Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12548

 1                           Monday, 11 July 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

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

 6     you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

 8     IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             I'd like to deal with a few procedural matters before we further

11     hear the evidence of Witness DST-034.  The first one, the first

12     procedural matter I would like to briefly raise, is the documents to be

13     provided by the Republic of Croatia.

14             Mr. Jordash, I think, I'm specifically addressing you.  You asked

15     for an order then that the document -- providing the document was then

16     apparently resolved but there was still a financial issue remaining -- or

17     is it Mr. Bakrac?  I'm sorry.  Then there was a financial issue remaining

18     that you would need to have to pay a lot of money for it.

19             Now, we do understand, or at least we got some information which

20     we are seeking confirmation of, that also the financial part has been

21     resolved.  I think the Registry played a role in that.  Is that true?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  That is

23     completely accurate.  On Friday we received information from Ms. Hellman

24     who's in charge of the case that the issue has been dealt with and that

25     no compensation will be sought.

Page 12549

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps the wisest would be to wait until it

 2     all has materialised but that the Chamber at this moment takes no further

 3     action.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I don't think so.

 5     We expect to receive that.  And should there be any difficulties, we will

 6     not hesitate to notify you accordingly.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we are fully informed about the present state

 8     of this matter and at the same time we'll not further act until we've

 9     heard from you.

10             Then I'd like to move into private session.

11                           [Private session]

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 12550











11 Pages 12550-12564 redacted. Private session.
















Page 12565

 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   (redacted)

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


Page 12566











11 Page 12566 redacted. Closed session.















Page 12567

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Witness DST-034.  I would like to

 5     remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've

 6     given at the beginning of your testimony.  Mr. Weber will now continue

 7     his cross-examination.

 8             Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

 9                           WITNESS:  DST-034 [Resumed]

10                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]

12        Q.   Good afternoon, DST-034.

13        A.   Good afternoon.

14        Q.   On page 12538, you stated that:

15             "I had only heard of Mr. Frenki's first and last name.  Although

16     we were in a similar line of work, this was the first time I saw him,

17     now, in the courtroom."

18             Do I understand correctly that this statement means that you did

19     not attend the Kula awards ceremony in 1997 and have not seen the video

20     of Mr. Simatovic's speech at the ceremony?

21        A.   No, I was not present there and had not seen the footage.

22        Q.   Was the first time that you saw this speech when you were

23     provided it by the Defence prior to your testimony?

24        A.   As far as I recall, I didn't see the footage and hear the speech

25     held on that occasion.  The Defence did not present that material to me.

Page 12568

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6216.  It is

 2     a still image from Exhibit P61, at 15 minutes, 51 seconds.  This image is

 3     taken from the portion of the video where Mr. Simatovic is speak.

 4        Q.   Sir, directing your attention to the gentleman standing on the

 5     far left of this photograph wearing a white shirt and tie, do you see

 6     that individual and do you recognise this person as Peter Gracanin?

 7        A.   All the way to the left, well, I would say that person is him,

 8     although the image is quite blurry.  I can't say with 100 per cent

 9     certainty that it is him, although the person here does resemble him.

10     I'm not convinced it is him.

11             MR. WEBER:  Could I please have the Court Officer provide the

12     witness with a pen.

13        Q.   And just so we're clear on the person we're talking about:  Sir,

14     I'm going to ask you to circle or -- yeah, just circle the individual

15     that you're talking about.

16        A.   [Marks]

17             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would tender this exhibit into

18     evidence at this time.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number would be ...

20             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit P2993, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that there are no objections and it

22     can be admitted as a public document.  P2993 is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   DST-034, do you recall that I showed you an exhibit on Thursday

25     which discussed the delivery of weapons to the Krajina and was signed by

Page 12569

 1     Milan Tepavcevic?  The date of the Official Note was the

 2     12th of April, 1991.

 3        A.   Yes, I do recall that.

 4        Q.   Sir, you made the following comment with respect to that

 5     document.  This is on page 12499:

 6             "Having the territory of the Serb Krajina in mind, the three

 7     truck-loads of weapons is the minimum, the bare minimum, that should have

 8     arrived in the Krajina."

 9             Do you remember that evidence?

10        A.   Please repeat that answer one more time.

11        Q.   Sir, I asked you:

12             "In the context of Minister Martic's statement on 1 April 1991,

13     which was three days before the first convoy, does this evidence show

14     that the Serbian MUP carried out Mr. Milosevic's promise to deliver arms

15     to the Krajina?"

16             You answered:

17             "Having the territory of the Serb Krajina in mind, the three

18     truck-loads of weapons is the minimum, the bare minimum, that should have

19     arrived in the Krajina."

20             Do you remember providing that evidence?

21        A.   What I said was that three truck-loads would be the minimum of

22     assistance that would be required for the Krajina, a bare minimum.

23     Having in mind the size of the Krajina, this kind of assistance would

24     amount to minor assistance.  That's what I was trying to say.  I'd like

25     to add that, as you said, it was signed by Mr. Tepavcevic.

Page 12570

 1        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that in fact there were at least

 2     5.000 soldiers that were engaged in battles in the fall of 1991 in the

 3     Krajina that were supplied weapons by the State Security Service of

 4     Serbia.

 5        A.   Is that a question or an assertion on your part?  I don't

 6     understand.

 7        Q.   It is a question, sir.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, not clearly phrased as such.

 9             What Mr. Weber does, he says what his position on this matter is.

10     He puts that to you and you can comment on that, whether you agree or

11     whether you disagree.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it is your position, as far as I

13     understand it, that the Serbian MUP or the State Security Service armed

14     5.000 men in 1991 in the Krajina, then I can only say that it is not

15     true.  I deny that.  The TO and the fighters of the Republic of the Serb

16     Krajina were armed by the army in late 1991, actually in September 1991.

17             There's another thing --

18             MR. WEBER:

19        Q.   Sir, that answers my question.

20             I put it to you, and --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If the matter is directly related, the witness may

22     add.

23             Not to enter a new subject, but if it's directly related to the

24     question Mr. Weber has put to you, you may add what you intended to add.

25     But you are not expected to deal with other matters which have not a

Page 12571

 1     direct connection with the question.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is something I need to add to

 3     clarify my answer.  You asserted that 5.000 people were provided with

 4     weapons in the Krajina.  I repeat:  At the time I was there, I didn't see

 5     the 5.000 people, and I was in the field.  That's the first thing.

 6             Another thing:  To provide weapons for such a large group of

 7     people, that is something that the Serbian MUP was unable to do.  It

 8     couldn't arm and equip 5.000 people.

