be filled because, effectively,

 9     Franko Simatovic was functioning in that capacity, couldn't you have?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, it

12     doesn't say commander.  It says the leader of the organisational unit.

13     That's the first thing.  And then secondly, on what basis is the

14     Prosecution claiming that this is Simatovic's signature?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not an appropriate comment.  The first one is

16     okay, that Ms. Marcus has not quoted the document properly.

17             You should not introduce any other comments.  You can revisit the

18     matter in re-examination.

19             Ms. Marcus, could you please repeat the question.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Now, I drew a leap from what you said earlier.  You said an

22     organisational unit and a special police unit is the same thing, and so

23     from that I drew the head the organisational unit to be the head of the

24     unit that we're talking about.  If I'm incorrect, then please let me

25     know.

Page 19192

 1             But my question was:  If you had been provided with this

 2     document, you could have drawn an inference, along with the other

 3     inferences you drew from other documents, that the position of a

 4     commander of the unit did not have to be filled because, effectively,

 5     Mr. Simatovic was functioning in that capacity.

 6        A.   No, I don't agree with that.  That's not the conclusion that I

 7     would reach.

 8             For someone to be a commander, it's necessary for there to be a

 9     decision appointing him to that position in the service.  How should I

10     put this?

11             No one can have an acting position.  It is necessary to be

12     appointed to that position.  And also, I don't know whether this is his

13     signature.  As I have already said, I'm not an expert in that.  And then

14     when it says a leader of organisational unit, I don't know what that

15     means.  Perhaps that's a different administration.  I don't want to

16     speculate about the matter.  But there was thing I'm certain about.  My

17     conclusion would have been the same or would be the same because in his

18     personnel file there is no decision, and this post referred to in the job

19     specifications wasn't filed.  So it's not possible for me to speculate,

20     since there is no legal basis for something of this kind.

21        Q.   Or no legal basis that you have seen in the documents you were

22     provided; correct?

23        A.   Not in the personnel file or in the documents now mentioned.

24        Q.   At the end of paragraph 375 of your report, you state:

25             "The assistant commander was Dragoslav Krsmanovic.  The JATD was

Page 19193

 1     in Lipovica near Belgrade."

 2             Now, before I ask you how you know, if I understand you correctly

 3     you know that Krsmanovic was the assistant commander of the JATD because

 4     he is listed on P974 at that post; is that correct.  That's correct?

 5        Q.   Now, in the document P974 it actually says that Zoran Rajic and

 6     Dragoslav Krsmanovic each held the position of assistant commander of the

 7     JATD albeit it at different times.

 8             Why did you only make mention of Krsmanovic as assistant

 9     commander in your report, and not Rajic?

10        A.   I can't answer that question.  There certainly is no

11     justification, but it would more precise to say that during a certain

12     period of time one of them filled that post and during another period of

13     time the other person filled that post.  But then I would have to refer

14     to the exact period, and I'm not sure about that.

15             Dragoslav Krsmanovic, well, that was legible for me.  And the

16     other name wasn't.  But there were no ill intentions behind that

17     decision.

18        Q.   You could also have gleaned it from P477, which was the decision

19     on appointment of Zoran Rajic to Article 37, number 3, which was one of

20     the four documents you gave us as the sources that you used; correct?

21        A.   No.  In fact, I haven't even understood your question.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Was P477 in hard copy provided to the witness?  That

23     one that came afterwards.  I think it was.  I have another copy if it

24     wasn't.  I believe it was.

25        Q.   It's the fourth decision that we gave to you, dated

Page 19194

 1     20th of May, 1994, in relation to Zoran Rajic.  We discussed it earlier.

 2        A.   I don't know what I should answer.  What exactly should I answer?

 3        Q.   I think I can leave the point.  I think it's fine.

 4             Now, in paragraph 376 of your report, you finally cite to P974.

 5     You state:

 6             "The JATD comprised the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth

 7     departments for anti-terrorist operations which were divided into

 8     sections.  The other organisational units in the JATD were the squadron,

 9     the group for securing and maintaining the unit facility, the group for

10     communications, the technical service, and the group for administrative

11     and other affairs."

12             Now, again perhaps I missed it and you can assist.  Where in P974

13     does it describe the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth departments?

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please be instructed not to

15     hit the microphones with the papers.  Thank you very much.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, would you please avoid touching the

17     microphone with your papers because that hurts in the ears of the

18     interpreters.  Yes.  Please.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

20             I can't answer that question.

21             MS. MARCUS:

22        Q.   In paragraph 376 of your report, when you say squadron, you mean

23     air force squadron; is that right?

24        A.   I can answer that because it's stated here explicitly.  A avion

25     mechanic, a pilot, well, that means that that person worked in some kind

Page 19195

 1     of an aircraft, something that would fly.  It can't be something that

 2     goes underground.

 3        Q.   In paragraph 388 of your report - that's the very last

 4     paragraph - you state that:

 5             "During its existence, 1993 to 1996, the anti-terrorist

 6     operations unit had a variable number of members, both in terms of

 7     overall complement and with respect to the number of persons on temporary

 8     contracts (up to six months) and the manning of the reserve JATD force."

 9             How do you know all of that information?

10        A.   I have partially answered that question already, but I will

11     repeat what I said.

12             The composition was variable, and this can be seen in this

13     document P974.  You can see that it hadn't been completely brought up to

14     strength because certain positions remained vacant.  And you can see that

15     its composition were variable because some names were crossed out.

16     Modic, Rade, for example, under number 12, he had trained to be a avion

17     mechanic in secondary school.  So you can see on the basis of this

18     document that the composition is variable.

19             And then as far as the pay slips for per diems is concerned, you

20     can also see that the number of those pay slips also varied.  Sometimes

21     increased, sometimes decreased.

22             So the essence of your question is how do I know that they were

23     taken on a for six months and how do you know that it was a reserve

24     force, well, I know that because that was the only way in which one could

25     join up.  No one could be engaged for a certain period of time that

Page 19196

 1     lasted for five years.  For five years.  In fact, it could be up to six

 2     months, according to the rules.

 3             And, finally, the reserve forces for the JATD were partially

 4     brought up to strength, and I don't see why that should be in dispute.

 5     The number of all these members was variable.  I said that in response to

 6     a question that you put to me.  So this would vary.  The numbers would

 7     vary from month to month.

 8        Q.   So you gleaned --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for

11     interrupting.

