Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5502

 1                           Thursday, 23 April 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everyone in and around the

 7     courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, please call the case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

10     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-81-T,

11     The Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

13             May we have the appearances for today, please, starting with the

14     Prosecution.

15             MR. HARMON:  Yes, good morning, Your Honours, counsel, everyone

16     in the courtroom.  Mark Harmon, Bronagh McKenna, and Carmela Javier

17     appearing for the Prosecution.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

19             And for the Defence.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Good

21     morning to all the participants in the proceedings.  The Defence of Mr.

22     Perisic is today represented in the courtroom by Tina Drolec,

23     Milos Androvic, Daniela Tasic, Gregor Guy-Smith, and Novak Lukic.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.

25             Good morning, sir.  Good morning.  Just again to warn you that

Page 5503

 1     you are still bound by the declaration you made at the beginning of your

 2     testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the

 3     truth.  Thank you so much.

 4             Mr. Harmon.

 5                           WITNESS:  MIODRAG STARCEVIC [Resumed]

 6                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 7                           Examination by Mr. Harmon: [Continued]

 8        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Starcevic.

 9             MR. HARMON:  Can we go into private session briefly, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session.

11   [Private session]   [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

14             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 709 displayed on

15     the monitor.  I'm interested in B/C/S page 25 and the English, page 23.

16             Your Honour, I think it should be page 33 in the English.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  33, not 23.

18             MR. HARMON:  Not 23.

19        Q.   Let me direct.  Mr. Starcevic, what this is is a document you

20     have seen before.  This is a text from the stenographic record of the

21     14th Session of the SDC held on the 11 October 1993.  I would like to

22     direct your attention to the first paragraph in your document, and in the

23     English version, the text that is found in the middle of the page, under

24     Mr. Perisic's name, the second paragraph, starting with:

25             "Another thing is of the essence here ..."

Page 5504

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is that --

 2             MR. HARMON:

 3        Q.   Now, this text, I just want to refresh your recollection.  Can

 4     you see it, Mr. Starcevic, the text?

 5        A.   No, I can't see it.

 6        Q.   Well, let me --

 7        A.   I haven't found that piece.

 8        Q.   It's the top paragraph.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  And this text reads:

11             "Another thing is of the essence here.  They are asking for

12     specific individuals.  If those men refuse to go there, then we need to

13     view them as deserters who don't want to defend their homes."

14             MR. HARMON:  Now, if we could go back into public session, Your

15     Honour.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into open session.

17                           [Open session]

18             MR. HARMON:  Mr. Starcevic, I'm --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please wait.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

23             MR. HARMON:  Can I have P875 displayed on the monitor.

24             Could we first look at the -- what this document is, and could we

25     go to the last page, as well, and see who signed it.

Page 5505

 1        Q.   This is -- this is a document that is signed by the commander of

 2     the Main Staff of the SVK, Major-General Milan Celeketic.

 3             MR. HARMON:  And if we could return again to the first page of

 4     each document.

 5        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this is a document dated the 14th of May.  It is

 6     from the Main Staff of the Serbian army of Krajina, and it's addressed to

 7     the Yugoslav Army General Staff.  And it says:

 8             "In order to replenish the Republic of Serb Krajina aviation

 9     units, we require the following officers."

10             And it has a long list of names and ranks of particular

11     individuals.  Have you seen this document before, Mr. Starcevic?

12        A.   Yes, I've seen it.

13        Q.   And can you comment on this document?

14        A.   I'm not certain in what sense you expect that.  But if I may say

15     so, it is rather unusual to ask for specific individuals for

16     replenishment or reinforcements of some units.

17        Q.   Now, is there any legal basis for an army of a different country

18     - in this case, the SVK - to request specific officers from the

19     Yugoslav Army for replenishment?

20        A.   I think not.

21        Q.   All right.  Then if we could turn to another document.

22             MR. HARMON:  If we could turn to Prosecution Exhibit 741.

23             Could we first go to the last page of the document to see who the

24     author of this document was.

25        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this -- as you can see from the monitor, this is a

Page 5506

 1     document that was signed by General Perisic.

 2             MR. HARMON:  If we could return now to the first part of the

 3     document, first page.

 4        Q.   And I'm interested -- first of all, this is a decision dated the

 5     24th of March, 1994, and it's a decision on determining the task --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The 24th or 22nd?

 7             MR. HARMON:  22nd; I apologise.  The 22nd of March.

 8        Q.   And it's a decision on determining the tasks where service is

 9     performed under difficult, special circumstances.

10             Mr. Starcevic, have you seen this document before coming into

11     court today?

12        A.   Yes, I have.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now, first, let's focus on paragraph 1, if we could.

14             Paragraph 1 defines to whom this -- this decision applies, does

15     it not?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Okay.

18             MR. HARMON:  Now, if we could now look at the second paragraph of

19     the document.

20        Q.   What does this paragraph define, Mr. Starcevic?

21        A.   This paragraph defines the territory which is considered

22     territory where duties are performed under difficult circumstances.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now, if we could take a look at these various elements in

24     here, I would like to focus on, particularly, item number 5.

25             Could you tell me, first of all -- actually -- before we go to

Page 5507

 1     item number 5, are you familiar with these kinds of documents?  Have you

 2     seen these kinds of documents before, Mr. Starcevic?

 3        A.   As far as I can recall, there was always an order, "naredba,"

 4     which defined the type of service that is considered service under

 5     difficult conditions, and I think this is one such order.

 6        Q.   What is your understanding -- based on your past experiences,

 7     what is your understanding of the meaning of the term "service under

 8     difficult circumstances?"  What kind of circumstances are mentioned or

 9     required to fill within that definition?

10        A.   Well, these circumstances can vary significantly, but they would

11     mean that men would have to undergo additional efforts in order to

12     perform their tasks.  There could be all sorts of reasons, whether they

13     be natural conditions or other conditions that are not normal conditions

14     that are normal for most people in the Army of Yugoslavia.

15             So these would be conditions either caused by man or some other

16     conditions that simply require extra effort on the part of the troops, or

17     it could entail an increased level of danger or something to that effect.

18        Q.   So they would be -- would it be fair to say they would be

19     abnormal circumstances outside the normal realm of service in the army?

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think this is a leading question.

22             MR. HARMON:  I'm trying to characterise, Your Honour, generalise

23     in a very short way to capture what the witness has said.  If it is

24     leading, I will withdraw the question if it's objectionable.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, what do you say?  What's your submission?  Is

Page 5508

 1     it or is it leading?

 2             MR. HARMON:  It is leading, Your Honour, but I was --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 4             MR. HARMON:  Thank you.  Okay.

 5        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, so then let me direct your attention to item

 6     number 4, subpart 4 of this document, and subpart 4 in this document

 7     identifies the authorised officer from Article 156 issues the decision on

 8     entitlement to this compensation for any person who meets the

 9     requirements for compensation from this decision.

10             Can you tell us what the term "the authorised officer" means in

11     the context of this decision?

12        A.   An authorised officer is an officer who is authorised under

13     Article 156 of the law, and as far as can I recall, if I'm not mistaken,

14     this would be the chief of the General Staff or another officer -- no,

15     no.  No, this would be the officer commanding the unit where this service

16     is performed, provided that he was at least at the level of battalion

17     commander or higher.  In other words, this should be an officer of a unit

18     of at least a rank of battalion or higher.

19        Q.   And your answer says it would be an officer commanding the unit

20     where this service is performed.  Can you -- do you know on what

21     territory the members of the 30th and 40th Personnel Centres were in

22     service?

23        A.   No, I don't know that.

24        Q.   The duty post for members of the 30th and 40th Personnel Centres

25     was Belgrade, as we have seen from a previous document; is that correct?

Page 5509

 1        A.   In principle, yes.  The seat of the Personnel Centres was at the

 2     -- or the headquarters was at the Belgrade garrison.

 3        Q.   Now, are you aware of any difficult or special conditions in

 4     Belgrade that would warrant this -- that would fall within the purview of

 5     this decision?

 6        A.   No, I really wouldn't know that.  These are operational issues,

 7     and that was not my field.  As I said, I didn't even know that these

 8     centres existed at the time, so it is not really possible that I should

 9     know what territory they covered and what the conditions there were.

10        Q.   All right.

11             MR. HARMON:  Could we now go to Prosecution Exhibit 1810.

12        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, have you seen this document before coming into

13     court?

14        A.   Yes.  Yes, I've seen it.

15        Q.   And this is a document dated December the 5th, 1994, and it is

16     issued by Military Post 3001, and it is a decision to --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is this December the 5th or the 12th of May?

18             MR. HARMON:  I'm back in the American mode, Your Honour.  I'm

19     sorry.  It is the 12th of May.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

21             MR. HARMON:  All right.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Maybe we must outlaw the American mode.

23             MR. HARMON:  I won't comment on that, Your Honour.

24        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, what is this decision?  Can you -- can you tell

25     the Court what this decision is?

Page 5510

 1        A.   Yes.  This is one of the decisions that are required to be issued

 2     according to the order so that individuals would be entitled to hardship

 3     allowance.

 4        Q.   And what is the authority?  What's the basis of issuing this

 5     decision?

 6        A.   Well, in -- in essence, there are two legal bases for this

 7     decision.  One of them is already the already-mentioned Article 156 of

 8     the law, authorising an officer to issue a decision on hardship allowance

 9     and special condition service; and the other foundation or basis is the

10     already-mentioned order by the chief of the General Staff, which defines

11     that entitlement in general terms.

12        Q.   Could I direct your attention, Mr. Starcevic, to subpart (b) of

13     this document.  Now, this decision applies to General Ratko Mladic.  In

14     subpart (b) -- can you comment on subpart (b)?

15        A.   Well, it is my impression that subpart (b) is not really a

16     decision of any sort because no decision is made to increase

17     compensation, and in my view, this is just a form that was used, but in

18     this particular case the decision wasn't really made because we don't see

19     the figure there indicating what the increase of compensation is.

20        Q.   Okay.  But there's a reference, is there not, to a decision of

21     the commander of the -- of Military Post 3001, and there's an

22     identification number, 21/32-21, dated the 3rd of February, 1994.  Do you

23     see that?

24        A.   Yes, I do.  I do see that part.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

Page 5511

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I don't know what that decision

 2     is --

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, bearing in mind the earlier

 4     answer that the witness gave, that there are no figures there indicating

 5     what the amounts were, I think this is calling for the witness to

 6     speculate because he has already said in his earlier answer that he can't

 7     see that there was any decision because there is no figure put in there,

 8     so with this additional question, he is being called to speculate.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

10             MR. HARMON:  I didn't ask him to speculate.  I asked him if in

11     fact there was this reference in subpart (b).

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You mean you didn't see the reference, Mr. Harmon?

13             MR. HARMON:  The objection as I understood it was he is called to

14     speculate.  I didn't ask him to speculate.  My question to him was, there

15     is an reference to a decision, and I cited the decision and that

16     reference number.  That's all I did, so I --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Objection overruled.  Thank you.

