1 Monday, 19 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.54 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Mr. Lukic, the Chamber was informed about the reasons, although
12 very superficially, the reasons for the late start today. The Chamber
13 was also informed that there may be some remaining concerns. If that
14 ever needs to be addressed, don't hesitate to address the matter and
15 we'll -- of course, we'll then hear it either in private session or just
16 as you wish in open session.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wanted
19 to raise a preliminary matter.
20 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Mr. President, and good morning.
21 Your Honours, on Saturday afternoon we received an updated
22 exhibit list from the Defence with about 25 non-associated exhibits,
23 15 of which were neither available in the e-court nor on their original
24 65 ter list. We haven't received any significant indication what the
25 witness is going to say about these documents.
1 Now, at this point, of course, I'm not really able to ask for
2 specific relief because, not knowing what the witness is going to say,
3 it's very hard for me to tell if the Prosecution is prejudiced, but just
4 to lay down a marker that this had happened and that it may be that it's
5 necessary for us to seek relief depending on how the direct examination
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand direct examination for which an
8 extended time has been requested. Further, if the Chamber has looked at
9 it well, then it seems that for 12 of the exhibits no translations are
10 available, which of course, Mr. Lukic, is not what we'd expect to happen.
11 But I think we should do the same, to see how matters develop. But I
12 express already the concern of the Chamber on how the Defence proceeded
13 in this respect.
14 Further, before we ask the witness to enter the courtroom, there
15 is one matter which is about the court hearing of tomorrow. Tomorrow the
16 session will be a bit shorter. At least if my colleagues would decide
17 that they would continue to hear the case because I am, for personal
18 reasons, unable to attend the session tomorrow. But I was informed that
19 if my colleagues would decide that they would continue to hear the case
20 it would be until 12.00 tomorrow, so that's two slightly extended
22 This being on the record, could the witness be escorted into the
24 MR. TRALDI: Just as he is, Your Honour, two brief matters. I've
25 been informed, and I'd just ask Mr. Lukic to confirm, that based on the
1 Defence having circulated a schedule reflecting that tomorrow's protected
2 witness is fixed. If today's witness is not concluded, then tomorrow
3 we'll commence with I believe it's GRM097.
4 MR. LUKIC: That's right.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then I'll have to look at that in further
6 details to know exactly what that requires. Thank you for putting it on
7 the record.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber wonders whether the witness
10 just referred to would be only available tomorrow?
11 MR. LUKIC: No.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It is --
13 MR. LUKIC: He can stay until he finishes, only we want to start
14 with him tomorrow if possible. If not, then we will start on Wednesday.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's understood. Yes, we may need a bit of
16 time as well to consider the situation in relation to that witness.
17 Please, let's wait until the witness enters the courtroom.
18 MR. TRALDI: The final matter just related to this witness,
19 Your Honour, is it's my understanding the witness received 90(E) advice
20 in his testimony in the Karadzic case. I anticipate some of the
21 questions that I ask him today may trigger the same concerns that gave
22 rise to that advice in his previous testimony.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, as you know the Trial Chamber always
24 leaves it to the party where the point has come that a 90(E) information
25 has to be provided to the witness because we do not know what questions
1 will be put when.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness. Before you give evidence,
4 the Rules require that you make the solemn declaration that you'll speak
5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Can you hear me
6 in a language you understand, Witness? Apparently not.
7 Could the volume be higher. Can you now better hear --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- the translation?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The -- Witness, before you give evidence, the Rules
12 require that you make the solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth,
13 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out
14 to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
16 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: DRAGAN KIJAC
18 [Witness answered through interpretation]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
20 Witness, you'll first be examined by Mr. Lukic. You'll find
21 Mr. Lukic to your left. Mr. Lukic is counsel for the Prosecution -- for
22 the Defence.
23 Mr. Lukic, I --
24 MR. LUKIC: Probably if I do my job badly I could be for the
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm doing my job badly at this moment,
2 Mr. Lukic. That's the situation. Apologies.
3 MR. LUKIC: No problem.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Examination by Mr. Lukic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Kijac.
8 A. Good morning.
9 MR. LUKIC: I would kindly ask the usher to provide Mr. Kijac
10 with his statement in hard copy. Thank you.
11 And can we have on our screens 1D04898, please.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kijac, on the screen you see this document,
13 and it's before you in hard copy as well. At one point in time, did you
14 give a statement to the members of Mr. Karadzic's Defence team?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we take a look at the last page
17 of this document in both versions.
18 Q. Can you recognise the signature on this page, Mr. Kijac?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Whose signature is it?
21 A. My own. And the date is the 30th of November, 2013.
22 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this statement earlier on?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As you and I worked through this statement, did we find some
25 abbreviations that were entered erroneously?
1 A. Yes. People weren't paying attention. National security, state
2 security, and so on. And then I didn't even notice myself, when I was
3 giving this statement, that in some cases when there is a reference to
4 the period from the 1st of April, 1992, instead of saying the "National
5 Security Service" in certain paragraphs it said "SDB," which is an
6 abbreviation for the State Security Service. And that pertains to
7 several paragraphs, as a matter of fact.
8 MR. LUKIC: So only for the record we would state that this
9 mistake was made in paragraphs 49, 51, 61, and 63. The acronym "SDB" was
10 wrongly used, instead of "SNB," which was the correct abbreviation or
11 acronym for his service from April the 1st, 1992, until the beginning of
13 And in paragraph 65, acronym "SDB" was wrongly used instead of
14 "RDB," which was the correct abbreviation or acronym for his service in
15 1994 and 1995.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that the witness will have a look at
17 it and confirm that the testimony you gave a second ago is accurate,
18 Mr. Lukic?
19 MR. LUKIC: Then we can go paragraph by paragraph. Then we --
20 JUDGE ORIE: No, if the witness would --
21 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Did you provide the witness with a -- with the
23 information report?
24 MR. LUKIC: Not in English, but I jotted down in conversation
25 with him.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
2 Witness, would you have a -- perhaps you -- you'll be given a
3 small note on which paragraphs 49, 51, 61, and 63 are mentioned, and
4 would you check whether indeed in those paragraphs the acronyms were
5 wrongly used. And the same is true for paragraph 65. Although there, it
6 is "SDB" what was used where it should be "RDB."
7 Could you check that during the first break, and if -- could --
8 could a little note be given to the witness with the numbers of the
10 And then we'll hear from you after the break.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Apart from these mistakes in terms of the use of
14 acronyms for your service, what about the rest that was recorded in this
15 statement? Was it recorded rightly by the members of Mr. Karadzic's
16 Defence team?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all other
18 microphones please be switched off. Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. What is recorded in this statement, to the best of your
22 knowledge, is it correct and truthful?
23 A. Yes. It was done on the basis of the documents that the
24 investigation team of Mr. Karadzic provided to me during preparations and
25 while I was giving this statement.
1 Q. If I were to put the same questions to you today, would you give
2 the same answers?
3 A. Certainly. Basically the same answers.
4 MR. LUKIC: At this moment we maybe should ask for the statement
5 to be MFI'd until the witness checks whether there are the -- use of
6 acronym was correct or incorrect.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you already assign a number
8 so that it can be MFI'd.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D4898 receives Exhibit Number D1292,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
12 Witness, you said it's based on the documents. This Chamber is
13 interested in your personal knowledge. So therefore, the accuracy or the
14 truthfulness of your statement could not depend on any documents shown to
15 you because what we are interested in is what you can tell us.
16 But may I take it that whatever you have stated as your personal
17 knowledge, that you can attest that that's fully in accordance with the
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since our judiciary
20 system is quite different from the one here, I, as a former employee of
21 the judiciary, went through this statement and I looked at every sentence
22 and every paragraph and tried to confirm everything I said by certain
23 documents. To remember things 25 years later is rather difficult. So
24 this statement is primarily based on the documents that were shown to me,
25 because I now could not exactly say when I was appointed head of the
1 service if I don't see the document involved, or when the service changed
2 its name from the service of national security to the other name, and
3 which exact number of the assembly session it was. But apart from all of
4 this, I will make every effort to speak to the best of my recollection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that in some respects your
6 recollection was refreshed by looking at the documents but that your
7 answers were all truthful. That's clear now.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I just want to inform
10 Your Honours that there was some problem with the document number of the
11 document in paragraph 51, since the numbers used in this statement were
12 numbers from the Karadzic case, and Mr. Traldi pointed out to me that we
13 used one wrong number in our submission, written submission, 92 ter
14 written motion for this witness.
15 So we just want to tell you that the number noted in this
16 statement is correct. Not the number that we mentioned in our motion.
17 So there is nothing wrong with the statement but only with our motion,
18 and it's 65 ter number from paragraph 51. 01948 should be the correct
19 one and not 09148 as it was mentioned in our motion. Obviously it was
20 just a typo.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the P number stands for in that same
23 MR. LUKIC: We will --
24 JUDGE ORIE: 12 July --
25 MR. LUKIC: -- that's correct -- yeah, that's correct number from
1 Karadzic case.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's the P number from Karadzic.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
5 MR. TRALDI: Just for completeness, I wonder if I could ask
6 Mr. Lukic to also put on the record the correct 65 ter in our case.
7 Because the way it came up was the annex to the 92 ter reflected the
8 right 65 ter number in the Mladic case for Karadzic 65 ter 09148 but not
9 for 01948, the document actually used.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes. In our case it's 65 ter number 040681.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: A lot of numbers.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 I will read statement summary and I will have questions for this
16 witness afterwards, with your leave. Thank you.
17 Dragan Kijac began his career in state security in 1983 when he
18 was appointed inspector and supervisor for the republican Secretariat of
19 the Interior, State Security Service for Yugoslavia.
20 Before the war in February of 1992, he noticed that Sarajevo
21 police was totally divided along ethnic lines and that within the
22 Sarajevo secretariat there was complete mistrust between personnel of
23 different ethnicities.
24 Worsening of interethnic relations was also caused by the efforts
25 of the SDA to take over all key positions in the Ministry of the
2 Mr. Kijac witnessed first barricades in Sarajevo and took part in
3 their removal and calming the overall situation.
4 He was also a member of the CSB group that visited the SJBs of
5 Novo Sarajevo and Novi Grad. He saw a greater number of people armed
6 with long-barreled weapons. They were members of the reserve police
7 force who had been activated without his knowledge, although he was the
8 city secretary at that time. His delegation was received in a very
9 hostile fashion and they were not even allowed to address the police
10 officers. It was obvious to him that almost all the police at those
11 stations came from Muslim ethnic group.
12 At the beginning of April 1992, he spent one weekend in Pale area
13 outside Sarajevo. On his way back home, he learned that barricades had
14 been set up again at a number of places in the city, that there was
15 shooting at a number of places, and that no one could enter or leave
16 town. At that moment he decided to remain in Pale area with his family
17 and place himself at the disposal of the MUP of the Serbian Republic of
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina which had, in the meantime, been established in
20 When the war broke out in 1992, Dragan Kijac was appointed chief
21 of the Sarajevo National Security Service Sector of the Ministry of the
22 Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He later
23 became the head of the State Security Service of Republika Srpska
24 Ministry of the Interior.
25 Mr. Kijac will explain functioning of the State Security Service.
1 Mr. Kijac will explain existence of various groups inside his service
2 like Tajfun, Milos, and others. Dragan Kijac later served as a minister
3 of the interior in the Republika Srpska government and deputy
4 prime minister.