12             On page 62, from line 4 through line 9, where the temporary work

13     is explained for a period of up to six months, maybe it is my problem,

14     but I do not understand the transcript.  It's -- it may be just me, but I

15     need -- I think that this needs clarification.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is there reason to believe that anything is

17     transcribed which the witness did not say, because you then have an

18     opportunity, make a marking on the transcript, and clarify the matter

19     with the witness.

20             Unless, Ms. Marcus, you have problems in understanding this

21     evidence as well, where, of course, it would ...

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  Simply, the

23     witness was speaking too fast, and I believe that the gist of his answer

24     was misrecorded because of the speed at which he provided his answer.

25             I apologise to Mr. Milosevic for having said that, but that was

Page 19197

 1     my impression.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  If the interpreter may be of assistance:  It

 3     might be clearer to say that the witness stated that no one could be

 4     engaged for a five-year period.  According to the rules, they could be

 5     engaged only for a six-month period.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Does this sufficiently clarify the issue?

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, may I urge you again to speak more

 9     slowly, because a part of your evidence might be lost if ... but we were

10     able to justify the matter to -- to rectify the matter.

11             Ms. Marcus, I'm looking at the clock.  Would it be a suitable

12     moment to --

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  I was just going to suggest that, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then apart from that, I looked a bit more at

15     the 438.  Apparently what is the basis for the 438, unless I'm mistaken,

16     that is the column called the number of executors.  Now that gives

17     numbers.  Apparently four-digit numbers, which are not numbers of staff,

18     apparently, but lower numbers, up to 50 or 53 or 52, sometimes 1,

19     sometimes 2, so it -- it looks as if that explains how many of these

20     posts were created.  Adding them up, but I did it very quickly, brought

21     me to 436, so there must be perhaps a small mistake here or there.

22             At the same time, it is not easy to understand it because

23     sometimes where the number -- well, let's say, 3 is mentioned, where you

24     would expect, then, at the maximum three names, sometimes you find more

25     names.  So this leaves a few questions open.  But apparently that's where

Page 19198

 1     the 438 comes from.

 2             I would agree with you that it should have been more clear and

 3     the witness should have been able to explain that immediately because he

 4     drew these conclusions.  At the same time, a careful analysis of this

 5     document, before raising matters as unexplained and difficult to

 6     understand, might have saved some time and would have allowed us to focus

 7     on what then really remains as not fully explained in this chart and in

 8     the report.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness is

10     in the building.  Should we keep him here or should we excuse him and ask

11     him to come back tomorrow on whenever you say?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I think asking the question is almost answering it.

13             Ms. Marcus, I take it that you'll need a significant number of

14     minutes.

15             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you finish today?

17             MS. MARCUS:  I think that might be a little bit difficult,

18     Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At the same time -- I'll discuss it with my

20     colleagues, but it's not -- I know that I took a bit of time here and

21     there, but I would have preferred that I would not have needed to do

22     that, and I'm not always convinced, but I'll consult with my colleagues,

23     that it was not also due to your questions that I needed to intervene.

24             We'll consider it.  But I think, for the witness, he will not

25     start today.

Page 19199

 1             Could you give us any indication, Mr. Petrovic, on how much time

 2     you would need tomorrow?

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 45 minutes, I

 4     believe.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, any indication already at this point in

 6     time?

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Could I inform Your Honours a bit later, please?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the witness doesn't have to stay, to

 9     remain stand by.

10             We resume at 12.30.

11                           --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, the Chamber has considered your

14     observations that it might be difficult for you to finish today;

15     nevertheless, the Chamber invites you to try to do your utmost best.  So

16     this is not that we'll stop you and -- but, at the same time, having

17     considered the way in which the examination-in-chief and the

18     cross-examination developed, that you should really try to do your utmost

19     best to finish during this session.

20             MS. MARCUS:  I will do so, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.

23        Q.   In paragraph 381 of your report, you mention operative checks.

24     You say in footnote 368 that:

25             "Assignment to the reserve force of the MUP of Serbia, including

Page 19200

 1     the JATD, could be only conscripts who had not been convicted of any

 2     crimes."

 3             And you then specify which kinds of crimes would have precluded

 4     membership in the reserve force of the JATD.

 5             In your review of the documents, and, as you say, incomplete

 6     records, to which you refer, did you come across any biographies which

 7     describe a JATD member's prior criminal activities, whether active or

 8     reserve?

 9        A.   In principle, under the Law on Interior of the Republic of

10     Serbia, nobody could be hired if they had a previous criminal record,

11     which means that they could not have -- I did not look specifically

12     for ...

13             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm going to

14     stop you there.  Would you please listen careful to the question.

15             In your review of the incomplete records to which you refer, did

16     you come across any biographies which describe a JATD member's prior

17     criminal activities.

18             That's the question:  Did you come across such information in

19     those files?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only file that I looked as a

21     complete set was Franko Simatovic's file, so the answer to your question

22     is no, I can't -- the answer is no.

23             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... okay --

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've not seen anything.  I did not

25     look at anything.  I didn't look for anything.

Page 19201

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  So the simple answer to the question was: No, I did

 2     not come across such information.  That speeds up the examination.

 3             If Ms. Marcus would like to know more, she'll ask you.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6489 but not

 7     broadcast it to the public.  That's 65 ter 6489.  And I'd like page 2,

 8     please, in both English and B/C/S.

 9        Q.   What you will see before you in a moment is an excerpt of a DB

10     personnel file for Miomir Popovic.  This document from his file contains

11     a cover letter and a background check for membership in the JATD.  This

12     is another document similar to the kind of documents from DB personnel

13     files which were given to you by the Simatovic Defence.

14             As you see on this page, to the right of the document, there are

15     handwritten notes, which say:  "Has criminal record."

16             And then just below that, it says:  "Active, no."

17             The signature that appears there or the initials that appear just

18     above that writing, our position is that that is the signature of

19     Milan Radonjic.

20             You are not familiar with Radonjic's signature, are you?

21        A.   No, I'm not.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have the previous page.

23        Q.   And then I'll ask you some questions.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Previous page in both languages, please.

25        Q.   This is the cover letter to that background check.  And here you

Page 19202

 1     see, again, in handwriting, "KE," which I believe stands for criminal

 2     record, and below that "reserve."  And again the signature which we say

 3     is that of Radonjic.

