111006ED

Page 14072

1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I may.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

3 MR. WEBER: Just in terms of one housekeeping matter.

4 Yesterday, at the end of the session, the witness was -- did

5 produce the notes, and we did make a copy, and we have the notes

6 available here in the court available to return to the the Court Usher to

7 give back to the witness.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think can be returned right away to the

9 witness.

10 [The witness takes the stand]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.

12 Mr. Novakovic, the usher just returned to you the small note you

13 gave yesterday to the Prosecution.

14 Mr. Novakovic, I would like to remind you that you're still bound

15 by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your

16 testimony on Tuesday. That is, that you will speak the truth, the whole

17 truth, and nothing but the truth.

18 WITNESS: RADENKO NOVAKOVIC [Resumed]

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.

21 Mr. Weber, please proceed.

22 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honours.

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

24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.

25 A. Good morning.

Page 14073

1 Q. Sir, today could you please listen carefully to my questions and

2 direct respond to what is being asked of you. Do you understand?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The head of the Uzice DB between 1990 and 2000 was Jakov Sokic;

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Mr. Sokic is now deceased; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. As part of your duties, did you ever go to Prizren in southern

10 Kosovo prior to 1996?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What was your assignment there?

13 A. My assignment there was, again, to work on counter-intelligence

14 tasks, and I also went to assist there in Prizren in their centre,

15 because the situation had become more complex, security-wise, and they

16 needed assistance.

17 Q. If you could give us approximate date of this assignment.

18 A. I can tell you approximately. I went sometime in November 1987,

19 and I spent there the entire year of 1988, and then I returned to the

20 Uzice centre.

21 Q. Is it your testimony, then, that you were never assigned to that

22 location in 1995?

23 A. In 1995? In that location? No, I was never again in Kosovo

24 after that. The last time was in 1988, and I returned from there in

25 December.

Page 14074

1 Q. Did you receive any increases in your salary between the 10th of

2 July and 10th of August, 1995?

3 A. An increase in salary? I can't remember now. It's too long ago.

4 When I was on field missions, I received per diem.

5 Q. Do you recall if you received any per diem between the 10th of

6 July and 10th of August, 1995?

7 A. I received per diem in November 1995. Yes, I did receive per

8 diem in November 1995.

9 Q. So the record is clear: You did not -- is it your testimony that

10 you did not receive, then, a per diem between -- or in July or August of

11 1995.

12 A. Well, I cannot tell you exactly. It was 17 years ago.

13 Q. During your assignment to the Uzice sector, did you have access

14 to information reports of other administrations and other sectors?

15 A. As a more seasoned employee, I did receive surveys and overviews

16 from other areas. Or perhaps people from other centres came to be

17 briefed on the situation in Uzice. I would learn from them about the

18 problems in -- in their localities, especially if they were relevant to

19 the work of our centre. In the counter-intelligence field.

20 Q. On Tuesday, you stated that you were transferred to the

21 2nd Administration in Belgrade in November 1995. Were you ever assigned

22 to Sremska Mitrovica as a permanent employee between 1996 and 1999?

23 A. I was never assigned to Mitrovica, but that area that I went to

24 sometime was directly across from Mitrovica.

25 Q. You reported and received directions from Franko Simatovic

Page 14075

1 between 1994 and 1999; correct?

2 A. I would say it was from November 1995 to 1999.

3 Q. Mr. Simatovic is your former supervisor in the

4 2nd Administration; correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. To the best of your knowledge, who in the State Security Service

7 had access to all information and reports from all administrations and

8 sectors?

9 A. Well, ex officio, the chief of the service would have access. He

10 needed to be informed. Otherwise, I did not have access to material from

11 other administrations, except if there was something of common interest,

12 something that we needed to jointly work together on. The chief of

13 administration had access to all the documents created by that

14 administration.

15 Q. When you refer to chief of service, I take it you're referring to

16 Jovica Stanisic. Could you please confirm that and tell us the name of

17 the person that you're referring to as the chief of administration?

18 A. When I said that somebody had access to all the materials of the

19 service, that would be only the chief of the service. But when I say

20 chief of administration, I mean the senior chief, the head of that

21 administration.

22 Q. Sir, I'm asking you to provide the names of those two individuals

23 so that it's clear for the record.

24 A. Well, as an example, I can tell you the chief of the service was

25 Jovica Stanisic at the time --

Page 14076

1 Q. Sir --

2 MR. JORDASH: I was just going to suggest that my learned friend

3 gives a time-frame.

4 MR. WEBER: Four hours. Four hours.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Mr. Jordash was asking you to giving a

6 time-frame for the witness. To answer the question when --

7 MR. WEBER: That --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Because you asked for names. I think the witness

9 first referred to functional description. But if you ask for names, then

10 you need persons during a certain time-frame to be on that post.

11 MR. WEBER: Fair enough.

12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, this case relates to a specifically charged

13 time-period between 1991 and 1995. I'm asking you who had access to all

14 information and materials from all administrations and sectors during

15 that time-period. If you could please provide us the names.

16 A. Let me tell you, from what I remember at the time, people changed

17 in both the position of chief of service and chiefs of administrations.

18 So if you're asking me specifically about 1995, the chief of service was

19 Jovica Stanisic; the chief of the 2nd Administrations was

20 Franko Simatovic.

21 Q. Did those two individuals have access to all information and

22 reports from all administrations and sectors? Sir, if you could please

23 focus on my question, it is quite specific.

24 A. Franko Simatovic as chief of the 2nd Administration had access to

25 the documents created in the 2nd Administrations or centres that were

Page 14077

1 under the 2nd Administration in terms of their intelligence line of work.

2 Franko Simatovic [as interpreted] had access to all the

3 documents, but, of course, he is not going to burden himself with all the

4 documents. He is going to be briefed by chiefs of sections about things

5 he needs to know. He didn't have time to look through all the documents.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Page 8, line 2, the name that was

8 written is not the name that was said. The paragraph refers to another

9 person, not the one named in line 2, page 8. That's what I heard in

10 Serbian.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I do not see any name in the second line of page 8.

12 Oh, yes, I see that my neighbour to my left has a -- oh. Yes. What

13 is -- what is page 8, line 2 for me is -- line 1 for me is line 2 for

14 others. That comes as a bit of a surprise in the system.

15 But let me try to clarify this.

16 You told us that Franko Simatovic, as the chief of the

17 2nd Administration had access to the documents created in that

18 administration or centres, or that were -- I think sent to or up to the

19 2nd Administration in terms of their intelligence line of work.

20 Now, you then said and you mentioned a person that a person had

21 access to all the documents but, of course, he is not going to burden

22 himself with all the documents. What name did you mention there?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned the chief of service

24 ex officio, Jovica Stanisic. Ex officio, he had access to all the

25 documents, but, of course, he was presented with selected documents by

Page 14078

1 chiefs of administrations.

2 JUDGE ORIE: So what you said is that Jovica Stanisic had access

3 to all the documents but, of course, he was not going to burden himself

4 with all these documents and he is going to be briefed by the chiefs of

5 sections. That's what your testimony is?

6 Yes. No, it was transcribed and translated to us in a different

7 way so that has been clarified now.

8 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

9 Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

10 MR. WEBER:

11 Q. Throughout your entire time in the Serbian DB, the principle of

12 secrecy applied to all activities undertaken by you and your colleagues;

13 is that correct?

14 A. Absolutely. Throughout my work, the main principle in the work

15 of the service was the principle of conspiracy, subordination, and

16 rationality and professionalism. Those were the four main principles

17 that were absolutely observed in the work of the service.

18 Q. I would like to change topics with you now and talk about a

19 little geography.

20 There were three border crossings points in the Uzice sector

21 between Bosnia and Serbia. If you could confirm these points for me.

22 These crossings were along the Drina river at Mokra Gora on the road from

23 Visegrad to Uzice. A second point at Uva on the road from Rudo to

24 Priboj, and the third one being located between Bajina Basta and Skelani;

25 is that correct?

Page 14079

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is it correct that the Serbian MUP was responsible for

3 controlling all three of these crossings points?

4 A. The Serbian MUP was in charge of crossings.

5 Q. Were you aware of paramilitary units that were present in the

6 area of Skelani and Bajina Basta in 1992, through your employment?

7 A. I heard they were present, but I did not have direct insight into

8 that.

9 Q. Mount Tara is located within the area of responsibility of the

10 Uzice DB; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The Serbian DB used facilities at Tara; correct?

13 A. Yes, I know that in one period they used.

14 Q. You are aware of the JATD; correct? A simple yes or no is fine

15 at this time. It is something that we'll discuss further.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Members of the JATD wore red berets and were known by others as

18 such; correct?

19 A. Well, JATD was JATD. But others were -- called it the

20 Red Berets. It was an anti-terrorist unit, but some people called them

21 the Red Berets because they wore red berets.

22 Q. Milan Radonjic was one of the deputy commanders of the JATD;

23 correct?

24 A. I don't know about that. Possibly. I can't be sure.

25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5061 shown

Page 14080

1 to the witness.

2 Q. Sir, this is a Serbian DB JATD proposal for awards dated

3 9 May 1996. Did you along with Zoran Rajic and Dragoslav Krsmanovic

4 receive pistols as awards for service in the JATD?

5 A. This document, I suppose, is authentic. But I've never been in

6 the service of the JATD. In my whole career, I never served the JATD.