5 That was short statement.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kijac, now I would like to move on to your
9 statement, paragraphs 40 through 43. You speak about the members of the
10 Tajfun group, then Milos, then --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the English version page 43 is on
12 page 9 and it is page 16 in B/C/S.
13 [In English] So we need paragraph 43, the next page in B/C/S
14 please. Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] In paragraph 43, you say, from the middle of the
16 paragraph onwards:
17 "Soon afterwards, the members of the group were arrested by the
18 RS MUP."
19 You're referring to the Tajfun group. I quote further on:
20 "I heard of the Milos group for the first time after the arrest
21 of the Tajfun group."
22 Can you explain this to us? Is there any kind of relation
23 between the two, and if so, what is it? The Tajfun group and the Milos
24 group, that is.
25 A. The Tajfun group was created sometime during 1991, the same as
1 the Milos group. But the Tajfun group was created on Mr. Karadzic's
2 order, the president of the republic, because they were made available to
3 him on General Uzelac's suggestion. They were there to inform him about
4 the situation in Croatia in order to try to see a spillover of the war
5 into Bosnia-Herzegovina. These people were mainly from the military
6 structure, and some of them were also close to the civilian security
8 The Milos group was created in a different way, though. The
9 Serbian State Security Service recruited a number of people so as to
10 create a basis for information from Krajina. In addition to the people
11 who were supposed to forward information from Croatia, these people were
12 duty-bound to send information about paramilitary activities in Bosanska
13 Krajina. So the Tajfun group was informing President Karadzic, and the
14 Milos group forwarded their information, given that the man in charge was
15 from the State Security Service, instead of forwarding information to his
16 own service he was forwarding it to the Serbian State Security Service.
17 Later on they were transformed and merged into a single service.
18 We can see that through a number of documents about the Tajfun and Milos
19 group. There came a period where their activities overlapped and they
20 were then merged so as to remain in the field, because by way of my
21 orders and the orders of President Karadzic, they were supposed to have
22 been disbanded at some point.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we next look at 65 ter 19880.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe before we go on, Mr. Lukic, can I just get
25 clarity here.
1 Sir, you're talking of the Milos group forwarded the information
2 to the Serbian State Security Service instead of to the State Security
3 Service. Could you give us the difference between these two
4 institutions? This -- the State Security Service belonged to which
5 government, and the Serbian State Security Service to which government?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps either you or I used the
7 wrong acronym of SDP. They were supposed to have been forwarding
8 information to the SNB at Pale, and instead they were forwarding it to
9 the National Security Service of Serbia.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Before us is a document dated the 29th of January, 1994. It is a
13 dispatch, and we see your name at the bottom. What does this dispatch
15 A. Under the constitution and law, there could not have been two
16 services with the same sphere or activity. In Republika Srpska, there
17 was -- there was a parallel work done by the state national security and
18 the Tajfun. That is why we insisted with President Karadzic to disband
19 the Tajfun, because there were complications in the field. We were often
20 confused with the other group and the other way around.
21 Sometime on the 28th of January, 1994, President Karadzic ordered
22 that this service be terminated. I informed of that all our centres in
23 the field in writing so that they would be made aware that the Tajfun
24 group should no longer exist. And if they did continue working, it would
25 be against the law.
1 I have to stress, though, that we had negotiations with the group
2 on several occasions. The first variant was to terminate the group at
3 the same time incorporating it into the state -- National Security
4 Service. They were offered certain positions in the service, and it took
5 almost a year, the entire process. However, they refused and continued
6 working independently, and then the president ordered that they be
7 disbanded immediately. Irrespective of the president's orders, they did
8 not do so, and later on they were arrested in late 1994, in September or
9 October, I think.
10 The similar story developed -- a similar story developed with the
11 Milos group. In 1992, when I was appointed chief of the National
12 Security Service Sector, I also sent a similar dispatch to our centres
13 informing them that I was appointed to the position. I also forbade any
14 independent communication with the State Security Service of Serbia;
15 i.e., I provided instructions that all information obtained by the
16 centres in the field have to be sent to the SNB centre, and the
17 headquarters was then to decide which documents were to go to the Serbian
18 State Security Service. We did have a law on co-operation with them and
19 we did co-operate in quite a fair way, though.
20 Q. Was this co-operation with Serbia fair throughout, or were there
21 ups and downs.
22 A. There was many peaks and troughs in the political sense. As far
23 as we were concerned, we tried to do our work professionally. Serbia
24 wanted to know whether the war from Bosnia could spill over into its own
25 territory and whether some regions where Muslims lived could become
1 involved, as well as whether there were any terrorist groups being
2 active. They were interested in any potential plans which would possibly
3 draw Serbia into the war.
4 They were also interested in not seeing the war spill over into
5 Croatia the same way it came from Croatia into Bosnia. So if I can say
6 so, they were interested in capital information.
7 MR. LUKIC: It's time for break.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we had a late start --
9 MR. LUKIC: Or I should to continue.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's continue for ten minutes. We have a
11 little bit less time this morning anyhow than --
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I would just offer this
13 document into evidence.
14 MR. TRALDI: No objections, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 19880 receives Exhibit Number D1293,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D1293 is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Could you tell us who was the personnel of Tajfun and Milos, if
21 you can remember?
22 A. I can't say. I can't mention any names today. I do know that
23 the Tajfun was headed by Branko Ratic and Predrag Radulovic headed the
24 Milos group. He had previously worked in the security services centre in
25 Banja Luka. In terms of members, I don't remember any names.
1 Q. Thank you. Let's look at another document.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 1D06122.
3 Q. Before we see it on the screen, let me ask you this: What did
4 you do when you found out about the Milos group?
5 A. Given that the Tajfun group had been arrested by that time and
6 some sort of co-operation was already established, then we realised that,
7 inter alia, they received some of their information from the National
8 Security Service; i.e., that in the National Security Service Sector in
9 Banja Luka, there are people linked with the group. When we found out
10 that the group was forwarding its information to Belgrade without us
11 knowing, we terminated the employment of Predrag Radulovic.
12 Q. The document before us has not been translated, and I will read
13 it out slowly so that everyone is aware of what it's about. It is a
14 document of the state security centre in Banja Luka, dated the 4th of
15 November, 1994. The reference is to Predrag Radulovic, a mutual
16 agreement on termination of employment. It is signed by the State
17 Security Sector chief, Kesic, Nedeljko.
18 How come there was a consensual termination of Radulovic's
20 A. Standard practice in services such as ours is not to terminate
21 employment unilaterally. Usually it is a matter of consent. Had we
22 decided to do it unilaterally, there would have been a disciplinary
23 procedure instituted. We would need to submit a criminal report for
24 unauthorised disclosure of information that is state secret, irrespective
25 of whether he co-operated with a friendly or enemy security service. In
1 order to deal with it as painlessly as possible, we sat him down and
2 agreed with him that it would be best if his employment were to be
3 terminated, if he initiated the termination so that it would be
4 consensual under the law.
5 It was not the first case of that nature. I worked many years in
6 the State Security Services and most such instances were dealt with
7 through the use of this instrument, even when the situations concerned
8 involved criminal offences.
9 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we would ask for this document to be
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D06122 receives Exhibit Number D1294,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
15 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, can I just ask that Mr. Lukic provide
16 provenance information as to this.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Kijac, do you know how this document came into the possession
20 of the Defence?
21 A. I don't know. I can see that the document is original. It is
22 signed by the chief of centre. It comes from the State Security Sector
23 in Banja Luka. I see the date. But I can't say how somebody could
24 obtain this document. It must be somewhere in the personal file of
25 Mr. Radulovic. This document is somewhere in the Ministry of the
2 MR. LUKIC: And we inherited it from Karadzic team, so they
3 obtained the same.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. TRALDI: I'm satisfied.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, of course, if the witness doesn't
7 know it, it's -- I mean, you could have directly answered the question
8 that: We got it from the Karadzic Defence. Because that's apparently --
9 MR. LUKIC: I thought maybe he gave it to Karadzic Defence,
10 that's why I didn't want to lead.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why, yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we scroll the document down, please. Let's
13 see the full page.
14 Is it usual, Mr. Kijac, that a document of this nature would not
15 have a -- have an official date stamp?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am surprised to see that there is
17 no stamp. But in terms of a filing number, we see it there. We see the
18 date. Maybe this is one of the copies in existence. I can't say. But I
19 suppose this document would have been received in my office with a stamp.
20 It is possible that this copy may have been kept in the centre in
21 Banja Luka.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you just said in answer to Mr. Lukic's
23 question that it is -- that this is an original. Now you're saying it's
24 a copy.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that an original was sent
1 to me. This was proposed by his chief of centre, his immediate superior,
2 and the document was sent to Pale. Mr. Nedeljko Kesic was not the person
3 who could terminate his employment. I was in charge of doing that as the
4 head of sector. And you can see that in the attachment to this document,
5 there was a request by Mr. Radulovic. I was the one to terminate his
6 employment. Kesic could not do that. The legal service was in -- at the
7 headquarters in Pale. They would draft the document and I signed it. I
8 suppose this copy is from his personal file where a copy remains and the
9 original was sent to Pale. That would be my explanation.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm getting a little confused, sir. You earlier
11 said that you didn't know where this document comes from. Now you're
12 saying it must have been sent to you because you were the one who could
13 terminate that employment.
14 Does this document refresh your memory as to whether you did or
15 did not receive a request to terminate this employment?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did terminate his employment --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: So -- so you --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but I don't --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: So can you then tell us the origin of this
20 document, the provenance of this document? Apart from saying that you
21 saw it in the Karadzic case.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The source is the Banja Luka centre
23 of the State Security Service. It has it -- their register number. I
24 probably received an original with a stamp. I need not have had it in my
25 hands personally because it is sent to the legal affairs department, and
1 the head of that department also has the right to sign such documents in
2 my absence when it comes to termination of employment. In my view, this
3 is an authentic document without a stamp. In all likelihood, this
4 document was sent to the headquarters of the service and in that case it
5 did have a stamp and signature. I don't know if you are with me.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am not with you because you're confusing me
9 further. Earlier you said you received this and it does refresh your
10 memory, you terminated this. Now you're saying you may not have received
11 it because it was sent to the centre. I'm not quite sure whether you, as
12 you stand here, did or did not receive this document. Because now you're
13 telling -- you're saying that it came into the centre, you may not have
14 read it.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, Your Honour, initiating
16 employment and terminating employment comes from lower-ranking
17 organisational units to the top of the service; i.e., any proposal on
18 initiation or termination comes from the CSBs such as the Banja Luka one
19 in this case. It could have been Doboj, Bijeljina, Sarajevo or
20 Herzegovina, that is to say, Trebinje. All of that comes to the
21 headquarters of the service and there the service drafts decisions. I
22 can't say with any certainty whether I saw this document. It does
23 refresh my recollection in the sense that I am aware that his employment
24 was terminated and that he was employed later on with the service. But
25 this piece of paper does not tell me anything else, anything other than
1 that specifically.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I give up. I've got several answers to the
3 same question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, it looks as if you're reconstructing what
5 may have happened, whereas Judge Moloto is primarily interested in what
6 you remember that you personally did at the time or saw at the time.