 4             Just below that it says that the criminal record is a traffic

 5     violation and then it says:

 6             "Yes."

 7             So it would appear from this that when it was believed that

 8     Miomir Popovic had a criminal reported, he could be admitted to the JATD

 9     but only to the reserve force.  But when it was discovered that the

10     criminal record was only a traffic violation, he was then authorised for

11     admission into the active JATD force.

12             Now, our position is that individuals with criminal background

13     could, in fact, and were, in fact, admitted to the reserve force of the

14     JATD.  Now, your assertion that individuals with criminal backgrounds

15     were precluded from admission is also not based on any particular JATD

16     documentation, but you base that, rather, upon the general MUP rules in

17     this respect; is that correct?

18        A.   On the general MUP rules.  However, I will provide you with a

19     very detailed explanation and interpretation, if necessary, because I'm

20     very familiar with the matter.

21        Q.   If the Defence would like to ask you more detail about that, then

22     that will be up to them.  For my purposes I would like to move on to

23     another document and ask you another question.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court officer please call up 65 ter 6448.

25     This also should not be broadcast to the public, please.

Page 19203

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I'm -- it might be useful -- I don't know if

 2     the -- it's been left so vague, the witness's answer.  It's not clear

 3     whether he wanted to answer the Prosecution's question or wanted to

 4     elaborate on something else, and I think --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think the real thing is, but we could verify

 6     that ...

 7             The witness said that it was on the basis of the rules that he

 8     made this assertion.  Now, if he wants to elaborate on what the rule's

 9     exactly, I think what Ms. Marcus is interested to know is whether the

10     witness has any factual knowledge which would -- which would shed light

11     on what happened in practice, rather than to hear about the details of

12     the rules.

13             MR. JORDASH:  My concern was that his explanation might relate

14     precisely to the reserve force issue rather than just the MUP rules, and

15     I ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If that is --

17             When you offered to give a detailed explanation, was it again

18     about the rules, or was it about any -- and if it was about the rules,

19     would it be about the distinction between regular members and reserve --

20     the reserve force?  Could you tell us what you had -- without giving the

21     whole of the explanation, what it was about?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to explain the

23     abbreviation of "KE," criminal records.  I wanted to tell you that this

24     is not relevant.  I wanted to tell you what criminal records contain and

25     put everything in the context so as to help you understand what we're

Page 19204

 1     talking about.

 2             I believe that everybody would welcome more light shed on the

 3     context.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you specifically deal with the difference, as

 5     far as the criminal records are concerned, the difference between the

 6     reserve forces and those employed on a more permanent, regular basis.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this applied to everything.

 8     The background checks and vetting applied to both reservists as well as

 9     active-service duty personnel.  What I'm saying is that things are not

10     what they seem and what they appear on the face of them.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you have factual knowledge on how it was

12     done; or would you explain it on the basis of the rules?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm familiar with all this because

14     this is an integral part of what I used to teach as a professor.  I'm

15     familiar with the matter.  And the matter is really very simple.  It

16     would suffice me to say a couple of sentences in order to explain things.

17             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... why not answer

18     my question, Mr. Milosevic?

19             I asked you whether you had factual information on how it was

20     done, in this context, who did it, how it was done, whether the rules

21     were always followed or not, whether there were any deviations from the

22     rules.  That's factual information.

23             Is it that what you want to present to us, or would you explain

24     how the system was?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to explain what the system

Page 19205

 1     was.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I leave it to Mr. Petrovic to deal with the

 3     matter in re-examination, if he considers this to be relevant.

 4             Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   What you see in front of you now is a page from the DB personnel

 7     file of Budimir Zecevic.

 8             Have you seen this document in preparation of your report?

 9        A.   I believe that it was among the documents that you gave me.  But

10     when I produced my expert report, or, rather, before I produced my expert

11     report, I did not see it.

12        Q.   That's correct.  This is one of the documents which is listed on

13     the chart containing documents signed or initialed by Mr. Simatovic.

14             Now, there has been evidence from a high-level JATD official that

15     it was the practice that Mr. Simatovic would initial documents relating

16     to the unit after they were signed but prior to them being sent out.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, that is the 20th of October, 2011, at

18     page 16463.

19        Q.   As you can see, this document, which we say was initialed by

20     Mr. Simatovic, states that he received a handgun which was used by

21     Budimir Zecevic in the commission of the crime of murder.

22             Now, if you look at the rest of Mr. Zecevic's personnel file, you

23     will see that he has no contract of employment with the JATD of the DB.

24     Our position is that he was a reservist and that a criminal background

25     would not have and did not prevent the JATD from recruiting him, or

Page 19206

 1     others like him, into the reserve force of the JATD.

 2             Would you like to comment on that?

 3        A.   As far as I can see, in linguistic terms one aspect of this

 4     document shows that this was not a member of the JATD.  He was a member

 5     of the special units of the police of the Republic of Serbia.

 6             But I don't know why this is relevant.  Is this relevant because

 7     it was signed by the chief of administration?  That was

 8     Vlastimir Djordjevic who was in charge of public security.  I'm not sure

 9     what your question is actually about.  What I see up there is -- does not

10     look like an initial.  This looks like a Roman numeral II, plus 2, plus

11     Franko, which might mean that he was familiar with the matter but he

12     referred it to a different administration.  I really don't know what

13     these scribblings mean.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The question, and that -- I think that would have

15     been clear to you, of Ms. Marcus was mainly about admission of reserve

16     force members who had a criminal record, whether you would like to

17     comment on that.  And this document is shown as one element in what the

18     Prosecution claims has happened in this respect.

19             Could you please focus on that.

20             But, Mr. Petrovic, you're ... yes.

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have missed

22     something, but can we see proof that this person was admitted after the

23     event, that he was a member of something?

24             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Petrovic,

25     you may challenge that.  That's fine.  But you cannot, at this moment,

Page 19207

 1     intervene in this way in the cross-examination by Ms. Marcus.  That's

 2     also the reason why I said "the Prosecution claims."  Nothing more;

 3     nothing less.

 4             Any -- but that was apparently clearly the focus of Ms. Marcus's

 5     question.

 6             Could you comment on that, please, rather than on other matters.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This shows that the person who was

 8     already a member of the special units, at least how I'm reading the

 9     document, the person who was already a member of the special units of the

10     police of the MUP of Serbia in the meantime committed a crime, a crime of

11     murder.  In my opinion, this person did not first commit that crime of

12     murder and then was admitted as a member of special units.  At the moment

13     when somebody is engaged, you don't know in advance what they might do in

14     the future.  I believe that things here are a bit upside down.  We're

15     talking at cross-purposes here.

