Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8362

 1                           Friday, 29 October 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 9             This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica

10     Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

11             Thank you, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             Good afternoon to everyone.

14             Mr. Theunens, good afternoon to you as well.  I'd like to remind

15     you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given

16     at the beginning of your testimony.  And I apologise to the parties for

17     not having instructed you, Mr. Theunens, yesterday that you should not

18     speak with anyone about your testimony, whether already given or still to

19     be given.  But may I take it that you acted as if you would have received

20     that instruction.

21             THE WITNESS:  Of course, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             Then, as far as scheduling for next week is concerned, as matters

24     stand now, we will sit Monday, in the afternoon, from 2.15 to 7.00;

25     Tuesday and Wednesday, we have a schedule which was prepared in close

Page 8363

 1     cooperation with the Registry, and after having consulted you,

 2     Mr. Jordash, in the morning, from 9.00 to 12.00, that is two sessions

 3     with a break, afternoon starting at 2.30 until 7.00.  That's how we will

 4     proceed next week.

 5             Mr. Theunens, we expect that your testimony will be concluded

 6     Wednesday morning, not later than Wednesday morning, 12.00.

 7             Then for next week, where we have the videolink in the --

 8     starting in the afternoon of Wednesday, we will continue with that

 9     videolink on Thursday where we have the normal hours of 2.15 until 7.00.

10             I do understand that Mr. Stanisic will return to the UNDU during

11     the lunch breaks.  We do understand that he'll have approximately a

12     little bit less than two hours in the UNDU during the break and we try to

13     take care that he will be transported back and forth as quickly as

14     possible.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Could I also mention that on Monday morning,

16     Mr. Stanisic is going to be examined, I think, post-provisional release.

17     I think there's a serious examination just to ascertain what effects, if

18     any, and so I just put that before Your Honours so Your Honours know the

19     picture.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If this has any impact on the court schedule,

21     of course, we'd like to know as quickly as possible.  But if this is

22     examinations which -- if it is just observing on what the effects are, I

23     don't know whether there's any immediate treatment involved or whatever.

24     But we'll see what it results in.  If there's any reason to believe at

25     this moment already that it would negatively impact on the possibility to

Page 8364

 1     have an afternoon session on Monday, then, of course, we'd like to know

 2     now already.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Mr. Stanisic has asked me to convey to the Court

 4     that he will be here on Monday afternoon.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.

 6             Mr. Theunens, the Victims and Witness Section has communicated a

 7     message from the Chamber to your employer.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours, and I have seen the message and

 9     I have had the feedback from my employer.  It's okay.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's good to hear.

11             Finally, when I announced that we would start with the -- with

12     the videolink on Wednesday afternoon, this already means, Mr. Bakrac,

13     that your request to postpone the testimony of Witness JF-052, so not

14     even to start with that, has been denied.  We'll start with the testimony

15     of Witness JF-052 on Wednesday afternoon.  I might come back to that at a

16     later stage.

17             Mr. Jordash, are you ready to -- is there an agreement between

18     the parties on the time you will take and how much time the Simatovic

19     Defence will take?

20             MR. JORDASH:  I'll finish by the end of the day, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, thank you.  Please proceed.

22                           WITNESS:  REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]

23                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]

24        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.

25        A.   Good afternoon, Mr. Jordash.

Page 8365

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could we ask counsel to speak closer to the

 2     mike.  Thank you.

 3             MR. JORDASH:

 4        Q.   Yesterday we left off and we were discussing the travelling of

 5     volunteers into Croatia and you made the point at the end of the day that

 6     and I'll just read you the last sentence.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours, page 8360:

 8             "I can assure you, I mean, the SRS volunteers, again based on the

 9     information I have seen, who participated in the operations in Vukovar up

10     to September 1991, they were coming in by bus."

11             What was the point you were making there?

12        A.   I was answering your suggestion where you indicated, I mean, you

13     wanted to generalise the events, i.e., the movement of SRS volunteers to

14     Eastern Slavonia as it had occurred in May, i.e., using barges to cross

15     the Danube, and I just wanted to clarify that at later on, and again

16     that's part of the bigger picture where the relations or -- excuse me,

17     the attitude of the Serbian authorities towards volunteers change so that

18     later on volunteers travel over land, in this case over the bridges of

19     the Danube, or the highway crossing in the vicinity of Sit [phoen]

20     towards Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem.

21        Q.   But the point I was trying to make yesterday was that the

22     volunteers for Seselj had to travel by boat because travelling across the

23     bridges if they had weapons in their possession would have been

24     problematic because of the Serbian authorities.  Do you accept that?

25        A.   That is what Mr. Seselj and his volunteers state in relation to

Page 8366

 1     how they arrived in Borovo Selo in April, April 1991.  And there would

 2     obviously also be a problem on the side of the Croatian authorities

 3     because you would have to cross the Serbian police check-point when

 4     leaving Serbia but most likely there would have been a -- or there was a

 5     Croatian check-point on the other side of the -- I mean, on the Croatian

 6     border.

 7        Q.   You're not suggesting that the volunteers were travelling in the

 8     bus with weapons, are you?

 9        A.   I can't answer that question.  What I know is that in -- in a

10     suspect interview we conducted here, I mean, we conducted in Belgrade of

11     the deceased General Zivota Panic, it was -- he stated that during the --

12     I mean, after September 1991, volunteers were brought in by bus from

13     Serbia in order to join units fighting in Slavonia, Baranja, Western

14     Srem.

15        Q.   But you will agree with me that --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  But could we -- the question was whether you are

17     suggesting that they had weapons with them on the bus.  Did you suggest

18     that or did you not?

19             THE WITNESS:  I didn't suggest that.  No, I tried to say I can't

20     answer that question.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you do not know.  They may have had, they

22     may not have had.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Could we go into private session for ten minutes,

25     Your Honour, please.

Page 8367

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 2                           [Private session]

 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   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8368











11 Pages 8368-8369 redacted. Private session.















Page 8370

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 8             MR. JORDASH:

 9        Q.   So the document we're looking at records the minutes of the

10     founding assembly of the Serbian Radical Party held on the

11     23rd of February, 1991, in Kragujevac, and you have read this.

12             Now if we go to page 8 of the document.  And could you just

13     explain to the Court what this document is -- when dealing with the

14     1991 founding, what it consists of.

15        A.   I mean, as you indicated, it's a report on, as the title

16     explains, the founding assembly of the -- it's the third fatherland

17     congress of the Serbian Radical Party held in Kragujevac, a report on

18     that.

19        Q.   Maybe we can shortcut things.  Maybe you can remember these

20     things.  Doesn't this record the minutes of what was said?

21        A.   It is possible.

22        Q.   Well --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm just -- I'm not clear, I'd like to

25     follow along.  Is the correct page on the screen?

Page 8371

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, it's --

 2        Q.   And we try to -- it is basically the speeches or at least some of

 3     the speeches that were made during this founding occasion.  And in it,

 4     various members of the Serbian Radical Party make various comments.  And

 5     one comment they make is a comment that the Communist party wanted to

 6     destroy the opposition at that time.  Do you recall this?

 7        A.   I mean, it was generally known that that was the perception with

 8     more nationalist parties.  There was a deep distrust, at least on

 9     ideological level, between the nationalist parties and the -- what they

10     call the Communists or the SPS.

11        Q.   Yeah.  You can see that in the document:

12             "We need to dispel --" about halfway down the page.

13             "We need to dispel all the Communist illusions that have been

14     planted in order to break up the Serbian opposition parties and turn them

15     against one another."

16             And then if we go over to page 28, please.

17             And you'll see reference there in the second paragraph:

18             "In early March, the Serbian Freedom-loving Movement and part of

19     the Serbian National Renewal merged to form the Serbian Renewal Movement.

20     That was when Vuk Draskovic was sacked from the Serbian National Renewal.

21     We offered him a helping hand, as we knew that this was -- or this is --

22     was the doing of the police."

23             Did you know about that?

24        A.   I don't remember the exact details of that.

25        Q.   Right.  You didn't make a note anywhere of the significance of

Page 8372

 1     that, that the -- Seselj at least thought that the police, the Serbian

 2     police had been responsible for getting rid of Vuk Draskovic?

 3        A.   No.  Because it was outside the scope of my report.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Let's go down the page.  Sorry, let's go to page 30.  And

 5     here we have on page 30 a useful history of the opposition parties and

 6     their opposition to the Communist party, the Milosevic party.  Do you

 7     agree with that?

 8        A.   I mean, the official name of Mr. Milosevic's party was the SPS,

 9     the Serbian Socialist Party.  But --

10        Q.   We know that's what they're talking about there when they talk

11     about the Communist party.  Am I right?

12        A.   Could you repeat your question because I'm trying -- I'm reading

13     the text but I'm --

14        Q.   Well, for example --

15        A.   It's difficult to connect it to your question.

16        Q.   Six or seven lines down:

17             "We stood side by side with some other opposition parties in

18     their efforts to control the monopoly of the state media and to secure

19     equal conditions for all political parties in their duels.  We also

20     supported the request for dismissal of the management of the state

21     television and the Belgrade television.  We even said that we would take

22     part in a demonstration over this issue but publicly refused to join in

23     the demonstration with the parties such as Association for Yugoslav

24     Democratic Initiative, reformists and other traitorous parties."

25             What I'm trying to convey is that there is a whole history of

Page 8373

 1     animosity between the government in 1991 and these opposition parties

 2     which doesn't find reflection in your report.

 3        A.   I do not share your position because I would say there was indeed

 4     distrust initially between the nationalist parties and the SPS.  But I

 5     mean as an overall conclusion I would say that at one moment in time, all

 6     these -- I mean these parties, especially the SRS and the SPS, or more

 7     specifically, Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj, they kind of find each other.

 8     And actually Mr. Seselj becomes very useful for Mr. Milosevic to

 9     implement a number of goals, not only political goals, and Mr. Seselj

10     enjoys that position because he can also advance his own position.  And

11     this lasts from, say, the latter half of 1991 until November 1993.  And

12     during this time -- again and I have to reviewed several -- lots of

13     documents related to the SRS war staff since I had to compile a report

14     for the Seselj case.  There is no indication that active measures are

15     taken by the Serbian authorities against the SRS or the SRS war staff.  I

16     know and I have also seen that later on and maybe in some of the

17     materials you have handed over for me to review, that the SDB was

18     monitoring the activities of the war staff, but I'm not aware of any

19     active -- I mean, action to prevent the action or the activities of the

20     war staff.

21        Q.   Let's go to page 31, can we, please.

22             You see there in the first paragraph reference to Borovo Selo.

23     Would you agree that the references you saw to -- emanating from the --

24     either Seselj or the SRS party in 1991 was not making allegations against

25     the assistance by the Serbian MUP or the police, in relation to such

Page 8374

 1     events like Borovo Selo?

 2        A.   I'm not sure I understand your question but I haven't seen any

 3     material linking the Serbian MUP or the police to the incident in

 4     Borovo Selo.

 5        Q.   Let me simplify it.  My issue at the moment is this:  That you

 6     rely in your report on the video "Death Of" -- I think it is "Death of

 7     Yugoslavia" in which Seselj makes various allegations about the

 8     involvement of the Serbian MUP in his war activities.  Correct?

 9        A.   It is one of the -- the sources have I used, that's correct.

10        Q.   But what you don't do is put into your report in the same

11     transparent way the various other speeches from 1991 and 1992 which

12     Seselj makes whereby he doesn't make those same allegations.  Is there a

13     reason for that?

14        A.   Indeed because, again, it comes back to the methodology I

15     applied --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If, before we continue.  I see on the screen B/C/S

17     apparently also page 31 but certainly not corresponding with -- or am I

18     wrong?  I see that Tomislav Nikolic and -- as a speaker and --

19             MR. JORDASH:  I think that -- it probably isn't.  In a moment a

20     file is going to arrive where I have got the pages marked.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because for the public to follow the

22     proceedings if they don't speak English or read English, then please

23     proceed.  And when you're talking about page 31, that is the page 33 in

24     e-court, in English.

25             Please proceed.

Page 8375

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Could we go to --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Do you want me to answer the question or ...

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I interrupted.  Let's ...

 4             THE WITNESS:  What I was trying to say that, of course, I mean,

 5     among the materials I reviewed and -- I mean, I reviewed, there were

 6     numerous speeches by Mr. Seselj as well as representatives from his

 7     parties, and this is all material that is then subjected to the

 8     methodology.  And on the basis of the different materials reviewed, I

 9     draw conclusions and I -- I also select the key documents that explain

10     these conclusions or that show the -- sorry, that provide a basis for

11     these conclusions and in the overall -- when I look at the overall

12     pattern and my conclusion of the role of the SRS and the relation between

13     the SRS and the SPS and the Serbian authorities, the result you can see

14     in my report.

15        Q.   Hold on a second.  In 1995, was the relationship between Seselj

16     and Milosevic a good relationship?

17        A.   At least publicly it was not a good relationship.

18        Q.   Right.  So at least what you've seen it hasn't, because what

19     you've seen is the public stuff, no?  The public material.  You weren't

20     privy to any private communications between them?

21        A.   No.  But if we go into the detailed -- I mean, the no doesn't

22     refer to your question.  I will rephrase it, I'm sorry.  I will

23     concentrate.  But, I mean, if you follow a bit the activities of

24     Mr. Seselj, you will remember that in 1998, out of the blue, he joins the

25     government of unity of his archenemy, Mr. Milosevic.  So I think it is

Page 8376

 1     very difficult to summarise the -- for example, the relations between --

 2     the true nature of the relations between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Seselj in

 3     just a -- one line.

 4             I can say that publicly or what I've seen for the public material

 5     the relation was not good.

 6        Q.   Right.  The relationship was not good.  Seselj gets -- gives an

 7     interview, several interviews, publicly in which he accuses Milosevic of,

 8     effectively, war activities which would link Milosevic to crimes.  Is

 9     that a fair summary?

10        A.   He basically does that in the fall of -- he starts doing that in

11     the fall of 1993, around November, and he even gets arrested for that and

12     I think he spent some time in prison.

13        Q.   Right.  And you would say, well, Seselj didn't have the same

14     motive in 1991 because, well, Milosevic was -- had reached some sort

15     of -- at least easy cooperative relationship at that point.  So he didn't

16     have motive to accuse Milosevic of anything at that point, did he?

17        A.   If you would consider the statements of Mr. Seselj the same as he

18     made from November 1993 onwards, I mean, in isolation of the events he

19     was referring to, I would agree with you.  However, if you compare these

20     speeches with the actual events he is referring to, there is coherence.

21     And, of course, knowing Mr. Seselj, sometimes he exaggerates a bit but

22     overall, I mean, the key aspects of his statements corresponds with the

23     facts.

24        Q.   Well, sorry.  Do you accept that in 1991 Seselj was saying, I was

25     stopped from travelling through Serbia with men with weapons and I was

Page 8377

 1     stopped by the Serbian police.  Do you accept that you've read speeches

 2     where he says that?  We can turn to them if we need to.

 3        A.   It's possible.  I don't remember seeing them but --

 4        Q.   Well, let's turn to one of them.  P1344, which is in your report

 5     at part 3, page 31.  And you rely upon this to -- for the proposition

 6     that during a joint radio interview with Seselj, the president of the SRS

 7     BiH stated that the volunteers in BiH all operated under the command of

 8     the VRS.

 9             But if we go to this, there is more in this interview.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Page 4, please.  Of the English, please.

11        Q.   You see there Seselj, 1992, the bottom of the page:

12             "There are no troops from Serbia or from Montenegro.  That is a

13     fact.  However, there are volunteers who have come to fight for the

14     liberty of the Serbian people and no one can prevent them from coming.

15     We had a lot of problems, you know.  Everything was very much -- was much

16     easier during the war for Srpska Krajina.  Then at first we had to

17     smuggle volunteers across the Danube to Slavonia.  We feared the Serbian

18     police and the Yugoslav Army more than we feared the Ustashas, as we

19     smuggled them across the Danube.  And then, when the war broke out with

20     full intensity, then we cooperated fully with the army."

21             Didn't you find that a significant comment for Seselj to be

22     making in 1992, about the smuggling and the later cooperation with the

23     army, not with the police?

