Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19234

 1                           Thursday, 10 May 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7             Madam Registrar, could you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Before we continue, Mr. Milosevic, same message again:  You're

12     still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of

13     your testimony.

14             And Ms. Marcus will now conclude her cross-examination in the

15     next 10 to 15 minutes, I understand.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise to the Prosecutor.

19     Yesterday, I was speaking very fast and not very intelligible at the end.

20     I would like to see my last answer to see whether the interpretation was

21     correct.  You told me that when I thought that I was speaking too fast or

22     if I thought something was not properly interpreted, that I should

23     address you with that issue.  I just wanted everything to be correct and

24     I apologise to the Prosecutor.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll -- at the end of your testimony we'll


Page 19235

 1     read your last answer to you, and then you can verify whether it was what

 2     you intended to say.

 3             Ms. Marcus.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank you.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6                           WITNESS:  MILAN MILOSEVIC [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]

 9        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Milosevic.

10        A.   Good morning.

11        Q.   I'm going to play a clip for you.  This is a clip from an

12     admitted exhibit in this case.  It contains very detailed footage from

13     the Kula awards ceremony in 1997.  I'm going to play just a 15-second

14     clip.

15             MS. MARCUS:  As far as I know, Your Honours, there's little to no

16     text spoken, and that's not the point of playing it, it's more to look at

17     the people.

18        Q.   And, Mr. Milosevic, if you see anybody who you know in this clip

19     after we've played it, perhaps you can tell us or you can tell us as we

20     go if you recognise anybody who we see in that clip.

21             MS. MARCUS:  If Mr. Laugel could please play the clip.

22                           [Video-clip played]

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did recognise a few individuals;

24     for example, Zoran Mijatovic.  Zoran Mijatovic.  And I believe that

25     Milan Prodanic was also there at the very end of the clip of the sequence

Page 19236

 1     that you've just shown.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we play it again and stop after every two or

 3     three persons before we move to the next one so that you're better

 4     able -- well, we start there.  Of these three persons do you recognise

 5     anyone?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the first individual

 7     on my right-hand side is Ljuba Ristic, but I'm not sure.  Possibly it is

 8     Ljuba Ristic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is the person with the glasses not the --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right.  There are two

11     people with glasses, but one of them has dark glasses and the other one

12     has just normal glasses.  The thick-set person on the right-hand side, I

13     believe that's him but I'm not sure --

14             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MS. MARCUS:  I'm sorry to interrupt.  Perhaps -- I wasn't

17     planning to have him mark it, but because the seconds -- the time

18     sequence matches, perhaps we could just put on the record that --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it's 3 minutes, 00.  We move on to the next one

20     so we have the next few people.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Stop there.  We are at 3.04, three persons --

23     perhaps we move on a tiny little bit, a tiny little bit -- yes.

24             Do you recognise any of these three persons?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.

Page 19237

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We move on to the next ones.

 2                           [Video-clip played]

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person in the middle is

 4     Zoran Mijatovic, I believe.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And we are at --

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He looks like Zoran Mijatovic, to

 7     be very precise.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And we are at 3 minutes and --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the middle.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- 7 seconds.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know anybody.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know these people

15     either.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the person in the

20     middle is Milan Prodanic.  He is wearing dark glasses, but he really does

21     look like Milan Prodanic.  He reminds me of Milan Prodanic.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We are at 3 minutes, 15 seconds, and the person with

23     dark glasses - there are two with glasses - but you are -- in the middle

24     is the one with the moustache.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the middle, in the middle, yes,

Page 19238

 1     yes, he looks like him.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And that was it, I think.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, before I conclude my cross-examination, I'm just

 6     going to explain to you what our position is with respect to your report

 7     and give you an opportunity to respond to our position.  Your JATD

 8     section contains only 17 paragraphs out of a total of 388 paragraphs in

 9     your entire report.  Your citations of sources in support of this section

10     in your report total seven documents, of which all but one are rules,

11     laws, or regulations, and that one is a decision on the establishment of

12     the PJM.  Through the process of cross-examination, it has emerged that

13     you based your inferences and conclusions in this section upon what you

14     termed a random sampling from among what we say is a partisan selection

15     of documents provided to you by the Defence.  Our position is that the

16     documents shown to you by the Simatovic Defence were chosen for the

17     purpose of leading you toward a particular conclusion.  You took that

18     selection on its face, without qualification and without citing them,

19     which, if you were unbiased --

20             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry --

21             MS. MARCUS:  -- your academic training.

22             MR. JORDASH:  I do object to this.  I was rightly admonished for

23     telling a story during my questions and this is nothing but a story.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  As a matter of fact, Ms. Marcus, of course you are

25     expected to -- under certain circumstances, to put your case to the

Page 19239

 1     witness.  What you're doing here is you're giving a judgement on --

 2     you're evaluating the expert report.  Now, if you say, We consider that

 3     the sourcing is insufficient, you may comment on that.  That's a kind of

 4     criticism.  But it goes, by far, further what you are doing.  You say,

 5     You are biased, et cetera, that's -- I would say is something for a later

 6     stage.  And what would we expect a witness who has given a solemn

 7     declaration to say, Yes, of course, I'm biased.  I mean, it's from the

 8     cross-examination that you consider that his material he's used is

 9     selective.  That has become clear.  But we're not here to start a debate

10     on -- let me read again, "You took that selection on its face, without

11     qualification, without citing them, which, if you were unbiased --"

12     there's an implicit accusation of bias.  Now, you can put whatever you

13     want to the witness about the quality of his report, no problem, but to

14     start a discussion with the witness about whether he's biased or not, I

15     think, is not something we -- that would assist us at this moment.  I

16     think you were approximately at your last line, looking at the length

17     approximately of your -- or is it more, there's more?

18             MS. MARCUS:  Almost, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Almost.  Would you then, please, without

20     qualifications, finish what you wanted to put to the witness.

21             MS. MARCUS:  I hope I understood Your Honour's comment.  I will

22     do my best to abide by what you requested.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you could say, Do you agree with me that you

24     have looked only to a small number of documents and you have an

25     incomplete picture, therefore.  That's all fine but --

Page 19240

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, may I just inquire, if our position is

 2     that he was either selective -- wilfully selective or that his

 3     methodology was faulty because he didn't ask for more and drew

 4     conclusions based on incomplete sources, then that's the position --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  There's no problem --

 6             MS. MARCUS:  It could be --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if you say, You should have asked for more

 8     information.  Would you comment on that.  That's fine.  But that's --

 9     wilfully -- that's apparently what he did.  And the witness is not here

10     to plead guilty or not guilty.  That's more or less what you're inviting

11     him to do.

12             Please proceed.

13             MS. MARCUS:

14        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I think you've understood, without me continuing

15     the rest of my question, basically our position, which is what we would

16     invite you to respond to, is that either you had additional materials

17     which you could have consulted but you didn't, which is a challenge to

18     your methodology; or you drew conclusions based on incomplete

19     documentation, which is a challenge to your methodology; or you decided

20     to do that, potentially because of bias.  That is our position.  And as a

21     result, our submission to the Chamber would be that your report, in

22     particular the sections on Mr. Simatovic and the JATD, should not be

23     given any weight by the Chamber.  Would you like to respond to our

24     position?

25        A.   May I respond, Your Honours?

Page 19241

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You may.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already stated that either

 3     things are being misinterpreted here or you are intentionally distorting

 4     my words.  I don't know what is happening, but that's the case.  I did

 5     not say that.  I used random sampling to make a selection from all the

 6     documents.  I based my report on all -- only those three documents which

 7     are used to prove that the JATD was established.  And now my specific

 8     answer to your question is that I don't agree with you.  I don't think

 9     that my methodology is wrong.  I don't think that I was biased.  I

10     believe that I used everything that I needed to use, everything that was

11     relevant, and I would have produced the same report if you had asked me

12     to do so.  I could never do anything differently.  The only way I can

13     produce my reports is based on documentation.  I cannot agree that I have

14     been manipulated.  I cannot agree that I have been biased.  Your

15     conclusion can be whatever you want it to be, but I believe that it's up

16     to the Trial Chamber to have the final say in that.

17             MS. MARCUS:

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

19             MS. MARCUS:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have a few matters before we continue.

23             First of all, Mr. Milosevic, you say, I didn't use the words

24     random sampling.  I clearly remember that you did.  So either there is a

25     translation or a transcript error, or you used those words but you've


Page 19242

 1     forgotten about it.  Why do I remember so well?  Because it came to my

 2     mind, and I even discussed it with one of my colleagues, that the

 3     technique of random sampling is a technique which is used in statistics

 4     rather than the kind of report as we find it here.  But you used those

 5     words.  If you say that's not the case, then we'll verify it.  Is

 6     there -- first I ask the witness one thing --

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and then I give you an opportunity to address us.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I respond, Your Honours?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please go ahead.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have just said that I used that

12     methodology but only in one specific case, and that was the essence of my

13     intervention to Ms. Marcus' position.  I really do speak fast.  I'm sorry

14     about that.  I apologise.  I don't have experience in situations like

15     this.  That's why I speak too fast and that's perhaps why things are

16     misinterpreted.  I have not used random sampling as the model for

17     producing my report.  Only in one specific case did I --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There may be --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I -- may I finish?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if it is about the random sampling because I

21     asked you a question about that.  Let me correct myself.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  If I read the transcript and if I -- because you

24     speak very fast, therefore the interpreters have to speak very fast as

25     well.  What I now re-read in the transcript you could pronounce it in two

Page 19243

 1     ways.  You can say, I did not say that I used random sampling.  Then

 2     you -- the full stop is missing, and that's what I heard more or less.

 3     And now re-reading it, I see that it says, I did not say that I used

 4     random sampling to make - and if you read it in that way, and I

 5     understood it in the way I heard it initially, that there is some

 6     confusion, but as it appears now on the transcript you said:  I used

 7     random sampling to make a selection from all the documents.  So,

 8     therefore, the matter is clearly to me.  You have -- and answered my

 9     question and by re-reading the transcript, the question is not active

10     anymore.

11             Now I give an opportunity to Mr. Petrovic who may want to

12     intervene on the same matter.  Listen to him carefully.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the

14     problem is on page 7, lines 11 through 24.  I believe that I heard from

15     professor the same thing when he was answering your first question the

16     first time around.  So I believe that his words were the same the first

17     time around.  Page 7, lines 18 through 24, that's where the problem is.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is what I re-read.  The matter seems to be

19     resolved.

20             Would you like to add anything, Mr. Milosevic, to what was just

21     said?  Because I think we meanwhile understood your testimony perfectly

22     well.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Allow me to underline just once

24     again.  This methodology was used only in one case.  In case when I had a

25     lot of identical --

Page 19244

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- decisions which were absolutely

 3     the same, I selected three.  There was no representative sample there.  I

 4     chose three documents and I used them in my report.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You had explained that already, but you have

 6     underlined it now again.

 7             Then, Ms. Marcus, you said you played a video from an admitted

 8     exhibit.  The number, please?

