1 Thursday, 10 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, could you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before we continue, Mr. Milosevic, same message again: You're
12 still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of
13 your testimony.
14 And Ms. Marcus will now conclude her cross-examination in the
15 next 10 to 15 minutes, I understand.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise to the Prosecutor.
19 Yesterday, I was speaking very fast and not very intelligible at the end.
20 I would like to see my last answer to see whether the interpretation was
21 correct. You told me that when I thought that I was speaking too fast or
22 if I thought something was not properly interpreted, that I should
23 address you with that issue. I just wanted everything to be correct and
24 I apologise to the Prosecutor.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll -- at the end of your testimony we'll
1 read your last answer to you, and then you can verify whether it was what
2 you intended to say.
3 Ms. Marcus.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank you.
5 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 WITNESS: MILAN MILOSEVIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
9 Q. Good morning, Mr. Milosevic.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. I'm going to play a clip for you. This is a clip from an
12 admitted exhibit in this case. It contains very detailed footage from
13 the Kula awards ceremony in 1997. I'm going to play just a 15-second
15 MS. MARCUS: As far as I know, Your Honours, there's little to no
16 text spoken, and that's not the point of playing it, it's more to look at
17 the people.
18 Q. And, Mr. Milosevic, if you see anybody who you know in this clip
19 after we've played it, perhaps you can tell us or you can tell us as we
20 go if you recognise anybody who we see in that clip.
21 MS. MARCUS: If Mr. Laugel could please play the clip.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did recognise a few individuals;
24 for example, Zoran Mijatovic. Zoran Mijatovic. And I believe that
25 Milan Prodanic was also there at the very end of the clip of the sequence
1 that you've just shown.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we play it again and stop after every two or
3 three persons before we move to the next one so that you're better
4 able -- well, we start there. Of these three persons do you recognise
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the first individual
7 on my right-hand side is Ljuba Ristic, but I'm not sure. Possibly it is
8 Ljuba Ristic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And that is the person with the glasses not the --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right. There are two
11 people with glasses, but one of them has dark glasses and the other one
12 has just normal glasses. The thick-set person on the right-hand side, I
13 believe that's him but I'm not sure --
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry to interrupt. Perhaps -- I wasn't
17 planning to have him mark it, but because the seconds -- the time
18 sequence matches, perhaps we could just put on the record that --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's 3 minutes, 00. We move on to the next one
20 so we have the next few people.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Stop there. We are at 3.04, three persons --
23 perhaps we move on a tiny little bit, a tiny little bit -- yes.
24 Do you recognise any of these three persons?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We move on to the next ones.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person in the middle is
4 Zoran Mijatovic, I believe.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And we are at --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He looks like Zoran Mijatovic, to
7 be very precise.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And we are at 3 minutes and --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the middle.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- 7 seconds.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know anybody.
13 [Video-clip played]
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know these people
16 [Video-clip played]
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the person in the
20 middle is Milan Prodanic. He is wearing dark glasses, but he really does
21 look like Milan Prodanic. He reminds me of Milan Prodanic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We are at 3 minutes, 15 seconds, and the person with
23 dark glasses - there are two with glasses - but you are -- in the middle
24 is the one with the moustache.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the middle, in the middle, yes,
1 yes, he looks like him.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And that was it, I think.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Milosevic, before I conclude my cross-examination, I'm just
6 going to explain to you what our position is with respect to your report
7 and give you an opportunity to respond to our position. Your JATD
8 section contains only 17 paragraphs out of a total of 388 paragraphs in
9 your entire report. Your citations of sources in support of this section
10 in your report total seven documents, of which all but one are rules,
11 laws, or regulations, and that one is a decision on the establishment of
12 the PJM. Through the process of cross-examination, it has emerged that
13 you based your inferences and conclusions in this section upon what you
14 termed a random sampling from among what we say is a partisan selection
15 of documents provided to you by the Defence. Our position is that the
16 documents shown to you by the Simatovic Defence were chosen for the
17 purpose of leading you toward a particular conclusion. You took that
18 selection on its face, without qualification and without citing them,
19 which, if you were unbiased --
20 MR. JORDASH: Sorry --
21 MS. MARCUS: -- your academic training.
22 MR. JORDASH: I do object to this. I was rightly admonished for
23 telling a story during my questions and this is nothing but a story.
24 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, Ms. Marcus, of course you are
25 expected to -- under certain circumstances, to put your case to the
1 witness. What you're doing here is you're giving a judgement on --
2 you're evaluating the expert report. Now, if you say, We consider that
3 the sourcing is insufficient, you may comment on that. That's a kind of
4 criticism. But it goes, by far, further what you are doing. You say,
5 You are biased, et cetera, that's -- I would say is something for a later
6 stage. And what would we expect a witness who has given a solemn
7 declaration to say, Yes, of course, I'm biased. I mean, it's from the
8 cross-examination that you consider that his material he's used is
9 selective. That has become clear. But we're not here to start a debate
10 on -- let me read again, "You took that selection on its face, without
11 qualification, without citing them, which, if you were unbiased --"
12 there's an implicit accusation of bias. Now, you can put whatever you
13 want to the witness about the quality of his report, no problem, but to
14 start a discussion with the witness about whether he's biased or not, I
15 think, is not something we -- that would assist us at this moment. I
16 think you were approximately at your last line, looking at the length
17 approximately of your -- or is it more, there's more?
18 MS. MARCUS: Almost, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Almost. Would you then, please, without
20 qualifications, finish what you wanted to put to the witness.
21 MS. MARCUS: I hope I understood Your Honour's comment. I will
22 do my best to abide by what you requested.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you could say, Do you agree with me that you
24 have looked only to a small number of documents and you have an
25 incomplete picture, therefore. That's all fine but --
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, may I just inquire, if our position is
2 that he was either selective -- wilfully selective or that his
3 methodology was faulty because he didn't ask for more and drew
4 conclusions based on incomplete sources, then that's the position --
5 JUDGE ORIE: There's no problem --
6 MS. MARCUS: It could be --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- if you say, You should have asked for more
8 information. Would you comment on that. That's fine. But that's --
9 wilfully -- that's apparently what he did. And the witness is not here
10 to plead guilty or not guilty. That's more or less what you're inviting
11 him to do.
12 Please proceed.
13 MS. MARCUS:
14 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I think you've understood, without me continuing
15 the rest of my question, basically our position, which is what we would
16 invite you to respond to, is that either you had additional materials
17 which you could have consulted but you didn't, which is a challenge to
18 your methodology; or you drew conclusions based on incomplete
19 documentation, which is a challenge to your methodology; or you decided
20 to do that, potentially because of bias. That is our position. And as a
21 result, our submission to the Chamber would be that your report, in
22 particular the sections on Mr. Simatovic and the JATD, should not be
23 given any weight by the Chamber. Would you like to respond to our
25 A. May I respond, Your Honours?
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already stated that either
3 things are being misinterpreted here or you are intentionally distorting
4 my words. I don't know what is happening, but that's the case. I did
5 not say that. I used random sampling to make a selection from all the
6 documents. I based my report on all -- only those three documents which
7 are used to prove that the JATD was established. And now my specific
8 answer to your question is that I don't agree with you. I don't think
9 that my methodology is wrong. I don't think that I was biased. I
10 believe that I used everything that I needed to use, everything that was
11 relevant, and I would have produced the same report if you had asked me
12 to do so. I could never do anything differently. The only way I can
13 produce my reports is based on documentation. I cannot agree that I have
14 been manipulated. I cannot agree that I have been biased. Your
15 conclusion can be whatever you want it to be, but I believe that it's up
16 to the Trial Chamber to have the final say in that.
17 MS. MARCUS:
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
19 MS. MARCUS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have a few matters before we continue.
23 First of all, Mr. Milosevic, you say, I didn't use the words
24 random sampling. I clearly remember that you did. So either there is a
25 translation or a transcript error, or you used those words but you've
1 forgotten about it. Why do I remember so well? Because it came to my
2 mind, and I even discussed it with one of my colleagues, that the
3 technique of random sampling is a technique which is used in statistics
4 rather than the kind of report as we find it here. But you used those
5 words. If you say that's not the case, then we'll verify it. Is
6 there -- first I ask the witness one thing --
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- and then I give you an opportunity to address us.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I respond, Your Honours?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please go ahead.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have just said that I used that
12 methodology but only in one specific case, and that was the essence of my
13 intervention to Ms. Marcus' position. I really do speak fast. I'm sorry
14 about that. I apologise. I don't have experience in situations like
15 this. That's why I speak too fast and that's perhaps why things are
16 misinterpreted. I have not used random sampling as the model for
17 producing my report. Only in one specific case did I --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There may be --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I -- may I finish?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if it is about the random sampling because I
21 asked you a question about that. Let me correct myself.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: If I read the transcript and if I -- because you
24 speak very fast, therefore the interpreters have to speak very fast as
25 well. What I now re-read in the transcript you could pronounce it in two
1 ways. You can say, I did not say that I used random sampling. Then
2 you -- the full stop is missing, and that's what I heard more or less.
3 And now re-reading it, I see that it says, I did not say that I used
4 random sampling to make - and if you read it in that way, and I
5 understood it in the way I heard it initially, that there is some
6 confusion, but as it appears now on the transcript you said: I used
7 random sampling to make a selection from all the documents. So,
8 therefore, the matter is clearly to me. You have -- and answered my
9 question and by re-reading the transcript, the question is not active
11 Now I give an opportunity to Mr. Petrovic who may want to
12 intervene on the same matter. Listen to him carefully.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the
14 problem is on page 7, lines 11 through 24. I believe that I heard from
15 professor the same thing when he was answering your first question the
16 first time around. So I believe that his words were the same the first
17 time around. Page 7, lines 18 through 24, that's where the problem is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is what I re-read. The matter seems to be
20 Would you like to add anything, Mr. Milosevic, to what was just
21 said? Because I think we meanwhile understood your testimony perfectly
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Allow me to underline just once
24 again. This methodology was used only in one case. In case when I had a
25 lot of identical --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- decisions which were absolutely
3 the same, I selected three. There was no representative sample there. I
4 chose three documents and I used them in my report.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You had explained that already, but you have
6 underlined it now again.
7 Then, Ms. Marcus, you said you played a video from an admitted
8 exhibit. The number, please?
