Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7089

 1                           Monday, 13 September 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone.  Madam Registrar, would

 6     you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is the case IT-03-69-T, the

 9     Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             We are here the remainder of the examination, that is

12     cross-examination of the present witness in closed session.  Could we

13     turn into closed session unless there's anything to be raised in open

14     session at this moment.  Apparently not.

15             Madam Registrar.

16     [Closed session]   [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in closed session, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the representatives of the Republic of Serbia

19     be escorted into the courtroom, and immediately after that witness

20     JF-095.

21             Meanwhile, I inform the parties that the Chamber has decided that

22     the time at this moment granted for cross-examination is one hour and a

23     half for each Defence team, and to the extent it may serve as a guidance,

24     I'd like to inform the parties that if conclusions are written down

25     without a proper factual basis, then it's of hardly any use to establish

Page 7090

 1     that there's no proper factual basis because the Chamber, of course,

 2     certainly after discussion we had last week is testing itself whether

 3     there's any factual basis or not.

 4             Then the second issue is that it may have a better impact if we

 5     are talking about authenticity of documents and to what extent it may

 6     have been overlooked to start with the strong examples so that if you are

 7     running out of time, that you are not missing the strong examples.  But

 8     of course, the Chamber leaves it to the Defence teams how to conduct the

 9     cross-examination.

10                           [Representatives of Serbia enter court]

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Witness JF-095.  Please be seated.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And also welcome to you, the representatives of the

15     Republic of Serbia.  We have received your requests.  We'll consider

16     them, that is protective measures especially in relation to the report,

17     and the delivery of a copy of the transcript of the closed session.

18     We'll consider your request.  Not immediately now, but you will hear our

19     decision on the matter, and we may first want to hear what the parties'

20     view on the matter is.

21             Witness JF-095, first of all, thank you very much for coming back

22     to The Hague.  It's highly appreciated.  It's certainly very inconvenient

23     for you but we have to proceed and again the Chamber appreciates your

24     flexibility.

25             I would like to remind you that you are still bound by the solemn

Page 7091

 1     declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony and I'd like

 2     to inform you that you will be first -- that you'll be now cross-examined

 3     by the Defence teams.  When I was talking about one hour and a half, I

 4     was talking about the two witnesses together.  The Chamber very much

 5     would like to see whether it's possible to conclude the testimony of this

 6     witness today.  Who will go first, is it the Stanisic Defence or is it

 7     the Simatovic Defence?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Could we just have a moment, Your Honour, sorry.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10                           [Defence counsel confer]

11             MR. JORDASH:  I shall go first, Your Honour.  May I just retrieve

12     the lectern, there was a bit of confusion between the teams.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness JF-095, you'll first be cross-examined by

14     Mr. Jordash.  Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.  You may proceed.

15                           WITNESS:  JF-095 [Resumed]

16                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

17                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

18        Q.   Good afternoon.

19        A.   Good afternoon.

20        Q.   I want to deal first of all with 65 ter 3880.  And the subject I

21     want to deal with, Mr. Witness, is the subject of whether and under what

22     authority the Serbian DB was permitted to form any militarised unit.  Do

23     you recall your evidence concerning this last week?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   Do you maintain that the -- is it your position -- perhaps I

Page 7092

 1     should put it this way, is it your position that the Serbian DB were not

 2     entitled to form a militarised unit at any stage between 1991 and 1996?

 3     Is that how I should understand your evidence thus far?

 4        A.   No.  I never said that.

 5        Q.   My apologies.  What was it that you did say?  What is your

 6     position in relation to, let's make it concrete, the formation of, say,

 7     the JATD in 1993, according to the rules and regulations in place at that

 8     time?

 9        A.   Yes.  Well, I've already mentioned that the RDB of the republic

10     of Serbian MUP was a department which was part of the Ministry of the

11     Interior.  And that the internal organisation and job descriptions within

12     that department were established by the rules on the internal

13     organisation in accordance with the Law on the Internal Affairs Service,

14     and that the rules or a separate decision could envisage that as part of

15     the RDB, one such unit may be formed as a separate organisational unit,

16     especially so as the RDB also had reserve forces at its disposal, in

17     other words, an enlarged composition.

18             During my answers in response to the Prosecutor's question --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't want to interrupt you but since your answer

20     is relatively long.  Mr. Jordash, would you switch off your microphone

21     when the witness answers the questions because of the voice distortion.

22     Please proceed.

23             I interrupted you.  You said that "the RDB also had reserve

24     forces at its disposal," you said, "in other words, an enlarged

25     composition."  Could you please resume from there.

Page 7093

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can resume.  In response to

 2     the Prosecutor's question whether certain unidentified individuals who

 3     were mentioned in the financial documents but were not listed as

 4     employees or members of the reserve staff, whether they could be engaged

 5     as fighters abroad.  And my answer to that question was no.  I am not

 6     sure, in fact, what is meant by abroad here.

 7             MR. JORDASH:

 8        Q.   And is your answer to that the same if those individuals were

 9     part of a unit, an ad hoc unit, tasked with protecting the territorial

10     integrity of Serbia?

11        A.   If its task was to protect the territorial integrity of Serbia,

12     that would have been legal and legitimate.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I'm getting a bit confused.  We have

14     two categories of people working for the RDB.  The listed ones and those

15     not listed but appearing in the financial documents.  Now, it's unclear

16     to me, the earlier question, the questions put by Mr. Groome were by the,

17     I think by those who appear on the financial documents, not on the, I

18     would say the regular employment list.

19             Now, what -- now, we have since then, now, the witness has made a

20     distinction now between abroad and protecting the territorial integrity.

21     Your question was about the not listed persons or was it about the listed

22     persons.

23             MR. JORDASH:  It was about persons who appeared in the financial

24     document but were not listed as employees.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And this is how you understood the question,

Page 7094

 1     Witness JF-095, that those who appear in the financial documents but were

 2     not listed as employees could be used in order to protect the territorial

 3     integrity even if that would be not necessarily gathering intelligence?

 4     That is to say that beyond gathering intelligence, they might have been

 5     tasked with other tasks as well related to the protection of the

 6     territorial integrity of Serbia, and I do understand if you refer to

 7     Serbia, you are talking about the Republic of Serbia?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm referring to the Republic

 9     of Serbia.  In the event that its territorial integrity were endangered,

10     it is the responsibility of every citizen of the Republic of Serbia to

11     take part in the defence of its integrity one way or another.

12             MR. JORDASH:  May I have Rule 65 ter 2375 on the e-court.

13        Q.   I just want to refer you, Mr. Witness, to the rules on the

14     internal organisation of the state security department within the

15     Ministry of the Interior, January 1992, and ask you about a particular

16     provision.

17             MR. JORDASH:  May we go, please, to page 4.  Let's go to page 3,

18     Article 3, please.

19        Q.   Before I ask you questions upon this, would you please indicate

20     your understanding of the significance of these rules concerning the

21     operations of the state security of Serbia in 1992?

22        A.   Yes.  This was and still is one of the basic documents providing

23     for the organisation -- internal organisation of the then RDB and what is

24     now called the BIA.  It regulates the sphere of work, tasks and duties,

25     organisational units which form part of the department, and these rules

Page 7095

 1     also include as its constituent part a table of job -- different job

 2     classifications with the number of people required to work and their

 3     level of education.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, at the time these rules were promulgated in

 5     1992, would you agree with me that the federal government had issued a

 6     declaration of an a imminent threat of war in the SFRY?  That declaration

 7     having been made on the 18th of October, 1981.

 8        A.   I'm not denying that that is a fact, although I can't answer with

 9     any degree of certainty whether that happened at the time you specify or

10     not.

11        Q.   Are you able to testify and confirm that it had happened by 1992?

12     It had happened at some point within 1991?

13        A.   Most probably.  At this point in time, however, I'm unable to say

14     with certainty.

15        Q.   Fair enough.  We'll leave that for further evidence.  Please

16     would you have a quick look at Article 3 of these rules, and in

17     particular the section of Article 3 which reads, and I'll read it now:

18             "Other republic security duties are in particular the duties of

19     providing counter-intelligence protection to republican organs,

20     organising and carrying out preparations for defence and work in case of

21     an imminent threat of war, and in war, preparing appropriate

22     contributions to the plan for the defence of the republic, planning and

23     co-ordinating the duties of protecting facilities, areas, and work-places

24     important for the defence of the republic, and organising and providing

25     cryptographic data protection and special purpose communications."

Page 7096

 1             Would it be fair to describe that as the enabling provision which

 2     permitted the state security of Serbia to form such military units such

 3     as the JATD?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  May I also have on the screen, please, Rule 65 ter

 6     4695.

 7        Q.   Thank you for that answer.  We'll move to another exhibit, or

 8     potential exhibit.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  May I tender that particular article or the rules

10     as an exhibit, Your Honour, please.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you've drawn our attention to 3 and 4, or, I

12     think that's what you said in the beginning, but Mr. Groome.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I have no objection to the rules being

14     introduced.  I would ask that the entire set of rules so the Chamber can

15     read them in their full context and not just cherry-pick particular rules

16     for particular purposes.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Absolutely, I agree with that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The whole set of the rules.  We would like to hear

19     whenever you introduce something in evidence whether in your view it

20     could be made public at a later stage, yes or no.  Of course, we'll also

21     hear later the view of the Republic of Serbia.  But if you already could

22     indicate whether you think this is a document which says state secrets so

23     therefore it might well be that one would be inclined to say that this

24     should not be public.  At the same time, we'd have to look at the content

25     before the Chamber will decide whether there are compelling reasons to

Page 7097

 1     keep them confidential.  Could we already assign a number,

 2     Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D113, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  D113 is admitted into evidence and for the time

 5     being under seal.

 6             MR. JORDASH:

 7        Q.   Please, Mr. Witness, would you look at the document on the screen

 8     and read the first page.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I've just been told that this is already an

10     exhibit, P559.  Apologies.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that the witness has looked at what he is

12     asked to look at.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I don't follow Your Honour's question.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let me just check.  I thought the witness

15     would have read the first page, but he is looking at you so he expects a

16     question, I take it.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

18        Q.   This is -- we can go to page 2 very quickly, and you will see

19     this appears to be an order or decision by Panic.  Do you see that?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, if we go back to page 1, from your experience and knowledge

22     of the way in which the security services worked, the first paragraph of

23     the letter or the first three paragraphs deal with or refer to various

24     incidents giving rise to the eventual decision by Panic, including such

25     things as armed individuals, groups, and paramilitary units crossing from

Page 7098

 1     the territory of BH to Sandzak or the other way around provoking various

 2     incidents, public order incidents and so on with reference to the border

 3     control and customs MUP and VJ.  Would you agree with me that it is this

 4     type of activity which state security was enabled to create ad hoc armed

 5     units to deal with, incidents along the border of Serbia?  Do you follow

 6     my question, I know it was a bit long?

 7             Would you agree with me that --

 8        A.   Yes, I do agree.  That would be a situation in which that was

 9     possible.

10        Q.   Were you, before being shown this decision by Panic, aware of a

11     decision by the Yugoslav Army General Staff chief to allow collaboration

12     between the MUP of Serbia and the Yugoslav Army to deal with threats to

13     the territorial integrity of Serbia as outlined in this document?

14        A.   I'm sorry, I can't answer in the affirmative.  It just so happens

15     that I'm not aware of that decision.  In principle, I'm a witness who is

16     here to testify to facts regarding the reports.  These questions are not

17     for me to answer, although I don't have a problem with that, nevertheless

18     you must bear in mind my position at the time and understand that I

19     simply cannot answer questions such as these with any degree of certainty

20     whatsoever.

21        Q.   Well, I want to be clear about what you've just said.  You can

22     answer with certainty about the enabling provision of the rules of the

23     DB, you agree with me on that?

24        A.   If your question has been interpreted accurately, you asked me

25     about a previous decision of the chief of the General Staff who proved

Page 7099

 1     some form of co-operation between the MUP and the army.  I'm answering

 2     that I can't know with any degree of certainty whether such a decision in

 3     fact existed.  As a matter of fact, I don't know.

 4        Q.   That's clarified the answer.  Thank you, Mr. Witness.

 5             During the course of your investigation or the commission's

 6     investigation, you've told us that Mr. Stevanovic was spoken to and

 7     interviewed; correct?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   And am I correct that Stevanovic confirmed that the -- he'd met

10     Mr. Simatovic at Bajina Basta in 1993?

11        A.   Before I answer your question, I do have to remind you that it

12     was a member of the committee from the Ministry of the Interior that

13     interviewed Mr. Stevanovic.  No other members of the committee were

14     present, and that includes me.  The reason for that being a proposal made

15     by one of the committee members from the MUP suggesting that he should

16     interview Mr. Stevanovic on his own.  The reason for that was the fact

17     that he knew Mr. Stevanovic personally, and he believed that that might

18     lead to better results in terms of Stevanovic agreeing to be interviewed,

19     but --

20        Q.   Let me shortcut you if I can.  Did Mr. Stevanovic give testimony

21     about meeting Simatovic at camp Tara in 1993?

22        A.   An Official Note was compiled during the interview by a member of

23     the Ministry of the Interior committee.  That note certainly suggests

24     that.