18             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  Now, if we could turn to the next document,

19     which is Prosecution Exhibit 399.

20        Q.   We can see, first of all, that this is a document that is dated

21     the 3rd of February, 1994, and it bears the same reference number that

22     was seen on the previous document, 21/32-21, and it is a decision on the

23     compensation for military service in difficult (special) circumstances,

24     and it was issued by the General Staff of the VRS.

25             MR. HARMON:  Could we go to the last page of the document to see

Page 5512

 1     who issued this document.

 2             That is not the last -- I'm sorry, it should be the

 3     second-to-last page on the English because those just show who the copies

 4     were sent to.

 5             If we go to the previous page, page 2.  We see at the bottom of

 6     the page, there is an indication of who issued this decision.

 7        Q.   Do you see a signature at the bottom of that page, Mr. Starcevic?

 8        A.   Yes, I can see it.

 9        Q.   And whose signature or whose name is that?

10        A.   Lieutenant-General Ratko Mladic.

11        Q.   So if we go back to the first part of this -- the first page of

12     this document.

13             Now, you have seen this document before, Mr. Starcevic, have you

14     not?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And what is this document?

17        A.   Well, obviously, this is a document whereby the Main Staff of the

18     VRS, the Republika Srpska army, indicates what the compensation -- the

19     level of compensation will be for difficult conditions, for military

20     service under difficult conditions, and, of course, that would also

21     depend on the unit where such service is performed.

22        Q.   Does this document define to whom this decision applies?

23        A.   Yes.  Generally, yes.

24        Q.   And is that reference found in paragraph 1?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5513

 1        Q.   So this decision issued by General Mladic applies special

 2     compensation, and I will read paragraph 1:

 3             "... to all professional soldiers and NCOs, civilians in the

 4     army, officers and NCOs and contract soldiers serving in the Yugoslav

 5     Army deployed in the army of the Republika Srpska are entitled to

 6     compensation for carrying out military service in difficult conditions

 7     ..."

 8             Correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   We have seen from the previous document that General Mladic was

11     awarded compensation for serving under difficult circumstances.  Can you

12     -- do you have any observations on -- on that?

13        A.   Simply, it is the way you put it.  Any kind of compensation to

14     members of the Army of Yugoslavia is issued when they are deployed in the

15     army of Republika Srpska.  This is according to paragraph 1 here.

16        Q.   Now, let me ask you this question, Mr. Starcevic.  This is a

17     reference -- I'm sorry, the previous document had a reference to the

18     document that's now before you, a document issued by the VRS.  The

19     previous document was issued by a unit of the VJ by the 30th Personnel

20     Centre.  Is there a reason, in your view, or a basis in your view, why a

21     decision which was issued by the 30th Personnel Centre would have a

22     reference to a decision issued by the VRS?

23        A.   The only reason that I can see is that the decision does not

24     determine specific amounts of the compensation but only the general right

25     to compensation.

Page 5514

 1        Q.   Okay.  The previous document that we looked at where there was no

 2     entry filled in subpart (b) said that the increase of compensation which

 3     was mentioned in above and the decision -- and so -- I'm sorry.  Let me

 4     go back again.  I'm sorry.

 5             It said --

 6             MR. HARMON:  If we go back to Prosecution Exhibit 1810; put that

 7     on the monitor.

 8        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, if this is a VJ form, why is there reference in

 9     subpart (b) to a decision of the commander of Military Post 3001, the

10     document that was issued by the VRS?

11        A.   I didn't say that it was a -- a model of the Army of Yugoslavia,

12     but actually, it's a form that was applied in a specific military post,

13     and then it was prepared for all cases in the future.

14             In this specific case, in the view of the person who made the

15     decision, there are no elements to recognise this increase for

16     Mr. Mladic.  So I assume that out of technical or bureaucratic reasons

17     they prepared forms in advance, and then specific parts of the forms

18     would be filled in as per need.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I can't resist asking you, Mr. Harmon, about your

20     question at page 13, lines 9 to 11.  Your reference to VRS there, where

21     do you pick it up from this document?

22             MR. HARMON:  In this document, Your Honour?

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mm-hm.

24             MR. HARMON:  I picked it up in the previous document because

25     there's a reference, 21/32-21, with a date.  That is Prosecution Exhibit

Page 5515

 1     399.  A caption of that document is General Staff of the army of the

 2     Republika Srpska, so that's why I carried -- that's where I make the

 3     reference.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But you have made us look at this document that is

 5     on the screen right now.

 6             MR. HARMON:  Correct.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Your question to the witness is, having put this

 8     document:

 9             "Mr. Starcevic, if this is a VJ form ..." and this is what you

10     contend is a VJ form, "... why is there reference in subparagraph (b)

11     ..."  here, "... to a decision of the commander of Military Post 3001,

12     the document that was issued by the VRS?"

13             MR. HARMON:  Correct.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, where is --

15             MR. HARMON:  The document that was issued by the VRS is 21/32-21,

16     which is dated the 3rd of February, 1994, and it is the same document

17     that I showed earlier, P399.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But there are two documents that have this

19     reference.

20             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What precedes the one -- which one precedes the

22     other?

23             MR. HARMON:  The VRS document is -- P399 is dated the

24     3rd of February, 1994, and the VJ document that we have on the screen,

25     P1810, is dated 12th of May, 1994.  So General Mladic's order or decision

Page 5516

 1     precedes the document that is now before you.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And haven't we seen this morning a document, I

 3     don't know whether it was P741, which is a general decision of the VJ

 4     which tells you where the circumstances under which VJ soldiers operating

 5     under different circumstances would be generally entitled to

 6     compensation, and the very last category mentioned is 30th and 40th

 7     Personnel Centres?

 8             MR. HARMON:  Correct, Your Honour.  And I asked the witness if he

 9     knew where and on which territory.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand, but what I'm saying, that document,

11     what is the date of that document?

12             MR. HARMON:  This document is the 22nd of March, 1994.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Still came after the VRS document.

14             MR. HARMON:  Correct.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then there is something I don't understand.

16             Let me not ask the question.  Maybe the evidence will explain it.

17             MR. HARMON:  Okay.

18        Q.   Let me try to approach this a different way, Mr. Starcevic.

19             The word "decision" has a very precise meaning in a military

20     context, does it not?

21        A.   Yes, you could say that.

22        Q.   And can you tell the Judge what the term "decision" means in the

23     military context?

24        A.   With the remark that not only in the military context but also in

25     the legal system, in our country, in Yugoslavia, a decision is usually an

Page 5517

 1     administrative document that decides on the right or duty of a specific

 2     person.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And is it unusual or -- I'm sorry.

 4             Have you ever seen in a decision issued by the VJ a decision that

 5     grants rights, which decision is from a different army?

 6        A.   I'm not quite sure that I understand, but I think that this is

 7     not possible in the legal sense either.  It's not possible in the legal

 8     sense because authority is determined under two criteria.

 9        Q.   All right.

10             MR. HARMON:  I have no additional questions on this particular

11     set of documents, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question remains unanswered.  Anyway, carry on.

13             MR. HARMON:  Okay.

14             Could I have the next exhibit, which is Prosecution Exhibit 2625.

15                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry, it should be 65 ter 2625 [Microphone not

17     activated].  I apologise.

18             65 ter 2625.

19        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, have you seen this document before?

20        A.   Yes.  Yes, I think I have.

21        Q.   All right.  Now, this document is a decision dated the 6th -- 2nd

22     of June, 1994, and is issued by Military Post 7111.

23             My first question is:  Do you know where Military Post 7111 is?

24     Are you familiar with that reference?

25        A.   Well, not really, but you can see from the decision that it's in

Page 5518

 1     Han Pijesak.

 2        Q.   Okay, and where is Han Pijesak?  In which country is Han Pijesak?

 3        A.   In Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 4        Q.   This decision relates to Captain Dragan Obrenovic, who is serving

 5     in Military Post 7469 in Zvornik; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Focus on subpart (b) of this document.  Is this decision to grant

 8     Captain First Class Dragan Obrenovic additional compensation based on the

 9     previous document we looked at, which was the decision of General Mladic?

10        A.   Yes, yes.

11        Q.   Do you have any comments in respect of this document,

12     Mr. Starcevic?

13        A.   I think that everything that we said before applies to this

14     document as well.  I don't know specifically what you're thinking of, but

15     from this decision, it is evident that Mr. Obrenovic met the required

16     conditions in the order of General Mladic in order to receive an increase

17     of the hardship allowance.

18        Q.   Now, we looked at General Mladic's previous order and to whom it

19     applied.  It applied to soldiers serving in the Yugoslav Army deployed in

20     the army of the Republika Srpska.

21             Can you make any comments in respect of the status of

22     Captain Obrenovic, based on the two documents that we have looked at?

23        A.   Yes.  If the condition was for the soldier to be a member of the

24     army of Yugoslavia, then, on the basis of that, it transpires that

25     Mr. Obrenovic is a member of the Army of Yugoslavia.

Page 5519

 1        Q.   All right.

 2             MR. HARMON:  If we could now go into private session, please --

 3     actually, first of all, I would like to take look at Prosecution

 4     Exhibit 363, is the next document.

 5        Q.   I'm going show you a series of three documents, Mr. Starcevic,

 6     and then I'm going to ask you some questions about them because there is

 7     a similarity.

 8             Could we first go to --

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if Mr. Harmon is going

11     to tender this document for admission or he might intend to do it later?

12     I don't know.

13             MR. HARMON:  I'll do it now, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Say that again?

15             MR. HARMON:  I will tender the document now for admission.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You do?

17             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

20     please be given an exhibit number.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2303.

22             MR. HARMON:  Okay.

23        Q.   I'd like to show you a series of documents, Mr. Starcevic.  This

24     first document is a document that is issued by Military Post 4795, and

25     it's a certificate certifying that a particular individual was wounded

Page 5520

 1     while serving compulsory service at 4795 Belgrade military post.

 2             First of all, do you know what post designation that is?

 3        A.   I don't have personal knowledge, but I know that it's a military

 4     post that is located in Belgrade.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And I want to direct your attention to the second

 6     paragraph.  It indicates that this individual was wounded on the

 7     2nd of January, 1994, while carrying out combat activities, i.e.,

 8     securing the SRJ, Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, state border.

 9             This is the first of --

10        A.   Federal republic.

11        Q.   Yes.  This --

12             MR. HARMON:  Can we go into private session, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session.

14                           [Private session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5521











11 Pages 5521-5524 redacted. Private session.















Page 5525

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

13             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

14             MR. HARMON:

15        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I want to now discuss with you legal provisions

16     that would apply to General Perisic in his capacity as chief of the

17     General Staff that relate to his capacities, his ability to discipline,

18     punish, or sanction individuals who he has knowledge of committed crimes

19     or breaches of discipline.

