Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6753

 1                           Monday, 8 June, 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good afternoon to everybody in and around the

 7     courtroom.  Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.

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

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-81-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Could we have appearances

12     for the day.  Starting with the Prosecution into.

13             MR. HARMON:  Good afternoon Your Honours.  Good afternoon

14     everyone.  Mark Harmon, Bronagh McKenna, and Carmela Javier for the

15     Prosecution.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

17             And for the Defence.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good

19     afternoon to everyone taking part in this trial.  Mr. Perisic will be

20     represented by Milos Androvic, Tina Drolec, Daniela Tasic, and by your

21     leave, we have two new members Annie Tai and Dana Glassel and of course,

22     Mr. Gregor Guy-Smith as co-counsel, and myself.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.

24             Good afternoon, sir, and welcome back.  The break has been too

25     long, I ask that you make the declaration once again before you proceed


Page 6754

 1     with your testimony.  Will the usher please help.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 3     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 4                           WITNESS:  MIODRAG STARCEVIC [Resumed]

 5                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, you may be seated.

 7     Mr. Harmon, please get the witness's name on the record.

 8                           Examination by Mr. Harmon:  [Continued]

 9        Q.   Good afternoon, sir.  One again welcome back to The Hague.

10        A.   Good afternoon.

11        Q.   For the record, could you statement your name?

12        A.   Miodrag Starcevic.

13             MR. HARMON:  Your Honours, we are going to be going in and out of

14     the private session because of the nature of the documents I'll being to

15     be showing Mr. Starcevic.  If we could now go into private session.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session

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

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are in private session.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Yes, Mr. Harmon.

20             MR. HARMON:  If I could, first of all, have on the monitor

21     Prosecution Exhibit 1895.

22        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this is a document that you've seen before.  In

23     fact, we've spent some time with it in your previous evidence.  You

24     recall that we went through, and you assisted us with identifying and

25     defining what various elements of this document meant.  For example, on

Page 6755

 1     page -- the page that's in front of you, you defined the term "appointed"

 2     as per peacetime establishment.  Then you took us through and defined a

 3     number of other elements assigned and appointed per peacetime

 4     establishment, transferred, and temporarily assigned.

 5             When I was looking back through this document, I found a portion

 6     that we had not addressed, and so if we could turn to page 11 of the

 7     English and page 10 of the B/C/S, I'm going to ask you, Mr. Starcevic, to

 8     assist us one more time with this document.

 9             Mr. Starcevic, you will see in about the middle of the page with

10     the letter B, you'll see the phrase:

11             "Transferred and appointed as per peacetime establishment."

12             Could you assist us in interpreting what that phrase means in

13     respect of this order?

14        A.   To be transferred implies that the person to whom this order

15     applies will go from one garrison to another.  In other words, from one

16     garrison, and this is probably stated in the statement of reason, this

17     person is transferred to another garrison; but at the same time by virtue

18     of this order, this person is being appointed to a new post in the new

19     garrison that he is being transferred to.

20        Q.   So could we focus on number 16 who is the first named person

21     under this transfer and appointment item.  It's Cedomir Bulat.  Could you

22     just walk us through what happened to Mr. Bulat and what he was ordered

23     to do in this respect:  What his previous assignment was, where he was

24     transferred, and where his appointment was?

25        A.   Mr. Bulat is apparently transferred from the Sarajevo garrison to

Page 6756

 1     the Belgrade garrison as the commander of the 40th Personnel Centre --

 2     no, as the commander of the 21st corps of the 40th Personnel Centre.  He

 3     discharged the usual tasks that such a commander would be doing.

 4        Q.   Thank you very much.

 5             MR. HARMON:  We can go back to public session.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm a bit at a loss.  I heard transferred from

 7     Sarajevo, I don't see Sarajevo written anywhere.  I do see 40th Personnel

 8     Centre which I would have imagined was in the Krajina.

 9             MR. HARMON:  I can assist, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please.

11             MR. HARMON:  If you go to the bottom of the page, last two words

12     visible in the English.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Previous post, thank you, sorry.  Thank

14     you, sir, that helps.

15             May the Chamber please move into open session.

16                           [Open session]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

19             Mr. Harmon.

20             MR. HARMON:  Yes, thank you.

21        Q.   When you testified last, Mr. Starcevic, we had a very interesting

22     discussion, and you made a distinction between different types of orders.

23     One order, "naredba," which you define as in a quote, I'm referring to

24     page 5462 of the transcript lines 14 to 16, you defined it as a general

25     regulation or a specific regulation that defines the responsibilities of

Page 6757

 1     and duties and rights of individuals."  And then you defined

 2     "naredjenje," at page 5462, lines 23 to 25, as:

 3             "... means issuing an operational command.  So a 'naredjenje'

 4     command is a provision or a document that is part of the chain of

 5     command."

 6             Now, what I would like to do, Mr. Starcevic, is look at a series

 7     of documents starting with Prosecution Exhibit 1777.  If that could be on

 8     the monitor, please.  I'd like to go to page 81 of the B/C/S and the

 9     English is found at 0611-7672.

10             Mr. Starcevic, while these documents are coming up on the screen

11     I know you've seen some but not all of these document, it's been awhile

12     since you were here, so please take your time and review the documents

13     and when you've had an opportunity to do so, I will did you some

14     questions about them.

15             So let me first of all, give you the opportunity to review this

16     document once again, and then I'll ask you some questions about it.

17             Have you had a chance to review it, Mr. Starcevic?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   This is a document --

20        A.   I'm not sure if I have seen it before, but I've seen it just now.

21        Q.   All right.  This is a document that is dated the 16th of

22     September, 1995.  It emanates from Military Post 9000 in Knin.  The

23     author of this document is the Commander Lieutenant-General Mile Mrksic.

24     Now, just for purposes of the record, Knin is located in which country?

25        A.   Now, it is in the Republic of Croatia.

Page 6758

 1        Q.   What I'd like to do on this document, because we have an

 2     interesting illustration, in the first line below the order number and

 3     the location Banja Luka, the word and the term "naredba" is used and then

 4     you see that Mr. Starcevic?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And then underneath that term is the other term that we discussed

 7     earlier, "naredjenje."  So can you just comment on this document.

 8     There's two terms, two separate terms that are used.  The first is in

 9     that first line that says, "With the objective of the carrying out the

10     order of the Chief of General Staff of the VJ, I hereby," and then order.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe that this is not a very

13     precise question by asking the witness to comment on a document which

14     leads the witness to guess.  The witness provided his definitions of

15     "naredba" and "naredjenje," whereas now the Prosecution is asking him to

16     comment this very document.  I don't know what else he can provide other

17     than guess-work.  If his definitions are there, then Mr. Harmon should be

18     more accurate in asking questions.  If he is asking the witness to tell

19     them what was underlying and what was the thinking of the persons issuing

20     these orders is inappropriate, and I think that this is the line of

21     question that Mr. Harmon is pursuing at the moment.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  How do you know he's going to guess, sir.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Quite simply he has been asked to

24     give us a comment and to explain why we have these two terms, "naredba"

25     and "naredjenje."  The witness is asked to give an expert comment based

Page 6759

 1     on his expertise and experience.  That means that he should, by that, be

 2     asked to analyse the document where we know that the witness hasn't been

 3     in the army since 1994.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you use the word expert now in your response to

 5     me?  Expert opinion?

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, can we please in one word say exactly

 8     what the basis of your objection is.  You can't now say he is going to

 9     guess and then you say we are asking for expert opinion.  What is the

10     basis of your objection, and I want one word?

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The way in which the question is

12     posed requires speculation because the request is for comment regarding

13     the form and not the content.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know where you get that the comment is

15     going to be on form and not content.  I think this objection must be

16     overruled.

17             Can you proceed, Mr. Harmon.

18             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

19        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, you've discussed the differences between these two

20     types of orders.  You have an order in front of you, Prosecution Exhibit

21     177.  It uses the two different terms.  Can you comment on the use of the

22     two different terms in this document, please.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think, sorry, I think now your question is

24     different.  I thought you wanted him to comments on the word that you now

25     mentioned in this document.

Page 6760

 1             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Not on the use of the two different words.

 3             MR. HARMON:

 4        Q.   Can you comment on the use of the word "naredba" in the first

 5     paragraph of this document?

 6        A.   I don't know what possible comment one can make on this.  Judging

 7     by the language of the document, it turns out that the "naredba" that

 8     this letter refers to is a basis for issuing this "naredjenje."

 9        Q.   So in this first paragraph, Mr. Starcevic, was there an order

10     issued by the Chief of the VJ General Staff?

11        A.   According to this document, yes, there's a reference made to his

12     order.

13        Q.   And based on that order of the Chief of General Staff, what type

14     of an order did Mile Mrksic issue?

15        A.   What Mr. Mrksic signed is an operational command "naredjenje,"

16     that is to carry out a task that has been specified in the chief's order

17     or "naredba."

18             MR. HARMON:  Thank you very much.  I'm done with this document,

19     Your Honour.  If I could turn to Prosecution Exhibit 1925, please.

20        Q.   Now, let's, first of all, look at this document.  Let me be

21     clear, Mr. Starcevic, do you recall having seen this document before

22     coming into court today?  And if not, if you need time to review it, just

23     let me know.

24        A.   I really don't remember having seen this document.

25        Q.   Let's go through this document then, we'll go through it slowly.

Page 6761

 1     If we could start at the top, we could see, first of all, this document

 2     is dated the 24th of March, 1995.  And it emanates from the Federal

 3     Republic of Yugoslavia cabinet of the Chief of General Staff of the

 4     Yugoslav Army.  And if we could turn to the last page in each of these

 5     documents, we will see who is the author of this document.

 6             Do you see who the author of this document is, Mr. Starcevic?

 7        A.   Yes, Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav Army,

 8     Lieutenant-General Momcilo Perisic.

 9             MR. HARMON:  Could we return to the first page of each of these

10     documents.

11        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, we can see in this document that in the

12     caption below the date it says:

13             "Order for the formation of a coordinating staff for assistance

14     to the 40th Personnel Centre."

15             And we can see in the Serbian language version of that, it uses

16     the term "naredjenje."  Now, if we go to the bottom of the English there

17     is the word order.    If we look at the corresponding word in the Serbian

18     version it says "naredjenje."  And is this document, Mr. Starcevic, a

19     command?

20        A.   Yes, I think that this is a "naredjenje," a command.

21        Q.   And the command that was issued, we can see in Roman numeral I is

22     to form a coordinating staff comprised of specific individuals.  You see

23     that in the text?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   If we take, for example, number 2, there's a -- we'll stay with

Page 6762

 1     this page then.  If we go to number 2 we can see one of the individuals

 2     is a retired major-general from the association of veterans.  If we go to

 3     number 3, we can see this person is from the VJ General Staff logistics

 4     sector.  If we could focus on 7 and 8, we can see that both of those

 5     individuals are -- number 7 is a member of the VJ General Staff personnel

 6     administration 40th Personnel Centre department of personnel affairs; and

 7     number 8 is communications colonel of the Main Staff of the 40th

 8     Personnel Centre.

 9             Now, in respect of this command, is this a proper exercise by

10     General Perisic of command over members who are in the 40th Personnel

11     Centre of the Yugoslav Army?

12        A.   Formally looking at it, you could conclude that.  However, what

13     is confusing is the fact that there is a person here who is not actually

14     a member of the army.  He is retired.  So it's hard for anybody to be

15     able to command him.  Also the fact that is creating a little more

16     confusion is that this is evidently being formed not as a permanent

17     organisational unit but as some sort of temporary force or composition

18     which can be seen from the fact that none of those that have

19     General Perisic as their superior is changing their own regular

20     establishment duties, but are doing their work in the coordination HQ on

21     top of their regular duties.

22        Q.   So insofar as items number 7 and 8, members of the 40th Personnel

23     Centre, would that be a proper exercise of command over those

24     individuals?  Putting aside for just the moment item number 2 who is

25     Mr. Bajic -- retired General Bajic.

Page 6763

 1        A.   Yes, I think that you could make that conclusion.

 2        Q.   So I take it your reservation only relates to a retired general

 3     and whether the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav Army could issue a

 4     command to a retired person?  Is that your reservation, if I understood

 5     it correctly?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] A small intervention on the

10     transcript page 10, line 17.  The witness said Perisic [In English] Not

11     changing their regular establishment.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was just about to raise that with you too,

13     Mr. Harmon.  That as I understand the witness, that's not the only

14     reservation, the reservation also is that, one, how does this become an

15     order if it is ordered to a person who is retired who cannot be ordered.

16     Number one.  Number two, number two, how does it become an order to

17     members of the -- active members of the army when they are not being

18     relieved of their previous responsibilities.  They are being required to

19     carry on this while they are also still required to maintain their

20     previous responsibilities.  Number three, that this order appears to be

21     of a -- the commission rather, appears to be of a temporary nature and

22     not a permanent order.

