Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13528

 1                           Monday, 6 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everybody in and around the

 6     courtroom.  Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.

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

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

 9     the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Could we have the appearances

11     for the day, please, starting with Prosecution.

12             MR. THOMAS:  Yes, good morning, Your Honours, and firstly an

13     apology for keeping everybody waiting for a few moments this morning.

14     I'd received wrong information that we were starting at quarter past, but

15     I apologise, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

17             MR. THOMAS:  Barney Thomas, April Carter, and Carmela Javier for

18     the Prosecution.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  And for the Defence.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Gregor Guy-Smith,

21     Chad Mair, and Tina Drolec appearing on behalf of Mr. Perisic.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23             Mr. Guy-Smith.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, we would call our next witness, if we could,

25     please.

Page 13529

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  For the Court's information, the next witness is

 3     General Kadijevic.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Surely.  If I could have the court usher grab

 6     this yellow binder for a moment so that the Prosecution can take a quick

 7     look.  I'll wait.

 8                           [The witness entered court]

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the witness please make the declaration.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

11     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, you may be seated, sir.

13             Good morning to you, sir.  Mr. Guy-Smith.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

16                           WITNESS:  RADOJICA KADIJEVIC

17                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If the court usher would be so kind as to grab

19     the yellow binder the Prosecution has had an opportunity to review.

20                           Examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:

21        Q.   Good morning, sir.

22        A.   Morning.

23        Q.   If you'd tell us your name and spell your last name for the

24     record, we'd appreciate it.

25        A.   Good morning.  My name is Radojica Kadijevic.

Page 13530

 1     Lieutenant-General, retired.

 2        Q.   Since you are retired, would you prefer that I call you

 3     Mr. Kadijevic or General?  What is your preference, sir?

 4        A.   It makes no difference to me.  Whatever suits you best.

 5        Q.   Very well.  Probably during the course of our conversation today

 6     I'll probably end up calling you both, so ...

 7             How long have you been retired?

 8        A.   For 11 years.

 9        Q.   And prior to your retirement, for whom did you work, sir?

10        A.   Before my retirement, I was assistant federal minister for

11     defence for military economic activities.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sorry, Your Honour, I was on the wrong channel.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I repeat?

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:

15        Q.   No, it's fine.  I have an opportunity to read it, it just took me

16     a moment.  And for how long a period of time were you the assistant

17     federal minister for defence for the military economic activities?

18        A.   I was appointed assistant federal minister in June 1995, and I

19     stayed in that position until April 1999.

20        Q.   Prior to your appointment as assistant federal minster for

21     defence for military economic activities, what post did you hold, sir?

22        A.   Prior to that I was chief of the administration for

23     investigation, development, manufacture of weaponry and military

24     equipment within the Ministry of Defence.

25        Q.   And for how long a period of time did you hold that post?

Page 13531

 1        A.   I held the post of chief for research, development, and

 2     manufacture from November 1993 until the following position that I took.

 3        Q.   And before you were the chief for research and development for

 4     manufacture in the Ministry of Defence what post did you hold, sir?

 5        A.   Prior to that I was the chief of the navy and technical

 6     administration within the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, and

 7     prior to that, Yugoslav People's Army.

 8        Q.   And could you tell us what time-period you were involved in that

 9     post?

10        A.   I held the post of the chief of the navy and technical

11     administration for five years.

12        Q.   And if we were to go back in time, would that be then starting in

13     1987?

14        A.   Yes.  Upon completing the national school of -- for defence, I

15     was appointed chief of the navy and technical administration, which was

16     attached to the General Staff.

17        Q.   And without going through each and every other post that you held

18     while you were working before your retirement, when did you first join

19     the military?

20        A.   I first joined the army in 1992 upon graduating from the navy and

21     technical academy in Pula.  Prior to that I was a cadet and I attended

22     the navy and technical academy for three years.

23        Q.   I'm not sure whether or not you misspoke or you misheard but it

24     indicates that you first joined the army in 1992; is that correct?

25        A.   I apologise, it was a slip of the tongue.  It was in 1962.

Page 13532

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If it was the slip of the tongue, then did you

 3     graduate in the navy and technical academy just prior to 1962?  Because

 4     you were interpreted as saying you first joined the army in 1992 upon

 5     graduating in the technical academy -- in the navy and technical academy.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible that it was a

 7     mistake.  I applied and was admitted into the navy and technical academy

 8     in 1959.  The academy lasted three years and I graduated in September of

 9     1962.  According to our regulation, one is promoted into the rank of 2nd

10     lieutenant on the day one joins the JNA.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   When were you born, sir?

13        A.   I was born on the 17th of April, 1940.

14        Q.   And where were you born?

15        A.   I was born in a place called Glavina Donja, municipality of Iv

16     Imotski, Republic of Croatia.

17        Q.   Did you ever serve in any other military organisations apart from

18     the JNA, the VJ, and the Ministry of Defence?

19        A.   No, sir.  I never served in any other organisation other than the

20     JNA, the Army of Yugoslavia, and my last position was with the Ministry

21     of Defence.

22        Q.   Were you ever asked to or ordered to serve in any other military

23     organisations apart from the JNA, the VJ, and the Ministry of Defence?

24        A.   No, nobody asked me to do that nor have I ever had problems with

25     that type of request.  I was transferred from the General Staff to the

Page 13533

 1     Ministry of Defence and I had regular promotions there until I reached

 2     the position of assistant minister of defence.

 3        Q.   I'd like to spend a moment or two dealing with your duties from

 4     June 1995 to 1999 when you were the assistant minister of defence.  Could

 5     you please tell us what your responsibilities were while you were in that

 6     position.

 7        A.   The main task in that position was to co-ordinate within the

 8     sector for military economic activities in order to fulfill the duties

 9     and obligations of the Army of Yugoslavia when it comes to funding,

10     equipment, and weaponry.  In order to complete my task, I was superior to

11     the institute for research and development of the Army of Yugoslavia, and

12     it dealt with research and development as well as the development of the

13     special military industry -- special-purpose military industry, which was

14     to produce the equipment and weaponry needed for the military.

15             In addition to that, within the sector there was an

16     administration for procurement of military equipment and weaponry and

17     that administration procured within the country and also abroad whatever

18     was needed for the Ministry of Defence and the Army of Yugoslavia.  In

19     order to ensure all of that, there was a department for quality control

20     of weaponry and military equipment as well as department for

21     standardisation and nomenclature in which ensured that everything was of

22     a good quality and given as such to the end users, and they also prepared

23     the system that was meant to service and repair that equipment.

24             In addition to this, there was also the field of international

25     military and scientific corporation and a lot of people within the

Page 13534

 1     ministry and the army took part in this corporation.  This corporation

 2     was co-ordinated and headed by us, by my office.

 3        Q.   With regard to your duties when you were in the position of

 4     assistant minister of defence, after Dayton, and we'll touch upon this

 5     later in your testimony, were you also appointed to a commission dealing

 6     with demilitarisation in the region and specifically with the

 7     demilitarisation of FRY?

 8        A.   By way of a decision of the government of the Federal Republic of

 9     Yugoslavia I was appointed chairman of the commission which was tasked

10     with implementing in full the Florence Agreement.  Pursuant to the

11     decision of the prime minister of the federal government, the tasks of

12     both me and members of the commission were fully defined.  We had no

13     opportunity to do anything else other than strictly implement the

14     agreement on disarmament that had been signed.  In that position, or

15     rather in that capacity, I especially emphasised to other members of the

16     commission that I would never accept any sort of interference of politics

17     into the implementation of the agreement.

18             The federal government tasked us to report back to them each

19     month about the activities that we undertook and how they proceeded.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel be asked to switch off microphone

21     when not in use.  Thank you.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH: I will do my best.

23        Q.   Thank you for that response.  We'll have further discussion about

24     this particular endeavour later on in your testimony, but I thank you for

25     that response at this moment.

Page 13535

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, you heard the request from the

 2     interpreters?

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I did.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 6        Q.   I'd like to, at this point in time, based upon the answer that

 7     you've given us, take a look at a document.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could please have D240 up on the screen.

 9        Q.   That will be the first document, the very first tab in your

10     binder, sir.

11             And this is a document called "Rules On The Responsibilities Of

12     The Organisational Units In The Defence Ministry."  We discussed this

13     document and I understand that you are familiar with it.  Could you

14     please take a look at Article" 15 of this document, which defines the

15     duties, sector for military economic activity, which I believe is on page

16     -- on page 9 of the English, I believe page 7 of the B/C/S.  I believe.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Just for the record, B/C/S page number 8.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you very much.  I do apologise.  Page

19     number 8.  Article 15.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 10.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:

22        Q.   Page 10 for you, yes.  There is an electronic system, a hard copy

23     system, a B/C/S system, an English system; everything is differently

24     paginated but I'm sure we'll all get to the same page eventually.

25             Could you take a look at the Article 15, please, sir.  If you

Page 13536

 1     could, could you confirm for us if it is accurate that those were the

 2     duties and responsibilities of the sector for military activity, economic

 3     activity of the Ministry of Defence?

 4        A.   Yes, those were, in general, the tasks of the sector for military

 5     economic activities.

 6        Q.   And with regard to the issue of the procurement administration,

 7     could you take a look at Article 17.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And that will be on page 10 of the English.  And

 9     I believe it's going to be in B/C/S and it's going to be page 9.

10        Q.   Do you have the section entitled "Procurement Administration"?

11     Right above --

12        A.   Yes, I have found it, and I have looked at it.  These are general

13     responsibilities of the procurement administration.

14        Q.   I'd like to spend a moment here.  You indicated that between 1993

15     and 1995 your duties were as the chief of the research and development

16     administration, and if I am not mistaken, that also included the issue of

17     procurement.  Is that accurate?

18        A.   I don't think you are quite right because the administration for

19     research, development, and manufacture did not also deal with

20     procurement.  The administration for research, development, and

21     manufacture mostly brought together all fields of scientific work for the

22     needs of the army of Yugoslavia and the federal ministry and their

23     component parts.

24             In addition to that, this administration developed facilities for

25     special-purpose industry.  They also developed new technologies, approved

Page 13537

 1     various investments and investment plans, and they also drafted

 2     regulations which dealt with the field that they were responsible for.

 3             In addition to that, the administration also co-operated with

 4     other military scientific institutions within the the Federal Republic of

 5     Yugoslavia.

 6        Q.   With regard to the procurement administration, what, if any,

 7     involvement did you have with the procurement administration during your

 8     tenure as the chief of research and development?

 9        A.   I had none because these are two parallel administrations at the

10     same level.  They co-operated closely between each other, especially when

11     it comes to procurement of new equipment.  In those cases, people from

12     the research and development administration would get involved in

13     procurement of this new equipment in order to develop the necessary

14     regulations and paperwork, especially when it it comes to prices,

15     standards, and so on, whereas the procurement administration would take

16     care of the commercial part of those deals.  So when it comes to such

17     activities, all sectors would co-operate, all sectors within the military

18     economic activity sectors, just as the quality control administration had

19     its staff both within the Ministry of Defence and within the military

20     industry.  They were tasked with ensuring the appropriate standard of

21     equipment in all stages of manufacture so that --

22        Q.   Let me ask you this:  In reviewing Article 17, are you familiar

23     with those -- the tasks that are set forth with regard to what the

24     procurement administration was supposed to be engaged in?

25        A.   Yes, I'm fully familiar with these tasks.

Page 13538

 1        Q.   And as I understand this, looking at the plain language here, it

 2     says the procurement administration shall carry out the tasks that

 3     pertain to supplying of the VJ with combat and -- I seem to be having

 4     some screen problems, that's why you hear my sigh.  My screen keeps on

 5     going on and off.  With combat and non-combat equipment.  As such, 1, and

 6     I shall not read them all, it says it "shall supply the Yugoslav Army

 7     with the weapons and military equipment and other supplies, delivering

 8     them to the army depots, procuring them from domestic sources, and shall

 9     contract the repair of equipment and materiel."  To your understanding

10     was that one of the main functions of the procurement administration?

