Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19967

 1                           Thursday, 31 May 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

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

10     and Franko Simatovic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

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

13     by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday that you'll speak the

14     truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15             If you are ready, Mr. Weber, then you may proceed.

16             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

17                           WITNESS:  RADENKO NOVAKOVIC [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please move into private

20     session.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.  I take it that you

22     want the whole Chamber to move into private session, not only the

23     Prosecution.

24             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please.


Page 19968

 1             [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in private session, Your Honour.

 3                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]

 4        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.

 5        A.   Good morning.

 6        Q.   Yesterday I showed you an image and asked if you recognised

 7     Mihajlo Lukic.  Today I am now going to play a video-clip, and could you

 8     please watch this clip and the individuals depicted in it.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I'm now going to ask Mr. Laugel to play

10     a clip from Exhibit P1592.  The clip will commence playing at the

11     1:59 mark, and I've asked Mr. Laugel to pause the clip after

12     approximately 11 seconds.  The Prosecution is going to play the clip

13     without any sound.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MR. WEBER:

16        Q.   The clip is now paused at the 2:10 mark.  Mr. Novakovic, are you

17     able to identify Mihajlo Lukic in this video?

18        A.   It looks like him.  This one person looks like him, but I cannot

19     say with any certainty that it's him.  You know, it was how many years

20     ago?

21        Q.   The one person that you believe to be him, what is that person

22     wearing in the video?

23        A.   He's not on this still.

24        Q.   I understand that, sir.  Do you recall what he was wearing in the

25     video?

Page 19969

 1        A.   Well, that's the reason why I'm not sure, because I've never seen

 2     him in uniform.  I'm not sure if that's the person in uniform.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please return to open session.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, before we do that, the witness says he's

 5     not on -- the person he thinks or looks like Mr. Lukic is not on this

 6     still.  Now, what is the Chamber supposed to understand?  Is there any

 7     portion where Mr. Lukic is seen so that we are able to follow the

 8     evidence?

 9             MR. WEBER:  We do have a still from this portion that we showed

10     yesterday I can call back up to the screen, if it's -- that would be

11     D744, page 5.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. WEBER:  I can ask if that's the individual that he believes

14     again.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps that would be good.

16             MR. WEBER:  Okay.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Because I do not know why we stop here, where the

18     supposed Mr. Lukic is not visible, rather than at any other spot where

19     one could see him, for the witness also to describe any -- but if you say

20     the still would do better, then that's okay as far as I'm concerned.

21     Then I wonder what the video was good for, but ...

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I was just trying to give the

23     opportunity to the witness to view the full images, and I understand your

24     concern.

25             Could we please have Exhibit D744, page 5.

Page 19970

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, in the image that is before you, do you see the

 4     person that you believe to be Mihajlo Lukic from the video-clip that we

 5     just saw?

 6        A.   Looking at this still, it could be Mihajlo Lukic.

 7        Q.   Yes.

 8        A.   But I'm not sure.  I cannot be sure.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Could the court usher please hand the witness a pen

10     and could the witness please then circle the individual that he believes

11     to be Mihajlo Lukic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Which he believes to be possibly --

13             MR. WEBER:  Possibly.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Mihajlo Lukic.

15             MR. WEBER:  Just so we have a clear record.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would

19     tender the marked still image.

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

21             THE REGISTRAR:  The number for D744 marked by the witness will be

22     P3167, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  P3167 is admitted into evidence.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, since it is identifying a member -- a

25     former member of the operative, we would ask that it be provisionally

Page 19971

 1     under seal.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Former members are -- I don't know.  That is not

 3     within the ruling, is it?

 4             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  I was being --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Sources, BIA operatives, and locations.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Understood.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Could we please return to open session.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We return into open session.

10                           [Open session]

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             MR. WEBER:

14        Q.   At transcript page 14074 of your testimony last fall, you

15     indicated that you could not recall whether you received a salary

16     increase between the 10th of July and the 10th of August, 1995.  On that

17     same page, you stated, in response to a question to whether you received

18     a per diem in July or August 1995:

19             "Well, I cannot tell you exactly.  It was 17 years ago."

20             Yesterday, at transcript page 19963, you stated in response to my

21     question about a 20 per cent salary increase in October 1995 the

22     following:

23             "Look, in July and August 1995, I was also in the Krajina, and I

24     believe my salary was then increased by 50 per cent."

25             On the next page you stated:


Page 19972

 1             "From the 5th or 6th of July, I believe, until the 5th or

 2     6th of August, 1995, that was the time I was in the Republic of Serbian

 3     Krajina."

 4             What is the reason that you now recall the exact amount of your

 5     salary increase, where you were assigned in July and August 1995, and the

 6     precise dates of your assignment?

 7        A.   Let me tell you.  You showed me a decision that I signed,

 8     increasing my salary by 50 per cent.  The period when I was in the

 9     Republic Serbian Krajina is a period I now remember was exactly that.  So

10     my salary was increased for that period by 50 per cent, and I was

11     separately rewarded by 20 per cent more in salary, although I was already

12     back in Serbia, and I believe that that was a reward for the jobs that I

13     had done.

14        Q.   Sir, just so it's clear:  At the time that you made the comment,

15     is it correct that I had just shown you a salary increase of 20 per cent

16     in October 1995?

17        A.   From the papers and the documents you showed me, I see that it

18     was, and I believe if you got these documents from my personnel file,

19     then they must be authentic.

20        Q.   Last fall you testified about one occasion where you were in the

21     Krajina between November and December 1994.  Why do you now recall being

22     assigned to the Krajina on a second occasion between July and

23     August 1995?

24        A.   You mean why I didn't mention it then?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

Page 19973

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have a page number, please.

 2             MR. WEBER:  T14002 to -3.

 3        Q.   I'm sorry, sir.  Could you repeat your answer.

 4        A.   I'm sorry, are you asking me how come I did not mention then that

 5     I had been there also in July and August 1995 when I was speaking about

 6     November and December 1994?

 7        Q.   I'm asking you how you recall today that you were in the Krajina

 8     in July and August 1995.  That's my -- the gist of my question.  Could

 9     you tell us how you recall that today?

10        A.   When I was here before, we discussed the time periods that you

11     asked about, the time lines you asked about, and I answered those

12     questions.  I wasn't talking about July 1995 or 1996 or 1997.  There are

13     many things that I remember I did in 1996, for instance.  When you put a

14     question, I answer to the best of my recollection.

15        Q.   Sir, when I asked you whether you received a salary increase in

16     July and August 1995 when you were last here, what is the reason that you

17     did not recall being assigned to the Krajina at that time?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Same pages, Mr. Weber?

19             MR. WEBER:  That would be page 14074 where I asked him about

20     that.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember.  Maybe I

22     overlooked it.  It was such a long time ago, you know.

23             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please return to 65 ter 6545,

24     page 3 of the B/C/S and page 5 of the English translation.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, could I just -- I do think that it would be

Page 19974

 1     more fair to the witness, if my learned friend is going to -- because

 2     I've just read the transcript, and it's hard to keep up, but --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please, Mr. Weber, if you put something to

 4     the witness what he said, then to read the question and answer, and if

 5     it's too much, the gist of it and with the precise page reference.

 6             MR. WEBER:

 7        Q.   Sir, before you there's a decision dated July 13 of 1995 from a

 8     Milan Prodanic, the head of the 8th Administration.  This decision

 9     indicates that you received a 50 per cent salary increase because you

10     were deployed for the execution of official duties in Prizren from 10

11     July 1995 to 10 August 1995.  Directing your attention to the lower left

12     corner --

13             MR. WEBER:  Could we please have the bottom of the document.

14        Q.   Does your signature appear on this document?

15        A.   Yes.  That's the signature without a date.  I signed that I

16     received it.

17             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

18     65 ter 6545 into evidence and requests that this exhibit be placed under

19     seal.  The Prosecution is tendering the five excerpts that -- from his

20     personnel file that have been discussed with the witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 6545 will receive number P3168,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

25             Let me just check, Mr. Weber.  Any need to have it under seal?

Page 19975

 1     Yes, under seal.  Admitted under seal.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   You testified at transcript page 14017 that you were in Visegrad

 4     on the 1st or 2nd of June, 1995.  I'd like to ask you whether or not you

 5     saw any Red Berets in Visegrad at this time.

 6        A.   I don't remember on what occasion I went to Visegrad what the

 7     incident was.  Could you tell me more about my testimony then?

 8        Q.   On page 14017, Mr. Jordash asked you:

 9             "When did you attend Visegrad?"

10             Your answer was:

11             "It could have been either the 1st or 2nd of June as far as I can

12     remember.  I -- I mean, I believe it was the 2nd of June.  I really can't

13     remember the exact date after such a long time.

14             "Q. Fair enough and --

15             Then His Honour said:

16             "And we are talking about the hostage crisis.  Who are the

17     hostages?"

18             Sir, I believe this was in relation to your --

19        A.   [No interpretation]

20        Q.   -- if that refreshes your recollection.  During this occasion,

21     did you see any Red Berets in Visegrad?

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

24             Mr. Petrovic.

25             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object, and I

Page 19976

 1     would appreciate it if my learned friend would be more precise when he

 2     says Red Berets.  Because this is a highly sensitive issue in this case,

 3     would he please tell the witness which unit precisely he means.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- this is comment on the question.  If the

 5     witness -- this is inappropriate, Mr. Petrovic.  You should refrain from

 6     making observations which could even be understood as messages.

 7             The witness may answer the question.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then in Visegrad I didn't see any

 9     Red Berets.  I believe I stated in my testimony at an earlier trial that

10     I was met by a representative of the State Security Department of

11     Republika Srpska and somebody from the VRS.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   At transcript page 14036 of your earlier testimony, you were

14     asked the following question:

15             "Following the massacres in Srebrenica, was there any issue which

16     arose as a result of Muslims fleeing those events?"

17             Your answer was:

18             "In the area of the Uzice centre in that period, there was a

19     large influx from the area of Zepa to the area of the Uzice centre.  I

20     cannot recall the exact time-frame.  I think it could be August."

21             Is it correct --

22        A.   [No interpretation]

23        Q.   Is it correct that this -- that you understood this question and

24     answer related to events which occurred in July and August of 1995?

25        A.   Yes.  Yes.  It was July/August 1995.  I don't know the exact time

Page 19977

 1     period, but I know that after those activities in Zepa a large number of

 2     civilians fled to the territory of Uzice, and they were put up in

 3     Branicko Polje, at least a part of them.  There was a collection centre

 4     established there.

 5        Q.   How do you know about the events that occurred in Srebrenica and

 6     Zepa?

 7        A.   To tell you the truth, the events in Srebrenica and Zepa, even

 8     now, looking back, they probably coincide with my stint in Krajina.  So

 9     when I got there, I was briefly -- I was mainly briefed and got my

10     information from -- from the media reports and from the -- what was

11     available in the centre.

12             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6547.1.  The

13     Prosecution requests that this document not be broadcast to the public.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I meanwhile ask one additional question.  You

15     told us about increase of salary between the 10th of July and

16     10th of August, that you didn't remember, it's too long ago.  That's what

17     you said in -- in the fall of last year.

18             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You didn't remember that you were in the Krajina in

20     July and early August in 1995, in the Krajina, and that was the reason

21     why you got extra salary?  You don't remember that?  You didn't remember

22     that at -- in -- when was it?  October.  You'd forgotten about your

23     presence in the Krajina?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, looking at the decision, I

25     believe that is it.  That is for that stay there.  It's an increase of

Page 19978

 1     salary as remuneration for that trip.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  But did you not remember then where you were in

 3     July/early August when you answered these questions?  "When I was on

 4     field missions, I received per diem," you said.  Do you remember to be --

 5     didn't you remember in October of last year that you had been in the

 6     Krajina in July and August 1995?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if anyone ever asked

 8     me, actually, where I was at the time.  If it's in the transcript, I

 9     should like to see it.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What was asked to you is:

11             "Did you receive any increase in your salary between the

12     10th of July and the 10th of August, 1995?"

13             And then you said:

14             "An increase in salary?  I can't remember now.  It's too long

15     ago.  When I was on field missions, I received per diems."

16             This seems to be a lack of recollection of what happened or an

17     increase of salary in July and August 1995, and you told us now that you

18     were in the Krajina at that time.  My question is:  Didn't you remember

19     that when you testified last October?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember a decision was shown to

21     me, but I can't say with any certainty.  I knew in October that I had

22     been in Krajina at that time, but I can't remember the exact question and

23     answer.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll carefully look at the transcript of your

25     testimony at that time.

Page 19979

 1             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   Is it your testimony that you were in the Krajina during

 4     Operation Storm and you forgot that?

 5        A.   I can now state that I was in Krajina in that period and that at

 6     the beginning of Operation Storm I returned to Serbia.