23             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  I can address those, and I'll ask questions

24     of the witness.

25             I think in respect, first of all, Your Honours, in respect of the

Page 6764

 1     order, the command given to a retired person, I think Mr. Starcevic has

 2     made that clear.  He says that's dubious nature of whether it can be

 3     given or can't be given is something that he has reservation on.

 4        Q.   Let me ask some additional questions to you, Mr. Starcevic.  When

 5     a commanding officer -- strike that.

 6             When an officer is in a particular position performing specific

 7     tasks, can a superior officer, in addition to those specific tasks the

 8     officer is performing, command him to do something else, some additional

 9     tasks?

10        A.   Yes, he can.  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first answer.

11     The fact that their basic duties are not being changed, the duties that

12     that they were appointed to, but that they are being entrusted with tasks

13     in the coordination staff can, in fact, lead to the conclusion that the

14     coordination staff is not a newly formed unit, but a kind of temporary

15     body that is being formed because of some particular needs, to assist, as

16     one can see in the preamble, to help the 40th Personnel Centre.  Still,

17     they remain on their own -- on their primary duties and provide help when

18     that is essential, provide help to this coordination staff on top of

19     their regular duties.

20             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  Does that resolve the Court's concern.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It was resolved a long time ago.  All I was saying

22     the one you mentioned was not the only basis on which the witness was

23     saying -- basing his argument.

24             MR. HARMON:  All right.  Thank you, sir.

25             Can we go into private session.

Page 6765

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session.

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

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are in private session.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 5             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 6             MR. HARMON:  Could we have 65 ter 9471 on the monitor, please.

 7        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I know you have not had an opportunity to see this

 8     document before we came into court, so I will, first of all, orient you

 9     through this a bit and then I will give you an opportunity to take a look

10     at this document.

11             On the first page we can see that this document emanates from

12     Slobodan Peric, who is a colonel.  He is commander of the 18th SVK Corps.

13     The date of the document is 20 June, 1995, and the document is being

14     submitted to the chief of the VJ General Staff.

15             If we turn to the last page of the document, we can see who

16     signed this.  And you see a name at the end of this document,

17     Mr. Starcevic?

18        A.   Yes, Colonel Slobodan Peric.

19             MR. HARMON:  If we could turn back to the first page then.

20        Q.   Again, Mr. Starcevic, I want to go to the first paragraph that is

21     above small letter (a).  It says:

22             "Based on your oral order, I am submitting to you the list of

23     officers who participated and those who did not participate in combat

24     operations of the 18th Corps from 1 to 2 May, 1995, in the territory of

25     Western Slavonia."

Page 6766

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   If you take a look at the term "order" in this example, it is

 3     using the word "naredjenje" you see that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   So this, the type of an order that Colonel Peric received was a

 6     command; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes, judging by what it says in the introduction.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9             MR. HARMON:  Then, Your Honour, if this item could be given an

10     exhibit number.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's admitted into evidence.  May it please be

12     given an exhibit number.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2412.

14             MR. HARMON:  And if it could be under seal, please.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Under seal, please.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Under seal.

17             MR. HARMON:  Thank you.  If we could return to public session.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into open session.

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

22             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

23             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 1827 on the

24     monitor, please.

25        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this is a document -- I'll give you some time to

Page 6767

 1     look at it.  I believe you may have seen this before you came into

 2     testify; is that correct?

 3        A.   I think so, yes, but I cannot be sure.  A lot of time has passed

 4     since then, but I think so, yes.

 5        Q.   I agree, a lot of time has passed, so I want to give you the

 6     opportunity to look at this.  This is a document, sir, that is dated the

 7     11th of April, 1994.  It comes from the General Staff of the

 8     Army of Yugoslavia, and it is directed to the Main Staff of the Army of

 9     Srpska.  Can we go to the bottom to see who is the author of this

10     document.

11             Can you tell us who is the author of this document,

12     Mr. Starcevic?

13        A.   Lieutenant-Colonel Momcilo Perisic.

14        Q.   Okay, if we can go back --

15        A.   Lieutenant-general.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, this is a warning, from what we can see in the

17     document.  Can you assist us in what is the meaning of a warning?

18        A.   It doesn't have the legal significance of a warning.  It's a

19     colloquial act or document which doesn't have a legal form or legal

20     binding effect.  It can be understood also as advice or a proposal or a

21     recommendation.  And there is no formal legal warning in the form of a

22     document.

23        Q.   Can I correct your attention to the second item in the warning.

24     It says:

25             "Maintain decisive defence of all axes and regions, focussing on

Page 6768

 1     the Posavina corridor."

 2             Do you know where the Posavina corridor is, Mr. Starcevic?

 3        A.   Yes.  Yes, I know where that corridor is in the Posavina.

 4        Q.   Can you locate that for us, or can you assist us where that is?

 5        A.   It's the section of the road between -- well, between the towns

 6     of Banja Luka and Bijeljina.  It would be best to say more closely

 7     between Brcko and Bijeljina.  It's practically the only link between two

 8     parts of Republika Srpska, the only road, the only transport link between

 9     two parts of Republika Srpska, the western part and the eastern part, and

10     then on to link with the Republic of Serbia.

11             It is located in the northern area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, right

12     next to the river Sava.

13        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, have you heard of the six strategic objectives of

14     the Bosnian Serb people?

15        A.   No, not officially.

16        Q.   Have you heard of it unofficially?

17        A.   About some of them, yes, but that is something that falls under

18     being informed in general and monitoring or following the situation and

19     finally out of my own personal views about what was going on.

20        Q.   And based on the information that you collected, Mr. Starcevic,

21     was the creation and maintenance of the corridor linking Banja Luka and

22     Bijeljina one of the objectives, one of the strategic objectives of the

23     Bosnian Serb people?

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Harmon now is

Page 6769

 1     leading the witness.  He could have asked him what does he know what the

 2     strategic goals are, but now he has, in this manner, suggested the

 3     answer.  And then I think he continues to suggest the follow-up questions

 4     that relate to this document, so as a whole, this way of questioning is

 5     leading the witness.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

 7             MR. HARMON:  I tried not to, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I am afraid you did, sir.

 9             MR. HARMON:  I failed.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You failed dismally.

11             MR. HARMON:

12        Q.   Let me ask you -- Mr. Starcevic, you need some water?

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is there water for the witness?  Just check and

14     see, please.  Thank you, sir.

15             MR. HARMON:

16        Q.   Can you comment then, Mr. Starcevic, on what relationship, if

17     any, the Posavina corridor had to strategic objectives, if you know?

18        A.   Of course again I'm placed in the position of voicing my own

19     position on that, but I have no problem in doing that.  I believe that it

20     was inevitable to maintain the corridor.  It was simply requisite for

21     keeping the connection between two parts of Republika Srpska; otherwise

22     without the corridor, the two parts would have been cut off from one

23     another and have had no link with each other.

24        Q.   All right.

25             MR. HARMON:  I'm finished with this document, Your Honour.


Page 6770

 1             Could we go into private session.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before we remove it and go into private

 3     session.  Sir, you said the word "warn" has no legal consequences.  What

 4     would be the consequences if the warning had not been heeded?  Could the

 5     issuer of this warning take any measures against those who disobeyed it?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't believe that any legal

 7     measures could have been taken should someone fail to adhere to the

 8     warning, but in view of the fact that a warning is in a way a question of

 9     good services or an advice, perhaps there could be some influence on the

10     quality of the relationship between the person who is issuing the warning

11     and -- or the side that is issuing the warning and the side that does not

12     adhere to the warning.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

14             May the document be removed and may the Chamber move into open

15     session.  That's what you asked for, sir?

16             MR. HARMON:  I'd like to go into private session.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You want private session.  I beg your pardon.  May

18     the Chamber please move into private session.

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

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are in private session.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

22             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

24             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 766 on the monitor,

25     please.

Page 6771

 1        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, the document that is in front of you are minutes

 2     from the 45th Session of the Supreme Defence Council that was held on the

 3     5th of October, 1995.  It identifies in that document the participants in

 4     that.  And I'd like to direct your attention and the Court's and the

 5     Defence attention to item number 3, which is found on the next page.

 6             First of all, familiarise yourself with that again, if you would,

 7     Mr. Starcevic.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You see from item 3 that the text discusses the termination of

10     professional military service of four generals who were members of the

11     40th Personnel Centre.  It identifies them as Mile Mrksic, Novakovic,

12     Celeketic, and Bjelanovic.  It says that these people had, in accordance

13     with the Law on the Yugoslav Army, Article 107, paragraph 2, returned to

14     the Yugoslav Army after the fall of the Republika Srpska Krajina.

15             Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about other elements in

16     this particular paragraph, but if we could very briefly, I want to focus

17     your attention on what the meaning of Article 107, paragraph 2, means in

18     this paragraph.  First of all, I would like to go back to Article 107,

19     and you can assist us.  Can I quickly go to Prosecution Exhibit197, and

20     we can focus on Article 107 in that.  I'm particularly interested this

21     page 25 of the English and page 9 of the B/C/S.

22             Now, Mr. Starcevic, maybe you can help us out on this.  The

23     minutes of this SDC session says, and I quote, it identifies the four

24     generals and it says:

25             "Who had in accordance with the law on Yugoslav Army, Article

Page 6772

 1     107, paragraph 2, returned to the Yugoslav Army after the fall of the

 2     RSK."

 3             Can you direct us to which portion of Article 107 this text

 4     refers to?  So Article 107 is in front of you, and the text of the SDC,

 5     I'll reread it, it says that these four generals had:

 6             "In accordance with the Law on the Yugoslav Army, Article 107,

 7     paragraph 2, returned to the Yugoslav Army after the fall of the RSK."

 8             Which portion of the Article 107 is being referred to in

 9     particular SDC minute?  The reason I ask you is -- go ahead,

10     Mr. Starcevic.

11        A.   I think that the interpretation is wrong.  They didn't return

12     pursuant to Article 107.  Simply it is being noted that they had returned

13     to the Army of Yugoslavia.  Article 107 is used for the grounds of

14     termination of duty, not those who return pursuant to Article 107, but

15     their service will be terminated pursuant to Article 107, paragraph 2.

16        Q.   Well, I thank you very much for that clarification, it wasn't

17     clear to me from the text I had in front of me.

18             MR. HARMON:  Can we go back then to Prosecution Exhibit 766 in

19     item 3 that we were looking at just a minute ago.

20        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's take a look at -- let me take a look at then --

21     if Article 107, paragraph 2, is the basis for their termination, Article

22     107, paragraph 2, deals with people who have served 30 years in the

23     service; correct?  Let me just get 107 in front of me again.

24             Paragraph -- Article 107, paragraph 2.  Paragraph 2 that I have

25     in front of me, Mr. Starcevic, I'd ask you to confirm this:

Page 6773

 1             "Military service of a professional officer or a non-commissioned

 2     officer shall be terminated when he has acquired at least 30 pensionable

 3     years of service if the needs of the service so require."  That's the

 4     basis then that the SDC terminate these individuals; correct?

 5        A.   I'm not quite sure whether this is a good translation or maybe

 6     you have misspoken.  It is either when they have 30 years of service, or

 7     if it is necessary, and that is to say he will remain in the service

 8     after those 30 years if the service needs/requires so.  So this is the

 9     basis to which item 3 is referring to.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now, when a person is terminated on that basis,

11     Mr. Starcevic, administratively, what are the procedural rights of the

12     person being terminated?

13        A.   His procedural right is to have an interview with officer in

14     charge.  In this particular case this is the Chief of Staff, who informed

15     these officers about the decision already taken by the Supreme Defence

16     Council.  He probably also explains the reasons to them for such a

17     decision, although that is not a necessity and binding, and this is

18     followed by preparing the papers for service termination.

19        Q.   And would a person who is being terminated on the basis of

20     Article 107, paragraph 2, be entitled to full rights and benefits up to

21     the actual day when that person leaves the service?

22        A.   Yes.  They retain all the rights and benefits up to the moment of

23     handing over the duty.  The handover of duty is an official procedure

24     which means that this person signs that he has handed over his duty as of

25     that date, and that date is then counted as the date of termination of

Page 6774

 1     service.

 2        Q.   Now, if we take a look at item 3, I just want to point out some

 3     additional features to it.  We looked at the date of these minutes which

 4     is October 15th, 1995, and we can see in the first paragraph that the

 5     Supreme Defence Council decided to pass an enactment which retroactively

 6     retired these four generals.  In other words, they were to be retired as

 7     of the 31st of December, 1994.  You see that?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   Furthermore, in the second paragraph, that the General Perisic

10     was tasked with conducting an interview of those four generals in order

11     to inform them of the decision of the Supreme Defence Council, and to

12     inform them of their duty to place themselves at the disposal of the 30th

13     Personnel Centre following their termination from military service in the

14     Yugoslav Army.  You see that?

15        A.   Yes.

16             MR. HARMON:  I'd like to take a look now at a series of

17     documents, if we could.  We can return to public session, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into open session.