16             MS. MARCUS:  I believe that the English translation has been

17     released - I apologise if it wasn't released before - so that the Chamber

18     can also see.

19        Q.   Now, did any of the documents --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have it on our screens since the witness is

21     apparently making his comments on the basis of the precise text of the

22     document.  Therefore, I'd like to see it.

23             There we are.

24             MS. MARCUS:  May I continue, Your Honour?  Or ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

Page 19208

 1             Yes, please.

 2             MS. MARCUS:

 3        Q.   Did any of the documents which you were provided with, which you

 4     deemed irrelevant in preparation of your report, did any of them indicate

 5     that persons of criminal backgrounds were, in fact, admitted to the unit?

 6        A.   No.  I don't remember having seen any such thing.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  I'm done with this document.

 8             What was the difference between the tasks carried out by the

 9     active and reserve forces of the JATD; if you know?

10        A.   As far as I know, there was no difference.  The only difference

11     was the grounds for engagement.  I'm not familiar.  I don't know if they

12     were any different, actually.

13        Q.   In paragraphs 384 and 385 you describe the legal grounds for the

14     minister of the interior to call up persons from the MUP reserve force.

15             Then in paragraph 386, you return to the subject of the JATD.

16             Are you saying that the active and reserve force of the JATD was

17     staffed by individuals who were previously part of the MUP reserve force

18     and who were called up by the minister of the interior for JATD duty?

19        A.   We're talking about legal grounds, as you stated it yourself.

20     And I believe that that says everything.

21        Q.   So your evidence is, then, that the JATD active and reserve

22     forces were comprised of individuals who were previously MUP reserve

23     force members.  In other words, this was some kind of formal call-up by

24     the minister of the interior for the JATD.

25             Is that your evidence?

Page 19209

 1        A.   I never said that.  How do you make such an inference?  I only

 2     told you that the legal grounds for engagement was Article 237,

 3     paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on Internal Affairs of the Republic of

 4     Serbia, dating back to 1991, which means that, as it says in

 5     footnote 386, that JATD was a part of the reserve forces of the Ministry

 6     of the Interior, and only people who -- without any previous criminal

 7     record could be admitted, not --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please slow down.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please slow down.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has

11     actually made a difference between a criminal record and a criminal

12     report.  Due to the speed of the witness's speech, this was not recorded,

13     and I believe that this part of the witness's answer was important.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Could you please resume your answer, where you said:  "And only

16     people without a previous ..."

17             And then further repeat your answer.  And in a slow way.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be precise, I'm going to quote.

19             And I will read slowly for the interpretation.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please say where he is

21     quoting from.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us from what paragraph you are

23     quoting?

24             He's apparently quoting from his report, I take it.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 384, footnote 368.

Page 19210

 1              "This profession meant that that was Article 27 of the Law on

 2     Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia, and that was the system that

 3     was applied to recruiting everybody into both the reserve forces, as well

 4     as active-duty forces --"

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We can read that.  So you refer as the main part of

 6     your answer to footnote 368.

 7             Would you like to add anything to this, or is this your answer to

 8     the question?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would just like to underline that

10     the question put to me by the Prosecution, I don't know what the context

11     of that question is, but what is certain is that those people were those

12     people who did not have a previous criminal convictions for the crimes

13     that are mentioned here, because if they had been convicted, they would

14     not have met the criteria for admission.  People from reserve forces were

15     not recruited into the JATD because they were not linked.  The only thing

16     that they had in common was the same legal grounds, and that's all.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

18             MS. MARCUS:

19        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I'm actually not asking you about the criminal

20     records issue now.  I'm trying to understand, and I still, listening

21     carefully, I still am not sure I understand what you're saying in these

22     three paragraphs.

23             Paragraph 384 and 383 describe the legal grounds for the minister

24     of the interior to call up members of the MUP reserve force.  You

25     describe the legal grounds in 384 and 385.  Then in 386, you go on and

Page 19211

 1     discuss the JATD.

 2             Maybe it's directly implied, and maybe this is clear, and it

 3     should have been clear to me, but I'd like to ask you anyway, to just

 4     confirm for me, that what you're saying is that the JATD active and

 5     reserve forces were comprised and staffed by people who were previously

 6     MUP reserve force members, who were called up by the minister of the

 7     interior for duty in the JATD.

 8             Is that what you're saying?

 9        A.   No.  I never said that.  I only said that they had the same legal

10     grounds, that the legal grounds based on which they were called up was

11     the same.  I really don't know where you draw your inferences from.  I

12     have never stated that.

13        Q.   Then paragraphs 384 and 385 which describe the call-up of persons

14     from the reserve forces, that's actually irrelevant to the JATD

15     discussion; is that right, then?

16        A.   Well, in principle, there is a link, because all members of the

17     reserve forces, and that includes reserve forces in the JATD, were in

18     fact MUP reserve forces.  So they had certain rights and duties that had

19     been referred to.  In Article 386, Article 28, item 4, the Law on

20     Internal Affairs.  But people weren't transferred from one unit to

21     another, and so on and so forth.  There's no link in that sense, and

22     that's not what it says here.  If that was your question.

23        Q.   Okay.  I think that's more clear.  Thank you.

24             Now, in your report, you only discuss the active, short-term, and

25     reserve members of the JATD.  You do not mention in your report other

Page 19212

 1     service providers or individuals who carried out operational duties as

 2     part of the unit.

 3             What other categories of service providers, by law, would have

 4     existed, to your knowledge?

 5        A.   I'm not aware of there being any other categories of service

 6     providers.  Do you have associates in mind?  If that's the case, as I

 7     have said, they weren't part of the formation, so I'm not quite sure what

 8     you have in mind.

 9        Q.   I'm thinking, for example, of Arkan's Men.

10        A.   Well, someone who isn't part of the unit can't be a member of the

11     unit.  That's just impossible.  It is necessary to have one of the

12     decisions that we had a look at.  Apart from these individuals who had

13     decisions and who were referred to in the job specifications, there were

14     no JATD members.  There was no one who performed duties of any kind

15     within the JATD without such documents.