 9             MR. WEBER:

10        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that the forces that were armed in the

11     Krajina, that the State Security Service armed these people or the

12     Serbian MUP through the use of convoys, as you've seen, and also the use

13     of helicopters.

14        A.   I didn't see any such use of convoys save for the three trucks

15     you used as an example.  And I reiterate:  It was a negligible amount.  I

16     have to stress yet again that the Army of the Republic of the Serb

17     Krajina as well as the TO in its territory were equipped and armed by the

18     JNA.  I knew that for certain.  We know exactly how it took place.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps the helicopters have not been

20     addressed.  Could you tell us whether you know anything about helicopters

21     being provided or being used?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During my stay in the Krajina,

23     helicopters and aeroplanes were used but they were in the possession of

24     the army.  It was their property.  They had both helicopters and

25     aircraft.

Page 12572

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   Sir, on Thursday I also asked you about comments that you made on

 4     an exhibit which indicated that Zeljko Raznjatovic was selling weapons

 5     that were provided by the MUP of Serbia.  Do you recall that evidence?

 6        A.   I recall the question but I am no longer certain what my answer

 7     was, please remind me.

 8        Q.   Do you also -- I'm just providing context --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash is --

10             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I think -- the only reason I'm standing up is

11     because my recollection of that exhibit, the way in which the MUP of

12     Serbia is incriminated is critical to a fair appraisal of that exhibit,

13     and I'd ask my learned friend to put that aspect of it to the witness to

14     remind him.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, are you willing to follow the suggestion?

16             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if you'd like me to, I'm happy to.  I'm

17     just trying to provide a context for eventually just putting a

18     proposition to the witness.

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 12573

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12             Do you also recall that I showed you a newspaper -- or, excuse

13     me, a magazine article containing a quote of Veselin Sljivancanin on

14     Thursday?  This was Exhibit P2992.  In this article it's stated that they

15     did not control them.

16        A.   When you say "they," who do you mean?

17        Q.   Excuse me, I'll give you the exact quote, sir.  In this article,

18     Mr. Sljivancanin states:

19             "We had no control over them.  All of the weapons of the

20     White Eagles, the Tigers, and Seselj's Radical Party came from the

21     Serbian MUP, there were criminals and even Albanians among them who only

22     looted and got in our way.  And that was even fighting between our forces

23     even them.  When I complained about that, I was ordered by Jovic's office

24     to offer logistical support to the paramilitary formations because that

25     had been agreed to among the Presidency, the General Staff, and the MUP.

Page 12574

 1     I think that everything at the MUP was organised by Jovica Stanisic."

 2             Sir, at this time I'm just asking:  Do you recall being shown

 3     this article?

 4        A.   Yes, I remember the article.  And again my comment is that the

 5     article indicates that Mr. Sljivancanin thought that the MUP and

 6     Jovica Stanisic were behind this.

 7        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that your comments on Exhibit D273 are

 8     incorrect and that the Serbian MUP, specifically the State Security

 9     Service, supplied weapons to Zeljko Raznjatovic, also known as Arkan, who

10     participated in combat operations in the fall of 1991.

11        A.   In what area?  I'm sorry.

12        Q.   Combat operations in the fall of 1991 in the territory of the

13     SBWS.

14        A.   As I said, in 1991 I was in the Knin Krajina.  That was until

15     October of 1991.  I wasn't present either in Slavonia or in Baranja and I

16     cannot comment on this statement of yours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just -- sometimes even if I've not been at a

18     certain location I sometimes know through other sources what happened in

19     that location or at least that I have information.  Now, if you say, I

20     don't know because I wasn't there, fine.  But the mere fact that you

21     weren't there does not mean that you would have no knowledge, perhaps

22     indirect knowledge, about the events.  So, therefore, if you say, Not

23     even through such channels I know anything about it, fine.  But just to

24     say, I'm not there, therefore I cannot comment, that's a bit too simple.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're interested in my indirect

Page 12575

 1     knowledge, I can share it with you.  But let me highlight, this is

 2     indirect knowledge, issues that I heard from my colleagues.  This isn't

 3     something I personally experienced or participated in.

 4             Firstly, I would like to emphasise that I'm sure that

 5     Mr. Jovica Stanisic is not implicated in the dealings with Arkan and

 6     other criminals mentioned here.  I know this from other sources and from

 7     conversations with my colleagues.  That's number one.

 8             Number two, it would happen very often that many criminal groups

 9     and the so-called paramilitary units would refer to their connections

10     with the State Security Service, references which were later proved

11     untrue.  That is my indirect knowledge.  Secondly, I would like to remind

12     you that I received indirectly information to the effect that in early

13     1991 up until June 1991 Mr. Jovica Stanisic was put on ice, as it were.

14     In other words, he had difficulties in his work for the republican DB.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you give us one example of what you

16     heard that people were referring to the -- would refer to their

17     connection with the State Security Service which were proven to be

18     untrue.  That's what you told us, you said that's what happened, I heard

19     of that, but it was proven not to be true.  Could you give us one

20     example?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was one specific example

22     involving Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac.  He was the head of this one

23     group that I can't recall the name of.  He referred to his connections

24     with the MUP.  But again I would draw this very important distinction

25     between the MUP, the Ministry of the Interior, and the State Security

Page 12576

 1     Service.  These were two different organisations.  Almost all the

 2     criminals present there referred to their connections with the MUP, the

 3     public security branch of the Ministry of the Interior.  Later on, these

 4     statements were proved untrue as well.  That's one thing I know of.

 5             The other example is that in late 1991 Arkan was not connected to

 6     any member of the state security either of the federal MUP or the

 7     republican DB of Serbia.  This is the indirect knowledge that I have.  My

 8     indirect knowledge tells me that Arkan had certain dealings with the

 9     Montenegrin DB.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, you said it was proven to be

11     untrue, what was then proven to be true in relation to Mr. Crnogorac?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Frankly, I wasn't interested.  It

13     was purely a matter of public security.  I didn't even ask for

14     information from Davidovic or our team.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if you say people were referring to the links

16     with - and then you say but they were proven to be untrue, my question,

17     since you give this as an answer, is:  In relation to Mr. Ivanovic, also

18     known as Crnogorac, what was proven to be true?  Because if you prove

19     that a matter is untrue, you usually do that by establishing what is the

20     truth because that's what allows you to establish that what he said was

21     not true.  So, therefore, I'm asking you what exactly was proven to be

22     the case not in line with what he said?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, on the

24     document you've shown me, Ivanovic referred to his co-operation with the

25     MUP of Serbia.  Nowhere was it stated that he had dealings with the

Page 12577

 1     State Security Service of Serbia or that of the federal SUP.  As for the

 2     federal service, I can tell you that he had no connections with us, and

 3     indirectly it was shown that he didn't have any connections with the DB

 4     of Serbia either.  I wasn't interested to take the matter further and see

 5     how things stood in general.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, please proceed.