 7        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to turn your attention to the document

 8     that's before you.  This is a Republic of Serbia State Security

 9     Department JATD Official Note dated 5 March 1996.  I'd like to direct

10     your attention to the bottom of the document.

11             MR. WEBER:  If we could please have that on the screen.

12        Q.   Do you know the author of this Official Note, Milan Maksimovic?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   How do you know Mr. Maksimovic?

15        A.   Well, I know that in that period of time he was within the unit.

16     Now, what was his specific task?  Was he within the unit?  Was he on the

17     reserve?  I mean, I'm talking about that particular period that we are

18     discussing now.

19        Q.   Well, I'd like to discuss with you an earlier period that's

20     referred to in this Official Note.

21             MR. WEBER:  If we could please go back up to the top portion.

22        Q.   The first sentence of this Official Note states:

23             "In the period between 18 June and 25 June, 1995, I went to

24     Srebrenica on a number of occasions with the knowledge of the Service."

25             Were you aware or ever become aware of any members of the JATD or

Page 19980

 1     other members of the Serbian DB who went to Srebrenica in late June 1995?

 2        A.   I'm not aware of that.  That was not within my purview.

 3        Q.   This Official Note continues to state:

 4             "In the mentioned period, I met Milan Lukic from Visegrad in the

 5     hotel in Bratunac.  He was dressed in a NATO uniform and wore a red beret

 6     with no insignia.  At that time there were about five to six soldiers

 7     from Visegrad with Lukic who were similarly dressed, wearing the red

 8     beret as a part of their uniform.  I met that same group, equipped the

 9     same, ten to 15 days later in the operations of the liberation of Zepa.

10     When I met them in Bratunac and Srebrenica, the following were in the

11     company of this group."  There is a name stated, "a CRDB Bajina Basta

12     operative, Boskovic Borko, a member of our reserve composition.  When I

13     met them near Zepa, I was in the company of," the name of the same

14     individual mentioned in the previous paragraph, "an SDB Uzice operative.

15     In the same period, following the liberation of Srebrenica, the following

16     showed up wearing our uniform with our insignia: Radivojevic, Milutin,

17     and Nakarada, Svetozar -- "

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you are apparently reading from a

19     translation which is not exactly the same as we have on our screen.  Is

20     there any reason why you take a different version of the translation?

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry.  I was working off the

22     translation that I had been provided.  I do see that this is slightly --

23     I see that there are some differences in the translation.  My apologies.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I do not know what questions you'll put to the

25     witness and to what extent the slight differences may play a role there.

Page 19981

 1     Please keep that in mind when you ask questions.  And if need be, read

 2     again from the translation we have in front of us.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour, and thank you for bringing that to

 4     my attention.

 5        Q.   Is correct that members of the JATD wore Red Berets and green

 6     camouflage uniforms similar to those worn by NATO forces?

 7        A.   You're asking me?

 8        Q.   I'm asking --

 9        A.   Yes.  As far as I know, that's the kind of uniforms they wore.

10        Q.   Do you know if any hotels in Bratunac were used by commanders of

11     the VRS, including Ratko Mladic?

12        A.   I absolutely have no knowledge of that.

13        Q.   Do you know Milutin Radivojevic, Svetozar Nakarada, or

14     Borko Boskovic or ever become aware of these people as members of the

15     JATD?

16        A.   No.  I have no information about that.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the end of the

18     answer.

19             MR. WEBER:

20        Q.   Sir, could you please repeat your answer.

21        A.   Well, let me tell you, these names mean nothing to me except for

22     Maksimovic and Mihajlo Lukic.  And Milan Lukic up there, yes, I heard of

23     him.  As for the rest, I know nothing.

24        Q.   Sir, can we --

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, could we have a redaction of the

Page 19982

 1     reference to Mihajlo Lukic at page 15, line -- he is a former -- I've

 2     been treating it cautiously, not knowing whether --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't it true that yesterday a lot of questions were

 4     put, I think even in open session?

 5             MR. WEBER:  I was --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Former operatives are not within the scope of the

 7     ruling.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Okay.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And similarly, one document which was admitted under

10     seal was dealt with yesterday at length in open session.  So let's try to

11     clearly stick to what the ruling was, that is, IBA [sic] sources -- BIA

12     sources, BIA operatives.  That means those who are now BIA operatives,

13     still BIA operatives, and BIA locations.  Please proceed.

14             MR. WEBER:

15        Q.   This Official Note indicates that there were encounters between a

16     member of the Uzice CRDB and members of the JATD with Milan Lukic in

17     Bratunac, Srebrenica, and Zepa at different times in late June and

18     early -- and, I'm sorry, July 1995.  Did you know or ever become aware of

19     these meetings?

20        A.   Absolutely.  I see from this note, the date, that this is when I

21     was in the Krajina.  I mean, this is the month of June, and I was there.

22     This is just before that.  I absolutely have no knowledge of this.

23        Q.   Did Mihajlo Lukic ever discuss these events with you?

24        A.   No, never.

25        Q.   Could you explain how it is possible that Mihajlo Lukic never

Page 19983

 1     mentioned these events to you?  Yesterday, you stated that the two of you

 2     discussed the Lukic cousins.  Did you not discuss anything about them in

 3     more detail?

 4        A.   Let me tell you, I know Mihajlo Lukic very, very well and we are

 5     good friends.  Mihajlo Lukic and Milan Lukic are two different persons.

 6     I mean, the families of Mihajlo Lukic and Milan Lukic are completely

 7     different too.  Now, why?  They are very distantly related.  I mean, they

 8     have the same distant ancestors.  I don't know to what extent I can

 9     explain this to you.  When Milan Lukic was in the area, in the houses of

10     the Lukics, I mean, this Milan Lukic is not from that area at all.  He

11     was not even born there where Milan -- Mihajlo Lukic was born, his

12     father, grandfather, whatever.  But since Milan Lukic was in Visegrad,

13     the uncle of Mihajlo Lukic was wounded in his house, and he even died.

14     He succumbed to these wounds.

15             I have to say that Mihajlo Lukic never looked upon the stay of

16     Milan Lukic in that area favourably.  These are two different families.

17        Q.   When you say he "never looked upon the stay of Milan Lukic in

18     that area favourably," what area are you referring to?

19        A.   The area of Visegrad.  From the very beginning of these war

20     operations.

21        Q.   The Prosecution's case is that the interactions between

22     Milan Lukic and the members of the Serbian DB do not show that the

23     accused were concerned about protecting Muslims but, in fact, had other

24     contacts that were of quite a different nature with Milan Lukic is

25     included.  He's included training Milan Lukic and some of his men and

Page 19984

 1     also encountering Milan Lukic and being with him in July 1995.  Would you

 2     care to provide any comments on our position based on the interactions or

 3     contacts between the Serbian DB and Milan Lukic?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just object, for the record.  We haven't

 6     had notice that it was alleged that the accused were responsible for

 7     training Milan Lukic or his men either in the indictment, the pre-trial

 8     brief, or the opening statement.  I think it was mentioned by Mr. Weber

 9     at some point during the Defence case, but that was the first time we

10     understood that that was -- or we were provided with a scintilla of

11     notice about that.

12             And secondly, it would be useful even at this late stage to know

13     precisely what it is is being alleged concerning the - and I put -- I use

14     Mr. Weber's words - "encounters" that it is alleged that the accused are

15     responsible for.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber --

17             MR. WEBER:  I'd be happy to answer, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I beg your pardon?

19             MR. WEBER:  I'd be happy to answer.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the information in the testimony that's

22     been elicited through this witness was in the context of the Serbian DB

23     taking actions to curb certain extremism, and that included actions taken

24     against Milan Lukic.  It is from this context that the Defence offers the

25     actions taken by the Serbian DB against Milan Lukic.  The Prosecution has

Page 19985

 1     brought forward information of other contacts that the DB had with

 2     Milan Lukic.  We are just offering it to rebut the reason that the

 3     Defence has asserted as a defence to the accused's intent in relation to

 4     actions carried out by the Serbian DB to curb extremism.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, at this moment what has to be done is to

 6     give an opportunity to the witness to respond what the Prosecution thinks

 7     is contradicting the Prosecution's case, isn't it?  And that is done

 8     using this document.

 9             Now, the battle on whether you have had sufficient notice at this

10     moment, it's not primarily an issue of giving notice to the Defence, but

11     at this moment it's to put it to the witness in order to give him an

12     opportunity to comment.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Well, and I think that is right in relation to the

14     so-called encounters.  It's not right in relation to the training.  This

15     witness hasn't --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

17             MR. JORDASH:  -- said anything which would require Mr. Weber to

18     put that allegation.  He was doing it in order to indicate so that the

19     Prosecution would plead, at a later date, that the accused trained

20     Milan Lukic.  It's to slip in a new allegation.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If you could make them separate.  And if you

22     want to ask a question about training, then perhaps do not do it in a way

23     by putting to the witness, but ask whether the witness is aware of any --

24     has any knowledge about training rather than encounters.  Mr. Weber, you

25     may proceed.

Page 19986

 1             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Your Honours, I discussed

 2     the training with the witness last fall.  I will just keep it focused on

 3     this document.

 4        Q.   Do you have any comments on the interaction between the

 5     Serbian DB and Milan Lukic based on this document?

 6        A.   I have no comment.  Especially I do not know what it was that

 7     Mihajlo Lukic could put on Milan Lukic.  I really don't know about that

 8     in any way.  I mean, they were not close.  I can assume that this

 9     encounter may have taken place, but for Mihajlo Lukic to train

10     Milan Lukic, I mean, what point of contact would they have?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I ask one question, Mr. Weber.

12             When this document was shown to you and you responded to the

13     dates described in the document, that is, late June 1995, by saying,

14     "Well, I wasn't there.  I was at the time in the Krajina."  If my

15     recollection serves me well, I think yesterday you said that you left for

16     the Krajina the 5th or the 6th of July and then returned the

17     5th or the 6th of August.  And I also remember that there was the

18     10th of July.  But I did not understand from your testimony yesterday,

19     neither from your testimony today, that you're in the Krajina between the

20     18th and the 25th of June.

21             Could you assist me in understanding your evidence.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  Even now I made

23     this comment stating that I was in the Krajina at a certain period, but I

24     see now that it's June, June/July.  I mean, I couldn't see from this,

25     because I see this note was written in 1996, and it concerns information

Page 19987

 1     from 1995 and then the question is being put as to where I was in 1995.

 2     So that is how I confused the two.  In this period I hadn't left for the

 3     Krajina yet.  This was a week or ten days before I'd left.

 4             I mean, I roughly went, say, on the 3rd, 4th of July and returned

 5     on the 5th or 6th of August, 1995.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

 7             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

 9             Well, you say you were not aware of the date described, that it

10     was -- because you said it was March 1996.  Let me then read your answer:

11             "Absolutely.  I see from this note the date that this was

12     written.  I was in the Krajina.  I mean, is the month of June, and I was

13     there.  This is just before that.  I absolutely have no knowledge."

14             So apparently when you answered that question, you were perfectly

15     aware that the events described here were in June and that you were not

16     mistaken by March 1996, because you specifically referred to June.  So

17     therefore your answer, where you said, "I mean, I couldn't see from this

18     because I see this note was written in 1996 and it concerns information

19     from 1995," "but I see now that it's June," but in your previous answer

20     you refer to June as well as, so apparently you were aware that the

21     events described were about June, whereas you left for the Krajina only

22     in July.  It puzzles me slightly.

23             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

24             But I give you an opportunity to further explain if you wish to.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?

Page 19988

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, I don't remember mentioning

 3     March at all, what you referred to just now.  I really got confused by

 4     the dates here.  I mean, I would like to say that in this period that the

 5     note pertains to, I see from it, I was in Uzice.  In the beginning of

 6     July 1995, I went to the Krajina, and I returned in the beginning of

 7     August 1995.  However, I saw the date up there that it was written in

 8     March 1996, and it has to do with information from 1995, so I did not

 9     understand that.  I don't see for which purpose this note was written up.

10     I do apologise.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   Do you have any reason to think that the information in this

14     Official Note is not correct?

15        A.   I have no reason.  No.

16             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution at this time tenders 65 ter 6547.1

17     into evidence.  It's just the single excerpt.  We ask that it be admitted

18     under seal.

19             MR. JORDASH:  We object to the tendering of this document.  Had

20     we had notice of this document during the Prosecution case, we could have

21     taken steps to investigate this material.  We could have spoken to

22     Mihajlo, for example.  We could have conducted investigations into what

23     was happening in this location at that time.  We could have spoken to

24     Mr. Novakovic during the proofing session.  We would have had a

25     reasonable opportunity to be able to deal with this material.  We've been

Page 19989

 1     deprived of that opportunity.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 3             Or Mr. Petrovic first.