11        A.   Yes, that was the basic function of the procurement

12     administration, although it had other tasks as well as listed in here,

13     and that's what they did, however this was the main task and that's hence

14     its name, the procurement administration.  There was a time when the

15     title was expanded to the procurement administration, or rather, the

16     procurement of armament and military equipment.

17        Q.   I'd like you to take just a brief look at number 6, where it

18     states:

19             "It shall sell assets within its purview."

20             My question to you here, sir, is could you explain to us what

21     assets, if you know, were within its purview that it had the authority

22     and responsibility to sell?

23        A.   The procurement administration, as I said, dealt with the sale of

24     armament and military equipment of different types.  Primarily they sold

25     the surpluses of armament and military equipment, obsolete types of

Page 13539

 1     armament and military equipment, and later on, when we were engaged in

 2     the destruction of military technique pursuant to the disarmament

 3     agreement, that technique was all cut to pieces and we sold raw

 4     materials, iron and everything else.  Whatever the Ministry of Defence

 5     and the Army of Yugoslavia advertised as surplus, we in the

 6     administration received documents and accompanying materials requesting

 7     us to embark on the sale of such supplies because the administration for

 8     procurement had staff that knew how to deal with such tasks.

 9        Q.   With regard to what you've just said, you indicated that it dealt

10     with the sale of armament and military equipment of different types.  My

11     question:  Who was the owner of that equipment and who had the right to

12     alienate that equipment?

13        A.   The owner of all the equipment and armament in the Army of

14     Yugoslavia and the Ministry of Defence was the federal government

15     pursuant to the Law on Defence; the government of the Federal Republic of

16     Yugoslavia.

17        Q.   And with regard to the ownership interest and the right to

18     alienate property, what, if any, ownership or rights did the Yugoslav

19     Army have to sell, alienate, hypothecate, give, or transfer property?

20        A.   The Army of Yugoslavia in that sense did not have any right to

21     dispose, or rather, alienate the property in any way.  The Army of

22     Yugoslavia, when it estimated that a combat system or a piece of

23     equipment was obsolete and unnecessary, had the right to advertise it as

24     unnecessary and to propose that it be written off.  When the decision was

25     taken that a piece of equipment was no longer necessary, such pieces of

Page 13540

 1     equipment were forwarded to further procedure to the Ministry of Defence

 2     which then made the decision to decommission or sell such a piece of

 3     equipment, and the proceeds of such a sale were transferred into the

 4     federal budget.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could now take a look at Article 23, which

 7     deals with finance and budget administration.  It will be on page 14 in

 8     the English, and I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what page it will

 9     be in B/C/S at this moment in the hard copy.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 16.  16.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

12        Q.   Now, during the time that you were the assistant minister of

13     defence pertaining to economic activities, is Article 23 an article that

14     you concerned yourself with?

15        A.   This article did not relate to me.  There was a special

16     administration and the chief of that administration, who was directly

17     subordinated to the federal minister of defence.  Obviously by virtue of

18     my position, I co-operated with the chief of that administration because

19     we had to co-ordinate activities in the implementation of certain

20     programmes.  There was always a problem of the lack of resources, lack of

21     money, and our dynamics of investment in military capacities and the

22     adoption of new technologies is something that I had to co-ordinate with

23     the chief of that administration in order for the financial resources to

24     be able to follow the process of production and adoption and procurement

25     of new technologies.

Page 13541

 1        Q.   And with regard to the requirements that are set forth in this

 2     particular article, are you familiar with these requirements?

 3        A.   I apologise, did you have the whole article in mind?

 4        Q.   I did.

 5        A.   I was familiar with all that because I co-operated with the chief

 6     of the administration, I was in daily contact with him, we shared the

 7     experiences, we shared each other's problems, so I was basically familiar

 8     with the work and the scope of his work and activities, but I did not

 9     have anything to do, I did not have any authorities with this regard.

10        Q.   That's understood.  And without going through each and every

11     article, would it be fair to say that you had familiarity and are aware

12     of the requirements that are set forth in this particular document?

13        A.   Yes.  One might say so.  As I've already pointed out, I

14     encountered the same problems that the chief of the administration for

15     finances and budget had.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I ask for this document's admission.  I'm sorry,

17     it's in, Your Honour.  It's in.

18        Q.   At the outset of your testimony you indicated that you were in

19     the JNA and you were also in the VJ and the Ministry of Defence.  I'd

20     like to discuss with you for a moment, first of all, when did you cease

21     being in the VJ and become a member of -- I'm sorry, cease being a member

22     of the JNA and become a participant in the VJ?  What year was that?

23        A.   That happened in 1992, I suppose, after the transformation.  The

24     process of transformation started in 1987 while the JNA was still in

25     place.  We had a lot of transformation cycles.  For example, the ones

Page 13542

 1     after 1995 and then after 1996, everything that had been done up to then

 2     was done in a haste.  In practice it was proven that such a structure of

 3     the Main Staff and the Ministry of Defence was not adequate because they

 4     were not conducive to -- to the efficient of work of neither of the

 5     organs.  I apologise for having to add this as well:  I believe that that

 6     transformation was not such a clear-cut so as to enable one to know that

 7     as of today, for example, one is a member of the Army of Yugoslavia.

 8     Regulations that were in effect in the JNA continued to be used because

 9     there were simply no new regulations in place.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, I think that answer goes far beyond

11     your question.  If you could try and curtail the witness.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure.

13        Q.   With regard to the system of defence, and by that I mean the

14     broad system of defence that existed before the transformation, could you

15     describe for us what that system was?  And by that I mean at the high

16     level of the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the army,

17     before the transformation.  Was it a unified system; was it a divided

18     system; how would you characterise that system?

19             And keeping in mind His Honour's admonition.  It's early in the

20     day, I'll try to make my questions short, and if you would try to make

21     your answers short, I'm sure, among other things, we will please not only

22     ourselves but also the Court.

23        A.   During the JNA period, the organisation of the Federal

24     Secretariat for the National Defence represented a single system that

25     also encompassed the General Staff and the entire JNA in depth.  After

Page 13543

 1     the transformation, there was a separation into two different

 2     organisational units.  First there was a General Staff which was

 3     subordinated to the Supreme Council of Defence and the Federal Ministry

 4     of Defence which was subordinated to the federal government of the

 5     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I want to turn our attention now for a moment in a

 7     general sense to another subject you mentioned which is that of

 8     special-purpose industries.  And if you could describe for us, before the

 9     transformation, a couple of matters with regard to.

10             Special-purpose industries.  First of all, could you tell us if

11     you know approximately how many special-purpose industries there were?

12        A.   In the SFRY there was a military industry and it was very

13     developed and it was part of the so-called Zinvoj association which dealt

14     with the military industry and production, and I believe that there were

15     120 companies in total which were members of that association, and they

16     are also outsourcing companies that were under the same umbrella.  They

17     were all tied to the military economic sector in the federal Secretariat

18     of Defence.  During the existence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

19     this was reduced to some 12 to 14 companies that belonged to the

20     special-purpose industry which were not well-defined and by inertia they

21     were leaned on the military economic sector of the Federal Ministry of

22     Defence.

23        Q.   Let me stop you there for a moment.  With regard to the military

24     industry, when you use the term "military industry" are you referring to

25     the military -- a military industrial complex that produces military

Page 13544

 1     products for sale?

 2        A.   There's a serious problem even today with regard to the

 3     terminology separating military industry, military industrial complex,

 4     special-purpose industry, but this is all the result of the inertia which

 5     existed before.  The system changed and the names persisted although they

 6     don't reflect the current situation.  Even in the new Law on Defence,

 7     they are not defined as either special-purpose industry or military

 8     industry.  They are defined by the products they produce which are of

 9     some special interest.  There may be other civilian companies that they

10     have nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence or the military and they

11     still may be engaged in the production of the same products.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The interpreter is having great difficulty keeping

13     pace with you.  Can you slow down.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:

15        Q.   I think I understand your frustration over the topic because it's

16     something that is of concern to you, and we all have a tendency, when

17     dealing with things that are of concern to us, to speed up in our answer,

18     so if you keep that in mind.

19             With regard to this issue, and I'm going to use the term

20     "special-purpose industry" if that's acceptable.  With regard to the

21     issue of the special-purpose industry in the the SFRY, was the

22     special-purpose industry an integrated industry, was it a competing

23     industry?  How would you characterise the industry before the break-up,

24     or as you've put it, transformation?

25        A.   In the SFRY that industry was very well organised, exceptionally

Page 13545

 1     organised, and was integrated into an association, and as a result of

 2     that there was direct co-operation and there was no unloyal competition.

 3     That association was a very complex organisation that also actively

 4     sought out jobs and work for the association members.  They even had

 5     their own administration.  And they were transformed into a very complex

 6     body.  I personally had a lot of problem with that body once that body

 7     was abolished.

 8        Q.   During the period of time of the SFRY, was the -- were the

 9     facilities that produced under the special-purpose industry located in

10     one republic, in one area or region of the former Yugoslavia, or were

11     they located throughout former Yugoslavia?

12        A.   During that period, the state policy dictated the deployment of

13     the military industry companies across the territory of the former state.

14     However, for strategic reasons, most of the military industry was

15     developed and located in Bosnia and Herzegovina and then in Serbia.

16     After that, Croatia and SloveniaMontenegro and Macedonia lacked

17     behind.  They had only very few available capacities and facilities which

18     enabled them to co-operate with the rest of the special-purpose industry.

19        Q.   Are you familiar with a factory or special-purpose industry by

20     the name of Pretis?

21        A.   Yes, of course I'm familiar with that name.

22        Q.   Where was it located?

23        A.   Pretis was near Sarajevo, in a place called Vogosca.

24        Q.   After the transformation, in what state or region was Pretis

25     located?

Page 13546

 1        A.   Pretis remained in the territory that later on became Republika

 2     Srpska.  We are talking about huge facilities that could not physically

 3     be moved.

 4        Q.   I'd like to take, if we could, for example, the production of a

 5     tank.  Could you tell us, if you know, approximately how many production

 6     facilities in special-purpose industries within the former Yugoslavia

 7     would be involved in the production of a single tank?

 8        A.   The production of a tank, which was a very complex piece of

 9     equipment, required the engagement of a number of companies and

10     outsources.  When the state leadership of the SFRY made a decision or was

11     in the process of decision-making for the production of a tank, the basic

12     problem was to establish who would be the final link in the production

13     chain.  The political structure played a role in that and there was a

14     struggle for their own republic to take the lead.

15             When it was decided that the production would take place in

16     Croatia, to be more specific in Slavonski Brod in the Djuro Djakovic

17     company, in order to make everybody happy, the outsourcing jobs were

18     assigned to companies from all the other republics in that Croatia had a

19     lot less facilities engaged as outsources in order to strike a balance in

20     the involvement of all the republics of the former Yugoslavia.

21        Q.   Thank you for that answer.  If I might, could you by any fashion

22     tell us the approximate number of different production facilities that

23     were involved in this?  Five, ten, a hundred, two?

24        A.   If my memory serves me well, because I also participated in all

25     that, I believe that a total of 120 companies from all over Yugoslavia

Page 13547

 1     participated in that production process.

 2        Q.   Before the transformation, could you tell us, if you know,

 3     approximately how much money was derived from military production in the

 4     former Yugoslavia?  And I'm talking about on an annual basis.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Derived by who?

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Derived from military production for the benefit

 7     of the state.  Actually, derived from military production, the gross

 8     receipts from production.  If he knows.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that most of the exports of

10     armament and equipment and the monitoring of the incoming flows from the

11     sale of equipment and military construction, the latter also being a big

12     source of income, most that was made from all that was about $2 billion

13     in one year.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:

15        Q.   After the transformation and specifically in the calendar years

16     of 1993 through 1995, could you tell us, if you know, what the incoming

17     flows from military construction and sales of equipment in the Federal

18     Republic of Yugoslavia were?

19        A.   I'm afraid I didn't understand your question properly.  Are you

20     talking only about exports or are you talking about the domestic sales in

21     the former Yugoslavia?

22        Q.   I put my question badly.  Let's deal with exports first and then

23     with domestic sales, unless it's easier to put them together for your

24     purposes.