25        Q.   And that Stevanovic had asked the Serbian MUP or the Serbian DB

Page 7100

 1     to organise some form of training for the police; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes, that's what the note says.

 3        Q.   And the training was to train specialised police to patrol the

 4     Serbian border, and that was the purpose of the training, to create

 5     specialised police to patrol the Serbian border at a time when the

 6     conflict in Bosnia threatened to spill into Serbia proper?

 7        A.   Although the Official Note doesn't state that, it just might be

 8     the case given the fact that Mount Tara is right next to the border to

 9     Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In Serbia's territory, however.

10        Q.   Well, I'm looking actually at a note which -- let me shortcut

11     this, didn't Stevanovic tell you that in 1993 he visited Simatovic at

12     Tara?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

14             MR. GROOME:  I believe the witness has already testified that he

15     did not do the interview, and he referred to the person from the Ministry

16     of the Interior who did.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which does not exclude for that other

18     possibility.  Could have said outside the context of that interview.

19     But, Mr. Jordash, you started asking questions about what apparently is

20     found in the Official Note, then you moved outside that, that was not

21     entirely clear in your question.  Now, the objection or at least the

22     observation made by Mr. Groome may be an indication that you had not been

23     perfectly clear on the context.

24             MR. JORDASH:  I did move from one to -- from the Official Note

25     or -- of the interview with Stevanovic to a proofing note.  We are just

Page 7101

 1     trying to find the --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm not saying, but perhaps it's also clear for

 3     the witness if you say, so apart from what we find in the Official Note

 4     and then you put your question to him.

 5             MR. JORDASH:

 6        Q.   Did you not, Mr. Witness, speak to the Prosecution on the 7th of

 7     September, 2010, and state that Stevanovic had told you that in 1993 -- I

 8     beg your pardon.  This is for the -- I take the point.  I withdraw the

 9     question and I'll leave the issue at that point for now.

10             I want to ask you about something else in the report.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Please could we -- do you have a hard copy of the

12     report?  I don't know if the Prosecution have the --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be provided with a hard copy by

14     whoever has a copy available.

15             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, we've just sent upstairs for the hard

16     copy that was available last week.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you read the relevant portion, Mr. Jordash,

18     that might assist.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

20        Q.   Page 24 of the report states inter alia this, and I'm referring

21     to the JATD:

22             "During the interview with Slobodan Miletic, the then chief of

23     the MUP department for administrative and legal affairs, the commission

24     discovered the information that in the Ministry of the Interior when

25     certain decisions were being adopted, there was practice based on the

Page 7102

 1     identified needs and outside the current job classification to form units

 2     for certain tasks, but organisational documents for such units were often

 3     drafted only in consultation with this department.  This way of drafting

 4     system-related documents which refer to JATD, was confirmed by

 5     Obrad Stevanovic, retired chief in the MUP of the Republic of Serbia who

 6     said that in his interview that in 1993 he personally used to go to the

 7     office which Franko Simatovic used Bajina Basta to offer suggestions

 8     relating to the drafting of organisational documents for the RDB special

 9     unit."

10             Could you please explain what is meant by when certain decisions

11     were being adopted there was practice based on the identified needs and

12     outside the current job classification to form units for certain tasks,

13     but organisational document for such units were often drafted only in

14     consultation with this department.  What does it mean that organisational

15     documents were drafted only in consultation with this department?

16        A.   I'll try to be as precise as possible.  I know full well what the

17     report says, at least the part which the gentleman's quote refers to.

18     It's either an interpretation problem or it's about the way the report

19     has been presented.  Mr. Miletic could never possibly say that such

20     decisions were made bypassing him.  Given his position in the Ministry of

21     the Interior, he had no authority to take any decisions regarding the

22     establishment of a new organisational component of the MUP or for that

23     matter the RDB.  Mr. Miletic spoke about a single technical matter.  He

24     tried to explain he was not involved in the drafting of the founding

25     document regarding the establishment of a new organisational unit in the

Page 7103

 1     MUP or the RDB.  After all, we did see the rules on the job

 2     classification and internal organisation awhile ago.  That would have

 3     been the typical thing to do.  He was, after all, head of the department

 4     for systemic and legal affairs, rather, he was discussing this in purely

 5     practical terms.

 6             Documents such as these, again I have to say in a technical

 7     sense, are sometimes drafted without any involvement on the part of the

 8     technical department, drafted by people in leading positions or indeed

 9     individuals from these units and special organisational structures, and

10     that is all his statement comes down to.

11             By saying that, he also explained that he was not involved in the

12     drafting of any decision, resolution, or indeed any set of rules under

13     any number bearing a date sometime in April 1993 unless I'm mistaken.

14        Q.   On page 25 of the report at paragraph 2, the followed is noted:

15     "Considering the then practice of drafting the documents such as the

16     founding document for JATD, there are reasonable grounds to assume that

17     it was probably done in two copies and filed in the log-book after the

18     then interior minister, the deceased Zoran Sokolovic had signed it."

19             Is this fair that a particular administration would form a

20     particular unit, the documents for the founding of that unit would be

21     compiled within that administration, as a general practice?

22        A.   Yes, absolutely.

23        Q.   Once those documents had been drafted, they would then be sent to

24     the interior minister, from the administration to the Ministry of the

25     Interior?

Page 7104

 1        A.   Not necessarily in this case.  In this case, it is uncertain who

 2     made the decision.  Whoever makes a decision signs it off and puts it on

 3     file.  That's what I was trying to say.

 4        Q.   But the documents dealing with the founding of the JATD would

 5     have been drafted within the administration dealing with the founding of

 6     that unit and then sent straight to the minister of interior, Sokolovic;

 7     is that correct?

 8        A.   I have to reminds you that the RDB was part of the Ministry of

 9     the Interior.  As the report very precisely states, the log-books from

10     that period which the Prosecution has had a chance to inspect on several

11     occasions contain no document under that filing number.  It's not there.

12     Based on the structure of the filing number, the committee merely drew

13     the conclusion that the document had probably been passed by minister and

14     then filed in the log-book of the minister's cabinet which, by the way,

15     was destroyed during NATO's air-strikes.

16        Q.   Well, the paragraph goes on to say:

17             "One copy was most probably sent to the then RDB chief

18     Jovica Stanisic, and the other was filed in the office of the interior

19     minister which was destroyed in the NATO bombing."

20             Why did the commission conclude that one copy was probably sent

21     to the RDB chief, with emphasis on the probably?

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7105

 1     assignment, they all confirmed that such a decision, resolution, or

 2     similar document existed.  Nevertheless they all agreed that they had

 3     never set eyes on it.  The committee had no choice but to reach that

 4     conclusion.

 5        Q.   But the -- probably appears to suggest, tell me if I'm wrong,

 6     that it wouldn't have necessarily have been sent to Mr. Stanisic as a

 7     matter of strict protocol; is that fair?

 8        A.   Yes.  I quite accept that possibility that such an additional

 9     copy, a second copy, had not been sent to Mr. Stanisic, and that maybe it

10     had never been sent to the RDB because according to the official

11     log-books and records, it was not logged and filed in the RDB at all.

12        Q.   So the decision to establish the JATD according to the

13     conclusions reached by the commission may well have not been seen by

14     Mr. Stanisic?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, that's the meaning of the word

16     "probably" isn't it, if you say that something is probable, that it's not

17     established with such a level of certainty that we can rely on that

18     possibility which is considered to be even probable.  Possibility.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, but I was hoping that I would be able to tease

20     out exactly what the commission meant by that word because it may

21     indicate a different degrees of certainty or lack of certainty.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Your question was whether it was possible that

23     he had never seen it.  That's, of course, included in that it's probable.

24     He may never have seen it because if the probability did not -- of course

25     doesn't say that this is what happened.  Let's proceed.  I just want you

Page 7106

 1     to be aware that if the word "probable" is used in such a report, that

 2     the Chamber doesn't take that for being a fact but just for a

 3     probability.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  Thank you.

 5        Q.   The point I'm getting at, Mr. Witness, is that it was not unusual

 6     or it was quite usual for administrations within the state security to

 7     form units within those administrations and that those units be their

 8     formation and the founding documents indicating their foundation bypass,

 9     if you like, the chief of security, chief of state security?

10        A.   I cannot answer that question with absolute certainty because at

11     the time I was not in -- on a position where I could answer this

12     question, but I understand your question and I can say that it's not very

13     likely.

14        Q.   What's not very likely?

15        A.   Well, that --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not likely that an

18     administrative organ, whether it be the MUP, the RDB, or any other state

19     organ would make -- take decisions changing their internal organisation

20     without the leadership of that organ, administrative organ being aware of

21     it.  That's what I was trying to say.

22        Q.   But the units being formed within the administrations could and

23     did report directly at times to the minister; is that fair?

24        A.   If you are referring to the Ministry of the Interior, that is

25     correct.

Page 7107

 1        Q.   I want to now turn to the issue of authenticity.  Did I

 2     understand your evidence correctly that you hadn't seen anything to

 3     indicate that there were fabricated documents within the records found,

 4     or I should say, stored at Lipovica?

 5        A.   Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have on the screen, please, 1D01248.

 7        Q.   While that's coming up, could I seek some clarification from you.

 8     Were you ever looking for documents which were not authentic when going

 9     through the records?

10        A.   Could you please repeat the question, I'm not sure I understood

11     it.

12        Q.   When you -- how much time have you spent going through the

13     records yourself personally?  Have you read everything in the records

14     relating to what you've sent the Prosecution?

15        A.   Yes, I have read all the documents that were forwarded together

16     with the report.

17        Q.   Would you agree with me that within the records sent to the

18     Prosecution, there are handwritten documents lacking any official stamp?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.

20        Q.   Would you agree with me that within the records there are typed

21     documents without any official stamp or other identifying indices?

22        A.   Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   Would you agree with me that you have indeed concluded yourself

24     that there was at least one fabricated document within the records?

25        A.   I don't recall that I had that conclusion.

Page 7108

 1        Q.   Do you recall being shown a document relating to a criminal

 2     complaint against a man called Vasilije Mijovic?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   Do you recall telling the Prosecution that you considered that a

 5     particular document had probably been manufactured by one of the

 6     Mijovic's friends and somehow placed into the records?

 7        A.   I don't recall saying that to the Prosecution.

 8        Q.   Just let me try to -- I'm very short of time.  That had been

 9     manufactured by one of Mijovic's friends to help Mijovic escape criminal

10     responsibility; do you recall that?

11        A.   You have to remind me when it was that I said that to the

12     Prosecution or when, in fact, I mention at all the name of Mijovic.

13        Q.   The 2nd or 3rd of December, 2008, in a location at the BIA

14     offices, and it was a meeting with Mr. Groome.  And the note of the

15     meeting.  Do you not recall this?

16        A.   Who wrote that note?

17        Q.   I think one of the representatives of the Prosecution.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Perhaps Your Honour, I'm desperately running out of

19     time and I really do not have the time to conduct the cross-examination

20     I'd want to conduct, so I'm not going to take the witness to that

21     particular section because I have other things I have to deal with.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you read it briefly to us, because one of the

23     things I was asking myself when I listened to your questions is to what

24     extent intellectual falsity and forgery of documents are strictly

25     separated.  I mean, I can produce a document which is not true to its

Page 7109

 1     contents but nevertheless not a forgery to the extent that I produce it

 2     myself and I do not hide that I'm the one who produces it.  Although I

 3     may be lying in producing such a document.  That's one of the question

 4     that came to my mind.

 5             But since I do not know what is in the note, neither do I exactly

 6     know what document you are referring at, it's questions on my mind,

 7     nothing else.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  The note states:

 9             "The meeting next dealt with order 33/95 which had been provided

10     for review during the Groome-Soldal mission in October.  This order had

11     been part of a criminal case file against Vasilije Mijovic as a member of

12     the Serbian MUP in relation to a traffic accident he had caused in 1995.

13     The BIA officials stated that they did not consider this to be a genuine

14     document issued by the JATD, in view of the signature and stamp (stating

15     Serbian Republic of Krajina) but that it had probably been manufactured

16     by one of Mijovic's friends to help Mijovic escape criminal

17     responsibility."

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So do I understand then that it's considered to be

19     authentically a part of that file but found it's way in there as a result

20     of fraud or forgery?

21             MR. JORDASH:  To be fair to the witness, it looks as though it

22     was said by an unidentified official rather than the witness.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the one focused question you could ask the

24     witness about it.  Perhaps he now remembers what it was about.

25             MR. JORDASH:

Page 7110

 1        Q.   Do you remember this discussion?

 2        A.   I don't remember this discussion but I can explain what it is

 3     that you are getting at, if you allow me, I can be very precise.  It was

 4     like this, a certain individual actually sued the Republic of Serbia for

 5     damages caused by an individual called Vlastimir Mijovic claiming that

 6     the state of Serbia is responsible for the damage incurred in this

 7     traffic accident because Mr. Mijovic, according to what was alleged, was

 8     at the time a member of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of

 9     Serbia.

10             The attorney who was in charge of protecting the interests of the

11     Republic of Serbia, he is referred to as the public attorney in Serbia,

12     he replied to this claim by the citizen.  The BIA at the time sought

13     information on whether Mr. Mijovic was in fact a member of the Ministry

14     of the Interior, or rather, the RDB.  In one such case where a certain

15     individual was a leader of a unit, the answer was that Mr. Mijovic was

16     not a member of JSO, and that answer was signed by the commander.