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we subscribe to what

 5     Mr. Jordash says.  Also, we would like to add that on the basis of this

 6     document and on the basis of the questions put by my learned friend

 7     Mr. Weber, one may conclude that the Prosecution case is being extended

 8     in this way and they are trying to say directly or indirectly that this

 9     group that was with Milan Lukic is linked to the DB of Serbia.  We

10     haven't heard that until now.  Until now this has not been the

11     Prosecution case.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, in terms of timing, the -- as

14     Your Honours are aware, this document was the subject of the reason that

15     the witness was recalled, and the information in it, the names in

16     particular, were not available to the Prosecution until the

17     12th of March, 2012.  So this is information that recently became

18     available to us.  We have sought the recall of the witness on this basis,

19     and we've made submissions as to why we would like to recall him

20     concerning this.  As I've indicated today, the reason the Prosecution

21     sought to recall the witness is because the Defence seeks to rely upon,

22     as a defence, that actions were taken against Milan Lukic by the

23     Serbian DB.  This document is being offered to show that there were other

24     contacts between the Serbian DB and Milan Lukic that did not involve any

25     type of punitive actions or remedial actions taken against him.  That's

Page 19990

 1     why we're offering it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you are talking about newly received

 3     materials.  Was the Defence made aware of what you received recently so

 4     that they could have anticipated on -- on what would have triggered your

 5     request?  Not only that it was new material, but also what that material

 6     was, was it disclosed?

 7             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  We -- we -- this was the subject

 8     of the recall.  We filed it as attached to --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I see that, but I'm -- I'd just like to know

10     whether once you received that you had immediately disclosed that to the

11     Defence so that they would know on the basis of what material exactly you

12     are -- you had received you sought to recall the witness.

13             MR. WEBER:  It was disclosed with the motion to recall.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Mr. Jordash, the material not being available in fall of last

16     year, everything being disclosed to the Defence so that the Defence would

17     be aware that this new material triggered the request for a recall, does

18     that in any way influence your position?

19             MR. JORDASH:  It's not irrelevant, but it's not the core point.

20     The core point is that the Prosecution have known since the beginning of

21     this case, since we've filed our -- at least since we've filed our

22     Defence pre-trial brief, what our position was in relation to Lukic.

23     They had ample notice that we were suggesting that the accused had been

24     involved in making an arrest.  They had ample notice that it was alleged

25     by the Defence that we had nothing to do with Mr. Lukic other than the

Page 19991

 1     arrest.  The Prosecution had ample opportunity to conduct reasonable

 2     investigations well in advance to give us the same opportunity.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies the objection.  The document is

 5     admissible.

 6             Madam Registrar, the number would be ...

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 6547.1 will receive number P3169,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  P3169 is admitted into evidence.  Any need to have

10     to under seal, Mr. -- and, please, on the basis of the ruling and not on

11     overcautious.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Republic of Serbia, just out of

13     fairness to them, has requested that with respect to the collection of

14     unredacted materials to -- I would just like to -- if we could keep it

15     provisionally under seal.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We -- it's admitted provisionally under seal.  In

17     order to avoid whatever misunderstanding when I said the Chamber denies

18     the objection, I perhaps should have said the Chamber denies the

19     objections, because they were of a different nature.  The one was about

20     notice and the other one was about extending the Prosecution's case.  So

21     both objections are denied.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to return to your previous testimony

25     about the investigation into explosions at a gas station and a

Page 19992

 1     transformer station in Kremna during June 1991 and your comments provided

 2     on documents D427 and D432, marked for identification.  At transcript

 3     page 13591, you stated:

 4             "Through our operative work, we managed to establish that the

 5     explosion at the gas station, as well as the explosion at the transformer

 6     station, which is about 2 or 3 kilometres away on Sargan mountain was

 7     carried out by the same people."

 8             In your comments on Exhibit D432, you stated:

 9             "The public security investigated and determined that the used

10     explosive devices were of the same kind and that the time of the

11     explosions match, which indicate the perpetrators were the same.  The

12     state security was involved in the further investigation into the

13     perpetrators until they were arrested."

14             At transcript page 13958, you stated that the culprits were

15     determined to be Muslims who hailed from the territory of Visegrad.

16             Is it correct that the Serbian DB further investigated this

17     matter until it was determined that Bosnian Muslims from Visegrad

18     committed these offences?

19        A.   Yes.  The further investigation was conducted both by the DB and

20     the SUP of Uzice.  That was before the beginning of war in Bosnia.  So we

21     addressed officially the authorities of Bosnia through our contacts,

22     asking them to find in the records who owned that vehicle by the licence

23     number, and then they were arrested by the public security and prosecuted

24     before the District Court in Uzice in 1992.  The perpetrators, I mean.

25        Q.   Were any people killed as a result of these explosions?

Page 19993

 1        A.   No.  Nobody was killed.  There were no casualties.  There was

 2     only the physical destruction of the installations of the gas station and

 3     the damage at the tunnel at Chevron, some 20 kilometres away.

 4        Q.   Is it correct that you did not further investigate the Severin

 5     kidnapping after your interview with Milan Lukic on the 26th and

 6     27th of October, 1992?

 7        A.   I, as a member of the centre of the RDB Uzice, concerning that

 8     kidnapping, personally participated in the interview with Milan Lukic on

 9     the following day together with another two persons.  That activity was

10     in the exclusive jurisdiction of the third line of work that was in

11     charge of everything that had to do with the extremism and terrorism, and

12     the -- that kidnapping was treated as a terrorist act against the

13     citizens of Serbia.  Our orders were to get the service involved, and we

14     did, in collecting information, but I did not have any tasks regarding

15     that myself.

16        Q.   Did you further investigate Milan Lukic after your interview?

17        A.   You mean I myself?

18        Q.   Yes.  I'm just asking about you.

19        A.   No.  No, because after the interview that I conducted with a

20     colleague, he was turned over to the public security in Uzice, because at

21     the moment he was arrested, there was a suspicion that he was guilty of

22     illegally carrying weapons and having false IDs, and there was a

23     suspicion that he was involved in the murder of Stanko Pecikoza and the

24     kidnapping of citizens of Serbia in the north.  So he was investigated by

25     the SUP, by the public security, and after that interview with us, he was

Page 19994

 1     turned over to them for further procession.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6540.  Since

 3     this is a longer document, I'm going to ask him to read a little bit of

 4     it.  I was wondering if I could please have the Court Usher's assistance

 5     to provide the witness with the B/C/S translation.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you jumped from the attack to the

 7     kidnapping.  Is that the kidnapping we find on page 13974 and -77?  I

 8     mean, you moved from --

 9             MR. WEBER:  I did move, and I changed -- I'm not talking

10     about the -- I changed from the explosions in Kremna to the --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Sjeverin kidnapping.

12             MR. WEBER:  -- Sjeverin kidnapping.  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, it came a bit as, of course, a sudden

14     change of subject.

15                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar has difficulties in finding the

17     relevant document in e-court.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if I could have the document taken back

19     from the witness.  I will check out what --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could -- Mr. Novakovic, would you please be so

21     kind to return the document to the usher.  Thank you.

22             MR. WEBER:

23        Q.   Do you know of any actions that were taken after Milan Lukic's

24     arrest to further investigate the Sjeverin kidnappings?

25        A.   After the arrest of Milan Lukic and after interviewing him, my

Page 19995

 1     colleague and I conducted another interview with two other sources

 2     concerning the same circumstances, and both documents were turned over to

 3     the competent administration for further action.  I don't know what

 4     happened later.  I don't believe there was any interaction.  I believe

 5     there was interaction between the centre and that authority, but I'm not

 6     familiar with the details.

 7        Q.   You stated that one of the reasons that you were concerned -- or

 8     one of the reasons that you were concerned -- one the reasons you

 9     interviewed Milan Lukic was that you were concerned with the fate of the

10     Muslim victims who were kidnapped.  Is that correct?  Is that one of the

11     reasons that you went to interview Milan Lukic, to determine if he had

12     any information about the kidnapped Muslims?

13        A.   That was precisely the reason.  Those were the orders of the

14     leadership of the service and even the state leadership at the time.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could you always give us the pages and

16     the lines so that we are better able to follow exactly.

17        Q.   Why did you not contact Risto Perisic, the chief of the Visegrad

18     SUP, to ascertain any information that he may have had regarding this

19     abduction?

20        A.   You're asking me?

21        Q.   Yes.

22        A.   I had no direct contact with Risto Perisic.  I knew him because

23     he came to Uzice sometimes, but not to talk to him.  You see, it was

24     happening at the moment when -- the kidnapping was on the 22nd, and I'm

25     not sure now when the interview took place.  At that time we didn't know

Page 19996

 1     the fate of the kidnapped people.  It was within a very brief period of

 2     time the service was working on it, and I believe the operatives who were

 3     covering that territory, who were involved, were trying to get that

 4     information from the authorities in that territory.  Risto Perisic was an

 5     official in the territory of Republika Srpska.  You could not contact him

 6     as you wished, only as required.  But this was a good reason to make an

 7     inquiry, but I was not directly involved.  It was not directly my task.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, this witness, at transcript page 14140,

 9     previously testified that he did not know what happened to Milan Lukic

10     after he took his statement and he was transferred to the Detention Unit.

11     The Prosecution does have court records related to the charges that were

12     sought after the interview and his release from custody on

13     4 November 1992.  At this time, we would ask to tender these materials,

14     which are available under 65 ter 6541.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

16             MR. JORDASH:  These -- these are -- this is a lengthy document.

17     If the point is that the court released Milan Lukic, then perhaps we

18     could deal with it shortly by just an agreement.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we asked for the actual court records.

20     It's three documents.  It's the filing by the public prosecutor and the

21     information --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What -- what in addition to what Mr. Jordash seems

23     to be willing to agree upon would you bring to our attention?

24             MR. WEBER:  Well --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it the charges brought, or what is it?  And how

Page 19997

 1     many pages are the documents altogether?

 2             MR. WEBER:  The B/C/S version is nine pages.  The English

 3     translation is ten pages.  The Prosecution would submit these are not

 4     voluminous records.  They detail what was --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- apologies to interrupt you, but the three

 6     documents all together is nine pages?

 7             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  The problem we have is that within these documents

 9     there are a number of other names, including persons who were arrested

10     with Lukic, and, on past practice, we have no faith that the Prosecution

11     will not identify those people as perpetrators at some point and suggest

12     the accused are responsible for them.  So out of an abundance of caution,

13     we have to object to any document which introduces new names which we

14     have seen the Prosecution continuously trying to connect to the accused

15     without notice.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, now we have two questions.  My question:

17     What is it that you want to establish beyond the fact that Mr. Lukic was

18     released by the court?  And second, whether you're going to rely on any

19     of the other names mentioned in those documents so as to link them to the

20     accused.  Two questions.  Could you please respond to both.

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, with respect to the information in the

22     documents, there's been other materials including the witness's

23     statement, the statement of the Uzice public security --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, I put two simple questions to you.  Now,

25     you start with the second one, that's okay.  I'm not asking to you in

Page 19998

 1     what context you want to use that in relation to what other evidence; the

 2     question was whether you are going to rely, perhaps together with other

 3     material, on the other names mentioned in that file.

 4             MR. WEBER:  I was trying to answer the first question.  But to

 5     answer the second question is very simple:  No.  With respect to the

 6     first question, there's been -- the information, the details that are in

 7     the records here, when compared with other materials that have been

 8     introduced in the record, can show the information that was available to

 9     the authorities in October/November 1992 compared to later charges that

10     were sought in relation to this offence that have already been made part

11     of the record.  So we would ask that -- we're not tendering a big volume

12     of those court records; we're just asking that the materials be tendered.

13     The individual that -- that is arrested with Milan Lukic on this has

14     already been discussed, and information has already been admitted in

15     relation to this individual.  So in order to have -- for the Chamber to

16     be able to see what he was addressed for --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But purely Lukic, no one else?

18             MR. WEBER:  But he was arrested with someone else, and --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The question simply was:  Are you going to

20     rely on these documents as well in relation to that other person?

21             Now, you said the answer is very simple, "No."  And then you

22     started explaining how you will link those names to other evidence in

23     relation to that person, which undermines your own answer, if I am --

24             MR. WEBER:  If I've misunderstood Mr. Jordash's submission, I

25     mean, the Defence is putting forward that they took certain actions

Page 19999

 1     against individuals, so there are two individuals that were arrested, and

 2     their release would be relevant to rebut the Defence contention.  I guess

 3     to that extent I did contradict myself, and we would be relying upon the

 4     other individual to rebut that aspect of the Defence cases, to that

 5     extent.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, the questions to the witness were

 7     exclusively focusing on Mr. Lukic, isn't it, and not on the others?