7 Mr. Traldi, you're already for a while on your feet.
8 MR. TRALDI: Just to raise, and I see we're at the time
9 Your Honour had identified for the break, but just to say that we'd
10 checked our records as -- I noticed after I stood up that there is an ERN
11 on it and we'd received it from CSB Banja Luka.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's then ...
13 Mr. Lukic, the witness referred to an attachment. I've not seen
14 any attachment at this moment. Is that -- is it there or --
15 MR. LUKIC: It says on the bottom --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: -- of the left corner, attachment 1.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But do you know the attachment?
19 MR. LUKIC: It must be his request, Radulovic's request.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have it?
21 MR. LUKIC: It's not with this document --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have it --
23 MR. LUKIC: We do not have it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You do not have it, but the witness apparently knew
25 what it was about because that's what he said.
1 We'll take a break first.
2 Witness, would you please take your statement with you and check
3 the paragraphs whether they actually indicate what the paragraphs were
4 that underwent the changes in the acronyms.
5 Has the witness been provided with -- yes, the witness has been
6 provided with the numbers of the paragraphs as well.
7 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. We can take a break.
8 You may now follow the usher.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes past 11.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into
14 the courtroom.
15 I perhaps could already briefly deal with a short matter. On the
16 8th of October of this year, the Defence has filed a motion to,
17 inter alia, add Dragan Vujicic to its 65 ter witness list.
18 Given that the Prosecution indicated on the record on the 6th of
19 October that they did not object to this witness providing his evidence
20 via videolink -- video-conference link, the Chamber understands that the
21 Prosecution also has no objections to the Defence adding this witness to
22 its Rule 65 ter list. We consider this to be implied.
23 Is that well understood?
24 MR. TIEGER: Precisely, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Chamber hereby grants the Defence's
1 request to add Witness Dragan Vujicic to its Rule 65 ter witness list
2 with written reasons to follow in due course.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: It may even be that we provide the reasons orally,
5 so the announcement that these will be written reasons should not be
6 taken too strictly.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome back, Mr. Kijac. Could you confirm that the
9 corrections as far as the acronyms are concerned should be made in
10 paragraphs 49, 51, 61, and 63, where instead of "SDB" we should read
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In paragraph 49, line 1,
13 instead of "SDB," it should read "RDB."
14 Further on in the same paragraph: "Therefore, I was surprised to
15 hear this information of the SNB." It should be "RDB."
16 Your Honour, this service from 1992 was called SNB, but from 1994
17 onwards it was the State Security Sector, and this is probably why this
19 I see in paragraph 51 as well. The first one where it says "SDB"
20 it should be "RDB," and probably it was not noticed because, say, 61,
21 RDB/ -- also RDB, SDB, so at one point it was the National Security
22 Service and later on it was the State Security Sector.
23 Also in paragraph 63. And in paragraph 65, the last paragraph --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all other
25 microphones please be switched off. We can barely hear the witness.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I was speaking too fast.
2 I'm not sure that you can follow everything that I've been saying.
3 So the official name of the service from the 1st of April --
4 rather, the 4th of April, 1992, was the National Security Service. And
5 from 1994, it was the Sector for State Security.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then paragraph 65?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 65, this very last
8 sentence pertains to the period of 1995, so the "SDB" in the last
9 sentence is wrong. It should be "RDB." The last sentence in
10 paragraph 65.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's hereby corrected.
12 Madam Registrar, could you remind me what number was assigned
13 when the statement was MFI'd so that it can be admitted? I think it's
15 D1292 is admitted into evidence.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Just another clarification, please. After the
19 1st of April, 1992, up until the end of the war, was there ever a service
20 within MUP that would have the acronym SDB?
21 A. No. So from 1992 the official name of the service was the
22 National Security Service, and then from 1994, I think it was the
23 36th Assembly Session, the law was changed, and then the National
24 Security Service was renamed the State Security Sector.
25 Q. Thank you. We had a document before us, D1294. That's the MFI
1 number. There is no translation. However, I'm going to ask you only
2 whether you recognise the signature on this document.
3 A. By all means. It is Nedeljko Kesic, the head of the RDB centre
4 in Banja Luka.
5 Q. Thank you. I'm sorry I keep jumping from one thing to another
6 now, but we have to go back to your statement again.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] D1292. We need pages 8 in English
8 and 13 in B/C/S.
9 Q. We need paragraph 35 of your statement. This is what you say
10 here -- actually, you speak about being appointed acting undersecretary
11 for the SNB in the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH, and further down
12 you say in the second half of this paragraph:
13 "I informed the organisational units of the service that I was
14 taking over the post of undersecretary and in the same document
15 prohibited the hiring of new staff without the approval of the
16 responsible supervisor and direct contacts with services outside the RS,
17 which had been common practice before my appointment."
18 You told us about the problems with Tajfun, Milos. Was there any
19 other group?
20 A. We did not know about groups, but there were certain individuals.
21 How do I put this? They operated in a similar way, in a way similar to
22 the Milos group. At that time, we did not know that much about it. It
23 was only later, when documents became available and when the many years
24 went by, I saw that there were groups -- or, no, rather, individuals who
25 had contacted other services and provided certain information to other
1 services. I can say that often this was misinformation based on
2 one-sided assessments, and that is why we insisted that the communication
3 with the Serbian service should be at the level of the two services, not
4 organisational units on the ground.
5 Q. The transcript does not reflect whether you said that there was
6 direct communication between operatives themselves?
7 A. Yes, I said at the level of operatives who were contacted by
8 operatives of other services and then through them they gave certain
9 information about the situation in Republika Srpska. But I'm saying that
10 very often this was unverified, one-sided information that individuals
11 could not view in their entirety because they were at a lower rank in the
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now let us take a look at another
15 document that hasn't been translated. I think that it's the last
16 untranslated document that we will be looking at, 1D06123.
17 Q. We see that this is a document of the basic court in Teslic. The
18 document was written on the 12th of October, 2001. It is being sent to
19 the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. And the
20 subject is the return of court file number KI35/02. The first paragraph
21 says --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it 02 or 92?
23 MR. LUKIC: 02.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: 02.
25 MR. LUKIC: Or 92. 92. It is I think 02. No, no, it is 92.
1 Sorry. It's --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Chamber will consider whether it's 02 or
3 92. If you look at the other 0s at the top of the document, you see that
4 it's inconsistently used. Apparently sometimes there is a real 0 which
5 we find at the very top of the document, whereas for the date, for
6 example, small Os are used. And whether this is 92 or --
7 MR. LUKIC: There is a little tail but very hardly visible on the
8 first number as well.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. TRALDI: If I might assist, Your Honours, the KI number also
11 appears in the second full paragraph of the text as well as the last full
12 paragraph, and in both of those the tail Mr. Lukic is describing is a
13 little bit clearer.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I tend -- of course, I see it now for the first
15 time, but KI35-92 appears several times clearly visible. So there
16 isn't -- there is at least some reason to assume that that's also what is
17 meant in the title line. Let's move on.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. [Interpretation] So this is what is written in the first
20 paragraph, and I quote:
21 "Criminal proceedings are underway before this court registered
22 under number K52/01 against the accused Predrag Radulovic from
23 Banja Luka."
24 In the third paragraph, it says that:
25 "For reasons unknown and unexplainable, the file was sent to the
1 Ministry of the Judiciary of Republika Srpska to the assistant minister,
2 Goran Neskovic."
3 At any rate, it says that this file has been lost. There has
4 been no trace of it.
5 Do you know anything about this, about the criminal proceedings
6 against Predrag Radulovic that was taking place during those years?
7 A. If I can give the right kind of comment with regard to this.
8 First of all, against Radulovic there is this number K52/01. That's
9 2001. So I was not even in the Ministry of Republika Srpska, and I
10 wasn't even in Republika Srpska itself. I had already moved to Belgrade.
11 And then further down there is another number, KI35/92. So
12 that's completely different and --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you're not invited to comment on the
14 document. The question was whether you know anything about it.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Regarding the proceedings
16 against Radulovic, no. I was not in the Ministry of the Interior at that
17 point in time.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, did you see this document before?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I just saw it during
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You haven't seen it when you gave your
22 statement to the Karadzic Defence?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not this document. Well, I could
24 not familiarise myself with this document because this document bears the
25 date of the 12th of October, 2001. In 1990 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've answered my question, that you
2 haven't seen it at the time.
3 Of course, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber wonders what it exactly -- the
4 exact evidentiary purpose of it -- it is at this moment where the witness
5 can't say anything about it, but please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Although there is no translation, the witness does
7 not know anything about the document, but still we'll -- still we would
8 offer it into evidence. Still it has -- it can provide us with
9 contextual base in regard of Radulovic, Predrag.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I don't know what his role is in -- in the
11 Defence case, but it's indeed --
12 MR. LUKIC: We'll --
13 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has said something about it.
14 Any objections, Mr. Traldi?
15 MR. TRALDI: I --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Of course to be MFI'd first, but as far as the
17 subject matter is concerned.
18 MR. TRALDI: No objections to it be being MFI'd as a contextual
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Madam Registrar, could you assign a number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D06123 receives Exhibit Number D1295.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Next could we actually go back to
25 Mr. Kijac's statement on the screen, and it is D1292.
1 Q. While we're waiting for the document, I think there was something
2 about the transcript. You said that Mr. Radulovic had his employment
3 terminated in a consensual way with the State Security Service and that
4 later on he was again employed, but we are missing where. Was he
5 re-employed in the National Security Service? No --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly
7 repeat his answer. There was an overlap.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer, Witness,
9 because there was an overlap.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. After his termination
11 was -- employment was terminated with the State Security Sector,
12 Mr. Radulovic was re-employed in the public security service later on;
13 although, I don't know what his job was.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. We are with your statement here.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 7 in English and 12 in
17 B/C/S, paragraph 29.
18 Q. In the paragraph, you explain the chain a piece of information
19 covers from its source to the end user. In the last sentence, you say,
20 when speaking about a field operative compiling an Official Note, that he
21 needs to specify the sources of his knowledge and verify the accuracy of
23 "He forwards the Official Note to his immediate superior, the
24 chief of the branch station."
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In light of this could we look at
1 another document. It is a Prosecution exhibit, P06890.
2 Before us is an Official Note. In order to be able to follow
3 what we are talking about -- in any case, we do need the English version
4 on the screen.
5 Q. First of all, a question about the rules of service. What kind
6 of rules were they? Were they new or inherited rules? Which rules did
7 the service of national security rely on after the 1st of April, 1992?