 9             MS. MARCUS:  P61, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P61, Madam Registrar.

11             Then I promised to you that I would read your last answer of

12     yesterday so as to verify whether there was any problem there.  The last

13     question that was -- well, I'll deal with the last two questions because

14     the last question might not be the most interesting one.  Ms. Marcus

15     asked you:

16             "What did you mean when you said 'they were certainly linked to

17     that'?"

18             And it was link between the accused and -- both accused and the

19     JATD.  Your answer was the following.  I'll read it hopefully slowly

20     enough:

21             "Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked.

22             "Somebody who is chief of sector or department and someone who is

23     a special advisor or who occupies a certain position, in any case, their

24     position in the service was such that they were supposed to be familiar

25     with all the elements of the service.  At least when Stanisic was in

Page 19245

 1     question.  And I believe that Simatovic also had to be familiar with all

 2     the elements of the intelligence work and the intelligence service."

 3             Then the next question - and that really was the last

 4     one - Ms. Marcus said:

 5             "If I'm correct - and now I'm asking you about your factual

 6     knowledge; your answer just now was an inference - you don't have any

 7     personal, direct, factual knowledge of the involvement of Mr. Stanisic

 8     and Mr. Simatovic in the JATD.

 9             "Did I understand your answer to the Chamber correctly?"

10             And then you said:

11             "I don't have any personal knowledge about that."

12             That is how it is recorded the semi-last and the last question of

13     yesterday.  Any problems as far as translation is concerned?  We do not

14     need a new explanation, but if you say the interpreters may have

15     misunderstood me -- you due to the speed of speech or the transcriber may

16     have had problems, then please tell us.  But I'm not seeking you to

17     repeat the answer, only to correct the answer if it's wrongly recorded.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to comment on the

19     penultimate answer, and I'm very happy, Your Honour, that you repeated

20     both.  The penultimate answer's the problem.  Due to the speed -- but you

21     said that I shouldn't explain.  I said that it was only logical that they

22     were familiar with things because somebody who is a chief of service and

23     not chief of department, as it is recorded in here, somebody who is a

24     chief of service -- the chief of service or somebody who is deputy chief

25     of administration or special advisor, and therein lies the mistake.

Page 19246

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Milosevic, if you really did not use the

 2     word "department," for example, then of course I would be surprised if

 3     that was due to the speed of speech added to your words, but we'll verify

 4     it in the original because you're now saying you made a mistake.  And

 5     what we usually do under those circumstances, I will order that -- or,

 6     Mr. Petrovic, I take it that if there's -- if the witness says that

 7     his -- the transcript of his testimony should be corrected, then we

 8     should be sure that it's not a change of the words but it's really a

 9     correction of what the witness said.  So therefore we'll have it verified

10     in the original language, whether you used the word "department," yes or

11     no, Mr. Milosevic.  And --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I meant Stanisic who

13     was chief of service, not chief of administration.  Therein lies the

14     problem.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether there's a problem or not, you say --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You say that's where the mistake is made.  You

18     didn't say that is where I possibly made a mistake.  And in this

19     courtroom we have a good habit that we're not blaming others for our own

20     mistakes.  I try to do that as well.  It will be verified whether or not

21     the word "department" was used by you so that we know where you blamed

22     interpreters for something, whether you rightly did so or whether you

23     were shifting the blame from yourself to the interpreters.  It will be

24     verified.

25             Then we move on.


Page 19247

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic -- perhaps you -- have you -- do you

 3     have any questions [overlapping speakers]

 4             MR. JORDASH:  No questions, thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No questions.

 6             Mr. Petrovic.

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 8                           Re-examination by Mr. Petrovic:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Milosevic.  There are just a few

10     matters I would like to clarify in relation to your testimony over the

11     last few days.  Let's first have a look at paragraph 175, please, in your

12     report.  When you were questioned by the Prosecution about this, the

13     Prosecution said that they understood your paragraph to be the expression

14     of your personal knowledge or experience with regard to the regulations

15     on how to provide information.  It's 18980.  That's the reference.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour -- yes, thank you.  Could I please

17     request whenever Mr. Petrovic is going to quote, I would propose either a

18     question or an answer, that he read it verbatim rather than paraphrasing.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  This is an invitation, Mr. Petrovic.  Are you

20     accepting it?

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll just refer to

22     the page, but I really don't think -- well, I can find the page.  Please

23     ignore that part of my question.

24        Q.   All I'll ask you is to explain something.  If my colleague

25     believes that I'm quoting incorrectly, she can say so, but please have a

Page 19248

 1     look at P1044, Article 9.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the issue is that you wanted to refer to an

 3     answer given by the witness and you mentioned the page, whereas

 4     Ms. Marcus, I think, invited you to read that part of the answer so that

 5     both the witness, who is unable to look at those pages, and everyone else

 6     has the precise text of the answer on the basis of which you want to ask

 7     further questions.

 8             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In that case, Your Honours, please

 9     bear with me.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It must be the transcript of the 3rd of May.

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 18980 is the page,

12     line 13, and my learned friend said given the way that you directly

13     informed about this and that is also the case in many other parts of your

14     report, it seems that you have direct knowledge of the matter or it seems

15     that the least of one could say is that you are not quoting or providing

16     references to sources for the claims that you are making.  Could we now

17     see P1044, Article 9.

18        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, what does Article 9 say about the obligations of

19     the minister?  It's Article 9 of the Law on Internal Affairs from 1991.

20        A.   Well, as it says here, the minister, at the request of the

21     National Assembly and the president of the republic, has to provide a

22     report to the minister of the interior on the work of the ministry and on

23     the security situation in the republic.

24        Q.   How do you draw the conclusion on the basis of this article that

25     this also concerns issues that are of importance for the work of the

Page 19249

 1     service or of the RDB?

 2        A.   The service or the RDB is an integral part of the

 3     Ministry of the Interior, and, therefore, at the request of the National

 4     Assembly or the president of the republic, the minister has to submit a

 5     report about that field of work to the ministry.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.  Let's now have a look at P2403, 2403.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, reading the transcript at 18980 and

 8     981, I'm wondering -- you're seeking clarification, but I do not see any

 9     difference with what the witness testified on those pages.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to show

11     that the source wasn't his experience or his opinion.  The source was the

12     article of the law.  That is the basis on which he made that claim.  The

13     basis was not his personal experience, as suggested by my learned

14     colleague.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but when the witness answers that question, he

16     explained that already.  We don't need the same answer twice.  There's no

17     use in re-examination because the answer was, first of all, that he

18     didn't understand what the dispute was.  This is based on Article 9, and

19     then he explained exactly -- gave exactly the same explanation as he

20     gives now.  And you are apparently satisfied with the answer, so the

21     question was superfluous because -- purely repetitious.

22             Please proceed.

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

24     do my best to avoid putting such questions.

25        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, you've had a look at this decision on a number of

Page 19250

 1     occasions.  The last item of the decision says that the decision should

 2     be forwarded to the financial department, or rather, the administration

 3     for material and financial issues of the ministry.  How do you understand

 4     the importance of this decision with regard to that last item in the

 5     decision?

 6        A.   Well, that means that the administration for material and

 7     financial matters of the Ministry of the Interior was informed of this

 8     decision in order to be able to act in accordance with it.

 9        Q.   If it was informed --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P2403 is under seal, Mr. Petrovic.

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

12     that case it shouldn't be broadcast outside the courtroom.

13        Q.   If the administration for material and financial matters was

14     informed, what would the reason be for drafting such document?

15        A.   In order to make certain payments that are due on the basis of

16     this decision.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.  Let's now have a look at P979.  Could

18     you please read out this sentence here.  And in terms of the language

19     itself, what would you say about the way this sentence is written in

20     Serbian or in B/C/S as we call that language here?  As an academic I

21     would just like you to assess the language.

22        A.   Well, it looks like the person who wrote this doesn't know the

23     Serbian language very well to make such grammatical mistakes.

24        Q.   Tell us what --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, is this witness especially qualified

Page 19251

 1     or -- because you could put this question in to every native speaker.  Is

 2     that -- let the witness answer the question whether -- but I'm just

 3     expressing some concern about this.  Yes.

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Naturally, that's true, I could

 5     put the question to anyone.  I chose to put the question to the

 6     professor.  Since the professor is an academic and given that he is an

 7     intellectual, he might be able to shed some light on the grammar used in

 8     this sentence.  But it's true that anyone who knows the Serbian language

 9     can see that this sentence is not grammatically correct.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour, just

12     a few sentences.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please.  The witness may answer the question.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not only ungrammatical, it's

15     not logical.  And anyone who knows anything about the Serbian language

16     wouldn't write in this way.  It's not only a matter of grammatical

17     mistakes; it's the logic of the sentence itself that is inadequate in

18     terms of the Serbian language.  It should say "all artillery pieces and

19     weapons should be taken out of the Golubic fortress," and then perhaps a

20     sentence apart from establishment items that should remain in the

21     fortress, and then there should be some date at the bottom, and so on and

22     so forth.  This is illogical, completely illogical, and it seems as if it

23     had been extracted from certain texts that are then cobbled together in

24     the text.  So this is a totally illogical way of expressing oneself.

25             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 19252

 1        Q.   Have a look at the heading, the Republic of Serbia, and then it

 2     says SAO Krajina.  Given the constitutional order at the time, is such a

 3     heading possible from a technical point of view?

 4        A.   No, that's absolutely illogical.  The republic of the SAO Krajina

 5     is not part of the Republic of Serbia and the training centre Golubic,

 6     and so on and so forth.  I don't know.  It's very strange.  I think I

 7     have already pointed this out for the benefit of the Chamber.

 8        Q.   May I --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   -- now see P1121?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I have one additional question in relation to

13     the document on the screen.

14             Mr. Milosevic -- no, I think I -- I must have misheard.  If I

15     re-read the transcript I don't find what I think I heard.

16             Please proceed.

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

18        Q.   Let's now have a look at P1121.  Witness, you were answering

19     questions about this document.  I'd just like to ask you that given the

20     rules on work for the SDB, are there any restrictions regarding the

21     possibilities that agents have to obtain information of a certain kind?

22        A.   No, there are no such restrictions.

23        Q.   In the course of performing his duties, can such an officer

24     obtain any documents and use them for the work he has to carry out?

25        A.   Yes, absolutely.

Page 19253

 1        Q.   Please have a look at the information that this report contains.

 2     Have a look at the first page, and perhaps we could have a look at the

 3     second page too.  Could you perhaps describe the nature of this

 4     information in relation to what we are interested in, if you can.

 5        A.   I think that this is information of relevance to the security

 6     situation and it concerns threats to the Serbian people.  This

 7     information, this intelligence, is interesting.  It's not without

 8     relevance.