25        A.   During that period there was no exports.  What was done was

Page 13548

 1     probably done illegally, unbeknownst to the Ministry of Defence, I

 2     suppose.  During that period there was practically no earnings from

 3     exports, and when it comes to the deliveries to the Army of Yugoslavia,

 4     those deliveries were at a very low level, not because the companies were

 5     not able to produce armament and military equipment but because the

 6     federal budget did not have enough allocation for the Ministry of Defence

 7     and for the military.  There was simply not enough money in the budget.

 8             For a few years in a row, the participation, or rather the

 9     allocation for the armament and military equipment was approximately 10

10     per cent of the budget.  That was allocated for the army and the Ministry

11     of Defence.  However, when it came to the reality of the facts, that was

12     even lower, much below the 10 per cent, because the budget allocations

13     did not follow the dynamics of the army requirements and the military was

14     therefore forced to prioritise differently and put emphasis on food,

15     clothing, and medical treatment.  That's what the needs that they had to

16     meet first, and then if there were any surpluses, they could be allocated

17     towards the procurement of armament and military equipment.

18        Q.   Obviously, as you've discussed, the number of special-purpose

19     industries that existed in the former Yugoslavia were diminished once the

20     creation of FRY occurred.  Can you tell us, if you know, the number of

21     workers that were dependent in the former -- sorry, in the Federal

22     Republic of Yugoslavia on the special-purpose industry?  By that, those

23     that were -- how many were employed in that industry?

24        A.   Companies from the list of the federal government that were part

25     of the special-purpose industry initially employed 30.000 workers and

Page 13549

 1     later on 28.000 workers.

 2        Q.   And with regard to those 30.000 workers that were employed by the

 3     special-purpose industry, if you know once again, was the Ministry of

 4     Defence in a position to engage in sufficient contracts to keep those

 5     individuals gainfully employed?

 6        A.   The Federal Ministry of Defence had only had funds coming in from

 7     the budget in order to sign contracts with the companies from the

 8     special-purpose industry.  There were years when we had no contracts

 9     whatsoever with some of the companies from that industry.  Practically,

10     the federal ministry did not engage in any contracts with them sometimes.

11        Q.   To your knowledge, did this constitute an economic problem for

12     the special-purpose industries in your country, the Federal Republic of

13     Yugoslavia?

14        A.   It was wasn't just an economic problem, it was a social one as

15     well because many families depended on what those people earned in those

16     companies, so it was a political problem as well.  And in addition to

17     that, it was a technological problem because they started falling out of

18     pace, there were no further investments, they could not modernise the

19     company, the manufacturing plants and so on, so that industry was

20     practically devastated and deteriorated greatly in comparison to what it

21     used to be prior to that.

22        Q.   You indicated earlier, with regard to the issue of exports, at

23     page 21, line 1, you said during that period, and it was referring to the

24     period of 1993 through 1995, there were no exports, what was done was

25     probably done illegally, unbeknownst to the Ministry of Defence.  And I'd

Page 13550

 1     like to spend a moment or two with you on that particular aspect of your

 2     answer.

 3             With regard to the issue of exports, could you tell us what the

 4     technically proper way for a special-purpose industry to engage in

 5     exporting military goods would be?  What is the procedure?

 6        A.   The sales of armament and military equipment, both in the country

 7     and abroad, was regulated by law.  The procedures were clear and fully

 8     regulated.  However, during the economic sanctions, these procedures were

 9     not always complied with.  Directors of companies, in order to ensure

10     survival for their companies, found other exporters rather than the

11     approved federal institution because they wanted to make sure that there

12     would be export and that their company would survive.

13             The exports that went via SDPER, the federally approved organ for

14     exports, were all legal.  They went with appropriate approvals and so on.

15     However --

16        Q.   Let me stop you there.  You've used a -- you've used some letters

17     and we just need to understand what those letters are.  You've used the

18     letters SDPER.  Could you tell us what that stands for, please.

19        A.   It stands for federal directorate for sales of goods -- of

20     special-purpose goods.  This was the organ that existed back in the times

21     SFRY but at the time it was called Yugo Import.  The federal government

22     issued a decision to establish a particular body that would deal with

23     these matters, and this was a body that existed within the federal

24     government.

25        Q.   You said that they went with appropriate approvals and so on.

Page 13551

 1     With regard to the issue of exports, and specifically when you say

 2     appropriate approvals, what kind of approvals are you referring to?

 3        A.   In order for the goods to be exported according to the law, the

 4     federal defence ministry was responsible for authorising it, for issuing

 5     permits for those transactions.  These permits, among other things, were

 6     needed for the customs to let such goods through so that these goods

 7     could cross the border.  In addition to that, the permits were needed for

 8     the Ministry of the Interior to allow transport of such goods via the

 9     state territory.  It was all strictly regulated.  All movements of such

10     goods were, and these goods could not be taken over without being checked

11     prior to that.

12        Q.   With regard to the issue of export of material, you've mentioned

13     customs and you've mentioned the minister -- the Ministry of the

14     Interior.  What involvement, if any, did the VJ have in exporting goods,

15     under the law?

16        A.   Under the law, the Army of Yugoslavia and the General Staff had

17     no competencies when it came to exports of military equipment, military

18     goods.

19        Q.   With regard to the issue of the Ministry of the Interior, what

20     specifically were the duties and obligations of the Ministry of the

21     Interior with regard to the export of military goods?

22        A.   The Ministry of the Interior regulated only the transport and

23     movement of dangerous goods within the territory of our own country.  No

24     transport could take place within the country from one special-purpose

25     company to the other special company to the army warehouses without there

Page 13552

 1     being a prior approval issued by the Ministry of the Interior.

 2        Q.   And with regard to customs, what was customs' involvement with

 3     regard to the exportation of military goods?

 4        A.   The customs played its standard role when it comes to any goods;

 5     they checked entry and export of any goods to ensure that they had proper

 6     documentation.  The permits issued by the Ministry of the Interior was

 7     sufficient to let these goods cross the border.  If there were no

 8     permits, the goods were not allowed to cross.  Before such permits were

 9     issued -- I forgot to tell you that, before export permits were issued,

10     the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was needed.  Ministry of

11     Foreign Affairs, in accordance with its responsibilities, had to ensure

12     whether there was any resolution of UN Security Council restricting

13     importation of military goods.  If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

14     thought that there were any problems, they would not issue their approval

15     and then no export permits would be issued at all.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I note the time.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll take the break and come back at quarter to

18     11.00.  Court adjourned.

19                           --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23        Q.   If we could -- if you could turn to tab number 6, which is P597.

24     One of the things we were talking about before the break was the movement

25     of goods.  Could you take a look at what should be at tab number 6, which

Page 13553

 1     is P597, which is entitled "Dispatch Note Number 115."  Do you see that

 2     document?  Should be behind tab number 6.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Could you tell us what this document is, please, sir?

 5        A.   By way of this document, the factory called Krusik Valjevo sends

 6     goods, in this case it is the Drina Corps, headquartered in Vlasenica,

 7     and this is a receipt that accompanies the goods.

 8        Q.   What involvement, if any, does the VJ have with regard to this

 9     particular transaction?

10        A.   In this particular transaction, the Army of Yugoslavia has no

11     role.  Moreover, the Ministry of Defence has no role in this either.

12        Q.   Take a look at the next tab in your binder, tab number 7, which

13     is P598.  Could you tell us what this document is, please, sir.

14        A.   This is a similar document, again a dispatch note, the Krusik

15     Valjevo factory, special-purpose factory, sends goods to a certain

16     military post in Vlasenica as well.  The Army of Yugoslavia and the

17     Ministry of Defence had nothing to do with this transaction either.

18        Q.   Could you now turn to tab number 22 in your binder.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Which is -- I apologise, which is OTP 65 ter 742.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it not yet admitted?

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It is not.  It's on our 65 ter list.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it going to be coming in as a Defence exhibit?

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  65 ter OTP?

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  742.

Page 13554

 1        Q.   I'd like to ask you some questions about this document.  Could

 2     you tell us who this document is coming from?

 3        A.   You mean tab 22?

 4        Q.   Yes, sir.

 5        A.   This document was used within the Army of Republika Srpska.

 6     Chief of the technical service addresses the Chief of Staff of the Main

 7     Staff of the VRS in this document.  So this is a document that was used

 8     between the Main Staff and one of the subordinate institutions.

 9        Q.   Can you tell us the date of this document, please?

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Say that again.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:

12        Q.   Could you tell us the date of this document, please?

13        A.   This document is dated 16 March 1994.

14        Q.   In the text of the document, at least in the English translation,

15     it says:  "For a repair of a T-55/a tank/(2 vehicles) and a 90 mm

16     SO/self-propelled gun/M36 B-1 (one vehicle) we are hereby asking you to

17     secure an approval through the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

18     Serbia for a maintenance ... " then the document continues.  With regard

19     to the Ministry of Defence that is being referred to here, is that your

20     Ministry of Defence or some other Ministry of Defence, if you know?

21        A.   I know that this is the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.

22     In this document they ask for approval that a certain equipment be

23     repaired in the repair shop in Hadzici in Republika Srpska, and if not

24     possible, then they ask that the repairs be conducted in Cacak in the

25     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  The subordinate organ uses routine

Page 13555

 1     channels to address the Main Staff so that the Main Staff can address

 2     directly the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska, because the author

 3     of this document was not allowed to directly contact the Ministry of

 4     Defence of Republika Srpska.  He had to go via the Main Staff.

 5        Q.   My question to you here is it says here, it says, we are hereby

 6     asking you to secure an approval through the Ministry of Defence of

 7     Republic of Serbia.  Is that translation incorrect?   Is it the Republika

 8     Srpska or is it the Republic of Serbia that is being referred to here?

 9        A.   Republika Srpska only, because the repair facility is in Hadzici

10     and they seek approval because the Ministry of Defence had to approve the

11     repair.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I move its admission.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sir, just before we admit it, let's just get the

15     record clear.  The English translation here reads "through the Ministry

16     of Defence of the Republic of Serbia."  You are saying "Republika

17     Srpska."  Is that what stands on the B/C/S version?  Or in other words,

18     is the English translation incorrect?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the translation is

20     incorrect because the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia did

21     not exist at this point in time.  Only the federal ministry of the

22     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed at this period in time.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But my question specifically is what stands on the

24     B/C/S version?  What is written on the B/C/S version?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version it says

Page 13556

 1     Ministry of Defence of RS.  "RS" stands for Republika Srpska.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  RS; they didn't write the full name.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  The document is admitted.  May it

 5     please be given an exhibit number.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 7     Exhibit D446.  Thank you.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 9        Q.   With regard to this particular document, what involvement, if

10     any, did the VJ have with regard to this transaction?

11        A.   No.  They did not participate nor could they have participated

12     given the methodology of work as it was done at the time.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could now see 65 ter OTP 810, which is tab

14     23 in your binder.

15        Q.   Looking at the title of this document indicating Issuance Form,

16     in English it indicates at the very top:

17             "For the below-listed material property items received for

18     temporary use from the Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia

19     /handwritten/7296 Vlasenica."  In B/C/S could you confirm that that is

20     what is written?

21        A.   I can confirm that that is what it says.

22        Q.   Thank you.  With regard to this particular document, what

23     involvement, if any, if you know, did the VJ have with regard to the

24     temporary use from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia, the

25     below-listed item, number one, which are bullets?

Page 13557

 1        A.   Yes, it is 7.62 round for an automatic rifle, and you see the

 2     number 42.560 pieces.  That is Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska,

 3     and rounds were provided directly to the military post in Vlasenica,

 4     and --

 5        Q.   Here is my question:  As I look at the translation in English and

 6     as I look at the language that is contained in the document at the top in

 7     Latinised script in B/C/S, I see that it indicates there's some standard

 8     language and then it says Ministarsivo Odbrane Republike Srbije; is that

 9     correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   That would be the Republic of Serbia, correct?  That's what the

12     document says?

13        A.   That's correct, yes.

14        Q.   What involvement would the VJ have with regard to this particular

15     transaction?