9 MS. MARCUS: P61, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: P61, Madam Registrar.
11 Then I promised to you that I would read your last answer of
12 yesterday so as to verify whether there was any problem there. The last
13 question that was -- well, I'll deal with the last two questions because
14 the last question might not be the most interesting one. Ms. Marcus
15 asked you:
16 "What did you mean when you said 'they were certainly linked to
18 And it was link between the accused and -- both accused and the
19 JATD. Your answer was the following. I'll read it hopefully slowly
21 "Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked.
22 "Somebody who is chief of sector or department and someone who is
23 a special advisor or who occupies a certain position, in any case, their
24 position in the service was such that they were supposed to be familiar
25 with all the elements of the service. At least when Stanisic was in
1 question. And I believe that Simatovic also had to be familiar with all
2 the elements of the intelligence work and the intelligence service."
3 Then the next question - and that really was the last
4 one - Ms. Marcus said:
5 "If I'm correct - and now I'm asking you about your factual
6 knowledge; your answer just now was an inference - you don't have any
7 personal, direct, factual knowledge of the involvement of Mr. Stanisic
8 and Mr. Simatovic in the JATD.
9 "Did I understand your answer to the Chamber correctly?"
10 And then you said:
11 "I don't have any personal knowledge about that."
12 That is how it is recorded the semi-last and the last question of
13 yesterday. Any problems as far as translation is concerned? We do not
14 need a new explanation, but if you say the interpreters may have
15 misunderstood me -- you due to the speed of speech or the transcriber may
16 have had problems, then please tell us. But I'm not seeking you to
17 repeat the answer, only to correct the answer if it's wrongly recorded.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to comment on the
19 penultimate answer, and I'm very happy, Your Honour, that you repeated
20 both. The penultimate answer's the problem. Due to the speed -- but you
21 said that I shouldn't explain. I said that it was only logical that they
22 were familiar with things because somebody who is a chief of service and
23 not chief of department, as it is recorded in here, somebody who is a
24 chief of service -- the chief of service or somebody who is deputy chief
25 of administration or special advisor, and therein lies the mistake.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Milosevic, if you really did not use the
2 word "department," for example, then of course I would be surprised if
3 that was due to the speed of speech added to your words, but we'll verify
4 it in the original because you're now saying you made a mistake. And
5 what we usually do under those circumstances, I will order that -- or,
6 Mr. Petrovic, I take it that if there's -- if the witness says that
7 his -- the transcript of his testimony should be corrected, then we
8 should be sure that it's not a change of the words but it's really a
9 correction of what the witness said. So therefore we'll have it verified
10 in the original language, whether you used the word "department," yes or
11 no, Mr. Milosevic. And --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I meant Stanisic who
13 was chief of service, not chief of administration. Therein lies the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Whether there's a problem or not, you say --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You say that's where the mistake is made. You
18 didn't say that is where I possibly made a mistake. And in this
19 courtroom we have a good habit that we're not blaming others for our own
20 mistakes. I try to do that as well. It will be verified whether or not
21 the word "department" was used by you so that we know where you blamed
22 interpreters for something, whether you rightly did so or whether you
23 were shifting the blame from yourself to the interpreters. It will be
25 Then we move on.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic -- perhaps you -- have you -- do you
3 have any questions [overlapping speakers]
4 MR. JORDASH: No questions, thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.
6 Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Milosevic. There are just a few
10 matters I would like to clarify in relation to your testimony over the
11 last few days. Let's first have a look at paragraph 175, please, in your
12 report. When you were questioned by the Prosecution about this, the
13 Prosecution said that they understood your paragraph to be the expression
14 of your personal knowledge or experience with regard to the regulations
15 on how to provide information. It's 18980. That's the reference.
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour -- yes, thank you. Could I please
17 request whenever Mr. Petrovic is going to quote, I would propose either a
18 question or an answer, that he read it verbatim rather than paraphrasing.
19 JUDGE ORIE: This is an invitation, Mr. Petrovic. Are you
20 accepting it?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll just refer to
22 the page, but I really don't think -- well, I can find the page. Please
23 ignore that part of my question.
24 Q. All I'll ask you is to explain something. If my colleague
25 believes that I'm quoting incorrectly, she can say so, but please have a
1 look at P1044, Article 9.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think the issue is that you wanted to refer to an
3 answer given by the witness and you mentioned the page, whereas
4 Ms. Marcus, I think, invited you to read that part of the answer so that
5 both the witness, who is unable to look at those pages, and everyone else
6 has the precise text of the answer on the basis of which you want to ask
7 further questions.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In that case, Your Honours, please
9 bear with me.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It must be the transcript of the 3rd of May.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 18980 is the page,
12 line 13, and my learned friend said given the way that you directly
13 informed about this and that is also the case in many other parts of your
14 report, it seems that you have direct knowledge of the matter or it seems
15 that the least of one could say is that you are not quoting or providing
16 references to sources for the claims that you are making. Could we now
17 see P1044, Article 9.
18 Q. Mr. Milosevic, what does Article 9 say about the obligations of
19 the minister? It's Article 9 of the Law on Internal Affairs from 1991.
20 A. Well, as it says here, the minister, at the request of the
21 National Assembly and the president of the republic, has to provide a
22 report to the minister of the interior on the work of the ministry and on
23 the security situation in the republic.
24 Q. How do you draw the conclusion on the basis of this article that
25 this also concerns issues that are of importance for the work of the
1 service or of the RDB?
2 A. The service or the RDB is an integral part of the
3 Ministry of the Interior, and, therefore, at the request of the National
4 Assembly or the president of the republic, the minister has to submit a
5 report about that field of work to the ministry.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let's now have a look at P2403, 2403.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, reading the transcript at 18980 and
8 981, I'm wondering -- you're seeking clarification, but I do not see any
9 difference with what the witness testified on those pages.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to show
11 that the source wasn't his experience or his opinion. The source was the
12 article of the law. That is the basis on which he made that claim. The
13 basis was not his personal experience, as suggested by my learned
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but when the witness answers that question, he
16 explained that already. We don't need the same answer twice. There's no
17 use in re-examination because the answer was, first of all, that he
18 didn't understand what the dispute was. This is based on Article 9, and
19 then he explained exactly -- gave exactly the same explanation as he
20 gives now. And you are apparently satisfied with the answer, so the
21 question was superfluous because -- purely repetitious.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I will
24 do my best to avoid putting such questions.
25 Q. Mr. Milosevic, you've had a look at this decision on a number of
1 occasions. The last item of the decision says that the decision should
2 be forwarded to the financial department, or rather, the administration
3 for material and financial issues of the ministry. How do you understand
4 the importance of this decision with regard to that last item in the
6 A. Well, that means that the administration for material and
7 financial matters of the Ministry of the Interior was informed of this
8 decision in order to be able to act in accordance with it.
9 Q. If it was informed --
10 JUDGE ORIE: P2403 is under seal, Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. In
12 that case it shouldn't be broadcast outside the courtroom.
13 Q. If the administration for material and financial matters was
14 informed, what would the reason be for drafting such document?
15 A. In order to make certain payments that are due on the basis of
16 this decision.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let's now have a look at P979. Could
18 you please read out this sentence here. And in terms of the language
19 itself, what would you say about the way this sentence is written in
20 Serbian or in B/C/S as we call that language here? As an academic I
21 would just like you to assess the language.
22 A. Well, it looks like the person who wrote this doesn't know the
23 Serbian language very well to make such grammatical mistakes.
24 Q. Tell us what --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, is this witness especially qualified
1 or -- because you could put this question in to every native speaker. Is
2 that -- let the witness answer the question whether -- but I'm just
3 expressing some concern about this. Yes.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Naturally, that's true, I could
5 put the question to anyone. I chose to put the question to the
6 professor. Since the professor is an academic and given that he is an
7 intellectual, he might be able to shed some light on the grammar used in
8 this sentence. But it's true that anyone who knows the Serbian language
9 can see that this sentence is not grammatically correct.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour, just
12 a few sentences.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please. The witness may answer the question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not only ungrammatical, it's
15 not logical. And anyone who knows anything about the Serbian language
16 wouldn't write in this way. It's not only a matter of grammatical
17 mistakes; it's the logic of the sentence itself that is inadequate in
18 terms of the Serbian language. It should say "all artillery pieces and
19 weapons should be taken out of the Golubic fortress," and then perhaps a
20 sentence apart from establishment items that should remain in the
21 fortress, and then there should be some date at the bottom, and so on and
22 so forth. This is illogical, completely illogical, and it seems as if it
23 had been extracted from certain texts that are then cobbled together in
24 the text. So this is a totally illogical way of expressing oneself.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Have a look at the heading, the Republic of Serbia, and then it
2 says SAO Krajina. Given the constitutional order at the time, is such a
3 heading possible from a technical point of view?
4 A. No, that's absolutely illogical. The republic of the SAO Krajina
5 is not part of the Republic of Serbia and the training centre Golubic,
6 and so on and so forth. I don't know. It's very strange. I think I
7 have already pointed this out for the benefit of the Chamber.
8 Q. May I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. -- now see P1121?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I have one additional question in relation to
13 the document on the screen.
14 Mr. Milosevic -- no, I think I -- I must have misheard. If I
15 re-read the transcript I don't find what I think I heard.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Let's now have a look at P1121. Witness, you were answering
19 questions about this document. I'd just like to ask you that given the
20 rules on work for the SDB, are there any restrictions regarding the
21 possibilities that agents have to obtain information of a certain kind?
22 A. No, there are no such restrictions.
23 Q. In the course of performing his duties, can such an officer
24 obtain any documents and use them for the work he has to carry out?
25 A. Yes, absolutely.
1 Q. Please have a look at the information that this report contains.
2 Have a look at the first page, and perhaps we could have a look at the
3 second page too. Could you perhaps describe the nature of this
4 information in relation to what we are interested in, if you can.
