Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8475

 1                           Monday, 1 November 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

 7     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 8             This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus

 9     Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             There was one matter still pending since last Friday; that's the

12     Prosecution motion for leave to reply to the Defence response to the

13     18th Prosecution motion for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list.

14             What I think, Mr. Jordash, you indicated that you would give your

15     position on that matter today, leave to reply.

16             MR. JORDASH:  We don't -- we don't oppose the application.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] As well, likewise, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.

20             Leave is therefore granted, Mr. Groome.  Prosecution reply to be

21     filed by Friday, the 5th of November.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

24             MR. JORDASH:  We also don't oppose the application for leave to

25     reply to the Defence responsible to the bar table motion.

Page 8476

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             Mr. Bakrac, same position as far as you're concerned?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Same, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, any idea on how much time you would

 5     need to ...

 6             MR. GROOME:  I don't, Your Honour.  But I could have that

 7     information by the first break.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could please tell us after the first break,

 9     then we will rule on the matter.

10             Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.

11             THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that last Friday at ten minutes past 7.00 I

13     again - which is not what I'm used to do - have forgotten to instruct you

14     not to speak with anyone about your testimony.  But being -- well, rather

15     familiar with the practice and having been here for a couple of days, may

16     I take it that you have not discussed your testimony with anyone?

17             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Then, Mr. Jordash, since you had given up your one-minute

20     question, it's now for Mr. Bakrac to ... we discussed that you had one

21     question on the basis of a document which you disclosed rather late, and

22     later you said, No, I --

23             MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, that's -- yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE: -- I leave that.  So that means that Mr. Bakrac is

25     now the one who is ready to cross-examine the witness.

Page 8477

 1             Mr. Bakrac.

 2             Mr. Theunens, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Bakrac.

 3     Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.

 4             And I again instruct you, before I forget that as well, that

 5     you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the

 6     beginning of your testimony.

 7                           WITNESS:  REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, please proceed.

11             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Good afternoon to all in the courtroom, in and around the

13     courtroom.

14             Mr. Theunens, good afternoon.

15        A.   Good afternoon, Mr. Bakrac.

16        Q.   I would like to start my cross-examination in relation to your

17     report by dealing with some documents or, rather, the Law on All People's

18     Defence, and I believe that that is where you had started from as well,

19     in your report.

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] So could we please have P1010 in

21     e-court.

22        Q.   While we're waiting for the document, Mr. Theunens, I would like

23     to draw your attention -- no.  No, actually, first I'm going to ask you

24     whether it's correct that this Law on All People's Defence of the

25     Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia that was passed on the

Page 8478

 1     23rd of April, 1982 -- or, rather, that is when it was published in the

 2     Official Gazette in 1982, whether it was in force until the

 3     Law on Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was passed in 1994?

 4        A.   If your question refers to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as

 5     it was established in May 1992, then the answer would be yes.

 6        Q.   Could we now have a look at Article 13.  However, it seems that

 7     we did not understand each other.  We're waiting for Article 13 to appear

 8     on our screens, but my question was whether the Law on All People's

 9     Defence from 1982 was in force all the way up until 1994 when the Law on

10     Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was passed.

11        A.   I tried to explain my answer that the 1982 law applied to all

12     republics of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e., all

13     six.  Of course, the 1994 law only applies to the two republics that

14     constituted FRY, i.e., Serbia and Montenegro.  And the other four

15     republics became independent before May 1992, so that's why I tried to be

16     specific and explain that the 1982 law only became -- only remained

17     invalid for Serbia and Montenegro, i.e., FRY, until the adoption the 1994

18     FRY law.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens, now it is much clearer.

20             So please do have a look at Article 13.  I would like for us to

21     interpret it together.  Actually, I'm asking you how it is that you

22     understand this joint provision of Article 13.

23             It says here that:

24             "Working people and citizens have the right and duty to organise

25     themselves and take part in the organisation, preparation for and

Page 8479

 1     implementation of All People's Defence; to educate or train for

 2     All People's Defence; and for carrying out tasks in times of war in the

 3     convenient of an immediate threat of war or other emergencies; to take

 4     part in armed struggle and other forms of All People's resistance in

 5     order to protect and rescue citizens and material goods from wartime

 6     devastation and other threats; and to carry out other tasks of interest

 7     for the defence of the country and the protection of the social order

 8     established by the SFRY constitution."

 9             So my question is:  The Serb people, in Croatia and in Bosnia,

10     who, at that point in time, in 1990 and 1991, were within the SFRY, would

11     they have had the right to organise themselves on the basis of this

12     article and to prepare for defence, for the defence of the state that

13     they considered to be their own?

14        A.   Your Honour, I believe that this falls outside the scope of my

15     report because it's essentially a legal question.  However, I would just

16     like to draw your attention to the reference in the article that these

17     kind of activities, i.e., to defend the country, it is specified that one

18     of the three states has to be declared: state of war, state of imminent

19     threat of war, or I think that it's -- also mention is made of a state of

20     emergency.

21             And this is a decision which is taken by the highest political

22     authority, i.e., the SFRY Presidency.  So my understanding would be, from

23     this article, that, indeed, they can participate in these activities if

24     one of these three states has been declared.

25        Q.   All right.  Let's do it this way, Mr. Theunens.

Page 8480

 1             Shall we agree first on a fact that I believe should be beyond

 2     dispute; namely, that on the 3rd of October, 1991, a state of imminent

 3     threat of war had been declared?

 4        A.   Yes.  But, I mean, not to be difficult, but there is some dispute

 5     in a sense that - and I have quoted it in my report - that one, I think,

 6     it's a minute of the meeting states that the state of imminent threat of

 7     war has been established.  And it doesn't use the word "declared."

 8             However, a document from the, I think, the SSNO that follows this

 9     establishment refers to a declaration of the state of imminent threat of

10     war, by the SFRY Presidency or what remains, at that stage, of the SFRY

11     Presidency.  And that should be in the beginning of part 2 of the report.

12        Q.   Mr. Theunens, we won't deal with that any longer.  You said what

13     you had to say in relation to that.  I'm interested in the third

14     situation.  In the B/C/S version, this is what it reads verbatim:

15             "Or other emergencies."

16             When we say "or other emergencies," you're a military expert, an

17     expert in military affair, hotbeds of crisis and so on, the arming of a

18     political party like the HDZ was in a republic and preparation for

19     cessation, could that be considered as one of these "other emergencies"?

20        A.   Your Honours, I have not analysed in this report the -- I mean,

21     the matter raised by the Defence -- by Defence counsel.  I mean, the

22     arming by the HDZ and the preparation of cessation -- or cessation,

23     excuse me.

24        Q.   All right, Mr. Theunens.  I don't have time to dwell on this.

25     That will do.

Page 8481

 1             So now please look at Article 64 from the same law.  The last

 2     paragraph at that.

 3             I'm going to read the last paragraph out to you very slowly and

 4     I'm going to have a few questions in relation to that.

 5              "Socio-political and other social organisations and associations

 6     of citizens in accordance with their role and tasks develop and encourage

 7     various activities in preparing, organising, training, and the

 8     participation of their members and other working people and citizens in

 9     All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection and in carrying out other

10     tasks of importance for the strengthening of the defence and

11     self-protection capacity of the social community."

12             So my first question would be:  How do you interpret this?  What

13     are social political organisations, what are social organisations, and

14     what are associations of citizens?

15        A.   Your Honours, this refers to the concept of All People's Defence

16     as it existed in the SFRY, whereby the entire population would

17     participate in an organised manner in the defence of the country.  One of

18     the components of the defence consisted of the armed forces, whereby the

19     armed forces were made up of the JNA and the TO.  Now there could be also

20     other participants in this All People's Defence like, for example, civil

21     defence.  I believe that also state-owned factories could participate.  I

22     mean, the people working there who didn't serve in the JNA or the TO

23     could participate in the defence effort.  But obviously the emphasis was

24     on an organised structure -- on organised structures which would operate

25     under -- under state control.

Page 8482

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  I would like to deal with these legal

 2     provisions very quickly.

 3             Let us look at Article 81 now, and I'll have two questions in

 4     relation to that.  First paragraph of Article 81.

 5             So, Mr. Theunens, please look at Article 81 that says:

 6             "The Federal Secretariat for National Defence and certain

 7     commands, units, and institutions of the Yugoslav People's Army in

 8     cooperation with appropriate organs of socio-political communities ..."

 9             I would like to stop at this point and I would like to ask you,

10     for example, can we interpret it this way:  The MUP of a republic or the

11     MUP of a municipality, can it be considered an appropriate organ of a

12     socio-political community, an organ that is in charge?

13        A.   I -- I don't think I'm able to answer the question.  I know that

14     in Article 104 the police is identified as police in the -- in the

15     All People's Defence law and not as a socio-political community or

16     socio-political organisation.  So I prefer not to answer, instead of

17     trying to speculate.

18        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I don't want to insist on something that you

19     obviously haven't gone into in great detail.  I'm just suggesting to you

20     that a socio-political community is, say, a republic.  Would you agree

21     with that?

22        A.   That may be correct, yeah.

23        Q.   Can we agree that an appropriate organ, an organ in charge of

24     that socio-political community or that republic, is the Ministry of

25     Interior?

Page 8483

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  Let us proceed.

 3             So these organs of socio-political communities, according to this

 4     law of the SFRY, have the right to provide professional assistance to

 5     self-management organisations and communities, socio-political and other

 6     social organisations, in preparing All People's Defence, notably

 7     regarding the preparation organisation of Territorial Defence, civil

 8     protection, and a system of monitoring and reporting.

 9             So according to this law, for instance, could the MUP give

10     professional assistance, for instance, in monitoring and reporting, in

11     procuring equipment, like radios, uniforms, and so on, in your view?

12        A.   I mean, yeah.  If this assistance would be provided by the

13     entities identified in the Article, I don't see a problem.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  I don't want to go into an in-depth

15     discussion.  I want to deal with this to the degree to which you have

16     dealt with these matters.  And that is what is relevant to our Defence,

17     and that is why I'm moving so quickly.

18             Let us look at Article 94 now.

19             This is a chapter that has to do with the armed forces, and the

20     heading is: "Joint provisions."  The subheading, rather.  It is very

21     brief.  Please look at the text.

22             "For the organisation and preparation of the armed forces within

23     the rights and responsibilities established in the constitution and law,

24     it is the socio-political communities, basic and other, organisations of

25     associated labour and local communities that shall be responsible."

Page 8484

 1             So does this pertain to the same thing that you talked about,

 2     that even a local commune had a right to prepare for armed resistance, in

 3     one of those three aforementioned cases?

 4        A.   Again, if this is a -- these kind of activities are conducted in

 5     accordance with the overall legislation, and, for example, this is an

 6     reference here at the end of Article 94 in compliance with the social

 7     role and nature of the tasks, there -- there should not be a problem.

 8             And when I mean the overall legislation, I refer to the 1974 SFRY

 9     constitution and the 1982 Law on All People's Defence.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  Can we now move on to a different

11     document.  And --

12             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... just for me to

13     verify whether -- apparently the point you're making is that under this

14     law the MUP of Serbia - and you referred to the MUP, you never referred

15     to a MUP of a republic - was in a position to -- to assist in this

16     self-defence which is organised by any of the organisations mentioned in

17     this law.

18             Have I understood that well?

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  This was possible

20     under the law.  We will see what happened.  But the point I'm trying to

21     make is that this was permissible under the law.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and I see that point.  So I, therefore, well

23     understood your line of questioning.

24             Are you also making the point that, therefore, the MUP of Croatia

25     could have assisted organisations falling in the scope of this law in

Page 8485

 1     order to organise themselves against developments in other republics,

 2     because you're asking whether the MUP -- at least that was your point,

 3     that the MUP of Serbia had a right -- was in a position to -- to assist.