 9        Q.   Could we now have a look at P2933.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, the Chamber is asking itself in what

11     way your questions at this moment relate to what was raised in

12     cross-examination, but we may have missed the link.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned colleague

14     asked a question about the legal basis upon which Franko Simatovic could

15     receive such documents, obtain such documents, and that is the context

16     within which this document was discussed.  I just wanted to shed some

17     more light on that series of questions put by my colleague.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

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

20        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, this is a page from Mladic's diary, and here

21     Mladic seemingly recorded the words of somebody called Rade Siptar, at

22     least that is what we are reading in here.  I would like to put some

23     questions to you about this.  If we assume that this Rade Siptar was a

24     member of an opposition party in Serbia, it's not really important

25     whether he was or not, this is a hypothesis.  When it comes to the

Page 19254

 1     intelligence work, would it be expected for an agent to sell lies, as it

 2     were, to somebody who is a member of an opposition party or some other

 3     structure?  It really doesn't matter.  Could it be expected that an

 4     intelligence officer tried to mislead such a person into believing what

 5     is not correct?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, that's a highly leading question,

 8     several leading questions combined into one.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  On a matter where we first have to establish whether

10     the witness has any knowledge.

11             If you say, Mr. Petrovic, whether false information is not

12     unknown as a method to destabilise and whether this method is used in

13     intelligence work, then I think it's almost a matter of common knowledge.

14     Now, if you want to use it in this context, we would first have to find

15     out what the witness knows about this event.  And then, apart from that,

16     it's all assumed -- it's all based on an assumption that Mr. Siptar

17     apparently was a political, or, in any other way, an opponent of

18     Mr. Stanisic or Simatovic, I do not know.  But there's too many

19     assumptions.  If the witness knows anything about this specifically, you

20     may ask him.  And I seek the agreement of the parties on the matter

21     whether disinformation is sometimes used as part of, if I could say, the

22     intelligence game.  Would the parties agree with that?

23             MR. JORDASH:  And it's dealt with at paragraph 36 of the expert's

24     report.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.

Page 19255

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we could include

 2     two more things into that.  Selling lies, selling nonsense is all that

 3     something that is acceptable when it comes to the work of the

 4     intelligence services everywhere?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, the problem I have is the linking of

 6     this piece of evidence with that question about the witness's -- about

 7     witness's paragraph 36.  Now, the issue of witness's paragraph 36 does

 8     not arise from cross-examination.  Connecting that to this is suggestive.

 9     The witness hasn't said he has any knowledge of any facts connected to

10     this.  The questions I put to him were not about the facts underlying

11     this but about Mr. Simatovic's role.  I simply -- this is a leading

12     package.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What, I think, Mr. Petrovic, what you seek to

14     establish by a kind of a general notion of lies or at least - let me just

15     see - disinformation being used as a method, you are apparently seeking

16     to link that general notice to this specific item in the diary of

17     Mr. Mladic.  Unless the witness has any specific knowledge about this

18     event, the link you can try to establish that by other means but not by

19     asking the witness whether this is -- because that's what you're seeking

20     to establish, that this must be disinformation.  I do not see what the

21     basis of the knowledge of the witness would be to allow for such a

22     conclusion.  And if you think there is one, then first lay the foundation

23     for that before you continue.

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that your

25     proposal is the best, and that is to agree that planting nonsense and

Page 19256

 1     disinformation is just an acceptable and legitimate method of work.  If

 2     we agree to agree on that, can agree on that, we can finish with that

 3     topic very quickly.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, whether it's acceptable and legitimate is -- I

 5     would say it's commonly used.  Would the parties agree with that?

 6     Mr. Jordash agrees.

 7             Ms. Marcus, often used?

 8             MS. MARCUS:  I don't frankly know, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't know.

10             MS. MARCUS:  I know it's part of the witness's evidence.  I

11     accept that the witness is [overlapping speakers] it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not -- I'm only -- Mr. Petrovic wants to clarify

13     a certain matter, which, in the way he seeks to clarify it, he cannot do

14     that, as I told him, unless he has established a proper basis, apart from

15     that the matter was not addressed in cross-examination.  But in order to

16     assist Mr. Petrovic, I'm seeking whether the parties are in agreement

17     that disinformation is not an uncommon thing in intelligence work.

18     That's the only thing.  You don't know?

19             MS. MARCUS:  If -- Your Honours, I'm sorry.  I don't mean to

20     stall things.  I'm truly not trying to do that.  I do -- as a premise, we

21     have a problem agreeing to things spontaneously on the record without

22     having thought them through because they can be interpreted later on to

23     mean something that we didn't intend to.  On the pure basis of what

24     Your Honour has put to me, based purely on that, then I suppose I must

25     agree.

Page 19257

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we can move on.

 2             Mr. Petrovic.

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

 4        Q.   Just one more question.  It says here that some 3.000 barrels

 5     they wanted to give to the Muslims --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  First establish a basis for any knowledge of the

 7     witness in relation to this document --

 8             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I

 9     withdraw my question.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Was that your last question, Mr. Petrovic?

11                           [Defence counsel and accused confer]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, I'll repeat my question:  Was this

13     your last question or do you have any other questions?

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have a few more questions,

15     Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed then.

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, do you have any factual knowledge about the way

19     people were armed and the events?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, if that is your question then it

21     sounds more or less like:  Do you know anything about the weather?  Which

22     requires weather -- when, where, temperature, wind.  Could you please put

23     a question to the witness which makes sense.

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, according to what you knew about the position and

Page 19258

 1     role of Franko Simatovic, when it comes to 1991 would it have been

 2     logical for Franko Simatovic to participate in the arming of Muslims

 3     Bihac and Sandzak?

 4        A.   This is absolutely unacceptable.  He should not have done that,

 5     no way.  That was not his job.  That was not his task.  I don't know how

 6     he could have done that.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Petrovic - and you, Mr. Milosevic - you

 8     explained approximately 20 or 30 times that the only thing you could tell

 9     us is about what the rules and the regulations tell us.  Now, the first

10     part of your answer, although the question was slightly different,

11     remains within those limits, it was not his job, it was not his task.

12     And then you continue:

13             "I don't know how he could have done that."

14             And that of course is -- but perhaps I should clarify what you

15     intended to say there, that you would say I do not understand how someone

16     could consider this to be within his task, then I think we are still

17     within the area which you covered.  If, however, you would say it was

18     impossible that he did it, then we enter into a totally different realm

19     and that's the realm of facts of which you said 20 to 30 times, if not

20     40, that that is what you did not research.  Did you intend to say this

21     kind of activity was not within his tasks and therefore I cannot

22     understand how one could consider this to be part of his task?  Or did

23     you intend to say that you cannot factually understand how this may have

24     been possible?  Which of the two?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on his job description, it

Page 19259

 1     was impossible for him to be involved in something like that.  Personally

 2     I believe that he was not supposed to do anything that would have been

 3     against his job descriptions.  That would have been illegal.  And the

 4     first part of your question is correct and shows that you understood me

 5     properly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Your personal beliefs are not relevant; at least if

 7     at all relevant, then at minimal level.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please let's look at

10     P2392.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  The document is under seal, Your Honours.

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, during the examination-in-chief we had a problem

14     with the -- problem with the table 2D914 that was drafted in 1990.  Can

15     you please look at the document and can you please tell us whether this

16     would be an adequate table or schematic of the department according to

17     the 1990 regulation.

18             I apologise, 1992 regulation.

19        A.   Yes, this is correct.  The one that I saw previously was

20     absolutely inadequate.  This is it.

21        Q.   Can we now look at P2394.  This is another document under seal.

22     And this one was drafted pursuant to the 1990 regulation.  Would this

23     schematic correspond to the schematic of the DB service based on the 1990

24     rule?

25        A.   Yes, that's that.

Page 19260

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Can I just ask Mr. Petrovic if this second

 3     document -- it seems to me you're suggesting some of the annexes would --

 4     this is with regard to what you're going to tender afterwards, if I'm not

 5     mistaken.  Just before we leave this one, which annex in the witness's

 6     report would you say this one is better than?  In the previous question

 7     you asked you said it was better than 2D914.  Which one does this one

 8     connect to, please?

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, I don't know.  Instead of

10     2D914 that has flaws, the adequate document would be your P2394, which

11     was drafted and based on the 1990 regulation or rule.

12             With your leave, I'd like to continue.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P2724.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  The document is also under seal.

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, you testified about this document yesterday.  You

18     looked at bullet point 5.2.  Let's look at the number of this decision

19     and then we will compare 5.2 and the number of the decision with another

20     document.  Let us just state that the document number is 4030 and that it

21     says that this person was assigned to a position as specified under 5.2.

22     And now let us now look at P974.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  The document is also under seal, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore not to be shown to the public.

25             May I remind the parties that they have their own responsibility

Page 19261

 1     for pointing at confidentiality of documents, and that however

 2     appreciated the assistance of the representative of the Registry, that

 3     it's the primary task for the parties themselves.  Please proceed.

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll do

 5     my best.

 6        Q.   Look at number 2 first.  In the column where it says number of

 7     personnel, do you see the number of the decision that we just mentioned,

 8     that we just saw in P2724?

 9        A.   I must say that I can't see it too clearly.  Maybe it should be

10     blown up even more or maybe I should come closer to the document.  I

11     don't know.  Please repeat your question.

12        Q.   In the vertical column where it says the number of personnel,

13     does this contain the number of the decision on assignment -- the

14     assignment of this person under number 2?

15        A.   Yes, 4030, I can see that.

16        Q.   In paragraph 376 of your report --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just try to understand the answer.  4030,

18     could I have a look where -- I have not found it yet.  Yes, I see it --

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's in the column

20     where it says the number of executors.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I found it as I ...

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's the same number that we can

23     see in the document P2724.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave I'll move on.

Page 19262

 1        Q.   In paragraph 376 you say that there were five anti-terrorist

 2     operations departments.  Let's now have a look at P974, item 4.  The

 3     document is under seal.  Item 4 where the job posts are mentioned that

 4     relate to detachment commanders.  How many such posts were there?  Could

 5     you tell us how many such posts were specified, and does number 5 refer

 6     to the number of job specifications for this post?

 7        A.   Yes, that's quite right.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  I was simply going to offer the hard copy B/C/S for

10     the witness to consult.

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  That's very

12     kind.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If there are any further questions on it, it may

14     assist the witness.

15             Please proceed, Mr. ...

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   What can one conclude on the basis of the fact that there were

18     five job specifications for the post of detachment commander?

19        A.   Well, you can conclude that there were five such departments,

20     rather, since there were also five deputies.  That is the logic.

21        Q.   Yesterday, you said that this document was amended of a time

22     things were added to it.  Let's have a look at number 62 in this

23     document.  This concerns a person called Boris Janosevic.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness kindly be instructed not to

25     touch the microphones with the documents and also to lift the microphones

Page 19263

 1     a little bit.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, could you lift the microphone

 3     slightly and could you avoid touching it with the paper on the

 4     microphone.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I apologise,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 9        Q.   Under number 62, how do you understand this entry in the last

10     column where it says the 20th of June, 1995?

11        A.   Well, these columns say that he's a member of the unit, that he

12     has completed secondary school.  The penultimate column concerns his

13     salary.  The last one -- just a minute.