5 A. I think that this is information of relevance to the security
6 situation and it concerns threats to the Serbian people. This
7 information, this intelligence, is interesting. It's not without
9 Q. Could we now have a look at P2933.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the Chamber is asking itself in what
11 way your questions at this moment relate to what was raised in
12 cross-examination, but we may have missed the link.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned colleague
14 asked a question about the legal basis upon which Franko Simatovic could
15 receive such documents, obtain such documents, and that is the context
16 within which this document was discussed. I just wanted to shed some
17 more light on that series of questions put by my colleague.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Milosevic, this is a page from Mladic's diary, and here
21 Mladic seemingly recorded the words of somebody called Rade Siptar, at
22 least that is what we are reading in here. I would like to put some
23 questions to you about this. If we assume that this Rade Siptar was a
24 member of an opposition party in Serbia, it's not really important
25 whether he was or not, this is a hypothesis. When it comes to the
1 intelligence work, would it be expected for an agent to sell lies, as it
2 were, to somebody who is a member of an opposition party or some other
3 structure? It really doesn't matter. Could it be expected that an
4 intelligence officer tried to mislead such a person into believing what
5 is not correct?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus?
7 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, that's a highly leading question,
8 several leading questions combined into one.
9 JUDGE ORIE: On a matter where we first have to establish whether
10 the witness has any knowledge.
11 If you say, Mr. Petrovic, whether false information is not
12 unknown as a method to destabilise and whether this method is used in
13 intelligence work, then I think it's almost a matter of common knowledge.
14 Now, if you want to use it in this context, we would first have to find
15 out what the witness knows about this event. And then, apart from that,
16 it's all assumed -- it's all based on an assumption that Mr. Siptar
17 apparently was a political, or, in any other way, an opponent of
18 Mr. Stanisic or Simatovic, I do not know. But there's too many
19 assumptions. If the witness knows anything about this specifically, you
20 may ask him. And I seek the agreement of the parties on the matter
21 whether disinformation is sometimes used as part of, if I could say, the
22 intelligence game. Would the parties agree with that?
23 MR. JORDASH: And it's dealt with at paragraph 36 of the expert's
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we could include
2 two more things into that. Selling lies, selling nonsense is all that
3 something that is acceptable when it comes to the work of the
4 intelligence services everywhere?
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the problem I have is the linking of
6 this piece of evidence with that question about the witness's -- about
7 witness's paragraph 36. Now, the issue of witness's paragraph 36 does
8 not arise from cross-examination. Connecting that to this is suggestive.
9 The witness hasn't said he has any knowledge of any facts connected to
10 this. The questions I put to him were not about the facts underlying
11 this but about Mr. Simatovic's role. I simply -- this is a leading
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What, I think, Mr. Petrovic, what you seek to
14 establish by a kind of a general notion of lies or at least - let me just
15 see - disinformation being used as a method, you are apparently seeking
16 to link that general notice to this specific item in the diary of
17 Mr. Mladic. Unless the witness has any specific knowledge about this
18 event, the link you can try to establish that by other means but not by
19 asking the witness whether this is -- because that's what you're seeking
20 to establish, that this must be disinformation. I do not see what the
21 basis of the knowledge of the witness would be to allow for such a
22 conclusion. And if you think there is one, then first lay the foundation
23 for that before you continue.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that your
25 proposal is the best, and that is to agree that planting nonsense and
1 disinformation is just an acceptable and legitimate method of work. If
2 we agree to agree on that, can agree on that, we can finish with that
3 topic very quickly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether it's acceptable and legitimate is -- I
5 would say it's commonly used. Would the parties agree with that?
6 Mr. Jordash agrees.
7 Ms. Marcus, often used?
8 MS. MARCUS: I don't frankly know, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You don't know.
10 MS. MARCUS: I know it's part of the witness's evidence. I
11 accept that the witness is [overlapping speakers] it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not -- I'm only -- Mr. Petrovic wants to clarify
13 a certain matter, which, in the way he seeks to clarify it, he cannot do
14 that, as I told him, unless he has established a proper basis, apart from
15 that the matter was not addressed in cross-examination. But in order to
16 assist Mr. Petrovic, I'm seeking whether the parties are in agreement
17 that disinformation is not an uncommon thing in intelligence work.
18 That's the only thing. You don't know?
19 MS. MARCUS: If -- Your Honours, I'm sorry. I don't mean to
20 stall things. I'm truly not trying to do that. I do -- as a premise, we
21 have a problem agreeing to things spontaneously on the record without
22 having thought them through because they can be interpreted later on to
23 mean something that we didn't intend to. On the pure basis of what
24 Your Honour has put to me, based purely on that, then I suppose I must
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we can move on.
2 Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Just one more question. It says here that some 3.000 barrels
5 they wanted to give to the Muslims --
6 JUDGE ORIE: First establish a basis for any knowledge of the
7 witness in relation to this document --
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I
9 withdraw my question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Was that your last question, Mr. Petrovic?
11 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I'll repeat my question: Was this
13 your last question or do you have any other questions?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have a few more questions,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed then.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Milosevic, do you have any factual knowledge about the way
19 people were armed and the events?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, if that is your question then it
21 sounds more or less like: Do you know anything about the weather? Which
22 requires weather -- when, where, temperature, wind. Could you please put
23 a question to the witness which makes sense.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Milosevic, according to what you knew about the position and
1 role of Franko Simatovic, when it comes to 1991 would it have been
2 logical for Franko Simatovic to participate in the arming of Muslims
3 Bihac and Sandzak?
4 A. This is absolutely unacceptable. He should not have done that,
5 no way. That was not his job. That was not his task. I don't know how
6 he could have done that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Petrovic - and you, Mr. Milosevic - you
8 explained approximately 20 or 30 times that the only thing you could tell
9 us is about what the rules and the regulations tell us. Now, the first
10 part of your answer, although the question was slightly different,
11 remains within those limits, it was not his job, it was not his task.
12 And then you continue:
13 "I don't know how he could have done that."
14 And that of course is -- but perhaps I should clarify what you
15 intended to say there, that you would say I do not understand how someone
16 could consider this to be within his task, then I think we are still
17 within the area which you covered. If, however, you would say it was
18 impossible that he did it, then we enter into a totally different realm
19 and that's the realm of facts of which you said 20 to 30 times, if not
20 40, that that is what you did not research. Did you intend to say this
21 kind of activity was not within his tasks and therefore I cannot
22 understand how one could consider this to be part of his task? Or did
23 you intend to say that you cannot factually understand how this may have
24 been possible? Which of the two?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on his job description, it
1 was impossible for him to be involved in something like that. Personally
2 I believe that he was not supposed to do anything that would have been
3 against his job descriptions. That would have been illegal. And the
4 first part of your question is correct and shows that you understood me
6 JUDGE ORIE: Your personal beliefs are not relevant; at least if
7 at all relevant, then at minimal level.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please let's look at
11 THE REGISTRAR: The document is under seal, Your Honours.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Milosevic, during the examination-in-chief we had a problem
14 with the -- problem with the table 2D914 that was drafted in 1990. Can
15 you please look at the document and can you please tell us whether this
16 would be an adequate table or schematic of the department according to
17 the 1990 regulation.
18 I apologise, 1992 regulation.
19 A. Yes, this is correct. The one that I saw previously was
20 absolutely inadequate. This is it.
21 Q. Can we now look at P2394. This is another document under seal.
22 And this one was drafted pursuant to the 1990 regulation. Would this
23 schematic correspond to the schematic of the DB service based on the 1990
25 A. Yes, that's that.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
2 MS. MARCUS: Can I just ask Mr. Petrovic if this second
3 document -- it seems to me you're suggesting some of the annexes would --
4 this is with regard to what you're going to tender afterwards, if I'm not
5 mistaken. Just before we leave this one, which annex in the witness's
6 report would you say this one is better than? In the previous question
7 you asked you said it was better than 2D914. Which one does this one
8 connect to, please?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, I don't know. Instead of
10 2D914 that has flaws, the adequate document would be your P2394, which
11 was drafted and based on the 1990 regulation or rule.
12 With your leave, I'd like to continue.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P2724.
15 THE REGISTRAR: The document is also under seal.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Mr. Milosevic, you testified about this document yesterday. You
18 looked at bullet point 5.2. Let's look at the number of this decision
19 and then we will compare 5.2 and the number of the decision with another
20 document. Let us just state that the document number is 4030 and that it
21 says that this person was assigned to a position as specified under 5.2.
22 And now let us now look at P974.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The document is also under seal, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore not to be shown to the public.
25 May I remind the parties that they have their own responsibility
1 for pointing at confidentiality of documents, and that however
2 appreciated the assistance of the representative of the Registry, that
3 it's the primary task for the parties themselves. Please proceed.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll do
5 my best.
6 Q. Look at number 2 first. In the column where it says number of
7 personnel, do you see the number of the decision that we just mentioned,
8 that we just saw in P2724?
9 A. I must say that I can't see it too clearly. Maybe it should be
10 blown up even more or maybe I should come closer to the document. I
11 don't know. Please repeat your question.
12 Q. In the vertical column where it says the number of personnel,
13 does this contain the number of the decision on assignment -- the
14 assignment of this person under number 2?
15 A. Yes, 4030, I can see that.
16 Q. In paragraph 376 of your report --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just try to understand the answer. 4030,
18 could I have a look where -- I have not found it yet. Yes, I see it --
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's in the column
20 where it says the number of executors.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I found it as I ...
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's the same number that we can
23 see in the document P2724.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave I'll move on.
1 Q. In paragraph 376 you say that there were five anti-terrorist
2 operations departments. Let's now have a look at P974, item 4. The
3 document is under seal. Item 4 where the job posts are mentioned that
4 relate to detachment commanders. How many such posts were there? Could
5 you tell us how many such posts were specified, and does number 5 refer
6 to the number of job specifications for this post?
7 A. Yes, that's quite right.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
9 MS. MARCUS: I was simply going to offer the hard copy B/C/S for
10 the witness to consult.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. That's very
13 JUDGE ORIE: If there are any further questions on it, it may
14 assist the witness.
15 Please proceed, Mr. ...
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. What can one conclude on the basis of the fact that there were
18 five job specifications for the post of detachment commander?
19 A. Well, you can conclude that there were five such departments,
20 rather, since there were also five deputies. That is the logic.
21 Q. Yesterday, you said that this document was amended of a time
22 things were added to it. Let's have a look at number 62 in this
23 document. This concerns a person called Boris Janosevic.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly be instructed not to
25 touch the microphones with the documents and also to lift the microphones
1 a little bit. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, could you lift the microphone
3 slightly and could you avoid touching it with the paper on the
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Under number 62, how do you understand this entry in the last
10 column where it says the 20th of June, 1995?
11 A. Well, these columns say that he's a member of the unit, that he
12 has completed secondary school. The penultimate column concerns his
13 salary. The last one -- just a minute.