16        Q.   So your last comment:  "There was no one who performed duties of

17     any kind within the JATD without such documents."

18             I'm not asking you only about members; I'm asking you about

19     individuals who were carrying out operational duties for the unit, who

20     were paid for those tasks by the unit, and what rules those people would

21     have fallen under.

22        A.   I can answer in a hypothetical way because I don't have any

23     specific information about that.

24             If the Chamber agrees, that is what I'll do.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, yes.  What would be the rules for persons who

Page 19213

 1     were carrying out operational duties for the unit and were paid for it

 2     but were not members?  Were there any rules for that or -- it's, I would

 3     say, a rather theoretical question than a hypothetical.  Unless those

 4     persons did not exist.  But that's a factual matter.

 5             We are talking about, I take it Ms. Marcus is interested to know,

 6     under what rules they were.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of the possibility of

 8     someone who isn't part of the service receiving a salary.  There were

 9     external associates, and that is the case in all parts of the RSB [as

10     interpreted].  That was also the case for the public security system.

11     And occasionally they would be remunerated.  I provided detailed

12     explanations about that.  This was done on the basis of the rules of

13     work.  But for someone to be in the unit without a decision to that

14     effect, well, I quite simply don't see how that would be possible.  It's

15     theoretically impossible.  I'm not familiar with any such cases.  If we

16     are dealing with a member of the unit, then the rules of work apply to

17     him.  If we have someone who is not a member of the unit in question, I

18     don't see upon which basis that person could be paid a salary, since

19     there would be no decision on such an individual's salary.

20             MS. MARCUS:

21        Q.   Before I ask you a follow-up question, perhaps I could engage the

22     assistance of the interpreters.  We've had this come up before where I

23     used the word in English "payment" and I believe -- and that's a neutral

24     word which doesn't imply what kind of -- it doesn't mean salary, it

25     doesn't per diem.  It's neutral.  It could be all of those.  It could be

Page 19214

 1     per diem.  It could be salary.  I think there are two different words in

 2     B/C/S, so that's the word that I was seeking to use.  Not to mislead the

 3     witness into thinking I was asking about salary payments.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Salary in B/C/S would be "placa;" whereas

 5     remuneration, compensation could be "naknada" in B/C/S, or "reward."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, now back to the witness.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  When you answered the question, you were using the

 9     word salary.  Would your answer cover also other types of remuneration,

10     compensation, whatever?  It's about receiving money for what you do.

11     That's what Ms. Marcus was asking about, irrespective of whether you were

12     formerly employed by the service.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's a big difference between

14     salaries and per diems, and that kind of remuneration on the one hand,

15     and the -- and sort of rewards for associates, that's something else.

16     Associates could sometimes be remunerated.  They could be given certain

17     funds that were deemed to be appropriate.  But as for salaries and

18     everything else, and these things are paid on a regular basis in

19     accordance with the rules and certain contributions made from such

20     salaries, taxes paid, and so on and so forth, taxes deducted from such

21     salaries, so only a member of a unit could be paid such a salary if such

22     a member had a decision pursuant to which he was made a member of the

23     unit in question.

24             MS. MARCUS:

25        Q.   You told us earlier that you reviewed payment lists, JATD payment

Page 19215

 1     lists, from 1993 to 1995.  Did you notice that on many of those payment

 2     lists were lists of Arkan's SDG members receiving payments including on

 3     the lists which were signed by Mr. Simatovic for Milan Radonjic?

 4        A.   I really don't know who of those who were signatories were

 5     members of the Serbian Volunteer Guards.  I have no information about

 6     that.  But as for these lists for per diems, when you sign for these per

 7     diems, sometimes one person signs for several individuals.  But even if

 8     that was done, I really don't know who was a member of that unit, and I

 9     can't testify about that.

10        Q.   Well, you know Milorad Ulemek.  He's quite a publicly well-known

11     figure; correct?  And his name appears at the top of the list with the

12     Tigers in each payment list.  So if you had seen his name, you would have

13     probably known; isn't that correct?  Yes or no, please.  I don't want to

14     dwell on this.  I'm going to move on.  But I just want to know.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Well, sorry, could I object to the question.

16     There's -- if my learned friend is going to input a massive presumption

17     into the question, i.e., that Ulemek was well-known and a public figure

18     in 1994, then he ought to have a chance to answer that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             Were you familiar with the name of Milorad Ulemek, Mr. Milosevic?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you notice that his name appeared on payment

23     lists that you reviewed?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall having seen his

25     name.  I wasn't really paying attention to that.

Page 19216

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it be possible to have an SDG member at the

 2     same time being admitted in the JATD?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the answer to

 4     that question is.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have any knowledge about SDG members being

 6     admitted to the JATD, whether they should have or not, but are you aware

 7     of any such thing?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know nothing about that.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I'll move on.

11        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, in part -- the way part 9 of your report reads,

12     that's the JATD part, the reader would be led to believe that the JATD

13     was an entirely new unit, newly formed, newly constituted, with no past

14     operational history prior to its formation in August of 1993.

15             Is that your evidence?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   In the documentary evidence you reviewed in preparation for your

18     report, did you see any documentation indicating prior operations carried

19     out by individuals who were then formally reorganised of officially named

20     the JATD?  Individuals or groups.

21        A.   I couldn't say that I have seen anything of that kind.  I'm not

22     aware of the fact or I have no information according to which there was a

23     group of some kind that existed earlier.  I really don't know what you

24     have in mind.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P2770 but not

Page 19217

 1     broadcast it to the public.

 2        Q.   What you will see in a moment is another document from the DB

 3     personnel file of Milenko Milovanovic.  One of the documents you say you

 4     based your conclusions on in the JATD section is a document from

 5     Milenko Milovanovic's personnel file.  What I'm showing you now is

 6     another document from that same file.

 7             Now, you testified earlier, I believe, that you did not ask for

 8     nor were you provided with any other documents from Milenko Milovanovic's

 9     personnel file; correct?

10        A.   Of course, I never looked at such a document.  And I have never

11     seen this one before either.

12        Q.   As you can see from this document, Milenko Milovanovic is

13     requesting admission into the active service of the special-purpose unit,

14     JPN, stating that since the 4th of October, 1991, he worked together with

15     members of the JPN of the republican Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.