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

23             MR. HARMON:  Can we have Prosecution Exhibit 1910 on the record,

24     please.

25        Q.   Take a look at that for just a minute, Mr. Starcevic.

Page 6775

 1        A.   I see this, yes.

 2        Q.   We can see that this document is an Official Note.  The author of

 3     this Official Note is General Perisic, and the date at the bottom

 4     left-hand side is the 6th of October, 1995, one day following the 45th

 5     Session of the SDC, and this is an Official Note relating to an interview

 6     with Major-General Milan Celeketic.  And it indicates that there was an

 7     interview, and it indicates that General Celeketic agreed to the

 8     termination of military service on the 31st of December, 1994, pursuant

 9     to Article 107, paragraph 2, of the Law on the Yugoslav Army, and he

10     accepted to be sent to the VRS.

11             MR. HARMON:  Could we turn to the next exhibit in order, which is

12     Prosecution Exhibit 1908.

13        Q.   Okay.  Tell me when you've had a chance to review this,

14     Mr. Starcevic.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Let's -- this is -- this is a decree of the president of the FRY,

17     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and it's dated the 22nd of December,

18     1994.  It relates to the termination of professional military service for

19     major -- I mean, Milan Celeketic, who was on duty at the 40th Personnel

20     Centre of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslav.

21             MR. HARMON:  Could we go to the bottom of the document to see

22     whose name appears on this document.

23        Q.   You see a name who is the author of this document?

24        A.   Yes.  President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

25     Zoran Lilic.

Page 6776

 1             MR. HARMON:  Can we go back to the first page of this document.

 2        Q.   And what is the basis for the termination of General Celeketic,

 3     according to this document?

 4        A.   I think that we have to make a distinction between the base and

 5     the reason.  The base is Article 107, paragraph 2, and the reason was

 6     that because the officer in charge made an assessment and decided that

 7     his service should be terminated because that is the requirement of the

 8     service, and that was the discretionary right of the person -- of the

 9     decision-maker, who in this particular instance is the president of the

10     FRY.

11        Q.   Now, this document bears the date of December 22nd, 1994.  The

12     decision of the SDC, as we saw earlier, was in 1995; correct?  The

13     minutes of the 45th Session was the 5th of October, 1995.  My question to

14     you, Mr. Starcevic, is there a provision in the FRY law that permits the

15     backdating of presidential decrees?

16        A.   No, there is no such provision.  It would be illusionary if

17     something like that existed.

18        Q.   In your many years in the military service, have you ever seen

19     decree, an official decree that has been backdated?

20        A.   Well, I can't remember.  I'm not sure.  It was possible, but I

21     really don't remember.

22             MR. HARMON:  I am finished with that document.  Can we turn to

23     Prosecution Exhibit 1909, please.

24        Q.   For the record, this is a document dated the 30th of December,

25     1994, from Military Post 1790.  And it is a decision --

Page 6777

 1             MR. HARMON:  Could we go to the last page of the English and the

 2     Serbian version of this document to see who the author of this document

 3     is.

 4        Q.   Sir, who is the author of this document?

 5        A.   The author of this document is Major-General Dusan Zoric.  If I

 6     remember correctly, he was the chief of the personnel administration.

 7        Q.   The personnel administration of which army?

 8        A.   If we go back to the page number 1, we can see exactly without

 9     assuming.  Yes, the Army of Yugoslavia or the Yugoslav Army.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now, let me ask you, in terms of the legal basis for

11     issuing this document, if you look at the first paragraph of the

12     document, it refers to Article 153 of the Law on the Yugoslav Army.  You

13     see that reference?

14        A.   Yes, I do.

15        Q.   Can you recall what 153 of the Law on the Army is, or should we

16     together take a look at Article 153 just to complete the record on this?

17             MR. HARMON:  Can I have Prosecution Exhibit 197, please, and if

18     we could refer to Article 153.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I see it.

20             MR. HARMON:

21        Q.   I'm just waiting for one minute.  I'm just waiting for the

22     English version to appear on the screen.  So in this case, Mr. Starcevic,

23     153 relates to the discharge being issued by a superior officer; correct?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.

25        Q.   Okay.  This decision, therefore, what was the relationship,

Page 6778

 1     therefore, based on this document of the author of this document,

 2     Major-General Dusan Zoric to Major-General Celeketic?

 3        A.   It is difficult for me to say off the top of my head, but if my

 4     memory serves me well, the document on discharge of the general is, as a

 5     rule, issued by the head of the administration.  This document is part of

 6     the procedure that we discussed the termination of service.  So it is

 7     preceded by an order, then the person in charge has to hand over the

 8     duty, and the discharge document is issued, which is, by its nature, a

 9     declaratory document.  It is just noted that his service has been

10     terminated based on a decision of the officer in charge, that all the

11     legal terms and requirements have been fulfilled, and that as of that

12     date, he ceases to be a professional serviceman.

13             I'm not sure, but I think that the order on powers and

14     responsibilities assigned at the time by the Chief of Staff and before

15     that the federal minister stipulates that in case of generals, these

16     documents shall be issued by the chief of the personnel department, or

17     administration.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would that be a convenient time?

19             MR. HARMON:  Yes, Your Honour, I was just going to ask you.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  We'll take a break and come

21     back at 4.00.  Court adjourned.

22                           --- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon.

25             MR. HARMON:  Could we please return on the monitor to Prosecution

Page 6779

 1     Exhibit 1909, please.

 2        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I want to direct your attention --

 3             MR. HARMON:  If we could scroll down on the English version on

 4     the left.  That's fine, thank you.

 5        Q.   We can see, Mr. Starcevic, I want to direct your attention to two

 6     elements in this document.  The first is the date, that this document was

 7     issued by General Zoric, it's the 30th of December, 1994.  And in the

 8     text of the document under "statement of reasons," it said that this

 9     order was delivered to General Celeketic on the 25th of December, 1994;

10     and on the 30th of December, 1994 General Celeketic filed a report that

11     on that particular day he had handed over his duties.

12             You have seen the date of the minutes of the 45th Session of the

13     SDC that gave rise to the retroactive retirement of General Celeketic.

14     Can you comments on the dates on those portions of the document I just

15     directed your attention to?

16        A.   I simply don't know how to comment on it.  If we take these dates

17     into consideration in the order on the termination of service and the

18     discharge from service as relevant ones, and the time when the

19     Supreme Defence Council met, Celeketic was no longer in the army;

20     therefore, I don't know if it's possible that these documents were really

21     issued on the dates that they bear, and then were subsequently not

22     executed or implemented, and I don't know for what reasons.  Or it may be

23     that the case that they simply put in the dates afterwards, but I really

24     have no grounds for making such comments.  This would require a very

25     focused investigation.

Page 6780

 1        Q.   Let me ask you this question, because I asked you earlier,

 2     Mr. Starcevic, about the backdating of decrees.  Is there anything in the

 3     VJ law on the army or any other VJ laws that permit the backdating of

 4     decisions issued by the Yugoslav Army?

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe that this was asked and

 6     answered.

 7             MR. HARMON:  No, Your Honour, I asked Mr. Starcevic about the --

 8     anything in the law that dealt with the backdating of decrees.  I'm now

 9     focussing on a decision of the VJ.  My question is slightly different:

10     Is there anything in the VJ law that relates to the backdating of

11     decisions as opposed to decrees.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, do you understand what Mr. Harmon has

13     said?

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I understand, and in that case, I

15     withdraw my objection.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed, Mr. Harmon.

17             MR. HARMON:

18        Q.   Sir, you may answer the question.

19        A.   Well, I know -- don't know of any such provision, and it would be

20     completely illogical for a law to contain such a provision because such

21     documents are related to specific individual rights.  Now we are in the

22     area of philosophical and legal questions; therefore, it is impossible to

23     provide such stipulations in the law.  The only exception is if you have

24     a declaratory document that describe the already-existing factual

25     situation and unnecessary in order to ensure that a certain legal

Page 6781

 1     procedure is implemented.  I don't know if you understand what I'm

 2     saying.

 3             For example, if somebody was killed somewhere and then his death

 4     is found out only six months later, then in such instances, it is

 5     permissible to issue a document saying that his service terminated on the

 6     date of his death.  But, of course, this does not effect any rights or

 7     entitlements of his family up to the time when this fact was found out.

 8     So I'm talking now here about a factual situation, not a legal situation.

 9        Q.   A retroactive retirement, in this circumstance, would affect

10     rights and entitlements of General Celeketic; correct?

11        A.   Yes, certainly.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think this is a leading question.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

15             MR. HARMON:  I will rephrase the question then, Your Honour.

16        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, looking at P1909, what effect, if any, would a

17     retroactive decision to retire General Celeketic have on his rights and

18     his entitlements?

19        A.   In my view, if it happened retroactively, Celeketic was receiving

20     a salary for the whole period as if he had been working, and he also

21     received all the benefits and fringe benefits as if he were working.

22     That means that he would be entitled to retain all these rights.  No one

23     would be able to take away that from him because they retired him

24     retroactively.  After all, during the whole procedure and in every stage

25     thereof, had a legal possibility to file for the protection of his rights

Page 6782

 1     by lodging a complaint to the Supreme Court and instigating a proceedings

 2     if he deemed that these documents were an infringement of his rights.

 3             MR. HARMON:  Could we take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 1918,

 4     please.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I just ask one or two questions before we do

 6     so.

 7             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Based on the exception that you referred to,

 9     Mr. Starcevic, of a declaratory order, if, indeed, Mr. Celeketic was

10     actually and factually retired in 1994, but the legal document that

11     relate to his retirement were only issued on the 5th of October, 1995,

12     would it not be possible for that situation to fall within that exception

13     that you mentioned just to declare that he is retired as of 1994?

14     Supposing he didn't work since 1994 December?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, maybe in some extreme

16     situation, but it is simply incredible.  The only possibility would be

17     for him to have stopped working in 1994, that he didn't come to work at

18     all, that he was not doing his duty, that he was away from the garrison;

19     but if that was the case, he would be subject to disciplinary

20     responsibility.  Each superior officer of his would then be obliged to

21     stop his pay.  Therefore, I think, that in this specific case, it is

22     difficult to qualify this act or this document as a declaratory one.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And in that case would it be logical or would it

24     be appropriate to say that he received the order on the 25th of December

25     when he received it much later, December 1994, when, in fact, the

Page 6783

 1     documentation is being drafted in October 1995?  Or would everything be

 2     dated as of the time of documentation but would the fact of retroactivity

 3     be mentioned?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, if we accept this as a

 5     theoretical possibility that you have just described, but nevertheless,

 6     it wouldn't be possible, and it musn't be put in the document that the

 7     document was handed over to him on the 25th of December, 1994; rather

 8     another document should be issued stipulating that there is such a

 9     theoretical possibility.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon.  You may proceed.  You asked for

11     what?

12             MR. HARMON:  Prosecution Exhibit 1918, please.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             MR. HARMON:

15        Q.   Let's just identify this document for the record.  This is a

16     document, it is dated the 24th of May, 2003.  It is a request for payment

17     of unpaid salaries, and it's addressed to the Military Post 1790 in

18     Belgrade.  If we could go to the -- actually, you can see on the

19     right-hand side a name of an individual.  Whose name appears at the

20     bottom of this document?

21        A.   Celeketic.

22        Q.   If we could go in the English to the previous page.  In the

23     previous page, the first paragraph I want to direct your attention to,

24     General Celeketic says:

25             "As a retired active officer of the former JNA and the VJ, due to

Page 6784

 1     the needs on the service and acting on your orders, I served in units of

 2     the former JNA, the Army of Republika Srpska, and the Army of Serbian

 3     Krajina in the Republic of Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1

 4     April 1991, to 31 October 1995, when my professional military service was

 5     ended by decree."

 6             And then it talks about the FRY Presidency of 22 December, 1994?

 7             Now, this in part, does it not, Mr. Starcevic, clarify the actual

 8     term of service in the army that General Celeketic served?

 9        A.   Yes, I think that this actually creates even more confusion

10     because Celeketic, himself, asserts that he was in service until the 31st

11     of October, 1995, and refers to the decree of the Presidency dated the

12     22nd of December, 1994.  Thus, in the introductory part before making his

13     request, he brings into question what we have discussed so far.

14        Q.   Okay.  Now, a further point, Mr. Starcevic.  Taking the first

15     paragraph at its face value that General Celeketic served in active

16     service in the JNA, the VRS, and the SVK, up until 31 October, 1995,

17     would he be entitled to his, his pension benefits and other military

18     benefits, up through and including 31st October, 1995?

