1 Monday, 6 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The Accused Simatovic entered court]
4 [The Accused Stanisic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom and
7 those assisting us outside the courtroom.
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 I'd like to deal with a few procedural matters before we invite
14 the Prosecution to call its next witness.
15 Mr. Knoops, we received a form in which Mr. Stanisic expresses
16 that he is not well enough to attend court. The other boxes are not
17 ticked on that form, and especially not -- well, the waiver seems to be a
18 bit unclear because I think he told the staff of the UNDU that he did not
19 understand what a waiver was. It comes as a bit of a surprise after
20 earlier having waived his right to be present.
21 Could you explain what happened.
22 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon.
23 Based on this waiver or non-waiver as you may say so, we inquired
24 at around 11.45 per telephone via the UNDU. We were called back and were
25 able to shortly speak to Mr. Stanisic, and he confirmed to me during this
1 telephone conversation that his intention was not to waive his right to
2 be present. Apparently due to a miscommunication or his illness he was
3 not able to fully grasp that particular box, but in essence he -- his
4 position is the same as last week. That was confirmed by him to me.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from that, if he would not have
6 expressly waived his right to be present, the Chamber would understand
7 the situation to be that he has not waived his right to be present. But
8 apparently his intention was to waive -- not to waive his right to be
10 I take it that you have discussed with him earlier, some
11 malcommunication you said, so you earlier discussed with him what a
12 waiver was and you again did this this morning.
13 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour, we did.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any need for you to -- in view of the
15 report we received from Dr. Eekhof to put further questions to
16 Dr. Eekhof?
17 MR. KNOOPS: Well, Your Honour, it strikes the Defence that
18 Dr. Eekhof, in paragraph 2, reports that his mental state of mind is
19 agitated and depressed, and he's upset by certain circumstances.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to deal with those circumstances
21 separately, but from a medical point of view, please proceed.
22 MR. KNOOPS: Yes. Our question would be to Dr. Eekhof how this
23 would inter-relate to paragraph 3; namely, that his activities,
24 observations, and unimpaired intellectual capacities during consultations
25 he estimates that Mr. Stanisic is fit to participate in the proceedings.
1 In other words, how should this fit with the observation in paragraph 2.
2 It's also, by the way, the Defence observation set out in paragraph 2
3 that the mental state of mind of the accused is even more depressed since
4 certain events last week.
5 I would like, therefore, to ask Dr. Eekhof how he estimates this
6 new development in the light of the mental state of the defendant. But I
7 leave it to the Court to ultimately make the decision whether or not the
8 Court feels fully informed or not fully informed to proceed or whether
9 the Court deems it appropriate to seek further clarification from
10 Dr. Eekhof on this subject.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, since you left it in the hands of the
13 Chamber - I consulted with my colleagues - and the Chamber does not need
14 at this moment a further clarification on the relationship between what
15 is set out by Dr. Eekhof in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of his report of
16 today, the 6th of July.
17 Therefore, the Chamber will proceed.
18 I -- the following observation, I would like to make is the way
19 in which the parties communicate with the Chamber because there may be
20 some confusion about that. There is no problem in communicating through
21 e-mail, but purely practical matters are just dealt with by e-mail.
22 Matters which are mainly of a practical nature but may have some impact
23 on the proceedings apart from only practical -- but which may have an
24 impact which goes a bit further than just practical matters can be
25 communicated through e-mail, but we'll then put it on the record by
1 referring to those e-mails in court; whereas the purely practical matter
2 might never be mentioned in court. Then the third category is if the
3 e-mails contain substance, not just a marginal effect on the proceedings,
4 but if they are really of some substance, then the e-mail communication
5 should be filed so that we have it formally on the record in its -- in
6 exactly the formulation as used in the e-mail.
7 This might clarify a bit perhaps the earlier confusion about
8 additional questions which I said we should not discuss at that moment in
9 court, were then communicated through e-mail but never were formalised in
10 a filing. Now, the additional questions you would like the psychiatrist
11 to deal with in his next report are now filed. There is an urgent motion
12 on that matter.
13 The Chamber would like to receive by Wednesday, close of
14 business, a response to this urgent Defence request for further
15 submissions of psychiatric medical expert.
16 Then there is an issue and this also relates to how to
17 communicate. The Chamber received an informal communication by the
18 Stanisic Defence on some privacy concerns expressed by Mr. Stanisic. May
19 I first of all take it the Prosecution has been copied on that?
20 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Yes, we have received it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Knoops, the present situation is, that there is
22 already expressed in this informal communication, there is a decision by
23 this Chamber, although not composed in the same way as it is now. What I
24 actually understand is that Mr. Stanisic would prefer third parties not
25 to be mentioned in public filings, which could result in a motion to
1 review the earlier decision -- I can imagine, for example, that an expert
2 would be invited to deal with any matters which is related to third
3 persons in annexes -- confidential annexes rather than in the reports
4 themselves, reports which are public. In view of what I earlier said
5 about communications, the Chamber expects that if this is the kind of
6 thing you'd like us to do, to file a motion so that we can decide on the
8 Then last thing, Mr. Jovanovic, and I'm addressing you.
9 Sometimes ask a witness who doesn't speak English to take his earphones
10 off so as to avoid that he has to leave the courtroom when we are
11 discussing matters which are preferably not be discussed in the presence
12 of the witness. Now, if you would address the Chamber under those
13 circumstances in B/C/S, then the effect of such a measure would be
14 totally lost because he would directly hear what you're saying.
15 Therefore, the Chamber invites you, either under those circumstances and
16 if you have difficulties in using the English language under those
17 circumstances, either to ask the Chamber to invite the witness to leave
18 the courtroom or to address the Chamber in the English language. I just
19 express concerns that any effect of taking off earphones if you speak
20 B/C/S and if it's a B/C/S-speaking witness, of course is rather
22 If -- no, that's what I would like to say about that.
23 Most likely the Chamber will deliver this afternoon orally its
24 decision on the Prosecution's witness list, especially extension of it
25 with new witnesses. These were the procedural matters the Chamber had on
1 its mind.
2 Any other procedural matters? If not, the Prosecution's invited
3 to call its next witness.
4 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Your Honours, may I introduce to you
5 Mr. Adam Weber, who hasn't appeared before you in this case. Mr. Weber
6 is going to take that witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
8 First of all, could a message be sent to the Detention Unit that
9 the -- there's no further need to have Dr. Eekhof stand-by.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. It has been done already.
12 Mr. Weber, the next Prosecution witness would be ...
13 MR. WEBER: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours.
14 Adam Weber on behalf of the Prosecution. The Prosecution at this time
15 calls Borivoje Savic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and from the fact you use his name, I
17 understand that no protective measures are required?
18 MR. WEBER: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 The witness has been scheduled for three hours?
21 MR. WEBER: That's correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And there's no other witness stand-by for
24 MR. WEBER: That's my understanding.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Is there any reason as far as the Defence is concerned - of
2 course you have seen the earlier statements which are not in evidence, we
3 haven't seen them - that we would not conclude the testimony of this
4 witness tomorrow?
5 [The witness entered court]
6 MR. JORDASH: No, I think having discussed it with my learned
7 friend I think we'll finish him tomorrow.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Good afternoon, Mr. Savic. Can you hear me in a language you
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence the Rules require that you
13 make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
14 and nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out to you by
15 Madam Usher, and I would like to invite you to make that solemn
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I shall
18 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: BORIVOJE SAVIC
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Savic. Please be seated.
22 Mr. Savic, could you come a bit closer to the microphones.
23 Mr. Savic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is counsel
24 for the Prosecution.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour.
2 Examination by Mr. Weber:
3 Q. Could you please introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.
4 A. My name is Borivoje Savic.
5 Q. What is your date of birth?
6 A. 2nd February 1949.
7 Q. Where were you born?
8 A. I was born in Sljivova, municipality of Krupanj in Serbia.
9 Q. What is the highest level of education that you completed in
11 A. I graduated from the secondary agricultural school in Sabac.
12 Q. Where is Sabac?
13 A. Sabac is also in Serbia.
14 Q. After you completed secondary school in Serbia, did you move
16 A. When I completed secondary school, I moved to Vinkovci which was
17 in the Socialist Republic of Croatia to continue my education at the
18 higher school for agriculture.
19 Q. Did you complete your compulsory military service?
20 A. Yes, I did, when I completed my secondary school. In 1968, 1969,
21 and 1970 up to the 15th of January I served in the military.
22 Q. What was your profession prior to 1990?
23 A. I worked at the Vupik Vukovar agricultural combine as an
25 Q. Did you become involved in politics in 1990?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. What political party did you join?
3 A. I joined the Serbian Democratic Party, which was headquartered in
5 Q. When was the Serbian Democratic Party formed in Croatia?
6 A. The Serbian Democratic Party was formed on the 17th of February,
7 1990, in Knin on the eve of the first multi-party elections in Croatia.
8 Q. What is the reason that you became involved in politics?
9 A. The political turbulences that were in place at the time. I
10 believe that the Serbian Democratic Party was an option whose goal was to
11 use all reasonable and political means in order to calm the situation
12 down. It was also a parliamentary party after the first elections in
14 Q. When did you join the SDS party?
15 A. In May 1990.
16 Q. How did you join the SDS party?
17 A. I participated and I was among the first who was involved in the
18 establishing of the board of the Serbian Democratic Party in the
19 territory of Slavonia and Baranja.
20 Q. Did you personally meet anyone when you joined the SDS party?
21 A. Yes, I met with the president of the party, Professor Draskovic.
22 Q. Could we please have a clarification, sir, of that name. Is it
23 Professor Draskovic or Professor Raskovic?
24 A. I said Professor Raskovic, Jovan Raskovic.
25 Q. Where did you meet with Professor Raskovic?
1 A. On the 3rd of May, 1990, during the process to establish the
2 board of the Serbian Democratic Party in Belgrade.
3 Q. What role did Professor Raskovic request that you serve as part
4 of the SDS board?
5 A. Actually, the initiative was mine. From the very outset he told
6 me that the SDS had tried but failed to spread across Slavonia and
7 Baranja, that they did not have the time to continue, and that I should
8 do whatever I could, but not to be disappointed if I, as well, failed.
9 And he also told me that he was at my disposal, if I needed something to
10 contact him.
11 Q. After this meeting with Professor Raskovic in Belgrade did you
12 have occasion to go to Knin on the 20th of May, 1990?
13 A. Our following meeting was initiated by him, and it took place on
14 the 20th of May, 1990.
15 Q. Who went with you to Knin?
16 A. Mr. Goran Hadzic went to Knin with me as well as Drago Njegovan,
17 Milan Bukarica, and Pero Malovic.
18 Q. What occurred when you first arrived in Knin?
19 A. We met up in front of the municipality building in Knin, in the
20 parking-lot. It was just a chance meeting.
21 Q. And when you say "we," who are you referring to?
22 A. I mean my group, the people who came with me, and
23 Professor Raskovic, who had arrived from Sibenik.
24 Q. Did anything occur at that time?
25 A. Professor Raskovic was accompanied by Mr. Milan Babic, president
1 of the municipality of Knin or the Municipal Assembly of Knin, rather,
2 and there was also my group, me and the people who were with me.
3 Q. Did you have occasion to then conduct a meeting?
4 A. We did conduct a meeting in the office of the president of the
5 municipality in Mr. Milan Babic's office, in the building of the
7 Q. What was the subject of this meeting?
8 A. The subject of the meeting was the discussion about the
9 establishment of the first party boards in the territory of Baranja and
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just interrupt you for a second.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 1743-1750 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 You may proceed, Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. Did you participate in the formation of Municipal Boards in
5 Grubisno and Podravska Slatina on 9 June 1990?
6 A. Yes, the Municipal Boards of the SDS were formed first on
7 Grubisno Polje and Podravska Slatina on the same day, that was the
9 Q. After the formation of these Municipal Boards, did you have
10 occasion to be present at a meeting on 10 June 1990 in Vukovar?