 7             MR. WEBER:

 8        Q.   DST-034, were you ever formally employed by the State Security

 9     Service of the Republic of Serbia?

10        A.   Yes.  I said at the outset that when I was admitted into the

11     service in 1970, my first regular duty was that of an operative in the

12     State Security Service of Serbia in the Belgrade centre.

13        Q.   And could you please tell us between which years you worked for

14     the State Security Service of the Republic of Serbia?

15        A.   From the 1st of October, 1970, to the 1st of October, 1976.

16        Q.   I'd like to change topics.  This is a more general question.  If

17     there were any amendments to rules governing the internal organisation of

18     a state security department, would those amendments need to be reviewed

19     and approved by the chief of state security?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In particular, the chief of state security, would he need to

22     authorise any change in the responsibilities of the security service?

23        A.   I don't think I've understood your question.  The responsibility

24     of all the members of the State Security Service was the same, and it

25     arose from the law.  There were no exceptions to that.

Page 12578

 1        Q.   If there were changes in this law that affected the internal

 2     organisation of the security service and the responsibilities of

 3     individuals in the service, would the chief of state security need to

 4     approve those changes?

 5        A.   If you're asking me about the organisation of the State Security

 6     Service, it was always addressed at the level of the ministry.  Let me

 7     remind you that at the time the State Security Service was part of the

 8     Ministry of the Interior just as the federal service was part of the

 9     federal ministry, and, therefore, the issue was resolved at the level of

10     the ministry.  No part of the service could be re-organised if not in

11     agreement with the ministry and the government.

12        Q.   And the chief of the State Security Service would be a part of

13     this decision-making process; is that correct?

14        A.   Well, the chief would certainly participate in the stage of

15     drafting rules for the State Security Service.  It would only be natural

16     for him to be part of the commission charged with this.

17        Q.   Would you agree that the federal State Security Service was

18     required to carry out state administration tasks relevant for the

19     protection of the security of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the

20     prevention of activities aimed at undermining or destroying the

21     constitutionally-established order of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

22     on the territory of the republic?

23        A.   Yes, this was an obligation on the part of the federal service.

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 12579











11 Page 12579 redacted. Closed session.















Page 12580

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3             MR. WEBER:  No further questions.  The Prosecution just would

 4     note that there's two outstanding exhibits marked for identification,

 5     P2989 and P2992.  We just would formally be seeking those exhibits for

 6     admission.  I understand that there might be issues that need to be

 7     resolved by the Chamber in relation to them.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  P2989, any objections against admission?

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just have a look at that over the break,

10     please.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then the same, I take it, is for P2992 --

12             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, please.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- which was marked for identification already also.

14             Could I encourage you, Mr. Weber, to -- during the break to

15     briefly confer with Mr. Jordash to see whether he has any remaining

16     issues.  I noticed that you carefully tried to follow his suggestions and

17     to -- for -- perhaps only for practical purposes followed his

18     interpretation of what Rule 90(H) obliges you to do.  If there would be

19     any remaining matter, then we would rather do that immediately after the

20     break before we ...

21             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just make the point so it's on the record,

22     Your Honour, that I noticed, as most everybody in the courtroom, a clear

23     difference between the way the Prosecution put their case to this witness

24     on the issues I indicated were significant, and I'll leave it at that.

25     If that's the Prosecution position, that's the Prosecution position.

Page 12581

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know whether Mr. Weber agrees with you or

 2     not, but at least I think it would assist the Chamber if the matter would

 3     be resolved as quickly as possible and rather than to quarrel about it

 4     for another six months.  That's the only thing I would like to say about

 5     it at this moment.  The break may be short, for coffee or tea, but it

 6     would be encouraged.

 7             Then we take a break.

 8             Mr. Jordash, could you give us any indication, apart from the

 9     time Mr. Weber might still need, how much time you would need?  Or

10     perhaps first Mr. Petrovic or --

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will need up to

12     ten minutes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ten minutes for the Simatovic Defence.

14             Mr. Jordash?

15             MR. JORDASH:  45 minutes, please.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  45 minutes.  Which just leaves then hopefully

17     sufficient time for me to read a few decisions.  I will hear from you

18     after the break about P2989 and P2992.

19             We have a break and we resume at 4.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 3.37 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, I hardly dare to ask, but any further

23     questions for the witness after the tea or coffee you may have had with

24     Mr. Jordash?

25             MR. WEBER:  No further questions.

Page 12582

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No further questions.

 2             Mr. Bakrac, are you ready?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I am, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon to you again, witness.  I only

 8     have a couple of questions for you and I don't think it will take us more

 9     than ten minutes.

10             Let us fist clear up one issue.  I have today's transcript's

11     page 23, lines 12 and 13, in front of me.  My learned friend Mr. Weber

12     put it to you that convoys of the Serbian MUP carrying weapons were

13     travelling to the Krajina.  Your answer was that you had not seen any

14     convoys there and the transcript reads, Save for the three trucks which

15     you showed me evidence of.

16             This is my question:  Based on the document you saw over there,

17     is it the case that you in fact saw the three trucks carrying weapons out

18     in the field?

19        A.   Well, perhaps my answer was misunderstood or misinterpreted.  I

20     didn't see a single truck in the Krajina area, and I'm referring to Knin,

21     Zadar, and Sibenik, the areas I visited, and I never saw three trucks

22     there.  My statement was:  If there had indeed been these three

23     truck-loads of assistance, they would have made up for negligible aid

24     under the circumstances.  But I repeat:  I did not see those trucks.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You were asked about your stay there.  While you were

Page 12583

 1     present in Knin, did you visit the Golubic camp or centre?

 2        A.   I wasn't along with Lieutenant Pecanac --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Outside the examination.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Was this in any way raised in the cross-examination

 6     by Mr. Weber?

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, Golubic was not

 8     mentioned specifically but in a more broader picture.  The witness was

 9     asked about the events in the field, arming of men.  There was the

10     discussion about 5.000 men and members of the State Security Service.