20             So, first of all, I'd like to focus on military discipline.

21             MR. HARMON:  And if we could return to Prosecution Exhibit 197.

22     I'd like to turn to, first of all -- could we turn to chapter 8 of this

23     document, and particularly Article 159, and that's found at page 14 of

24     the B/C/S.  Just a moment.

25                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 5526

 1             MR. HARMON:  Specifically, if we can turn to page 14 of the B/C/S

 2     and page 39 of the English.

 3        Q.   And, Mr. Starcevic, I want to focus, as I say, on Article 159.

 4             Can you -- and 159 from the text makes a distinction between a

 5     disciplinary infraction which is a minor violation of discipline -- and a

 6     disciplinary offense, which is a serious violation of military

 7     discipline.  Can you enlighten us as to what constitutes a minor

 8     violation and a serious violation within the meaning of Article 159?

 9        A.   As you can see from Article 159, a minor violation of military

10     discipline is defined in general terms, and this includes any type of

11     violation whose consequences are not too serious, or extremely serious,

12     in terms of military service.

13             Serious violation of military discipline may be of different

14     types; for instance, absent -- absence without leave from the place where

15     one is serving, indecent behaviour, or similar.  On the other hand, a

16     serious violation of military discipline is such a violation that may

17     lead to significant consequences in terms of the situation within units.

18     In addition to these -- to these provisions that make a distinction in

19     general terms between a disciplinary infraction and a disciplinary

20     offence, a serious violation of military discipline, there are also --

21     there's also an additional regulation or, rather, a book of rules on

22     military discipline which would be of greater assistance in defining what

23     a military infraction or offence is.

24        Q.   Now, if we could turn to -- you have it on the screen before you,

25     Article 160, and if we could go to the next page in the English.

Page 5527

 1             I direct your attention, Mr. Starcevic, to the first -- the top

 2     paragraph.  Is this the definition of military -- a violation of military

 3     discipline?

 4        A.   Yes, certainly.  This is a definition of one of the possible

 5     violations of military discipline.

 6        Q.   Now, if we turn to -- if we look at this particular provision,

 7     this article, it lists 11 categories of -- 11 actions; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And I'd like to direct your attention to subpart (10) of Article

10     160, which is:

11             "An action in service which is contrary to military order or

12     which represents a violation of existing regulations."

13             What -- in this instance, can you just generalise for us what

14     types of regulations there are that might fall under the purview of this

15     provision?

16        A.   Well, these would primarily be military regulations that regulate

17     the activity of the army and military units and institutions as well as

18     the responsibilities and duties of individuals.

19             However, it would also encompass violations of some general

20     regulations, not necessarily military regulations, but also civil

21     regulations that are binding for any citizen of a country.  And if a

22     member of the army would commit a breach of such a regulation, that would

23     at the same time constitute a breach of military discipline.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 65 ter --

Page 5528

 1     65 ter 1995 on the screen.

 2             That doesn't ... perhaps the next page.  That doesn't appear to

 3     be what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for the -- could we go to the next

 4     page in B/C/S perhaps.  Is there a way to put that in the right order?

 5     Okay.

 6        Q.   Sir, what you see here -- can you tell us what you see on your

 7     screen?  In the English, it appears to the Regulations on the Application

 8     of International Laws of War in the Armed Forces of the SFRY.

 9        A.   Yes, that is the exact translation from the Serbian language.

10        Q.   Are you familiar with these regulations, Mr. Starcevic?

11        A.   Yes, I am.

12        Q.   And how are you familiar with these regulations?

13        A.   I was involved in their drafting.  As I said, among other things,

14     I was also involved in matters relating to international law within the

15     legal administration, and these are regulations that fall within the

16     ambit of international humanitarian law.  So I actually worked on

17     drafting these regulations as a member of a larger team that prepared

18     these regulations as a whole.

19        Q.   At the bottom of the page we see before us is the date 1988.

20     These regulations apply -- or were promulgated in 1988, obviously.  They

21     apply to the JNA.  My question is:  Did they also apply to the VJ?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Okay.

24        A.   Yes.  These regulations are still in force now within the army of

25     Serbia because no new regulations have replaced them.

Page 5529

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2             MR. HARMON:  This would be a convenient time to break, Your

 3     Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  We'll take a break and come back at quarter

 5     to 11.00.

 6             Court adjourned.

 7                            --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon.

10             MR. HARMON:

11        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, we left off, we were just -- I had just introduced

12     this subject of these regulations on the Application of the International

13     Laws of War in the Armed Forces within the SFRY.

14             I'd now like to direct your attention to three articles in these

15     regulations.

16             MR. HARMON:  If we could go first to Article 20, which is found

17     on B/C/S, page 16, and English, page 14.

18        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, can you -- actually, I see that Article 20 is only

19     partially reproduced.

20             MR. HARMON:  We have to go to the next page, as well, Your

21     Honours, on this.  So I would perhaps let Your Honours read Article 20,

22     the first part of it that appears, and let you read the complete article

23     before I ask some questions, so ...

24             When Your Honour --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If we can turn the page in the English or scroll

Page 5530

 1     down --

 2             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- whatever the case is.

 4             MR. HARMON:

 5        Q.   First of all, Mr. Starcevic, can you just explain to us the --

 6     Article 20 of these regulations.

 7        A.   Well, simply said, this article defines the accountability of any

 8     individual who commits a crime according to the international law of war

 9     under these regulations.  So anyone who commits such a crime or orders

10     the commission of such a crime is held -- is to be held accountable, is

11     responsible, and this is personal responsibility.  And it also defines

12     that the primary responsibility for determining the accountability is --

13     are the national laws or the -- national courts of law, or the courts of

14     a foreign state, if that person should fall into their hands.

15        Q.   And I see from the last paragraph in Article 20 that it applies

16     to people not only who commit crimes but people who organise, incite, or

17     assist in the commission of crimes.  Is that correct?  Perhaps it is not

18     reproduced in your Article 20.  If we go to --

19        A.   Yes, it is not reproduced -- not visible in my version.

20        Q.   We'll go to the next page in B/C/S.

21        A.   Yes, precisely so.  So not only those who commit a crime but also

22     accomplices, and persons who aid and abet, they also are accountable.

23        Q.   Now, if we take a look at the next article, Article 21, could you

24     focus your attention on that article, please, Mr. Starcevic.

25        A.   Yes.  In essence --

Page 5531

 1        Q.   Before I ask you the question, Mr. Starcevic, I want to give the

 2     Judges the opportunity to read that particular article, and then I'll ask

 3     you to explain the purpose and meaning of Article 21, or Regulation 21.

 4             Could you now then, Mr. Starcevic, explain the purpose and

 5     meaning in Regulation 21?

 6        A.   In essence, this defines command responsibility; in other words,

 7     the responsibility of officers for acts committed by their subordinates

 8     and which constitute violations of humanitarian law.

 9        Q.   Can you discuss with us for a moment the provision that is found

10     in the second full sentence of the regulation, starting with:

11             "The officer shall also be held personally liable ..."

12        A.   Yes.  In these instances, an officer who fails to take measures

13     to determine the liability or responsibility of an individual, that

14     officer would be responsible as an accomplice or incite -- as the person

15     inciting or instigating a crime because that is considered to contribute

16     to a renewed or another criminal act being committed.

17        Q.   Okay.  If we could now turn to the third regulation, Regulation

18     36.  It's found on B/C/S, page 21; in the English, on page 20.

19             MR. HARMON:  Again, Your Honours, in the English version we find

20     that 36 is only partially reproduced, and we have to go to the next page,

21     so ...

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             MR. HARMON:  Can we turn to the next page, then, the continuation

24     of the regulation.

25        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, could you discuss the purpose and intent of this

Page 5532

 1     particular regulation?

 2        A.   Article 36, in fact, makes it obligatory on military officers

 3     to -- once they have learned that a criminal act has been committed, to

 4     collect and keep certain evidence and initiate proceedings either before

 5     a military prosecutor directly; in other words, by forwarding the

 6     evidence to the military prosecutor or via their superior officer.  But

 7     in any case, they are duty-bound to prevent further violations of the

 8     international law of war.

 9        Q.   What is the consequence, Mr. Starcevic, if a Yugoslav Army

10     officer learns of violations of the laws of war and does not implement

11     any of these regulations we have been discussing, including Article 36,

12     which orders -- which requires the -- an investigation and evidence to be

13     collected?

14        A.   The consequences are listed in the earlier article that we've

15     seen, Article 21, whereby an officer who fails to do so is responsible as

16     an accomplice or an instigator.

17             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  Now, let me turn back to Prosecution

18     Exhibit 197.  I would like to go to Article 161 again.  We've seen that

19     earlier.

20        Q.   Now, we looked at this -- I'm sorry, 160 is what I'm interested

21     in, not 161.  If we could just go up a little higher in the English.

22     Thank you.

23             We looked at this earlier, Mr. Starcevic, and particularly we

24     focussed on subpart (10).  Would a violation of the regulations that we

25     just discussed and we just looked at constitute a violation of military

Page 5533

 1     discipline within the ambit of Article 160 of the Law on the Army?

 2        A.   Yes, in some less serious cases, yes, and that would constitute a

 3     violation of military discipline, or, rather, it could be put under the

 4     umbrella of Article 10 or subpart (10).

 5        Q.   Now, if we look at another article in P197.

 6             MR. HARMON:  If we could turn to B/C/S, page 6; in the English,

 7     page 16.

 8        Q.   And if we could look, Mr. Starcevic, at Article 64.

 9             Could you just discuss with us the purpose and intent and meaning

10     of Article 64 found under the chapeau "removal from duty."

11        A.   I think that this article has a twofold purpose:  On the one

12     hand, to protect the office or the service from persons who are

13     responsible or who are in fact prevented from performing their duty; and,

14     at the same time, to allow some other individual to perform that duty or

15     that office.

16        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, in the text of this article, if we look at the

17     paragraph that starts with:  "A professional soldier may be removed from

18     duty if he was caught ..."

19             If we look at that text, at the end of that text it -- paragraph,

20     it says --

21        A.   Mm-hm.

22        Q.    "... and the criminal act or disciplinary offence is of such a

23     nature that it would be damaging to the interests of service that such an

24     individual should remain on duty."

25             Now, would a breach of the regulations that we just looked at a

Page 5534

 1     minute ago fall within the ambit of Article 64?  In other words, would

 2     they be damaging to the interests of the service, and would they -- would

 3     they -- could they result in the invocation of Article 64?

 4        A.   Yes, it could, but in the final analysis, this is left to the

 5     discretionary right of the person who is authorised to decide on removal

 6     of service.  But generally speaking, it can be -- the reason for such an

 7     assessment could be the damage done to the service.

 8        Q.   Now, was General Perisic authorised to decide on the removal of

 9     professional officers from the service?