19        A.   Yes, in principle.  Yes, but I wasn't precise enough here maybe

20     because I cannot remember right now when the decision on termination of

21     service was adopted because theoretically there was the possibility that

22     his service be terminated pursuant to that decree.  But perhaps he would

23     not step down in time because only once the document on termination is

24     adopted does his status of professional soldier end.  A certain amount of

25     time can pass from the adoption of the document on the termination of

Page 6785

 1     service until he is fully divested, but until that time, he continues to

 2     carry out his duties; but, in any event, up to the 31st of October, 1995,

 3     he does enjoy all the rights due to him on the basis of the work he is

 4     performing.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             MR. HARMON:  I've finished with this document, Your Honour.

 7        Q.   I just want to come back and clarify one element, Mr. Starcevic,

 8     in your testimony in the last session.  I just want to be perfectly clear

 9     because I want to take you back to Article 107 just briefly.  And I want

10     to just clarify one portion of the transcript that I received of your

11     answer.  And I'm referring to page 20 of the previous session.  It is at

12     lines 23 to 25.

13             Now, we were discussing, Mr. Starcevic, the meaning of

14     Article 107, paragraph 2, and I had read what is my translation, which

15     Mr. Starcevic, which reads that the military -- are you okay,

16     Mr. Starcevic?

17        A.   Yes, yes.

18        Q.   Okay.  Which reads:

19             "'The military service of a professional officer or a

20     non-commissioned officer shall be terminated when he has acquired at

21     least 30 pensionable years of service if the needs of the service so

22     require.'"

23             Now, the answer that is recorded that you provided was as

24     follows:

25             "A.  I'm not quite sure whether this is a good translation or

Page 6786

 1     maybe you have misspoken.  It is either when they have 30 years of

 2     service," or if it is necessary.

 3             Now, let me ask you this question to clarify that:  Is it when

 4     they have 30 years of service and if it is necessary, or is it 30 years

 5     of service or if it is necessary?

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that before the witness

 8     answers, I think that it would be fair to let the witness see that

 9     article and read it out before he gives his answer so that way he doesn't

10     have to interpret it.  As far as I can remember, he spoke on the basis of

11     his recollection, so I think the adequate article should be placed in

12     front of him so that he can read it in the courtroom.  I think that would

13     be the best explanation or the best option for the witness.

14             MR. HARMON:  I have no problem with that.  It's Prosecution

15     Exhibit 197, it's Article 107.  I thought we had done that earlier.

16        Q.   And my point --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I guess Mr. Lukic is just being assisting you to

18     make sure that our witness is precise.

19             MR. HARMON:  All right.

20        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, the word I'm interested in clarifying is whether

21     there is an alternative.  If it is either 30 years of service or if it is

22     necessary.  So it's the word "or" that I want to focus your attention on.

23     So if we have Article 107 in front of you, if you can look at paragraph

24     2, having looked at that, can you provide us with an answer?

25        A.   Yes, I remember what was in dispute.  I heard in translation that

Page 6787

 1     you said when he has 30 years of service or a decision on that is made by

 2     the authorised senior officer.  This is what I intervened about, the

 3     actual meaning of the article is, once he fulfills 30 years of service,

 4     if a decision is made by the authorised senior officer.  In any case, it

 5     is necessary to meet both conditions, that he has at least 30 years of

 6     service and that the authorised superior officer makes the decision that

 7     this is something that is required by the service.

 8        Q.   That clarifies it.  Thank you very much, Mr. Starcevic.

 9             MR. HARMON:  If we could go to Prosecution Exhibit 2203.

10        Q.   I see in the Serbian language version, I see what this document

11     is.  I don't see that in the English version yet, the corresponding page.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon, I'm advised that there is no English

13     translation of the first page; therefore, we don't have it in English.

14             MR. HARMON:  In that case, if we could rely on the witness to

15     read just the first page of the Serbian version then I'm going to direct

16     his attention to other elements in this particular section.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  How does it come that this was admitted that form?

18             MR. HARMON:  I don't know, Your Honour.  I don't have an answer

19     for you on that.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you know why it was tendered in that form?

21             MR. HARMON:  I'm torn between two.

22                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to remind you that

Page 6788

 1     the status of this document is MFI, as far as I know.  All of the

 2     documents from this group are MFI marked documents.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That would explain why it was admitted in that

 4     form then, most probably.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 6             MR. HARMON:  Sorry, I've been listening and carrying on multiple

 7     conversations, Your Honour.  Let me just catch up with the dialogue.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The dialogue was that it is an MFI document and

 9     the Registrar advises that it was part of a bundle that was tendered by

10     Mr. Randal.  I suppose that's why it was MFI'd; therefore, it's still to

11     be checked, I would imagine.

12             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  Apparently, we do not have an English

13     translation of this first page.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's fine.

15             MR. HARMON:  But may I just explore with the witness what this

16     says so it's clear on the record.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may, Mr. Harmon.

18             MR. HARMON:

19        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, can you identify what this first page says and

20     what the date is of this particular session?

21        A.   This is the recording of the collegium of the chiefs of the

22     general -- of the Chief of General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia held

23     on the 6th of November, 1995, which is not authorised or corrected, as

24     far as I can see.  Yes, it's not corrected.  This is a tape recording of

25     the discussions.

Page 6789

 1        Q.   Okay.  Now, I want to direct everyone's attention, and your

 2     attention, Mr. Starcevic, to the English page 4 and 5 of this, starting

 3     with page 4.  And the B/C/S starting at page 44.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before we do so, Mr. Harmon, I just want -- now

 5     that we don't have a translation of this first page, I just want to

 6     understand what this document is all about.  It is translated as a

 7     collegium of the chiefs of the Chief of the General Staff of the Army of

 8     Yugoslavia.  Is this a collegium of the chief?  Or it is a collegium of

 9     the chiefs?

10             MR. HARMON:  Let me ask the witness what his understanding of it

11     is, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Can you assist us in that?

13        A.   Yes, in the heading, it is a collegium of the chief of staff,

14     Chief of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

16             Yes, Mr. Lukic.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that in the Serbian also the

18     meaning of this word -- actually in this case, the plural and the

19     singular in the Serbian could be indicated, so in English it was

20     translated as the plural.  But, actually, I don't think that is the

21     meaning of it, so perhaps the interpreters could pay attention to that.

22     The way it has been entered into the transcript right now, we are talking

23     about the plural chiefs, maybe you can ask the witness again whether he

24     meant the singular or the plural, I think perhaps it's the erroneous

25     interpretation of the word in Serbian which can, in this form, indicate

Page 6790

 1     both the singular and the plural.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Over to you, Mr. Harmon.

 3             MR. HARMON:  If I refer to page 37.  If I go to 37 of the

 4     transcript, it's now moving up and down, I just need some assistance.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Click on the red button.

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7             MR. HARMON:  Page 36, I thought the witness had answered this in

 8     the singular.  He said at line 11, 10 and 11:

 9             "This is a recording of the collegium of the chiefs," and then he

10     corrected himself, "of the Chief of the General Staff of the Army of

11     Yugoslavia."  So I thought the record was clear from the answer of the

12     witness.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I thought so, but I heard Mr. Lukic say the word

14     in B/C/S could be either plural or singular.  And he was asking that the

15     witness be asked to specifically state whether he really intended to use

16     the singular or the plural.

17             MR. HARMON:

18        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, perhaps you can assist us then.  Did you intend to

19     use the plural form or the singular form?

20        A.   I did look.  I think that the problem is line 24 on page 36, and

21     I think that there is some confusion there in the interpretation of the

22     entire sentence.  Perhaps I would like to help a little bit with my

23     modest knowledge of English.

24             Line 24 on page 36, unfortunately I'm not able to see it right

25     now.

Page 6791

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Line 24, on my page 36, sir, is Mr. Harmon:

 2             "Let me ask the witness, Your Honour."  Let me see on the other

 3     LiveNote.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, to be totally of use,

 5     without complicating, I think that the matter is simple.  The way it's

 6     entered into the transcript is something that bothers me.  The witness

 7     can just be asked whether he meant the singular or the plural, and I will

 8     not have any problems with it.

 9             I think page 37, line 1 again refers to chiefs of staff.  Look,

10     in his answer, the interpretation into English on line 1, page 37, also

11     says chiefs of staff, and I really think that the witness did not mean to

12     say that.  So perhaps it will be quite easy to clarify this.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you just put the question again to the

14     witness.  He doesn't have to look at the transcript.  Did he intend the

15     singular or the plural?

16             MR. HARMON:  Yes, I asked him that earlier.

17        Q.   But I will ask you again, Mr. Starcevic, did you intend the

18     singular form or the plural form?

19        A.   Of course the singular because there are no chiefs of the General

20     Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.  There's only one Chief of the General

21     Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.  And on the title page, this is the

22     collegium of that one Chief of the General Staff of the Army of

23     Yugoslavia.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

25             MR. HARMON:  Now, could I, in respect of that document, P2203,

Page 6792

 1     could I have the English.  And the English version I'm interested in is

 2     0618-6912ET, starting with page 44 of the B/C/S.  We are having some

 3     difficulty getting this document up, Your Honour.  It is English version,

 4     page 4.  If you go down, could you scroll up on the English version,

 5     please.  The other direction, please.  Yes.

 6        Q.   What I'd like to direct your attention to, Mr. Starcevic, is the

 7     bottom paragraph where it says, it's General Perisic speaking, and it

 8     says:

 9             "Okay, here we have a dilemma ..." And when you get to the end of

10     that, it will carry over to the next page.  And I'd like you to read that

11     portion of the --

12             MR. HARMON:  Can we go back, I want to make sure the Judges have

13     an opportunity to see.  Can we go back please, I need to let the Judges

14     take a look at this as well, and, Mr. Starcevic, I need you to take a

15     look at this.

16        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, when you are finished looking at the B/C/S version

17     of this, it will carry over to the next page, and if you give me a signal

18     that you need to go to the next page, then I can direct the Registrar to

19     assist me.

20        A.   Yes, but if we can enlarge it a little bit because I cannot see

21     it well enough to be able to read it.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I've read it a long time, but I just don't

23     understand what it says.

24             MR. HARMON:  Okay, well we have to go to the next page then,

25     Your Honour.  If we could go to the second page of the English, and when

Page 6793

 1     Mr. Starcevic gives me the signal, if we could go to the second page of

 2     the B/C/S, we can understand the full paragraph.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

 4             MR. HARMON:

 5        Q.   So tell me when you finish, Mr. Starcevic, and I will ask you

 6     some questions about this.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Now, this paragraph, the beginning of this comments by

 9     General Perisic, he says that if someone is to blame the most beside

10     those four, I'm saying the ones which we have pensioned off, "he,"

11     referring to someone else, "is the most guilty one."  If we carry on in

12     that paragraph in that discussion or in those comments by --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have a procedural problem here.  We

15     wanted this document to be MFI'd because the Defence disputes the

16     authenticity of this document.  The witness has read this document.  Now

17     that Mr. Harmon is reading the document, it becomes a part of the

18     transcript, and we still dispute the authenticity of the document.  So

19     now we object to the fact that a part of the document that we dispute is

20     being entered into the transcript.  Mr. Harmon knows why we are objecting

21     to the authenticity of this document, and he can put certain facts to the

22     witness, but I'm not sure whether it's okay for certain parts of this

23     document to be read into the transcript.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

25             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, the only way I can ask precise

Page 6794

 1     questions about this text is to quote the version I have in front of me.

 2     If the document turns out not to be authentic, the Court can disregard

 3     the questions I put to the witness and the answers he gives.

 4             So I think that Mr. Lukic's concern can be taken care of by the

 5     procedure that I've suggested.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you done?

 7             MR. HARMON:  I'm done.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you have any response?

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  In that event, then we'll expunge whatever

11     needs to be expunged, if the need should arise.

12             MR. HARMON:  Thank you.

13        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, in this text that we have -- that you have seen,

14     General Perisic says:

15             "And I wrote to the Supreme Defence Council that all four of them

16     should be prosecuted.  'Is it in your interest that they would be

17     prosecuted?'"  And then there's brackets "he or they said yes," and "'is

18     it in your interest that that would not be made public?'" Another

19     quotation:

20             "Yes.  And now if we pension them off and then prosecute them,

21     there are different sanctions than if we do not pension them off and

22     prosecute them.  And they said as it was necessary to calm things down

23     and not to make public, then they made a solemn decision to pension off

24     all four of them, and they pensioned them off."

25             So my first question, Mr. Starcevic, is:  These persons were

Page 6795

 1     members of the 40th Personnel Centre, which was a formation within the

 2     Yugoslav Army.  Did General Perisic have the authority to investigate, to

 3     discipline, and to refer these persons for Prosecution?

 4        A.   This document, just by itself, doesn't allow me to make any

 5     conclusions.  You cannot quite clearly see here who these people are.