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at least during the course of his

 9     testimony he has testified as to the arrest of two individuals that were

10     caught with what -- I mean --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but have they been named?  I mean, if

12     Mr. Jordash has some fear that you'll link a specific individual to the

13     accused, then if they slip in in what appears, at first, it seems to be

14     about Lukic, then I would suggest that you put questions about that

15     witness.  I've got no idea who that other person is.  I do -- I've got no

16     idea whether he appears anywhere else in the evidence at this moment.  So

17     if you say you will use the name of that second person to rely upon in a

18     broader context, then please lay a basis, lay a foundation for the use of

19     that.  Until now, when you tendered the document, we were not aware of

20     anything else than that it was about Mr. Lukic.  And that apparently is

21     the fear of Mr. Jordash.  So if you lay a foundation, we may reconsider

22     that.

23             Mr. Jordash, may I can take it that on the basis of the answers

24     of Mr. Weber that you're not yet satisfied?

25             MR. JORDASH:  Exactly, Your Honour.

Page 20000

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:  I'm not going to rely on this document for anything

 4     greater, or the identity of the second individual, anything greater than

 5     what I've already just explained on the record, which is that, at most,

 6     based on just the face of the document, that the individual was arrested

 7     with Milan Lukic, that they were detained, that they were processed on

 8     specific charges, and that Milan Lukic and this other individual were

 9     released.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And that other person, you're not going to link that

11     other person in any way to what is the main subject of this trial, that

12     is, that the accused may have some responsibility for what those persons

13     did or --

14             MR. WEBER:  Other than the arrest, no.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, without the Chamber even knowing who that

17     other person is, not knowing, I mean it's -- it's -- if Mr. Jordash would

18     not have objected, it would have slipped in.  Now, the Chamber doesn't

19     say that that is inadmissible evidence, but until now arrests and release

20     of Mr. Lukic, there seems to be no problem.  If you want this document to

21     be in, and having received it also recently, then please tell us or

22     identify with the witness who it was, how this linked to other evidence,

23     so that we consider that.

24             MR. WEBER:  And the Prosecution doesn't intend to rely on this

25     other individual in that regard.

Page 20001

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  What, then?  If you're not interested in -- I take

 2     it that Mr. Jordash is willing to agree as well that not only Mr. Lukic

 3     was arrested and was later released by the court, but that there was

 4     another person which was arrested and released by the court.  Well, if

 5     you don't want to rely on it in any further way, why do we need the

 6     document?  If, however, you want to link that to other evidence, then at

 7     least the Chamber should know what person we're talking about.

 8             MR. WEBER:  I understand, Your Honour.  Can we offer this --

 9     these documents for the limited purpose of the fact that Milan Lukic was

10     processed on certain charges based on the information in these documents

11     and that he was then released on the 4th of November, 1992?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you -- can you agree on the charges which are

13     laid out in the -- then we don't need the whole of the document.  If you

14     agree on the text of the charges as you find them in the document and if

15     you agree on Milan Lukic being arrested and Milan Lukic being released by

16     a court decision, then that's it.

17             MR. WEBER:  That would be fine, Your Honour, but could we also

18     have an indication whether the Simatovic Defence would be willing to

19     engage in such an agreement?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll ask Mr. Petrovic and/or Mr. Bakrac.

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we are prepared to accept

22     that kind of agreement.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the only thing we still need is the text of the

24     charges to be put on the record so that we know what the agreement is

25     about.

Page 20002

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, may we do that after a break?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I think that's appropriate.  So you can

 3     use the break to copy it and perhaps OCR it.

 4             We'll take a break.  And how much time would you still need after

 5     the break, Mr. Weber?

 6             MR. WEBER:  I was just going to go through one more document and

 7     that's it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  One more document.  We then resume at 10 minutes to

 9     11.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit D784,

14     marked for identification.

15             Your Honours, I see the original version of this document appears

16     to be not so great quality.  I do have a hard copy available for the

17     witness if it would assist him.

18             If the Court Usher could please hand it to the witness.

19        Q.   Sir, if you could please not look through the document yet.  I'm

20     going to ask you some questions about it and go through it with you

21     briefly.

22             I'd like to direct your first -- first your attention to the

23     heading of the document.  This document purports to be an Uzice CRDB

24     Official Note of a preliminary interview of a source.  Is it correct that

25     the Roman numeral II in the heading represents the 2nd Administration?

Page 20003

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Were you assigned or performed any tasks on behalf of the

 3     2nd Administration of the Uzice CRDB in April of 1995?

 4        A.   I tried to explain that to you yesterday, but you interrupted me.

 5     If I may say it now.  In late 1994 and early 1995, the issues at the

 6     headquarters of the service that had intelligence connotations were

 7     slowly being transferred to another service.  Everything was directed to

 8     the 3rd Administration that dealt with terrorism and extremism.  That is

 9     the consequence of the situation in the service itself.

10             Until 1991, this was dealt with by the federal service.  And

11     after that, republic services started developing intelligence activities

12     in their own centres.  And this is a direct consequence of this.  The

13     contact with this source is a contact with a source who provides

14     intelligence, and that is why I directed it to them.

15        Q.   Okay.  You said a couple of things here.  If I could go back to

16     my question.  Were you assigned or did you perform any tasks for the

17     2nd Administration of the Uzice CRDB in April 1995?  If your answer is

18     "yes," could you please tell us what that task was?

19        A.   Already from the end of 1994, and in this period to which your

20     question relates, I was oriented mostly, although as a member of the

21     centre, I was in charge of intelligence.  I also dealt with intelligence

22     work, collecting all information, all intelligence of interest to the

23     republic regarding economy, politics, defence, and security, anything

24     relevant to the security of the country, the national security.  And

25     since intelligence work implies also collecting all information about any

Page 20004

 1     threats to national and cultural and economic integrity of the Serbs,

 2     wherever they live, I also collected information on that.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, page 35, line 21/22,

 5     the witness makes a distinction between types of information in terms of

 6     different lines of work, but I believe this distinction is not clear in

 7     the transcript, at least not quite as the witness put it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll try to clarify that.

 9             Mr. Weber, perhaps -- I think sometimes the line numbering is not

10     exactly the same.

11             Mr. Petrovic, would you be willing to read in English the line

12     you had on your mind, and then we'll ask the witness whether what you

13     read to him is his complete answer or whether further details were

14     mentioned.

15             MR. PETROVIC:  Yes, I can, Your Honour.

16             "... I was oriented mostly, although as a member of the centre, I

17     was in charge of intelligence.  I also dealt with intelligence work,

18     collecting all information, all intelligence of interest to the republic

19     regarding economy," et cetera.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Did you make any further -- did you mention any further detail as

22     far as intelligence was concerned?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said:  Although I was dealing

24     with counter-intelligence work, in that period I started also collecting

25     intelligence information, because that was the demand of the service.


Page 20005

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 2             Mr. Weber, please proceed.

 3             MR. WEBER:

 4        Q.   Did you ever conduct any interviews of this source Producent?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Sources are within the scope of the -- I don't know

 6     whether the answer to your question would possibly identify --

 7             MR. WEBER:  I'm not asking for the identity of --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. WEBER:

10        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, so you're clear:  I'm not asking for the identity

11     of the source in my question.  I just would like to know whether or not

12     you ever conducted any interviews of this source.

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. WEBER:  If we could please move to private session.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

16             [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in private session, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

19             MR. WEBER:

20        Q.   Could you please tell us the name of the source?

21        A.   Coming here, I got a decision from the Government of Serbia

22     waiving my obligation to keep official secrets.  Sources are the highest

23     asset of the service, and they are protected, and when I got retired, I

24     signed the Official Secrets Act requiring me to keep secrets on all

25     sources, et cetera.

Page 20006

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, the Republic of Serbia has requested protective

 2     measures.  We have decided on that, and we do protect sources.  That's

 3     the reason why we are in private session and why we're not dealing with

 4     this matter in public.

 5             The Republic of Serbia is informed about the decision the

 6     Chamber, and if they would have wished to -- to appeal that or to have

 7     that reviewed, they would have had an opportunity to do that.  So

 8     therefore, we're in private session.  It will not be public.  And you're

 9     invited to answer the question.  Apparently there's no problem as far as

10     the Republic of Serbia is concerned.  Would you please answer the

11     question.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know whether this

13     source is still being used today.  That's why I'm saying what I'm saying.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's the reason why we are in private session.

15     That's the reason why we would not make this publicly known.  Everyone in

16     this courtroom is under an obligation to keep it secret, and this part of

17     your testimony will not be broadcasted to the outside world.

18             Please answer the question, Mr. Novakovic.

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   Mr. Novakovic --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps you would clarify it, Mr. Weber.

Page 20007

 1     That's okay.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, the interpreter believes that they might have

 4     heard something additional after you said the name of the source.  They

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8        Q.   Could you please review that document.  Yes.

 9        A.   You want me to read it aloud?

10        Q.   No.  No.  If you could review the document and let us know if you

11     authored it.

12        A.   All of it?

13        Q.   Yes.  Review it until you're able to determine whether or not

14     you're familiar with it and whether or not you authored it.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Novakovic, I think the question of Mr. Weber was

16     that when you're able to say that you recognise this document or that you

17     authored it, that please let us know.  And then whether you have to read,

18     then, the whole of it or whether certain portions will be put to you by

19     Mr. Weber, we'll see that.  But do you recognise the document?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do recognise the document, and,

21     yes, I authored it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then listen carefully to the questions Mr. Weber

23     will put to you.

24             MR. WEBER:

25        Q.   The last paragraph of this Official Note contains a

Page 20008

 1     recommendation.  It states:  "We believe it is necessary for the

 2     leadership of the centre in the 2nd Administration of the RDB MUP RS to

 3     urgently agree on how precisely the source should be used and to examine

 4   (redacted).

 5             On the front of the Official Note, it indicated that this was

 6     just a preliminary interview.  Did you conduct any subsequent interviews

 7     or generate any subsequent reports in addition to this source?

 8        A.   As I've already said, you can see from the content of this

 9     document that there is a wide array of information provided.  The

10     situation in the political segments of Republika Srpska, the situation in

11     the army, the situation on the ground.  My thinking in terms of this

12     contact and also in agreement with the 2nd Administration, the further

13     guidelines to be provided to this source were to be co-ordinated.  I did

14     continue my relationship with this contact or source.

15        Q.   And did you generate any later reports in relation to those

16     subsequent contacts?

17        A.   Well, I must have written reports, because I wrote things up

18     whenever I had contact with him.  Perhaps until 1995, 1996.  It had to do

19     with the subject matter of Bosnia, later on perhaps something else.

20             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, could we -- I believe we're still in

21     private session.  If we could return to open session.  I have a number of

22     housekeeping matters to hopefully alleviate from next week, and I also

23     wanted to read in an agreed fact.  I'm done --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Does this mean that your cross-examination of the

25     witness is concluded?

Page 20009

 1             MR. WEBER:  Correct.  I have no further questions.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No further questions.  Then we return into open

 3     session.

 4                           [Open session]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 7             Now, before we deal with practical matters, Mr. Weber, are they

 8     of such urgency that we should first hear them before we give an

 9     opportunity to the Defence to put further questions to the witness?

10             MR. WEBER:  I think so, because the Prosecution's going to be

11     withdrawing a number of objections that we have had, and if this is of

12     assistance to the Defence --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If that -- if that -- if that -- if that is relevant

14     information in relation to the further examination of this witness, then

15     please proceed.

16             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution at this time withdraws its objection

17     to the admission of the comment chart of the witness marked for

18     identification as D424.  However, the Prosecution maintains its

19     submissions regarding the probative value and weight of these comments.

20             The Prosecution also withdraws its objection to the admission of

21     the following exhibits:  D427, D430, D432, D435, D437, D440, D443, and

22     D784.

23             Lastly, the Prosecution withdraws its objection to exhibit -- to

24     the admission of Exhibit D436.  However, the quality of this document is

25     poor.  We would inquire whether or not the Defence has a better available


Page 20010

 1     version, and if not, the Prosecution requests verification of the

 2     translation of the last paragraph on page 1 of the B/C/S original after

 3     the words "Visegrada sevsto [phoen]," as this may contain relevant

 4     information.

 5             With that, Your Honour, I'd seek leave to read in an agreed fact.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And if the Defence has a better version

 7     available, is then the request for the verification of the translation

 8     moot?  Or ...

 9             MR. WEBER:  Correct.  If we're able to see it and it corresponds

10     to what is available on the translation, then that would render the need

11     to do a verification moot.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then there's a fair chance that these

13     exhibits would be admitted into evidence.  I would have to look at it.

14     The Chamber will have to look at it, of course, in further detail what

15     the basis of the objections were, whether we have any questions in

16     relation to those.  But I think there would be a fair expectation that

17     admission is forthcoming.