10        A.   Yes, I think he was.

11        Q.   Okay.  And would it be -- strike that.

12             If a war crime was known to a superior officer, chief of the

13     General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, would that person have the discretion

14     to remove the offending officer from service in the army?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Okay.

17             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, could we -- I would --

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, to remove such an individual

19     from service.  However, whether that person would also be discharged from

20     the army is something that would be decided in a different type of

21     proceeding.

22             MR. HARMON:

23        Q.   So let's make that distinction very clear.  Could you expand on

24     that, what you mean by that, remove from the service versus discharge

25     from the army?

Page 5535

 1        A.   An individual is removed from duty temporarily until proceedings

 2     that were instigated because the person was removed from duty are

 3     completed, and only once such proceedings are completed can there also be

 4     discussion on whether that individual would also be discharged from

 5     service from the army.

 6             For instance, if a criminal proceeding -- if criminal proceedings

 7     have been instigated against someone for a criminal act, that person may

 8     and in some instances should be removed from duty.  However, they would

 9     still remain as members of the army.  Only once a final decision or a

10     final judgement has been handed down in those criminal proceedings would

11     it be determined or could it be determined whether that person would

12     remain in the army or would be discharged.

13             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, could I move to introduce, then, the

14     regulations.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No objection.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May they

17     please be given an exhibit number.  That is it P197 -- no, no.

18             MR. HARMON:  No, Your Honour.  It's the regulations --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just tell us exactly what is the 65 ter number.

20             MR. HARMON:  1995.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  1995.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P2304, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. HARMON:  Just briefly, it we could turn to Article 161.

25     That's found at page 14 of the B/C/S and page 40 of the English.

Page 5536

 1             I don't want to dwell too much on this article, but I just want

 2     to make sure it's clear what this is.  If we could --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before we do that, can I just get

 4     clarification on one little point.

 5             MR. HARMON:  Yes, of course.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You -- sir, you have told us that, you know,

 7     Momcilo Perisic would be authorised to remove an officer from duty and

 8     then the proceedings would carry on, and whether or not a determination

 9     was to be made on his dismissal -- discharge from the army would be made

10     after the proceedings.  Who would make the determination whether he

11     should be discharged from the army?  Who would be authorised to do so?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In some cases, those authorities --

13     that authorisation is also within the purview of General Perisic.  In

14     some instances it would be with other officers, but that would primarily

15     depend on the rank and position of the individual involved.  In other

16     words, in some instances, General Perisic was the authorised individual.

17     He was authorised for individuals up to the rank of colonel.  If I

18     recall, there were such regulations defining this.  For instance, if

19     someone was to -- if -- if ranks from the level of general were

20     concerned, I think that the authority was with the president of the

21     republic, but for individuals under that level and under the level of

22     colonel, there would be other officers who would be responsible other

23     than General Perisic.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Who are the other officers other than General

25     Perisic who would be authorised to do so?  I'm not asking for a name.

Page 5537

 1     I'm asking for a position.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand.  Well, it is

 3     difficult to answer that question in this particular -- at this

 4     particular time without looking at this other regulation.  But I would

 5     like to remind you that according to Article 152 of the army, the chief

 6     of the General Staff or the officer -- the commanding officer of a unit

 7     that he determines, and I assume that in this particular case there was

 8     an order adopted at the General Staff regulating the responsibilities of

 9     those other officers.  For instance, in my earlier experience, this could

10     have been a commander of a corps or perhaps commanding officers at the

11     level of brigade or regiment.  They would be responsible for some

12     lower-level officers and so on.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And they could discharge an officer from the army

14     once there is proof -- once the process has gone through?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in some cases, yes.  Sometimes

16     they would be duty-bound to do so if an officer is sentenced to a prison

17     term of -- I think the cut-off line was six months or a year, but in our

18     earlier laws, it was two years.  I think under the new law this cut-off

19     line is somewhat lower.  So if someone was sentenced to that certain

20     prison term, then the officer, the superior officer was duty-bound to

21     also issue a decision.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A declaratory decision.

24             MR. HARMON:

25        Q.   [Microphone not activated] Mr. Starcevic, I wanted to direct your

Page 5538

 1     attention very, very briefly to --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 3             MR. HARMON:

 4        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I wanted to direct your attention very briefly to

 5     Article 161.  Can you -- first of all, let me give the Judges an

 6     opportunity to read 161, and then I'd just like you to distinguish that

 7     from the previous article.

 8             Mr. Starcevic, what is the intention and purpose of Article 161,

 9     and to whom does it apply?

10        A.   First of all, it applies to all professional officers as well.

11     What is its purpose?  Article 160 regulates violations of military order,

12     military regulations, military duty; that is to say, all proceedings are

13     related -- all acts are related to the army.

14             However, according to Article 161, a violation of military

15     discipline can also be in the form of violation of some other values

16     which are not necessarily linked to the protected military values, which

17     means that a commission of a crime can come under this heading.  And

18     other thing that was quite typical for our regulations was any expression

19     of racial, ethnic, or religious intolerance, violation of public morals,

20     and so on.  It doesn't need to be necessarily linked to the army.  It

21     could be some kind of a social event that can lead to this type of

22     violation, which would be outside of the military.

23        Q.   That's what I was going to -- I wanted to clarify that point

24     where it says in the text itself of the first paragraph:  "Every action

25     of a service member outside of service ..."

Page 5539

 1             Can you define that "outside of service" phrase?

 2        A.   Private conduct, private conduct of a person as a private

 3     individual.  That is to say not as a service member, military member, but

 4     an ordinary citizen who lives and exists within a normal social

 5     framework.

 6        Q.   Now, just very briefly, as well, if we could take a look at

 7     Article 162.  And again, in the English it is only partially reproduced

 8     there, so we would have to go to the next page.  First of all, if I could

 9     let the Judges have an opportunity to read Article 162 on this page and

10     the next page, and then we'll just ask you just very briefly to explain

11     this.

12             Briefly, Mr. Starcevic, what does this article do?

13        A.   This article defines all persons that can be held responsible for

14     disciplinary violation.  It also specifies time or a particular point in

15     time from which their disciplinary responsibility arises and, also, in

16     some cases, until the point in time where it terminates.

17        Q.   Now, if we can now focus on the next two articles.  We'll start

18     with Article 163, and it doesn't appear in the B/C/S on the text.  I want

19     to look at both 163 and 164 together.

20             Mr. Starcevic, I think you've earlier distinguished between an

21     disciplinary infraction and a disciplinary offence.  Obviously, 163 by

22     virtue of the text describes the consequences that can result from the

23     commission of a disciplinary infraction.  I want to focus your attention

24     a little bit more on Article 164, which deals with the consequences that

25     can result from conviction, if you will, of a disciplinary offence.

Page 5540

 1             Would I'd like to do first of all, Mr. Starcevic, is to direct

 2     your attention to subpart (5) of this Article 164; that is, the loss of

 3     the right to serve as a professional soldier.  Who makes that

 4     determination?

 5        A.   All disciplinary violations are dealt with by military

 6     disciplinary courts.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Does anybody else have the authority to address that

 8     particular issue?

 9        A.   No, except in appeals proceedings when this is dealt with by

10     regular courts.  At that time, we had a military court, supreme military

11     court, and nowadays we have the supreme administrative court; that is,

12     the court of the state.

13        Q.   If you could take a look at subpart (6), which is the loss of

14     rank, and I would be interested if you can explain that to us in

15     conjunction with the last sentence in Article 164.

16        A.   Yes.  This means that there is a difference between the loss of

17     rank and the loss of the right to serve.  When somebody loses the right

18     to right to serve, he maintains the rank that he had at the time of his

19     discharge.  However, if somebody is punished with the loss of rank, then

20     the loss of service results from that.  It is a legal consequence of the

21     loss of rank.

22        Q.   Okay.  Thank you very much.  Very briefly, if we could turn to

23     just a description of the statute of limitations that relate to

24     disciplinary offences.  That's found in Article 166.

25             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I thought you were

Page 5541

 1     occupied.

 2        Q.   Article 166, then.  Let me just direct your attention to some

 3     passages in this.  First of all, this clearly defines the statute of

 4     limitations in respect of disciplinary offences and disciplinary

 5     infractions; correct?  You have to answer audibly.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now, in part, this -- in the third paragraph, it says:

 8             "Starting and conducting proceedings for a disciplinary offence

 9     which is also a criminal act has a statute of limitations for the same

10     period as for the prosecution of the criminal act."

11             So -- can you explain that passage?

12        A.   Yes.  A statute of limitations for crimes is regulated by another

13     law, the Law on Criminal Proceedings.  Since in disciplinary proceedings

14     a crime comes up as a condition for instituting disciplinary proceedings,

15     it's a condition to institute them, then it's it quite a logical

16     solution.  It cannot run out before the basic act, which was the

17     pre-condition for a disciplinary proceedings runs out.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now -- so in domestic law, there are statues of

19     limitations for criminal acts; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.  I said the Law on Criminal Proceedings, but I was wrong.

21     It should have been the Criminal Code.  Yes, such a law exists, and once

22     again, it is a pre-condition for launching disciplinary proceedings.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, up to

24     1995, was it an offence in the Criminal Code to commit a violation of --

25     a war crime or a violation -- a genocide?  Was that embedded in the

Page 5542

 1     domestic code as well?

 2        A.   Yes, certainly.  It was in the old Criminal Code of the then

 3     SFRY.  In that code, there was an entire chapter which was devoted to

 4     crimes against international law.

 5        Q.   Do you know what the statues of limitations was for violations of

 6     international humanitarian law in the domestic Criminal Code?

 7        A.   Crimes against international humanitarian law, that is to say,

 8     war crimes and crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, they do

 9     not have a statute of limitations.  The statute of limitations never runs

10     out.

11        Q.   So do I understand that for purposes of Article 166, commencement

12     and the conduct of criminal proceedings for a disciplinary offence for

13     the criminal act of genocide or violation of international humanitarian

14     law would be limitless?  It never runs out?

15        A.   That is correct.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I interject.

17             Sir, you answered at page 40 lines -- starting from line 19 to

18     line 21 you said:

19             "Yes, certainly.  It was in the old Criminal Code of the then

20     SFRY.  In that code, there was an entire chapter which was devoted to

21     crimes against international law."

22             My question is, what is the position with respect to that

23     question in the constitution of the FRY?  Yes, in the Criminal Code of

24     the FRY, not SFRY.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  It's the same situation.  The

Page 5543

 1     statute of limitations doesn't run out when it comes to violations of

 2     international humanitarian law.  It is also an international obligation,

 3     both of the -- both of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who is a

 4     signatory to the convention stating that the statute of limitations

 5     doesn't run out when it comes to genocide.  It also means the application

 6     of that convention.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That answer did not relate to limitation.  It

 8     related to something else.  Let me tell what you the question was.  The

 9     question had been:

10             "Now, Mr. Starcevic, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia up to

11     1995, was it an offence in the Criminal Code to commit a violation of --

12     a war crime or a violation -- a genocide, was that embedded in the

13     domestic code as well?"