17     However, after awhile, a totally different individual submitted or sued

18     the same individual or --

19        Q.   Sorry, Mr. Witness, I'm going to have to cut you off because I'm

20     running out of time.  Do you remember -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to be

21     rude, but do you recall that it was the view of some unidentified BIA

22     official at the meeting that a document, the document I've just referred

23     to, had been manufactured and placed into the records?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, you are on your feet.

25             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour, just so the record is clear, the

Page 7111

 1     note doesn't indicate, I'm trying to verify now, where this actual

 2     document came from.  It's not clear, it may very well have come from a

 3     court case file and not from the archives, but I'm still investigating

 4     this, so I ask Mr. Jordash to keep that in mind as he phrases his

 5     questions.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I can answer this

 7     question.  No BIA member who took part in these talks could have said

 8     anything to that effect, because simply put, it's not true.  The agency

 9     sought and has different answers from that same institution, the JSO,

10     regarding that same question, and the agency was not trying to conceal

11     that it had two opposing documents which actually exclude one another,

12     but this does not mean that someone within the agency actually falsified

13     the document because this -- the agency itself actually showed and

14     presented both of these documents.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have page 3 of the document on the screen,

16     please.

17        Q.   What is that a photograph of, please?

18        A.   This photograph depicts and shows the state in which we found the

19     personnel files for former JSO members after the take-over had been done

20     where it had been taken over by the MUP in April 2002.

21        Q.   How did the document end up in this rather disheveled state?

22        A.   Well, you have to put that question to the person who was

23     responsible for safeguarding these documents because after we handed over

24     the documents, my responsibility ended with that.  There was no other

25     responsibility on our part.

Page 7112

 1        Q.   So you are not able to provide the Court with evidence concerning

 2     how the documents were carried to this room and placed in the manner in

 3     which we see them?

 4        A.   Of course I cannot say anything about that.  You probably know

 5     that the Ministry of the Interior and the BIA in 2002 were two separate

 6     state organisations.

 7        Q.   And you cannot give evidence concerning how many people were

 8     involved in transporting those documents and placing them in the manner

 9     in which we see them?

10        A.   I cannot say anything about it because I had no part in this and

11     I had no knowledge.

12        Q.   Or who had access to the documents before they were put into the

13     room in that way?

14        A.   I don't know who had access to them but working as a member of

15     this commission, I could see that the Office of the Prosecutor and its

16     investigators had at least three times access to these documents and we

17     did not have -- as for our part, we did not have access to these

18     documents.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, if the point you'd like to make is that

20     a documentation, the status we see it on the picture, creates great risks

21     of unreliability, then that point is clear; not to say that it was

22     unreliable, but at least that the way in which it was organised certainly

23     favoured rather than disfavoured that documents would either be lost or

24     added easily or whatever.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.  Thank you.

Page 7113

 1        Q.   Finally, Mr. Witness, you were asked to conduct an investigation

 2     involving the -- a unit called the JPN; is that correct?

 3        A.   That's correct.  That was one the tasks set before the

 4     commission.

 5        Q.   And am I correct, is this fair, that having conducted your

 6     investigation, the conclusion reached was that the JATD was the first ad

 7     hoc unit formed by the DB during the 1991 to 1996?

 8        A.   Yes, that conclusion can be reached, but I would confine the

 9     time-frame to April 1993 through April 1996.

10        Q.   And in relation to 1991 to 1993, there was nothing in the records

11     to indicate the DB had a unit as such akin to the JATD, or the later JSO?

12        A.   The agency does not have any document pointing in that direction,

13     nor do I have any knowledge about that.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I will stop there because

15     I'm running out of time, I would ideally have liked to take the witness

16     through some of the documents but I want to save some time for the next

17     witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You'd say some of the documents which might raise

19     doubt just to the authenticity, is that --

20             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, would it be an idea that you provide those

22     documents to the witness, ask him to look at it, and see whether after

23     the break there's anything where apparently you earlier said that there

24     was no -- that he had nothing that he considered to be an indication of

25     lack of authenticity, whether that still would be his view if he looked

Page 7114

 1     at those documents.  Is that -- I'm not trying to take over, but would

 2     that be a solution and would that at least enlarge the possibilities in

 3     putting questions to the witness, perhaps by briefly saying did you look

 4     at this, did you look at that, did you look at that?  I'm just wondering

 5     whether that would assist you in eliciting as much information from the

 6     witness.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  I'd be certainly happy to try, Your Honour.

 8     Certainly.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it then be a good idea that you provide the

10     witness with copies of, I take it, the copies in the original copies, and

11     that he is invited during the break to carefully look at them again and

12     whether he sees anything which looks strange to him or which would be a

13     clue for the purpose of questioning the authenticity.  If that's

14     something which would assist you, then that might --

15             MR. JORDASH:  I certainly will do that, Your Honour.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  I'm looking at -- yes, Mr. Groome, I take it

17     that you would like it to know what documents will be given to the

18     witness.

19             MR. GROOME:  Well, that, Your Honour, and I have another matter

20     that I must raise before the break.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Before the break.  In the presence of the witness?

22             MR. GROOME:  I think it will be no harm to raise it in front of

23     the witness.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to interrupt, may I just tender the picture

25     of the store as an exhibit.

Page 7115

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And I don't know whether this is -- whether

 2     you consider this to be state secret or not.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  I don't.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't.  We'll hear later from other interested

 5     parties whether they would consider it to be state secret.

 6             Mr. Groome.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, at 2.17 today the Simatovic Defence

 8     notified of us of 29 documents that they would use in cross-examination

 9     of this witness, the totals 1.600 pages.  This notice is, according to

10     the practices and agreements between the parties, is six days late.  I

11     think fairness requires that over the break that the Simatovic Defence be

12     directed to indicate to the Chamber which among these 1.600 pages they

13     intend to put before the witness so we can prepare ourselves.  We are

14     still printing them out, but as they arrive here in the courtroom I

15     hardly will have the time to be able to read so many pages.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll see also how they are going to be used in

17     order to see what the real problem is.  Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

18              MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first I'd like to

19     say that our notice was sent when it was because we had a problem with

20     the documents that had been disclosed tardily.  And we discussed this

21     last week.  That's number one.  Number two, most of those documents are

22     not necessary.  These are notes on questioning and they have to do with

23     the questioning of Obrad Stevanovic before this Tribunal.  Most of these

24     documents relate to that, the questioning of Mr. Stevanovic in the

25     Milosevic case, so I don't think that would pose a major problem to the

Page 7116

 1     Prosecution.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's see how it turns out to be.  Too often

 3     it happens that we have major problems and sometimes forget that the

 4     proof of the pudding is in the eating and not in the discussion before

 5     even tasting the pudding.  We'll have a break and resume at five minutes

 6     past 4.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we resume, the Chamber received an informal

10     message about submissions to be made by the Republic of Serbia in

11     relation to the closed -- the protective measures for this session.  The

12     Chamber will phrase very specific questions in this context and will

13     invite you to make written submissions on the matter, and as long that we

14     have not received that, of course everything will stay as it is at this

15     moment for the time being.  Then, of course the parties will have an

16     opportunity to respond to that, and then finally we'll decide on the

17     matter.

18             Mr. Jordash.

19             MR. JORDASH:

20        Q.   Mr. Witness, did you have the opportunity to look at those

21     documents?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have quickly P473 on the e-court, please.

24        Q.   Is there anything about this document which indicates to you that

25     it is authentic or not authentic?

Page 7117

 1        A.   I can't notice anything about this document that would challenge

 2     its authenticity.

 3        Q.   Do you recognise -- well, have a look there at the signature

 4     which purports to be Mr. Stanisic, and just keep that in your mind for a

 5     moment.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  And may I then have on the screen P406.  I don't

 7     know go we can keep the B/C/S version of the present document on the

 8     screen and pull up a B/C/S document of P406 so we can look at signatures.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that the document you were seeking?

10             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I'm looking for, Your Honour, ERN 0641-4640.

11     That's the one, thank you.

12        Q.   I was wondering, Mr. Witness, whether you are able to say

13     anything about the signature of Mr. Stanisic, whether you would recognise

14     one or both or neither as Mr. Stanisic's signature as you've seen on

15     other documents?

16        A.   I do apologise for not being able to answer this question with

17     certainty.  I am not qualified to give a forensic opinion on signatures.

18     At the first glance when I compare the two documents, it seems quite

19     unequivocal that the signatures are identical, if nothing, it's about the

20     physical length of the two signatures.  I yet again have to apologise.  I

21     never worked directly with Mr. Stanisic, therefore, I never had an

22     opportunity to really deliberately study his signature.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you a few questions on this.  Did you

24     pay attention to it when you looked at the document on the left of your

25     screen?

Page 7118

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you ever considered to ask for an expert

 3     opinion about -- in comparing the signatures?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not me.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Anyone else, to your knowledge?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not that I know of.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Mr. Witness, I would suggest that the two signatures there look

10     quite different.  You don't agree with that?

11        A.   I don't suppose my answer would be relevant.  I can agree that

12     there is a difference between the two signatures, the way in which the

13     signatures were placed.  However, I can't assert that these are two

14     signatures by two different persons, whether the two documents were

15     signed by different hands belonging to different people in fact.  I

16     cannot assert anything either way.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, the point which you apparently want to

18     make is clear to us, whatever our conclusions would be.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MR. JORDASH:

22        Q.   Let me ask you this, if we could look at the document on the

23     left.

24             MR. JORDASH:  And if we could have the English version of that

25     now on right.

Page 7119

 1        Q.   It purports to be an operative cheque for the special unit of the

 2     Serbian MUP.  Sorry, let me put that again.  It purports to be a request

 3     for an operative cheque for the special unit of the Serbian MUP on the

 4     20th of February, 1992.  Would you agree from what you've told us that

 5     the evidence you looked at did not suggest there was a special unit of

 6     the Serbian MUP, certainly not the special unit of the DB in 1992?

 7        A.   Yes.  I didn't know that there was an RDB special unit prior to

 8     April 1993.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Now, what is it -- is there anything which would

10     identify this document as authentic rather than there being nothing on it

11     which suggests it's not authentic?  What is it about the document which

12     suggests it is authentic?

13        A.   Yes.  In the upper left corner there is a header and filing

14     number.  The filing number was registered as such in the log-book, 02

15     official secret, strictly confidential, the number, and the date when the

16     document was logged.  I suppose if one goes back to the log-book, the

17     strictly confidential RDB from 1992, and inspects it, as far as I can

18     tell the date is the 28th of August, one could to a certain extent

19     establish whether a document like this ever existed or was logged.

20     Nevertheless, this would still not constitute absolute certainty in terms

21     of the document really being signed by the person whose signature is

22     displayed on the face of the document.

23        Q.   Where is the log-book that might assist?

24        A.   I suppose in the security and information agency.

25        Q.   So you think it might be available?  Have the Prosecution asked

Page 7120

 1     you for that log-book?

 2        A.   Yes.  The OTP have had a chance to inspect these log-books of the

 3     RDB.  I suppose they looked into 1992 as well.

 4        Q.   Oh.  Okay.  So we'll leave it at that.  The Prosecution have

 5     looked at the log-book.  Thank you.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  I'll leave it there, Your Honour, thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, the next step to see whether it

 8     could be verified, because this apparently is a contested document and it

 9     might bring us one step further to a solution of the problem.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I was leaving it as if the Prosecution have

11     the log-book, then they'll produce it as corroboration of their case in

12     relation to this document.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I'll investigate to verify, but my

14     recollection is that the Prosecution does not have the log-book.  They

15     were offered the log-book to look and the Prosecution then selected

16     documents or made requests of documents in the log-book that appeared to

17     be of interest for this case and that's how we obtained these documents.

18     I don't know that we were ever given by Serbia a copy of the log-book,

19     but I think the witness may -- his recollection on this matter might be

20     more accurate than mine.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll see what happens and whether if the parties do

22     not pursue the matter, whether the Chamber would like to have a look at

23     what on this date is entered into the log-book.  Please proceed,

24     Mr. Jordash.

25             MR. JORDASH:  I'll leave it at that, Your Honour.

Page 7121

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You'll leave it at that.

 2             Mr. Petrovic, are you ready to start your cross-examination?

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour, thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness JF-095, you'll be now cross-examined by

 5     Mr. Petrovic.  Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic, but before I

 6     give that opportunity, I'd first like to invite Madam Registrar to assign

 7     a number to the photograph of the disorganised archive we saw before the

 8     break.  That was 1D1248.  Madam Registrar, that receives number?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  1D1248.1 under which number is now photograph

10     uploaded will be Exhibit D114, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence provisionally under

12     seal.  Please proceed.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, witness.  First of all, I would

16     like to ask you to tell me in a few words about your professional

17     background, your education, and your career?

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7122

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3        Q.   Thank you very much.  Between 1990 and 1999 can you tell us where

 4     you worked at that period?