 6     They are referred to as "they," so I can conclude who these four persons

 7     could be, but I don't see what the connection would be between them and

 8     the 40th Personnel Centre.  However, General Perisic did not have the

 9     authority to prosecute somebody or wave them from being prosecuted.  He

10     could initiate disciplinary proceedings against them if he happened to be

11     their superior or spare them from that, but the right to exonerate them,

12     or the right to wave them from criminal prosecution is something that

13     only the president of the republic has as a right, not General Perisic.

14             I don't know whether this text refers to him or not.  It doesn't

15     actually provide much room for any kind of precise conclusion.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, that text seems to be his speech in the

17     meeting.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

19             MR. HARMON:

20        Q.   And this text, Mr. Starcevic, refers to the four of them,

21     assuming, Mr. Starcevic, that the four of them refers to the four

22     generals who were retroactively retired and pensioned off, my question is

23     the same:  Did General Perisic have the authority to initiate an

24     investigation, to discipline them and to refer them for prosecution?

25        A.   If these are the four general, one of whom was Celeketic, and the

Page 6796

 1     others were in the same position as he was and were members of this

 2     personnel centre, General Perisic could have initiated a disciplinary

 3     procedure against them.  However, as for criminal prosecution, his only

 4     power was to file a criminal report to the Prosecutor's Office in charge,

 5     who would then decide whether there were grounds for prosecution or not.

 6     But he definitely did not have an authority to file any form of bill of

 7     indictment or charges or to take any decision that would -- that would

 8     relieve them or release them of any criminal prosecution.

 9        Q.   I want to slightly change the question, Mr. Starcevic.  Had these

10     four generals not been members of the 40th Personnel Centre, they had

11     just been generals serving in the SVK, but without being members of the

12     40th Personnel Centre, would General Perisic have had the ability to

13     discipline them or to sanction them or refer them for prosecution?

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that with this question

16     Mr. Harmon has gone beyond the limit of your decision on questioning

17     Mr. Starcevic.  What Mr. Starcevic can offer as his expert experience.

18     The framework of his questioning should be limited to what he knows

19     personally while he was in a certain position.  The questions asked by

20     Mr. Harmon are formally of the same nature as those answered by him about

21     a month ago when he explained the law to us.  We, on that occasion,

22     received quite clear answers what the law says about the authorities of

23     the Chief of Staff.

24             Mr. Harmon is now asking Mr. Starcevic to interpret something

25     which is based on facts and which goes beyond what the expertise that he

Page 6797

 1     is capable of talking about.  He is putting forward to him an assumption

 2     based on a fact, and is seeking to elicit from him an expert opinion

 3     which transgressed the limits of the framework set up for this witness.

 4             Let us assume that these are the four generals, and then based on

 5     that assumption, he wants to arrive at the conclusion to which he already

 6     provided an answer when he explained a month ago what the authority of

 7     the Chief of Staff or any other officer had in terms of disciplinary

 8     measure.  This is all he can say, and this pertains to the law, what he

 9     explained earlier.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

11             MR. HARMON:  I'm not sure what the objection is.  Whether the

12     objection is the question that has been asked and answered before, or

13     whether the objection is that the question calls for an expert opinion.

14     If the question is that it calls for an expert opinion, the Court, in its

15     decision, permitted this witness, based on his experience, to give

16     opinions.  And this question that I've asked this witness relates to,

17     one, the law on the army; and, two, whether or not General Perisic had

18     the competencies to discipline, refer for discipline, sanctions, or refer

19     for prosecution, persons who were not in the VJ.  That was the question.

20     I think that this witness can answer this question.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's what I thought the question was, but you

22     see the difficulty here is that objections some in pages and pages of

23     speeches, and I never know what the basis is.  And I've tried to say can

24     we get the basis of an objection in one sentence.  That would make it

25     easier for the Chamber to rule.  I've heard several arguments.  As you

Page 6798

 1     say, is it because the question is asked and answered, is it because

 2     we've been asking for expert opinion that goes beyond the scope of the

 3     expert's expertise.  I really don't know.  But as I understand,

 4     Mr. Lukic, I don't know whether you said that the witness is here to tell

 5     us on the law.  I guess, if that is what you are saying, then the

 6     question becomes competent.  Perhaps, it's based on facts, then it's

 7     something else.  And the legal question is, does the Chief of Staff of

 8     the - how do you call it, you don't call it the Main Staff, you call it

 9     the --

10             MR. HARMON:  General Staff.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- General Staff of the VJ have the legal

12     authority to punish people who are not members of the VJ; is there a

13     legal provision that provides for that?  That's the nub of this question.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that basically this witness

15     discussed this a month ago when he explained the law and the authority of

16     the Chief of Staff of the VJ, and I see this as a repetition.  If you

17     want me a precise reference, I would ask for some time to look it up.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon, that's the objection.  Question asked

19     and answered.

20             MR. HARMON:  I don't have a precise reference to that, but if

21     I --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic offers.  Mr. Lukic, reference, please.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I withdraw my objection.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Objection withdrawn.  You may proceed.

25             MR. HARMON:

Page 6799

 1        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, you may provide us with an answer?

 2        A.   If I understood correctly, the question was, and the question was

 3     then repeated by the presiding judge, whether General Perisic had an

 4     authority to discipline someone who was --

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Who was in the Spanish Army, a member of the

 6     Spanish Army, not a member of the VJ.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, his authority pertains

 8     solely to members of the VJ, Yugoslav Army.

 9             MR. HARMON:

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Starcevic.  Now, let me just focus on any

11     procedural differences in the law between somebody being prosecuted for

12     misdeeds or omissions and somebody being retroactively retired for -- for

13     reasons that they had served 30 years in the service and the needs of the

14     service required their termination from service.  What procedural

15     differences would be available to persons in those situations?

16        A.   It depends on the criminal offence for which a person is

17     prosecuted.  Serious crimes require that this person be removed from

18     duty, but the final decision on his status in the service is pending the

19     completion of the criminal proceedings, that is to say, until this person

20     is found guilty or not guilty.  If they are acquitted, all their rights

21     are going to be reinstated; but if they are sentenced to a prison of

22     about two years without the possibility of a parole, or for more than two

23     years, then the service will be terminated under the law.

24             If they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than two

25     years, they will serve this sentence in a special institution where the

Page 6800

 1     convicted servicemen serve their sentences.

 2        Q.   What I'm interested in, and you touched upon one of the elements.

 3     I'm talking about the procedural differences.  So if somebody is accused

 4     of a crime, they would be entitled to have a trial, correct, to see

 5     whether the charges were founded or not founded?

 6        A.   Of course, of course.

 7        Q.   Would they be entitled to counsel under those circumstances?

 8        A.   Of course.

 9        Q.   Now, when a person is retired because they have served 30 years

10     in the service and the needs of the service require their termination,

11     would they be entitled to a trial?

12        A.   I already said in the previous discussion that they have the

13     right to institute administrative proceedings before the competent court.

14     At the time that was the supreme military court.  They could file for a

15     lawsuit, that is to say, file a charge to the supreme military court, and

16     to request it to deliberate and decide on the legality of the termination

17     of service.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

19             MR. HARMON:  Now, I want to stay with this document, Prosecution

20     Exhibit 2203, and I would like to turn to another portion of this.  If we

21     could turn to English page 7, and B/C/S page 46 and 47.

22        Q.   I want to direct your attention to a certain paragraph.

23             MR. HARMON:  The Court -- I'm interested in directing

24     Your Honours attention to the paragraph in the middle which is

25     General Perisic, and it says:  "We can conclude the following four were

Page 6801

 1     done..." and it goes on.

 2        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I believe that starts at the last paragraph at the

 3     bottom of the page, and if you would let me know when we need to turn the

 4     page, we can do so.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             MR. HARMON:  If we can turn in the Serbian version to the next

 7     page.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             MR. HARMON:

10        Q.   In this text, General Perisic says in the third line down in the

11     English, he says:

12             "For those that are going for disciplinary liability, for them

13     disciplinary and criminal, to finish with the investigation.  That means

14     for all those who have any elements criminal and disciplinary liability,

15     to finish that."

16             So can you comment on that particular passage in respect of

17     General Perisic's authority to make such a -- take such a position?

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm again objecting to this line of

20     questioning, asking the witness to comment on the text.  I would kindly

21     ask Mr. Harmon to put a very specific question to this witness.  A while

22     ago, Your Honours, when you criticized me of being too long in my

23     objection, if Mr. Harmon, for example, wants to ask the witness whether

24     Mr. Perisic can issue a disciplinary measure against the member of some

25     other army, why doesn't he ask him straightforwardly without reading

Page 6802

 1     first the document which actually doesn't serve as a source for this

 2     document.  Now, I am afraid that once again if you want a comment from

 3     the witness, you are asking him to guess, unless Mr. Harmon can put a

 4     very specific question.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me be clear, Mr. Lukic, that I really do

 6     understand what you want.  I thought earlier than the time when you say I

 7     criticized you, your objection was you don't want Mr. Harmon to quote

 8     from the document because the document is still MFI'd, and because if he

 9     does do that, then he is putting on the record that which is still to be

10     decided upon.

11             Now, I thought this question that he is asking is specific

12     without quoting the document.  Now, but it looks as if you are combining

13     two bases for objection because now you are saying he must not ask the

14     witness to comment.  Earlier you are saying he must not quote the

15     document.  Could you just refine your objection.  Let's understand where

16     the problem is.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I didn't want this to be connected

18     with my previous objection.  I completely understood that, and I

19     completely understood your decision how these portions of the transcript

20     are going to be treated.  However, when Mr. Harmon asked do you have any

21     comment on this specific part of the transcript read out to the witness

22     is simply the question that cannot be understood.  Now the witness is

23     asked to pick up certain words and interpret them.  I'm simply asking

24     Mr. Harmon to put a specific question, and I made my comment with

25     relation to my previous objection.  It wouldn't have happened at all had

Page 6803

 1     Mr. Harmon asked this question about Mr. Perisic's capability of

 2     punishing any member of any other army without resorting to any document

 3     because it has nothing to do with any document.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon, are you able to respond.

 5             MR. HARMON:  I'll try to reframe the question.  Perhaps I will

 6     have greater success.

 7        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, the passage that you've read, General Perisic

 8     refers to continuing and finishing with disciplinary and criminal

 9     investigations.  Is there anything in that reference that you've read

10     that is inconsistent with General Perisic's authorities as the chief of

11     the VJ General Staff?

12        A.   Yes.  It is not consistent in terms of the tone that he is using

13     when he is speaking about criminal investigations.  I already mentioned

14     that within the scope of criminal responsibility, he can only initiate

15     criminal responsibility by filing a criminal report to the Prosecutor's

16     Office in charge.  However, bearing in mind the manner that was applied

17     at the time, and that was the time when I was in the army as well, I

18     understand this language precisely in this way as a sort of launching

19     initiative to proceed in that direction.

20        Q.   Now, in this text as well, there is a reference to misdeeds, and

21     it refers to people who have committed misdeeds, soldiers particularly.

22     And the text that is before me in English says:

23             "... if yes, then negative grades should be given, and the

24     procedure to be expelled from the army should be started, and for those

25     under investigation when time would come for criminal responsibility,

Page 6804

 1     they should be prosecuted, as disciplinary..." and it goes on.

 2             Let me just get your views.  If misdeeds of a soldier are of a

 3     criminal or disciplinary nature, what is the system in the VJ to expel

 4     somebody from the army under those circumstances?

 5        A.   If we are talking about the assessment procedure, each

 6     professional soldier who receives two successive negative grades must

 7     leave the army.  Therefore, professional soldiers are being assessed at

 8     certain specific intervals.

 9             If one gets two successive negative grades, end up in the

10     termination of the service.  I already explained how the services

11     terminated in the case of criminal responsibility and that it is

12     dependent on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

13             Speaking of disciplinary proceedings, there are two punishments

14     that can end with the termination.  One of the punishments is to take

15     away the rank from this officer, which automatically entails the

16     termination of service.  And the other punishment is the loss of the

17     status of a professional soldier.

18        Q.   Based on your experience in the army, was there a preference as

19     to the manner of proceeding?  In other words, you've described to us

20     evaluations and negative evaluations, and in some cases if you have two,

21     you can be expelled from the army.  There are also, as we know,

22     disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

23             My question to you, Mr. Starcevic:  Was there, in your

24     experience, a preferred manner of proceeding?

25        A.   At least while I was in the army there were no preferences in

Page 6805

 1     terms of the applicable procedures.  It was simply dealt with on a

 2     case-by-case basis.  I have to say though, that there was certainly legal

 3     protection provided for all persons who faced the loss of employment.  So

 4     all these cases took place to a certain extent and in line with the

 5     specific circumstances.