 4             Would that be true for the MUPs of all the republics, even if

 5     they would go against developments in the other republics?  Is that

 6     included in the point you wanted to make?

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do believe that

 8     this -- they would be included, because we're talking about the rights of

 9     the peoples to organise themselves and protect themselves, being

10     threatened.

11             Second, I'm not trying to testify here, but let us note that this

12     is the SFRY constitution that one or two republics wanted to crush.

13     Whereas, one constitutional entity within these republics wanted to

14     preserve it.  And under the -- the legislation, they had the right to

15     defend themselves.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I got your point.  I might still be

17     struggling with the end of Article 2 which says that -- after having

18     listed again all these organisations:

19             "... shall ensure that the preparation and implementation of

20     All People's Defence and Social Self-Protection constitute a unique

21     whole."

22             But I'm still -- then would be struggling with that, but at least

23     I got your point.  And that is what I wanted to verify.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 8486

 1             Can we have P1042, which is the Law on Defence of the

 2     Republic of Serbia.  Let us look at Article 10, please.

 3        Q.   This is a law from 1991 which applies to the Republic of Serbia

 4     only, while the FRY was still in existence.

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Let us look at Article 10, which

 6     reads -- it's on page 2.  It reads that:

 7             "The Ministry of Internal Affairs shall organise and implement

 8     defence preparations and its functioning in the case of an imminent

 9     threat of war or war.

10             "Establish the organisation and the headcount of the police force

11     in the event of an imminent threat of war or war."

12             We spoke of the proclamation of the state of an imminent threat

13     of war into October, so under the law, did the MUP have the right to

14     organize and carry out preparations for defence and war?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Ministry of Defence.

16             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure I understood the question now because

17     I thought you asked about Ministry of Interior and then in the transcript

18     there is a reference to the Ministry of Defence.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   I may have misspoken.  No, my question had to do with the

21     Ministry of the Interior.

22        A.   Indeed.  As is specified in the Article, okay, one of the three

23     states has to be declared.  And just to also refer to the point made by

24     Your Honours, the uniqueness, as is referred to in -- in the Article of

25     the All People's Defence law, refers to the principles of command and

Page 8487

 1     control that are defined in Article 112 of the 1982 All People's Defence

 2     law, page 29, part 1 of the report, where unity of command is one of the

 3     three principle, i.e., it's part -- all defence efforts have to be part

 4     of one bigger or one big effort and -- and all these smaller efforts that

 5     are part of it have to be coherent and consistent with the overall goal.

 6        Q.   Let me follow up with the -- with this.  When you say "unity of

 7     command," who is it who enforces unity of command under the law?

 8        A.   Well, it starts at the level of the Supreme Command, which is a

 9     political body; and then as far as for the military is concerned, it goes

10     down through the chain of command to the smallest unit.  I mean, when I

11     go from the top to the bottom.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  Let us look at another Article from

13     this law; namely, Article 119, which is on page 45 in the B/C/S version.

14     It is a short article as well.  And I'd like to see what your

15     understanding of the article is.

16             Let me start reading slowly before we have it.  Article 119

17     reads:

18             "In the event that the interests of the Republic of Serbia as a

19     state are under threat, as well as those of the Serbian People, the

20     provisions of federal laws from the field of national defence shall apply

21     as appropriate until such time as the republican laws are passed."

22             So what I'd like to know is this:  Does this Article provide for

23     the application of, under the republican Serbian law, the Law on All

24     People's Defence dating back to 1982, in those circumstances as well?

25        A.   I've seen this article before and I know there has been debate

Page 8488

 1     over it, but I have not been able to fully understand the last sentence,

 2     whether it means that Serbian law has priority over federal law or

 3     whether federal law has priority over Serbian law until Serbian law has

 4     been made coherent with federal law.

 5             So that's why also I haven't included this article in my report,

 6     and I don't -- I'm not qualified to answer the question.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, I also have some difficulties in

 8     understanding what Article 119 exactly means.  And I wonder whether

 9     there's any translation problem, but perhaps I should ask the native

10     speakers whether they can make any logic sense out of Article 119, in

11     English.  Perhaps I'm -- looking at Mr. Groome, looking at Mr. Jordash.

12             So equally looking at both parties.

13             Mr. Jordash, do you fully understand what Article 119 actually

14     says?

15             MR. JORDASH:  I think I do.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me ask.

17             Mr. Groome, do you also have no difficulties in understanding the

18     language of Article 119?

19             MR. GROOME:  I do have some difficulty.  I'm just studying it

20     now.  Maybe Mr. -- Mr. ...

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Weber.

22             MR. GROOME: -- Weber ...

23             MR. WEBER:  I'm just reiterating what Mr. Groome just said.

24             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... so there's one party who

25     claims that he understands, being a native speaking person.

Page 8489

 1             Mr. Jordash, could you rephrase Article 119 in such a way that it

 2     becomes clear to us as well?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  The federal laws -- in a situation where the

 4     Republic of Serbia or its people's interests are endangered, the federal

 5     laws will apply until --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Until, yes.

 7             MR. JORDASH: -- the republican laws are passed.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I was struggling with the "as long as."

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Until.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Until.  You understand "as long as" to be "until."

11     Then, I must say, I have far less problems.

12             Is that your understanding as well, Mr. Bakrac?

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes.  And perhaps my

14     next question and reference to the 1994 FRY law will serve to clarify the

15     matter.

16             So I'll call up the 65 ter number of the federal law, because it

17     was uploaded erroneously as a P exhibit.  We only have the first page in

18     English.

19             So can we call up 65 ter 4418 and look at page 2, where two

20     articles are listed -- or, rather, my apologies.  Let us first look at

21     the last page of the transitional and final provision, which is

22     Article 87.

23             It is a rather longish article, so I'll read it out for you:

24             On the date of coming into effect of this law, the Law on All

25     People's Defence, SFRY Official Gazette 81/17 and 31/91, will cease to

Page 8490

 1     exist -- will cease to -- will become null and void.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now we have the article so that we can follow

 3     what has just been read.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.  I didn't

 5     notice it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You were reading from 87, Mr. Bakrac?

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... The Registrar

 9     informs me that a translation of 87 is not uploaded in e-court.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Maybe it was an error on my part.  I

11     relied on the Prosecution documents being uploaded.  I did say that only

12     page 1 was translated.  I didn't look at the end of it.  I didn't think

13     it was going to be a problem.  Even Mr. Theunens confirmed at the start

14     of my cross-examination that the 1982 law was in force until 1994, when

15     the Law on Defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was passed.

16        Q.   Perhaps we can ask Mr. Theunens if he agrees with what I've just

17     said.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me first re-read what you just read so that we

19     have at least -- one second, please.

20             Well, let me ... first of all, I have a problem with the server

21     connection.

22             Do I understand that Rule 87 is a kind of transitional rule which

23     refers to all other kinds of other legislation and that you say that it

24     [Overlapping speakers] ...

25             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...  yes,

Page 8491

 1     Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] To make it easier for you, I can

 4     read it out.  It's just a sentence.

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... if you read out

 6     the one relevant sentence, that would assist.

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's precisely what I wanted

 8     to do, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 9             "On the date of the coming into force of the present law, the Law

10     on All People's Defence (SFRY Official Gazette 21/82 and 35/92) will

11     become null and void."

12        Q.   Is that something you agreed with at the start of my

13     cross-examination when I asked you whether this 1982 law was in force in

14     the FRY until 1994?

15        A.   Your Honours, my -- it was indeed my reply that it was my

16     understanding that the 1982 was still in force in FRY prior to the

17     adoption of the FRY Law on Defence.  And there's obviously a

18     contradiction between what he's stated in Article 87 and, for example,

19     the SFRY Presidency order number 73 from December 1991; it's the order on

20     the engagement of volunteers in the armed forces of the SFRY during

21     immediate danger of war.  There -- I mean, this is from December, i.e.,

22     after the adoption of the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia.  And

23     in that order there is a clear reference to the Law on All People's

24     Defence, so suggesting or indicating or even confirming that the Law on

25     Defence is still valid.

Page 8492

 1             Now, I know - and, again, I'm not going go into legal analysis -

 2     but I know that the Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia, as it was

 3     adopt in August 1991, as well as, I mean, in particular also Article 119

 4     that was discussed, which basically states that for Serbia its own

 5     legislation has priority over federal legislation - here the defence

 6     law - that there was a lot of debate on that legislation, i.e., its

 7     validity.  But I would leave that to a constitutional or legal expert to

 8     comment an opinion on that.

 9        Q.   Very well, Mr. Theunens.  I can agree with you in part.  After

10     all, it is a piece of legislation on defence, and you, as a military

11     expert, should have more extensive knowledge about it than me, and I mean

12     in relation to this particular field.  I am not calling into question

13     your knowledge and expertise, the vast knowledge and expertise you have.

14             Can we have Articles 15 and 23 of the law.  That's on the

15     following page.  Where, in my view, and I'm suggesting it to you, a point

16     which was envisaged under the SFRY law of 1982 is being specified.

17             So look at Article 15 which reads:

18             "Organising and preparing citizens for armed struggle and other

19     forms of armed resistance shall be carried out by the -- shall be carried

20     out within units and institutions of the Army of Yugoslavia and units and

21     organs of home affairs."

22             So do you agree that at least under this particular law, which

23     says so explicitly, did these competent organs have the power to prepare

24     citizens and engage in other forms of activities aimed at preparing armed

25     defence?

Page 8493

 1        A.   Yes, that's what Article 15 states.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I see that many in this

 3     courtroom are struggling with the connection with the server.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I am informed that the server will be restarted and

 6     that we'll have access again within a couple of minutes.

 7             I suggest that we continue for the time being, looking at our

 8     left screens where the text is still scrolling.

 9             Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   I have only one question left on the issue of legislation, and

12     that's in relation to Article 23.  I'd like to hear your interpretation

13     of the article.  It reads:

14             "All citizens, according to their abilities and understand

15     conditions as provided in Article 22, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present

16     law, shall have the right and duty to be trained for defence of the

17     country.

18             "The federal government shall issue rules regulating the training

19     of citizens for the defence of the countries as stipulated in paragraph 1

20     of this Article."

21             Mr. Theunens, according to this law, was the federal government

22     the one which issued rules and regulations for the purposes of training

23     citizens as provided in Article -- in paragraph 1 of this article?

24        A.   Yes.  Article 23 states that it is the federal government that

25     shall issue rules regulates the training of citizens for the defence of

Page 8494

 1     the country as stipulated in the first paragraph of that article.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  I needed to ask you this because it

 3     will form the basis for my further submissions.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at 2D306 now.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would object to using this document

 7     at this time.  It's one of the documents for which the Prosecution has

 8     not received a translation to before court.  We also received, right

 9     before court, an indication of the order, from the Simatovic Defence, of

10     exhibits, and I see this one was not appearing in the -- the order that

11     we were provided.  So we haven't even -- I believe that there are some

12     translations that just recently became available, but, of course, in my

13     reviewing of what was noticed to us to -- even recently, in terms of how

14     to prioritise it, this document wasn't included in it.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, has any translation been provided?

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we did include it, and

17     my learned friend is right when he said that we did it today.

18             It is possible, perhaps, that inadvertently an error was made in

19     the order.  But perhaps we could have a look at the document with the

20     witness now and then at the end of this process I will be tendering these

21     documents, so Mr. Weber will have time enough to review the document and

22     make his objections, if any.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, time enough.  At least additional time.

24             Mr. Weber, let's have a look at the document.  We do not know yet

25     what it is.  It could be a one-line document.  I've got no idea.