11     Golubic was not mentioned specifically, but in a more broader context, it

12     was.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             MR. BAKRAC: [No Interpretation]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  The Chamber will not prevent the

16     question.  But at the same time, Mr. Bakrac, your defence against the

17     objection was very weak.  You should have raised the matter before.  One

18     or two questions, fine, but then please proceed.

19             So the question was whether you went to the Golubic training

20     camp.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With Lieutenant Pecanac.

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   And how many times?

24        A.   Once during my stay there in May and June and once more sometime

25     in the month of August.

Page 12584

 1        Q.   How many individuals did you see in training there at the time?

 2        A.   Between 60 and 70.

 3        Q.   Did you at any time while you were there see Mr. Franko Simatovic

 4     in Golubic?

 5        A.   No, never.

 6        Q.   Witness, I have two more questions for you, I believe, or three.

 7     Last week -- my apologies.

 8             Before I leave this topic, one more question:  What was the

 9     purpose of your visit to the Golubic camp or centre?

10        A.   We were prompted by information that we heard of special -- of

11     the so-called special units of the SAO Krajina being trained in Golubic.

12     I myself asked Mr. Tolimir to make arrangements for our visit to the camp

13     there.  That's why Lieutenant Pecanac accompanied me, together with two

14     more members of the special unit of the federal MUP.  I'm not an expert

15     in special units, but what we saw there at the time was far from a

16     special unit.

17        Q.   To make the transcript fully clear:  Mr. Tolimir and Mr. Pecanac

18     are military servicemen of the Knin Garrison?

19        A.   I think Mr. Tolimir was a captain and he was the head of the

20     security of the Knin Garrison.  Pecanac was part of the same security

21     service and held the rank of lieutenant.

22        Q.   Thank you, witness.  Last week you were asked about reports sent

23     from the field to the Federal Secretariat of the Interior.  Did the

24     Federal Secretariat of the Interior have separate public security and

25     state security departments?

Page 12585

 1        A.   Yes, there were two separate departments.

 2        Q.   The police brigade which was deployed by way of assistance to the

 3     police of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did it belong to the public security

 4     department of the secretariat?

 5        A.   Yes, they were part of the public security department.

 6        Q.   Therefore any reports that they may have sent would have been

 7     sent to the public security department?

 8        A.   Yes, directly to the assistant minister for public security and

 9     the minister for the interior.

10        Q.   Would a copy -- or was a copy sent to the state security

11     department of the federal secretariat?

12        A.   It depended on the federal secretary or federal minister.  If he

13     found that the report contained information of interest for state

14     security, it was within his discretion to make adequate directions for

15     certain reports to also be copied to the State Security Service.

16        Q.   Am I right in saying that if assistant minister or the minister

17     himself felt that a given piece of information was reliable and relevant

18     it would also be sent to the state security department?

19        A.   Yes, it would also be forwarded to the service I worked for.

20        Q.   Witness, you were asked last week about certain IDs.  There was a

21     document which was the basis for questions, although it was decided that

22     it not be put to you.  The question had to do with official

23     identification papers, and then it was said that there were individuals

24     who had IDs belonging to the Krajina and to the federal SUP.  Are you

25     familiar with Dragan Malesevic, Tapi, the late Dragan Malesevic, Tapi?

Page 12586

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   While you were an operative, were you aware of his connections

 3     with certain criminal groups in Belgrade?

 4        A.   Yes, I was aware of it.

 5        Q.   Can you explain for us in what sense and in what capacity was

 6     Mr. Tapi tied in with these groups?

 7        A.   Mr. Malesevic, Tapi is his nickname, was known in Belgrade and I

 8     think he was known abroad as a forger, a falsifier.  He represented

 9     himself as a painter, he even had a collection of paintings in Belgrade,

10     but he was a forgerer.  This was known for a while and he would produce

11     forgeries, fake paintings, for criminals across Yugoslavia.

12        Q.   When you say forgeries, you mean what exactly?

13        A.   Well, from documents, passports, personal identity cards,

14     official IDs, any sort of official documentation, including driver's

15     licences, et cetera, everything that a person needs to properly identify

16     himself.

17        Q.   Did you come by this information as an ordinary citizen or

18     through your intelligence work?

19        A.   Both.

20        Q.   This is my last question for you, witness.  My learned friend

21     Mr. Weber showed you a newspaper article featuring Mr. Sljivancanin's

22     interview from 1996, unless I'm mistaken.  This is my question:  Did you

23     know that in November of 1995 the indictment against Mr. Sljivancanin and

24     the so-called Vukovar group was made public?

25        A.   I wouldn't be able to give you a date or confirm what you just

Page 12587

 1     said.  I really don't know when it was made public.  I don't know.

 2        Q.   Can you tell me who was the chief of the military security during

 3     Vukovar?

 4        A.   They changed frequently.  I wouldn't be able to tell you now.

 5     There were several in that period.  I can't recall their names.  I could

 6     probably confirm for you who the chief of military security was if you

 7     gave me their names.

 8        Q.   Was Mr. Sljivancanin a member of a security organ at the time?

 9     And I mean military security.

10        A.   I don't know what his role was at the time.  I can tell you that

11     none of us had heard of Mr. Sljivancanin until we -- until his appearance

12     on the TV because of his infamous quarrel with representatives of

13     Médecins Sans Frontières.  Before that, nobody had heard of him.

14        Q.   This is truly my last question:  Since you worked in these

15     structures, first in the Belgrade centre and then in the Federal

16     Secretariat of the Interior, specifically the state security branch, was

17     there animosity and blame shifting from the military security service to

18     the republican civilian state security and vice-versa?

19        A.   For as long as there was peace and a united Yugoslavia, their

20     co-operation was good.  As conflicts broke out, we realised that the

21     military security service did not report to us all the information they

22     had.  It was at that time roughly that the military security service and

23     the republican and federal State Security Service had sour relations

24     which came to a head as the conflict broke out in Croatia and Bosnia.

25     And quite a few of the accusations that were levelled against republican

Page 12588

 1     and federal state security services originated from the military security

 2     service.

 3        Q.   Thank you, witness.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And thank you, Your Honours, for the

 5     time that I seem to have exceeded somewhat.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.

 7             Mr. Jordash, are you ready?

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

 9             Could I just indicate that in relation to 2989 and 2992 we

10     maintain the objection until the prerequisite in the authority which

11     we've handed to your authority have been adjudicated upon.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you're referring to the Prlic decision by

13     the Appeals Chamber?

14             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

16             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if there's just any need for the

17     Prosecution to make further submissions on the matter, the Prosecution's

18     available to do so.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll -- as I said before, we'll first read it

20     and then -- and I'm halfway.