7 But it's true that I was rewarded that year with a pistol, probably at

8 the proposal of some of the leaders of JATD for my service in Krajina.

9 Q. Sir, could you please give us a brief explanation as to the

10 reason that you did not mention any knowledge of the JATD during the

11 topics that were discussed with you in the last two days?

12 A. Because nobody asked me about it at any point.

13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders

14 1D5061 into evidence. It was received by the Prosecution from the

15 Republic of Serbia pursuant to a RFA. It is one of many documents that

16 came from a personnel file of Dragoslav Krsmanovic.

17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar, the number would be

18 ...

19 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3018, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under seal, Mr. Weber

21 of ...

22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, based on the content in this exhibit and

23 the fact that Serbia did not provide it with any redactions, we would

24 submit that it is not necessary to be under seal. However, if the

25 Chamber would like to take a cautious approach on that, that would be

Page 14081

1 fine too.

2 JUDGE ORIE: There's no present member of any intelligence

3 service mentioned here.

4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, so I can give you 100 per cent certainty

5 on that, if I could please have just the next break and I will check on

6 one name.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Provisionally under seal. But, then, of course, it

8 may have been shown to the public. That should be provisionally be

9 redacted.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. WEBER:

12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, when did you first hear of Operation Tomson?

13 A. I heard of it sometime in 1994 or 1995, perhaps. That operation

14 was conducted by the 3rd Administration that was in charge in

15 encountering, extremism and terrorism.

16 In Uzice we mainly followed the guide-lines of that operation

17 from the beginning of war operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to

18 the fact that Uzice is in the border-line territory.

19 Q. Individuals or groups who were not considered a security threat

20 would not be included in Operation Tomson; correct?

21 A. Absolutely. Both individuals and groups who were considered a

22 security threat were subject of surveillance under Operation Tomson.

23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have D428, marked for

24 identification. This is formally 65 ter 1D392. This document is

25 provisionally under seal, and we request that it not be broadcast to the

Page 14082

1 public. It is a lengthy document, and we have seen that the witness does

2 like to have hard copies, so we do have a hard copy of the exhibit to be

3 presented to the witness.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist.

5 MR. WEBER:

6 Q. Mr. Novakovic, before you is the 19 September 1995

7 Uzice State Security Department report on the results of Operative Action

8 Tomson. Could you please confirm whether you reviewed this report in its

9 entirety prior to your testimony in this case?

10 A. Yes. I reviewed the document in its entirety. The Defence

11 provided me with the document to peruse.

12 I had not had an occasion to see it beforehand, but I did have an

13 occasion to see it when the Defence provided it to me.

14 Q. According to your comments in the Defence chart, is it correct

15 that you considered this report a "high quality analysis by the Uzice

16 centre dealing with both Muslim and Serb extremism."

17 A. Precisely. I thought that this material was of a very high

18 quality because it did not adopt a selective approach to the arming of

19 various groups. It, rather, represents a cross-section of the work of

20 the Uzice centre dealing with both Muslim and Serbian extremism. This is

21 a collective overview of all the things that were done, what arms were

22 seized, what measures were undertaken, what about the co-operation with

23 the Ministry of Interior with this regard. This material even lists

24 somewhere, but I'm not sure where, that all the documents that the Uzice

25 centre dispatched with this regard did not contain the wording "Operative

Page 14083

1 Action Tomson" in the heading. However, in its work, the Uzice centre

2 absolutely complied with everything that was defined by the Operative

3 Action Tomson. The Uzice centre behaved in that way. In 1992, 1993, and

4 1994, and this is an overview leading up to 1995 and spilling even over

5 that period.

6 Q. Sir, I'm going to go through this report with you in more detail.

7 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please have page 2 of the

8 B/C/S and English versions of this report.

9 Q. And, sir, if you could please keep your answers as precise as

10 possible to the questions that I'm putting to.

11 First, the Prosecution would like to discuss with you the groups

12 that were considered extremists by the Serbian DB according to this

13 report. The second paragraph of the introductory remark states:

14 "Tectonic political shifts within the FRY, in particular the

15 introduction of a multi-party parliamentary system, provided an incentive

16 in space for reactionary, extremist nationalist and separatist forces to

17 appear on the political stage. Enveloping their extremism in the shroud

18 of legal political parties these forces displayed extreme hostility and

19 intolerance towards other parties, in particular the ruling one. Unable

20 to reach their political goals through normal and regular parliamentary

21 procedures, some of these parties resorted to other means, primarily

22 military ones of achieving their goals. They set up groups and

23 organisations with the overtones and characteristics of paramilitary

24 formations, which, at a given moment could be used as a framework for the

25 unconstitutional, illegal, or rather, unlawful overthrow of the actual

Page 14084

1 authorities."

2 My first question to you: Is it correct that Operation Tomson

3 was directed at disarming paramilitary formations that were politically

4 opposed to the ruling party in Serbia and could potentially overthrow the

5 authorities in power, including Slobodan Milosevic?

6 A. The primary goal of the Operative Action Tomson was to control

7 and disarm individuals and groups that either returned from the front

8 line or were supplied with weapons in a different way, in order to

9 provide security for the territory of Serbia. Inter alia, the arming of

10 such groups for the reasons that you, yourself, spelled out could have

11 threatened the constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia, i.e., it

12 could have threatened the authorities in power at the moment.

13 Q. Sir, what I just read to you doesn't discuss all groups. It

14 addresses particularly ones that may pose a threat to the ruling party

15 and the authorities in power. Is that correct that that's what that

16 section states?

17 A. Yes, that's what it says. But the sentence goes on and explains

18 what the whole thing was all about.

19 Q. I'm going to go through this document with you in greater detail.

20 If we could please go section at a time and we'll discuss the different

21 groups.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if the witness is asked a question about

23 a certain section where he considers that read in isolation it gives a

24 wrong impression, he is entitled to include a reference to other parts in

25 his answer.

Page 14085

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.

3 Could the Prosecution actually please have e-court page 5 of the

4 B/C/S original and page 3, middle of the page, of the English translation

5 of this document.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. In my copy -- oh,

7 well, no, yes.

8 MR. WEBER:

9 Q. Sir, at the end of the remarks.

10 Directing your attention to the last paragraph of the

11 introductory remarks which is before you on the monitor. This

12 paragraph begins:

13 "Illegal arming organised by parties and paramilitary forces

14 organised by Muslim extremists and cessationists in the area of Raska and

15 the Republic of Montenegro, under the aegis of the SDA constituted a

16 special security problem in the Republic of Serbia and the Federal

17 Republic of Yugoslavia in the past period and still partially does."

18 Sir, nothing in this sentence that I just read to you indicates

19 that the Serbian DB was concerned about the crimes being committed by

20 Serbs against Muslims or Croats outside of the borders of Serbia;

21 correct?

22 A. It is correct this concerns the years 1992, 1993, and 1994.

23 Q. The --

24 A. If I'm reading the correct page. I -- I think it's page 4, isn't

25 it?

Page 14086

1 Q. Sir, you are, the paragraph before you continues to state that:

2 "Successful actions carried out by the MUP of Serbia and

3 Montenegro in 1992, 1993, and 1994 have resolved most of the problem, and

4 legal sanctions were used to bring into custody the participants and

5 organisers."

6 My question to you on that is: Is it correct that the Serbian DB

7 considered Operation Tomson a successful means of disarming Muslim

8 extremists and paramilitary formations who were politically opposed to

9 those in power?

10 A. Operative Action Tomson was an operative action conducted by the

11 state security sector of Serbia. And it applied exclusively to the

12 territory of Serbia. Muslim terrorists was -- were just one of the

13 groups of terrorists. And in that passage, it is stated that Muslim

14 extremists were a security threat and the threat for the constitutional

15 order of Serbia, amongst all the others.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, page 16, line 22, an

19 organisation is mentioned, or there is a record of the organisation in

20 the transcript that I didn't hear the witness mention at all.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic I will read the beginning of your last

22 answer and I invite you to then repeat what you said after the words I

23 read to you.

24 You said, "Operative Action Tomson was an operative action

25 conducted by...," by whom?

Page 14087

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By the state security sector of

2 Serbia with all of its organisations and centres in the territory of

3 Serbia. And not in the territory of --

4 JUDGE ORIE: I continue to read:

5 "And it applied exclusively to the ..."

6 And then you said? Did you say the territory of Serbia?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The territory of Serbia. What I

8 meant by that was armed groups, illegally armed groups, paramilitaries.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that the matter has been the --

10 The translation and the transcription gave us a different

11 impression but it has now been corrected.

12 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have e-court page 10 of

14 the B/c/S original and page 6 of the English translation of this report.

15 Q. Mr. Novakovic, for your information this is the page with the

16 number ending in 9931 in the lower right-hand corner.

17 I would like to look at some examples of how Operation Tomson was

18 implemented by the Serbian DB between 1992 and 1995. I will then have

19 some further questions for you.

20 This report details the seizure of weapons, ammunition and other

21 equipment from a group of nine Muslims in October 1993.

22 MR. WEBER: For the record, Your Honours, I believe there is a

23 typographical error in the date on the English translation.

24 Q. The report indicates that criminal reports were filed against

25 every one of these individuals. Do you know where the Serbian DB

Page 14088

1 initiated criminal proceedings with the public prosecutor's office

2 against all of these individuals who were considered Muslim extremists?

3 A. The only thing I can say is what I see in the document. That's

4 all.