14             MS. MARCUS:  I'm sorry, where does it say 1995?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It means that that's when he was

16     admitted.  It says 20/6/95, if that's what you have in mind.  It means

17     that he was a member.

18             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the English

19     translation 1995 is missing, but I think that this can be quite clearly

20     seen in the B/C/S version of the document.  So the English translation is

21     not complete.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll have a look in detail at the original.

23             MS. MARCUS:  I must agree, Your Honour.  I think we will submit

24     it for a correction.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, clearly the year "1995" following the

Page 19264

 1     20th of June is missing.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.  I

 3     have 15 minutes, so it might be a good time for a break now.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll take a break.  We'll resume at quarter to

 5     11.00 and we expect you to conclude, Mr. Petrovic, by 11.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, since we took a longer break, of

 9     course you have until ten minutes past 11.00.

10             Please proceed.

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

12        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, we're dealing with the same document now.  Could

13     we please have a look at page 7 in the B/C/S version and page 8 in the

14     English.  I'm interested in the entry for Goran Kovacevic.  It's the last

15     column.  Page 7 in the B/C/S, sir.  You can see it on the screen.

16        A.   Yes, Goran Kovacevic, I can see that.

17        Q.   What does it say about him in this column?

18        A.   It says that he's a member from the 1st of August, 1995.

19        Q.   What conclusions can we draw about the time-period that this

20     document, P974, covers, this document with these job specifications?

21        A.   Well, we can conclude that this was a document that was used

22     throughout that period of time.  It was used on a permanent basis.  It

23     wasn't just used on one occasion.  It was constantly used, and you can

24     see that names were entered into the columns of this document at the time

25     that certain decisions were taken.

Page 19265

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.  Mr. Milosevic, yesterday you --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we further explore this conclusion.  It seems

 3     that if you would make changes, et cetera, and if you have several

 4     entries with different dates, that -- does that allow for the conclusion

 5     as the witness gives us?  It apparently covers events which happened at

 6     various dates.  Now, you can make a document, not fill in half of it, and

 7     then update it again and again.  You also can produce a document at the

 8     very end, writing down specific dates from the past and make it at one

 9     moment giving an overview of what happened in the past.  If names are

10     changed, it could be that they were there as an error, it could be that

11     one person replaces another person, but it could also be that a certain

12     entry -- that that person was preceded by another person which was not in

13     that position anymore.  And therefore the document would not mention that

14     earlier person anymore.  It's -- what is the basis for your conclusion?

15     It's totally unclear to me.  I can think of five possible scenarios which

16     would all still be consistent with this document, Mr. Milosevic.  So

17     therefore -- and I gave you just a few examples of what you could imagine

18     to be the case, but apparently you come to a positive conclusion, the

19     document was used throughout that period of time.  First of all, what

20     period of time it was used on a permanent basis?  What is it in the

21     document that allows for such a conclusion?  If you would say the

22     document covers events which took place at various moments in the past, I

23     would have no difficulty to agree with you.  But to say that the document

24     was used on a permanent basis throughout the period, that -- please

25     explain.

Page 19266

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the nature of this

 2     document is such that it is not a one-off document or a document that

 3     would have subsequently be rewritten.  The objective of this document is

 4     to record all the changes throughout the duration or the existence of a

 5     unit.  And you can see that there are entries from 1993, 1994, 1995, as

 6     we could see and so on and so forth.  So the nature of this document and

 7     the dates that we can see here suggest that this is how things were done

 8     and I based my conclusion on that.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if that's the basis for your conclusion, then

10     we'll consider whether we can follow you on the basis you gave in that

11     conclusion.

12             Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.

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

14        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, if in 1995 the commander of the unit had been

15     appointed in view of what you had just told us about the nature of this

16     document, would you expect that this fact would have been entered in the

17     appropriate place in this table?

18        A.   Absolutely.  It would be entered under number 1.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.  Yesterday, you mentioned "KE," the

20     abbreviation KE.  What does the abbreviation stand for?  It's a set of

21     records.  What do they contain?

22        A.   This is criminal records, plural.  Public security service

23     maintains records for individuals, and criminal records imply that

24     somebody's name is entered on any grounds, somebody who was convicted or

25     against whom a criminal report was filed and then subsequently rejected.

Page 19267

 1     For example, it could be a person who committed a traffic offence.  This

 2     is the nature of criminal records.  If somebody is reported and if

 3     somebody's vetted and if it is established that somebody's name has never

 4     been entered into the criminal records, then that person does not have to

 5     be checked any further.  But if somebody's name is there, additional

 6     checks should be carried out in order to see why the name is there,

 7     whether it was due to a crime he committed or an offence.  Yesterday, I

 8     spoke about that because in my professional work, on several occasions I

 9     wanted the -- this type of criminal records to be abolished completely.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

12             MR. JORDASH:  I was just trying to help the translator.

13             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  It's appreciated.  I think everyone feels the need

15     to assist you.  Where I failed to do that I see the parties assisting.

16     And if you would do the same, Mr. Milosevic, the problem might even

17     disappear.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me summarise then.  If

19     somebody's name was recorded in criminal records, that doesn't mean that

20     person was convicted.  And even if that person was convicted, nobody

21     knows why, it has to be checked.  This is just an indication for the

22     operative who is engaged in the vetting procedure to make further checks

23     as to why that person's name is in the criminal records.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could all unnecessary microphones please be

25     switched off.  Thank you.

Page 19268

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   I would also like to ask you to explain to all of us whether when

 3     it comes to criminal records, are -- is information about conviction

 4     erased after a certain time for some crimes?

 5        A.   Yes, that exists.  Convictions can be erased and this is

 6     precisely regulated by the laws of the Republic of Serbia, especially by

 7     the Law on Criminal Procedure.  But that exists everywhere, in all the

 8     laws, in all the states, and all the lawyers who are sitting here today

 9     are familiar with that.

10        Q.   And now I would like you to look at paragraph 384, footnote 368.

11     We're talking about your report, obviously.  In here you -- you're

12     talking about reservists and the conditions that they have to meet in

13     order to join the ministry.  Could you please shed some more light on

14     this.  Would one of the conditions for joining the ministry be that

15     somebody was never convicted of a crime or an offence, or perhaps that

16     that person should have not been convicted for certain types of crimes?

17        A.   There were three conditions that were cumulative.  The first

18     condition was that a person was not supposed to be convicted for a

19     certain number of crimes that I can enumerate.  So this did not encompass

20     all the crimes, but just the crimes listed in here, the crimes against

21     the constitutional order, against the armed forces, against property,

22     against officials and officials duties or people who carried out official

23     duties, as well as crimes committed for personal gain or for

24     dishonourable motives.  The other crimes, or rather, the other motives,

25     were not encompassed by that first condition and this is in


Page 19269

 1     sensu stricto, to put it in very legal terms.  So it was a strict legal

 2     condition.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.  I have just one more question for you.

 4     I would like to call up 65 ter 6455.  It's a Prosecutor's 65 ter

 5     document, also under seal.  Mr. Milosevic, I would like the upper

 6     right-hand part of this document to be blown up for you.  The B/C/S

 7     version is really very illegible.  Thank you.

 8             Mr. Milosevic --

 9             MS. MARCUS:  I'm sorry --

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   -- I'm not asking you to --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

13             MS. MARCUS:  We need to be in private session for this.  I can

14     explain once we're in private session.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

16                           [Private session]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 19270











11 Page 19270 redacted. Private session.















Page 19271

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24                           [Open session]

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


Page 19272

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I have one question which arises from

 3     Mr. Petrovic's re-examination.  Apart from that, I have one question

 4     which I simply by error omitted from my cross-examination.  I do

 5     apologise for that.  With your leave, I would put those two questions to

 6     the witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8                           Further cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:

 9        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, in response to Mr. Petrovic's re-examination you

10     said -- you were discussing, you recall, the document P979, which is the

11     document about the movement of weapons at Golubic.  The header has

12     Republic of Serbia and SAO Krajina on it.  Do you recall the document?

13        A.   I recall the document and I believe that you were the one who

14     showed it to me first.

15        Q.   That's right.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please request the court officer to call up

17     P2623.  It's a public document.  I'd like, please, page 5 in English and

18     page 1 in B/C/S.  The B/C/S is very small.  It's the bottom right-hand

19     Article 3 that I'd like to focus on.  Perhaps that could be highlighted

20     in the B/C/S version.  Thank you.

21        Q.   What you see before you, Mr. Milosevic, is a referendum -- a

22     decision from a referendum that took place in the SAO Krajina.  The date

23     of the referendum was the 17th of May, 1991, and as you can see it was

24     decided in this referendum under Article 3 that the:

25             "Territory of SAO Krajina is part of the sole state territory of

Page 19273

 1     the Republic of Serbia."

 2             So when -- now that -- the date of this is the 17th of May.  The

 3     date of the document about the movement of weapons at Golubic is from the

 4     16th of June; in other words, this referendum decision precedes the date

 5     of that document.  So when you said, quote, today at page 18, line --

 6     page 18, line 16:

 7             "The Republic of the SAO Krajina is not part of the

 8     Republic of Serbia ..."

 9             Actually, according to the decision of the SAO Krajina, in fact,

10     your answer was incorrect; therefore, the header on that document was

11     quite logical.  Wouldn't you agree?

12        A.   Your Honour, I really did not pay attention to the date on this

13     document and put it in the context of this.  However, this does not say

14     that this document is illogical.  Even if what you're saying is true and

15     I made a mistake, I apologise, but Mr. Petrovic's question did not

16     concern the heading.  The question concerned the body of the text and I

17     went on to explain mistakes in the body of the text.  When you examined

18     me about this document, I said that it didn't make too much sense.  I

19     don't know whether I repeated that the second time around.

20     Mr. Petrovic's question was about the text, and the body of the text is

21     somewhat confusing.  There's no logical sequence to the word order in

22     that body of the text.  That's what I was talking about.

23        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I'll just read you the particular question that

24     I'm referring to and your answer, and this is not about the body of the

25     text.  Mr. Petrovic asked you, quote, this is page 18, line 13:

Page 19274

 1             "Have a look at the heading, the Republic of Serbia and then it

 2     says SAO Krajina.  Given the constitutional order at the time, is such a

 3     heading possible from a technical point of view?"

 4             Your answer:

 5             "No, that's absolutely illogical.  The Republic of the SAO

 6     Krajina is not part of the Republic of Serbia and the training centre

 7     Golubic, and so on and so forth.  I don't know.  It's very strange."

 8        A.   I don't know why it shouldn't be strange.  According to the

 9     constitution of the Republic of Serbia, SAO Krajina wasn't there.  This

10     is a decision made by the SAO Krajina.  I don't know what you mean.  In

11     the Serbian constitution, as far as I remember, this was not recorded,

12     and the constitution is the ultimate document, the supreme document.

13     When there is a clash between a by-law or a law and the constitution, the

14     constitution prevails.  I don't remember that it is recorded in the

15     constitution.  I apologise if I'm mistaken, but we can easily establish

16     that if we look at the text of the constitution.