16        A.   The Ministry of Defence did not participate, neither did the Army

17     of Yugoslavia because this was property of the Republic of Serbia which

18     followed from the Territorial Defence.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move its admission.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

22     number.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

24     Exhibit D447.  Thank you.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The next document would be 65 ter - this is once

Page 13558

 1     again a Prosecution 65 ter number - 815, which is number 24 in your

 2     binder, sir.  I see the -- yes, now I see the English as well.

 3        Q.   Taking a look at this document, this document is entitled, in

 4     English "Delivery Sheet Receipt Note."  And it indicates at line number 4

 5     that the sender of this document is the Republic of Serbia Ministry of

 6     the Interior.  And it's being sent to the Drina Corps command, which

 7     would be found in box number 14, which would be the name and address of

 8     the receiver.  Do you see that, sir?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   With regard to the transaction, the transaction involves various

11     bullets and grenades; correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   What involvement, if any, did the VJ have with regard to this

14     transaction?

15        A.   The Army of Yugoslavia did not participate in this transaction

16     because this was not about property or equipment that was in the hands of

17     the Army of Yugoslavia at the time.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could now turn to 65 ter OTP 816, which

20     would be tab number 25 in your binder.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What do you want to do with --

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sorry, thank you so much, Your Honours.  I'd move

23     its admission.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, it's admitted.  May it please be given

25     an exhibit number.

Page 13559

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this shall be given Exhibit D448.

 2     Thank you.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  Madam Carter.

 4             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, actually, I was going to object to the

 5     admission of the document.  This -- and it seems that we are going to a

 6     series of documents in which the witness is being asked to read in the

 7     four corners of the document itself as opposed to having any direct

 8     knowledge of the document of the transaction, he has given the general

 9     competencies that were at issue of the various ministries, so I don't

10     think there's been an appropriate nexus between this witness and this

11     document or any documents of its kind.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would tend to disagree.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Bases for your disagreement, sir?

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We've had discussion with regard to his

16     competencies and authorities.  If you want, I can fill it out further, if

17     the Chamber deems it necessary.  Why don't I make life easier for

18     everybody, instead?  I'll just fill it out a bit.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, I can't hear you, sir.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I said why don't I fill it out a bit since there

21     seems to be some consternation or confusion, I'm happy to fill it out a

22     bit more.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We understand, but the basis of the objection is

24     that the witness has nothing to do with this document, he doesn't know

25     the document.  All he can say is that the VJ had nothing to do with it.

Page 13560

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That in and of itself is certainly relevant to

 2     these proceedings.  That in and of itself, based upon the kind of

 3     evidence we have received here before, and specifically with regard to

 4     such issues of material sheets, of which there have been legion material

 5     sheets introduced by the Prosecution without the benefit of any oral

 6     testimony whatsoever --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The problem being that you are making this witness

 8     deny the involvement of the VJ with documents that the Prosecution has

 9     not tendered.  You are not dealing with documents that were tendered.

10     I'm not quite sure what then is the purpose here.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I appreciate that.  The purpose is actually

12     twofold.  One is that, by virtue of the position that the Prosecution

13     holds, and specifically that is not merely to convict but to see that

14     justice is done, they are to give to you a complete -- that being the

15     fact-finders -- a complete and full picture and understanding of the

16     evidence that exists with regard to their case.  These documents which

17     were on their list which they were well aware of and are well aware of

18     and were created during the investigation of and preparation of the

19     prosecution of their case are indicative of something which is relatively

20     important with regard to the indictment as charged.  And that is, that

21     material, supplies, and specifically such supplies as ammunition, stemmed

22     from other parties and organs apart from the party that they claim was

23     responsible for such supply, that being the VJ.  Evidence that

24     establishes such a position and establishes such reality is not only

25     relevant, but is of assistance to the Trial Chamber when it has to make a

Page 13561

 1     determination in dealing with the liability of General Perisic as a Chief

 2     of Staff of the VJ, and specifically with regard to specific issues

 3     concerning the conceptual basis of aiding and abetting.

 4             Therefore, I think that there are not only a myriad bases upon

 5     which the document is not only relevant but important, but in the fair

 6     administration of justice and in fairness to Mr. Perisic's right to

 7     trial, this kind of evidence need be considered by the Chamber, and the

 8     Prosecution, I would hope and would think, would not resist such

 9     information if it takes its duty seriously, and that is to give a full

10     and complete picture to the Chamber of the situation at hand, which I

11     think is something which has been recognised not only by the decision of

12     law of this Tribunal but had been recognised by the decision of law of

13     courts in jurisdictions throughout the world for eons.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not quite sure whether -- I would hate to go

15     into dialogue with you.  You know, as I understand the charge of aiding

16     and abetting, it presupposes certain actions taken by the perpetrator,

17     and to prove aiding and abetting, it is not -- it's not necessary to

18     enumerate the actions of the perpetrator because it is understood that

19     the perpetrator did perpetrate the crime.  What I do find of crucial

20     importance and relevance to a charge of aiding and abetting are the

21     actions of the aider.

22             Now, you are making -- you are casting aspersions on the

23     Prosecution to say they should have told -- put before the Chamber

24     exculpatory material.  Now, that would be exculpatory if it was not

25     aiding and abetting.  If it is aiding and abetting, it is known that

Page 13562

 1     there will be some actions by the perpetrator, but the concern here is

 2     with the aider and abetter.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I might, Your Honour, I understand --

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me also finish.  I gave you a chance to

 5     finish.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm sorry.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So the fact that the VJ had nothing do with these

 8     documents, does not negate the allegation that the VJ may or may not have

 9     had something to do with some other documents of a similar nature.  So

10     I'm not quite sure how helpful these documents are for purposes of aiding

11     and abetting.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I understand what you've said, and I think that

13     to the extent you've articulated part of the analysis in aiding and

14     abetting, we would probably have no disagreement, but the analysis of

15     aiding and abetting goes further than that, and one of the things this

16     Chamber is going to have to determine is the issue of substantiality.

17     And with regard to the issue of substantiality there's going to be at

18     some point some analysis that the Chamber will have to go through, or I

19     assuming would go through, with regard to all of these materiel lists,

20     all of the requests, all of the orders, and what the results of them are.

21     And at some point in time you are going to, I think, make a determination

22     one way or the other as to whether or not the body of that information

23     substantiates the Prosecution's position that these -- that that

24     information and that body of information was sufficient to meet the

25     definition of aiding and abetting.

Page 13563

 1             Now, if you have other information and you have other affirmative

 2     information that shows that supplies were being given to the Republika

 3     Srpska, to the VRS, and to the Republika Srpska Krajina, the SVK, and

 4     they were receiving arms, they were receiving ammunition, they were

 5     receiving the means of war and they replied upon those means and those

 6     arms and that ammunition in order to either, A, prosecute the war, or, B,

 7     engage in the perpetration of crimes, and I am not suggesting they did

 8     but for the purposes of the discussion we are having right now, then that

 9     information is critical to your determination as fact-finders, because

10     you are going to have to make a determination as to whether or not it's

11     substantial or not.

12             For example, here specifically, since we are specifically dealing

13     with the issue of ammunition and an issue that we've talked about for

14     close to two years, on and off, if you are dealing with the issue of

15     ammunition and you have the ability to learn that ammunition came from

16     other sources in large measure during the relevant period of time, one

17     would think that certainly would impact upon the decision-making process

18     that you go through.  It certainly would be part and parcel of the

19     analysis that you engage in, is our submission.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  In that event, I hear what you say.  Can I

21     make a suggestion then.  If perhaps it is your intention to tender all

22     the information relating to other sources of supply other than the VJ in

23     order to shorten the proceedings, are you not going to be giving us all

24     those all in one batch and then let's see them, rather than go one by one

25     like this?

Page 13564

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That would be one fashion.  First of all,

 2     unfortunately, I'm certainly not going to tender all the information

 3     relating to other sources, I just want to make that clear, because --

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then we don't --

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm going to give you -- I'm going to give you as

 6     much as I can in the same fashion as the Prosecution has given you as

 7     much as they can.  Because ultimately what is going to happen here,

 8     factually speaking, is you are going to be asked to infer certain things

 9     based upon a body of factual information that you have.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure, I understand.  I'm with you.  I'm with you.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  With regard to your suggestion, if I could have

12     but a moment, because I have no desire to lengthen anything whatsoever in

13     terms of the trial.  So if I could have but a moment.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just make a ruling on the objection

15     before you do that.  The objection is overruled.

16             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, may I ask the grounds in regards to the

17     overruling?  Because my objection was never a relevance objection, it was

18     a particular nexus between this witness and the document itself.  So it

19     seems the discourse that has been had isn't responsive to my immediate

20     objection that there's no nexus between this individual sitting here

21     before us today and the document itself.  And I feel if we are going to

22     be batching them, that I'll have the same running objection.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I might quickly respond.  By "quickly" I mean

24     quickly.  Under the guide-lines 30, I think that we cannot only find

25     guidance but support for the position that has been taken, which says the

Page 13565

 1     Trial Chamber shall begin any analysis on the admissibility of evidence

 2     by recalling 89(C) of the Rules, which provides that:  "A Chamber may

 3     admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value."

 4             In Rule 89(D) of the Rules which provides that:  "A Chamber may

 5     exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by

 6     the need to ensure a fair trial."

 7             I think that guideline more than adequately covers the particular

 8     situation we are in.

 9             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, while the Prosecution is aware of Rule

10     89(F) that says relevant information should become before the Chamber,

11     the Chamber has always required that there is a nexus between the witness

12     and the document that's being tendered.  This isn't a bar table motion,

13     this isn't another witness in which the document can be spoken to.  This

14     witness doesn't have those competencies, and so what we are seeing here

15     today is as opposed to using the appropriate vehicle in order to tender

16     these documents into evidence, the Defence has chosen a witness who has

17     no relation to them and are seeking to elevate their status -- taking a

18     General of his great means and trying to elevate his status by having him

19     comment on them, which I don't think is an appropriate use of the Court's

20     time.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are talking about the Court's time.  Madam

22     Carter, what I do notice in this situation is that the Defence seeks to

23     get the witness who was involved with procurement to tell the Court

24     whether or not the VJ had anything to do with these documents.  Now, if

25     the Defence were to tender these documents by way of a bar table motion,

Page 13566

 1     they would not have anybody who would confirm.  It would have to be

 2     testimony by the counsel to say the VJ had nothing to do with these

 3     documents.

 4             MS. CARTER:  Yes, Your Honour --

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And I understand that indeed there is no nexus

 6     between the documents and the witness and it looks -- it seems to me as

 7     if the purpose is precisely to state that lack of nexus.

 8             MS. CARTER:  Respectfully, Your Honour, if the the witness was a

 9     procurement officer, that would be a much different question.  The

10     witness was specifically asked on page 10, starting at line 7:

11             "With regard to the procurement administration, what if any

12     involvement did you have with the procurement administration during your

13     tenure as the chief of research and development.

14             "A. I had none because there are two parallel administrations at

15     the same level."

16             This General is not in procurement.  However, he is being used in

17     such a fashion.  He worked parallel.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, because we dealt with the

20     procurement, I'd forgotten that the witness said he had no connection

21     with procurement.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, you see, unfortunately Ms. Carter is bolder

23     in her assertion than she necessarily should be because that was dealing

24     with a particular period of time, and since we are talking about the

25     general issue of procurement, that is a slightly different issue.

Page 13567

 1             But I would like to -- I would like to remind all of us of some

 2     words that were spoken but a few days ago on the 15th of July by

 3     Mr. Harmon in which he was having some resistance from the Defence with

 4     regard to the issue of some documents and we were dealing with procedural

 5     matters, and Mr. Harmon took the position that in the fairness to the

 6     Prosecution and in order to have a fair trial there are times when the

 7     substantive issues that exist override procedural concerns.

 8             And I'm only mentioning that because I trust that at least with

 9     regard to this team it's a unified team.  Whether or not the

10     Prosecution's office chooses to be unified or not really depends, I

11     think, on what the issues are that are presented at the Tribunal.  At

12     least with regard to this issue, one would think based upon, as I said

13     before, and I was casting no aspersions whatsoever but rather

14     articulating a well recognised and historically understood legal

15     principle with regard to the duty of the Prosecution that, in terms of

16     the interests of a fair trial --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  They turned the documents to you pursuant, I'm

18     sure, to Rule 68, that's why you are in possession of them?