5 Q. Which is?

6 A. Which is that in October 1993, based on operative work and

7 intelligence gathered, we know that the group of Muslims from Prijepolje

8 was in possession of illegal arms that they had obtained with the help of

9 individuals of -- with the help of individuals of Serbia ethnicity. The

10 state security sector searched several houses and other facilities in

11 Brodarevo in Gracanica and Prijepolje villages.

12 Q. What is the reason that the State Security Service would consider

13 important to initiate criminal proceedings against all nine of these

14 individuals, based on what you just said?

15 A. Well, you know what? Illegal possession of arms and the arms

16 were found on them. Ammunition and other equipment. That was a good

17 enough reason to instigate proceedings which consisted of checks, seizure

18 of illegal -- illegally possessed weapons, and further legal measures

19 that could be applied in such cases.

20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have e-court page 18 of

21 the B/C/S original and page 11 of the English translation.

22 Q. Sir, this the page number ending in 9939 in the lower right-hand

23 corner.

24 This report continues to detail the seizure of weapons from 49

25 individuals in 1994 who are associated with the White Eagles, a Serbian

Page 14089

1 military extremist group. According to this document, criminal reports

2 were only issue against nine of these individuals?

3 MR. WEBER: For the record this information can be found on

4 e-court page 19 of the English translation.

5 Q. Do you know why the Serbian DB initiated proceedings against some

6 of the White Eagles and the majority were released after being issued a

7 weapons receipt and providing a statement?

8 A. It was customary in the work of the service and, to be very

9 specific, that was one of the most radical groups in the territory of

10 Priboj and in the territory of our centre so it was customary for such

11 individuals that weapons be seized from them, that they be prosecuted,

12 and the rest of the individuals would continue to be monitored by the

13 service and would be subject to other types of procedures applied by the

14 state security sector.

15 And this example speaks about the non-selectivity and the equal

16 measures being applied to all extremists found in the territory of our

17 centre.

18 Q. Are you saying that you don't find any selectivity in the fact

19 that the Serbian DB decided to initiate criminal proceedings against only

20 nine of the 49 individuals, and with respect to the remainder, let them

21 go after receiving a weapons receipt and taking a statement?

22 Isn't that selective treatment?

23 A. I believe that you will found -- find a comment here regarding

24 all the measures that were applied against those individuals.

25 In addition to the illegal possession of arms that were seized,

Page 14090

1 it says that criminal reports were filed, that they were interviewed,

2 that the weapons were seized from them, and that a large majority of the

3 cases were then transferred onto the authority of the state security and

4 that all the information was transferred to them.

5 Q. Sir, fine. We will go -- let's go through a specific example

6 then and then we can come back to this.

7 The Prosecution would like to direct your attention to the

8 White Eagle named --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise.

11 Page 20, line 11, the -- the authority of a different sector, not the one

12 that is indicated in here.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'll read part of your answer. Could you

14 please then repeat what the following part of your answer was.

15 You said arms were seized. It says that criminal reports were

16 filed, that they were interviewed, that the weapons were seized from

17 them, and that a large majority of the cases were then transferred to the

18 authority of ...

19 What organisation or institution?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the public security sector. The

21 authority of the public security sector.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And that all information was transferred to them.

23 Yes.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 14091

1 MR. WEBER:

2 Q. Sir, the document doesn't reflect that that's the case, so I'd

3 like to go through a specific example so we can deal with details.

4 The Prosecution would like to direct your attention to the

5 White Eagle named Milomir Djurovic who is listed on number 28 on e-court

6 page 24 of the B/C/S and page 15 of the English translation. If we could

7 please have those pages on the screen.

8 Sir, this is it on page 9945 in the lower right-hand corner of

9 the hard copy in front of you.

10 Sir, could you please review this information for Mr. Djurovic

11 only and let us know if prior to your testimony you were provider with a

12 3rd Administration report related to this seizure?

13 A. Did I receive or was I provided with a report here? I didn't

14 understand what you -- you're asking me. What report? And who I was

15 provided report from?

16 Q. I'm happy to explain, sir.

17 With respect to the person listed at number 28, Mr. Djurovic,

18 did the Defence provide with you a 3rd Administration report related to

19 this seizure?

20 A. Absolutely not. This is a collective document and that was what

21 was provided to me by the Defence. This is how I'm looking at it, and

22 based on what I see, I provide my comments to you.

23 Q. Is your knowledge then limited to the document that was provided

24 by the Defence?

25 A. I provided comments to the documents that were provided to me by

Page 14092

1 the Defence for my perusal. As for my knowledge, I can say that this is

2 a summary report provided by the analytical department of the Uzice

3 centre. This is a collective overview of all the tasks accomplished

4 pursuant to Operation Tomson. I understand your specific example.

5 However, when you look at the list containing the names of 49

6 individuals, that list ends with the concrete taxative enumeration of

7 what was done, how many reports were filed, how many interviews were

8 taken, what would follow, what procedures would be undertaken, and so on

9 and so forth.

10 Q. Thank you, sir.

11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D1024 shown

12 to the witness.

13 Q. This is the Uzice DB 3rd Administration report dated 8 April 1994

14 on the possession of illegal weapons by Milomir Djurovic.

15 The second paragraph of this report states, quote --

16 MR. WEBER: I apologise, Your Honours. I do not know if there

17 are any restrictions to this Defence document. I did ask that it not be

18 broadcast.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.

20 MR. JORDASH: I -- I -- I would just need a moment to have a look

21 to see if there's any material falling within Your Honours' order.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we provisionally not show it to the

23 public.

24 MR. WEBER:

25 Q. The second paragraph of this report states:

Page 14093

1 "In return for occasional repair work on a car while he was at

2 the front in Dobrun, 1992, Zoran Bojovic gave Djurovic a Schmeizer

3 submachine-gun and a semi-automatic rifle. Later, Djurovic gave the

4 submachine-gun to Dragan Papic of Priboj, and on Bojovic's order he gave

5 the semi-automatic rifle to Mr. Dragoje Zvizdic."

6 The sentence indicates that the semi-automatic rifle wound up in

7 the possession of Dragoje Zvizdic. Do you know why Mr. Zvizdic was not

8 included as one of the 49 White Eagles listed in the 1995 Tomson report

9 we have been looking at?

10 A. You're asking me.

11 Q. Yes, I'm asking if you know why he wasn't included in the report?

12 A. Why Zoran Bojovic didn't making it to the report?

13 Q. No, sir. Why the person who wound up in possession of the

14 weapon, Mr. Zvizdic -- he is not referenced in the report. There's no

15 need to look at it. Do you know why he wouldn't make it into that

16 report?

17 A. I don't think. I suppose that he was subject of further

18 operative work. I have no doubts that the service continued dealing with

19 him. Maybe he was not available to the service at the time, but I'm sure

20 that the service continued working on his identification.

21 Q. Okay. At the end of this report, the document provides the

22 personal details of Dragoje Zvizdic and indicates that he is unemployed.

23 The Serbian DB had the ability to check these personal details at the

24 time the report was compiled, didn't it?

25 A. It certainly had, but I'm telling you again, in that period, a

Page 14094

1 certain number persons and a certain number of measures were handled but

2 we were concentrated then on -- on routes of arms smuggling and supply,

3 because that's the time when people went to war in other areas. They

4 were from the area of Priboj but at that time they were active in the

5 area of Bosnia. I don't know why he wasn't included in the report, but

6 he was certainly included in our surveillance measures, in our operative

7 measures.

8 Q. This report does not indicate that the Serbian DB even issued a

9 receipt or obtained a statement from Mr. Zvizdic. Do you know why the

10 Serbian DB would not have undertaken either of these measures?

11 A. He was probably not accessible to them. I don't know the reason.

12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P2896 for

13 the witness. The exhibit is presently under seal and we ask that it not

14 be broadcast to the public.

15 MR. JORDASH: While that's coming up, Your Honour, I think

16 there's a name of the operative on the previous exhibit --

17 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore should not be shown to the public and

18 to the extent it has been, a video redaction should be made.

19 Please proceed.

20 MR. WEBER: Thank you to the Stanisic Defence for that

21 information. With that information, we tender the document under seal,

22 at this time.

23 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.

24 Madam Registrar, the number.

25 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3019, Your Honours.

Page 14095

1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence under seal.

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. Mr. Novakovic, this is a MUP Republic of Serbia certificate for

4 Dragoje Zvizdic dated 15 March 1994 for performing tasks on behalf of the

5 MUP. The certificate is issued by Milan Radonjic the same person who

6 signed you're award proposal. Did you know that Mr. Zvizdic was a member

7 of the JATD in 1994?

8 A. I didn't know anyone under that name.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. My learned friend

10 is asking the witness whether he knows that Zvizdic was a member of the

11 JATD. Nothing in this document indicates that. It says a member of the

12 serve force of the MUP.

13 I don't see from this that this person, if it is the same person,

14 is defined as a member of the JATD. I think one should be fair to the

15 witness when putting questions of this kind.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that as well, Mr. Petrovic. Whether it's

17 fair or unfair to the witness may depend on other documentation to

18 follow. I think the comment would have been appropriate at a later

19 stage, once we would have dealt with the subject matter.

20 Mr. Weber, any follow-up on the specific assignment you just put

21 to the witness?

22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, there is --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore under those circumstances, Mr. Petrovic,

24 you should have allowed Mr. Weber to continue. I noticed it as well, but

25 you were a bit early with your comments.