11 A. Yes, this meeting was held in Vukovar after the setting up of the
12 party's committee in Vukovar.
13 Q. Who was present at the meeting in Vukovar on 10 June 1990?
14 A. The newly-elected municipal board members were present:
15 Goran Hadzic, Milan Bukarica, Zeljko Djukic, Dr. Mladjenovic,
16 Slobodan Tripic, Ilija Djukic, Nebojsa Velic [phoen]. There was some 12
17 people there. I might have omitted someone, but that's it.
18 Q. What occurred at this meeting in Vukovar?
19 A. Actually, I organised that meeting. After the setting up of the
20 board, in view of the fact that the people who were -- who were members
21 of the new board were people who had never dealt in anything similar or
22 in any politics. I just wanted to give them some guide-lines, to educate
23 them in a way, to tell them what further course of action we shall take
24 and what it will be that we will be doing, generally speaking.
25 Q. Did you support anyone to become president of the SDS board in
1 Vukovar on that date?
2 A. As I had worked very much on the preparations, I took it upon
3 myself to appoint Mr. Goran Hadzic as president, and I allowed them to
4 appoint -- make the other appointments in regular procedure themselves.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's remark: Could the other
6 microphone please be switched off, thank you, when it is not used.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. How did you know Goran Hadzic before 1990?
9 A. Goran Hadzic and I knew each other for a long time. He was the
10 first person who accompanied me. Otherwise his father used to work in
11 the same firm with me. His wife was a teacher in Pacetin, the village,
12 so that we went back a long way.
13 Q. What was your official position in the SDS party as of
14 10 June 1990?
15 A. I was elected the Municipal Board secretary.
16 Q. After the formation of the Municipal Boards in Slavonia, did you
17 become aware of any distribution of weapons or arming of the Serb
19 A. Well, there had been talk about the arming, the weapons, for some
20 time by then, which was considered normal, the situation being turbulent
21 as it was.
22 Q. Were there any people who arrived in Slavonia after the formation
23 of the Municipal Boards that had not been present before that time?
24 A. Well, yes. We were a new party, simply a new phenomenon on the
25 scene. Different envoys came from Vojvodina, Novi Sad, and Belgrade
1 mainly with their proposals and different canvassing.
2 Q. Who were these people?
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 1755-1757 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, perhaps you repeat the question.
8 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour. The Prosecution just wanted
9 to note one transcript correction, page 23, line 1, the Prosecution
10 believes the name that was said was Petrovic.
11 Q. Sir --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. Sir, who was the local individual responsible for the
15 distribution of weapons in Vukovar?
16 A. The first time weapon was offered to me, it was done by
17 Mr. Ilija Kojic.
18 Q. Did you have occasion to have a conversation with Ilija Kojic
19 about the distribution of weapons?
20 A. Yes, he invited me to his apartment. I went there. He offered
21 me weapons, and I asked him and I explained to him that I could see that
22 it was part of his activities, and I asked him not to use party members
23 for those activities because we, as a party, did not want to have
24 anything whatsoever to do with weapons. I instructed him to find people
25 outside of the party to help him with his activities. That was the gist
1 of our conversation in his apartment, the conversation that the two of us
2 had on that occasion.
3 Q. Did you ask him where he was receiving the weapons from?
4 A. I asked him, Where are these from? Why? And he told me that he
5 had received weapons from Stanisic.
6 Q. When you refer to Stanisic, what is the full name of the
7 individual for whom you are speaking?
8 A. We did not discuss that individual at all and what I just told
9 you is all that he said to me at that time. I assume he meant
10 Jovica Stanisic, but we did not take that part of our discussion any
12 Q. When did this conversation occur?
13 A. Probably in the month of August 1990.
14 Q. You mentioned that it was in the apartment of Ilija Kojic. Where
15 is that located?
16 A. Yes. It's in an apartment block on the bank of the Dunav in
17 Vukovar, in the close proximity of the police building and the hospital,
18 maybe 500 metres away from the two buildings. It's in down-town Vukovar.
19 Q. You also mentioned that there were weapons present in this
20 apartment. What did you see when you entered the apartment of
21 Ilija Kojic?
22 A. Yes, he showed us a room with several rifles lying on the floor.
23 I really don't know much about weapons, so I wouldn't be able to tell you
24 anything about the types of weapons that I saw there. But all the
25 weapons were old. There was nothing brand new there. And that would be
1 the general characteristic of the weapons that I saw.
2 Q. What was the position of Jovica Stanisic at this time?
3 MR. KNOOPS: Objection. The objection is two-fold. First, there
4 is no foundation; secondly, the witness testified that he didn't take the
5 matter further with Mr. --
6 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said that he assumed it was
7 Jovica Stanisic. The Chamber will, on the totality of the evidence
8 further, further form an opinion about that, and the objection is denied.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Sir, do you need me to repeat the question?
12 A. I believe that, at that time, Jovica Stanisic was already the
13 chief of the state security of Serbia, and I've already told you that
14 that activity was not a subject of my interest at all, and I didn't dwell
15 upon the issue too much. I was never too curious as to know who was in
16 charge of that part of that activity.
17 Q. Sir, who is Vukasin Soskocanin?
18 A. Vukasin Soskocanin was my fellow worker. He was a veterinary
19 technician, my colleague, and he was the president of the SDS board in
20 Borovo Selo.
21 Q. How often did you speak with Mr. Soskocanin throughout the fall
22 of 1990?
23 A. We had very good communication. He was a very active person and
24 he worked quite hard, and as a result of that, we met quite often.
25 Q. Did you have specific conversations with Mr. Soskocanin in
1 October or November 1990 concerning his political views?
2 A. Our conversations were very specific and we always discussed very
3 specific things, organisational issues, the party matters, the
4 enlargement of the party, the party membership increased. All our
5 conversations revolved around that and were always with a specific goal
6 in mind.
7 Q. Did you have occasion to have a specific conversation with him
8 about any changes in his political views?
9 A. Since I followed the work of all of my fellow party members, I
10 noticed a change in his behaviour, and I inquired about that. His
11 explanation was very simple. He told me that he decided to assume the
12 role as the leader of the Serbian people. And, I apologise, I was
13 familiar with the term because Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic had,
14 for months, been talking to me about the need to elect the leader for the
15 Serbian people. They wanted to know who the leader would be because the
16 Serbian people were keen to have a leader. As soon as he used the term,
17 I knew what he meant.
18 Q. What was that? What did he mean?
19 A. I asked him for an explanation, and then he said that all the
20 people on the political scene -- not all the people on the political
21 scene have the characteristics of a leader, and his view was that I
22 should be that person, but he understood that I was not in favour of
23 that. So after talking to some people who persuaded him to assume the
24 role, he decided to take it.
25 Q. You've referred to being a leader of the Serbian people. What
1 specific position are you referring to?
2 A. The matters that we were involved with were purely political
3 matters. We received assurances from Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic
4 that we should have a state-forming organ, as they called it, that the
5 party is not best suited to assume that role. However, the party was
6 functioning quite well and, thus, people who were party members should be
7 appointed into a new body that would be called a National Council.
8 Q. And this would be the National Council of what?
9 A. The National Council of the Serbs of Slavonia, Baranja, and
10 Western Srem. That was what they offered by way of explanation.
11 Q. Did you make a specific request of Mr. Soskocanin during this
13 A. I was familiar with all the circumstances, and I told him that it
14 was okay if he wanted to take that role; however, that I, myself, would
15 be at his disposal for consultations and assistance with all the matters
16 that might be necessary, bearing in mind that I had good contacts with a
17 lot of people and I cooperated well with them. And I told him that I
18 agreed with him assuming the role if he had accepted the offer, however,
19 that I needed to be consulted on all his future activities and steps,
20 which he agreed to.
21 Q. Sir, unfortunately we are limited in time. If you could please
22 be mindful of the length of your answers. Did you discuss about any
23 future trips that he may have to Belgrade?
24 A. Yes, he did come to me one day and said that on the following
25 morning he was supposed to travel to Belgrade.
1 Q. Did he then have a conversation with you after he went to
3 A. Yes. We had a discussion when he returned three days later to
4 brief me about what had happened there.
5 Q. What was said in this conversation after his return?
6 A. He spoke in riddles, as it were. He said that he went to see
7 "Daddy," that everything had been agreed that Serbia would not be
8 betrayers. So I had to speak further explanations. After each of his
9 answers I asked him exactly who, how, when. I had to seek clarification
10 in order to be fully abreast of what had happened.
11 Q. What did he tell you?
12 A. I asked him who he had seen. He said Milosevic. I asked him
13 what happened next. He said, Milosevic deceived [as interpreted] me.
14 And when he received all the promises he said that he went to Batajnica
15 to speak to Vojislav Seselj because Vojislav Seselj was responsible for
16 further concrete offers.
17 Q. Was there any discussion of an agreement at that time?
18 A. No agreements were discussed. The only thing that was said was
19 that he was in charge of providing concrete assistance. I never received
20 any explanation as to what that meant in very specific terms.
21 Q. On page 32, line 7, you said that: "He said Milosevic." What is
22 the first name of the individual you are referring to?
23 A. I can't see any pages. What are you referring to?
24 Q. When you referenced that "he said Milosevic," what is the first
25 name of the person that you were talking about?
1 A. I meant Slobodan Milosevic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, we are approximately at the time to have
3 a break.
4 Mr. Savic, we'll have a break of approximately 25 minutes. I
5 would like to already ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you assist me -- no, I think I
8 don't need your assistance. I was wondering where to find something, but
9 I found it meanwhile. So therefore, I won't bother you with it.
10 We'll have a break and resume at ten minutes past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, could I inquire about something while
15 the witness is being brought in?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: With respect to any type of transcript corrections,
18 would the Chamber prefer us to submit a written request or make note of
19 it at the time or both.
20 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, the transcripts are reviewed after the
21 court hearing, so most of the mistakes will be, first of all, done, not
22 many, but most of them will be easily detected afterwards. If there is a
23 risk of real confusion, usually you find a sign in the transcript where
24 it is already clear that not the spelling is not correct or something is
25 missing. If the transcriber really misses portion of the evidence, then
1 she'll inform us. If, however, there is -- no, we can -- what are we
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: If, however, there is no indication whatsoever that
5 the transcriber may have misunderstood but there's a risk of confusion,
6 then, of course, the Chamber would like to be alerted to it because then
7 there might be a risk that this will not be subject to review overnight.
8 And -- so therefore, it depends a bit. Sometimes -- for example, if it's
9 a small spelling thing, what also sometimes helps is that you just write
10 a little note so that it would be taken into consideration when the
11 transcript will be reviewed.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: If at a later stage once the transcript is final, if
14 then there is a mistake, then a formal request should be made to have it
16 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, please proceed.
18 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would just note page 32, line 7, the
19 witness said "received" not "deceived."
20 Q. Mr. Savic, before we broke you referred to all the promises that
21 were made to Mr. Soskocanin. Did he tell you what promises he received?
22 A. I have already stated that he was speaking in riddles, and when
23 he says "assistance," for example, you assume whatever you will. We did
24 not have to go into any details. All I heard from him was that Seselj
25 was in charge of the assistance and that all those things would go
1 through him.
2 Q. What was the reason that Soskocanin went to see Seselj?
3 A. Because Milosevic, or rather, President Milosevic referred him to
4 see him -- at least that's what he told me.
5 Q. Could you please describe your relationship with Ilija Petrovic
6 and Ilija Koncarevic prior to January 1991.