16             For your information, Zoran Rajic's DB personnel file, from which

17     you were given also one document which you used to draw inferences, also

18     contains a document, stating that on the 1st of September, 1992, he

19     joined the Republic of Serbia MUP special-purposes unit.  This document

20     was contained in the continuity of the unit chart which I gave to you

21     with underlying documents under Zoran Rajic's documents.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, that's P2746.

23        Q.   You do not make mention in your report of the special-purpose

24     unit of the MUP of Serbia prior to the formalisation of the JATD.  How

25     does this special-purpose unit fit into the MUP structures you describe

Page 19218

 1     in your report?

 2        A.   Before I answer this question, let me first respond to another

 3     part of your question.  You have the right, I believe, to put leading

 4     questions to confuse me, to make me answer questions that I don't want to

 5     answer, and so on and so forth, but you can paraphrase things in a

 6     somewhat different manner.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have the supervision of the examination.

 8     There's no need to accuse Ms. Marcus of confusing persons.

 9             Would you please answer the question.  And if there's anything

10     that you'd like to observe but then different from what you just did,

11     what you need to observe for us to understand your answer, please feel

12     free to do so.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

14             Well, as for the comment, I didn't say that I based my report on

15     Milenko Milovanovic's personnel file.  The personnel file includes

16     numerous documents.  I didn't have a look at that.  His personal file is

17     not something that I consulted because I didn't believe that that was

18     necessary.  I only saw the document that we have already discussed here,

19     a document that we have already seen, and I spoke about that.  So that

20     was the first thing.  If there was some misunderstanding, I do apologise

21     to the Court and to the Prosecution.  Perhaps the interpretation was

22     wrong.

23             As far as this unit we are discussing is concerned, as far as I

24     know at the time there was only one unit within the Ministry of Internal

25     Affairs.  And later it was renamed the special anti-terrorist unit, SAJ.

Page 19219

 1     This unit was formed in the mid-1970s at an earlier date, it still

 2     functions, so perhaps that's what was in mind.  But I haven't heard of a

 3     special-purpose unit of any kind that preceded in a certain sense the

 4     JATD.  The JATD, in my opinion, was formed on the basis of the rules that

 5     I have already mentioned, but I know nothing about this request to join

 6     the active force that was submitted by Milenko Milovanovic.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to get back to what really the question

 8     was.

 9             Special-purpose unit in existence before the JATD in August 1992

10     was established, as you said.  Are you familiar with that, the

11     special-purposes unit?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what sort of a unit

13     that is.  I don't know what it is.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because earlier Ms. Marcus asked you, Do you

15     know of any persons or groups of persons who do -- who would perform

16     similar tasks as were performed by the JATD once it was established?  And

17     then you said to Ms. Marcus, I don't know what you mean.  What do you

18     have on your mind?  Although the Chamber is usually more interested in

19     what the witness has on his mind than what the examiner has on its mind.

20     Then in the next question Ms. Marcus hinted at the possibility that the

21     special-purpose unit might have been the predecessor of the JATD due to

22     perhaps being composed of the same persons which later functioned in the

23     JATD.

24             Now, that's the context of the issue raised by Ms. Marcus.  Could

25     you tell us -- you have told us now that you are not familiar with the

Page 19220

 1     special-purposes unit, which also means, I take it, that you would not

 2     know persons serving in that unit; is that correct?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, I think we have dealt with the matter.

 5     I apologise for now and then intervening, but we have to move on one way

 6     or another.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  I appreciate your help, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 8             Could the Court Officer please call up P2772 but also not

 9     broadcast it to the public.

10        Q.   Now, this is another document which was contained in the chart

11     which I provided to you containing documents with Mr. Simatovic's

12     initials or signature on it.  This document also comes from the personnel

13     file of Milenko Milovanovic.  And this document is signed at the end - if

14     we go to the end of the document, please - by Dragoslav Krsmanovic, who

15     you said in your report at paragraph 375 was the assistant commander of

16     the JATD.

17             Now, assuming that you are correct, that the JATD was officially

18     formalised and established as per the 4th of August, 1993, this document,

19     P2772, dated the 16th of August, 1993, post-dates the establishment of

20     the JATD.

21             Now, it is a request by Krsmanovic for a background check on

22     31 candidates for active and reserve duty in the JATD.  This list of

23     persons with background checks can be found in many of the DB personnel

24     files for these individuals that you see listed here, but this one, as I

25     said, comes from the personnel file for Milenko Milovanovic, whose name

Page 19221

 1     appears at number 14 on this list.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Could I request, please, that we return to the

 3     signature page.  It's page 3 in both English and B/C/S.

 4        Q.   As you see here on the last page the stamp, which appears on the

 5     signature of Dragoslav Krsmanovic, is the JPN stamp, the special-purpose

 6     unit stamp.  Our position, as presented by His Honour Judge Orie,

 7     according to the evidence presented in this case is that the JATD was

 8     simply a reorganisation of a unit which, de facto, if not de jure,

 9     existed prior to the official formation of the JATD.

10             One example of this continuity is the use of the JPN stamp on

11     early JATD documents, such as this one.  In preparation for your report,

12     did you see other JATD documents with JPN stamps on them?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   If you had seen other JATD documents with the JPN stamp on them,

15     would this have alerted you to the importance of discussing the JPN in

16     your report?

17        A.   In principle, no.  My answer is no.  Because the unit was

18     officially formed on that date, on the 4th of August, 1993, as it says

19     here.  So that is the period I took into consideration, the period that

20     started as of that date.  I don't see why I should have concerned myself

21     with ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, could I ask you the following.  If you're

23     reconstructing events, and if you are very focussing on the rules,

24     wouldn't it be a rule that you used the stamp which relates to your own

25     organisation and not just another stamp?  Would that be a kind of a

Page 19222

 1     general rule to be applied?  Don't use stamps of your neighbours but use

 2     your own stamps.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't know

 4     how to explain this.  I don't see how it is possible to use the stamp of

 5     some other body.  That is against the rules.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Apparently here, if this is an authentic

 7     document, apparently people were acting against the rules.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And if it is this kind of violation of the

10     rules, that is, using stamps of other organisations, would not the first

11     thing that comes to your mind is: Why would you be in possession of such

12     a stamp; and what is the link between the organisation to which the stamp

13     belongs and the organisation which apparently issues this letter or this

14     document?