Page 14096

1 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. Did you know whether or not Mr. Zvizdic was a member of the JATD

4 or even a reserve unit of the MUP of Serbia in 1994?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, have you listened to the last answer of

6 the witness?

7 MR. WEBER: I see the last answer. Thank you, Your Honour. I'm

8 sorry I missed it with the [Overlapping speakers] Mr. Petrovic. That's

9 my fault.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Putting questions one but listening to the

11 answers is also a very relevant part of cross-examination.

12 Please proceed.

13 MR. WEBER:

14 Q. Sir, if someone was actually employed by the MUP of Serbia, would

15 that explain the reason that they would not be included as part of

16 Operation Tomson?

17 A. Yesterday, it was mentioned that there was a possibility for the

18 service to use sources or to use as sources people who were close to the

19 subjects we had a security interest in, but it happened rather rarely

20 that we would be interested in a member of the reserve force of the MUP.

21 But we did look for our sources in the environment where activities took

22 place that were relevant to us. I have no idea whether the operative in

23 charge or the centre in charge knew that Zvizdic was on the reserve force

24 of the Ministry of Interior.

25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1512,

Page 14097

1 page 5 of the B/C/S and English versions. The Prosecution requests that

2 this exhibit not be broadcast to the public.

3 Q. Before you, sir, is a JATD payment list of daily allowances

4 provided by the Serbian DB in the first half of April 1994. This is the

5 same time in which the report that I showed you earlier was from.

6 This list is similar to the per diem list, D429, which you

7 commented on in the Defence chart that includes your name. The

8 individuals on this list include Raja Bozovic, Davor Subotic

9 and Mr. Zvizdic among others. Is it correct that members of certain

10 special units such as the JATD were not included as part of Operation

11 Tomson because these individuals had a relationship with the Serbian DB?

12 A. You say these persons were covered by Operation Tomson? I can't

13 understand that.

14 Q. I'm actually asking you. These persons were not covered by

15 Operation Tomson because they were associated with the Serbian DB. They

16 received payments from them.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Weber, is your real question whether,

18 if a name pops up in Operation Tomson of a person who is the member of

19 the JATD that no further action would be taken against that person.

20 Is that ...

21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Tomson reports that we have been

22 provided, for example, the one that we looked at with the witness, does

23 not include any of these names. So our position and my question would be

24 [Overlapping speakers] intentionally.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In the reporting in Operation Tomson, that if,

Page 14098

1 during the operation, it would come across a person who is a member of

2 the JATD, that that person would not be included in the Tomson report.

3 That's the issue.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea of whether those

5 people ever cropped up, because I had nothing to do with the JATD then.

6 I had nothing to do, no contact with the newly established unit. The

7 only contact I had was in the area of Krajina in November 1994.

8 MR. WEBER:

9 Q. The JATD was never considered an extremist group; correct?

10 A. The JATD was a unit established by decision of the

11 Ministry of Interior, as far as I know. It was not an extremist group.

12 Q. Returning more generally to the topic of the White Eagles, the

13 Prosecution possesses 3rd Administration reports that describe the

14 exceptions and activities of the White Eagles as early as April 1992. Do

15 you know why the Serbian DB did not undertake actions to disarm this

16 group in 1992 and, instead, waited until 1994?

17 A. Let me tell you, the way the RDB worked was when they got some

18 initial information they would develop it further with the application of

19 further operative measures in order to be able to get to the subject and

20 process them. Rumours about the subjects in the -- the territory of

21 Croatia, Bosnia didn't mean anything to us, and that's why I still have a

22 reservation regarding these people. They might have been processed later

23 either by us or by the public security sector.

24 I don't know, in fact, what kind of activities you are talking

25 about.

Page 14099

1 Q. Would it be important to act immediately if you were concerned

2 with the safety of Muslims? Wouldn't it be important to act in a timely

3 manner and not wait and collect information, if that was your concern?

4 A. If there was a specific danger to a specific Muslim person or a

5 specific group of Muslims, of course it would have been important to act

6 immediately. No doubt about that.

7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time, the Prosecution seeks to

8 bar table four documents to show information possessed by the Serbian DB

9 about the White Eagles in 1992. These documents are 65 ter 6263 to 6266.

10 The documents are Uzice DB 3rd Administration reports dated 24 April,

11 4 June, 27 August, and 5 October 1992. The Prosecution is offering these

12 documents to show the information that was known to the Serbian DB in

13 1992 and failed to act upon until 1994. All of these documents were

14 received by the Office of the Prosecutor pursuant to official requests

15 for assistance 1695 from the Republic of Serbia on 15 September 2008.

16 These documents originate from the BIA archives. The Prosecution made a

17 copy of this RFA available to the Defence and I know one was provided to

18 the Simatovic Defence in particular prior to this examination. The

19 documents are being offered at this time due to the evidence being

20 offered by the Defence in relation to Operation Tomson which did not

21 derive originally from the Prosecution's case.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.

23 MR. JORDASH: I'm -- first of all, could I just raise the issue

24 of I'm not sure where the Prosecution obtains the conclusion that the DB

25 didn't take action. It's been presented as fact, but with no

Page 14100

1 corresponding exhibit or testimony referred to. So I think that -- that

2 might be useful if we knew where Mr. Weber derives that conclusion before

3 it's presented as fact.

4 In relation to --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, facts, of course, it's a position taken by the

6 Prosecution, which is, of course, not accepted for its factual accuracy.

7 What I do understand is that, Mr. Weber, with this witness, went

8 through operational activity in 1994 has put to the witness that

9 information was available already in 1992. Of course, whether 1994 was

10 the first action taken or not, that may be the position of the

11 Prosecution, but that's, of course, still to be considered.

12 MR. JORDASH: It was --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Your argument is totally valid. That, if you point

14 at an action taken in 1994 that that does not mean, in itself, that no

15 action was taken in 1993, and I can imagine that would be an argument by

16 the Defence. But at this moment we are just focussing, I think, on

17 documentary evidence which would demonstrate what kind of information was

18 available in 1992. I think that's the limited purpose of what Mr. Weber

19 seeks to establish.

20 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever conclusions he may have on his mind,

22 Mr. Jordash, might not be the conclusions you would have on your mind,

23 and what the conclusions of the Chamber will be, will become clear at the

24 end of this case.

25 MR. JORDASH: In relation to the application to add documents

Page 14101

1 through the bar table, we'd oppose that application. I think where we

2 have got to relates to Your Honours' guidance on the admission into

3 evidence of documents tendered by the Prosecution during the Defence

4 case, the decision dated 26 August 2011, which allows the Prosecution to

5 use documents with a witness in order to elicit evidence. The first

6 step, we would submit, that the Prosecution must do is to use the

7 evidence to elicit evidence in favour of their case.

8 JUDGE ORIE: One second.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the matter, Mr. Jordash,

11 not exactly in line with what you argued but also not exactly in line of

12 what Mr. Weber asked. Mr. Weber did put to the witness that the OTP has

13 material that shows that information was already known in 1992.

14 The witness then is -- in his answer, not knowing what that

15 material was. Said something about rumours, well, we -- of course then

16 you would have to investigate and it could well be that at a later stage.

17 The Chamber considers it appropriate that the witness, first of all, will

18 be provided with those four reports so that the witness who apparently

19 was not familiar with the details of the information available about the

20 White Eagles in 1992 has an opportunity to read that material and then to

21 see whether what he suggested in his answer, whether there's a good

22 ground for that, for example, if it would just be rumours, that would be

23 a -- and then we'll then decide once the witness has had an opportunity

24 to look at it, to comment on it, whether or not it's appropriate to admit

25 those documents into evidence.

Page 14102

1 That is what the Chamber is inclined to do, and I'm looking to

2 both of you, and I -- no one is stamping with his feet on the ground, so

3 apparently -- Mr. Weber, were you willing --

4 MR. WEBER: That's fine, Your Honour. The Prosecution proceeding

5 the way it did just to -- trying to make efficient use of the time

6 [Overlapping speakers] ...

7 JUDGE ORIE: I think we could use the break for that. We are at

8 a point for a break anyhow. And perhaps if the Chamber could briefly

9 look at that material so that we could better understand the -- the

10 possible comments the witness may have after the break.

11 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour. If the Prosecution could

12 just have a couple of minutes to go upstairs to get clean copies. We

13 only have marked copies with us in court.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think it's time for a break.

15 Mr. Novakovic, we have some work for you to be done during the

16 break. You may have noticed that the Prosecution referred to information

17 which was available in 1992 about the White Eagles and you were not

18 familiar with that information. You'll get the four reports, and you'll

19 have an opportunity to answer questions and to comment on those reports,

20 especially in view of the action taken in 1994, because that's the focus

21 of Mr. Weber, his questioning.

22 Would you be so kind to read through those four documents. You

23 will receive them once they are copied. And could the Chamber have

24 English translations.

25 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.

Page 14103

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 Then we take a break, and we resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, did you have an opportunity to read

6 the documents? Did you receive them and did you read them? Yes.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber may have some questions or may invite you

9 to comment.

10 Mr. Weber.

11 MR. WEBER:

12 Q. Mr. Novakovic, over the recess, you were provided with four

13 reports from the 3rd Administration of the Uzice DB in 1992. Do these

14 reports reflect information that the DB centre had in 1992?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did one of these reports, 65 ter 6263, dated 24 April 1992,

17 include a poem that was a part of a leaflet which expressed the intent of

18 the White Eagles in June of 1992 -- I'm sorry, excuse me, in April of

19 1992?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Directing your attention to the hard copy of 65 ter 6264 that's

22 in front of you, it's the report dated 4 June 1992.