7 A. Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic would turn up on the ground
8 every day uninvited in the area from Ilok, which constitutes the entrance
9 to Slavonia, all the way up to Beli Manastir. Sometimes they introduced
10 themselves as the official representatives of the authorities in
11 Belgrade. They offered their services, their assistance, something along
12 those lines.
13 Q. Did either of them indicate to you who they were official
14 representatives of from Belgrade?
15 A. Look, we're talking in very general terms. The State Security
16 Services, President Milosevic, the Government of Serbia, that would be
17 that by and large.
18 Q. When you're referring to State Security Services, are you
19 referring to the State Security Services of Serbia?
20 A. Yes, yes. All that time reference was to Belgrade and the state
21 institutions in Belgrade.
22 Q. On 6 January 1991, did you have a meeting with Ilija Petrovic and
23 Ilija Koncarevic?
24 A. Yes. On the 6th of January, they came to my house. It was
25 rather late when they came, sometime around 2200 hours or even after
1 that, and they had a very concrete proposal. The proposal was to
2 establish the Serbian National Council of Slavonia, Baranja, and
3 Western Srem.
4 Q. What were the details of this proposal that was made to you?
5 A. The Serbian National Council of Slavonia, Baranja, and
6 Western Srem would be a state-forming council since a new state would be
7 formed in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem according
8 to them.
9 Q. Did they offer you any particular position?
10 A. It was implied that one of the founders of the Serbian National
11 Council was also the president.
12 Q. How did you respond to this proposal?
13 A. I said that I did not believe in the idea of forming a new state
14 unit, that, in my view, the territories of the republics equalled the
15 future borders, and that I was not to take part in the establishment of a
16 future para-authorities in the territory of Croatia.
17 Q. What do you mean by "para-authorities"?
18 A. The National Council of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem would
19 have been the new government which would be in charge of all work in the
20 area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, meaning that it would have
21 to annul the Croatian government, the Croatian organs of authority, that
22 were already in the field and create new organs of authority.
23 Q. Why -- what was the reason that you were opposed to the solution?
24 A. The very fact that I had accepted the existing reality and the
25 existing borders -- because of that fact, I assumed that the new
1 divisions that were being planned were impossible, unfeasible, especially
2 given the way in which they went about implementing them.
3 Q. Did you communicate this to Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic
4 on 6 January 1991?
5 A. Yes, we discussed that at some length in detail.
6 Q. On 7 January 1991, the Serbian National Council for Slavonia,
7 Baranja, and Western Srem was formed in Sidski Banovci; correct?
8 A. In Sidski Banovci.
9 Q. Thank you, sir, I appreciate your correction. After the
10 formation of the Serbian National Council for the SBWS, could you please
11 explain how the National Council functioned between January and March
13 A. The proclamation about the setting up of the National Council is
14 in itself interesting. It was published in the media in the evening that
15 the Serbian National Council had been set up in Sidski Banovci, a village
16 between Sid and Vinkovci, in which only the minister of information was
17 named, that was Ilija Petrovic, and no one else of the organs of the
19 Q. On 26 February 1991, did the Serbian National Council of the SBWS
20 adopt a declaration on sovereign autonomy of the Serbian people?
21 A. Yes. There was a number of decisions. There was that decision
22 and a number of others were adopted, but, in fact, the Serbian National
23 Council did not exist. It was only communiques that circulated, just
24 like the information about the creation of the Serbian National Council.
25 And I always -- was the one who always signed them as the minister of
2 Q. Who were these communiques between?
3 A. The key person or the key persons were, again, Ilija Petrovic and
4 Ilija Koncarevic. I asked for a founding act on the national -- Serbian
5 National Council, and clearly I could not get one, for one did not exist.
6 It was just them who featured as the signatories and the proclamation
7 with a given content.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution and the Defence, prior
9 to the proceedings today, did have the opportunity to discuss a couple
10 exhibits. I believe there is an agreement at this time. The Prosecution
11 would tender 65 ter 2628 into evidence. This is the declaration of
12 sovereign immunity [sic] by the Serbian National Council for the SBWS on
13 26 February 1991. We would also, at this time, tender Prosecution
14 65 ter 123. This is the "Official Gazette" publication of the decision
15 appointing Goran Hadzic, president; and Ilija Kojic, minister of defence,
16 of the SAO SBWS on 25 September 1991. And lastly 65 ter 2638. This is
17 the "Official Gazette" publication of the Constitution of the SAO SBWS,
18 also adopted on 25 September 1991.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently no objections from tendering these
20 exhibits from the bar table, so agreement on that.
21 Madam Registrar, first 65 ter 2628 would be ...
22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P15, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. The next one P123 --
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will become P17 Your Honours -- I apologise,
25 P16. And lastly, 65 ter 2638 will become P17.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P15, P16, and P17 are admitted into evidence.
2 Please proceed.
3 May I take it that there was an "Official Gazette" at the time
4 for which entity exactly?
5 MR. WEBER: This was for the SAO SBWS.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I expected because there are a lot
7 of "Official Gazettes" and borders changing all the time. We need
8 position in that respect.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe I misspoke at page 38, line 5,
11 I said "immunity." I meant autonomy.
12 Q. After the declaration of Serbian autonomy in the SBWS, did you
13 participate --
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. 38, line 5 I don't see any
15 immunity mentioned there, so therefore to correct something -- oh, I see
16 it's line 4, sovereign -- yes, of sovereign autonomy. Yes.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. After the declaration of Serbian autonomy in the SBWS, did you
20 participate in a meeting of the Executive Board and Main Boards of the
21 SDS on the 30th of March, 1991?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Where did this meeting occur?
24 A. That meeting was held in Obrovac in the culture centre.
25 Q. Who was present at this meeting?
1 A. The meeting was attended by Milan Babic, David Rastovic,
2 Veljko Dzakula, Ilija Sasic, Professor Vojo Vukcevic, Mr. Goran Hadzic, I
3 myself; Petar Stikovac, Marko Dobrijevic. I cannot recall the names of
4 the others, but there were other people present as well.
5 Q. What occurred at this meeting on the 30th of March, 1991?
6 A. The objective of the meeting was to try and find a solution to
7 the problem with Milan Babic and the functioning of the Main and
8 Executive Boards in Knin.
9 Q. What is the problem that you are referring to?
10 A. The problem was primarily in respect of the Croatian authorities,
11 relative to the Croatian authorities.
12 Q. What exactly was discussed?
13 A. The fact that they had to accept talks at the highest level and
14 that by virtue of their offices and also that it was their obligation to
15 lead in trying to find solutions to political and other problems in the
16 area in which they were active.
17 Q. Who was saying this?
18 A. All these ideas were advocated as a rule by us who hailed from
19 Slavonia, and a certain group of people from Zagreb as well. So that was
20 more or less the ratio of forces.
21 Q. When you say "by us," are you saying that this was your personal
22 position at this meeting?
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. How was this position received?
25 A. According to expectations, as expected -- in fact, it was
1 rejected. In fact, some of the positions were even further radicalised.
2 Q. By whom?
3 A. By Babic and his men.
4 Q. When you're saying "his men," who are you referring to?
5 A. I'm referring to people from the area of Knin and the vicinity,
6 people active within the framework of the Serbian Democratic Party.
7 Q. What was their position at this meeting?
8 A. Well, their explanations were quite confusing and quite terse, to
9 the effect that there would be no talk with the Ustasha, that they were
10 not in favour of talks. One simply gained the impression that they
11 didn't know what they wanted and that they, in fact, did not know what
12 they were doing.
13 Q. You mentioned that Goran Hadzic was present at this meeting.
14 What was his position?
15 A. Goran subscribed to our position, the position of the other
16 group, the one from Slavonia.
17 Q. Is this what he communicated at the time?
18 A. Yes, yes. We were all unanimous, all of us who came from the
19 area of Slavonia, we all were unanimous in our positions.
20 MR. WEBER: Could clip 3 of Prosecution 65 ter 1932 please be
21 played for the witness. It is V000-3865. The time code reference is
22 1 hour 55 minutes and 39 seconds through 1 hour 56 minutes and 33
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, apparently you want us to look at a
25 certain portion of a video. Are you going to tender the whole of the
1 video or just this portion?
2 MR. WEBER: With respect to this exhibit, the Prosecution today
3 is going to be seeking to tender clips. We are, at a later point, going
4 to be asking to admit the whole of the video, but with respect to 65 ter
5 1932, we are only seeking to enter segments of it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That means that 65 ter 1932 is only this clip or is
7 it the whole of the video?
8 MR. WEBER: It is not the whole of the video. It is only a clip.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Only the clip you are playing.
10 Any text spoken on the video?
11 MR. WEBER: There is text on the video; however, the Prosecution
12 would submit that the translation of the words actually spoken on the
13 video would be controlling.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have the booths been provided with transcripts
15 of the spoken words?
16 MR. WEBER: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Mr. Knoops?
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then we proceed as usually that if the speed of
21 speech is too quick to follow for the interpreters, that one of the
22 interpreters follows the original transcript to see whether the
23 transcript reflects what is said on the video; whereas the other
24 interpreter is then interpreting it into English and/or French and can
25 use the transcript as a reliable source being verified by his or her
2 Please proceed.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The political Krajina was
5 constituted on the territory of all Serbian municipalities who previously
6 were part of the administrative territory of the Socialist Republic of
7 Croatia. Several referendums have been held in order to constitute the
8 Krajina politically starting with the referendum on autonomy, the
9 referendum on the unification of settlements, Serbian settlements in the
10 Krajina, and finishing with this last referendum on the 12th of May on
11 staying in Yugoslavia and on unification with Serbia and Montenegro.
12 "You can be sure that the leadership will by no means accept any
13 option where these areas have to remain in the Republic of Croatia. We
14 said no a long time ago and our no will mean fighting to stay but we will
15 not allow ourselves to stay in Croatia."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Do you recognise the first person who appeared in the video that
19 you were just shown?
20 A. Mr. Milan Babic is on the first part of this footage who is
21 giving an interview in his office in Knin.
22 Q. Do you recognise the second person who appeared in this video?
23 A. The second person who appeared is the president of the Republic
24 of Serbian Krajina, Mr. Goran Hadzic.
25 Q. Could you please describe the clothes that Goran Hadzic is
1 wearing in the video?
2 A. Goran Hadzic is wearing a camouflage uniform of the Yugoslav
4 Q. When you say "Yugoslav Army," are you referring to the JNA?
5 A. Or the JNA. I don't know what was then. Yes, the JNA.
6 Q. Does this video recording accurately depict the voices of
7 Goran Hadzic and Milan Babic?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution, at this time, tenders only this clip
10 that was shown from Prosecution 65 ter 1932 into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No objections?
12 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, we still don't have the information as
13 to when this clip was broadcasted.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any information about it, Mr. Weber, you
15 could share it with Mr. Knoops. When it was broadcasted or when it was
17 MR. KNOOPS: I understand it was a clip sent by the media.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would like to know --
19 MR. KNOOPS: So when it was admitted in media.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Any information about that, Mr. --
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, as the Defence has already indicated to
22 you, this came -- this clip is from a collection of B-92 programme
23 materials called "images and words of hate." This was produced by
24 "Pravo, Slikus & Rec." It's a -- recognised "Right Foundation,
25 Pictures & Words." The clip has been authenticated by the witness, he
1 has recognised who this was and where this was. He's already
2 established, for the record, that he knows these individuals very well
3 and has had prior contact with them.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That seems not to be the problem. Mr. Knoops would
5 like to know when this was broadcasted. There seems to be no challenge
6 that it's Mr. Babic and Mr. Hadzic.
7 MR. WEBER: The answer is I don't know the specific date. It was
8 a collection of media that was assembled by B-92.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Mr. Knoops, may I take it that you'd like to receive that
11 information sooner or later, but is there any objection against admission
12 at this moment of being apparently an event which was video-recorded?