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11        Q.   Thank you very much, witness.  If you know, please, I'd just like

12     to make this even more concise, if possible.  The other two members of

13     the committee from the BIA, do you know anything about their careers

14     between 1990 and 1999 specifically, the commission members?

15        A.   I can't answer that question with any certainty or precision.  I

16     believe there was this gentleman who joined the service much later after

17     me.  As for the lady involved, I believe she had also been a member of

18     the service for a considerable amount of time.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, what about the commission reports which is the

20     subject of our exchange here today.  The annexes contain some of the

21     general documents that I believe were used before the drafting of the

22     report.  Can you tell us whether in addition to all these documents

23     listed in the annex there were other general documents providing

24     guide-lines for the work of the state security service and were those

25     also used for the purposes of drafting the present report?

Page 7123

 1        A.   The general documents that are in the annexes were not used for

 2     the drafting of this report.  They were listed because one of the

 3     assistance points was about the delivery of those documents.

 4        Q.   So what general enactments were actually used when the report was

 5     drafted?

 6        A.   Which general enactments do you have in mind, sir?

 7        Q.   I mean, enactments regulating the work of the state security

 8     service?

 9        A.   I'll be very specific.  The commission was established pursuant

10     to a decision of the government of the Republic of Serbia dated November

11     2008.  The decision detailed the commission's tasks.  The fact was the

12     commission did not have the authority to prosecute, therefore no general

13     enactments were required for its work.

14        Q.   Witness, if we look at the commission's conclusions, specifically

15     page 29 of the report in the Serbian, as I'm sure you know it reads:

16             "In accordance with the generally accepted standards of the RDB

17     under the norms applying then it had the authority to enlist the

18     assistance of a person that would then help with their work."

19             And it goes on to talk about documents and so on and so forth.

20     My question then as now, what would be the norms you invoked while

21     drafting this part of your conclusion?

22        A.   Under the norms in place at the time, this would have been the

23     rules governing the work of the state security service.  Further, rules

24     on the methods and means used in the work of the state security service

25     that applied at the time and in part also the law on the basics of the

Page 7124

 1     state security service system.  Now it would be the law on the

 2     legislative information agency -- security information agency and the

 3     instructions governing its work.  There are some special measures and

 4     steps provided for.  The RDB and the BIA, in order to perform work from

 5     their purview, has the power of enlisting the external persons to help

 6     them with it, to help them achieve their tasks.

 7        Q.   Thank you very much, witness.  There is a correction perhaps that

 8     I'd like to make and perhaps I just misunderstood what you said earlier

 9     on.  At some point today earlier on you mentioned April 1993 through

10     April 1996 while describing the time-period throughout which this unit

11     existed that was mentioned in the OTP's motion.  Did I get it right, did

12     you mean to say April or did you mean to say August since the documents

13     that you analysed were dated August 1993?  It is possible that I

14     misunderstood what you said.

15        A.   Your understanding is correct, I did say April 1993.  This is an

16     enactment that can be read as a founding document.  Unless I'm mistaken,

17     it's from August 1993.  I don't have it in front of me.  If I said April,

18     then I misspoke.

19        Q.   Thank you very much.  That's the one thing that I wanted to

20     clarify.

21             Based on your knowledge sir, under the constitution of the

22     Republic of Serbia adopted in 1990, were there any obligations for the

23     state of Serbia or the state organs vis-a-vis Serbs living outside its

24     territory?

25        A.   I can't answer that question with any certainty.  I do assume

Page 7125

 1     that there were certain commitments.  The present constitution of the

 2     Republic of Serbia mentions certain commitments on the part of the

 3     Republic of Serbia vis-a-vis what we now call its diaspora.  Would have

 4     been the case all the more so perhaps earlier on when there was still a

 5     single country.

 6        Q.   Do you perhaps know whether general enactments of the MUP or the

 7     RDB defined any obligations or commitments of those organs vis-a-vis

 8     Serbs living outside the Republic of Serbia's territory?

 9        A.   Under the general enactments for the RDB, I don't suppose there

10     was a category like that.  But again, I can't say with certainty.  These

11     are issues that would require an inspection of the relevant documents.

12        Q.   I'd be happy to show you a document entitled "Description of

13     Classified Jobs."

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 65 ter 2377.

15     It's an OTP document.  Page 12 and page 13.  The title page first of all,

16     followed by pages 12 and 13, please.

17        Q.   This is the title page, witness.

18             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now move on to page

19     12.

20        Q.   Would you please take a look at the bottom of the page where it

21     says "the second administration," "the chief of the administration."  So

22     let's look at this paragraph that appears on this page, and then can we

23     move on to the next page, the top of the next page.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

25             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, if it assists and saves time, the

Page 7126

 1     Prosecution would not object to the tendering or the admission of this

 2     document.

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only wanted to ask

 4     a few questions of the witness regarding this.  I did not really intend

 5     to tender it, but there is no problem with tendering it if that's

 6     necessary.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't understand Mr. Groome's observation to be

 8     an objection to further questions being put to the witness.  Please

 9     proceed.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Witness, I just had a question for you.  Were you able to read

12     these two paragraphs?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Can we agree that this is one of those enactments regulating and

15     defining at the level of the service, in other words, the second

16     administration, the commitments vis-a-vis the Serbs who lived outside the

17     territory of the Republic of Serbia?

18        A.   Yes, that's correct.

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for your reference,

20     this is on pages 10 and 11 in the English version.  I see that we don't

21     have it on the monitors yet in English.  Your Honour, as my learned

22     colleague has no objection, I would like to tender this document into

23     evidence.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D115, Your Honours.

Page 7127

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  D115 is admitted into evidence for the time being

 2     under seal.

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4        Q.   Witness, you are aware surely, and you mentioned a moment ago a

 5     document entitled "Rules of Service of the State Security Service."  That

 6     document provides for the means and methods used by the service, and what

 7     I would like to inquiry about is the co-operation as one of those methods

 8     and operative means.  So my question for you is this:  Can collaboration

 9     or co-operation be established on the basis of one's patriotism, loyalty

10     that to the state, et cetera?  Could that be one of the basis for it?

11        A.   Yes, certainly, and that is one of the primary bases for actually

12     establishing a collaborative relationship.

13        Q.   Can this collaboration also be established on the basis of some

14     remunerative principles?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Can collaboration also be established with foreign citizens on

17     the basis of friendship or some political motives or any other basis?

18        A.   Yes, that is possible.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone.

20             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can collaboration be established with a member of a foreign

22     intelligence, a foreign army, or even a terrorist or some other

23     organisation?

24        A.   Absolutely, yes.

25        Q.   In the rules of service for the state security service, among the

Page 7128

 1     tasks that are mentioned for operatives, one of them is tasks that are

 2     envisioned for extraordinary circumstances such as a threat of war or a

 3     state of war; correct?

 4        A.   Yes, correct.

 5        Q.   Can the service -- can the service compensate its collaborator

 6     for a task or a job done?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   If the collaboration is based on the remunerative principle, does

 9     the service -- does there arise on the part of the service a certain

10     obligation towards that collaborator?

11        A.   Well, yes.  If the motive for co-operation that was promised to

12     the collaborator is material remuneration, then that would have to be

13     met.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Does the service have any obligations in certain

15     circumstances vis-a-vis members of families of the collaborators, or do

16     they have to provide some forms of special technical assistance such as

17     legal assistance or some other assistance?

18        A.   Yes, in the event that the security of the collaborator is

19     threatened or that a collaborator had lost his life in service, such a

20     person and his family members would enjoy all the benefits that the

21     regular employees of the service enjoy.  The same is true in the event

22     that an individual was arrested or criminal proceedings have been

23     instituted against him, that person would be entitled to material

24     assistance provided that the proceedings were not initiated by the

25     service itself.

Page 7129

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, before we continue, you referred as

 3     far as Serbs living outside the republic, you refer to pages 10 and 11,

 4     and I think in B/C/S 13.  I only found something on e-court page 9.

 5     Could you please verify that we didn't miss anything.  By the way, the

 6     numbering of pages is a bit confusing because the numbering at the bottom

 7     of the page, it restarts halfway the document.  But could you, not

 8     necessarily now, but keep in the back of your mind that the Chamber would

 9     appreciate a very precise reference so that we know where to look.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I will

11     do that during the next break.

12        Q.   Witness, first of all let me ask you, do you have the commission

13     report before you?

14        A.   I do.

15        Q.   Please look at page 21, that's section 4.  I would like to refer

16     you to the portion where it says that the commission has obtained

17     information that in the work of the MUP it was standard practice to

18     employ regardless of the job classification that is in force, to employ

19     certain individuals for certain tasks and assignments.  Could you please

20     just clarify this part which says "outside of the job classification in

21     force."  My understanding was that this part of the commission report was

22     drafted based on the interview with Mr. Miletic, and in the note on the

23     interview I did not actually find any place where he mentioned that this

24     can be done outside of the job classification.

25             First, so could you please just describe or explain why this

Page 7130

 1     terminology was used, perhaps I did not understand something correctly,

 2     or maybe you can just shed some light on this?

 3        A.   Yes.  The fact is that the paragraph that you are referring to is

 4     to a certain degree contradictory because Mr. Miletic mostly discussed

 5     the manner in which the founding documents were produced, and the

 6     participation or non-participation of his unit in the production of those

 7     documents.  Now, if founding documents are being produced and they affect

 8     the existing job classification, then one cannot really say that a unit

 9     may be formed outside of the job classification in force.  I assume that

10     Mr. Miletic, just as the other members of the commission, had in mind

11     when said this that of the -- had in mind the fact that a unit referred

12     to here is a unit that is in the process of being established.  So it

13     wasn't really envisaged in the enactment.  However, once it is

14     established and once it becomes part of the existing enactment or a whole

15     new enactment is adopted, then such an organisational unit is not outside

16     of the scope of the enactment in force.

17        Q.   And as far as I understood, you could find proof that the job

18     classification had actually been put in place and that it was, in

19     accordance with this job classification that action was taken?

20        A.   Yes, we found evidence of this in one of the personnel files that

21     was found in the Lipovica store where we found an adjusted table of jobs

22     and posts which table was part of every rules of service, but as I

23     already told the Prosecutor, I don't know whether it is this -- these

24     rules of service that we have -- that we are discussing here because I

25     can't really tell without seeing the number in the heading.  Whether it

Page 7131

 1     is the rules of service of August 1993, I cannot really ascertain.

 2        Q.   Very well, thank you.

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please take a look at

 4     P476.

 5        Q.   We will have it before us this a moment and could you just tell

 6     us whether the designation that we find where reference is made to the

 7     job classification, does it correspond to the job classification as

 8     provided in the document that you mention, the handwritten document?

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] For reference, let me say that

10     it's P974.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  From this -- from the table

12     we could conclude that that is the document in question.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Thank you, witness.  Now, I have a few questions that you may

15     find quite ordinary, but they are significant to us in view of the

16     evidence that is already before this Trial Chamber.  You marked last week

17     for us the place where the BIA headquarters is in Banjica.  Now, do you

18     know how long the BIA and its predecessor, the SDB, were actually housed

19     in that -- on those premises?

20        A.   As far as -- if I'm not mistaken, the seat of the service of the

21     SDB or the BIA was there as of the spring of 2004, but it is possible

22     that I'm mistaken.

23        Q.   Do you know where the headquarters of the SDB was in 1991?

24        A.   Yes, I do.  It was in Kneza Milosa Street in Belgrade.

25        Q.   Do you know -- do you know what was in Banjica on the premises

Page 7132

 1     where the BIA is today?  What was on those premises in the period between

 2     1991 and 1999?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.  It was the security institute of the Republic of

 4     Serbia.

 5        Q.   Can you tell us this security institute, was this a federal

 6     institution which then later was transformed into a republican Serbian

 7     institution or was it something else?

 8        A.   Yes, this was a federal institution, a federal body or agency,

 9     which as far as I know and as you can deduce from its name was a research

10     facility actually.  And also an educational facility.

11        Q.   Thank you.  I have a few questions about Obrad Stevanovic.  Could

12     you tell us, please, who made the decision to interview this person?

13        A.   The decision was taken by the commission.

14        Q.   You have the commission report before you, part of which are also

15     the notes, official minutes on your work.  Now, could you please tell us

16     whether -- I've tried to find some of these documents in the attachments

17     but I couldn't really find it?

18        A.   I can't tell you precisely at the time, but I think you're

19     referring to one of the first sessions of the commission, maybe not the

20     constitutive session but the following one.  And I'm not sure that such a

21     decision is actually mentioned in the law?

22        Q.   Witness, in the official notes I did not find any mention of

23     Mr. Stevanovic's interview in that decision, but I did find a decision

24     relating to all the other individuals.  This was adopted on the second,

25     during the second meeting; for instance, at the second meeting it was

Page 7133

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6        A.   Well, this was an omission that occurred during the drafting of

 7     the report.  We did discuss interviewing this individual at the

 8     commission, and as I've already said the member of the commission from

 9     the Republic of Serbia MUP actually initiated and proposed that he

10     himself conduct the interview with this person and that was accepted by

11     the commission.

12        Q.   Could you please just tell us whose proposal was this to

13     interview this individual?

14        A.   Well, this was a proposal by the member of the commission from

15     the Ministry of the Interior.