23 In this report, it states:

24 "The White Eagles basic activities boiled down to slaughtering

25 and killing of the Muslims."

Page 14104

1 Does this information indicate that the Uzice DB was aware of

2 these activities. As can you see from this document that you indicated

3 dated 4 June 1992, those were members of the White Eagles from the areas

4 of Obrenovac and Valjevo and it was written by the Uzice centre without

5 indicating specific names and surnames who was in charge.

6 A. If you allow me to explain, all the four documents --

7 Q. Sir, if you could provide a general comment on them that's fine.

8 On the four documents.

9 A. All these four documents say that, at the time, the Uzice centre

10 was working to identify occurrences of hostile nature like the work of

11 various organisations. The first document dated 4 June mentions

12 Zoran Penezic from Priboj and this amalgamated material indicates that a

13 criminal complaint was filed against him later. This is initial

14 information. When the war in Bosnia just began and when they first came

15 to the attention of our centre. It took a lot of meticulous work to

16 identify and find out about the work of this individual.

17 Q. I'm sorry, sir. I know I invited you to give a global comment on

18 all four. But because you are mentioning something here, when you say

19 Zoran Penezic, is it correct that he was not arrested until later in

20 1994, in the Tomson report that you were referring to, the criminal

21 report?

22 A. Precisely. But because he had a weapon him, monitoring the work

23 of political parties was not commonly accepted in Serbia by the society.

24 The multi-party system was just emerging and what the political parties

25 did not manage to achieve in parliament, they tried to pursue by creating

Page 14105

1 military wings and paramilitary unit. But it's obvious that they

2 focussed their activity on propaganda under the territory of Serbia. But

3 the other activities were pursued by paramilitary formations in the war

4 in Bosnia.

5 From this information, you can see that initially they were

6 identified as potential vehicles of hostile activity in the territory of

7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and you can see that from the first document

8 among the four. He was processed either by the seizure of his weapons or

9 via concrete forms of work.

10 I would like to emphasise that amalgamated material --

11 Q. Sir, if I -- I know that there --

12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time, the Prosecution -- the

13 document speaks for themselves and the witness is repeating what the

14 documents are.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to -- to cut matters short.

16 MR. WEBER: Yeah.

17 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, when you talk about the first

18 document, you say the document of the 4th of June, I see the first

19 document dated 24th of April.

20 MR. WEBER: I believe Your Honour is referring to 6264, the

21 65 ter documented 4 June 1992?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't have 65 ter numbers here.

23 I see one document dated the 24th of April, Uzice DB State

24 Security Department Centre. Extremism, Official Note of the employees of

25 the RDB. That's the first -- in chronology, that's the first one I see.

Page 14106

1 Now, I think, second -- let me try to -- in response to one of

2 the questions put to you by Mr. Weber, more or less saying why nothing

3 was done, that was the gist of that question, you said these people had

4 arms. Is it correctly understood that if persons affiliated with

5 political parties and carrying arms that if information was known about

6 them, that the fact that they were carrying arms and that they were

7 linked to a political movement or party, that that would be a reason not

8 to intervene?

9 And I'm talking about 1992.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. That was sufficient

11 reason to react, if we established they had weapons and you can see that

12 from this material. But if they were not armed on the territory, and

13 they pursued propaganda activities, it was not easy to just start

14 processing them.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me then be very clear to you. Then I do

16 not understand your answer saying, Well, they had weapons and it was not

17 customary to proceed against political people. That's what your answer

18 was.

19 And in view of this answer, I have great difficulties in fully

20 understanding your previous answer.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, then, I was misunderstood.

22 That's not what I meant at any point.

23 Illegal possession of weapons, regardless of what political party

24 they belonged, would be subject to prosecution. The person would be

25 brought in, interviewed, and the charges would be filed against him,

Page 14107

1 according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, and then he would -- then he

2 would be processed further by the public security sector.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from what happened in 1994, could you give us

4 an indication of arrests of any of the persons mentioned here in 1992

5 and/or 1993?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I see from these four

7 documents, Penezic was arrested and he was processed from this materiel.

8 He was tried, Zoran Penezic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: When was that?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say. I don't know. I

11 wasn't dealing with these cases myself but I can see from the documents

12 he was prosecuted.

13 JUDGE ORIE: My question clearly was about 1992 and 1993 because

14 that is the issue apparently raised by Mr. Weber whether and why no

15 effective action was taken in 1992, where certain information was

16 available and why action, and then not complete but only limited, was

17 taken in 1994. That's the matter Mr. Weber is raising with you.

18 Do you have any further -- apart from what you told us until now,

19 do you have any further comment on that?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The documents contain references to

21 1992, 1993, and 1994. And there is a list of actions that were taken, at

22 what time, against whom, what was undertaken, and what was then

23 transferred onto the authority of the public security sector.

24 If you look at the document, if you read it, will you see it.

25 There are individual names and the names of individual activities.

Page 14108

1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this.

3 MR. WEBER: I believe there is some source of confusion occurring

4 since the witness has one additional material in front of him right now

5 which is the Tomson report which indicates the individuals were arrested

6 in 1994.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was relatively clear to me. And the

8 witness was not able to give any further details about the date. And so

9 the only thing we have, as far as the date is concerned, we have before

10 us is this 1994 date.

11 Now, one additional question. You told us about propaganda but,

12 of course, if people would have arms it would be quite different.

13 Now, in the 4th of June 1992 report, it reads that the activities

14 boiled down to slaughtering and killing of Muslims. Was any action

15 taken, to your knowledge, at that point in time, in relation to this

16 information? And --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is about crimes in the

18 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not in the territory of Serbia.

19 At that time, we had information about crimes in the territory of

20 Visegrad of the so-called Visegrad theatre of war. However, judging by

21 the information no reference is made to any individuals. There's just an

22 indication that those persons are from Obrenovac and Valjevo. In the

23 Uzice centre we didn't have anything to do with Obrenovac and Valjevo.

24 Those places belonged to the authority of a different centre.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the Uzice centre was right to report

Page 14109

1 about it, so that they had nothing to do with it is, to some extent,

2 contradicted by you reporting on it.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But there where no names. The

4 report was drafted and sent to the headquarters in Belgrade, to the

5 headquarters of the 3rd Administration who --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I see that. Do you know enough knowledge about any

7 investigation trying to identify those persons by their names? I'm not

8 asking whether you did it, but whether you know of any such activity, to

9 try to find out who it exactly were that had committed such crimes.

10 If you know tell us; if you don't know say, Well, I don't know.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that the Uzice centre worked

12 on the issues surrounding Sjeverin and Strbac. And as for the others

13 that others investigate, I don't know. I didn't deal with that.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

15 Mr. Weber please proceed.

16 MR. WEBER:

17 Q. Mr. Novakovic, I will come back a little bit to Visegrad in 1992

18 in a little bit.

19 But before I do that, I'd like to change the topic completely.

20 Yesterday at transcript page 14004, you stated:

21 "The Presidency of the Republic of Serbia made a decision that

22 special police units, the PJM, would be paid in this way, in per diem.

23 In fact, they received salaries in their original units when they were

24 employed but when they would go into the field, on field missions, to

25 areas where security was disrupted. They would be paid in the form of

Page 14110

1 per diem in keeping with that decision of the Republic of Serbia or,

2 rather, its Presidency."

3 Sir, are you talking about Slobodan Milosevic?

4 A. At that time President Milosevic was at the head of the

5 Presidency of Serbia. I said that I was not a financial expert, but I'm

6 reading this in the document that this was the way per diems were paid.

7 Q. Do you acknowledge that Milosevic authorised the payment of state

8 security officials for their activities outside the Republic of Serbia?

9 A. You can see from the decision that all the employees dispatched

10 on missions out -- outside of the headquarters, or actually, the main

11 office of the security office, primarily in the territory of Serbia.

12 Q. Sir, are you stating -- I just would like be to clear with you,

13 if we could.

14 Are you saying that President Milosevic authorised, by decision,

15 the payment of state security officials outside the Republic of Serbia,

16 including Croatia and Bosnia?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would kindly ask

19 the Prosecutor to show the witness the document. On page 14004, in the

20 heading there's something that is very important for the witness's

21 answer. It doesn't say the president of Serbia but the Presidency of

22 Serbia. I'm going to deal with that in my additional questions, but this

23 is of the utmost importance, and the witness should be shown the document

24 in order to be able to answer appropriately.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, are you putting these questions to the

Page 14111

1 witness because you think that the witness would have any direct

2 knowledge of the involvement of President Milosevic in the preparation

3 and/or the signing of that decision? That's my first question to you.

4 Or would you -- or are you seeking him to draw conclusions from

5 the fact that if there was a presidential decree, decision, whatever it

6 is, that given the date of that decision that was at the time when

7 Mr. Milosevic was president of Serbia? I mean, what -- what of the two

8 matters are you raising?

9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not agree with the

10 Simatovic Defence [Overlapping speakers] ...

11 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I was asking you a

12 question, Mr. Weber. It's fine that you want to respond to Mr. Petrovic,

13 but I put a question to you.

14 Is it the first issue that you are raising with the witness or is

15 it the second issue you're raising with the witness?