15             Wouldn't that be the logical -- wouldn't that be the logical

16     thoughts that would come up?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, it would be

18     logical.  But the first thing I would think about is the authenticity of

19     the document that has been certified by an inappropriate stamp.  But, in

20     any event, I've answered your question.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's, of course, the question whether the

22     glass is half full or half empty, is the document not authentic because

23     there's the wrong stamp on it, or is there something else wrong with the

24     document.

25             Let's not discuss it.

Page 19223

 1             Ms. Marcus, I continued on what was a purely hypothetical

 2     question, "what would you do if."  Usually it doesn't help that much,

 3     although sometimes perhaps a bit.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour, I will.

 6             Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6485.  This is one

 7     of the demonstrative exhibits that we provided to the witness.

 8        Q.   What you will see before you in a moment is one of the charts

 9     which we provided to you as an index to the underlying materials that we

10     asked you to review last week.  Now, to ensure that there's no confusion

11     about what we say is represented in this chart:  In the left column are

12     the names of individuals whom we say were members of the special-purpose

13     unit of the Serbian DB which we say was later renamed the JATD, and later

14     yet, the JSO.

15             The individuals on this particular list were killed while

16     carrying out combat operations in Croatia or Bosnia as part of the DB

17     special unit prior to the formalisation of the JATD.  Now, the evidence

18     in support of the fact of their deaths, the date and place of their

19     deaths, the payments made to their families by the JATD later, and other

20     related documents -- documentation, is cited in this chart, and the

21     materials cited were among those you reviewed in a binder connected to

22     this chart.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to leap up.  I do have a submission about the

24     approach by my learned friend.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I would first like to know what the question will be

Page 19224

 1     and then I give you ample opportunity before the witness answers the

 2     question.

 3             Ms. Marcus.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  I was going to go to one of the examples

 5     directly with underlying documents.  I was moving from the chart.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And what would you then like to ask to the witness?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Can I answer the question out of the hearing of the

 8     witness?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, before he answers the question, he would have

10     to hear it anyhow.  But the question -- if you think that it's -- it's

11     really necessary, we'll invite the witness to leave the courtroom for a

12     second.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Well, Your Honours, perhaps I could ask the question

14     and the witness could be instructed to pause instead.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             Before you answer the question which Ms. Marcus will put to you,

17     first wait so that Mr. Jordash has had an opportunity to object to that

18     question.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, although I think my submission will have be to

20     made in the absence of the witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If that's the case, then ...

22             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, now from both sides.  Yes.  If you

24     would remain stand by, the usher will accompany you for a second.

25                           [The witness stands down]


Page 19225

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I suggest that we first hear what Ms. Marcus

 2     intended to ask and that we'll then hear your comment on it.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I was going to call up -- use one

 4     example of one of these killed members.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Call up an underlying document from his personnel

 7     file and ask the witness -- well, I had one brief question about his --

 8     his position that he was assigned.  And then I was going to ask about

 9     the -- that the DB would only provide an award or a commendation to

10     someone for combat -- for participation in combat operations in Croatia

11     and Bosnia in 1992 if that person had been participating in combat

12     operations on behalf of or for the DB.  And a similar question about the

13     payments.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, so the first question would be:  Do you

15     have any knowledge about the award system in -- within the service?  The

16     second would be:  Are you familiar with awards -- I mean, this is all in

17     evidence, and I'm -- I have difficulties in understanding how the witness

18     could add anything to this, and therefore I think that's the first thing

19     that should be explored if you want to put this to the witness.

20             I would not be surprised if the witness says, I've no knowledge

21     about that, and then we'll just have this evidence and it -- it is not

22     directly touched upon in the -- in the report, I think.  Award systems?

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, the payments are.  I think you're quite

24     correct that the award itself is -- I don't think it is actually.  The

25     underlying premise of all of this is what the witness has excluded from

Page 19226

 1     his report, in our submission, glaring examples of a continuity of the

 2     unit from early on, and that's why we provided him with the materials, to

 3     give him an opportunity to say if he had these, he would have had to

 4     include something about the existence of the unit throughout.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, it may be clear that the basis for the

 6     report is really very narrow.  And whatever evidence we have about the

 7     continuity, the witness doesn't even know about the special-purposes unit

 8     to exist.  So, therefore, it's clear that the witness cannot tell us

 9     anything about that, and that, of course, may limit or even strongly

10     limit the probative value of his report.

11             Apparently he was able to reproduce a lot of rules and legal

12     texts, and it has become clear over the days that he has very limited

13     knowledge on anything outside of that.

14             Now we are exploring that if he would have known this, would you

15     have -- it's -- it's -- it is a similar remark as I made earlier.

16             Let me just confer with my colleagues.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber considers this exercise useless, not to

19     assist the Chamber, unless in one or two questions you could establish

20     that the witness has any specific knowledge about rules and awards and

21     any specific knowledge on awards being given to members of the --

22     whatever unit for having served in Bosnia or Croatia.

23             If you would establish that first and if the answer is in the

24     affirmative, then we can consider whether or not to go this route, but we

25     have too often gone in the same direction and to no avail.

Page 19227

 1             Mr. Jordash, I already said what -- without having heard what you

 2     wanted to submit.  If there's anything in addition, because that -- we

 3     formed our opinion at this moment, we thought not detrimental to the

 4     Defence.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  No.  And it -- that was one aspect.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  And I would add --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's anything else you would like to add,

 9     please do so.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I'm duty-bound to put on the record the issue

11     of notice.  My learned friend just began her summary of the Prosecution

12     position in relation to the members of the JATD, their operations, as

13     indicated, according to the Prosecution view, by the footnoted material

14     in the chart, and their receipt, accordingly, of benefits, as a result of

15     being in that unit.  That is information, we submit, should have been

16     indicated in -- in the -- in the clearest of terms in the terms that the

17     Prosecution have just indicated three years ago.

18             One month before the end of the case, the Prosecution, for the

19     first time, indicat the membership of this unit.  And I -- I'd indicate

20     that these -- this evidence footnoted in this chart is the evidence that

21     they were engaged in operations.  And I add to this submission my

22     submissions that I made on the 29th of February, where the Prosecution

23     indicated, again for the first time, that the payment lists were not a

24     record of the JATD or not only a record of the membership of the JATD but

25     were also something else, and a record of other people employed by the

Page 19228

 1     DB.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, admission of the chart is still to be

 3     discussed, I take it.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  But it -- it's -- yes.  And my submission is they

 5     relate to that but they also relate to what I must put on the record for

 6     the future, which is that in our submission the jurisprudence is clear

 7     that if the Prosecution are going to advance a case that there was a unit

 8     with a set number of people and that set number of people can be

 9     identified and those people went on and committed crimes, that's

10     information we ought to have known at the beginning of the case.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's on the record.