8 A. They were inherited rules. We used the same rules that were in
9 place in Sarajevo at the time. We had no time to draft new rules. The
10 new rules were only introduced sometime in 1993 or 1994. We had no new
11 rules. We relied on the ones used in the joint State Security Service of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were identical. Only later, as time passed
13 by, requests from the field showed a distinct need for it because new
14 offices, new administrations were created, but that happened later as of
15 1993 or 1994, as I said.
16 I would like us to briefly look at a Defence document so as to be
17 able to comment upon this one before us.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] For a short while, could we have
20 Q. We have an Official Note here. Tell us whether it contains
21 standard elements required by the rules in order to be part of an
22 Official Note. And if so, please tell us what they are.
23 A. Yes. There must be a heading. There must be a number, a date.
24 There should be the name of an operative or his code of the person
25 drafting it. They also need to specify the course of information,
1 because it can be fully reliable, reliable, unverified, unreliable, and
2 so on, so they need to specify whether the information they received was
3 reliable. Of course, they also had to sign and suggest measures to be
4 taken in order to further verify the information referred to.
5 This is what an SNB document should look like. We can see this
6 one was drafted as per the rules and according to the guide-lines issued
7 on providing information within the service.
8 Q. Without referring to the name of the person who signed this
9 document, do you nevertheless know him as your operative?
10 A. Yes. (redacted)
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us now go back to the previous
13 document, P06890. Official Note.
14 Let us look at the last page in both versions. All it says at
15 the bottom is that it was drafted in two copies and "Milos" is in the
16 signature block.
17 Let us now go back to the first page, please. Let me put my
18 question now.
19 Q. According to you, does this document contain all the elements
20 necessary as envisaged by your service?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You have read the document; correct?
23 A. Yes, I had the occasion to read it twice. I also received it
24 from you some two days ago. I read it. One can immediately say that it
25 does not correspond to the template of documents produced either by the
1 sector or state of national security, at least at the time when I was at
2 its helm.
3 Q. As you yourself said, we see that the date, among other things,
4 is missing, but we can tell something from the contents. We see that we
5 don't know when the event referred to actually took place. Is this
6 customary and permissible in the way your service operated?
7 A. No. The first sentence should have contained a date, say: On
8 this or that date through contacts with a large number of sources and so
9 on. Whoever received the document cannot guess whether it was drafted
10 two months ago, half a year ago, or a year ago. Every document should
11 begin with a date: We spoke to this or that person on this or that date.
12 There is no need to mention names but at least the initials should be
13 there. And based on that, we know the time. It doesn't need to mean
14 that it was done the same day. For example, a conversation takes place
15 today and the document can be produced three days later. That is why in
16 the heading we need to have the date the document was created and sent to
17 those higher up in the chain.
18 Q. You did touch upon something that I want to explore further. Did
19 you find in the document at least a year that this refers to?
20 A. Not the way I see it. There is no date in the document
22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge about this document
23 personally about what is described here or do you have any knowledge
24 about the events described?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we don't need a witness to tell us that
2 there is no year in the document. This Chamber can read and can see
3 whether there is a reference to a year or not. This witness apparently
4 doesn't know anything about this document itself. He has explained to us
5 that this is not the usual way of drafting these kind of documents, but
6 it doesn't go that much further. And I do understand that this document
7 I think which was initially -- well, not formally introduced but at least
8 dealt with by the Defence and then more or less taken over by the
9 Prosecution, that -- let's try to elicit from the witness what he can
10 tell us from his personal knowledge and observations.
11 MR. LUKIC: His personal knowledge in regard of this particular
12 document is obviously zero, but --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
14 MR. LUKIC: -- he knows the rules.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. Okay. Yes. Then ask him about the rules.
16 You have done that. He's told us now that -- but now you are asking him
17 whether a date appears on a document on which he has no knowledge
18 whatsoever, and again we can read.
19 MR. LUKIC: But there is no mentioning of the year even. There
20 is nothing --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I mean, we can see that. I mean, don't ask
22 the witness that there is no year there because we -- we can see that
23 with our own eyes. But let's leave it to that and please focus on what
24 the witness could further tell us.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. [Interpretation] In documents such as this one, Mr. Kijac, should
2 one determine whether the information provided is verified or unverified?
3 A. It should say whether they were verified or not. If someone says
4 that the information was verified, it means that it was done by technical
5 means, i.e., a dispatch was intercepted, for example. So if a piece of
6 information is very reliable, it relies on technical source.
7 Reliable sources, however, is a combination of operative work
8 with people whom we have been co-operating for a number of years and we
9 know they provide accurate data.
10 The third classification is unverified information, meaning that
11 at that point in time we are unable to do so. In other words, certain
12 measures need to be taken to make them either accepted or rejected.
13 Q. The document was signed with "Milos." The operative who drafted
14 it, did they determine whether the information was verified or not?
15 A. No, I can't see it in the document.
16 If I may, I can offer a comment. Some things are referred to in
17 the document that have nothing to do with our service whatsoever.
18 Q. We'll go one step at a time. We see that the source were people,
19 as we can see in the first paragraph. And that it -- the information was
20 obtained through a number of sources and discussions with some officials
21 in the Teslic SJB. What needed to be done after this paragraph in the
22 document in your view?
23 A. If such an Official Note received this sector, instructions would
24 be provided to conduct official interviews with these people and to
25 forward that information to us in order to be able to gauge how serious
1 the information actually is.
2 Q. Can we see from this whether such statements were taken from
3 these people?
4 A. I didn't see that, nor did I see any such measures being
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, again you're asking the witness to tell
7 us what he reads in the document. As I said before, we can read it
8 ourselves. So if --
9 MR. LUKIC: Should I then lead him --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- nothing is said about --
11 MR. LUKIC: Should I then lead him, tell him what's --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No --
13 MR. LUKIC: -- in the document and then ask him?
14 JUDGE ORIE: No --
15 MR. LUKIC: If I do that way, then you will say "you are leading
16 the witness."
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, you just should leave it to the Chamber to read
18 this documents and not ask the witness to do that for us where he has no
19 further knowledge about the document.
20 MR. LUKIC: But, Your Honour, then I asked him further whether
21 he -- that should be done --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic, please -- please follow my
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. The member of your service who drafted your service -- this
1 document, was he supposed to notify his superiors of this?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can we see from the document whether he did inform them about the
4 contents of this information or not?
5 A. No, we can't.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're not following my guidance.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: What you cannot see from a document is not in the
10 MR. LUKIC: Exactly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Therefore we don't need a witness for that --
12 MR. LUKIC: This is the exhibit -- Prosecution exhibit. We want
13 to show what kind of exhibit we have in front of us.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you know the history of this document.
15 We excluded initially a paragraph from a statement and then it was due to
16 the Defence's actions later that finally, I think it was paragraph 133 of
17 Mr. Radulovic's statement that -- which we had excluded, that you
18 yourself triggered that it was back in evidence.
19 MR. LUKIC: That's right, Your Honour. But we [overlapping
20 speakers] --
21 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore --
22 MR. LUKIC: -- we have to challenge the document. We did not --
23 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing I'm asking you, and please follow us,
24 is that don't ask this witness what you can read from the document or not
25 because that's what we can do ourselves. And you repeatedly have done it
1 and you should stop doing it.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Were you supposed to see this paper, Mr. Kijac?
5 A. I didn't quite understand what you said.
6 Q. Maybe the translation hadn't finished. I do apologise. Have you
7 seen this document? Did you see it while you worked at the National
8 Security Service?
9 A. No, I first saw it a few days ago.
10 Q. Were you supposed to see it? What do you think?
11 A. Yes, yes, if it was written by the service, it certainly should
12 have reached the top echelons of the service by way of information.
13 Q. Had you seen it, what would you have done?
14 A. Well, probably we would have asked for statements to be taken
15 from these people, because that's the only way in which we could confirm
16 or deny these allegations. That is to say, take statements from these
17 people and on that basis compile information for the leadership.
18 Q. To the best of your knowledge, General Mladic and the
19 president of the municipality, can they issue orders to the police?
20 A. No. There is a chain of command in the police that goes up to
21 the minister of the interior, and outside that no one can interfere in
22 the interior regardless of the position a person may hold. Even if that
23 person is the commander of the Main Staff.
24 Q. On that document in this page on paragraph 3, in the English
25 version it is line 4 in paragraph 3, it says that the management of the
1 public security service requested some suggestions and opinions of
2 employees of the Banja Luka SNB concerning the performance of tasks
3 issued to them.
4 The National Security Service, can it provide suggestions and
5 opinions to the public security service?
6 A. These are two completely autonomous services, that is to say, the
7 state security and the public security. Every one of them has its
8 particular purview according to law. We are an intelligence agency and
9 we collect information. We cannot direct the work of the public security
10 service. We can provide certain suggestions. And when a particular case
11 has something to do with our work - that is to say, when we can give some
12 suggestions to the public security service to warn us about a certain
13 person crossing the border, for instance - we send a dispatch and we say:
14 If XY crosses the border, tell us about it, stop him, and so on and so
16 And now as for this leadership, they have leaders of their own.
17 You cannot explain to the chief of a station what his job is when it is
18 the law that stipulates what his job is.
19 Q. You told us that the document does not show what measures were
20 supposed to be taken by the author of this document. Were measures
21 supposed to be proposed as to the measures that should be taken?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud. Last warning.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Does one have to know who compiled the document?
1 A. According to the instructions regarding our information that we
2 had, yes, certainly.
3 Q. If a code were used as a signature, how is that code determined?
4 A. On the basis of the sector involved; that is to say, the sector
5 knows who the operative involved is at every point in time. So some
6 centres had codes. For example, A4 was for example the code-name for a
7 certain individual. I have that list and the centre has that list, and
8 if I'm interested in seeing who it was that wrote this up and if this
9 information draws your attention, then you can see what the name is of
10 the person who wrote that. So at any point when I was interested in a
11 particular paper, I could see who was the operative who wrote that
12 particular paper.
13 However, I think that Banja Luka then did not have code-names. I
14 think it was only Sarajevo at first. I'm talking about, say, 1992. I
15 think that Banja Luka never had code-names for their personnel. They
16 used their names and surnames to sign documents. So one can see exactly
17 who it was that created the document and also who typed the document and,
18 of course, who signed it so that it could be sent to the top echelons of
19 the service later on.
20 Q. This code-name Milos, do you think that it was assigned by the
21 service or how come somebody signs a document by "Milos"?
22 A. Probably this was a code-name that had been agreed earlier on the
23 basis of their contacts with another service. I find it unknown. In our
24 terminology we did not have a group named Milos or a pseudonym by the
25 name of Milos. If this were 1993, I would say that this was not our
1 document. Also, if it was 1992. Milos is totally unknown. It's only
2 later the group Milos was revealed, and then it became a bit clearer.
3 But, I mean, I didn't even see this paper.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you have any views of your own as to what kind of
5 document this is?