16 MR. WEBER: It relates to his personal knowledge and with respect

17 to the document that the witness is being shown, but I'm --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then apparently have you not understood my question.

19 Do you think this witness, and we could ask him, has any

20 knowledge of the role of Mr. Milosevic in this decision, direct

21 observation? I know that he did this or did that. Or is it that you

22 expect the witness to make deductions from the fact that at a certain

23 date there is a presidential decision and that because Mr. Milosevic was

24 the president at the time that, therefore, it must have been from

25 Mr. Milosevic.

Page 14112

1 Which of the two?

2 MR. WEBER: It's the first, and it's based on his own knowledge

3 that he expressed yesterday during the testimony. It is why I sought to

4 confirm --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then please ask him very specific questions

6 about this.

7 MR. WEBER:

8 Q. Sir, yesterday you were shown your own per diem with your payment

9 on it and you made a comment on that which I just read to you

10 which does not reflect the content of that per diem fully. I'm asking

11 you, that based on what you said, that the Presidency of the Republic of

12 Serbia made a decision that special police units would be paid by per

13 diems, whether it's correct or do you acknowledge that Milosevic

14 authorised payment of state security officials for activities outside of

15 the Republic of Serbia

16 THE INTERPRETER: Please switch off unnecessary microphones.

17 Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I can say with full

19 responsibility having seen the document, this is my comment to the

20 document and the way per diems were paid, and this is what I see in the

21 document. According to that document, the Presidency of Serbia made a

22 decision on paying special police units. At that time the state security

23 sector was part of the Ministry of the Interior. And the only legal way

24 for our employees, for the employees of the state security to be paid

25 when going outside was for them to be paid pursuant to the decision of

Page 14113

1 the Presidency of Serbia. Whether Mr. Milosevic was directly responsible

2 for that or not, I don't know. In any case the Presidency of the Serbia

3 was the body that issued and drafted the document that I have just

4 commented upon.

5 MR. WEBER:

6 Q. And the last part that you said, this fund that paid the salaries

7 for those outside, or per diems for those outside Serbia who were

8 deployed out there, that is your understanding of how that was done while

9 you were in the State Security Service; correct?

10 A. I said that I was paid in that way, me and my colleagues who went

11 with me. We received per diems. The financial official of our centre,

12 from Uzice where I worked, took the money from the 8th Administration of

13 the headquarters in Belgrade. I suppose that the 8th Administration

14 acted pursuant to the decision of the Presidency of Serbia for the

15 payment of special police units, given the fact that the state security

16 sector was part of the Ministry of Interior of Serbia.

17 The document which shows the names of my two colleagues and mine

18 also shows that the official of the financial sector of my service took

19 the money from Belgrade from the 8th Administration, that, at the time,

20 was involved in the logistics issue, and the issues of payment.

21 Q. Was the fund that was used to pay these per diems also spent on

22 weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the special anti-terrorist forces

23 of the Serbian DB, such as the JATD?

24 A. I don't know. I don't have a clue, really.

25 I'm not a financial expert to know how things were done.

Page 14114

1 Q. Sir, I put it to you that you have knowledge about the JATD, that

2 you have seen this organisation, and that you're aware that they were

3 armed and were provided equipment by the Serbian DB; is that correct?

4 A. I know that the unit was established pursuant to a decision by

5 the Ministry of the Interior as part of the state security sector. I

6 assume that the ministry also armed it, i.e., that the sector armed it,

7 not any third -- other, third party. I only assume, as I say.

8 [Prosecution counsel confer]

9 MR. WEBER:

10 Q. Sir, you were a member of the 2nd Administration for a while.

11 Are you aware that funds were allocated through the Presidency of Serbia

12 for weapons and ammunitions of the special units of the Serbian DB?

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.

14 MR. JORDASH: I think the witness has answered the question and

15 said he --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, half yes, half no. Let's hear the answer of

17 the witness.

18 There is a constant confusion about funds, funding, arming. Of

19 course, you would expect that if you arm someone that you fund that

20 arming as well but that is not entirely clear and has been mixed up in

21 some of the previous questions.

22 So, therefore, Mr. Weber, unless Mr. Petrovic has something

23 important to raise, I would allow the witness to -- yes.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, the

25 question is not clear, given the difference constitutional or legal

Page 14115

1 status of the categories that are mentioned.

2 The Presidency of Serbia is one category, the president is

3 another category, and the witness has to be clear in that. Things

4 existed at different times and the witness may be aware of that or may

5 not be aware of that. In any case, the question is not very precise or

6 clear.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from him. I don't think that this

8 relatively long comment on the question was appropriate.

9 But, Mr. Weber, could you also keeping in mind the time, the

10 timing of -- of the events, could you perhaps rephrase your question so

11 that any ambiguity is taken out of it.

12 MR. WEBER:

13 Q. Sir, I'm asking you about the JATD, which formerly existed

14 between 1993 and 1996. I'm asking you specifically, based on your

15 employment with the State Security Service, whether you were aware that

16 funds were allocated by the Serbian DB, I'll be specific to that, for

17 paying for their weapons and ammunition?

18 A. Absolutely. As far as I am concerned, absolutely. That wasn't

19 within my purview. I was not in a position to know that.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then perhaps let's -- let's keep matters

21 short.

22 Let's forget about funds. I think earlier one of your answers

23 was - and let me check that very precisely - you said: I know that the

24 unit, talking about the JATD, was established pursuant to a decision by

25 the Ministry of Interior as part of the state security sector. I assume

Page 14116

1 that the ministry also armed it, that the sector armed it, not any third

2 party.

3 Do I understand your testimony to be that equipment, arms for

4 this unit, were provided by the Ministry of Interior as part of the state

5 security sector and that you are not aware of any outside funding of it,

6 funding by a third party?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it was set up by the ministry, I

10 assumed that was the case.

11 As I also said, I'm not familiar with the logistics of how things

12 were done.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

14 Mr. Weber, please proceed.

15 MR. WEBER:

16 Q. I just want to get back to the central issue that I originally

17 asked you about which was about a fund used for per diems.

18 Do you know whether this fund was also used for ammunition and

19 weapons, the fund that was used for per diems?

20 JUDGE ORIE: That question has been asked and that question has

21 been answered.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.

24 Q. I'd like to return to Visegrad in -- in the early 1990s.

25 In 1991, is it correct that about 63 per cent of the population

Page 14117

1 of Visegrad was of Muslim ethnicity?

2 A. I don't know. I wouldn't know that. I am not familiar with

3 that.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, have you tried to reach agreement with

5 the Defence on what -- if you're referring to 1991, most likely you're

6 referring to the census all well documented.

7 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. Happy to discuss this with the

8 Defence over the next break.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why would we ask the witness about percentages

10 if there is full documentation about the census in 1991.

11 MR. WEBER: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

13 MR. WEBER:

14 Q. At the beginning of 1992, there were increasing tensions between

15 the Muslim and Serbian population of Visegrad; correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. The Uzice Corps occupied the municipality of Visegrad from the

18 14th of April until they withdrew on the 19th of May [Realtime transcript

19 read in error "April"], 1992; is that correct?

20 A. I'm not sure about the date, but I suppose you are right. In any

21 case, it was either before war started or as soon after the war started.

22 But in any case, it was the Uzice Corps that was responsible for that.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, just to verify the transcript, did you

24 never to the 19th of May or ...

25 MR. WEBER: It was the 19th of May.

Page 14118

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because it has been transcribed as the "19th

2 of April." So there apparently was one of the very few mistakes in the

3 transcript.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. WEBER:

6 Q. Were you aware that Sredoje Lukic was being held prisoner at a

7 hydro-electric dam in Visegrad and was released immediately upon arrival

8 of the Uzice Corps on April 15, 1992?

9 A. I don't know anything about that. I've never heard it before.

10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6267, page 1

11 of the B/C/S original and page 2 of the English translation. The

12 Prosecution requests this document not be broadcast to the public.

13 Q. This document is an Uzice DB 3rd Administration report dated

14 4 June 1992 that relates to Sredoje Lukic and Niko Vucic who committed

15 crimes in Visegrad. Directing your attention to paragraph which is --

16 the second paragraph from the bottom in your copy, it begins:

17 "Upon the release from captivity in the Visegrad HE, they left

18 their jobs as policemen. They stole a sour cherry-coloured Golf car with

19 Sarajevo registration plates and left for Serbia. About a month ago,

20 they returned to Visegrad."

21 Based on the date of this report which is 4 June 1992, is it

22 correct that the Serbian DB was aware Sredoje Lukic was not in Visegrad

23 and returned in early May 1992?

24 A. This document would indicate that they knew that they had

25 operative information, given the date of the document. But it says here

Page 14119

1 that he first left Visegrad and then he returned to Visegrad. This is a

2 statement based on the conversation with a source that took place in

3 June, so he -- the document talks about something that is in the past.

4 Q. This information also indicates that the Serbian MUP allowed

5 Sredoje Lukic to leave and return from the Republic of Serbia; correct?

6 A. The MUP of Serbia?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Well, look, it doesn't say anywhere that the MUP allowed it.

9 This is an interview which took place on the 30th of June, and the

10 operative who conducted the interview learns what had happened. He

11 learns that from the interview with the source. He learned of what had

12 happened a month before the interview. This is just operative

13 information that hasn't been checked.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- before we --

15 Witness, you said this is an interview of the 30th of June. I

16 see in my copy and in the original that it's the 3rd of June, not the

17 30th of June.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 3rd of June. I misspoke. I

19 apologise.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

21 MR. WEBER:

22 Q. Sir, please listen to my question specifically, and I'm asking

23 you this in the context that this is the information that was available

24 to the Serbian DB. That is well understood.