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No, no.  Definitely not Rule 68.  They were

20     tendered under Rule 66.  If it was tendered under Rule 68, it would be,

21     as I'm sure you can appreciate, in a much different kind of situation.  A

22     Rule 68 document by definition is exculpatory.  This was not tendered

23     under Rule 68, it was tendered under a different Rule, therefore they

24     obviously found it at some point to be inculpatory.  But I am not going

25     to get into, at this moment, the niceties of that particular theme.

Page 13568

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The point is that they tendered the documents over

 2     to you.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  At least --

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  At least they didn't withhold, and I'm not

 6     suggesting that they did.  Whether or not --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are talking about what Mr. Harmon said

 8     sometime in July, Mr. Guy-Smith.  As we can understand, we are not going

 9     to be able to remember that.  What was the ruling of the Chamber on that

10     occasion?

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  On that occasion, the Chamber let Mr. Harmon

12     proceed with the introduction of, I believe it was --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you give us a specific reference of that

14     occasion on the transcript?

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure.  It would be pages 12808 et seq., and this

16     was in regard to the interest of General Kovacevic.  Mr. Harmon said,

17     "Your Honour --" at line 15 on page 12808:

18             "Your Honour, we did not call General Kovacevic to testify.  We

19     did not make the -- we did not introduce these documents obviously until

20     he came.  I think the interest of justice is something that we must put

21     above all in terms of the technicalities of whether or not we introduce

22     these or not."

23             Then he went on with the reason why he felt these documents to be

24     relevant.  So I mean, one would hope that there would be equal

25     application when dealing with such things as the interest of justice.

Page 13569

 1     With regard to the view here, and I'm dealing with this in a slightly

 2     different fashion just for the moment, with regard to the view that the

 3     Prosecution would take as regards to the interests of justice.  If one

 4     forwards an argument in which they advocate treatment which they put

 5     under the rubric of the interests of justice, then one would assume the

 6     self-same party would accept that, especially when dealing with something

 7     as we are dealing with here.  And once again, I cast no aspersions.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would you read us the ruling of the Chamber.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, the ruling of the Chamber is:  "The Chamber,

10     Moloto dissenting, will grant your application, Mr. Harmon."

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

12             MS. CARTER:  Respectfully, before the Chamber considers, I'd like

13     to point out that the very same language the Defence is relying upon

14     today is the same language that they have sought for the Chamber to

15     reconsider.  So it's not as simple as simply reading out a transcript

16     passage.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The objection is upheld, Judge Picard dissenting.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:

21        Q.   With regard to the document that is presently up on the screen,

22     could you tell me, are you familiar with this document?  And I don't mean

23     the specific document here, but the type of document that it represents?

24        A.   I'm familiar with it because I personally filled out documents

25     with the same contents throughout my military career.

Page 13570

 1        Q.   Could you tell us, if you could, how many of these documents you

 2     filled out throughout your military career?

 3        A.   That pertained mostly to the beginning of my military career when

 4     I supervised equipment and warehouses or handed it over to warehouses for

 5     the needs of the service.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe Ms. Carter has something to say.

 7             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, I would object to the Defence trying to

 8     rehabilitate this document.  The witness has been present for the entire

 9     legal arguments in relation to the issues with this particular document.

10     To now allow him to answer and be rehabilitated on it would be

11     inappropriate.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I would tend to agree with that.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would tend to disagree with the notion of

14     rehabilitation because I'm not seeking to rehabilitate.  Based on that

15     particular grounds, since we are dealing with issues of procedure, there

16     is an anticipation here and that anticipation is that I'm going to seek

17     to tender this document again and ask for reconsideration.  That is not

18     my intention.  If that was my intention, then perhaps the objection may

19     have some purchase independent of whether it's relevant or not.  Since

20     that's not my intention and the document is up on the screen, I'm using

21     it for descriptive purposes and to establish a record with regard to this

22     issue and the manner in which it has been treated.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It seems -- [Microphone not activated].

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, Your Honour.

Page 13571

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- we are all at cross purposes.  I've been

 2     advised that the document [Microphone not activated] 815 was admitted and

 3     the objection came when 816 was sought to be introduced and that 815 is

 4     448, is D448.  Is that our common recollection of the situation?

 5             MS. CARTER:  Yes, Your Honour.  I had had -- my attempt was to

 6     object prior the ruling taking place, however, I was only heard once the

 7     exhibit number had already been given.  So my microphone was on, I had

 8     intended to object, however, procedurally the number was given prior to

 9     my objection being heard.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Was it.

11             MS. CARTER:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, I think we better roll back the tape, then,

13     because that's not my memory of what occurred.  My memory may be

14     incorrect.  I think what she did object to is the document that is

15     presently up on the screen.  That's what the fight has been about.  She

16     did not object to the document beforehand.  Otherwise, we would have had

17     had the same spirited conversation we just had with regard to that

18     document that we've just had with regard to this document.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you saying -- that was my feeling too, that

20     815 wasn't given a number, but the Registrar says it was.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I thought we have been fighting about 816 this

22     entire time.  I didn't think we were fight being 815.  I thought -- I

23     didn't think we were fighting about D448, as I understand it to be.  I

24     thought we were fighting about this document here, the one that's up on

25     the screen --

Page 13572

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is that 816?

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then, I am sorry then, can I just sort

 4     of --

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Wait a minute, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me.

 6     The document on the screen is 815.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's what I thought.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That is the document that we've been fighting

 9     about.  That's true.  My apologies.  I was a tab off in my book.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then if it is -- if a ruling was on that

11     815, the document -- you can't carry on talking about it again.  You can

12     talk about documents of similar nature --

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I don't understand why I can't continue talking

14     about this document independent of the issue of whether or not it's been

15     admitted or not.  I know of no rule under the guide-lines or other rule

16     that disallows that.  But if that is the Court's -- if that's the Court's

17     ruling with regard to this particular document, then I will abide by the

18     Court's ruling because I have no desire to disrespect the Court.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you have any response to that, Madam Carter?

20             MS. CARTER:  I leave it to the Court's discretion.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed, Mr. Guy-Smith.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:

23        Q.   You indicated that during the beginning of your military career

24     you filled out a number -- you indicated at page 43, line 1, that in the

25     beginning of your military career when you supervised equipment in the

Page 13573

 1     warehouse or handed it over to warehouses for the needs of services, you

 2     worked with this particular document.  And I asked you if you could tell

 3     us about how many of these documents over that period of time you filled

 4     out.  That may be a kind of a silly question because I assume that it

 5     falls in the neighbourhood of a substantial number of documents, but can

 6     you guesstimate for us how many of these you filled out, how familiar you

 7     with this form?

 8        A.   It was a huge number because while I was on a ship for three

 9     years, whatever I requested, be it spare parts, fuel, any other equipment

10     or any surplus that I had to return, was accompanied by this document.

11     So anything I received and anything I gave back was accompanied by this

12     document.  There was no other way to do it.

13        Q.   And with regard to this particular document, was it necessary in

14     your experience or was it not necessary in your experience to identify

15     the sender and the receiver of the transmission?  Was it necessary to

16     identify the sender and the receiver of the transmission?

17        A.   In order for this document to be in order, it had to be fully

18     filled out and the sender and the receiver had to be indicated clearly,

19     the document had to be signed and stamped.  When I sent something, I

20     always had to sign the document, had to indicate what I needed, what

21     quantities, et cetera, and by doing so, I automatically took upon me and

22     the ship where I was the responsibility, I was answerable for these

23     goods, and the warehouse that delivered these goods to me was no longer

24     answerable for the goods, it was no longer in their hands, so at any

25     point in time it could be established where the goods and equipment were.

Page 13574

 1        Q.   You indicated in your answer that it had to be -- there were a

 2     huge number, whatever you requested be it spare parts, fuel, or other

 3     equipment or any surplus that I had to return, was it necessary in

 4     filling out this document that the area, which I believe is on the one

 5     that's up on the screen which is OTP 815, that the nomenclature number

 6     and type of supplies be clearly indicated so that all of the parties that

 7     are involved in the transaction know precisely what is being requested

 8     and what is being sent?

 9        A.   Precisely so.  For example, if spare parts were issued, if I

10     failed to indicate the nomenclature number, and sometimes I didn't know

11     the number but the warehouse person would know the number, and unless

12     that number was clearly indicated, then the goods could not be given to

13     me.

14             The same thing happened when I returned goods.  If I was

15     returning something that was no longer in good repair or was something

16     that was decommissioned, the nomenclature number had to be indicated so

17     that the records would be clear and accurate about what was issued, what

18     was returned, what was used up, and so on.

19        Q.   Thank you.  For purposes of clarity and to perfect the record

20     with regard to this particular document, which is 65 ter OTP 815, could

21     you tell us what the form number is of this document, please?  Is there a

22     form number on the document?  I see at the top of the document a form --

23     it says "Form MP-20."  I don't know whether that's the form number of

24     this document.

25        A.   Which document should I be looking at, 815 or 816?

Page 13575

 1        Q.   815.  I believe it's in the upper right-hand corner.

 2        A.   It says 21/7-2-9.

 3        Q.   Up above that it says "O-b-r --" I honestly can't read it myself,

 4     I don't know what the word is.  It's up at the very top in the right-hand

 5     corner.  It says Obr and then MP-20.

 6        A.   Yes, in the upper right corner it says form MP-20.  This is the

 7     number of the form.  Each form had a number.

 8        Q.   And this is the form number for delivery sheets of -- the form

 9     number that was used for delivery sheets with regard to such items as

10     ammunition and other military assets that would be delivered; is that

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes, yes.

13        Q.   I'm now going to move to the next tab in your binder, but before

14     you comment on it, that would be 65 ter OTP 816.  Before you comment on

15     it, since this document is similar to the document that we were just

16     discussing except it's entitled a receipt sheet as opposed to a delivery

17     sheet, so that we neither offend the Chamber nor upset the Prosecution,

18     wait until the Prosecution has had a moment to review the document to see

19     whether or not they believe that it will draw an objection or not.  So if

20     you would just wait for a moment.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But it's still called MP-20.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It is.  As is every delivery sheet that we've

23     seen in this trial for some many months.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you saying a delivery sheet and a receipt

25     sheet share this number MP-20?

Page 13576

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, I am.  And I believe that an examination of

 2     the evidence that has heretofore been introduced in this case will

 3     establish same.

 4             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, although the document itself appears to

 5     be dated at a time that the General was still chief of the navy and

 6     technical administration, however given his general knowledge about

 7     delivery sheets such as this, we won't object.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:

10        Q.   I would first of all like you to take a look at box number 4, and

11     in box number 4 it has the name of the sender.  Could you please read

12     that as it is written in Latinised script?  Just read what it says,

13     please.

14        A.   Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I note just for the record, Your Honours, with

16     regard to the English receipt sheet the English translation suffers from

17     something that we went through with a previous witness, I believe it was

18     with General Kodzopeljic, with regard to the fact that on occasion there

19     was a discrepancy between the B/C/S and the English in terms of either

20     the inclusion of information or the exclusion of information, and here,

21     if we look at the English version, we will note that the name and place

22     of sender has been left blank.  I'm pointing it out for the record.

23             Also, if I'm not mistaken, if we could go down to the very bottom

24     of the English page, please.  As I understand it, this is a translation

25     that was created by the Office of the Prosecutor and is not an official

Page 13577

 1     translation.  I mention that because at the bottom it says "OTP/DVU."

 2     Just for purposes of clarity.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't see the OTP/DVU.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If you look at the very bottom of the page,

 5     left-hand side.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 8        Q.   The name and place of the recipient, if you could read that for

 9     us in Serbian, please.  That would be at box 14.

10        A.   Number 14?

11        Q.   Yes.

12        A.   It says "Command of the Drina Corps."

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And looking at the types of materiel that are

14     involved here, as I understand it, the materiel that is involved, if we

15     could go down to the -- stay on the same page in the B/C/S and move to

16     the next page in English, please, so that the Chamber has an opportunity

17     to view what materiel supplies are being sent by the Ministry of Defence

18     of the Republic of Serbia.