Page 8495

 1             So before we say yes or no, wouldn't it be good to have a look at

 2     it.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we're objecting.  Mr. Bakrac is going to

 4     have a day and a half -- well, today and tomorrow.  We're asking for, at

 5     the very least, an opportunity to know what the document is that's being

 6     shown to the witness, which, I guess, is now - since I'm seeing the

 7     translation for the first time ever - from the federal Ministry of

 8     Justice and is just not a one-page -- of a one-line document.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The last thing, I can confirm.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, would it disturb your flow of evidence

12     to be presented if we would look at it tomorrow or ...

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I only wanted to

14     have continuity and to follow up on the laws relating to associations of

15     citizens.  But if it makes matters easier for the Prosecutor, I will go

16     back to this document tomorrow.

17             But just to summarize:  It's a decision whereby the Serbian Guard

18     was entered in the register of social and political organisations.  The

19     decision was issued by the Ministry of Justice, and the statement of

20     reasons indicates that there was an earlier decision under the old law.

21     In item 4, it is stated that a similar decision dating back to

22     January 1991 was hereby made null and void.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, Mr. Bakrac was kind enough to already

24     inform you briefly about what you could expect in the document which he

25     will deal with tomorrow.

Page 8496

 1             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  We're not looking to have any

 2     discussions about the document.  There are a substantial number of

 3     documents that we don't have translations to.  If we could have an

 4     opportunity to look at them and then reserve any position for tomorrow,

 5     when we look at [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You're already anticipating on what will follow.

 7     This document Mr. Bakrac will deal with tomorrow.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.

 9             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I will

10     proceed.

11             Can we have now D118, please.  It's an admitted document.

12        Q.   Mr. Theunens, did you have occasion to review the document at --

13     over the weekend?

14             I'm -- I apologise.  We don't have it on our screens yet, so I'm

15     sure you can't even answer it.  We'll wait for you to have a look at it.

16             You have it before you now, Mr. Theunens.  Did you have occasion

17     to go through it over the weekend?

18        A.   I went through the CD I received from you.  I don't remember

19     whether this document was on the CD, but I may have missed it.  But,

20     anyway, I have seen it before.

21        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  If you look at the last paragraph in

22     B/C/S, and it's also the last paragraph in English, please read through.

23     This is a letter by Dusan Smiljanic, a colonel or assistant commander for

24     security intelligence of the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of Krajina.

25             Did you know that on the 15th of October, 1994, this particular

Page 8497

 1     individual held this position?

 2        A.   You say 1994 or 1993?  Because the document states 1993.

 3        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I see that the document states the date when this

 4     was written and when Colonel Dusan Smiljanic qualified himself as

 5     assistant commander for security and intelligence of the Main Staff of

 6     the Serb army of the Krajina.  So it's the 15th of October, 1994.

 7             Since you were involved in military affairs in this case, my

 8     question to you is whether you can confirm that this person was in actual

 9     fact assistant commander for security in the Main Staff of the Army of

10     the Republic of the Serb Krajina.

11        A.   I know that Colonel Dusan Smiljanic was a security organ in the

12     SVK.  Now, I have no reason to doubt what you're stating.  I'm more

13     familiar with his successor, even though I don't remember his exact name

14     at this stage.  But I know that lieutenant-colonel -- or Colonel - excuse

15     me - Smiljanic was at the senior level in the security organs of the SVK

16     at the time you mentioned, October 1994.

17        Q.   So, Mr. Theunens, if we look at -- actually, can we go back to

18     the first page now.

19             I would briefly like to jog your memory in terms of the substance

20     of this letter.  The letter is being sent to General Ratko Mladic to the

21     Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, and Mr. Smiljanic is looking

22     back at everything that had happened in the area of the Krajina.  At the

23     end of the first paragraph, he refers to what happened in Plitvice in

24     March 1991, and he says that he was sent to Plitvice at his personal

25     request together with a group of officers, that he remained in the area

Page 8498

 1     of the republic of the Serb Krajina until July 1992.

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could we please move on to page 2

 3     now.

 4        Q.   Now the second paragraph, where he specifically states that he is

 5     illegally linking up with the key people of the Serb democratic people

 6     from the area of Lika, Banija, Kordun, and Banja Luka, and with a group

 7     of security organs and VP - I assume that VP is military post code -

 8     on -- at the end of April and the beginning of May.  I starts arming the

 9     Serb people illegally from the arms depots that were in Otocac,

10     Sveti Rok, and Skradin, and that in that -- at that point in time in

11     July 1991 various infantry weapons and mortars were distributed in this

12     ways, as well as guns and large amounts of ammunition, in this area of

13     Lika, Kordun, and Banja.

14             You have seen this document.

15             My question is:  Why is it not contained in your report?  Because

16     I think that it provides some important figures about the ways in which

17     the Serb people were armed in the republic of the Serb Krajina.

18        A.   First just a small correction:  The VP stands for "vojna

19     policija" here, so for military police.

20        Q.   Oh, yes, sorry.

21        A.   No problem.  It is correct that I have not included this document

22     in my report for the reason that I -- I tried to focus in this report on

23     the role of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

24             So I didn't conduct a detailed analysis of how Serbs in Croatia

25     were armed, but I tried to focus and I tried to limited myself, as is

Page 8499

 1     indicated in the scope of the report, to any role played by the

 2     Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

 3             And I think -- I mean, just to be complete --

 4        Q.   Mr. Theunens --

 5        A.   Just to be complete, I think when your colleague asked questions

 6     about the arming of the -- of Serbs in Croatia, I mentioned the role of

 7     the JNA, as well as of -- as well as of other organisations as we

 8     discussed over the last week.

 9        Q.   Mr. Theunens, wasn't it relevant for you to include in your

10     report this particular fact?  I'm going to ask you now, because you were

11     dealing with the Serbian MUP and the assistance that it had provided to

12     the Krajina, do you have any idea of the type and amount of equipment

13     that was provided by the Serb MUP to the Republic of Krajina?

14        A.   No.  The documents I reviewed do not provide a detailed breakdown

15     of the types and -- and numbers or amount of equipment that was provided

16     by the MUP the Republic of Serbia.

17        Q.   Mr. Theunens, with all due respect, and bearing in mind the fact

18     that you had before you this fact, and a certain amount of assistance

19     provided by the MUP of Serbia, wasn't it fair to include this document in

20     your report so that it would be more correct and more realistic at that?

21        A.   I could have included this document for the sake of being

22     complete but then I would have to do -- would have to have included also

23     a detailed breakdown of other assistance -- I mean, other JNA documents

24     that refer to the provision of weapons.  But it's -- I mean, yeah, I

25     could have included it for the sake of completeness, but it doesn't

Page 8500

 1     change what I have put in my report.

 2        Q.   Very well, Mr. Theunens.  Tell me -- before we move on to the

 3     second paragraph that has to do with the second part of your report, or,

 4     rather, the third part of your report, tell me:  15.000 pieces of

 5     different infantry weapons, according to military doctrine, how many

 6     brigades can be armed with that amount of equipment?

 7        A.   I would say it depends on the type of weapons.  Because in some

 8     cases one soldier can have several weapons.  But you would talk about

 9     several brigades.  Four, five, six, depending on the nature of the

10     brigade.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  Please look at the next paragraph now.

12     This same Colonel at the time, from the security organs - and we did deal

13     with many alleged documents of the security service.  And now there's a

14     reference to the territory of Bosnia, and it says that in July 1991 he

15     went to the area of Novi Grad in Banja Luka where he linked up with

16     Stojan Zupljanin, Brdjanin, and some other persons.  And that during the

17     course of that month he organised, again, the provision of over 20.000

18     various pieces of weapons from the arms depot in Skradnik, to Celinac and

19     Drvar.  This equipment included mortars, bombs, Zoljas, and two BKs and I

20     believe that these are two combat sets of ammunitions or kits.

21             Is this a fact that did you not deem relevant when you were

22     compiling your report?

23        A.   No, Your Honours, I have answered the question.  I could have

24     included this document if I wanted to address in detail the role of the

25     JNA in arming local Serb military structures in Croatia and

Page 8501

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2             I would also like to emphasise that this is a personal letter.

 3     It is not an official document.  So -- and as I mentioned earlier, I

 4     could have included this for the sake of completeness, but I haven't done

 5     so.

 6             And I did --

 7        Q.   I'm sorry.  Mr. Theunens, you said a few moments ago that you had

 8     no reason to doubt this document, that you knew this Mr. Smiljanic.  And

 9     now it seems to me that you are trying to bring into question the

10     authenticity of the document.  Or am I wrong perhaps?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood the observation to be that it was a

12     authentic but not formal document, a personal letter on matters which

13     could have reported in a formal sense in the existing hierarchy, whereas

14     this is a more personal nature.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I do

17     apologise.  Yes.

18        Q.   Now, do you have any reason to doubt the substance of what

19     Mr. Smiljanic wrote to General Ratko Mladic in this document, in this

20     letter?

21        A.   I know overall that there was -- there is information indicating

22     the participation of security organs in, say, summer and -- and

23     fall 1991, in providing assistance, equipment to local Serb defence

24     structures in -- in Banja, Kordun, and maybe also Lika, so the area that

25     was covered by Sector North in the time when UNPROFOR was deployed.  But

Page 8502

 1     I haven't seen any official documents on that.

 2        Q.   Mr. Theunens, for the sake of clarity, I do not share your

 3     position that this is a private document.  Please look at the last page.

 4     This document was officially registered in the Main Staff at the Security

 5     Department of the Army of the Republic of the Serb Krajina on the

 6     16th of October, 1994.  So that is one matter.

 7             And now there's another matter:  I did not understand you quite

 8     well, I assume.  It was my understanding that you were a military expert

 9     in this case, and it was the activity of the army that you dealt with in

10     the area concerned, and also at the time that is relevant to this

11     document.  In -- or, rather, you were not dealing with the indictment in

12     that way; you were just investigating the activities of the MUP, or,

13     rather, explaining that.

14             Are you a military expert here?  Am I wrong about the capacity in

15     which you appear here?

16        A.   I would just -- to make sure that -- that what I wanted to state

17     is correctly effected, I want to emphasise that in page 26, line 15, I

18     needed to have said the security organs of the JNA.

19             Now to come back to your question.  Indeed, there a stamp on the

20     document, but that is just, in my view, reflects that the document has

21     been officially registered but the contents still remains the same.  It

22     is a personal letter by Colonel Smiljanic to General Mladic.  Why he had

23     it registered to as -- as such, we should ask Smiljanic.

24             Now to answer the second part of your question.  The scope of the

25     report is very clear.  I tried to focus on the military aspects of the

Page 8503

 1     role of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia in this

 2     report.  It is obviously not an overall analysis of, for example, in this

 3     specific discussion, how the Serbs in -- how Serbs in Croatia and

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina were armed, how they created their own defence or

 5     military structures, and so on.  That would go beyond the scope of the

 6     report.

 7        Q.   Mr. Theunens, but you will agree with me that you your report

 8     would have been a lot more realistic and a lot more complete and complex

 9     and that it would reflect far more faithfully the role of the MUP in

10     these developments had you taken into account these facts which I deem

11     very important; right?

12             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I think,

13     Mr. Bakrac, you've now tried six, seven, or eight times to illustrate for

14     us that what others did may be relevant, if you are assessing what the

15     MUP did.  Now, that was clear to me 15 minutes ago.  If you want to spend

16     another 15 minutes on it, but it's your time.  It's -- it's -- it's clear

17     that Mr. Theunens says, I focussed on documents directly relating to the

18     MUP.  And you said it would have shed light if you would have also paid

19     attention to documents which -- which more or less explains the

20     developments but which were focussing on activity of other organisations.