18             Any other matter, Mr. Weber?

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if I could please read in the agreed

20     fact related to the matter that was addressed just before the --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. WEBER:  -- recess.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.

24             MR. WEBER:  The following information would be agreed upon

25     between the parties:  On 30 October 1992, Milan Lukic was charged with


Page 20011

 1     the crime of unauthorised procurement, possession, carrying, manufacture,

 2     exchange or sale of weapons, ammunition, and explosive substances.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please slow down, Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  On 4 November 1992, the District Court in Uzice

 5     dismissed these charges as unfounded and terminated the detention of

 6     Milan Lukic.  He was then released from custody.

 7             So stipulated.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Then that is on the record that the parties agree on

 9     these facts.

10             Who will go first?

11             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it

12     should be the Defence of Mr. Simatovic.  That is the way we usually

13     handle things.  Of course, with your leave.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine with me.  Could you give us a time

15     estimate, Mr. Petrovic?

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, only a few minutes.

17     Not more than ten at any rate.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, could you give us an indication

19     already?

20             MR. JORDASH:  Not more than 15.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.

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

23                   Further Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]

24        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.

25        A.   Good morning.

Page 20012

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at P3169, and

 2     could the document please not be displayed to the public.  P3169 is the

 3     document number.

 4        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, a few moments ago you looked at this document.  I

 5     would just like to put a few questions to you in relation to the

 6     document.  I would like to start with the first sentence.  It says there:

 7     "In the period between the 18th of June and the 25th of June, 1995, I

 8     went to Srebrenica on a number of occasions with the knowledge of the

 9     Service."

10             Mr. Novakovic, will you agree with me that Srebrenica was taken

11     by the Army of Republika Srpska on the 11th of July, 1995?

12        A.   I don't know the exact date, but that was probably the case.

13        Q.   Will you agree with me that before Srebrenica was taken by the

14     Army of Republika Srpska, it had not been possible for anyone to go to

15     Srebrenica?

16        A.   Absolutely.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.  Next sentence.

18             "In the aforementioned period, I met Milan Lukic at the hotel in

19     Bratunac."

20             Mr. Novakovic, what is your understanding of this sentence, "I

21     met Milan Lukic"?

22        A.   That absolutely means that he saw him in passing.  It means that

23     he saw him, saw him.

24        Q.   Thank you.  When we analyse the meaning of this sentence, does

25     this sentence in any way suggest that they had agreed to meet, that they

Page 20013

 1     had had any meeting as such whatsoever?

 2        A.   Absolutely not.  I think that that's absolutely not suggested,

 3     because in view of the document that he's writing, I think that he would

 4     have mentioned in the document had he been on that kind of mission, that

 5     he met with him, that he told him something.  Because he says here, "I

 6     met Milan Lukic," and he describes what happened.  He describes that he

 7     saw him wearing a uniform.  He's saying what he saw.

 8        Q.   Had there been a meeting apart from this encounter, would it be

 9     expected to have this noted in the Official Note, not only to refer to

10     the appearance, the physical appearance of the person?

11        A.   Absolutely.  He would have said what the subject discussed with

12     the said person was.

13        Q.   Please look at the second paragraph of the same document.  The

14     same document.  It says:

15             "The same group equipped in the same manner, I encountered 10 or

16     15 days later."

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphones for the Judges, please.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, this is a document which, of course,

21     when interpreted, then will be commented by the parties.  Now, whether

22     the witness is a person who is the one who should guide us in

23     interpreting this document is very questionable.  We'd rather hear facts

24     from this witness.

25             There seems to be, however, one thing that is -- reference was

Page 20014

 1     made to -- I -- let me see.  I think you're -- or consistently the word

 2     is -- the word is used -- let me check that, because it just disappeared

 3     from my screen.

 4             Yes.  What you read was, as it appears on the transcript, "In the

 5     aforementioned period, I met Milan Lukic at the hotel in Bratunac";

 6     whereas the translation says "I met up with."  That may not be exactly

 7     the same.  That's one.  And then in the answer, the witness says -- gives

 8     his interpretation of what that means, to see in passing.  The Chamber is

 9     not fully aware of what makes this witness a person that could tell us

10     exactly that meeting up with a certain person would actually mean see him

11     in passing.  Again, that interpretation, you could call 50 other

12     witnesses who would tell us what the meaning of this document is.  We

13     rather hear facts.  And we'd rather have the right quote, "meet up with"

14     rather than "met."  And if there's any translation issue in that respect,

15     we'd like to know so that can be verified.  Please --

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] -- if you allow me.  If you allow

19     me.  If you allow me just one sentence.  My intention is --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  As long as what you say is something that could be

21     appropriately said without the witness taking off his earphones or, if he

22     speaks English, to leave the courtroom.  Then you have an opportunity.

23     But no further discussion about the content of evidence in the presence

24     of a witness.

25             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, lest I run any risk,

Page 20015

 1     I would kindly ask that the witness be allowed to leave the courtroom for

 2     a second.  Or he can take off his headphones.  I don't know if he

 3     understand English.  And also I don't know whether he can hear the

 4     interpretation even if he takes his headphones off.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you have considered that what you want to

 6     tell us is really important enough to ask the witness to leave the

 7     courtroom?

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

 9     simplify matters.  The witness is an operative with a great deal of

10     experience who wrote and read many, many documents.  I wanted to hear his

11     understanding of the document.  Also, as a person whose mother tongue is

12     B/C/S, or, rather, the Serbian language, from a linguistic point of view

13     could he describe specifically the word "susreo."

14             THE INTERPRETER:  "Met."  Interpreter's note.

15             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That is why I put this question to

16     the witness.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's clear, and you may proceed.  And you're

18     still invited to focus very much on facts rather than -- not to say that

19     it's useless to hear from someone who has read many reports.  At the same

20     time, it is -- if -- of any assistance, of limited assistance.  So please

21     focus on the facts.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one more

23     question in relation to this document.  And after that I'm not going to

24     go back to the document.

25        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, in the second and third paragraphs of this


Page 20016

 1     document there is also reference to some encounters that the author of

 2     the document had with certain individuals.  Is an operative of the

 3     service expected to do the following:  If these encounters were

 4     meaningful, is an operative of the service expected to write this up in

 5     an official note if he talked to these persons and what these persons

 6     said and what was discussed?

 7        A.   Absolutely.  If an operative has contacts, on the ground in

 8     particular, he's expected to say what kind of contact it was and what was

 9     discussed.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.  While we are -- actually, we're not in

11     private session.

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we briefly

13     move into private session, please.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

15             [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]

16             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in private session, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

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

19             D784, could would have a look at that again, please.

20        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, it's not very legible, but I believe that you have

21     a hard copy in front of you.  A few moments ago you read it.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Can you explain to us why this document is being sent along a

24     different line of work -- or, rather, the second line of work?  Why is it

25     being sent along that line of work?  What is so characteristic about it?

Page 20017

 1        A.   Well, the content of the document is a portrayal of the current

 2     situation as the session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska was being

 3     held in Sanski Most, and it shows the active clash that took place

 4     between the military and political leadership at that point in time.

 5        Q.   The information contained in this report, what type of

 6     information is this?  What nature does this information have?

 7        A.   It is intelligence, absolutely.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.  And just one more question.  Perhaps

 9     it hasn't been clarified fully.

10             You mentioned that there was a conflict between Milan Lukic and

11     the family of Mihajlo Lukic.  What kind of relationship did they have?

12     Or, rather, what led to this conflict, and what was their relationship

13     between Milan and Mihajlo?

14        A.   I'm sorry, I tried to explain the difference between Mihajlo and

15     Milan Lukic.  When Milan Lukic stayed in the area of Visegrad --

16        Q.   Please slow down so that this can be recorded.

17        A.   In terms of the reasons, as Mihajlo Lukic said to me, one of the

18     reasons why his uncle had been killed in the village where Mihajlo's

19     father and uncle lived, as far as I can remember the man was wounded near

20     the house of a man who hadn't been a combatant at all.  This was probably

21     done on the basis of some revenge, and he bled to death.  I know that

22     Mihajlo Lukic never liked the fact that Milan Lukic was in the area of

23     Visegrad.  And ultimately he was convicted, because the family, the

24     father of Mihajlo Lukic, lived in the area of Republika Srpska

25     throughout.

Page 20018

 1        Q.   Mr. Novakovic, again it is not clear.  What was it that

 2     Mihajlo Lukic said to you was one of the reasons for the killing of his

 3     uncle?

 4        A.   He thought that one of the reasons was precisely that, the fact

 5     that Milan Lukic was staying in the territory of Visegrad.  And what he

 6     had committed there.

 7             I'm saying this to you on the basis of what I remember.  I

 8     remember that Mihajlo was very bitter at the time.

 9        Q.   Do I understand you correctly:  Mihajlo believes that the death

10     of his uncle is revenge for what Milan Lukic did?

11        A.   He didn't specifically say that it was revenge, but that

12     certainly contributed to it.  I cannot remember what year it was exactly.

13             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.

14             Thank you, Your Honours.  I have no further questions.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

16             I'm seeking one clarification of one of your answers.  It relates

17     to the previous document.  If you'd like to have it on the screen, then

18     we'll put it on the screen.  I think it's 3169.  That's the document in

19     which the meeting at the hotel was mentioned and the encounter at -- in

20     the days following this first, as you said, see Lukic in passing.

21             Now, in relation to a question put to you by Mr. Petrovic, you

22     told us the following:

23             "If these encounters were meaningful, as an operative of the

24     service expected to write this up in an Official Note if he talked to

25     these persons and what these persons said and what was discussed?"

Page 20019

 1             And you said:

 2             Absolutely.  If an operative has contact, on the grounds in

 3     particular, he was expected to say who was contacted and what was

 4     discussed.

 5             Now, in the question there was a suggestion that perhaps such

 6     information was not in this document because there may have been no

 7     conversation at all.  Is that how you understand the document, or do you

 8     think that there has been a conversation during these encounters?

 9        A.   I personally think that there hadn't been any contact.  Look,

10     this term that is used in our language, "met," that means that -- when we

11     would meet.  But "susreo," as opposed to "sreo," would be to see in

12     passing.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I was focusing also on the encounters which are

14     described:

15             I encountered the same group dressed in the same manner 10 to 15

16     days later in the operations to liberate Zepa during the encounter with

17     this group in Bratunac and Srebrenica.  Lukic Mihajlo, an operative were

18     present.

19             Now, these encounters, do you understand this report to be that

20     there has been any exchange of information or any conversation, or is it

21     your understanding that that did not take place?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me tell you.  From this

23     point of view, as I'm giving a comment in respect of the way it was

24     written here, I'm not in a position to say that there had been meetings

25     and contacts.  However, they say that during their stay they met these

Page 20020

 1     persons that they refer to in this note.  Whether they talked to these

 2     persons about anything, I don't know.  I'm not in a position to comment

 3     on that.  But had there been any contact, talks between them, I believe

 4     that they would have written that up.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  How do you interpret that last line of the

 6     second page of this document?

 7             Could we move, in the English translation, to the second page.

 8     And we need to have a look whether it's on the first page in B/C/S.  If

 9     we could move it a little bit -- no, second -- could we have a look at

10     the original.  No.  One second.  Yes.  It's still the first page.

11             It says: "Lukic Mihajlo, an operative of Uzice SDB, was informed

12     about this."

13             How would he have been informed?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please show the document

15     to me so that I could see?  I mean, I have the English version here, but

16     not --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  For the witness, the B/C/S version, please.  Last

18     lines.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last sentence:  Radivojevic and

20     Nakarada managed to flee from Bratunac to the FRY.  Mihajlo Lukic, an

21     operative of the SDB Uzice, was made aware of this.

22             This is how I understand this:  That Lukic knew that the two

23     mentioned persons fled from Bratunac to the FRY, and I assume that he

24     informed someone about that.  I don't know.  The persons in the centre

25     who were in charge?


Page 20021

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you don't know.  You don't know whether there

 2     was a conversation, you do not know who would have informed Mr. Lukic.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  I don't know.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             Mr. Jordash.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  I would like to address you at some stage about the

 7     translation of this document and request a verification for various

 8     reasons, but I don't think I need to do that before the witness is -- has

 9     left.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Unless it creates problems in the questioning of the

11     witness, of course.  Then --

12             MR. JORDASH:  No, it won't.  I'm not going to revisit the

13     subject.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then we can do it later.

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 20022











11 Pages 20022-20024 redacted. Private session.
















Page 20025

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13             MR. JORDASH:

14        Q.   Apart from that specific purpose, were the -- was your service,

15     the Serbian DB, collecting intelligence for any other purpose?

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21        Q.   Sorry, which service in the Republika Srpska did the post have

22     contact with?