16        Q.   Why did only one individual conduct this interview with

17     Obrad Stevanovic when the interviews with all the other individuals were

18     conducted by all three members or at least two members of the commission?

19        A.   Well, I think I've already answered that question, but let me

20     repeat:  The proposal that was put forth by this member of the Ministry

21     of the Interior was that he should conduct this interview on his own.  He

22     said that he knew the person, that he knew this man personally and that

23     this would yield better results and that Mr. Stevanovic would not have

24     any -- he would not oppose and show any kind of negative response to the

25     questions posed by the commission.

Page 7134

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Now about the co-operation between the BIA and the

 2     OTP.  What about the Prosecutor in this case, did they at any point ask

 3     you to help them get in touch with anyone from the BIA, be it an active

 4     employee or retired?

 5        A.   Yes, that has been the case on one or two occasions, and the

 6     people in question were active employees.

 7        Q.   How did you respond to that request?

 8        A.   I'm in no position to make such decisions.  Nevertheless, when

 9     the right person was addressed, the person with the power to make such

10     decisions, the response that came back was a positive one.

11        Q.   Is it true that Mr. Groome phoned you so that you could help him

12     identify the right persons to talk to?

13        A.   I never spoke to Mr. Groome on the phone.

14        Q.   My apologies, I misinterpreted something.  At any rate, did

15     Mr. Groome ask you when you met to later phone you and for you to help

16     him identify some people to talk to, was that the situation?

17        A.   No, Mr. Groome never requested a conversation with me in terms of

18     identifying people.  In the request for assistance he did mention

19     something about a videolink.

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7135

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

22     I'm done with my questioning of the witness.

23        Q.   Witness, thank you very much.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

25             Mr. Jordash, one question came to my mind you asked a few

Page 7136

 1     questions in relation to the documents and authenticity.  Did you give

 2     him more than the ones you dealt with in court?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  I gave him -- yes, we gave him another disputed

 4     document allegedly signed by Mr. Stanisic, but I was content to leave it

 5     because the answers would be applicable to that document.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I can imagine that the answers being of a

 7     rather general nature on what -- yes, that's clear to me.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, though, I would -- in light of the

 9     time, and I think we would finish both witnesses today --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And one of the things I do not know yet is how

11     much time you would need for the next witness.

12             MR. JORDASH:  I would need no more than 15 to 30 minutes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Petrovic, how much would you need?

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, an hour perhaps.  An

15     hour and a quarter perhaps.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, then you were rather optimistic, Mr. Jordash.

17     I mean, well, depends on whether it's 15 minutes or 30 minutes and one

18     hour and a quarter, one hour.  Mr. Groome, as I understand now, how much

19     time do you think you would need for re-examination?

20             MR. GROOME:  I have five questions, Your Honour.  I think no more

21     than five minutes or six minutes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Five, six minutes.  Mr. Jordash, have you negotiated

23     the time claimed by Mr. Petrovic down.

24             MR. JORDASH:  I don't think so at the moment, but I was going to

25     request an additional five minutes with this witness to deal with some

Page 7137

 1     issues which I would like to deal with if at all possible.  It's 10

 2     minutes rather than five to be frank with the Court, but I would if time

 3     allows.  I'd be happy to leave it until the end to see if Mr. Petrovic

 4     does indeed take that long with the next witness.  I certainly will not

 5     be more than 30 minutes.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, you'll have a couple more minutes.  If

 8     you say I certainly do not need more than 30 minutes, that's of course

 9     already more pessimistic than 15 to 30 minute, but the reason why I am

10     allowing you now to ask further questions to the witness is because

11     asking him to remain standby and to have him enter the courtroom and

12     going out again might take more time than -- so please be as efficient as

13     possible.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15                            Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

16             MR. JORDASH:  May I have on the screen, please, 1D1274.

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23             MR. JORDASH:  May we turn, please, to page 23617.  Let's go to

24     23616.

25        Q.   And the top reads, the top paragraph reads:

Page 7138

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15             Did you say those words?

16        A.   Right now I can't remember every single word I've ever uttered.

17     A lot of time has gone by.  I can hardly be expected to confirm every

18     single word that is recorded here as truly authentic.  I am not prepared

19     to do that.

20        Q.   Would it be your view having conducted or being part of this

21     investigation that there may be people on the payment lists that did not

22     exist?

23        A.   I can neither confirm nor deny something like that.  The simple

24     truth is I don't know these people, I don't know who they are, I don't

25     know what their jobs were.  I've never met a single person from that

Page 7139

 1     list.  Anyway, that was not the job of my commission and it wasn't in the

 2     job description of the Security and Information Agency either.  I'm not

 3     an investigator and I'm not with the OTP.  It is not my place here to

 4     defend or accuse anyone.  I'm here to be a fact witness.  I'm here to

 5     tell you about the work of the commission of which I happened to be a

 6     member.

 7        Q.   One more point if I may, then I'm finished.  If we look further

 8     down on the same page it's recorded that you made the following comment

 9     in relation to your assistance to the Prosecution:

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20             You were surprised that these payment lists had not been

21     destroyed in accordance with the normal procedure?  Was that what you

22     were telling the Prosecution in part on that occasion?

23        A.   Yes.  To me that was a great surprise.  Had the rules been

24     complied with such as rules regulating how those documents were dealt

25     with, the regular procedure would have dictated that those documents be

Page 7140

 1     destroyed over ten years ago.

 2        Q.   So that would -- according to the regular procedure would have

 3     entitled Mr. Stanisic as the chief of the service to destroy the

 4     documents if he had so chosen; is that correct?

 5        A.   Not entirely correct.  This is not a discretionary right of the

 6     head of the RDB.  There are some bylaws regulating procedures relating to

 7     documents including the destruction of documents.  Here we are dealing

 8     with a document category that is normally kept for up to five years.

 9     Nevertheless, the final decision on destroying such documents is taken by

10     the head of the RDB which would now translate into the agency director.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Nothing further, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  I have one follow-up question in

14     relation to what Mr. Jordash asked you, Witness JF-095.

15             Mr. Jordash read to you what is written down as being your

16     response to an observation made by the OTP that while no members of

17     Arkan's Tigers were found on the lists, you said you didn't remember

18     exactly what you said, that was in the report of June 2008.  If I would

19     ask you that same question today, would your answer be similar or would

20     it be different, and I -- what is written down as your answer at the time

21     was that you had claimed that your normal circumstances that it would

22     have been impossible that people like that would be paid DSA from the DB

23     or the BIA but that the circumstances were not normal.  Would you give a

24     similar answer if I would put that same question to you?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my answer would be very

Page 7141

 1     similar.  Nevertheless, I do owe you an explanation as to why

 2     circumstances were unusual.  If the territorial integrity and the very

 3     sovereignty of a state is in jeopardy, then I suppose you will agree with

 4     me that these are unusual circumstances, including any threat to the

 5     constitutional order, and defending a constitutional order is a primary

 6     task for a service such as the RDB.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you added to your answer that it could have

 8     been an abuse of public money as well and that those persons did not

 9     exist.  Would you still add that to the answer you just gave?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The probability that that is the

11     case is low or at least lower than the contrary.  Of course there is a

12     possibility that funds were embezzled.  There is always the possibility

13     when we are talking about public administration bodies and that applies

14     at all times and not just in extraordinary circumstances.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness JF-095, it would have saved sometime if when

16     asked by Mr. Jordash you would have added to the response that you do not

17     remember exactly what you said at the time, that your answer would still

18     be the same.  And perhaps have given the same explanations as you just

19     gave to me.

20             I have -- Mr. Groome.

21                           Re-examination by Mr. Groome:

22        Q.   JF-095, could I first deal with the last matter that Mr. Jordash

23     raised with you with respect to document that you produced or your agency

24     produced to the OTP that in your view, had ordinary procedures been

25     followed, would have been destroyed five years after their creation.

Page 7142

 1     Now, my question to you with respect to these documents is the following:

 2     Does the fact that they were still in existence is a more -- what is the

 3     probable explanation of the fact that they are still in existence?

 4        A.   The most probable explanation for their existence would be lack

 5     of care, lack of professionalism, and negligence on the part of whoever

 6     was in charge of those documents, which is not to say that there might

 7     not be another reason.

 8        Q.   When you say negligence, do you mean that they were overlooked,

 9     they weren't destroyed at the time that they were, according to the

10     rules, intended to be destroyed?

11        A.   You could put it that way, yes.

12        Q.   Now, the location where BIA currently stands, when did that

13     building come under the control of the state of Serbia and leave the

14     control of the former Yugoslavia, if you know?

15        A.   I assume that was the case with the former federal state and its

16     break-up, possibly 1992.

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21        Q.   Now, with respect to questions Mr. Jordash asked you with respect

22     to signatures, I want to ask you the following question:  Can the chief

23     of the state security service, does he have the right to or the authority

24     to delegate -- I am sorry, let me start the question again.

25             Does the chief of the state security service have the ability to

Page 7143

 1     delegate the authority to sign documents on his behalf?

 2        A.   Director of the security information agency does have that power.

 3     He has the power to authorise another person, the deputy or another

 4     authorised person to sign document on his behalf.  As for the period of

 5     the RDB, I'm unable to answer that question with certainty.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Jordash showed you a photograph of the container in

 7     Lipovica, and my question to you is:  Are the other archives of the BIA

 8     in a similar state of disorganisation?

 9        A.   Correction, that was not the archive of the BIA, that was the

10     archive of the Ministry of the Interior and its special units.  The

11     archive of the BIA is definitely not in that kind of condition.

12        Q.   And finally, Mr. Petrovic with respect to D115 now in evidence,

13     he spoke to you at length about different types of collaboration both

14     with people within Serbia and also with friends and people who received

15     remuneration outside the country.  My question is the following:

16     Collaboration is a somewhat vague word, can such collaboration include

17     the commission of international crimes such as persecution, murder,

18     forcible deportation as crimes against humanity?

19        A.   I assume you already know what my answer would be.  No service in

20     the world, no system anywhere would you find a thing like that.

21             MR. GROOME:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

23             Witness JF-095, first of all, have the questions put by

24     Mr. Groome triggered any need for further questions?

25             If not, I think it would be desirable if witness JF-095 would

Page 7144

 1     remain standby, there may be unforeseen developments in the

 2     cross-examination of the next witness.

 3             Witness JF-095, would you be willing to remain standby until 7.00

 4     or shortly after 7.00?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, I hope and expect that we don't have

 7     to rely on your further presence, so therefore, in case we would not see

 8     each other later today, I already would like to thank you on behalf of

 9     the Chamber for coming to The Hague and having answered -- I should say

10     coming to The Hague twice and having answered all the questions that were

11     put to you by the parties and by the Bench.  I hope that you have a safe

12     trip home again.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break and we resume at 10 minutes to 6.00.

15     And the parties are invited to see whether there's any way of concluding

16     their cross-examination in the 70 minutes then remaining.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18                           --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 5.54 p.m.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Witness JF-094.  I'll repeat my

22     words.  Good afternoon, Witness JF-094.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.  And

24     good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness JF-094, I would like to remind you that you

Page 7145

 1     are still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given last week

 2     Friday at the beginning of your testimony.  No, it wasn't the Friday --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But at the beginning of your testimony, even if it

 5     was not on Friday.  You'll now be cross-examined.

 6             Mr. Petrovic, you'll be the first one?

 7             You will now first be cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic.

 8     Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.  Mr. Petrovic, please proceed.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

10                           WITNESS:  JF-094 [Resumed]

11                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:

13        Q.   Good afternoon, witness.

14        A.   Good afternoon.

15        Q.   On Wednesday you mentioned that the establishment of the

16     commission and the production of the report was of national interest, as

17     you put it.  What is the national interest of this commission or this

18     commission's work as you see it?

19        A.   Well, the commission was established in order to respond to an

20     RFA from the Tribunal which earlier on were -- it was impossible to

21     provide.  Some of the documents had already been provided pursuant to

22     some other RFAs, but if you're asking me about whether I consider that

23     this commission was of national interest and why, my understanding of it

24     was, and as far as I could see the understanding of the other members of

25     the commission as well, was because we put the co-operation with the

Page 7146

 1     Tribunal as one of the priorities.  So our job was to determine where the

 2     documents which were sought by the Tribunal could be found or if they

 3     couldn't, to establish that for a fact.

 4        Q.   Would you please just slow down a bit so that -- to make sure

 5     that the transcript is complete.

 6        A.   I will.  Thank you.

 7        Q.   Now, first of all, tell us, please, what was the reaction of the

 8     Tribunal's Office of the Prosecutor to the commission's report?

 9        A.   Well, I really don't know that.

10        Q.   What would be the repercussions had these -- had this job not

11     been done in a proper way, in other words, in a way that would satisfy

12     the expectations of the Prosecution?

13        A.   Well, again, I can only guess, I assume that that would affect

14     the confidence that the Tribunal had in the work of Republic of Serbia

15     organs and our honest wish and desire to really respond to the Tribunal's

16     requests.

17        Q.   Do you know whether after the report was submitted, the

18     commission report, a member of which you were, do you know whether the

19     Tribunal produced any report or statement of some sort that touched upon,

20     among other things, the commission report, the report that you yourself

21     participated in producing?