21             Therefore, I leave it to you.  But I would suggest that you move

22     on.

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Your Honour, I'm

24     grateful.  I understand, and I shall move on.  But I just have one

25     question left.

Page 8504

 1        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I think that I counted this right.  You included in

 2     your report 19 different articles or books or interviews of

 3     Vojislav Seselj.  It seems that this was more important for you than

 4     documents that are fact-based and that come from security organs.

 5             We will also go back to another thing that you made comments,

 6     with regard to some unsigned reports of security organs, that in this

 7     way, or some other way, gave a bad impression of the security service.

 8        A.   I don't know what the question is.

 9        Q.   My question is:  Do you do not think -- or, rather, do you think

10     that newspaper articles of a political leader at the time who, inter

11     alia, wrote other books, also since he came here to the Tribunal, are

12     they more important than a signed document, a registered document, which

13     is evidence provided by a military person in an area that you had dealt

14     with?

15        A.   Your Honours, we have been a few times over this.  It is all a

16     matter of first looking at the scope of the report which has been

17     explained actually in introduction to report.  And then, next, of the

18     second aspect of my answer, is the methodology that is applied.  And

19     obviously one considers a wide range of written documentation when one

20     compiles such a report, and some of this written documentation can

21     consist of open-source material, including personal statements of senior

22     politicians, and so on.  So -- and sometimes documents are unsigned

23     that -- and that has also been highlighted in the report.

24             Just to finish my answer, I think it's also important to realise,

25     that we're -- I mean, there's report, discussions, and activity which

Page 8505

 1     was, to say the least, hidden to the -- to the public for obvious

 2     reasons.  As you know, the United Nations imposed sanctions, I mean,

 3     economic sanctions, against FRY in May 1992 as a punishment, between

 4     brackets, for the -- what was considered the continuous involvement of

 5     the FRY in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and provisional support and

 6     so on.  And the subject matter that is discussed in the report directly

 7     concerns this kind of support by one branch of the authorities of the

 8     Republic of Serbia.  So I wouldn't say that it is a surprise that there's

 9     so little documentation and even that some of the documentation is

10     unsigned.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm looking at the

13     clock.  Perhaps this would be a convenient moment for the break, if you

14     so allow.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it is, Mr. Bakrac.

16             We'll have a break, and we will resume at 4.00.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18                           --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, are you ready to proceed?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I am, Your Honour.  Thank you.

23        Q.   Mr. Theunens, before I show you a document, I'd like to ask you

24     this:  Do you know General Tumanov?

25        A.   Yes.  He was a general in the JNA.  He was of Macedonian

Page 8506

 1     ethnicity.  And I believe that in the first half of 1992, or at least

 2     until April or May, he was the deputy chief of the security

 3     administration of the SFRY armed forces.

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Private session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8507











11 Pages 8507-8514 redacted. Private session.















Page 8515

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

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

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

15             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honour?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You may.

17             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Theunens, when we now say -- actually, you said what the area

19     of responsibility of the 2nd Military District is.  In the situation when

20     a state of imminent threat of war was declared, or a state of war, what

21     are the duties and responsibilities of the military organs and the

22     security organs in the area of the military district?

23             The military security organs; that is what the interpretation

24     should say.

25             So, we saw what the situation was.  A state of imminent threat of

Page 8516

 1     war was declared.  There is the area of responsibility of the

 2     2nd Military District.  I would be interested in the rights and

 3     responsibilities of the military organs and the security organs in their

 4     area of responsibility.

 5        A.   I'm not able to answer that question because I have not seen a

 6     specific document, or documents, that describe these rights and

 7     responsibilities.

 8        Q.   I fully understand what you're saying.  I would now be interested

 9     in the following:  In a military doctrine, could you tell us what the

10     rights and responsibilities of the military authorities would be in that

11     kind of a situation?

12             My question before that was whether you read the Law on the Army

13     and the rules of conduct, in order to be able to answer that question.

14        A.   I'm not sure with -- with the rules -- I mean, which specific

15     rules of conduct you are hinting at.

16        Q.   In the JNA.  As a military expert, did you have access to the

17     rules of service?  It's called the rules of service in the JNA.  As a

18     military expert who dealt with military matters, did you explore and

19     study that?  That's my question to you.

20        A.   I know of a 1985 Law on the Service in the Armed Forces, but I

21     don't remember, at this stage, whether there were specific duties or

22     rights identified in that law in relation to military organs during one

23     of the three states.

24        Q.   Can you give us an example from a military, doctrinary point of

25     view.  If a state of war is declared or an imminent state of war is

Page 8517

 1     declared, what are the rights and responsibilities of military security

 2     organs and military authorities in their area of responsibility?

 3        A.   Again, I cannot answer the question because I don't remember

 4     seeing such a document for the SFRY armed forces or the JNA.  There is

 5     one document I managed to identify, which I mentioned -- I mean, I

 6     mentioned it earlier, from the -- I think the SFRY armed forces Supreme

 7     Command Staff, which is from early October 1992, and specifically

 8     highlights the situation with volunteers, i.e., emphasizing the

 9     importance of volunteers to reinforce the manpower of the JNA.  But I'm

10     not able to answer your question further.

11        Q.   Mr. Theunens, with all due respect, as an expert who was given

12     the task of compiling a military analysis in a particular area, were you

13     not interested in taking into account all relevant military legislation,

14     all military rules?  That is a basic document, the rules of service in

15     the JNA.  Quite simply, I'm surprised now.  Is it possible that when you

16     wrote up your report you were not interested in that, to see what this

17     basic document says?

18        A.   I'm not sure whether you're accurately representing my previous

19     answer.  I explicitly made reference to the 1985 Law on the Service in

20     the Armed Forces.  Again, if there is another regulation I haven't seen,

21     well, please show it to me and then show me the relevant passages so I

22     can comment on them.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's see --

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, first of all, the rules you were

Page 8518

 1     referring to, are those the same as the law Mr. Theunens referred to?  I

 2     mean, is there any disagreement in that respect?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I'm not

 4     understanding you fully.  The rules I'm referring to are not those laws

 5     on defence.  Those are the rules of service in the JNA.  I shall --

 6             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... line 17,

 7     page 40, you say:  "It's called the rules of service in the JNA."

 8             So you had a certain set of rules on your mind.

 9             Mr. Theunens started his answer by saying:

10             "I know of a 1985 Law of the Service in the Armed Forces, but I

11     don't remember, at this stage ..."

12             So let's first establish whether had you a different set of rules

13     on your mind as the ones Mr. Theunens referred to.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this is

15     called the rules of service in the JNA.  It is not -- it is not a law on

16     service in the JNA.  This is the basic document that regulates --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  When was that document issued?  Do you have a

18     copy of it so that we can look at it?  We are having a debate, and you

19     are proclaiming Mr. Theunens for not considering a certain piece of

20     legislation or rules or whatever, when we have not even established

21     whether we are talking about the same set of rules.

22             Your rules of service in the JNA were issued when?

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise.  I've

24     been taken by surprise.  I thought that Mr. Theunens had taken that into

25     account.  I am referring to the rules of service --

Page 8519

 1             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, but,

 2     there's no need to express now for the third or the fourth time your

 3     surprise.  I'm just trying to get you both on the same track.  That's the

 4     only thing I'm doing at this moment.

 5             Your set of rules, the rules of service in the JNA, were issued

 6     when and by whom?

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Issued by the Federal Assembly in

 8     1985, and I think that Mr. Theunens mentioned that.

 9             Could he, on the basis of that, explain to us what the areas of

10     responsibility of a brigade is and --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- so we now establish more or less that you

12     are -- you say it's no law but it's of 1985 and issued by the -- by the

13     Federal Assembly and --

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.  Let me be

15     very specific.  The document is actually sponsored by the Ministry of

16     Defence and ultimately passed by the Ministry of Defence but is approved

17     by the Federal Assembly.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  It's still not perfectly clear whether we're

19     talking about the same document.  I would say there's an 80 or

20     90 per cent chance that we do, but it's still not finally established.

21             Now, what you asked Mr. Theunens, when he referred to what he

22     considered to be part of your question, he referred to this -- what he

23     called the Law of 1985, and you asked him whether he could give an

24     example.  He said something about that law, and then he said, But I can't

25     further answer your question at this moment.  Which means that he can't

Page 8520

 1     give an example by the top of his head of any of the elements you asked

 2     for.  So there we are.  We are talking about the same document.

 3     Mr. Theunens has not a recollection which allows him to give an example

 4     as you asked him.  And that's where we are.

 5             Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, on page 41 of today's transcript I see,

 7     in conjunction with this discussion, Mr. Bakrac asked:

 8             "What are the right and responsibilities of military security

 9     organs and military authorities in their area of responsibility?"

10             I just -- in order to avoid any confusion, I do not know if

11     Mr. Bakrac is referring to P1036 which are the rules of service of the

12     security organs in the SFRY armed forces.  So I just bring this --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             MR. WEBER: -- bring this up to see if this is the same document

15     that Mr. Bakrac is referring to or a different one.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  P1046 you said?

17             MR. WEBER:  1036.  I see that it is published in 1984.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then most likely it's not the same.

19     Different year, different title.

20             Mr. Theunens, I just wanted to establish where we were at that

21     time.  Not a full 100 per cent certainty that we're talking about the

22     same.  You asked for examples, Mr. Theunens is -- said something about

23     the document he is aware of and couldn't give any examples.

24             Next question, please.

25             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me.

Page 8521

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, yes.

 2             THE WITNESS:  If you allow me, Your Honours, actually the law on

 3     the service in the armed forces, "zakon o sluzbi o oruzanim snagama,"

 4     is -- from 1985, is P1012.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 6             THE WITNESS:  If that can help.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that the one you were hinting at, Mr. Bakrac?

 8     Then we ...

 9             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I'm

10     going to skip this question.  I'm going to look into it again, and

11     perhaps I shall go back to it later.

12             I would just like to check this.  I hadn't printed this because I

13     didn't think that there was any need to cite anything from there, but if

14     you allow me, I'm going to skip the question for the time being and go

15     back to it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  If you ask a specific question about a document,

17     then at least you should be aware of what that document is, isn't it?

18     Especially if it's in evidence.  Because that makes life easier if we

19     know what we are talking about.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   Mr. Theunens, when my learned friend Mr. Jordash was

23     cross-examining you, if I understood things correctly, you said, when

24     speaking about the Serb Radical Party and the volunteers of the Serb

25     Radical Party, that it seemed to you that after November 1993 the MUP

Page 8522

 1     started bringing pressure on the Serb Radical Party.

 2             Did I understand you correctly?

 3        A.   I think you're paraphrasing a bit, but what I was trying to

 4     explain is that only after there is a political fallout or break between

 5     Mr. Milosevic, president of Serbia at the time, and Mr. Seselj, president

 6     of the Serbian Radical Party, that only at that time the competent

 7     authorities in the Republic of Serbia, including the MUP, start to act

 8     against, in particular, senior SRS volunteers.  And I've seen a number of

 9     documents indicating that these senior SRS volunteers are then arrested

10     on the basis of charges for the illegal possession of weapons.

11             And, again, these are just a number of documents.  I haven't

12     analysed the whole issue in detail, and I cannot provide any statistics.

13        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I think that I did paraphrase you correctly, and I

14     think that we can agree that you were referring to the period from the

15     second half of 1993 onwards, that that's when that happened; right?

16        A.   I -- I have a recollection of November.  But we would have to

17     look at the specific documents in order to ascertain when this starts.