21             Please proceed.

22                           Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:

23        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.  You, at page 1 --

24        A.   Good afternoon.

25   (redacted)

Page 12589











11 Page 12589 redacted. Closed session.















Page 12590

 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        Q.   Okay.  I'll leave that point there then.

20             You testified, again on the 7th of July, in relation to a speech

21     which -- or a conversation that had been recorded between Mladic and an

22     army officer, and in that speech, if you'll recall, he, Mladic, had made

23     various threats about killing civilians.

24             MR. JORDASH:  And, Your Honours, page 12493.

25        Q.   You, at the bottom of the page, line 23, you said:  "But this

Page 12591

 1     cannot be looked at when you are searching for a reflection of what

 2     Ratko Mladic's Yugoslav attitude may be."

 3             Do you recall that?

 4        A.   Yes.  I recall that during a conversation with an officer he

 5     issued some threats against Croats that --

 6        Q.   Mr. Witness, I'm going to try to keep you fairly short in your

 7     answers because I want to get through quite a few things.  That's the

 8     conversation we're discussing.  You suggested that that was not a way of

 9     judging Mladic's attitude towards Yugoslavia.  What did you mean by that

10     and what would you suggest, in terms of facts, that would reflect

11     Mladic's attitude?

12        A.   I think I explained that at that time Mladic's Yugoslav attitude

13     was something that could not be questioned in my view.  This conversation

14     reflected his usual manner of discussion when confronted with Croatian

15     representatives or when commenting certain events.  In any case, that was

16     not his position.  I don't believe he ever intended to see those threats

17     come to life.

18        Q.   But the question was:  What facts would you suggest did indicate

19     his attitude to Yugoslavia?

20        A.   Given the fact that I was frequently in the field with him, I

21     could observe directly his conduct and his treatment of Croatian citizens

22     who happened to be in the territory the army came to.  On the other hand,

23     he also would not allow any other symbols or presence of any paramilitary

24     units in the area of his command or his area of responsibility.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Now, moving on to the next subject and Simovic, the

Page 12592

 1     minister of defence in 1991.  At page 12496, 7th of July, 2011, you were

 2     asked by the Prosecution about Simovic and the fact that he had -- the

 3     question was whether he had any authority over the JNA in 1991.  You

 4     answer, at line 10:

 5             "No, he had no authority over the JNA.  But he was a member of

 6     the inner collegium of the General Staff of the JNA."

 7             What was the inner collegium of the General Staff of the JNA?

 8        A.   I don't know exactly who comprised the collegium.  In any case,

 9     in addition to the federal minister of defence, the Chief of the

10     General Staff, and his deputies and assistants.  I believe the Serbian

11     minister of defence was included as well.  I can't say how many people

12     were members of the collegium though.

13        Q.   Do you know what its purpose was, what authorities it had?

14        A.   I suppose they analysed all the events taking place at the time

15     across Yugoslav territory and primarily in Bosnia and Croatia.  They also

16     assessed security situation from the point of view of the army and their

17     security.  I believe that must have been one of their tasks.  They were

18     also in charge of regular reporting of the then SFRY Presidency about the

19     situation in the field as well.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Could I have P1050 on the screen, please.  Page 11

21     of the English and 39 of the B/C/S.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

23             MR. WEBER:  Did the Prosecution get notice of this document?

24             MR. JORDASH:  Notice should have been sent today in relation to

25     re-examination and it was.

Page 12593

 1             MR. WEBER:  Object.  The Prosecution did not have notice prior to

 2     its examination.  It deprived us of the opportunity to seek evidence with

 3     respect to this.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that notice was given.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  This morning.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  This morning.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  In relation to the cross-examination that took

 8     place on Thursday.

 9             MR. WEBER:  If I could please have the time of the e-mail, just

10     because I've received a lot today.  I have actually a e-mail at

11     2.04 p.m., I'm sorry I've not had an opportunity to check yet, which does

12     include this exhibit.  We would still be objecting to notice as not

13     coming prior to the examination of the witness.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I have 11 of July, 2.04.

15             MR. JORDASH:  That must be the one.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That must be the one.

17             MR. JORDASH:  It's a Prosecution exhibit produced by the

18     Prosecution, adduced by the Prosecution.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which means that at least they know the

20     exhibit, not necessarily introduced by Mr. Weber.  Let's -- Mr. Weber, I

21     have no recollection whatsoever what the document is about, to be quite

22     honest.

23             MR. JORDASH:  It's the book by --

24             MR. WEBER:  If we could not have testimony --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

Page 12594

 1             MR. WEBER:  -- comments in front of the witness.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Well, it's a book by --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.  Okay, that's just a description of the

 4     document, I take it, and that it's not --

 5              MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- dangerous yet for you, Mr. Weber.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  It's a book by Simovic's secretary, Glisic.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, if you introduce a book, of course, in

 9     evidence, that doesn't mean that I don't know whether these portions of

10     the book were specifically addressed when the document was admitted into

11     evidence, so ...

12             MR. JORDASH:  Let me deal with it in a different way, if I may.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I had not ruled on it yet, but if Mr. Jordash

14     offers this, Mr. Weber, perhaps it might be wise to let him proceed and

15     then see what happens.

16             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  We'll reserve our objection based

17     on how it proceeds.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

19             MR. JORDASH:

20        Q.   Are aware of any connection between Simovic and Arkan in 1991,

21     the time that you're describing?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   Are you aware of any connection between Bogdanovic and Arkan at

24     the time we're describing?

25        A.   No.  I must say that the federal security service did not get

Page 12595

 1     involved in such matters.  Some of my knowledge, as I said, is indirect.

 2     The federal State Security Service did not engage in verifying whether

 3     Arkan or any other criminal had any relationship with anyone from the

 4     Serbian security service or the army.

 5        Q.   Are you aware of any connection between Arkan and the federal DB

 6     prior to and up to 1990 and 1991?

 7        A.   The only connection I know of between Arkan and the federal DB,

 8     or, rather, the federal MUP, including the State Security Service, is

 9     something that refers -- that goes back to 1981, I believe.  At the time,

10     the federal minister of the interior was Mr. Stane Dolanc.  He was

11     appointed at that time and he discussed it openly.

12        Q.   Did you ever here of Zdravko Mustac?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. WEBER:  I'm going to object to this as outside the scope of

15     initial examination and cross-examination.  This is an individual there's

16     not been proper events related to him.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, out of the scope.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the Prosecution have put that Arkan is

19     connected or was connected to the Serbian DB and that relationship was

20     pivotal to the activities of Arkan.  And so I'm clarifying whether the

21     witness is aware of any other connections which would clarify whether

22     that proposition is a reasonable one.