13 MR. KNOOPS: If the intention of the Prosecution is only to have
14 the witness identify the two persons on the clip, we have no objection.
15 We do have an objection to the content of the clip, the absence of a
16 concrete date of admission to the media. Because it also refers
17 obviously to some kind of uniform, and to the Defence, if course, it is
18 vital to know which period this clip was admitted to the media. But in
19 terms of the identification by this witness of the two individuals, we
20 don't have objection for admission into evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objection against admission.
22 Madam Registrar, this video-clip, this portion, is separated from
23 anything else or is it still part of a broader ...
24 MR. WEBER: It is still part of a broader collection of videos,
25 but we're just seeking admission of this clip at this time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But then, of course, you have to upload it as a
2 separate item in e-court because otherwise the whole of the clip and then
3 the Appeals Chamber at a later stage have to figure out exactly where
4 your time starts. That's not -- if you want to play other portions as
5 well later, then -- so that we have the totally -- but it's difficult to
6 admit into evidence a wider video which contains portions which we
7 haven't seen which -- to which the Defence has not expressed itself. So
8 therefore, if you really want to limit it to this, or say, Later today we
9 will play the other portions, that will be fine. Then we'll finally
10 decide once we've seen everything, give an opportunity to the Defence to
11 object, and then admit the whole portion consisting of all clips played
12 today or tomorrow. That's fine. But we're a bit in doubt as to what you
13 intend to do with the other portions of the video which are apparently
14 one with this clip just played.
15 MR. WEBER: Very well. I'll tender them all together after
16 hearing the evidence on it --
17 JUDGE ORIE: But you would tender then a video containing all the
18 clips you have played, nothing more, nothing less.
19 MR. WEBER: Understood.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Mr. Jovanovic, I was just -- still in talking terms of
22 bureaucracy -- or administrative matters. Any ...
23 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. In
24 order to have a fully information in the further broadcasting of the
25 video footage, if I can assist my colleague from the OTP, this is
1 allegedly footage from the collection of the B-92 TV studio. At that
2 time, the B-92 TV studio did not exist, irrespective of the fact that we
3 don't know the exact date of the footage. The journalist whose signature
4 appears on the video, Vesna Jugovic, at that time, as far as I know, was
5 a journalist of Radio Television Serbia. So this is not footage of TV
6 B-92. This is in order to avoid any confusion, so that I feel that the
7 OTP should provide us with all relevant data as to when the video was
8 made and what was the date when it was produced and who was it produced
10 JUDGE ORIE: If they have that information, I'm sure that they'll
11 provide it to you. If they do not have that information, this might have
12 an impact on the evidentiary value of this video-clip.
13 MR. WEBER: Understood. Just for clarification, it is from B-92
14 broadcast. It's a collection of other media broadcasted on that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's perfectly clear.
16 Mr. Jovanovic, what Mr. Weber said is that it was a collection of
17 media that was assembled by B-92, which of course is not the same as
18 created by B-92. And if you say that B-92 existed at a later stage, then
19 it is already a first step to finding a date because you can't assemble
20 anything if you do not yet exist.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
22 And our decision on admission of the whole of it will be taken at
23 the end of all the -- all the clips played.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. After this meeting on the 30th of March, 1991, did any
2 paramilitary groups arrive in the SBWS?
3 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, that's leading question.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you --
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the question does not call for anything
6 more than directing this witness to a specific topic. Any substance and
7 information relating to this, of course I will ask open-ended questions
8 about. However, asking this witness open-ended questions may lead to
9 many topics, and I'm directing his attention to a specific area.
10 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, there's no foundation for the term
11 "paramilitaries" yet laid.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please rephrase it in such a way that you
13 ask not about paramilitary but about any unit or any formation which was
15 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
16 Q. After this meeting on the 30th of March, 1991, did any units or
17 formations of armed men arrive in the SBWS?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who were these individuals?
20 A. This was associated with the incident at Plitvice on the 31st of
21 March, 1991. After that, a group of undefined - at least in my
22 book - undefined people came.
23 Q. Did you later learn of a group of armed men that arrived in the
24 area of Borovo Selo?
25 A. After the 31st of January, when I first went to Borovo Selo, it
1 was evening, it was dark -- actually, it was 10.00 p.m., there was
2 agricultural machinery placed as barriers at the entrance to the village,
3 and on the farming machinery, as far as one could see in the dark, there
4 were men in some black jackets. It was motley crowd. I couldn't say
5 they were in uniforms, but they had scarves on -- protecting their
6 facing, hiding their faces. That is what I could see.
7 Q. What month did this occur in?
8 A. This was the 4th or 5th of March, 1991.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Or might have even been the 6th of March. A lot of time had gone
11 by. After I arrived from Plitvice, when Mr. Boljkovac and his assistant,
12 Slavko Degoricija, then minister of the interior, and his assistant had
13 taken me along. I talked to them and we he agreed that we should try and
14 deal with the situation in Slavonia --
15 Q. Sir, sorry to interrupt you. My question was just for the month.
16 Were you ever arrested with Goran Hadzic?
17 A. It was not an arrest. It was just the police control which was
18 part of a regular procedure and we were kept without any reason by the
20 Q. When did this occur, the incident with you and Goran Hadzic?
21 A. On the 31st of March, in Plitvice. On the 31st of March, 1991.
22 Q. Was it before or after this time that you then learned of the
23 arrival of armed units or formations in the SBWS?
24 A. After that, in the month of April -- I apologise if I misspoke
25 and said that it was in March. It was actually in April 1991.
1 Q. Okay. Do you recall that because it's in relation to when you
2 and Mr. Hadzic had your experience with the police?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How did you learn of the arrival of armed men or formations in
5 Borovo Selo?
6 A. I went to Borovo Selo to talk to Mr. Soskocanin there.
7 Q. Where did this conversation occur?
8 A. In the local commune building, in the very centre of the village.
9 Q. What occurred during this conversation?
10 A. I asked him - and I apologise for using this term - I asked him
11 precisely this, Who are the idiots standing at the entrance to the
13 Q. What was his response?
14 A. He said that they had come across the Danube, in respect of the
15 provocations in Plitvice, and that they had arrived to defend the
17 Q. Did he provide you with any other information about who these men
19 A. I asked him whether that had anything to do with Seselj's
20 assistance, and his response was yes.
21 Q. Was there anything else that was discussed at this conversation?
22 A. I drew his attention to the fact that they were not in a position
23 to defend us, but rather that they were there to cause provocations, that
24 we would have to pay dearly, with our own lives. This is exactly what I
25 told him.
1 Q. What was his response?
2 A. I also asked him whether there was any possibility for those men
3 to be chased away. He said very clearly, No, but I could tell just by
4 the look of him that he was not very pleased either.
5 Q. Did you have occasion to have a phone conversation with Seselj on
6 the 6th or 7th of May, 1991?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. Did you place the phone call?
9 A. Yes, I was the one who placed the phone call.
10 Q. What is the reason that you called Seselj?
11 A. Mr. Soskocanin went to Television Novi Sad for an evening show.
12 He gave me Vojislav Seselj's number, asking me to call him and arrange a
13 meeting with him.
14 Q. What occurred when you called Seselj?
15 A. I called Seselj. I introduced myself to him. I knew his voice.
16 And I told him that Mr. Soskocanin wanted to meet with him, that he had
17 gone to Novi Sad. Seselj said, No problem, when he was aware of the date
18 and time he could call back; and if he wasn't there, his mother would be
19 there, and she could receive a message on his behalf.
20 Q. On how many occasions have you personally met Seselj? If you
21 could please just give an approximate number. At this time you do not
22 have to recite each of the occasions.
23 A. First, I avoided to appear with him on one show in
24 Studio Politika in Belgrade, and then we met on two occasions.
25 MR. WEBER: At this time could the Prosecution please play
1 another clip from Prosecution 65 ter 1932. The time code reference for
2 this clip is 1 hour 52 minutes and 28 seconds through 1 hour 52 minutes
3 and 45 seconds, and again it's clip 2.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The enemy will feel the revenge of
6 the Serbian people. We will not forgive as we did after the World War I
7 and II. The time has come to settle an old score. The time has begun to
8 revenge all Serbian victims and unite Serbian lands."
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. Sir, do you recognise the person who appeared in this video?
11 A. There are several persons there. The first image depicted
12 Vladika Filaret, and the second image depicted Vojislav Seselj.
13 Q. Was there only one voice that was speaking during this entire
15 A. I believe that I could hear only Seselj's voice.
16 Q. You said you believe. Do you recognise the voice of the
17 individual who is speaking on this video?
18 A. I heard Seselj's voice. The answer is yes.
19 Q. Can you estimate, based on the physical appearance of Mr. Seselj
20 in this video, approximately when this video was ?
21 A. It could have been the beginning of the 1990s. I can't be any
22 more precise than that, but I can say with certainty that it was in the
23 early 1990s, and I can see that he was an MP in the parliament of Serbia.
24 So I suppose that this could have been in 1992 or in 1993.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution, at this time, please play
1 three clips from a different exhibit. It's a BBC interview listed as
2 Prosecution 65 ter -- it's Prosecution 65 ter 2853.
3 Q. Sir, if you could please wait until all three of these segments
4 are played for you, and then I'll ask you some more questions.
5 MR. WEBER: It is ERN V000-6471. The first clip is time code
6 reference 7 minutes and 7 seconds through 7 minutes and 45 seconds. The
7 English transcript reference is page 3, lines 16 to 24.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I had contacts with the Serbs from
10 the Serbian Krajina region even earlier. Anyway, I was born in Sarajevo.
11 My ancestors come from Serbian Herzegovina. I was very well acquainted
12 with the local circumstances among the Western Serbs. We found a common
13 language very quickly. In 1990, I immediately joined the Serbian
14 Peoples' Rebellion. Initially, it was called the Log Revolution. It
15 included demonstrations, stopping traffic, and so on and so forth, until
16 a direct conflict took place which the Serbs were not to be blamed for
17 since the Serbs did not want to keep the Slovenians or the Croats in the
18 common state by force."
19 MR. WEBER: The second clip is time code reference 15.06 through
20 15.43. The English transcript reference is page 6, line 29, to page 7,
21 line 2.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "In 1990, we were not acquiring
24 weapons. We were only enlisting volunteers, and, occasionally, when
25 necessary, from time to time, we would send them to -- but those were all
1 very small groups. In 1991, we began organising volunteers on a larger
2 scale and sending them to already-established front lines, particularly
3 to eastern Slavonia here in the east of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
4 Our volunteers proved themselves especially in the battle of Borovo Selo,
5 which took place on the 2nd of May, 1991, when they defeated the stronger
6 Croatian forces, Croatian police and parapolice forces."
7 MR. WEBER: The third clip is time code reference 1 hour 43
8 minutes and 8 seconds through 1 hour 43 minutes and 52 seconds. This is
9 the very end of the video. The English transcript reference is page 42,
10 lines 7 through 19.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "When Milosevic said several times
13 during a conversation, We gave them this and that, we gave them this and
14 that; for example, when he is criticising the situation there or the
15 disobedience of some of them, let's say, Milan Babic's disobedience. We
16 gave them this, we gave them that, and so on. It is what I personally
17 heard him say. However, another thing, nobody else except him could take
18 such a decision. Territorial Defence was strictly under his control and
19 so was the police. Nobody else would dare take such a step and he
20 personally commanded the police and well through his men. It was under
21 this -- his absolute control."
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Do you recognise the person that is depicted --
24 JUDGE ORIE: One -- after a video is played could you always wait
25 for the translation to finish.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Do you recognise the person that was depicted in this video?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who was the person that was depicted throughout this video?