14             And then your answer was:

15             "Yes, but it was in the old code."

16             My question is, is a violation of international humanitarian law

17     currently embedded in the domestic law, as well, in the Criminal Code of

18     the domestic law of the FRY?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

21             MR. HARMON:

22        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, if we can turn to Article 177 of this Law on the

23     Army.

24             MR. HARMON:  It's found at page 15 of the B/C/S and page 45 of

25     the English.

Page 5544

 1        Q.   Can you distinguish for us the difference between the two types

 2     of courts that are described in Article 177?

 3        A.   Yes.  The first-instance military disciplinary courts are those

 4     courts which are established within the headquarters of some units,

 5     commands of some units.  Higher military disciplinary court is a

 6     disciplinary court that deals with appeals from the decisions handed down

 7     by the first-instance military disciplinary courts.

 8             It should be noted that in both cases, the judges are not lawyers

 9     in both of these courts.  Those are mostly officers of operative military

10     units -- oh, I could call them general military officers; whereas

11     secretaries of those courts, or clerks of those courts, are lawyers.

12        Q.   Okay.  Sir, can we now turn your attention to Article 180.

13             Could you explain to us, Mr. Starcevic, the meaning and intent of

14     Article 180.

15        A.   The purpose here was to regulate the basic elements of the

16     proceedings when it comes to disciplinary violations.  This establishes

17     who is responsible for initiating an investigation of a disciplinary

18     breach and also decide whether this was a disciplinary infraction or a

19     disciplinary violation.  And then further on, this person has to forward

20     the case to the person who is responsible to place the perpetrator

21     formally under the jurisdiction of a military disciplinary court.

22        Q.   Now, would General Perisic fall within the purview of Article

23     180?

24        A.   In exceptional circumstances, yes, but before him, his

25     subordinates who are in charge of units or institutions where perpetrator

Page 5545

 1     works, they would be responsible before him.  General Perisic would be

 2     responsible if, for example, in General Staff there were officers who

 3     were directly subordinate to him without there being an intermediary

 4     superior.

 5        Q.   And would he fall within the purview of this article if his

 6     subordinates failed to initiate a disciplinary investigation?  Should he

 7     be aware of a violation?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Now, can you --

10             MR. HARMON:  If we could focus next on Article 181.  Again, we'll

11     have -- in the English, we'll have to go to the next page.

12        Q.   Okay.  Sir, can you now explain to us Article 181 and the

13     difference between Article 180 and 181.

14        A.   The basic difference is that in Article 180, there is -- there

15     are proceedings for disciplinary investigation, which is to say they're

16     collecting elements in establishing whether there are grounds to initiate

17     proceedings before a disciplinary court, military disciplinary court.

18             However, an officer who orders that a disciplinary investigation

19     be launched is not responsible or is not authorised to formally place the

20     perpetrator under the jurisdiction of a disciplinary military court.

21     Those powers rest with the officers who are defined in Article 182.

22     Those officers are at a rather high position, and there weren't that many

23     of them in the army.

24        Q.   Would General Perisic be one of those high-ranking officers

25     within the meaning of Article 181?

Page 5546

 1        A.   Yes, yes, he would.

 2        Q.   Now, let me just ask you a variation of Article 181.  This deals

 3     with the referral of a matter to a military disciplinary court.  How was

 4     a matter referred to a criminal court?  Is that covered by the Law on the

 5     Army, or is it outside the Law on the Army?

 6        A.   In principle, this is not provided under the provisions of this

 7     law because there was a Law on Military Courts, too, which then provided

 8     for such a procedure.  It's true that officers in any kind of position

 9     did not have the authority to pass on the case to a criminal court, or

10     perhaps they could submit the charges to the authorised military

11     prosecutor, who would then process the case further.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What do you mean by "process the case further"?

13             In other words, are you suggesting, sir, that the determination

14     whether to refer the matter to a domestic criminal court, a non-military

15     criminal court, rests with the prosecutor for the military court?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think perhaps it's a

17     misunderstanding.  If we're talking about the responsibility of military

18     personnel, according to the regulations in force at that time, military

19     personnel were criminally prosecuted before military courts, not before

20     other types of courts, and because of that, the case would be referred to

21     the military prosecutor who would then play the role that he has under

22     the law to assess if there are grounds for reasonable suspicion to

23     initiate further proceedings and to go before the investigative judge,

24     but these are matters that I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed, Mr. Harmon.

Page 5547

 1             MR. HARMON:

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Starcevic, for clarifying that point for us.

 3             MR. HARMON:  I'd like to turn now to Article 107.  That's found

 4     at page 9 of the B/C/S and page 25 of the English.

 5             This is also a rather long article, and on the English we need to

 6     go to the second -- another page.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. HARMON:

 9        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, can you explain the purpose and intent of this

10     particular provision.

11        A.   Article 107 regulates all the possible ways that a professional

12     or a non-commissioned officer's service in the army can cease or be

13     suspended either if it should be or has to be suspended, according to

14     these regulations.

15        Q.   Now, are these -- do these regulations -- first of all, they set

16     forth a number of elements.  We can see, for example, items 1 through 6,

17     and then beneath item 6, we can see a reference to 30 pensionable years

18     of service, et cetera.

19             Are these -- is termination under one of these sub-elements

20     mandatory, or is it discretionary?  So, for example, if a person receives

21     a negative evaluation two times in a row, does that automatically result

22     in the termination of an officer, or is it discretionary with, for

23     example, a superior officer?

24        A.   The law is formulated in such a way that in such a case it would

25     be mandatory for service to be suspended.  The officer does not have a

Page 5548

 1     discretionary right to assess in such a case whether his service in the

 2     army should be suspended or ceased or not.

 3        Q.   So is it correct, Mr. Starcevic, to say that -- just looking at

 4     the numbered items, items 1 through 6, that if any of those elements are

 5     met, it's required that service be terminated?

 6        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 7        Q.   I'd like to refer you to the first paragraph under item 6.

 8             MR. HARMON:  We -- I'm sorry.  I just ...

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon, are we dealing with 107 or 108?

10             MR. HARMON:  We're dealing with 107, and I'm just looking for the

11     text on the monitor.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm looking for item 6 on 107.

13             MR. HARMON:  Yes.  We now have it.  We will now have it.  Okay.

14        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, let me refer you, then, to the paragraph that

15     starts:  "Military service of the professional officers ..." under item

16     6.  If he has acquired 30 years of pensionable years of service.  And

17     then it says:  "If the needs of the service so require."

18             We see that term repeated in the next paragraph, as well, and I'd

19     kindly ask you to tell us the meaning of that term "if the needs of the

20     service so require."

21        A.   This whole article, actually, is an expression of the specificity

22     of the military service in general.  It can be the case that for some

23     reasons, either objective or subjective ones, in the view of the

24     authorised officer, a person's service needs to be terminated even if he

25     does not fulfil any of these conditions in paragraphs 1 to 6.  At the

Page 5549

 1     same time, some of his rights also need to be protected.  The person

 2     cannot be dismissed from service, let's say, after 30 years without

 3     getting the -- a pension.  You cannot leave such a person without means

 4     of livelihood at a time-period in their life when it is difficult to

 5     change professions.

 6             So these reasons can be different.  They can be objective reasons

 7     or subjective reasons because of circumstances of the person, but he is

 8     not someone who has received negative evaluations two times in a row or

 9     not a bad person or bad officer but simply for some reason they failed to

10     meet some requirements.  Perhaps I can give you a hypothetical reason.

11     If you have a parachutist who weighs 130 kilograms, he can no longer be a

12     parachutist, but there is nothing else that he is trained to do.  You

13     cannot replace him.  He is occupying that post and is no longer actually

14     able to perform those duties.  So then for reasons of needs of the

15     service, he is going to be pensioned off and given a pension that fits

16     his years of service, and you can employ someone else in his place.

17     Perhaps he will be awarded an apartment if he hasn't been awarded one

18     before, but in any case, his livelihood and means of living would be

19     taken into consideration.

20        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, who is it who makes that determination, what's in

21     the needs of the service?

22        A.   An officer, according to Article 152 of the law, is authorised to

23     decide about the termination of service.

24        Q.   So I'm just looking at Article 152.  I don't know if the Court

25     would like to see that again on the monitor.  Perhaps we could go back to

Page 5550

 1     that, since you've referred to it.  I believe that is on page 38 of the

 2     English.  And, Mr. Starcevic, you have a hard copy in front of you, so if

 3     you just cast your eye on Article 152 again.

 4             So, Mr. Starcevic, the first sentence reads:

 5             "The chief of the General Staff and the commanding officers of

 6     units or institutions designated by him shall ..."

 7             And then I take it that subpart (6) of this article is what you

 8     were referring to?

 9        A.   Yes, yes.

10        Q.   Okay.

11        A.   But when we're talking about generals, then we need to apply the

12     previous article, 151, paragraph (3).

13        Q.   Yes.  Thank you for that clarification.

14             Now, in terms of defining the term we've been talking about, are

15     there any standards or criteria that are in regulations or elsewhere,

16     memorandum, that define the needs of the service, or is it totally

17     subjective?

18        A.   If I remember correctly, this is a separate procedure for

19     implementing these articles of the law.  I'm not sure, though, but I

20     think there is such a procedure, and that, in these provisions, there are

21     examples given of needs of service, but I think ultimately that is

22     something that is in the discretion of the officer who is making that

23     decision.

24        Q.   And does a person who is affected by a decision where he or she

25     has been retired because of the needs of the service, have any

Page 5551

 1     administrative recourse or legal recourse to challenge a finding that the

 2     needs of the service require his or her termination?

 3        A.   Yes.  There is the right to appeal such a decision, and it can be

 4     submitted to the higher superior officer, and there's also a right of

 5     complaint or submitting of an appeal before the higher military

 6     administrative court.  Therefore, there is -- there are legal means to

 7     appeal such a decision.

 8        Q.   All right.  Thank you very much, Mr. Starcevic.

 9             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, this would be an appropriate time to

10     break.  I'm going to be going into private session very quickly.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We will take a break and come back at half past

12     12.00.

13             Court adjourned.

14                            --- Recess taken at 11.58 a.m.

15                            --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

17             MR. HARMON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I just want to clarify a couple of points in your

19     earlier examination.  They deal with the process.

20             How was a matter referred to criminal proceedings?  How was it

21     referred -- how -- yeah.  I think that's ... was it referred to a

22     military prosecutor?  Was it referred to somebody else?

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I thought the witness -- we have seen in one of

24     the exhibits something that regulates that.