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 20026

 1        Q.   So what about the military service?  Did the State Security

 2     Service of Serbia have any contacts with the military service from the

 3     point of establish -- from the point the post was established?

 4        A.   Not that I know of.

 5        Q.   So no assistance from the Serbian DB to the military as far as

 6     you were aware?

 7        A.   No.  I'm a member of a civilian structure.  Throughout my career,

 8     I was oriented towards civilian structures in Republika Srpska, and I

 9     believe the contacts were also at the state level between the RDB of

10     Serbia and the RDB of Republika Srpska.  Even during my stay throughout,

11     I have avoided all public appearances.

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 20027

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5        Q.   Thank you.  I think that's clear.  Could I just ask you about

 6     Kozara.  Do you know anything about that?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question which is specifically on

 8     Bijeljina, so before you move on.

 9             When you set up this post in December 1995, after Dayton, did you

10     create -- did you newly establish that post, or did you use an existing

11     facility?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We used a pre-existing building

13     that we just leased.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not primarily thinking in terms of building, but

15     mainly in terms of equipment, listening equipment.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was new.  We equipped the

17     facility.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You came to the building with new equipment, and you

19     established, after Dayton, in December 1995 a listening post in Bijeljina

20     with that new equipment; is that correctly understood?

21        A.   Yes, yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   I just want to ask you about Kozara and whether you know anything

25     about DB involvement there, DB of Serbia's involvement there.

Page 20028

 1        A.   For a while I believe there was a radio reconnaissance centre in

 2     that area, but I'm not sure.  I don't know.

 3        Q.   Do you know when?

 4        A.   Maybe in the same years when I was there in 1995, 1996.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, "maybe" answers, maybe yes, maybe no,

 6     is --

 7             MR. JORDASH:  I know --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  -- I was to -- just about to clarify.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

11             MR. JORDASH:

12        Q.   I'm not going to push you.  If you don't know, you don't know.

13     Do you have any other information besides what you've just given us about

14     Kozara and the DB's involvement there?  I don't want you to guess or

15     speculate.  Just if you have facts --

16        A.   No, no.

17        Q.   Thank you.  No further questions.  Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jordash.

20             Mr. Weber, no need for further questions?

21             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             Mr. Novakovic, the parties have no further questions for you.

24     I've got one question.

25                           Questioned by the Court:


Page 20029

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  What exactly was your mission between early

 2     July 1995 up till the 5th or the 6th of August, 1995, in the Krajina?

 3     What were you doing there?

 4        A.   From the beginning of July until early August 1995, I was in

 5     Krajina, together with the representatives of the RDB of Serbian Krajina,

 6     to be in contact with the security organs of Western Bosnia,

 7     Fikret Abdic, for the purpose of collecting intelligence that would be of

 8     importance for the security of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  What kind of intelligence were you trying to gather

10     at that moment?

11        A.   Information related to the deployment of military forces, the

12     5th Corps, their movements, et cetera, because the situation was getting

13     complicated at the time.  There were threats.  The Croatian offensive and

14     the Muslim offensive were in the making, threatening an attack against

15     Krajina.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So if I understand you well, that gathering

17     intelligence would include gathering intelligence of a military nature?

18        A.   Yes, there was military intelligence also.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Did you in any way work together with military

20     intelligence -- intelligence services?  Because you said, "Well, we were

21     strictly civilian."  You earlier emphasised how much that you were always

22     working in the civilian organisation and you were sent to the Krajina

23     apparently to gather intelligence which you just explained was - that's

24     the only thing you mentioned - was, rather, troop movements and these

25     kind of things.

Page 20030

 1        A.   I worked exclusively with civilian services and I talked with the

 2     mediation of the service of the Serbian Krajina with the security forces

 3     from AP Western Bosnia, but I never worked with any -- anyone from the

 4     military or the military service, with the Military Intelligence Service.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

 6             If there are no further questions, Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to

 7     thank you very much for coming back in a different season --

 8             Yes, we first move into open session.

 9                           [Open session]

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

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  I think we should have

12     moved into open session earlier, but ...

13             Mr. Novakovic, I would like to thank you very much for coming

14     again to The Hague and to having answered the questions that were put to

15     you by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you again a safe return

16     home.  You may follow the usher.

17             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

18                           [The witness withdrew]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  There are two matters I would like to deal with, and

20     I'll inquire with the parties how much time that would take.  The first

21     one is the scheduling of a housekeeping session.  The Chamber wants to

22     have a housekeeping session on Thursday, the 7th of June, that's one week

23     from now, at 9.00 in the morning.  Any problems with that?

24             MS. MARCUS:  No problems, Your Honour.

25             MR. JORDASH:  No problems, Your Honour.


Page 20031

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Simatovic Defence?

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, it's okay.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then there's another matter, that is, the

 4     Prosecution would wish to make further submissions in relation to the

 5     motion in which it seeks further Browne materials, if I may say.  So

 6     we're not talking about rebuttal evidence, not about the expert report

 7     the Prosecution would like to present in rebuttal to the Browne report,

 8     but rather to receive the material and the information.

 9             I think the last we heard was that you, Mr. Jordash, you intended

10     to seek Mr. Browne's co-operation so as not to issue an order on that

11     matter.  I also do understand that there are some problems in that

12     context.  I wonder -- the Prosecution would like to make further

13     submissions in answering to the response by the Defence.  I wonder,

14     however, whether we should first take a break and then hear those

15     submissions or whether they would be of such -- so short that we could

16     continue.  And I'm specifying address you, Mr. Jordash and Mr. Stanisic.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Well, my suspicion is that they won't be that

18     short, because I think the -- the -- the issue is --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps we take a break first.

20             MR. JORDASH:  And could I also just raise two other things.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Very quickly.  One is the issue of the translation

23     which I mentioned in relation --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. JORDASH:  -- to this document.  And the second is just an

Page 20032

 1     inquiry as to whether we will be asked to address you on the timing of

 2     the filing of the closing briefs.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you've asked for a postponement of that.

 4             I suggest that there's too much on the agenda to deal with it and

 5     then adjourn, so let's first take a break.  We resume at 20 minutes to

 6     1.00.

 7             And could you tell us how much time you would need for the

 8     submissions in relation to the Browne materials.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, from our end, unless there are further

10     queries, about five minutes for the Browne issue and perhaps a little bit

11     more than that for the final trial brief deadline issue.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll hear from you after the break.

13                           --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Since it was announced that the submissions in

16     relation to Browne would be most likely the shorter ones, let's start

17     with that.  The Prosecution has asked for an opportunity to make

18     submissions, but perhaps it would be good for the Chamber to be updated

19     on the present situation, because I think the last thing we heard in

20     court was that Mr. Jordash would be in contact with Mr. Browne.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  This is directly in response to

22     that --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MS. MARCUS:  -- so it will all be clear from the submission, and

25     I'm going to ask Ms. Friedman to make that submission for you.

Page 20033

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Unless there's anything you with like to

 2     update on -- us on first, Mr. Jordash.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, please, because we received an e-mail today at

 4     12.06 from Mr. Browne, who states:

 5             "I have just been through all my notes.  No pages were detached

 6     during my examination other than the book 16 in my report.  That is the

 7     book that it was always going to be difficult, loads of detached pages

 8     when I saw it in March, loads of detached pages when I saw it in

 9     November --"

10             No, I'm missing out some bits because they're not strictly

11     relevant, although I'm happy to disclose the full e-mail, if necessary.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  If you tell us what is relevant, then if you perhaps

13     disclose the whole of the e-mail to the Prosecution, then that would ...

14             MR. JORDASH:  "Two pages became detached during my examination

15     and were noted and reported as such.  The Prosecution have -- already

16     have all those notes.  By the way, it was made quite clear during the

17     planning for my examination that the NFI supervisors were the

18     Prosecutor's agents.  Did the Prosecution not get a report from them

19     about all of this?  If not, what was the point?"

20             And that's it for the moment, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Prosecutor's agents seems to be a rather

22     ambiguous expression.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I think I understand Mr. Browne, who is

24     saying, "Well, I thought that I was being [indiscernible] for this

25     precise purpose, which is that the NFI observers would make a report

Page 20034

 1     concerning the way in which the examination was conducted, including any

 2     perceived mishandling or damage, and that report would be sent to the

 3     Prosecution."  I think that's what he's trying to say.  Whether

 4     "Prosecutor's agent" is the right words, I -- well, it's -- I think it's

 5     probably a bit overstating it, but I think the point is -- is clear.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Ms. Friedman.

 7             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yes.  Leaving aside for the moment the issue of

 8     the NFI, although I can address that, our concern is that Mr. Browne has

 9     only been asked to provide information as -- that he -- if there's any

10     additional damage, but our end and as the Defence has indicated, they

11     were going to ask him for only that information which is only part of

12     what our motion requested.  They indicated that the rest of the material

13     is irrelevant.  The Prosecution disagrees, and we consider all of the

14     material requested to be relevant.  And without going into details at

15     this stage, we submit that the response contains inaccuracies, that it

16     repeats arguments that we have responded to when the Defence sought to

17     compel the production of the Mladic notebooks in the courtroom.  And our

18     filing of the 22nd of February, 2012, did respond directly to the

19     arguments which are again found in this latest motion.

20             What the motion does not do is address the crux of the

21     Prosecution's position that the Prosecution and the Chamber are entitled

22     to the material which Mr. Browne acknowledged during his testimony should

23     have been put in his report and should have been disclosed.

24             And finally, it should be noted that the Stanisic Defence

25     initially claimed in its e-mail communication that the material was

Page 20035

 1     protected by work product.  Now apparently because they're unable to

 2     support that claim, they indicate that it's irrelevant.  And under these

 3     circumstances the Prosecution requests that the motion be decided upon,

 4     unless the Stanisic Defence requests all of the notes and all of the

 5     photographs from Mr. Browne.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  If I may just reply briefly.  Firstly, the

 8     Prosecution have not addressed the salient issues.  A number of issues

 9     remain completely unaddressed, including what protocol was used during

10     the time when Milovanovic handled the books, including what steps the

11     Prosecution have taken to establish the protocol that was used by the

12     Serbian MUP when transporting the books to their archives, including what

13     protocol was used during the transport of the books to The Hague at the

14     behest of the Prosecution.  And I'll give just one example in relation to

15     what remains unanswered.

16             In the Prosecution's response to our motion to compel the

17     production of the notebooks, the date of their response being the

18     22nd of February, 2012, the Prosecution indicated that bringing the

19     Mladic notebooks into a carpeted room would itself break the

20     DNA protocol, yet the Prosecution have not indicated whether the room, in

21     relation to when Milovanovic examined those books, was carpeted or not.

22     These are the questions the Prosecution have continued to disregard, in

23     our submission.  And at the same time, wanting their cake and eating it,

24     in our submission, they want to now put the Defence to standards which

25     they're not willing to accede to them themselves, by, at the very least,

Page 20036

 1     responding to some of these very real concerns.

 2             Secondly, whether Mr. Browne acknowledged notes should be

 3     disclosed or not is beside the point.  It's a legal issue.  Mr. Browne is

 4     not a lawyer.

 5             And thirdly, the issue of whether the Defence object on the basis

 6     of relevance or work product, we object on the basis of both.  But we

 7     have given the Prosecution the relevant information, the relevant

 8     information being that the notes do not relate to -- or the remainder of

 9     the notes do not relate to the Prosecution's concern about damage,

10     because, as Mr. Browne has confirmed, none of the notes, remaining notes,

11     deal with that subject.  The photographs certainly do not deal with that

12     subject.  It's very difficult to understand why Mr. Browne's photographs

13     are relevant to that subject at all.  And obviously the issue of work

14     product doesn't arise unless the Prosecution establish relevance.  They

15     are work product in the absence of --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, to give a long explanation as to

17     relevance and then to say, well, it's work product anyhow, that's -- is

18     that a very practical approach?

19             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I'm just dealing with both points.  I think

20     that they're not relevant to the Prosecution's concerns about damage to

21     the notebooks, and in some way the issue of relevance relates to work

22     product.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  But isn't it true that if it's work product, it

24     should not be disclosed whether it's relevant or not?

25             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I could see where work product would have to

Page 20037

 1     be or perhaps would fall to be disclosed if they became relevant.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mm -- okay.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  In this instance, I think that the two are the flip

 4     side of the coin.  If Mr. Browne's notes did contain further evidence of

 5     damage, then I think to claim work product would be difficult, because

 6     they are relevant, then, to an issue before the Court.  But in the

 7     absence of any of the notes or the photographs being relevant to the

 8     issue of damage, we do assert work product and say they're not for the

 9     Prosecution or the Court.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Friedman, any need to respond?

11             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.  First, as to the

12     allegations that the Defence says we have not responded to, we have

13     indeed.  As I mentioned, in our motion of the 22nd of February, we

14     explained at -- in relation to Manojlo Milovanovic, at paragraph 18 that

15     he was shown originals of the 2008 notebooks for which there is no

16     DNA protocol in place.  And in addition to that:  When he later dealt

17     with the 2010 notebooks, he reviewed the electronic copies.  This is also

18     the reason that they were scanned when they came to the OTP, another

19     assertion that was made, although not orally now but in the response,

20     that the Prosecution not explain the need to scan it, and we did so in

21     paragraph 16 of the 22nd of February filing, because the copies were not

22     of high enough quality that they could be used and we would have had to

23     constantly use the notebook, so we had to take high-quality electronic,

24     colour scans that would be complete and could be used in the future.