19        Q.   I'm looking at this list and I'm doing this generically.  It

20     would be fair to say that this list is comprised of mortars,

21     rocket-launchers, mines, and bullets, bullets for a number of different

22     types -- bullets of different types; 7.62, 7.9, 1.22; various types of

23     bullets.  Is that fair?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Now, continuing with -- that's sufficient.  That's sufficient.

Page 13578

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move for its admission.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You indicated that you are not objecting?

 3             MS. CARTER:  No, I'm not, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

 5     number.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 7     Exhibit D449.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please switch off his

11     microphone when not using it.  Thank you.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I do apologise.  Too many pieces paper in front

13     of me at the moment but I'll be more mindful of that.  If we could now

14     look at 65 ter OTP 818, which is going to be tab number 27 in your

15     binder.

16        Q.   And before you make any comments with regard to this document,

17     I'm going to take the same position that I took with the last document.

18     I don't know whether or not, after review, this will draw an objection or

19     not.

20             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would just again note,

21     in relation to the date, this far predates this witness's direct

22     knowledge of it, however I have no objections to him talking about these

23     forms generally.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:

Page 13579

 1        Q.   With regard to this document, I'd like to go through the same

 2     exercise that we went through in the last document.  Could you please

 3     tell us, looking at the Serbian version of this, who the sender is and

 4     who -- first of all in box number 4, and who the receiver is in box

 5     number 14.

 6        A.   The sender is the minister of defence of the Republic of Serbia,

 7     and the receiver is the command of the Drina Corps.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH: I would, for purposes of the record, make the same

 9     comments that I had made with the previous document:  In the English

10     translation both the sender's name once again is non-existent and this is

11     again an OTP translation, not an official translation.

12        Q.   With regard to the types of materiel that are being discussed in

13     this particular document, could you tell us what types of materiel they

14     are, please?  Just generally, would it be fair to say we are once again

15     talking about bullets, mortars and grenades?

16        A.   Yes, precisely so.  That's what is written on this sheet.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would move this document 's admission, please.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

19     number.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

21     Exhibit D450.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  65 ter OTP 820, which will be 28 in your binder.

24     And I would go through the same exercise I've gone through before, so

25     that we don't engage in unnecessary argument.  I don't know what the

Page 13580

 1     Prosecution's position is with regard to this document.

 2             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, until the witness is allowed

 3     opportunity to show that he does have some relation or some knowledge

 4     about this document, we believe that it would be premature to provide any

 5     objection.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.

 7        Q.   First of all, could you tell us whether or not you can -- it may

 8     be a bit difficult.  Can you read the very top of the document.  In

 9     English I have the statement:  "Receipt for the above-mentioned military

10     property received for temporary use from Republic of Serbia Defence

11     Ministry."  I don't know if that reads the same in your copy in B/C/S at

12     the very top of the document.  If you could just say yes or no, if it

13     does, that's fine.

14        A.   No, it says here:  "Receipt for the above-mentioned military

15     property received for temporary use from the Ministry of Defence of the

16     Republic of Serbia."

17        Q.   And with regard to the items that are listed there, once again,

18     are those items -- would it be fair to characterise those six items as

19     grenades, mines, and ammunition for --

20        A.   Precisely so.  This comes from the ammunition arsenal which was

21     used by the Territorial Defence.

22        Q.   Now, you've mentioned the Territorial Defence, which is something

23     that I think we'll briefly touch upon after the break because I'm looking

24     at the clock and I think His Honour is too.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.  We'll take a

Page 13581

 1     break and come back at half past 12.00.  Court adjourned.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Right before the break you mentioned the Territorial Defence.

 7     Could you briefly describe to the Chamber what the Territorial Defence

 8     was.

 9        A.   In keeping with the constitution of the former state of the SFRY,

10     and in keeping with the strategy of defence, each republic had a

11     Territorial Defence, which was an army parallel to the Yugoslav People's

12     Army.

13        Q.   With regard to this parallel army, as you've discussed it, called

14     the Territorial Defence, did this army have its own military equipment,

15     its own supplies, or were those supplies part of the former JNA?

16        A.   It was not by chance that I mentioned the word "parallel" because

17     at the beginning, at the outset, we had armed forces which had two

18     components; the Territorial Defence and the Yugoslav People's Army.

19     However, in practice and subsequent events showed that those two

20     components of the armed forces were broken up and went each its own

21     separate way.  The Territorial Defence was equipped and financed by the

22     republics.  Each republic allocated, in keeping with the law, a certain

23     amount of money, it established its own units, and in practical terms,

24     those units were subordinated to the republican leaderships.

25        Q.   And just a minor point of clarification.  You indicated the

Page 13582

 1     Territorial Defence was equipped and financed by the republics.  With

 2     regard to the Territorial Defence being equipped by the republics, what

 3     kind of equipment did the republics supply to the Territorial Defence?

 4        A.   The republics financed the needs of the Territorial Defence.  It

 5     was not that each republic bought what they wanted.  There was a system

 6     in place for the procurement of all republican territorial defences and

 7     there was a system co-ordinated with the then Secretariat For National

 8     Defence and the equipment was not of an offensive nature, of the same

 9     nature as the JNA had.  It was primarily for the mass defence of the

10     territory and the protection of the population, production facilities,

11     and the like.  That was the main purpose of the Territorial Defence

12     equipment.

13        Q.   I'm now returning to the document we've been discussing, OTP 65

14     ter 820.  With regard to this particular document, can you tell us what

15     involvement, if any, the VJ had with regard to the types of military

16     property that are indicated here?

17        A.   I did not understand your question, sir.

18        Q.   Surely.  Was -- to your knowledge, if you are looking at this

19     document, can you tell us whether or not this document involved the VJ in

20     any fashion?

21        A.   This document does not imply the participation of the Army of

22     Yugoslavia.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'd move its admission.

25             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, I think we find ourselves in the same

Page 13583

 1     position we were this morning; there's not been a link made between this

 2     witness and this document.  We are no longer dealing with the MP-20

 3     delivery slips and all the witness has been asked to do is confirm the

 4     contents of the document itself.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm not going to go through the long argument

 7     that we went through before.  I believe that a sufficient basis has been

 8     established and, interestingly, the Prosecution previously did not object

 9     to one of the self-same documents.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I -- with respect to 815, as I understood it,

11     the ruling was that the objection was upheld, Judge Picard dissenting,

12     and I've now been told that 815 is D448.  This is what confuses us.  I

13     still don't understand, because it looks like the decision is going to go

14     along the same lines.

15             Mr. Registrar, you gave us to understand that 815 was D448 and at

16     the time when the ruling came out I noted that the objection was upheld,

17     Judge Picard dissenting.  And if the objection was upheld, it would then

18     mean that it was not admitted.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  It will be corrected.  Thank you, Your Honours.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  With regard to the situation we are in now, which

21     is a slightly different document, this is an MP-32 document, not an MP-20

22     document, we had a discussion about a previous document which was 65 ter

23     TP 810 which became D447, for which the Prosecution did not object.  This

24     is the self-same type of document.  And it was on that basis that I -- it

25     was on that basis that I proceeded with this particular document.

Page 13584

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Having not had an objection levied previously,

 3     otherwise I would have handled this document in an entirely different

 4     fashion.  But if we want to have disparate views with regard to the

 5     self-same document in terms of evidence, so be it.  The record will be --

 6     will ultimately end up being a dog's breakfast in that regard for your

 7     purposes.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is a dog's breakfast because at that time when

 9     you tendered 810, the Prosecution didn't object and if now they are

10     objecting to the admission of this one and they have a valid objection,

11     it should be upheld because this is where the objection first comes.  But

12     if it is not upheld, it must be upheld -- it must be dismissed on the

13     basis that the document is admissible, not because a previous one was

14     admitted.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I appreciate that.  As I said to you before,

16     rather than go through the entirety of the argument I posited before, in

17     order to save time --

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You repeat it by reference.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm repeating it by reference and I'm relying

20     upon the fact that when this document -- when the self-same document --

21     excuse me, when a similar document essentially identical in nature was

22     proffered for admission, there was no objection.  So I add that on to --

23     I add that on to the argument that was made before, because clearly what

24     is happening is we are getting disparate positions taken.  But as I said

25     before, you know, the dilemma will be ultimately at the end in the terms

Page 13585

 1     of analysis that we all have to go through and the kinds of evidence we

 2     rely upon and whatever errors may or may not exist as a result of the

 3     disparate views that have been taken.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then in that event, the objection would then be

 5     upheld, Judge Picard still dissenting.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.  If we could now turn to --

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Just for the record, Exhibit D448 is hereby

 8     withdrawn from the court record and will be marked not admitted.  Thank

 9     you.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we please have 65 ter OTP document again

12     822, which will be tab 29 in your binder, sir.

13             Now, with regard to -- the document isn't up on the screen yet.

14     With regard to this document, I trust I'm understanding Ms. Carter's

15     position correctly and this is a document that she would not be objecting

16     to, this being a delivery sheet, but before I proceed any further, I wish

17     to make sure and have some confidence in that position.  I'm only doing

18     this to save time with regard to argument.

19             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, as to this document, similarly to the

20     other MP-20 forms, we acknowledge that the witness has some general

21     competence to testify in regards to them.  I would just note yet again

22     that the date of this is well before the witness takes the position in

23     which he had contact with them.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Madam Carter.

25             Mr. Guy-Smith.

Page 13586

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   With regard to the document that's presently before you, could

 3     you tell us, please, looking at item number 4, the name of the sender?

 4        A.   The sender is the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

 5        Q.   The receiver, looking at box number 14?

 6        A.   The receiver is the command of the Drina Corps.

 7        Q.   And the types of military product that are being transferred here

 8     are generally bullets, mortars, projectiles for rocket-launchers, and

 9     grenades; is that fair?

10        A.   That's correct.  And this is materiel from the supplies of the

11     Territorial Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

12        Q.   And with regard to what you just said, what involvement, if any,

13     did the VJ have with regard to this particular transaction?

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Carter.

15             MS. CARTER:  Your Honour, I would object to speculation on this

16     point.  This witness wouldn't have been in a position -- in August of

17     1993 he was still with the navy technical institute.  To have him

18     actually speak to this specific transaction and what the VJ's involvement

19     was would exceed his competency.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Let me rephrase.

22        Q.   With regard to the matters concerning the Ministry of Defence for

23     the Republic of Serbia, are you familiar with the methodology that

24     existed as between requests for particular military resources and the

25     methodology that was used by the Ministry of Defence for Serbia in terms

Page 13587

 1     of accommodating those requests?

 2        A.   A slight digression before that, if I may.  As a desk officer in

 3     the navy and technical administration, before I became chief, I was in

 4     charge of diving, sabotage, and other types of equipment.  I was directly

 5     engaged and I helped the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Serbia

 6     with regard to the procurement of the equipment.  I'm familiar with the

 7     depot where that materiel was stored.  So I'm very familiar with that

 8     area.

 9             On the other note, the Army of Yugoslavia did not have anything

10     to do with this particular matter.  The only thing that may be similar or

11     the same is the calibre of the rounds that were procured.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I move this document's admission.

14             MS. CARTER:  No objection to the admission, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

16     number.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

18     Exhibit D451.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Before this document is removed

20     from the screen, I have a question for the witness.  Under box 4 it

21     states that this equipment comes from the Ministry of Defence from the

22     the Republic of Serbia.  A moment ago you said that the Republic of

23     Serbia should in fact be Republika Srpska.  You stated that in reference

24     to one of the other documents.  Is this also the case?  Are we talking

25     here about Serbia or the Republika Srpska?

Page 13588

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where the confusion

 2     comes from.  It is clear that the Republic of Serbia was part of the

 3     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia whereas Republika Srpska is in the

 4     territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I really don't want to create any

 5     confusion.  The two are not in any direct connection.  They are not

 6     administratively connected at all.  They are two completely different

 7     entities.

 8             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Yes, I realise that, that's why I

 9     asked the question.  But at one point in time the document stated RS, you

10     said it could only be Republika Srpska, whereas the translation said

11     Republic of Serbia.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how things are

13     translated.  I'm reading B/C/S documents and it's spelled out, the

14     Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.  I'm not assuming or

15     supposing things.