24        A.   But this comment is -- is exactly what I have been trying to

25     explain in relation to the situation in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem.

Page 8378

 1        Q.   No, but the point is why didn't you put this into your report?

 2     Why didn't you -- why did you find the later comments by Seselj where it

 3     implicates the accused or the Serbian MUP significant but not this

 4     comment, in 1992, absent, as you would say, any obvious motive?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I just put on the record that P1344 is

 6     not to be shown to the public and perhaps you should have stated that.

 7     It's MFI'd; it's not an exhibit.

 8             THE WITNESS:  I disagree with your proposition because, first of

 9     all, when I took an excerpt from this book, I mean, the one that I quoted

10     in my report in part 3, page 34, it deals with a section situation in

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina after June 1992, i.e., situation in the field.  What

12     Mr. Seselj is talking about here, he refers again to the situation as it

13     existed in April, May, 1991, in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem, where

14     there are no generalised combat activities yet and as we also know from

15     other sources, I mean including sources --

16        Q.   How do you know he's referring to that exact period?

17        A.   Well, you know, he mentions the Danube, he mentions Slavonia.  We

18     can look at a map if you want.

19        Q.   How do you know he is referring to April and May, and --

20        A.   Because, I mean, read the text:

21             "And then when the war broke out with full intensity, then we

22     cooperated fully with the army."

23             If you -- I mean, that's part of my job here, but if you then put

24     these statements into context and you try to understand them, then you

25     realise indeed what Mr. Seselj says there is coherent with, for example,

Page 8379

 1     other publications of the Radical Party, open source articles and so on,

 2     and also the historical record.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  What apparently keeps you and Mr. Jordash apart is

 4     that the time indication when the war fully broke out, that's for you

 5     when?

 6             THE WITNESS:  When it concerns Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem,

 7     it's August 1991.  More or less.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So that does not yet explain April.  It just

 9     explains before August.

10             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.  But, Your Honours, the most significant

11     event before August in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem was, I mean, the

12     incident of 1st and 2nd of May in Borovo Selo.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although is any specific reference made to

14     that?

15             THE WITNESS:  The text doesn't mention Borovo Selo, but when

16     you -- I mean, reference to smuggling volunteers across the Danube to

17     Slavonia --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that for you an indication that this happened

19     before Borovo Selo, is that how --

20             THE WITNESS:  No.  For me it is linked to the events in

21     Borovo Selo, i.e., the volunteers were smuggled across the Danube to set

22     up local Serb defence or assist in setting up local defence -- local Serb

23     defence structures in Eastern Slavonia.  And one of the -- the operations

24     they conducted was the ambush against Croatian policemen in Borovo Selo

25     on the 1st and/or the 2nd of May, 1991.

Page 8380

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 2             MR. JORDASH:

 3        Q.   Didn't find it significant that Seselj said when the war broke

 4     out in full intensity, his cooperation was with the army.  That wasn't

 5     significant for you?

 6        A.   If you go to my section on the situation in Slavonia, Baranja,

 7     Western Srem --

 8        Q.   If -- if you --

 9        A.   No, but --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let the witness -- if the answer is found there,

11     then, of course, we should look at it.  If it is not, then ...

12             THE WITNESS:  On page 62 of part 2 of the report, I state,

13     Roman IV:

14             "During the combat operations in SBWS, the local Serb TO as well

15     as Serbian volunteers and paramilitaries, including volunteers affiliated

16     with or sent by the SRS/SCP, operated under JNA command and control."

17             And then I go into further details about the structures.

18             MR. JORDASH:

19        Q.   But the point is that at one point in time Seselj is not

20     implicating the MUP.  He is implicating the army.  And that's the point,

21     Mr. Theunens, which you, it seems, ignored.  And I'm asking you why?

22        A.   It's not a matter of me ignoring the MUP -- I mean, the fact that

23     the MUP was not participating there.  I have never stated in my report

24     that the MUP participated in each and every incident.  I've highlighted

25     the involvement of the MUP in those incidents where according to the

Page 8381

 1     documents I reviewed there was a MUP Serbia involvement.

 2        Q.   No.  But the --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try to see what -- what -- Mr. Theunens,

 4     Mr. Jordash puts to you a -- a passage of this book in which Mr. Seselj

 5     is reported as having said:

 6             "At first we had to smuggle volunteers across the Danube to

 7     Slavonia.  We feared the Serbian police and the Yugoslav Army more than

 8     we feared the Ustashas as we smuggled them across the Danube.  And then

 9     when the war broke out with full intensity, then we cooperated fully with

10     the army.  And in agreement with the army --"

11             Now, what apparently triggers Mr. Jordash's question is that

12     Seselj says, We were afraid of the police and the army.  But then, at a

13     certain moment, we cooperated with the army.  Not, we cooperated with the

14     army and the police, so whether they were still fearing the police or

15     whether -- that's unclear.  And Mr. Jordash, apparently, gives some

16     weight to the fact that it was only the army which was mentioned as the

17     institution with which Seselj, after the war had broke out -- had broken

18     out with full intensity, that he mentioned that institution as the one he

19     cooperated with, and has not yet retracted from being in fear of the

20     Serbian police.

21             Mr. Jordash, did I understand you well?

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

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please comment on that.

24             THE WITNESS:  My understanding of this passage from a book from

25     Seselj is that he is explicitly referring to the situation in Slavonia,

Page 8382

 1     Baranja, and Western Srem, more specifically Eastern Slavonia, where

 2     indeed initially they have to cross the Danube.  I mean, the SRS

 3     volunteers have to cross the Danube at night and be smuggled in.  But in

 4     the -- in September, I mean, end of August/September, at the same time

 5     when there is a generalisation of the war there, after the JNA starts the

 6     siege of Vukovar which is in mid of August, 1991, then the volunteers,

 7     including SRS volunteers, are doing combat operations subordinated to the

 8     JNA, i.e., cooperating with the JNA.

 9             And they are welcomed by the JNA because the JNA has manpower

10     problems --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, everything you said until now in your

12     answer was already included in the question.  The issue Mr. Jordash

13     raises is it doesn't say anything about, if I could say, normalisation

14     with the MUP of Serbia.  It doesn't say anything about it.  It just says

15     something about the attitude towards the JNA and, therefore, he wonders

16     whether he -- you should not have mentioned that when Mr. Seselj

17     apparently says that cooperation with the JNA was fine, that he is

18     completely silent on any cooperation in this context with the MUP.

19             Mr. Jordash, did I understand you well?

20             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, perfectly.

21             THE WITNESS:  I apologise for misunderstanding the question then.

22             But in the global framework of the material I reviewed, I would

23     have found it speculative from my side to draw conclusion on something

24     Mr. Seselj didn't mention.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  So, therefore, then you have an option.  We

Page 8383

 1     feared JNA and police at a certain point in time.  We cooperated well

 2     with the JNA, which leaves the MUP situation either the same; still in

 3     fear; either neutral; either very good but not mentioned.  That seems --

 4     and Mr. Jordash is a bit concerned that you did not specifically point at

 5     this matter and I think he also wanted the Chamber to look at that.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then perhaps we could move on.

 8             Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, just since we're on the topic, I just

10     would like to have some context.  I believe that most of the statements

11     by Vojislav Seselj are objected to by the Simatovic Defence.  I think

12     there is over 25 of them, that's just a rough estimate, and it's been on

13     the record, but there are multiple documents.  I know there's

14     representations being made throughout the examination to only one

15     document, only a certain number of documents.  There are additional

16     documents.  So we just believe that the report should be considered in a

17     whole and the material should be considered in whole also.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the reason why I said that it was

19     MFI'd.  The status is --

20             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The status is not yet finally determined and whether

22     it would be the whole of it, or nothing of it, or part it.

23             Please proceed.

24             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, if you allow me, just to give you an

25     example of a -- another operational context.  The operations conducted in

Page 8384

 1     Eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina, Skelani area, end of 1992, early 1993, and

 2     again this is discussed in part 3 of my report.  There the documents I

 3     reviewed indicate a close cooperation between forces of MUP Serbia and

 4     SRS volunteers.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  What you say is at another point in time, at another

 6     place, I found documents which indicate or suggest that there was a close

 7     cooperation, which doesn't change the issue that is before us now.  It's

 8     how to understand this text of Mr. Seselj for this period of time and

 9     this territory.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

12             Could we go back to P1345, please, and the page, please --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is a public document?

14             MR. JORDASH:  It's under seal, please.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Under seal.

16             MR. JORDASH:  And if we could go to page 46 of the English and

17     B/C/S 20 --

18             MR. WEBER:  I'm sorry to interrupt.  P1345, I have as a public

19     exhibit.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Oh, I beg your pardon.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Then ...

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  In e-court it is confidential so we keep it ...

24                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, P1345 is in e-court MFI'd and is confidential,

Page 8385

 1     so we keep it for the time being.  Let's not take no risks.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Page 46 of the English and

 4     28 of the B/C/S.

 5        Q.   And we are, to give you the context, still in the same document

 6     but at a different point in time.  And, again, I think it's the -- would

 7     you agree with this, it's the discussions emanating from some meeting of

 8     the Serbian Radicals?  Does this ring a bell?

 9        A.   When you give -- can you give me the page number where I

10     discussed it in my report?

11        Q.   Page number -- it's footnote 94, I think --

12        A.   Of --

13        Q.   Part 3.

14        A.   Part 3, Okay.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Which is page 33, isn't it.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  When all microphones are on at once, it is

17     extremely difficult to hear the speakers.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The footnote is on page 33, hard copy, although the

19     reference to that footnote is on page 32.

20             MR. JORDASH:

21        Q.   Have you familiarised yourself with the document?

22        A.   I mean, I know where it is in my report.

23        Q.   It's -- it's a document -- it's a document which is attached --

24     it may be the same document to the minutes we saw from the founding --

25        A.   Mm-hmm.

Page 8386

 1        Q.   -- assembly in 1991.  But this is reporting at a later stage.

 2     And if one looks at page 46, the document notes, four lines down:

 3             "During the first year of war until October 1992, the Serbian

 4     Radicals were primarily involved in the defence and liberation of the

 5     Serbian ethnic and historical territories mainly under the command of the

 6     newly established Army of Republika Srpska and Ministry of the Interior

 7     of Republika Srpska."

 8             Were you aware of that comment?

 9        A.   Indeed.

10        Q.   Is that significant to you that that was being said at assembly

11     minutes -- in the assembly of the SRS?

12        A.   It is indeed significant and it's something again, as I explained

13     earlier, to consider in the context of the wider range of sources I have

14     consulted.

15             And if you want, I can go into further details.

16        Q.   I don't think we have got time.

17        A.   But you -- but you could say when he says, like, We were under

18     the command of the Serbian army -- sorry, of the newly established Army

19     of the Republika Srpska, well, the VRS was only established in May 1992,

20     so when you link that to October 1992, and there is a reference to the

21     first year of the war, it raises some doubts about the credibility of the

22     information.  But I wouldn't discard it.  You look at it in context.

23        Q.   Okay.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Can we go to, please, Exhibit 4123 -- sorry,

25     Exhibit P1163.

Page 8387

 1        Q.   Part 2 of your report, Mr. Theunens, at page 2.

 2             Now, could you tell us what this is?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  It's under seal; I beg your pardon.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Could -- could you please repeat the page number,

 5     because I'm not sure it's correct.

 6             MR. JORDASH:

 7        Q.   Well, perhaps we can just look at the document itself anyway.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to know where

 9     in the report it's at, just so we can follow.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Page 60, part 2.

11        Q.   Have you found it?

12        A.   I have D48 and P1099 discussed on page 16 of part 2.

13        Q.   Part 60, 6-0.

14        A.   Ah, 6-0.  Sorry.  Okay.

15             Indeed.

16        Q.   And, again, if we were to go to the end of this interview, it's

17     29th November 1991, and if we look at what Seselj says at the first

18     paragraph:

19             "We are not allowed to discuss the numbers of our volunteers

20     until this war is over."  I miss out the next line.

21             "However we don't have our own formations.  Our volunteers are

22     subordinated to the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja and

23     Western Srem, Western Slavonia and the Serbian Krajina, depending on

24     where they are.  We do not have any kind of a partisan military

25     organisation."

Page 8388

 1             Were you aware of that speech?

 2        A.   Indeed, I am aware of.

 3        Q.   Significant or not to you?

 4        A.   It's the same as I said before.  I mean, all this material is

 5     significant, but you apply the methodology and you consider it in the

 6     context.  And, I mean, the context you can find in my report.  More

 7     specifically for -- for example, P1173, clearly explains that in -- in

 8     October, November, the SRS volunteers who are participating in the

 9     fighting in the Vukovar area are subordinated to OG South, JNA OG South.

10        Q.   But you do rely in your report on a Seselj speech in 1995, where

11     Seselj says his men were always subordinated to the Serbian MUP's men,

12     don't you?

13        A.   Could you point me to that speech?

14        Q.   If you'd go to, first of all, part 3, footnote 95.  And it's P18.

15        A.   But that's exactly what I've been trying to say earlier because

16     he is talking about a different region, I mean, geographic area.  As you

17     can see on page 33, Seselj in his -- I mean, the section I took from his

18     interview for "Death of Yugoslavia" refers to Srebrenica and Skelani.

19     And when we look at the specific documents, military documents and other

20     documents I have included --

21        Q.   No, I think -- sorry to correct you but he is referring as

22     examples to Srebrenica and Skelani.  "Our volunteers were often under

23     their command in Srebrenica and Skelani, for example ..."

24             And then he goes on to say:

25             "Some of our members produced some papers then from which it was

Page 8389

 1     evident that we were always under their command."

 2        A.   But are you reading from my report?

 3        Q.   I'm reading from your report which quotes the relevant speech.

 4     At the top of the page 34, part 3.  When you're quoting from the

 5     report -- from Seselj's interview which was played in the "Death of

 6     Yugoslavia" documentary?

 7        A.   Yeah, but, okay.

 8        Q.   Why do you quote that but not when -- the very many other times

 9     when he said that his men were under somebody else's command?

10        A.   No, because, I mean, page 33, part 3 deals with

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Mr. Seselj makes a speech or provides information on

12     how his volunteers participated in certain operations in

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It wouldn't make much sense to start to talk about

14     Eastern Slavonia there.

15             And, I mean, as I just -- as I just read out in part 2 in for --

16     and as I confirmed here in my testimony, when they participate in combat

17     operations in the Vukovar area, from the arrival or the days after the

18     arrival of the Guards Brigade, they were under the command of OG South

19     throughout the operations until the dissolution of OG South.  And that's

20     also reflected as such in my report.

21             What I tried to do in my report is reflect the facts.

22        Q.   Okay.  Well, let's just move on.  I think I have, hopefully, made

23     the point.  Would you agree with this, that it's only in 1993, at a time

24     when Seselj's men are being, as you say, arrested at that point, that

25     Seselj starts to make speeches accusing the police, the Serbian police of

Page 8390

 1     being involved with his volunteers, or can you point to earlier speeches

 2     where he does the same?

 3        A.   Ideally we would have my Seselj report.  But I can say that based

 4     on my recollection he indeed intensifies the number of speeches and

 5     public statements on these activities after his fallout with Milosevic.

 6     But what I have tried to show in my report that there are official

 7     documents as well as reports by MUP RS and again other official sources

 8     that largely corroborate Mr. Seselj's speeches in relation to cooperation

 9     or coordination with the MUP Serbia, in -- for what the participation of

10     SRS volunteers in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned, more

11     specifically the takeovers during spring 1992, as well as the operations

12     in Eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina, Skelani, Srebrenica, early 1993.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Could we go, please, to P18.

14             MR. WEBER:  It's -- it's a video, I believe.  Are we going to

15     play a portion or transcript?

16             MR. JORDASH:  Give me a moment, please.

17             It's P -- could I just have a moment.

18                           [Defence counsel confer]

19             MR. JORDASH:  This is the transcript from the "Death of

20     Yugoslavia."  This is what I'm after.

21             I think it is P18.  I think I was right the first time.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you want part of the video to be played or just

23     the transcript?

24             MR. JORDASH:  No, just the transcript, Your Honour.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

Page 8391

 1             MR. JORDASH:

 2        Q.   Now this is probably, would you agree with this, the clearest

 3     accusation that Seselj makes, naming names in the Serbian MUP.  Have you

 4     seen anything more explicit than this that Seselj said?