25             And with respect to the issue of the protocol that existed, this

Page 20038

 1     is again addressed in paragraph 17 of the 22nd of February filing, where

 2     we explained that we used a clean-room protocol which included blocking

 3     air vents, cleaning the room, scanner, and equipment with a particular

 4     chemical provided by the NFI.  Cleaning the surfaces between the

 5     processing of groups of evidence and requiring staff members entering the

 6     room to swear surgical masks, soft nitrile examination gloves, and full

 7     protection suits.  I'm sorry to repeat this now, but since the

 8     allegations do keep arising, it's important for us to put on the record

 9     that there is -- there's only been an attempt by the Prosecution to

10     maintain as best as possible the condition of these notebooks to prevent

11     further deterioration, especially when -- under circumstances where it's

12     unnecessary.  And the Prosecution did provide the notebooks to be

13     examined on two occasions under a strict protocol because of the efforts

14     that are being made in order to maintain that evidence.

15             Now, as for Mr. Browne's acknowledgement being -- him being

16     unable to legally explain, the issue is that when he in court was asked

17     about items and said, "This should have been in my report," we see that

18     his report is incomplete.  And at this stage it is a little late to now

19     ask him what else -- asking him the specific question of whether

20     additional pages were damaged is not the pertinent question at this

21     stage.  What's been demonstrated is that what needed to be in his report

22     was not in his report.  His notes, I would ask Mr. Jordash to articulate

23     what the work product concern is, because there doesn't seem to be any

24     articulation of that in the Rules of this Tribunal or even in common law

25     jurisprudence how it is that the notes of a witness about the evidence

Page 20039

 1     itself and not about Defence strategy or communication with the Defence

 2     would be work product.  Moreover, it would be -- it would have been

 3     broken when it was -- when part of them were already displayed, when

 4     there was no objection previously, when they were discussed, when they

 5     were offered.  So I would like to just ask what the basis for the work

 6     product claim is.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  That's it.

 8             Mr. Jordash, briefly, could I ask you also specifically, apart

 9     from the work-product question put to you by Ms. Friedman, what is

10     exactly -- to what extent does the one request, that is, to be further

11     informed about what happened, how does that influence the decision on the

12     motion?  I mean, the Prosecution is seeking something, and you say, Yes,

13     but you've provided us with insufficient information about what happened

14     before.

15             Now, I can imagine, of course, you have -- you have made a -- of

16     course you have to have sought the protection of the books, but to what

17     extent is -- I hardly dare to say -- is the tu quoque reasoning

18     applicable in these procedural circumstances?  To say, You should deny

19     the motion because the Prosecution has not given us the relevant

20     information we need.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Well, first of all, because it goes to the merits

22     of their position.  They take scans of these documents on two separate

23     occasions.  It is -- it's difficult to -- to accept that that scanning

24     process does not damage any of these books whatsoever, that somehow

25     Mr. Browne under a strict protocol damaged one of the books but the

Page 20040

 1     Prosecution's scanning of the books on two occasions didn't damage

 2     anything.  Now, the Prosecution want Mr. Browne's notes.  Where are the

 3     notes that the Prosecution must have taken if they're going to demand of

 4     the Defence what they've lived up to themselves?  And so --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Sorry to interrupt you.  Have you asked whether any

 6     notes were taken by the Prosecution and have you invited them to produce

 7     them?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  We've asked for any and all information relating to

 9     the treatment of these books since they were seized by the Serbian MUP

10     authorities.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Including protocols.  We've had no disclosure of

13     any of these so-called protocols the Prosecution say they have in place.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. JORDASH:  And --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Friedman, perhaps, because -- sorry to shortcut,

17     but I would like to be it a debate [sic].

18             Is there any reason why you wouldn't disclose to the Defence the

19     protocols which apparently you've used?

20             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Your Honours, you've -- you -- you -- the same way

21     you asked the relevance, that's our question.  If we've asserted, as

22     officers of the court, we've explained what it is that we're doing to

23     protect them, and the suspicion and the aspersions are not really -- we

24     don't understand the basis of it.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let's try to be very practical.  The

Page 20041

 1     protocols you say you've used, but there may be a confusion about what a

 2     protocol is.  Was it put on paper?

 3             MS. FRIEDMAN:  We can --

 4                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 5             MS. FRIEDMAN:  We can -- we can investigate further with the

 6     OTP Evidence Unit, but in terms of -- if I could just add --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no.  I'd like to keep matters at this moment.

 8     You may add whatever you want at a later stage.

 9             So, what happened, as a matter of fact, is that Mr. Jordash asked

10     you about what protocols were applied, and then you gave some rules which

11     apparently were applied without even having thought about whether these

12     rules were ever put on paper and -- because, having no answer.  It's

13     clear that the protocol for the inspection of the notebooks by

14     Mr. Browne, I think they were negotiated for half a year, and so they are

15     on paper.

16             Would -- would you -- if there's any written protocol, would you

17     give it to Mr. Jordash?

18             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Jordash, therefore, if it exists, you'll

20     have access to it.

21             And if not, you'll give to the best of your abilities the details

22     of what rules applied at all stages of the seizure and later

23     transportation and handling of these materials.  Is that ...

24             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yeah, we can provide that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I didn't ask these questions from the

Page 20042

 1     Prosecution.  I'm a bit surprised that the Prosecution only now starts

 2     thinking about whether there's a written document on the protocols, yes

 3     or not, because that -- I would have expected this to be dealt with

 4     earlier in the discussion between the parties.

 5             I asked it before because I think that just as the Prosecution is

 6     seeking the best available information about what happened and -- and

 7     exactly that you should be entitled to have the same information, not to

 8     say that if one party doesn't apply the same rules as the other, that

 9     that necessarily means that -- that the parties should give up their

10     claim on gaining information.  It's not matter of, as they say in Latin,

11     "do ut des," "I give it to you, so you give it to me."  I mean, it's not

12     an exchange.  There's a motion by the Prosecution.  And I'm seeking

13     whether the information you say you need, again, whether that's a

14     reason -- not to counter-motion is a different matter, but whether you

15     would be informed as fully as possible.  And the Prosecution are -- is

16     finding out whether at least there are any written protocols available.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So we have the protocols.  Any more to be

19     said about the protocols?

20             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Not strictly on the protocols.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Then any -- I interrupted you, Mr. Jordash, in order

22     to see whether we could make any progress on a certain matter.  I would

23     like, then to give you the floor again to further proceed.

24             MR. JORDASH:  I'm not sure there's anything I'd like to add other

25     than to -- to reiterate the point about the notes.  We would find it

Page 20043

 1     more -- less objectionable to be asked for notes if the Prosecution had

 2     kept notes themselves when handling the notebooks.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Simple question:  Have notes been made?

 4             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yes, they have, but, Your Honours, this is really

 5     besides the point because we have provided the information --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  My question simply was whether notes were made.

 7             Next question:  Are you willing to share these notes with the

 8     Defence?

 9             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yes, we are.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, equality has been finally established

11     in this respect.  Or is --

12             The answer was "yes," Ms. Friedman?  I see that there was some

13     further conversation within the Prosecution, but I've not heard that the

14     answer has changed.

15             So notes are -- now you may proceed.  I interrupted you

16     again - --

17             MR. JORDASH:  No, I mean, if the Prosecution are willing to

18     disclose the notes that they've made which relate to their handling of

19     the books, and I mean, when I use the word "notes," the notes which

20     should reflect whether any damage has been done to the books by their

21     handling.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What notes should reflect is different from what

23     notes reflect.  You can ask for notes that do exist.  The Prosecution is

24     not asking any more than notes that are in existence.  And whether the

25     notes that should have contained other information than they actually

Page 20044

 1     contain is a different matter.  But could I say that you would expect to

 2     read in those notes how the material was handled?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  And whether any -- yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So the Prosecution, as far as I understand,

 7     gives the written protocols to the extent they exist.  They give, as

 8     best -- to the best of their abilities, information about anything, what

 9     happened during their handling, give that information.  And if any notes

10     exist on that matter, they'll be disclosed to the Prosecution -- to the

11     Defence as well.

12             Have I summarised the situation?

13             MS. FRIEDMAN:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Mr. Jordash, I think we made one or two steps forward.  Does this

16     in any way influence your -- because it was part of your argument why it

17     would be unfair to ask Mr. Browne to provide what the Prosecution is

18     seeking.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  I mean, of course it does influence my -- but

20     let me just -- if I can just take one step back, which is to say this:

21     That the issue before the Court, or certainly one of the issues in

22     relation to the Mladic notebooks, is the source of the damage to the

23     notebooks, and in particular the book, I think book 16, which most, on

24     one view, implicates Mr. Stanisic.  And -- I mean, we -- we are concerned

25     that if -- this issue has been before the Court for some time.  We've

Page 20045

 1     made it very clear.  And what I'm concerned about is now hearing from the

 2     Prosecution, if I take what they say on face value that they have notes

 3     relating to or potentially relating to this issue, why it is, if they're

 4     acting in good faith, why it is those notes have not been disclosed

 5     previous to today.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  But I'm raising that now because what I'm mindful

 8     of is that we make a concession, and I'm minded to make that concession

 9     that we should disclose Mr. Browne's notes, and then what we get from the

10     Prosecution is another kind of note which just shows some kind of

11     broad-brush continuity rather than an examination.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I expect the Prosecution to disclose the notes they

13     have on this matter.  And -- and whether they are good notes or bad notes

14     or -- that is -- we can't force a party to disclose notes that do not

15     exist.

16             MR. JORDASH:  No.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We can instruct the party, order a party, to provide

18     information as fully as possible, and as officers of the court they have

19     to meet such an order.  If there is any material.  If a party says,

20     "We're willing to disclose these notes," then I expect them to disclose

21     the notes, all of them as they are in existence, dealing with this

22     matter.  And further suspicions about not being loyal in that respect are

23     for the next stage, I would say.

24             Mr. Groome.

25             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, simply to say the Prosecution accepts

Page 20046

 1     that the -- and we will undertake to provide notes.  I was under the

 2     impression that they had been provided, and I didn't come today having

 3     fully refreshed my recollection, but I do recall the evidence log, the

 4     notes of every movement of that book, being provided to the Defence.  But

 5     I will check that and I will make sure that Mr. Jordash is provided with

 6     all notes related to the book.

 7             But I think I want to make the point here that what the

 8     Prosecution is interested in is whether the books sustained additional

 9     damage during Mr. Browne's examination upon which he then made a

10     conclusion based upon damage that he may himself have caused.  The

11     Prosecution have very clear in its -- in its questioning of Dr. Browne

12     that we accepted that the books were damaged, and we were unable to say

13     with any great certainty how much damage was caused by the recovery by

14     the Serb police or how much damage was caused prior to the recovery by

15     the police.  But I think the relevant issue for us is whether or not we

16     accept Dr. Browne's assessment of what damage the condition was in when

17     he received them.  We just want to know what additional damage.  And that

18     was prompted by the inadvertent disclosure of one of his notes where he

19     had written "I have damaged the notebooks."  So we just want to be clear

20     about what damage was caused by his examination.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- let's -- at this moment it seems that the

22     parties have moved closer to each other.

23             MR. JORDASH:  In relation to the disclosure of the notes, I don't

24     think we have.  And the reason for that --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, but let's not discuss it now.  Mr. Groome will

Page 20047

 1     check it, what you have received, and then you may further discuss it.

 2     If you say, "Isn't -- isn't this available or isn't that available,"

 3     Mr. Groome - and that's at least how I understand the position of the

 4     Prosecution - committed himself to provide every note on paper made which

 5     deals with the handling of the books prior to the examination of

 6     Mr. Browne.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, and could I add something:  It is

 8     confirming my recollection.  I'm just receiving an e-mail that we have

 9     provided all of the material that we have - OTP staff declarations; the

10     evidence registration logs and movement logs; as well as we made the

11     investigator who was given responsibility for handling the books,

12     Ms. Erin Gallagher, available for an interview by the Defence so they

13     could fully explore this issue.  We've also provided all of the Serbian

14     MUP reports that we received in relation to this.  So I can confirm that

15     my recollection was correct that we have provided everything we have.  I

16     will double-check whether, since this disclosure was made, whether

17     there's any additional material, but all this material has been provided.