 6             I cannot say that either of these were favoured because these

 7     procedures were actually meant in order to provide the protection for the

 8     service, and they were applied only when it was really necessary and

 9     required, when there were really such circumstances that warranted their

10     application.  I'm talking about the period while I was in the service,

11     and I presume that all the honourable officers applied these procedures

12     in the same way afterwards, because this is, in a way, rather unexpected

13     termination of employment which suddenly deprives a person of the means

14     for supporting himself and his family and all the rest of it.

15        Q.   Let me turn to a different, a final passage in this collegium.

16             MR. HARMON:  If we could go to page 7 of the English and pages 46

17     and 47 of the B/C/S.  I'm sorry, I've given you the wrong reference.  In

18     English, page 10, and page 49 of the B/C/S, so excuse me for that.  And

19     I'm directing Your Honours' attention to the passage at the top,

20     General Perisic, it starts with:

21             "What else, and only lawyers..."

22        Q.   And, Mr. Starcevic, do you see that portion?

23        A.   Yes, I can.

24        Q.   I would like to just direct you to the first paragraph, the

25     paragraph that ends with the words "... the entire situation."  So it's

Page 6806

 1     the one paragraph I'm directing Your Honours' attention to, and

 2     Mr. Starcevic, your attention to as well.

 3        A.   I've read it, yes.

 4        Q.   Let me, first of all, Mr. Starcevic, direct your attention to the

 5     passage that relates to:  "People who remain in the army for whom there

 6     is certain criminal responsibility," you see that portion?  It should be

 7     about the middle of the text, and it goes on to say, "...  grade them

 8     with an extraordinary grade, a negative one --

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   -- "naturally, to create conditions to expel them from the army."

11             Again, Mr. Starcevic, when there is certain criminal

12     responsibility of somebody serving in the army not possible but certain

13     criminal responsibility, in your experience, what is the manner in which

14     to proceed under those circumstances?

15        A.   To be honest, I have no experience under such circumstances,

16     because there a certain degree of criminal responsibility.  It is the

17     duty of the Prosecutor to check that.  If there isn't, then it cannot be

18     substituted by a negative grade.

19        Q.   Now, in this case, in this text, we also see that General Perisic

20     indicates that he is going to send out an order which he will later sign,

21     and he has given an oral order in the course of his remarks in this

22     paragraph; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. HARMON:  We break at 5.15, Your Honour, before I come to my

25     next document.

Page 6807

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed we do.  We'll take a break and come back at

 2     quarter to 6.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 6             MR. HARMON:

 7        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, if --

 8             MR. HARMON:  First of all, could we go into private session at

 9     this point, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the Chamber please move into private session.

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

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are in private session.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

14             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

15             MR. HARMON:  If I could have 65 ter 9473 on the monitor.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, this is a document I know you have not seen

17     before, so if you would just take your time and read through this

18     document.

19             MR. HARMON:  If could you scroll down on the English version a

20     bit, so we could get the text in.  Thank you.

21        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, if we could, first of all, go to the end of this

22     document, we could see who the author of this document is.  You see a

23     name and a signature at the bottom of this document?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Whose name appears at the bottom of this document?

Page 6808

 1        A.   The Chief of the General Staff, Colonel-General Momcilo Perisic,

 2     which does not automatically mean that he is also the author.

 3        Q.   All right.  Let me just ask you then, in terms --

 4             MR. HARMON:  If we can go back to the first page of the English

 5     on this, if we could go to the top of the Serbian version on this.

 6        Q.   This is a document that is dated the 9th of November, 1995, and

 7     in the first paragraph we can see that the purpose of this document is to

 8     establish the responsibility and solve the status in service of

 9     professional soldiers of the VJ who served in the 40th Personnel Centre.

10             And this document, Mr. Starcevic, you can see is an order.  And

11     if you turn to the Serbian language version, this is an order of the type

12     which we discussed earlier, "naredjujem," so this is a command; is that

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes, yes, that is correct.

15        Q.   Now, if we turn to the second paragraph, the second item in this

16     document, it deals with officers for whom it has been established that

17     reasonable doubt exists that they had committed a violation of a

18     discipline or a crime.  Disciplinary investigation will be initiated

19     through authorised officers, and it will be completed by the 20th of

20     November, 1995.  In respect of this text, Mr. Starcevic, is this

21     consistent with the competencies and authorities of General Perisic as

22     chief of the VJ General Staff?

23        A.   Yes, because he is the formal superior of them all and has the

24     right of supervision of how his subordinate units execute their

25     assignments.  So this is a command to them to do something that they are

Page 6809

 1     supposed to do anyway.  It's a kind of reminder or ultimately the command

 2     for this to be done right away within a certain dead-line.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And paragraph 3 deals with the regulation of these

 4     persons' status in the army, whether they should remain, or whether they

 5     should be terminated.  Again, Mr. Starcevic, does that fall within the

 6     discretion of General Perisic as chief of the VJ General Staff?

 7        A.   In some cases, he does have the discretionary right pursuant to

 8     the already-mentioned Article 107 of the law, paragraph 2, to make a

 9     decision on the termination of service.  But this paragraph doesn't talk

10     about that, but actually requests that his assistants as part of their

11     jurisdiction evaluate the results of disciplinary investigations and in

12     accordance with their authority resolve the status in service pursuant to

13     the law.

14        Q.   And, in fact, it say that they will make proposals to

15     General Perisic; correct?

16        A.   Yes, they would make proposals for some officers.  As for others,

17     they don't have to submit proposals, but can resolve the matter

18     themselves because again, it seems to me, I did mention it a few times

19     already, the order to the senior officers to resolve their status in

20     service.  And some officers do have the authority to regulate certain

21     relations for specific soldiers of a certain rank and position or duty.

22             In those cases, they could resolve that, but in cases when this

23     exceeds their authority, they would submit the appropriate requests to

24     the personnel administration.  This is how I understand that.

25        Q.   All right.

Page 6810

 1             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, could this be given an Exhibit number,

 2     Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

 4     number.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2413.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 7             MR. HARMON:  Thank you.  And that should be under seal.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Under seal.

 9             MR. HARMON:  Could I have 65 ter 9474 on the monitor, please.

10        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, you have not seen this document before coming into

11     court, so, please, take your time to read it, and let me know if you get

12     to the bottom, and when we get to the bottom, we need to turn the page on

13     this document.  Yours is only a one-page document.

14             MR. HARMON:  In respect of Your Honours, if you just let me know

15     when we can turn to the next page.  If we can go to the next page in the

16     English, please.

17        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, while the Judges are looking at the text, let me

18     just identify this document for the record.  This is a document from the

19     General Staff of the Yugoslav Army office of the Chief of General Staff,

20     it is dated the 11th of December, 1995.  And can you tell us whose name

21     appears it at the bottom of this document?

22        A.   The document was signed by the Deputy Chief of the General Staff,

23     Colonel-General Blagoje Kovacevic.

24        Q.   Okay.  This is a decision --

25             MR. HARMON:  First of all, let's go back to the first page in the

Page 6811

 1     English, if we could.

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, this is a decision to initiate a disciplinary

 3     investigation against Colonel Laza Babic, who was a commander in the

 4     18th Corps during the period of 22 March, 1994, through 2 May, 1995, who

 5     was involved in criminal activities in the territory of the Republic of

 6     Serbian Krajina.  We saw earlier from a previous document that the

 7     18th Corps was a unit of the SVK.  What I want to do with this particular

 8     document is ask you to comment, if you will, first of all, on

 9     Article 180, paragraph 1, of the Law on the Army, which appears to be one

10     of the bases for this particular decision.

11             Do you recall that, what that law is?

12             MR. HARMON:  If we could take a look then at Article 180 very

13     quickly, Prosecution Exhibit 197.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to look at it because

15     I am not too fond of recalling legal documents.

16             MR. HARMON:

17        Q.   I understand, Mr. Starcevic, and we can give you some assistance

18     on that.

19             MR. HARMON:  If we could have that article in the English

20     language as well.

21        Q.   This is the basis for initiating a disciplinary investigation?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  And am I -- can you direct us to that particular portion

24     of this article that gives the Colonel-General Kovacevic the authority to

25     initiate such an investigation against an officer serving in the SVK --

Page 6812

 1     who served in the SVK?

 2        A.   All I can tell you is that the ground for Kovacevic to initiate

 3     disciplinary proceedings, I would be able to tell you that, but this is

 4     the Army of the Serbian Republic of Krajina, or Article 180, or according

 5     to our law, Article 181, paragraph 1, item 2.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, let me is ask you, since this makes a reference to

 7     somebody who was serving in the 18th Corps, I think you've told us

 8     earlier, Mr. Starcevic, that there could be no disciplinary actions

 9     directed by the VJ against somebody in a separate army, would it be fair

10     to assume, based on the content of this article, that Mr. Babic, Colonel

11     Babic, was a VJ officer who was serving in the RSK at the time?

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The witness is being led, and at the

14     same time, is being asked for a conclusion that would constitute

15     speculation.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

17             MR. HARMON:  Well, I was trying to get directly to the point and

18     put this document in the context of a previous answer that the witness

19     had given and that we had debated earlier, that there was no authority to

20     take disciplinary action against somebody from a different army.  I'm

21     asking him to draw a conclusion from the text of this -- in this document

22     itself.  While it may constitute some degree of speculation, I think

23     that's quite a strong inference that can be drawn from the procedure.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] From this question, Mr. Harmon is

25     leaning towards it being a person from a different army.  He is putting a

Page 6813

 1     question that does not arise from the document, and this witness can only

 2     talk about what is in the document because he is not testifying about

 3     this Babic on the basis of his personal knowledge.

 4             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I'll withdraw the question.  I would

 5     ask that this document be admitted into evidence and given an exhibit

 6     number.

 7             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I am now objecting to the admission

 8     of this document because I think that Mr. Harmon did not meet the

 9     guide-lines of Article 27.  He asked the witness to read something that

10     is stated in the law and what is written in the document, but I think it

11     is not a fact if the witness describes something that is stated in the

12     document.  I don't think that that constitutes a sufficient link between

13     the witness and the document.

14             MR. HARMON:  May I, Your Honour, then just defer a decision on

15     the admission of this document, and I'd like to go to another document,

16     if I could.  And I will make a link between the two documents, and then I

17     will seek the admission of --

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Harmon.

19             MR. HARMON:  Let me just go to my next exhibit.  If I could have

20     on the monitor, please, 65 ter 94 -- let me just see which one this is.

21     9476, please.  I am sorry, 9474.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The one we've just had.

23             MR. HARMON:  Let me get the right one.  It is 94 -- bear with me

24     for just a minute.  It's 97 -- I am sorry.  9474 and it's page 5, so it's

25     the same exhibit but page 5 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S.

Page 6814

 1        Q.   Again take a look at this document, Mr. Starcevic, if you could

 2     enlarge that for Mr. Starcevic, I'm sure he would appreciate it.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, the Registrar was chatting to me, is there

 4     anything that I ought to be doing?

 5             MR. HARMON:  No, I just asked that the matter be placed on the

 6     monitor for us, and I asked Mr. Starcevic to read it.

 7        Q.   Did you have a chance to read it, Mr. Starcevic?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   First of all, let's identify whose name appears at the bottom

10     right-hand side of the Serbian version of the document.

11        A.   Deputy chief of the VJ General Staff for land forces,

12     Lieutenant-General Nedeljko Copic.

13        Q.   This document, sir, is document dated 22nd of December, 1995 and

14     it relates to the disciplinary investigation of Colonel Babic, the

15     individual whose name we saw on the previous document, on the previous

16     decision, to initiate an investigation.  And I want to direct your

17     attention to the first paragraph, it says:

18             "On the basis of the order by the Chief of General Staff of the

19     Yugoslav Army ..." it gives a number, "... a disciplinary investigation

20     has been initiated against Colonel Babic Laza..." again focusing on the

21     word, the type of order in this case, it is a command, is it not?  It

22     uses the word "naredjenje," in the first line.

23        A.   Yes, yes.

24        Q.   Now, again is the command issued by General Perisic to implement

25     a disciplinary investigation against Colonel Babic something that he has

Page 6815

 1     the authority to do?

 2        A.   Of course he did have the authority, and judging by the first

 3     sentence, that is what he did, the command of the Chief of the General

 4     Staff of the Yugoslav Army; but what it means is just the initiation of

 5     disciplinary investigations.  It's not a command of the launching of

 6     proceedings.

 7        Q.   All right.

 8             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, then I would ask that both these

 9     documents, this document and the previous document, be given an exhibit

10     number and be admitted into evidence.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I abide by the same objection.  We

13     did not get anything from the witness in respect of these two documents

14     except the witness reading from them.  Mr. Harmon asked the witness to

15     read something from the document, and the witness did that, and I think,

16     thereby, Mr. Harmon did not meet the requirements of Article 27 of the

17     guide-lines.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you have any answer, Mr. Harmon.