 5        A.   I don't remember.  I mean, it was not my -- it was not within the

 6     scope of my report to analyse the accusatory nature of speeches by

 7     Mr. Seselj in relation to the MUP Serbia.

 8        Q.   So you haven't analysed this speech?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, which portion more specifically you

10     want to draw his attention to?  In English the lines are numbered.

11             MR. JORDASH:  In English it's page 12.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 12.  E-court or hard copy?

13             MR. JORDASH:  If I could just take a moment.

14             I'm not sure, I thought it was in this file but it's not.  But

15     it's page 12 of --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 12 --

17             MR. JORDASH:  -- of the English.  Apologies.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  What is said there -- what you -- apparently there's

19     a -- you say you're referring to an accusation.  So let's -- if you would

20     give the Chamber a chance to read that.

21             Well, one bit of luck.  12 in e-court is 12 in hard copy as well,

22     so that resolves one problem.

23             MR. JORDASH:  I think Seselj is asked how did he go to

24     Borovo Selo.  And if we look --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.  So you want us to read on from line 24

Page 8392

 1     down, apparently, because that's where he answers the question about --

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  We've read that.  Can we go to the next page,

 5     please.

 6        Q.   If you read to the bottom of the page, please, Mr. Theunens.

 7        A.   I mean, for your info, in line 11 he also says something about

 8     receiving weapons.

 9        Q.   I know.  That's the --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's -- let's focus -- I want to understand

11     your question and I want to know whether, when we're talking about -- so

12     we're now on page 13, second half of the page.  And I see that reference

13     is made to the Serbian police in, again, line 24.  Let's then read to see

14     what the accusation there is, because that's what you wanted Mr. Theunens

15     to comment on.

16             Do you have it on your screen, Mr. Theunens?

17             THE WITNESS:  Indeed, Your Honours, I have.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  And then we could read it.  One second.

19             Now where is the accusation in this?

20             MR. JORDASH:  It's the allegations concerning where he received

21     the weapons from, or who he had contacts with.  First of all, Vukasin

22     Soskocanin.  At line 19 and 20.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Now what exactly is your question for

24     Mr. Theunens?

25             MR. JORDASH:

Page 8393

 1        Q.   The question is:  What did you conclude, Mr. Theunens, about the

 2     way that Mr. Seselj obtained his weapons through Vuk Soskocanin?

 3        A.   I haven't drawn any specific conclusions, I think, on that.  I

 4     have a brief comment on the incident in Borovo Selo, I think, in the

 5     section SBWS, but I haven't specifically addressed that.

 6        Q.   Did you address anything concerning Soskocanin's relationship

 7     with Bogdanovic?

 8        A.   No, that is outside the scope of my report.

 9        Q.   Did you assess about Bogdanovic's -- whether Bogdanovic,

10     according to Seselj, was acting in his private capacity or on behalf of

11     the institution of the Serbian MUP?

12        A.   No, I haven't addressed that issue.  I mean, it is not my report

13     so I haven't addressed that.  It would be outside the scope of my report.

14        Q.   And so you haven't analysed whether this has had, according to

15     Seselj, if he was at this point telling the truth, anything to do with

16     the Serbian DB?

17        A.   I don't understand the question.

18        Q.   Well, have you assessed at any point whether the alleged supply

19     of weapons through Bogdanovic, if Seselj was telling the truth in 1995,

20     had anything to do with the Serbian DB?

21        A.   No, I haven't looked into the alleged role of Mr. Bogdanovic.  As

22     I said, it's outside the scope of my report.

23        Q.   And you haven't -- at some point Seselj also accuses

24     Franko Simatovic and a number of other state security persons.  Have you

25     analysed that relationship, those relationships?  Is it in your report?

Page 8394

 1        A.   I have not analysed the relationships in detail.  I have

 2     mentioned -- I have quoted the statements Mr. Seselj made, I think, also

 3     for the "Death of Yugoslavia," which would be P18, in which he refers to

 4     the -- in his view, I mean, the role according to him of Mr. Franko

 5     Simatovic.

 6        Q.   But you haven't got -- but Seselj, when he speaks about

 7     Franko Simatovic, doesn't in fact describe a role that Franko Simatovic

 8     played.  He just simply listed a number of names, didn't he?

 9        A.   Yeah.  I think he or Ljubisa Petkovic, who was the chief of the

10     SRS war staff by then, was in contact with Simatovic.  He --

11        Q.   Well, is that in your report?

12        A.   I would have to check.

13        Q.   I mean, what Seselj does during this interview is simply list a

14     number of people, says that he contact with them and leaves it at that.

15     Did you not, then, follow up such an allegation and try to work out

16     through the documents precisely what the nature of that relationship --

17     those relationships were?

18        A.   I mean, that would be the implementation of the methodology

19     and -- and I would conduct searches to find documents.  The documents I

20     have discovered and which again were analysed in the context of the scope

21     of the report, they are included in the report.  For a number of things I

22     wasn't able to identify additional documents, and then the statements of

23     Mr. Seselj have been identified as such as being statements of

24     Mr. Seselj.  Maybe there will be other evidence in the trial that allows

25     to provide a context which could I not provide on the basis of the

Page 8395

 1     documents.

 2        Q.   So all you --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Jordash, and I'm also

 4     trying to find myself back in where we are at this moment.  Let me try to

 5     understand, because I really want to understand what you want to

 6     establish.

 7             We started with speeches by Seselj on from a certain moment

 8     implementing and criticising the MUP.  Then your question was whether

 9     Mr. Theunens had seen any earlier speeches where that was mentioned.  And

10     then you took him to P18, which is an interview dating from --

11             MR. JORDASH:  1995, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- 1995, so it is not an earlier speech.

13             MR. JORDASH:  No.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And you took Mr. Theunens to a passage, it took us

15     awhile to get from page 12 to 13, the end, the beginning, okay.  We

16     finally found it.  And then apparently there is something about weapons

17     and that, I think, does not directly refer to the MUP.  Is that what you

18     wanted to say, that if, in 1995, Mr. Seselj tells us what happened in

19     Borovo Selo or in relation to that, that he doesn't mention the MUP

20     for -- in relation to the weapons?

21             MR. JORDASH:  Our point is this, that in -- in the early speeches

22     before there was such an open conflict between Seselj and the Serbian

23     MUP, Seselj does not implicate in a number of speeches the Serbian MUP

24     for -- for being involved with him and his war effort.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 8396

 1             MR. JORDASH:  1993, and from then on, up until this famous speech

 2     in 1995, Seselj starts to implicate the MUP.  And our critique of

 3     Mr. Theunens is this:  That, number one, all he has done, we say, is

 4     simply list the latest speeches because they happen to support the

 5     Prosecution case.  And, two -- I lost my thought.  And, two, what he

 6     hasn't then gone on to do which what we would say he should have done,

 7     having listed that speech, is then conduct an investigation to see if

 8     there's any support for it.  And if there was support, to put it into his

 9     report.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try to understand.

11             Later speeches, fine.  Did you see anything in earlier speeches

12     was your question.  And then we were taken to the 1995 recording, which

13     is a later speech.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So we never ended up in the earlier speeches and

16     there you say in the 1995 speech we again find involvement of the MUP or

17     not.

18             MR. JORDASH:  We've looked at -- we've looked at the founding

19     assembly and then a follow-on meeting which was in 1991, and we've looked

20     at another document which was a Seselj speech from 1991.  And then we've

21     looked at the 1995 and that's what we're looking at now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then the portion at the bottom part of

23     page 13, is that now to indicate that he does imply the MUP or that he --

24             MR. JORDASH:  He does.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  He does.

Page 8397

 1             MR. JORDASH:  But Bogdanovic was the minister of interior up

 2     until around July of 1991.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So, I'm just trying to understand fully.  We

 4     started, later speeches he implies the MUP, but that's only later.  And

 5     on from a certain moment where something had happened, do you find

 6     anything in the earlier ones?  We haven't had a clear answer to that,

 7     because we were taken then, again, to one of the late speeches where you

 8     say it clearly demonstrates, again, that he was then implying the MUP

 9     although --

10             MR. JORDASH:  I think --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- you are specifically pointing at the role of

12     Mr. Bogdanovic.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I think I -- what I took Mr. Theunens to was

14     an earlier speech by Seselj and also the assembly, the earlier assembly.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But you did that before you asked him the

16     question whether there was anything found in the earlier speeches.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, and I think Mr. Theunens implies that there is

18     and I was going to leave it there for future submissions --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay --

20             MR. JORDASH:  -- to demonstrate to Your Honours that there isn't.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  I hope you understand that following the line

22     of what you really -- and that you could say, Well, you don't give us

23     enough time, but it's also a matter of structured thinking and giving us

24     an opportunity to -- to follow the line.  And therefore I'm verifying now

25     and then whether I followed you well.

Page 8398

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  Well, I wasn't being as clear as I could have

 2     been.  I accept that.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm not blaming you.  I'm more seeking such

 4     evidence that I can follow.  But we get there, finally we will understand

 5     what you are trying to establish and the line of your questions.

 6             Mr. Weber, I asked you to wait for a second.  Yes.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution is willing to

 8     discussion certain matters with the Defence, amongst them Mr. Theunens

 9     has cited a large range of speeches from 1991 through 1995, later.  You

10     know, they're accurately reflected in the report and in context, and if

11     they're just certain points that he would like to make in terms of

12     factually when certain things show what, we're available to discuss it --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, perhaps is -- is there any way, and that might

14     assist the Chamber, that before you ask questions on a certain matter,

15     that you briefly, in three, four, or five lines, you set out the position

16     of the Defence is this and this and this and this, and in order to verify

17     our position I'd like to take you here, there, there.  Then it's far

18     better possible for us to follow.

19             Mr. Weber, would have you any problem with that?  Because

20     finally, sooner or later, between the lines, we're supposed to learn

21     exactly what the position of the Defence, in relation to those specifics,

22     is anyhow.

23             MR. WEBER:  No.  That would be appreciated.  There's a lot of

24     characterisations going on and I think it takes some time to get some

25     materials.  So the Prosecution would have no problem if it was set out

Page 8399

 1     like that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, then you could more quickly get to the

 3     point.  You could even explain to us in advance, before you have elicited

 4     evidence, what the point is.  Think about it, whether it fits into the

 5     art of cross-examination, and --

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Sometimes it does and sometimes --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then it is a suggestion.  If you could follow

 8     it, that would be -- that might save some time.  And art and artists,

 9     that's, of course, in a courtroom, always a -- an issue.  The Chamber

10     would like to understand what the issue is and what the related facts

11     are.

12             We'll have a break.  We're a bit late, as a matter of fact.  I'm,

13     to some extent, responsible for that.

14             We resume at ten minutes past 4.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   Just to wrap up this subject, Mr. Theunens.

20             If we look at the exhibit we have on the screen, and page 14.  In

21     the B/C/S page 15, please.  And we see there halfway down the page at 19,

22     Seselj is accusing Bogdanovic of assisting from July 1991; correct?

23        A.   I -- I mean, the English page I see, I don't see a July 1991.

24     But maybe I --

25        Q.   Sorry, the English page is 13.

Page 8400

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Can we go to 14, please.

 2        Q.   And Seselj says at the bottom there that his contacts, first of

 3     all, were with Vukasin Soskocanin.  Then he met Bogdanovic in July 1991,

 4     when Seselj was elected deputy in the National Assembly.  Do you see

 5     that?

 6        A.   Indeed.

 7        Q.   And can you confirm that, at that point, Bogdanovic wasn't the

 8     minister of the interior?  He was, in fact, the president for the

 9     organisation for Serbs outside of Serbia.

10        A.   I don't know.  It's possible.  I don't know.

11        Q.   You didn't look into that?

12        A.   No.  And again to clarify, I don't think I have used this part of

13     Mr. Seselj's interview for the "Death of Yugoslavia" in my report, and

14     certainly not to discuss involvement of the minister of interior of

15     Republic of Serbia in the arming of volunteers.  I refer to P1048, which

16     is a official VJ security organs report.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Could we go to page 15, please.  And page 15 of the

18     B/C/S.

19        Q.   And at the top there, we'll see Seselj goes on to say:

20             "First of all, they obtained weapons from Vukasin Soskocanin, and

21     then after the Association of Serbs from Croatia had been formed, they

22     took over the coordination with the regime regarding the weapons

23     deliveries."

24             Did you look into the role of the Association of Serbs from

25     Croatia, which Bogdanovic was the president, in delivering weapons?

Page 8401

 1        A.   It -- I'm not sure whether I include in my report but it's

 2     something that we discussed yesterday when we discussed the different

 3     origins of the weapons that became available to local Serbs in Croatia.

 4     The Association of Serbs in Croatia played a role in that, as other

 5     institutions -- as well as other institutions.

 6        Q.   And going over the page to page 16 and 17 of the B/C/S.

 7             And halfway down the page, Seselj makes the point that Milosevic

 8     knew all about it.  There is no doubt there.  Key people from the police

 9     at that time, with whom we established cooperation, were Radmilo

10     Bogdanovic, Mihalj Kertes and others, Franko Simatovic called Frenki.

11     And so on.

12             You didn't, in your analysis, go on to analyse the role of those

13     three in the delivery of weapons on behalf of Seselj?

14        A.   No.  As I said, I haven't used this interview and I used official

15     documents which clarified the role of a number of institutions in the

16     arming of volunteers, including the fact that the minister of interior

17     was well aware of the arming of -- of this activity, i.e., the arming of

18     volunteers.  We have, for example, P1054, we have discussed over the

19     previous days.

20        Q.   And you made the point I think before the break that you -- you

21     have seen documentation to connect Simatovic to Petkovic.  Is that what

22     you were saying?

23        A.   I don't think I used the word "documentation," I mean -- or maybe

24     open-source articles.  If I had seen official documents or primary

25     sources, I would have included them in my report, and I don't think I

Page 8402

 1     have included such documents in my report.

 2        Q.   So -- well, I'll leave it at that, then.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Could I ask, please, on the -- put on the

 4     screen ...

 5        Q.   Have you ever heard -- before I come to that, have you heard,

 6     Mr. Theunens, of Operation Tomson?

 7        A.   I am familiar with the name, yes.

 8        Q.   What was it?

 9        A.   I remember -- or I have a recollection of an Operation Tomson

10     which consisted of providing weapons to local Serbs.  But I also believe

11     that the name has been used for different types of operations.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have on the screen, please, 1D1331.

13             THE WITNESS:  Is this one of the documents you provided to me

14     or ...

15             MR. JORDASH:  No, no, it's not.  It's coming up on the screen.

16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

17             MR. JORDASH:

18        Q.   Now this is a Ministry of Internal Affairs from Serbia document,

19     state secret, 23rd of July, 1991.  And this explains what

20     Operation Tomson was.  And if you read it, you'll see that Operation

21     Tomson was an operation by the Serbian MUP, beginning on this date, an

22     operation to do what it could to prevent the formation of paramilitary

23     organisations within Serbia.

24        A.   Indeed, that's what the document states.

25        Q.   And we can go over the page, if we need to, but that's what the

Page 8403

 1     document says.

 2             But you've never heard of this operation, Operation Tomson --

 3        A.   I have heard of it and this refreshes my memory.  Maybe I was

 4     confused.  I thought that the name Tomson has also been used in the

 5     context of providing arms, because Tomson refers to the name of one of

 6     the type of arms that was provided.  But this again, this refreshes my

 7     memory, the document you show me.

 8        Q.   Well, did you ever request information -- when did you learn

 9     about Operation Tomson, this operation by the Serbian MUP?

10        A.   I have a recollection that Ms. Brehmeier at the time after the

11     filing of report mentioned it, but without further implications.  And I

12     may have carried out some searches on it while working at the OTP.  Yeah,

13     but that was for sure after the filing of my report.

14        Q.   Do you agree that it's this operation which ought to have been

15     assessed as part of your report to arrive at a reliable conclusion

16     concerning the Serbian MUP's conduct?