6 A. Mr. Vojislav Seselj.
7 Q. Does this video accurately record the voice of Vojislav Seselj?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders
10 Prosecution 65 ter 2853 into evidence, the entire video. It is the BBC
11 interview from -- of Vojislav Seselj from March 1995 provided by BBC.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
13 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, Defence has no objection when it
14 concerns the admission into evidence of the clip in so far that the
15 witness is able to identify the person on the clip and his voice. The
16 Defence objects to the admission into evidence of the clip in terms of
17 its content because, first, there is no relationship shown between this
18 witness and the clip or the author of the speech in question. Secondly,
19 the clip reflects double hearsay; namely, the author. The speaker in
20 this clip is referring to another person and testified or at least says
21 "I heard him saying ..." et cetera. So it's a form of double hearsay and
22 we think it should not be admissible, especially not while there is no
23 relationship with this witness and that particular clip or exhibit. In
24 other words, the identity and voice is not objectionable for the Defence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Knoops, you are creating quite a bit of
1 problems because we admit it into evidence and if there's a clear
2 indication of what the Prosecution wants to prove with that, then, of
3 course, you could rely on any limitation in the use and the weight to be
4 given to the evidence in accordance with what is said by the Prosecution.
5 Now, as far as the person is considered, Mr. Weber, was there any
6 dispute about who appeared and whose voice it was we heard, as far as
7 Mr. Seselj is concerned?
8 MR. WEBER: None whatsoever.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That means ten questions without any purpose and a
10 matter to be agreed upon between the parties, isn't it?
11 MR. WEBER: If that could be done, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, it should have been explored before we
13 looked at it.
14 Second, content. Is there any dispute that Mr. Seselj is saying
15 these things?
16 MR. KNOOPS: We're not disputing that Mr. Seselj is saying these
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then of course we'll --
19 MR. KNOOPS: What --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any authority which tells us -- because you
21 were talking about content. I come to your last point in a moment.
22 Content, you say it should not be used for evidence of the content.
23 Well, the first content is that he said these things apparently. That's
24 content. What words did he use on this video-clip? Now, to what extent
25 what he said is in accordance with what happened or whether he gives
1 opinions, et cetera, is to be seen in the context of all the evidence the
2 Chamber will have heard at the end of the case. But to say, We can't
3 accept it for the content, well the first content is that he said it.
4 MR. KNOOPS: Well, Your Honour, our point is, first of all, this
5 clip or these three clips are apparently from a wider broadcasting clip.
6 We don't know whether the context is correct, that's first of all. And
7 secondly, and this is exactly my point, Mr. Seselj is putting things on
8 this clip such as "I heard Milosevic saying" and "he was in absolute
9 power of," and we have fundamental objections that through this witness
10 who has no first-hand knowledge on the issue of the content of this
11 speech, this clip is being tendered while Mr. Seselj is also relying on
12 another source. It's a form of double hearsay and the --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, any authority which -- I mean, there's a lot of
14 case law on hearsay in this Tribunal, mainly saying if it's hearsay,
15 especially if it's double hearsay, see if you can find anything better --
16 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- and second, be very careful in evaluating such
18 evidence. I, however, am not aware of non-admissibility case law in
19 relation to hearsay or double hearsay.
20 MR. KNOOPS: Well, in the Perisic guide-lines, you find some
21 interesting remarks of the Trial Chamber. First, in relation to -- in
22 relationship between a witness and a document which is to be tendered;
23 and secondly, what amounts to hearsay. We're conscious that the Court
24 accepts hearsay as such but this is a form of double hearsay, and the
25 Defence has a principal objection that the Prosecution, later on,
1 although it is saying, We simply want to tender these exhibits for
2 identification of the person and his voice --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't hear them saying that at this moment.
4 MR. KNOOPS: Well, if that's the restriction, we don't have an
5 objection. But our point is that the Defence could not be -- the
6 Prosecution should not be allowed to rely on those clips for its content
7 basically because of the reasons I just laid down, and I believe the
8 Perisic guide-lines are clear in this regard. If there is no
9 relationship between this witness and the clips, the Court can decide not
10 to allow these documents -- especially we still don't know any date when
11 these clips were broadcasted. We have no --
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's another matter. This moment you raised three
13 issues in your objection. The first was just identification, which was
14 useless for the Prosecution, I think, to bring; the second is content.
15 Content, the first thing being that the content of the video-clip is what
16 the person speaking says; and the third one was about hearsay. The
17 Perisic guide-lines, although we do not ignore their existence are not
18 binding this Chamber per se. When I was asking about legal authorities,
19 I was inviting you to give us case law in which under similar
20 circumstances a video-clip was not admitted into evidence for the third
21 reason you gave.
22 MR. KNOOPS: I refer to paragraph 27 of the Perisic guide-lines,
23 and the paragraphs 26 and 27 of those guide-lines, including the best
24 evidence rule, we still don't have explored whether this witness is the
25 best way to introduce these clips, we don't know --
1 JUDGE ORIE: The first thing to explore is whether there exists
2 the best evidence rule in this Tribunal.
3 MR. KNOOPS: That's, of course, for Your Honours to decide.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. KNOOPS: And with respect to hearsay evidence, implicitly I
6 believe Your Honours could deduce from paragraph 37 of the Perisic
7 guide-lines that while hearsay evidence is admissible, the Court ruled in
8 that situation, it might be different with situation we deal here with.
9 There is a witness who has no relationship with the exhibit. There is a
10 person speaking on the clip, and that person refers to another source.
11 And the Prosecution, apparently, intends to tender that information
12 through these three stages into the evidence.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We can't say -- it seems to me that we can't say
14 under the circumstances here there's no link whatsoever with the
15 testimony of the witness. Whether you find that sufficient link is not a
17 Any further objections, Mr. Knoops?
18 MR. KNOOPS: We do agree there is a link between this person and
19 the person on the clip, but not between the person and the content of the
20 clip; namely, the content of the speech.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Mr. Jovanovic, any objections?
23 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. No
24 objections. If the video-clip was broadcast and tendered for
25 identification of the person and voice of the individual, and in this
1 particular case Mr. Vojislav Seselj speaks about the events in
2 Borovo Selo which coincides with the testimony of the witness, so I don't
3 have any objections in this sense. I would just like a clarification
4 whether what is being tendered is just one portion of the BBC interview
5 or the entire interview? Because as far as I know the --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Mr. Weber clearly expressed that the
7 three clips he played, all being part of a BBC together, make one exhibit
8 which he tender into evidence.
9 MR. WEBER: Correct, the entire exhibit. We were just showing
10 clips for the basis of establishing authenticity.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The exhibit that you tender, is that more than the
12 three clips we have seen?
13 MR. WEBER: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And how must -- how can the Chamber decide on -- is
15 that then tendering from the bar table, which introduces a new element,
16 that is that the words of Mr. Seselj were recorded -- I do not know
17 whether any other persons do appear on the -- or is it all one big
19 MR. WEBER: It is all one big interview that was a sit-down
20 interview by the BBC of Mr. Seselj.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. WEBER: The date, which has been indicated previously, was
23 March 1995. Now, with respect to the exhibit, we are tendering the
24 entire interview as --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Which is how long approximately?
1 MR. WEBER: Approximately an hour and 40 minutes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: One hour and 40 minutes, which means we have seen
3 approximately 5 per cent of what we're supposed to -- I'm not saying that
4 it's -- couldn't be done, but I'm just trying to define in what situation
5 we find ourselves.
6 MR. WEBER: If I may. As Your Honour noted right at the outset
7 when I asked these questions and tendered, we'd be happy to agree to
8 these things and have them admitted; however, in the absence of
9 agreement, we do have to spend time in court and present the exhibits to
10 a witness who can actually authenticate and identify who the person is
11 that is speaking in the video. That is the reason this was presented to
12 the witness. We are offering it for its full content. We submit this is
13 admissible. It's relevant. It's relevant, the clips that were played,
14 with respect to this particular witness's testimony that is already noted
15 by Defence. There is a nexus between this witness and Mr. Seselj. He
16 has explained his history of personally meeting Mr. Seselj and
17 recognising his voice. He was clear and unambiguous of his recognition
18 of Mr. Seselj. This is an unedited interview by a charged co-perpetrator
19 of the joint criminal enterprise. We submit that it's relevant, and we
20 would seek to enter the entire video --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You say it's unedited. How do you know, from what
22 appears, that it's unedited?
23 MR. WEBER: There's -- it's a continuous video.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's not the same as unedited, is it?
25 MR. WEBER: I understand.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, when it's the Prosecution's intention
3 just to have confirmation that this is Mr. Seselj and his voice, why then
4 tender one hour and a half of the same material?
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what Mr. Weber tells us. Mr. Weber tells
6 us that we showed this video to this witness because his testimony is
7 related to events Mr. Seselj is talking about as well, and apart from
8 that, this witness is able to recognise the face and the voice of
9 Mr. Seselj.
10 Now, there are three levels: Who is this who speaks? Do we know
11 who it is? Second is: What does he say? And third is: What is the
12 relation between what he said and what other people say or what we learn
13 from other evidence? I do understand that if Mr. Weber says that he
14 tenders this video for its content that he specifically refers to level 1
15 and level 2, that is: Who's speaking? And second: What is he saying?
16 And that the third level, whether there's any relation between what
17 Mr. Seselj says, whether he's reading a fairytale or whether he's telling
18 us things which have a relation with evidence this Chamber will hear,
19 that's still open, I take it, Mr. Weber, and I take it that, at the end
20 of the case, that you would like to draw our attention to the -- to the
21 links between what is said in this video and what happened on the ground
22 as told to us by other evidence or by other witnesses?
23 MR. WEBER: That's correct. And ultimately the Prosecution --
24 it's for the Chamber to decide the weight to be attributed to this piece
25 of evidence with respect to that third factor which has just been noted.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 One additional question: Mr. Jovanovic, you said we should know
3 whether it's broadcasted. Now, whether a video is broadcasted seems to
4 be relevant if you want to establish that the public had an opportunity
5 to view it. When I'm talking about the three levels, the first level
6 being: Who is it? Do you recognise his face? Do you recognise his
7 voice? Is -- therefore, it's irrelevant for this broadcast. Second
8 level: What is this person saying? Also whether it's broadcasted or not
9 is unrelated to what the person says. Even if you put it on the shelf
10 and never broadcast it, these, nevertheless, are the words apparently
11 recorded of things he said. For this third level: The link between what
12 happened and what we learn from other evidence, it may or may be
13 irrelevant whether it was broadcasted or not. Broadcasting appears to be
14 specifically relevant if you want to establish that not only the person
15 who made the video and not only the person who spoke on this video, but
16 that the public in more general terms could have known about it because
17 it was broadcasted.
18 I'd like to very clearly always identify what we are talking
19 about, and I have not heard anything in relation to this BBC clips what
20 the relevance of it being broadcasted is. Could you explain?
21 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My
22 objection was about the showing of the first video-clip. I only said
23 that we should have complete data about a video-clip, when it was made,
24 who made it, and whether it was ever broadcast; however --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there, if you're talking about the
1 first clip, we have two 65 ter numbers, the first being 1932, which is
2 the one assembled by B-92; and we have the second series consisting of
3 three clips, being the BBC, that's 65 ter 2853. Now, your objection, as
4 far as broadcasting is concerned, did it relate to the three BBC clips or
5 did it relate to the two until-now played B-92 clips? Because at this
6 moment, we're only discussing admission into evidence of the three BBC
7 clips. So I'm asking you what the relevance of this being broadcasted or
8 not being broadcasted would be for admission into evidence.