14 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry, where does it say 1995?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It means that that's when he was
16 admitted. It says 20/6/95, if that's what you have in mind. It means
17 that he was a member.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the English
19 translation 1995 is missing, but I think that this can be quite clearly
20 seen in the B/C/S version of the document. So the English translation is
21 not complete.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'll have a look in detail at the original.
23 MS. MARCUS: I must agree, Your Honour. I think we will submit
24 it for a correction.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, clearly the year "1995" following the
1 20th of June is missing. Please proceed.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time. I
3 have 15 minutes, so it might be a good time for a break now.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll take a break. We'll resume at quarter to
5 11.00 and we expect you to conclude, Mr. Petrovic, by 11.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, since we took a longer break, of
9 course you have until ten minutes past 11.00.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Milosevic, we're dealing with the same document now. Could
13 we please have a look at page 7 in the B/C/S version and page 8 in the
14 English. I'm interested in the entry for Goran Kovacevic. It's the last
15 column. Page 7 in the B/C/S, sir. You can see it on the screen.
16 A. Yes, Goran Kovacevic, I can see that.
17 Q. What does it say about him in this column?
18 A. It says that he's a member from the 1st of August, 1995.
19 Q. What conclusions can we draw about the time-period that this
20 document, P974, covers, this document with these job specifications?
21 A. Well, we can conclude that this was a document that was used
22 throughout that period of time. It was used on a permanent basis. It
23 wasn't just used on one occasion. It was constantly used, and you can
24 see that names were entered into the columns of this document at the time
25 that certain decisions were taken.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, yesterday you --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we further explore this conclusion. It seems
3 that if you would make changes, et cetera, and if you have several
4 entries with different dates, that -- does that allow for the conclusion
5 as the witness gives us? It apparently covers events which happened at
6 various dates. Now, you can make a document, not fill in half of it, and
7 then update it again and again. You also can produce a document at the
8 very end, writing down specific dates from the past and make it at one
9 moment giving an overview of what happened in the past. If names are
10 changed, it could be that they were there as an error, it could be that
11 one person replaces another person, but it could also be that a certain
12 entry -- that that person was preceded by another person which was not in
13 that position anymore. And therefore the document would not mention that
14 earlier person anymore. It's -- what is the basis for your conclusion?
15 It's totally unclear to me. I can think of five possible scenarios which
16 would all still be consistent with this document, Mr. Milosevic. So
17 therefore -- and I gave you just a few examples of what you could imagine
18 to be the case, but apparently you come to a positive conclusion, the
19 document was used throughout that period of time. First of all, what
20 period of time it was used on a permanent basis? What is it in the
21 document that allows for such a conclusion? If you would say the
22 document covers events which took place at various moments in the past, I
23 would have no difficulty to agree with you. But to say that the document
24 was used on a permanent basis throughout the period, that -- please
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the nature of this
2 document is such that it is not a one-off document or a document that
3 would have subsequently be rewritten. The objective of this document is
4 to record all the changes throughout the duration or the existence of a
5 unit. And you can see that there are entries from 1993, 1994, 1995, as
6 we could see and so on and so forth. So the nature of this document and
7 the dates that we can see here suggest that this is how things were done
8 and I based my conclusion on that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if that's the basis for your conclusion, then
10 we'll consider whether we can follow you on the basis you gave in that
12 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Milosevic, if in 1995 the commander of the unit had been
15 appointed in view of what you had just told us about the nature of this
16 document, would you expect that this fact would have been entered in the
17 appropriate place in this table?
18 A. Absolutely. It would be entered under number 1.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Yesterday, you mentioned "KE," the
20 abbreviation KE. What does the abbreviation stand for? It's a set of
21 records. What do they contain?
22 A. This is criminal records, plural. Public security service
23 maintains records for individuals, and criminal records imply that
24 somebody's name is entered on any grounds, somebody who was convicted or
25 against whom a criminal report was filed and then subsequently rejected.
1 For example, it could be a person who committed a traffic offence. This
2 is the nature of criminal records. If somebody is reported and if
3 somebody's vetted and if it is established that somebody's name has never
4 been entered into the criminal records, then that person does not have to
5 be checked any further. But if somebody's name is there, additional
6 checks should be carried out in order to see why the name is there,
7 whether it was due to a crime he committed or an offence. Yesterday, I
8 spoke about that because in my professional work, on several occasions I
9 wanted the -- this type of criminal records to be abolished completely.
10 MR. JORDASH: Sorry --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: I was just trying to help the translator.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's appreciated. I think everyone feels the need
15 to assist you. Where I failed to do that I see the parties assisting.
16 And if you would do the same, Mr. Milosevic, the problem might even
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me summarise then. If
19 somebody's name was recorded in criminal records, that doesn't mean that
20 person was convicted. And even if that person was convicted, nobody
21 knows why, it has to be checked. This is just an indication for the
22 operative who is engaged in the vetting procedure to make further checks
23 as to why that person's name is in the criminal records.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could all unnecessary microphones please be
25 switched off. Thank you.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I would also like to ask you to explain to all of us whether when
3 it comes to criminal records, are -- is information about conviction
4 erased after a certain time for some crimes?
5 A. Yes, that exists. Convictions can be erased and this is
6 precisely regulated by the laws of the Republic of Serbia, especially by
7 the Law on Criminal Procedure. But that exists everywhere, in all the
8 laws, in all the states, and all the lawyers who are sitting here today
9 are familiar with that.
10 Q. And now I would like you to look at paragraph 384, footnote 368.
11 We're talking about your report, obviously. In here you -- you're
12 talking about reservists and the conditions that they have to meet in
13 order to join the ministry. Could you please shed some more light on
14 this. Would one of the conditions for joining the ministry be that
15 somebody was never convicted of a crime or an offence, or perhaps that
16 that person should have not been convicted for certain types of crimes?
17 A. There were three conditions that were cumulative. The first
18 condition was that a person was not supposed to be convicted for a
19 certain number of crimes that I can enumerate. So this did not encompass
20 all the crimes, but just the crimes listed in here, the crimes against
21 the constitutional order, against the armed forces, against property,
22 against officials and officials duties or people who carried out official
23 duties, as well as crimes committed for personal gain or for
24 dishonourable motives. The other crimes, or rather, the other motives,
25 were not encompassed by that first condition and this is in
1 sensu stricto, to put it in very legal terms. So it was a strict legal
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I have just one more question for you.
4 I would like to call up 65 ter 6455. It's a Prosecutor's 65 ter
5 document, also under seal. Mr. Milosevic, I would like the upper
6 right-hand part of this document to be blown up for you. The B/C/S
7 version is really very illegible. Thank you.
8 Mr. Milosevic --
9 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry --
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. -- I'm not asking you to --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
13 MS. MARCUS: We need to be in private session for this. I can
14 explain once we're in private session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
16 [Private session]
11 Page 19270 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have one question which arises from
3 Mr. Petrovic's re-examination. Apart from that, I have one question
4 which I simply by error omitted from my cross-examination. I do
5 apologise for that. With your leave, I would put those two questions to
6 the witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 Further cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:
9 Q. Mr. Milosevic, in response to Mr. Petrovic's re-examination you
10 said -- you were discussing, you recall, the document P979, which is the
11 document about the movement of weapons at Golubic. The header has
12 Republic of Serbia and SAO Krajina on it. Do you recall the document?
13 A. I recall the document and I believe that you were the one who
14 showed it to me first.
15 Q. That's right.
16 MS. MARCUS: Could I please request the court officer to call up
17 P2623. It's a public document. I'd like, please, page 5 in English and
18 page 1 in B/C/S. The B/C/S is very small. It's the bottom right-hand
19 Article 3 that I'd like to focus on. Perhaps that could be highlighted
20 in the B/C/S version. Thank you.
21 Q. What you see before you, Mr. Milosevic, is a referendum -- a
22 decision from a referendum that took place in the SAO Krajina. The date
23 of the referendum was the 17th of May, 1991, and as you can see it was
24 decided in this referendum under Article 3 that the:
25 "Territory of SAO Krajina is part of the sole state territory of
1 the Republic of Serbia."
2 So when -- now that -- the date of this is the 17th of May. The
3 date of the document about the movement of weapons at Golubic is from the
4 16th of June; in other words, this referendum decision precedes the date
5 of that document. So when you said, quote, today at page 18, line --
6 page 18, line 16:
7 "The Republic of the SAO Krajina is not part of the
8 Republic of Serbia ..."
9 Actually, according to the decision of the SAO Krajina, in fact,
10 your answer was incorrect; therefore, the header on that document was
11 quite logical. Wouldn't you agree?
12 A. Your Honour, I really did not pay attention to the date on this
13 document and put it in the context of this. However, this does not say
14 that this document is illogical. Even if what you're saying is true and
15 I made a mistake, I apologise, but Mr. Petrovic's question did not
16 concern the heading. The question concerned the body of the text and I
17 went on to explain mistakes in the body of the text. When you examined
18 me about this document, I said that it didn't make too much sense. I
19 don't know whether I repeated that the second time around.
20 Mr. Petrovic's question was about the text, and the body of the text is
21 somewhat confusing. There's no logical sequence to the word order in
22 that body of the text. That's what I was talking about.
23 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I'll just read you the particular question that
24 I'm referring to and your answer, and this is not about the body of the
25 text. Mr. Petrovic asked you, quote, this is page 18, line 13:
1 "Have a look at the heading, the Republic of Serbia and then it
2 says SAO Krajina. Given the constitutional order at the time, is such a
3 heading possible from a technical point of view?"
4 Your answer:
5 "No, that's absolutely illogical. The Republic of the SAO
6 Krajina is not part of the Republic of Serbia and the training centre
7 Golubic, and so on and so forth. I don't know. It's very strange."
8 A. I don't know why it shouldn't be strange. According to the
9 constitution of the Republic of Serbia, SAO Krajina wasn't there. This
10 is a decision made by the SAO Krajina. I don't know what you mean. In
11 the Serbian constitution, as far as I remember, this was not recorded,
12 and the constitution is the ultimate document, the supreme document.
13 When there is a clash between a by-law or a law and the constitution, the
14 constitution prevails. I don't remember that it is recorded in the
15 constitution. I apologise if I'm mistaken, but we can easily establish
16 that if we look at the text of the constitution.