22        A.   No, I wouldn't know about that, but I do have to mention

23     something here.  Right after the completion of the commission's work, I

24     was not at work anymore.  I actually had -- I was ill, I was taken ill,

25     and I did not attend any of these sessions of the commission because I

Page 7147

 1     had measles and the other members of the commission had not ever had

 2     measles, so it was not a good idea for me to be there.  So I'm not really

 3     familiar with what was transpiring and happening at the very last

 4     portions -- the last phases of the commission's work because I wasn't

 5     there.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The first five questions and I waited until after

 7     the fifth that you put to the witness do not assist the Chamber in any

 8     way.  We do not see the relevance and I checked in the beginning with my

 9     colleagues.  If there's a relevance, please in your next question make

10     clear what that is.  I can imagine that you are heading for whether the

11     report was influenced in order to please the OTP, whatever, but then

12     please ask the witness.  Please proceed.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that will

14     become clearer at the end of my examination, I hope so, and if not, I

15     apologise, and I will no longer insist on these questions if you feel

16     they are not relevant.

17        Q.   Now, you mentioned you did not attend the last several meetings

18     of the commission; correct?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.  That's exactly what I was trying to point

20     out.  I understand English language and I see from the transcript that

21     there was something that was omitted.  I said that I was -- I did

22     actually attend the meetings and I was there until the very end of the

23     commission's work because of the -- although I was ill, but the other

24     members of the commission had already been immune to that particular

25     disease, so I did participate in the work of the commission, however, in

Page 7148

 1     the later phase when the report was actually drafted, I wasn't there.

 2     Whether there was some reaction and what the reaction was of the

 3     Tribunal's, that's why I wouldn't know how to answer that question.

 4        Q.   Now, could you tell me, please, who was it of the commission

 5     members who proposed that an interview be conducted with

 6     Obrad Stevanovic?

 7        A.   Well, I was the one.

 8        Q.   Can you tell us why you put such a proposal forward?

 9        A.   Well, simply because I was of the opinion that

10     Mr. Obrad Stevanovic had information that was relevant to the

11     commission's work.  Now, in view of the fact that I myself never

12     participated -- never was an actor in those events, in the events of 1991

13     and 1992 because I wasn't even employed then with the service I only

14   (redacted)

15     documents were relevant or not to the establishment of the commission

16     that were sought.

17             And also the members of the commission who are from the BIA did

18     not know who it was who could help with the search for the documents that

19     had to do with the JPO, so I could say that we were actually just trying

20     to suss out information working blind as it were.  So we were trying to

21     find people who could have some information about the events that the

22     commission was working on.  And this was in early 1990.  This person was

23     at a high position in the Serbian MUP and he was, among other things, in

24     charge of the work of Special Police Units.  So it was my proposal that

25     he should be interviewed because I felt that he might be a person who

Page 7149

 1     could provide some information.

 2        Q.   If I understood your evidence correctly a few days ago, you said

 3     that you interviewed this person and that then the other members of the

 4     commission were supposed to assess whether they should interview him too?

 5        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 6        Q.   Would you please just be as brief as possible in your answers

 7     because we don't have much time.

 8        A.   Well, that was the point.  Our intention was first of all to have

 9     a preliminary interview with some individuals who might possess some

10     information and maybe not, so I interviewed Mr. Stevanovic in his home.

11     We discussed matters that related to the RFA itself, and I said what I

12     said and you can see that in the material that we provided.  And it was

13     assessed by the commission that Mr. Obrad Stevanovic did not know

14     anything that might be relevant to the commission's work.

15        Q.   That's what I wanted to know.  Now, you interviewed him in his

16     home.  Did you record that interview?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Do you have any notes?  Did you take any notes during the

19     interview?

20        A.   Well, in view of the fact that this was a brief interview, I did

21     not really make any notes.  I just jotted down in my notebook when the

22     interview was conducted really as a reminder for later on.

23        Q.   Well, so the substance of this Official Note is what you could

24     actually recall when you returned to your office and then dictated or

25     whatever, typed the report; correct?

Page 7150

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   So how many days later did you actually produce this note of this

 3     interview?

 4        A.   Well, perhaps four to five days later.  I can check the exact

 5     date because I have that written down, but also in the meantime we had

 6     had a meeting, the commission had had a meeting and they were briefed on

 7     the contents of Mr. Stevanovic's statement during this interview.

 8        Q.   In your interview of Mr. Stevanovic, did you have any powers that

 9     under the Law on Criminal Procedure?

10        A.   No, the commission did not have any such authority.

11        Q.   Did you warn Mr. Stevanovic that it was -- that he was obliged to

12     tell the truth during the interview?

13        A.   Well, I told him what the purpose of the interview was.

14        Q.   But you did not issue any warnings in terms of the Law on

15     Criminal Procedure?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Would there be any legal consequences for Stevanovic if he

18     provided some false information during that interview?

19        A.   I can't really say anything about that.

20        Q.   Well, I'm a bit surprised by your answer in view of the fact that

21     you are an experienced police officer, yes or no?

22        A.   Well, all I can say is bearing in mind that this was an informal

23     conversation, this was not an official interview either in the pre-trial

24     proceedings or in criminal proceedings.  This was just a preliminary

25     interview so that I cannot really see how Mr. Stevanovic could be held

Page 7151

 1     liable for anything unless he would say things that would be damaging to

 2     state interests and so on.  In view of the fact that this was a

 3     preliminary interview, personally I don't believe that would be the case,

 4     so I can't really answer with a yes or no.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  During that interview did Stevanovic tell you that

 6     during the war from 1991 to 1995 every unit wanted to be called the Red

 7     Berets and that if they had red berets as part of their uniform and

 8     equipment that they would actually call themselves Red Berets?

 9        A.   Well, he didn't say it in so many words, however, he did mention

10     as we later --

11        Q.   Please focus on my question.  Just answer with a yes or no.  If

12     it's no, then it's no.

13        A.   Well, I cannot recall that it was said in so many words.  He did

14     say that there were different kinds of units that were not necessarily

15     units that had anything to do with any legal authorities, either official

16     or not.  So we didn't really discuss any units that had no ties with the

17     MUP of the Republic of Serbia, or let's call them regular units because

18     the documents here and the request that was sought was about units or

19     relating to units that had to do with the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.

20        Q.   Did Stevanovic tell you that he actually attended the

21     establishment of JSO in 1996?

22        A.   Well, no, he said in view of the fact that the request was to do

23     with the JATD and the JPN units, we only discussed his co-operation with

24     the JATD because that had to do with Mr. Simatovic.

25        Q.   In the note, Official Note or notes actually of this interview,

Page 7152

 1     it says, and you probably have it before you, would you please take a

 2     look at page 2 of that interview with Mr. Stevanovic.  Here it says that

 3     he made proposals in respect of various organisational enactments and

 4     that that was the first time that he had heard the term "JATD"?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Please wait for my answer [as interpreted].  In other words, that

 7     in 1993 it was the first time that he heard this term JATD?  That's what

 8     it says there.

 9        A.   Yes, that was my understanding, that he had heard of JATD for the

10     first time in 1993 and that that was one of the names that was used for a

11     new unit that had been established.

12        Q.   Well, please focus on my question.  So this is what he said?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, did Obrad Stevanovic say what he said to you the same thing

15     that he said under oath here before this Trial Chamber, and that is that

16     he was not aware that there had been any predecessor unit to JSO from

17     1991?  Did he say that, that he did not know that there was a unit in

18     1991 that was -- that preceded the JSO?

19        A.   No, I don't know anything about that.  He only talked about JATD,

20     he said when that was established and when he had heard about it.  He

21     heard about it in a conversation with Mr. Simatovic and it was one of the

22     proposals that were put forth to call it that.  He didn't even mention

23     the JPN at the time because that was one of the accepted -- it was one of

24     the alternative names that were proposed as possible name for that unit

25     that was being established at the time.

Page 7153

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, if Mr. Petrovic is going to cite the

 3     transcripts, I'd appreciate a reference so that I can find it among the

 4     hundreds of pages of the -- of Mr. Stevanovic's testimony.

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 40106, 40106, and we can find that

 6     in 2D229.  That is a note from the interview with Stevanovic on the 27th

 7     of May, 2005.  In response to Jeffery Nice's question whether the

 8     predecessor to JSO was established in 1991, he said that he didn't know

 9     and he repeated the same thing on page 40524.

10        Q.   Now, witness, do you know that Stevanovic testified in this court

11     for 13 days, five of which he was questioned by Jeffery Nice, not

12     exclusively about but for the most part about the JATD and JPN and that

13     he never said, as far as I could see because I looked through all those

14     pages, he never mentioned that anywhere?  In other words, he did not know

15     anything about the JSO and its establishment before 1996?

16        A.   Well, I don't know that but what he said here is not really

17     contradictory to that.  He didn't say that the JATD was established at

18     the time.  He said that that was one of the names that were put forth to

19     use that name for a unit that was being established and he learned this

20     from a conversation with Mr. Simatovic, but he wasn't even sure that that

21     was what it was called.  He said that it was one of the names that were

22     bandied about.

23        Q.   Sir, I'm questioning you -- I'm telling you that

24     Mr. Obrad Stevanovic who testified here before this court and never

25     mentioned that he had any knowledge about JATD, JPN or anything else that

Page 7154

 1     could be a predecessor to JSO?

 2        A.   Well, I understood what you've said and I'm repeating for the

 3     third time what I recall.  This was the substance of our conversation and

 4     this is how I noted it down.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 6             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, how can I fairly assess whether there's

 7     no mention of the JATD without reading the entire transcript or doing

 8     word searches on it?  I mean, there are hundreds of pages here.  I'd ask

 9     that if Mr. Petrovic is going to use the transcript that he put specific

10     portions to the witness so the witness can fairly answer and I can fairly

11     examine the transcript to see if it's in proper context.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, the witness hasn't read it, the

13     Chamber hasn't read it, it's not in evidence.  Whatever way you summarise

14     it, it's unverifiable for us.  Now, the witness gave an answer to your

15     question not casting any doubt on whether you are correct or not, so

16     therefore there was no reason to intervene, but it -- it doesn't really

17     help to seek a witness who has not read the transcript to tell us what is

18     in there, and the Chamber also we can't verify it, so that's --

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Chamber is in a

22     position to check which might unfortunately be quite difficult since this

23     is some comprehensive material, but the Chamber is in a position to check

24     what is there and what's not.  I am just trying to get the witness to

25     tell me whether he told him any of the things that he said in court under

Page 7155

 1     oath.  If not, very well, I have nothing further to pursue or indeed to

 2     imply.  Did he hear anything like that or not, if not I'll just move on.

 3     That's the substance I've been trying to achieve.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  How do you consider us to verify the

 5     testimony of Mr. Stevanovic?

 6             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's complicated

 7     indeed.  I could move for that to be under Rule 89 as part of this

 8     trial's evidence; however, that does strike me as a rational idea.  As

 9     for a rational way to do this, I'll try to think of something.  I don't

10     think it would make any sense to research this, least of all to have

11     5.000 pages of the transcript become part of this case's evidence.

12     That's why I was focusing on certain portions of the transcript which are

13     easy enough to track down.  If the OTP can find something else, they

14     could as well present this something else, whatever they come across, and

15     then we can deal with it in that way by dealing with certain portions of

16     the transcript, selected ones that we might then show the witness and

17     indeed the Trial Chamber.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because I don't think you would wish us to

19     start reading transcripts of all other cases and then to be unknown to

20     the parties be influenced by that.  I take it that that's the last thing

21     you want to achieve, isn't it?

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.  Thank

25     you.  The witness is here now, I can read the relevant transcript pages

Page 7156

 1     so we have several hundreds of pages and we can pair that back to a total

 2     of five or six which makes our task a lot easier.

 3        Q.   Witness?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Did Stevanovic tell that you he was a chief of the MUP staff of

 6     Serbia in February and March 1993 at the Bosnian Serbian border in Bajina

 7     Basta?

 8        A.   We just touched upon Bajina Basta, generally speaking, because he

 9     says that he was there with the Uzice detachment at the time protecting

10     the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina because of the problems that were

11     happening and the attacks from Bosnian territory on Serbia.  There was

12     firing there and several persons died, at least that's what he said,

13     that's why the PJP was there, in order to prevent any incursions, and

14     also to assist the army because many people were running away from that

15     territory across the Drina into Serbia.

16        Q.   But he didn't tell you that he was the chief of a staff that was

17     actually in the area, yes or no?

18        A.   What the note says is what he told me.  He says he was involved.

19     In what capacity?

20        Q.   This is 40241.  Did he tell you that he was in charge of a staff

21     based in Bajina Basta in control of combat operations in terms of

22     protecting the Republic of Serbia in that region which involved the

23     engagement of units in BH territory?  Did he say anything about that?

24        A.   No.  As I said, he told me he was involved with the PJP

25     protecting the borders of the Republic of Serbia.

Page 7157

 1        Q.   This is 40236.  Do you know anything about General Stevanovic's

 2     background, educational background?

 3        A.   I'm not familiar with his file.  I just know that Mr. Stevanovic

 4     was working at the police academy as a professor of police tactics.  I

 5     also know, although this would boil down to hearsay, something I heard

 6     about General Stevanovic as a high ranking officer, that he had received

 7     a certain degree of military education which means that at one point or

 8     another he was probably trained at the military academy.