18             MR. JORDASH:  This is why -- this is why we're going round and

19     round in circles, because what I'm talking -- I accept.  I've accepted

20     that for a long time that the Prosecution, in Mr. Groome's customary open

21     way, has disclosed these documents.  What he hasn't disclosed is whether

22     there was a concerted effort to record the -- the state of the books

23     before the scanning, the damage done to the books during the scanning,

24     ditto during Milovanovic's examination, and so on.  These are the types

25     of notes that they're requesting from the Defence, and these are the

Page 20048

 1     types of notes, it would appear, they have not kept themselves.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If they do not exist any more, then of course it's

 3     impossible to produce them now.  Have you used the offer to interview -

 4     who was it? - so to --

 5             MR. JORDASH:  But it -- that doesn't help, because we have, and

 6     that was again typical of Mr. Groome to make that available.  But -- or

 7     her available.  But she doesn't know -- in the absence of keeping

 8     detailed notes, she cannot tell us page 16 out of 1.050 was damaged or

 9     not damaged at a given time.  It's that material.  So the Prosecution

10     stand to gain our notes and say, "Look, you've damaged," and by not

11     keeping the notes themselves --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I mean, they would like to know.  If --

13             MR. JORDASH:  Well, we would like to know.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Hm?

15             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, Your Honour.  We would like to know what

16     damage the Prosecution --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. JORDASH:  -- did to the books.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course.  If it would not have been written down,

20     the Prosecution wouldn't know either.  Of course.  Our sources of

21     knowledge are limited to what exists and what is in the minds of persons

22     we can ask for, but let me not take it any further at this moment.  Let

23     me just confer with my colleagues.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber is assisted by the submissions and will

Page 20049

 1     decide on the matter.

 2             Then, next item was final briefs.  Mr. Jordash, you go first?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Oh, do I have to?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  It was a line with a question mark.  It is

 5     quarter past 1.00.  We have half an hour available.  Who goes first and

 6     how is the time divided?

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And is the Simatovic Defence claiming the same time,

 9     or have you consulted with Mr. Jordash?  Does he present the position of

10     both Defence?

11             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours, we consulted with Mr. Jordash and we

12     will take the same position.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Who goes first?

14             MR. JORDASH:  I wondering -- sorry to interrupt.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MR. JORDASH:  I wonder if I might just make a two-minute

17     application for verification of the translation of --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.  You announced that earlier.  Yes.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I can deal with it in two minutes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

21             MR. JORDASH:  P3169, to my mind, from the English, translation is

22     ambiguous.  It's ambiguous because in the first paragraph it uses the

23     phrase "I met up at the hotel," which could indicate a casual -- a casual

24     pass-by, if you like, or it could indicate a meeting.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

Page 20050

 1             MR. JORDASH:  The second paragraph, "I encountered the same

 2     group," appearing to reflect a similar type of passing-by or meeting as

 3     the first paragraph, which suggests a much more brief meeting.  The word

 4     "encounter" in this context, in my submission, suggest something a bit

 5     more casual.  The Prosecution's interpretation is of something very

 6     definite: a meeting.  The Defence position is that "encounter," or

 7     something looser like that, is a much more natural interpretation.  So

 8     perhaps, in our view, an attempt by the Translation Unit to look at this

 9     would assist the Court.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Apart from the linguistic aspect, of course,

11     linguistic aspect is one of the aspects in interpreting the content of

12     documents, as long as the parties are aware of that, I think it might be

13     good to have it verified whether --

14             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, we didn't want to interrupt but

15     we --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MS. MARCUS:  -- share the concern and we will submit it for

18     verification.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  With these -- those specific questions

20     attached to the request.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Absolutely, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Marcus.

23             Then, who goes first with the final briefs?

24             MR. JORDASH:  I'm happy to make some brief submissions.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

Page 20051

 1             MR. JORDASH:  We would request until the end of September for the

 2     filing of the closing brief, give or take a few -- or one or two weeks,

 3     depending upon when the evidence finishes.  If the Court witness is

 4     called and takes the time that would look likely, then we may not finish

 5     the evidence until late in June, and we would submit a three-month period

 6     for a closing brief following a case of this size and complexity is not

 7     unreasonable.

 8             I'm not going to address in detail size.  Your Honours have sat

 9     on several cases and will have in mind, no doubt, the size of this case

10     in relation to other cases, but it is a sizable indictment, a broad

11     indictment with a wide-ranging joint criminal enterprise alleged.

12             Complexity is a bit more at the heart of our concern.  This is

13     not the type of case which involves a large swathe of evidence which can

14     be safely put to the side as unimportant or agreed testimony.  The -- the

15     contentious issues in this case really range from the crime-base

16     evidence, for example, whether -- and what -- what Martic's Police were

17     doing in the Krajina, for example, or what Mijovic may have been doing in

18     Bratunac, we have to go right to the ground, all the way to the

19     Prosecution allegation that Mr. Stanisic played some kind of

20     quasi-political role.  So we have to go right to the top to consider the

21     role of the top leadership from Croatia, Bosnia, and Belgrade.  So we

22     really do have, in our submission, an extremely complicated case where

23     the issues range from top to bottom, but also which is reflected in the

24     kind of focus which has to be played -- which has to be given to the

25     evidence.

Page 20052

 1             In our submission, much turns on the detailed examination of

 2     hundreds, if not thousands, of exhibits.  For example, in our submission,

 3     if one puts side by side the exhibits which deal with the

 4     Bratunac Red Berets, Your Honours will come to the conclusion that the

 5     Defence will urge upon you.  But only when Your Honours are taken through

 6     those exhibits one by one can a chronology be seen and the truth be

 7     ascertained.  And, in our submission, it's only through the minute

 8     examination of many of those exhibits and much of the witness testimony

 9     that Your Honours, in our view, will arrive at a just verdict.  And, in

10     our submission, a bit more time to write the closing brief will assist

11     Your Honours to arrive at the right verdict and will assist Your Honours

12     in arriving at the right verdict maybe perhaps more quickly than

13     Your Honours would.

14             I think the Prosecution are, I think, a skilled team.  We hope

15     that the Defence have -- can rise to that challenge, too, and in doing

16     so, if given a bit more time, provide you with the type of assistance

17     which we submit you would need to be able to arrive at the right verdict.

18             Finally, we had a quick e-mail exchange with a few Defence teams

19     yesterday, and we would suggest that the three months that we're

20     effectively asking for would not be unreasonable compared to, for

21     example, the Zupljanin case, which, whilst being granted in the end only

22     five weeks, effectively had from the beginning of the year until May

23     interspersed with a handful of rebuttal witnesses and, prior to that, had

24     September till December of 2011 where they were sitting only two weeks

25     out of every four because of the Haradinaj case.

Page 20053

 1             We've been, as Your Honours know, sitting intensely for some time

 2     and will do until perhaps the end of June.  So it's very difficult to

 3     make comparisons, that's what we've found, but nonetheless, we do think

 4     that's a useful comparison.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If comparisons are to be made, it should be as

 6     broad as possible so that it really gives a full overview.  That's --

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Well, perhaps I can just throw in, if I may, and

 8     Her Honour Judge Picard will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Perisic

 9     case, the parties were given, I think, six weeks after the last

10     Status Conference of the 2nd of May, 2012.  In our submission, that case

11     was significantly less complex in the way that it focused on one accused

12     and focused on largely the supplying from one entity to another as

13     compared to this, which -- this case, which involves a multitude of types

14     of supplies to various locations.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that a comparison

16     is -- it's a complex matter.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Because every case has its own specific features and

19     a variety of -- of elements to consider, and the Chamber, of course, will

20     carefully consider the comparisons you made.

21             Mr. Petrovic.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,

23     just two sentences.

24             Our Defence team supports everything that our learned friend

25     Mr. Jordash said.  We only wish to emphasise two circumstances that may

Page 20054

 1     bring about a considerable change to the hitherto case record in this

 2     trial.

 3             The witness the Court intends to call and the evidence in the

 4     form of personnel files that the Prosecution intends to present in their

 5     rebuttal case, those two circumstances that will come to light by the end

 6     of June bring about a tectonic change to the case record so far.  Any

 7     kind of work we may do now, without having a clear idea of how that will

 8     end, would be futile.  As things stand now, three weeks after the leading

 9     of that evidence can certainly not be sufficient for the work that we

10     need to be done to be done well.

11             And if you allow me just one more thing.  After having done a

12     preliminary analysis of everything that should be included in the closing

13     brief, our preliminary position is that the limit of 60.000 words will

14     not be enough, and we will have to apply to the Trial Chamber to modify

15     that limit.  And we will attempt to do so, as our colleague Mr. Jordash

16     has indicated.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

18             Prosecution.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  The Prosecution appreciates

20     the Chamber's offer to the parties to make submissions regarding the

21     proposed deadline for final trial briefs.

22             The Prosecution notes that it will strive to meet any deadline

23     set by the Chamber.  We wish to express our concern at the difficulty

24     which the Prosecution will likely face in driving to meet the proposed

25     pre-summer recess deadline for completion of the final trial brief.

Page 20055

 1             The Prosecution requests that the deadline for final submissions

 2     be set at the 31st of August, a six-week extension of the Chamber's

 3     previously announced deadline, for the following reasons:  The purpose of

 4     final submissions is to allow the parties to assist the Chamber to the

 5     greatest extent possible in the examination of the evidence and the

 6     search for the truth.  Decisions related to the timing of final briefs

 7     must, in our submission, be informed primarily by that goal.  Of course,

 8     expediency is an important interest as well, but we submit that given the

 9     length and complexity of the trial, the time that we seek in order to

10     devote exclusively to the preparation of the brief is reasonable.  We

11     submit that the interests of justice are best served by the Prosecution

12     and the Defence having developed carefully considered and carefully

13     crafted final submissions.

14             Your Honours, the reasonableness of the extension sought by the

15     parties must be assessed in light of three factors:  The first factor is

16     the length of the proceedings.  These proceedings have now been ongoing

17     for three years.  In this context, a six-week extension of the deadline

18     for the briefs is proportional and reasonable to the benefit to be

19     achieved.

20             The second factor is the extent of the evidentiary record in this

21     case.  The record now runs to 20.000 transcript pages and more than 4.000

22     exhibits, with new materials still being admitted through Defence

23     witnesses and through the bar table.  We note in this respect the filing

24     today of the Simatovic Defence in which they foreshadowed a combination

25     of approximately 510 documents they anticipate tendering from the bar

Page 20056

 1     table in the future.

 2             A period of uninterrupted work following the close of the

 3     evidence is required to synthesise and make intelligent arguments

 4     regarding a body of evidence of that size.

 5             The third factor is the critical importance of final submissions

 6     in assisting the Chamber in its fundamental task: the search for truth.

 7     This extension is not sought for the completion of a frivolous or

 8     peripheral task.  It is sought to enable the parties to properly

 9     disarming one of their primary duties in this case.  In light of these

10     considerations, a six-week extension is, in our submission, entirely

11     appropriate.

12             The Prosecution finds itself with limited resources at this stage

13     of the proceedings.  All but one of the attorneys on the

14     Stanisic/Simatovic Prosecution team is engaged on two cases.

15             As the Chamber is aware, the time-period prior to the summer

16     recess will involve a confluence of competing and urgent matters, all of

17     which are central to the Prosecution's obligations.  We have been working

18     steadily on the brief for the past two months.  Nonetheless, the rebuttal

19     filings, bar table responses, witness preparation, and housekeeping, and

20     now the response to the motion filed earlier this week by the

21     Stanisic Defence, all are critical tasks being undertaken by the

22     Prosecution team, which have effectively prevented us from spending the

23     time necessary to progress our closing submissions.

24             Under these circumstances, the Prosecution agrees with the

25     Defence that the interests of justice are not served by the filing of the

Page 20057

 1     final briefs prior to the summer recess.  The Prosecution appreciates

 2     this opportunity, and we are ready to meet any instructions issued by the

 3     Chamber in this regard.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that there's no need to respond to

 5     what seems to be a concurring position by the parties.

 6             Then we adjourn.  And we'll resume on Thursday, the 7th of June,

 7     at 9.00 in the morning in this -- yes, Mr. -- I --

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, could -- just very quickly -- could the

 9     accused be excused in the customary way from the housekeeping session?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  From the housekeeping sessions.  If -- it almost

11     goes without saying.  If Mr. Stanisic and/or Mr. Simatovic think they can

12     use their time better and more pleasant, then they're excused.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  So therefore, I was interrupted when I said the

15     7th of June, at 9.00 in the morning, in this same courtroom, II.

16                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.33 p.m.,

17                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 7th day

18                           of June, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.