9 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this refers to the
10 BBC interview lasting one hour and 45 minutes. As far as I understood my
11 learned friends from the Prosecution, they want the whole recording
12 admitted. That interview by Vojislav Seselj encompasses his
13 interpretation, or rather, he spoke --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic, my simple question was: What the
15 relevance is of this BBC video being broadcasted, yes or no, for the
16 admission into evidence? I'm not asking about whether what Mr. Seselj
17 said is true or not true, personal views -- that was not my question to
18 you. My question was relevance of this being broadcasted or not being
19 broadcasted for our decision to admit into evidence this BBC video
20 which -- of which three small portions were played and of which the
21 Prosecution seeks to be admitted into evidence, the whole of it close to
22 two hours.
23 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. There
24 may have been a misunderstanding. I did not object to the BBC clip,
25 i.e., I did not say anything about the interview being broadcast or not.
1 My objection with regard to the BBC interview is this: Vojislav Seselj,
2 who the witness identified, is heard talking about many other things
3 apart from those that the witness is testifying about, which is Slavonia
4 and the events in Borovo Selo. For example, Vojislav Seselj also
5 mentions events in Zvornik, and this particular witness has nothing
6 whatsoever to do or had nothing whatsoever to do with those particular
7 events. There may have been a misunderstanding with regard to the fact
8 whether the BBC interview was ever broadcast or not, and I apologise if I
9 have been the cause of the misunderstanding.
10 What I'm saying is that the interview, lasting one hour and 45
11 minutes, depicts Vojislav Seselj talking about many other things and
12 locations that are not connected with the testimony of this witness,
13 which would rule out the video-clip as material for admission, except for
14 the part talking about the events in Borovo Selo. That's why I am
15 objecting to the whole interview being admitted evidence and I'm not
16 objecting to the three video-clips, shown earlier today in the courtroom,
17 being admitted into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Final question to both Defence teams, and the
19 Chamber will take its time to decide on the matter. Last question: If
20 this would have been tendered - and to some extent, of course, it is
21 tendered from the bar table - just to say these were the views Mr. Seselj
22 expressed at the time when this video was -- when this interview was
23 held, so as to consider this together with all the other evidence to see
24 what the probative value of it is. What would be your position? Because
25 to some extent, this BBC - and that's not the same with the B-92 - is to
1 a greater extent tendered from the bar table. That is, this is what was
2 said at the time by Mr. Seselj which has some relevance in the context of
3 the matters this Chamber has to decide upon. Would that -- what would be
4 the objections? Because 95 per cent of it is tendered from the bar
6 Mr. Knoops.
7 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honours, as Your Honours has formulated it, we
8 would have no objection to the tendering of these three portions. But we
9 still maintain our objection that when it contains words of the person on
10 the clip saying, I heard from that person some information, in our view
11 it would not be permissible or admissible in terms of double hearsay.
12 These are objections to the form of hearsay would still stand. But in
13 principle -- and Mr. Seselj gives his views on a certain situation, of
14 course, we would not object to the tendering of that information. Of
15 course, not when the witness can identify the name and the voice of that
16 particular person.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. KNOOPS: So a portion of our primary objection would remain,
19 namely, the double hearsay standard.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So the double hearsay --
21 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- as such remains, whereas even the whole of the
23 video being tendered from the bar table does not meet any objections, but
24 you would say that if there's any double hearsay --
25 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- elsewhere in this video, then we would, for the
2 same reasons, exclude those portions.
3 MR. KNOOPS: Yes. And, of course, I also concur with my learned
4 friend, Mr. Jovanovic, that the clips should only be admitted as shown in
5 court and not insofar as the remaining of the one hour, 45 minutes
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there of course is an issue. If I say
8 "tendered from the bar table," I mean to say that you put an exhibit
9 before the Chamber even if a witness has not testified about it as a
10 contemporaneous or contemporaneously-created document or video so as to
11 consider it on the basis of its content. That could be a document, that
12 could be a series of documents. So I have some difficulties in
13 understanding how you say that you would not oppose against tendering it
14 from the bar table, whereas the -- I would say the specific element in
15 tendering from the bar table is that it has not been shown in full. It's
16 just made available to the Chamber on the basis of the content itself, in
17 this case, a video showing Mr. Seselj, where Mr. Seselj says all kind of
18 things. We will later have to decide whether what he says is personal
19 opinion, is true, is in any relation with the events on the ground.
20 We'll have to find out what it actually is, and that's what we call
21 evaluation of evidence.
22 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, if it may assist the Chamber, in
23 paragraph 23 of the Perisic guide-lines the Court addresses the tendering
24 of evidence from the bar table, and the situation what they refer to
25 bulky exhibits or exhibits with bulky portions is addressed, saying that:
1 "The tendering party should file a table containing a short
2 description of each exhibit, as well as its relevance and probative value
3 if not immediately obvious from the description. In case of bulky
4 exhibits ..."
5 And I think we can draw the analogy with bulky video-clips, with
6 particular relevant portions, a reference to those portions is needed.
7 So I take from this decision that it's not an automatic mechanism
8 that in terms of tendering evidence from the bar table the Court has to
9 accept full video-clip --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, we do not have to accept. There's no
11 question about that, Mr. Knoops. What I'm talking about is whether there
12 are obstacles to admission, and now -- but it's a new argument you're
13 raising now. You say it's bulk material, which is -- first of all, these
14 are guide-lines in one case, and apparently is more about admissibility
15 policy rather than admissibility as legal standard. But I do understand
16 you say this material is too bulky to be admitted in this way.
17 MR. KNOOPS: Well, Your Honour, I hope you see the consequence.
18 If this conduct of the Prosecution should be allowed, the Defence is
19 forced to cross-examine every witness on the contents of video-clip of
20 one hour, 45 minutes, although it has no relevance to the case or there
21 is no relationship with the witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Whether that is the consequence depends on what you
23 want to establish in cross-examination. Until now, we have nothing more
24 than in examination-in-chief that the Prosecution says: We want to put
25 before the Chamber this piece of evidence in which the Chamber can see
1 what the position was at the time as expressed by Mr. Seselj. There's
2 nothing more, there's nothing less. If you want to cross-examine the
3 witness on that -- then, of course, we'll follow your cross-examination,
4 and we'll finally find out whether it assists the Chamber in its work.
5 But I see your last argument was it's too bulky and will take up
6 too much time in cross-examination.
7 Mr. Jovanovic, anything further to add, and specifically in
8 relation to my question to have this admitted as being tendered from the
9 bar table. That goes beyond the portions played and only about the BBC.
10 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If it is the intention of the OTP
11 to tender the entire video footage from the bar table, then we need, I
12 think, additional information as to what the video footage contains in
13 relation to the places which are of relevance to this case and which
14 Mr. Seselj also mentions in his speech. So more information is required
15 on that in order for this exhibit to be admitted from the bar table.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, is there anything you'd like to add? I'm
17 not encouraging you to spend much more time on it, but since all the
18 objections, I think it's fair that --
19 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would prefer not to spend this much
20 court time on matters such as this. If it would be possible to agree to
21 these things, we would. We -- there's no apparent objection to the
22 authenticity of this video at the time, that it is Mr. Seselj throughout
23 the video. With respect to the bulkiness of this exhibit -- the
24 transcript's only 42 pages. There's much more voluminous material that
25 comes before this Chamber on a daily basis. The volume of material that
1 is provided to the parties is of much greater volume. This is not bulky
2 or voluminous material. Furthermore, this was provided to the Defence on
3 April 25th, 2008. They have had this entire 42 pages of this interview
4 for an extraordinarily long period of time, to review it and be familiar
5 with it. This witness has particular knowledge about the clips, those
6 that were shown to him. To avoid having to repeatedly have the same
7 conversation with every witness that comes and to establish particular
8 relevance of each clip, would not be in the interests of judicial
9 economy. It's clear who it is. Mr. Jovanovic very pertinently pointed
10 out there is discussion of Zvornik. That is also relevant to this case.
11 Now, is the Prosecution, when the video is clearly Mr. Seselj throughout
12 with every witness, supposed to show the video -- that portion to the
13 witness just to merely establish, again, that it's Mr. Seselj.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's not needed because the parties agree that
15 it's Mr. Seselj, unless the parties make a difference and want to say
16 that Mr. Seselj is in the first minute but not in the 10th minute or not
17 at the 20th minute. So that is agreed upon so that will cause us no
19 Any further?
20 MR. WEBER: No.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If not, the Chamber will consider the matter but
22 will first take a break.
23 We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Savic, that's how lawyers operate in courtrooms.
2 For the parties, the Chamber has considered the matter. The
3 whole of the video will be marked for identification. The Prosecution is
4 invited to consider whether we really need the whole of the two hours in
5 terms of relevance, importance, probative value. At the same time, the
6 parties, Prosecution and Defence, are urged to see whether they can reach
7 any agreement on a reduced portion to be tendered. The Defence, of
8 course, is aware of the context of the whole of it.
9 At the same time, the Chamber or at least members of the Chamber
10 will read the transcript overnight. I already can tell the parties that,
11 as I said before, that this is not material which is inadmissible, but
12 whether we'll admit anything more than the three portions, we'll first
13 have a look at the whole of it and again, you're invited to see whether
14 you can reduce; you're invited to see whether you can agree on the
15 matter. And if we are informed about an agreement, we'll consider that
16 agreement; if there's no agreement, the Chamber will decide. That's --
17 and for the time being, the whole of the video, almost two hours, will be
18 marked for identification.
19 Madam Registrar, the 65 ter 2853 of which three smaller portions
20 were played, BBC interview with Mr. Vojislav Seselj would receive ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: It will become Exhibit P18, marked for
22 identification, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. Did you have occasion to meet with Goran Hadzic on the 7th or 8th
2 of May, 1991?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Where did you meet?
5 A. On the left bank of the Danube, on the other side from
6 Borovo Selo where there was a ferry, a ferry crossing.
7 Q. Was anyone else present with Mr. Hadzic?
8 A. As I know, all -- as I do not know all of the people, there was a
9 new face that I noticed.
10 Q. Did you have occasion to have a conversation with Mr. Hadzic
11 about this new person?
12 A. Yes, I asked him who that was and he said, That is my body-guard.
13 Q. Did you later learn who this body-guard was?
14 A. After that I went to the office of the mayor of Backa Palanka,
15 Ljubo Novakovic and I asked him who Goran Hadzic's body-guard was.
16 Q. What did Mr. Novakovic tell you?
17 A. He told me that he was from the DB, and that his name was
18 Lazar Sarac.
19 Q. When you say "DB," what are you referring to?
20 A. Yes, these were expressions that were used. I was referring to
21 the State Security Service.
22 Q. Did you also then, after this initial meeting, have occasion to
23 personally interact with the person who you learned to be Lazar Sarac?
24 A. Yes, after a while I met with Lazar Sarac, and it turned out that
25 he knew me better than I knew him.
1 Q. During the course of these meetings, did -- was the name of
2 Lazar Sarac confirmed to you by Lazar Sarac himself?
3 A. Yes, it was, yes, and also that he worked for the DB. That was
4 no secret at all.
5 Q. Did you have a conversation with someone in the spring of 1992 in
6 relation to the subject of unification of agricultural property?
7 A. Yes, I did, and I was aware of this initiative to amalgamate all
8 the farming land in this stretch from Sid to Vukovar or better to put it
9 from Tovarnik to Vukovar.
10 Q. Who was this individual that you had a conversation with?
11 A. I just had a chance meeting in Sid with Slobodan Medic, who
12 already then was leading a formation known as Skorpioni. They were
13 stationed at Djeletovci to protect the oilfield, at least that is what
14 they said.
15 Q. What was discussed at this meeting?
16 A. At his invitation for a drink, he said that he had something to
17 tell me, and he started telling me how he had been to see the boss the
18 day before and that they had talked about me.