19             MR. HARMON:  I do, Your Honour.  The witness has examined both

20     documents.  The question that was put to the witness on the basis of both

21     documents was whether or not General Perisic had the order to issue a

22     command for a disciplinary investigation against Colonel Babic.  And he

23     has examined both of these documents, and on the basis of what he has

24     seen in both of these documents, he has said yes, he does.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, okay.  Yes, answer.

Page 6816

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What was asked is what was actually

 2     read from the document.  I don't see anything more than what was read

 3     from the document.  That is my objection.  I think that no sufficient

 4     link is established between the witness.  And the question whether

 5     General Perisic had the authority to issue this was the question which

 6     was put in relation to the first document which was admitted.  These are

 7     document that we did not object to.  As far as these two documents are

 8     concerned, Mr. Harmon did not put any other questions to the witness

 9     other than what actually was written in the document, and what the

10     witness read out.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm being advised by the Registrar that this

12     document is part of 40 other documents.  I'm not sure whether these are

13     documents which have been previously tendered through another witness.

14             MR. HARMON:  No, they have not.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  They have not.

16             MR. HARMON:  I believe they were -- just one minute, if I may.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, these are new documents.  They have not

19     been tendered through another witness.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then let me go to my next question.  My

21     next point is, I'm not sure whether Mr. Starcevic is here as a fact

22     witness, trying to testify to documents that he has had dealings with

23     before, or has he been talking about documents that he confirms comport

24     with the legal position at the time when he was there, as he understood

25     it.

Page 6817

 1             MR. HARMON:  I can answer your question.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please do.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 4             MR. HARMON:  A number of these documents, before Mr. Starcevic

 5     first gave his evidence in this court, he had an opportunity to review.

 6     These two documents, he has not had an opportunity to review.  They were

 7     recently acquired.  And they bear on issues that are directly relevant to

 8     these proceedings.  That's why I have given Mr. Starcevic the opportunity

 9     to examine them, carefully examine them, and then try to -- and then get

10     from him his opinion as to whether or not there's a legal basis for, one,

11     the proceeding against Colonel Babic, the order issued by

12     General Perisic.

13             In this case, the decision, the first document, identifies

14     Colonel Babic as somebody who was serving in the SVK.  Also, it

15     identifies crimes, potential crimes that is occurred on the territory of

16     a different state.  Now, the authority that the basis for starting that

17     disciplinary investigation was a decision by General Perisic, and the

18     question that I put to him under the light of these documents is:  Did

19     General Perisic have the authority and was it within his competence to

20     order such an investigation?

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand that, Mr. Harmon.

22             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In trying to understand the objection, that's

24     precisely what I'm trying to establish, because ever since Mr. Starcevic

25     started testifying, even the previous time, I haven't heard any evidence

Page 6818

 1     of linking him specifically to a document by virtue of the requirements

 2     of guide-line 27.  He has been telling us -- commenting on documents

 3     based on his knowledge of the law within the VJ.  And I'm trying to

 4     understand where this objection emanates from now because we have

 5     admitted a number of documents through this witness after he had

 6     commented on them, even though he had not worked with them while he was

 7     in the army.  He has only reviewed them when he came here, as you told

 8     us, and those that he hasn't had an opportunity to review before he came

 9     to court, you have given him an opportunity to review here.

10             MR. HARMON:  That's right.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, I can't see how reviewing a document in court

12     disqualifies him from establishing the link, if reviewing it out of court

13     does establish it.

14             MR. HARMON:  I agree, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm trying to clearly understand the nub of the

16     objection, Mr. Lukic, because Mr. Starcevic has never tendered a document

17     that he says, Yes, I have a link with this document.  I wrote it, or I

18     authored, I gave instructions that it be written, you know.  And that is

19     the link that is required in guide-line 27.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We all understand that Mr. Starcevic

21     is a specific witness, and we know how you ordered him to be questioned

22     and what answers he should give.  The way I understand your guide-line is

23     that there should be some connection between the witness and a document.

24     I don't understand it as something that the witness has to be familiar

25     with the facts.  He just needs to understand it.

Page 6819

 1             Many of the documents discussed with the witness are already in

 2     evidence, so we had no objection to that.  However, in these last two

 3     instances, we did not get anything more from Mr. Starcevic than what was

 4     written there.  I don't think that the very fact that he only read what

 5     is written therein is sufficient to establish a connection.  He is not a

 6     fact witness, and you said very precisely in your ruling that he can

 7     provide an opinion about things that he derives from experience.  This is

 8     how I understood your decision when you determined these specific aspects

 9     of his testimonies.

10             Now, in these two documents, I couldn't see anything beyond what

11     he was reading.  He was not -- and he is not a summary witness as he has

12     been made into.  And I think this is inconsistent with your ruling.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you saying that his comments this afternoon

14     are not in the nature of an opinion on the documents?  You have just

15     said:

16             "He is not a fact witness, and you said very precisely in your

17     ruling that he can provide an opinion about things that he derives from

18     experience."

19             Are you saying his answers on these two documents are not

20     opinion?

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] These two documents go beyond his

22     experience.  The question posed by Mr. Harmon were simply reduced to his

23     reading the document and getting himself familiar with what was written

24     there.  The questions posed by Mr. Harmon were just to confirm what was

25     written there and to read what was written there.  That was actually one

Page 6820

 1     step forward or beyond.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's go back to the question.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I see a problem on page 62.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Your objection started at page 59, line 12.

 5     Mr. Harmon said:

 6             "Q.  Okay, now let me ask you this, since this makes a reference

 7     to somebody who was serving in the 18th Corps, I think you've told us

 8     earlier, Mr. Starcevic, that there could be no disciplinary actions

 9     directed by the VJ against somebody in a separate army?"

10             Now, that's how he understood the law of the VJ at the time.

11             "Would it be fair to assume based on the contents of this article

12     that Mr. Babic, Colonel Babic was a VJ officer who was serving in the RSK

13     at the time?"

14             That's the question that was put, and that is, in my prima facie

15     view, a perfectly legitimate question to ask this person who has come to

16     testify based on his experience to give us guide-lines, guidance on what

17     could or could not happen in the army.  But I didn't want to intervene.

18     I've looked at Mr. Harmon to answer you before I ruled on it, but based

19     on the purpose for this witness specifically.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I agree with you that this question

21     could be put to this witness, but I don't think that the question and the

22     answer have not established a connection between the witness and the

23     document.  And this is a legitimate question.  We have no connection

24     established between the document and the witness.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then you and I are not even meeting.  The

Page 6821

 1     connection that gets established is that -- lies therein, that he is able

 2     to opine on the document because he is here to give opinion based on his

 3     experience within the army.  He doesn't have to have any other link with

 4     that -- he is coming here to interpret certain things to us according to

 5     the laws of the army.  And those documents are documents which he may not

 6     necessarily have authored or which he may never have had any connection

 7     with before.

 8             He is something of a hybrid between 27 and something else.  He is

 9     not here as a witness falling under 27, guide-line 27.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That's not what I read in the ruling.

11     I'm viewing him as a fact witness, and I agree that all these questions

12     could be put by construing guide-line 27 in terms of introduction and

13     admission into evidence, that was my question.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then you are shifting from what you said a couple

15     of minutes ago.  What you said a couple minutes ago was precisely the

16     opposite of that.  You said, and I read it to you, you said:

17             "He is not a fact witness and you said very precisely in your

18     ruling that he can provide an opinion about things that he derives were

19     experience," which is different from what you are saying now.  Now you

20     are saying he is a fact witness and must establish a link in

21     guide-line 27.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is either erroneously translated

23     or I misspoke.  I know that according to your ruling, he is a fact

24     witness, but he is entitled to speak about the things from his

25     experience.  That is how I interpret your decision.  Based on his

Page 6822

 1     experience, he is entitled to proffer opinions.  This is how I read your

 2     ruling.  Now, since he has a specific status, and I really don't want to

 3     complicate this issue any further.  I agree and accept that he can be

 4     asked these questions --

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You've complicated it already.  Mr. Lukic, any

 6     person, any witness who is given permission to give opinion evidence will

 7     necessarily not be bound to give an opinion on things that he has a prior

 8     connection with.  Some of them he may, some of them he may not,

 9     necessarily.  All that needs to happen is, you give him a set of facts,

10     and you say these are the facts, and what is your opinion on the facts.

11     Whether he knows though facts previously or not, provided those facts are

12     within his area of expertise, whether the expertise derived from

13     experience or academic qualification or otherwise.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I fully understand you, Your Honour.

15     My position and my view is that regardless of his status in the

16     courtroom, there has been no connection established between him and the

17     document, not even on the basis of his opinion.  Guide-line 27 didn't

18     envisage --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think, in the interest of time, we are going to

20     admitted it, mark it for identification; and I think you will later have

21     to bring in that decision and argue.  Let's see the basis on which the

22     witness was called in for, because today you have given me two different

23     bases for that decision.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I accept that.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That was 9474, marked for identification.

Page 6823

 1             MR. HARMON:  There are two separate documents, Your Honour.  If I

 2     could just make the record clear, it's 9474 for both, it's 65 ter; but

 3     one document has an ET number that will help the Registrar.  It is ET --

 4     I'm not sure that will help the Registrar.  Let me do this, let me defer

 5     with my colleague here.

 6                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7             MR. HARMON:  We can identify those through the assistance of

 8     Ms. Javier.  I just want to admitted the two separate documents, the

 9     documents that I used in the course of the examination.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is the one here by this Deputy Chief of General

11     Staff, and the one prior.

12             MR. HARMON:  Correct, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Madam Registrar, are you able to remember

14     which one, the one previous to this one is.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the first document of 65 ter 9474

16     was page 1 of the English and page 1 of the B/C/S version --

17             MR. HARMON:  Correct.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  -- which will be Exhibit P2414, marked for

19     identification.  And the second document, which is page 5 of the English

20     version of 65 ter 9474 and page 4 of the B/C/S version of the same 65 ter

21     number will be Exhibit P2415, marked for identification.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  And there is no seal for

23     them.

24             MR. HARMON:  These are both under seal, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Both under seal.  Both under seal,

Page 6824

 1    Madam Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             You may proceed, Mr. Harmon.

 5             MR. HARMON:  Yes.  If I could have on the monitor please, 65 ter

 6     9476, please.

 7        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, you have not seen this document either before

 8     coming into court.  Just -- we will identify it, and we will take a look

 9     at the person who signs this document, and then, Mr. Starcevic, we will

10     focus on the handwriting that is in the upper right-hand corner of the

11     document in the Serbian language.

12             But let's start just orienting ourselves in this document.  First

13     of all, if you would read the document, and if we could have the English.

14     Yes, the first page at least, and then shortly in a few minutes turn to

15     the second page in the English.  If we could turn to the next page in the

16     English, please.

17        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this is a document dated the 26th of September,

18     1995, and it emanates from the 11th Corps command.  And you can identify

19     the name of the person at the bottom left, who is that, sir?

20        A.   Corps commander, Major-General Dusan Loncar.

21        Q.   Can you read the stamp at the lower right-hand side of the

22     document?

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we see its equivalent in the English.

24             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Received by the General Staff of

Page 6825

 1     the Yugoslav Army, office of the Chief of the General Staff, number

 2     17-267, 27th September, 1995.

 3             MR. HARMON:

 4        Q.   So this document is directed -- if we go back to the first page

 5     in the English.  To whom is this document directed, Mr. Starcevic?

 6        A.   Lieutenant-General Momcilo Perisic, personally.  So personally to

 7     Lieutenant-General Momcilo Perisic.

 8        Q.   This is a document, we can see in the second line, it's a report,

 9     reporting the unauthorized absence of certain officers from the

10     11th Corps; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   If we could go -- all of these officers were serving in the SVK,

13     according to the content of this document; correct?

14        A.   I'm trying to locate where it's written in the document.

15        Q.   Sir, if you take a look in each of the numbered paragraphs

16     referring to specific individuals, it make references within each of

17     those paragraphs.

18        A.   Yes, yes.  I can see it.

19        Q.   Now, this deals with a -- at the end, we can see the purpose of

20     this document.  It's a proposal to end the military service of those

21     individuals, and it relies on Article 107, item 2 of the Law on the Army;

22     is that correct?

23        A.   That's correct.

24             MR. HARMON:  Now, if we could scroll down in the Serbian version

25     of this document, I want to pay attention and like you to pay attention,

Page 6826

 1     Mr. Starcevic, to the handwriting in the upper right-hand corner of the

 2     document.  If we can go to the English version, page 1, where there is a

 3     translation of that handwriting.

 4        Q.   You see that portion that has some initials at the bottom of that

 5     text, that handwritten text?

 6        A.   Yes, I see there are initials.

 7        Q.   All right.  What are those initials?

 8        A.   It seems to me like MP.

 9        Q.   Now, assuming MP is Momcilo Perisic, the note directs something

10     to be done.  What is it that MP is directing in this circumstance?