17        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, all I'm trying to ask you, if that document was

18     prepared in the SAO Krajina and a month previously they had determined in

19     a referendum that they are part of the Republic of Serbia, then it's

20     quite logical that that would be the header on that document from that

21     perspective.  Would you agree with me?

22        A.   Yes, what you're saying does make sense.

23        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I have one previous question that I had neglected

24     to ask you on cross-examination, and it's quite an obvious one.  Did you,

25     yourself, attend the Kula awards ceremony in 1997?

Page 19275

 1        A.   What do you have in mind specifically?  I'm not sure what you are

 2     talking about.

 3        Q.   We earlier saw -- I showed you a clip.  This was where I forgot

 4     to ask you that question.  I showed you a clip of some individuals.

 5     There was an awards ceremony that took place at Kula in 1997.  I just

 6     neglected to ask you if you had attended that yourself.

 7        A.   Of course not.  I have already told you that I was not a member

 8     of the service at the time, so I don't know how I could have been there.

 9     My answer to your question is no.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11        A.   I recognised those individuals, but I knew them from before, from

12     elsewhere.

13        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.  I understand.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I have no further questions.  The only

15     point I wanted to raise before we would conclude is the issue of the

16     unsourced assertions chart, which we do intend to tender, that's the

17     joint revised version following our meeting with the Simatovic Defence.

18     We did offer the witness an opportunity to comment on it.  I just didn't

19     want -- I wanted to notify the Chamber at the point where the Chamber is

20     comfortable to excuse the witness, that that is still outstanding.  And

21     since I intend to tender it, I wanted to raise that now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

23             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask

24     you to allow me to put two questions to the witness that arise directly

25     from my learned friend's questions, and then I would like to comment upon


Page 19276

 1     what my learned friend said about the table, about the materials that

 2     were used.  So first I would kindly ask your permission to put two

 3     questions to the witness.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I allowed Ms. Marcus to ask a question which she had

 5     forgotten, so let's be generous.  You may ask the questions which you

 6     have on your mind.

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

 8                           Further re-examination by Mr. Petrovic:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, in Serbia in the -- or in the

10     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was a constitutional regulation or any

11     other by-law passed by which the Serbian Krajina or the SAO were

12     incorporated into the constitutional order of Serbia or the

13     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   An official of the MUP of Serbia, was he duty-bound by the

16     constitutional order and laws of the Republic of Serbia?

17        A.   Absolutely.

18        Q.   Is it then logical that the document that we saw, P979, that its

19     author was somebody from Krajina who was duty-bound by the laws of

20     Krajina and who, therefore, put the Republic of Serbia SAO Krajina, in

21     keeping with the decision that we subsequently saw; is that logical?

22        A.   Yes, that's absolutely logical.

23             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I have

24     no further questions.  And I'm awaiting your instructions as to when we

25     may deal with the second issue that my learned friend raised.


Page 19277

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You may deal with it immediately -- no, perhaps we

 2     first deal with a few other matters.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4                           Questioned by the Court:

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, I take you back to the document where

 6     all the posts are listed and where the names are filled in and where the

 7     existence or not of criminal record was recorded.  Do you remember that

 8     document?  You said it was used on a permanent basis.  I asked you about

 9     on what your conclusion was based.  I've heard your answer.  But I've one

10     or two additional questions.  If you say "on a permanent basis," from

11     when to when?  What period would be covered by that document?

12        A.   Your Honour, it should have been used from the moment when a unit

13     was established until the moment it was disbanded, which means for the

14     whole length of its existence.  I'm sure that it was used from 1993 when

15     the unit was established and thereafter.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Until?

17        A.   Probably until the moment when that unit was either disbanded or

18     reorganised.  I really don't know what term to use.  However, for as long

19     as that unit existed, that document must have been unit -- that document

20     must have existed, because that's the nature of the document.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But could you give me the second date, so from

22     August 1993 until when; more precisely, the date when it was disbanded or

23     the month?

24        A.   In my report it is stated when that was.  If you want me to, I

25     can go and read from my report.

Page 19278

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you just give the date --

 2        A.   Until the moment the special operations unit was established, and

 3     that was in 1996 when a new book of rules was established because a new

 4     unit, the unit for special operations, was established.  That is my

 5     opinion.  That's how things should have transpired, I believe.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, we find approximately 150 names filled in

 7     on this document where the number of posts was significantly higher.  Do

 8     you have any explanation for only such a small number of posts filled in

 9     with names and all the other posts just left open?

10        A.   Your Honour, it is customary for such documents to envisage more

11     posts than is realistic at any given time or at least at the time when

12     the unit is established.  There are usually more posts than persons who

13     are hired, but it's my assumption - and we're talking about facts - I'm

14     assuming that there is more posts because once the organisation is

15     established it's very difficult to add posts to it.  However, I have

16     already told you that I was not able to establish how many posts were

17     filled at any given moment in time.  I don't know how many people were

18     actually employed at times.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But it's approximately one-third only of the

20     posts being filled.  You said there were 438 posts, I think, only

21     one-third filled.  Is there any further explanation?  Because I can

22     imagine that you take a surplus of 10 per cent or 15 or 20 per cent, but

23     to say that the organisation is three times as big in -- than it really

24     was.  Do you know anything about it or do -- you just don't know anything

25     about it?

Page 19279

 1        A.   No, no.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now for a period of three years - and you are very

 3     much interpreting the document and you are thinking in terms of

 4     logic - now, for 150 -- approximately 150 posts filled in, would you

 5     consider it normal and would it be in accordance with, I would say

 6     general experience, that during those five years only five names were

 7     stricken out and often not even replaced by others, whereas all the

 8     others remain unchanged for a document of which you conclude that it was

 9     used on a permanent basis.

10        A.   I really know nothing about that and I can't comment on the

11     issue.  I don't know what I could say about it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I would --

13        A.   I apologise, Your Honours.  It's a fairly short period of time, a

14     three-year period, not a 30-year period.  So this is a fairly short

15     period of time, so perhaps that answers your question.  But I really

16     can't answer it in concrete terms because I have no knowledge about that

17     and I don't want to speculate about it in an unrealistic manner.  This is

18     a factual issue.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but directly related to your interpretation of

20     this document, would you agree?

21        A.   Yes, but as I have already emphasised - and I'll do that again if

22     necessary - in my opinion this is a public document and one assumes that

23     such public documents are correct unless the contrary has been proved.  I

24     have no reasons to have any doubts about this document, and this is the

25     basis on which I accepted the document when I worked and drafted -- when

Page 19280

 1     I worked on and drafted by expert report.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not exploring whether the report is true or not.

 3     I'm exploring your conclusion as what the character of this document is.

 4     And you say, well, for a period of three years changes, personnel

 5     changes - we do not even know whether stricken-out names are changes or

 6     errors or whatever - but 3 per cent in three years you consider quite

 7     normal for the composition of a unit -- I mean 3 per cent changes --

 8     possible changes in composition, you consider that in line with, I would

 9     say, general knowledge of staffing of a unit.  That is a change on the

10     basis of 1 per cent for a whole year for 150 persons.  Is that consistent

11     with your experience of how organisations are, the flow of persons within

12     an organisation?

13        A.   Your Honours, I don't have any actual experience in the matter.

14     I've already said why I accepted the document and why I deemed this

15     document to be a relevant one.  I really cannot say what percentage would

16     be realistic in relation to the changes in posts.  So I really have no

17     information to be sure about this.  It's difficult for me to assess

18     whether this is realistic or not.  I, quite simply, don't have any such

19     information.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Finally you are very much working terms of logic.

21     Do you find it logical that for three years in time no commander is

22     appointed for such a unit?

23        A.   I don't think it's illogical, since the deputy commander was

24     there throughout the period of time and performed his duties and in the

25     commander's absence the deputy commander performed his duties.  And in my

Page 19281

 1     opinion, there's nothing illogical or unrealistic or odd about that.

 2     There was an individual who performed all the necessary duties within

 3     that chain of command.  I have no other information.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I know that.  But it's not common for

 5     organisations to be without the top person for three years.  I mean, to

 6     say if the commander is not there his duties would be performed by the

 7     deputy commander, I would even think at a certain moment that you would

 8     say let's appoint the deputy commander commander because we do not intend

 9     to appoint a commander.  Why leave him in the position of deputy

10     commander?  It's -- you say you find it very -- well, not illogical.  Is

11     that logical?

12        A.   I don't know, Your Honours, why a commander was not appointed.

13     But it's logical for there to be an individual who was at the top of the

14     chain.  That was necessary for things to function normally.  But as for

15     the position of commander, and so on and so forth, well, that's a

16     specific position and perhaps that's why they didn't find anyone

17     adequate, anyone appropriate for that post.  But it's a factual issue and

18     it's something that should be explored with those who exercised a certain

19     influence over the decisions taken.  It would be logical if there wasn't

20     a person who was appropriate for that post.  That would be logical.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I move to a totally different matter,

22     which was your last answer given yesterday.  We went through that.  You

23     had some -- Mr. Petrovic.

24             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours, for

25     interrupting you.  But I think that the last sentence wasn't correctly

Page 19282

 1     interpreted.  I do apologise again for interrupting you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we should verify that first.  The last answer

 3     the witness gave a minute ago; that's the one you're referring to?

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [In English] Yes, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you guide me a bit more, at the beginning or

 6     at the end?

 7             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that the last

 8     sentence is ambiguous.  The last sentence in the last answer, I don't

 9     think it's sufficiently clear.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it make any sense if I would start reading by

11     it would -- at "it would be logical," or would you like me to start

12     reading earlier?

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The last two sentences,

14     Your Honour, the last two or three sentences.  I think that if one read

15     out the last two or three sentences, that would be sufficient to see

16     whether that is what the witness actually wanted to say.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             I read to you part of your last answer.  You said, when you had

19     commented on whether any adequate person could have been found, you said:

20             "But it's a factual issue and it's something that should be

21     explored with those who exercised a certain influence over the decisions

22     taken.  It would be logical if there was a person who wasn't appropriate

23     for that post.  That would be logical."

24             I understood that to be a logical explanation for not having

25     appointed a commander.  Is that what you intended to say?

Page 19283

 1        A.   It was difficult for me to follow all that.  What I wanted to say

 2     is that my opinion is that perhaps an adequate personnel solution was not

 3     found, and therefore the commander was not appointed.  They didn't find

 4     an appropriate person.  They didn't find an appropriate personnel

 5     solution.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If that's what you wanted to say, then the

 7     matter has been clarified, Mr. Petrovic.

 8             Finally talking about last answers, about yesterday, your last

 9     answer yesterday, I'll read to you - and this is only the informal

10     response at this moment - I'll read to you how it was translated to us

11     initially, and then I'll read to you how the corrected translation is.

12     You remember the sentence about the link and it was translated to us

13     yesterday as follows:

14             "Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked.