16             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Fine, your answer is perfect.

17     Thank you very much.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, as at the 23rd of August, 1993, did the state

19     of Serbia exist?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The state existed and together with

21     Montenegro it constituted the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  The former

22     two were the components of one and the same state and the Supreme Defence

23     Council was composed of the president of the Federal Republic of

24     Yugoslavia, the president of Montenegro, and the president of Serbia.

25     Three members, three people were members of the Supreme Defence Council

Page 13589

 1     of the former state.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see, now, let me tell you where the confusion

 3     comes.  The confusion comes where you told us earlier that Republic of

 4     Serbia could only mean Republika Srpska because the state of Serbia did

 5     not exist, it was the FRY at the time.  That's what you told us earlier,

 6     sir.  Now you are saying the state of Serbia at this date existed with

 7     Montenegro and Serbia together called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, at that time it was not called Serbia, it was

10     called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so we are -- at least I understood

11     you to mean that where we see Republic of Serbia before the existence of

12     Serbia it refers to the Republika Srpska, but now I think you are taking

13     a different position in answering Judge Picard.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think perhaps there's a bit of confusion.  I

15     don't think he is taking a different position.  Let me see if I can

16     clarify the record.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please clarify the record because a number of

18     documents --

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Understood, understood.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, but a number of exhibits have come in since

21     that last explanation where the Republic of Serbia in the English is

22     written and we need all that to be cleared.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Let me see what I can do for you.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:

Page 13590

 1        Q.   The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was comprised of what

 2     constituent parts?

 3        A.   The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was comprised of the Republic

 4     of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro.  The then president of Serbia

 5     was Slobodan Milosevic and the president of Montenegro at the time was

 6     Momir Bulatovic, as far as I can remember.

 7        Q.   With regard to the issue presented upon the formation of the

 8     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, did the Republic of Serbia -- from what

 9     you've said, did the Republic of Serbia exist or did it not exist?

10        A.   The Republic of Serbia never stopped existing.  It existed in the

11     SFRY and it continued existing thereafter.  All the republics existed

12     from the year 1945.

13        Q.   With regard to the existence of the Republika Srpska, can you

14     tell us when the Republika Srpska first came into existence?

15        A.   If my memory serves me well, and I must say that I'm not always

16     good with dates, I believe that they proclaimed its existence on the 9th

17     of January, 1992, or perhaps 1993.  No, it was in 1992.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH: I noted that Judge Picard was shaking her head so

19     I'm gathering that I'm not getting to a point of clarification for her.

20     With that in mind, I'm going to continue to try to get to a point of

21     clarification for her because I have no desire to waste the time.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before you do that, and I think this is the reason

23     she is shaking her head, taking into account the answer to the previous

24     question where the witness says the Republic of Serbia always existed,

25     take note of that answer and then look at page 28, line 21 to 24 where he

Page 13591

 1     then -- where he said --

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I am aware of that, Your Honour, I --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- did not exist.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I am aware of that, Your Honour.  I'm going to

 5     get us to that point.  It seemed to me essentially what we had to do

 6     first was engage in some kind of a basic history understanding as to what

 7     existed and what did not exist at what period of time, with that in mind,

 8     because I think that is of some assistance because I think there are

 9     matters actually which in fact the Court can take judicial notice of and

10     something that we've discussed repeatedly here.   But I wanted to get

11     some clarification with regard to that first and then address the

12     specific language that's contained there that is causing the Chamber

13     concern.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It looks like the witness wants to say something,

15     Mr. Guy-Smith.  I don't know whether you want to let him say it or not.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No, because I want to make sure I'm on track.

17     Could you do me a favour, please, and please put D446 back on the screen.

18     Thank you.

19        Q.   Now, your response to this document I think is what has generated

20     the present confusion that we are involved in, so I'd like to go back and

21     take a look at this document.  What is the date of this document?

22        A.   The date is 16 March 1994.

23        Q.   Reading the B/C/S version of the document, could you please read

24     the second line, starting with the word "Da."  Just read that line out

25     loud, please.

Page 13592

 1        A.   "The Ministry of Defence of the Republika Srpska ensure consent

 2     for the overhaul in the Hadzici RZ or in the Cacak TRZ of the following

 3     pieces of equipment."

 4        Q.   Stop right there.  Now, when we were talking about this document

 5     before, you were asked the following question, and I'm going to truncate

 6     my question starting at line 16 on page 27.  I said:

 7             "In the text of this document --" then I listed it out, and then

 8     I asked the following question:

 9             "With respect -- with regard that your Ministry of Defence or

10     some other Ministry of Defence, if you know."

11             And your answer is as follows, and here is where the confusion is

12     right now:

13             "I know that this is the Ministry of Defence of the Republika

14     Srpska."

15             And then you go on and say some things, then at line -- at line

16     -- sorry, at line 1 --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  21.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:

19        Q.   Then you go on and you say at line 21, and in response to a

20     question of Judge Moloto's, sir:

21             "Just before we admit it, let's just get the record clear.  The

22     English translation here reads:  'Through the Ministry of Defence of the

23     Republic of Serbia.'  You are saying Republika Srpska.  Is that what

24     stands on the B/C/S version, or in other words, is the English

25     translation incorrect?"

Page 13593

 1             Please.  Now, your response to the Judge was:

 2             "Mr. President, the translation is incorrect because the Ministry

 3     of Defence of the Republic of Serbia did not exist at this point in time.

 4     Only the Federal Ministry of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed

 5     at this period in time."

 6             So you have told us that there was the Republic of Serbia, and

 7     the question that I think logically follows from the confusion that has

 8     been created is as follows:  Did the Republic of Serbia continue or cease

 9     to continue to have a Ministry of Defence after the formation of the

10     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

11        A.   The Republic of Serbia, after the break-up of the SFRY, had a

12     Ministry of Defence, and the first minister of defence was Admiral Jokic.

13     I know the man.  Later on he was an accused here in The Hague and he was

14     convicted.  When Serbia and Montenegro merged into the FRY, the function

15     of the minister of defence were quenched in these two republics and the

16     duties were transferred on to the federal minister of defence, hence only

17     the Federal Ministry of Defence existed and although the republics

18     existed, they did not have their respective Ministry of Defence.  They

19     transferred their defence ministry and their Ministry of Foreign Affairs

20     on to the federal state.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think that takes care of one part of what may

22     be the confusion.  I think therein lies another question, and I'm picking

23     this -- I have a question but I think you may have a different question,

24     so I will -- I'm happy to see whether or not your question is going to

25     take care of my question, Your Honour.

Page 13594

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  If you want me to ask, my question was

 2     going to be, when you answered here to say that the Ministry of Defence

 3     of Serbia is the ministry that supplied these goods, were you referring

 4     to the area that is today called Serbia which at the time within the FRY

 5     was a republic of the FRY?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you then saying that the VRS Main Staff is

 8     being requested here to supply these goods through the ministry of Serbia

 9     in Serbia and not the ministry of Serbia in Republika Srpska?  Because

10     you have just told us that when you said the Ministry of Defence of

11     Serbia, you meant the ministry of the Republic of Serbia which was the

12     republic within the FRY.  It's confusing even more.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, I hope it is confusing even less, but I

14     think that it is reasonable and logical to, and I am not saying assume

15     but to find, that when you have the Latinised letters MORS, that you are

16     referring to or one is referring to the Ministry of Defence for the

17     Republika Srpska.  I think that is a particular kind of nomenclature that

18     we have seen throughout these proceedings.  With that in mind and my

19     assumption would be -- now I'm making an assumption by reading the

20     English translation -- that the English translation is incorrect, which

21     is independent of the issue -- which is independent of the issue that he

22     has raised.  I believe that the English translation should properly read,

23     "secure an approval through the Ministry of Defence of the Republika

24     Srpska for a maintenance in RZ," and continuing with the language

25     therein.  That would, to me, be a logical and consistent translation

Page 13595

 1     based upon what we have seen for close to two years in terms of the

 2     document itself.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I hear what you say, Mr. Guy-Smith, and

 4     unfortunately the situation here is that whereas that's how I understood

 5     the witness at page 28, now when he speaks latterly, he is no longer

 6     stating the same position.  At page 28 he said the Republic of Serbia did

 7     not exist at that time.  Now he says Republic of Serbia has always

 8     existed, has always been there.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think this is where we may be a bit --

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And for me, it looks to me like when he says

11     Republic of Serbia has always existed, he is talking of Republic of

12     Serbia as a republic within the SFRY, within the FRY, and today as a

13     state.  And yet when he said earlier, at page 28, that the Republic of

14     Serbia did not exist he was referring to Republic of Serbia as a state,

15     as a country.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I might, Your Honour.  If I might, Your

17     Honour, I think this might be where some of the confusion lies.  He said

18     at line 21:

19             "Because the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia."  Not

20     the Republic of Serbia.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Naturally, naturally.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia did

23     not exist.  But he has just told us that at that time the republics used

24     to have their own financing and procurement, equipment of arms to the TO.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That's correct.

Page 13596

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Through which ministry?

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, we haven't discovered through which

 3     ministry, if any ministry.  I think part of -- I think part of the

 4     dilemma is as follows, which is that it's part of what we have been

 5     attempting to do for you.  During the transitional period it is not

 6     either reasonable, logical, or in fact accurate to assume that there were

 7     hard and fast - I'll put it in those terms - organs, and we've talked

 8     about this as a transitional period or transformation period, and I think

 9     that you will find, and I don't want to put these words into the

10     witness's mouth, but it's one of the things that we are going to talk

11     about later --

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please don't.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  -- talk about later, which is really what is the

14     state of affairs?  And I think that an attempt to rigidly define some of

15     these things won't work terribly well and it other places it will work.

16     But is that is obviously the nature of a conflict-torn area.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.  Madam Carter, do you

18     have any contribution to make to this discussion?

19             MS. CARTER:  No, Your Honour.  In the context of what you have

20     been speaking about, you covered the contribution I was going to make

21     earlier.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Guy-Smith, you may proceed.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:

24        Q.   Is there something that you wish to say?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 13597

 1        Q.   Okay.  What do you wish to say, sir?

 2        A.   Just what we have already said.  I don't understand the confusion

 3     because everything is evident.  I simply said that at that time in 1994

 4     there did not exist the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

 5     However, the republic itself did exist.  You can see it based on the

 6     document which is on the screen.  This institution here writes to the

 7     Main Staff of the VRS.  Neither in Serbia nor in Yugoslavia there existed

 8     a Main Staff.  There was no such institution within Serbia or Yugoslavia,

 9     which is to say that this is a document emanating from Republika Srpska.

10     So this institution is writing to its Main Staff, asking them to address

11     their request to the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska because the

12     repair facility, the service facility in Hadzici, is located in Republika

13     Srpska.  So this was their internal institution, internal relations, it

14     was a completely internal transaction within Republika Srpska.  And I

15     don't see what is confusing here.

16        Q.   Thank you for that answer.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I hear that answer.  I would like the witness, if

18     he could, to give us an answer similar to that with respect to the

19     document that raised Judge Picard's issue.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.  And which document is that?

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I thought it was D451.  The last document that was

22     on the monitor --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I beg your pardon.  The last document that was on

25     the monitor when Judge Picard asked --

Page 13598

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Perfect.

 2        Q.   If you could go to tab 29 in your binder.  Tab 29.  You may well

 3     still be there.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If we could have it on the --

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could have it up on the screen, that would

 6     be -- it's now D451.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's right.  The name of the sender.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 9        Q.   This document, unlike the document that we were looking at

10     before, does not have the Latinised letters of MORS.  It has something

11     written I think both -- letters and something written out.  So looking at

12     the name of the sender, could you tell us what it says in box number 4?

13        A.   Under 4 it says an acronym, Ministry of Defence of the Republic,

14     that is an an acronym, and then Serbia is spelled out.

15        Q.   When you say Serbia is spelled out, just for purposes of the

16     record, could you tell us what the letters are.  Unlike before where we

17     had an acronym, now we have a name, a full name.  Could you tell us what

18     the letters are in fact?