11        A.   I think that a this is addressed to Matovic [phoen] instructing

12     him to investigate this and file criminal reports for the military court,

13     provided they do not report to the unit by the 1st of October.

14        Q.   Sir, does this request or this note to investigate and file

15     criminal reports against the individuals that are listed in here, is that

16     consistent with the competence and authority of General Perisic?

17        A.   Yes, it is consistent to investigate the matter and file criminal

18     reports, but I don't think that this is correct.  This is a mistake

19     because such reports are not to be sent to the disciplinary court, but

20     rather to the criminal court.

21        Q.   Okay.  And other than that one reservation, does this -- is this

22     consistent with General Perisic's competencies as the Chief of

23     General Staff to order an investigation and file criminal charges for the

24     conduct that's described in this document?

25        A.   Yes, it is.  He is expected to launch an initiative if the

Page 6827

 1     criminal charges are in question or to instruct disciplinary action to be

 2     taken before the disciplinary court.

 3             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I would ask that that document be

 4     admitted and be given an exhibit number.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The same objection as before.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then we'll mark it for identification.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2416, marked

 9     for identification.

10             MR. HARMON:  Under seal, please.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Under seal.

12             MR. HARMON:  Now, Mr. Starcevic, I'd like to turn to three

13     documents in order.  Actually, I need to check with the Registrar.  If

14     you could, first of all, I'd like to show 9549.01, but to show that

15     doesn't identified the person who is referred to in the document, so I

16     need to go to 9549 first, and then next -- sorry.  Reminded it's 65 ter

17     9549, first of all.  Is that page -- is that message that is on that

18     screen "no page currently available" is -- there we go.  I'm sorry.  Can

19     we go back to the first 9549 before we go to 01.

20                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

21             I apologise for the delay.  The first page of this document is

22     Prosecution Exhibit 2376.  So this is only for purposes of introducing

23     the next document.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This is already an exhibit, this one?

25             MR. HARMON:  This is already an exhibit.

Page 6828

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  2376.  Just the first page?

 2             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

 3                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Starcevic, do you have any medication?

 5             THE WITNESS:  I'm okay.  Thank you very much.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 7             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, we'll pass on these exhibits -- I am

 8     sorry, Your Honour, I'll pass on these for a moment.  There appears to be

 9     some problem with the numbering of these exhibits.  And I'll call up

10     something else and we'll resolve this possibly tomorrow morning.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

12             MR. HARMON:  Could I have 65 ter 9439.02 on the monitor, please.

13        Q.   This is a document, Mr. Starcevic.  I am afraid it's a lengthy

14     document.  I know you have seen this before.  And I'm going to have to

15     direct you to certain pages in this document in order to possibly refresh

16     your recollection.  But this document is one of a set of documents that

17     deal with the disciplining of a soldier, Captain Zoran Antic.  I know you

18     won't remember the details of this document, but let me orient you

19     through this document, briefly.  In the upper left-hand corner,

20     Mr. Starcevic, this is a document from the military disciplinary court

21     that is attached to the air force and anti-aircraft defence command.  It

22     is dated the 23rd of September, 1995.

23             MR. HARMON:  And what I'd like to do is go to the last page of

24     the document.  If we could have the stamp on the right-hand side enlarged

25     again for Mr. Starcevic.

Page 6829

 1        Q.   Are you able, Mr. Starcevic, to read the text that encircles this

 2     stamp?

 3        A.   [Interpretation] Yes.  That is the air force and anti-aircraft

 4     defence command.

 5        Q.   Is it the anti-air force and anti-aircraft command of the VJ or

 6     the VRS, or are you able to tell?

 7        A.   I would need to look at the top of the first page, but I think

 8     that this is the command -- just one moment.  Could I please look at the

 9     first page.  It's very difficult to decide because there is no reference

10     to either one.

11             MR. HARMON:  Can we go back to the last page.

12        Q.   And maybe I can direct your attention to two features of this

13     document that may assist you.  Let me just show you, first of all, if we

14     could enlarge again the stamp on this document.  Now, this stamp appears

15     to have a two-headed eagle in it --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  To help because I took up sometime later, I think

18     it's enough to show the witness the legal remedy, and then he will give a

19     clear answer.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just see the legal remedy now.

21             MR. HARMON:  That's where I'm going next, as a matter of fact.

22        Q.   Does that assist you, the legal remedy being the last text in the

23     document, does that assist you, Mr. Starcevic?

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we see the English version.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Judging by the fact that an

Page 6830

 1     appeal against this judgement may be lodged within -- to the -- submitted

 2     to the higher court, this is then the Army of Republika Srpska, I think.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I take it that the legal remedy continues on

 4     the next page in the English version?

 5             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I take it that the English version does have

 7     the translation of the other stamp that I now see on the bottom left-hand

 8     corner of the B/C/S?

 9             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

11             MR. HARMON:  All right.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

13             MR. HARMON:  Thank you.

14        Q.   So these are -- this is a military disciplinary court in the VRS;

15     is that correct?

16        A.   That is correct.

17        Q.   Now, this document, if we turn to page 2 of the English.

18             MR. HARMON:  Can we turn to page 2 of the English.  And could we

19     turn to the equivalent page in the Serbian language.

20        Q.   These people were found guilty of what, including Mr. Antic

21     there, two accused, what were Mr. Antic and the other individual found

22     guilty of in this case?

23        A.   They left their unit without permission.

24        Q.   And their unit, according to this document, was in Banja Luka; is

25     that correct?

Page 6831

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   And for the sake of clarity, Banja Luka is in the

 3     Republika Srpska?

 4        A.   That is correct.

 5             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  We need to go to the next page in English, I

 6     believe, to see the sentence that is meted out.

 7        Q.   Do you see the sentence in B/C/S, in the Serbian language for

 8     Mr. Antic?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   What sentence did he receive in the VRS court proceedings?

11        A.   They both were terminated from active duty service; Mr. Antic and

12     Kanazir.

13             MR. HARMON:  All right.  Now, could this be given an exhibit

14     number, please.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's admitted into evidence.  May it please be

16     given an exhibit number.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2417.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And that is not under seal, Mr. Harmon.

19             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir, it is.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Under seal.

21             MR. HARMON:  If we could turn to a related document, which is

22     65 ter 9439.04.

23        Q.   Sir, if you just review that document.

24        A.   Yes, I see it.  Yes.

25        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, can you identify whose name and what position is

Page 6832

 1     recorded at the bottom of this document?

 2        A.   I don't see the post, but only the rank.  This is for the 30th

 3     Personnel Centre, Colonel Gojko Mijic, signed.

 4        Q.   Thank you, sir.  This document is a recommendation to end the

 5     professional military service of Mr. Antic, who we've seen in the

 6     previous document; is that correct?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   And the basis for the recommendation from Colonel Mijic is

 9     because Mr. Antic willfully abandoned his post for five consecutive days;

10     is that correct?

11        A.   Could you please bring back the --

12        Q.   It's paragraph 3 in the document.

13        A.   Yes, yes.  This seems to be the ground for termination pursuant

14     to this proposal, but what is stated in paragraph 3 is not -- does not

15     correspond to the statement of reasons.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's my problem too.

17             MR. HARMON:  I was now going to go to the statement of reasons,

18     and I've some questions for you in that.

19        Q.   The first question I have is -- relates to the first sentence.

20     It says:

21             "The military disciplinary court attached to the command of the

22     30th Personnel Centre VJ issued," and it gives a reference number and a

23     date, and that is the same reference number and date that was recorded on

24     the previous document.  My question -- my question to you is, can you

25     assist us in understanding what a --

Page 6833

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   -- VRS military disciplinary court -- how that conforms to the

 3     term attached to the 30th Personnel Centre of the VJ?  Can you explain

 4     that to us?

 5        A.   It's difficult to explain if I don't have the documents

 6     establishing those courts.  I can just read what is written there, simply

 7     there is something confusing here because if we have seen the sentences

 8     before, that was the court of the air force and the PVO.  But now in the

 9     statement of reasons, there is reference to a different court.  I don't

10     know if it's the same court, but Mr. Mijic made a mistake.  I really am

11     unable to tell from this document.  It is also not clear to me what

12     this -- these grounds are, the dual ones especially, not this

13     Article 107, paragraph 1, item 2, because that would not be the grounds

14     that would correspond to that kind of sentence or judgement.  There's

15     something confusing here.

16        Q.   Let me see if I can at least clarify something on this.  Under

17     the statement of reasons, one of the reasons they give is that there is a

18     decision of a court, and it identifies specifically a judgement number

19     I-Dis 37/95 of 23 September 1995.  Now, the previous document was a VRS

20     military disciplinary court decision that bears that same reference

21     number and same date.  So my first question is, can you explain to us on

22     what basis a VJ soldier is being recommended for termination in the VJ on

23     the basis of a VRS military disciplinary court decision?

24        A.   I cannot explain it in legal terms.  This is something that is

25     very difficult to base or to find legal grounds for, because if the -- he

Page 6834

 1     was a soldier of the Army of Yugoslavia, he could not have been tried by

 2     the disciplinary court, and if that disciplinary tried him, that cannot

 3     serve as the grounds for a termination of his service in the Army of

 4     Yugoslavia.  So legally this is a little difficult to reconcile.

 5        Q.   So to clarify, just the answer you gave me, Mr. Starcevic, you

 6     said:

 7             "If he was a soldier of the Army of Yugoslavia, he could not have

 8     been tried by the disciplinary court."  Do you mean by the disciplinary

 9     court of the VRS?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Right.  And then finally, we'll conclude with this document

12     because it's time for us to adjourn in a minute, the basis for his -- the

13     recommendation to end his service state that he willfully abandoned his

14     post and has not returned, and it gives as a basis, Article 107,

15     paragraph 1, item 2, of the Law on the Army.  Can you give us some

16     assistance with what that article was?  We've seen Article 107 --

17        A.   Yes, I would just like to know if that is the same article that

18     we looked at, Article 107.  I don't know the exact date though.

19             MR. HARMON:  Let me just, if we can finally call that up very

20     quickly just to confirm what this is.

21             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation]  Yes, yes.

22             MR. HARMON:  It is Prosecution Exhibit 197, please.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Article 107, and this is again

24     confusing, because the proposal is drafted in such a way that there

25     should -- that service should be terminated because he was absent from

Page 6835

 1     duty for five days.  Those are the grounds it refers to.  But in the

 2     statement of reasons, at the same time, it is stated that pursuant to the

 3     decision by the military disciplinary court, he was sentenced to

 4     termination from duties in the army.  I think it is difficult to conclude

 5     what exactly is proper here, and the closest to my way of thinking is

 6     that Mr. Mijic did not recognise the judgement or the sentence by the

 7     military disciplinary court.  And he decided to take Article 107, but

 8     instead of item 2, paragraph 2, he decided to refer to paragraph 4.  But

 9     it's very difficult to tell what is what here.  And it adds to the

10     confusion.

11             MR. HARMON:  Okay.

12        Q.   I see -- I am sorry, but you have referred to article -- sorry,

13     you referred in your testimony just a minute ago to paragraph 4, and the

14     text that I have in front of me says Article 107, paragraph 1, item 2, on

15     the Law on the Army.  So I'm a bit confused when you say paragraph 4.

16        A.   I'm confused because Article 107, paragraph 1, item 2, is

17     arbitrarily leaving service or the post.  Paragraph 107, item 4 is the

18     penalty of termination of service.  In the statement of reasons, you have

19     that a judgement was given or a sentence whereby his service is

20     terminated, but pursuant to a proposal, this is not taken as the grounds

21     for termination of service, but the grounds for that are item 2, as if

22     there had been no proceedings before the military disciplinary court.

23             MR. HARMON:  Thank you, Mr. Starcevic, for clarifying that.

24             Can this be admitted into evidence and be given an exhibit

25     number, please.

Page 6836

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  MFI 2             MR. LUKIC:  MFI.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll give it an exhibit number and mark it for

 4     identification, please.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2418, marked

 6     for identification, under seal.

 7             MR. HARMON:  Under seal, please, thank you.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Under seal.  Thank you.

 9             MR. HARMON:  That concludes for today, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Starcevic, you know the story, you don't

11     discuss with anybody until you are excused from testifying.  Are we still

12     in private session?  May the Chamber please move into open session.

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

16             We are going to take an adjournment very shortly, Mr. Starcevic,

17     but again I must warn you, even though you do know, that you are not

18     supposed to discuss it now that you are in the witness box until you are

19     excused.  We shall adjourn until tomorrow at quarter past 2.00, this time

20     in Courtroom II.  The Registrar says no, okay, we'll take the Registrar's

21     word for it.  It will be courtroom -- beg your pardon, it is 9.00,

22     Mr. Starcevic, not 2.00.  9.00, Courtroom I.  Court adjourned.

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.

24                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 9th day of

25                           June, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.