 9        Q.   Do you know that he completed the military academy programme

10     which takes four year, he was from the MUP but he completed the military

11     academy, yes or no?

12        A.   That's what I heard from my colleagues but I did not look at his

13     file.

14        Q.   All right.  Back to a particular portion of your testimony.  On

15     Wednesday where you say Mr. Simatovic had some experience with combat

16     actions and training special units.  You said that on 7062.  The one

17     thing that I would like to ask you to do now is to tell me whether you

18     know this:  Mr. Simatovic, what was his background in terms of formal

19     education and training?

20        A.   I don't really know.  Besides, I don't remember saying that

21     Mr. Simatovic had any combat experience.  It was according to

22     Mr. Stevanovic's words.  He had heard that Mr. Simatovic was in charge of

23     a group of people at the Tara camp who passed themselves off as people

24     with combat experience and people who could help train the PJP, and one

25     of the PJP's tasks in war time was something closely related to combat

Page 7158

 1     assignments and also disrupting public law and order and preventing that

 2     from happening.

 3        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] [English] "On the other hand,

 4     Mr. [Indiscernible] had experiences related to combat actions or to the

 5     training for special units..." [Interpretation]  Now, that is not what

 6     General Stevanovic told you, is it?

 7        A.   As I said, if I remember well, if those were the words, I tried

 8     to paraphrase what Mr. Simatovic had said.  It wasn't me saying something

 9     that I actually knew.  I never even met.  I hadn't met Mr. Simatovic

10     until after 2006 when I ended up in my present job.

11        Q.   Did Stevanovic ever tell you that Simatovic had experience

12     related to combat actions, yes or no?

13        A.   He said that Simatovic was this charge of a camp where there were

14     people who, as he said, passed themselves off as people with combat

15     experience.

16        Q.   You have the note right in front of you.  Could you please try to

17     track that down.  You say he told you that Simatovic was in charge of a

18     camp.  Where exactly does the note reflect that?

19        A.   The note says that he was for the first time in touch with

20     Vasinovic [phoen], Simatovic, and others who had this camp at Tara, and

21     in his words they were passing themselves off or advertising themselves.

22     That's at page 1 if you look at it.

23        Q.   Witness, I'm not sure you understand me correctly.  Where does it

24     say that Obrad Stevanovic told you that Simatovic had experience related

25     to combat actions?  Where does your notebook say that?

Page 7159

 1        A.   I do not actually know that I said that at all.

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]  7062, Your Honours.  But we might

 3     as well move on.

 4        Q.   You go on to say this --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see now what -- what I read on 7062 is that

 6     during the interview he would have said that Mr. Simatovic would have had

 7     some experience, some combat experience; however, that

 8     Mr. Obradovic [sic] would have another experience but that there was a

 9     sort of exchange of information between the two of them.  That's what I

10     read in the transcript and in the Official Note, I read "and according to

11     him they advertised themselves as a special unit composed of people with

12     combat experience."  That's not exactly the same but comes close to it,

13     isn't it?  I'm just trying to understand what the issue is in order to

14     fully grab what you want to establish and not miss the point you are

15     intending to make.

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in my understanding

17     they were advertising themselves as a special unit or passing themselves

18     off as a special unit comprising people with experience of war.  This can

19     by no means mean that Simatovic had experience in combat actions.  In my

20     humble opinion, these are two entirely different matters.  I will leave

21     it to the Chamber to judge and assess but that is certainly my

22     understanding.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you would say advertising themselves would be

24     the unit and not in any way relate to Mr. Simatovic himself, is that how

25     I have to understand your understanding of what I read in the --

Page 7160

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the context is that

 2     some people were advertising themselves or passing themselves off as a

 3     unit.  In the very next paragraph you say mand that's what Stevanovic

 4     says, there was no unit at all, not in a textbook sense of the word.

 5     This is someone advertising themselves as something that is no unit at

 6     all in the textbook sense of the term.  Therefore, there is quite a

 7     number of differences there in relation to the sentence that the witness

 8     now denied ever uttering.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I did understand the testimony of the witness to be

10     not that he said that Mr. Simatovic had combat experience but that it was

11     Mr. Simatovic who would have told that to Mr. Stevanovic; is that --

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is not my

13     understanding, and I believe that transpires clearly from this.  The

14     witness keeps recounting his conversation with Stevanovic.  He is

15     recounting what Stevanovic is telling him.  Stevanovic is telling him, at

16     least as the present witness claims, that Stevanovic told him, the

17     witness, that Stevanovic said that Simatovic had combat experience.  That

18     is my reading, but perhaps we should not waste any more time on this.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps apparently a key line is "according to

20     him" which we find on 7062, line -- for me it's line 24.  Whether that

21     extends also to the next sentence where it reads "on the other hand,

22     Mr. Simatovic had experiences related to combat actions."  The question

23     therefore is whether according to him still applies to the following

24     sentence, yes or no, because in that case it would be the words of

25     Mr. Simatovic rather than the words of Mr. Stevanovic.  Let's proceed.

Page 7161

 1     We'll carefully analyse the texts.

 2             The only reason I'm intervening is because I really want to grab

 3     what you are actually -- what you are trying to establish so that we do

 4     not misunderstand the questions and the answers.  Please proceed.

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Let's leave the transcript aside for the moment then.  Therefore,

 7     my question to you, witness, is as follows:  Did Stevanovic tell you that

 8     Simatovic had experience in combat operations?

 9        A.   I'm trying to think back.  I don't think I said that he had

10     experience in combat operations.  I think it might be a good idea to

11     listen to the tape to see what was actually said.  I believe that I said

12     he had experience in the combat context of policing or police affairs.

13     If I remember what I said a couple of days ago, that was in reference to

14     that.

15        Q.   You may have said that several days ago, but my question now is

16     let's start anew and sweep the board clean.  Did Stevanovic tell that you

17     Simatovic had experience in combat operations?

18        A.   Stevanovic told me what I wrote down, that he had heard there

19     were people in that camp who were advertising themselves as people with

20     combat experience.  And that there had been an exchange of experience

21     between Mr. Simatovic, at least as the policing part of this combat in

22     war time is concerned, if that's what you prefer, while Mr. Stevanovic

23     who had experience that would be that, but obviously --

24        Q.   Therefore Stevanovic did not as a matter of fact tell you that

25     Franko Simatovic had experience in combat operations?

Page 7162

 1        A.   Stevanovic did not tell me that Simatovic had told him that.

 2        Q.   Did Stevanovic tell you that Simatovic was a leader or someone in

 3     charge of that group of men at Tara?

 4        A.   Based on the impression from that conversation, my impression was

 5     that he was in some way in charge of that group because he and

 6     Mr. Stevanovic were in touch about training and everything else.

 7        Q.   That being your impression, why did you not actually write that

 8     down in your Official Note?

 9        A.   Didn't strike me as important.  We were talking about JATD and

10     JPN.

11        Q.   All right.  You were investigating the whereabouts of documents

12     that might reveal what the Prosecution was after, someone tells you that

13     another person is in charge of a certain group of men which doesn't

14     strike you as relevant in terms of writing down and including in your

15     Official Note?

16        A.   My task had to do with this and this alone.  I had no criminal

17     authority and I wasn't interested in anything else for that reason.

18        Q.   Okay.  So why did you say that in this courtroom if weren't

19     interested back at the time, if that is not the subject of your

20     testimony?  What led you to talk about these things now?

21        A.   Very simple, someone asked me the question.  The purpose of that

22     interview was to see whether Mr. Stevanovic knew anything about the

23     existence of JATD or how it came into existence.  I couldn't answer these

24     questions because obviously this is a question which stems from the work

25     of the commission and its effort to track down documents.  Nevertheless,

Page 7163

 1     if you ask me, even now as far as these documents are concerned, I don't

 2     see an immediate link.

 3        Q.   So you said that you had the impression, that you gained an

 4     impression during that interview that Simatovic was in some way in charge

 5     of that group of men, nevertheless Stevanovic never explicitly stated

 6     that.  What we were talking about is your impression; right?

 7        A.   Yes, that's right.  This was not a unit.  He but -- said several

 8     times that this was a group of men, and he was consulted on how documents

 9     should be compiled for a unit to be established.  Again, he in turn was

10     under the impression that this was not a unit.

11        Q.   Were you aware of what the OTP's request was in relation to,

12     which trial?  Did you know the trial documents were required for, was

13     that within your purview or not?

14        A.   I should go back to the original request but normally a request

15     would state a case number and a trial.  Prosecutor versus so and so.

16        Q.   Very well.  What did Stevanovic tell you about Vaso Mijovic?

17        A.   He simply dropped his name and that was it and that's what I

18     wrote down.  He said there was this group of men over there including

19     Franko Simatovic, Vaso Mijovic, and others and that was all.  The only

20     time the name was mentioned.

21        Q.   Did he tell you that he had asked Franko Simatovic to put him in

22     touch with Vaso Mijovic?

23        A.   As I said, this was the only occasion where he mentioned the

24     name.

25        Q.   On page 40263, of your evidence in Milosevic, Obrad Stevanovic

Page 7164

 1     said:

 2             [English] "Vasilije Mijovic is somebody I know.  For awhile he

 3     worked at the training camp for the training of Special Police Units at

 4     Mount Tara, and Franko Simatovic found him at my request."

 5     [Interpretation] Did Obrad Stevanovic say to you that Radovan Stojicic,

 6     Badza, had asked the state security service to assist Obrad Stevanovic in

 7     identifying --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel repeat what -- identifying

 9     what?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the last part, had asked the

11     state security service to assist Obrad Stevanovic in identifying, and the

12     interpreters asked in identifying what.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will repeat, Your Honour.

14        Q.   Did Obrad Stevanovic tell you that Radovan Stojicic had asked via

15     the state security service for assistance to him, Obrad Stevanovic, in

16     order to find or identify instructors?  Did he say that to you,

17     Obrad Stevanovic?

18        A.   He only said that there was a need to train PJP, something to

19     that effect, and as these people as was already mentioned were at the

20     Tara camp and they had combat experience, a certain number of PJP members

21     were sent to the Tara camp regardless of how that came about.  I know

22     what you want to ask me, I'm just telling you he didn't tell me how it

23     was, but how the whole thing actually ended and how that would appear to

24     look from today's perspective, I can tell you about that too.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  JF-094, could you please try to keep your answers

Page 7165

 1     very much focused on what is asked.  Would you carefully look at

 2     Mr. Petrovic.  If Mr. Petrovic with one or two words rather than starting

 3     speaking whole sentences, Mr. Petrovic, because the interpreters will not

 4     be able to follow that, but if Mr. Petrovic will interrupt you because

 5     you are going beyond what they are asking you, carefully look at him and

 6     with one or two words he will invite you to stop continuing your answer.

 7     Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.

 8             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 9        Q.   So your response -- your reply to my earlier question is no?

10        A.   My answer is we didn't go any further.

11        Q.   In other words, no?

12        A.   Well, as far as I can recall the whole question, probably so.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Did he tell you that Vasilije Mijovic had never been

14     a member of the state security service of the Republic of Serbia?

15        A.   I have to repeat what I've already said before.

16        Q.   Well, just say yes or no?

17        A.   No, no.  Well, I just want to say that anything you have to ask

18     about Vasilije Mijovic, all I can answer is that he only mentioned him

19     once.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel repeat the page number,

22     please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the page number, Mr. --

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 40264.  That is the transcript of

25     June 1st, 2005.

Page 7166

 1        Q.   Now, I have a few more questions for you about something else.

 2     Now, in one of the conversations that you had with the OTP, and there

 3     were quite a few, did you say and claim that there was not a single piece

 4     of paper that related to the PJP for the period after the 23rd of March,

 5     1999?

 6        A.   What conversations are you referring to?  I said that there was

 7     not a single paper after the 23rd of March, 1999.

 8        Q.   Well, could we see -- that's in your conversation of 13th

 9     November, 2006.  Mr. Groome can check this.  It's on page 23626.

10    (redacted)

11     of paper is left from the time-period after 23rd of March, 1999."

12     [Interpretation] In other words, you are saying that what the Prosecutor

13     has written down here is incorrect?

14        A.   No, here it says after the 23rd of March, 1999.  Not before.

15     This is one of the things that I can recall in respect of another MFA

16     when in 2006 they had access to the entire documentation of the Ministry

17     of the Interior.

18        Q.   Well, just tell me, did you say this or not?

19        A.   Well, no I did not.

20        Q.   That suffices, just you didn't say that and that's enough.  Thank

21     you.  Did you tell the OTP that the PJP, the Special Police Units, were

22     under the command of the Pristina MUP staff?

23        A.   Excuse me, but I don't see how that relates to this case.

24        Q.   Well, witness, it is on the Trial Chamber to decide whether my

25     questions are relevant or not.  I would just like you to answer my

Page 7167

 1     question?

 2        A.   Well, first of all, I have to address the gentlemen here and see

 3     whether I'm free to discuss this issue.