18     Or to establish, I'm sorry, to establish when this exactly starts.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would -- I would now

20     like to ask that we move into private session because I would like to put

21     something to Mr. Theunens that is actually the transcript of a protected

22     witness.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

24                           [Private session]

25   (redacted)

Page 8523











11 Pages 8523-8531 redacted. Private session.















Page 8532

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24                           [Open session]

25             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.

Page 8533

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 2             THE WITNESS:  I did, indeed, conclude in the report that the

 3     Serbian Volunteer Guard, on the basis of the documents I reviewed, during

 4     combat operations operated under JNA command.  There are also documents

 5     from the 1st Military District, security organs, indicating that outside

 6     combat operations the Serbian Volunteer Guard conducted other activities,

 7     including criminal activities, whereby they were not -- at least on the

 8     basis of these documents, not subordinated to the JNA.

 9             As a second aspect of my answer:  On the basis of the document, I

10     concluded that the Serbian minister of interior controlled or maintained

11     other relations with groups like the Serbian Volunteer Guard.  I couldn't

12     find a specific -- or I couldn't, yeah, find a specific military

13     definition for the type of relation, but at least on the basis of the

14     documents I could conclude that the Serbian minister of interior allowed

15     the Serbian Volunteer Guard to exist from at least fall 1991 to

16     September 1995 without interfering with its activities, even though there

17     was public knowledge or even information available to the Serbian

18     authorities that members of the Serbian Volunteer Guard, including Arkan,

19     had allegedly been involved in serious crimes.

20             There're also examples -- I mean, obviously when you look at the

21     map, the Serbian authorities, including the MUP, allowed the

22     Serbian Volunteer Guard to transit from Serbia towards Eastern Slavonia,

23     to remove certain goods from Eastern Slavonia.  One famous example, it's

24     not the Serbian Volunteer Guard itself but it's the -- are the Skorpions

25     located at the Dzeletovci oil --

Page 8534

 1        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2        A.   Yeah?

 3        Q.   Sir, witness, all this is contained in your report, and there's

 4     no need for you to repeat it.

 5             I will now show you some exhibits and we'll see if perhaps

 6     they'll change your mind.  My intention was to show you, tomorrow, a

 7     document whereby the Ministry of Justice registered the Serbian Guard as

 8     a socio-political organisation.  Did you know that

 9     Mr. Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was a deputy in the Serbian Assembly

10     sometime from mid-1992?

11        A.   Indeed, I know.  And on the basis of the information that was

12     already available at the time in relation to alleged criminal activities

13     by Mr. Zeljko Raznjatovic in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, one could

14     consider quite remarkable, but it's not something I have analysed in the

15     scope of -- in my report.

16        Q.   Mr. Theunens, if I were to tell you an assumption - and we'll see

17     what the evidence will show - that the Serbian Volunteer Guard was

18     registered as a socio-political organisation or social organisation by

19     the Ministry of Justice, and if we proceed from the assumption that the

20     testimony of Witness JF-047 on the issue of MUP of Serbia's attitude

21     toward volunteers was true, was there a reason for the MUP of Serbia to

22     arrest Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and members of his guard?

23        A.   I'm a bit confused by the first part of your question because are

24     you now stating that the Serbian Volunteer Guard, also known as the

25     Arakanovci, were registered as a socio-political organisation?  Or are

Page 8535

 1     you referring to the document on a Serbian Guard, "Srpska Garda," that we

 2     saw briefly on the screen earlier today?

 3        Q.   Mr. Theunens, no.  My question was a hypothetical one.  Had the

 4     Serbian Volunteer Guard been registered in the register of

 5     socio-political organisations as was the Serbian Guard, would there have

 6     existed a basis for its members to be arrested if they had not committed

 7     a crime in the territory of the Republic of Serbia if they had not milled

 8     about Serbia carrying weapons?

 9        A.   I mean, that's a legal question and it's outside the scope of my

10     report.  Because one would have to establish first what are the legal

11     criteria in order to be registered as a socio-political organisation, and

12     which activities prevent -- for example, which activities prevents an

13     organisation from being registered as a socio-political organisation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, your question was, to that extent, a bit

15     confusing, that you started by saying:  "If I were to tell you an

16     assumption - and we'll see what the evidence will show ..." which means

17     it's an assumption, but, at the same time, we should take it for a fact

18     that the Serbian Volunteer Guard was registered, and, if, as you said, we

19     proceed from the assumption that the witness -- so therefore the second

20     assumption is included in the question that -- on the issue of the MUP

21     Serbia attitude towards volunteers was true.  So we have two assumptions.

22     One being translated more into a expectation of being established, and

23     then I'm not surprised that Mr. Theunens is a bit confused as well.

24             Apparently what you want to ask him - at least that's how I

25     understand it to be:  If an organisation is registered as a

Page 8536

 1     socio-political organisation, would there be any reason to arrest members

 2     of it apart from if there's a reasonable suspicion that they committed

 3     offences.

 4             Is that what you wanted to ask?

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's what I

 6     wanted to ask.

 7             So to keep matters short, that's what I wanted to ask.  And I --

 8     my question was to be placed in the context of the Republic of Serbia,

 9     because I'm asking about the MUP of Serbia.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, have you, meanwhile, understood the

11     question, Mr. Theunens, to be looked at in the MUP of Serbia context?

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I mean, I -- I remain convinced it's a legal

13     question, but I would address this from a common sense point of view,

14     whether or not somebody is a member of a socio-political organisation is

15     not a -- kind of an exonerating factor or has any other impact in case of

16     criminal behaviour.  Everybody should be equal to the law.  And if a

17     socio-political organisation starts to undertake or plan activities - I

18     refer now to Article 118 of the Law on Defence - or other criminal

19     activities, then I would expect that the organisation would be

20     investigated and that the law would be implemented.

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Yes, Mr. Theunens.  I agree with you fully.  But if a member

23     committed a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia and

24     there is no evidence about that crime, do you think that there is room

25     for MUP to react to that?

Page 8537

 1        A.   This is, again, a legal question which is outside the scope of my

 2     report.  But --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Mr. Bakrac, I suggest to you that we do not ask Mr. Theunens to

 5     answer that question, because if a crime is committed outside of the

 6     territory, this raises a whole textbook of theories on continuing crimes,

 7     crimes of which elements are committed within the territory but other

 8     parts outside the territory, the principle of ubiquity ... this covers --

 9     I could easily write a hundred pages on that, just to describe the

10     difficulties in saying what is a crime committed within and what is a

11     crime committed outside.

12             So, therefore, Mr. Theunens, I don't think you could write that

13     book, or am I wrong?

14             THE WITNESS:  No.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  You couldn't write that book.

16             Now that, of course, might be of great importance for the MUP to

17     react yes or no.  And then we have the applicability of substantive law.

18     And then we have procedural law, to what extent can enforcement agencies

19     act outside the scope or only inside the scope of the territory.  It's a

20     rather complex legal question, which is very intriguing.  But I don't

21     think, as a matter of fact, that on the present circumstances, n the

22     basis of the evidence that we have now, that we should ask Mr. Theunens

23     about it.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I fully agree with you.

Page 8538

 1     Perhaps I'm not conducting my examination appropriately, but I'd like to

 2     draw Their Honours' attention to the fact that there is not enough basis

 3     in the report to draw that conclusion.

 4             Let me ask Mr. Theunens the following question --

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... isn't it true

 6     that Mr. Jordash has extensively questioned the witness about whether

 7     they could react, if we're talking about offences which are committed

 8     outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia?

 9             Mr. Jordash, I'm not inventing things, am I?  That was part of

10     your cross-examination, wasn't it?

11             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I covered some of that.  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, quite extensively, I do remember.

13             So, Mr. Bakrac, if you want to draw our attention to something

14     Mr. Jordash has already drawn our attention to, then it's your time,

15     and -- but it is repetitious.

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... there's any new element in

18     it, then please focus your questions on the new element.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree.  Thank you.

20     Since our time for the break is nearing, I'd like to ask Mr. Theunens to

21     tell me how many documents did he come across where the security organ

22     within whose area of responsibility the alleged crimes were committed by

23     Arkan, how many such documents were there where the MUP was informed and

24     provided sufficient documentation in order to take any steps?

25             And I'm sure Mr. Theunens will have an opportunity to give us an

Page 8539

 1     answer to that after the break.  How extensively were they able to

 2     prosecute, given the area of their responsibility, given -- and I'm

 3     talking about the security organs.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Can Mr. Bakrac please repeat the document

 5     number he's asking for.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the document number you

 7     were --

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] 2D64.  Sorry, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Mr. Theunens, we don't have the English translation yet.

10             Mr. Theunens, this is a certificate signed by Zeljko Raznjatovic,

11     Arkan, and JNA colonel Enes Taso, confirming that Nenad Markovic of

12     Belgrade was a member of a unit which acted in coordinated action with

13     the JNA.  And we're coming to this issue where you said that the

14     Arkan's Men were under JNA command when participating in combat

15     activities.

16             And I'm referring you to D63 where we can see that in the battle

17     at Luzac, Arkan was subordinated or under the command of the JNA

18     Colonel Enes Taso.

19             You do remember this document, Mr. Theunens, don't you?

20        A.   I remember, I mean, from somewhere this combat operation or this

21     attack, but I don't remember seeing D63.  Maybe I did and it's my fault,

22     but I don't remember.  D63.

23        Q.   2D63.  But I'll not waste any time on this because you do not

24     dispute the fact that in combat activities they acted thus.

25             So please look first look at the stamp and the heading and tell

Page 8540

 1     me if you agree that the special training centre at Erdut, judging by the

 2     stamp and the heading, was a training centre belonging to the

 3     Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem?

 4        A.   At that moment in time, indeed.  So on the 4th of December, 1991,

 5     the training centre in Erdut is identified as centre for special training

 6     of the TO of -- the self-established TO of SBWS.

 7        Q.   Yes, sir --

 8        A.   I'm sorry, but -- I mean, looking at the stamps, at the same

 9     time, there is a stamp which states "command of the volunteer training

10     centre."

11             Maybe it's an old stamp.  Because I know that the training centre

12     in Erdut changed a few times of names.  Later, sometime in 1993, Arkan

13     withdrew for some months but then he came back and again the name changed

14     a few times, but the link with Arkan remained the same.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, could I ask you one question.  When you

16     summarized the document, you suggested, I think, that Arkan's Men were

17     under JNA command and that at the "battle of Luzac, Arkan was

18     subordinated or under the command of the JNA ..."

19             Is that what you read in this document.

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I had wanted to

21     follow some of your previous instructions.  When there is no coalition,

22     we should try to avoid a waste of time.  I can actually ask for 2D63 to

23     be called up, and the battle of Luzac, and you will see that it is under

24     the command of Enes Taso and the 52nd Brigade, that we can see Arkan and

25     his men.  2D63.  Perhaps we can call that up and you'll see.

Page 8541

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because in this document, which is on our

 2     screen now, it says "cooperation with the JNA" and no subordination.  I

 3     just wanted to have this clarified.  If you say we can read it

 4     differently in 2D63, I'll do that.  And there's no need to have it on the

 5     screen at this moment, unless you would insist.

 6             I'm looking at the clock.  I'd like, first of all, to have

 7     Mr. Theunens to already take his break.  He has two questions on his

 8     piece of paper, I take it.

 9             Mr. Theunens, if you would be kind enough to consider those

10     questions.

11             And then I would have one further matter to briefly raise with

12     you, Mr. Bakrac.

13             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the usher escort Mr. Theunens out of the

15     courtroom.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, I'm just trying to follow the line, to

18     follow the thoughts behind your questions and try to verify whether I

19     understand the evidence you're eliciting.