6 A. Well, to be honest, this document is very, very - how do I put
7 this? - written in a very lopsided way. There are certain things that
8 are mentioned here. Certain things that - how do I put this? - are not
9 grounded in what the author offered through this text.
10 Let's move on to the next page, for instance, and then I can tell
11 you about that. Could I have the next page of the document?
12 MR. LUKIC: Please, could we move to the second page.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see how this is. Milanovic,
14 Major, Vukasin, Radic, insisted. Insisted with who? And then it says
15 that that is in the media that the people in Srpska are leaving certain
16 municipalities. Then one would have to give the example of these
17 municipalities straight away. And towards the end in the last paragraph
18 it says:
19 "All of this causes revolt on the part of a large number of
20 Serbs" --
21 Oh, sorry, I really made a mistake here. Sorry about that.
22 "... that are showing interest to move out of the territory of
24 He should have said this and that municipality so that people
25 would know exactly what this is all about. Or, for instance, that this
1 is in the media. Then there should be information as to which media,
2 what article, who wrote the article, in which period. So this is really
3 very -- I mean, we have a saying that goes: Nothing but the best about
4 the dead. But I must say that Mr. Radulovic was totally illiterate for
5 this kind of work. I have to say that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think we have heard enough opinion
7 evidence now from a witness of fact. Would you please move on.
8 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I think that before we had the
9 opportunity to listen to people who have experience in that field to give
10 their opinion, although they are not experts.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why I didn't stop you earlier.
12 That's the reason why at this moment I say we moved from the knowledge of
13 the witness about how the system works to his personal interpretation now
14 and that the document in no way meets what this witness would have
15 expected from such a document. That is abundantly clear at this moment.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: I will move on then. Again we need D1992, your --
19 the statement of Mr. Kijac.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And I think we are close to your one and a
21 half-hour, isn't it?
22 MR. LUKIC: I don't think so.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think that -- but half an hour before the break
24 and close to one hour after the break.
25 Please proceed.
1 It was even more than half an hour before the break.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. So in paragraph 4 of your statement, you said that on the 6th of
5 April, 1992, you were appointed chief of the National Security Service
6 sector. And in paragraph 26, you said where it was that you had your
7 departments. That was in Ilidza, Ilijas, Pale, and Sokolac. And the
8 headquarters of the service was in Lukavica.
9 What about Trnovo, was there a department there?
10 A. No, no, there wasn't a department in Trnovo. That is to say,
11 when I was appointed chief of the Sarajevo SSNB, we had four departments:
12 Ilidza, Ilijas, Pale, and Sokolac. And the headquarters of the sector
13 was in Lukavica.
14 MR. LUKIC: Let us see P06888 now, please.
15 Q. [Interpretation] I showed you this information, this report on
16 the operation and activities of the TO command Main Staff and the
17 commanding personnel of the Trnovo armed forces. Let us look at the last
18 page of this document. It just says: State Security Service Trnovo, by
19 way of a signature.
20 So this kind of signature, department of SDB Trnovo, could that
21 have existed if somebody from your service had written this up?
22 A. No.
23 Q. I'm not going to put any questions to you because we can see it
24 from the document itself. We don't see who it was that compiled this
25 document. Should we be able to see -- if somebody from your service had
1 written this up, should we see who the author was?
2 A. Yes, we would have to see who the author was.
3 Q. It can be seen that one cannot see who this document is being
4 sent to. Is that the way it was supposed to be? Were we supposed to be
5 able to see who this document is being sent to?
6 A. Certainly. Because, in fact, had our service written this
7 document, it would have had to reach my desk. It's May 1992.
8 Q. June.
9 A. Yes, but I was chief of sector at that point in time. But we
10 never received a single document from Trnovo and we could not get to
11 Trnovo at that point in time. Our department was in Ilidza, and there
12 was no communication with Trnovo because of the sniping and because of
13 the situation there. And as for these documents that you showed me the
14 other day, there is a reference to a Muslim barricade; that is to say,
15 that the road is inaccessible.
16 Q. Did you ever have any operatives in Trnovo?
17 A. I don't think so. I think that we dealt with Trnovo only when
18 there was fighting for Trnovo. That is to say, in a period that came
19 after this one. Since that road was very important to us because of the
20 link with Herzegovina from Foca onwards, at that point in time, we would
21 sent an operative who is familiar with the ground. Usually it was people
22 like that who were sent. We saw a signature a moment ago, (redacted)
23 (redacted) and he usually went there in order to be able to follow the
24 combat activities taking place in the area of Trnovo.
25 Q. Does this document look like something that (redacted) would have
1 written up?
2 A. No, there is no chance of us having created this document.
3 Q. From the document we cannot see when it was created. Was one
4 supposed to say when this kind of document was created if it's created by
5 your service?
6 A. If it were our document and if it were the document of the Muslim
7 service at the time, if I can call it that way, there has to be a
8 letterhead, there has to be a signature, there has to be a date. There
9 has to be everything that we talked about in relation to the previous
10 document. Every document has to contain certain elements and that's the
11 way it's supposed to be. And the document that you showed me from the
12 area of Ilidza is an example of that. So you can see that it's the
13 Ministry of the Interior, the sector of the National Security Service
14 Sarajevo, the number, the date, and so on and so forth. Each and every
15 document should have these elements.
16 Q. In this document, we also cannot see which operative compiled
17 this information. Is that indispensable for this kind of document,
19 A. Certainly.
20 Q. Did you ever see a document of the National Security Service that
21 would speak about expulsions and killings of Muslims and others?
22 A. No.
23 Q. I mean, where that is being advocated?
24 A. No, no. Sometimes there would be mention of crimes committed on
25 ethnic grounds, and then somebody provided information that there was a
1 murder or two murders in a certain place, but we did not deal with that.
2 Somebody could have written a document like that, and such a document
3 could have reached me. However, we had an inter-sector agreement:
4 Murder is murder. So it is the public security sector that dealt with
5 this even during the times of war. We were not in charge of that. We
6 did not have personnel that was capable of dealing with such cases. So
7 we could have received a dispatch from the centre that somebody had
8 killed somebody else and that this caused anxiety and so on and so forth,
9 and this kind of thing did happen. You know, it -- there is a war going
10 on and somebody would, say, come back and create a problem of this kind.
11 But put in this way, the way that you have asked me, no.
12 Again, I have to point out one more thing if you allow me. I
13 never attended a meeting -- and I attended many meetings of the state and
14 military leadership. I never attended a single meeting where there were
15 any kind of references like what you said to me just a second ago.
16 Q. You had the opportunity of reading the entire document. And now
17 at the end, the 29th of May, 1992, the date at the end of this document,
18 can you see here who it is that is actually speaking?
19 A. No. That's interesting. This document, in terms of dates,
20 everybody knows who was saying what, and then all of a sudden at a joint
21 meeting such and such a conclusion was reached. So there are two such
22 documents, I think, similar ones, but the conclusions do not match. And
23 there is always these two staffs, if I can put it, the Crisis Staff and
24 this one. They function along parallel lines. And then you have two
25 different conclusions. In essence they are the same, but they are not
1 the same.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Briefly, P06889. Could we take a
3 look at that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We are at the time for a break, Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: How much time do I have?
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think some seven or eight minutes left. If you
7 would like to take that now before the break, but then perhaps you --
8 MR. LUKIC: It may be better to reorganise. I can -- easier to
9 cut down the questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are not many left, then.
11 Let's take a break now and then I expect you to finish in --
12 well, let's say ten minutes after the break.
13 The witness may follow the usher.
14 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at -- yes, Mr. Traldi.
17 MR. TRALDI: Sorry, could we briefly go into private session,
18 Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 40009 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 We take a break and will resume at 12.30.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.11 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We briefly move into private session.
10 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Can we have P06889 on our screens, please.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Before us is a document similar to the previous
15 one. It is a report on the activity and work of the Trnovo SDS Municipal
16 Board from 1 January to 31 May 1992. Let us look at the last page.
17 Again in the signature block, we see the Trnovo SDB department.
18 You told us that at the time in your service no such abbreviation or
19 organisation existed. We determined that it should be visible who
20 created this document, like the previous one as well. With the previous
21 document, we also determined that it should be clear who the document is
22 sent to and that in that document as well as this one we cannot see that.
23 We also established in the previous document as can be seen in
24 this one that no date is present --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you haven't established anything. You
1 have elicited evidence from a witness, which is different from
2 determining or establishing. Whatever the witness said about what we
3 need in such kind of a document is on the record. Whether it's in here,
4 yes or no, we can read that. So whether it's the same as the previous
5 one, the Chamber will consider that. Could you please put a question to
6 the witness.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Did the operative in question have to make clear who drafted the
9 document? The person who wrote the document, if it was an operative from
10 your service, did they need to make it clear who drafted the document?
11 A. Yes, just like everything I said with regard to the first
12 document. The two documents seem identical in terms of the things they
13 lack, procedurally.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, do you have any personal knowledge about
15 this document apart from having seen it a couple of days ago?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Does everything you said earlier about what a report
18 should contain, would that apply to this report as well?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. If this had been drafted by a member of your service, would this
23 document have arrived at your desk in May or June 1992?
24 A. Yes. At the time, I was the chief of the National Security
1 Q. Did you see the document at the time or did you see it only when
2 I showed it to you?
3 A. I saw it a couple of days ago when you showed it to me.
4 Q. In your view -- well, in the penultimate line we read that:
5 "The aggression on Trnovo and the surrounding Muslim villages
6 started at 0830 in the morning of 31 May 1992."
7 Did the Serb side in its own documents describe its own actions
8 as "aggression," if you know?
9 A. No. It's a fact.
10 Q. Let me just ask you this. Do you have an opinion, having read
11 the document, as to this: In a previous part of the document -- so let
12 me restart that. In the previous part of the document, can we see who is
13 reporting about what? There are two dates, the 29th and the 30th of May.
14 A. Well, we can see that there were some briefings at meetings. But
15 in the conclusions, we cannot see who stated what. There is just a
16 statement. It is correct that in both documents people were being said
17 as having said this or that on this or that date. And in the last
18 paragraph here, as in the previous document, we cannot see what position
19 they expressed and who said what personally. There is no discussion
20 referred to.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Again, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber can read.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. As an employee and chief of the National Security Service, what
25 would be your opinion of this document?
1 A. To tell you the truth, I don't know how to characterise it other
2 than to say that it is not valid. Documents such as this one are not
3 valid in the service. They need to contain all the elements we
4 discussed. Only such documents are considered valid.
5 In one of the paragraphs of my statement, I mention that we
6 issued instructions on providing information and how they had to be used
7 to provide information accurately. This is definitely not a document of
8 the service I headed. This document may have been created sometime in
9 June, when I was already in the position of the Sarajevo sector chief for
10 sometime. I never received it. I see it for the first time, and I'm not
11 aware of issues in Trnovo. It is not our document. I don't know what
12 else to say.
13 I think the National Security Service of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
14 too, had to rely on a heading and all the elements we talked about
15 because it was all happening at the same time. There was only a change
16 of name. They had the State Security Service and we had the National
17 Security Service. I can't even presume or suppose whose document this
18 might be.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, I have one follow-up question for the
21 A minute ago you were asked by Mr. Lukic if the Serb side in its
22 own documents described its own actions as "aggression." Your answer
24 "No. It's a fact."