19 Q. How did you respond to this information?
20 A. I asked him, Who is your boss? And he answered, Jovica Stanisic.
21 Q. I think you've referenced this in part, but who is
22 Slobodan Medic?
23 A. Slobodan Medic set up a unit which had for its objective the
24 protection of the oilfields at Djeletovci, they said, and at the same
25 time they pursued these other jobs. But at any rate they were armed,
1 they were uniformed, and they were equipped as a unit.
2 Q. What was the name of this unit?
3 A. Skorpioni. They had a patch on their overalls, an emblem of the
5 MR. WEBER: Could we please go into private session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
7 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 MR. WEBER: The reason the Prosecution requested to continue the
11 proceedings in private session is because the next exhibit is subject to
12 a currently pending Rule 54 bis application by the Republic of Serbia.
13 The Prosecution maintains that this exhibit should not be placed under
14 seal and the related testimony should be public; however, due to this
15 pending motion, we requested the discussion related to this today be held
16 in private session.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection to dealing with the matter in private
19 MR. JORDASH: No objection with this caveat, but we're not sure
20 which exhibit we're referring to.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, but then that will appear from the next
22 question, I take it.
24 MR. WEBER: Mr. Jordash is correct. Could the Prosecution please
25 have page 2 of 65 ter 4822.
1 Q. Sir, can you see the exhibit before you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you please take a look at this document and let the Court
4 know if you are personally familiar with the subject of this exhibit. If
5 you need to see a different portion or need to continue reading, if you
6 could please let us know.
7 A. Yes, I'm familiar with the subject.
8 Q. How are you familiar with it?
9 A. From a conversation with Mr. Medic and otherwise. There was an
10 intention for the complete arable land to be merged and placed under
11 control, and this was to a view of controlling the overall production.
12 Q. Is the information in this DB report consistent with your
13 conversation with Slobodan Medic?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. WEBER: Could page 3 of the B/C/S version of the exhibit
16 please be placed on the screen. If we could please have it remain on the
17 same page of the English version, though.
18 Q. Sir, directing your attention to the fifth line from the top,
19 this is in the second paragraph of the English version in italics, does
20 this exhibit discuss the consolidation of a particular agricultural plant
21 to which you were employed?
22 A. Yes. Since all the arable land, or maybe 90 per cent of it
23 between Tovarnik and Vukovar, was land that my combine was in charge of
24 and worked on.
25 Q. What is the name of the company that is referred to, to which you
1 were formerly employed?
2 A. Vupik Vukovar.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the
4 English version and page 4 of the B/C/S version of this exhibit.
5 Q. Sir, what is the name of the operative on this report?
6 A. Lazar Sarac is the operative in question and the signature is
8 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tender 65 ter 4822 into evidence at
9 this time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
11 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be exhibit number ...
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P19, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit P19 is admitted into evidence.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. WEBER: If we could please return to open session.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open session.
18 The exhibit just admitted in private session is admitted under
20 Please proceed.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. Directing your attention back to May 1991, did you have occasion
1 to go to the Serbian parliament in Belgrade?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. When did you make this trip?
4 A. On the 15th of May, 1991, upon the invitation of the speaker of
5 the parliament, Pavic Obradovic, that's when I went for the last time.
6 Q. Did you attend a meeting when you arrived in Belgrade?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Who was present at this meeting?
9 A. The meeting took place in the parliament of the Republic of
10 Serbia. According to my estimate, it was the group of MPs of the
11 Socialist Party of Serbia, that's who -- that is who attended the
13 Q. Could you please provide us with the names.
14 A. Pavic Obradovic, Boro Petrovic, both vice-presidents; and I
15 believe that the president of the legislation committee,
16 Radmilo Bogdanovic, was there; or Bojovic was also there, also an MP;
17 Bato Zivanovic was there; and also some others who I didn't know, or at
18 least I didn't know their names, but I know they were there.
19 Q. What was the reason you were called to Belgrade for this meeting?
20 A. The reason was the liquidation or assassination of Soskocanin,
21 Vukasin on that same day at 10.00 in the morning.
22 Q. I believe the -- it's correct on the transcript. After this
23 meeting did you have occasion to speak with anyone?
24 A. Yes, after the meeting, we went to Mr. Obradovic's office. I,
25 myself; Radmilo Bogdanovic himself; and three or four other men whose
1 names I did not know.
2 Q. What was discussed when you met with these individuals?
3 A. At the meeting which proceeded, I expressed my dissatisfaction
4 with the whole situation, and I offered some solutions that might have
5 helped us, and I'm referring to the territory of Slavonia. And then in
6 the office, Radmilo Bogdanovic and I were involved in the discussion that
7 everybody else only listened to. I simply asked him why he kept on
8 sending us thieves and criminals to our neck of the woods.
9 Q. How did Mr. Bogdanovic respond to this?
10 A. He said this, Don't you think that some day I will be taken to
11 task for what I'm doing today?
12 Q. What was said after that?
13 A. He saw that I was excited or at least thought I was. He tried to
14 calm me down, and then he said to me, We gave you Arkan as commander, we
15 gave you Martic as the head of police, talk to them and try to deal with
16 the problems that you're facing.
17 Q. When you said that they were sending you criminals and thieves,
18 who were you referring to?
19 A. People who were being sent to us, but at that particular moment
20 when he mentioned Arkan, I said, No criminal will ever be my commander.
21 And I will stay here in Belgrade. And as for you, you can go over there
22 together with him.
23 Q. When you say "him," who are you referring to?
24 A. I was referring to Arkan. What I meant was if you're sending
25 Arkan over there as my commander, then you may as well join him. I,
1 myself, don't need a commander.
2 Q. After your conversation with Radmilo Bogdanovic on the 15th of
3 May, 1991, did you meet Arkan while in Belgrade?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Sorry, where did this meeting occur?
6 A. In a cafe called Trozubac in Nusiceva Street across the street
7 from the Matica Iseljenika, which was an NGO headed by Brana Crncevic,
8 and I was involved in the work of that NGO in terms of looking after and
9 assisting refugees.
10 Q. How many days after your conversation on the 15th of May with
11 Mr. Bogdanovic did this meeting with Arkan occur?
12 A. On the following day.
13 Q. What was said between you and Arkan when you met in the Trozubac
15 A. An acquaintance of mine took me there, saying, A friend of mine
16 wants to meet you. I entered the cafe, and Arkan was sitting there in a
17 corner. We greeted each other. That was our first encounter. At the
18 very beginning me said to me, For everybody else I am a hero, and only
19 for you I am a criminal and a thief.
20 Q. What did you say back to him?
21 A. I said, Yes, I said that. But whoever conveyed that to you is an
22 even bigger thief and criminal.
23 Q. What was said after that?
24 A. After that I asked him this, Okay, if you're not a thief and a
25 criminal then tell me what you are. I appreciate what you do. I know
1 what you do. I understand what you do. And there will be a price to pay
2 for that. What I'm interested in is my house, my property, and my
4 Q. Did you have occasion to ask him any particular question at that
6 A. Yes. I asked him a very concrete question. I told him this, I
7 know that everybody is working for somebody. Tell me who your boss is.
8 I want to make sure it's not Milosevic. He replied, Why are you asking
9 me, you should know? And I said, No, I don't. And then he said, Jovica
11 Q. Have you ever personally met Jovica Stanisic or Franko Simatovic?
12 A. No, never.
13 Q. Who is Brana Crncevic?
14 A. Brana Crncevic was the president of the association of Serb
15 immigrants. His office was in Nusiceva Street. For a while every time I
16 came to Belgrade, I shared his office. And he asked me to raise funds
17 for the association because there were already refugees and they had to
18 be assisted. And I did that. I went to various companies. I did all
19 sorts of fund-raising with various donors. And all I raised, all the
20 assistance I raised was transferred to the association.
21 Q. How often would you speak to him throughout June and July 1991?
22 A. Every day. We shared the same office. He left around 11.00
23 every time, explaining that he had to go to President Milosevic. Every
24 time he was about to leave, he told me what I'm supposed to do.
25 Q. When you say "around 11.00 every time," you referring to how
1 often a basis?
2 A. Every day. Every day when I was in the office.
3 Q. How often would it be that you were in the office?
4 A. It depended on my other obligations, but it was very frequently,
5 almost every morning.
6 Q. Where exactly was the office of Brana Crncevic located in 1991?
7 A. The name of the street was Nusiceva. I can't remember the
8 number. In any case, it's in the very centre of Belgrade between the big
9 department store and casino hotel.
10 Q. Where is this in relation to the office of Slobodan Milosevic at
11 the time?
12 A. Not far. President Milosevic's office was not even a kilometre
13 away from there, also in the centre.
14 Q. Did you have a conversation with Crncevic in June or July 1991,
15 in which he provided you with a piece of paper?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Where did this conversation occur?
18 A. In his office.
19 Q. Could you please explain what occurred in this conversation.
20 A. I said to Brana that on the following day I was headed for Erdut,
21 although I was not allowed to go to Erdut, I was clear on that, there
22 were a lot of warnings coming my way to that effect, but I wanted to see
23 his reaction to my words.
24 Q. What was his reaction?
25 A. He told me to say to Arkan to call Sele on the phone.
1 Q. How did you respond?
2 A. I asked him to give me that in writing because I had so much to
3 do and so much on my platter that I was afraid that I would not remember
4 what he told me.
5 Q. After you informed him that you would not remember this, what did
6 Brana Crncevic do?
7 A. He took a piece of paper that was on his desk and he wrote with a
8 pencil something to the effect Arkan to call Sele on the phone. I don't
9 know whether he signed the piece of paper or not.
10 Q. Did he write this piece of paper in your presence?
11 A. Yes, in my presence. I was standing right by the -- his desk
12 while he was jotting the words down, waiting for him to be over so I
13 could take the piece of paper with me.
14 Q. Are you personally familiar with the handwriting of
15 Brana Crncevic?
16 A. If I saw it, I assume I would recognise it.
17 MR. WEBER: Could Prosecution 65 ter 2882 please be placed before
18 the witness. Could the Court Usher please enlarge the top half of this
19 exhibit on the screen. Actually, if we could please have page 2, the top
20 half of that portion. And the top portion in the -- the very, very top
21 portion of the English version. If there's any way we could please have
22 the B/C/S version cropped so the writing at the bottom of the page is not
24 Q. Sir, do you recognise this exhibit?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. What is this document?
2 A. It's the piece of paper that Brana produced where you can see
3 clearly Arkan to contact Sele this evening by phone.
4 Q. Is this the piece of paper that you were referring to that was
5 provided to you in June or July of 1991?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you keep this piece of paper in your possession until you
8 provided it to an ICTY Office of the Prosecutor investigator?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. When you provided the document to the Office of the Prosecutor,
11 at that time did the investigator write any markings on this exhibit?
12 A. I can't remember.
13 Q. Are there any markings on this exhibit which did not appear when
14 Mr. Crncevic provided it to you?
15 A. What I see up here 99-2 -- MM-VK-01 and 011-91-934. That piece
16 of paper was completely blank. It was an A4 format piece of blank paper
17 so these things did not exist.
18 Q. The writing that you referred to, is this the writing that is
19 darker at the very top of the exhibit?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. And also I take it the -- the type-face numbers that appear in
22 the upper right-hand side of the exhibit were also not there when
23 Mr. Crncevic provided it to you?
24 A. No, no, it was a blank piece of paper.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would like
1 a screen capture of the top portion. We are only tendering in the top
2 portion of this exhibit. We are not seeking to admit the lower half of
3 the exhibit at this time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection? Although it's puzzling me a bit --
5 MR. WEBER: I'd be happy to explain, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. Sir, is this exhibit that appears before you a photocopy of one
9 or multiple exhibits -- or one or multiple documents?