20             One of the issues that you apparently want to raise is that if

21     this witness says that on from, I think, it was November 1993 when there

22     was a clash between Seselj and Milosevic, that it was only then that they

23     started arresting people, as the witness said, that he's wrong because on

24     the basis of the other evidence it is shown that, already in 1991, people

25     could not carry weapons in the bus because they might be stopped.  And

Page 8542

 1     did I understand you well that that is an issue you raised?

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm trying to reconcile this with another issue

 4     which apparently was raised this morning on a more legislative level,

 5     that is, that everyone had the right to defend himself and to form groups

 6     and to do all that.

 7             So I'm trying to reconcile, why, on the one hand, you say it was

 8     not only in 1993 but already in 1991 that the MUP took action against

 9     volunteers.  And, at the same time, I do understand from your earlier

10     portion of the cross-examination that that was exactly what everyone was

11     entitled to, is to group themselves together and to defend the

12     constitutional structure of the Federal Republic of the Socialist

13     Yugoslavia - SFRY, I should say - Socialist Federal Republic of

14     Yugoslavia.

15             Now I'm just trying to understand what you're telling us.  Are

16     you telling it was everyone's right?  And then I have difficulties on why

17     you insist so much on the MUP not starting in 1993 but already in 1991,

18     against what then apparently was everyone's right.  Is -- is -- I'm

19     trying to -- or is it that you say, No, it was wrong, the MUP took action

20     against it.  And then I have difficulties in understanding this

21     legislation which suggests that it was everyone's right to do that.

22             So I'm -- the only thing I'm doing at this moment is trying to

23     understand the message you're sending to us through the cross-examination

24     of this witness.

25             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what my message

Page 8543

 1     is:

 2             This case deals with Croatia and Bosnia territorially.  It deals

 3     with a period when what was in force in that area was the Law on Defence

 4     of the SFRY and when the Serbs, in those areas, could organise themselves

 5     and prepare for defence and self-defence.  I think that that is something

 6     that we are going to find useful in the further proceedings ahead of us.

 7             That is one point.

 8             My other point is that I've tried to show that various volunteer

 9     groups could not just stroll about with weapons.  However, what the law

10     did allow was that in a state of war and an imminent threat of war the

11     army and the MUP could organise legal centres, in which, perhaps, the

12     training of volunteers could take place but within a legal framework.

13             What we showed now and what Mr. Theunens tried to say, and I

14     believe that's part of his report too, is that the MUP of Serbia

15     tolerated various armed groups that had come from

16     Croatia [as interpreted] and then they committed crimes there and milled

17     about Serbia.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, the only thing I was not seeking,

19     Mr. Bakrac, of course, doesn't give evidence, but since I was a bit

20     confused about what I was supposed to understand from this evidence that

21     I asked him, that's perhaps not very common.  But, at the same time,

22     you'll understand that the Chamber, if it feels that it might lose track,

23     that it tries to get itself on track again, whether or not we agree in

24     every respect with what Mr. Bakrac said.

25             MR. WEBER:  I understand that that's what the Trial Chamber was

Page 8544

 1     doing.  I just wanted to correct the representation of Mr. Theunens's

 2     evidence on page 66, line 13.  I believe Mr. Theunens did testify during

 3     cross-examination last week that the groups originated from Serbia, not

 4     Croatia.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.  Arms group comes from Croatia and they

 6     committed crimes there, milled about Serbia.  Is that --

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it must have been my

 8     mistake.  I wanted to say that they were coming back from Croatia.  So I

 9     did not word it properly.  They were returning from Croatia and Bosnia.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It's clear to me.

11             We will have a break and resume at 6.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14                           --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   Mr. Theunens, did you have an opportunity to look at what we've

18     discussed over the break?

19        A.   Yes, I did.

20        Q.   Can you refer to what I've asked to you look at over the break so

21     as not to repeat everything I've said.

22        A.   Yes, I can.  First question was to provide examples of the

23     security administration of the SFRY armed forces informing the MUP of

24     Serbia.  There is one document, P1060, at page 93 of part 1 of my report.

25             The other documents - and I refer specifically to information

Page 8545

 1     reports by security organs of the 1st Military District, which are sent

 2     to the SSNO -- excuse me, to the security administration at the SSNO - do

 3     not allow to conclude what the security administration at the SSNO did

 4     with these documents, and, I mean, these documents can be found in

 5     part 2, pages 88 to 96.

 6             And if I remember well, you also asked me about documents

 7     indicating knowledge of the MUP Serbia of --

 8        Q.   Mr. Theunens, my apologies for interrupting you, but I just would

 9     like to follow up on something you said.

10             From what I understand, you found only one document which

11     indicates that the security administration informed the MUP of some

12     events.  If my understanding is correct, the other documents went to the

13     SSNO security administration, but there is no further evidence indicating

14     that they reached MUP.  Is that right?

15        A.   Indeed.  And just to clarify, there would be no reason for these

16     documents of the first -- excuse me, of the security organ of the

17     1st Military District to be sent directly to the MUP.  The normal chain

18     would be security organs of the 1st Military District to the security

19     administration at the SSNO, and then the security administration at the

20     SSNO would be in charge of informing the MUP.

21        Q.   However, we have no evidence whatsoever that this was indeed what

22     the SSNO administration did, i.e., inform the MUP about all these events;

23     is that right?

24        A.   Well, I have only been able to identify one document.  Of course,

25     we can assume that there are more documents but I understand your

Page 8546

 1     question in that regard.  There's only one document I could identify that

 2     was available to the OTP.

 3        Q.   Mr. Theunens, let us focus on this sole document.

 4             Save for conveying information, did you see any sort of evidence

 5     being attached to the document or any other supporting documentation

 6     corroborating the fact that the MUP -- or, rather, supplementing the

 7     information in order to enable the MUP to react, or is it merely a report

 8     on some events?

 9        A.   I mean, we discussed P1060 during cross-examination by

10     Mr. Jordash, and it shows a number of comments the Ministry of Interior

11     provides to the document; for example, reminding the military security

12     administration of the military justice procedure in relation to alleged

13     perpetrators who belonged to the military.

14             And there's also information on other people.  I mean, we would

15     have to look at the document again.

16        Q.   Yes.  This is my next question, Mr. Theunens:  Did the security

17     administration fulfil its duty by simply informing the MUP?  Did the

18     security administration through its own organs, i.e., military police,

19     and through the security organs, take measures in its area of

20     responsibility in respect of the crimes that it was allegedly given

21     notice of?

22        A.   In the absence of specific documents, I cannot draw a

23     conclusion -- or I cannot provide an answer to that question.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  And now for the second part.  I

25     interrupted you giving me the answer.

Page 8547

 1        A.   Okay.  Your Honours, I understand that the question was to

 2     identify documents that show that the MUP of Republic of Serbia had

 3     knowledge of or provided support to Arkan.  When I say "had knowledge

 4     of," it means activities, including illegal activities, conducted by

 5     Arkan, or Zeljko Raznjatovic.  This is covered in part 1, pages 101 to

 6     108.  And for what alleged crimes is concerned, in part 2, pages 78

 7     to 96.

 8             If you want, can I read out the P numbers, but ... yeah -- I can

 9     also refer you to the sections in my report.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, give me a moment,

11     please.

12        Q.   Mr. Theunens, my question was:  What was the evidence indicating

13     that volunteer units were being prevented from going through training

14     or -- or milling about in uniform and with weapons, what was the evidence

15     indicating that they were prevented from doing so only from 1993 onwards?

16             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... perhaps I give

17     you the details of the source.  Part of your evidence was that you said

18     that somebody like Seselj, for example, relied on the - call it tacit -

19     authorisation of the Serbian authorities.  And his relationship with

20     Slobodan Milosevic is good relation with Slobodan Milosevic, in order to

21     organise and so on -- the -- his groups, and that only when there was a

22     political fallout between November -- between the two in November 1993,

23     that legal steps were put against this volunteers.

24             That was, I think, one part of your -- the second being that you

25     said -- was about your testimony, I think, in the Seselj case, where it

Page 8548

 1     was put to you that you said:

 2             "This is not dealt with in my report, but I remember that it's

 3     only after a political conflict arises between Mr. Seselj and

 4     Mr. Milosevic, sometime in October -- November 1993, that the competent

 5     authorities in Serbia start with the arrest of volunteers.  And they are

 6     all arrested, or most of them are arrested, on the grounds of illegal

 7     possession of fire-arms and they're released quite soon."

 8             Mr. Bakrac -- that was the evidence you gave, and Mr. Bakrac is

 9     looking for the sources that it was only in or after November 1993 that

10     such action was taken and not any earlier.

11             Mr. Bakrac, that was your question.  And I've given you now,

12     literally, the portions of your testimony.

13             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, I apologise, but I was confused by

14     the reference to -- by Mr. Bakrac to Serbian Volunteer Guard, and I

15     thought -- when he was formulating his question.

16             As I mentioned earlier today, I have not -- I don't think I have

17     included any document in my report -- this report here, showing that SRS

18     volunteers were arrested in the course of -- or after November 1993.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No, the question was on what documentary basis --

20     it's clear that you indicated on from November 1993 that arrests took

21     place, as you described.

22             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  But on what basis you concluded that a similar thing

24     did not happen before.

25             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honours.

Page 8549

 1             Well, when you look at parts 2 and part 3 of the report, you see

 2     that SRS SCP volunteers participate in a number of -- in the -- sorry, in

 3     the conflict in a number of areas of Croatia in 1991.

 4             I have discussed Sector West and -- excuse me, Western Slavonia;

 5     Western Slavonia and Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem.  And we then

 6     noticed that sometimes the same SRS volunteers or other SRS volunteers

 7     also participate in a number of takeover operations in northern

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina that are conducted in spring 1992.  I conclude from

 9     that that the Serbian authorities, including the Ministry of Interior of

10     Republic of Serbia, allowed these groups to conduct these kind of

11     activities.

12             The reference to November 1993 then is based on the fact that

13     only documents I have seen here at the OTP that mention arrests of SRS

14     volunteers date from November 1993 or afterwards.  There are a number of

15     documents, but, again, I haven't discussed that here, but there is --

16     attempts are made, I believe, in the course of 1994 to put a number -- I

17     think two members of the Yellow Wasps on trial in Serbia, but that trial

18     is repeatedly delayed, and I don't recall from the top of my head if

19     there's ever an outcome.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Bakrac did

21     put this question to you in the following context, without elaborating on

22     it.

23             He referred to the -- to testimony which indicated that persons

24     could not bring arms with them in a bus when going to a training centre

25     because they feared that the MUP would intervene, which, as I understand

Page 8550

 1     Mr. Bakrac well, suggests that the MUP already, at that time, in 1991,

 2     did not leave such groups, or whatever you want to call them, didn't

 3     leave them -- well, acted against them, or at least that they thought

 4     that action might be taken against them if they would travel with weapons

 5     in their possession.

 6             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honours, and I will basically

 7     repeat what I said earlier.  That, indeed - and, again, this is based on

 8     documents I reviewed - that initially -- and there is a document, P1051,

 9     from 25th of July, 1991; it's a public statement of the minister of

10     defence of the Republic of Serbia.  There's also -- there are statements

11     of SRS volunteers indicating that initially the Serbian authorities are

12     opposed to the establishment of these groups; I mean, party-affiliated

13     volunteer groups.  However, over time, and I would say at the latest by

14     fall 1991, these groups are authorised to exist, to organise themselves,

15     to train.  And we discussed the existence of the training centre in

16     Prigrevica, whereby Prigrevica - I looked on the map during the break -

17     is located in Vojvodina.

18             The documents I have seen -- I mean, several documents indicate

19     that there was indeed a training centre which was used by the SRS.  I

20     have not seen a document that indicates that the Serbian MUP prevented

21     that training centre from operating, at least not in 1991.  And I don't

22     remember for 1992.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  So let me try to understand, then, to perhaps

24     summarize your answer.