17        A.   Not necessarily.  Because we would have to see the effectiveness

18     of the operation.  When I look at the documents that I have included in

19     my report, my conclusion would be that the operation was not effective

20     for whatever reason.  But I could for sure have included it, but again

21     the other documents are very clear.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have on the screen, please, 1D1111.  And

23     the page in e-court is 1D01-0647.

24        Q.   And this is a report arising from that operation, I suggest,

25     Mr. Theunens.

Page 8404

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   One of many reports but which we're not going to have time to go

 3     through today.  But just to give the Court some understanding, this

 4     report from the Belgrade state department -- state security department,

 5     the 1st of August, 1991, reports on the creation of paramilitary

 6     formations organised by the unregistered Serbian Chetnik Movement, SCP,

 7     and the Serbian National Renewal.  And if we go over the page to

 8     1D01-0648, page 2, there's a report which reads:

 9             "On the 8th of July, 1991, the Main Staff met ..."

10             And this is referring to the Chetnik movement:

11             "... met on the premises of the association and adopted new

12     decisions regarding the further organisation of the Serbian army."

13             And then we go further down to the page to this second paragraph,

14     where the report notes that the DB has information that, apart from

15     Ljubisa Petkovic and Zoran Rankic from the SCP, also directly involved in

16     the transfer of volunteers to either Slavonia or the SAO Krajina were

17     Dragoljub Bulat and Zoran Ciganovic.  For example, on 8th of July, 1991,

18     they arranged for a group of volunteers to be ferried across the Danube

19     to Borovo Selo.

20             And further down on the same paragraph, the DB seems to be

21     observing something to do with Captain Dragan, where it says it was sent

22     back -- this is the ferry.  Was sent back with the comment of

23     Captain Dragan, member of Martic's special forces, that they should be

24     better organised and seek prior consultations with Martic and Babic, and

25     that they did not need either Chetnik or partisans, but only Serbian

Page 8405

 1     volunteers without any symbols.

 2             Is this anything -- is this familiar to you, these -- the

 3     description by the Serbian DB?

 4        A.   Yeah.  But you used the word "ferry" in connection to Dragan and

 5     I don't see that in the text.

 6        Q.   Well, for example -- it's fourth line in the second paragraph.

 7     It says:

 8             "For example, on the 8th of July, 1991, they arranged for a group

 9     of volunteers to be ferried across the Danube to Borovo Selo."

10        A.   But that's what I have been trying to explain from the beginning.

11     We have to look at each region -- we have to look at the regions

12     individually, i.e., based on the facts.  The document does not -- the

13     document confirms that indeed the volunteers, SRS volunteers went to

14     SBWS, they were ferried in April or May 1991.  But --

15        Q.   But the point I'm --

16        A.   -- Dragan is not referring to a ferry for volunteers who were

17     going to the SAO Krajina.  It wouldn't make much sense.

18        Q.   The volunteers were sent back to Vaske and subsequently to the

19     training ground in Pikravica [phoen].  The same happened with the second

20     group of volunteers led by Zoran Ciganovic, which was sent to the SAO

21     Krajina 9th of July, 1991.

22        A.   Indeed, but there's no reference to a ferry there.  You --

23        Q.   Okay.  That's --

24        A.   When you read it out, you mentioned a ferry.

25        Q.   Well, I apologise for mentioning ferry.  But were you aware that

Page 8406

 1     the DB was watching Petkovic, Dragan, Martic, and Babic and reporting on

 2     it at the Belgrade DB?

 3        A.   There are examples in P1062 which we discussed earlier.  The

 4     document from the VJ -- excuse me, from the SFRY armed forces security

 5     administration on Dragan shows that the DB is first watching Dragan and

 6     then, according to the document, subsequently they recruit Dragan.  If

 7     you --

 8        Q.   Well, Mr. Theunens, I'm really short of time.  Can you try to

 9     keep your answers --

10        A.   Yeah, but --

11        Q.   -- to the questions that I ask.

12             Were you aware that they were watching -- sorry.

13        A.   I'm sorry.

14        Q.   Please could you just answer the question because I need to

15     finish today.

16        A.   I was aware but I tried to explain there is an evolution.

17        Q.   Turn over the page to 4, please.  1D01-0650.  And again, second

18     paragraph:

19             "Unconfirmed reports indicate that Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan,

20     has founded a so-called Serbian volunteer guard made up of his supporters

21     with a view to uniting all Belgrade patriots in order to help the Serbs

22     in vulnerable areas of Croatia.  These individuals allegedly have

23     membership cards.  They are armed with Heckler and Koch automatic rifles

24     supplied by Arkan, and train regularly at the Red Star football club

25     stadium.  According to these same sources, these automatic weapons can be

Page 8407

 1     bought through Arkan for 3.000 to 3.500 German marks apiece."

 2             Were you aware of these facts, Mr. Theunens?

 3        A.   I am aware of them and my reflection would then be, okay, what

 4     was done with that information?  Because the information as such is

 5     useful but then you would expect the organ that orders or that instructs

 6     its staff to gather that information to act upon it.

 7        Q.   And you were not aware of these reports at all, were you, when

 8     you conducted your analysis?

 9        A.   I don't -- I don't recall seeing this specific document before,

10     but I have included -- I made a reference to -- it's P1058, that the

11     state security -- excuse me, the State Security Service of the Republic

12     of Serbia collected information on the activities of at least one

13     volunteer group.  It's footnote 260.  So --

14        Q.   And what I've given you and you've looked at is a series of

15     reports arising from Operation Tomson; is that correct?

16        A.   That's correct.  And they are coherent with this one.

17        Q.   And if we, for the sake of brevity, we go to 1D, please, 1D369,

18     which is, I hope, the programme orientation of the State Security Service

19     in 1991.  And it's an extract.  If we go to the next page, 1D00-9665.

20     And we see there:

21             "Republic of Serbia Secretariat of the Interior State Security

22     Service programme orientation of the State Security Service in 1991.

23     Extremism in the country.  In order to oppose all forms of extreme

24     nationalist, chauvinist and separatist activity ..."

25             Reading into the second paragraph:

Page 8408

 1             "The information obtained by the service so far, the experience

 2     and assessments indicate that the priority tasks in 1991 must be to

 3     detect, document, and oppose the extremist activities of national

 4     chauvinists which aims forcibly to destroy or jeopardise the

 5     constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia," and so the report goes

 6     on.

 7             Wouldn't -- don't you accept this, wouldn't your report have been

 8     more complete if you had asked for these types of reports from the

 9     Serbian MUP in order to come to your final conclusion about what the

10     Serbian MUP was doing?

11        A.   I don't know -- I don't know when this document -- whether this

12     document is available to the OTP.  It was not available to me.  I could

13     have included it in order to highlight, okay, what the programme of the

14     State Security Services was, but then, of course, I would look into

15     the -- the -- the way how this programme was implemented.  And that is

16     what I have tried -- I mean, this latter aspect, the implementation, is

17     something that I have tried to address in my report.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have, please, 1D385 on e-court, please.

19     1D00-9840, I should have said.

20        Q.   And we see here 27th of August, 1991.  Official Note.  And I

21     won't read it, but it's -- you've seen this, haven't you?

22        A.   I have seen it and I'm familiar with the contents, I mean, to

23     general aspects.

24        Q.   And you've seen a number of reports showing that the DB had Arkan

25     under observation in 1991?

Page 8409

 1        A.   Yes.  And if you want, I can explain what my conclusion is on the

 2     basis of those documents when I linked them to those included in my

 3     report.

 4        Q.   Please do.

 5        A.   It is obvious from, for example, when you look at the CV of

 6     Arkan, that these were people, I mean, Arkan and other important

 7     volunteers, were people of a special nature.  Arkan had a criminal record

 8     not only in -- I mean, in Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden.  And,

 9     of course, these people they are organising armed groups.  These armed

10     groups, as was indicated in one of the other documents you have shown,

11     especially when they are organised by political parties could represent a

12     threat to the state order in the country, i.e., the state order and the

13     constitutional order in Serbia.  So it's -- I would consider it mandatory

14     for a State Security Service to keep an eye on this group -- these kind

15     of groups.

16             What we then see is that at one moment time, is it by fall -- at

17     the latest by fall 1991 the authorities start to use these groups because

18     these groups assist in implementing the goals of the authorities --

19        Q.   Well, you can't say, can you, from what you've seen, that the DB

20     was using these groups?

21        A.   I see the DB as one of the organs of the authorities.  Now --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to cut matters short here.

23             I think everyone agrees that the DB was embedded in the state

24     organisation of Serbia.  Now what Mr. Jordash wants to know is when you

25     give this explanation when the ... whether you have any source which

Page 8410

 1     specifically points at a specific role of the DB in this process you are

 2     describing, or whether it's rather a state or government-steered

 3     development.  That's what Mr. Jordash is interested in.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, I would like to refer to the

 5     document -- I mean, we have discussed a number of these documents.  I

 6     don't know them by heart but they are documents included in my report,

 7     mainly reports of the security organs of the SFRY armed forces as well as

 8     when it comes to Bosnia-Herzegovina documents from, for example, the RS

 9     MUP, which indicate an involvement of the state security of the Republic

10     of Serbia in relation to a number of these groups.  And for the details,

11     I refer you to my report.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

14             MR. JORDASH:

15        Q.   Why didn't you ask the Serbian MUP to provide you with the daily

16     reports, or weekly reports, or annual reports, of what it was doing?

17        A.   I'm trying to think of how I can give a short explanation.

18             I have not myself asked the Serbian DB for their daily reports

19     but I know that the Stanisic-Simatovic trial team, I mean, Office of the

20     Prosecutor, organised a number of archive missions.  I'm not hundred per

21     cent familiar with the nature of the documents they requested prior to

22     the missions.  I have seen, and mainly after the compilation of these

23     reports -- excuse me, of my report, a number of spreadsheets where

24     documents that had been obtained from the government of the Republic of

25     Serbia in response or as a result of these archive missions were listed.

Page 8411

 1        Q.   Why didn't you ask for them?  Why didn't you ask the Prosecution

 2     to give you the reports?

 3        A.   That's not how it works.  I conduct searches in the databases

 4     that are available in the Office of the Prosecutor.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6        A.   And, of course, I conducted searches on documents using various

 7     key words from the DB.  I didn't see these daily reports.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9        A.   These documents here I have not seen before you gave me the hard

10     copies.

11        Q.   Let's have a look at one more, please.

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8412











11 Pages 8412-8413 redacted. Redaction order.















Page 8414

 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             MR. JORDASH:  Can we have on the screen, please, 1D03 -- 1D01377.

14             Your Honour, may I tender all of these at the end of the

15     examination.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It seems to be a practical proposal.

17             Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:  It does.  I don't know which ones he's exactly

19     tendering so if he could discuss with me during the next recess a list of

20     which ones are being tendered just so we know.  And then if there's any

21     problem with them, we'll --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll find a practical solution for it.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   This is Seselj's testimony in Milosevic, or part of it.  I don't

25     know if you are aware of this.

Page 8415

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Can we go to page 1D02 --

 2             THE WITNESS:  I am aware of Mr. Seselj's testimony in the -- as a

 3     Defence witness in the Milosevic trial.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  1D020906907 [sic].

 5        Q.   And we see there Seselj saying at line 17 -- sorry, at line 21:

 6             "I first met Jovica Stanisic in November 1992 at his own

 7     initiative.  He sent a message through some republican MP that we should

 8     meet.  I agreed, and we met in front of the building, the national

 9     assembly."

10             And then if we go further down the page.  Line 2:

11             "That was just before the new elections, the federal elections in

12     1992."

13             MR. JORDASH:  I think we need to go to the next page.  Down

14     further down the page, please.

15        Q.   And then Seselj says:

16             "After that, after a point in time I was constantly clashing with

17     Jovica Stanisic.  He was head of the State Security Service of Serbia,

18     and after our fierce conflict with the service, they made every effort to

19     break up the Serb Radical Party."

20             Do you accept what Seselj says there?

21        A.   It's difficult to establish the moment in time, the specific

22     moment in time, that refers to, but what I remember is that especially

23     after November 1993, indeed the Serbian Radical Party came under pressure

24     from different institutions in the Republic of Serbia.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Let's go, please, to page 1D02-1101.

Page 8416

 1             The same testimony, Seselj's -- I think if we go down the page.

 2             Could we magnify it a bit, please.  Yes.

 3        Q.   There, at the bottom of the page?

 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                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8417











11 Page 8417 redacted. Private session.















Page 8418

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

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

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

14             MR. JORDASH:

15        Q.   Isn't -- just to finish this topic, Mr. Theunens.  Isn't it

16     obvious or wasn't it obvious to you that Mr. Seselj is not a reliable

17     informant probably of anything.  And yet you rely upon him without

18     critique.

19        A.   You will see -- I mean, if you read my report you will realise

20     very well that I don't rely exclusively on Mr. Seselj.  I have used

21     Mr. Seselj's contemporaneous as well as subsequent statements at a number

22     of occasions, but again, when you look at the report, there are many more

23     primary sources to describe the events I cover in the report and which

24     are then the basis of my conclusions.

25        Q.   So if we read your report we'll see the reasonable critique which

Page 8419

 1     I suggest arises from the nature of Mr. Seselj's personality, will we?

 2        A.   Drafting what you call a reasonable critique on the nature of

 3     Mr. Seselj's personality falls outside the scope of my report.

 4        Q.   That's not quite what I said.  But let's move on.

 5             Let's move to the issue of Zvornik, Bosnia.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Please could we have on the screen P1338.

 7        Q.   You rely upon this at chapter -- part 3 of your report, page 24

 8     to 25, and footnote 73 and 74.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I've lost my screen.  I'm ...

10        Q.   Now, what is this, Mr. Theunens?  And how do you rely upon it in

11     your report?

12        A.   This document is a daily -- daily situation report compiled by

13     the command of the 5th Corps and it's addressed to the 2nd Military

14     District of the JNA, dated 8th of March, 1992.

15        Q.   And it's a report from Lieutenant-General Vladimir Vukovic.  Who

16     is Vladimir Vukovic, or who was he?

17        A.   He must have been the commander of the 5th Corps.

18        Q.   And do you know of the lieutenant-colonel Masirevic mentioned in

19     the report?

20        A.   There is a Masirevic mentioned in the document.

21        Q.   Do you know him?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   And Vukovic describes having received a visit from a colonel in

24     the SSNO, Lieutenant Masirevic, and a civilian named Branislav Lainovic,

25     whom he knew from the television as the leader of the Serb Guards.  Do

Page 8420

 1     you have any knowledge about this direct cooperation between the SSNO and

 2     the Serb Guards?

 3        A.   I have mentioned it in my report on page 24, 25, where, according

 4     to this document, JNA organised the transport of 12 members of the

 5     Serbian Guard from -- I mean, from Gracac in Croatia to Sarajevo.

 6        Q.   And the report reads:

 7             "In the second half of last year and in January this year" --

 8     sorry let's go to page 2.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, can we have the B/C/S text

10     blown up a bit, please.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Is that page 2?  Yeah.  Sorry, I'm just having

12     difficulty with my screen.

13        Q.   "In the second half of last year and in January this year, at the

14     request of the SSNO, first, second, third and political administrations,

15     I admitted Serb Guard groups that arrived to the battlefront on a number

16     of occasions, assigning them to corps units where they carried out combat

17     tasks under unified insignia and integral command.  I deemed this kind of

18     help normal, as there have been similar cases to this day."

19             You don't refer to that passage in your report, do you,

20     Mr. Theunens?

21        A.   No.  Because I quote this document in part 3 which deals with

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina; whereas the fighting in January -- or the second half

23     of last year and January this year refers to fighting in Croatia.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Weber.

Page 8421

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could I see the correct page in the B/C/S version,

 2     because there's reference to possibly different groups known as Serbian

 3     Guards, or Serbian Volunteer Guard.  I just wanted to see what it

 4     appeared like in B/C/S.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We can try to get it on the screen.  Although you're

 6     always able yourself, Mr. Weber, to get this on your screen, in e-court.

 7     You just click on it, then you get it in the separate, and you can choose

 8     all the document details, including the B/C/S original.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  But let's have a look at it.

11             Did you find it?  Which part of the English are you -- we have,

12     at this moment, we have some are handwritten and then a 2, and then a 3.