25 The paragraph continues to state:

Page 14120

1 "They set up their own group consisting of 30 individuals from

2 Visegrad, Uzice, Belgrade and Smederevo. They presented themselves as

3 White Eagles. They are accommodated in the Visegradska Banja spa in a

4 bungalow in the immediately vicinity of the Vojina Vlas hotel. During

5 that time they had liquidated by slaughter between 270 and 300

6 individuals of Muslim nationality."

7 This paragraph references a particular incident and concluded:

8 "They bring Muslim women to Visegradska Banja, rape them and then

9 liquidate them by slaughter."

10 The next paragraph states:

11 "Such conduct on Vucic and Lukic's part," referring to

12 Sredoje Lukic, "irritates loyal Muslims who have stayed on living in the

13 area of Visegrad municipality that they too take up arms and fight

14 against Serbs?"

15 Sir, is it correct that the Serbian MUP possessed jurisdiction

16 over crimes being committed by citizens of the Republic of Serbia who

17 lived in Uzice, Belgrade and Smederevo?

18 A. Whether the court had jurisdiction to prosecute people who lived

19 in Uzice and Smederevo? Is that what you're asking?

20 Q. You had authority over citizens who resided in Uzice, Belgrade,

21 and Smederevo; correct?

22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I think -- could I just object to the

23 question. It's unclear. Authority to do what? Jurisdiction to do what?

24 I think my learned friend should be specific.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Weber, I'm seeking the parties to agree on

Page 14121

1 the following. Usually if a court has jurisdiction in relation to

2 certain criminal behaviour, that entails also the competence of the

3 investigative authorities of that state to investigate. I'm not saying

4 where they would investigate but at least to -- because you can't prepare

5 a case file for a case over which the courts have jurisdiction if the

6 investigative authorities would have no competence to investigate.

7 Do we agree on that? As a general rule.

8 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?

10 Mr. Petrovic, you as well?

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We agree, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's good.

13 Then in your question, Mr. Weber, I think it should be -- it

14 should be perfectly clear that there is a distinction between the -- if I

15 could call it the active personality principle, that is, that the

16 jurisdiction of a state to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes

17 for their own nationals is not exactly the same as the jurisdiction to

18 investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes by those who are -- have

19 their domicile on -- in the territory of that state.

20 Your reference to people living somewhere was unclear in this

21 respect. Therefore, I invite you to rephrase your question.

22 MR. WEBER: If I could come back to it. I do understand what

23 Your Honour is saying.

24 JUDGE ORIE: We were talking about jurisdictional issues and if

25 we want to deal with them, we should be precise in our language.

Page 14122

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. Mr. Novakovic, are you aware that the Lukic group did continue to

4 slaughter the Muslim population of Visegrad, including two incidents

5 where groups of Muslim women, children, and elderly were burned alive?

6 Do you know of those incidents?

7 A. I heard about them later. In fact, I mostly read about it in the

8 press, found out about it from the media. It was not part of my work at

9 the time.

10 Q. The information in this report directing you to -- if we could

11 actually have page 2 of the B/C/S for the witness. It is at the bottom

12 of page -- the page 2 in the English before the Chamber.

13 This report includes information that:

14 "Vucic and Lukic's group conducts looting in the area of the

15 municipality of Visegrad. They transport the goods to Serbia by vehicle.

16 At the check-points they use friendships which have been struck up

17 earlier with their colleagues from the Uzice SUP as well as hand out

18 bribes so that they take the goods into Serbia and sell it. I have

19 learned unofficially that one of the heads of the Uzice SUP is helping

20 them in these dealings."

21 My question to you, sir, is: The Serbian MUP had the ability,

22 the authority, to stop individuals at the borders that were transporting

23 goods into Serbia that were proceeds of crimes; correct?

24 A. Yes. It had the ability, it had the right to stop anyone trying

25 to cross the border, if they had reason to believe the goods were stolen

Page 14123

1 or something.

2 Q. The information in this report indicates that Sredoje Lukic and

3 Niko Vucic were not stopped by the Serbian MUP; is that correct?

4 A. Well, the document seems to indicate that. But it doesn't say

5 what or when. It says they were crossing the border. It refers to prior

6 friendships. I'm seeing this document for the first time, and it's

7 precisely the state security sector as the creator of this report notes,

8 that the SUP, the Secretariat for Internal Affairs, is not stopping them.

9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution would

10 tender 6267 into evidence under seal.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objection.

12 Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...

13 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P3020, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: P3020 is admitted into evidence, under seal.

15 MR. WEBER:

16 Q. At the end of October 1992, you received orders from

17 Mr. Jakov Sokic to go to the Uzice SUP and conduct an interview of

18 someone who was in custody; correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is it correct that Mr. Sokic did not tell you over the phone who

21 was this custody at that time?

22 A. Correct.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly sit closer to the

24 microphones. Thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come a bit closer to the microphone,

Page 14124

1 Mr. Novakovic.

2 MR. WEBER:

3 Q. You've referred to the fact that you received a direct order from

4 Belgrade to conduct this interview. How were you informed of that order?

5 A. I was informed by Jakov Sokic. I came to the centre at his

6 invitation, and he told me there was an order to conduct an interview

7 with Milan Lukic.

8 Q. I'm a bit confused about that. If Mr. Sokic did not tell you the

9 name of the person in custody, how did you learn that it was Milan Lukic?

10 A. When I came to the centre, may I explain this in some detail? I

11 was in my apartment. The chief of the centre called me to come to the

12 centre. I came there. The chief told me, Milan Lukic, who had been

13 arrested in the area of Priboj, needed to be interviewed on the orders of

14 the leadership in Belgrade because in the meantime he had talked to the

15 headquarters of the service with the administration in charge. It's

16 standard procedure.

17 Q. Did this order to interview Milan Lukic come directly from

18 Jovica Stanisic?

19 A. Well, the leadership of the service. I suppose

20 Mr. Jovica Stanisic knew about it, or perhaps it was the chief of the

21 3rd Administration at the time which dealt with extremism. Maybe he is

22 the one who conveyed the instruction to Sokic. I don't know about that.

23 But the subordination is clear. The chief of the administration

24 in charge contacts the centre that is concerned, and the chief of the

25 centre concerned invites whatever operative officer he believes to be

Page 14125

1 best for the job.

2 Q. Did you report everything that Mr. Lukic - referring to

3 Milan Lukic - told you during your interview to Belgrade?

4 A. The entire interview was recorded, and the most interesting

5 passages from that interview were written up in a document, and that

6 document was submitted to the public security sector but also to the

7 chief of the relevant administration in Belgrade. The audiotape is

8 normally kept for a month, primarily in order to be able to draft the

9 document.

10 Q. Once you arrived at the SUP, you learned Milan Lukic was detained

11 at the Uvat [phoen] border crossing when he and another individual named

12 Dragutin Dragicevic attempted to enter Serbia with a large quantity of

13 weapons; correct?

14 A. Correct, correct. Carrying a side-arm and forged documents.

15 Forged IDs.

16 Q. At the border crossing, Milan Lukic presented himself as

17 Negos Popovic and provided the false identification in this name;

18 correct?

19 A. I saw that, and I heard that from the colleagues from the SUP of

20 Uzice who took him into custody. And they received that information from

21 Priboj.

22 Q. Is it correct that the Priboj SUP recognised Milan Lukic at the

23 check-point, despite the fact that he presented himself as someone else?

24 A. That's what I was told.

25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P2448 shown

Page 14126

1 to the witness. At this time we ask that the document nod be broadcast

2 to the public.

3 JUDGE ORIE: While waiting for this document, I might just raise

4 a matter I had for gotten at the beginning of this session.

5 Mr. Jordash, could I have for one second your attention. During

6 the last break I was informed that the exact date for the videolink?

7 Was not yet communicated. I don't know whether that has been

8 restored. But that was the message I received so I would say could you

9 please pay specific attention to communication of videolink --

10 MR. JORDASH: I'm surprised by that. But one of the issues --

11 JUDGE ORIE: If you would, most important for me is, that there's

12 no malcommunication. Please try to confirm, seek confirmation that

13 there's no malcommunication.

14 MR. JORDASH: Yes. The problem is the current witness we don't

15 know if he is coming that's [Overlapping speakers] ... issue.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. Then perhaps he has to wait

17 or whatever. But, as I said yesterday, you can't organise a videolink if

18 you do not have a date.

19 MR. JORDASH: I apologise for the delay. I'm surprised by that.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please try to get that resolved.

21 I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Weber. I should have done that at

22 the beginning of the session. I apologise for that.

23 Meanwhile the document is on everyone's screen.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. WEBER:

Page 14127

1 Q. Sir, before you is the Official Note that you compiled dated

2 2 November 1992.

3 Does this first page of the Official Note accurately reflect the

4 items that were found in the possession of Milan Lukic on

5 26 October 1992?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the B/C/S

8 and English of this exhibit.

9 Q. Yesterday, the Stanisic Defence paraphrased a portion of this

10 statement further down in the paragraph containing the direct quotes of

11 Milan Lukic. I'm going to read the actual statements contained in this

12 paragraph and then have I some further questions for you.