19        A.   S-r-b-i-j-a.

20        Q.   To your knowledge and your experience in living in the region,

21     did RS ever stand for Republic of Serbia?

22        A.   Acronym RS was used for Republika Srpska, not for the Republic of

23     Serbia.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question to you was going to be which

25     geographical unit within the former SFRY does this Serbia here refer to?

Page 13599

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This refers to the entire area

 2     except for Montenegro.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The entire area of the former SFRY?  My question

 4     was to which geographical unit within the former SFRY does this Serbia

 5     here refer?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This pertains to a geographical

 7     unit within the the SFRY.  If we exclude the Republic of Slovenia,

 8     Republic of Croatia, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republic of

 9     Macedonia and the Republic of Montenegro, what remains is the Republic of

10     Serbia.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I guess it excluded Croatia as well.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that under number 2.  In

13     that case, the interpreter didn't interpret it.  I mentioned it after

14     Slovenia.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm with you.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I started from the west.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think I can be of some further assistance to

18     all of you -- I think I can be some further assistance to all of you with

19     asking of two questions.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm quite happy that the first Serbia was RS

21     Republika Srpska, this one refers to Serbia as we mean Serbia today.  But

22     I just don't know where the cutoff comes.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think that's where I'm probably going to and I

24     want to make sure -- or to the extent that I can, I want to make Judge

25     Picard happy too here with regard to this particular issue for purposes

Page 13600

 1     of clarification.

 2        Q.   If you could take a look at the document, please, could you tell

 3     us the date of this document, General?  Looking up in the upper

 4     right-hand corner, do you see the date of this document?

 5        A.   Yes, the date is the 23rd of August, 1993.

 6        Q.   And you had mentioned to us in your testimony that there came a

 7     time when the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia transferred

 8     its competency to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and ceased to exist.

 9     Now, as you sit here today, can you tell us whether or not it would be

10     accurate that the Ministry of Defence for the Republic of Serbia existed

11     until the end of 1993 or not?

12        A.   The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia officially came into existence

13     on the 27th of April, 1994, when the constitution was adopted in the

14     federal parliament.  However, prior to that time, as the political elite

15     had decided to establish such a state while the constitution was being

16     written, the ministries of defence in the republics which formed the

17     Federation slowly ceased to exist, because it couldn't be done overnight,

18     and then they completely ceased to exist once the Federal Republic of

19     Yugoslavia was created.  So the process of the ministries and the

20     republics dying out was a process.

21             The date of 27th of April was celebrated as the statehood day,

22     the day when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was founded.  The Federal

23     Republic of Yugoslavia no longer exists today.

24        Q.   I understand that.  And looking at line 24, you have the date as

25     the 27th of April, 1994.  Is that accurate, 1994?

Page 13601

 1        A.   I think that this is when the FRY was created and when the

 2     constitution was passed and other laws and regulations.  I'm not a

 3     hundred per cent sure.

 4        Q.   We've heard the date previously of 1992, so that's the reason I'm

 5     asking the question.

 6        A.   They started functioning to some extent but they did not manage

 7     to pass the constitution and other laws and regulations, so for awhile

 8     there was a transition period.  I may not be the best person to ask for

 9     the date, but I remember that we had numerous problems in our work

10     because the set of laws and regulations that we needed in order to work

11     was not yet in place at that time.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I'm going to try to move to an area where hopefully

13     we will not fall into the muddle of confusion but can deal with things

14     that are relatively simple.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And in that regard if we could please have up on

16     the screen P1201, which would be tab 26 in your binder, sir -- I'm sorry,

17     tab 16 in your binder.

18        Q.   I'd like to start at the very top of this document, and at the

19     very top of this document it indicates in English on the left-hand side

20     "army post office number 1089-30."  As I read this document, this

21     document is referring to an army post office.  Am I correct in my

22     assumption there?

23        A.   Yes.  This document was registered with the military post

24     1089-30.

25        Q.   And what military post is that?

Page 13602

 1        A.   This is the military post which was the procurement

 2     administration within the Ministry of Defence.

 3        Q.   And how do you know that?

 4        A.   I know that for a number of reasons, the main one being that I

 5     used to work in the Ministry of Defence and this administration was a

 6     parallel administration to the one where I worked.  I worked with them

 7     every day.  While I worked at the General Staff each request for

 8     procurement had this military post indicated on it.  I know this because

 9     I signed all of those documents.

10        Q.   Could you tell us the date of this document?

11        A.   The 29th of March, 1994.

12        Q.   And what is the subject matter of this document?  I'm looking

13     once again just at the very top where in English it says "Delivery of

14     Contract".

15        A.   This is an accompanying letter enclosed with the document it was

16     sent with.  Military post 1089-30, which is the procurement

17     administration, sent a contract on a loan.  And this was the accompanying

18     document.  This document also indicates to which military posts it was

19     delivered.

20        Q.   And who are the the contracting parties with regard to the loan

21     of 42.72 tonnes of TNT?

22        A.   The contracting parties were research, development, and

23     manufacturing administration on the one side and the Ministry of Defence

24     of Republika Srpska.

25        Q.   And the research, development, and manufacturing administration

Page 13603

 1     on the one side is part of what organ?  Is that part of the VJ, part of

 2     the Ministry of Defence, part of the Ministry of the Interior?  Who does

 3     the research, development, and manufacturing administration belong to?

 4        A.   Research, development, and manufacturing administration was part

 5     of the military economic sector of the Federal Ministry of Defence.

 6        Q.   And what involvement, if any, if you know, did the research,

 7     development, and manufacturing administration of the military economic

 8     sector of the Federal Ministry of Defence have with the VJ in terms of

 9     negotiating contracts?

10        A.   Could you be more specific, please.

11        Q.   Surely.  Did the VJ have any involvement in this contract?

12        A.   No.  No, except for the administration for research, development,

13     and manufacturing and the administration for procurement.  Both of them

14     are part or were part of the Ministry of Defence.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Looking --

16                           [Defence counsel confer]

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not quite sure I understand what the answer

18     says when it says, "No.  No, except for ..."

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That's what my concern is right there.

20        Q.   I asked you the following question, which is :

21             "Did the VJ have any involvement in this contract?"

22             And you said:  "No.  No, except for the administration for

23     research, development, and manufacturing and the administration for

24     procurement.  Both of them are part or were part of the Ministry of

25     Defence."

Page 13604

 1             So let me ask you the question again, which is, did the VJ have

 2     any involvement in this contract?

 3        A.   No, the VJ did not participate in this contract.  They did not

 4     conclude the contract with the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska.

 5     However, later on it appears as a participant in the stage of the

 6     delivery of the materiel to the place where it would be stored.

 7        Q.   I understand.  That's not my question at the moment.  Looking

 8     again at page -- at the very first page, it says at the very bottom of

 9     the very first page, on the right-hand side:

10             "PO."  Then there are two words, and underneath that there's

11     another word and then there's a signature.  Could you tell us what it

12     says where it says "PO" -- the acronym "PO" and the two words that follow

13     there?

14        A.   This means that the document was signed under the authority of

15     the chief of that particular administration.

16        Q.   Okay.  And when you say "under the authority," PO, the next word

17     is "Ovlascenju."  Sorry, I probably made a mess of the way its pronounced

18     in Serbian.  What is that word after PO?  Ovla?  Looking at the document.

19        A.   The main role of the chief of administration or any other body is

20     to sign documents.  In this particular case this means that this person

21     was authorised --

22        Q.   Excuse me, I'm asking you a very straight question right now, a

23     very particular question here, which is what does that say?  Specifically

24     PO and then there are two words that follow.  What does that say?  Just

25     read it in Serbian, please.

Page 13605

 1        A.   Under the authority of the chief Lieutenant-Colonel Stanisa

 2     Bakic, which means that the chief of that administration authorised that

 3     person to forward this document and that he was authorised to sign it and

 4     to stamp it.  And that's it.  This person who signed the document was not

 5     the decision-maker in this case.

 6        Q.   The English translation reads "PO of Chief of Staff."  Would that

 7     be an accurate translation?

 8        A.   No.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before this page disappears, can I just clear one

10     little point.  You answered earlier when you were asked about the VJ

11     involvement, you said:  "No, the VJ did not participate.  However, later

12     on it appears as a participant in the stage of the delivery of the

13     materiel to the place where it would be stored."  Can you show us where

14     that appears?  Where it appears that the VJ is a participant, from the

15     document?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the document was drafted or

17     when the contract was concluded and when the decision was taken on the

18     loan, the VJ did not participate because it wasn't its materiel and they

19     were not the decision-maker, but when the --

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm going to stop you.  I'm asking you not about

21     the conclusion of the contract.  I am asking you about the delivery.  You

22     say it appears that the VJ was involved in the delivery of the materiel.

23     I just want you to tell us from this document where we can see that

24     involvement of the VJ in the delivery.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at the left bottom

Page 13606

 1     corner, there are the addressees, the first one is military post 8634-3

 2     Belgrade, and that's the sector for military economic activity and the

 3     chief of sector is hereby allowed to follow the progress of the events.

 4     And then the army appears, military post office 9808, that's the 608th

 5     Logistics Base.  And there's also military post office 9808-6 which is

 6     the Lunjevica depo near Gornji Milanovac.  That is the base depot, and

 7     they were supposed to act on the contract and deliver goods from the

 8     federal commodity reserves.  Not from the military commodity reserves but

 9     from the federal commodity reserves, that the base was in charge of

10     safeguarding explosives pursuant to the same regulations which were

11     binding upon the military.  And this was due to the fact that the

12     materiel in question was hazardous, that's why the military looked after

13     it.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could turn to the next page.

15        Q.   Earlier in your testimony, if I'm not mistaken, you indicated

16     that as the chief of research and development you were authorised to

17     dispose of or otherwise alienate raw materials.  I just want to make sure

18     I'm correct in that regard.

19        A.   You are absolutely right.

20        Q.   Now, with regard to the raw material that is being discussed in

21     this contract, in one of your recent answers you indicated who the owner

22     was of this material or where this material came from.  And who is the --

23     if looking at Article 2 of this particular contract, does that indicate

24     the kind -- who is the owner of the raw materials, and by that I mean the

25     language here which says federal material reserve?

Page 13607

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And who is the owner of this raw material?

 3        A.   The owner of this raw material is the federal government.

 4        Q.   Now, as I understand this document, this document is a contract

 5     in which a price was set for the value of this material which is found

 6     above Article 2 in which it says, at least in English, total value of the

 7     contracted goods, subject of this loan, according to this contract,

 8     calculated by creditor at the price of 4,85 n dinars per kilogram, is,

 9     and there is the amount of 207.192 n dinars.  Now, for purposes of our

10     understanding, who is the creditor that calculated the price of these raw

11     materials?

12        A.   The price of the material was calculated by the procurement

13     administration which was otherwise tasked with determining all the

14     prices.  The pricing of the goods purchased, the goods sold, as well as

15     the price of a working hour in the service.

16        Q.    And with regard to the procurement administration, are you

17     referring to the Ministry of Defence or the procurement administration

18     that we have been discussing throughout the day?

19        A.   Yes, yes, precisely so, I'm talking about the procurement

20     administration of the Ministry of Defence.

21        Q.   There are a series of other parts of this contract, but I'd like

22     to just get to Article 7 in the contract here, which deals with dispute

23     resolution.  In the event of a dispute with regard to this particular

24     transaction, where is the jurisdiction to be found under Article 7?

25        A.   According to this contract, it will be the military arbitration

Page 13608

 1     with the Federal Ministry of Defence that will be in charge.  That was an

 2     organ, a body that was in existence and a body that was in charge of such

 3     matters.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I would be moving on to another subject, so it

 6     may be an appropriate time.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Kadijevic, unfortunately we are not done with

 8     you.  You'll have to come back tomorrow.  Just to warn you that while you

 9     are on recess between now and tomorrow, you are not supposed to discuss

10     this case with anybody and least of all the Defence until such time as

11     you are released from further testifying.  The case is going to stand

12     adjourned to tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning in the same courtroom here.

13     Court adjourned.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.

15                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of

16                           September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.