15     Somebody who is chief of sector or department and someone who is a

16     special advisor or who occupies a certain position" - that was how it was

17     translated to us yesterday.

18             Now, the amended interpretation reads as follows:

19             "Well, by virtue of their position they must have been linked in

20     some way.  Somebody who is chief of department and someone who is a

21     special advisor and prior to that a chief ..." that is how the corrected

22     translation is.

23             Is there any need for you to further clarify or to explain or are

24     you satisfied with how this translated now?  I do understand now of

25     course it's translated back to you.  If you would like to listen to what

Page 19284

 1     you said yesterday, we could play it for you.

 2        A.   No, no, there's no need, Your Honour.  But yesterday it says

 3     someone who was chief of sector.  You can see that here.  The sector is

 4     something else.  It's a narrow body.  This is better today, but I think

 5     these were my words, someone who is chief or the deputy chief, and so on

 6     and so forth, but it's not necessary to go into all the details.  I do

 7     agree with this.  Someone who had a certain position in the service

 8     should have been familiar with such things.  The translation is fine.

 9             I just didn't want this statement to be controversial in relation

10     to what I have testified here.  One of the accused was the chief of the

11     service and the other was the deputy chief.  I didn't want there to be

12     any problems.  I didn't want it to appear as if I had said something

13     else.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We wanted to have your words clear on the record.

15             Mr. Petrovic, the matter --

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we have heard the witness unless there is

18     any other translation issue involved here.

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but the latest problem is

20     page 50, line 14, the chief of the service and the other was the deputy,

21     but now it was not correctly interpreted.  It doesn't say the deputy of

22     what.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat, Mr. Milosevic.  One of the

24     accused was the chief of the service, and the other you said was chief --

25        A.   He was the deputy chief of the 2nd Administration; that means an


Page 19285

 1     administration within the service.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             I have no further questions.  If there are no questions further

 4     for the witness, this concludes your testimony, Mr. Milosevic.  You've

 5     showed the -- no.  Can we deal with the other matter when the witness has

 6     left or would we need to --

 7             MS. MARCUS:  From my perspective we can.  It was that I planned

 8     to tender the unsourced assertions agreement and we had offered the

 9     witness -- it's up to Mr. Petrovic.  From my perspective, I think based

10     on our agreement, I'm comfortable to tender it based on our discussions.

11     If Mr. Petrovic disagrees, then I just wanted to raise it before the

12     witness was excused.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, do we need the witness for that?

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not quite sure

15     about what my colleague has said.  Why?  Well, for the following reasons:

16     First, I would like to explain the process that we were involved in, my

17     learned friend and the Simatovic Defence.  I understood the instructions

18     and the purpose of the process, which is to assist colleagues from the

19     Prosecution to do their work when cross-examining Mr. Milosevic.  To that

20     end, we met last Friday and we tried to answer as many questions as

21     possible, questions put by my learned colleague.  But these are the

22     answers that we tried to provide on the basis of our knowledge without

23     having consulted Mr. Milosevic.  So what the document contains, the one

24     discussed by my colleague, concern our attempts to interpret the sources

25     that Mr. Milosevic had.  As to whether our interpretation is adequate or

Page 19286

 1     not, well that is an open question.  We have done our best to be of

 2     assistance, but as to whether everything is in accordance with

 3     Mr. Milosevic's position, well that can't be said.

 4             And there's one other thing I would like to point out --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just try to be clear.  What apparently the

 6     Prosecution intends to tender is a list of assertions and with it the

 7     position of the Prosecution as far as the sourcing is concerned and the

 8     position of the Defence as far as the source or basis of knowledge or

 9     expert opinion is concerned.  And it may be clear that this is not

10     verified with the witness itself; it's just the interpretation of the

11     parties.  Have I understood?

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

14             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I think the matter is clear -- Mr. Jordash.

16             MR. JORDASH:  If it's the appropriate time, I'd like to object to

17     that procedure.  In our submission, it's an attempt by the Prosecution to

18     make submissions at a time which is not appropriate and at a time when,

19     one, we the Stanisic Defence have not had an opportunity to contribute;

20     and two, many of those comments relate to paragraphs which may, in fact,

21     not be paragraphs where there's any contention between the Prosecution

22     and Defence; and thirdly, it's an issue also for resources, that the

23     Prosecution have a huge amount of resources.  They can sit there drafting

24     submissions and forcing the Defence into a position where they have to

25     respond to them at this stage and it's an advantage which they ought not

Page 19287

 1     to be able to use.  The time for submissions is coming up very soon and

 2     we can all make submissions about the reliability and the credibility of

 3     Mr. Milosevic's report.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Does it in any way bind the Stanisic Defence?  You

 5     say this is not the time for argument.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  I mean, we could have done the same with

 7     Theunens.  We could sit there and make submissions and say to the

 8     Prosecution, You've got to respond now.  I'm sure --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not know whether it's the position of the

10     Prosecution that the Stanisic Defence was to respond now or that it's

11     just put on the record what the position of the Simatovic Defence, who

12     called the expert witness, and the Prosecution is; no more, no less,

13     isn't it?

14             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry --

15             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             MR. JORDASH:  -- Your Honour, I'm not following what Your Honour

17     just said.  Sorry.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, two parties apparently find it relevant to

19     inform the Chamber as to their positions in relation to the sources,

20     basis of assertions which these two parties have found in the report,

21     leaving it entirely open whether the Stanisic Defence, at whatever time,

22     would like to present a different position.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Well, Your Honour, I'd understood -- maybe I've

24     misheard, and I may well have done that.  The Simatovic team objected to

25     this as well.  But if they don't then, well, I think I'll withdraw my

Page 19288

 1     objection.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I missed it, as a matter of fact.  It was --

 3     let me check with my colleagues.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, all three of us understood the position of the

 6     Simatovic Defence as not opposing what their position is, although

 7     sometimes briefly explained in this chart.  But if that is a

 8     misunderstanding, Mr. Petrovic, then please tell us.

 9             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I wasn't

10     sufficiently clear.  I've tried to explain the procedure, the purpose, of

11     what my learned friend and I did.  The process and objective was to

12     facilitate her cross-examination, and not to comment on the sources.  I

13     just wanted to be of assistance.  I didn't want to state anything that

14     might be considered to be evidence because I can't do that without the

15     person who was the author.  That's the first matter.  So this document in

16     itself is not reliable because it contains some of the Defence's

17     positions that are perhaps adequate and perhaps aren't adequate with

18     regard to what the witness would say if he was asked about this.

19             And then secondly, my learned friend's approach is such that with

20     regard to every sentence, with regard to every allegation, they want to

21     have a source.  They forget that this is an expert who expresses

22     opinions, who bases this on his expert experience, and all of this cannot

23     be referred to in a footnote.  So this approach excludes the validity of

24     this document.  It seems that if there are hundreds of allegations that

25     haven't been backed up and that's quite simply not the case because we

Page 19289

 1     have an expert witness here and the expert has his own knowledge and his

 2     own experience.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So what you want to say is that you object, after

 4     having explained what happened?

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In brief, yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll -- then we don't need the witness

 7     any further for this.  I think we should first excuse the witness.

 8             Ms. Marcus, you would agree that we can deal with the matter

 9     without the witness.

10             Mr. Milosevic, this concludes your testimony in this court.  I

11     would like to thank you very much for coming a long way and for patiently

12     answering all the questions that were put to you during quite a number of

13     days.  I wish you a safe return home again.  You may follow the usher.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15                           [The witness withdrew]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we move to the next witness, Ms. Marcus, you

17     said you intended to tender it.  May I take it that you hereby have

18     tendered it?

19             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's uploaded as 65 ter 6490.

20     Now, the earlier version prior to our meeting was translated into B/C/S,

21     but of course we made revisions to it jointly.  So the revised version

22     will have to be submitted for translation.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.

24             MS. MARCUS:  [Overlapping speakers] this -- that is this version,

25     yes.


Page 19290

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I think -- but the gist of the document the Chamber

 2     can assess on the basis of what we have seen.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  I believe so, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then would you like to add anything in support

 5     of admission?

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Only to point out that frankly I

 7     understand Mr. -- I agree with Mr. Petrovic's assessment of what this is.

 8     These -- he did endeavour to assist us and we're -- appreciate that.

 9     These were assertions in the report which we couldn't determine what the

10     source was.  We just couldn't determine it.  Now, it may be because we

11     missed something, but that was the purpose of having our meeting.  And as

12     a result, a number of lines were taken out and the Defence had an

13     opportunity to explain their position as to the parts of the report,

14     which although we say are not sourced and there should have been a

15     source, where their view is that his academic knowledge is the source, so

16     his expertise.  So I think this is -- this is a submission.  I'm in the

17     Chamber's hands as to whether it should be filed as a written submission

18     or admitted as an exhibit for the Chamber's reference.  And I think it's

19     quite clear what this is.

20             Now, with respect to Mr. Jordash's point about him not having had

21     an opportunity, I'm in the Chamber's hands.  It's true, he didn't join in

22     the discussion.  He may have the Stanisic Defence's view to input onto

23     this.  And so for that I leave that in the hands of the Chamber.  I think

24     it's quite clear -- I should also add one more point.  This does contain

25     a lot of information about what the potential sources are.  Without this,

Page 19291

 1     the Chamber might not have access to those sources.  It's a

 2     cross-referencing tool.  Some of it is clearly explained and I left those

 3     in.  We agreed to leave those in to assist the Chamber because some of

 4     Mr. Petrovic's guidance as to which paragraphs were actually sourced to

 5     the same document, et cetera, were quite helpful, in fact.  So this is

 6     essentially a tool to assist the Chamber with the Prosecution and

 7     Simatovic Defence positions.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, your position was specifically referred

 9     to.  Any further comment?

10             MR. JORDASH:  Only that it -- it's -- in our submission, it's

11     just not fair that the Prosecution can effectively raise a subject during

12     cross-examination -- during examination of a witness as if it's pivotal

13     to the examination of the witness, and then having obtained the

14     information from the Defence then say, Well, actually now it's a

15     submission.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, brief, please.

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a few sentences.

18     If someone claims that there are dozens or hundreds of allegations that

19     haven't been backed up in the expert report, the best method to deal with

20     the matter is to ask the person what the allegation is.  The Defence was

21     asked about this after the witness had taken the solemn declaration.  The

22     Defence has been doing its best, but the Defence has certain limits

23     because we're in a different position from the position of the witness.

24     And from what point of view the value of this material is limited, if

25     non-existent.  What the Defence thinks is -- perhaps is in accordance

Page 19292

 1     with what the witness might say, perhaps not.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies admission of the document,

 4     Ms. Marcus.  Now, of course it -- Madam Registrar, purely for the record,

 5     do we need to know what document was denied admission because then it has

 6     to -- if we have the 65 ter number, then we don't need --

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, I can state, yes, that's the

 8     document 6490.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And admission is denied.