17 Q. Mr. Milosevic, all I'm trying to ask you, if that document was
18 prepared in the SAO Krajina and a month previously they had determined in
19 a referendum that they are part of the Republic of Serbia, then it's
20 quite logical that that would be the header on that document from that
21 perspective. Would you agree with me?
22 A. Yes, what you're saying does make sense.
23 Q. Mr. Milosevic, I have one previous question that I had neglected
24 to ask you on cross-examination, and it's quite an obvious one. Did you,
25 yourself, attend the Kula awards ceremony in 1997?
1 A. What do you have in mind specifically? I'm not sure what you are
2 talking about.
3 Q. We earlier saw -- I showed you a clip. This was where I forgot
4 to ask you that question. I showed you a clip of some individuals.
5 There was an awards ceremony that took place at Kula in 1997. I just
6 neglected to ask you if you had attended that yourself.
7 A. Of course not. I have already told you that I was not a member
8 of the service at the time, so I don't know how I could have been there.
9 My answer to your question is no.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. I recognised those individuals, but I knew them from before, from
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I understand.
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have no further questions. The only
15 point I wanted to raise before we would conclude is the issue of the
16 unsourced assertions chart, which we do intend to tender, that's the
17 joint revised version following our meeting with the Simatovic Defence.
18 We did offer the witness an opportunity to comment on it. I just didn't
19 want -- I wanted to notify the Chamber at the point where the Chamber is
20 comfortable to excuse the witness, that that is still outstanding. And
21 since I intend to tender it, I wanted to raise that now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask
24 you to allow me to put two questions to the witness that arise directly
25 from my learned friend's questions, and then I would like to comment upon
1 what my learned friend said about the table, about the materials that
2 were used. So first I would kindly ask your permission to put two
3 questions to the witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I allowed Ms. Marcus to ask a question which she had
5 forgotten, so let's be generous. You may ask the questions which you
6 have on your mind.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Further re-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, in Serbia in the -- or in the
10 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was a constitutional regulation or any
11 other by-law passed by which the Serbian Krajina or the SAO were
12 incorporated into the constitutional order of Serbia or the
13 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
14 A. No.
15 Q. An official of the MUP of Serbia, was he duty-bound by the
16 constitutional order and laws of the Republic of Serbia?
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. Is it then logical that the document that we saw, P979, that its
19 author was somebody from Krajina who was duty-bound by the laws of
20 Krajina and who, therefore, put the Republic of Serbia SAO Krajina, in
21 keeping with the decision that we subsequently saw; is that logical?
22 A. Yes, that's absolutely logical.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have
24 no further questions. And I'm awaiting your instructions as to when we
25 may deal with the second issue that my learned friend raised.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may deal with it immediately -- no, perhaps we
2 first deal with a few other matters.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milosevic, I take you back to the document where
6 all the posts are listed and where the names are filled in and where the
7 existence or not of criminal record was recorded. Do you remember that
8 document? You said it was used on a permanent basis. I asked you about
9 on what your conclusion was based. I've heard your answer. But I've one
10 or two additional questions. If you say "on a permanent basis," from
11 when to when? What period would be covered by that document?
12 A. Your Honour, it should have been used from the moment when a unit
13 was established until the moment it was disbanded, which means for the
14 whole length of its existence. I'm sure that it was used from 1993 when
15 the unit was established and thereafter.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Until?
17 A. Probably until the moment when that unit was either disbanded or
18 reorganised. I really don't know what term to use. However, for as long
19 as that unit existed, that document must have been unit -- that document
20 must have existed, because that's the nature of the document.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But could you give me the second date, so from
22 August 1993 until when; more precisely, the date when it was disbanded or
23 the month?
24 A. In my report it is stated when that was. If you want me to, I
25 can go and read from my report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you just give the date --
2 A. Until the moment the special operations unit was established, and
3 that was in 1996 when a new book of rules was established because a new
4 unit, the unit for special operations, was established. That is my
5 opinion. That's how things should have transpired, I believe.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we find approximately 150 names filled in
7 on this document where the number of posts was significantly higher. Do
8 you have any explanation for only such a small number of posts filled in
9 with names and all the other posts just left open?
10 A. Your Honour, it is customary for such documents to envisage more
11 posts than is realistic at any given time or at least at the time when
12 the unit is established. There are usually more posts than persons who
13 are hired, but it's my assumption - and we're talking about facts - I'm
14 assuming that there is more posts because once the organisation is
15 established it's very difficult to add posts to it. However, I have
16 already told you that I was not able to establish how many posts were
17 filled at any given moment in time. I don't know how many people were
18 actually employed at times.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it's approximately one-third only of the
20 posts being filled. You said there were 438 posts, I think, only
21 one-third filled. Is there any further explanation? Because I can
22 imagine that you take a surplus of 10 per cent or 15 or 20 per cent, but
23 to say that the organisation is three times as big in -- than it really
24 was. Do you know anything about it or do -- you just don't know anything
25 about it?
1 A. No, no.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now for a period of three years - and you are very
3 much interpreting the document and you are thinking in terms of
4 logic - now, for 150 -- approximately 150 posts filled in, would you
5 consider it normal and would it be in accordance with, I would say
6 general experience, that during those five years only five names were
7 stricken out and often not even replaced by others, whereas all the
8 others remain unchanged for a document of which you conclude that it was
9 used on a permanent basis.
10 A. I really know nothing about that and I can't comment on the
11 issue. I don't know what I could say about it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I would --
13 A. I apologise, Your Honours. It's a fairly short period of time, a
14 three-year period, not a 30-year period. So this is a fairly short
15 period of time, so perhaps that answers your question. But I really
16 can't answer it in concrete terms because I have no knowledge about that
17 and I don't want to speculate about it in an unrealistic manner. This is
18 a factual issue.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but directly related to your interpretation of
20 this document, would you agree?
21 A. Yes, but as I have already emphasised - and I'll do that again if
22 necessary - in my opinion this is a public document and one assumes that
23 such public documents are correct unless the contrary has been proved. I
24 have no reasons to have any doubts about this document, and this is the
25 basis on which I accepted the document when I worked and drafted -- when
1 I worked on and drafted by expert report.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not exploring whether the report is true or not.
3 I'm exploring your conclusion as what the character of this document is.
4 And you say, well, for a period of three years changes, personnel
5 changes - we do not even know whether stricken-out names are changes or
6 errors or whatever - but 3 per cent in three years you consider quite
7 normal for the composition of a unit -- I mean 3 per cent changes --
8 possible changes in composition, you consider that in line with, I would
9 say, general knowledge of staffing of a unit. That is a change on the
10 basis of 1 per cent for a whole year for 150 persons. Is that consistent
11 with your experience of how organisations are, the flow of persons within
12 an organisation?
13 A. Your Honours, I don't have any actual experience in the matter.
14 I've already said why I accepted the document and why I deemed this
15 document to be a relevant one. I really cannot say what percentage would
16 be realistic in relation to the changes in posts. So I really have no
17 information to be sure about this. It's difficult for me to assess
18 whether this is realistic or not. I, quite simply, don't have any such
20 JUDGE ORIE: Finally you are very much working terms of logic.
21 Do you find it logical that for three years in time no commander is
22 appointed for such a unit?
23 A. I don't think it's illogical, since the deputy commander was
24 there throughout the period of time and performed his duties and in the
25 commander's absence the deputy commander performed his duties. And in my
1 opinion, there's nothing illogical or unrealistic or odd about that.
2 There was an individual who performed all the necessary duties within
3 that chain of command. I have no other information.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, I know that. But it's not common for
5 organisations to be without the top person for three years. I mean, to
6 say if the commander is not there his duties would be performed by the
7 deputy commander, I would even think at a certain moment that you would
8 say let's appoint the deputy commander commander because we do not intend
9 to appoint a commander. Why leave him in the position of deputy
10 commander? It's -- you say you find it very -- well, not illogical. Is
11 that logical?
12 A. I don't know, Your Honours, why a commander was not appointed.
13 But it's logical for there to be an individual who was at the top of the
14 chain. That was necessary for things to function normally. But as for
15 the position of commander, and so on and so forth, well, that's a
16 specific position and perhaps that's why they didn't find anyone
17 adequate, anyone appropriate for that post. But it's a factual issue and
18 it's something that should be explored with those who exercised a certain
19 influence over the decisions taken. It would be logical if there wasn't
20 a person who was appropriate for that post. That would be logical.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I move to a totally different matter,
22 which was your last answer given yesterday. We went through that. You
23 had some -- Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours, for
25 interrupting you. But I think that the last sentence wasn't correctly
1 interpreted. I do apologise again for interrupting you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we should verify that first. The last answer
3 the witness gave a minute ago; that's the one you're referring to?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [In English] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you guide me a bit more, at the beginning or
6 at the end?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that the last
8 sentence is ambiguous. The last sentence in the last answer, I don't
9 think it's sufficiently clear.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Would it make any sense if I would start reading by
11 it would -- at "it would be logical," or would you like me to start
12 reading earlier?
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The last two sentences,
14 Your Honour, the last two or three sentences. I think that if one read
15 out the last two or three sentences, that would be sufficient to see
16 whether that is what the witness actually wanted to say.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 I read to you part of your last answer. You said, when you had
19 commented on whether any adequate person could have been found, you said:
20 "But it's a factual issue and it's something that should be
21 explored with those who exercised a certain influence over the decisions
22 taken. It would be logical if there was a person who wasn't appropriate
23 for that post. That would be logical."
24 I understood that to be a logical explanation for not having
25 appointed a commander. Is that what you intended to say?
1 A. It was difficult for me to follow all that. What I wanted to say
2 is that my opinion is that perhaps an adequate personnel solution was not
3 found, and therefore the commander was not appointed. They didn't find
4 an appropriate person. They didn't find an appropriate personnel
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If that's what you wanted to say, then the
7 matter has been clarified, Mr. Petrovic.
8 Finally talking about last answers, about yesterday, your last
9 answer yesterday, I'll read to you - and this is only the informal
10 response at this moment - I'll read to you how it was translated to us
11 initially, and then I'll read to you how the corrected translation is.
12 You remember the sentence about the link and it was translated to us
13 yesterday as follows:
14 "Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked.
15 Somebody who is chief of sector or department and someone who is a
16 special advisor or who occupies a certain position" - that was how it was
17 translated to us yesterday.