23             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, that can be done in an open-ended way.

24     If the witness offers a name and there's further clarification needed,

25     then proper way of doing it is to introducing it, if that's what

Page 12596

 1     Mr. Jordash is seeking to do, through essentially suggesting a name and

 2     then connecting it to a topic.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That's a -- that's a different objection, Mr. Weber.

 4     You have changed the reason halfway.  And for that reason I rule on your

 5     initial objection, and that's denied.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to raise the other one, I would not

 8     encourage you to do it, but if you want to do it, I'll rule on that as

 9     well.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Yes, you have heard of Zdravko Mustac.  Who was he and was he

12     connected in any way to Arkan?

13        A.   Zdravko Mustac was Croatian cadre who arrived to the federal MUP.

14     He became the federal chief -- the federal MUP chief of security.  It was

15     in 1987 or 1988.  He was part of the Croatian cadre personnel.  I think

16     he left Belgrade in 1991.  As far as I know, Mr. Zdravko Mustac was never

17     in any contact with Arkan, although this too would be indirect knowledge

18     on my part.

19        Q.   Okay.  Let's move on.  You were asked about an interview that

20     Martic gave on the 7th of July, 1991; do you recall that?

21        A.   Yes, I do.  Although, if possible, I'd like to see it on the

22     screen.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have, please, P2991.  Your Honours,

24     page 1250.  P2991.

25        Q.   Do you recall that?

Page 12597

 1        A.   Yes.  Could you please zoom in, as I can't read it like this.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have the second -- or could we go to the

 3     bottom of the English page, please.  And the second page of the English.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apologies, I'm looking at something

 5     else, something that has to do with Glavas.

 6             MR. JORDASH:

 7        Q.   This should be an interview, I think, that Martic gave, and

 8     there's a photograph of him there, so I think it is the right one.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And it was suggested to you that Martic's references to weapons

11     supplies in that document was a reference to an April supply by

12     Bogdanovic and Tepavcevic.  Do you recall that?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, if we go to page 3 of the English, and we can just see the

15     precise portion that the Prosecution put to you in relation -- and it's

16     at the bottom.  And Martic claims there:

17             "With the acquisition of more modern and heavier weapons, our

18     combat operations have been considerably expanded."

19             And he also makes the point there that he says already a number

20     of assault helicopters are ready for action.

21             Did you ever see Martic with assault helicopters?

22        A.   We left Knin on the 30th of June or the 1st of July.  I claim in

23     full responsibility that Martic's units, if one could call them that,

24     were poorly armed, unorganized, and frequently without proper and

25     complete uniform sets.  Therefore, this entire interview, the text we are

Page 12598

 1     looking at, is something that I can only interpret as propaganda or

 2     raising the morale of the people in the territory.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, there was a very simple question:  Whether

 4     you ever saw Martic with assault helicopters.  What you are doing, you

 5     are describing how they were dressed.  You are going -- please answer the

 6     question.  Did you see Martic with assault helicopters?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying is that I never saw

 8     him with any helicopters or any heavy weaponry mentioned in the article.

 9     And I provided a broader explanation so as to illustrate their situation.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What needs illustration or not is left to

11     Mr. Jordash at this moment.

12             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

13             MR. JORDASH:

14        Q.   Now, so the Chamber understand, this was an interview the

15     Prosecution relied upon that Martic gave on the 7th of July.  Martic gave

16     another speech on the 7th of July, and I want to show it to you.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have 65 ter 1898, please.

18        Q.   It's an interview which was published in a publication called

19     "Pobjeda," 7th of July, 1991.  "We are prepared for war," an interview

20     with Martic.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution just has this as D312

23     marked for identification.

24             MR. JORDASH:  I beg your pardon.  That's right, yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So we are looking at D312.  Please proceed.

Page 12599

 1             MR. JORDASH:

 2        Q.   Just have a look through this if you would, Mr. Witness, just to

 3     familiarise yourself with it.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  I will just take instructions, Your Honour, if I

 5     may.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

 7                           [Defence counsel and Accused Stanisic confer]

 8             MR. JORDASH:

 9        Q.   Are you familiar with this interview, Mr. Witness?

10        A.   Yes, I am.  There were several such interviews, I think.  I don't

11     know whether I read this very interview or a similar one, but I remember

12     reading some such things.

13        Q.   Well, as you can see, he's asked the question on the

14     7th of July, 1991 -- or questions, I should say, concerning his

15     relationship with the JNA.  And as you can see, he notes that the

16     co-operation with the army is excellent.  And if you find the heading:

17             "Military hardware, weapons, and equipment - are they joint as

18     well?"

19             Martic answers:

20             "Yes, at the given moment, they are joint as well, since we know

21     our mutual enemy is this Ustasha state which does not wish us or the JNA

22     any good.  Otherwise, we are not short of weapons."

23             Does that reflect what you found in the Knin or the Krajina?

24        A.   No, it does not.  His words do not reflect the situation I

25     observed during my stay in Knin.  I can expand if necessary, but in

Page 12600

 1     short, my answer is no, this statement of his does not reflect the

 2     situation in the field.

 3        Q.   Please expand shortly, please.

 4        A.   As I said, I found there the Martic's so-called units who were

 5     poorly equipped.  They had some side-arms and long-barrelled weapons

 6     including automatic rifles and some trophy pieces.  Their uniforms were

 7     not as they should have been.  Some of it was torn and some people were

 8     even in civilian clothes.  The police he organised in some villages in

 9     the Serbian part sported only private side-arms and hunting rifles.  This

10     was as far as his equipment and ability to defend themselves in that

11     territory goes.  This was merely propaganda.  It does not reflect the

12     truth.

13             MR. JORDASH:  May I tender this as an exhibit, Your Honour,

14     please.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

16             Madam Registrar, the number would be ...

17             THE REGISTRAR:  This is already D312 --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have it already --

19             MR. JORDASH:  Oh, yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- MFI'd as D31 -- no, not only MFI'd.  Let me

21     check.

22             D312 is marked for identification, Madam Registrar?  Yes, and is

23     hereby admitted.

24             No need to have it under seal, Mr. Jordash?

25             MR. JORDASH:  No, thank you.

Page 12601

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  It's admitted as a public document.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have P2990 on the screen, please.

 3        Q.   This is the exhibit, Mr. Witness, which shows Tepavcevic and

 4     Bogdanovic engaged in a weapons and ammunitions supply.  I just want to

 5     remind you of it.