25             MR. HARMON:  We saw, Your Honour -- I think what we saw was how

Page 5552

 1     disciplinary matters are referred, and my question is how are criminal

 2     matters referred.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  This is always something that

 4     is processed by the prosecutor.  The prosecutor, as a kind of informal

 5     act, is presented with the criminal charges.  Then the prosecutor reviews

 6     that and decides whether, on the basis of evidence that he would compile,

 7     would propose the initiation of a criminal investigation.  The decision

 8     on initiating an investigation is made by the court, the investigative

 9     judge conducting the investigation, returns it to the prosecutor, and

10     decides whether the gathered evidence is sufficient to issue an

11     indictment, and at that point, it becomes part of the court jurisdiction.

12        Q.   One question I have, Mr. Starcevic, is you say:  "The Prosecutor,

13     as a kind of an informal act, is presented with the criminal charges."

14             Who presents the prosecutor with the criminal charges?  Let me

15     give you a hypothetical.  Let's say a criminal act has been committed by

16     a VJ soldier.  How does the matter get to the prosecutor in order to

17     prosecute the matter?

18        A.   I think that in our Criminal Code, we still have - and my

19     colleagues probably know that better - the provision that the Prosecutor

20     is obliged to act as soon as he receives any kind of information about

21     the commission of a criminal act in whatever way can he find out about it

22     in the media or in any other way he can find out that there are grounds

23     for suspicion that a criminal act was committed.  But a military officer

24     is obliged, according to military recreations, when he finds something

25     like that out, to in turn inform the Prosecutor about it, and this is why

Page 5553

 1     I say it's an informal act.  It's not required to be submitted in a

 2     specific form or format.  Of course, it depends on the general

 3     preparedness and legal mastery of the person who actually writes this

 4     document.

 5        Q.   So General Perisic would be obliged to inform the prosecutor if

 6     he found out about a criminal act.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now, two other brief questions.  Were there

 9     functioning military disciplinary courts in the Federal Republic of

10     Yugoslavia during the period from 1992 through 1998?

11        A.   Yes, in 1992 they were functioning, but I didn't really follow

12     that kind of thing anymore in the military judiciary, so I don't know

13     what time they stopped.  But, in any case, they were functioning at the

14     time when I left the army and for a while after that, but I don't know

15     for how long after that.

16        Q.   Okay.  Let me go back to the Law on the Army.

17             MR. HARMON:  That's Prosecution Exhibit 197.

18        Q.   And I want to turn very briefly to Article 178.

19             Mr. Starcevic, focussing on Article 178, it indicates that there

20     are military disciplinary courts in the first instance established in the

21     General Staff, the commands of the army, the air force, anti-aircraft

22     defence, and the navy.

23             Can you enlighten us as to what kinds of cases and -- fall within

24     the various courts that are described in Article 178?  How does it work?

25        A.   I think that we already dealt with that to an extent.  But these

Page 5554

 1     are all cases when the officer does have grounds to assume that there is

 2     a basis for disciplinary proceedings.  The way in which they are treated

 3     in the system of responsibility is that the unit officer would initiate

 4     disciplinary investigations, and then the result of that investigation,

 5     if it is evaluated that there are grounds or justified suspicion that a

 6     disciplinary violation was committed, then all the documents in the case

 7     file compiled during the investigation would be sent to that officer who

 8     is -- whose duty it is to bring the perpetrator before the military

 9     disciplinary court.

10             The senior officer who -- or the officer who received the case

11     file with the results of the investigation would then reach a formal

12     decision and issue a formal written decision bringing somebody before the

13     military disciplinary court, and that decision, together with the entire

14     case file, would be forwarded to the prosecutor at the military

15     disciplinary court.

16        Q.   I don't think I made myself very clear, Mr. Starcevic.  What I'm

17     talking about is, for example, if a VJ soldier who was in the navy

18     commits a violation, is that case tried in the first instance in the

19     military disciplinary court that's described here in Article 178, it

20     being established in the navy?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Okay.  So in terms of the General Staff, then I take it

23     subordinate units where there's a -- a disciplinary violation, that would

24     be tried before the military disciplinary court of the General Staff.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5555

 1        Q.   Okay.  Thank you very much.  And, finally, one last question:  I

 2     take it all appeals from all of these previous military -- oh, forget --

 3             MR. HARMON:  I'll withdraw the question, Your Honour.  I think it

 4     is self-evident.  Let me return if I can to -- we were looking at Article

 5     107 before the break.  If I could go into private session, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session.

 7   [Private session]  [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

10             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

11             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 709 on the monitor,

12     please.  And I would like to, first of all, turn to B/C/S, page 24;

13     English, page 33.

14        Q.   I want to refresh your memory from yesterday, Mr. Starcevic, with

15     this passage, and then we'll will explore further this session.

16             Mr. Starcevic, this is the 14th session of the Supreme Defence

17     Council that was held on the 11th of October, 1993, and we looked at a

18     passage --

19             MR. HARMON:  I'm referring the Court to the first -- the top of

20     the page, Momcilo Perisic.

21        Q.   And I'm also referring you to the top of the page.  There's a --

22     it reads:

23             "In our orders, for instance we write them, the commander in

24     such-and-such a unit will be deployed in a training corps which is

25     supposed to be here, but in fact, he is going over there."

Page 5556

 1             Now if we could turn to B/C/S, page 25; English, page 33.  And

 2     the English, I'm -- I would like to refer the Court to -- and counsel to

 3     the passage with Mr. Bulatovic at the bottom.  In the English, it carries

 4     over to the next page.

 5        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, now, I can't read the text, but I would like you

 6     to key in on the portion that begins:

 7             "I think it's a very sensitive question ..."

 8             MR. HARMON:  Could we go to page 35 of the English and page 26 of

 9     the B/C/S.

10        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I want to direct your attention to that passage

11     that is in the middle of the page:  Momcilo Perisic ...

12             MR. HARMON:  And, Your Honours, to the passage that is at the --

13     under Momcilo Perisic, that first paragraph, that only paragraph.

14             And, finally, if we could turn to the next page, page 36 in

15     English, and page 27.

16        Q.   I would like to direct your attention to the passage with

17     Mr. Bulatovic in the middle of the page, Mr. Starcevic.

18             MR. HARMON:  And, Your Honours, it's the only passage identified

19     with Mr. Bulatovic.

20        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, the passage that we looked at, just -- we've been

21     looking at, there's a reference on the previous passage that -- that --

22     and I quote, this is General Perisic, it says:

23             "I have already issued an internal order that they all are

24     supposed to go there.  Whoever doesn't want to go has to find a mode."

25             It goes on to say:

Page 5557

 1             "If someone doesn't want to go and has over 30 years' of

 2     pensionable employment, we can give him early retirement so that we're

 3     not accepting this.  We will tell him he is not performing his duties in

 4     a satisfactory manner and other things, but we won't write that he did

 5     not want to go there."

 6             It goes on to say:

 7             "We will find another way of getting rid of them."

 8             Now, can you comment on that text and the implications that that

 9     has for Article 107 of the Law on the Army?

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think this way of putting questions

12     leads to a situation where one is asking the witness to speculate.

13             First of all, parts of a discussion that we know about have been

14     taken out of context.  One topic that is discussed on over 20 pages, a

15     sentence is being pulled out and the witness is being asked to interpret

16     it pursuant to the provisions of the law.  And, of course, Your Honours

17     know there is a difference between somebody commenting on text like this

18     and having the comments of the person who participated in the actual

19     discussion.  The witness is not able to really comment here, and

20     Mr. Harmon here is trying to get the witness to comment on matters that

21     are not directly in his experience.  So, in a way, we're getting into a

22     collision with what Mr. Starcevic said before in terms of the time when

23     this conference -- when this session was held.

24             I think that there must be a difference in the comments that

25     Mr. Starcevic is making regarding this type of document and regarding a

Page 5558

 1     law that you have in front of you and are able to also look at

 2     yourselves.

 3             I don't want to be -- well, perhaps it seems as if I'm

 4     complicating things.  I do not wish to be suggesting anything in my

 5     objection, but we know when the law was adopted and when this Session was

 6     held, and now the witness is being asked to comment.  So even though this

 7     is a factual witness, he is not able to talk about things that he

 8     personally doesn't know.  I mean, he was able to comment and give some

 9     explanations of the law.

10             MR. HARMON:  May I reframe the question then, Your Honour?

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please do.

12             MR. HARMON:

13        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, the text that I recited to you dealing with a

14     person who has over 30 years' of pensionable employment, does that

15     implicate Article 107 of the Law on the Army?

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In that case, I would like to ask

19     Mr. Harmon to say when these words were spoken.  Again, we're talking

20     about something, a sentence that was spoken before the law went into

21     effect, and then we need to also specify the law.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

23             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I stated that the 14th Session was held

24     on the 11th of October, 1993.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're right.  And when did the law come in?

Page 5559

 1             MR. HARMON:  The witness testified yesterday - I have to -- let

 2     me just ask him.  He testified that the Law on the Army was initially

 3     promulgated, and then there was a year period of time during which time

 4     they had to reconcile one provision, but the law was in effect.

 5        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, let me just ask you, when did the Law on the Army

 6     come into effect?  Let me ask you again.

 7        A.   Based on the copy that I have in front of me, I'm not able to

 8     really determine the exact date.  Actually, it's clear to me from the

 9     copy that I have that the time when the Chamber or the council adopted

10     the draft law, but in order to know when the law went into effect, I

11     would need to know the date it was published in the Official Gazette

12     because a law goes into effect on the eighth day following its

13     publication in the Official Gazette.  And I'm sorry, but I'm unable to

14     see that from the copy that I have in front of me.  I can just say when

15     this final version of the law was adopted.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That document you are holding in your hands, sir,

17     is that not an Official Gazette?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is.  But I have to point out

19     that this law, in keeping with the constitutional practice of sorts,

20     actually came into effect twice, the first time when it was adopted at

21     the Chamber of Citizens, but the Chamber of republics did not adopt an

22     identical text, so that it was in effect from that day.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  After it was adopted by the Chamber of Citizens,

24     was it published in the Gazette?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so, yes.  But that Official

Page 5560

 1     Gazette --

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Was it --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the constitution provides

 4     that the text shall be applicable until it is finally reconciled in both

 5     Chambers, or before both Chambers, within no later than a year's time.

 6             So, in fact, it was in effect as of then, and then the newer

 7     version, the reconciled version, was published in this Official Gazette,

 8     so that as a consequence, because it was published in the Official

 9     Gazette on the 27th of May, 1994, this would mean that it came into

10     effect on the 5th or 6th of June, 1994.  But this relates to this

11     version, the reconciled version.  As for when the first version came into

12     effect, I would need to see that Official Gazette where that version was

13     actually published.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Does this mean, then, we can only go by the date

15     of the document you have in your hands, which is dated the 27th of May,

16     1994?  That's the document we have before Court.

17             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I may be able to assist the Chamber on

18     this because yesterday when I asked Mr. Starcevic this question, he gave

19     an answer.  It's found at page 5437 at line 7, and I can read the answer,

20     if you care.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Please do.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, at 5436, line 14, I asked

24     Mr. Starcevic:

25             "When did the Law on the Army become effective?  What date?"