25 I don't fully understand your answer. What do you mean by "it is
1 a fact"? What is a fact?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is fact that VRS
3 operations were not called "aggression" in certain areas.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 Mr. Lukic.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the witness has opined quite a bit though
7 being a witness of fact, but could you please conclude in one or two
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. My last question, Mr. Kijac. In any of the documents you saw
11 that came from your service, did you ever see as an operation on the Serb
12 side being called "aggression"?
13 A. Could you please repeat because there was an overlap?
14 Q. I apologise. I wasn't following the B/C/S channel.
15 So in any document you saw as a document created by the Serb
16 side, be it your service or the army, did the Serb side, was it ever
17 marked as "aggressor" in its own documents?
18 A. No. I think I said clearly that it was not possible --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, exactly the same question was put by you
20 on page 51, line 21:
21 "Did the Serb side in its own documents describe," et cetera.
22 Then even in order to fully understand the answer, Judge Fluegge
23 asked for -- to know for sure that he understood the answer well. Now
24 you're asking the same.
25 I asked you to conclude in one or two minutes.
1 MR. LUKIC: No, I just repeated this one because you said that
2 the witness gave his opinion. If you see something or do not see
3 something, it's not an opinion.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That was on the question you put after that: Could
5 you give us your views on the document that was, and then we got a
6 lengthy answer, all opinion evidence, hardly anything about facts. So
7 that's a different matter. But there is no need to put a question again
8 to a witness in order to correct me.
9 Any further question, or have you done?
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. When you discussed this document and provided your opinion, what
12 was the basis for it?
13 A. I'm sorry, there was an overlap again. I apologise.
14 Q. When you discussed this document and provided your opinion, what
15 was the basis of your opinion?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm going to stop you now. I mean, if
17 you elicit opinion evidence and then ask the witness on what it is based,
18 then you should have asked him about the facts which may have underlied
19 his opinion. But if I say something about eliciting opinion evidence,
20 which we let go through quite a while, then to say on what it was based,
21 you should have asked that before, perhaps even instead of, asking for
22 opinion evidence.
23 MR. LUKIC: I --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, this question --
25 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- is not further allowed. Have you any other
2 question of fact --
3 MR. LUKIC: I enumerated the facts, then you stopped me.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic --
5 MR. LUKIC: I said --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this is not a debate. This was a ruling.
7 Any other question?
8 MR. LUKIC: Your ruling does not allow me to finish this
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Judge Moloto will ...
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, you have asked the witness to give the
13 basis for his opinion. He told us the basis is the fact that there are
14 no reference numbers, there is no signature, it is not addressed to
15 anybody, it is not signed by anybody, and all the other things. That is
16 the basis for his opinion. What more do you want from him?
17 MR. LUKIC: His experience as a head of the sector.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: But he has told us his experience. He has told us
19 several times why he says this is not a document from his sector.
20 JUDGE ORIE: He put it --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now you're asking him for the -- the same --
22 MR. LUKIC: If that pleases the Court, I do not have any more
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Of course that was the basis.
25 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions.
2 MR. LUKIC: Just to thank Mr. Kijac for --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's of course appreciated.
4 Mr. Kijac, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Traldi. You'll
5 find Mr. Traldi to your right. Mr. Traldi is counsel for the
6 Prosecution, but is there -- Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: The translation is still going on.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kijac, I just wanted to thank you for having
9 answered our questions. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Mr. Kijac, I think you may have heard my introduction of
12 Mr. Traldi who will now cross-examine you.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. TRALDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Traldi:
16 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. Sir, you testified in the Karadzic case; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And is it your position that you told the truth in that
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. TRALDI: Can we have 65 ter 17058A.
24 Q. Now, what you see on the left side of the screen in B/C/S, that's
25 your appointment as SNB undersecretary signed by Minister Stanisic;
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And he was your immediate superior until he was replaced and then
4 the next minister, Minister Adzic, was your immediate superior; right?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And the minister's superior was the president of the republic,
7 Radovan Karadzic; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, your deputy was Dragisa Mihic; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as head of the SNB, you would have received reports from all
12 of the five regional SNBs; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And as head of the SNB, you were also a member of the ministers'
15 collegium; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And so you also received information at collegium meetings about
18 what was going on in regional CSBs and in their subordinate SJBs; right?
19 A. There is something that we need to understand. The collegium
20 comprised some 20 people. There was only one representative from the
21 National Security Service. Some of the briefings by my colleagues were
22 not of my concern. The law states that the service is a separate service
23 within the ministry with the chief at its helm. If we are discussing the
24 ministers' collegium, there were some 20 people there, and only rarely
25 did the service take part in discussions. Very rarely.
1 Q. And when you attended meetings of that collegium, you would
2 receive information provided by the other members of the collegium about
3 events in their areas of responsibility; right?
4 A. There were discussions, but I did not receive any information
5 from them. We did not receive, for example, information from the State
6 Security Service. I'm sorry, the public security service. We did
7 provide some information to the public security service, but there was no
8 information coming our way. We were in communication, there was
9 correspondence, but they were not duty-bound to provide information to
11 Q. I understand that, sir. At the moment, I'm not asking about what
12 they were duty-bound to provide. I'm asking as a factual matter: At
13 these collegium meetings when you attended them, the other members would
14 speak about, would discuss events in their areas of responsibility, and
15 as a result of them mentioning them, you would become informed about
16 them. That's true, right?
17 A. No. Public law and order were not of my interest. I was present
18 physically, but I may have been absent psychologically. You need to
19 understand that we were a completely independent service. In 1995, our
20 system became so independent that we were no longer under the minister.
21 Such was the situation under the law.
22 In terms of how we conducted ourselves, we were an independent
23 service. We were only duty-bound to inform the minister of our --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Witness, could I stop you there. Would you
25 please focus to answer on the question. I think you may have answered it
1 already, that you said: Although I may have been present and although
2 information was perhaps provided, I may not have listened to it. That's
3 apparently your answer and that answers the question, so we are now
4 waiting for the next question.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Traldi.
6 MR. TRALDI: Before I do, I'll tender the document, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do, Mr. Traldi, can I just ask a
8 clarification from you.
9 I see the English version doesn't have the name of the person and
10 the status of the person who signed it. Is -- and the fact that they
11 were originally stamped.
12 MR. TRALDI: I'm told it should be on the next page.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar informs me that we have only one
17 page in English, Mr. Traldi.
18 MR. TRALDI: My -- then I will withdraw what I was told and will
19 check the upload. I'd just ask that it be marked at this point.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- Madam Registrar, the number under which
21 this document would be marked for identification will be?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 17058A receives Exhibit Number P7576,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: P7576 is marked for identification.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. TRALDI: Can we have 65 ter 02382.
2 Q. Now, while it comes up, as head of the SNB, you co-operated with
3 the VRS and the State Security Services of Serbia, Montenegro, and the
4 RSK; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In that context, I'm going to read you a description of the SNB's
7 co-operation with some of those institutions that you provided at the
8 34th Session of the Republika Srpska Assembly.
9 MR. TRALDI: And can we have page 215 in the English and 234 in
10 the B/C/S.
11 Q. In the English, we're at the beginning of your remarks, in the
12 B/C/S on the second page of them. And at the bottom of the page in the
13 English and in the middle of the long paragraph in the B/C/S, you begin
14 to give a long description of the SNB. And you say:
15 "Among other things, in accordance with its duties, SNB is on a
16 daily basis exchanging security-related information with, first of all,
17 the security service of RS army, then with Republic Serbia, Montenegro,
18 and SRK."
19 That's correct, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in the VRS your contacts would have been with
22 General Tolimir; right?
23 A. Yes. And Colonel Petar Salapura.
24 Q. And with the Republic of Serbia, your contacts would have been
25 with Jovica Stanisic and his subordinate administrations in the DB;
2 A. Basically with the top of the service.
3 Q. So by that do you mean to refer to Mr. Stanisic?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you would have also had contact with his subordinate,
6 Frenki Simatovic; right?
7 A. Very rarely. I mean, we know each other. But this happened very
8 rarely. I mean, do you understand this? We had correspondence and it
9 was mainly directed to the head of the service and later on the
10 departments, so I did not have any particular contact with Mr. Simatovic.
11 Q. And Mr. Simatovic, with whom you rarely had contact, he was the
12 head of the Second Administration in DB Serbia; right?
13 A. I don't know what their organisation was like, but I did not
14 co-operate with administrations. In our Second Administration, he had
15 his opposite number. If Mr. Simatovic was head of the Second
16 Administration, then the head of the Second Administration could have had
17 contact with him. So if I maintain contact, I maintained contact with
18 Mr. Stanisic.
19 You see? Now you can say to me that I maintained contact with
20 the Seventh, Sixth Administration, and so on. That was not my job. From
21 the moment when I became head of the service, it is appropriate for the
22 head of service to speak to his opposite number, the head of the other
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, the simple question was whether
25 Mr. Simatovic, with whom you rarely had contact, whether he was the head
1 of the Second Administration in the DB of Serbia. Was he, was he not, or
2 don't you know?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, I don't know. Because
4 I don't even know what period we are talking about and --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've answered the question.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. TRALDI:
8 Q. Just in case it was the period that led you to say that you
9 didn't know, I'm speaking of the period during the war, sir. Does that
10 assist you in recalling what Mr. Simatovic's position was?
11 A. He was head of one administration, but I don't know which one it
13 Q. And his deputy, that was Dragan Filipovic, also known as Fico;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Returning to your remarks, you next say that:
17 "The concept of establishment of SNB is dated from the period
18 when part of its personnel had noticed the intentions of Muslim-Croatian
19 coalition. Understanding the politics of the SDS, they were taking part
20 in certain activities on collecting and providing the information that
21 was of importance for the Serbian population and its leadership. This
22 staff," you say, "has helped to paralyse functions of the former MUP,
23 especially of the former National Security Service."
24 That's true information that you were providing to the
25 RS Assembly; right?
1 A. Yes, but I have to explain this to you, that it wasn't from the
2 State Security Service that I came to head the State Security Service. I
3 came from public security. That's where I worked until 1991. So this is
4 information that my chiefs of administration --
5 Q. I hadn't asked about your career trajectory. This is information
6 you got from your chiefs of administration and you provided truthfully to
7 the RS Assembly; right?
8 A. Precisely. Because at that time, in 1991, I was not in the State
9 Security Service, so I could not have been aware of this information. On
10 the other hand, I'm the one who is submitting a report, but it's a group
11 of people who drafted that report, and they probably worked on that
12 earlier on. That's when they wrote it. I assumed that that is what
14 Q. When you say 1991, 1991 and the early part of 1992 is the period
15 when, in your remarks, you were saying that understanding the politics of
16 the SDS, these employees were taking part in certain activities and
17 providing information that was of importance for the Serbian population
18 and that they were paralysing the functions of the former MUP; right?