13     Where exactly were you looking for, Mr. Weber?

14             MR. WEBER:  I guess I was confused.  On page 2 -- well, on

15     page 55, line 11, Mr. Jordash makes reference to this document on page 2

16     and the Serbian Guard or Serb Guard groups.  I just wanted to see -- I

17     wanted to know where that was in the document, and, two, how that is

18     reflected in the B/C/S.  I can look that up and I can continue to look it

19     up.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, you referred to what exactly on page 2?

21     I have to first find it again.  Yes.

22             MR. JORDASH:  It's the top paragraph, Your Honour, and the

23     particular point I'm trying to address is the line indicating that --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  "I admitted Serb Guard groups," that's just above

25     the handwritten portion.  Now the handwritten portion is on, let me see,

Page 8422

 1     I need the original there.

 2             THE WITNESS:  It's on the bottom of page 1, Your Honours, the

 3     fourth line from the bottom.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's have a look.

 5             THE WITNESS:  It says "Grupa Srpske Garde."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see that.  The only thing in the English, I

 7     tried to find the handwriting, which is supposed to be just below or

 8     just ... oh, I see it.  That's the empty page after that.

 9             Yes, I'm satisfied, Mr. Weber.

10             Yes, please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12        Q.   The point is, isn't it, Mr. Theunens, that at the very highest

13     level at this point in time, January 1992, you -- of the SSNO is that

14     it's kind of normal to employ the use of groups such as the

15     Serbian Guard.  Isn't that the point?

16        A.   Indeed when you -- I mean, why, because we have order -- the SFRY

17     presidential order number 73 which clearly stated that volunteer groups

18     are admitted if, and then we go back to the document.  Yeah, if they have

19     a unified insignia, it's the top of page 2, i.e., the JNA insignia and

20     integral command, i.e., single command and control.  So this is -- and

21     I'm just explaining the document.  It is an implementation, in my view,

22     of the SFRY presidential order number 73, which was adopted on the

23     10th of December, 1991.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now, you referred to this document at page 24 of your

25     report under the heading:  "Volunteer paramilitary groups including

Page 8423

 1     volunteer paramilitary groups controlled by or related otherwise to the

 2     Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia."

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Which part, Mr. Jordash?

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Page 24, part 3, Your Honour.

 5             THE WITNESS:  There is indeed a general heading titled 4.  And

 6     then you see the subheadings of the title 4.

 7             MR. JORDASH:

 8        Q.   Yeah.  But this doesn't actually demonstrate that at all, does

 9     it?

10        A.   No, and I have not suggested any linkage between -- I mean, in

11     this section between the Serbian Guard and the Ministry of Interior of

12     the Republic of Serbia.

13        Q.   Right.

14        A.   But there's other documents referred to further on in the

15     section.

16        Q.   Well, didn't you tell us yesterday or the day before that it was

17     the Serbian Guard that had been effectively dismantled by the Serbian

18     MUP?

19        A.   Yeah.  But I don't recall exactly at what moment in time.

20        Q.   Okay.  And then --

21        A.   And -- I believe that the Serbian MUP acted against them at one

22     moment in time but I don't know exactly when.

23        Q.   And this document shows that the participation of volunteer

24     groups from Serbia was being encouraged and endorsed at the highest

25     levels of the military in early 1992; correct?

Page 8424

 1        A.   Well, the military is implementing a political decision.  The

 2     political decision being the SFRY presidential order number 73 --

 3        Q.   So the answer's yes --

 4        A.   -- of the 10th of December, whereby, okay, the SFRY presidential

 5     order has been reduced to a -- yeah, to a smaller body.

 6        Q.   Yeah.  So the answer is yes, it was being encouraged and endorsed

 7     by the military?

 8        A.   I haven't used the word "encouraged" or "endorsed."  We see in

 9     this document that the military is transporting members of a Serbian

10     volunteer group who have accepted to carry out combat tasks under a

11     unified insignia and integral command.

12        Q.   Now, during your testimony I think on the 26th of October, two

13     days ago, you indicated that you hadn't seen any documents indicating

14     that Arkan during the takeover of Zvornik was subordinated to the JNA.

15     In fact, the documents you've seen indicated that the JNA didn't

16     participate.  Do you recall that?

17        A.   I recall the second part but the first part I'm not sure.

18        Q.   Well, what --

19        A.   Okay, no, I agree.  I remember now, indeed.

20        Q.   And --

21        A.   Sorry.

22        Q.   Do you stand by that?

23        A.   Yes.  And, of course, please show me another document.

24        Q.   Sorry.  What do you want me to do?

25        A.   No, if the conclusion I drew on the basis of the documents I have

Page 8425

 1     seen is -- can be challenged with another document, I would, of course,

 2     be happy to review the other documents.

 3        Q.   Now, looking at part 3, page 52 of your report, you cite a

 4     document which indicates that Arkan had some 29 men present in Bijeljina.

 5     Have you seen any documents which indicate that the men he had numbered

 6     more than that?

 7        A.   No.  But if we look at P1371, one could argue they probably had

 8     more men there.  That again --

 9        Q.   What do you say, Mr. Theunens?

10        A.   That's all I can say.  I haven't seen any document -- or I don't

11     remember seeing any document with the precise indication of the number of

12     men Arkan had in Bijeljina.

13        Q.   Now around -- around -- let's move to Zvornik and Arkan.

14             Are you able to say the number of men he had there?

15        A.   No, I'm not.

16        Q.   Approximately, are you able to indicate?

17        A.   No.  Because I don't remember seeing any document providing such

18     figures.

19        Q.   But would it have been, do you think, from your knowledge, less

20     than a hundred?

21        A.   It -- you know --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, if you want to rely on the knowledge of

23     the witness, then we should know where that knowledge comes from.

24             He said something about documents not giving any number, so if

25     you ask him that knowledge which must come from somewhere else, then we'd

Page 8426

 1     like to know where that knowledge comes from.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

 3        Q.   Zvornik, is this correct, was within the zone of responsibility

 4     of the 17th Corps; correct?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6        Q.   And we'll find at chapter 3 of your report, page 56, your

 7     citation of various 17th Corps reporting documents; correct?

 8        A.   Among others, yes.

 9        Q.   Reporting on the event in Zvornik.

10        A.   Indeed.  Among other documents.

11        Q.   And you also note in your report that a Captain Obrenovic

12     attended negotiations between the Serb and Muslim side in Zvornik on the

13     8th of April, in Zvornik.  Am I paraphrasing correctly?

14        A.   Yes, and that is stated in P1380.

15        Q.   Who was Captain Obrenovic?

16        A.   He was an officer in the JNA, but I have no information on his

17     specific position.  But we all know that subsequently he transferred to

18     the VRS.

19        Q.   Captain Obrenovic was present at a -- at a -- at the

20     negotiations.  Do you know anything about that?

21        A.   No.  The only document I -- I could identify that deals with

22     these negotiations is P1380.

23        Q.   And that doesn't explain what his precise role was.

24        A.   It just says that he attended and that actually Arkan was in

25     charge.

Page 8427

 1        Q.   If I indicated that he was the commander of the 336th Motorised

 2     Brigade garrison in and around Zvornik, does that trigger your memory?

 3     This is Obrenovic.

 4        A.   I would like to see a document because it would be unusual for a

 5     captain to be a brigade commander.

 6        Q.   Do you know anything about the 336th Motorised Brigade, the size

 7     of it, for example?

 8        A.   No.  But again, I mean, a captain could be a company commander

 9     but it would be unusual to have him as brigade commander because he would

10     even skip the battalion echelon.  But if you have a document, we can look

11     at it.

12        Q.   How big is usually a motorised brigade?

13        A.   I mean on paper, I would say 1500 to 2.000 people.

14        Q.   Right.  And would that, from what you have seen in terms of

15     documents, accurately or fairly accurately approximate the size of the

16     336th Motorised Brigade in Zvornik?

17        A.   As I said, I'm not familiar with that brigade, so I'm not in a

18     position to say whether -- what the manpower of that brigade was at the

19     time.

20        Q.   Do you know the size or the manpower of the JNA at that point,

21     around Zvornik?

22        A.   No.  I have no precise data.

23        Q.   But approximately are you able to say, from the documents you

24     have looked at over the years?

25             THE INTERPRETER:  The counsel is requested to speak up.

Page 8428

 1             MR. JORDASH:

 2        Q.   Did you hear my question, Mr. Theunens?

 3        A.   I hear your question.  I mean, I -- a corps theoretically would

 4     be more than 10.000 troops but, of course, we also have to look at the

 5     difficulties faced by JNA at the time.  There's very poor response to

 6     mobilisation.  There are people who are leaving and so on, so I cannot

 7     put the precise figure on it.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have on the screen, please, 65 ter

10     1D01375.

11        Q.   Do you know, Mr. Theunens, while this is coming up, who

12     Richard Butler is?

13        A.   Yeah.  I know at least two Richard Butlers but I assume that

14     you're referring to a former colleague of mine.

15        Q.   Right.  And who was he, this former colleague?

16        A.   He was a military analyst in the military analysis team in the

17     OTP.

18        Q.   And he wrote an expert -- I mean, how -- let me start that again.

19             Would you -- no.  Let me -- let me ask you this.  You are aware

20     that he wrote a report in the Perisic case.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, Mr. Registrar informs me that he has

22     difficulties in finding 65 ter 1D01375 in e-court.

23             MR. WEBER:  I'm just wondering if this also is a document that

24     the Prosecution received notice of.  I'm having trouble finding it.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, the Prosecution did have notice of this.  And

Page 8429

 1     it's 1 -- 1D1375.  Should -- it was uploaded ... perhaps --

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  I still can't locate it in e-court.  If the

 3     Case Manager can make sure that it is properly released.  Thank you.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  While that is being done, perhaps I can -- it is

 5     there.  I can see it myself.

 6             65 ter number 1D01375.

 7        Q.   Let me, while that is being found, perhaps read you an excerpt

 8     from it, which we'll find in the public --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly turn off your microphone when not

10     speaking.  Thank you.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm looking at the e-mail.  I got 1D1074

12     skipping 1D1076 to 1D1076 so skipping this specific one in the notice.

13     If someone could please from the Stanisic Defence tell us where got

14     notice of this.  If they could just e-mail me, it would be appreciated.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Okay.  We shall do that and we apologise if there

16     has been some error, and I hope we can still deal with a very small

17     section of the report.  It is a Prosecution report in the Perisic case.

18        Q.   And if I can just read it.  What we have on the screen there,

19     Mr. Butler's view:

20             "With respect to the town of Zvornik, conflict erupted in the

21     early evening hours, the 8th of April, 1992, when elements of the JNA

22     336th Motorised Brigade, Arkan's Serbian Volunteer Guards and local

23     SDS-backed TO units seized control of the predominantly Muslim-populated

24     town."

25             Have you followed me, Mr. Theunens?

Page 8430

 1        A.   I mean, I don't see it so it's a bit difficult.

 2        Q.   You haven't got it on your screen?

 3        A.   No, I don't.

 4        Q.   Oh.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently the Registrar had difficulties in finding

 6     it in e-court and if is not found in e-court, then he can't show it to us

 7     or ...

 8             MR. JORDASH:  We can see it e-court.  I can see it from here.

 9     Maybe it is our error.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Another option may to be give me the doc ID

11     number instead of the 65 ter number.  Yeah.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Okay.  Doc ID is 1D01-9654.  I'm sorry about the

13     confusion.

14        Q.   But if you look at the screen, what I've just said, we'll find

15     that that's what the report says --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we wait for a second.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If it's found.  The doc ID is also not found in

19     e-court.  Then I think it really is time for a break so that we resolve

20     these matters during the break.

21             But before taking a break, I will do a similar thing like I did

22     during the first session, Mr. Jordash.  That is to try to find out

23     whether I understand what you are actually pointing at.

24             MR. JORDASH:  May I --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 8431

 1             MR. JORDASH:  May I discuss that in the absence of Mr. Theunens,

 2     please.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We can do that.

 4             Mr. Theunens, you already -- we'd like to see you back after the

 5     break.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the Usher escort Mr. Theunens out of the

 8     courtroom.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You remember the Valjevo report with the list of

11     weapons seized at the end.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Did I understand you well, that you wanted to

14     demonstrate that at least the Valjevo DB took active action against the

15     position of arms?

16             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.  And we have many document which

17     we will in due course apply to tender as exhibits showing the actions

18     taken by the Serbian DB under Operation Tomson.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now if I read that document, and please

20     forgive me that if it comes new on my screen it takes me a while to go

21     through it, even to scan through it, because there is no way of properly

22     reading it.  Then it -- it relates to people returning from the

23     battle-fields in Eastern Slavonia and then having developed a special

24     interest in weapons which they start training to all kind of other

25     countries, I think Bulgaria or Romania is mentioned, and to bring it into

Page 8432

 1     totally different area.  So my question with that document, now

 2     understanding what you want to establish with that, is whether this was

 3     action taken against arms trading after these people came back from

 4     Eastern Slavonia, or whether it was action taken against those arms being

 5     used by these units.

 6             I'm just putting -- I'm not asking an answer from you but I tried

 7     to understand why you used -- because if I look at the numbers, then if

 8     these are all weapons seized from active members of those groups or units

 9     or whatever call it, in order to prevent them from using them in any

10     further combat --

11             MR. JORDASH:  No.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or whether it is seizing weapons which are used

13     for trading after people came back from Eastern Slavonia, then, of

14     course, for me, there is a question.  Let me put it that way.  I just

15     wanted you to be aware that my understanding of the evidence raises this

16     question, whereas, I apparently understood what you wanted to establish

17     with that.

18             MR. JORDASH:  What our case is, Your Honour, is that the DB had a

19     specific jurisdiction.  Its jurisdiction was to take action to prevent

20     public disorder of the kind which was threatening the constitutional

21     order.  In order to exercise that jurisdiction it had a number of

22     limitations or restrictions.  One of them was the political climate that

23     it was working in vis-a-vis decisions by the National Assembly.  Two, was

24     the limited number of enforcement laws it had within its jurisdiction in

25     order to take action against those whose conduct threatened public

Page 8433

 1     disorder of a gravity which would threaten the constitutional order.  And

 2     it's our case that within the limitations, and there are more limitations

 3     which we will hopefully demonstrate over the course of the trial, within

 4     those limitations the DB was doing what it could to prevent those who

 5     came back from the war front from causing disturbance within Serbia.  And

 6     it's our case that the DB had no jurisdiction to take such action to

 7     prevent volunteers of any kind, extremists or moderate, from leaving

 8     Serbia and engaging at the battle-front.  But it did what it could within

 9     the limitations it had.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Or at least --

11             MR. JORDASH:  For five years, I'm being reminded by Mr. Stanisic,

12     from the date of the Operation Tomson through to --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because I saw Operation Tomson document from

14     1991, and now I see a report after five years which describes at least

15     things that happened over the years.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And -- okay.  I'm just trying -- my main purpose is

18     to try to understand what evidence -- I'm not seeking any evidence from

19     you but I'm just verifying whether I got at least some of the gist of the

20     evidence.

21             Okay.  There was one other matter which I would like to briefly

22     address.  Mr. Weber, you want to --

23             MR. WEBER:  Just because there was a big submission that was put

24     on the record, I just want to say the Prosecution's position would

25     obviously be different.

Page 8434

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  But since this is evidence elicited

 2     by the -- if I have any similar questions, I will address you in order to

 3     verify whether I understood what the evidence is.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  One more matter.  You referred to the testimony, you

 6     said two days ago, the 26th, actually, three days ago, that the witness

 7     had confirmed that Arkan -- that he did not find any document that

 8     Arkan's Men in Zvornik were subordinated to the JNA.  And then in the

 9     question, I'm just trying to understand, because it seemed not to be a

10     problem for you and the witness, that you said, well, the JNA wasn't

11     there at all.

