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
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]
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 ...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think you were then asked to explain why you
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
1 Ms. Marcus asks and then answer that question to the best of your
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
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
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.
1 It's true that I quoted part of it. I was focussing on the DB
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
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.
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
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
1 then if you want to explain why you didn't ask for it, that's the second
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,
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;
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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]
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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;
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 number 438 workers. Neither of those numbers appear to come from this
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 Now, you said you did not see, nor did you ask to see, any other
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any indication already at this point in
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
1 the JATD, could be only conscripts who had not been convicted of any
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
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.
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
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:
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.
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
1 talking about.
2 I believe that everybody would welcome more light shed on the
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
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
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,
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
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.
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?
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
24 He's apparently quoting from his report, I take it.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 384, footnote 368.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 Let's not discuss it.
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
1 and then I give you ample opportunity before the witness answers the
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
1 specific book of rules under any specific numbers that would apply to
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
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.
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
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
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.