Page 5561

 1             And then, thereupon, Mr. Starcevic explained that the problem

 2     that he has explained again today, that there was a difficulty between

 3     the two texts and they had to be reconciled.  He then answered at 5437,

 4     starting at line 5, he said:

 5             "So in other words, this law came into effect in the form that it

 6     was adopted in the Chamber of Citizens at the end of May, I believe --

 7     no, I apologise, in October 1993."

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm aware of that.  I'm aware of that.

 9             I thought the concern, that we have him here in court, he has got

10     a document in his hand.

11             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's dated 27th of May, 1994.  It takes effect on

13     the 6th of June, 1994, according to what he tells us, and that is the --

14     seems to me to be that the version that has been ratified by both

15     Chambers of parliament.

16             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, what the witness answered, as I

17     understood his evidence - I'm trying to find it precisely - but I

18     understood his evidence was when there is a discrepancy in the text, the

19     law goes into effect.  There is a one-year period during which time there

20     is efforts between the two Chambers, the two Houses to reconcile that

21     language, and thereafter, the -- that happened within the one-year period

22     of time, and thereafter, the text was officially adopted.  But it had

23     been in effect, according to Mr. Starcevic's answer, since October.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And if an issue arises within the year that

25     requires the unresolved provision to be applied, what then happens?

Page 5562

 1             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I would have to defer to Mr. Starcevic

 2     on that one provision.  But ...

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Starcevic.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, the version that was

 5     adopted in the Chamber of Citizens is applicable until the final

 6     reconciliation of versions, and, of course, I'm not denying that this

 7     text actually took effect in October, but I just don't know the exact

 8     date in October, and if I understood this whole discussion well, what is

 9     contested here, or, rather, what is a matter of contest between the two

10     parties is the date and not the month.  And when looking at this text, it

11     would seem to me that that could not have been before the 20th of

12     October, but I'm not certain and can't be until I see the actual version.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic is on his feet.  Let's give him -- yes,

14     Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have before me a page of the

16     military gazette.  Perhaps we can put it on the ELMO, and perhaps the

17     witness can read from it.  This is an official military gazette which

18     speaks of when this Law on the Army of Yugoslavia was adopted.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter kindly asks that the counsel

20     repeat the date when this was published in the military gazette.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The counsel didn't mention the date because that's

22     precisely what he wants us to see on the ELMO, and he doesn't want to

23     testify.  I'm answering the interpreter.

24             You want to show it to your colleagues before you put it on the

25     ELMO, if you so wish?

Page 5563

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that would be proper.

 2             MR. HARMON:  Unfortunately, I can't read it.  Unfortunately, I

 3     can't read it.  It's very kind of you, Mr. Novak [sic].

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] If you can't read it --

 5             MR. HARMON:  It is in Cyrillic, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can't approve it.  You can't approve that it

 7     goes on the --

 8             MR. HARMON:  I don't have an interpreter here, Your Honour, and I

 9     can't.  But I'm willing to accept what -- perhaps Mr. Lukic can read the

10     text into the record, and I would be satisfied with that.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think it would probably be best if

13     the witness were to read this portion of the text and also to interpret

14     what date this would be and when it was published.  Of course, I can

15     read, but I think it would be the most objective approach if the witness

16     were to read this, just the portion that relates to when this provisional

17     text was actually published in the military Official Gazette.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just hold on, Mr. ...

19             Mr. Harmon must still grant his permission before anything is

20     shown to the witness.  That's why it went to him in the first place, and

21     he suggested that you read it, and he will accept what you say.

22             So if you still say it must go to the witness, Mr. Harmon must

23     still say:  Even though I'm illiterate in this language, I still agree

24     that it be given to the witness.

25             MR. HARMON:  I'm satisfied that Mr. Starcevic can read it as

Page 5564

 1     well.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 3             MR. HARMON:  Thank you very much.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can give it to him.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The law was published on the

 6     4th of November, 1993, in the Official Gazette, number 31.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 8             MR. HARMON:

 9        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, then let me just explore this a bit further with

10     you.  Prior to the promulgation of the Law on the Army, was there a law

11     that was replaced, and what was the name of that law?

12        A.   Yes, there was a law, the name of which was the Law on Service in

13     the Armed Forces; and in fact, it was superceded by this law.

14        Q.   Did the Law on Service in the Armed Forces have a provision that

15     related to the reasons for termination of professional military service?

16        A.   Yes, it did.

17        Q.   Did that previous law have an article that was similar to

18     Article 107 in the Law on the Army?

19        A.   Yes, there was a similar article.

20        Q.   Did the law on the -- the previous law have a provision that

21     dealt with the termination from professional military service of a

22     professional officer who had acquired at least 30 years' of pensionable

23     service, if the needs of the service so required?

24        A.   Yes, I think there was such a provision, but also some other

25     provisions.  In other words, this article, 107, is not identical to the

Page 5565

 1     one that existed in the earlier law, but I think there was a provision to

 2     that effect.

 3        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, we have an exhibit, or 65 ter number.  We have the

 4     Law on Service in the Armed Forces.

 5             MR. HARMON:  With counsel's permission, and since I didn't notify

 6     counsel of the -- that I would be using this with Mr. Starcevic, we can

 7     resolve the issue very quickly if I could call up the Law on the Service

 8     of Armed Forces.  It is it 65 ter 5839.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't have a problem with this.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

12             Mr. Harmon, and I know you absolutely prepared for e-court and

13     not otherwise, but do you have any extra copies of these laws that we

14     have been working on this morning?  I mean, we're going backwards and

15     forwards through many of these articles, at times without having to put

16     the article back on the monitor.  Maybe it might help if we just have it

17     and can flip through -- if you don't have, that's fine.

18             MR. HARMON:  I may, Your Honour.

19             Your Honour, we have one set.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  We can share.

21             MR. HARMON:  Okay.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             MR. HARMON:  So what I --

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can put on the monitor the old law.

25             MR. HARMON:  It's 65 ter 5839.

Page 5566

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

 2             MR. HARMON:  Oh, I'm sorry, 5830.

 3        Q.   And, Mr. Starcevic, while the old law comes up on the monitor, do

 4     you by chance -- oh, I'm sorry.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think it would be feasible for the

 6     needs of the transcript to show this document that we placed on the ELMO

 7     to actually admit it into evidence.

 8             MR. HARMON:  I have no objection to that, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] Is that the one?

10             MR. HARMON:  You mean the -- the earlier document that Mr. Lukic

11     showed to the parties, that's the document.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The hard copy?

13             MR. HARMON:  Yes.  I have no objection to it being --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we give it a 65 ter number, then?

15             MR. HARMON:  It's a Defence exhibit.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we don't have a 65 ter number

17     for that document because we just pulled it out in hard copy right now.

18     Perhaps we can forward it to the registrar later on.  I don't know what

19     the easiest way to do this would be.  Perhaps we can just assign the next

20     number in the 65 ter series.

21                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay, okay, okay.  Okay, Mr. Lukic.  Okay, the

23     registrar has a way you can tender it.

24             MR. HARMON:  Now --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  She knows how to work it out.  Just tender it now.

Page 5567

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  I move to tender it into

 2     evidence.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

 4     please be given an exhibit number, please.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit D81, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 7             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 8             MR. HARMON:  I have a proposal.  I think rather than trying to

 9     search through the monitor and trying to find the exact provision that I

10     -- Mr. Starcevic referred to, the parallel provision in the previous law,

11     I have a hard copy in the Serbian language.  If I could present that to

12     Mr. Starcevic after showing it to counsel, then he can find it for us a

13     lot faster than we can do on the monitor.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can do so.

15             MR. HARMON:  If this could first be shown to counsel.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             MR. HARMON:

19        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, it may be Article 392.

20        A.   That's correct, Article 392.

21        Q.   Can you identify the passage that may be similar to the article

22     in the Law on the Army?

23        A.   If we mean the hard copy pages, that would be on page 290,

24     following item -- or Article 4.  There is an paragraph that makes a

25     reference to the special needs of the service and the interests of the

Page 5568

 1     armed forces, and only upon a decision by the Presidency of the SFRY and

 2     in such a -- such an event, a professional soldier did not enjoy the

 3     guaranteed rights that were actually recognised in the provision in the

 4     new law.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm a bit lost.  I'm not quite sure where we are.

 6             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I was looking at an English

 7     version.

 8        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, what I'm trying to find and if you can direct us

 9     to a provision that is similar in the old law that relates to termination

10     from service for a person who has served at least 30 pensionable years of

11     service if the needs of the service so require.  Is there such a

12     provision in the old law that is before -- that is in your hand?

13        A.   Well, that's exactly what I tried to do.  Under the old law, the

14     criterion was not the years of service but the special needs of the

15     service and interests of the armed forces, regardless of the years of

16     service.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I might ask you, sir.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What about -- if you look at Article 392, you have

20     Roman numerals I to VI, and then the next paragraph of Roman numerals I

21     to V, and then the next one says:  The service of an active duty service

22     men may terminate, column 1, when he completes 40 (men) or 35 (women)

23     years of pensionable service if the needs of the service so require.

24             Isn't that it?  Just the difference of time of service.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This provision, in effect, provides

Page 5569

 1     for the regular retirement of professional soldiers because the condition

 2     for retirement under the system which existed in the armed forces was

 3     40 years of service for men and 35 years of service for women, and this

 4     was one of the regular ways for termination of service for an individual

 5     who has met the requirements.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand --

 7             THE WITNESS:  [English] Yes.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand that.  But Mr. Harmon's question had

 9     been, and at page 66, line 14:

10             "Mr. Starcevic, what I'm trying to find and if can you direct to

11     us to a provision that is similar in the old law that relates to

12     termination from service for a person who has served at least 30

13     pensionable years if the needs of service so require."

14             Isn't that also just a regular termination after a specified

15     number of years?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such a provision did not exist in

17     the old law, but the similarities between the old and the new law were in

18     the reasons provided for termination of service when required by the

19     needs of the service, and such a provision as the needs require did exist

20     in the old law following number 4, after number 4.

21             However --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Which number 4?  There are many number 4s here.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the first paragraph, we have

24     numbers 1 to 6.  In the second paragraph, we have 1 to 5.  And then we

25     have numbers from 1 to 4.  Following that number 4, the reason for

Page 5570

 1     termination of service that is given is the needs of the service.

 2     However, at that time, this did not -- was not limited by that criterion

 3     of 30 years of service, so that any individual could be terminated

 4     because of the needs of the service, regardless of the number of years

 5     that they had spent in the army, the number of years of service, and that

 6     is where it differs from the new law.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We don't see the entire text of the law in the

 8     English version on the screen, so yeah, we accept -- I'll accept what you

 9     say.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  That is what I had

11     earlier described as the specific aspect of military service, the

12     reflection of that.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand that.  But I don't -- I don't know

14     whether you are saying this is the counterpart of the new law.  I think

15     the counterpart that Mr. Harmon was looking for is what I'd referred you

16     to.