 4        Q.   Well, very well, then let's move on.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  If you discussed the matter at any earlier stage

 6     with the OTP, then I really do not see any reason why it's -- no

 7     questions could be asked about that.  So therefore, I invite you to

 8     answer the question.

 9             Yes.  Mr. Ignjatovic.

10             MR. IGNJATOVIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness has a

11     waiver for very specific topics.  And he may actually be exposed to

12     criminal responsibility if he discusses matters for which he does not

13     have a waiver.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing he is asked is whether he discussed a

15     certain matter with the Office of the Prosecution.  And I don't think

16     that so either he already violated any rule and then or -- I really do

17     not see the point at this moment because the only thing Mr. Petrovic is

18     asking is did you say this to the Office of the Prosecution.  He is not

19     asked about any matter which he considered to be secret at any earlier

20     stage, if he told the Prosecution, if he did not tell the Prosecution,

21     then he can just say no, and then of course one can wonder why someone

22     wrote down that this is what the witness said during a conversation at

23     any earlier stage.

24             MR. IGNJATOVIC:  [Interpretation] I can agree and I can see how

25     you see it this way.  However, we issue a waiver to a witness before they

Page 7168

 1     appear here, the confidentiality clause --

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I intervene at

 3     this point, I withdraw my question and we will no longer discuss this

 4     matter.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The question apparently is off the record.

 6             Now, Mr. Ignjatovic, from the decision of the Chamber, you may

 7     have seen that -- one second.  You may have seen that the waiver is not

 8     binding upon this Tribunal and that if you should not refer to the

 9     waiver, what you could do is to say, while answering this question, this

10     question should not be answered because state security interests are

11     involved, and then we would hear you and hear all the state security

12     interests involved in the absence of the parties and in the absence of

13     the witness.

14             The question apparently has been withdrawn so I suggest that we

15     proceed.  At the same time I'm very much concerned, Mr. Petrovic, about

16     the time.  I'm also looking at Mr. Jordash because --

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If I may.  I understand your

20     concern and after consulting my client, let me just say that we have no

21     further questions for this witness.  Thank you, Your Honours.  Thank you,

22     witness.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you Mr. Petrovic.

25             Witness, JF-094, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jordash, and

Page 7169

 1     Mr. Jordash will do his utmost best to finish his cross-examination

 2     before 7.00.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.  May we have on the screen,

 4     please --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, Mr. Jordash, before I give you an

 6     opportunity.

 7             You raised your hand at an earlier stage and then I said wait for

 8     a second.  Is there anything you would like to add to what has been said

 9     at this moment?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I would, and it has to

11     do with the earlier question of Mr. Petrovic's with regarding my alleged

12     remark that there was not a single paper relating to the PJP after the

13     NATO campaign, but however, since the question has been withdrawn let me

14     just say that I can answer it on some other occasion, however the answer

15     cannot be a simple yes or no because --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The question has been withdrawn so therefore in

17     what, how you would answer that question is at this moment not relevant

18     anymore.

19             Mr. Jordash, please proceed.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

22        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.  I want to deal really with only one

23     topic and that's what the purpose of the activity as found by Stevanovic

24     was at Mount Tara.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have on the screen, please, P590.  I beg

Page 7170

 1     your pardon, it's P598.

 2        Q.   Could you just quickly have a look at that document, please,

 3     Mr. Witness.

 4        A.   Well, as far as I can see, this is a document from the 1st Army,

 5     an order from the command.

 6        Q.   And were you aware of this order, or have you become aware of

 7     this order during your work or during your work with the commission?

 8        A.   Well, I have to say that in the course of my work I saw a huge

 9     number of documents and I can't tell you really precisely whether I've

10     seen this particular document.  I did see some comments including some

11     dispatches from the Ministry of the Interior which confirm what is

12     described here in this document, that there were some problems on the

13     border on the Drina River on the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

14     from what Mr. Stevanovic told me, the reason that the PJP was actually

15     employed there was specifically to address these incursions that were

16     made and that they -- that had consequences also on the other side of the

17     border in Serbia itself.

18        Q.   Thank you.  So what Mr. Stevanovic effectively told you was that

19     the Serbian MUP had become involved at Mount Tara in relation to trying

20     to prevent incursions into Serbia, trying to protect the border of

21     Serbia?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

23             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, one second.

25             MR. GROOME:  I believe what the witness believes Mr. Stevanovic

Page 7171

 1     effectively told him is irrelevant.  What is relevant is what

 2     Mr. Stevanovic told him and it should be left for the Chamber to

 3     interpret what the meaning of Mr. Stevanovic's words were.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I think --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just see.  The question was whether

 6     Mr. Stevanovic effectively told you that certain things happened.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That is the question as I see it in the -- there's

 9     no asking about what he believed, but what Mr. Stevanovic effectively

10     told the witness.  Please proceed.

11             MR. JORDASH:

12        Q.   Let me -- did you get the question?

13        A.   Yes, I did.  Would you like me to answer it.

14        Q.   Yes, please?

15        A.   Mr. Stevanovic told me specifically about Tara.  The only thing

16     that he mentioned about the MUP activities on Tara was that all the then

17     secretariats of the Ministry of the Interior had sent one or two of its

18     members for training to -- one of two members of the PJP for training to

19     that camp.

20        Q.   And were you also told that the reason for that was that

21     Stevanovic was organising units to patrol the Serb border at a time when

22     the conflict in Bosnia threatened to spill into Serbia proper?

23        A.   Well, he told me at the time when he met Mr. Simatovic that he

24     had already been engaged with the Uzice Corps on the border towards

25     Drina, but that this was some kind of additional training for specific

Page 7172

 1     tasks and these were practically from what we see here, this was really

 2     just training for these members and from what we see here it says that

 3     one or two members were sent from each of the secretariats.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, could I just take a moment.

 5                           [Defence counsel confer]

 6             MR. JORDASH:

 7        Q.   Did you tell the Prosecution that this was at a time when the

 8     conflict in Bosnia threatened to spill into Serbia proper?

 9        A.   As far as I remember, what I said during that conversation, that

10     was the point, I don't know which words I used specifically.  I said the

11     involvement of the PJP along the border to Bosnia in the proximity of

12     Bajina Basta.  I said that the reason for their involvement was to

13     prevent any ramifications of the war in Bosnia, any spillover to the

14     Republic of Serbia.  There were people who were killed as a result of

15     combat operations in Bosnia who were in Serbia's territory.  Until such

16     time as the Army of the Republika Srpska took that territory from the

17     hands of the Bosnian army and then the firing across the Drina stopped.

18             MR. JORDASH:  I've got nothing further, thank you.  Thank you

19     Mr. Witness.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jordash.

21             Mr. Groome, any further questions for the witness.

22             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  Could I ask that D114 be brought

23     to our screens.

24                           Re-examination by Mr. Groome:

25        Q.   While that is being brought up, JF-094, can I ask you the

Page 7173

 1     container in Lipovica, is that typical of the way in which other archival

 2     material in the possession of the Ministry of the Interior is maintained?

 3        A.   I can tell you my opinion, but certainly the way in which these

 4     documents were kept and the condition in which we found them would not be

 5     consistent with the standards applied in archives elsewhere across

 6     Serbia.

 7        Q.   Now, for those of us who look at this picture and form the

 8     opinion that it's an atrocious way to maintain official documents, can

 9     you provides some explanation as to how these important records came --

10             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to interrupt, I mean, this is --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first Mr. Groome completes his question and

12     then you object.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the objection is to Mr. Groome covering this

14     subject at all which hasn't arisen from cross-examination.  It's arisen

15     from cross-examination perhaps of the previous witness but not this

16     witness.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

18             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, this was introduced with the last

19     witness and the last witness said I can't speak to this, it's the

20     following witness, so I submit that it's entirely proper for the person

21     with the knowledge about how this occurred to inform us about how these

22     records got into this condition.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  But isn't it true that re-examination is an

24     opportunity to put questions to the witness on matters that were raised

25     or triggered by the cross-examination.

Page 7174

 1             MR. GROOME:  That is true, Your Honour, but 90(H) also gives the

 2     Chamber some latitude in allowing the parties to address questions to

 3     witnesses who have relevant information, and I believe --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Is 90(H) dealing with the cross-examining party or

 5     with the calling party.

 6             MR. GROOME:  Very often with the --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Very often?  Could you read the text then, please,

 8     for me so that you can convince me that -- you talk about 90(H), isn't

 9     it, and you are referring to that a cross-examining party cannot only

10     deal with matters but also can elicit evidence if it supports his case,

11     and I'm now talking from the top of my head, so perhaps.

12             MR. GROOME:  In 90(H)(iii):  "The Trial Chamber may, in the

13     exercise of its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters."

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and have you asked for such -- because you were

15     referring to -- the objection was raised on the basis of 90(H),

16     cross-examination shall be limited to subject matter of the evidence in

17     chief and matters affecting credibility and where the witness is able to

18     give evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party to the

19     subject matter of that case.  That apparently was the basis of

20     Mr. Jordash's objection.

21             You, at least from what I understood, were considering the

22     possibility that the witness is able to give evidence relevant to the

23     case for the cross-examining party and then certain rules apply on what

24     shall be put to the witness.  (iii), the Trial Chamber may, in the

25     exercise of its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.  But

Page 7175

 1     although all the rest of 90(H) is about the cross-examining party, you

 2     consider 90(H) under (iii) to be a general rule which applies to -- not

 3     only to cross-examination, and have you asked permission from the

 4     Chamber?

 5             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour, I have not asked permission.  I

 6     have not asked permission, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's move on.  The objection is sustained.

 8             MR. GROOME:  I have no questions, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

10             The Chamber has no further questions for you, witness JF-094.

11     This, therefore, concludes your evidence in this case.  I would like to

12     thank you very much for -- yes, Mr. --

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank the Chamber.

14             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, it just occurs to me that had this

15     examination proceeded in the ordinary course, that had JF-095 completed

16     his cross-examination and this photograph introduced in the

17     cross-examination, I would have been on notice that -- what the Defence

18     wants to do with this, and I would have certainly in my direct

19     examination of this witness have asked him to explain this.  I'm at

20     somewhat of a disadvantage in the procedure adopted by the Chamber.  I

21     think it's somewhat unfair of the Defence to introduce the photo without

22     any opportunity for me to elicit from the person who has the most

23     information who is sitting before you his explanation as to what he knows

24     about why it got into this condition.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And if the order would have been opposite, you

Page 7176

 1     would have had no opportunity either would it?

 2             MR. GROOME:  That is true.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  If 94 would have preceded 95?

 4             MR. GROOME:  I think I would have made some arguments as to why

 5     it wasn't put to the witness before since this is the witness who has

 6     information.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me check with my colleagues

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, this witness -- we have heard evidence

10     that this was not the standard, this was not normal, this was

11     exceptional.  If you would argue strongly that the Chamber could not

12     interpret that evidence without knowing exactly why it was exceptional,

13     then we would not disallow you perhaps under those circumstances to ask

14     one question.  If, however, you would think that the Chamber would accept

15     that this was the not normal situation, whereas archives are usually kept

16     in a different way, if that would sufficiently assist the Chamber, then

17     you're encouraged not to re-open your examination.

18             MR. GROOME:  If it -- it seems that it will not assist the

19     Chamber, so I will not -- I will decline to ask to re-open.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Witness JF-094, I was about to thank you for

21     coming to The Hague and you've shown a great flexibility in being

22     available, which certainly has not been very convenient to you.  I would

23     like to thank you very much on behalf of the Chamber for coming, even

24     coming twice, for having answered the questions that were put to you by

25     the parties and by the Chamber, and I wish you a safe return home again.

Page 7177

 1             Would you please --

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank the Chamber.  Your Honours,

 3     I'm available to this Tribunal whenever necessary.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for that offer.  Could you please

 5     follow the usher who will escort you out of the courtroom.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I finally address you, Mr. Cvetkovic and

 8     Mr. Ignjatovic, apart from one small moment where there was perhaps a

 9     matter which would have needed further discussion, apart from that I

10     think the examination of the witnesses went smoothly.  It was a pleasure

11     for the Chamber to have you present and I wish you the same, that is a

12     safe journey home again, whether it's close or further away.  Thank you.

13     You may follow the usher.

14                           [Representatives of Serbia withdraw from the court]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We return into open session.

16                           [Open session]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

19             I earlier informed the parties that the Chamber would like to

20     have an out-of-court meeting with the parties in order to put an end to

21     not-too-well organised situations.  The Chamber would also like to use

22     that, unless the parties would consider it inappropriate to discuss it

23     anywhere else than in the courtroom, the practicalities of the request

24     for a postponement of the testimony of Mr. Theunens.  The reason why I

25     would like to include that is not to have full argument on that request

Page 7178

 1     or motion but to see whether the Chamber could assist the parties in

 2     finding a solution for what apparently is a problem.  I have on my mind

 3     to have such a meeting on Thursday, further details to be made known to

 4     the parties, but we still need a place to meet.

 5             Is there any objection against, apart from the other matter I

 6     just raised, to also see whether the Chamber can assist the parties in

 7     finding a solution for the scheduling of witness Theunens?  If there are

 8     no objections, we stand adjourned and we resume tomorrow Tuesday, the

 9     14th of September, quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom II.

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day of

12                           September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.