18 Now, the amended interpretation reads as follows:
19 "Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked in
20 some way. Somebody who is chief of department and someone who is a
21 special advisor and prior to that a chief ..." that is how the corrected
22 translation is.
23 Is there any need for you to further clarify or to explain or are
24 you satisfied with how this translated now? I do understand now of
25 course it's translated back to you. If you would like to listen to what
1 you said yesterday, we could play it for you.
2 A. No, no, there's no need, Your Honour. But yesterday it says
3 someone who was chief of sector. You can see that here. The sector is
4 something else. It's a narrow body. This is better today, but I think
5 these were my words, someone who is chief or the deputy chief, and so on
6 and so forth, but it's not necessary to go into all the details. I do
7 agree with this. Someone who had a certain position in the service
8 should have been familiar with such things. The translation is fine.
9 I just didn't want this statement to be controversial in relation
10 to what I have testified here. One of the accused was the chief of the
11 service and the other was the deputy chief. I didn't want there to be
12 any problems. I didn't want it to appear as if I had said something
14 JUDGE ORIE: We wanted to have your words clear on the record.
15 Mr. Petrovic, the matter --
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think we have heard the witness unless there is
18 any other translation issue involved here.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but the latest problem is
20 page 50, line 14, the chief of the service and the other was the deputy,
21 but now it was not correctly interpreted. It doesn't say the deputy of
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat, Mr. Milosevic. One of the
24 accused was the chief of the service, and the other you said was chief --
25 A. He was the deputy chief of the 2nd Administration; that means an
1 administration within the service.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 I have no further questions. If there are no questions further
4 for the witness, this concludes your testimony, Mr. Milosevic. You've
5 showed the -- no. Can we deal with the other matter when the witness has
6 left or would we need to --
7 MS. MARCUS: From my perspective we can. It was that I planned
8 to tender the unsourced assertions agreement and we had offered the
9 witness -- it's up to Mr. Petrovic. From my perspective, I think based
10 on our agreement, I'm comfortable to tender it based on our discussions.
11 If Mr. Petrovic disagrees, then I just wanted to raise it before the
12 witness was excused.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, do we need the witness for that?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not quite sure
15 about what my colleague has said. Why? Well, for the following reasons:
16 First, I would like to explain the process that we were involved in, my
17 learned friend and the Simatovic Defence. I understood the instructions
18 and the purpose of the process, which is to assist colleagues from the
19 Prosecution to do their work when cross-examining Mr. Milosevic. To that
20 end, we met last Friday and we tried to answer as many questions as
21 possible, questions put by my learned colleague. But these are the
22 answers that we tried to provide on the basis of our knowledge without
23 having consulted Mr. Milosevic. So what the document contains, the one
24 discussed by my colleague, concern our attempts to interpret the sources
25 that Mr. Milosevic had. As to whether our interpretation is adequate or
1 not, well that is an open question. We have done our best to be of
2 assistance, but as to whether everything is in accordance with
3 Mr. Milosevic's position, well that can't be said.
4 And there's one other thing I would like to point out --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to be clear. What apparently the
6 Prosecution intends to tender is a list of assertions and with it the
7 position of the Prosecution as far as the sourcing is concerned and the
8 position of the Defence as far as the source or basis of knowledge or
9 expert opinion is concerned. And it may be clear that this is not
10 verified with the witness itself; it's just the interpretation of the
11 parties. Have I understood?
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think the matter is clear -- Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: If it's the appropriate time, I'd like to object to
17 that procedure. In our submission, it's an attempt by the Prosecution to
18 make submissions at a time which is not appropriate and at a time when,
19 one, we the Stanisic Defence have not had an opportunity to contribute;
20 and two, many of those comments relate to paragraphs which may, in fact,
21 not be paragraphs where there's any contention between the Prosecution
22 and Defence; and thirdly, it's an issue also for resources, that the
23 Prosecution have a huge amount of resources. They can sit there drafting
24 submissions and forcing the Defence into a position where they have to
25 respond to them at this stage and it's an advantage which they ought not
1 to be able to use. The time for submissions is coming up very soon and
2 we can all make submissions about the reliability and the credibility of
3 Mr. Milosevic's report.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Does it in any way bind the Stanisic Defence? You
5 say this is not the time for argument.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes. I mean, we could have done the same with
7 Theunens. We could sit there and make submissions and say to the
8 Prosecution, You've got to respond now. I'm sure --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know whether it's the position of the
10 Prosecution that the Stanisic Defence was to respond now or that it's
11 just put on the record what the position of the Simatovic Defence, who
12 called the expert witness, and the Prosecution is; no more, no less,
13 isn't it?
14 MR. JORDASH: Sorry --
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 MR. JORDASH: -- Your Honour, I'm not following what Your Honour
17 just said. Sorry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, two parties apparently find it relevant to
19 inform the Chamber as to their positions in relation to the sources,
20 basis of assertions which these two parties have found in the report,
21 leaving it entirely open whether the Stanisic Defence, at whatever time,
22 would like to present a different position.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour, I'd understood -- maybe I've
24 misheard, and I may well have done that. The Simatovic team objected to
25 this as well. But if they don't then, well, I think I'll withdraw my
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then I missed it, as a matter of fact. It was --
3 let me check with my colleagues.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, all three of us understood the position of the
6 Simatovic Defence as not opposing what their position is, although
7 sometimes briefly explained in this chart. But if that is a
8 misunderstanding, Mr. Petrovic, then please tell us.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I wasn't
10 sufficiently clear. I've tried to explain the procedure, the purpose, of
11 what my learned friend and I did. The process and objective was to
12 facilitate her cross-examination, and not to comment on the sources. I
13 just wanted to be of assistance. I didn't want to state anything that
14 might be considered to be evidence because I can't do that without the
15 person who was the author. That's the first matter. So this document in
16 itself is not reliable because it contains some of the Defence's
17 positions that are perhaps adequate and perhaps aren't adequate with
18 regard to what the witness would say if he was asked about this.
19 And then secondly, my learned friend's approach is such that with
20 regard to every sentence, with regard to every allegation, they want to
21 have a source. They forget that this is an expert who expresses
22 opinions, who bases this on his expert experience, and all of this cannot
23 be referred to in a footnote. So this approach excludes the validity of
24 this document. It seems that if there are hundreds of allegations that
25 haven't been backed up and that's quite simply not the case because we
1 have an expert witness here and the expert has his own knowledge and his
2 own experience.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So what you want to say is that you object, after
4 having explained what happened?
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In brief, yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll -- then we don't need the witness
7 any further for this. I think we should first excuse the witness.
8 Ms. Marcus, you would agree that we can deal with the matter
9 without the witness.
10 Mr. Milosevic, this concludes your testimony in this court. I
11 would like to thank you very much for coming a long way and for patiently
12 answering all the questions that were put to you during quite a number of
13 days. I wish you a safe return home again. You may follow the usher.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move to the next witness, Ms. Marcus, you
17 said you intended to tender it. May I take it that you hereby have
18 tendered it?
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It's uploaded as 65 ter 6490.
20 Now, the earlier version prior to our meeting was translated into B/C/S,
21 but of course we made revisions to it jointly. So the revised version
22 will have to be submitted for translation.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.
24 MS. MARCUS: [Overlapping speakers] this -- that is this version,
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think -- but the gist of the document the Chamber
2 can assess on the basis of what we have seen.
3 MS. MARCUS: I believe so, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then would you like to add anything in support
5 of admission?
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Only to point out that frankly I
7 understand Mr. -- I agree with Mr. Petrovic's assessment of what this is.
8 These -- he did endeavour to assist us and we're -- appreciate that.
9 These were assertions in the report which we couldn't determine what the
10 source was. We just couldn't determine it. Now, it may be because we
11 missed something, but that was the purpose of having our meeting. And as
12 a result, a number of lines were taken out and the Defence had an
13 opportunity to explain their position as to the parts of the report,
14 which although we say are not sourced and there should have been a
15 source, where their view is that his academic knowledge is the source, so
16 his expertise. So I think this is -- this is a submission. I'm in the
17 Chamber's hands as to whether it should be filed as a written submission
18 or admitted as an exhibit for the Chamber's reference. And I think it's
19 quite clear what this is.
20 Now, with respect to Mr. Jordash's point about him not having had
21 an opportunity, I'm in the Chamber's hands. It's true, he didn't join in
22 the discussion. He may have the Stanisic Defence's view to input onto
23 this. And so for that I leave that in the hands of the Chamber. I think
24 it's quite clear -- I should also add one more point. This does contain
25 a lot of information about what the potential sources are. Without this,
1 the Chamber might not have access to those sources. It's a
2 cross-referencing tool. Some of it is clearly explained and I left those
3 in. We agreed to leave those in to assist the Chamber because some of
4 Mr. Petrovic's guidance as to which paragraphs were actually sourced to
5 the same document, et cetera, were quite helpful, in fact. So this is
6 essentially a tool to assist the Chamber with the Prosecution and
7 Simatovic Defence positions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, your position was specifically referred
9 to. Any further comment?
10 MR. JORDASH: Only that it -- it's -- in our submission, it's
11 just not fair that the Prosecution can effectively raise a subject during
12 cross-examination -- during examination of a witness as if it's pivotal
13 to the examination of the witness, and then having obtained the
14 information from the Defence then say, Well, actually now it's a
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, brief, please.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a few sentences.
18 If someone claims that there are dozens or hundreds of allegations that
19 haven't been backed up in the expert report, the best method to deal with
20 the matter is to ask the person what the allegation is. The Defence was
21 asked about this after the witness had taken the solemn declaration. The
22 Defence has been doing its best, but the Defence has certain limits
23 because we're in a different position from the position of the witness.
24 And from what point of view the value of this material is limited, if
25 non-existent. What the Defence thinks is -- perhaps is in accordance
1 with what the witness might say, perhaps not.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies admission of the document,
4 Ms. Marcus. Now, of course it -- Madam Registrar, purely for the record,
5 do we need to know what document was denied admission because then it has
6 to -- if we have the 65 ter number, then we don't need --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, I can state, yes, that's the
8 document 6490.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And admission is denied.
10 Then I'm looking at the clock. I think we should take a break
11 now, resume at 12.30, and then hear the next witness. But I can imagine
12 that we'd first like to deal with the matter in private session for a
13 second. But if there's anything else at this moment.