12             Is that -- that would come -- let me just try to find the --

13             MR. JORDASH:  Yeah.  The witness said at transcript 8109:

14             "Actually the reason why I referred to JNA was that the documents

15     I have seen do not indicate any JNA involvement either in the takeover."

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Mr. Theunens is saying both that Arkan wasn't

18     subordinated to the JNA and, in any event, the JNA didn't participate in

19     the takeover.  It was effectively [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that was a bit puzzling to me.  But that's --

21     apparently I have understood what he said.  And then we have a lot of

22     evidence on -- on what various units did.  But perhaps it's important to

23     look at when they did it.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I'm going to be putting to Mr. Theunens, and

25     that's the point of the cross-examination next, is to try to establish

Page 8435

 1     that Mr. Theunens is wrong.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Fine.  Then I'm just --

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- focussing on trying to understand which seems to

 5     be a rather complex area of the evidence.

 6             Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Again, just want to put back on the record that we

 8     have a proper context to the discussion.  Mr. Theunens's testimony on the

 9     26th wasn't necessarily that the JNA wasn't there or in and around the

10     area of the municipality --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing he said - I checked that - that he

12     did not find any document which demonstrates that Arkan was subordinated

13     to the JNA, which can mean that the JNA wasn't there, that the JNA was

14     there but was not subordinated.  It could also mean that the JNA was

15     there, was subordinated, but this is not reflected in any document.  I

16     mean, that's a matter of proper analysis of -- but those words do say

17     that.  Apart from any other --

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe my question was pretty

19     carefully worded to ask precisely around the takeover between the 6th and

20     the 10th of April.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think --

22             MR. WEBER:  I think there are documents that later on

23     [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that I already indicated that looking at the

25     time when interpreting this piece of evidence might be of importance, and

Page 8436

 1     that's what you more or less confirm.  And, Mr. Jordash, you would

 2     certainly not tell us that time is irrelevant.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  No.  Perhaps as well, Your Honour, the Prosecution

 4     could indicate what their case is, whether they say Arkan was operating

 5     [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps --

 7             MR. JORDASH:  -- or not.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps have a chat for -- during the next break to

 9     see whether you can speed up.

10             Then, finally, I do understand that the famous document was found

11     by the Registrar.

12             Mr. Registrar, could you tell us when it was released.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, I can only see the dates.  It was

14     released on the document -- on the documents in e-court which is

15     29th October.  Not the time precisely.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's great.  So it could be our mistake, it could

17     be your mistake.  It was today.

18             We have a break and we resume at 6.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 5.32 p.m.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21                           --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Jordash, there was one

23     outstanding issue I just wanted to -- there was a request for leave to

24     reply.  I don't know whether you've seen it.

25             Mr. Weber, the -- we have not received any responses, I think.

Page 8437

 1             MR. JORDASH:  [Overlapping speakers] ... seen it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any objection to it, or would you like to

 3     respond in writing, or have you made up your mind?

 4             MR. JORDASH:  The -- the difficulty we've got, Your Honour, and I

 5     don't wish to be overly complex about it, but the Prosecution's practice

 6     is generally to request for leave to reply but the reply is in the

 7     request, so ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- if I could use unparliamentary language, I

 9     could say it's a trick applied by many parties before this Tribunal.  Of

10     course the issue is if it would not be granted, of course, we would

11     ignore -- and at the time you would say you have read it already.

12     That's -- I can tell you that for this specific reason I did not look

13     into it in great detail, as a matter of fact.  And -- but I know it,

14     since my staff told me, that the reply is in it already, but I'm not

15     familiar with the content of it.  That's a way of protecting ourselves

16     against what one could call -- at the same time, it's very difficult to

17     argue that the reasons why you need a reply without saying anything about

18     it, so it's a matter of balance.

19             Do you have any opinion about it?

20             MR. JORDASH:  To be honest, I have read it but we haven't

21     analysed it as yet.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Can we respond on Monday.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's fine.  We hear on Monday.

25             Same for you, Mr. Bakrac?

Page 8438

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we're going to have a

 2     look at it, so we'll present our views on Monday.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Fine.  Then we'll hear from you, and then the

 4     Chamber will be able to decide.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just clear up what happened before the

 7     break in relation to the Butler report.  We mistakenly notified the

 8     Prosecution of the wrong excerpt.  That's the difficulty.  And we

 9     notified them of the report and an excerpt which we're not relying upon

10     and missed out the one which we want, which is one paragraph.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I will preface my comments by saying

13     that I do not think that the Stanisic Defence intentionally did anything.

14     With that being said, the Prosecution commenced its examination on the

15     26th of October.  We have received notification of over 3.000 pages of

16     material from both Defence teams for the use during cross-examination.

17     Much of the volume that was notified by the Stanisic Defence hasn't even

18     been used.  This being said, we are now an hour away from possible

19     completion of cross-examination, and even today at 2.08, seven minutes

20     before the start of court, I'm getting notifications of additional

21     documents from the Stanisic Defence.  Additional document, to be clear.

22             It is a prejudice to us right now to notify us to materials with

23     an hour left in the examination [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand it is one paragraph?

25             MR. WEBER:  No --

Page 8439

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Or is it more?

 2             MR. WEBER:  Yeah.  It's 11 pages of an expert report.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, I'm sorry.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  It's one paragraph, Your Honour.

 5             MR. WEBER:  I appreciate that the Defence may only want to put

 6     one paragraph, but if it was a document, it would be easier for the

 7     Prosecution to actually review at the last minute.  But there are over

 8     50 footnotes here of different documents --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I see your problem.  Do you object?

10             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  Notice --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You do object.

12             MR. WEBER:  It's a prejudice to us at this point in time.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We will allow Mr. Jordash to ask questions about the

16     document.  This is not a final decision on whether we'll admit that

17     document.  If -- it's -- it's a bit difficult for the Chamber to rule on

18     that in the blind, not knowing what questions are asked, et cetera.  So,

19     therefore, we will carefully the matter.  We will not at this moment

20     prohibit Mr. Jordash from putting questions.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I ask that multiple paragraphs of the

22     document get put to him, not just one.  You're asking an expert to

23     comment on another expert's report in a vacuum without that expert having

24     looked at or reviewed the material.  That's the situation that now

25     arises.  So they have had the opportunity to present this information to

Page 8440

 1     the expert and only now with -- with extraordinarily late --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's --

 3             MR. WEBER:  -- notice --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's do the following.

 5             Mr. Theunens, who will be here after the weekend as well, will

 6     have an opportunity to read the whole of the document during the weekend

 7     and that, to some extent, I think, would meet some of your concerns.  And

 8     that there will be an opportunity for him to draw the attention to other

 9     matters and you can ask questions in re-examination, if you wish to do

10     so.

11             MR. WEBER:  Just because we're developing a record as we go here,

12     we ask that Mr. Theunens be allowed to read the document before

13     commenting even on a portion of it because otherwise it is out of

14     context.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, how much time would you need for that

16     document?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I was simply going to put the paragraph to

18     Mr. Theunens and see if he agreed with that conclusion reached by Mr. --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That would take how many minutes?

20             MR. JORDASH:  One minute.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  One minute.  Then I suggest that it would be the

22     minute from quarter past 2.00 on Monday, until 16 minutes past 2.00 on

23     Monday.

24             Is that a solution, Mr. Weber?

25             MR. WEBER:  Yes, I -- the concern is -- well, it's not a

Page 8441

 1     solution.  We do object and --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that point but that would at least meet some

 3     of your concerns.

 4             MR. WEBER:  If Your Honours are overruling my objection, you're

 5     overruling my objection.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At least we would not disallow Mr. Jordash to

 7     put questions.  We have not decided yet on the admission, but Mr. Jordash

 8     is allowed to put questions on Monday between 1415 and 1420.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, and I believe that --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And then --

11             MR. WEBER:  -- the parties are entitled to some type of notice

12     also, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Jordash, you have an opportunity to

14     introduce that matter, but really five minutes, so that is five times for

15     what you asked, on Monday.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

17        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the JNA 17th Corps, as we've heard, was in the

18     vicinity of Zvornik and that was its zone of responsibility; correct?

19        A.   That is correct, Your Honours.

20        Q.   And from the earliest time that operations -- military operations

21     began in the vicinity of Zvornik, the JNA 17th Corps was present?

22        A.   Indeed, Your Honours, that's my understanding on basis of the

23     documents I have reviewed.

24        Q.   So at the time when the conflict erupted on the 8th of April,

25     elements of the JNA Motorised Brigade, the 17th Corps, were there in

Page 8442

 1     this -- in its zone of responsibility, Zvornik?

 2        A.   Zvornik was located in the zone of responsibility of the

 3     17th Corps.  But I have, again on the basis of the documents I have

 4     reviewed, no detailed knowledge of the actual deployment in the Zvornik

 5     area.

 6        Q.   What was it doing in the Zvornik region?

 7        A.   Well, it's part of its zone of responsibility.  I mean, in

 8     peacetime it is part of the peacetime garrison; and in wartime, yeah,

 9     they may have had plans to defend the territory in that area.

10        Q.   Did, from the documents you have seen, it have plans to defend

11     the territory?

12        A.   I mean, the documents I have reviewed, the 17th Corps documents

13     as well as the document from the -- I think it is Republic of Serbia TO

14     document, they just indicate that the 17th Corps is reporting what is

15     happening in Zvornik, but I couldn't see any active involvement of 17

16     Corps units in these documents.

17        Q.   Wasn't the 17th Corps there and, I think as you've testified,

18     concerned about the growing situation and planning operations to ensure

19     some kind of JNA control?

20        A.   It would be easier if you would show me the specific document for

21     the latter part, because indeed they were reporting that the situation

22     was -- was tense, and this starts on the 8th of April, where there is

23     reporting of fighting between Muslims and Serbs in Zvornik.  And on the

24     9th of April, the 17th Corps reports that the situation is complex and

25     tense.  I haven't included specifically -- I mean, the reference you make

Page 8443

 1     to operations that were undertaken but if we go, for example, to P1388,

 2     we could see that.

 3        Q.   We can see what?  Sorry.

 4        A.   What the 17th Corps was doing.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Can we go to the P1388, please.

 6             THE WITNESS:  The TO Republic of Serbia document is P1389.

 7     Sorry, it is an SSNO document but quoting information they have obtained

 8     from the TO of the Republic of Serbia.

 9             MR. JORDASH:

10        Q.   If we look at this document P1388, paragraph 2:

11             "Combat readiness of corps units ensures execution of orders.

12     All units of the corps are on the highest level of combat readiness.

13     Mobilisation has been completed in the 11th Anti-Artillery Battalion but

14     the morale of the troops is low."

15             So -- and then further down:

16             "The units that arrived in Bijeljina have been re-directed ... on

17     the 8th of April, 1992, mobilisation of volunteers organised by

18     6th Motorised Brigade have been completed."

19             And 3, it says:

20             "Armed conflicts with paramilitary formations."

21             And 5:

22             "A 336th Motorised Brigade tank T-55 slipped off the road at

23     R. Sapna bridge in the village of Celopek near Zvornik."

24             Number 6, we have the logistics:

25             "Rear logistics base face [sic] problems due to blocked roads ...

Page 8444

 1     supply of materiel and technical equipment of all units is aggravated."

 2             Does this tell you anything, all this activity?

 3        A.   Yes.  It's -- it's a situation report now.  I would have expected

 4     that they would have also addressed what they did in Zvornik, since, on

 5     the 9th of October -- excuse me, the 9th of April, there is the takeover

 6     by Serb forces of -- of Zvornik.  But I couldn't find this specific

 7     information in this report.

 8        Q.   So it -- it's your evidence that -- I don't know maybe I'm

 9     unfairly paraphrasing, but are you suggesting that prior to the 8th and

10     on the 8th and 9th, the JNA were simply there observing?

11        A.   You have read out the text of -- of the situation report for the

12     9th.  We didn't see any kind of operational activity related to Zvornik,

13     i.e., establishing check-points or separating parties or anything else.

14     What is reported in paragraph 2 is more like the status of the units but

15     less their -- their operational activities.

16        Q.   No, but I'm asking you, from your study of these documents and

17     your knowledge which arrives from -- from those documents whether that's

18     the position you reached, that the JNA was there simply observing what

19     was happening?

20        A.   P1379 and P1380, as well as P1389, indicate that the 17th Corps

21     is mainly observing and describing the situation.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Let's go to 65 ter 1D01349 on e-court, please.  And

23     page 1D01-7791.

24        Q.   And it's your testimony in the Seselj case.

25             MR. JORDASH:  If we could blow that up a bit.  Keep going down --

Page 8445

 1     up, please.  Keep going.

 2        Q.   And there at line 22 you make the comment -- well, let's start at

 3     18:

 4             "No, Your Honours.  And it's not only a matter of support, i.e.,

 5     logistical aspects that these people have to be equipped.  They need to

 6     have a weapon.  They need ammunition.  They need uniforms.  But it's also

 7     a matter of authorisation."

 8             "As I mentioned before, in an area where military or combat

 9     operations are conducted, there is a commander who is responsible for

10     that situation in the area, which means that he also determines and

11     decides which forces will operate in that area.  So if SRS volunteers" --

12             MR. JORDASH:  Can we keep going, please.

13        Q.   "... operating in an area where there is a JNA unit and the JNA

14     unit is conducting operations, there needs to have been given an

15     authorisation by the most senior JNA office in the area.

16             "From the documents I have reviewed I can conclude -- conclude

17     that it -- that this authorisation was just not issued on the local level

18     but that was part of a policy which had been decided ... at the highest

19     level.  You see, for example, the various decrees and orders which [sic]

20     we discussed from the political leadership to legalise and regularise the

21     participation of volunteers, including volunteer formations in the

22     conflict in Croatia during fall and winter 1991."

23             In a situation which you've described with the JNA there

24     observing, ready to conduct operations, would that comment you made in

25     the Seselj trial be applicable?

Page 8446

 1        A.   The key issue here is what kind of orders has the 17th Corps

 2     received.  My testimony in the Seselj trial clearly referred to a

 3     situation of combat operations in Croatia, i.e., there's a war ongoing

 4     and there are two sides fighting each other.

 5             In Zvornik, again, based on the documents I have reviewed, Serb

 6     forces take control over a town.  And they take control not by fighting

 7     from -- from trench to trench or from building to building, as was for

 8     example the case in Vukovar, but it seems to be a very swift operation.

 9     There may well have been some barricades erected by the Muslim or the

10     Bosniak forces or the SDA forces as they are called, or sometimes the

11     Green Berets.  But again, the documents I reviewed do not show or do not

12     indicate that there are systematic combat operations.

13        Q.   The JNA -- would the situation be different if the JNA had been

14     responsible for distributing weapons which had fallen into the hands of

15     the volunteer groups around Zvornik or in Zvornik, such as Arkan's Men?

16        A.   I don't understand the question.  I mean, we're talking about are

17     there combat operations or not.  That is for me the main issue in this

18     discussion.  If we compare the two situations, my testimony in Seselj and

19     my -- what I write in relation to Zvornik.

20             And maybe to add on, it is like what are the orders -- what were

21     the orders to the 17th Corps.

22        Q.   So is it your evidence then that the 17th Corps was entitled

23     under JNA military doctrine to position itself around and in the region

24     of Zvornik, with its hundreds, if not, thousands of men, and simply

25     observe as other Serb forces took the town without taking any action?

Page 8447

 1        A.   That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is -- I mean, we

 2     have reviewed -- you have read out one situation report.  What is the

 3     purpose of the situation report?  The purpose of the situation report is

 4     to inform the superior of the situation.  And based on that and based

 5     on -- on the orders the superior has received, the superior echelon,

 6     here, the 2nd Military District, will issue orders to the 17th Corps.

 7     And that's the key issue.  What orders did the 17th Corps receive from

 8     its superior echelon, the 2nd Military District, in relation to the

 9     posture it had to adopt in Zvornik.

10        Q.   Wasn't there a duty on, for example, Obrenovic, who was part of

11     the surrender negotiations, having observed or being aware of Arkan's

12     presence, to ensure that crimes committed by Arkan were reported to a

13     security organ and the security organ would thereby then be duty-bound to

14     take action?

15        A.   I think you're paraphrasing a little bit too much, if you allow

16     me.

17             Any JNA officer, and I think it's Article 36 of the 1988

18     regulations -- excuse me, SFRY armed forces regulations on the

19     implementations of the laws of war.  Any JNA officer has the duty when

20     there are indications that a crime might have taken place to secure

21     evidence and so on, and to inform the competent organs, military police,

22     military prosecutor and so on.  They follow the procedure.  And they can

23     inform the security organs.  But -- so if Arkan has committed crimes and

24     there is information about that, that comes -- that is available to a

25     military commander -- military officer, well, yeah, they have to act in

Page 8448

 1     accordance with the article.