25             You say, in the very beginning there was some opposition or

Page 8551

 1     action taken against them, then there was a period in which they were

 2     left alone more or less and were condoned in their activities, and then

 3     after a clash between Mr. Seselj and Mr. Milosevic in November 1993 they

 4     started arresting, but after that, again, from what I understand, they

 5     were further condoned and there was an understanding of the usefulness of

 6     the existence of them.  Is that ...

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  And, I mean,

 8     this applies to the SRS volunteers.  And we also have to note that

 9     after -- I mean, in November 1993 there is very limited indication that

10     SRS volunteers are still active in Croatia because conflict is finished.

11     I mean, there is also a cease-fire or a cessation of hostilities in end

12     of 1991.  We know that in January 1993 efforts are undertaken by the SRS

13     to send volunteers to Sector South because the Croatian armed forces have

14     conducted an attack in the pink zone in Maslenica.  But during -- at that

15     time there are only SRS volunteers in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and there is

16     much less information on any -- for example, travel of these people or

17     armed travel of these people to Serbia, or the training of additional SRS

18     volunteers in the Republic of Serbia at that time.

19             So the requirement for action of the minister of interior of the

20     Republic of Serbia seems to lessor, except, of course, if it comes to the

21     investigation of alleged crimes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, you received answers to your questions?

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  With your leave,

24     I'd try to have a couple of points clarified further.

25        Q.   You said a moment ago that you thought that the MUP of Serbia

Page 8552

 1     condoned these groups in their organising as military groups and getting

 2     training at various training centres.

 3             Based on what evidence do you claim that the MUP was aware of,

 4     say, the volunteer training centre in Vojvodina, which was an abandoned

 5     farming estate, which would lead you to draw the conclusion that the MUP

 6     of Serbia tacitly approved of such a training centre?

 7        A.   The prolonged existence of the training centre shows that no

 8     action was undertaken to close it.  I haven't seen a document that shows

 9     that it was closed upon an action of the Ministry of Interior of the

10     Republic of Serbia.  And since this training centre is used to train

11     non-government-controlled armed groups, it would be a violation of

12     Article 118 of the Law on Defence, but that's just one aspect --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just stop you here.

14             The first question of Mr. Bakrac is awareness.  I mean, if

15     something exists for a long time, of course, it's not closed.  But the

16     first question was whether there was any awareness.  Because if there's

17     no awareness, it might be difficult to close something.  That would be

18     the first part of the question.

19             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honours.  I have not seen -- I

20     mean, I don't remember seeing a document that the MUP of Serbia was aware

21     of the existence of the Prigrevica training centre at the time it

22     existed.  There is a lot of -- there are a lot of SRS publications on the

23     training centre, but I would have to check from which time-period they

24     date.

25             Now, on the other hand, I would assume that it's -- since the MUP

Page 8553

 1     is tasked to ensure, among others, law and order and -- and preserve

 2     state security, that they wouldn't just wait till they are -- till they

 3     explicitly received the information but would also actively gather

 4     information on -- not just on such groups, but also the activities and

 5     the training centre, the centres they may use.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That was part of the question.  At the farm at

 7     a far distance the suggestion was clearly by Mr. Bakrac that it might

 8     have remained unnoticed due to the location of the training centre.

 9             Is that something which sounds reasonable to you?  Is there

10     anything you would like to comment on?  Because you say they would not

11     wait for information.  But if it's far away and if they don't -- if in

12     the normal acquiring of information you might miss that information,

13     then, of course, it doesn't come as a surprise.

14             THE WITNESS:  I cannot provide a direct answer because I haven't

15     seen the facility; but among the documents I have received from the

16     Defence, there are reports that, for example, organs of the state

17     security are monitoring Arkans bakery in Belgrade.  And, of course,

18     that's a very visible building, and somebody -- if -- I would think

19     that -- and, again, it's maybe speculation, but looking at --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's refrain from speculation.

21             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   Let's finish this off.  You said the long existence of the

25     centre, do you have any specific data?  I mean, the starting and the

Page 8554

 1     closing date of the centre?

 2        A.   I don't have the specific dates, but I've seen documents

 3     referring to -- I mean, dated 1991 and 1992 that indicate the existence

 4     of the training centre during those time-periods.  But I cannot give a

 5     precise opening nor closing date.

 6             But if you want, I can --

 7        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

 8        A.   If you want, I can --

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10        A.   I have an electronic version of my Seselj report, if that can

11     assist the Trial Chamber.  And I can do -- conduct searchs there.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps if you -- perhaps do that this evening.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  If you're able to do it without too many efforts.

15     So if we can get an answer to that question, it would be appreciated.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18        Q.   Mr. Theunens, there's an another issue you mentioned that I'd

19     like to clarify with you.

20             You said that the volunteers fought in Slavonia and Bosnia.  Did

21     the Serbian MUP have powers to arrest them in these areas?

22        A.   I understand you're asking about the SRS volunteers.

23        Q.   Yes.  That's what you were discussing.

24        A.   Yes.  No, but as I mentioned earlier during my testimony, these

25     volunteers were transiting through Serbia and some were even living in

Page 8555

 1     Serbia.

 2        Q.   Do you know, and can you tell us with certainty, that these

 3     volunteers passed across Serbia under full combat gear and with weapons

 4     on their way to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, or are you not able

 5     to tell us that?

 6        A.   I don't remember specific documents.  I mean, another facility,

 7     for example, was the -- the camp in Bubanj Potok which is in Belgrade.

 8     It used to be --

 9        Q.   We will -- I apologise.  I put a very specific question to you.

10     We will come back to the Bubanj Potok camp later on, and we will be

11     discussing legal and illegal camps and we will see who that camp was run

12     by.

13             The question was specific:  Do you have a single piece of

14     evidence that volunteers - and we are discussing the Serbian Radical

15     Party volunteers at the moment - on their way to Bosnia-Herzegovina and

16     Croatia transited through Serbia or travelled through Serbia with weapons

17     as a group?

18        A.   I mean, this is again -- I mean, it's a pity that I don't have my

19     Seselj report here, but there is an aspect that I have covered in that

20     report in an sense that I remember that certain volunteers received

21     weapons permits, to travel with weapons.  But I would have to check

22     whether this was in the Republic of Serbia or by the local Serb

23     authorities in Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24             And I also have a recollection that -- that in Bubanj Potok there

25     were -- I mean, volunteers received weapons.  Now, I cannot confirm how

Page 8556

 1     these -- whether they then subsequently travelled with their weapons.

 2     But I will check my Seselj report for that.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Theunens.  Let's move on.

 4             I asked you about the area of responsibility, which is an issue

 5     that is related to what we just discussed.

 6             Let's look at P1390, which is a document you gave your comments

 7     on during the examination by my learned friend Mr. Weber.  Specifically

 8     page 2 in both versions.  There's item 5.K, which I suppose is the

 9     5th Corps.  So it's the area of the 2nd Military District, and it's the

10     10th of April, 1992, operational combat report.

11             Do you recall discussing this document with the Prosecutor?

12        A.   I believe we discussed this document when we were looking at the

13     situation in Zvornik at the time.  Yeah, I have a reference to it on

14     page 60 of part 3 of the report.

15        Q.   Mr. Theunens, look at the first line under 5th corps.  The focus

16     of the work of the corps command was on the firm grip of the front lines,

17     control over the territory both along the length of the front line and in

18     the depth.  The situation in the area of the corps is becoming

19     increasingly complex and it's especially difficult in the area of Jajce

20     and is getting ever more serious in the area of Prijedor and Sanski Most.

21             So can we conclude on the basis of this that the 5th Corps of the

22     Army of Yugoslav, i.e., the 2nd Military District, controlled both the

23     length of the front line and its depth.  In other words, the entire area

24     of responsibility that it had.  And does it follow from this document

25     that it was its duty to do so?

Page 8557

 1        A.   Yeah.  But okay the document does not indicate the -- the zone of

 2     responsibility, but it states, as you state, as you mentioned, they're

 3     holing the front line, and there's also -- they're also conducting

 4     territory control in the rear.

 5        Q.   So if it says "control over the territory and the rear," they had

 6     the responsibility for the situation in that particular territory; is

 7     that right?

 8        A.   We would have to see at the -- again, the situation there.  Are

 9     there still functioning or are there functioning civilian authorities,

10     and what has been established in relation to the the links or the

11     relations between these civilian authorities and the 5th Corps?

12        Q.   So we're talking about the 10th of April, 1992, aren't we?

13             Now look at the 9th Corps.  The corps units were engaged in

14     holding the front line and carrying out operations in the area of Kupres,

15     taking in soldiers from the 3rd Military District, and manning the JTO,

16     the Territorial Defence unit, and the units of the Serb Krajina.

17             So will you agree with me that the 9th Corps, here, has the

18     powers to man the Territorial Defence unit and the units of the police,

19     the milicija, of the Republic of the Serb Krajina?

20        A.   I mean, these powers - if you can -- if one would use the word

21     powers there - these are part of the mission the 9th Corps has received

22     from the SFRY -- SFRY armed forces Supreme Command, i.e., a political

23     body.

24        Q.   Mr. Theunens, sorry --

25        A.   Sorry, I need to correct.  The Supreme -- I mean, the SFRY

Page 8558

 1     forces' Supreme Command issues political instructions to the

 2     Supreme Command Staff, and the Supreme Command Staff translates these

 3     political instructions into military orders which are then passed

 4     downwards through the chain of command, which would be, in this case,

 5     from the Supreme Command Staff, to the 2nd Military District, to the

 6     9th Corps.  And I'm sorry for the confusion.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Theunens, could you now have a look at the

 8     17th Corps.  That was the corps that was responsible for Bosanski Samac;

 9     right?

10        A.   Indeed.

11        Q.   It says here the corps units are at full combat readiness and

12     they're engaged in preparing mobilised units, securing the traffic on the

13     main roads, and monitoring the situation at crisis points in the area of

14     responsibility.

15             So this 17th Corps, on the 10th of April - and later on we're

16     going to get to the topic of Bosanski Samac as well - is reporting that

17     they are basically engaged on preparing the mobilised units, securing

18     conditions for traffic on the main roads, and monitoring the situation at

19     crisis points in the area of their responsibility.

20             Do you agree that that was -- that was a comprehensive monitoring

21     of the situation, the responsibility of the 17th Corps for the situation

22     in the area, even taking care of traffic and roads so that passengers and

23     volunteers could move about, and so on?

24        A.   I don't really understand your question.  Because are you

25     suggesting that the 17th Corps is the only organisation that is able to

Page 8559

 1     conduct these missions, or what -- I don't understand the question.

 2        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I accept that perhaps I am somewhat confused and

 3     that I did not put the question properly.  I'll try to rephase.

 4             So look at the end of the sentence:  Monitoring the situation at

 5     crisis points in the zone of responsibility.

 6             And before that we see all the things that the 17th Corps is

 7     doing.  Do you agree with me that the 17th Corps was responsible for the

 8     situation in the zone of its responsibility?  That includes Bosanski

 9     Samac as well.

10        A.   Yeah, the question could be asked which --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, what exactly are you asking?  Are you

12     asking on the basis of this document?  This document describes what

13     activities were deployed by -- in this case, the 17th Corps.

14             Well, are you relying on Mr. Theunens's knowledge from other

15     sources, or are you relying on his interpretation of this document?

16             For example, if you say "securing the traffic on the main roads,"

17     it could mean everything.  You translate that into civilians being --

18     what could also be civilians not to be allowed on the roads.  I mean, it

19     could be anything.  At least on the basis of the text we see here, you

20     are giving your own interpretation.