10 A. What I see -- what I see on my screen is a single document.
11 MR. WEBER: If the Court Usher could please show the full
13 Q. Sir, with respect to the page that now appears before you, is
14 this one or multiple documents?
15 A. These are two documents.
16 Q. And did you have occasion to create a photocopy of these two
17 documents together when you provided it to the Office of the Prosecutor?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. And with respect to the top portion, is it an accurate copy of
20 the note that Brana Crncevic provided to you in 1991?
21 A. It is.
22 Q. With respect to the bottom portion, were you provided that at a
23 different time than the note that was given to you by Mr. Crncevic?
24 A. Yes. There are some lines there in the bottom portion. This is
25 a piece of paper that was actually torn out of a notebook.
1 Q. What notebook was it torn out of?
2 A. Some small agenda notebooks that people use to jot notes down on.
3 Q. Who provided this bottom portion to you?
4 A. General Radojica Nenezic did, he gave me this document.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, who copied it, two documents in one copy?
6 MR. WEBER: It's the witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
8 MR. WEBER: My understanding it's the witness.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You have copied two documents into one document?
11 Is there any way to separate them again? I mean, it's rather
12 complicated to have half a page admitted into evidence. If the parties
13 would agree that this is a photocopy of -- then -- because it's even more
14 complex because we have not only the top and the bottom, but the original
15 is two pages where apparently the back side is also again perhaps another
16 document, where there appear to be no lines on it. And then we have in
17 reverse order we have what transpires from the back. Is there not any
18 way to have this text admitted into evidence on --
19 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps I can assist. I think at this moment in
20 time I will probably want to ask the witness about both aspects.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's even -- so he had a very lucky hand
22 when he combined the two documents?
23 MR. JORDASH: Indeed.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So then I take it there's no objection of admission
25 into evidence of whatever portion of the document.
1 Mr. Jovanovic, would you share that?
2 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours, but I
3 think we would be well advised to also see the first page of the
4 document. This is the second page of the document which contains these
5 two contents. So it would be of assistance if we could see the first
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] But I agree to the admission of
9 the second page but if we could please also see the first one.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber -- well, you can see it, of course, the
11 first one in your e-court system, at least I've got it on my --
12 Mr. Weber, perhaps this assists in new judicial economy where we put all
13 the documents together in one document. Any objection against just
14 having admitted as copied by this witness?
15 MR. WEBER: No. And as to the other page, I believe that it
16 doesn't reflect the actual note that was given by Mr. Crncevic, but that
17 is investigator's notes and things of the nature.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we have a document on which -- is that
19 contested by the Defence that the handwritten text "Arkan to contact Sele
20 this evening by phone," that it's the testimony of this witness that that
21 was the only thing written on this document when he received it for the
22 first time?
23 MR. JORDASH: It's not contested.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, not contested.
25 Then let's try to keep matters simple. You're tendering the
1 whole of the document.
2 Madam Registrar, that would be number ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P20, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P20. Now I say that makes matters simple. I've got
5 one problem that the -- not the whole of the document is translated. I
6 see that the back of the document is apparently not translated because
7 I've got a one-page document in English, and I've got a two-page document
8 in the original.
9 MR. WEBER: With respect to the second page in the original, is
10 that in English itself?
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, as a matter of fact, the page we have on our
12 screen now is the second page of the document.
13 MR. WEBER: Correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: On the first page you'll find the BS-PPS-MM-VK-01,
15 this is the -- as far as, I see that it's apparently handwritten --
16 MR. WEBER: I believe there's nothing to be translated from this
17 page. It's the investigator's notes, initials, date, and then --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it should have been translated in B/C/S then,
19 but let me see whether it's -- yes, it's not translated now in B/C/S.
20 That's the consequence. But it seems that these are handwritten notes by
21 someone who apparently dealt with the document. Can we ignore that
23 MR. WEBER: We do have a B/C/S translation available for it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jovanovic.
25 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honours, the fact
1 that in the B/C/S version the text in English is handwritten. That is
2 what is confusing.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It certainly is handwritten, and it appears to be a
4 translation of what is written in Cyrillic on the other side; and then a
5 small comment added that another part -- it's more or less telling us
6 what you find on the flip side of the document.
7 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Someone wrote in his hand
8 in the English -- actually, hand wrote a translation of the text from the
9 other page and translated it into English by hand.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's move on. No party objects against
11 admission, and it's clear what the witness told us about the document.
12 Had I asked already for a number, no yet -- we have, and it is
13 admitted into evidence.
14 Mr. Weber, I would like to issue a decision which might be of
15 interest to the Prosecution, and, therefore, would like to, at this
16 moment, stop the examination of the witness.
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the only thing I had left was actually
18 to tender Prosecution 65 ter 1932 into evidence, the two clips, that's
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that's it and then you would have concluded your
22 MR. WEBER: That's correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then those are the two clips, that's the B-92
24 collection and it does not contain anything more than those two clips?
25 MR. WEBER: We will -- it does actually contain more than the two
1 clips. We are not tendering anything more than those two clips.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Than those two clips. Then we do it as follows.
3 Madam Registrar, can you please assign an MFI number for
4 65 ter 1932.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P21 marked for identification,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 We'll decide on the matter once you have uploaded the
9 reduced-size version containing only the two clips.
10 Are there any objections against admission into evidence of those
11 two clips, nothing else, combined in one exhibit? That's the B-92. I do
12 understand that in order to fully evaluate that more information would
13 certainly be helpful.
14 Any objection, Mr. Jordash?
15 MR. JORDASH: No objections.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then no objections from Mr. Jovanovic, which means
17 that once the right version is uploaded in e-court, the decision will be
18 that it's admitted into evidence.
19 Mr. Savic, this concludes your examination-in-chief. Tomorrow
20 you'll be cross-examined by counsel for the Defence or perhaps the
21 Chamber may have some questions for you as well. I instruct you that you
22 should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that is
23 testimony you gave already today or whether this is testimony still to be
24 given tomorrow. We'd like to see you back tomorrow afternoon in this
25 same courtroom at quarter past 2.00.
1 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Savic out of the
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to read the following decision. It is
5 the Chamber's determination pursuant to Rule 73 bis (C) of the Rules and
6 a decision on Prosecution motion for leave to amend its Rule 65 ter
7 witness list.
8 On the 5th of June, 2009, the Prosecution filed its amended and
9 consolidated witness list pursuant to the Chamber's instruction of the
10 2nd of June, 2009. In its filing, the Prosecution requests the Chamber
11 to re-evaluate the order of the 28th of April, 2008, which limited the
12 Prosecution to present its case with 90 witnesses within 130 hours for
13 examination-in-chief. The Prosecution argues that in contradiction with
14 Rule 73 bis (C) the Pre-Trial Judge did not give the Prosecution a chance
15 to be heard before determining the number of witnesses and time available
16 for the Prosecution. The Prosecution requests the Chamber to allow for
17 the presentation of ten additional witnesses within the allotted
18 time-frame of 130 hours of examination-in-chief.
19 The Chamber considers that for purposes of Rule 73 bis (C) the
20 Prosecution has now been heard. The Chamber has considered the request
21 by the Prosecution and has re-evaluated the assessment made by the
22 Pre-Trial Judge on the 28th of April, 2008. Taking into account in
23 particular the Prosecution's submission that the proposed ten additional
24 witnesses would not affect the set time of 130 hours of
25 examination-in-chief and having considered that six out of the additional
1 ten witnesses are sought to be tendered pursuant to Rules 92 bis and --
2 it should read to Rule 92 bis and would, if called for cross-examination,
3 due to their expected testimony only add a small amount of time for
4 cross-examination to the overall length of the case, the Chamber grants
5 the Prosecution's request to present evidence of an additional ten
6 witnesses within the allotted time-frame.
7 On the 6th of May, 2009, the Prosecution requested leave to add
8 one witness to its Rule 65 ter witness list. The Stanisic Defence
9 responded on the 20th of May, 2009, objecting to the motion. The
10 Simatovic Defence did not respond.
11 The Prosecution submits that the proposed witness would give
12 additional evidence on the role of the Red Berets, which cannot be
13 elicited from any of the crime base witnesses already on the witness
14 list. It submits that it became aware of the witness's evidence in the
15 summer of 2008 but waited with its motion until an official ICTY
16 statement could be taken on the 15th of April, 2009.
17 The Stanisic Defence submits that the Prosecution did not fulfil
18 its obligation pursuant to Rule 65 ter (E)(ii)(d) of the Rules, in that
19 it did not provide the Defence with a final list at least six weeks prior
20 to the Pre-Trial Conference. The Stanisic Defence further submits that
21 the Prosecution failed to advance a reasonable justification for this
22 late addition.
23 Pursuant to Rule 73 bis (F) of the Rules, the Chamber may grant
24 any motion for an amendment to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter witness list
25 if satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice. In this
1 respect, the Chamber must balance the Prosecution's duty to present the
2 available evidence to prove its case with the right of the accused to a
3 fair and expeditious trial and the right to have adequate time and
4 facilities for the preparation of their defence. The Chamber will
5 consider whether the proposed evidence is prima facie relevant and
6 probative and whether the Prosecution has shown good cause why it did not
7 seek to add the witness to its witness list at an earlier stage. Good
8 cause may exist where the witness has only recently become available to
9 give evidence or where the relevance of the evidence has only recently
10 become apparent. The Chamber will further consider the burden placed on
11 the Defence by the late addition of a witness to the Rule 65 ter witness
13 The Chamber finds that the testimony of the proposed witness,
14 given his unique position to provide certain evidence, is prima facie
15 relevant and of probative value.
16 As for good cause shown, the Chamber has learned from the
17 submissions that the Defence was served with the statements and testimony
18 of the proposed witness to Bosnian authorities in September and December
19 2008, respectively. Furthermore, according to the submissions from the
20 Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence, the Prosecution notified the
21 Defence on the 16th of January, 2009, of its intention to add the
22 suggested witness to its witness list. Nevertheless, the Prosecution
23 only succeeded in taking an official statement from the witness on the
24 15th of April, 2009. Considering the significant impact an interview
25 with a possible witness might have on the decision on whether or not to
1 request leave to amend the witness list, the Chamber finds that the
2 Prosecution has shown good cause on why the request was not made earlier.
3 The Chamber further considers that the Defence has been on notice
4 for more than three months that the Prosecution would seek to add this
5 witness to the witness list. Balancing the Prosecution's duty to present
6 the available evidence to prove its case with the right of the accused to
7 a fair and expeditious trial, the Chamber finds that it is in the
8 interests of justice to add the proposed witness to the Prosecution's
9 witness list.
10 On the 2nd of June, 2009, the Chamber stated that the Prosecution
11 should further explain why the addition of the proposed witness would
12 warrant an increase in the time of examination-in-chief available to it.
13 This can be found at transcript pages 1382, 1397, and 1398. The
14 Prosecution has not submitted any further specific arguments to that
15 effect. The Chamber, therefore, decides that the Prosecution should
16 present its case within the allotted time of 130 hours, even with the
17 addition of the proposed witness.
18 Accordingly, the Prosecution's motion is granted and the number
19 of witnesses the Prosecution may call and the time available to it for
20 presenting evidence is set to 101 witnesses and 130 hours respectively.
21 This concludes the Chamber's determination pursuant to Rule 73
22 bis (C) of the Rules and its decision on the Prosecution motion for leave
23 to amend the Rule 65 ter witness list.
24 I first wanted to thank interpreters, transcriber, and all those,
25 including security, assisting us for forgiveness at least, that's what I
1 hope to get, to go seven minutes over the time set.
2 We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday,
3 the - I have to look - the 7th of July, quarter past 2.00, Courtroom I.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of
6 July, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.