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I was just wanting to note, it would be
15 our request to deal with the documents in connection with this witness as
16 soon as possible. I don't know what your -- what the Chamber was
17 planning in terms of timing of that. There are quite a lot of pending
18 exhibits that haven't been tendered, and Your Honour has requested that
19 we be proactive in trying to not put things off for housekeeping
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. MARCUS: So in line with Your Honour's instructions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We -- Madam Registrar, I think you have looked
24 at the many documents on the list to be tendered. There was one double
25 in it. There was one marked not admitted, if I remember well.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar needs a bit more time to digest the
3 list which she received only this morning. That's -- and that time will
4 be given to her.
5 Mr. Petrovic.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one more
7 sentence that maybe should have been uttered earlier. At the
8 Prosecutor's request, the expert has prepared a list of literature and
9 explanations. We received that through the Victims and Witnesses Unit.
10 This has been uploaded as 2D1689 and I believe that this should be joined
11 to the list of documents for admission. We still don't have a
12 translation for the document. This is pending, but I believe that this
13 will be provided shortly because the document was submitted through the
14 Victims and Witnesses Unit on Monday, if I'm not mistaken.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Pending translation, we'll of course not admit the
16 document, but would there be any principled objection against having it
17 admitted once the translation is there?
18 MS. MARCUS: No objection, Your Honour. In fact, we would also
19 like it to be admitted.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then 2D1689 is marked for identification under what
21 number, Madam Registrar?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Under number D853, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we are waiting for the translation.
24 Madam Registrar, the documents which were tendered by the
25 Simatovic Defence, do we now have the -- have the parties received the
1 list with the numbers and the documents?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Not yet, Your Honour. The list will be filed
3 this afternoon.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Will be filed this afternoon. Then we'll decide
5 once it's there on admission.
6 Then finally I'd like to go and -- unless if you'd prefer to have
7 the break now, we'll take the break now.
8 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll start after the break briefly in private
10 session. We take a break and we'll resume at 25 minutes to 1.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to start with delivering an oral decision,
14 which is the decision on the Prosecution's request to re-call
15 Radenko Novakovic. Radenko Novakovic testified as a Stanisic Defence
16 witness before this Chamber from the 4th to the 7th of October, 2011.
17 During his testimony, the Prosecution indicated the possibility of a
18 future request to re-call the witness in order to confront him with
19 materials yet to be received from the Republic of Serbia. The Chamber
20 subsequently instructed the witness not to communicate or speak about his
21 past or future testimony until further notice of his possible re-call.
22 The discussion and instruction can be found on transcript pages 14168 up
23 to 14170 and 14221 of the trial transcript.
24 On the 24th of April, 2012, the Prosecution filed a confidential
25 motion seeking leave to re-call Witness Radenko Novakovic for further
1 cross-examination. On the 1st of May the Simatovic Defence orally
2 submitted that it did not oppose the motion. On the 3rd of May, the
3 Stanisic Defence informed the parties and the Chamber through an informal
4 communication, which is hereby put on the record, that it did not object
5 to the re-call of Witness Novakovic.
6 In its motion, the Prosecution seeks further cross-examination on
7 witness-related documents that the Serbian authorities made available or
8 made available in unredacted form only after the testimony of
9 Witness Novakovic. The Prosecution also argues that the Stanisic Defence
10 had not given proper notice of the elicited testimony and of related
11 documents before the witness began to testify. Finally, the Prosecution
12 wishes to question Witness Novakovic about a document relating to members
13 of the alleged joint criminal enterprise, which was purportedly authored
14 by the witness but tendered by the Stanisic Defence only after his
15 testimony, as well as to confront him with entries from the Mladic
17 Pursuant to the Tribunal's case law, a Chamber shall, in
18 determining whether there are sufficient grounds to re-call a witness,
19 consider whether the requesting party has demonstrated good cause to
20 re-call the witness. In assessing good cause, the Chamber will consider
21 the purpose of re-calling the witness and the applicant's justification
22 for not eliciting the relevant evidence from the witness when he or she
23 originally testified.
24 In determining whether the Prosecution has shown good cause to
25 re-call Witness Novakovic, the Chamber takes into account that the
1 witness's personnel file was only received by the Prosecution on the
2 8th of November, 2011. Similarly, there were other documents that were
3 provided to the Prosecution by the Defence only after the testimony of
4 Witness Novakovic.
5 The Chamber also considers that the Prosecution may not have been
6 in a position to assess the relevance of previously redacted documents.
7 The Chamber considers that the Prosecution was not fully able to question
8 the witness in respect of the redacted document and was not able to
9 question the witness at all in respect of the documents not yet in its
10 possession. As regards the Mladic diary entries, the Prosecution has not
11 explicitly argued good cause for why it did not put those to the witness
12 at the time of his original testimony. Nonetheless, taking into account
13 that there are no objections to the witness's re-call and the fact that
14 the missing documents may also have hindered the Prosecution's ability to
15 assess the relevance of documents already in its possession, the Chamber
16 will not limit the parameters of the re-call in relation to the Mladic
17 diary entries mentioned in the Prosecution motion.
18 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution
19 has shown good cause to re-call Witness Radenko Novakovic and therefore
20 grants the motion.
21 The Chamber reminds the parties that they continue to be under an
22 obligation to refrain from any contact with the witness prior to the
23 conclusion of his testimony, as they have been since the
24 7th of October, 2011, when the Chamber gave its instructions to the
25 witness. In addition, the Stanisic Defence is hereby instructed to
1 ensure through the Victims and Witnesses Section that the witness is
2 informed about this decision and that he appears directly after the
3 conclusion of the testimony of the last Simatovic Defence witness. The
4 Chamber also invites the Prosecution to inform as soon as possible the
5 parties and the Chamber of the estimated time needed for the
6 cross-examination of Witness Novakovic. This concludes the Chamber's
8 We move into private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 19298-19305 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Mr. Plahuta, you have already given your solemn declaration when
10 we were in private session. You'll now first be examined by Mr. Bakrac.
11 Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Examination by Mr. Bakrac:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Plahuta.
16 A. Good day.
17 Q. Before I commence, I would like to ask you that since we speak
18 the same language, you should make a brief break between questions and
19 answers so that the interpreters can correctly interpret my questions and
20 your answers.
21 A. Very well.
22 Q. I apologise, Your Honours. The interpreters are suggesting that
23 I use this. With your leave, just a moment.
24 Mr. Plahuta, be so kind to tell us for the sake of the transcript
25 your date of birth and place of birth.
1 A. The 10th of December, 1970, in Kladovo, in the Republic of
3 Q. Your name is Dejan Plahuta. Do you have a nickname that you are
4 known by?
5 A. Svabo [phoen].
6 Q. Could you tell us something about your educational background.
7 When did you complete your schooling?
8 A. I completed primary school in Bajina Basta where I enrolled in
9 the secondary mechanical school. I didn't complete my education in that
10 school. At the time I was more attracted by the army and by work. After
11 the army I could complete my education later, which is what I
12 subsequently did.
13 Q. If I have understood you correctly, you completed or you
14 interrupted your education in the secondary mechanical school, and what
15 did you do then?
16 A. When I interrupted my education, I went to perform my military
17 service in Knjazevac.
18 Q. Could you tell us when you performed your military service and
19 when did you return from your military service and where to?
20 A. I performed my military service in the very same year, in 1998
21 [as interpreted], September 1998, and I went to Knjazevac to perform my
22 military service there. I spent several months there, and I was then
23 sent to be a part of the border service, and that was at the border with
24 Bulgaria. I returned one year later in 1989.
25 Q. When you say that you returned, where did you return in 1989?
1 A. In 1989 I returned to my place of residence which is Perucac in
2 Bajina Basta.
3 Q. Mr. Plahuta, the transcript says that you went to perform your
4 military service in 1988. Let's just try and correct that. Is that
5 correct, when did you go to perform your military service?
6 A. In 1988 and 1989.
7 Q. Thank you. Mr. Plahuta, when you returned to Bajina Basta, what
8 did you do up until 1990?
9 A. When I returned to Bajina Basta, I found a job in a state-owned
10 company called Pik Takovo in Gornji Milanovac. It had a branch in our
11 area and that's where I found a job.
12 Q. Can you tell us how long you worked in that firm Pik Takovo and
13 what happened when you left?
14 A. I worked in Pik Takovo for one year until the end of 1990. I was
15 there for a year and then it was no longer necessary to work there
16 because half of the company had stopped working and I then went to
17 Bajina Basta for a military exercise. I was called to go to Bajina Basta
18 for a military exercise.
19 Q. Mr. Plahuta, this is just an introduction, but very briefly
20 within which military unit were you? How long were you involved in this
21 military exercise? And where was this?
22 A. I spent about two months in that military exercise. It was in
23 Zaovine, and it was with the border service of the Uzice Corps because
24 the Uzice Corps -- well, it covered our area, the whole area,
25 Bajina Basta. Throughout the area we had the Uzice Corps. I remained
1 there for about two months. This procedure was a regular procedure and
2 every soldier would go through that procedure after he had performed his
3 military service. This had to be done after a certain period of time had
5 Q. Afterwards were you called up again at some point in time to join
6 the army, the JNA at the time?
7 A. Well, afterwards, after that I was called up in 1992 and, no,
8 earlier than that. Before that I worked in a company for a year. Then I
9 was called to join the regular, active army, the Army of Yugoslavia or
10 the JNA as it was called at the time.
11 Q. Can you tell us when this was, who called you up, and to join
12 which unit? How did you join the unit in question?
13 A. That was perhaps in September 1992. They called us. There was
14 some sort of a competition for contractor soldiers, for professional
15 soldiers. I -- whoever responded would go to the military department in
16 Bajina Basta, they would register there, and afterwards the individual
17 would be deployed in units on the border at the Drina, and this was
18 within the framework of the Uzice Corps naturally.
19 Q. Did you sign some sort of a contract with the Uzice Corps at the
20 time; and, if so, for how long?
21 A. Well, I signed a contract in October for a period of six months.
22 I signed this contract with the Army of Yugoslavia. And at the time I
23 was deployed in Bajina Basta in the village of Bacevci, and I was part of
24 the border service or I think it was the Border Battalion of the
25 Uzice Corps.
1 Q. Mr. Plahuta, for the sake of the transcript you said in October
2 you signed a six-month contract with the army. In October of which year?
3 A. 1992, in October 1992.
4 Q. When you signed the contract you said that you were first in the
5 village of Bacevci. What sort of duties did you have to perform there
6 and where were you transferred to in order to complete the remainder of
7 your contract there?