21             Now, fine, no problem.  If Mr. Theunens shares that

22     interpretation, then he will tell us.  But what I'm interested to know

23     whether you're just interpreting a text or whether you're asking

24     Mr. Theunens, while interpreting this text, to rely on other information

25     he may have.  That's my concern about your question at this moment.

Page 8560

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did understand.  And

 2     I'm going to try to do away with any possible dilemmas.

 3             I had ask Mr. Theunens earlier on what an area of responsibility

 4     is from the point of view of military doctrine.  Now I'm asking him the

 5     following.  We know that a state of imminent threat of war was declared

 6     in 1991; that's the document dated the 10th of April, 1992.  So now I'm

 7     asking whether the 17th Corps had authority and whether they had the

 8     responsibility and duty to control the territory in its zone and to

 9     arrest possible perpetrators of crimes.

10        A.   This document does not allow to draw any conclusions on that,

11     because --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's, first.

13             Mr. Bakrac, are you asking Mr. Theunens to rely on this document

14     to draw conclusions from that, or are you asking him to combine what is

15     found in this report with other evidence he has?

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I would like

17     Mr. Theunens to tell me from a doctrinary point of view to answer my

18     question, the one that I had already put: namely, in this situation - and

19     we see from this report what it is the 17th Corps is doing - whether the

20     17th Corps has the right and responsibility within its area of

21     responsibility, according to the rules of the military profession, to

22     exercise control over the territory and arrest perpetrators of crimes or

23     investigate crimes that are committed.

24             THE WITNESS:  I mean, I will try my best.  But the wording is so

25     general, because what kind of crimes?  What kind of perpetrators?  Is it

Page 8561

 1     the traffic violation, is it a war crime?

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I'll try to be more specific.

 4             If, in the month of April 1992, some person that was subordinated

 5     to the command of the 17th Corps had committed a war crime or murder, for

 6     example in Sakvina [phoen] for instance.  The security organ, the

 7     military police, are they responsible to investigate it, arrest the

 8     perpetrators, and conduct criminal proceedings against them?  Also, if

 9     they are subordinated to that command.

10        A.   That is a totally different question, because, as we discussed

11     over the previous days, in any event, I mean, and this applies to

12     all members of -- all officers of the JNA, and I refer again to

13     Article 36 of the 1988 regulations on the implementation --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, sorry to interrupt you.

15             Let's try to see whether we can deal with it in a rather quick

16     way.

17             17th Corps in the place where it is deployed, if a soldier

18     subordinated to that corps command commits a war crime, would it fall

19     within the scope of the competence of the military police to investigate,

20     arrest, et cetera, that person?

21             Let me first see.  Mr. Weber, would you ... is that a contested

22     issue at all?  Not.

23             THE WITNESS:  I understand --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We have two parties agreeing and an expert agreeing

25     on the matter.

Page 8562

 1             Let's move on with the next question.  Because in your earlier

 2     questions, Mr. Bakrac - and that was confusing Mr. Theunens - you did not

 3     specify at all.  And it was only in the last version of your question

 4     that you talked about someone who was subordinated and you talked about a

 5     war crime.  So that seems to be not in dispute.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   Could we now have in e-court 65 ter number 2793, Prosecution

 9     number.

10             So we're going to go back to something that we have already

11     discussed in part, Mr. Theunens.  This is another Prosecution document,

12     and I would be interested in the following:  When writing up your report,

13     did you have an opportunity of seeing it?

14        A.   I may have seen the document.

15        Q.   Mr. Theunens, this is one example.  And there's another one too.

16     And then we are going to complete a subject that we had already raised.

17             We see here that there is a stamp as well:  "Association of

18     veterans from the municipality of Arandjelovac."  And obviously they are

19     registered as a citizens' association because they have a stamp of their

20     own.  And they are confirming that Captain Zoran Baltic from Arandjelovac

21     and Captain Dimce Mijantovic of Zenjanin [phoen] are volunteers, members

22     of the Army of Republika Srpska, Military Post 7202, Red Berets special

23     purpose unit.  And that the above-mentioned persons are travelling on

24     business for the purpose of visiting the wounded and collecting

25     humanitarian aid for Republika Srpska.

Page 8563

 1             So -- actually, first of all, these are members of the Army of

 2     Republika Srpska, the Red Berets that originally come from the territory

 3     of Serbia.  They are under a military post outside Serbia.  And they are

 4     travelling in order to collect humanitarian aid.

 5             Does the MUP of Serbia have any reason to arrest such persons?

 6        A.   It depends what they do in the Republic of Serbia.

 7        Q.   [No interpretation]

 8        A.   Or if the MUP has received any information from --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's all speculation.  Do you want the

10     witness to answer this question on the basis of this document?  Because

11     then the question is very simple:  Whether persons serving as volunteers

12     which are qualified as members of the Army of the Republika Srpska

13     Red Berets special purpose units, that if they're travelling in order to

14     visit the wounded and to collect humanitarian aid for the

15     Republika Srpska, whether there's any reason in that to arrest them?

16             THE WITNESS:  On the face of this document, there is no reason to

17     arrest them.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you want to ask the same question in relation to

19     other knowledge Mr. Theunens may have or may not have?

20             Do you have any knowledge which would shed further light on this

21     specific situation, Mr. Theunens?

22             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then -- was this, by the way, any matter in dispute?

24             Mr. Weber, I'm looking at you.

25             The question as I phrased it.

Page 8564

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, there is some facts in there that would

 2     be partially disputed.  I just would note.  And I don't want to offer too

 3     much information in front of this witness --

 4             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I'm not asking whether you

 5     dispute the facts.  I'm was asking whether the question, as based on this

 6     document, assuming - not establishing, assuming - that this is the whole

 7     of the story, whether there would be any reason to arrest the man?

 8             MR. WEBER:  No.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11             Could we now have, in relation to this, 65 ter number 4830.  It's

12     a Prosecution number.

13        Q.   Mr. Theunens, this is an Official Note.  It's from the

14     Prosecution collection.  Please have a look at it and tell me whether

15     you've seen it before, when you were preparing to write your report and

16     to testify here.

17        A.   Your Honours, there's a name in the document that looks familiar,

18     but I don't remember whether I saw the document.

19        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the centre of the State Security Service in

20     Subotica, the third section, in August 1993, that is to say, even before

21     that month of November that you had referred to, is following extremism.

22     And an employee of the State Security Service, a certain S. Jankovic -

23     and you're going to see that in the paragraph that starts with the

24     following words:

25             "Through the 1990 war veterans association" - it's a document

Page 8565

 1     similar to the one that we have seen - "the members of this paramilitary

 2     formation are sent to the front line in the Republic of the Serb Krajina

 3     under the command of Lieutenant Slobodan Ristic, a former waiter at the

 4     JNA centre in Subotica.  Before leaving for the front as an agent of the

 5     Yugoslav Army security organ, through the Subotica garrison chief of

 6     military security, Koca Milenkovic, Ristic managed to obtain weapons and

 7     equipment for around ten members of the SRS, transfer the weapons and

 8     ammunition to Belgrade, and store it in the Jugobanka cellar and vault."

 9             So is it correct that the State Security Service is monitoring

10     the situation and providing information to the effect that under the

11     auspices of the security organs of the Army of Yugoslavia such things are

12     being done?

13        A.   Yes, that is what the document states.

14        Q.   On the other hand, we saw that the security administration is

15     purportedly giving some useful information to the MUP and is shifting

16     responsibility for things that had been committed to the MUP; right?

17        A.   I don't --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Again, this document, or any other source of

19     knowledge?  Because the document says that the information is passed on;

20     and, as far as I've seen, nothing has been said on who now has the

21     responsible to do what.

22             Could you please clearly phrase your question, Mr. Bakrac.

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I withdraw the

24     question.  What Mr. Theunens has already told me is sufficient.  I do

25     apologise.  I am truly going into an area of speculation.  And in order

Page 8566

 1     to avoid that, I withdraw the question, with your leave.

 2             THE WITNESS:  In my previous answer, I just confirmed what the

 3     document states.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we can -- if we're talking about the document,

 5     the document reports on what apparently -- what kind of activity was

 6     developed and -- yes, it's -- it says what it says.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   We had been dealing with Arkan before the break.  We'll go back

10     to that.

11             Could I now have P367, please.  Lest there be any confusion,

12     because the document that I have already shown speaks of cooperation.  So

13     can I have P367.

14             It has two pages.  Could the witness please have a look at the

15     first page and then the second page?

16             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the document

17     should not be shown to the public, being under seal.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, I wasn't

20     paying attention.  P367, please.

21             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I do not fully

22     remember why it was under seal.  Could you please keep that in mind

23     when -- in order to consider requesting going into private session.

24     Again, I do not know.

25             Mr. Weber.

Page 8567

 1             MR. WEBER:  It was in relation to a 92 quater matter.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  92 quater matter.  May I take it that there's no --

 3     is there any need, in view of the content of the document, to ...

 4             MR. WEBER:  No, it's fine.  It's fine to be shown.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It's fine.  Okay.

 6             Please proceed.  You can ask the questions in open session,

 7     Mr. Bakrac.

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Mr. Theunens, could you please be so kind as to look at this

10     diagram.  All the participants on the first page and on the second page,

11     this document speaks of joint operations.  And then you will tell me

12     whether we can conclude, on the basis of this document, that

13     Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was under the command of the

14     51st Mechanized Brigade in this operation, or, rather, under the command

15     of Enes Taso, 51st Mechanised Brigade.

16             Once you've had a look at it, could you please give us a sign so

17     that we can display page 2 for you as well?

18        A.   I've seen page 1 and it doesn't mention Arkan, because it shows

19     the peacetime structure of the 51st Mechanized Brigade.

20        Q.   Precisely, yes.  Yes.

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And could I now please have page 2.

22        Q.   That's exactly what I wanted to clarify, whether they were

23     subordinated ...

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, the third page.

25     I do apologise.  My mistake.  I'm sorry, I am tired.

Page 8568

 1             THE WITNESS:  I should maybe ask about the source of the

 2     document, but I --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- again, let's --

 4             Mr. Bakrac, what do you want Mr. Theunens to tell us?  To

 5     interpret this document on the basis of what the document says, or do you

 6     want him to interpret that document on the basis of not only the content

 7     of this document but also on other knowledge he may or may not have?

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my original idea was,

 9     basically, not to show this document, because Mr. Theunens himself had

10     said that they had been subordinated in combat operations.  However,

11     because of that other document, there was this lack of clarity.

12             My response to your question is that I would like Mr. Theunens,

13     if possible, both on the basis of this document and on the basis of the

14     other document, to confirm whether Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was under

15     the command of the Army of Yugoslavia in combat operations.  The JNA,

16     sorry.

17             THE WITNESS:  I know -- Your Honours, I know the source of this

18     document, but maybe we should go in closed session because I just want to

19     make sure.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into -- private session will do.

21             THE WITNESS:  Private, I'm ...

22                           [Private session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8569











11 Page 8569 redacted. Private session.















Page 8570

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16                           [Open session]

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

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

19             The transcript is bit unclear as to when the Chamber expects the

20     reply to the response to the 18th motion to amend the 65 ter list.  Where

21     the transcript may say 15th of November, I think I said the

22     5th of November.  That is, this Friday.  I hope that that's clear and was

23     clear already.

24             Then the second issue, we've heard that both Defence teams do not

25     oppose against Prosecution replying to the Defence response to the first

Page 8571

 1     bar table motion, and we'd like to receive your reply by the

 2     10th of November.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, if there's nothing else, we adjourn for the

 5     day.  And we resume tomorrow, the 2nd of November, 2010, at 9.00 in the

 6     morning, in Courtroom II.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.07 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 2nd day of

10                           November, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.