10             Then I'm looking at the clock.  I think we should take a break

11     now, resume at 12.30, and then hear the next witness.  But I can imagine

12     that we'd first like to deal with the matter in private session for a

13     second.  But if there's anything else at this moment.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I was just wanting to note, it would be

15     our request to deal with the documents in connection with this witness as

16     soon as possible.  I don't know what your -- what the Chamber was

17     planning in terms of timing of that.  There are quite a lot of pending

18     exhibits that haven't been tendered, and Your Honour has requested that

19     we be proactive in trying to not put things off for housekeeping

20     sessions.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MS. MARCUS:  So in line with Your Honour's instructions.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We -- Madam Registrar, I think you have looked

24     at the many documents on the list to be tendered.  There was one double

25     in it.  There was one marked not admitted, if I remember well.

Page 19293

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar needs a bit more time to digest the

 3     list which she received only this morning.  That's -- and that time will

 4     be given to her.

 5             Mr. Petrovic.

 6             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one more

 7     sentence that maybe should have been uttered earlier.  At the

 8     Prosecutor's request, the expert has prepared a list of literature and

 9     explanations.  We received that through the Victims and Witnesses Unit.

10     This has been uploaded as 2D1689 and I believe that this should be joined

11     to the list of documents for admission.  We still don't have a

12     translation for the document.  This is pending, but I believe that this

13     will be provided shortly because the document was submitted through the

14     Victims and Witnesses Unit on Monday, if I'm not mistaken.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Pending translation, we'll of course not admit the

16     document, but would there be any principled objection against having it

17     admitted once the translation is there?

18             MS. MARCUS:  No objection, Your Honour.  In fact, we would also

19     like it to be admitted.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then 2D1689 is marked for identification under what

21     number, Madam Registrar?

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Under number D853, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And we are waiting for the translation.

24             Madam Registrar, the documents which were tendered by the

25     Simatovic Defence, do we now have the -- have the parties received the


Page 19294

 1     list with the numbers and the documents?

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Not yet, Your Honour.  The list will be filed

 3     this afternoon.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Will be filed this afternoon.  Then we'll decide

 5     once it's there on admission.

 6             Then finally I'd like to go and -- unless if you'd prefer to have

 7     the break now, we'll take the break now.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, please.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And we'll start after the break briefly in private

10     session.  We take a break and we'll resume at 25 minutes to 1.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to start with delivering an oral decision,

14     which is the decision on the Prosecution's request to re-call

15     Radenko Novakovic.  Radenko Novakovic testified as a Stanisic Defence

16     witness before this Chamber from the 4th to the 7th of October, 2011.

17     During his testimony, the Prosecution indicated the possibility of a

18     future request to re-call the witness in order to confront him with

19     materials yet to be received from the Republic of Serbia.  The Chamber

20     subsequently instructed the witness not to communicate or speak about his

21     past or future testimony until further notice of his possible re-call.

22     The discussion and instruction can be found on transcript pages 14168 up

23     to 14170 and 14221 of the trial transcript.

24             On the 24th of April, 2012, the Prosecution filed a confidential

25     motion seeking leave to re-call Witness Radenko Novakovic for further

Page 19295

 1     cross-examination.  On the 1st of May the Simatovic Defence orally

 2     submitted that it did not oppose the motion.  On the 3rd of May, the

 3     Stanisic Defence informed the parties and the Chamber through an informal

 4     communication, which is hereby put on the record, that it did not object

 5     to the re-call of Witness Novakovic.

 6             In its motion, the Prosecution seeks further cross-examination on

 7     witness-related documents that the Serbian authorities made available or

 8     made available in unredacted form only after the testimony of

 9     Witness Novakovic.  The Prosecution also argues that the Stanisic Defence

10     had not given proper notice of the elicited testimony and of related

11     documents before the witness began to testify.  Finally, the Prosecution

12     wishes to question Witness Novakovic about a document relating to members

13     of the alleged joint criminal enterprise, which was purportedly authored

14     by the witness but tendered by the Stanisic Defence only after his

15     testimony, as well as to confront him with entries from the Mladic

16     notebooks.

17             Pursuant to the Tribunal's case law, a Chamber shall, in

18     determining whether there are sufficient grounds to re-call a witness,

19     consider whether the requesting party has demonstrated good cause to

20     re-call the witness.  In assessing good cause, the Chamber will consider

21     the purpose of re-calling the witness and the applicant's justification

22     for not eliciting the relevant evidence from the witness when he or she

23     originally testified.

24             In determining whether the Prosecution has shown good cause to

25     re-call Witness Novakovic, the Chamber takes into account that the

Page 19296

 1     witness's personnel file was only received by the Prosecution on the

 2     8th of November, 2011.  Similarly, there were other documents that were

 3     provided to the Prosecution by the Defence only after the testimony of

 4     Witness Novakovic.

 5             The Chamber also considers that the Prosecution may not have been

 6     in a position to assess the relevance of previously redacted documents.

 7     The Chamber considers that the Prosecution was not fully able to question

 8     the witness in respect of the redacted document and was not able to

 9     question the witness at all in respect of the documents not yet in its

10     possession.  As regards the Mladic diary entries, the Prosecution has not

11     explicitly argued good cause for why it did not put those to the witness

12     at the time of his original testimony.  Nonetheless, taking into account

13     that there are no objections to the witness's re-call and the fact that

14     the missing documents may also have hindered the Prosecution's ability to

15     assess the relevance of documents already in its possession, the Chamber

16     will not limit the parameters of the re-call in relation to the Mladic

17     diary entries mentioned in the Prosecution motion.

18             Based on the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the Prosecution

19     has shown good cause to re-call Witness Radenko Novakovic and therefore

20     grants the motion.

21             The Chamber reminds the parties that they continue to be under an

22     obligation to refrain from any contact with the witness prior to the

23     conclusion of his testimony, as they have been since the

24     7th of October, 2011, when the Chamber gave its instructions to the

25     witness.  In addition, the Stanisic Defence is hereby instructed to


Page 19297

 1     ensure through the Victims and Witnesses Section that the witness is

 2     informed about this decision and that he appears directly after the

 3     conclusion of the testimony of the last Simatovic Defence witness.  The

 4     Chamber also invites the Prosecution to inform as soon as possible the

 5     parties and the Chamber of the estimated time needed for the

 6     cross-examination of Witness Novakovic.  This concludes the Chamber's

 7     decision.

 8             We move into private session.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 19298











11 Pages 19298-19305 redacted. Private session.
















Page 19306

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9             Mr. Plahuta, you have already given your solemn declaration when

10     we were in private session.  You'll now first be examined by Mr. Bakrac.

11     Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.

12             Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.

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

14                           Examination by Mr. Bakrac:

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Plahuta.

16        A.   Good day.

17        Q.   Before I commence, I would like to ask you that since we speak

18     the same language, you should make a brief break between questions and

19     answers so that the interpreters can correctly interpret my questions and

20     your answers.

21        A.   Very well.

22        Q.   I apologise, Your Honours.  The interpreters are suggesting that

23     I use this.  With your leave, just a moment.

24             Mr. Plahuta, be so kind to tell us for the sake of the transcript

25     your date of birth and place of birth.


Page 19307

 1        A.   The 10th of December, 1970, in Kladovo, in the Republic of

 2     Serbia.

 3        Q.   Your name is Dejan Plahuta.  Do you have a nickname that you are

 4     known by?

 5        A.   Svabo [phoen].

 6        Q.   Could you tell us something about your educational background.

 7     When did you complete your schooling?

 8        A.   I completed primary school in Bajina Basta where I enrolled in

 9     the secondary mechanical school.  I didn't complete my education in that

10     school.  At the time I was more attracted by the army and by work.  After

11     the army I could complete my education later, which is what I

12     subsequently did.

13        Q.   If I have understood you correctly, you completed or you

14     interrupted your education in the secondary mechanical school, and what

15     did you do then?

16        A.   When I interrupted my education, I went to perform my military

17     service in Knjazevac.

18        Q.   Could you tell us when you performed your military service and

19     when did you return from your military service and where to?

20        A.   I performed my military service in the very same year, in 1998

21     [as interpreted], September 1998, and I went to Knjazevac to perform my

22     military service there.  I spent several months there, and I was then

23     sent to be a part of the border service, and that was at the border with

24     Bulgaria.  I returned one year later in 1989.

25        Q.   When you say that you returned, where did you return in 1989?

Page 19308

 1        A.   In 1989 I returned to my place of residence which is Perucac in

 2     Bajina Basta.

 3        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, the transcript says that you went to perform your

 4     military service in 1988.  Let's just try and correct that.  Is that

 5     correct, when did you go to perform your military service?

 6        A.   In 1988 and 1989.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Plahuta, when you returned to Bajina Basta, what

 8     did you do up until 1990?

 9        A.   When I returned to Bajina Basta, I found a job in a state-owned

10     company called Pik Takovo in Gornji Milanovac.  It had a branch in our

11     area and that's where I found a job.

12        Q.   Can you tell us how long you worked in that firm Pik Takovo and

13     what happened when you left?

14        A.   I worked in Pik Takovo for one year until the end of 1990.  I was

15     there for a year and then it was no longer necessary to work there

16     because half of the company had stopped working and I then went to

17     Bajina Basta for a military exercise.  I was called to go to Bajina Basta

18     for a military exercise.

19        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, this is just an introduction, but very briefly

20     within which military unit were you?  How long were you involved in this

21     military exercise?  And where was this?

22        A.   I spent about two months in that military exercise.  It was in

23     Zaovine, and it was with the border service of the Uzice Corps because

24     the Uzice Corps -- well, it covered our area, the whole area,

25     Bajina Basta.  Throughout the area we had the Uzice Corps.  I remained

Page 19309

 1     there for about two months.  This procedure was a regular procedure and

 2     every soldier would go through that procedure after he had performed his

 3     military service.  This had to be done after a certain period of time had

 4     expired.

 5        Q.   Afterwards were you called up again at some point in time to join

 6     the army, the JNA at the time?

 7        A.   Well, afterwards, after that I was called up in 1992 and, no,

 8     earlier than that.  Before that I worked in a company for a year.  Then I

 9     was called to join the regular, active army, the Army of Yugoslavia or

10     the JNA as it was called at the time.

11        Q.   Can you tell us when this was, who called you up, and to join

12     which unit?  How did you join the unit in question?

13        A.   That was perhaps in September 1992.  They called us.  There was

14     some sort of a competition for contractor soldiers, for professional

15     soldiers.  I -- whoever responded would go to the military department in

16     Bajina Basta, they would register there, and afterwards the individual

17     would be deployed in units on the border at the Drina, and this was

18     within the framework of the Uzice Corps naturally.

19        Q.   Did you sign some sort of a contract with the Uzice Corps at the

20     time; and, if so, for how long?

21        A.   Well, I signed a contract in October for a period of six months.

22     I signed this contract with the Army of Yugoslavia.  And at the time I

23     was deployed in Bajina Basta in the village of Bacevci, and I was part of

24     the border service or I think it was the Border Battalion of the

25     Uzice Corps.

Page 19310

 1        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, for the sake of the transcript you said in October

 2     you signed a six-month contract with the army.  In October of which year?