 2        Q.   But would then there be no obligation on the JNA, in a situation

 3     like this, to observe Arkan to reasonably suspect he was not going to

 4     behave properly and then take remedial or preventative actions.  They're

 5     the force in the area, massively overwhelming in terms of numbers to the

 6     men that Arkan had.

 7        A.   If Arkan has been authorised to be in the area and to conduct

 8     certain operations, and, of course, there is responsibility of the

 9     command of the 17th Corps but there is a responsibility on the higher

10     level, and I have included but I'm not sure whether it was in the Zvornik

11     section --

12        Q.   What's the responsibility on the 17th Corps that you just

13     mentioned?  What was their responsibility in such a situation?

14        A.   Well, if there were combat operations, i.e., if the 17th Corps

15     was to -- had been ordered by the 2nd Military District to carry out

16     combat operations or to secure Zvornik, to -- to prevent anything from

17     happening, and Arkan, one way or the other, would like to do what he

18     wanted to do, then the commander of the 17th Corps would have to tell to

19     Arkan, Look, you can only operate under my command.  As we saw with the

20     previous documents, a single authority and without - again that's

21     detail - a different insignia.

22             But it comes back to the same issue I highlighted earlier.  I

23     have not seen a document that specifies the orders to the 17th Corps in

24     relation to the situation in Zvornik on, say, between the 1st of

25     April and the 10th of April.

Page 8449

 1        Q.   The fact that Obrenovic was involved with the surrender, would

 2     that indicate to that you the JNA was involved and was active in the

 3     area?

 4        A.   Theoretically, yes.  I mean, you cannot rule out in the ultimate

 5     case that he would act on his own behalf.  But that would be unlikely.

 6     So theoretically yes.

 7        Q.   So he attends a meeting with Arkan which is concerned with the

 8     surrender of Zvornik.  From that, it must follow that the JNA assumed a

 9     responsibility to ensure military operations were conducted according to

10     military law.  Isn't that right?

11        A.   No.  I mean, sorry to repeat myself but we have to know, in

12     relation to the military operations, which orders had been given to the

13     17th Corps.

14        Q.   Well, so you're saying if the 17th Corps had been ordered by the

15     2nd Military District to do nothing, to allow Arkan to rampage through

16     Zvornik, nobody in the 17th Corps would have an obligation to do anything

17     other than that.

18        A.   No, that's not what I'm -- exactly what I'm saying.  I was

19     addressing the first part in your response -- in your question, I'm

20     sorry, the question of military operations.

21             But imagine, indeed, a situation that the 17th Corps has been

22     ordered by the 2nd Military District to do nothing, then in my view

23     Article 36 would still be valid.  I.e., members of the 17th Corps, the

24     officers and most particularly the commander, he would have to draft

25     reports on the activities of Arkan for the 2nd Military District as well

Page 8450

 1     as the competent military judicial organs.

 2        Q.   You're suggesting that they would be within military law to then

 3     do nothing, wait for it to happen, and then write a report about it?

 4        A.   But you're speculating that they knew in advance that something

 5     would happen, with this question.

 6        Q.   Well, I am speculating because I'm suggesting that the JNA had

 7     information as to how Arkan had behaved previously.  It would have been a

 8     reasonable inference for a cautious military commander to make, wouldn't

 9     it?

10        A.   Indeed.  I mean, you know -- you can see from Exhibit 1381 that,

11     already on the 6th of April, I mean, that's also on page 58, part 3 of

12     the report.  On the 6th of April, the 17th Corps alerts or informs the

13     2nd Military District that, I quote:  "The presence of Raznjatovic's,

14     also known Arkan, paramilitary formations of SDG on the territory of

15     Semberija is not calming the situation or improving attitude towards

16     Muslims.  Situation in Zvornik municipality is explosive and likely to

17     grow into a large conflict because Serb and Muslim TOs were mobilised."

18        Q.   Yeah, okay.

19        A.   So there, the 17th Corps does one thing.  They report a problem

20     to the superior command.

21        Q.   Doesn't the -- I don't want to belabour the point and I'll move

22     on in a minute.

23             But doesn't the coordination implicit in Obrenovic's negotiation

24     alongside Arkan indicate to you that there was coordination of the JNA

25     with Arkan and from that must flow the JNA's responsibility to

Page 8451

 1     subordinate Arkan?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Jordash, you're putting together facts and

 3     legal consequences, et cetera, all in one question.  Could you split it

 4     up.

 5             First of all, whether there was coordination.

 6             MR. JORDASH:

 7        Q.   Does that indicate to you coordination?

 8        A.   I -- we have only one document, I mean, P1380 -- or at least what

 9     I reviewed, that describes the role of -- of Captain Dragan Obrenovic.  I

10     cannot conclude from that document whether there's coordination.  I would

11     like to see more documents to see with what mandate was Obrenovic

12     negotiating.  And who was he representing.  Was he negotiating for the

13     JNA, or his unit, or maybe he had particular links with the political

14     party?  The situation is quite complicated at that time in

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16        Q.   So your position is, then, from the document you don't know

17     whether the JNA had a responsibility, which I'm suggesting they had, to

18     subordinate Arkan before he conducted operations in Zvornik?

19        A.   I can try to rephrase my answer but I'm not sure whether that is

20     going to advance us much.

21        Q.   Just say yes or no.  Is that your position?

22        A.   According to doctrine, if the JNA was conducting combat

23     operations, yes, they should have.

24        Q.   And your position is you don't know one way or the other.

25        A.   I mean, I just answered the question.

Page 8452

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's keep -- let's try to cut matters short.

 2             From the document, because --

 3             THE WITNESS:  The document is -- I'm sorry.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the question from the document or did you say

 5     "doctrine," Mr. Theunens.  It appears as "document."

 6             MR. JORDASH:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  From the document, are you able to know whether the

 8     JNA had a responsibility to subordinate Arkan; or on the basis of the

 9     document, you conclude that there was no such obligation; or would you

10     just not be able, on the basis of this document, to make that

11     determination?

12             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honours.  On the basis of P1380

13     I'm not able to make such a determination.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             Mr. Jordash, please proceed.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.  Could I ask for 1D1350 to be on

17     e-court.

18        Q.   It's a comment that you made in the Mrksic case which I want to

19     see if you still agree with.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Page 1D01-8243.

21        Q.   And you're asked there at line 16:

22             "Now if there is an allegation of a war crime, who were the

23     officers most likely to investigate and arrest the perpetrators?

24             "A.  Your Honours, based on the regulations in the JNA that apply

25     to security organs and military police, security organs and military

Page 8453

 1     police would be the most -- would be the best qualified and the most

 2     experienced to carry out such activities, and later, on, of course, at

 3     the later stage in the investigation, also military prosecutors

 4     intervene."

 5             And if we go down a bit further:

 6             "Now, based on that" --

 7             "Q.  Now, based on that article, if a commander is advised that a

 8     violation of war is occurring at that moment, what is his or here

 9     obligation?"

10             If we go to further --

11             "A.  Based on the Article 21, he has to do everything to stop the

12     violation from continuing.  And then linked to the other articles, he has

13     to act to preserve the evidence and also have the alleged perpetrators

14     secured or arrested."

15             Do you stand by that answer?

16        A.   Yeah, that's correct.  I mean, Article 21 applies and -- mm-hmm.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Now moving on.

18        A.   But you have to look at the contents of the Article 21.  I'm not

19     sure whether it corresponds with the speculations you were making earlier

20     here.

21        Q.   Well, I'm happy with your answer, so let's move on.

22             Were you aware in relation to Bijeljina of Plavsic's presence at

23     the scene?

24        A.   I am aware of that through -- I think there was -- yeah, in

25     newspapers and open sources.  But I haven't seen an official document, I

Page 8454

 1     mean, a military document mentioning that.

 2        Q.   If we look at P1371, page 50 of your report.

 3        A.   Yeah.

 4        Q.   You'll see when that comes up that --

 5        A.   Or maybe I missed it then.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Can we have that on the screen, please.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Yes, indeed it's there.  Sorry.

 8             MR. JORDASH:

 9        Q.   I know that doesn't appear in your report.  But the -- obviously

10     this document does.  But you can see that --

11        A.   Yeah, yeah, there's no discussion.  It's paragraph 4.

12        Q.   Right.  Okay.  Well, let's move on.  Thank you.

13        A.   Mm-hmm.

14        Q.   And well, just to finish this.  Present on the scene with the

15     Chief of Staff of the 2nd Military District and the commander of the

16     17th Corps?

17        A.   Mm-hmm, we have to look at, I mean, the time.

18        Q.   Well, I'm looking at the time, and I have to move on if you

19     don't --

20        A.   No, no, but the time of the report.  When she was there, I think,

21     yeah, during or after the takeover.

22        Q.   Well, it reads as though it's sometime on the 3rd or the 4th.  Do

23     you see that?

24        A.   I touched the screen.

25        Q.   Moving on to the Yellow Wasps.

Page 8455

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have, please, on e-court 1D01-1353.

 2             And if we go to page 1D01-08553.  And this is the Prosecution's

 3     opening statement from the Seselj case.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Objection.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. WEBER:  I understand putting testimony of another witness or

 7     evidence that would affect him, but as we all know from any trial,

 8     opening statement or closing arguments are not evidence.  So if someone

 9     gave evidence in something else, if there's something that Mr. Jordash

10     wants to go to that was evidence in the Seselj case, that's one thing.

11     Now we're talking about putting opening statements, closing arguments to

12     people.  I mean, how broad are we going to go here?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we have not heard any question yet.  Let's

14     first hear a question but let's also, Mr. -- invite Mr. Theunens not to

15     answer the question until I have -- it could be a question if a word is

16     spelled in A or B manner and then to see whether the witness recognises

17     the spelling or -- I mean it could be anything.  But I take it that

18     opening statements in itself, of course, are not -- but find the right

19     page, formulate your question, and then we'll rule on your objection.

20             MR. WEBER:  Regardless of what the question is, an opening

21     statement is not evidence.  It is not controlling.  If he has a

22     proposition that he wants to place to the witness, he can place the

23     proposition to him.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, as long as we have not heard the

25     question, we do not know what Mr. Jordash intends to do with it, and we

Page 8456

 1     are put on notice.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Prosecution in the Seselj case opened it in

 3     relation to the Vuckovic brothers in this way.

 4             Line 2:  "The Prosecution will bring evidence" --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, what will be your question before you

 6     start reading the whole of the opening statement?  What will be your

 7     question at the end?  You can say, I will read a part of the opening

 8     statement and then I'll ask you to do this and this and this.  And then

 9     we know what the question, and then we also know whether it is of any use

10     to start reading.

11             MR. JORDASH:  I'm going to ask Mr. Theunens whether he agrees

12     with the Prosecution position as outlined in the Seselj case.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Weber, I --

14             MR. WEBER:  I understand the theories and --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether Mr. Theunens agrees or does not agree with

18     what is found in the opening statement, it does not assist the Chamber.

19     At the same time, Mr. Jordash, if you know what is in the opening

20     statement, I don't know which part you wanted to read, if you want to

21     formulate questions which deal with exactly the same matters as are dealt

22     with in the opening statement, then, of course, you're free to do so.

23             Please proceed.  But then without reading and just including

24     those elements you apparently found in the opening statement in your

25     questions.  Perhaps it would even be better to have it off the screen for

Page 8457

 1     transparency reasons.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MR. JORDASH:

 4        Q.   Do you agree, Mr. Theunens, that the Yellow Wasps were Seselj's

 5     volunteers?

 6        A.   I think I would refer to page 65 in my report and the following

 7     pages whereby, based on their own statements, I mean, the Vuckovic

 8     brothers, I think one or two of them had been a member of the SRS.  And

 9     according to -- again this is P1190, page 68, he went with -- I mean,

10     according to his own words, he went with Zoran Rankic, who was -- and I

11     was wrong the day before yesterday.  Zoran Rankic was not chief of the

12     war staff but he was a deputy chief of war staff, SRS war staff, in the

13     latter half the 1991.  So that Vojin Vuckovic went with Zoran Rankic, as

14     well as somebody identified as Ulemek, who was a member of Zeljko

15     Raznjatovic's volunteer guard, to Mali Zvornik in order to discuss with

16     the Zvornik SDS how to help them in their struggle.  And then have you

17     the ensuing events.  But I think -- you cannot summarise the relation

18     with the SRS as you do.  At least not on the basis of the documents that

19     I reviewed.

20        Q.   Would you agree that in the statements given by Dusan and Vojin

21     Vuckovic, neither of them mention any iota of an affiliation with the

22     Serbian MUP?

23        A.   They talk about -- I mean, I just read out when they go to --

24        Q.   Mr. Theunens, sorry, I'm running out of time --

25        A.   Yeah, but -- no, no -- I mean --

Page 8458

 1        Q.   Do you agree with [overlapping speakers] ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no.  Can you answer that question by a yes or a

 3     no.  What Mr. Jordash wants to know if there's any reference, that's at

 4     least how I understand his Greek letter, but there's any reference to the

 5     Serbian MUP in the statements of the two gentlemen?

 6             THE WITNESS:  I'm just going through them, not to miss anything

 7     out.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently Mr. Jordash had looked at it and thinks

 9     that there is no reference.  Would there be a possibility that you verify

10     this over the weekend?

11             THE WITNESS:  I'm just going through my report, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, through your report.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Could I ask Mr. Theunens to verify that over the

14     weekend so that I can just move on --

15             THE WITNESS:  I can answer now, if you want.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If you have done your homework so quickly,

17     then please answer the question.

18             THE WITNESS:  There is no explicit mentioning of the term

19     "Serbian MUP" in these statements.  I mean, based on my review.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MR. JORDASH:

22        Q.   And I don't know if you can do this off the top of your head but

23     you makes reference through your report to the book by Kadijevic, who was

24     the federal secretary for People's Defence in 1991 and 1992.

25        A.   Mm-hmm.

Page 8459

 1        Q.   Can you confirm that in his detailed notes about the actions and

 2     interactions of the SSNO and Milosevic, that the Serbian MUP does not

 3     figure in that diary?  Let me be more specific.

 4             Mr. Stanisic doesn't appear in that diary?

 5        A.   But I think Mr. Milosevic doesn't appear either.  I mean, it's

 6     not a -- it doesn't talk about his interactions -- the interaction

 7     between --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- Mr. Jordash wants to know whether

 9     Mr. Stanisic is mentioned in those notes.

10             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from what that means, that's a totally

12     different matter.  But if Mr. Jordash has any follow-up questions, we'll

13     hear.

14             The answer is clear, Mr. Jordash.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  May I also encourage you not to ask what is not in

17     documents.  If it is not positively established that something is in a

18     document, there is no evidence that there is.  You understand what I

19     mean?

20             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  And in that case I will leave the remaining

21     questions about other diaries that Mr. Theunens relies upon.

22        Q.   Could I just deal with this point quickly, Mr. Theunens --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we have now clearly -- perhaps you mention

24     the documents you wanted to ask questions about so that we are better

25     focussed on seeing what exactly is referred to, whether it is

Page 8460

 1     Mr. Stanisic, the DB, the MUP, the -- Italy or whatever, so that we know

 2     which documents you have in mind.  If you just list them then --

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, what I had in mind was that, first of

 4     all, the Kadijevic book, then the Boris Jovic book, and the secretary for

 5     Simovic, Glisic, that book.  And I was going to make the same point, and

 6     in due course we'll make submissions about the significance of

 7     Mr. Stanisic not appearing in those documents.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You've now heard the titles.  If you might,

 9     from the top of your head, over the weekend think that Mr. Jordash --

10     but, Mr. Jordash, you take it that there is nothing in there, so,

11     therefore it has not to be confirmed that it is not in there.