 6             Now, at the time of this, I'm right, aren't I, Janackovic was the

 7     chief of the DB?

 8        A.   Janackovic was.

 9        Q.   Are you able to cast any light on how and why Bogdanovic would

10     bypass the chief and go straight so Tepavcevic in relation to such

11     supply?

12        A.   As I said, this is my indirect knowledge.  And let me note that

13     the federal State Security Service did not deal with the situation of

14     security within a republic.  I got this information from my colleagues

15     working for the Serbian State Security Service, that in this period of

16     May/June 1991 Jovica Stanisic was not a favourite of anyone, that he had

17     difficulties in work, and that measures were applied against him, that's

18     to say monitoring measures.  Now, why did Bogdanovic apply to Tepavcevic?

19     Because Tepavcevic was assistant chief to Janackovic.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:  I'm just going to object on notice.  This is outside

22     the witness summary for this witness, what he's now going into.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, of course, the document has been used and you

24     say the area in which he's going takes him out of the 65 ter region.

25             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  The -- it's the Prosecution's

Page 12602

 1     position that the Stanisic Defence at this time is trying to elicit

 2     testimony about a timing matter that was not provided notice on.  We

 3     objected originally during the direct examination of this, going into the

 4     matter that is now being commented on by the witness, and Mr. Jordash

 5     indicated that he was not going to go into this topic with the witness.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's see.  If I look at the question, it seems

 7     not specifically aiming at doing that.  What direction the witness

 8     exactly goes, of course, is to some extent still to be guessed.

 9             Mr. Jordash, in view of the exception -- of the objection made,

10     could you please try to keep the witness focused on what you would like

11     to hear from him.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

13        Q.   Please listen to the question, Mr. Witness, because I really need

14     you to address it directly.  Time is short.  How did, how was it, or why

15     was it, if you can assist us with this, that Tepavcevic was able to --

16     or, let me rephrase that, that Bogdanovic was able to bypass the chief of

17     the service, Janackovic?

18        A.   Listen, it all depended on who was charged with certain duties.

19     I don't know what Mr. Tepavcevic was charged with specifically as

20     assistant chief of the DB of Serbia.  It is also possible that

21     Mr. Janackovic was aware of it and that Mr. Tepavcevic was charged with

22     certain duties.  It was down to the DB.  I cannot really comment on with

23     their mutual relations may have been.

24        Q.   Fair enough.  You've described this as -- in a variety of ways

25     but as only minor assistance and negligible aid.  Could you very briefly

Page 12603

 1     quantify or explain why you quantify it in that way?

 2        A.   What I can tell from the text, there's reference to three trucks

 3     and two Puchs or jeeps.  1.400 barrels of various weapons were supplied,

 4     probably automatic weapons, and there's also mention of ammunition of

 5     various calibre, flak jackets, et cetera.  In view of the situation as I

 6     was able to see it out in the field in terms of the equipment that

 7     Martic's men had, the assistance as listed here was negligible because

 8     Martic's police was inadequate.  It lacked training and equipment as a

 9     proper police force would have.  Another thing is that I don't know

10     whether this convoy in fact reached Knin or some other destination in

11     Krajina.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Again you're going beyond what is asked.

13             Now, Mr. Jordash, I mean, if we read 45 helmets, this Chamber is

14     able to approximately establish that approximately double the number of

15     people in this courtroom could have a helmet if 45 helmets are sent, so

16     to that extent, if --

17             MR. JORDASH:  I'll move on.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps that might be ... I mean, we -- of

19     course we do understand more or less what 45, 48 means, and the same is

20     true for 60.000 rounds.  Please proceed.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

22        Q.   In relation to when you discuss and testify to Martic's police,

23     do you include within Martic's police the Knindzes?

24        A.   Well, I don't know how they styled themselves at that point in

25     time.  They did consider themselves as part of Martic's police, as a

Page 12604

 1     special unit of Martic's police.  Martic was head of the police force at

 2     the time and the unit was called the special unit of the Krajina police.

 3     Under the regulations and rules, it would have to be part of the

 4     establishment of the SAO Krajina police force.

 5        Q.   Do you include them when you assess Martic's police as a

 6     negligible force?

 7        A.   Well, as I said, I saw them two or three times when I was there.

 8     Since I was accompanied by two of our specialists from the federal MUP,

 9     Neso Maric, Martic's body-guard and man of confidence, tried to ask the

10     two specials who were with me to help in the training of the Knindzes,

11     their special unit.  This was reportedly denied, this assistance.  But

12     they didn't seem to me to be a threat to anyone.  From what I was able to

13     see, what was said here was more in the line of propaganda and morale

14     boosting of the population in the Krajina.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, the witness again moves away from the

16     question.

17             Could you please carefully listen to the questions and answer

18     those and not to give your general views on matters which may be related

19     in one way or another to what is the background of Mr. Jordash's

20     question.

21             When we are talking about negligible force, I think Mr. Jordash

22     was mainly interested to know about the composition, the size of the

23     units, numbers, rather than whether what we read is propaganda or not.

24             Please proceed.

25   (redacted)

Page 12605











11 Pages 12605-12617 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 12618

 1                           [Open session]

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 4             First of all, Judge Picard is, for urgent Tribunal matters,

 5     unavailable to sit with us at this moment.  Judge Gwaunza and myself have

 6     decided that it would be in the interest to proceed in her absence, so

 7     we'll sit under Rule 15 bis at this moment.

 8             I further put on the record that since we are dealing with

 9     practical matters, that before we took a break that the Chamber had

10     explained to both accused that it would fully understand if the accused

11     would prefer to return to the UNDU rather than to wait for half an hour

12     and then to deal for 15 or 20 minutes with procedural matters.  I

13     establish that the accused are -- have waived their right to be present.

14             Before I read three decisions, there's one remaining issue which

15     is about D56, which is marked, not admitted, I think.  It is a order by

16     Gracanin.  There was -- we are still waiting for the result of further

17     inquiries by the Stanisic Defence about the background and the origin of

18     this document.  Although you have withdrawn it, I think for very

19     practical reasons, at a certain moment and then it was tendered now by

20     the Simatovic Defence, it formally still has the status of marked, not

21     admitted.

22             Mr. Jordash, any news to be reported?

23             MR. JORDASH:  No news, but I will deal with that straightaway and

24     come back to Your Honours tomorrow, if that's acceptable.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll then wait for your further information.

Page 12619

 1             Then I have a few decisions to read, at least the reasons for the

 2     decisions.