13 Is it correct that Milan Lukic told you the following:

14 "I came to Visegrad from Zurich on 10 April but I went to

15 Obrenovac first. And from there, I went with my relatives who are all

16 natives of Rujiste, Visegrad to undergo training in Ilok officially as

17 the Obrenovac group. Fifteen men. At the time -- at the same time when

18 my group was undergoing training, a group from Zvornik was also there.

19 It also consisted of 15 men and was led by a man called Bude. The train

20 was provided by men called Pupe and Zoran, Red Berets and Knindzas. When

21 the training was completed, we went to Visegrad where we placed ourselves

22 under the command of the Visegrad SUP, as part of the Visegrad TO."

23 Is that what Milan Lukic told you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Milan Lukic indicated to you that he left Visegrad after the

Page 14128

1 10th of April, 1992, with relatives and he subsequently returned to the

2 municipality. Did you seek to confirm whether the Serbian DB possessed

3 information that his cousin --

4 A. That he came to Visegrad on the 10th. Not that he left Visegrad.

5 He came to Visegrad.

6 Q. Sir, my statement was they left Visegrad after the

7 10th of April, 1992, with relatives and subsequently returned to the

8 municipality. Did you seek to confirm whether the Serbian DB possessed

9 information that his cousin, Sredoje Lukic, also left Visegrad around the

10 same time as indicated in the note that I showed you earlier?

11 A. Mr. Weber, all my knowledge about Milan Lukic is derived from

12 this interview and my conversation with a colleague who conducted the

13 next interview. I reported all that I found out from that interview to

14 the relevant administration in Belgrade. And among other things, this

15 report is used for further work on the case.

16 Q. Sir, if you could just -- that's a no; correct? And if you could

17 please respond to my question that you did not do anything to check it.

18 A. I did not do anything. I sent a report to the relevant

19 organisational unit in Belgrade.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please wait for the next question.

21 MR. WEBER:

22 Q. Yesterday at transcript 13983, you provided the following

23 evidence about this passage. Question that was put to you:

24 "Now half way down that page, Lukic claimed that he was trained

25 by Pupe and Zoran, Red Berets, Knindzas in Ilok. Did he ever claim that

Page 14129

1 he was trained by the Serbian DB in Ilok?"

2 And your answer was:

3 "Well, he said exactly what is written here. I was not familiar

4 with the subject so I quoted him in that part."

5 Are you saying that you had never heard of the Red Berets,

6 Knindzas, before October 1992?

7 A. Whatever Milan Lukic said I quoted verbatim. I was no not in a

8 position to comment on who Knindzas and Red Berets were. I heard about

9 Knindzas, but who they were and what they were -- so I was not competent

10 to comment on this piece of information. I just reported that passage of

11 the interview.

12 Q. Sir, please listen to my questions clearly. I'm asking you about

13 your knowledge independent of the document. Are you saying that you had

14 never heard of the Red Berets or Knindzas before October 1992?

15 A. Well, it was reported in the media about Red Berets and Knindzas.

16 I didn't know anything about them.

17 Q. If you didn't know anything about this and you were interested in

18 extremist activities, why then did you not ask Milan Lukic to clarify

19 what he said to you concerning these units?

20 A. My priority in interviewing Milan Lukic, for which I was briefed

21 by a man from the Territorial Defence who was familiar with that theatre

22 of war, was to try to get information from him that would indicate he was

23 involved in the kidnapping in Sjeverin. I put in the report item by item

24 whatever he said. But at that moment when the interview was conducted, I

25 was not qualified to talk to him about those units, and that's the main

Page 14130

1 reason. First of all, I didn't want to show my ignorance about those

2 units.

3 Q. Did you seek to confirm, so I'm speaking about your actions

4 subsequent to the interview, whether the Serbian DB possessed any

5 information about any training facilities in Ilok or the Red Berets,

6 Knindzas?

7 A. Certainly not. That was not of interest to me. I was doing

8 counter-intelligence work, and this is my only participation in this kind

9 of interview.

10 Q. Did you check whether the Serbian DB possessed any information

11 related to either an individual named Pupe or Zoran?

12 A. No, no.

13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6200, page 9

14 of both the B/C/S original and the English translation shown to the

15 witness.

16 This exhibit contains the personnel file of Nikola Pupovac, aka

17 Pupe, received from Republic of Serbia. The Prosecution requests that

18 that exhibit not be broadcast to the public at this time.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.

20 MR. JORDASH: Could we know what the Prosecution intends to do

21 with the document because the witness has said he doesn't have

22 information. So if my learned friend is seeking to follow Your Honours'

23 guidance concerning the tendering -- sorry, the use of documents during

24 cross-examination then he ought to indicate what information he expects

25 to elicit from a witness who says he doesn't know.

Page 14131

1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I think it would be fairly obvious from

2 the page I'm calling up. If not, I could further explain.

3 MR. JORDASH: Well, I know what the document says, or I know what

4 the document purports to indicate, but that's not the issue. The issue

5 is what my learned friend wants to do with it in light of the witness's

6 answer.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first hear what the witness's answer is.

8 Because to speculate on what will happen later is not what I'm seeking to

9 do at this moment.

10 Mr. Weber, we have the document now in front of us.

11 MR. WEBER: If I could also please have page 9 of the B/C/S.

12 Q. The document before you is from the personnel file of

13 Nikola Pupovac, aka Pupe. This document is a request for admission into

14 the active service --

15 MR. JORDASH: I do beg your pardon but --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean that Mr. Weber is already interpreting

17 the document by ...

18 MR. JORDASH: By claiming the nickname Pupe which hasn't been

19 established through this document. It's a comment by Mr. Weber.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it has been established through other

22 evidence in this case. I had specifically referred to Exhibit P1001

23 correlating the nickname. If I can --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And you take it for certain that that's

25 evidence which is truthful and it could well be, I don't remember it

Page 14132

1 exactly. But I think the appropriate way of dealing with the matter

2 would have been that this is a file in which Mr. Pupovac, where other

3 evidence has -- suggests that Pupe was the name also used by this person.

4 If would you have introduced him in that way, I don't think that

5 Mr. Jordash would have had any -- any objections.

6 We're looking now at document which is in relation to

7 Mr. Pupovac, and there's other evidence in this case in which it is

8 suggested that Mr. Pupovac was also known by the name Pupe.

9 Mr. Weber, what's your question?

10 MR. WEBER:

11 Q. This document is a request for admission into the active service

12 of the Republic of Serbia MUP special purpose unit dated 21 April 1992.

13 The request indicates it is from Nikola Pupovac who was stationed in

14 Ilok.

15 Now that you see there's corroboration of a Serbian MUP special

16 purpose unit in Ilok in April 1992, does this impact your views on who

17 trained Milan Lukic?

18 A. Let me tell you, I'm looking at this now. It just says the MUP

19 of Serbia. It doesn't say State Security Service. I don't know this

20 person.

21 Q. Yesterday at transcript page 12054 to -55, the Simatovic Defence

22 showed you a JATD per diem payment list from the send half of

23 November 1994.

24 Nikola Pupovac is listed on 45 of these payment records of the

25 JATD --

Page 14133

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, may I stop you here for a second. This

2 witness has, as he told us, made an Official Note of an interview he had

3 with Mr. Lukic, in which Mr. Lukic told him that he was trained by a

4 person by the name of Pupe.

5 Okay. Now there is all kind of other evidence. What we would

6 like to know is what this witness can tell us more about that. Not --

7 and that's what you are doing. You are asking this witness to combine

8 that information with all kind of other information and then to draw

9 conclusions that it must have been Mr. Pupovac. Whereas, this witness

10 has no knowledge about that.

11 Of course, it might well be that on the basis of the evidence of

12 this witness and the other evidence that the Chamber would reach such

13 conclusions or not reach such conclusions, also in view of whether

14 there's any evidence which contradicts this, and then it's for -- but

15 what is the use, if the witness doesn't know anything about it, to ask

16 him to interpret the documents and the document he drafted. He has any

17 personal knowledge about it, fine. Ask him about it. But do not say,

18 Well, Mr. Lukic told you it was Pupe. Now, if you see this and this and

19 this, would you agree with me that inevitable it must have been

20 Mr. Pupovac?

21 I mean, you're asking him to draw conclusions on the basis of a

22 tiny little bit of the evidence he gave himself and all kind of other

23 evidence on which I think it would be guided by the parties interpreting

24 that evidence. It would finally be for the Chamber to establish whether

25 Mr. Lukic was trained or not trained, if that is a relevant issue, by

Page 14134

1 Mr. Pupovac. That is, I think, the procedural situation we find

2 ourselves in.

3 So if the witness could add anything more, and I think he said

4 that he didn't have any knowledge beyond what Mr. Lukic us, but if he has

5 any further knowledge, ask him about it but don't ask him to interpret

6 the various pieces of evidence to see whether what he heard from

7 Mr. Lukic should lead us to draw certain conclusions.

8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, of course, I will follow the Chamber's

9 guidance. I was -- that is what I will do.

10 At this time, the Prosecution tenders this exhibit into evidence.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.

12 Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...

13 THE REGISTRAR: Next number would be P3021, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: P3021 is admitted into evidence. Under seal,

15 Mr. Weber or ...

16 MR. WEBER: Yes, please.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.

18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm looking at the time. Is this a

19 opportune time for a break.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's time for a break.

21 We resume at a quarter to 1.00.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to raise a matter, and

25 I think, Mr. Novakovic, to some extent, it might affect you as well. So