8 A. I spent about a month, a month and a half, in the village of
9 Bacevci and we went on patrol along the border by the Drina River there.
10 Afterwards, as my place of residence was in Perucac, they helped me by
11 sending me to Kralu [phoen] in Perucac about a month later. That was at
12 the beginning of December of the same year. Naturally, I had the same
13 duties. I had to go and patrol and protect the state border there.
14 Q. Mr. Plahuta, when your contract with the army expired, did you
15 extend it; and, if not, why not?
16 A. No, I did not extend it. I did not extend my contract with the
17 army. I had a minor clash with an officer in relation to a certain
18 incident, so naturally as my existence depended on this we went to see
19 some officer who was responsible for that domain. We asked: Will we
20 remain here after the contract has expired? Will we still have duties to
21 perform? And then he was brazen and there was a squabble. He said, Why
22 should I care about you? Something like that. My contract expired a few
23 days earlier -- in fact, we left the Army of Yugoslavia before the
24 contract expired, a few days before that.
25 Q. Mr. Plahuta, while your contract was still valid and when you
1 were in Kralu in Perucac, do you know whether there was an attack of any
2 kind launched against Skelani and Bajina Basta; and, if that was the
3 case, do you remember when it was launched?
4 A. Since it's the village of Skelani, it's the the border of our
5 sector that our Kralu protected. Naser Oric attacked Skelani in
6 January 1993. This was in mid-January at the time of the Serbian new
7 year. I can't remember the exact date. Was it a day earlier or a day
8 later -- but it was the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 16th. It was during that
9 period that the attack was launched.
10 Q. Were there any consequences of the attack for the bridge in
11 Bajina Basta and for the town of Bajina Basta?
12 A. Yes. Fire was opened from a Browning 12.7-millimetre
13 machine-gun. I think that was the calibre because the cartridges were
14 found. The bridge and town were fired on and two mortar shells fell in
15 the very centre of the town on that same day.
16 Q. When you say in the very centre of the town, what town do you
17 have in mind?
18 A. Bajina Basta. Only a bridge separates Bajina Basta from Skelani.
19 Q. Can you tell us how the population reacted to that attack?
20 A. The population started fleeing the town over the next few days
21 because fire was opened on several occasions and there was a random
22 bullet trace here and there. People started looking for shelter. They
23 started locking themselves in their apartments and the town was literally
24 deserted. Only the troops were there, nobody else.
25 Q. Was that an alert sounded and were there any other forces besides
1 the regular army troops?
2 A. We were on first degree -- or a first-level alert in our
3 border-crossing service. We had to be prepared for combat. Everybody
4 had to return from furlough, from vacation. They all had to return. And
5 the police, together with us, stepped up their activities on the border
6 crossing. They patrolled the area in their cars. They surveilled the
7 area in certain places.
8 Q. At the moment of attack where were you?
9 A. At the moment of attack I was in Perucac in the barracks on the
10 border crossing.
11 Q. The attack that we are discussing at the moment, did it result in
12 the forces from Bajina Basta in the territory of Serbia crossing over to
13 the territory of Skelani and Republika Srpska?
14 A. Yes. Over the next several days some elements of the Uzice Corps
15 crossed over as well as the corps of the special forces of the
16 Army of Yugoslavia. They were on the strength of the 63rd Parachute, the
17 72nd Brigade and the special brigade. Those were special forces in our
19 Q. You said the 63rd Parachute, the 72nd Brigade, and you also
20 mentioned a third unit?
21 A. Yes, I mentioned the Guards Brigade.
22 Q. Did some police forces cross over?
23 A. No police forces crossed over. There was no need for them to
24 cross over to the territory of a different state, to come to Skelani, to
25 be more precise.
1 Q. Could you please tell me how do you know that? How do you know
2 that the police forces didn't cross over?
3 A. Because at my watch-tower, at my border crossing, we followed the
4 rule according to which the soldiers and the officers at the watch-tower
5 and the border crossing had to be kept up to speed. The commander thus
6 told us which forces had crossed over and that the police were only doing
7 their job on the other side, that we should co-operate with them, that we
8 should agree with them as to what to do during night patrols, day
9 patrols, if they put up their surveillance service we should not overlap
10 with them. We were in contact all the time with the police, so I know --
11 I'm a hundred per cent sure that what I'm saying is true.
12 Q. Do you know if the Uzice Corps, once the troops crossed the
13 Drina River ended up in the territory of Skelani municipality, had some
14 sort of co-ordination, some sort of relationship with some of the forces
15 from Republika Srpska?
16 A. As far as I know and based on what my commander told us, they
17 relied on the Drina Battalion of the Army of Republika Srpska.
18 Q. Mr. Plahuta, can we now look at a document, 2D1667. While we are
19 waiting for the document to appear on the screen, this seems to be a
20 document issued by the Drina Corps on the 25th of January, 1993. It was
21 sent to the command of the Uzice Corps to Drina OG through the 1st Army
22 operations centre. It says here the Drina Corps is engaged in
23 accomplishing the task's code name Proboj, and there is a reference to
24 the contact line with the enemy. Do you know, are you familiar with the
25 places mentioned in here, the villages of Kamenica, Cerska, Skugric,
1 Pobudje, Slatina, Suceska, Gunjace, and Podrinje village. Do the names
2 ring a bell?
3 A. I heard of those villages. I know more or less where they are,
4 but I've never been there so I can't tell you that. I know them, they do
5 ring a bell. They're not far from the border.
6 Q. And what about the village of Sase, does that ring a bell?
7 A. Yes, it does. I heard of that village.
8 Q. A bit later I'm going to show you a map and we're going to try to
9 locate those villages in that map. And now let me ask you, does it say
10 in the penultimate paragraph:
11 "We shall endeavour to cut the Zeleni Jadar-Zepa road."
12 Do you know where Zeleni Jadar is? What road is this document
13 about between Zeleni Jadar and Zepa?
14 A. I know where Zeleni Jadar is. I know where Zepa is as well.
15 Zepa is up the stream from our sector where we secured the state border.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Plahuta.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to show
18 the witness two or three more documents where some places are mentioned.
19 And then I would like to ask the help of the witness to reconstruct the
20 locations of those places in a map.
21 Can we now look at 2D1670.
22 Q. And while we're waiting, Mr. Plahuta, the document was compiled a
23 day later on the 26th of January. It seems that the command of the
24 Uzice Corps sent a dispatch to the Main Staff of the
25 Army of Republika Srpska to the command of the Drina Corps, that is.
1 Tell us, please, before you look at the document, who was the commander
2 of the Uzice Corps while you were there?
3 A. General Ojdanic.
4 Q. I would like to draw your attention to the second bullet point in
5 this document, where it says:
6 "Part of the forces used so far to provide artillery support will
7 be retained on the right bank of the Drina River, from where we will lend
8 support to your forces as per plan and request."
9 First of all, do you know anything about the artillery support
10 that was provided by the Uzice Corps to the Drina Corps?
11 A. As far as I know, that was done at two places. One of those
12 places was Oslusa on Tara mountain and the other one was the
13 Perucac-Mitrovac road.
14 Q. Mr. Plahuta, under 3 it says:
15 "The Uzice Corps will continue operations in order to seize the
16 most favourable features and positions. We will duly inform you of the
17 time to take over the lines reached by way of a separate order."
18 When we're talking about seizing the most favourable features and
19 positions and lines reached, what part of the territory is meant?
20 A. I suppose that it was the part of the territory in East Bosnia,
21 which they wanted to liberate from Naser Oric's forces.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now look at
24 Q. Mr. Plahuta, this is a telegram seemingly again from the
25 commander of the Uzice Corps, Dragoljub Ojdanic. It was compiled on the
1 27th of January, 1993. Under 3 there is a reference to the line that the
2 Uzice Corps had taken up. And it says:
3 "Up until now we have inflicted losses on the enemy in the
4 village of Mlecova, Jagodnja, Joseva, Daljegosta, Arapovici, Pavkovic,
5 Tihici, Milicevici, Osmace, Tokoljak and Jezero."
6 Are you familiar with these names? Do you know where these
7 villages are?
8 A. These villages are all in East Bosnia and they are all close.
9 Some are closer and some are further away from the state border, but they
10 are all in the same sector, more or less.
11 Q. In here we can see that TG 2 will attack in order to take the
12 village of Kusici, Kadrici, and further on towards the village that that
13 attack will continue. Are you familiar with the names of the villages of
14 Kusici as well as Jezero or the lake?
15 A. Yes, Kusici does ring a bell. I'm also familiar with Jezero
16 lake. Once upon a time a fair -- a village fair used to be held there.
17 It's a plateau in East Bosnia and I'm familiar with the village of Kusici
18 because --
19 Q. Mr. Plahuta, I just wanted to show you that map. My time is
20 running out. I want to connect the three documents. I would like to
21 call up for 2D1688. It's the map that I referred to earlier.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But looking at the clock, Mr. Bakrac, I think the
23 map has to be dealt with tomorrow because we'll adjourn for the day.
24 Mr. Plahuta, we would like to see you back because we're not
25 sitting tomorrow. We'd like to see you back in the afternoon of
1 Monday, the 14th, at quarter past 2.00. I think it will be in the same
2 courtroom, but you'll be informed about that. Madam Registrar says that
3 we're in the same courtroom.
4 I have to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone
5 about your testimony, whether that is testimony you have given today or
6 testimony still to be given next week, not only not to speak or not to
7 communicate in any way with anyone about your testimony.
8 Mr. Bakrac, I observed that the evidence you have elicited from
9 the witness over the last ten minutes is whether the witness knows where
10 certain places are and where these places are. I think one minute with
11 the map could have provided that information. I do not think that
12 there's much dispute between the Prosecution and the Defence about
13 geographical matters. So therefore, whether we really have to show a map
14 to the witness and spend another five or seven minutes to find out where
15 these locations are, I wonder whether that's the most efficient way of
16 proceeding. You asked him one question about the most favourable
17 features. That was the one question of any substance and then the
18 witness answered: I suppose. Apparently he was not familiar with the
20 Could you please keep that in mind when preparing for the
21 continuation of your examination-in-chief. We adjourn for the day and
22 we'll resume Monday, the 14th of May, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon
23 in this same courtroom, 2.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of
1 May, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.