19 A. What I've been trying to explain to you, that in 1991, in March,
20 I was an employee of the centre of public security in Banja Luka and I
21 worked on foreign affairs, affairs related to foreigners. And up until
22 the moment --
23 Q. Sir, I understand that. What I'm saying is, these remarks that
24 you provided on the basis, you say, of reports from your chiefs of
25 administration, these remarks that you provided to the RS Assembly, when
1 you said that these SNB personnel had been paralysing the functions of
2 the former MUP and had been providing information of importance to the
3 Serbian population, that happened during 1991 and the beginning of 1992;
5 A. Can I please take a look at that paragraph? Could you give me
6 that paragraph so that I could see it, for the sake of the translation?
7 If possible, that is.
8 Q. Sure. It's the long paragraph on the left side. And if we can
9 zoom in, you can see in the middle of the paragraph the letters "SDS" and
10 so it immediately follows that as it did when I read it.
11 A. Just a moment. Yes, I see that, SDS. Yes, now I see that.
12 Q. Are you able now to confirm that the period that you're
13 describing in those remarks is 1991 and the beginning of 1992?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Turning to page 218 in the English and 238 in the B/C/S, in the
16 middle of the page in the B/C/S we read you say -- and it's actually the
17 middle in the English as well, you're describing the last -- the previous
18 eight months. You say:
19 "We forwarded 550 pieces of written information from the military
20 domain to the Intelligence Security organ of the Main Staff of the
21 Republika Srpska Army. In addition to aforementioned, on a daily basis
22 intelligence has been exchanged with the State Security Service of
23 Serbia. Thus, 295 pieces of written information have been forwarded in
24 this period."
25 And it's correct, as you say here, that you were sharing large
1 quantities of information with both the VRS and DB Serbia; right?
2 A. A lot less with the RS. I don't see the information here. I
3 don't see whether this information is contained here. Could you please
4 help me with this so that I don't waste any time. I cannot find it. I
5 think there is no reference to the RSK here. Are you referring to the
7 Q. No, I said the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska Army, which I
8 read you say 550 pieces of information that had been shared and so I'd
9 said "VRS." So you were sharing large quantities of information with
10 both the VRS and DB Serbia; right?
11 A. Yes. That's correct.
12 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd just ask that Mr. Kijac's remarks
13 at this session be added to P2508 which is other excerpts from the
14 session and we'll upload a new version containing these remarks as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Defence, of course, for contextualisation
16 may add to that as well.
17 Then we'll hear from you soon about a new upload to replace the
18 previous selection.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. TRALDI: Can we have 65 ter 09558.
21 Q. Now, take a look at the people in this photograph on your screen.
22 Starting on the far left, that's Stojan Zupljanin, the head of CSB
23 Banja Luka; right?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. The next man is Mr. Simatovic?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Then Momcilo Krajisnik; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then Jovica Stanisic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. President Karadzic?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Milan Martic from the RSK?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then the man leaning on the chair Mr. Martic is sitting on,
11 that's you; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you recall the occasion when this photo was taken?
14 A. I cannot say when exactly, but I think it's sometime in 1995.
15 Q. Do you recall what the seven of you were you meeting about?
16 A. I cannot say. I mean, probably I was accompanying the president
17 on some trip. And I know that this picture was taken in Bijeljina, to
18 the best of my recollection.
19 Q. Now, the people in this picture shared common goals during the
20 war; right?
21 A. A very difficult question for me. I really cannot give you an
23 MR. TRALDI: Well, can we have 65 ter 33177.
24 Q. This is a card sent by Jovica Stanisic on Security Day 1994 to
25 the MUP of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. And at the end of the
1 document, he writes:
2 "We are now entering the decisive phase of the fight to achieve
3 the common goals of all the Serbian lands, more determined and prepared
4 than ever before."
5 And it's correct that Mr. Stanisic understood the Serbian lands
6 to be the Republika Srpska, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and the
7 Republic of Serbia; right?
8 A. I cannot say because I see from this document that it wasn't sent
9 to Republika Srpska. It was sent to the Republic of the Serb Krajina.
10 This is the first time I am seeing this document, so I really don't want
11 to read all of it now and to interpret what it was that Mr. Stanisic was
12 trying to say through this document. If you have a document that was
13 sent to me, then I can certainly provide you with a comment. However,
14 what I see here is the Republic of the Serb Krajina, the Ministry of the
15 Interior, to the minister.
16 Q. You talked before, ten minutes ago maybe, about how at your level
17 your contacts with DB Serbia, they would have to have been with the
18 minister. You confirmed what you'd told the assembly, that you were
19 exchanging hundreds of pieces of information with DB Serbia, and you
20 testify now you've got no idea what Jovica Stanisic thought the Serbian
21 lands were? Is that your evidence?
22 A. I don't understand you or perhaps you did not understand me.
23 Exchange of information is in written form. It's not that I go and talk
24 to him over a cup of coffee about the political situation. I sent him
25 information of the state security sector of Republika Srpska. Sometimes
1 this was on a daily basis, sometimes on a weekly basis, sometimes on a
2 fortnightly basis. I would see Mr. Stanisic every three or four months
3 and we would not converse along those lines as to what Mr. Stanisic
4 thought. I assume that if you asked Mr. Stanisic, he could not tell you
5 what I was thinking at the time. So likewise, I cannot tell you what he
6 was thinking.
7 Q. Well, let's go step by step. We agree, I take it, that the
8 Serbian lands include the Republic of Serbia; right? Everybody would
9 have understood it that way at the time.
10 A. Again, you're putting this question to me. I am supposed to talk
11 about who understood what and how people understood certain things, and I
12 cannot do that.
13 Q. If somebody had said to you in 1994: We're protecting the
14 Serbian lands, what lands would you have understood them to mean?
15 A. Well, there is no denying that. But you're asking me about my
16 thinking. I mean, I can talk about my own thinking, but I cannot give
17 comments with regard to what Mr. Stanisic was thinking. If you're asking
18 me what I thought, then --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, what did you understand all the Serbian
20 lands to mean? For yourself.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at that moment that was
22 Republic of Srpska Krajina, Republika Srpska, and Republic of Serbia,
23 naturally. But do not --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. No --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered the question.
2 MR. TRALDI: Can we have 65 ter 06830.
3 Q. As it comes up, one of the ways that the common goals Stanisic
4 referred to or sometimes articulated was in terms of the ultimate
5 aspiration of a united Serb state; right?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Traldi, the 65 ter number you asked for is not
7 on the transcript. Can you repeat that, please?
8 MR. TRALDI: Yes, it's 06830, and I appreciate the court officer
9 having located it.
10 Q. I'll just put my question now that we have the document in the
11 context of it. This is a New Year's card from Mr. Martic to
12 Mr. Karadzic. He writes:
13 "The year 1994 has been characterised by efforts to achieve
14 united views towards a common goal - the creation of a united Serbian
16 Now, this is one of the ways that the common goal that Jovica
17 referred to in the previous document was sometimes articulated; right?
18 A. Again you're asking me something that I cannot answer. A moment
19 ago I could not interpret documents, and now you're asking me to
20 interpret documents. I cannot interpret what Mr. Martic meant by --
21 Q. No, sir --
22 A. -- what he wrote to Mr. Karadzic for the new year. I see it's
24 Q. I'm not asking you to interpret the document. I'm saying
25 Mr. Martic says there is a common goal, the creation of a united Serbian
1 state. That is one of the ways you yourself heard people at the time
2 express the common goals of the people in that photograph we saw; right?
3 A. Again, I'm telling you, you can ask me about my position. I know
4 what the position was of the state leadership of Republika Srpska.
5 Q. Sir --
6 A. The Republika Srpska --
7 Q. Sir?
8 A. -- should be self-reliant and I do not know about this --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the rest of
10 what the witness is saying.
11 MR. TRALDI:
12 Q. And, sir, perhaps we'll look at the state leadership of
13 Republika Srpska's positions in more detail later. Is it your evidence,
14 yes or no, that you heard people, including people in that photograph
15 with you, during the war express the ultimate aspiration of a united Serb
16 state? Yes or no?
17 A. Given my position, I could not talk to these people, bearing in
18 mind --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- the ultimate political
21 objective. Yes?
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- the simple question was whether you heard people,
23 including those who were with you in that photograph, whether you heard
24 them express the ultimate aspiration of a united Serb state. Did you
25 hear that or did you not hear that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 MR. TRALDI: I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart to play a video now,
3 65 ter 27977a. The transcript has been confirmed by CLSS, so we only
4 have to play it once. And just in case my speed was off, it was 27977a.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say 27977a?
6 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There is no sound.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Have you provided transcripts to the booth?
10 [Video-clip played]
11 THE INTERPRETER: "RM: Mr. President, the Army of Republika
12 Srpska is implementing your words from the last Assembly that Serbs
13 (unintelligible) in a war brigade. I'm also here today, with these
14 gentlemen from this area, and with these hard-working young men -
15 soldiers, our workers, and professors. Here, among the reapers, there
16 are intellectuals as well as common people. There are people here who
17 have lost one or two of their closest family members, even their children
18 (unintelligible) Republika Srpska. In the name of their blood and bones,
19 I wish that our state, Republika Srpska, and the Serbian people flourish,
20 in one country. May your words from the last Assembly session be
21 broadcast through the media and be heard by all our people. Let us stand
22 side by side and defeat this ill time. Let us overcome all the storms,
23 the Scylla and Charybdis, and fulfil our dream that all the Serbs live in
24 one country. Cheers and welcome among our soldiers and fighters."
25 MR. TRALDI:
1 Q. Two questions to very briefly follow-up, sir. First, you agree
2 that in that clip we saw General Mladic describing the ultimate
3 aspiration of all Serbs in one state the same way that Mr. Martic did in
4 the previous document; right?
5 A. I heard this.
6 Q. And second, in light of the SRT, which I understand to be Serb
7 Radio Television, logo on the screen, would you like to -- well, let me
8 ask it this way: Has the broadcast of General Mladic expressing a goal
9 this way refreshed your recollection as to whether Serb leaders expressed
10 the goal of the creation of a united Serbian state during the war?
11 A. Well, I can just confirm that I heard this. Again, I cannot
12 confirm what Serb leaders, as you had put it, had in their minds. You
13 can play this video-clip, I can confirm that it's authentic. Now, what
14 was in somebody's head -- well, you have to understand that my position
15 as head of the State Security Sector was not a political post. After
16 all, I was somebody who was engaged in operative work, from the security
17 field. I'm not a politician. I do not attend assembly meetings unless
18 invited. And, also, I don't attend Main Board meetings because I'm not a
19 member of the SDS and I do not hold any party position within the SDS, so
20 you do have to understand me.
21 Q. Sir, at the moment --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, I'm looking at the clock. We really
23 have to take the break now because otherwise there will be hardly any
24 time left. One second.
25 MR. TRALDI: I did have one follow-up which I can put either
1 before or after the break.
2 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, can we take the break now?
4 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll take a break. We would like to see
6 you back in 20 minutes, and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 2.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 1.32 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 1.57 p.m.