17             I don't know.  What do you say, Mr. Harmon?

18             MR. HARMON:  Let me try to --

19        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, there is the new text in Article 107 in the Law on

20     the Army, and as I understand your evidence, there are similarities but

21     not mirror images of the new law in the older version of the article have

22     you read us; is that correct?

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   Okay.  So the principle of the needs of the service, one of the

25     factors that was considered under the old law was how many years you had

Page 5571

 1     been in the army; is that correct?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Okay.

 4        A.   The specific aspect of the service is based on the criterion that

 5     there should be the needs and interests of the service.  They should be

 6     in existence, and that was the basic criterion in both of these texts we

 7     are discussing.

 8             When we were drafting the new proposal, we as lawyers considered

 9     it unfair as well as legally untenable that a man may be terminated based

10     on the needs of the service, a man at the end of his career, without

11     protecting that man's rights, and that is why this article was amended in

12     the sense that the new text provides that this is possible only if that

13     worker or that serviceman has already had 30 years of service.

14        Q.   Okay.  Finally, did the concept of the needs of the service

15     change between the old law and the new law?

16        A.   I'm not sure.  I don't think that it changed much.  It still

17     remained as the criterion for the termination of service.  But it changed

18     to the extent that the basic rights of the personnel were preserved in

19     the event that there were such needs of the service.

20        Q.   Okay.

21             MR. HARMON:  Now, can we go back to the exhibit, the previous

22     exhibit, which is 709, and I would like to go to B/C/S, page 26, and

23     English, page 35, and re-visit that particular text.

24        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, under the Law of the Army, if an active

25     military officer received an order to go to a particular duty post and he

Page 5572

 1     refused, would that be a -- what consequences would flow from that

 2     refusal under the Law on the Army?

 3        A.   In principle, he would have to carry out the order and then

 4     appeal against it, but the appeal itself would not postpone the execution

 5     of the order.  If he would definitely refuse, then that could serve as a

 6     grounds for disciplinary responsibility of the person, and if I remember

 7     correctly, in some cases there would be also criminal charges involved,

 8     because according to the criminal law at the time, among the violations

 9     of military discipline would be a refusal to execute an order.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'd like you to examine the text that's before you,

11     where General Perisic is -- it's on the middle of the page.

12             MR. HARMON:  And, Your Honours, it has been highlighted for you.

13        Q.   It says:

14             "I have already issued an internal order that they're all

15     supposed to go there; whoever doesn't go has to find a mode; we, too,

16     have found the appropriate criteria."

17             And then it goes on to say:

18             "If someone doesn't want to go and has over 30 years experience

19     [sic], years of pensionable employment ..."  We will give him early

20     retirement, essentially, and they discuss -- it goes on:

21             "We'll tell him that is he not performing his duties in a

22     satisfactory manner ... but we won't write that he did not want to go

23     there."

24             Now, not wanting to go to a duty assignment was an actionable

25     offence under the VJ.  You've just said that, correct, under the law on

Page 5573

 1     the VJ.  Not accepting an assignment had consequences.

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   Now, when a -- when an officer refuses to accept an assignment,

 4     is it the practice in the Yugoslav Army to find a -- another basis by

 5     which to terminate a -- an officer, as opposed to utilising the refusal

 6     to go and accept an order?

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that if we're talking about a

 9     fact witness and things that are known to the witness as facts, but

10     Mr. Harmon is now asking the witness about things that he generally

11     knows, so then he is being asked to provide an expert opinion.  Perhaps

12     the witness can be asked if he specifically knows and has some experience

13     about that but not to be asked for a general assessment about some

14     matters because then that would mean that he would be giving an expert

15     witness reply.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

17             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I asked the witness the question on the

18     basis that he has a long-standing and serving -- he was a career military

19     officer.  That's the basis for the question, and I think he can give an

20     opinion on that.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not quite sure whether this question is

22     calling for an opinion, or is it calling for knowledge on the part of the

23     witness whether there was any legal provision in the laws that he drafted

24     that covers the issue.

25             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I did not ask him that -- the question

Page 5574

 1     with that intention.  I asked him the question on the -- on the basis

 2     that he had 30 -- or many years in military service and in his

 3     experience, and perhaps I need to frame it that way, but in his

 4     experience, has he seen a situation where there are efforts to conceal

 5     the basis of the termination?

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then I think I will overrule the objection.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember encountering such

 8     cases during my work.  I don't think that I encountered anything like

 9     that in practice.

10             MR. HARMON:

11        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Okay.

12             MR. HARMON:  Now, Your Honour, could I tender the document, the

13     Law on The service of the Armed Forces as an exhibit that was referred to

14     and we discussed for a number of minutes.  It's 65 ter number 5830.  And

15     if -- Your Honour, it's a long document.  We're satisfied to have the

16     article that was referred to at this point in time be the Prosecution

17     Exhibit and not the whole exhibit, unless counsel has a desire to do it

18     otherwise.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would rather have the entire law

20     admitted because the law was in effect formally until March 1994, and

21     it's important for this case, so if I am being asked, then I would

22     propose that the whole law be tendered for admission.  I'm also probably

23     going to be asking the witness questions on it during my

24     cross-examination later.  And the problem is that the version in e-court

25     actually is not the translation of the complete law, so perhaps we can

Page 5575

 1     then at least have the whole law in the B/C/S loaded onto the e-court --

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Exhibit --

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] -- and marked for identification.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Why do you want it marked for identification?

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Because the entire text is not

 6     translated into English.  I have been informed that only ten pages of it

 7     have been translated, so marked for identification until the entire law

 8     is translated into English.

 9             MR. HARMON:  That imposes -- I think there was a reason why the

10     entire law wasn't translated into English, because it's a massive text.

11     If the admission now of the whole document requires the translation of

12     the whole text, then I would be perfectly satisfied to keep the portions

13     of the text that are translated admitted, and then I will go back and

14     examine the feasibility of translating the remaining portions of the

15     text.  I think a large number of the portion of the text is irrelevant,

16     frankly.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  I think the Chamber is going to admit the

18     pages that you have used today, and if the Defence uses other pages

19     later, the pages that they use will be admitted.

20             So pages -- the relevant pages of Exhibit 5830 or 65 ter 5830 are

21     admitted into evidence.  May they please be given an exhibit number.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, those pages would be Exhibit P2305.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

24             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I'm about to embark on a rather lengthy

25     topic.

Page 5576

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before you embark on the lengthy topic, Judge

 2     Picard would like to ask a question.

 3             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon, do you still need the documents that

 6     are on the screen?  Oh, you do.  Can we stay in private session.  Don't

 7     answer, Mr. Harmon.

 8             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Mr. Starcevic, I am asking a

 9     question that has to do with these two laws, the old and the new laws on

10     the army.  It seems at the point in time when this meeting was held, the

11     text that is in front of us -- actually, at the time of the meeting the

12     new law had not yet gone into effect.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, it seems to be like that.

14     That's how I understood it.

15             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] So I don't understand anymore why

16     at this meeting Mr. Perisic quite clearly referred to Article 107 that

17     still was not in effect because nowhere in the old law was the

18     possibility mentioned of termination of service in the army after

19     30 years' of pensionable service.  This is not quite clear to me why

20     General Perisic, in this part here, refers to these 30 years.  Does that

21     have anything to do with some kind of provision that was in the old law,

22     or is this new law -- was it already existing, was it already drafted,

23     and was it possible that he is referring here to some future new law?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that everything that

25     you said is really quite possible.  I don't know why he refers to it, but

Page 5577

 1     it is a fact that at that time the law was completed, and it was already

 2     being discussed in the parliament.  It's a fact that in the preparation

 3     of the law, the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia also took part,

 4     so that was an expected resolution or a manner to deal with that

 5     particular problem.

 6             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] So in order to have everything

 7     quite clear, when you refer to 30 years of service, or 30 years of

 8     pensionable service - I'm not quite sure what the term is - is that

 9     something that was also in the old law?  We saw that it was 40 years for

10     men and 35 years for women.  Was that something that was part of the old

11     law?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the old Law on The Armed

13     Services, this was not there.  I could maybe make a comparison, but this

14     is already compared between termination of service and one's right to

15     pension.  A special law laid down the conditions under which one secures

16     the right to a pension, and in that law, this right to pension, depended

17     on the years of service and -- and age, as well, so I can just give you

18     an example.  For example, a man who is 65 years old can have over 20

19     years of service and have the right to a pension.  Perhaps this is some

20     kind of link there, but I'm not really able to tell you definitely.

21             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Very well.  But when we're talking

22     about 30 years of pensionable service, there is no basis for that in the

23     old law?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't see it.

25             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Yes.  All right.  Thank you.

Page 5578

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, judge.

 2             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 3             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, noting the time, I have no additional

 4     questions.

 5             Can we go back into public session.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  May the Chamber please move into open

 7     session, and may we remove the exhibits from the screen before we go into

 8     open session.

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

12             Yes.  You say you have got no questions for the day.

13             MR. HARMON:  No questions for the day, Your Honour.  I'd ask that

14     Mr. Starcevic return, and I need to resolve with Mr. Starcevic a set of

15     dates with him when he can return.  We had discussed it earlier, but now

16     I'm not able to talk to him, and I have been informed of an element that

17     has changed my previous planning by one day, and I need to be able to

18     talk through an intermediary or have an intermediary discuss with

19     Mr. Starcevic a convenient date when he can return.

20             May I make -- what I had initially planned and suggested to

21     counsel and to Mr. Starcevic was that he return on the 11th and 12th of

22     May, but I was informed just before this session began that -- through

23     the court officer that Mr. Starcevic is unable to fly on the 10th, which

24     would eliminate the possibility of his testifying on the 11th.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

Page 5579

 1             MR. HARMON:  And I would -- I know my schedule, but I need to

 2     talk some details with -- through an intermediary with Mr. Starcevic so I

 3     can finally resolve the date.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I suggest that after the break you talk with

 5     Mr. Starcevic in the presence of Mr. Lukic.

 6             MR. HARMON:  That is satisfactory, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And sort out the problems.

 8             MR. HARMON:  That's fine.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

10             But the court can still adjourn to a specific date on Monday.

11             MR. HARMON:  Oh, yes.  Absolutely, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you.

13             Mr. Starcevic, it does look like we're not able to finish with

14     your testimony.  You'll have to come back someday.  You will have to talk

15     to counsel and other counsel and sort out whatever is convenient for you,

16     and they will let us know when you come.

17             Other than that discussion for the postponement of the date, as

18     you know, are you not supposed to talk to anybody, in particular with

19     your counsel, until you are excused from testifying.  We'll see you when

20     you next come.

21             The Court stands adjourned until Monday, the 27th of April, at

22     9.00 in the morning, Courtroom I.  Court adjourned.

23                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day of April,

25                           2009, at 9.00 a.m.