 3             The first one is reasons for the Chamber's decision granting

 4     trial-related protective measures for Witness JF-024.

 5             On the 14th of October, 2009, the Prosecutor requested protective

 6     measures of pseudonym and face and voice distortion for Witness JF-024.

 7     The Defence did not oppose this request.  On the 2nd of February, 2011,

 8     the Prosecution requested the additional protective measures of

 9     closed-session testimony for the witness.  The Stanisic Defence did not

10     oppose the additional request.  The Simatovic Defence expressed an

11     interest in obtaining further details but did not ultimately object to

12     the request either.  All of this can be found at transcript pages 10983

13     through 10990.

14             On the same day, the Chamber granted the application for

15     protective measures for Witness JF-024, with reasons to follow.  On the

16     3rd of February, the Chamber clarified its ruling, holding that the

17     witness would testify with the protective measures of pseudonym and

18     closed session.  And this can be found at transcript pages 10995 and

19     10996.

20             The Chamber has set out its test for granting protective measures

21     to witnesses in previous decisions.  In this respect, the Chamber refers

22     the parties to the reasons for its decision to grant protective measures

23     for Witness C-1118, which can be found at transcript pages 3690 to 3693.

24             Apart from concerns for his own safety, the witness reported that

25     the members of his extended family had received threats which were, at a

Page 12620

 1     high level of probability, motivated by his co-operation with the

 2     Tribunal.  It is further likely that the same source which issued these

 3     threats took action against the family member because of the witness's

 4     provision of evidence to the Tribunal.

 5             The Chamber found that the threats made against the witness and

 6     his family amount to an objectively-grounded risk to the security or

 7     welfare of the witness or the witness's family should it become known

 8     that the witness has given evidence before the Tribunal.

 9             The Chamber further found that the witness would not be able to

10     provide evidence without compromising his identity if closed session was

11     not granted.  Considering all the circumstances noted above and the fact

12     that the Defence did not object to the request, the Chamber granted the

13     protective measures of pseudonym and closed-session testimony to

14     Witness JF-024.  And this concludes the Chamber's reasons.

15             The next decision concerns protective measures for

16     Witness JF-052.

17             The Chamber has not yet communicated the reasons for its oral

18     decision of the 28th of October, 2010, granting an augmentation of

19     trial-related protective measures for Witness JF-052.  This decision can

20     be found at transcript page 8271.  And the witness testified in closed

21     session on the 3rd of November, 2010.  The Chamber will give its reasons

22     now.

23             On the 11th of October, 2010, the Prosecution submitted a motion

24     for a variation of protective measures of Witness JF-052.  It requested

25     that the measures granted to the witness, namely, pseudonym and face and

Page 12621

 1     voice distortion, be augmented.  Specifically, the Prosecution requested

 2     that the witness's testimony be received in closed session.

 3             On the 13th of October, 2010, the Chamber instructed the Defence

 4     to file a response, if any, by the 15th of October, 2010.  In this

 5     respect, the Chamber refers to transcript page 7885.  On the

 6     15th of October, the Stanisic Defence informally communicated to the

 7     Chamber that it did not take a position on the Prosecution's motion.  On

 8     the 28th of October, 2010, in court, the Stanisic Defence and the

 9     Simatovic Defence submitted that they had no objections to the motion.

10     This can be found at transcript pages 8270 and 8271.  Acting in

11     accordance with Rule 75(I), the Chamber decided the motion pursuant to

12     Rule 75(G)(ii).

13             As far as the applicable test and the applicable law, I refer to

14     what I just read in relation to Witness JF-024, which applies in this

15     case as well.

16             In its motion, the Prosecution submitted that the witness was

17     fearful that should it become known that he would testify in this case,

18     he and his family would be harmed.  The Prosecution provided a signed

19     declaration from an investigator who interviewed the witness.  The

20     Chamber considered that, in light of the investigator's declaration and

21     considering the subject matter of the witness's testimony, it was likely

22     that protective measures in place for the witness would not sufficiently

23     guarantee the security of the witness and his family.  It further

24     considered that the Defence did not oppose the request for closed

25     session.

Page 12622

 1             Considering all the aforementioned circumstances and balancing

 2     the risks that the witness and his family may face after testifying

 3     before the Tribunal and the accused's right to a public trial, the

 4     Chamber granted the requested variation of the protective measures of

 5     Witness JF-052.

 6             And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision.

 7             The last reasons to be read relate to the Chamber's decision

 8     denying postponement of Simatovic's opening statement.

 9             These are the reasons for the decision of the 8th of June, 2011,

10     denying the postponement of the Simatovic Defence's opening statement.

11             On the 2nd of June, 2011, the Simatovic Defence informed the

12     Chamber that it had not completed its preparations for the Defence case

13     and requested, accordingly, to be allowed to give an opening statement

14     prior to its own presentation of evidence.  The Simatovic Defence also

15     pointed out that in the past some other Chambers in this Tribunal had

16     allowed Defence teams to make opening statements at the beginning of

17     their respective cases.

18             On the 3rd of June, 2011, the Prosecution opposed the

19     Simatovic Defence's request.  The Prosecution argued that the basis of

20     the request relates to matters raised before, and dismissed by, the

21     Appeals Chamber in its decision of the 27th of May, 2011, in this case.

22     It submitted that postponing the opening statement would also vitiate the

23     notice requirements of Rule 65 ter (F) and (G), which are necessary for a

24     fair trial.

25             On the 8th of June, 2011, the Chamber denied the

Page 12623

 1     Simatovic Defence's request and informed the parties of this through an

 2     informal communication.  The Chamber considered that it would be assisted

 3     by hearing both Defence opening statements immediately after the

 4     Pre-Defence Conference so as to gain an overview of and be able to better

 5     monitor possible overlaps between the two Defence cases.  The Chamber

 6     also considered that hearing both opening statements before the

 7     presentation of Defence evidence would be conducive to an expeditious

 8     trial by providing notice to the other parties and leading to more

 9     focused examinations of witnesses.  Finally, the Chamber considered that

10     an opening statement by the Simatovic Defence before the presentation of

11     any Defence evidence would assist the Bench in its questioning of Defence

12     witnesses.  And for these reasons the Chamber denied the Simatovic

13     Defence's request.

14             And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision.

15             If there's no other matter to be raised, we will adjourn for the

16     day.  And we resume tomorrow, the 12th of July, quarter past 2.00 in this

17     same Courtroom II

18                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.18 p.m.,

19                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of

20                           July, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.