12             Ms. Marcus, would you want to respond?  Or ...

13             MS. MARCUS:  Briefly on that, Your Honour.  As far as I recall

14     from that conversation, what we decided was that Mr. Jordash would file a

15     written submission on the issue of notice that we could respond to.  If

16     that's not the case, then we would file a written response on the issue

17     of notice, as raised on the 29th of February and as raised today.  And

18     the only reason we haven't done so yet is because we were waiting for a

19     written submission on that.

20             So that's with respect to that issue.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  This is the procedural aspect of a procedural issue.

22             Then I don't think that at this moment you have put on the record

23     what you would like to put on the record.  Perhaps you further discuss

24     with Ms. Marcus who is the next one to -- to move.  And perhaps we could

25     call the witness again to the courtroom.


Page 19229

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, would -- sorry, Your Honour, would the -- my

 2     learned -- it's not my understanding we had a submission to make.  I --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But please discuss this --

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  -- with Ms. Marcus, and let's have the witness in

 6     again.

 7             May I make one general observation.  If someone presents a report

 8     to say what is relevant for the report is mainly what is not in the

 9     report, then, of course, there's an unlimited area to discuss, unless

10     there are good reasons to believe that it would have been appropriate to

11     be there in the report, and that would be based on both what the report

12     pretends to be and what is the factual circumstances.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for your patience, Mr. Milosevic.

15             Ms. Marcus.

16             MS. MARCUS:

17        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, before I ask you further questions, could you tell

18     us whether you are familiar with the rules and regulations governing the

19     granting of awards?  And I use that term most broadly.  Awards,

20     commendations, any kind of recognition to individuals.

21             Are you familiar with the rules in the MUP generally governing

22     the granting of awards?

23        A.   I can't remember any specific set of rules or set of regulations

24     that would govern that.  But obviously there was grants for rewards or

25     commendations or citations.  However, I can't really give you any

Page 19230

 1     specific book of rules under any specific numbers that would apply to

 2     that.

 3        Q.   Then let me ask you one question about remuneration and then I

 4     will move on.

 5             Pursuant to the rules, if someone was paid out of the RDB budget,

 6     they must necessarily have been carrying out tasks in connection with the

 7     RDB.  It seems like an obvious question, but could you tell me if that's

 8     correct?

 9        A.   What do you mean when you say RDB budget?  The RDB did not even

10     have its own budget.  It was the budget of the Ministry of the Interior.

11        Q.   If someone was paid out of the budget of the Ministry of the

12     Interior, they must necessarily have been carrying out tasks in

13     connection with the Ministry of the Interior; correct?

14     A.  It would be logical, wouldn't it?  But not necessarily.  I don't know

15     any details, so I really can't answer your question by saying yes or no.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Last week His Honour Judge Orie asked you:

17             "I'm interested in any knowledge you may have, and you may have

18     had before you arrived in The Hague, about any personal dealing or any

19     personal involvement of Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic with the JATD.

20     That's my question."

21             And you answered:

22             "They were certainly linked to that, but I don't know what facts

23     we're talking about."

24     What did you mean when you said "they were certainly linked to that"?

25  A. Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked in some way.

Page 19231

 1     Somebody who is chief of department and someone who is a special advisor

 2  and prior to that a chief… or who occupies a certain position, let's put it

 3  that way as I can't reconstruct that now exactly off the top of my head… in

 4  any case, their position in the service was such that they were supposed to

 5  be familiar with all the elements, at least when it comes to Stanisic, he

 6  had to know all the elements of work of the Service.

 7   And I believe that Simatovic, as a special advisor, also had to be familiar

 8     with all the elements of the intelligence work, including these elements.

 9        Q.   If I'm correct - and now I am asking you about your factual

10     knowledge; your answer just now was an inference - you don't have any

11     personal, direct, factual knowledge of the involvement of Mr. Stanisic

12     and Mr. Simatovic in the JATD.

13             Did I understand your answer to the Chamber correctly?

14        A.   I don't have any personal knowledge about that.

15        Q.   I would like to ask Mr. Laugel to play a clip --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm afraid that will have to be done tomorrow.  Look

17     at the clock.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Just for your information, I have

19     very few questions left.  I would say less than ten minutes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Less than ten minutes.  So that is -- the Chamber

21     appreciates your efforts to try to finish today.

22             I would first like to instruct the witness not to speak or

23     communicate in any other way with anyone about your testimony.  We'd like

24     to see you back tomorrow.  As matters stand now, I take it that we'll --

25     we should easily conclude your testimony tomorrow.  We'd like to see you


Page 19232

 1     back at 9.00 in the morning in this same courtroom.

 2             I would first want to invite the usher to escort the witness out

 3     of the courtroom before we adjourn.

 4             You may leave the courtroom.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, because I would like to make one brief

 7     observation about the personnel file of Mr. Zecevic.

 8             Mr. Petrovic cried out for help and said, Where is the evidence

 9     that he was recruited? et cetera.  The witness, in his answer, said,

10     Well, the document doesn't seem to refer to any recruitment.  It may be

11     clear to you that the text of that document, if I hear what you said, is

12     that -- it was the document about the -- about the -- the gun used in a

13     crime.  The -- you used it in a context of recruiting persons with a

14     criminal background.  I take it that you would at least be alerted by

15     what the witness said, and by what Mr. Petrovic says, that the document,

16     without any further information about a criminal background, seems to be

17     even contrary to recruiting but would raise perhaps matters like: would

18     you fire someone who has committed a murder when he is a member of the

19     reserve forces of the unit?  But it does not in any way refer to

20     recruitment.  And I take it that you're aware of that.  So that the

21     context which you describe in your questions is not one that fits well

22     into the document itself.

23             MS. MARCUS:  I take your point, Your Honour, and I understand how

24     the context might have affected that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It may be that there's other evidence.  I've


Page 19233

 1     got no idea.  But at least this document doesn't provide any evidence of

 2     recruitment with a criminal record.

 3             We adjourn.  And we'll resume tomorrow morning, the 10th of May,

 4     at 9.00 in the morning in this same courtroom, II.

 5                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day

 7                           of May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.