9 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, just a brief follow-up on exhibits from
10 the last session. The full English translation for 65 ter 17058a, P7576
11 MFI, has been uploaded into e-court under doc ID FI2005910A-ET. And we'd
12 ask that the court officer be instructed to replace the current
13 translation with the full translation and we'd ask that the document be
14 admitted. And that's the first document, the appointment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you mean page 2 now being part of it as
17 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Mr. President --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. TRALDI: -- I do.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to
21 replace the existing English translation of P7576 by the newly uploaded
22 one as just referred to by Mr. Traldi.
23 MR. TRALDI: Thank you, Mr. President. And then I'd tender the
24 other --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then P7576, as now newly uploaded, is
1 admitted into evidence.
2 MR. TRALDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 And I'd tender the other unadmitted documents I used. First, the
4 photograph, 65 ter 09558.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document number 09558 receives Exhibit Number
7 P7577, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P7577 is admitted.
9 MR. TRALDI: Second, 65 ter 33177, the Security Day card from
10 Mr. Stanisic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33177 receives Exhibit Number P7578.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P7578 is admitted.
14 MR. TRALDI: 65 ter 06830, the New Year's Day card from Martic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7579.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P7579 is admitted.
18 MR. TRALDI: And 65 ter 27977a, the SRT video of General Mladic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7580, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: P7580 is admitted into evidence, and I see that the
22 CD has just been handed over.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. TRALDI:
25 Q. Sir, I'm going to turn now to Arkan, who you referred to in
1 paragraph 65 of your statement. Now, you say that Arkan and his unit
2 came to Bijeljina and Zvornik in 1992, and he had contacts with official
3 organs of BH and the SFRY. When you say he had contacts with official
4 organs of BH, you mean official organs of the Republika Srpska; right?
5 A. I don't think you paraphrased it well. I had in mind the
6 leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As far as I know, in 1992, in
7 Bijeljina, he met with Mr. Fikret Abdic, who was a member of the
8 presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and with Ms. Biljana Plavsic.
9 MR. TRALDI: And can we have 65 ter 02362, page 20 in both
10 languages. And my speed may have been off, it's 02362.
11 Q. And we see at the top of the page in the B/C/S the end of
12 Ms. Plavsic's remarks. In those remarks, she says:
13 "I sent letters to all addresses. My intention was to pay
14 anybody who was willing to fight for the Serbian cause and gather them
15 around, so letters were sent out. You talk about paramilitary and
16 non-paramilitary formations. You will have to excuse me, that has
17 nothing to do with me. I was looking for the people who are willing to
18 fight for the Serbian cause, who are willing to fight in the territory of
19 Republika Srpska. The letters were sent to the Soviet Union, to Seselj,
20 Arkan, and Jovic. Do as you like, accuse me now if you want. I want to
21 make it clear, because this is second time, Minister, it's not hearsay, I
22 did do it, and you can judge me if you want."
23 Now, you're aware, aren't you, that Arkan had also had contact
24 with official organs of the RS before he arrived in Bijeljina, that in
25 fact he arrived there at Ms. Plavsic's invitation, as it says here?
1 A. Could you please scroll up the page in B/C/S, because I don't see
2 the beginning of Ms. Plavsic's contribution. Still, I don't see it. In
3 any case, it doesn't matter.
4 First you have to tell me when and where this was.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. I think let's first of all -- if the
6 witness asked to be able to read that, you now can see it at the bottom
7 of the page, the first three lines.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hmm, I see it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And then -- have you read that? Then we'll move to
10 the next page in B/C/S.
11 Now, you were not asked about when and where she said this, but
12 you were asked about whether you were aware of Arkan coming to Bijeljina,
13 being invited to come there by Ms. Plavsic. Are you aware of that or are
14 you not?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not aware of it. As far as
16 I see, it was an assembly session --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that's not -- it was read to you as words
18 apparently spoken by Madam Plavsic.
19 Mr. Traldi, please proceed.
20 MR. TRALDI:
21 Q. Now, she also mentions Seselj, that's Vojislav Seselj, the leader
22 of the Serb Radical Party; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. He also sent volunteers to Bosnia; right?
25 A. There were such formations which called themselves Seselj's Men,
1 but I don't know where they came from. I think they were from our area
2 but were members of the Serb Radical Party.
3 Q. And Jovic, that's Mirko Jovic?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And he was head of the Serb Renewal Movement; right?
6 A. I think you are right.
7 Q. And also sent volunteers to Bosnia; right?
8 A. I don't have that information.
9 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd ask that Ms. Plavsic's remarks be
10 added to P7196. As with the previous assembly, we'll upload a new
11 version including them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll wait for a number. And then after that,
13 the Defence, as always, has an opportunity to further contextualise the
14 portion you have added, and then we'll decide on replacing the newly
15 uploaded version by the existing one.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. TRALDI: I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart to play another video
18 now. This one's from French TV in 1991, 65 ter 22456b. And again, it's
19 been confirmed so we only have to play it once.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 "We don't take any more prisoners. We are going to kill every
22 fascist soldier we catch. They have to know that."
23 MR. TRALDI:
24 Q. Now, the speaker we saw there, that was Arkan; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And he was known to be a criminal during the war; right?
2 A. Yes, I would say he was of security interest to us.
3 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender that clip.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 22456b receives Exhibit Number P7581.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P7581 is admitted.
7 MR. TRALDI: Can we have P364, page 49. And, sorry, 49 in both
8 the B/C/S transcript and in the English translation.
9 Q. Sir, this is one of General Mladic's notebooks from the war.
10 We're looking here at his notes of a meeting on the 22nd of September,
12 MR. TRALDI: If we turn to page 52 in both languages.
13 Q. We'll see General Milovanovic begin to speak --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Now we have also English on the left-hand side of
15 the screen. That should be B/C/S but the typed transcript.
16 MR. TRALDI: And if we turn now to page 53.
17 Q. Milovanovic mentions at the top of the page in the B/C/S:
18 "A team from DB Serbia, Filipovic and Bozovic, as well as Kijac
19 and Kovac."
20 Now, that's Filipovic, Frenki's deputy who we discussed earlier;
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Bozovic is Rade Bozovic?
24 A. I don't think his first name was Rade, if we have the same person
25 in mind. Or perhaps it is his real name.
1 Q. What name did you have in mind?
2 A. I don't think it was Rade. I can't recall it off the cuff. I
3 think it is Rajo Bozovic, but I don't know his real first name. I think
4 we have the same person in mind. But when you said Rade, I'm not sure
5 that was his name.
6 Q. Let's check if we have the same person in mind on the next couple
7 of names. Kijac, that's you; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Kovac would be Tomo Kovac?
10 A. Yes, the deputy minister.
11 Q. And then Mladic records that General Milovanovic mentions that
12 300 fighters of -- well, that 1200 fighters would come and be
13 incorporated into the 1st Krajina Corps and be used like all other units,
14 and says:
15 "300 Arkan's volunteers arrived and were put into the RS MUP ..."
16 Now, you mention Arkan's deployment in late 1995 in your
17 statement. You don't mention that you were involved in co-ordinating
18 that deployment with the VRS, but that's the truth; right?
19 A. I don't know what you mean by "co-ordination." I did know Arkan
20 was there, but I had no authority. Here you can see at what point he was
21 included or became involved. I did know that he was in the area of
22 Krajina in 1995 and that there were some 300 or so people. I think that
23 there were fewer, though. I think there were 200. It all happened at
24 the time when some of the municipalities fell. There was a scheme from
25 the Serbian DB and apparently Kijac and Kovac were a part of that. It
1 was possible that I was present at some meetings, but I could not have
2 co-ordinated his arrival. It was not within my competence.
3 Q. It's possible you were present at meetings about their deployment
4 or is it the truth that you were present at meetings about their
6 A. I definitely did not attend the meetings where their arrival was
8 MR. TRALDI: Can we have 65 ter 33293. And I'll be very brief
9 about it. I see the time, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. TRALDI:
12 Q. Now, this is a commendation given to Arkan by Karadzic after the
13 war. Were you aware that this known criminal was decorated after the war
14 by the president of Republika Srpska?
15 A. Not after the war. I think his guards were decorated, but I see
16 this for the first time. I didn't think he received it but the guards.
17 It wasn't he that received it in his own name. What year is this?
18 Q. I see a handwritten date there, the 30th of May, 1996. Do you
19 see that too, sir? And it's in the lower left.
20 A. Yes, I see it now. I'm not aware of it, in 1996. I do know that
21 there was some decoration given in 1995 when they were supposed to leave
22 the Republika Srpska. I think it was in Bijeljina, to the best of my
23 recollection. I wasn't aware that he was -- he received this in his own
25 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender the document and I think
1 for me that's a convenient time to break for the day.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33293 receives Exhibit Number P7582.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P7582 is admitted.
5 Witness, we'll adjourn for the day and we'd like to see you back
6 tomorrow morning at 9.30 in the morning. But before we --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm addressing you. Will we -- how much
9 time would you still need, Mr. Traldi, approximately?
10 MR. TRALDI: I think I've used about an hour. I think I'll stay
11 within the time I'd estimated, which was three and a half, even with the
12 additional time on direct. But I'd have to check to be sure.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Lukic, what do you suggest for tomorrow?
14 We'll first go to the evidence of this witness or would you rather start
15 with the --
16 MR. LUKIC: No, I discussed with Mr. Kijac and he agreed that we
17 should start with another witness who --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
19 MR. LUKIC: -- prefers to finish his --
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that witness is scheduled for how long?
21 MR. LUKIC: Give me one second. Two and a half and two, 45.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So that certainly means we'll not --
23 MR. LUKIC: Finish tomorrow.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- finish that tomorrow. And possibly we'll resume,
25 then, on Wednesday morning the testimony of this witness -- of the
1 present witness?
2 MR. LUKIC: No, we'll finish with the next one first. There is
3 almost --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we'll resume somewhere during the Wednesday
5 morning -- or at least there is a chance?
6 MR. LUKIC: There is a chance, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
8 Then, Mr. Kijac, first of all, I would like to instruct you that
9 you should not speak or communicate when -- with whomever about your
10 testimony, whether that is testimony you've given already or testimony
11 still to be given.
12 Tomorrow you -- we'll hear the evidence of another witness, and
13 that may continue -- it's likely to continue until Wednesday, but perhaps
14 during the morning of Wednesday you may be -- we may resume hearing your
16 Now, we'll keep you informed through the Victims and Witness
17 Section on -- at what time you should make yourself available on standby
18 on Wednesday morning or even that it would be only on Thursday that we
19 would need you. So please carefully follow the instructions given to you
20 by VWS which will come most likely later tomorrow or even in the morning
21 of Wednesday, if that's clear to you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Clear.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: No speaking aloud, Mr. Mladic. You know that.
1 We'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday,
2 20th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I. And I
3 had forgotten that that will be a relatively short session because
4 we'll -- or at least the hearing will end at 12.00. We stand adjourned.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.21 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day
7 of October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.