 3        A.   1992, in October 1992.

 4        Q.   When you signed the contract you said that you were first in the

 5     village of Bacevci.  What sort of duties did you have to perform there

 6     and where were you transferred to in order to complete the remainder of

 7     your contract there?

 8        A.   I spent about a month, a month and a half, in the village of

 9     Bacevci and we went on patrol along the border by the Drina River there.

10     Afterwards, as my place of residence was in Perucac, they helped me by

11     sending me to Kralu [phoen] in Perucac about a month later.  That was at

12     the beginning of December of the same year.  Naturally, I had the same

13     duties.  I had to go and patrol and protect the state border there.

14        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, when your contract with the army expired, did you

15     extend it; and, if not, why not?

16        A.   No, I did not extend it.  I did not extend my contract with the

17     army.  I had a minor clash with an officer in relation to a certain

18     incident, so naturally as my existence depended on this we went to see

19     some officer who was responsible for that domain.  We asked:  Will we

20     remain here after the contract has expired?  Will we still have duties to

21     perform?  And then he was brazen and there was a squabble.  He said, Why

22     should I care about you?  Something like that.  My contract expired a few

23     days earlier -- in fact, we left the Army of Yugoslavia before the

24     contract expired, a few days before that.

25        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, while your contract was still valid and when you

Page 19311

 1     were in Kralu in Perucac, do you know whether there was an attack of any

 2     kind launched against Skelani and Bajina Basta; and, if that was the

 3     case, do you remember when it was launched?

 4        A.   Since it's the village of Skelani, it's the the border of our

 5     sector that our Kralu protected.  Naser Oric attacked Skelani in

 6     January 1993.  This was in mid-January at the time of the Serbian new

 7     year.  I can't remember the exact date.  Was it a day earlier or a day

 8     later -- but it was the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 16th.  It was during that

 9     period that the attack was launched.

10        Q.   Were there any consequences of the attack for the bridge in

11     Bajina Basta and for the town of Bajina Basta?

12        A.   Yes.  Fire was opened from a Browning 12.7-millimetre

13     machine-gun.  I think that was the calibre because the cartridges were

14     found.  The bridge and town were fired on and two mortar shells fell in

15     the very centre of the town on that same day.

16        Q.   When you say in the very centre of the town, what town do you

17     have in mind?

18        A.   Bajina Basta.  Only a bridge separates Bajina Basta from Skelani.

19        Q.   Can you tell us how the population reacted to that attack?

20        A.   The population started fleeing the town over the next few days

21     because fire was opened on several occasions and there was a random

22     bullet trace here and there.  People started looking for shelter.  They

23     started locking themselves in their apartments and the town was literally

24     deserted.  Only the troops were there, nobody else.

25        Q.   Was that an alert sounded and were there any other forces besides

Page 19312

 1     the regular army troops?

 2        A.   We were on first degree -- or a first-level alert in our

 3     border-crossing service.  We had to be prepared for combat.  Everybody

 4     had to return from furlough, from vacation.  They all had to return.  And

 5     the police, together with us, stepped up their activities on the border

 6     crossing.  They patrolled the area in their cars.  They surveilled the

 7     area in certain places.

 8        Q.   At the moment of attack where were you?

 9        A.   At the moment of attack I was in Perucac in the barracks on the

10     border crossing.

11        Q.   The attack that we are discussing at the moment, did it result in

12     the forces from Bajina Basta in the territory of Serbia crossing over to

13     the territory of Skelani and Republika Srpska?

14        A.   Yes.  Over the next several days some elements of the Uzice Corps

15     crossed over as well as the corps of the special forces of the

16     Army of Yugoslavia.  They were on the strength of the 63rd Parachute, the

17     72nd Brigade and the special brigade.  Those were special forces in our

18     army.

19        Q.   You said the 63rd Parachute, the 72nd Brigade, and you also

20     mentioned a third unit?

21        A.   Yes, I mentioned the Guards Brigade.

22        Q.   Did some police forces cross over?

23        A.   No police forces crossed over.  There was no need for them to

24     cross over to the territory of a different state, to come to Skelani, to

25     be more precise.

Page 19313

 1        Q.   Could you please tell me how do you know that?  How do you know

 2     that the police forces didn't cross over?

 3        A.   Because at my watch-tower, at my border crossing, we followed the

 4     rule according to which the soldiers and the officers at the watch-tower

 5     and the border crossing had to be kept up to speed.  The commander thus

 6     told us which forces had crossed over and that the police were only doing

 7     their job on the other side, that we should co-operate with them, that we

 8     should agree with them as to what to do during night patrols, day

 9     patrols, if they put up their surveillance service we should not overlap

10     with them.  We were in contact all the time with the police, so I know --

11     I'm a hundred per cent sure that what I'm saying is true.

12        Q.   Do you know if the Uzice Corps, once the troops crossed the

13     Drina River ended up in the territory of Skelani municipality, had some

14     sort of co-ordination, some sort of relationship with some of the forces

15     from Republika Srpska?

16        A.   As far as I know and based on what my commander told us, they

17     relied on the Drina Battalion of the Army of Republika Srpska.

18        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, can we now look at a document, 2D1667.  While we are

19     waiting for the document to appear on the screen, this seems to be a

20     document issued by the Drina Corps on the 25th of January, 1993.  It was

21     sent to the command of the Uzice Corps to Drina OG through the 1st Army

22     operations centre.  It says here the Drina Corps is engaged in

23     accomplishing the task's code name Proboj, and there is a reference to

24     the contact line with the enemy.  Do you know, are you familiar with the

25     places mentioned in here, the villages of Kamenica, Cerska, Skugric,

Page 19314

 1     Pobudje, Slatina, Suceska, Gunjace, and Podrinje village.  Do the names

 2     ring a bell?

 3        A.   I heard of those villages.  I know more or less where they are,

 4     but I've never been there so I can't tell you that.  I know them, they do

 5     ring a bell.  They're not far from the border.

 6        Q.   And what about the village of Sase, does that ring a bell?

 7        A.   Yes, it does.  I heard of that village.

 8        Q.   A bit later I'm going to show you a map and we're going to try to

 9     locate those villages in that map.  And now let me ask you, does it say

10     in the penultimate paragraph:

11             "We shall endeavour to cut the Zeleni Jadar-Zepa road."

12             Do you know where Zeleni Jadar is?  What road is this document

13     about between Zeleni Jadar and Zepa?

14        A.   I know where Zeleni Jadar is.  I know where Zepa is as well.

15     Zepa is up the stream from our sector where we secured the state border.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Plahuta.

17             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to show

18     the witness two or three more documents where some places are mentioned.

19     And then I would like to ask the help of the witness to reconstruct the

20     locations of those places in a map.

21             Can we now look at 2D1670.

22        Q.   And while we're waiting, Mr. Plahuta, the document was compiled a

23     day later on the 26th of January.  It seems that the command of the

24     Uzice Corps sent a dispatch to the Main Staff of the

25     Army of Republika Srpska to the command of the Drina Corps, that is.

Page 19315

 1     Tell us, please, before you look at the document, who was the commander

 2     of the Uzice Corps while you were there?

 3        A.   General Ojdanic.

 4        Q.   I would like to draw your attention to the second bullet point in

 5     this document, where it says:

 6             "Part of the forces used so far to provide artillery support will

 7     be retained on the right bank of the Drina River, from where we will lend

 8     support to your forces as per plan and request."

 9             First of all, do you know anything about the artillery support

10     that was provided by the Uzice Corps to the Drina Corps?

11        A.   As far as I know, that was done at two places.  One of those

12     places was Oslusa on Tara mountain and the other one was the

13     Perucac-Mitrovac road.

14        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, under 3 it says:

15             "The Uzice Corps will continue operations in order to seize the

16     most favourable features and positions.  We will duly inform you of the

17     time to take over the lines reached by way of a separate order."

18             When we're talking about seizing the most favourable features and

19     positions and lines reached, what part of the territory is meant?

20        A.   I suppose that it was the part of the territory in East Bosnia,

21     which they wanted to liberate from Naser Oric's forces.

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now look at

23     2D1671.

24        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, this is a telegram seemingly again from the

25     commander of the Uzice Corps, Dragoljub Ojdanic.  It was compiled on the

Page 19316

 1     27th of January, 1993.  Under 3 there is a reference to the line that the

 2     Uzice Corps had taken up.  And it says:

 3             "Up until now we have inflicted losses on the enemy in the

 4     village of Mlecova, Jagodnja, Joseva, Daljegosta, Arapovici, Pavkovic,

 5     Tihici, Milicevici, Osmace, Tokoljak and Jezero."

 6             Are you familiar with these names?  Do you know where these

 7     villages are?

 8        A.   These villages are all in East Bosnia and they are all close.

 9     Some are closer and some are further away from the state border, but they

10     are all in the same sector, more or less.

11        Q.   In here we can see that TG 2 will attack in order to take the

12     village of Kusici, Kadrici, and further on towards the village that that

13     attack will continue.  Are you familiar with the names of the villages of

14     Kusici as well as Jezero or the lake?

15        A.   Yes, Kusici does ring a bell.  I'm also familiar with Jezero

16     lake.  Once upon a time a fair -- a village fair used to be held there.

17     It's a plateau in East Bosnia and I'm familiar with the village of Kusici

18     because --

19        Q.   Mr. Plahuta, I just wanted to show you that map.  My time is

20     running out.  I want to connect the three documents.  I would like to

21     call up for 2D1688.  It's the map that I referred to earlier.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  But looking at the clock, Mr. Bakrac, I think the

23     map has to be dealt with tomorrow because we'll adjourn for the day.

24             Mr. Plahuta, we would like to see you back because we're not

25     sitting tomorrow.  We'd like to see you back in the afternoon of


Page 19317

 1     Monday, the 14th, at quarter past 2.00.  I think it will be in the same

 2     courtroom, but you'll be informed about that.  Madam Registrar says that

 3     we're in the same courtroom.

 4             I have to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone

 5     about your testimony, whether that is testimony you have given today or

 6     testimony still to be given next week, not only not to speak or not to

 7     communicate in any way with anyone about your testimony.

 8             Mr. Bakrac, I observed that the evidence you have elicited from

 9     the witness over the last ten minutes is whether the witness knows where

10     certain places are and where these places are.  I think one minute with

11     the map could have provided that information.  I do not think that

12     there's much dispute between the Prosecution and the Defence about

13     geographical matters.  So therefore, whether we really have to show a map

14     to the witness and spend another five or seven minutes to find out where

15     these locations are, I wonder whether that's the most efficient way of

16     proceeding.  You asked him one question about the most favourable

17     features.  That was the one question of any substance and then the

18     witness answered:  I suppose.  Apparently he was not familiar with the

19     document.

20             Could you please keep that in mind when preparing for the

21     continuation of your examination-in-chief.  We adjourn for the day and

22     we'll resume Monday, the 14th of May, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon

23     in this same courtroom, 2.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of

Page 19318

 1                           May, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.