12             That's at least my --

13             MR. JORDASH:  Yes [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.  Please proceed.

15             MR. JORDASH:

16        Q.   In your report, Mr. Theunens, you have a title, which one can

17     find at section 2, page 20, in which you allege that Martic benefitted

18     from his close relationship with officials of the Ministry of Interior of

19     Serbia.  And I have reviewed the documents that you rely upon, from

20     footnote 68 all the way to footnote 85, and 86, and 87, in which you

21     purport to use to prove that proposition and none of them mention

22     Martic's relationship with the Serbian MUP.

23             Is that something that you can confirm?

24        A.   What I've tried to do is -- is to understand -- or, no.  First

25     establish what I call the de facto authority of Milan Martic, and that

Page 8461

 1     you can find in part 2 starting on page 35.  And at the same time, I

 2     mean, there's reference, for example, to a number of documents that are

 3     sent to Martic, where he issues orders.  I mean, for example, P1120.

 4     Martic issues an order which, in my understanding of the situation, the

 5     RSK, in review of the documents, goes beyond his de jure authority.  And

 6     that document is also sent to Frenki.

 7        Q.   Yeah.  No, I accept that you -- your documents do cast light on

 8     Mr. Martic's de facto authority.  But none of them, none of them, mention

 9     his relationship with the Serbian MUP.

10        A.   They don't explicitly mention his relationship with the Serbian

11     MUP, that is correct.

12        Q.   And what I suggest is happened is you put your title in first and

13     then you forgot to prove the proposition.  Is that correct?

14        A.   I'm just reading my report again, because ...

15             JUDGE ORIE:  What title are you exactly referring to,

16     Mr. Jordash?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Referring to --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Page.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Title on page 20, chapter -- or part 1.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I am in the second part of the report.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I beg your pardon.  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Second part, page 20, hard copy.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Croatian part, page 20.  And yes, the first -- it's

24     the summary.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Summary.

Page 8462

 1             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hmm.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Where's the title you're --

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, it's 20 ... yes, it's 20D, Your Honour.

 4     Civilian authority over the TO was complicated and on so.  And Milan

 5     Martic, minister of the interior of the SAO Krajina, with the latter

 6     relying on his links with officials at the Ministry of Interior of the

 7     Republic of Serbia.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What you're saying is, and that is apparently

 9     then your question to Mr. Theunens, first of all, it's on page 21 so --

10     what kind of title you refer to was unclear to the Judges.

11             Mr. Theunens, the latter relying on his links with officials of

12     the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia, is that something you

13     can substantiate or you have substantiated in your report, that specific

14     reference to the Ministry of the Interior, the MUP of the Republic of

15     Serbia?

16             That's your question, Mr. Jordash.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  So where do we find this, what you present in the

19     summary?  Unless you say it's a mistake, then ...

20             THE WITNESS:  It's a mistake in a sense that I didn't include the

21     document in my report but if you allow me --

22             MR. JORDASH:

23        Q.   If that's the answer, Mr. Theunens, I'd like --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's --

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution has an objection.

Page 8463

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Defence is proceeding in a manner

 3     where we're taking summaries without footnote in them where things are

 4     very -- discussed at [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

 6             MR. WEBER:  But there are documents of reports being

 7     misrepresented and it's not an accurate characterisation because, as you

 8     know, is there a request on the 1st of April, 1991, that was discussed in

 9     direct examination.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.  This is argument.  You may have noticed

11     that the first thing I did is to find where in the report we find what is

12     apparently summarised.  And that was the first question I put to

13     Mr. Theunens so that at least we are back from the summary -- we are away

14     from the summary and we are in the report.  And then if he says, Well,

15     what is in the summary does not appear in the report, does appear

16     nowhere, then we know that it's perhaps not right to put it in a summary.

17     If, however he says, Well, here or there or there, then Mr. Jordash can

18     further question witness about that.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, Prosecution appreciates you doing that.

20     However, if you don't mind, if I can point out the sections of the report

21     just so we can make this efficient instead of struggling around the

22     report, the Prosecution would be willing to do that too, so we're not

23     talking about things in the abstract.  And just so -- while I'm up, the

24     Prosecution does --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So whatever the answer is, you will offer to present

Page 8464

 1     to the Chamber or hint at the relevant portions in the report where what

 2     is found here in the summary, whether in the right place or not, is

 3     substantiated.  That offer, Mr. Jordash, would only create clarity, isn't

 4     it?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  It would, Your Honour, yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That offer is accepted.  We'll hear then from you, I

 7     take it on Monday.

 8             Meanwhile Mr. Jordash can ask questions and use his time as he

 9     wishes.

10             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, before ending the day, we just do have

11     one brief submission with respect to 1D1375 before the weekend starts and

12     materials are provided to the witness.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Given the time, could I put another proposition to

15     Mr. Theunens and ask him to consider that over the weekend too.  I'm

16     sorry --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We're all relaxing over the weekend,

18     Mr. Theunens, and you are the one who has to work hard.

19             THE WITNESS:  It's for the just cause.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

21             MR. JORDASH:  The proposition is this.  It is picking up where we

22     left off with the Arkan document.  We dealt, as Your Honours know, with

23     nine documents and there are in other sections documents which deal with

24     Arkan.

25        Q.   And our proposition to you, Mr. Theunens, is that the only

Page 8465

 1     document which deal and mention connection with Arkan and the DB is P327,

 2     P1077, and P1192 and --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Have had you an opportunity to write it down,

 4     Mr. Theunens?

 5             THE WITNESS:  I'm doing it as we speak, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, could you please repeat before you waste the

 7     whole of the weekend on the wrong numbers.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  P327.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, now I wanted Mr. Theunens to repeat so that ...

10             THE WITNESS:  P327, P1077, and P1192.

11             MR. JORDASH:  And my question to you is, is that the basis upon

12     which you concluded that the DB had a connection with Arkan?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:  Objection.  It's mischaracterising his conclusion.

15     He says the MUP of Serbia.  There are many, many, many, many more

16     documents that reference the MUP of Serbia.  So to put it to him

17     accurately, just so it is the context of what his actual opinion is.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Keeping in mind, what we could do is we could also

19     invite the parties to phrase the question -- that Mr. Jordash phrases the

20     question that you look at it.  I'm not in a position at this moment to

21     finally determine whether there's any misrepresentation in it.  Let me

22     see.

23             MR. JORDASH:  I could point Your Honour to the conclusion in due

24     course where Mr. Theunens, in fact, says, "Ministry of the Interior

25     (including the DB)."  And I'll find that any moment, Your Honours.

Page 8466

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution can makes its quick

 2     submission if it is an efficient use of late court time right now.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  It's right -- it's --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash will seek his lines and meanwhile you

 5     may make a submission, Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  I found it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You found it already.  Then let's --

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Chapter 1, page --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Which section?

10             MR. JORDASH:  Chapter 1, page 105, and it's little D.

11     Intelligence reports by JNA security organs drafted between October 1991

12     and January 1992 on Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan, and his Serbian

13     Volunteer Guard, can confirm the close relations between Arkan and the

14     MUP, including the state security, Serbia.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now this line first, Mr. Theunens, needs some

16     clarification.  Did you want to say confirm the close relations between

17     Arkan and the MUP and then give as a fact that the state security of

18     Serbia, the SDB, is part of the MUP; or did you want to express here that

19     these documents, apart from confirming the close relations between Arkan

20     and the MUP, also confirm that the state security of Serbia joined in

21     that close relationship?  Specifically, that part of the MUP, of the

22     Serbian MUP.

23             THE WITNESS:  It is your second proposition, Your Honours, and

24     okay, we can just -- I mean, under that title or that section or that

25     introduction, a number of documents are cited.  And, for example, P327

Page 8467

 1     clearly mentions SDB of Serbia.  For example.  I haven't gone through the

 2     others yet.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is one of the three that was just --

 4             THE WITNESS:  Indeed --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now what apparently Mr. Jordash is very much

 6     interested in to know is whether, apart from these three documents,

 7     whether you found in other documents clear keys to not only a

 8     relationship with the MUP --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but also specifically with the SDB, as a part of

11     the MUP.  That is apparently the question.  And I -- I would -- I would

12     ask you whether you could consider that over the weekend.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, Prosecution doesn't object to the

15     question as the Chamber just phrased it.  That was different than Mr.

16     Jordash's question.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's just -- everyone is happy now with the way I

18     phrased it, apparently.  I listened to you Mr. Weber and I listened to

19     Mr. Jordash and I'm happy that was able to phrase the question in such a

20     way that everyone goes into the weekend with a happy mind.

21             MR. WEBER:  May I --

22             MR. JORDASH:  Apart from the excerpt on Monday, from the Butler

23     report, that is the end of my examination.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you repeat this?  The --

25             MR. JORDASH:  The Butler [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 8468

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's the one you wanted to give for a full

 2     review so that you have this one minute after the weekend.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have a hard copy so that -- Mr. Theunens,

 5     would be you willing to read that, I do understand, ten-page document?

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, this relates to our submission.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Then please make your submission,

 8     Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, 1D1375 is an excerpt, as Mr. Jordash

10     just referenced, 11-page excerpt that is from a 138-page report.  We got

11     extraordinarily late notice of this document.  I did have the opportunity

12     during this very session to first review this document.  There are many

13     things in the 138 pages, including discussions of Red Berets, use of MUP

14     units, that are relevant to this case.  We leave it to the Defence if

15     they want to use it, but the Prosecution, based on the severely late

16     notice that was received, we would then ask for wide latitude -- one,

17     we'd ask -- we object to notice.  We maintain our objection.  We believe

18     if the Chamber's going to overrule our objection, that the witness should

19     actually get all 138 pages, not just a selected 10- or 11-page excerpt

20     and then we ask for wide latitude if our objection is overruled to go

21     into matters that may be referenced in that report.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm, first of all, a practical person.  Are the 138

23     pages available?

24             MR. JORDASH:  We can make them available within a short time,

25     Your Honour.

Page 8469

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now I suggest that what consequences to attach

 2     to the late notice, of course, very much depends on what you and you what

 3     want to do the ten pages, the 138 pages.  First of all, Mr. Theunens, I

 4     don't know your programme, ten pages suddenly become 138.  Would you be

 5     willing -- if Mr. Jordash could already indicate which ten pages he will

 6     focus on, and if you would then try to acquaint yourself with at least

 7     the main lines of what appears in the --

 8             MR. JORDASH:  For us it not the ten pages.  It is simply the

 9     paragraph that we wanted to put.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, Mr. Theunens, Mr. Jordash will provide

11     the 138 pages.  He will indicate which ones -- which ten he had already,

12     ready in translation in an earlier stage so you know that that was -- is

13     what Mr. Weber got at the time, and then he'll also indicate which

14     specific paragraph he is interested in, and if you would be willing to

15     read certainly the ten pages but, to the extent possible, also the

16     remaining 128, that would be highly appreciated, and I know that I put a

17     heavy burden on your shoulders.

18             Mr. Weber.

19             MR. WEBER:  We maintain our objection, first and foremost.  That

20     being said, based on what the transcript reflects today, the question's

21     going to be put to him something to the effect to comment on whether he

22     agrees or disagrees with an expert opinion.  So we believe that we should

23     have wide latitude in the scope of that opinion that's being expressed in

24     that 138 pages to explore whatever area Mr. Theunens's opinion in this

25     case is in agreement or disagreement with the contents of that report and

Page 8470

 1     the documents cited.  So although the Defence might want to pick out a

 2     very small portion --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let me -- Mr. Jordash, if in the document,

 4     which you give notice of at a very late stage, if Mr. Weber finds therein

 5     other relevant matters, then I would expect you not to object too easily

 6     on going through the context of.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the proper --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And again, let me -- I'll follow my usual line.

 9             Mr. Weber, I know exactly what I'm going to expect.  You're going

10     to object against taking out a small part and you want a large latitude.

11     Okay.  We'll find out, because we'll -- first of all, I've got no idea

12     what the paragraph says, not what the ten pages says, not what the

13     138 pages say.  That means that we'll -- first, we will cautiously go

14     step by step.  Mr. Jordash has only one step to make.  That's one

15     paragraph.  You may want to go in other areas and then we'll again and

16     again look at what we're talking about, whether there's any

17     contextualisation, or whether you go somewhere while out of what is even

18     reasonable to be dealt with in re-examination.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I know that's a matter that is subject

20     to interpretation.  And -- but you're asking the witness to comment on

21     something whether it is consistent or not consistent with that particular

22     aspect [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not asking the witness anything until now.

24             MR. WEBER:  The problem --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing I asked him is to read 138 pages.

Page 8471

 1             MR. WEBER:  The problem, Your Honour, is that the document, the

 2     report, the analysis relates to events in 1995.  And he is being asked to

 3     be commenting on agreement of a portion of report in -- for events in

 4     1992 and I can't to another portion of that without discussing events in

 5     1995.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll proceed very cautiously.  If any comment is

 7     asked on one paragraph, Mr. Jordash will first of all give the Chamber a

 8     possibility to read that paragraph so that we know what we're talking

 9     about.  We'll cautiously proceed.  I've clearly on my mind what your

10     objections are, Mr. Weber.  As you may have noticed from the response of

11     the Chamber by the opening statements, that we carefully listen to you

12     but we don't want to rule already at a moment where we do not even know

13     what we are ruling on yet.

14             MR. JORDASH:  I can indicate for Mr. Theunens' ease that the

15     issue is whether the JNA were involved in the takeover on the 8th of

16     April, 1992.  And it's Mr. Butler's view that they were and that issues

17     relating to that is what we want Mr. Theunens to --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber has a whole weekend to think about it.

19     You provide the material.  We have not heard Mr. Bakrac yet on the

20     matter.

21             Mr. Bakrac, anything you would like to add?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I don't

23     wish to take part in this debate.  I leave it to you for your assessment,

24     if you allow me another moment, if Mr. Theunens thought that he would

25     leave this courtroom with only 130 pages to read over the weekend, I

Page 8472

 1     guess he was wrong.  I'm going to ask you for something else now.

 2             I have prepared the documents that we would like to use as of

 3     Monday.  In order for us to carry out preparations properly, we have our

 4     documents on CD.  Could you please give me your guidance on this.  If

 5     necessary, we can print hard copies tomorrow.  We will cautiously first

 6     deal with those documents that have been translated --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  How many pages?

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I cannot say now, Your Honour.  I

 9     have not instructed my assistant to actually do the word count.  We have

10     been so busy.  But I think it is about 200 pages.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me, first of all, I think you owe an apology to

12     all those who are assisting us to raise this matter at ten minutes past

13     7.00.  Let me be clear on that.  You should have raised it -- you sent a

14     copy to the -- you should have sent a message to Chamber's staff, We want

15     to raise, we have this and this and this we would very much like

16     Mr. Theunens to read.  That's not appropriately done at ten minutes past

17     7.00, Mr. Bakrac.  Let that be clear.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, Your Honour.  Having considered the matter

19     with our team we would abandon the Butler point and we don't ask Mr.

20     Theunens to read it.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, Mr. Theunens, instead of 138 pages, 200 pages

22     from the Simatovic Defence team, would be you willing to put an eye on

23     it, would you take car care -- I take it that you have a laptop somewhere

24     so you can read it from the screen --

25             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, I prefer electronically.  It is faster.

Page 8473

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Exactly.  Mr. Bakrac, quick response.  Mr. Theunens

 2     is willing to look at your material.

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you to

 4     Mr. Theunens.  Thank you to you.  I do apologise to all in the courtroom.

 5     My intention was, of course, not to keep the staff after 7.00 tonight,

 6     but I also didn't want to take any time from my colleague Mr. Jordash of

 7     the time he had for cross-examination.  Of course, we could have dealt

 8     with it earlier.  I do apologise to all once again.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's the advantage of sending -- sending an

10     e-mail.  Then it doesn't take anyone's time.

11             Mr. Weber, could I really urge you to not spend one more than

12     absolutely necessary.

13             MR. WEBER:  I just want to put on the record that we're still

14     receiving notification of Simatovic documents at 6.15 this evening.  At

15     this time we presume that notification is complete.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whether that presumption is right or not will

17     be decided on Monday.  We -- I add my apologies and the Chamber's

18     apologies to all those who are suffering under the -- going over the

19     time-limits.

20             We -- let me just see ... one second.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn until Monday, the 1st of November,

23     quarter past 2.00 in a courtroom which I cannot find at this moment.  But

24     one of the three courtrooms in this building.

25                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.15 p.m.,

Page 8474

 1                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of

 2                           November, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.